And he obviously doesn't know who some of the people he claims to be were. Vishnu is a perfect example. He thinks Vishnu was a person, when a simple Google search will show that Vishnu is a Hindu deity, which makes him immortal like GOD is. And all he knows of Fibonacci is the Fibonacci sequence. It's like "Hey Dude! I read The DaVinci Code too!"
Leonardo Fibonacci c. 1200 introduced Hindu-Arabic numerals to Europe. This is what ended the Medieval Age/ Middle Ages/Dark Ages and ushered in The Renaissance.
That's an interesting theory.
Yes, it is. Shame the Renaissance didn't start until well into the 14th century.
You're a supermassive white hole.
Brad is spreading complete and utter nonsense once more.
), followed by the late middle ages (late 13th century till roughly the middle of the 15th century).
Brad is spreading complete and utter nonsense once more.
The 12th and 13th century are considered the high middle ages (google that
There is some debate what constitutes the beginning of the so called "Early Modern Period", some say the invention and spread of book printing 1450, some say the discovery of America in 1492... hell, some even say the middle ages didn't stop till Industrialisation kicked in.
However noone would ever consider the 12th/13th century to be part of the renaissance for a simple reason:
The Renaissance gave the "middle ages" its name, denoting it as the period between ancient high cultures of Rome and Greece and their own supposed high culture (a view that I can't really share, seeing how the middle ages haven't been even remotely as dark as Renaissance people viewed them).
But I guess his only exposure to anything remotely historic is when he wanders around a so-called Renaissance Fair, full well thinking that metal-shirted vikings, dangerhaired pixie-wannabe girls and sithlords are totally what the Renaissance was like.
I am genuinely wondering if it was a completely new idea to Brad that there's a shitton of people that claim to be Jesus or Buddha or George Lucas... and every single one of them is a hundred percent certain their claims are true and they even have "evidence", most often poorly cobbled together nonsense they are eager to share with the world in order to prove their claims
I assume at some point he skipped through a lexikon entry of important people throughout history and underlined every name that had a nice ring to it.
Even putting the actual dates aside, no specific event or innovation "ended" the Middle Ages. It was a combination of developments that put Europe (and Europe specifically) on a different system than it had functioned under for the past several hundred years. The reintroduction of islamic science (far more than just a number system) was important, but just as important was the printing press, the Treaty of Westphalia, the Protestant Reformation, and a notable reduction of cases of the Black Plague. Saying Fibonacci's numbers ended the Middle Ages is like saying subpar tea started the American Revolution.Brad is spreading complete and utter nonsense once more.
The 12th and 13th century are considered the high middle ages (google that
There is some debate what constitutes the beginning of the so called "Early Modern Period", some say the invention and spread of book printing 1450, some say the discovery of America in 1492... hell, some even say the middle ages didn't stop till Industrialisation kicked in.
However noone would ever consider the 12th/13th century to be part of the renaissance for a simple reason:
The Renaissance gave the "middle ages" its name, denoting it as the period between ancient high cultures of Rome and Greece and their own supposed high culture (a view that I can't really share, seeing how the middle ages haven't been even remotely as dark as Renaissance people viewed them).
But I guess his only exposure to anything remotely historic is when he wanders around a so-called Renaissance Fair, full well thinking that metal-shirted vikings, dangerhaired pixie-wannabe girls and sithlords are totally what the Renaissance was like.
This is pretty much why I dislike the arrogant attitude on display during the Renaissance and how it treats the middle ages as a period of stagnation. Sure, the Renaissance gave us many things to marvel at, but just as every period before and after, whatever was made during this period had to rely on the previous periods as a foundation.
Well, Brad, we've been telling you for a while that your sources aren't very scholarly. Glad you've finally noticed.
It's actually remarkable that society managed to arrest the "decline" of intellectual activity so well. Without the church and nobility stepping in to fill the void (imperfectly, granted) left by the Roman Empire, Europe could have reverted back to the stone ages, rather than merely returning to a feudal state with a barter system. The people in the Middle Ages did a great deal with very little.
So, I guess I am no longer considered an attacker
Synchronism 15:03 "Der Zellkern is pures Licht - sprich: Schwarze Sonne." - Best of Axel Stoll Teil 1 NSL Forum.
