Conquer Club

magruder wrote:One of the problems with Islam, is that historically it has been expressed through a theocracy. Theocratic states are dangerous things.
The West by contrast, even at the height of papal influence has kept clear of that problem. Anyone disagree

I'm prejudiced, but I believe whether theocracy is a problem depends on which theos is krat-ing. Israel under David and Solomon was a theocracy, and was a golden age.

Anyone else?

Tyr wrote:

ignotus wrote:

Tyr wrote:pretty sure it was the ostrogoths

Well they were east Germanic tribe...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandals#The_Vandal_Kingdom_in_North_Africa


Ostrogoths ruled today's Italy mostly, and Vizigoths part of today's France and whole Iberian peninsula. The movement of Vizigoths caused Vandals to move to North Africa (today's North Algeria, Tunisia and part of Libya).

That was the situation on the end of 5th century. Byzantines broke Ostrogoth and Vandal kingdoms, and Vizigothic kingdom was defeated by Franks and Arabs in 6th and 7th century.

it was the vandals i looked it up

Displacement by the Huns, fought their way into Frankish territory, then Iberia and finally North Africa. Desire for new pasture and plunder, really.

I like history, and for the next 2 years I'll be taking Ancient and Modern History for my Higher School Certificate. Though I do like Ancient history the most, I also like the Middle Ages and Dark Ages. Sadly, we can't learn about them at school so I just took Modern history.

Skittles! wrote:I like history, and for the next 2 years I'll be taking Ancient and Modern History for my Higher School Certificate. Though I do like Ancient history the most, I also like the Middle Ages and Dark Ages. Sadly, we can't learn about them at school so I just took Modern history.

I know how that goes, and I signed up for a Western Civilization class, but it was dropped for some reason. Possibly because not enough people wanted to take it. But I was never told why.

muy_thaiguy wrote:

Skittles! wrote:I like history, and for the next 2 years I'll be taking Ancient and Modern History for my Higher School Certificate. Though I do like Ancient history the most, I also like the Middle Ages and Dark Ages. Sadly, we can't learn about them at school so I just took Modern history.

I know how that goes, and I signed up for a Western Civilization class, but it was dropped for some reason. Possibly because not enough people wanted to take it. But I was never told why.

The breadth of history studied before university is fairly worrying to those within the subject (as it were). Modern history really is overwhelmingly chosen over medieval or ancient. I was lucky enough to study early modern Russia and France as well as 19th century British politics at A-Level (age 16-18 ) but a lot of undergrads get to uni having studied the Nazis three times, the Victorians twice and possibly the Romans at primary school. The grand historical narrative is lacking in many cases. However, the teaching of history in schools (at least in Britain) involved more in-depth study of sources, and detailed analysis, than ever before, which can only be a good thing. My father's generation learned a list of dates and precious little else, but now we are taught a more analytical approach. We need something of a middle line really. The focus on sources and analysis is great but the narrative needs to be there too.

Guiscard wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:

Skittles! wrote:I like history, and for the next 2 years I'll be taking Ancient and Modern History for my Higher School Certificate. Though I do like Ancient history the most, I also like the Middle Ages and Dark Ages. Sadly, we can't learn about them at school so I just took Modern history.

I know how that goes, and I signed up for a Western Civilization class, but it was dropped for some reason. Possibly because not enough people wanted to take it. But I was never told why.

The breadth of history studied before university is fairly worrying to those within the subject (as it were). Modern history really is overwhelmingly chosen over medieval or ancient. I was lucky enough to study early modern Russia and France as well as 19th century British politics at A-Level (age 16-18 ) but a lot of undergrads get to uni having studied the Nazis three times, the Victorians twice and possibly the Romans at primary school. The grand historical narrative is lacking in many cases. However, the teaching of history in schools (at least in Britain) involved more in-depth study of sources, and detailed analysis, than ever before, which can only be a good thing. My father's generation learned a list of dates and precious little else, but now we are taught a more analytical approach. We need something of a middle line really. The focus on sources and analysis is great but the narrative needs to be there too.

