Previous  1 ... 10  11  12  13  14  Next

blue,

Hey, sorry, I missed this last night – thanks for trying to maintain the thread’s central theme (some still come here for no other purpose than to spew ignorance). I think that you may be on to something here: if one analyzes the historiographical components of the Old Kingdom pharaohs, then we might conclude that their achievements may seem embellished (you’d be hard pressed to dismiss the monumental architecture – Giza complex), but I think there be some areas that need addressing. This is not personal (as some simpletons seem to deem anything that contradicts their history) and please, if you feel that my points are incorrect, and then by all means, use some history to refute or challenge them.

Good point. It should be stressed, however, that the priestly class (and upper level bureaucracy and scribes) likely possessed the true “knowledge” during this era. If someone attributed the Great Pyramids solely to the intellect of say Khufu, then you are right, as strong socio/political/theological elements of others were more influential



Well…that may be a bit of an unfair criterion. The ancient Egyptians did offer many cultural links to the African/Middle Eastern kingdoms (in fact, look at Punt) as trade flourished. Their architectural contributions is seen by many historian as having a cultural drift component as well as irrigation techniques – although drift did work both ways as influences arrived from Mesopotamia, Crete and late the Hyksos. Lastly, religious elements do have a contribution to today, although it’s clearly not as direct as Luther or Calvin but it is part of the West’s religious continuum (divine right of Pharaohs – they were literally the embodiment of a deity and although polytheism ruled the theological landscape, later monotheistic elements – not Old Kingdom though – would emerge as the Armarna Revolution)



They did more than that – the Great Pyramids? Although, it should be noted that the pharaoh’s influence on the entire construction and spiritual purpose of the Pyramid construction is minimized my many historians.




Some problems here. One, resource occupation is seen by historians to be a minor matter (if you can prove that it somehow taxed the economy too much) in light of the fact that the entire society’s cultural/political/social/religious makeup was one giant indistinguishable element that would’ve largely supported the construction and seen it’s very creation as a cultural necessity (you can’t judge it from a 21st century perspective).

Besides, are you sure that the Great Pyramids were designed solely to satisfy a pharaoh’s ego? Would history agree with that assertion? You might want to revise that.

I look forward to seeing your response.

   

Twister,

From someone that hasn’t done much (you Xeroxed some sites and then corrected your errors on Nero) in terms of substance here, you seem to ask a lot from others. You ventured forth a personal opinion that wasn’t substantiated by anything other than unrelated innocuous narrative history – I simply (I don’ think it was unreasonable) asked why you thought two of the more historically significant monarchs were overrated (I point you introduced!). You couldn’t do it. Now you are rationalizing this inability as a function of an unfair and hostile tactic – daring to question one’s contentious and problematic theories. Come on, you freely participated and if you honestly believe (again, if you want to hide behind a personal idea as valid merely because it’s yours, go for it, but then why participate?) that Henry VIII and Louis XIV (I’m still waiting for something on this, especially how he was the sole cause of the French Revolution) are overrated and that history and objective truth are indeed mistaken, stop issuing personal proclamations about others (I noticed you only targeted Dayseed. Interesting) and start posting some history.

   

Twister,

Who said this was a “court of law”? Argumentative fallacy aside, stop obfuscating your poor arguments with diatribes, fallacious logic and some alleged persecution complex that screams rationalization. You made a contentious point. No one is allowed to ask how you arrived at that? No one is permitted to require you to substantiate it with relevant history? Damn. And all you’ve got now is objections to some one using the Lord’s name in vein? Perhaps you should take your little crusade onto the really controversial threads and apply this self-righteous tactic there. Tell me how that goes.

   

Mustang.. how am I asking Soo much from you. Can you rationalize how these two weren't overrated. Yes they were significant .. that Is why I chose them.. we both agreed on Nero niether being a leader nor over/under rated. But in dealing with the lives of Hevry the 8th and Louis the 14th, i feel they were over rated not by what reformations they caused and what they did.when. but over rated by historians in general for thiers acts and duties. I believe that all human monarchs are and have been over rated.
Henry the 8th did set forward massive changes in the way life was run and has been run in England since his riegn ended.. but was that change instituted becuase of a want for a better life for the British people. Why leave the church of Rome and establish the Anglican Church in it's place? He had personal interests in doing this.. it wasn't for the good of the nation. Henry the 8th Grew up under the teachings of the Roman church.
In france Louis the 14th reign was marked by his young age assuming the throne.. many years under his chief minister from 1661 when the chief minister died until 1685 24 years.. he virtually bakrupted the country.. to build the hall of mirrors.. to make versailles one of the most impressive palaces in the world.. how exactly did this help his people?
He set out on becoming a unified nation under one church.. the Roman Catholic church... they expelled and persecuted Jews, and protestants a like.

