Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

Red Chief wrote:As for Christianity I guess it was the religion, which was invented by Greeks, written in Greek (the New Testament) and developped in Byzantium by Greeks using the neoplatonics tools. So it has less in common with Old Testament than Islam, which actually was a return to and an international extension of Judaism.

I agree with this.
More and more research is revealing the true nature of religion. It is now considered that Judaism and Christianity emerged at the same time, and then split. Islam is nothing but a rehash of Judaism and Christianity, with a few addendums.

Nucleus We have to draw heavily on what History tells us. The majority view amongst Historians is that Islam became a closed book after Imam Ghazali was done with it. He called it "a way of Life, complete in all respects", or something to that effect, and so no reformation was required. BTW, Thomas of Aquinas was following Aristotilean Philosophy, according to my knowledge.

It would be difficult for people to give up the crutch of religion after centuries of "Faith", even though the facts are staring them right in the face

I am reminded of a couplet from a great poet and thinker of where I come from: (A lot is lost in translation!)
"Now all that is left is me and my mourning for my favourite city (of desire?)
Little did I know that it was all in the mirror that I broke myself"

Frequentflier wrote: Islam is nothing but a rehash of Judaism and Christianity, with a few addendums.

Not how I'd put it - but a valid perspective to take.

A Ferrari is just a rehash of a Model T Ford after all.

Cheers,
Shafique

Interesting you respond to something claiming is my view that I never made.

Let me repeat what I actually wrote:

I wrote: What a critical omission you've just left out. Your supposed fact (not really) ignores that Greek works did not reach the West for centuries precisely because of Muslim invasion.

shafique wrote:This directly addresses your revisionist view that the Greek works weren't transmitted to the West via Arabic translations from Islamic Spain.

Nice one liar and I suppose that is why you don't directly quote me when making such an allegation. What I actually wrote is clear - Greek studies were prevented from reaching the West for centuries due to Islam's conquests.

How dumb can you possibly be not to understand this point after I have to repeatedly make it?

shafique wrote:Greek works preserved was limited - hence the 'what little Greek thought had been preserved'.

You're beyond stupid, I've never argued otherwise. You should have tried reading the post I quoted from the first page:

himself wrote:The West did not "recover" the learning of the Greeks from anywhere. For the most part, they never had it. The Romans had not bothered to translate it, and knowledge of Greek in the West decayed when the muslims conquered the Med and cut off Greek from Latin Europe.

Try learning to read before you try responding to posts you don't comprehend.

shafique wrote: That they only sacked the city after the siege and the failure of Alexios to raise enough booty for the crusaders

Thanks for the quick read through Wikipedia. Unfortunately you already made a fool of yourself by claiming previously:

shafique wrote:And the reason given in history books for the Crusader's attack on Constantinople in the 4th crusade is not 'starvation and double crossing'

Actually it was. That you know so little of the topic and rush to Wikipedia to fill in the huge gaps of knowledge trying to lecture me on a topic you're not familiar with is painfully obvious.

shafique wrote: RC was right all along.

Really? About what? Please explain your view in greater detail than "RC was right all along".

Were the crusaders acting in the interests of the Italian city states as RC previously claimed and as I said actually happened in the 1st crusade? Pray tell; though I doubt you have the intellectual capacity to actually address what I request or even stay on topic but seeing you sputter on a topic you know-jack-all on is amusing in its own way.

This is what "RC" actually wrote:

who [crusaders] act[ed] in interests of a bunch of merachants from Genoa and Venice

So the crusaders of the fourth crusade were acting in the interests of the merchant states? Really? You'll elaborate on RC's behalf? That's quite admirable you'll make yourself out to be an already greater fool but it was RC, not you, who actually made the previous claim.

shafique wrote:A Ferrari is just a rehash of a Model T Ford after all.

Exactly Shafique.

The way I see it though is that we have done it back to front, the Greeks were the Ferrari, and we have landed ourselves in the Model T Ford. What next?
This is what happens if you tinker with the works of a Master!
No offence Shafique, just my views which may be totally off the mark

Frequentflier wrote:The way I see it though is that we have done it back to front, the Greeks were the Ferrari, and we have landed ourselves in the Model T Ford.

Well, looking at some of the Mullahs of today and the Christian extremists eh likes to follow - coupled with some extremely thick, rosy spectacles to look back at Greek teachings - I could see how you came to this conclusion.

