If Al-Andalus was so enlightened then how come iberians achieved

>>3335713
Arabs of Al-Andalus fucked blonde Gothic women in the ass.

>>3335716

goths were in north italy
Hispania was visigoths and suebs

>>3336606

You said it, visiGOTHS.

>>3335713
Al-Andalus was overrated.

>>3335713
>arabs take spain
>let them practice their religion (for most of it), don't overflow natives with immigration and barely racemix

>iberians take americas
>convert natives by sword, try to genocide them, overflow them with massive immigration and racemix with their women into extincting them

Arabs were too pure to be an effective colonial power tbqh famalam

>>3336649
>>arabs take spain
>>let them practice their religion (for most of it),

where are the proofs?

File: caliphate of cordoba.png (16KB, 889x119px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 889x119px

>>3335716
>arabs
After a few generations they were basically J1 haplogroup Iberians

>>3337203
Not him but the Al Andalus was pretty tolerant if you look at the rest of the world at that time

>>3337270
Yeah that's bullshit, they destroyed or re-estructured as mosques nearly all the churchs from andalucia to Catalonia, at best looted them, melting crosses and all valuable sacred objects and incontable precious historical stuff, they killed christians or jews in mass, specially the barbarians of the almhoads or Almuravits. At best Christians or Jews were tolerated because they were useful or too numerous, but as second class citizen, with the odd influential courtier (like in the Christian kingdoms btw). At first Muslims were very outnumbered (and very top heavy, lots of Visigoths or Ibero-Romans switched religion to maintain power), only when the masses started to convert the worse massacres started, that's why so many christians or jews hicked up to the north.
And that's only talking about what they did to they citizens, the slaver, punishing or looting warbands/armies were terrible and in a yearly base in the estival season, with lots of minor ones. The Christians at first were often in the losing end but with times the tables turned, hard.

>>3336649
They used the famous tax for infidels. You had to pay to remain in the land and even then they tried to kill you whenever they wanted. So good luck!

File: Calliphs and Kings Spain 796 1031 Roger Collins.jpg (125KB, 565x749px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 565x749px

>>3336649
>>3337265
>>3337270

it sure stinks of reddit here
Al-Andalus was the ISIS of the midle ages
a border state in perpetual warfare which main pillar was the pillagin of christians slaves to entice men from the arab world to come and fight for them and main revenue stream
al andalus was a blight upon the wirld and the Reconquista was just and heroic

>>3337902
>""""The Arab World"""

>mfw Al-Andalus were considered heretical nutjobs by Abbasid and Fatimid Caliphates.

>Moors take over Spain in 14 years.
>Spics take it after 700.

File: tunisian.png (676KB, 929x497px) Image search: [Google]

676KB, 929x497px

>>3337902
I never said otherwise. My point was that most of the 'Moors' who ruled Spain were ethnically Iberian.
That cultures persist long after the phenotypes of the people who introduced them have disappeared is something I try to emphasise to reddit-types.
It's why I'm bemused by people who think Europeans oppose 'refugees' because they're a slightly browner shade of themselves, rather than their Mohammedan ideologies.

>>3335713
Because it's easy to beat stick-wielding people with the level of technology available in the Old World.

Meanwhile Spain needs to buddy up with other Euroniggers to fight the Roaches effectively for much of the 1500s. Hell even the early 1600s.

>>3337882
Jizya was pretty low, lower than what the roman empire taxed before they got btfo.

>>3337868
>muh looting and occasional persecutions
Like every nation ever, they still were tolerants most of their existence.

>>3337902
Don't you EVER again call me a redd*tor you fucking faggot.

File: 1504540749081.gif (33KB, 665x892px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 665x892px

>>3337265
>if you cuck a people for enough generation you become one of them
Pottery

Papism is a hell of a drug.

>>3337970
They weren't, until the X century christians outnumbered them be a long margin so lots of Christian militias or administratives were needed at first, because the few muslims weren't enough. With time and the increase of Muslims they were treated worse and worse, like the Martyrs of Córdoba or whole deportations of city dwelling Christians to North Africa, without counting incontable riots etc where the native christians or the jews where targeted. And as said, they were at best second class citizens without rights to build or repair the churchs, exploited with high taxes and a draining of rights as times did go and were less numerous and thus powerful.

>>3338020
>anecdots
In what part of the world were christians better treated by non-christians rulers?
Ine what part of the world muslim were better treated by christians rulers?

Also i always read that the taxes were pretty low, what are your numhers? How do they compare to what muslims payed a d to what christians payed in christians countries?

>>3337930
Sauce?