You ask in you comment for proof that Louis the 14th rule led to the eventual French revolution 100 years later. During the last 20 years of his monarchy, this is where the resentment and the seeds of revolution were planted. Louis the 14th had yes placed France into a dominent poition in Europe where they would remain, and yes Even though Louis the 14th managed to expand france's territory even with several alliances opposing him. At what cost, though? His persecution and edicts against the protestants led to the formation of Alliances against him. He unified the country under Catholic rule but also unified Catholic and protestants that were opposed to him. By highly taxing the poor and the peasants and not taxing the nobility and Clergy he set in motion the seeds of revolution.

Revolution takes place over a series of years.. people don't revolt against thier countries leadership over one issue. King Louis the 16th didn't help matters much when he succeeded the throne but Like a pot left on a stove to simmer.. eventually it heats up enough for the pot to boil over. That is what happened in France, America, Russia. Taxation of the people to the point where there was no place and nothing for them to do but revolt. Taxation without representation. You take money and food from people and what are you left with.. starvation or revolution.....you make the call.. Still think they did so many great things........

Oh and about Dayseed.. yes I did mention the fact that he keeps using the lords name in viegn... It was also not just him but others whose comments border on juvenile at times... if we are to have discussions then lets talk.. Calling one another names doesn't help just breeds hostility between people... oh I never corrected myself on Nero.. his actions lead to a civil war in which 4 emporers came to power in 1 year until vespasians return.
As for xeroxed pages I have gone over that several times why that was done.. In future since it bothers you that much If I use a web page directly I will just put a link to it.

kinda funny though when a originally wrote this I had placed Louis the 14th as a major cuase... but somehow.. in your deluded world it has changed to sole cuase.... His lack of compassion for his people his overtaxation of the peasantry and non taxation of nobles and the clergy breaded the resentment that fostered the growth of the revolution movement...that eventually deposed Louis the 16th.

   

So this is how it starts.. okay then... Mr. Mustang.. what in the he double hockey sticks do you want then... I say they are over rated.. you say give me proof as to why they are.... In a saving measure for time I go to several sites.(yes google does work.. noticed that you picked them up to by going to them and linking them back) get some information that is apparently not good enough for the mighty Mustang to waste his time upon. I responded to your questions.. as to why I felt that way I even showed my personal bias.. regarding mornarchy's.. In the past DerbyX and I have had a few talks.. oh and I note since you also posted regarding christ at that time.. when Derby X was pulling stuff from website after website to throw at me becuase I am a Christian, question my beliefs and my faith that was fine but when I do it to you.. oh I have crossed some terrible bridge never to go back... (not a personal attack nor do I feel slighted so don't go there) Just answer the question that I asked a long time ago.....

I have asked you 3-4 times now why do you feel that Henry the 8th and louis the 14th they were not over rated? Please no glib answers like have been posted in the past.. I don't have to make your arguement for you?.. just answer the question.. I really want to know.. what you think on this question.. I wouldn't keeps asking If I didn't care what you think..... Why is it that you feel King Henry the 8th and Louis the 14th were not over rated?
We are both wasting a lot of time and space over a stupid question that has not been answered.....

   

Twister,

Evidently you want to escalate matters? Fine, but just take note that all of this started because some one had the audacity to ask you to back up your rather unsubstantiated, historically-unproven, contentious personal opinion (Damn, so far you’ve rested your entire argument on the simplistic notion that a pre-Enlightenment monarch must meet the needs and every whim of his/her subjects in order to be deemed competent. History, fortunately, places the individual within his proper temporal context.) You couldn’t and now your employing fallacious logic – it’s not my argument, genius, why should I make it for you! - horribly garbled streams of consciousness masquerading as posts and issuing sanctimonious declarations that have been previously addressed (read back over the posts as this may help you avoid doing this again)

And I responded with “If you want a list as to why these two individuals are indeed legitimate leaders – ones worthy of possessing a decent historical legacy, I’ll oblige, but only if you answer my question regarding Louis XIV and the French Revolution (by the way, you may want to revise your rather intellectually shallow comments earlier today about Louis XIV first as they are simplistic) and you directly respond on point to my examples. I think that’s more than fair – your call,” about 2 days ago!!! Damn, read the thread before you go off on some imbecilic tangent. Christ!