You won't be suprised to hear that I have a slightly different view.. but will gladly accept that they are both vehicles that get you from A to B. So at least on that we can agree.

eh/Ray You're wrong, RC was always referring to the 4th crusade and the crusaders weren't doubled crossed - they made an agreement with Alexios IV, he was killed and his successor didn't honour an agreement he hadn't agreed to. Fail.

The second fail is that I've shown that the Greek works reached Europe via Islamic Spain and Arabic translations - even giving you two quotes, including Hannam. I even highlighted in bold for you.

Name calling won't change the facts.

Cheers,
Shafique

Frequentflier wrote:Nucleus We have to draw heavily on what History tells us. The majority view amongst Historians is that Islam became a closed book after Imam Ghazali was done with it.

Correlation does not imply causation. It is debatable, and it is very complicated history, lot of things were going on at that time, major factor in my opinion was wars and conflicts, or it just happens from civilization to civilization and it was its time... now that is another philosophical argument.

Ghazali was skeptic and empiricist, how could that have affected science, since science is based on these?

I recommend reading the following article, it is good: http://muslimheritage.com/topics/defaul ... cleID=1330

[T]hose who hold Al-Ghazali responsible for the age of decline will have to explain the production of tens of scientists, almost in every discipline, who continued to produce scientific texts that were in many ways superior to the texts that were produced before the time of Al-Ghazali. In the case of astronomy, one cannot even compare the sophistication of the post-Ghazali texts with the pre-Ghazali ones, for the former were in fact far superior both in theoretical mathematical sophistication, as was demonstrated by Khafri, as well as in blending observational astronomy with theoretical astronomy, as was exhibited by Ibn al-Shatir.

Saliba's assessment makes more sense than mine, which is in the same article linked above.

Frequentflier wrote:BTW, Thomas of Aquinas was following Aristotilean Philosophy, according to my knowledge.

He was heavily influenced by Al Ghazali, but as far as Aristotilean philosophy is concerned it is grey area. He used Aristotelian philosophy, and like Aristotle his skepticism was not as extreme as Ghazali's. The most can be argued, Ghazali contributed the decline of philosophy as he proved philosophy is not reliable, and without observation it is baseless. But that is not an argument against modern science.

However, his opposition to Aristotelian science also raises the following question: Would Al-¬Ghazali be opposed to the modern conception of science? After all modem science emerged with Bacon, Descartes, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton in vehement opposition to Aristotelian science. Of course, Al-Ghazali did not know modern science — it developed after his lifetime in another cultural arena. But in order to decide whether Al-Ghazali caused the demise of science per se, it is crucial to determine whether the reasons Al-Ghazali gave for opposing Aristotelian science are also applicable to modern science. If such were not the case, then al-Ghazali cannot be charged with subverting science per se, but only the Aristotelian conception of science.

RC was always referring to the 4th crusade

Great, then he'll explain what he means when he says the crusaders were working in the interests of the Venetians and Genoans - which was a feature of the first, not fourth, crusade.

and the crusaders weren't doubled crossed

Sorry, but this has nothing to do with RC's claim regarding Venice and Genoa. Perhaps you're confused (again). Or rather, as usual.

I also like how you previously claimed the crusaders did not sack Constantinople after they found themselves stranded outside her walls and starving.

The second fail is that I've shown that the Greek works reached Europe via Islamic Spain and Arabic translations - even giving you two quotes, including Hannam. I even highlighted in bold for you

It speaks volumes that you can never quote my posts when you respond to something you imagined I wrote.

Of course, my argument was that the Islamic invasions prevented Greek studies from reaching the West by several centuries.

RC rightly referred to the 4th Crusade and sacking of Constantinople, and referred to this as the 'Great Loot'. He is right - the 'great loot' did take place in the 4th crusade and was indeed by a mixture of European countrymen (he puts it rather more eloquently). He was responding to your statement that many Greek works were only translated after the 'fall of Constantinople'. (He asked whether you were referring to the 4th crusade - and looking back, it's not clear that you were. Were you instead talking of when the Ottomans took control?? And if you were talking of the 4th crusade, then why did you ask whether the crusaders would loot manuscripts? )

You stated (twice at least) that the sacking of Constantinople by the Crusaders (in 1204) was a result of being 'double crossed'. They weren't. The man they made an agreement with had been killed and his successor didn't want to honour a previous agreement - this is not being double crossed.

But your errors are beside the point - RC's point was calling you out on your claim texts were translated from Greek to Latin, when the History books all agree with the quotes I've given about the bulk of the transmission being via Islamic Spain.

