the dark ages ended in 800 you twit

"Fuck what an interesting discussion, but perhaps you could keep it in junior high school where it belongs?"
Why? so that you can participate?

"the dark ages ended in 800 you twit"
Early medieval ages can be considered dark ages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages

OK according to your Wikipedia definition, which my semesters teaching medieval history says is out of date, the dark ages ended in 1000, got 500 years to go before those superior minds fired up Fasces

meanwhile many historians believe the Mali Empire reached South America in that 500 year lull

it redirects here you dumbass
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Ages

"meanwhile many historians believe the Mali Empire reached South America in that 500 year lull"
Pics or it didn't happen. seriously I don't believe that claim unless you show actual evidence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Mali
and the wikipedia page confirms my view on Mali

"it redirects here you dumbass
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Ages"

HA well I guess thats why its called wikipedia, I was looking at the other disambiguation where it says that the "Dark Ages" lasted until 1000. That is too generous in itself. Anyone who says "The Dark Ages" lasted until the 16th century has no idea what they are talking about.

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Mali
and the wikipedia page confirms my view on Mali "

What? That it is a place?

Amazing ignorance/arrogance on you part 'FASCES' - is that latin for shit?

Your political views are clearly garbage and certainly irrelevant. Nobody cares about them. But please continue to wank on and on and on in this public forum.

"What? That it is a place?"
"meanwhile many historians believe the Mali Empire reached South America in that 500 year lull"
you talked about the mali earlier fucktard. By saying that your pretty much assuring me that its shit not words thats coming out of your mouth.

"HA well I guess thats why its called wikipedia, I was looking at the other disambiguation where it says that the "Dark Ages" lasted until 1000. That is too generous in itself. Anyone who says "The Dark Ages" lasted until the 16th century has no idea what they are talking about."
1. it said 15 century not 1500
2. The renaissance is one of the periods that is the disputed end of the dark ages. So the end is technically 10-15th, depending on your view of the dark ages.

"Amazing ignorance/arrogance on you part 'FASCES' - is that latin for shit?"
Its latin for authority...
also I can agree with the arrogance byt not the ignorance

"Your political views are clearly garbage and certainly irrelevant."
interesting how this whole debate started when mafia called me a fascist and then putin said I was not. So this debate is about my political views, so hwo can it be irrelevant?

"Nobody cares about them"
then why are having this debate?

"But please continue to wank on and on and on in this public forum."
if you insist...

"you talked about the mali earlier fucktard. By saying that your pretty much assuring me that its shit not words thats coming out of your mouth."

What are you talking about?

"1. it said 15 century not 1500
2. The renaissance is one of the periods that is the disputed end of the dark ages. So the end is technically 10-15th, depending on your view of the dark ages."

No... The end is understood to be the beginning of the Carolingian dynasty, OR the start of the high middle ages in the 11th century. The problem is you dont even know why it is such an idiotic statement. How can the Dark ages (which is a discredited term in the first place) refers to the period after the fall of rome, a period in which there is little historical record. How can the "Dark Ages" encompass the 12th century Renaissance and all the progress and setbacks of the Medieval Period? It cant, only someone as completely clueless as you could even suggest it. Pick up a book.

"meanwhile many historians believe the Mali Empire reached South America in that 500 year lull"
You said the Mali reached South America in 500

then I link you to the wiki page on Mali, stating that they were landlocked for another 500 years after that to which you responded:
"What? That it is a place?"
No... The end is understood to be the beginning of the Carolingian dynasty, OR the start of the high middle ages in the 11th century. The problem is you dont even know why it is such an idiotic statement. How can the Dark ages (which is a discredited term in the first place) refers to the period after the fall of rome, a period in which there is little historical record. How can the "Dark Ages" encompass the 12th century Renaissance and all the progress and setbacks of the Medieval Period? It cant, only someone as completely clueless as you could even suggest it. Pick up a book.
There was no 12th century Renaissance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance
It started in the 14th century according to both wikipedia and my history textbooks.

