Truth be told, I've never heard of Covadonga. [Tolstoy briefly consults Google] The Umayyads by and large figured that conquering Austurias was not worth the effort (bad terrain, no tax base that could make an expedition worthwhile), which is why those Christian mini-kingdoms on the coast survived for hundreds of years right next to the wildly prosperous and powerful muslim caliphate in the rest of Spain. This battle was undoubtedly a minor skirmish (the Catholic/Spanish nationalist interest in trumpeting it notwithstanding) and not at all significant (wikipedia seems to largely back me up). The Reconquista didn't really get rolling until three centuries later anyway, and likely would've happened whether there were a few Christian-ruled hamlets in the Asturias or not (much of the manpower for the Reconquista - including the ruling house of Castille for a century or two - was French).

"The Reconquista was a process that lasted over half a millennium fought by countless kingdoms who made constant miniscule gains. "

Actually, most of the territorial gains happened over the course of just 150 years or so - the late 11th century to the early 13th. And I would stack Las Navas de Tolosa (which ended the Almohads) in significance against Vienna or Lepanto any day (neither of which ended the Ottomans).

#1-Hiroshima & Nagasaki
#2-Rocroi
#3-Manzikert
#4-Mukden
#5-Pharsalus
#6-Bosworth Field
#7-Legano
#8-Lechfeld
#9-Edington
#10-Adrianople

how about you address your false assumption Tolstoy. Why do you want us to be bigots

and a new battle for everyone to consider

Ayacucho

The Almohads were ended by another Muslim tribe, not the Christians.

Anyway I enjoy it when Tolstoy consults google and wikipedia. I'll remember this thread.

"Just to show that Tolstoy is full of shit, Ive taken the liberty of fact checking it"

Putin's list is actually 4:3, not 3:2, but you are otherwise correct. You perhaps raise a fair point about the possibility of my over-sensitivity.

"It's the only form of 'bigotry' he's ever shown a concern about."

Perhaps because it's the only form of bigotry that is still acceptable to verbalize in public these days (in addition, I suppose, to hatred of Mormons). I will admit that (apparently) unlike you, I'm not all that concerned about anti-Catholic riots in American cities, the reinstitution of slavery, internment of Japanese-Americans, or the torching of pagan temples in this day and age.

"I'm not convinced he didn't convert to Islam."

Allahu Akbar, comrade!

"The Almohads were ended by another Muslim tribe, not the Christians. "

It was the defeat at Las Navas de Tolosa that ended Almohad authority. I know they were ultimately undone by another tribe in North Africa (as the Almohads had supplanted the Almoravids before them), but this would not have been possible without the defeat at LNdT (not consulting wikipedia on this one, because unlike you, I've actually read books about this - albeit long ago).

"Anyway I enjoy it when Tolstoy consults google and wikipedia. I'll remember this thread."

The difference between us is that I'll admit to resorting to them (because, in this case, someone mentioned a battle so obscure as to be by and large ignored by history), while you're so insecure you'll make ridiculous and absurd denials about checking wikipedia and make feeble claims to having 'read a book once', completely oblivious to the controversy swirling around the author of said book.

Right, I forgot that anti-black and anti-Latino racism disappeared and is not routinely vocalized by your crowd and the rightwing media. And misogyny of course is of no concern because that no longer exists. Anybody ever read "Freedom Under Siege" by Ron Paul? It's revealing in his attitude towards women.

It's weird that someone as anti-Zionist/anti-Jewish as you would be so pro-Mormon. They did the same thing to Missouri that the Zionists did in Palestine. The difference was the Mormons lost. Apparently it's ok to be a Zionist if your "Jerusalem" is Independence, Missouri.

"#1-Hiroshima & Nagasaki"

...not battles...?

"while you're so insecure you'll make ridiculous and absurd denials about checking wikipedia and make feeble claims to having 'read a book once', completely oblivious to the controversy swirling around the author of said book."

I was not oblivious to the fact that Lewis was a rightwing historian of Islam. But naturally when you claim to have "read books" about a subject a while back it's supposed to be taken seriously.

