Mens Lounge

[KnightofPhoenix]

I have the compulsion to publicly declare that I love my gf, even though I am generally averse to making my private affairs known.

I love my gf, and I'm extremely happy.

Now we can proceed with the regular schedule.

 

[Alan989]

@knightofphoenix

Fair play to you mate! Anyway, how many history nuts are there here? I know I'm one and I'm a fan of Victorian conflicts, The First World War and World War II. Anyone else have favorite periods they like to learn about? :clover::book:

 

[Unkindled]

Ass man, no doubt about it.
Boobs are nice, and they´re generally the first thing one notices if they are worth it. But nothing beats the feel of a good booty in your hands once the chips are down...

Hell yes, that's what I'm talking about Though I don't like too much ass. An apple a day keeps the doctor away. Two watermelons, I'm gone like a felon.

 

[gedierond]

Cheers, @knightofphoenix!
I love my fiancee very much myself (otherwise I would not be about to marry her, right?). After spending almost 4 years with her as my significant other, I really can´t imagine living without her in my life, honestly.

@AL890, I´m very fond of learning about history too. The Victorian age is very interesting, indeed, as are the two World Wars.
I´d say my favourite period is the whole Modern Age. From the Renaissance right up to the Victorian Age, there are so many interesting historical events it´s just imposible to list them all!

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

Thanks guys.

I'm a major history buff. My areas / periods of interests are:
- ancient Semitic history, mostly Mesopotamian but also Amorite history in the Levant and Carthaginian history.
- Greek history (primarily the Greco-Persian wars, the Peloponnesian war, and the early Hellenistic age)
- "Arab" / "Islamic" medieval history (from 7th century until the 13th, but I am fairly decent with post 13th history as well). The reason why I put quotation marks is because I prefer Marshal Hodgson's terminology of "Islamicate", I believe it has more nuance.
- I am also interested in Middle Eastern contemporary history (otherwise known as the global cluster fuck).
- Roman history, in particular 2nd Punic War and post, decline of the Republic, and early Imperial era.
- Chinese history, mostly the Three Kingdoms era and I'm decent with the establishment of the Han, and the Communist revolution.
- Japanese history, primarily the late Sengoku Jidai (rise of Oda, Toyotomi, and Tokugawa). I am currently interested in the Genpei war and the establishment of the Kamakura Shogunate. I am also good with the Meiji restoration.
- Early modern European history. I in particular love the period after the Napoleonic war (which I am decent with, but not an expert on), until the early 20th century. So 19th century, with all its socio-political, economic, and ideological tribulations. I am also quite good with France's late medieval / early modern history. In particular from Richelieu's reforms until the first French Revolution.
- I used to be a major fan of the 2nd World War as a study topic, in addition to the rise of totalitarian regimes. My knowledge is a bit rusty, but I'm fairly well knowledgeable.
- I was also a fan of the Cold War, having studied it indepth both from a political science perspective and a history perspective. It's been a while though, so my knowledge is also a bit rusty.

- I am not bad with Venetian history, but I still need to read more.
- I am interested in Korean and Vietnamese history. I have a basic understanding of their political developments, and I have indepth knowledge of some of their wars (16th century Korean / Japanese war, and Vietnamese / Mongol wars).
- I am interested in learning more about Chinese history, specifically the Warring States.
- I am intrigued by the rise of the UK as an Empire, and its rivalry with the Dutch.
- I'm decent with Russian history, but I'd like to learn more.

 

[Unkindled]

@knightofphoenix I think a topic on the Crusades and the inaccuracies surrounding that would be interesting. Like how SJWs like to make it out as if the Christians were all blood thirsty intolerant pricks attacking poor Muslims when in reality the crusades came about as a response to Muslim attacks and captured territory in the Eastern Mediterranean area. The Laven or Levant I think it's called.

