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 August 22nd, 2012, 09:36 AM   #201

Ayazid's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,552

Quote:
Originally Posted by Essa View Post
I don't know if you're contridicting yourself, but !!......How can you find Mongols tolerant and labal any one who submits to their rule as smart, while you condmn Arab conquests....!! As far as I know all kingdoms on Hulegu's path until he reached Egypt were wiped-out even though some of them didn't have to put a single fight against him !.....Somehow you find tolerance in this, while you ignore the simple fact that Arabs at least offered everyone to retain their religion (i.e. they don't to convert to Islam like you suggest)....
I didn't say that I condemn the Arab conquests. For me they are not really different from the conquests of Romans, Alexander or Mongols. Only the justification was supposedly religious in the case of the Arab ones.

As for the Mongols, they were tolerant because they didn't impose their religion and culture on their subjects. They allowed them to retain their own. Isn't that generous and tolerant? And they didn't simply wipe out their enemies without reason. They only slaughtered those who didn't want peace. What you should do when somebody rejects your kind offer of peace and religious freedoms? Of course, you invade his country and kill him.

Actually, the Mongols were just like any other conqueror, they wanted only obedient tax-paying subjects and booty. Lots of booty. Sure, they were exeptionally brutal, but that doesn't mean that they weren't tolerant rulers. Read the history of the Ilkhanides, Golden Horde and other Mongols states. The Ilkhanide rule (before they converted to Islam) was actually a relief for non-Muslim minorities.

Last edited by Ayazid; August 22nd, 2012 at 09:46 AM.
Ayazid is offline  
Remove Ads
Old August 23rd, 2012, 12:37 AM   #202

Essa's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2012
From: Bahrain
Posts: 1,791

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ayazid View Post
I didn't say that I condemn the Arab conquests. For me they are not really different from the conquests of Romans, Alexander or Mongols. Only the justification was supposedly religious in the case of the Arab ones.

As for the Mongols, they were tolerant because they didn't impose their religion and culture on their subjects. They allowed them to retain their own. Isn't that generous and tolerant? And they didn't simply wipe out their enemies without reason. They only slaughtered those who didn't want peace. What you should do when somebody rejects your kind offer of peace and religious freedoms? Of course, you invade his country and kill him.


Actually, the Mongols were just like any other conqueror, they wanted only obedient tax-paying subjects and booty. Lots of booty. Sure, they were exeptionally brutal, but that doesn't mean that they weren't tolerant rulers. Read the history of the Ilkhanides, Golden Horde and other Mongols states. The Ilkhanide rule (before they converted to Islam) was actually a relief for non-Muslim minorities.
I don't think Mongols offered anything but blood in Persia, Baghdad, up to Cairo....and I think you very well know they went all the way unopposed ! there were no resistence from Abbasids or other kingdoms, yet the slaughter happended !!

In any way, Mongol history is interesting to me....If you can name good sources, I'll be glad....
Essa is offline  
Old November 13th, 2012, 06:51 PM   #203
Academician
 
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 60

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ayazid View Post
So, according to you it's nit picking to concentrate on the barbaric Muslim conquest of Transoxania, but it's no nit picking to do the same in case of the attrocities commited during the first Crusade? As it has been already pointed out there was a number of Crusades. Why do you take the behaviour of the Crusaders during the very first of them as the norm?

I am sorry but this is just hipocrisy.
I stopped posting on this thread a while ago as the discussion was going nowhere and I am not one to crave the "last word".

However, I have stumbled across this thread just now and seeing this post of yours, I have no choice but to reply. I can accept being disagreed with but being accused of spouting hypocrisy is an entirely different matter. There is nothing hypocritical about my statement and claiming there is shows that you fail to see the clear difference between highly civilianized societies and militaristic tribal societies. Dealing with these vastly different societies requires different approaches. It is far easier to subjugate demilitarized urban societies than it is militaristic tribal societies. The peoples that suffered the most from the Crusaders were urban peoples who largely relied on rougher less sedentary peoples for protection. These people were butchered ruthlessly by the Franks even though subjugating them would hardly have required such savagery.

The Arabs on the other hand, when conquering the highly civilianized peoples of the fertile crescent were far more merciful and there were very few instances if any of wholesale massacre. It was only in the more tribal and militarized regions of Persia that more bloody measures were taken. But even then, I highly doubt that any women or children were massacred. It was mostly the adult male population that suffered from Arab retribution. But in instances in which women and children may have been killed, then I hardly justify such actions.