Once again its shit coming out of your mouth.

Or if you want to play the Wikipedia game
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_%28historiography%29

"Originally, the term characterized the bulk of the Middle Ages (c. 5th–15th century) as a period of intellectual darkness between the extinguishing of the light of Rome and the Renaissance or rebirth from the 14th century onwards.[4] This definition is still found in popular usage,[1][2][5] but increased recognition of the accomplishments of the Middle Ages since the 19th century has led to the label being restricted in application. Since the 20th century, it is frequently applied only to the earlier part of the era, the Early Middle Ages (c. 5th–10th century).[6][7] However, many modern scholars who study the era tend to avoid the term altogether for its negative connotations, finding it misleading and inaccurate for any part of the Middle Ages.[8][9]"

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that someone with a 19th century understanding of race would have a 19th century understanding of history...

"There was no 12th century Renaissance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance
It started in the 14th century according to both wikipedia and my history textbooks."

Oh you are such an idiot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance_of_the_12th_century

I'll refrain from talking since it counters a previous argument I made

youll refrain from talking because you realize every word you write makes you look more like a dipshit

Actually, the latin word for "authority" is "imperium", or perhaps "auctoritas".

The word "fasces" means "bundle".

As in "bundle of joy".

The fasces was the symbol of a bundle of sticks that represented authority in the Roman Republic. However the Eagle eventually overtook this symbol.

"youll refrain from talking because you realize every word you write makes you look more like a dipshit"
I'll refrain from talking cause I'll probably think of a better arguement tomorrow when I am not as drunk. (it was my birthday today)

"The fasces was the symbol of a bundle of sticks that represented authority in the Roman Republic. "

sort of like the sticks of knowledge I just bludgeoned you with

hey! I am the only one who is allowed to troll here!

Turning 13 is a special day.

But you said that "fasces" was latin for "authority". It isn't.

And the eagle replacing the fasces is news to me.

Well, for tomorrow birthday boy. This conversation actually is illustrative your whole flawed worldview. You have to believe that the white Aryan race has experienced a perfect growth from the fall of Rome until today (or at least World War II). It left the other races behind and smoothly sailed to its destined place at the head of all racial orders. Any student of history will show you that is bunk, as I just did. The Middle Ages was a tumultuous times far from a steady progression to the Renaissance (off the top of my head I can show you a progression of The Dark Ages "rising" into the Carolingian Renaissance, devolving into the Viking attacks, chaos, and religious fanaticism of the 10th and 11th centuries, progressing into the 12th century Renaissance, Crashing down into the crisis of the fourteenth century, and finally into the Italian Renaissance and yadda yadda yadda, and this is of course far too broad). No Steady progression, no white race destined to be ascendant, just a big old mess. And by the time the Renaissance rolled around Europe was still a world backwater. It took a heck of alot of circumstances to change that.

"Turning 13 is a special day. "
Yep, I'm no longer 12, like yourself

"But you said that "fasces" was latin for "authority". It isn't.

And the eagle replacing the fasces is news to me."
For the second time I show this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasces

"You have to believe that the white Aryan race has experienced a perfect growth from the fall of Rome until today (or at least World War II). It left the other races behind and smoothly sailed to its destined place at the head of all racial orders. Any student of history will show you that is bunk, as I just did."
Two problems here:
1. I don't recall mentioning the Aryans
2. I was saying the dark ages was longer then you were. So why was I saying it was consistent growth? I wasn't

"It took a heck of alot of circumstances to change that."
But it was circumstances on we could pull off :p

" And by the time the Renaissance rolled around Europe was still a world backwater."

Which Renaissance are you talking about?

" The privilege and luck of being highly resistant to desease from being tapped into the Eurasian cultural exchange (not as highly resistant as many Africans however) 4.) The Gun an High Quality Steel etc. 5.) The need for long distance sea trade which led to further advances and advantages"

Somebody read Guns, Germs, and Steel

"Which Renaissance are you talking about? "

Every Renaissance

"Somebody read Guns, Germs, and Steel "

No, somebody read Ecological Imperialism and a breadth of scholarly works for his comps. I have never read guns germs and steel nor will i.