I recommend you stick to learning more about the Bible than trying to give us revisionist views of history. After all, you were punked quite badly on the thread below where you claimed I hadn't read Dunn's book, or that he hadn't referred to the earliest Christians considering Jesus to be the Messiah. You were certain you were right - and yet it all proved to be a bluff on your part.

Now, I suggest you let Nucleus and FF continue their interesting discussion.

Cheers,
Shafique

Thanks, it appears your post consists of points I've never made nor disputed.

Your biggest argument is one RC never made nor I have with him - that the crusaders were double-crossed by the Byzantine state.

That's like saying the new leader of a country refusing to recognize agreements his country previously made he personally didn't is not betraying those agreements. Alexios IV was emperor of the Byzantium state and he as emperor did not fulfill his obligation nor the emperor after. Whining that this matters at all to the stranded and starving crusaders is quite hilarious - almost as hilarious as (falsely) claiming that my comment that the sacking of Constantinople was caused by these events are wrong.

But hey, with what little of an argument you actually have, how you cannot answer how the crusaders were supposedly working in the interests of the Italian merchant states (as you claim RC is "right" about) and what you have managed to embarrass yourself by what you've already said, I can understand the need for you to hang your hat on an empty point.

RC's point was calling you out on your claim texts were translated from Greek to Latin

And as I've shown, the Greek texts were translated from Greek to Latin. You seem to be disputing historical fact.

when the History books all agree with the quotes I've given about the bulk of the transmission being via Islamic Spain.

That's an argument I've never made or disputed (Good grief - how dumb can you get at this point?).

But perhaps you should stick with the arguments I actually have made:

• Arabic->Latin texts (translated by Christians, not Muslims) were error prone

• The Muslim invasions cut off Greek from Latin Europe depriving the Latins of Greek studies they otherwise would have acquired centuries earlier

The above are the points I have ACTUALLY made. Try addressing them instead of your usual straw-man tactics.

And if you were talking of the 4th crusade, then why did you ask whether the crusaders would loot manuscripts?

Because RC actually said the wealth of Greek studies came directly from the Fourth Crusade and sacking of Constantinople. If you actually quoted what people wrote you wouldn't misrepresent what posters write so often.

I suggest you try this from now on since you have a solid history of misrepresenting what others say in a discussion.

rayznack wrote:Your biggest argument is one RC never made nor I have with him - that the crusaders were double-crossed by the Byzantine state.

This is hardly the biggest point I was making - but it was a point of fact.

But let's see the point of it being a point you never made:

rayznack wrote: think you're confusing the Fourth Crusade with the First, unless you have evidence the Crusaders' attack on the city due to starvation and Byzantine double crossing

Hmm. looks to me like you did bring it up and you were wrong. Alexios V was under no obligation to honour the deals of the guy he killed, and ditto Alexios IV in relation to the emperor he deposed. And add to the fact that Alex made the deal with the Crusaders BEFORE he was emperor (effectively he paid mercenaries to fight for him and promised them payment in form of booty after he was installed as emperor). Simple logic - so you can stop digging now.

You still need to clarify RC's first point (which about your statement that texts were translated after the fall of Constantinople) - were/are you referring to the 4th Crusade as RC assumes? Or are you referring to the Ottoman take over (which is more commonly referred to as the fall of Constantinople?)

As for your translations, I thought the quotes on the page you linked to summed it up quite well:

seeing the abundance of books in Arabic on every subject, and regretting the poverty of the Latins in these things, he learned the Arabic language, in order to translate. To the end of his life, he continued to transmit to the Latin world, as if to his own beloved heir, whatever books he thought finest, in many subjects, as accurately and as plainly as he could."

Latin scholars in the 12th century recognised that not all cultures are equal. They were painfully aware that with respect to science and natural philosophy, their civilisation was manifestly inferior to that of Islam. They faced an obvious choice: learn from their superiors or remain inferior forever. They chose to learn and launched a massive effort to translate as many Arabic texts into Latin as was feasible. Had they asumed that all cultures were equal, or that theirs was superior, they would have had no reason to seek out arab learning and the glorious scientific legacy that followed would not have occured.

Cheers,

Shafique

This is hardly the biggest point I was making - but it was a point of fact.

But let's see the point of it being a point you never made:

Snowball, I said it was not a point of dispute I had with Red Chief. Take ESL courses if you're confused.

I only had *one* point of dispute with Red Chief - the rest have been disagreements with you.

Hmm. looks to me like you did bring it up and you were wrong

RC claimed the Crusaders were working in the interests of the Venetians and Genoans. I responded that he must have been thinking of the First crusade and that's where you chimed into this discussion.