But in the grand scheme of Arab conquests, such actions were the exception rather than the rule. The same cannot be said of the Crusades. And yes I am obviously going to focus on the first Crusade since that is when most of the conquests occurred.
Al-Tabari is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 03:36 AM   #204

Yōḥānān's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2012
From: Portugal
Posts: 2,686

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnaeus View Post
I apologize if this thread has been made before, as I know that there are many, many threads about the Crusades.

I often think about the Crusades, being the grossly over romanticized conflicts that they were, and I think of questions about them. Most of the time I come to some sort of answer, but I think that the Title question, how won them needs to be answered by people who know more about history than I do. Because its kind of confusing who won the Crusades. Maybe nobody won, maybe the Crusades are to much of a generalization to pin down a victor. All opinions are welcome.
I think the Crusades were indirectly successful, and quite beneficial for the Roman Catholic Church. They allowed indirectly the recovery of the territories in Western Europe. The crusaders from the north would stop in my country and help in the conquest of cities like Lisbon. This is why the Portuguese conquest ended faster than the Spanish. And notice these two countries were greatly responsible for the spreading of Catholicism around the world making it the largest Christian denomination in the world. However the Crusades did not secure the Holy Land nor prevent the fall of Constantinople in fact in the end they contributed to the last.

Last edited by Yōḥānān; November 14th, 2012 at 03:42 AM.
Yōḥānān is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 06:00 AM   #205

DreamWeaver's Avatar
Misanthropologist
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Wales
Posts: 10,346
Blog Entries: 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by Al-Tabari View Post


But in the grand scheme of Arab conquests, such actions were the exception rather than the rule.

You have quantatative source material to prove this or is this just speculation based on your own preconceptions?

Quote:
The same cannot be said of the Crusades. And yes I am obviously going to focus on the first Crusade since that is when most of the conquests occurred.
Actually most of the conquests that formed and established the Crusader states occurred 1099-1153. The First half century after the First Crusade, maybe you should focus on that.
DreamWeaver is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 06:05 AM   #206
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

A couple hundreds posts later, seems the obvious answer to the OP would still be:
Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post
As a whole, it is indisputable that the Crusaders were clearly defeated and totally expelled from their conquered territories of the Middle East.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post
Nope, I did mean Crusaders, because on the long run they were defeated by the Christian Romans too (sometimes miscalled "Byzantines"), not just by the Muslims.
See you after the next 100 posts.
sylla1 is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 07:12 AM   #207
Academician
 
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 60

Quote:
Originally Posted by DreamWeaver View Post
You have quantatative source material to prove this or is this just speculation based on your own preconceptions?
If I had a preconceived notion about something, I wouldn't be posting it as a statement on a history forum. This is based on the analysis of many prestigious historians such as Hugh Kennedy, David Nicolle, and Phillip Hitti, as well as countless Muslim historians whom I have not mentioned at the risk of their opinions being attributed to bias. It is also based on the many hours I have spent reading the accounts of al-Tabari (the 10th Muslim annalist).

So to answer your question, no it is not just speculation.
Al-Tabari is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 07:17 AM   #208

DreamWeaver's Avatar
Misanthropologist
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Wales
Posts: 10,346
Blog Entries: 6

literary analysis of al-Tabir et al?

So you can provide source material then?
DreamWeaver is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 07:19 AM   #209
Citizen
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Chesapeake, VA
Posts: 2

The Crusades in general had mild successes that didn't last too long. The fourth Crusade was successful in its ulterior motive, not the initial reconquest of Jerusalem but the conquest of Constantinople. That one in particular would forever shape the east and usher in the Ottoman conquest.
kred925 is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 08:12 AM   #210

Yōḥānān's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2012
From: Portugal
Posts: 2,686

Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post
A couple hundreds posts later, seems the obvious answer to the OP would still be: See you after the next 100 posts.
I hope you come back sooner because I'm curious about this statement:
Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 Click the image to open in full size.
Nope, I did mean Crusaders, because on the long run they were defeated by the Christian Romans too (sometimes miscalled "Byzantines"), not just by the Muslims.
Yōḥānān is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Medieval and Byzantine History

Tags
crusades, victor


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Crusades SPERRO Medieval and Byzantine History 66 September 29th, 2011 02:34 AM
Different Victor at the second Battle of Philipi Isoroku295 Speculative History 2 March 8th, 2010 05:44 PM
GIAP: The Victor in Vietnam bigscreeninkster History Book Reviews 1 December 29th, 2009 03:15 AM
Victor Davis Hanson Pantagruel History Book Reviews 12 July 22nd, 2009 07:24 AM
Victor Hugo Commander History Book Reviews 8 June 11th, 2008 08:11 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.