>>3338066
China, to both. And Lots of Steppe empires didn't care while you paid your taxes whatever your religion was.
They weren't only low if you compare them to the ERE empire, than was choking everything with taxes, the Jyza, also know as pay or we will kill and ensalve your people while forfeiting all you goods, wasn't set on stones and different Qadis advocated for more or less payment, normally tough it was harsh enough than lots of peasants barely eked an existent when you also had to pay the Kharaj, that's why the promise of military service instead of Jyza was so sweet for Mozarabs or Christians living under the Muslim rule.

>>3338108
*They were, *Eastern Roman Empire.

File: 1504630155749.jpg (10KB, 240x217px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 240x217px

>>3338108
How much taxes did andalusians christians paid you said?

>>3338127
Depends of the period and there aren't hard numbers about that in the internet, if you can find Norman Stillman The Jews of Arab Lands: A History and Source Book you will find more about that, the amount wasn't set in stone as I said, the earlier times were more bearable because they could bepass the Jyza serving as militias, but that was barred after the X century for most because Muslims started being a majority, and the Jyza was increased be some qadis, specially in late caliphate and earlier taifas rule. This started the migrations from Jews and Christians to the north (repopulating the Duero for example).

>>3338108

your post is shit because the idea of regular armies is a napoleon invention
rulers relied heavily on mercenaries, the idea of christians serving the muslims in relevant numbers because of tax is ridiculous

File: King Ferdinand of Spain.jpg (182KB, 800x1071px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 800x1071px

>Get rid of your Jews anon

File: The-Abbasid-Caliphate-7501258.jpg (452KB, 970x545px) Image search: [Google]

452KB, 970x545px

The muslim world only had to lose two cities to become intellectually backwards and stagnant for centuries.

How many cities and which cities would the west have to lose to attain that level of intellectual irrelevancy?

>>3336647
It's deliberately overrated.
>le Muslims caused the enlightenment meme
>then those evil white male CHRISTIANS ruined it

>>3335713
The major part of muslims of Al Andalus were iberians too, just so you know.

>>3340110
Nnnnnope. Go back to pol subhuman.

>>3340412

wrong
mass native convert is a myth
muslims were never a majority outside the South, were they migrated
native converts were seen as 2nd class muslims by the arabs and as traitors by the other natives

>>3340493
nice reddit spacing you fucking illiterate

>>3335713
i guess different mentality and the influence of Italian humanists that led to discoveries

File: pir.png (688KB, 711x657px) Image search: [Google]

688KB, 711x657px

>>3340493
He never said Muslims were the majority of the Iberians, he said Iberians were a majority of the Muslims (which is true)
Natives have always been seen as second-class in nations conquered by Muslim entities, because conversions perceived to be done under duress are understood to be either a) an attempt at protecting oneself from physical harm/death, or b) avaricious obsequiousness towards the new rulers

>it's a 'people talk about Al-Andalus as if it's one entity' thread
Muslim Spain switched dynasties a lot throughout history. Umayyads were pretty based, Almohad's were shit. It varies.
Anyway Spain managed to achieve so much because they managed colonisation, which could only happen with a stable Iberia (which it wasn't under the Muslims due to constant fighting with the Christians). Anyone would manage to make a massive empire with the wealth from the colonies Spain had.

>>3345143
t. moor

>>3340148
>How many cities and which cities would the west have to lose to attain that level of intellectual irrelevancy?
Impossible. Europeans are simply superior to Arabs and Negroes.

>>3340451
But...thats what that king did.

He expelled all the jews who didnt convert.

Its not /pol/ its history

Al Andalus was enlightened during The caliphate. almoravids were awful

,

>>3335713
Iberians made Europe the richest continent in a few decades.
Nords are dumb and autistic.

>>3338020
The Martyrs of Cordoba are a shitty example because they many of them literally started shouting obscenities against Mohammed. They aren't like the martyrs of Roman times; they asked for it. I also call bullshit on the jizya claim. We have records of Christians working as shop-owners in Al-Andalus. While some governments were undoubtedly brutal, it's ridiculous to say that this was the norm. Until the invasions from Morocco there would have been a wide range of policies across different taifas.

>>3338088
Not him, but his claim isn't too extreme. The Umayyad rulers of Al-Andalus had their relatives murdered by the Abbasids, who also claimed themselves as Caliphs. The Fatimids were Shi'a, and though I think they gave shelter to Abd ar--Rahman when he was fleeing from the Abbasids, I think they were generally opposed to both of the Sunni dynasties. The taifas obviously wouldn't be considered legit, nor would the Moroccan dynasties.

>>3343044
I would argue Spain also had much of the infrastructure left over from the Arabs and that the conquest of the New World was largely seen as a continuation of the Reconquista.

>>3346142
hes probably falseflagging

>>3349124
>many of them literally started shouting obscenities against Mohammed
True heroes.

