Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Medieval and Byzantine History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Medieval and Byzantine History Medieval and Byzantine History Forum - Period of History between classical antiquity and modern times, roughly the 5th through 16th Centuries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 6th, 2012, 11:16 AM   #11

Cerdic's Avatar
Academician
 
Joined: Jun 2011
From: England
Posts: 52

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thessalonian View Post
Basically, Western Europe betrayed us...

Us = our ancestors really.

P.S. I know i sound too melodramatic.... I can't help it!
Well, I have some sympathy with your view! They didn't know what they had until they lost it
Cerdic is offline  
Remove Ads
Old January 6th, 2012, 12:25 PM   #12
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Central Macedonia
Posts: 17,763
Blog Entries: 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cerdic View Post
Well, I have some sympathy with your view! They didn't know what they had until they lost it
Cheers mate!
Thessalonian is offline  
Old January 6th, 2012, 06:04 PM   #13
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Mar 2010
From: Montrťal
Posts: 512

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thessalonian View Post
Basically, Western Europe betrayed us...

Us = our ancestors really.

P.S. I know i sound too melodramatic.... I can't help it!
Hey Thessalonian I just came back from your thread about non-greeks quoting greeks. I couldn't think of any example to refer to what Labienus calls your ''Greek nationalistic agenda'', but what you wrote is what I had in mind. Allow me to explain how you're a victim of your own history. The first thing you should do after claiming that you have some interest for history is to get rid of your national and ethnical belonging, or membership, if I may say.

You claim that ''western europe betrayed your ancestors''. That statement is false and uncomfortable, because it does not represent reality. There was no entity called ''WESTERN EUROPE'' whose explicit goal was to ''BETRAY THE BYZANTINES''. There were numbers of spheres wielding different levels of autority implicated in a political, idealogical, economical and even cultural phenomena called the Crusades. This phenomenon was also subject to change (i.e. the first crusaders and the crusaders of Nicopolis are drastically different) and the immediate objectives (and also geographic location) of the participants differ from ages to ages.
Therefore, you can't say that Western Europe betrayed your ancestors, because there was no big scheme against Byzantium, only local and immediate maneuvers from an actual fraction of what you call ''Western Europe''.

When I read the word betrayed, I can only think that you try to pass off the fall of Byzantium as some kind of plot, and since your ''ancestors'' were the ones who ''suffered'', you take it as an obligation to underline that the problem can be simplified to this equation: Western Europe betrayed my ancestors, and since my ancestors spoke the same language as I do, I care.

This method of dealing with history is a little selfish, don't you think? It's like if I was really offended because Manuel Komnenos misled king Louis into Anatolia. Louis was indeed the ''king of France'', and I indeed have some ''french ascendancy'', because my ancestors DID come from France to make a life in the New World somewhere in the 1660's. But I try to keep that patriotic bullshit out of my survey of history, because I know that all my ancestors had all kinds of different preoccupations depending on where they lived, what work they had, etc, etc, and I'd rather try to find out what they actually felt or thought via different kinds of sources than impose my vision and my interpretation of them ON them.

I hope that you are opened to learn or to discuss instead of putting me in your ignore list.
BrowniesRule is offline  
Old January 7th, 2012, 12:53 AM   #14
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Central Macedonia
Posts: 17,763
Blog Entries: 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrowniesRule View Post
Hey Thessalonian I just came back from your thread about non-greeks quoting greeks. I couldn't think of any example to refer to what Labienus calls your ''Greek nationalistic agenda'', but what you wrote is what I had in mind. Allow me to explain how you're a victim of your own history. The first thing you should do after claiming that you have some interest for history is to get rid of your national and ethnical belonging, or membership, if I may say.

You claim that ''western europe betrayed your ancestors''. That statement is false and uncomfortable, because it does not represent reality. There was no entity called ''WESTERN EUROPE'' whose explicit goal was to ''BETRAY THE BYZANTINES''. There were numbers of spheres wielding different levels of autority implicated in a political, idealogical, economical and even cultural phenomena called the Crusades. This phenomenon was also subject to change (i.e. the first crusaders and the crusaders of Nicopolis are drastically different) and the immediate objectives (and also geographic location) of the participants differ from ages to ages.
Therefore, you can't say that Western Europe betrayed your ancestors, because there was no big scheme against Byzantium, only local and immediate maneuvers from an actual fraction of what you call ''Western Europe''.

When I read the word betrayed, I can only think that you try to pass off the fall of Byzantium as some kind of plot, and since your ''ancestors'' were the ones who ''suffered'', you take it as an obligation to underline that the problem can be simplified to this equation: Western Europe betrayed my ancestors, and since my ancestors spoke the same language as I do, I care.

