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 November 15th, 2012, 02:57 AM   #231

Andros's Avatar
Academician
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: Ducato di Milano
Posts: 88

From the military point of view it was a defeat, there is no doubt.
But we should consider also the cultural consequences that sanctioned an even closer link between the ideologies of chivalry and the Christian world in Europe.
Andros is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 15th, 2012, 03:20 AM   #232

Essa's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2012
From: Bahrain
Posts: 1,737

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gmann101 View Post
Right well they have to glorify it and deny any wrong-doing or their whole religion will fall apart.

It easy for Christians to criticize the Conquistadors and the Crusaders because they were not companions of Jesus, they can just be labelled as "misguided Christians". But the Sahaba and the Rashidun Caliphs, once you criticize them, you are pretty much criticizing the religion of Islam itself. These are guys that were supposedly the closest companions of Mo, they heard him preach the religion of Islam for over a decade, and then they went out and conquered the world. So of course Muslims need to paint those conquests as very good things. Once you criticize that it is all over for Islam.
Al-Rashidun were close enough to the Prophet to manage the Caliphate in a way similar to Prophet or Islam teachings, that's why they're not critisized...besides their deeds in bringing up Islam....

Yet they're still considered humans in the Arab/Muslim world, despite their status as Companions that doesn't preclude them from misjudgments or anything natural to human mind.....these incidents are not many, though.

As far as the conquests goes....I think its clear....Arab conquests didn't entail forced conversion and retained "rights" for their subjects, these rights are even highlighted in Quran and Hadith.....these things were not offered in many incidents in the history of conquests (that is very well-known)....Look at what Caliph Omar and Saladdin did after entering Jerusalem and compare that to what the Crusaders did after they entered it in 1099 and what they did in Constantinople in 1241 !!!....And If Tariq Ibn Ziyad, Musa Ibn Nusair and Caliph Al-Waleed were not tolerant at the time of Spain Conquest, then we wouldn't witness a world wonder in Al-Andalus, with its Christians and Jews along with Muslims...."That is the difference"....

So if somone renders any conquest as "brutal" then he's either too naiive or too diluted to know or study history....
Essa is offline  
Old November 15th, 2012, 03:54 AM   #233

DreamWeaver's Avatar
Misanthropologist
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Wales
Posts: 10,100
Blog Entries: 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by Al-Tabari View Post
Asking for primary source material on a subject this extensive requires sifting through hundreds of pages of annals. I hardly have the time to do that and I would be a complete fool to waste my time trying to proving something that is almost universally acknowledged by historians of the early Muslim conquests.

If you are truly attempting to challenge this largely accepted historical fact, then perhaps it is for you to provide the citations.


History, you are doing it wrong.

You make the point, it is your responsibility to prove it. It is not for me to prove your argument, be it a popular one or otherwise. If you are too lazy or cant then your point is speculation. I'm not challenging it thus far, I simply wish for you to provide evidence to back up your claim, like historians are supposed to.



So.......source?
DreamWeaver is offline  
Old November 15th, 2012, 03:55 AM   #234

Yōḥānān's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2012
From: Portugal
Posts: 2,336

Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post
That's ostensibly giving too much relevance to a couple of isolated expeditions in the middle of the eight centuries long Reconquista; if the Muslims were eventuslly expelled from the Peninsula centuries later, that was entrely due to the efforts of the local Christians.
Though the relevance of the Crusades in the big picture of the Reconquista may be debatable the help of the Crusades was significant in the Portuguese case. The English, German and Flemish forces in the conquest of Lisbon were almost the double of Portuguese forces, while the Moors had more than the double of the last. Thanks to this the total forces siding with Afonso I outnumbered the Moors. There were also Crusaders who established themselves in Portugal which was important since the lack of manpower was also a problem at the time.
However the first successful Visigothic stand against the Moors was made by Pelagius in the 8th century, long before the first crusade, and the incursion of French in the Penisula sometimes even siding with rival factions of the Moors also dates from that time. Notice that at the time parts of France were under occupation by the Moors also.

Last edited by Yōḥānān; November 15th, 2012 at 04:04 AM.
Yōḥānān is online now  
Old November 15th, 2012, 04:26 AM   #235

Essa's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2012
From: Bahrain
Posts: 1,737

Quote:
Originally Posted by DreamWeaver View Post
History, you are doing it wrong.

You make the point, it is your responsibility to prove it. It is not for me to prove your argument, be it a popular one or otherwise. If you are too lazy or cant then your point is speculation. I'm not challenging it thus far, I simply wish for you to provide evidence to back up your claim, like historians are supposed to.



So.......source?
Not to intrude here, but as far as I know, I don't think there is an online directory for Al-Tabari's....we're talking about a 12 book History reference (Al Tabari's History) !! Its cumbersome to search it for this topic and have scanned and put here for example !.....

And you know, even if someone actually does this...the other guy could ignore it altogether or simply render it bias, so its not worth the effort !!

I was arguing with someone on whether "Curved Swords" were known to the Middle East before Turkic migrations. I searched the web for half an hour and found a collection of the Prophet Mohammed's swords, for which one of them was "Curved" (among many straight swords)......when I posted it here the other guy simply said: I don't believe that !!.......Some People are simply afraid to change their minds and just look for a confirming evidence...
Essa is offline  
Old November 15th, 2012, 04:55 AM   #236

DreamWeaver's Avatar
Misanthropologist
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Wales
Posts: 10,100
Blog Entries: 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by Essa View Post
Not to intrude here, but as far as I know, I don't think there is an online directory for Al-Tabari's....we're talking about a 12 book History reference (Al Tabari's History) !! Its cumbersome to search it for this topic and have scanned and put here for example !.....