>>3340394
>hurr le liberal conspiracy

>>>/pol/

>>3349334
>be imam
>normal day in Al-Andalus
>Muslims and Christians tolerating each other, concealing resentment
>whatever, as long as everyone pays jizya or zakat
>some Christians run into the street shouting curses against Mohammed
>penalty is death
>nobody even vouches for them at their trial
>centuries later they're considered heroes
>I'm considered as evil as Nero

>>3349425
>killing someone because they insulted your favorite historical figure, who by the way, is an scamming pedophile warmongerer
The fact that you believe this is rightful just reveals how barbaric your culture is.

>>3349454
I'm sure christians did nothing to people who insulted Jesus back then. You fucking retard.
Also Aisha was pubescent when her mariage was consumated, but you wouldn't know.
Come back when you've open a book brainlet.

>>3335713
While muslims were more advanced in some areas, Iberians were in others (navigation was one of these areas)

>>3349461
You're literally just using whataboutism and insults in lieu of an actual argument.

If it helps you sleep at night, I also make fun of Christians who believe that random humans are larger than life figures because they say so, you fucking retard. The only difference here being that they do not have large swathes of their population performing such barbaric acts at this very moment. I can go to any city in the US and badmouth Jesus all I want, and the worst I'm going to get is a punch from an butthurt snowflake. If I try that anywhere in the middle east with your pedo- ah, sorry, "ephebophile" prophet/scam arist, I'll get killed and everyone will agree that that's normal. That's what a barbaric culture looks like.

And I guess that it doesn't matter in your book the fact that she was married before she could use reason and that she was raped when she was anywhere from 9 to (being generous) 12 years old, huh? I guess that's morally right for you because you and your whole culture were scammed into thinking so by someone that lived 1300 years ago. Yeah, that makes complete sense to you, doesn't it.

>>3337882
They had to pay that but by paying that they were also exempted from military service, and the tax was pretty low.

>>3338020
Christians under muslim rule fared better than christians under christian rule.

Prove me wrong.

>>3349454
There is no point in comparing an ancient state with a modern one. You have to compare it with the other states in its own era. So compare the life of a normal christian peasant in christian feudalism and then compare it with the life of a christian in Al-Andalus. Christians were better off under muslims, that's a fact.

>>3336649

Fuck you and your taxes marrano pig, get a job instead of munching on others

>>3349425

>being forced to pay taxes and obey a foreign invader's religion is fine as long as everyone just takes it up the ass and obey

reddit logic

>>3349634
You like the taste of cock

Prove me wrong.

>>3349334
>damn... so #brave of them
>We will #resist the #DrUmmayapfs
>Muhammad is #notmyprophet
>THE IMAMS GET TWO SCOOPS TWO SCOOOOPS OF POTTAGE INSTEAD OF ONE AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

>>3349650
I don't know how much of a fact that is, but that's not really the problem. It's certainly possible that it is true.

I was taking issue with the guy defending the actions of religious killers after some slight provocation.

>>3349688
Are you having a seizure?

File: IMG_5140.jpg (132KB, 2048x1053px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 2048x1053px

Post Al-Andalus state, the Kingdom of Aragon. Other half of Iberia can be the Crown of Castille and Leon.


Oh what could have been, it will only live on in my fantasies.


What do you think?

>>3349695
>When libs start repeating retarded slogans against Trump and vandalizing property in vain they're cucks and retarded
>When Christians repeat similarly futile phrases against the muslim authorities they're based

>>3349697

absolutly disgusting
remove mohammed

>>3349700
>that false equivalence
You're a real athlete

>>3349705
I agree that analogies are a brainlet tactic but it was ultimately the organized effort of the reconquista that restored Christianity to Iberia, not public dissension, even if that may have been of some collateral assistance.

I don't see heroism in just blaspheming somebody's faith when the Calips would have remained in Spain the day after the incident just as they were the one before.

>>3349713

>blaspheming
>implying mohammed wasn't a pedophile caravan raider

>>3349634
The Spanish population literally declined under Muslim "rule" by which I mean the near permanent state of ethno-religous war where Christians suffered all manner of injustice.
Christians literally fled Muslim rule.
Why would you expect to fare better under a lower IQ population who preach a more violent gospel?

>>3349666

This
>Urr dur they only kill you if you dont pay your taxes so arabs can fight your fellow christians
>Urr dur discrimination isnt discrimination if it's against white christians

>>3349700
So you are having a seizure.

Take care, anon.

PS. I don't give a damn if you insult Trump, he is actually an idiot and a con artist with an entourage of fanatic followers (not so dissimilar to Mohammed, actually) after all. Vandalizing property is a crime, though.