And what did that profile-in-courage Ron Paul do when a serviceman was booed because he was gay. Stood silently, because naturally homophobia doesn't exist either.

"how about you address your false assumption Tolstoy. Why do you want us to be bigots"

Eh? Why would I *want* everyone here to be bigots?I suggested two answers to my question - the influence of bigoted popular historians (the folks who operate popular anti-Muslim websites and generally have no academic background), or eurocentrism in historical understanding (like Putin referencing historians who were born in the 1910s and writing in the 1940/50s, when the inherent and unchanging supremacy of Western Civilization was simply assumed). I actually think this forum is a pretty fair-minded group for the most part, and not a bunch of bigots. But I was wondering how much these lists/discussions are influenced by outdated historical theories about Mohammedan hordes forcing everyone to convert under pain of death - either from outdated (by a century or two) historical studies or contemporary Islamophobic websites.

...

I'm torn between my traditional opposition to Ron Paul and my traditional opposition for Putin...though he--erm, the latter "he"--does make a point about RP's standing silently with the gay soldier...that was pretty disgraceful for the entirety of the GOP field present, really.

"Right, I forgot that anti-black and anti-Latino racism disappeared and is not routinely vocalized by your crowd and the rightwing media."

This from the guy who calls any black or latino who doesn't accept the permitted marxist position on any public policy issue "self-hating".

"And misogyny of course is of no concern because that no longer exists."

Misogyny? Like hugging females and calling them "sweetheart"? Horror of horrors!

"I was not oblivious to the fact that Lewis was a rightwing historian of Islam."

[rolls eyes] Go fish. I told you if you kept reading that wikipedia article, you'd find the answer, but apparently you're a slower reader than I thought.

"But naturally when you claim to have "read books" about a subject a while back it's supposed to be taken seriously."

Alright... Why don't you give us the list of books on the Reconquista YOU have read in the last five years, so we can all be assured you know what you're talking about and I'm full of shit.

"And what did that profile-in-courage Ron Paul do when a serviceman was booed because he was gay. Stood silently, because naturally homophobia doesn't exist either."

Gimme a break. What should he have done? Whipped out his CPUSA-approved Soviet-manufactured AK and start gunning down the bigots in the audience?

"This from the guy who calls any black or latino who doesn't accept the permitted marxist position on any public policy issue "self-hating"."

Nope, don't need to be a Marxist. Just need to stop calling all black people brainwashed. Need to stop claiming racism is dead (except of course when you start feeling the heat). But thanks for your usual exaggerations and histrionics.

"Misogyny? Like hugging females and calling them "sweetheart"? Horror of horrors!"

Yeah, nevermind all the Republican-led governments imposing the most far-reaching government intrusion into people's lives and health that have ever been implemented in recent history in this country. No libertarian outcry about that. No libertarian outcry about the fact that Republicans passed a bill that would deprive women who are bleeding in the ER of getting reproductive healthcare. Nope, instead they're busy whining about the EPA and the capital gains tax. Women have been under assault from the right ever since they swept into power after the midterms and we hear not a word of concern from the so-called libertarian right.

"Why don't you give us the list of books on the Reconquista YOU have read in the last five years, so we can all be assured you know what you're talking about and I'm full of shit."

I'm not interested in the Reconquista. It appears that Islamophiles are obsessed with it. Andalusians are always hailed by the Hamas lobby as being their pride and joy, the great shining example of how Jews would be treated if only they submitted to Islamic rule in Palestine.

"Go fish. I told you if you kept reading that wikipedia article, you'd find the answer, but apparently you're a slower reader than I thought."

There is no controversy listed in said article other than the fact that he is a fellow Islamophile. I don't get what your complaint is with him, other than Dick Cheney thinking he's a swell guy. He loves Islamic civilization more than you do and says that Muslims were more tolerant of nonMuslims than Christians were of nonChristians.

"What should he have done? Whipped out his CPUSA-approved Soviet-manufactured AK and start gunning down the bigots in the audience?"

