Defending ChristendomThroughout History

This may seem reasonable, but it is a vague statement that can briefly explain the invasion of Muslims into the Christian territory. The point of this statement is that Urban II is concerned that Muslims conquer Christian lands and are trying to rectify this situation. Although the enemy's religion is worried, it is clear that this is neither the focus of speech nor the armed effort he is planning. Papal city II did not unite to Islam to support jihad, and he demanded occupied Christian land to be restored to its original state.

In the majority of human history, we have kept the tribe. We will keep our religion. In addition, in this case, some take the approach of defending science. However, everyone who regards science as the truth completely misses the core view of science. The scientific truth is not something you have to express to protect the Jihad or to stand up. It will protect yourself if you relax. This is exactly the same as St. Augustine 's statement about Christianity more than 1500 years ago.

What is social history? There are different questions in the previous question. What is the history of the sale of the court? Philosophers are against the claims of natural history or social science, so we strive to protect the feasibility of "historical interpretation". However, practical historians know history not a single thing, but a lot of things. University History College is a battlefield for various types of historical conflict sites. Each type has various methods and value systems. In such games, social history is a natural loser. Its essence is not clear. In a rough but useful term, politics created political history, wars outlined military history, and the church established religious history. However, "social history" seems to be an exaggerated term. "Social" behavior is too general to define academic types. So the discussion is partially semantic (should we call this or that kind of history "social"?

This seems possible, but not so much. Social history is easier to define clearly than defending. Regardless, whatever it is, the best social history is always more than that, and most outstanding practitioners are spending more time rather than defining it. Given the fate of Trevelyan's misunderstood definition, it is difficult to condemn it. We advise to follow and continue with their example. When I say that my 'licensed' life in Sydney and Beatrice Weber is approaching preparation: Release my monograph by Bertrand Russell, socialist liberalism has been published: curl Declare me about Marx Please note on past results, even if you can not understand it. It was said that "This is not a social history." There are few people who know social history, but I am convinced that it is not what it is. This is not a biography. Biography is about people. Social history is more than just men