Which Civilization has been the biggest bunch of bastards throughout history?

[ranskaldan]

Re: Which Civ has been the biggest bunch of bastards?

Originally posted by Osweld
I'll play it safe and say The Human Civilization.

I agree.
No civilization has had the monopoly to bastardiness.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
That's nice, unfortunetly most of Roman learning at the time was in the Eastern Empire... and after the fall of Rome, the West forgot most of it, and it was basically lost to them until Islamic learning reached them.

Bull.

And you call yourself a historian... I call you a bigot.

Your the biggest bigot here, Imran
You have an excuse you everything the Islamic world ever did, and it's always the wests/jews fault.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Transcend
At least he was less megalomanical than Jesus who claimed to be the son of the God.

Ha ha, you show your true colors.

While the christianized Europeans and Byzantines were busy destroying their ancestor's knowledge as pagan, Muslims actually spent some effort saving the books. The Crusade brought many manuscripts back from the Middle East which had a major effect on the Renaissance later on.

You don't know much about Bzyantine or Balkan history, do you?

At least they didn't have to suffer through countless inquisitions and pogromes.

Ha ha, read about what Islam was really up too, they were no better then their Christian neibors, but they did manage to attack a much more diverse group then Europe till about 1500

If you count out positives, Christian Europeans were the biggest bastard in human history. The extermination of Native Americans alone paled both the Mongolian and Islamic atrocities.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
The total of native Americans in 1492 is roughly estimated at one million.
The Mongols killed three million in the Korezim Empire alone!

Turkey managed to exterminate 2,5 million Armenians between 1914-22.

I knew you guys didn't know what you were talking about, posts like this prove it.

[steelehc]

Chris: I agree with you in spirit, but I disagree with you on some minor points.

-The Crusades, esp. the 1st Crusade.
The Crusaders burned several cities, killing most of the inhabitants, only because there was a Jewish population therein. Also, they were the worst military disaster the West has ever faced.

-Turkey's (The Ottoman Empire's) Armenian attacks: Didn't these stop in 1919?

-I thought the number of people living in the Americas at the end of the 15th century was close to five million.

These are minor issues, and as I said, I agree with you on the whole.

Steele

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by Chris 62

Why not?
It's what people do when they say the Mongols or England, isn't?
Why different standards?

Well I at least don't think that the Muslims, Mongols OR English are the biggest bastards around.

The morally part is incorrect, the other two aern't, if you exclude the Byzantines, who certainly were Christians, so we see another generalization in the defense of Islam..
Between 700-1600 one Sultan after another persued a war of agression against the Balkans and the Byzantines, or doesn't that matter to you?

It does.
But Europe was doing the same thing, which means we must look at other standards too.

The thread is biggest bastards, not the good done by each society.
I can list impressive acchivments by any civ on the list, what would it prove?

At least Muslim society tolerated the existence of such studies.

Only by a blood tax, and in the balkans they siezed christian children to be brought up and serve as their Jannisaries, a true form of salvery.
Very enlightened.

The Christians entered Jerusalem and slaughtered the city.
Very enlightened too.

Best look at Spain again, seems some survived, as they did in the Balkans.

Note the time frame.
700-1600

They also destroyed as much as they preserved, and the inverse is also true.

The Christians, on the other hand, destroyed. period.

Try again, nothing matches the spread of Islam from about 700 foward, where it was halted in france.

The spread of Christianity from 1600 onwards was much more rapid than that.

The Crusades wern't the "massive barbaric act" that revisionists try to paint them as, they were the culmination of at that time 4 centuries of hatred of Muslim aggression.

By the same logic, Muslim terracts are the result of 4 centuries of hatred against Christian aggression.
But does that justify terracts? Of course not.
Therefore the Crusades were the "massive barbaric act".

And when did this become a comparison?
That statement is also false, BTW.

Sorry, but Muslim agression streches centuries, as I already shown, unless you deny events such as the siege of vienna in the 17th century, or the fall of Constantanople in 1453.
In other words sir, your talking out your backside. [/QUOTE]

[Chris 62]

Steele,

Your the first one to actually talk to me, not accuse me of something!

I find it amazing that people just have this total whitewash of Islam today.
Of course Christianity's history is sh1t, but Islam is no better, but actually far worse.