Gee, I don't know. Condemned the booing either during or after the debate? Stopped supporting DOMA and other government policies discriminating against gays like the Marriage Protection Act? He even supported DADT before he suddenly turned against it at the last minute. Libertarians beat their chest about small government and moral consistency but again, discrimination seems to be the only government business they routinely approve of.

But naturally in your over-the-top rhetoric you'd have to make a choice between doing nothing and going on a violent rampage. A modicum of disagreement with this kind of behavior was too much to ask for, for such a courageous "speak truth to power" phony baloney like Ron Paul.

"Anybody ever read "Freedom Under Siege" by Ron Paul? It's revealing in his attitude towards women."

This book is available for free here:
http://mises.org/books/freedomsiege.pdf

It's a quick, easy read (only 162 smallish pages). Most of the "misogyny" contained therein is pointing out that men are legally discriminated against - in that they are required to register with Selective Service and be drafted to fight and die in the government's wars, while women are not. This book was originally printed in (I believe) the mid 80s, when memories of Vietnam and the Draft were still fresh in the public's mind.

Right, here's what our beloved freedom fighter says about sexual harassment in the workplace.

"
Employee rights are said to be valid when employers pressure
employees into sexual activity. Why don't they quit once the so-called
harassment starts? Obviously the morals of the harasser cannot be defended,
but how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem?
Seeking protection under civil rights legislation is hardly acceptable. If force
was clearly used, that is another story, but pressure and submission is hardly
an example of a violation of one's employment rights."

Pressuring women to have sex should be perfectly legal. And if women have a problem with it they should just quit. That's libertarian utopia, my friends. And that's why women are no where to be found in this movement.

The whole book reads like somebody with the attention span of a gnat wrote it, jumping from one point to the next, but anyway, right above and below the bit about harassment

"The idea
that the social do-gooder can legislate a system which forces industry to pay
men and women by comparable worth standards boggles the mind and further
destroys our competitiveness in a world economy."

"The concept of equal pay for equal work is not only an impossible
task, it can only be accomplished with the total rejection of the idea
of the voluntary contract. By what right does the government assume the
power to tell an airline it must hire unattractive women if it does not want to?"

Indeed, Ron Paul is concerned about the government precluding sexist companies from hiring women on the basis of how much they will titillate their clientele. As if that somehow is connected to the equal pay for equal work issue.

It's very clear from this book that Ron Paul likely did write those racist newsletters he denies writing, or at least wrote some me of them. Calling homeless people "tramps" and "vagrants" has a familiar ring to it.

He also condemns all civil rights legislation over the "past 30 years". But we already knew that.

Sorry to derail a good thread. Back to the OP.

"Need to stop claiming racism is dead (except of course when you start feeling the heat)."

Indeed. Racism is alive and well - rearing its head whenever blacks or hispanics dare to venture off the socialist ideological plantation. I challenge you to name a black or hispanic 'right-wing' intellectual/author/politician/celebrity who isn't 'self-hating' in your estimation.

"Republican-led governments imposing the most far-reaching government intrusion into people's lives and health that have ever been implemented in recent history in this country."

Um, I believe "the most far-reaching government intrusion into people's lives and health that have ever been implemented in recent history in this country" is generally called "Obamacare", something which Republicans are generally strongly opposed to.

"There is no controversy listed in said article other than the fact

Bernard Lewis and other products of the old western historical tradition view the Muslim world through Eurocentricism glasses - primarily studying it in terms of how it compares and interacts with the west. This is a result of the old western historical tradition that all human civilizations are progressing towards 'modernity' (defined as western civilization), and can be measured by how close (or far) they conform to western ideals and history. Hence the claims by many (including some on this forum) that the Islamic world is 'primitive' because it hasn't gone through a western-style 'renaissance', although the Islamic world has never had many of the problems that caused the renaissance/reformation in Europe. Marxism, with its emphasis on the linear progress of human societies from feudalism to industrialism to socialism, is a product of this tradition - I'm sure you realize this is one of the more criticized of Marx's theories, and with good reason. The viewpoint of history as a struggle by primitive non-westerners to achieve progress by becoming westernized has largely fallen out of favor with historians in the modern period (thank God).