...take it back, i might

"Every Renaissance"

Well I think that's a bit of an overstatement then. I mean the Byzantine Empire was a world power for quite a while before the renaissance (regardless of starting period). Unless you don't consider it European. Even if you consider it Oriental (a claim I would say is absurd and points to the anti-Byzantine bias in history), it was a major power that was put to the sword by the HRE and Venice in the early 1200s (albeit after it had lost a good deal of territory due to the Islamic conquests). Surely the Crusaders defeats of the various Muslim empires and the success of the Reconquista (which was already occurring in the early 1200s) demonstrate that Europe was no backwater.

"I have never read guns germs and steel nor will i."

A wise choice. I bought it once, read the first thirty pages or so, then put it down and haven't touched it since. It is an excellent example of why geographers shouldn't be writing history.

"Surely the Crusaders defeats of the various Muslim empires"

Of the nine or so Crusades, the only really successful one was the first - when the various Muslim rulers were too busy fighting amongst each other to take note of the gaggle of (for the most part) lightly armed half-starved peasants crossing their land to attack someone else. Whenever the Crusaders faced a coordinated and organized Muslim enemy (as against the Ayyubids), they were consistently defeated by Muslim forces.

"the success of the Reconquista (which was already occurring in the early 1200s)"

The Reconquista began in the mid 11th century and was successful largely because (again) the Muslims in Spain were so divided, either into the 30 different Taifa states that sprung up after the fall of the Umayyad Caliphate, or between Spanish Muslims and the Berber Muslims (the Almohad, Almoravid, and Marinid dynasties of North Africa) who ruled over them after conquering the Taifa states.

Islam remained more technologically and economically advanced than Western Christendom until well into the 16th century. Remember that the Ottoman Empire was expanding throughout the 1500's, until Europe's mastery of world trade resulted in the Muslim world losing their control of markets in the Far East and Indian Ocean (and all that American gold didn't hurt).

"Even if you consider it Oriental (a claim I would say is absurd and points to the anti-Byzantine bias in history)"

I think your apparent belief that 'Oriental' is an insult is a far more serious error than the description of Byzantines as "Oriental'. The Byzantines and Muslims were far more technologically and economically advanced and had more in common with each other than Latin Christendom of the 12th century, which was still more concerned with angels dancing on pinheads than figuring out if there was any connection between hygiene and the spread of disease (which I know the Muslims had figured out long before). The Byzantines viewed the Latins as barbaric and crude (see Anna Comnena, for instance), and cultural hostility and tension between the two was a very large factor in producing the catastrophe of the 4th Crusade.

Read 30 pages and discarded it because he's a geographer? (He's also an anthropologist and ecologist). Jesus, let it never be said that Tolstoy and Santa are open minded about scholarly work. Pretty weird considering your positions elsewhere on this forum about being open minded towards various work. Santa with regard to religious scholarship and Tolstoy with regard to his usual conspiracy bullshit.

"The Reconquista began in the mid 11th century and was successful largely because (again) the Muslims in Spain were so divided, either into the 30 different Taifa states that sprung up after the fall of the Umayyad Caliphate, or between Spanish Muslims and the Berber Muslims (the Almohad, Almoravid, and Marinid dynasties of North Africa) who ruled over them after conquering the Taifa states."

So what, the Christians were also divided (the Ottomans were expanding at precisely the same time as the Protestant Reformation was occurring). You come up with excuses for every Muslim defeat, while exaggerating the superiority of the Islamic empires whenever they score a victory. At least try to feign objectivity and consistency here.





Diamond isn't just a geographer (as if that were a fatal flaw in of itself), but also an anthropologist, among many other things.

Seriously you people who simply dismiss work because they come from a particular discipline annoy the shit out of me.