So, the only issue I've so-far had with RC is with his statement regarding the crusaders working in the interests of the Venetians and Genoans. Stick with what is actually being written.

Alexios V was under no obligation to honour the deals of the guy he killed, and ditto Alexios IV in relation to the emperor he deposed

The Byzantine state was under obligation to honor the deal the previous emperor made; just as future presidents are expected to honor the deals made by a previous administration.

shafique wrote: Simple logic - so you can stop digging now.

That's pretty funny. Remind me, what were the causes of the apostasy wars following Muhammad's death. Bright you are not.

Simple logic, right?

shafique wrote:As for your translations, I thought the quotes on the page you linked to summed it up quite well:

Sorry, let me know when you plan on addressing something I've actually written.

I wrote:

• Arabic->Latin texts (translated by Christians, not Muslims) were error prone

• The Muslim invasions cut off Greek from Latin Europe depriving the Latins of Greek studies they otherwise would have acquired centuries earlier

Fail. Alex V was under no obligation to honour a deal the previous guy (whom he had killed) made with mercenaries before he became emperor.

ergo, no Double Cross.

So, coming back to your point of the 'fall of Constantinople' and Greek texts being translated after this point (which is what RC responded to) - are you referring to the 1204 4th Crusade or not? (You're the one that mentioned it first, and RC quoted you when he brought up the 4th Crusade).

And in any case, your central case is just your usual revisionist anti-Muslim spin that emanates from an internet posting about how Muslim conquests in the Med caused the loss of interest in Ancient Greek and the philosophies etc, and not what history books actually tell us about the dark ages. Hmm.

If it wasn't for those pesky Mooslims the West would have translated and valued Aristotle centuries before.. and don't believe those who say the Church etc were against pagan Greek works etc..

Again, I suggest you stick to the unanswered questions about the Bible. Your spin is weak.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:And in any case, your central case is just your usual revisionist anti-Muslim spin that emanates from an internet posting about how Muslim conquests in the Med caused the loss of interest in Ancient Greek and the philosophies etc, and not what history books actually tell us about the dark ages. Hmm.

vs

himself wrote:The West did not "recover" the learning of the Greeks from anywhere. For the most part, they never had it. The Romans had not bothered to translate it, and knowledge of Greek in the West decayed when the muslims conquered the Med and cut off Greek from Latin Europe.

and

himself wrote:However, an effort was begun in Ostrogothic Italy by Boethius, and his translations of Aristotle, which became known as the Old Logic, formed the basis of learning in the cathedral schools. Similarly, Jaques of Venice brought Aristotle to Mt. St.-Michel directly from Byzantium; and William of Moerbeke from Byzantine Sicily. Sylvain Gougenheim has written a book, the precis of which is that the Cordoban connection, while important, was not all-important, as the same books were available in Byzantium in the original Greek and without the translation errors accumulated on the journey from Greek to Syriac to Arabic.

and

himself wrote:An irony: the works of the faylasuf enjoyed greater reputation and circulation in the Latin West than in the House of Submission, where they were always viewed with grave suspicion. Edward Grant writes that all the faylasuf fell at one time or another under official censure. (Al-Kindi, for example, was publicly caned and his library confiscated.) Toby Huff notes the important difference between a study of nature that is institutionally embedded in a society and one that is pursued by solitary individuals.

and

himself wrote:Further, while madrassas had libraries with a wide range of books, only Islamic studies were officially taught. Books in "Greek Studies" [as it was called] were in the library, and no one objected too much if someone wanted to read or teach such things privately; but there was no institutionalization of the study of natural philosophy and it was often suppressed. Only one madrassa, Marâgha, was chartered to teach something we would call science; viz., astronomy. It lasted about 75 years.

Anyway, it's funny you want to discuss whether the crusaders were double crossed - seems kind of funny to claim they were not as they spent their remaining finances journeying way off course to complete an obligation to be stiffed in the end. But hey, it's interesting when I point this out along with the fact they were stranded and starving and then sacked Constantinople you claim I was wrong saying the crusaders were not stranded and starving. Hmm. Sounds like you should do more research (and by that read actual books written by historians instead of crawling through Wikipedia).