All of this was referenced somewhat in the wikipedia article, with its section on Lewis' feud with Edward Said (although this was obviously not clear enough for PoliSci majors). I would recommend reading Said's book:
http://www.amazon.com/Orientalism-Edward-W-Said/dp/039474067X
which I'm sure is available at your university library.

"I'm not interested in the Reconquista."

Okay... so why are you claiming that I'm full of crap on a subject you have no interest in and have apparently never studied? Are you just being an obnoxious prick just for the sake of being an obnoxious prick?

"Andalusians are always hailed by the Hamas lobby as being their pride and joy, the great shining example of how Jews would be treated if only they submitted to Islamic rule in Palestine. "

Why don't you tell us where the Golden Age of Diaspora Judaism was centered. I'll wait while you look it up. Once you're done with that, how about explaining why Zionism was exclusively a product of European Jews, and never caught on with Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews until well after the 1948 War.

Most individual battles aren't that important in the grand scheme of things. Sure the Muslims lost at Tours, and it does seem to mark the beginning of the end for them in Europe, but it wasn't because of Tours. The muslims could have won at Tours, but they would have still declined in Europe anyway. Likewise for the Lepanto. It was a big deal for the Europeans at the time, but the Ottomans didn't view it as such a catastrophic loss. But it does seem to be a signpost of the changing times. That Christian Europe was was on the up and up. So maybe the real value of these battles was the symbolic value.

One battle stands out for me though as being particularly influential. The Battle of Hastings. Imagine how different the English language would be if England hadn't have been conquered by French speaking Normans. Or how different British political institutions would be.

I think the Battle of Britain was equally important/influential...

That was, perhaps, Hitler's best chance to win the war--if the Nazis win, WWII ends VERY differently, and the entirety of the balance of power AND the makeup of the Middle East, of Asia, of Europe...all changed.

I wonder Obi. This assumes that America did not ever end entering the war (which I suspect was almost inevitable). All of Europe gets fascist governments. I think it probably would have been a relative blip in history. Don't get me wrong - it would have been a disaster. But in the long term would things be that different? The USA would have still become the most powerful country in the world. Hitler would have died soon after WW2 anyway. And I suspect most people would have gotten tired of fascism within a generation.

What do you think the world would be like if Hitler won?

Hitler didn't stand a chance against Stalin. His Eastern front was getting obliterated by swarms of angry Soviets. Absolutely no way he would've won. USSR would've suffered a few hundred thousand more casualties (no biggie) and won a few months later down the track, but they still would've won.

So if USA never got involved in the West and Britain was bombed to shit by the Nazis in the Battle of Britain, we'd be looking at USSR controling the entirety of Europe, no Berlin Wall, no Iron Curtain. We'd have a much more powerful USSR, and an even bigger fall once they inevitably fell apart due to shit succession planning from Stalin.

But I suppose your question is if Hitler won, which assumes Stalingrad is Naziland, what would the world be like. For starters, there wouldn't be any Jews left in Europe, and the cold war would've just been USA vs Nazis... However I haven't taken into account that the Axis nuclear weapons program was shit, if at all existant. So the balance would be tipped in USA's favour, so it could have developed into a nuclear war, as USA would probably take the risk of a few cities disappearing.

Very interesting topic and discussion, I will only contribute it with in my opinion if not the most important then certainly one of the greatest military achievements ever...Battle of Alesia.

Cowboys v Vikings (December 1975) It gave us the "Hail Mary".

So that's what all your hemming and hawing was about, the fact that Said said Lewis was an 'Orientalist'? Said's attacks on Lewis were nothing but personal attacks posing as a sophisticated post-colonial critique. His reading of Lewis is frankly, bizarre. Basically he's pissed that Lewis dared to be critical of the Islamic world. But Lewis shared many of the same views as Said about it, so again, I don't get your problem with him.

The Burning of Washington.
Don't fuck with Canada.

