Talk:World History Lecture Five

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DinsdaleP (Talk | contribs) at 17:30, February 26, 2009. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

Most of shariah is based on the Hadith, not the Quran.


Who were the British people at that time? The “Anglo-Saxons”, who were Germanic tribes that conquered England and ruled it in a chaotic manner until the Norman conquest of A.D. 1066 brought order and prosperity to the entire island. The “Anglo-Saxons” were actually a mixture of three different Germanic peoples: the Angles, the Saxons and the Jutes. The “Picts” were another group of people who settled Scotland at this time. The greatest Anglo-Saxon ruler was Alfred the Great, who defended Britain from Viking attacks in the A.D. 800s.

1. No mention of the Celtic British people who were gradually overwhelmed and absorbed by the Anglo-Saxons in what became England (but remained dominant in Wales, Cumbria, Cornwall)? 2. The Anglo-Saxon kingdoms were increasingly sophisticated, and the united England was scarcely 'chaotic'. 3. The Normans did not rule 'the whole island'. 4. The Picts did not 'settle Scotland at this time' but were the indigenous people of northern and eastern Scotland.

Pachyderm 11:15, 31 August 2007 (EDT)


  • "Both the beginning and end of the Middle Ages occurred in what is now Italy" I think the exact meaning of this sentence needs to be clarified.
  • I think you have chosen a somewhat extreme interpretation of why the term 'middle ages' is used. I do not think it was intended as a derogatory term by most.
  • I'm quite certain the claim that "Except for the Carolingian court of Charlemagne discussed below, there was no kingdom in Europe from the fall of Rome to A.D. 1000." is incorrect. Whilst the Carolingian empire was certainly one of the most notable there were certainly others.
  • The phrase "but they were constantly cooperating or arguing with each other" seems ambiguous.
  • Simply as a suggestion of my own, I think it would be much easier to simply state how much older Christianity roughly is than Islam rather than using a percentage.
  • The date of the battle of Yarmouk (636 AD) should be specified.
  • "causing concern by the Sunnis" should read "causing concern amongst..."
  • You suggest that Sunnis are viewed more favourably by the west, although I would rather not dwell on generalisations, it should be noted that Bin Laden's group is entirely Sunni, though of course very much a minority group amongst them.
  • I'm not sure what is meant by saying that Shi'ites "slashing their forwards"
  • The part concerning the 2006 election and Keith Ellison needs updating.
  • You mention that "western Europe was declining" at one point without clarifying in what respect there was a decline.
  • The most recent data suggests that Russia now has the 9th largest population rather than the 8th.
  • I would disagree with the characterisation of the Saxon rule of Britain as being chaotic, I think it was much more stable than many others.
  • The Picts did not really settle in Scotland, they were a distinctive group that emerged from the existing population and dominated for a time.
  • Saxon's generally cremated their dead, as the term pyre itself implies, and did not simply leave the bodies for animals as you suggest.
  • You incorrectly state that the peasants in the Feudal System were not bound to their Lord. In fact they had to swear an oath to the Lord and were bound to them, or perhaps more specifically, to the land. The Feudal System was a massive system of oaths and mutual ties which form are what held it together.
  • It would be more correct to refer to the 'invention' of the iron plough rather than its 'discovery'
  • You state that the serfs paid rent in the form of food. This was not universally true temporally or geographically. Generally early on the serf's rent was paid as labour on the lord's own land as opposed to that which was given over to peasant subsistence farming. This developed into a system of paying rent in the form of commodities, such as food, and eventually money.
  • You are incorrect in stating that everyone under the Feudal System had the ability to buy/sell land.
  • There was in fact a form of centralized government but it was nowhere near as powerful as it became in the centuries that followed.
  • You should clarify your definition of 'useless lands and forests'. I assume you mean this from a purely economic perspective in the context of the time.
  • The sentence "On the humorous side, it became popular to use battering rams and catapults in warfare" is puzzling in my opinion.
  • You suggest there were frequent battles between rival manors. For one thing, a manor was generally the fief of a single knight and as such battles on this scale were unlikely. Although there were civil wars of course, you unfairly characterise this as an inherently unstable system.
  • I think you need to clarify for where the 'invasions stopped'
  • I disagree with you statement about modern property law being based on the feudal system. This system did not recognise the concept of 'private property' and in many ways was almost the complete opposite of today. The private property system was developed by monarchs, particularly following the plague which decimated the population, thus reducing the rent they received. This, along with more expensive military technologies led to the need to increase income, which they did by creating laws regarding personal property and collecting taxes on the back of this. As such, private property was in fact one of the things that led to the collapse of the feudal system.

RobertWDP 08:25, 25 February 2009 (EST)

Thanks for your suggestions. I reviewed them carefully, accepting some and changing the text, while rejecting others.--Andy Schlafly 11:09, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Corrections relevant to your updates

  • You seem to imply that Turkey is run by a military junta of some kind. This is not true. Turkey is a parliamentary democracy. Although the military does hold significant influence you are wrong to say that it 'runs' the country. As such the military does not enforce the headscarf ban. The headscarf ban was implemented as part of the secular principles of modern Turkey's founder and has been upheld by the judiciary. RobertWDP 21:32, 25 February 2009 (EST)
The military enforces the rule, which is contrary to the wishes of the overwhelming major. Most informed observers would describe Turkey as run by the military rather than by popular opinion.--Andy Schlafly 22:22, 25 February 2009 (EST)

Corrections relevant to further updates

  • I cannot really see a direct link between feudalism and 'the customer is always right.' For one thing, the concept of a customer was not in widespread use, especially early on in the feudal era, given that there was relatively little trading and what there was originally rarely involved money. IT was not until later on that the practice of trading goods increased significantly, and especially with the increased use of money led to the creation of the market as we know it today.
  • You put far too great an emphasis on the good aspects of feudalism from modern perspective. You do not mention that the system was extremely exploitative of the serf class. They were bound to work the land all their life and to serve their lord, and were entirely under his control. Indeed there may have been fewer people who didn't work but when they were in fact 'fired' as it were the consequences were far more devastating than today. This would have involved an entire family being ejected from their home and the land they worked since this was all part of the equation. RobertWDP 10:31, 26 February 2009 (EST)
Feudalism developed the concept of "service", which became central to chivalry. From that came "customer service," as in restaurants.
On your second point, I'm afraid it suffers from anti-Christian bias that infects commonly read materials. Feudalism had no commuting, no "lay offs," no "offshoring", fewer heinous crimes like today, no widespread breakups of marriage, no same-sex marriage, no drug addiction, etc. It was far from perfect, but far from terrible also. What liberals hate about it was its Christianity.--Andy Schlafly 12:21, 26 February 2009 (EST)
The concept of "customer service" has been in existence for as long as commerce itself has, which was long before feudalism. As for the benefits of feudalism, "no commuting" and "no layoffs" also applied to slavery, so it would be fair to say that these are just aspects of feudalism rather than inherent benefits of the system that would make it desirable. I'm not sure that feudalism itself lowered crime or drug addiction relative to other societies in the same historic period, but I'm not aware of any aspect of feudalism itself that impacted marital fidelity or societal views towards homosexuality when compared to the prevailing religious views of the day. --DinsdaleP 12:30, 26 February 2009 (EST)