But anyway, since you're unable to tell me the reason why many tribes "defected" after Muhammad's death under Caliph Bakr's rule, it seems you don't have the ability to understand nuance. By that logic, these tribes were under no obligation to honor a deal they made under Muhammad after he was no longer around (that was their belief). This, of course, all ignores the deal in the Fourth Crusade was now between the State (Byzantium) and the crusaders *once* Alexios IV became official emperor. But hey, deciphering your paradoxical views is like trying to understand the rantings of mad man who claims the 9/11 attacks were not part of a holy war when we have the writings from the attackers and OBL framing the conflict in exactly those terms - "As Allah wills it".

'himself' is who exactly? A blogger friend of yours who shares your anti-Muslim view of history?

As for the Crusaders and your view that they were double crossed - the facts speak for themselves. Alex IV hires them to depose Alex III, gets himself killed and then the Crusaders decide to invade and massacre their Christian brothers and sisters, and loot the city. Hmm. (Flailing around with desperate references to Islamic history isn't helping your cause at all - once again, facts are your downfall).

As for the spin of your blogger friend about the 'pesky Muslims' - let me introduce a big fly in your conspiracy theory ointment:

Thus, for a long time in Europe after the execution of Boethius (one of the last writers with a good understanding of both Latin and Greek philosophy) in 524/525 CE/AD, there was a disregard for Greek ideas.

Note that Boethius was executed before Muhammad, pbuh, was born - and the other isolated instances of Greek works being translated in the Dark Ages are exceptions that prove the rule (that there was a general disregard for Greek ideas in the West - largely down to the Church's apathy with 'pagan' Greek ideas )

But as noted before, you did try and argue that the Crusades weren't holy wars, when I said that they clearly were.

Cheers,
Shafique

Now what did I tell you about relying on Wikipedia to fill those historical gaps of knowledge of yours?

As for the Crusaders and your view that they were double crossed - the facts speak for themselves. Alex IV hires them to depose Alex III, gets himself killed and then the Crusaders decide to invade and massacre their Christian brothers and sisters, and loot the city. Hmm. (Flailing around with desperate references to Islamic history isn't helping your cause at all - once again, facts are your downfall).

Oh dear, where to start...

1. As for the Crusaders and your view that they were double crossed - the facts speak for themselves.

Are you denying the fact the crusaders were not double crossed? I see you cannot address Abu Bakr's participation in the apostasy wars which directly apply to this point of dispute. Interesting.

2. Alex IV hires them to depose Alex III, gets himself killed

Once he became emperor the agreement was between the State and the crusaders. It was now the state and not any individual to fulfill this agreement.

3. then the Crusaders decide to invade and massacre

The decision was between invading and living and starvation. Some "decision".

4. their Christian brothers and sisters

The same brothers and sisters who stiffed these crusaders. left them to starve and massacred thousands - 10's of thousands - of Latin Christians.

This is funny. But really, try reading historians instead of trawling Wikipedia. You might actually get an accurate and complete view of history, then.

Yes, I am being serious.

After Alexis V kills Alexis IV and takes the throne, there is no reason why he should honour the deal Alexis IV made with mercenaries before he became emperor. No double cross. Just spin on your part. The deal with the mercenaries was before he was emperor - and against the existing emperor (Alex III).

Why are you making excuses for the Crusaders?

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:RC rightly referred to the 4th Crusade and sacking of Constantinople, and referred to this as the 'Great Loot'. He is right - the 'great loot' did take place in the 4th crusade and was indeed by a mixture of European countrymen (he puts it rather more eloquently). He was responding to your statement that many Greek works were only translated after the 'fall of Constantinople'. (He asked whether you were referring to the 4th crusade - and looking back, it's not clear that you were. Were you instead talking of when the Ottomans took control?? And if you were talking of the 4th crusade, then why did you ask whether the crusaders would loot manuscripts? )

Thank you Sir for the excelent translation from my Runglish to the Queen's English. I could not say better. Actually I made only one mistake about Genoa. The rest looks absolutely right. Vinice took the most benefits (money, loot, destroying Zara) from this ing action. Even the Pope rejected the landing knights in Constantinopolis instead of Holy Land, which was made by Venetians fleet.

On the other hand from Horizon's reply I recognized that American and Soviet people were very similar in terms of language and knowlewdge. Russians mostly took historical information from "The Brief History of the CPSU" by Joseph Stalin. I guess there is a similar book in the Bible Belt, where such a propagandist of the western values as EH takes true knowledge from. By the way, the strong language also reminds me Mr. Jugashvili.

However, sorry guys that I overloaded my statement by political details. It's not a political section and the details were not sufficient. In my view, the real treasure for Europe was not jewel and gold, but Greek manuscrips.