Well, last year I took AP European History, and we covered the main topics from the end of the Medieval Era on up to Modern Europe (though we skipped over Napolean but otherwise worked for 3 months on the French Revolution).

muy_thaiguy wrote:

Guiscard wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:

Skittles! wrote:I like history, and for the next 2 years I'll be taking Ancient and Modern History for my Higher School Certificate. Though I do like Ancient history the most, I also like the Middle Ages and Dark Ages. Sadly, we can't learn about them at school so I just took Modern history.

I know how that goes, and I signed up for a Western Civilization class, but it was dropped for some reason. Possibly because not enough people wanted to take it. But I was never told why.

The breadth of history studied before university is fairly worrying to those within the subject (as it were). Modern history really is overwhelmingly chosen over medieval or ancient. I was lucky enough to study early modern Russia and France as well as 19th century British politics at A-Level (age 16-18 ) but a lot of undergrads get to uni having studied the Nazis three times, the Victorians twice and possibly the Romans at primary school. The grand historical narrative is lacking in many cases. However, the teaching of history in schools (at least in Britain) involved more in-depth study of sources, and detailed analysis, than ever before, which can only be a good thing. My father's generation learned a list of dates and precious little else, but now we are taught a more analytical approach. We need something of a middle line really. The focus on sources and analysis is great but the narrative needs to be there too.

Well, last year I took AP European History, and we covered the main topics from the end of the Medieval Era on up to Modern Europe (though we skipped over Napolean but otherwise worked for 3 months on the French Revolution).

I'm talking more about Britain, to be honest. American colleagues (and students) I've spoken to tell me that the American system is perhaps a little towards the narrative end rather than the analytical, but still with far too much emphasis on modern history.

I agree, we learn about WWII all the time, skim WWI, skip Korea, and barely focus on anything else after WWII other then Vietnam.

This is how my state does History..

Grade 7 and 8, learn about Ancient Egypt, Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome and the Medieval Ages..

Grade 9 and 10 it's all about Australian history, including WWI, WWII, Korean War, Vietnam War, United Nations and such..

Skittles! wrote:This is how my state does History..

Grade 7 and 8, learn about Ancient Egypt, Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome and the Medieval Ages..

Grade 9 and 10 it's all about Australian history, including WWI, WWII, Korean War, Vietnam War, United Nations and such..

Thats what I mean... You get 3000 years in the grades 7 and 8 and 300 in 9 and 10. Quite a difference.

Indeed.. Except we only get 100 years in grade 9 and 10

It's all pretty pathetic, but it's history nevertheless.

Skittles! wrote:Indeed.. Except we only get 100 years in grade 9 and 10

It's all pretty pathetic, but it's history nevertheless.

Ahh. I was thinking penal colony onwards, but obviously not.

In Croatia we have 8 years of basic (mandatory) education.

Children are learning history in 5th, 6th, 7th & 8th grade of elementary schools:
5th grade: from the stone age to fall of Western Roman Empire
6th grade: middle ages& stuff till (first) industrial & French revolution
7th grade: early modern (end of 18. & whole 19. century)
8th grade: from the WWI till today

the main problem that you repeat all the stuff again (a bit wider) in 4 years of high school:
5th grade materials in 1st grade of high school, 6th grade in 2nd grade, 7th grade in 3rd grade, 8th grade in 4th grade of high school.

But they still don't know who Metternich, and who Bismarck was...

ignotus wrote:But they still don't know who Metternich, and who Bismarck was...

Who cares, as long as they know Saladin and Barbarossa.

Guiscard wrote:

ignotus wrote:But they still don't know who Metternich, and who Bismarck was...

Who cares, as long as they know Saladin and Barbarossa.

