The rest of Europe were barbarians and what was left of Christianity would have been a 4th rate religion. Stop being a jerk, if you can.
Interesting Historical Fact
- Thread starter Petzel
- Start date
Your knowledge of history is appallingly bad. Constantinople didn't have much, if anything, on the other great capitals of Europe when it fell, and the kind of Christianity espoused by Constantinople was already on the wain. As a matter of fact the western Christians had kicked the snot out of Constantinople directly by that time.
Seriously, you are making a fool of yourself on this one.
By the times in question the Moors were getting kicked out of Spain, and the Viennese and Polish Catholics were pummelling the muslims.
By the time constantinople fell, Western European christianity was on the rise. You seem to have your periods all mixed up.
You might want to consider learning about a topic before you draw bizarre conclusions.
When Constantinople fell, Christianity was not close to being on the brink of extinction.
Western European Christianity had finished converting millions in the Europe and Russia, through force (the northern crusades), and the Reconquista was a massive success by that time.
You also need to keep in mind that while the Ottoman Turks were doing well at that period, the Caliphate had for all intents and purposes fallen to peices, so muslim nations were also having significant problems.
In Europe Christianity had rose from 400 or so on. They didn't convert the new world because they had not discovered it, but had been making significant inroads into previously pagan areas throughout the middle ages.
I don't think you could find a serious historian who would argue that when the small remaining stump of the eastern empire fell to the Ottomans, christianity was anywhere near extinction. Especially when you consider how tolerant the Ottoman empire was towards Christians and Jews.
"Brink of extinction" is probably a little too strong a phrase. Let's go back to the year 1453 A.D. The fall of Constantinople meant the end of Eastward expansion. North Africa was also lost by that time. The Moors still had a foothold in Spain. Then the Ottoman Turks started moving West as far as present day Hungary. Christianity was basically cornered into Western Europe. BTW: Are the Russians true Christians? No one could have foreseen the discovery of the "New World" in 1453.
It wasn't until the discovery of the New World in 1492 that Christianity became the global dominant religion it is to-day.
Brink of extinction is way over the top.
I don't claim to decide who are true Christians, but if you are arguing that Constantinople were true Christians then the Russians are.
You are right no one could have forseen the New World (except the people already there) but Christianity was quite healthy in 1453, and growing.
In 1453, the Byzantine Empire was essentially just the city of Constantinople and some of southern Greece. Everything else had long gone. The Turks took most of Anatolia in 1071 at the battle of Manzikert. The Arabs had seized Syria, Iraq, North Africa after the Battle of Yarmuk in the 630's. Err, yes. That would be more than 800 years before the Fall of Constantinople. Spain had fallen to the Moors by the 700's.
You could argue that Christianity looked pretty shaky by 800 AD and that Islam appeared destined to replace it.
But by 1453, the Moors had pretty much got kicked out of Spain and all of Central and Eastern Europe had been converted.
Constantinople was really just a footnote at its final demise. The Ottomans had simply by-passed the city in the 1300's and had directly conquered Serbia and Bulgaria even though The Eastern Roman Empire was still technically alive.
You don't really know anything about this topic.
Jap killed 2 million korean 15 million chinese.
Spanish killed 6 million indio. French killed 1 million Vietnamese.
US killed 1 million german 600.000 iraqi 700.000 north korean
1 million chinese 2 million jap 4 million Vietnamese.
Belgian killed 1 million congonise. Dutch killed 3 million indonesian.
German killed 25 million russian 1 million polish and 6 million jew.
Turkish killed 2 million armenian.
Russian killed 6 million german and raped 3.5 million german women.
And GB.....
Spanish killed 6 million indio. French killed 1 million Vietnamese.
US killed 1 million german 600.000 iraqi 700.000 north korean
1 million chinese 2 million jap 4 million Vietnamese.
Belgian killed 1 million congonise. Dutch killed 3 million indonesian.
German killed 25 million russian 1 million polish and 6 million jew.
Turkish killed 2 million armenian.
Russian killed 6 million german and raped 3.5 million german women.
And GB.....
New archeological finds and analysis have put paid to a bit of that myth. It seems those crazy vikings usually brought their own women with them.
It was a fortuitus coincidence that little baby Jesus was born on the day the (northern) people celebrated solhverv. Without that happy coincidence, christianity might have had a harder time getting accepted.
Of course it's not accurate. The date to celebrate his birth was decided at the council of Nicae in 325AD. Not only that but now biblical historians are saying that his birth is off by 4 calendar years, so that would make it really 2016 now.
What about the birth of Jesus? Everyone knows it was not Dec 25...the Pope just published a book that repeated that truth...yet again.
How many decades are you behind on this issue?
Further, the importance of Christmas has always been greater in the Western rather than the Eastern Church. While in the Eastern Church the Feast of the Baptism (the Jordan Festival) combined with the Epiphany has always been of greater importance than in the West.
As I've stated in my earlier posts, there weren't necessarily 150,000 Mongol horse soldiers in Genghis Khan's army, since the Mongols were accompanied by various Turkic and other similar or related ethnic groups of whom they had formed alliances, such as the Uyghurs and Tatars.
Now to answer your question about climate change -- climate change had allowed the Mongols to raise and herd a greater number of horses as well as other herds of animals (which they relied on for food and sustenance), giving the Mongols and their allies the ability to conquer vast territories.
As far as their "viciousness" is concerned, there is nothing particularly unique about the Mongols in this respect. Ruthlessness was a common characteristic of various ethnic groups throughout the world at that particularly period in time, especially among nomadic tribal peoples who had to contend with competition for grazing lands and water sources between not only from other ethnic groups but clans/tribes within their own ethnic groups. What set the Mongols apart was the scale of conquest.