Besides, It’s YOUR contention! You, not me, introduced it!! The onus is not on me to demonstrate that the historical community has been grossly mistaken in their analysis of Henry VIII and Louis XIV’s historical legacies! That’s your job as you challenged it by claiming they were overrated!!! Jesus, Joseph, Mary and Frank, stop obfuscating the point by being lazy, unprepared and belligerent. Either demonstrate it or retract your earlier assertion.



Actually, you don’t care because any reputable history book could’ve addressed that question in no time. I’m not needed to substantiate objective facts. In the meantime, read a book, as I’m sure most historians won’t suggest Henry VIII and Louis XIV have embellished historical legacies.

   

It's likely true that the pyramids were not constructed solely as extravagant mortuaries for kings. I find it interesting, however, that during the Fifth Dynasty, when the Egyptian Solar religion became more prominent, fewer pyramids were constructed, as the number of solar temples constructed rose.

It seems, in the flourishing of Egypt during the Old Kingdom (due to adundent resources through Nile/trade and social stability of the centralized government), that it was unstoppable. Why then did the era end leaving Egypt so crippled? A decline in rainfall apparently caused famine (the Nile stopped handing their agriculture to them on a silver platter) for 20 years. Their central government was unable to cope, power shifted to regional governers, and the collapse of the monarchy began.

They did survive into the 1st intermediate, though. I'll post the words of Professor Fekri Hassan from the BBC website instead of paraphrasing:

It seems the decline of the deific, self absorbed monarch allowed the growth of Egypt's culture to grow into the civilization's Classical Era.

As Mustang1 pointed out, the building of the pyramids was likely the driving force in the development of their social organization and trade relationships. I'd like to point out that Mentuhotep II, who reunited Upper and Lower Egypt after the civil unrest between Old/Middle Kingdoms, was also responsible for the building and restoration of many temples and monuments, but no pyramids. This brought the kingdom back out of unrest, but not through the construction of pretentious crypts (pretentious temples instead, but not quite so self-absorbed).



Well, hopefully this provides something interesting for you guys/girls to consider... at the very least I'll take some heat off Twister.

Engineers aren't supposed to think this much without a calculator, so I'll take a break and see what you have to say.

   

Wow, nice. Egyptian History is not my strong point and I must admit I know little on it. Mustang, sorry I did not respond to your last post, I will try to come up with something constructive at a later time on Richard I. As well, I did not mean to comment on distrustful sources I kind of rambled on there.

   

Who knows with you Lily, you fuck up everything you touch. You attribute an automated internet joke spewer's material to Shakespeare and then you cower and run like a beaten dog when confronted. Fessed up to botching that I maligned Shakespeare? Nope? Didn't think so. But, then again, you are among the biggest cowards on this site.

It must take a horribly simplified mind to simplify the threat the end of the Tudor line meant to England and condense it to: He wanted a son. Typical Lily.

Jesus Twister Read Matthew 5:39 & 5:44 And Then Get Back To Me Christ.

   

Thanks blue_nose,

I’m a huge fan of ancient Egypt and it’s one of my favourite topics in Ancient History.

Actually, Aldred commented that the influence of Helipolitan theology could be seen in the conversion of the superstructure of the royal tomb from a palace to the High Sand of the sun cult. The design did not develop without several changes of plan, and the Step Pyramid eventually appeared a staircase whereby the dead king (again, a spiritual focal point of Old Kingdom I) could travel up to the heavens and join his crew of the solar barque as it sailed across the sky from the moment that the rising sun lit up its topmost stage. This was actually during the 3rd dynasty as heliopolitian concepts were being merged with First Time principles and Re-worship (the Triumph of Heliopolis was actually during Old Kingdom II as it increased during the 4th dynasty and you are right, reached it zenith during the 5th).



True - provincial governors, an emergence of a hereditary caste of feudal potentates and an abrupt climate change all proved to be contributing factors to a periodic downfall. In fact, little written records survive describing these times (First Intermediate Period) as roving marauders (both foreign and domestic) wreaked havoc on the decentralized region (some accounts recall a famine that so severe, cannibalistic acts occurred). You are also correct in stating that Muntuhotep II (Nebhepetre) did reunite Egypt (after defeating the emerging strongman family at Herakleopolis)



Yep, but Mentuhotep II’s mortuary complex was still a complicated complex and some pyramids were indeed constructed (see Sesostris II), but they never approached the mastery of their Old Kingdom predecessors.