>>3349713
>I don't see heroism in just blaspheming somebody's faith
In case it didn't show, I was being sarcastic with that remark. I was trying to provoke the idiot that was downplaying the act as if the martyrs somehow deserved it for badmouthing a horrible person. I know their deaths were pointless, and rather than heroic they're tragic because they got killed for stuff that shouldn't have gotten them killed.

>>3349743
I apologize anon, with the influx or normie retards on /pol/ and the subsequent seeping into the rest of the website it's impossible to discern sarcasm in a comment like "true heroes"

>>3349668
But I actually do, so it's your turn now.

>>3349748

/his/ is not your safe space lefty pol

>>3350217
I used to be fond of /pol/ but after HWNDU season 3 it crashed

You should agree if you're not a newfag or baiting

>>3349688
Not everybody frequents /pol/. m8, form some decent arguments.

>>3350237

I was baiting, but i started lurking around Donald Trump being elected and saw the downgrade from then to now, so i can only imagine how it was before

>>3349425
>>Muslims and Christians tolerating each other, concealing resentment
They didn't.Stop being a dumbass.

>>3349666
>>3349731
They don't kill you for not paying taxes they kill you for blasphemy, which at the time would have been a crime at least as bad as treason. As for taxes, in Al-Andalus Christians could either pay an extra tax or convert. If you converted, you still had to pay a portion of your income to charity (called zakat). Either way, you didn't get to keep the money. If you were a medieval peasant anywhere in Europe you could expect to lose about a third of your income. If anything, Al-Andalus was better because you paid either the mosque or the government, as opposed to the Catholic world where you paid both.

>>3350298
The average Christian and Muslim did tolerate each other, in Al-Andalus and mostly in Christian Spain during the majority of the Reconquista. The reason nobody talks about Spain is they controlled a much smaller area which had far fewer Muslims than Al-Andalus had Christians. Granted, leaders on both sides would sometimes start religious prosecutions, and that was bad, but most citizens just had a general distrust of other religions that never expanded into open conflict. Otherwise, you would literally have neighbors killing neighbors in the streets. Instead, we see that it was not uncommon for Christians and Muslims to even own businesses together so that they could be open 7 days a week.

>>3349748
That's fine, I know subtlety on this site is dead and buried already.

>>3337902
>it stinks of Reddit
Sounds like someone from r/the_Donald being reminded of his origins.

Go back to the /pol/-play pen boy.

>>3337882
That's pretty good for medieval standards, anon. I would live as a different/alien person under Muslims at the time than say, medieval Europe. And being lynched for a random reason within my lifetime like a flu epidemic amongst locals.

>>3349666
As opposed to being automatically dead under Christains?
Why don't you open a book?

>>3351792
This is a false equivalence.

The actions that European Christians took with the pagans during their expansions, both within Europe and unto the new discovered lands, wasn't genociding the locals due to not being Christians.

Christian powers did kill infidels within their integral territories at some points in time, but these were migrants or remnants of previous conquerors that had been driven out, not conquered peoples.

>>3335713
Who exactly claims Al-Andalus had the technological capability of discovering the Americas?

>>3352274
Sailing west had not so much to do with technological capability. Nobody really did it because there was no incentive to do so. Nobody knew there are huge lands to be conquered. Everyone thought you will just end up in China/India at some point, with whom trade routes were already established.

Also, it was quite well known how large the earth was approximately. So everybody assumed you will starve to death before you reach China. That's why nobody ever tried it.

>>3352312
Sailing west had everything to do with technological capability. Roman galleys would never have made the journey. Dark-age sailing tech wouldn't cut it, pre-1300 I simply think it couldn't be done. The first explorations of the Spanish/Portuguese were done using a level of sailing technology built off generations of Mediterranean and Baltic commerce and warfare that was barely adequate for the job. Just silly to compare their empire to some dark-age Muslim Caliphate lacking all the essential tools to do it.

>>3352312
>what is basic logic
If you can pack on ship an amount of food good for X days, and the ship can traverse the world ocean (i.e. get to the indies) in ~Y days, the decision whether you take the maritime route rests solely on the relationship between X and Y. The better the ship, the higher the probability that X>Y.

>>3352501
Yes, and Colombus only set sail because he assumed the world is much smaller than it actually is. If the Americas didnt exist, Colombus and his crew would have starved to death long before they would have reached China.

>>3352439
You do realize Vikings went there like around the year 900?

File: 4b3020d6aea503e48fe6098745c548c3.jpg (553KB, 1600x1143px) Image search: [Google]

553KB, 1600x1143px

>>3340148
it would have to be all the capitals and largest cities of the major european states in the high middle-ages. i don't much about the Islamic middle-ages or why their intellectual development was halted by losing corduba and baghdad. im very curious.