This method of dealing with history is a little selfish, don't you think? It's like if I was really offended because Manuel Komnenos misled king Louis into Anatolia. Louis was indeed the ''king of France'', and I indeed have some ''french ascendancy'', because my ancestors DID come from France to make a life in the New World somewhere in the 1660's. But I try to keep that patriotic bullshit out of my survey of history, because I know that all my ancestors had all kinds of different preoccupations depending on where they lived, what work they had, etc, etc, and I'd rather try to find out what they actually felt or thought via different kinds of sources than impose my vision and my interpretation of them ON them.

I hope that you are opened to learn or to discuss instead of putting me in your ignore list.
There is a reason why I mentioned that I became melodramatic. You missed the point: Originally, the crusades were all about preserving the Christian religion of Europe. After the last crusade, this political/religious movement died out, gradually. Therefore the betrayal I am talking about is not an actual betrayal. I was speaking metaphorically.
Thessalonian is offline  
Old January 7th, 2012, 03:59 AM   #15

DreamWeaver's Avatar
Misanthropologist
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Wales
Posts: 10,091
Blog Entries: 6

Preserving Christian presence in the Levant, and expanding it beyond the borders of Christendom.
DreamWeaver is online now  
Old January 15th, 2012, 05:41 AM   #16
Suspended until June 18th, 2015
 
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 2,728

You know BrowniesRule it's not as simple as you present it.
Since you are open to discussion I'll point out some things for you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrowniesRule View Post
Hey Thessalonian I just came back from your thread about non-greeks quoting greeks. I couldn't think of any example to refer to what Labienus calls your ''Greek nationalistic agenda'', but what you wrote is what I had in mind. Allow me to explain how you're a victim of your own history. The first thing you should do after claiming that you have some interest for history is to get rid of your national and ethnical belonging, or membership, if I may say.
I resent when people try to blame others for being nationalists when they are at loss to counter their arguements. It's a cheap way to get around it, and there are many people in here who resort to this method, as if being a nationalist is like being some kind of a leper. There are other ideologies whom I consider much worse than nationalism, yet people don't refer to them in the same manner as they do for Nationalists. Think of Communism, Socialism, Capitalism, Anarchism etc., there are many arguements that can be made against them that would make Nationalism be the best among them by far.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrowniesRule View Post
You claim that ''western europe betrayed your ancestors''. That statement is false and uncomfortable,
It depends how you look at it, from a certain angle it doesn't look as false as some people may imagine.
Uncomfortable also yes, because it would raise some guild in certain quarters.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrowniesRule View Post
because it does not represent reality.
On what basis you say that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrowniesRule View Post
There was no entity called ''WESTERN EUROPE'' whose explicit goal was to ''BETRAY THE BYZANTINES''.
There was an entity called Western Europe, but nobody ever said that there was an explicit goal for such a betrayal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrowniesRule View Post
When I read the word betrayed, I can only think that you try to pass off the fall of Byzantium as some kind of plot,
As I said above nobody said that;
at the same time though the people that didn't take any action probably were not realizing the later repercursions of their inaction of the time, until it was too late later on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrowniesRule View Post
and since your ''ancestors'' were the ones who ''suffered'', you take it as an obligation to underline that the problem can be simplified to this equation: Western Europe betrayed my ancestors, and since my ancestors spoke the same language as I do, I care.
Being someone's ancestors you most certainly care, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that; Or is there?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrowniesRule View Post
This method of dealing with history is a little selfish, don't you think? It's like if I was really offended because Manuel Komnenos misled king Louis into Anatolia. Louis was indeed the ''king of France'', and I indeed have some ''french ascendancy'', because my ancestors DID come from France to make a life in the New World somewhere in the 1660's. But I try to keep that patriotic bullshit out of my survey of history, because I know that all my ancestors had all kinds of different preoccupations depending on where they lived, what work they had, etc, etc,
Your case is a little bit different, being in Canada it's not the same as being in France and having the same feelings as an actual Frenchman.
Besides if your ancestors went to Canada in 1660 as you say you cannot really say that you consider yourself a Frenchman in the same manner as one from France.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrowniesRule View Post
and I'd rather try to find out what they actually felt or thought via different kinds of sources than impose my vision and my interpretation of them ON them.
That will be the right thing to do because those FrenchCanadians are really your actual ancestors now and not the ones from France.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrowniesRule View Post
I hope that you are opened to learn or to discuss instead of putting me in your ignore list.
I don't think there is a problem there.
falcon is offline  
Old January 15th, 2012, 07:58 AM   #17

clement's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2011
From: California, USA
Posts: 2,103
Blog Entries: 2

