How to detect Veeky Forums plebs:

>world wars

/discussion

Damn, I wanna be as cool as you.

>Thinks WW2 is more interesting than WW1

Subjective.

>Does not consider medieval history to be the most important period in shaping modern Europe

Maybe.

>Believes in the Europe-Asia dichotomy especially before the rise of Islam

Agreed. Both continents can be broken down to several different civilizations.

>Thinks "nation" and "state" are synonymous

Agreed.

>Believes religion is the cause of wars

One of the reasons, yes.

>uses "modern" to describe present-day

What are we supposed to call it? Post-modern?

>does not know the major world powers at any given time

Agreed.

The distinction between Europe and Asia is first mentioned by Herodot who didn't know on which criteria these continents are divided. It was definetly not a social or cultural border

>Does not consider medieval history to be the most important period in shaping modern Europe
That's because it's not. You misspelled the long 19th century.

Dude.

The first SURVIVING mention of the distinction comes from Herodotus, and he's quite clearly making commentary on an existing (and firmly entrenched, probably centuries-old) dichotomy -- well, trichotomy.

I'm not trying to argue that it's a sensible distinction, the borders were a little arbitrary even in his time and they've only gotten moreso with time, just that the distinction dates back to antiquity.

>Thinks WW2 is more interesting than WW1
The real pleb test is people who think WW1 and WW2 are separate, unrelated conflicts.

>Does not consider medieval history to be the most important period in shaping modern Europe
I'm not even sure how you could evaluate a "most important" era in history considering all history is built on everything that came before. It's more a matter of record, how much history there actually is available to study. I don't believe any one era is "more important" than the ones that came before or after, but at a certain point you just run out of available information. So ultimately you're just making value judgements based on how much historical record exists for an era.

>Believes in the Europe-Asia dichotomy especially before the rise of Islam
The division between east and west is older than Jesus.

>Thinks "nation" and "state" are synonymous
They are. Language is contextual. Those words are synonyms to most people, but poli-sci majors and historians would disagree probably.

>Believes religion is the cause of wars
Some wars, sure. People will fight over practically anything though. I do not subscribe to the "all wars are based on resources/economics" meme, it's simplistic reduction of human behavior.

>uses "modern" to describe present-day
Probably because that's a common way to refer to the present day. At this point you're being smug for being deliberately vague, at least say "modern era" which implies a wider scope (though most people are still off by at least a century when they guess what it entails).

>does not know the major world powers at any given time
Why would you expect people to know everything? I mean if they walk into a discussion about medieval Iranian history then you should expect them to know who the big players were in that region, but if they specialize in studying colonial South America why rag on them for not knowing the major European powers circa 900 AD?

>religion in the sense of people believing in things that don't have objectively definable evidence has certainly caused a number of wars.
war has only ever been fought over resource conflict

>Think Luther was the single case behind the reformation
Don't know if people actually believe that or if it's just desperate rationalization of their own beliefs.

There's, um, a couple of questionable things in this post, but the big one: none of the western alphabets or abjads derive from cuneiform. They probably derive (very distantly, by a long and circuitous route) from Egyptian hieroglyphs. Cuneiform, sadly, left no descendants.

I'll take Crusades for 1000
>literally sacrificed resouces for solely religious gain

uh, europe had been battling muslims up unto that point for a long time, muslims conquered european soil

Controlling cities and looting is not gain?

What is crusades? At least early ones. Or spread of Islam? Surely keeping them Christian and getting a better tax off them would be better than converting them all?

>Surely keeping them Christian and getting a better tax off them would be better than converting them all?

that's exactly what happened, it's only in the last hundred years that the demographics of the middle east have radically altered

egypt kept a christian majority for centuries, as did lebanon, and the balkans never lost theirs

seethe jizya i think it's called is only implemented where it's not possible or profitable to genocide the non islamics

>all Muslims belong to the same empire

Explain how taking Jerusalem from the Seljuks had any effect on the Moors in Iberia.

strategic location

>sunni turks attack orthodox greeks in anatolia
>better go attack the shia arabs in palestine that the turks are at war with

Elaborate.

i don't think it was in christendom's interest to delineate between muslim sects. we're arguing there are reasons (resources), not ideology, to account for conflict (as much as you can separate these things).

>WW! more interesting then WW2
>Few months seat in your own shit
>lose thousands soliders bacuse zerg ruzh on german machineguns

>thinks dictators are solely 'power-hungry' or 'egomaniacs'

...

i can't tell if horsey is satire or not

...

