The Turks Saved Protestantism

[ChadS]

You and he both misrepresent what has been written. I didn’t just meantion the events of 1204, but events from WWII, and also the 1990s.

try again.

Montalban,

Your discussion has ranged far afield and has included more recent examples, but don’t try and kid anybody that your main focus and concern hasn’t been millenia old history. If anything your recent examples were only meant to bolster your main points concerning the older history.

ChadS

 

[Montalban]

Montalban,

Your discussion has ranged far afield and has included more recent examples, but don’t try and kid anybody that your main focus and concern hasn’t been millenia old history. If anything your recent examples were only meant to bolster your main points concerning the older history.

ChadS

My main focus as you call it, has been about the Crusades because the OP is about the Turks.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Gibbon also blames Christainty for the fall of the Roman Empire.

I’ve shown primary and secondary sources for the oath of allegience.

Gibbon is viewed more literature now than history because he wrote some centuries ago, and much has been discovered about the past since him.

You mean 1204!

Those who forget the past are condemned to relive it.

Gibbon’s style is more literary than that of many, but his scholarship is not seriously questioned, notwithstanding things that have been discovered since the 18th century when he wrote. My point, which I expressed in the beginning, was that, being unfriendly toward both Catholicism and Orthodoxy, he is not likely to be biased in favor of either.

Toynbee’s quote is a little different from the way you expressed it, but his emphasis was on the lessons one may gain from history, not in holding grudges for all eternity. He did not recommend living in the past or making a religion of ancient grievances about which there is, and will always be, legitimate dispute. I’ll leave it there. This is all off-topic anyway.

 

[Montalban]

Gibbon’s style is more literary than that of many, but his scholarship is not seriously questioned, notwithstanding things that have been discovered since the 18th century when he wrote.

No it’s deemed ‘literature’ because it lacks being a history
As noted he blamed Christianity for the fall of the Empire…
“Actually, he became a skeptic and later greatly offended the pious by his famous chapters of historical criticism of Christianity in his great work.”
bartleby.com/65/gi/Gibbon-E.html
Others such as John Julius Norwich, despite their admiration for his admittedly brilliant work on furthering historical methodology, consider Gibbon’s views on the Byzantine Empire flawed and blame him somewhat for the lack of interest shown in the subject throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries.[11] This view might well be admitted by Gibbon himself: “But it is not my intention to expatiate with the same minuteness on the whole series of the Byzantine history.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_History_of_the_Decline_and_Fall_of_the_Roman_Empire#Criticism
.
His major attack; on Christianity falls apart because the eastern part continued to be both a Roman Empire, and Christian

My point, which I expressed in the beginning, was that, being unfriendly toward both Catholicism and Orthodoxy, he is not likely to be biased in favour of either.

Toynbee’s quote is a little different from the way you expressed it, but his emphasis was on the lessons one may gain from history, not in holding grudges for all eternity. He did not recommend living in the past or making a religion of ancient grievances about which there is, and will always be, legitimate dispute. I’ll leave it there. This is all off-topic anyway.

I’m showing a pattern.

From the crusades unto the modern era.