>>3352531
Launching from Iceland -> Greenland -> Newfoundland, not quite comparable to Columbus straight voyage across the atlantic

>>3352551
Indeed, taking the Passatwinds is actually way easier than the difficult route through the north.

>>3352531
>Yes, and Colombus only set sail because he assumed the world is much smaller than it actually is.

Not entirely correct, he assumed the landmass is much larger than it actually is. He thought China is around 4.500km to the West, when in reality it is more than 20.000km. Before asking the spanish crown he asked the portugese crown for financing of the trip, who declined, because they knew how far away China actually is. The spanish crown only financed the trip because they really, really hated the Muslims and wanted to have an alternative trade route no matter what, so they basically deluded themselves that Kolombus can make it.

>>3352531
>Yes, and Colombus only set sail because he assumed the world is much smaller than it actually is.
No, he thought Asia was larger than it actually is.

Nobody really knew at the time how long it would take to take all the way to Asia (i.e. Y was unknown) so it was very much a wager. One that he indeed would have lost if the America's were there, but that's hardly important to the topic of discussion. The point is, advances in navigation techniques and technology (plus increased demand for alternative routes) managed to convince enough people that risking three ships with their crews was worth it given the gains and the odds of success.

>>3352561
Not if what you're doing is exploring the ocean for the first time. If that's the case, land being close enough for you to find it before you decide it's a better idea to turn back is the only way you can move forward unless you're willing to risk the lives of your whole crew.

>>3352613
The main reason was Spain being at odds with the Muslims, who controlled all trade routes to East Asia. Spain didn't want to give money to the muslims, who took high tariffs for all goods passing their lands. You don't need a very sophisticated boat to take the trade winds. If Europeans knew that there are huge continents "just" 4.000km away they would have sailed there much, much earlier. Probably in roman times already, since Galleys can theoretically do the trip.

File: Sweden.webm (2MB, 1024x636px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1024x636px

>>3335716
hot

>>3340148
>>3345150
>>3352549

Intellectual and cultural output in the Middle Ages was closely tied to urbanization, which was tied to a combination of city-state competition and large capitals that drew capable individuals to find aristocratic patrons and employers.

For the Islamic World this was the Guadalquivir valley taifas and the rich centers of Cordoba and Seville, the lowlands of the Rif mountains and the capitals of Marrakesh and Fez, Tunisia and Tunis/Kairaoun, the Nile delta and Cairo, Syria and Damascus, Mesopotamia and Baghdad, and Khorasan and the Ferghana and the silk road cities.

For Europe you had Thrace/Western Anatolia and Constantinople, the city-states of Italy, northern France and Paris, the Low Countries and Antwerp/Amsterdam, Southern England and London, and the free-cities of Germany and Frankfurt/Austria.

These regions had enough people and trade flowing through them to have long traditions of education in order to train merchant and aristocrat sons, and competition with rival towns near by allowed them to develop a knowledge economy supporting themselves by their academic ability, and the most accomplished could be drawn to the political capitals where some rich noble would pay them to create some of the greatest works of man.

What happened to the Islamic world is that all their major centers save the Nile, Tunisia, and Morocco were devastated and overrun by invasions, and of those remaining three all of them were constantly invaded or fell to political chaos as nomadic tribes from the desert moved in and disrupted urbanization. And traditions that might normally be able to transfer along with capital to a nearby center of wealth and political power were unable to because of the vast distances between these nodes and the rapid collapse of all of them in a short period of time.

>>3352645
Are you just choosing to completely disregard everything I'm writing?

I did mention that the demand for alternative trade routes played a role, and it's stupidly obvious that they would have sailed ages ago had they known the parts of the map that they didn't know about.

I don't even know what your point is supposed to be.

>>3352716
The point was it was that it was technologically possible to sail west, but there was no incentive to do so.

>>3352561
Having just looked it up, you can reach Greenland from Norway basically without leaving sight of land for more than a few days if you hopped the British Isles.

In a straight shot it'd be 1600km. Columbus planned for something like 4440 km, and google maps gives me ~5,500km from Canary to Domincan. 4.5 times what the Vikings would have considered a dangerous journey.

Even accounting for Columbus knowing the basics of the trade winds, it seems to me such a journey for a Viking longboat would have been bordering on insane and worth a damn Epic written about it.

>>3352735
whoops, 3.5 times*.

>>3352735
Your problem is you have no clue about sailing.

How exactly do you think natives settled in Hawaii?

>>3352732
You're just repeating that. I already addressed that exact line:

>The point is, advances in navigation techniques and technology (plus increased demand for alternative routes) managed to convince enough people that risking three ships with their crews was worth it given the gains and the odds of success.