Well they don't know them either

Then they come with stupid questions like: "was Alexander the Great really gay?"
How can you seriously talk about something like ancient Greek homosexual love in front of the whole class of 10-year-olds...

ignotus wrote:

Guiscard wrote:

ignotus wrote:But they still don't know who Metternich, and who Bismarck was...

Who cares, as long as they know Saladin and Barbarossa.

Well they don't know them either

Then they come with stupid questions like: "was Alexander the Great really gay?"
How can you seriously talk about something like ancient Greek homosexual love in front of the whole class of 10-year-olds...

I don't think Alexander was gay. I have heard that the closest thing that came to it, was him rejecting someone whom offered him a little boy.

... A lot of men went both ways back in those days.

... Hard to imagine (for me, anyway), but the vaunted Samurai of medieval Japan commonly "took" their suboordinates for pleasure.

... I love Japanese history, Kofun Period up through Heian / Genpei especially.

... The Chinese have great history, too, but I know too little about it to say much.

...

muy_thaiguy wrote:

ignotus wrote:

Guiscard wrote:

ignotus wrote:But they still don't know who Metternich, and who Bismarck was...

Who cares, as long as they know Saladin and Barbarossa.

Well they don't know them either

Then they come with stupid questions like: "was Alexander the Great really gay?"
How can you seriously talk about something like ancient Greek homosexual love in front of the whole class of 10-year-olds...

I don't think Alexander was gay. I have heard that the closest thing that came to it, was him rejecting someone whom offered him a little boy.

I really don't know if Alexander was gay (or not) as in the movie but I know that there has been a lot of "male-love" in greek and roman world. Even Caesar allegedly lost his virginity with Bithynian prince (Bithynia one of the Asia Minor kingdoms)...

Nobunaga wrote:... Hard to imagine (for me, anyway), but the vaunted Samurai of medieval Japan commonly "took" their suboordinates for pleasure.

... I love Japanese history, Kofun Period up through Heian / Genpei especially.

... The Chinese have great history, too, but I know too little about it to say much.

...

Yes, sometimes I regret I know a little about tons of stuff from history. Japan & China is a great example of that.

Guiscard wrote:

Skittles! wrote:Indeed.. Except we only get 100 years in grade 9 and 10

It's all pretty pathetic, but it's history nevertheless.

Ahh. I was thinking penal colony onwards, but obviously not.

Sadly, hardly. We learn all that in primary school, but still not enough from the Colony days.. It's all basically from Federation (1901) to now..

Skittles! wrote:

Guiscard wrote:

Skittles! wrote:Indeed.. Except we only get 100 years in grade 9 and 10

It's all pretty pathetic, but it's history nevertheless.

Ahh. I was thinking penal colony onwards, but obviously not.

Sadly, hardly. We learn all that in primary school, but still not enough from the Colony days.. It's all basically from Federation (1901) to now..

Shame. I would have thought that would have been one of the most interesting aspects of Australian history...

Just out of interest (and in an entirely non-provocative manner) to what extent are Australian students taught about the 'negative' aspects of their national history (treatment of Aboriginals and the like)? This year in Britain we've had a fair amount of discussion due the anniversary of the abolition of slavery as to the extent to which we should teach these things. Elements of the right wing press see it as a self deprecating idea. Just wondered what it was like elsewhere (I hear America is fairly adverse to 'negative' history). History isn't always written by the winners anymore.

Well, recently we started learning about all the Government policies that were made towards Aborigines.

It didn't really teach the negatives, just teach how European (I hate calling it "white") Australians treated Aborigine, all the protests Aboriginals had to do, all the protests other Australians had to do to get the general population aware of the still-racism in county towns..

It was interesting.

Youi wanna learn about history?

Give me any historical question, and I will answer it truthfully, and correctly.

Norse wrote:Youi wanna learn about history?

Give me any historical question, and I will answer it truthfully, and correctly.

Is Feudalism an applicable concept for the medieval historian?