Anybody got a link to the great turningpoint battles against the Muslims

[chequita guevara]

Seeker, Europe also lost a lot of technological, not merely intellectual, knowledge during the Dark Ages. It took them five hundred years or more to regain building techniques the Romans had. The population in Europe collapsed. Life expectency dropped considerably.

That a handful of monks might have had a few books means little when compared to the collapse of civilization.

Saxon kings being spoken to on equal terms with Charlemange only means that Charlemange wasn't that big a deal. The Eastern Romans considered him a barbarian, and the Abbysaid Calaphate doesn't even mention him.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
How was Mexico?

Relaxing. My friend's room is on the beach, so I just opened the French doors and napped to the sounds of the waves for a week.

[Vince278]

One of my favorite books was written by Bede who lived near Lindesfarne in Saxon England in the early 700's. The later coming of the Norse helped put an end to that early renaissance (kind of like how the Mongols affected the Muslims and China).

There's nothing more distracting than a good barbarian raid.

[Dinner]

So what was the turning point in Hindu India? The muslims never conquored the hindu south so I'm guessing there was some sort of battle which prevented their total conquest of the area.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Oerdin
So what was the turning point in Hindu India? The muslims never conquored the hindu south so I'm guessing there was some sort of battle which prevented their total conquest of the area.

They were only missing Sri Lanka and a very small pice of the southernmost tip of India. I doubt there was a climactic battle preventing them from taking so small an area. More likely it just didn't seem worth the cost.

[Vince278]

I tried reading up on that. It looks like there wasn't alot of interest in going south. It wasn't long before the Mongols became a bother.

[chequita guevara]

There are two battles that are considered the turning point against the Moghals: the sacking of Dehil by Nadir Shah of Iran in 1739 and the defeat of the Moghals at Plassey by Robert Clive in 1757. The real cause of their downfall was the incessant warfare with the Maratha Confederacy.

The map overstates the extant of Moghal rule in India in 1500. That extant wasn't reached until 1707. BTW, Vince, the Moghals were the Mongols (sort of), hence the similarity in names. The Moghals were the decendents of Timur Lang, after being chased out of Iran and Afganistan by the Kara Koyunlu and the Uzbegs respectively.

[BeBMan]

Here's another turningpoint battle against muslims

[Vince278]

Originally posted by BeBro
Here's another turningpoint battle against muslims

Wonder who built the toilets to face Mecca in the first place?
(Its a conspiracy! )

[Thorgal]

despite Spanish claims of an earlier victory, had France been defeated, it's unlikely that Christian Spain would have

"Spanish claims"

[Hueij]

Originally posted by Vince278


Wonder who built the toilets to face Mecca in the first place?
(Its a conspiracy! )

It is always the victor that gets to decide which way to face the toilets

[Seeker]

Seeker, Europe also lost a lot of technological, not merely intellectual, knowledge during the Dark Ages. It took them five hundred years or more to regain building techniques the Romans had.

You would've upset my professors....new archeology coming out of Saxon England indicates much higher populations, sophisticated artwork, widespread trade, and even much higher literacy than previously thought. The scholarly opinion on Saxon England is currently undergoing a complete revolution (at least at UWO).

The population in Europe collapsed. Life expectency dropped considerably.

True in France and Italy. Controversial in other places, and probably only true for a short hundred year period in England.

That a handful of monks might have had a few books means little when compared to the collapse of civilization.

Given new findings of monasteries from the era, it was virtually a mass movement of significant chunk of the population into monasteries, which we must remember in early saxon england were much less strict and clear than on the continent (people joined and left, they all had different rules, etc). Also, records of book production in the form of requests for vellum hides by one king indicate that, if he was at all typical, there was quite a lot of production going on that is now lost to us, in the thousands and possibly hundreds of thousands (remember the population of saxon england is now believed to be much greater)

Saxon kings being spoken to on equal terms with Charlemange only means that Charlemange wasn't that big a deal. The Eastern Romans considered him a barbarian, and the Abbysaid Calaphate doesn't even mention him.