In my experience, everybody who is interested in WWII is a normie-tier pleb "historician"

>Thinks WW2 is more interesting than WW1
It is, by miles.
>Does not consider medieval History to be the most important period in shaping modern Euripe
It's not

>How to detect Veeky Forums plebs:

>Thinks WW2 is more interesting than WW1
I think that it really is a matter of the person is interested in. WW2 has room for more lively talk on the subject of equipment, tactics, and so on. WW1 has far more on the political side of things going on.

>Does not consider medieval history to be the most important period in shaping modern Europe

I agree with OP on this point.

>Believes in the Europe-Asia dichotomy especially before the rise of Islam

That dichotomy is a thing and started before Islam. Namely in around the time Buddhism and its spin offs failed to get meaningful influence in Europe. Almost everywhere in Asia people converted OR made major changes to the local religions in reaction to Buddhism. That made a common interlink for a great many cultures. Other customs followed. In Europe Christianity did the same thing, but that still means there was two networks with only limited exchange. Look at say Rome and China at 300 BC and 400 AD. At 300 BC they are not that different.

>does not know the major world powers at any given time
Who would you consider major powers during the middle ages?
Byzantium, Frankish Kingdom (and later France and HRE), England, Poland (?, maybe early modern?), Ottomans (arguably at the very end), Venice (?)

Forgot to mention mongols and their successor states, and the two Caliphates. I was focusing more on Europe.

>does not know the major world powers at any given time
educate me

>Thinks WW2 is more interesting than WW1
The real pleb sees them as two separated wars and not as one overspanning intertwined conflict

The biggest plebs are people who disregard the underlying causes and events that lead up to Europe on the eve of WW1.
Germany's reckless foreign policy after the dismissal of Bismarck.
The Franco-Russian entente should have been worrying, and Britain and Russia putting the great game on hold should have been a major red flag for German diplomats.

>>Believes religion is the cause of wars.
You're mental if you think no war has ever been waged over partly due for religious reasons.

You must be new here. World War ! was more than just the western front. And even that's an oversimplification of the Western Front.

kek

>Who would you consider major powers during the middle ages?

You have the Early Middle Ages running from the 6th century to say 995 ( Norway and Sweden started a hard turn to Christianity inside a few years of each other ). Next the High Middle Ages which some say runs to 1300. I think 1342 and the black death make a better cut off point. Last you have the Late Middle Ages running to 1492.

The only major power to last thru it all would be France. Other did gain power but did not really hold nearly as long. The kingdom of Hungary would be the second of great powers. The Byzantine Empire perhaps third place. The 8th and much of the 9th century were not kind to it.

>Poland
Profited greatly from the weakness of its eastern neighbors after the Mongols tore up the places. It did have a rise to power, but it was late in the era.

> Venice (?)
Strong for a long time but merely one of four major Italian maritime republics and not the top dog of the lot. Things start to change in 1137 when Pisa effectively knocked Amalfi out of the game. Add to this Venice having very good relations with several popes during the 12th century. Then they throw that away by taking over the Fourth Crusade. It was well worth it for them.

I know one! I know one!

He doesn't know the difference between cause and pretext in historical events.

>OP: I was j-just pretending to be re-tarded

>Believes religion is the cause of wars
"Nah man, those first born lords selling-off their estates were merely doing it to get gold, man. They didn't actually believe in the Crusading cause, they just wanted to enrich themselves financially. Richard the Lionheart would've sold off all of England if he could because he wanted to make his kingdom more powerful".

>Whorsey

>follows literally any other paradigm than biodeterminism
>unironically doesn't know the development of consciousness was the beginning of the end of the human race

When was Syria Buddhist?

>the development of consciousness was the beginning of the end of the human race

What pseudo-intellectual horse manure.

It roughly coincides with the rise of agricultural civilizations (see: story of enkidu, genesis for retellings) aka the obliteration of vitalism

You should stop reading pseudo-intellectual '''''''''''''''''philosophers''''''''''''' from Mexico.

>all shitposts are made with complete sincerity
This is your brain on autism.

what did he mean by this?

Not knowing that agriculture, the roman empire, islam, printing press, lutheranism, french and american revolutions, bolshevik revolutions, nazism etc. were beta uprisings.

Not him, but thats some inception-tier autism , that you trying to pull out m8

Saying the rise of self-consciousness coincided with agricultural civilization is some literal pseudo-intellectual Rei-tier conjecture and speculation.

Right, you should just skip the entire thing. Not interesting

intellectualism is gay, sophistry, will and wild speculation are the only options for heterosexuals.

>roughly
and by that you mean: give or take a few million years

>humanity is older than 6000 years

I think OP means in the cultural sense. Using it purely geographically is a-ok.

>When was Syria Buddhist?
Never, however...