You seem to be under the assumption that nobody had ever tried to sail west because they were complacent with the status quo, while it's painfully obvious that tries were made and it was shown that the trip to the next available piece of land was way too risky. When you're exploring the ocean, you can only sail up to halfway your maximum reach at most, lest you become unable to return.

In Columbus's case, it was deemed that the risk was manageable due to the probabilities of success and the benefits to be gained with said success.

>>3352784
No, it was literally never done, because ships were extremely expensive and you didnt just go around exploring with them. Spaniards only did this because they really wanted a non-muslim controlled trade route so they shot against all odds. Them finding the Americas and making that exploration actually worthwhile (and thus ushering in the age of exploration) is probably the single most unlikely thing that happened in human history.

>>3352772
It's true, I'm no sailor

I imagine they took boats and sailed to it. I also imagine it was extremely dangerous and not viable as a commercial or colonial enterprise, since many of their sailors (and boats) would die attempting it. What is possible for a few brave souls isn't necessarily possible to reproduce reliably. Indeed, why did knowledge of the fabled new world not spread throughout Europe when the Vikings visited it? I think it's quite likely because so few did so and returned to tell of it, and it surely wasn't viable to repeat for profits considering the risks. They ran into a technological problem they wouldn't have had if their ships were comparable to Columbus' at the time they were adventuring the seas.

>>3352801
>it was literally never done
Yes, anon, nobody in thousands of years ever decided to see if there was land beyond. Never mind the fact that some people did in the 10th century, albeit far more to the North. Never mind the fact that there were some pillars put in place in Gibraltar and Ceuta with the motto "Ne Plus Ultra" after reaching the conclusion that there was no land beyond the ocean.

Exploration was invented in the 15th century.

>>3352801
>probably the single most unlikely thing that happened in human history.
garbage. you can pretty much boil down any piece of history to this statement.

>>3352902
To add to this, there's also at least one legend in Africa from Mali about a king sailing off into the sunset to discover land. Invented in the 15th century indeed.

>>3352801
>ships were extremely expensive and you didnt just go around exploring with them

But you did go around shipping mundane goods and fishing out in the Atlantic with them.

Warships were expensive, because those were usually paid for and supported by the state alone. But everyone else got by building ships by making it a corporate endeavor with investors and insurance policies to share the costs of both construction and possible losses.

>>3352772
Polynesians are an anomaly in human history, not the norm.

>>3352974
Also southamericans reached polynesia too.

>>3353008
I think it is more probable that Polynesians reached South America, to be perfectly honest.

>>3352974
Only in that sense that they actually had an incentive to dangerous exploration because their tiny lands couldnt really support their population. Chinese for example never explored anything despite them being able to build the largest ships by far. But they also had zero incentive to use them for exploration. As I said, you don't need any fancy technology to explore, but you definetely need a good reason why you are risking a ship which would cost billions of todays dollar to build.

>>3354556
Are you really this obtuse?

Europeans had a rough estimate of how long it would take to get to Asia, and the reason the Spanish Kings decided to take the gamble was that faster ships made the trip marginally less impossible (and shifting world politics made it a lot more worth it if successful). They still would have lost the gamble were it not for the existence of a previously unknown continent, but the factor still played a role.

File: 1470506025598.png (123KB, 785x757px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 785x757px

>>3354556
>Chinese for example never explored anything

>>3349597
>at this very moment
We are on /his/ you imbecile, it doesn't matter what is happening now if you want to critic middle age andalus.
And most muslim countries today would not do anything if you chimped out about islam, lr at worst give you just give you a fine or put you a few month in prison.
>b-but muh freedom of speech :(
I kinda agree with that but it's not like the west has a vision of freedom of speech as autistic as the US, in France, UK or Germany you can get fined if you says racist things, sexist things, homophobic things, or if you say the shoah didn't happen.


>muh age of consent
>it's rape to have sex with anyone under 18
The legal age of mariage was 12 in the roman empire, and before they made it a law it was just after puberty no matter what age just like in arabia.
You have to be a fucking autist to think you can applie us law to people back in the day and expect them to wait to be 18 to marry because muh consent when a lot of people didn't even live long enough.
And today in fucking France a 12 year old can consent to sex, stop applying your puritan concepts to the rest of the world.

>>3357029
You don't get it, do you?

The whole point is that using "they were insulting muhammad (piss be upon him) so what can you do?" as if it somehow excuses their executions shows the barbaric way of thinking of the people using that defense.

>a few months in prison for insulting a terrible historical figure
Gee, how progressive.

