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.