The duke of Burgundy Philip the good swore to take the sword and launch a crusade and even challenge the ottoman sultan in an individual fight during one of his numerous chivalric feasts. Young knights around him also promised the same, but there were never any crusade. It is said that Charles VIII of France and the Emperor Charles V both wanted to launch a crusade against the Turks but they were diverted from doing so by other problem (charles VIII first wanted to be crowned king of Naples but it proved more complicated than expected, while Charles V had to deal with France first).
clement is offline  
Old January 15th, 2012, 08:04 AM   #18
Citizen
 
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 1

This is my first attempt at an academic forum, but the discussion above seems interesting so I thought I might put my two cents in. I think there is some truth to the "betrayal" theory, despite whatever nationalist sentiment may have prompted the comment. A number of people in the west (and by the term west, I mean "Latin Christendom, or that part of Christendom using the Latin Rite") thought the Turks were preferable to people they saw as heretics in the East. To complicate matters, an attempt had been made to join the two churches in 1439 at Florence, with the Byzantine Emperor signing off on the idea but facing great opposition when he returned home. In the end, he was unable to come through on the deal (which he had largely pursued for political reasons anyways, hoping to solicit a crusade in exchange for union). The fact that by 1453 the attempted union had clearly foundered, along with the decisive defeats at Varna (1444) and Kosovo (1448), meant that western rulers were reluctant to lend precious resources to an enterprise whose goal was to assist a power they saw as perfidious. What did they have to gain? What other motivation might they muster? To be sure, there was little reason why they should help, particularly when the very notion of Christian solidarity was sorely undermined by perceived heresy and schism. Does this constitute a "betrayal?" Surely many Byzantines saw it as such, yet they also saw it as the judgment of God. It is a matter of perspective, but I would say the notion of betrayal is a valid historical perspective on the issue, present even at the time.

I think it's inaccurate, however, to say that the papacy wasn't interested in a crusade. Sure, they would have been more keen on the idea if the union had actually worked. But popes worked tirelessly in the fifteenth century to launch a European expedition against the Ottomans. They just didn't have a willing audience.
warcislaw is offline  
Old January 15th, 2012, 08:47 AM   #19
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: Incline Village near Lake Tahoe
Posts: 2,974
Blog Entries: 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by warcislaw View Post
This is my first attempt at an academic forum, but the discussion above seems interesting so I thought I might put my two cents in. I think there is some truth to the "betrayal" theory, despite whatever nationalist sentiment may have prompted the comment. A number of people in the west (and by the term west, I mean "Latin Christendom, or that part of Christendom using the Latin Rite") thought the Turks were preferable to people they saw as heretics in the East. To complicate matters, an attempt had been made to join the two churches in 1439 at Florence, with the Byzantine Emperor signing off on the idea but facing great opposition when he returned home. In the end, he was unable to come through on the deal (which he had largely pursued for political reasons anyways, hoping to solicit a crusade in exchange for union). The fact that by 1453 the attempted union had clearly foundered, along with the decisive defeats at Varna (1444) and Kosovo (1448), meant that western rulers were reluctant to lend precious resources to an enterprise whose goal was to assist a power they saw as perfidious. What did they have to gain? What other motivation might they muster? To be sure, there was little reason why they should help, particularly when the very notion of Christian solidarity was sorely undermined by perceived heresy and schism. Does this constitute a "betrayal?" Surely many Byzantines saw it as such, yet they also saw it as the judgment of God. It is a matter of perspective, but I would say the notion of betrayal is a valid historical perspective on the issue, present even at the time.

I think it's inaccurate, however, to say that the papacy wasn't interested in a crusade. Sure, they would have been more keen on the idea if the union had actually worked. But popes worked tirelessly in the fifteenth century to launch a European expedition against the Ottomans. They just didn't have a willing audience.
welcome to the form, warcislaw! we need all the German perspectives that are out there. your english is excellent.
laketahoejwb is offline  
Old January 15th, 2012, 01:14 PM   #20

Efendi's Avatar
KayıkÁı Efe
 
Joined: Jul 2009
From: Anatolia
Posts: 11,184

Quote:
Originally Posted by clement View Post
The duke of Burgundy Philip the good swore to take the sword and launch a crusade and even challenge the ottoman sultan in an individual fight during one of his numerous chivalric feasts.
I wonder If he sent a message, letter to the Sultan and got a reply. I would like to read the letter if there are.
Efendi is online now  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Medieval and Byzantine History

Tags
constantinople, crusade, save


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople Salah Medieval and Byzantine History 24 January 2nd, 2012 04:54 PM
The first Crusade Thessalonian Medieval and Byzantine History 12 August 20th, 2011 12:45 PM
Armies of the 4th Crusade Inc Medieval and Byzantine History 8 February 16th, 2011 05:06 AM
The 3rd Crusade - What If Elijah Speculative History 8 July 26th, 2010 07:30 AM
The Second Crusade against the Wends cannelidis1 Medieval and Byzantine History 8 December 15th, 2009 06:38 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.