"Indeed. Racism is alive and well - rearing its head whenever blacks or hispanics dare to venture off the socialist ideological plantation. I challenge you to name a black or hispanic 'right-wing' intellectual/author/politician/celebrity who isn't 'self-hating' in your estimation."

So are you going to continue to deflect from the fact than you pretend that anti-black and anti-Latino racism don't exist by engage in these red herrings about how I must learn to praise and adore the very people who enable you to say that anti-black and anti-latino racism don't exist? Really, it's quite remarkable, your debate tactics allow you to completely sidestep the ugly racist rhetoric that permeates the entire paleo-libertarian milieu, and infects every single major writer of this ideological trend. So I take the only anti-black or anti-latino racism you acknowledge is the "racism" of those big gubmint libruls and "socialists" who don't kiss the ass of the handful of conservative blacks and (somehow more common) conservative latinos? Yeah, I figured as much.

Anyway conservative blacks who aren't self-hating, one would be Stephen A. Smith. I've heard him on Hannity before, and he's also said he agrees with Rush Limbaugh quite a bit. He might not be enough of a wingnut for you, I guess, so you'd probably dismiss it out of hand. He manages to criticize ignorant statements made about blacks on the right while still articulating conservative positions on issues. Imagine that.

Another one would be Geraldo Rivera. He's quite conservative, but said the Republicans have been too stridently anti-Latino in their tone. Again, imagine that. People with self-respect.

"Um, I believe "the most far-reaching government intrusion into people's lives and health that have ever been implemented in recent history in this country" is generally called "Obamacare", something which Republicans are generally strongly opposed to."

And that's exactly why I don't take any of your libertarian bloviating seriously, because you make ridiculous statements like that with a straight face. The whole ideology is a fraud when you think Obamacare is a bigger government intrusion than the draconian Republican anti-abortion legislation that is sweeping the country, including *rape audits* by the IRS to make sure that women don't use their tax credits to pay for *private healthcare insurance* that might in someway include abortion services in their package.
Your whole shtick is a giant joke.

"Okay... so why are you claiming that I'm full of crap on a subject you have no interest in and have apparently never studied? Are you just being an obnoxious prick just for the sake of being an obnoxious prick?"

I was merely pointing out the fact that you always seem to have "read a book about x or y" a long time ago and that's just fine, we're supposed to believe you, but I claim to have read a book then it's obvious I'm just "reading wikipedia". You're the wise scholar while I'm the google warrior, naturally. Just because you say so. As for being an obnoxious prick, it's clear as day to all who've read this thread that we were proceeding apace with an actual collegial interesting thread before you decided to whip out the "YER ALL ISLAMOPHOBES" routine for no reason whatsoever because (I guess because we didn't list 10 out of 10 battles with Muslim victories, or mention Reconquista or something, I have no idea it's very confusing). I guess in every thread we have to insert some obligatory over-the-top praise for Muslims/criticism of Christians somewhere or else we'll be accused of bigotry and Orientalism! by you.

"Why don't you tell us where the Golden Age of Diaspora Judaism was centered. I'll wait while you look it up"

Polish-Lithuania was actually quite progressive towards Jews. Rabbi Alkalai was one of the Heralds of Zionism. And much of the Mizrahi/?Sephardi community was cleansed right after 1948, not "'well after1948". I love you leave out the fact of this massive ethnic cleansing, as if this is just a non-issue that should just be ignored. We should instead uncritically claim that the Arabs were just oh so wonderful to the Jews and that after 1948, they were fair game anyway so it's perfectly acceptable to annihilate ancient communities. 93% if the Iraqi Jews were kicked out by 1951. 50,000 Jews left Yemen alone. The Iraqi persecution of Jews well preceded the establishment of Israel, even though the Hamas lobby loves to use that as an excuse. But anyway the reason for Sephardim weren't part of the early Zionist mainstream was because they were considered too Jewish. Many of them were Zionists, but the leaders like Herzl and Ben Gurion thought they lacked culture and wanted to create a European, secular state in Palestine.