>France, UK or Germany you can get fined if you says racist things, sexist things, homophobic things, or if you say the shoah didn't happen.
This is not entirely accurate, but instead of nitpicking what holds true for what country, I'll give you the point and proceed: it is terrible that free speech isn't respected, but the difference here is that by saying racist/etc. things you are actively attacking a group of people. If you say insults about Muhammad or Jesus, and Muslims or Christians take them as personal insults, that's on them.

>age of consent
The whole point is that the girl was married to her husband way before she could ever begin to understand the ramifications, and that the marriage was consummated when she was 9 (according to most accounts). Even if it was when she was 12, she couldn't choose her partner because it had been decided when she was half that age. And even if it was common practice at the time, Muslims are still portraying Muhammad (piss be upon him) in this day and age as an example to be followed.

>>3349697
Why the fuck would the Crown of Aragon, who was mainly based on Barcelona and Valencia ie the Mediterranean, care so much about all that shitty inland?

>>3351573
>Al-Andalus was better because you paid either the mosque or the government, as opposed to the Catholic world where you paid both.

Religion and state are the same in islam so you point is void of any merit.

>>3352645
The Portuguese hated muslims just as much as the Castilians and the Aragonese. They didn't fund Columbus, they funded different navigators who went through Africa to India.

>>3336606
Visigoths are goths, retard. Italy was ostroGOTHS, Spain visiGOTHS.

File: 1504751965926.jpg (21KB, 576x432px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 576x432px

>>3357153
>le epic PISS pun!!! xD
Are you old enough to post here?

>>3357153
Women can divorce in islam, Aisha could have if she wanted to before the consommation. It's good that you abandonned the autistic age of consent route but then appart from the social pressure route, which is only slightly less autistic, what do you got?
I mean i get that it's good to have restrictions on sex and marriage for young people (and by the way almost every muslim country forbid people under 18 to marry and have sex, and are way harsher on the punishment of pedophilia than western countries), even if they went though puberty because they tend to be too immature to make such an important decision, but that does not mean every of them, ever, in the history of humanity was never mature enough.
Beside that hadiths are unreliable and for all we know Aisha could have been way older.

>>3357589
I won't stop using it just because it triggers you.

>>3357686
Are you really saying that someone who was groomed from age six to be the bride of a religious and military leader ever had the real option of divorcing said leader before age 9-12?

And many Muslim countries don't have a real "age of consent", stating only that sex must happen only under marriage, and setting the marriageable age between puberty and 18. Except for Saudi Arabia, where it is apparently legal to marry and have sex with a newborn.

>>3356949
Yes most did, but Columbus managed to convince the spanish that his own estimation that Asia is just 4000 km away is actually true, which funny enough is quite exactly the distance the Americas are away. Thats also why he was so convinced they were actually indeed in Asia.

Anyway, the technological aspect of having slightly better ships played a very, very marginal role.

>>3357730
>social pressure route
So except if you buy into the free will spook every sexual relation ever is a rape because every of our choices is made because of our genetic and what we have lived up to this point.
If a woman have the opportunity to say no, that no violence is used and that no threat is made, then the consent is as good as it can be.

File: 1504613509738.gif (140KB, 379x440px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 379x440px

>>3357730
>I AM TRIGGERING SJW XD
are you a redditor by any chance?

>>3349666
>>3349731
The irony is the Martyrs weren't pure, native Christians but mixed children of mixed Muslim-Christian households who had Muslim siblings, in-laws, children, and parents.

>>3357765
No, but I'm guessing you would be able to tell given that your behavior is certainly not welcome here.

>>3357758
It doesn't take a genius to realize why grooming someone from childhood to be your sexual partner would leave that person with little to no options.

Violence doesn't have to be involved when authority can suffice.

>>3357739
Columbus' didn't manage to convince them that he was right, only that it was worth the risk to try. Faster ship technology definitely played a role in convincing the Spanish monarchs that something could be gained from risking an expedition.

>>3357730
The marriagable age in most Muslim countries is above 18.

>>3357777
Nice lucky quads
So you think that consensual sex is rape when the man is in a position of authority?
This situation can at worst describe an ethical misconduct when some professions are involved (like doctors or teachers), but only a radical feminist would call that a rape.

>>3357860
You're not taking into consideration how children's minds operate. An adult can shape the mind of the child in any way. That's how religions persist to begin with.

Grooming someone to be your sexual partner from childhood would leave that person in a very difficult position even if they understood the situation enough to want out of it.

>>3358006
>grooming someone to be your sexual partner from childhood
Muhammed didn't "groomed" her for anything, she lived with her familly before the consommation of the marriage.

>>3358177
The fact that they were married since she was 6 means that she was getting prepared to be his wife ever since that time regardless of where she lived.

>>3335716
They were mostly Berbers.

>>3358231
She know she was going to marry him at some point, that much you can say.
Does that mean that her mind was controlled? No.