As for the Crusades, the Christains declared them whenever they had a surplus of trouble makers, but the early ones were a reaction to Islam putting intense tarriffs on travelers to Jerusalam, a religious extortion, so they responded in their normal barbarian way, ATTACK!

The population census is a matter of intense debate, but I was referring to American Indians, not Meso-american cultures.

[KrazyHorse]

I usually try to ignore you when you're off on one of your little tirades, but this

The total of native Americans in 1492 is roughly estimated at one million

is just a lie.

Native American population for the area of the 48 contiguous states alone is estimated at ~5 million in 1492, and total native population of the Americas at that time is by the most conservative estimates >50 million.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Assyria

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by ranskaldan
Well I at least don't think that the Muslims, Mongols OR English are the biggest bastards around.

I'm annoyed by the "scared cow" attitude I see by posters toward the Islamic world, this seems a reflection of the modern era.

It does.
But Europe was doing the same thing, which means we must look at other standards too.

I stand by what i said, for pure human misery, look no further then those carring a cresent to battle, they brought wars of conquest to three coninents in a very short span.

At least Muslim society tolerated the existence of such studies.

Not all christan states disallowed such things.

The Christians entered Jerusalem and slaughtered the city.
Very enlightened too.

I never said these guys were sweatharts.

Note the time frame.
700-1600

Actually, you can continue it foward, but they couldn't compete with Europe on a military bases from about 1600, but not from a lack of trying.

The Christians, on the other hand, destroyed. period.

Pure nonsense, a massive generalization.
Most of the preserved works of anciet Greeks comes from the Monisteris, not Muslims sources, and those monistaries were Christian.

The spread of Christianity from 1600 onwards was much more rapid than that.

Not a matter of spreading, outside of the americas it never really caught on in Asia or Africa.

By the same logic, Muslim terracts are the result of 4 centuries of hatred against Christian aggression.
But does that justify terracts? Of course not.
Therefore the Crusades were the "massive barbaric act".

T1t-for-tat semantics.
If you want who was first to attack, the honor falls to Islam.

I merely stated my opinion, and was bombarded with nonsense.
I'm called a bigot for my pick, what hypocracy!

People should try to keep personal feelings out of such discussions, or don't waste my time.

[Transcend]

Instead of just fingerpointing each other, why can't each side present a list about atrocities committed on the other side? Since you are SO proficient in history, Chris, you certainly can compile a list of Muslim crimes. Let's limit the period from 630AD onwards.

[steelehc]

Chris: You're welcome. I try not to attack someone for no reason unless they are generally being an ass.

I think that the population of North America was at least a few million, but for the whjole of both continents, I think five million is an accurate figure.

Steele

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I usually try to ignore you when you're off on one of your little tirades, but this

The total of native Americans in 1492 is roughly estimated at one million

is just a lie.

I usually ignore your posts, because you don't know your ass-from your elbow, but sorry little kitty, the best estimate is under one million.

Native American population for the area of the 48 contiguous states alone is estimated at ~5 million in 1492, and total native population of the Americas at that time is by the most conservative estimates >50 million.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

50 million

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Transcend
Instead of just fingerpointing each other, why can't each side present a list about atrocities committed on the other side? Since you are SO proficient in history, Chris, you certainly can compile a list of Muslim crimes. Let's limit the period from 630AD onwards.

I'm not here to give you a history lesson boy, go to school and learn something.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by steelehc
Chris: You're welcome. I try not to attack someone for no reason unless they are generally being an ass.

I agree, but I see it often, this thread is a perfect example.
Instead of discussion, I'm told I don't know what I'm talking about, because I dared to say Islam sucks.
Sorry boys and girls, it does.

I think that the population of North America was at least a few million, but for the whjole of both continents, I think five million is an accurate figure.

Steele

It very well could be, this is still a matter of wide debate, but even if true, it wouldn't hold up to the non-sense of western expansion vs events in the Mongol or Muslim world.

For short term Bastards, Europe wins hands down for the Nazis alone.

[DinoDoc]

I'll have to go with the Roman Empire as the answer to this question. They laid down the standards of barbarity that others from my readings merely aspired to.