Thanks for the info - nice work.

   

Sorry Lily, don't project your shortcomings and cowardice on to me. You're so quick witted and correct? Meet me on the chatrooms. You'll cower like the yellowbellied bitch we know you to be.

If you want an example of where I made a mistake and apologized for it, look no further than the History of the Middle Finger.

You offer nothing of substance to this thread, you're merely here to bait and be irrelevant.

PS to Moron Lily. Henry DID have a son, Prince Edward. Way to stay irrelevant and look ignorant in the process! Will Lily acknowledge her mistake? History says no!

Now fuck off, the adults are having a discussion.

   

Best to look at the entire verse... not just 1 line here you go.... I hate quoting biblical references.. see what you made me do.....

An Eye for an Eye
38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[g] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
Love for Enemies
43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor[h] and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies[i] and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Perhaps you should read it again, then look below romans to Ephesians and James..

Romans 12: 9-21 is another that could have been used to:

Love
9Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. 10Be devoted to one another in brotherly love. Honor one another above yourselves. 11Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord. 12Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer. 13Share with God's people who are in need. Practice hospitality.
14Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. 15Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. 16Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position.[a] Do not be conceited.

17Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. 18If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay,"[b]says the Lord. 20On the contrary:
"If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head."[c] 21Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.


but to you I say Ephesians 4:29-32

29Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. 30And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. 31Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. 32Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.

and James 3: 1-12

Taming the Tongue
1Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly. 2We all stumble in many ways. If anyone is never at fault in what he says, he is a perfect man, able to keep his whole body in check.
3When we put bits into the mouths of horses to make them obey us, we can turn the whole animal. 4Or take ships as an example. Although they are so large and are driven by strong winds, they are steered by a very small rudder wherever the pilot wants to go. 5Likewise the tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts. Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark. 6The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole person, sets the whole course of his life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell.

7All kinds of animals, birds, reptiles and creatures of the sea are being tamed and have been tamed by man, 8but no man can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison.

9With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God's likeness. 10Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be. 11Can both fresh water and salt[a] water flow from the same spring? 12My brothers, can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water.


Sorry Mustang I suppose I could and should have linked this to a bible site.

   

Mustang... I related why I felt Louis the 14th was a cuase within the french revolution.. and as I stated not the only one or the major cuase that led to revolution. Many other factors were at play within France over that 100 year period. It is my contention that Louis the 14th drive to establish a catholic only state... which along with his spending and building of the palace.. his increased taxation of the peasant third class ( commoners) his lack of any taxation on the nobles and clergy which bread resentment into the peasantry.. formed the basis..( was indeed the first spark for) the revolution that occured some 80 years later. If this is too simple for you perhaps next time I will write it in Latin. or perhaps it is too much for my feeble little brain to handle... ohhh big words and such....
Now why and please tell me do you feel and apparently every historian known to mankind.. how both Henry the 8th anf Louis the 14th are not over rated.... thank you.

   

hmm lily can fight her own battles.. she is very capable of doing that... but do we really need the..
Now fuck off, the adults are having a discussion " crap... forums are ment to help enlighten and talk about issues.. silly or contraversial... but come on.. yes we do get heated from time to time... most of us are adults here... even the kids who are on line here.are older than thier years... I know you apologized to lilly earlier... but there in no need for that man..... It is derogatory and hurtful.... i know earlier she told you to begone as you no longer ammuse her.... sorry man take it on the chin....

   

Louis was a direct cause of the French Revolution. Nope. And you didn’t establish anything that would suggest otherwise (and obfuscating the point with a condescending tone doesn’t cut it either). Sorry. Besides, where are you cause/effects relationships?

Show me how Louis XIV influenced the following REAL causes.

1. American Revolution

2. Enlightenment Philosophy (I’d love to see you establish a temporal relationship between Locke and Louis XIV!)

3. Third Estate – it’s not the “third class” as you erroneously wrote, nor is it entirely composed of “peasants”. Had you read Sieyes, “What is the Third Estate” and some rudimentary texts on the subject, you could have avoided that error.

4. Louis XVI – wrong Louis for you, but this one was a cause

5. Financial Crisis – poor economy, American theatre of operations expenditures precipitated the 1st revolution as it forced Louis to call the Estates-General

Louis XIV as a cause of the French Revolution? History seems to disagree with you.

   

Previous  1 ... 10  11  12  13  14  Next