 

[Alan989]

@knightofphoenix
Hah, looks like I'm WAY behind! I'm familiar with most of those topics, but I'm quite a bit rusty on a lot of them! :hrhr: I studied the Cold War in secondary school and did it for my GCSEs along with the rise of fascism. I also used to read a lot of 18th and early 19th century books, on which I'm really rusty on now. I'm going to have to get back into those again.

I've been meaning to start reading up on the Warring states period of Japan, but I haven't got round to it yet, along with the Chinese Three Kingdoms period due to my interest in the Dynasty Warriors series and wanting to know the actual history.

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

@knightofphoenix I think a topic on the Crusades and the inaccuracies surrounding that would be interesting. Like how SJWs like to make it out as if the Christians were all blood thirsty intolerant pricks attacking poor Muslims when in reality the crusades came about as a response to Muslim attacks and captured territory in the Eastern Mediterranean area. The Laven or Levant I think it's called.

The Levant.

Yes, and no.
Yes, the Crusades have been historically distorted, generally in favor of "Muslims". No, in the sense that making it look like the "Christians" were righteous and well behaved is an even bigger distortion. Both sides (in reality, neither was a side. There was a big collection of factions and sub-factions in each) committed atrocities. In general however, it is indisputable that the Crusaders were more ruthless and bloody. The Seljuk banning of Christian pilgrimage is the exception rather than the rule of Muslim - Christian relations in the region (and the Seljuks are far from representing the entirety of the Islamicate).

@knightofphoenix
I've been meaning to start reading up on the Warring states period of Japan, but I haven't got round to it yet, along with the Chinese Three Kingdoms period due to my interest in the Dynasty Warriors series and wanting to know the actual history.

Unfortunately, the Records of the Three Kingdoms by Chen Shou is not translated. What we English speakers are limited to is the *historical novel* of the Romance of the three Kingdoms by Luo Guanzhong. It is *generally* accurate, but with a lot of artistic liberty taken. Also, it's heavy in Shu-bias.
But there is an Australian historian, Rafe de Crespigny, who has written a few books on the subject. He is quite good!

 

[gedierond]

@AL890, if you like historical games you should try Paradox Interactive´s games. They have strategy games covering different periods of history, from the early Middle Ages to the Victorian Era up to WW 1. If you´re into that kind of games, of course...

 

[Alan989]

Unfortunately, the Records of the Three Kingdoms by Chen Shou is not translated. What we English speakers are limited to is the *historical novel* of the Romance of the three Kingdoms by Luo Guanzhong. It is *generally* accurate, but with a lot of artistic liberty taken. Also, it's heavy in Shu-bias.
But there is an Australian historian, Rafe de Crespigny, who has written a few books on the subject. He is quite good!

I'll see if I can't find his stuff somewhere! Thanks for that, you've just expanded my book collection!

@gedierond
I have a few Paradox games but I haven't got around to playing any of them yet. Too much of a backlog.

 

[gedierond]

Yes, the Crusades have been historically distorted, generally in favor of "Muslims". No, in the sense that making it look like the "Christians" were righteous and well behaved is an even bigger distortion. Both sides (in reality, neither was a side. There was a big collection of factions and sub-factions in each) committed atrocities. In general however, it is indisputable that the Crusaders were more ruthless and bloody. The Seljuk banning of Christian pilgrimage is the exception rather than the rule of Muslim - Christian relations in the region (and the Seljuks are far from representing the entirety of the Islamicate).

I guess one could also differentiate between the different Crusades. As I understand, some were mostly offensive (like the first one) while others were mostly defensive (like the third one).

 

[Unkindled]

The Levant.

Yes, and no.
Yes, the Crusades have been historically distorted, generally in favor of "Muslims". No, in the sense that making it look like the "Christians" were righteous and well behaved is an even bigger distortion. Both sides (in reality, neither was a side. There was a big collection of factions and sub-factions in each) committed atrocities. In general however, it is indisputable that the Crusaders were more ruthless and bloody. The Seljuk banning of Christian pilgrimage is the exception rather than the rule of Muslim - Christian relations in the region (and the Seljuks are far from representing the entirety of the Islamicate).