Red Chief wrote:Thank you Sir for the excelent translation from my Runglish to the Queen's English. I could not say better.

You're welcome. eh clearly understood you just as well, he was just playing his usual game of avoiding the main question/points.

Red Chief wrote: I guess there is a similar book in the Bible Belt, where such a propagandist of the western values as EH takes true knowledge from.

I think these days it is a few bloggers who have revisionist views, rather than books. Some examples are 'GatesofVienna' and 'Jihadwatch'.

On the looting of manuscripts - the historical accounts say many manuscripts being lost in the destruction of the library in Constantinople, so it was not all looted.

Cheers,
Shafique

Thanks Red Chief for your response but I couldn't actually see an answer to such a simple question I had regarding your statement:

Red Chief wrote: who act in interests of a bunch of merachants from Genoa and Venice

A simple elaboration was all that was requested. Which leaders of the of the Fourth Crusade were acting on behalf of the Italian merchant states?

I also just noticed another statement that I'm surprised shafique says was correct:

Red Chief wrote:Defenitely only after that Great Loot the works of Plato together with Socrates himself became known in the West and mass direct translation from Greek to Latin took place

But anyway, I'm not aware of looted texts individuals in the West used to translate the works of Greek authors.

himself wrote:However, an effort was begun in Ostrogothic Italy by Boethius, and his translations of Aristotle, which became known as the Old Logic, formed the basis of learning in the cathedral schools. Similarly, Jaques of Venice brought Aristotle to Mt. St.-Michel directly from Byzantium; and William of Moerbeke from Byzantine Sicily.

Both of these two individuals are well known - especially William of Moerbeke - but neither seemed to have been using any supposed stolen texts from Constantinople.

Perhaps you can name a single translator who did?

shafique wrote:'himself' is who exactly? A blogger friend of yours who shares your anti-Muslim view of history?

Are you 'himless' eh?



Interesting to read the Wiki entry for William of Moerbeke under Transmission of the Classics:

Though William's contribution to the 'recovery' of Aristotle, in the 13th century, was not as significant as is sometimes claimed, his work undoubtedly helped in forming a clearer picture of Greek philosophy, and particularly of Aristotle, than was given by the Arabic versions on which they had previously relied, and which had distorted or obscured the relation between Platonic and Aristotelian systems of philosophy.[46] William's translation of Proclus was also important, demonstrating that the influential book Liber de Causis, was not a genuine work of Aristotle, but rather derived from Proclus' Elementatio Theologica.[47]

According to a tradition originating in the later Middle Ages, William knew Thomas Aquinas and was commissioned by him to make some of the translations. But there is no contemporary record of the friendship or the commissions. If they did meet, it is most likely during the three or four years Aquinas was working at Orvieto, i.e. not before the election of Pope Urban IV in August 1261, who invited Aquinas to serve at the Papal court, and not after 1265, when Aquinas left for Rome. His translation of De motu animalium is cited by Thomas in Summa Contra Gentiles, probably completed in 1264.[46]\

(Ref 46 is Fryde, E., The Early Palaeologan Renaissance, Brill 2000.)

So perhaps your blogger friend/you are up to your old trick of hyping information for your own agenda. In this case the 13th century translations by some Western translators (the 2nd phase) - after the West had received the works via Muslim Spain.

Cheers,
Shafique

who [crusaders] act in interests of a bunch of merachants from Genoa and Venice

Defenitely only after that Great Loot the works of Plato together with Socrates himself became known in the West and mass direct translation from Greek to Latin took place

Let me know which of these claims you actually want to prove.

Red Chief wrote:Actually I made only one mistake about Genoa.

eh - your reading skills are letting you down - again. RC said that he made an error by mentioning Genoa - but the rest of his post about looting/4th crusade was as he intended.

He was responding, initially, to YOUR claim that works were translated 'after the fall of Constantinople'. You made the initial claim.

(And who is 'himless'?)

Cheers,
Shafique

eh - your reading skills are letting you down - again. RC said that he made an error by mentioning Genoa - but the rest of his post about looting/4th crusade was as he intended.

Oh great, so RC can't provide actual examples where crusaders were working in the interests of the Venetians, huh?

He was responding, initially, to YOUR claim that works were translated 'after the fall of Constantinople'. You made the initial claim.

Fascinating, so you agree Plato/Socrates only became known in the West directly as a result of the Byzantine/West connection?

Comprehension skills letting you down big time eh.

I suggest you just re-read my last post and RC's above. Try answering the questions actually posed for a change.

(are you himless?)

Cheers,

Shafique