>>3358281
*knew

>>3357307
I'm aware that the Church and state weren't separate. The point is that in much of the Christian world taxes could never fall below 20 percent because of the tithe, whereas in the Muslim world they could vary more. Essentially, you only paid once, not twice, because Church and state weren't separate.

>>3358281
"mind control" can sometimes include "indoctrination".

File: 1504645448772.png (94KB, 192x187px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 192x187px

>>3360372
Wait are you one of those fedora tipping atheists who unironically think that it's wrong for parents to pass their religion to their children?

>>3360635
That's not what I was getting at, since we were specifically talking about how Aisha was groomed from an early age to become Muhammad's wife.

But yes, I do believe it is immoral to indoctrinate a child with fear of eternal torture if he doesn't follow the tenets of the religion you happen to follow.

And I very much doubt you have a good argument in response to that. Acting condescending is certainly not one.

>>3360691
Actually she was groomed to be someone else's wife. Muhammad was a second choice after her father converted and became estranged from her original betrothed.

>>3360706
Which means that the whole society had terrible moral standards. And that's fine, I understand we shouldn't use our modern standards on civilizations from 13 centuries ago, but that makes it all the weirder that Muhammad is somehow still touted as an exemplary fellow, or that speaking ill of him is so heavily punished by so many societies.

>>3360737
Most likely it means the ages given for Aisha are purposely skewed young for ideological reasons.

>>3360743
If you go that route you might as well assume they could have been scaled up, or that Aisha didn't exist, or that Muhammad married 72 children. You can't just make assumptions without evidence.

File: 1504603538763.jpg (50KB, 613x771px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 613x771px

>>3360691
>muh morality
Morality is a spook and if there was such thing as an objective morality it would implie for people to do what they can to make sure their children have the right religion, whatever they think it is.

>>3360691
>groomed
You keeps doing it. If one educate his son to be a lawer, and arrange a job for him in a good company while he is still young, that does not make it slavery if the son ends up joining the company.

>>3360794
From what i have read there are some reasons to think Aisha was 16 or 18 when making calculations based on other hadiths.
Hadiths are unreliable anyways, so we might as well say there is no way to know. And as the accusator the burden of proof is on you.

>>3360691
>>3360806
And if he merely says to his son that latter he will work for such company just like dad, the word "groomed" is vastly excessive.

>>3360800
"morality is a spook" is really the only thing you can fall back on to defend such an abhorrent practice, and you could justify any action (like, say, killing your children) with that because it is a shitty defense.

Morality is subjective, yes, but you have to still put up a decent argument if you want your morality to be taken seriously. "My religion is true" is hardly compelling, while "needless psychological trauma in order to instate unproved beliefs to children" should be understandable enough to anyone who is not a lunatic.

>>3360806
If we lived in a society that heavily stigmatize changing a career and the child was put on the career at age 12 (while being able to be put there at any point in next 20 years with little to no consequences), then you might have a decent analogy.

Which is a long-winded way to say that your analogy sucks.

>>3360813
I'm just going with the consensus, supported my many Muslims. If your argument is that your religious texts are unreliable, then be my guest. It's very nice to be able to discards random hadiths as unreliable when they expose a truth that's hard to defend, yet keep acting like the rest of the religion is in any way less nonsensical.

>>3360820
Again, terrible analogy.

>>3336649
>Berbers who had only converted to Islam a generation ago and didn't take it too seriously take spain

>>3360794
I'm going by the evidence, not only on the existence of a previous betrothal but also the methodology of how the Hadith came to be. There's a long gap between taking Hadith at face value and making anything up out of thin air.

The real kicker is learning how the Hadith were never meant to be historical anecdotes and only acquired this reputation over time.

>>3335713
they weren't it's a meme

>>3336606
goths were in your local mall
North Italy wast Ostrogoths and Langobards

File: 1504372545639.png (105KB, 1128x1002px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 1128x1002px

>>3360843
>beliving in afterlife is a psychological trauma
>you can not teach you children things if you don't have a definitive proof of it
>implying that religious parents care about their morality to be taken seriously by some fedora on the internet

>>3360691
Well, fucking a 13 year old was not seen as any kind of unnormal thing to do. If she can get wet, she can take a dick. That doing that is wrong is pure modernity. In the US you are considered a pedophile if you fuck a hot, curvy 16 year old.

>>3360843
>muh society
You don't have a basis for divorce being heavely stigmatize in antic arabian society, especially when the marriage is not consumed yet.
Beside as i said later social norms are not a threat nor a violence, if it can void the consent then consent does not exist because social norms are always there.
And beside that you have not the start of a proof that Aisha cared about those hypothetical social norms, or that she would have asked for dihorce without those.