Oh I know. I'm just saying it wasn't the christians saying "Oh, lets go fuck up some muslims for Lulls." Generally, if someone attacks me first, I think it's justified to give a bigger and greater response in turn, when it comes to all things military.

Eye for an eye is fine. I prefer a leg for an eye, to pay for costs of pain and suffering.

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

Oh I know. I'm just saying it wasn't the christians saying "Oh, lets go fuck up some muslims for Lulls." Generally, if someone attacks me first, I think it's justified to give a bigger and greater response in turn, when it comes to all things military.

That implies that the "Christians" were one faction, who perceived that the "Muslims" were attacking them. Doubtless some viewed it like that, but for the most part, it would not be accurate. The last Muslim offensive on a country that participated in the Crusades was against France, which was checked at Poitiers. That's long before the Crusades.

If if it was the Seljuk - Byzantine war that was perceived to be a "Muslim" attack on "Christendom", which yes some saw that way, then it becomes quite ironic to see that the Byzantine Empire was on the verge of declaring war on the Crusaders after they've persecuted Orthodox Christians in the Levant (something that Muslims did not do actually, as a rule), and that the Forth Crusade sacked Constantinople and dealt to the empire the biggest blow that no Muslim faction even hoped to accomplish after the 2 failed Umayyad attempts to besiege the city in the 7th and 8th centuries.

The Crusades were not really a war of "Christendom" versus the "Muslim world". That was the rhetoric, especially at the beginning, but how the Crusades were enacted both early on and later, go completely against that line of thinking.

Furthermore, it is often forgotten that the biggest Crusades, in terms of investment, warfare, and casualties, were not against Muslims. They were rather against the pagans of Eastern Europe, where the Crusaders committed acts that could very well be considered genocidal.

 

[Unkindled]

Furthermore, it is often forgotten that the biggest Crusades, in terms of investment, warfare, and casualties, were not against Muslims. They were rather against the pagans of Eastern Europe, where the Crusaders committed acts that could very well be considered genocidal.

True enough. That's because the schools don't teach that. At least not in South Carolina. For obvious reasons.

 

[Alan989]

T

Furthermore, it is often forgotten that the biggest Crusades, in terms of investment, warfare, and casualties, were not against Muslims. They were rather against the pagans of Eastern Europe, where the Crusaders committed acts that could very well be considered genocidal.

Yeah the Teutonic Knights where especially brutal in what's now the Baltic Countries. There are reports of them burning whole villages even after they surrendered.

 

[EmperorZorn]

Yeah the Teutonic Knights where especially brutal in what's now the Baltic. There are reports of them burning whole villages even after they surrendered.

But.... no !
They cleansed them with holy fire, in a very chivalrous and gallant way.

How dare you defile the name of the Teutonic Order ?

*lights a torch, with very holy and pure fire*

 

[Alan989]

But.... no !
They cleansed them with holy fire, in a very chivalrous and gallant way.

How dare you defile the name of the Teutonic Order ?

*lights a torch, with very holy and pure fire*

I guess you're going to yell "For the Emperor" now, since you're from the former Holy Roman Empire! :harhar:

 

[gedierond]

True enough. That's because the schools don't teach that. At least not in South Carolina. For obvious reasons.

Not only in South Carolina, don´t worry...
I´d venture that history is not "properly" taught anywhere. Each country´s education system has history lessons which focus in the most relevant/convenient points for each case.

 

[gedierond]

I guess you're going to yell "For the Emperor" now, since you're from the former Holy Roman Empire! :harhar:

Für der Kaiser!!!! That´d be more appropriate, I guess :troll:

 

[Alan989]

Für der Kaiser!!!! That´d be more appropriate, I guess :troll:

I know, that's the translation. Of course we all know that.