"A big deal" to who? in what context? In the context of westerm european history and eventual world history charlemagne certainly is more important to us than the viscissitudes of the dying Roman Empire.

The importance given by these Old English records from the time of Otha, of Otha's Dike fame (one of the largest scale earthworks ever attempted in England indicating a huge population whose true extent is only now being shown) in their correspondence with Charlemagne's court is that it shows the old conception of Dark Ages Saxon England to be completely false:

the saxon invasions devasted learning, trade, the arts, and isolated the old Britannia down to a barbarian backwater. Shown to be wrong on all counts. Saxon products and merchants travelled all over extensively even to morroco, their churchmen constantly traveled and visited the continent and their opinions were well respected, scholars of the time were influenced by saxon thinkers, saxon art heavily influenced the continent (take a new look at new studies on Sutton Hoo for example).

The real story is that the population recovered rapidly after invasion, and that organized saxon states undertook great projects that required sophisticated bureaucracies, transportation over partially repaired roads, etc.

My point is that the view of the Saxon kingdoms as savage barbarian petty chieftains only holds true for a hundred years or so, after that they were as civilized as any pre-modern people. In England, at least, the so-called "Dark Ages" is mostly a romantic myth not bourne out by modern research. At least that's what I was taught 2005-2006, Old English History Unit, Old English Course, and all the Anglo-Saxon History course.

Actually, what Che is saying sounds a lot like what my professor from 'Crusaders & Muslims' was saying, the old line about the splendors of Cordoba when the English lived in mud huts, etc. All that stuff usually turns out to be politically motivated hyperbole by people who don't know much about Anglo-Saxon england in terms of recent opinions, textbooks, and research. The Saxons knew about, and used, plumbing for example, although not much. The problem is that very very little unambiguous material survives to us from the period. The moniker 'Dark Ages' is more appropriate to describe the state of incomplete records and scholarly research than it is for any supposed barbarian regression.

Well, that was the 'Company Line' so I 've said my bit.

http://www.allbookstores.com/book/0521622433/Simon_Keynes/Anglo-Saxon_England.html

In particular Peter Baker's articles/chapters, or any of his other more recent stuff. Baker is the authority these days IMO.

More thorough link to books and bibliography:

http://www.wsu.edu/~hanly/oe/503.html

[Dinner]

I think I'll go play EU2. Start a 1419 campaign and see if I can't save Byzantium and reconquor the middle east.

[Dr Strangelove]

I think that the turning point for the muslims in India was the ascension of Aurangzeb to the Peacock throne in 1658. Aurangzeb was a muslim zealot of the first class. He decided that it was time to take more active measures to eradicate the Hindu religion in the interest of establishing a true Islamic nation in India. His methods were so severe that many of his own governors turned against him, largely for the fear that if they had instituted his 'reforms' they would have faced mass uprisings by their Hindu populations. By the end of his reign the Moguls empire had lost its provinces in the Deccan and Bengal, or approximately 2/3rds of its former size. Afterwards the Hindu kingdoms which had survived the initial onslaught of the Moguls were much more able to hold their own or even advance against the fragments of the once mighty Moguls regime.

The battle of Plassey didn't even involve the Moguls. It was a conflict between and independent nabob holding the throne of Bengal supported by a French contingent and other native allies against a pretender supported by the East India Company. The genius of Clive was to promise his opponent's allies that if they stayed out of the conflict and the English one that the East India Company would prohibit English priests from proselytising in India. Consequently when the French went into battle the next day they found that their allies refused to enter the fight to support them. The battle also conclusively demonstrated that modern Europen cannons were definitely more than enough to repel charging elephants.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Thorgal

"Spanish claims"

The victory was real, it's importance as a turning point is not. Had the Moors not been defeated at Tours, it is unlikley that what was left of Christian Spain would have held.