Buddhist was a know thing in the eastern parts of the Roman Empire by the late 2nd century AD.The areas that would later become Syria and Turkey were the places that Buddhism were more common inside the empire( not to say commonplace by any means). They were also the birth places of a number of Gnostic sects which did rival Pauline Christianity for dominance. Some scholars do believe that Buddhism was a major source of influence on early Gnosticism so that means Syria is covered under...

>OR made major changes to the local religions in reaction to Buddhism.

The big flaw in the point I am making here: there is no reactionary changes in Judaism from interaction with Buddhism. I would point to the Jewish diaspora as going a long way to cover problem. Inside Judaism there had been a lot of questions and challenges to tradition before that event. After that event tradition as a means of keeping a cultural identity alive became very important to the Jews.

Does that clear up the case I made for the Europe-Asia dichotomy?

Poor b8

>The only major power to last thru it all would be France. Other did gain power but did not really hold nearly as long. The kingdom of Hungary would be the second of great powers. The Byzantine Empire perhaps third place.

Are you perhaps Hungarian?

The middle ages is literally defined by the beginning and end of the Byzantine Empire. It starts and ends with them. They have the European record for longest-standing-empire. They were one of the most centralized and sophisticated states the world had ever seen while tribes where still trying to get their shit together in the rest of Europe. They didn't have fiefs but systems more similar to today's provincial system. They pioneered Christianity and laid the foundation or preserved many institutions that were expanded upon during the Renaissance. They were in a bad shape the last couple of centuries but overall they're the undisputed Great Power of the middle ages (overall).

The other major powers would be the Sassanids (Persia), the Caliphates, the Franks & HRE and the mongoloid successor states. Bulgaria and Hungary are honorable mentions. There were some other strong formations but I don't want to consider them powers unless they know how to build lasting states. I don't really consider the Commonwealth, Sweden, Castille or the Ottomans medieval.

Best response, thanks dude

>Why would you expect people to know everything? I mean if they walk into a discussion about medieval Iranian history then you should expect them to know who the big players were in that region, but if they specialize in studying colonial South America why rag on them for not knowing the major European powers circa 900 AD?
You should have a general knowledge of the world. That includes knowing the major actors of it.

>colonial South America
Trade was interrupted by the Ottomans so the Europeans started to look for new routes to India. That's a pretty good thing to know.

>Are you perhaps Hungarian?

American

The reason why I would the Byzantine had less influence then Hungary is that for a about 150 years it was a rup state left over. They made a comeback in the mid 9th century. Then after the Battle of Manzikert in 1071 were at the mercy of western Europeans to save them. They made gains but only with extreme outside help. That state of affairs only ended when western European made the Latin empire and the old empire broke into a number of successor states.

Other then a 30 years period after the first mongol invasion Hungary was projecting power outwards most of the time from about 1000 AD to 1438. A lot of that was soft political and economic power so the list of wars in the period under sells just what Hungary was up to during the Medieval period. The really big tool they had was their gold mines, which had a degree of central control. The Medieval period was marked by a long sting of cash shortages. Hungary did a lot of power brokering by being one of the states that could fix a local cash shortage.

>means in the cultural sense
Asiatics were already described as servile by Aristotle in his Ethnic while European were descred as liberty-thirsty people.

Does anyone find modern history really boring compared to pre-1800ish history?

Napoleon to Ww1 is great

Classical is the shit

Agree with all except asia europe dichotomy

>>Thinks "nation" and "state" are synonymous

I hate this one the most

>Thinks WW2 is more interesting than WW1
the whole point of WW1 was that it was a boring slogfest and its sequel was better
>Does not consider medieval history to be the most important period in shaping modern Europe
yeah Medieval history was definitely when the states were actually created but doesn't excuse its flaws
>Believes in the Europe-Asia dichotomy especially before the rise of Islam
and Hera offered to Paris "I will give you power and Asia" (paraphrased)
>Thinks "nation" and "state" are synonymous
true
>Believes religion is the cause of wars
they do at times they aren't the only cause of war but they often do state heresy as their reason for conflict in the primary sources
>uses "modern" to describe present-day
wat?
>does not know the major world powers at any given time
only major world power that matters is the U S of A

>im an american hear me roar

>tfw I wrote this before reading the last sentence

this, religion was literally a conscious political declaration in the Western/Islamic world.
and this
Luther was to the process that's called reformation that was Gavrilo Princip to WW1. It was a major shift of political power. It was not about "faith" but half of Europe giving the finger to contemporary power structures. There had been countless Luthers before Luther who wanted to reform the Church as to actually resemble something that follows Christ but they were burnt at the stake.