Talk:Antemurale myth

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merge with Antemurale Christianitatis[edit]

I think that this and the Antemurale Christianitatis article discuss the same issue. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everything you said above works as an argument for merger. Those could all be subsections of this article as they all refer to the fundamentally same concept. Timbouctou (talk) 11:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that we should include myths of being a bulwark of Islam, civilized Europe, free world against US domination, Turkey as bulwark to Russia, Hitlers facism as bulwark to Stalins communism... into article about only Antemurale Christianitatis. It is obvious that many of those myths are not related to Christianity at all. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What I had in mind was merging Antemurale Christianitatis into Antemurale myth#Myth of Antemurale Christianitatis. Timbouctou (talk) 12:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for misunderstanding. I agree with your logic because Antemurale Christianitatis overlap with the Antemurale myth. Taking in consideration that Antemurale Christianitatis is very notable topic itself I think it deserves its own article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Antemurale myth. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Croatia myth[edit]

How can it be myth if Pope did call Croatia antemurale Christianitatis. And Serbs actually being Vlachs. There is historical document https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statuta_Valachorum. And on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morlachs it says they expressed Croat or Serb indentity based on religion in 19th century.

Balderdash: This article should at most be a small subsection![edit]

Is this article some form of ideological historical negationism!? Someone already mentioned that it was used by Pope Leo X and is generally seen as a line of battle against the invading Ottoman empire in a long line of established scholarly writing for centuries. The conflicts of Jajce (1521, 1525), Kllis (1524), Mohacs (1526), and Vienna (1529) for example marked the line where the frontwall of Christendom (i.e Antemurale Christianitatis) existed against and was succesful in repelling Suleiman II onslaught on the European continent. So should Drang nach Osten also have a separate article called "Drang nach Osten myth"....Or maybe the Schlieffen plan by Alfred von Schlieffen could also be a myth or challenged as hoax created by "evil Jews" wanting to tarnish the reputation of the late 19th freedom loving Germans? Merge this article with Antemurale Christianitatis, but make it a small subsection! MynameisadamB (talk) 12:17, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a fair and unbiased article[edit]

This article reads more like propaganda than a fair and balanced article. The usage of the word "myth" is derogatory and demeaning.

The "bulwarks" were primarily the result of defensive battles against foreign conquerors. At this time, colonialism is seen as a bad thing and thus defensive bulwarks should be seen as a good thing.

The only thing that makes sense is that the primary "author" is pushing globalist propaganda that seeks to destroy the validity of protecting the individualism and sovereignty of nation states. 198.251.52.109 (talk) 20:11, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]