And you know, even if someone actually does this...the other guy could ignore it altogether or simply render it bias, so its not worth the effort !!

I was arguing with someone on whether "Curved Swords" were known to the Middle East before Turkic migrations. I searched the web for half an hour and found a collection of the Prophet Mohammed's swords, for which one of them was "Curved" (among many straight swords)......when I posted it here the other guy simply said: I don't believe that !!.......Some People are simply afraid to change their minds and just look for a confirming evidence...

That is how history works. A claim has been made, I simply wish for the evidence to be provided by the one who made the claim to substansiate it.

In my time I have read hundreds of medieval charters, tome after tome of chronicle and annal and cartulary, the hundreds of volumes of the MGH or the Patrlaogia Latina, because I have to to make and substansiate the arguments I wish to put forward. It is time consuming and it is often very boring and may produce little results. However it is what is required by the standards of the field.

I am hardly going to turn to my examining professor and report to him that I could not be bothered to provide any footnotes or evidence concerning the essay I just wrote because there are too many books to read or sift through, or that the argument is so well known he should go and look it uop himself. Or that there is no point since he can just claim that he doesnt believe it so what was the point of doing it in the first place. That wont cut it.

It is how history works.
DreamWeaver is offline  
Old November 15th, 2012, 05:24 AM   #237

Essa's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2012
From: Bahrain
Posts: 1,737
Exclamation


Quote:
Originally Posted by DreamWeaver View Post
That is how history works. A claim has been made, I simply wish for the evidence to be provided by the one who made the claim to substansiate it.

In my time I have read hundreds of medieval charters, tome after tome of chronicle and annal and cartulary, the hundreds of volumes of the MGH or the Patrlaogia Latina, because I have to to make and substansiate the arguments I wish to put forward. It is time consuming and it is often very boring and may produce little results. However it is what is required by the standards of the field.

I am hardly going to turn to my examining professor and report to him that I could not be bothered to provide any footnotes or evidence concerning the essay I just wrote because there are too many books to read or sift through, or that the argument is so well known he should go and look it uop himself. Or that there is no point since he can just claim that he doesnt believe it so what was the point of doing it in the first place. That wont cut it.

It is how history works.
Agree....but you see man, not all of us are historians here ...

someone might recall a piece of info from Al-Tabari or any other reference, for which others might go and explore....sometimes asking for more evidence here is a way of avoiding to concede a point....

Like the argument I said about Curved Swords.....even after I put that photo of a curved Prophet sword, the guys says: I don't belive it ! So what's next to me !!........Am I expected to go to Istanbul, steal that sword from the Museum, and run some carbon test or something to validate its age !!
Essa is offline  
Old November 15th, 2012, 06:37 AM   #238

DreamWeaver's Avatar
Misanthropologist
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Wales
Posts: 10,100
Blog Entries: 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by Essa View Post
Agree....but you see man, not all of us are historians here ...

someone might recall a piece of info from Al-Tabari or any other reference, for which others might go and explore....sometimes asking for more evidence here is a way of avoiding to concede a point....

Like the argument I said about Curved Swords.....even after I put that photo of a curved Prophet sword, the guys says: I don't belive it ! So what's next to me !!........Am I expected to go to Istanbul, steal that sword from the Museum, and run some carbon test or something to validate its age !!

So I hold to higher standards that others, as a historian on a history forum no less.

I have nothing to concede as I have yet to contests, I merely desire the evidence to be provided so that I might judge for myself or explore further. But I cant do that if it hasnt been given in the first place.

You are only oblighed to provide the available evidence. If some one is not convinced on the evidence provided, assuming the evidence is valid and sufficient, there is little more to do. An awful lot of history as done by historians is the debate over source material.
DreamWeaver is offline  
Old November 15th, 2012, 08:13 AM   #239
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andros View Post
From the military point of view it was a defeat, there is no doubt.
But we should consider also the cultural consequences that sanctioned an even closer link between the ideologies of chivalry and the Christian world in Europe.
Apologetic Panglosianism aside, the Crusades were military expeditions; the victor (the OP) must be determined on military grounds, not on any cultural issues which in the first place probably wouldn't have required any massive slaughtering to happen; if anything, such cultural issues ostensibly happened in spite of the slaughtering.
sylla1 is offline  
Old November 15th, 2012, 09:02 AM   #240

Yōḥānān's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2012
From: Portugal
Posts: 2,336

Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post
Apologetic Panglosianism aside, the Crusades were military expeditions; the victor (the OP) must be determined on military grounds, not on any cultural issues which in the first place probably wouldn't have required any massive slaughtering to happen; if anything, such cultural issues ostensibly happened in spite of the slaughtering.
However the OP doesn't specify the kind or nature of the victor or victory.
Yōḥānān is online now  
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 01:34 AM
Different Victor at the second Battle of Philipi Isoroku295 Speculative History 2 March 8th, 2010 04:44 PM
GIAP: The Victor in Vietnam bigscreeninkster History Book Reviews 1 December 29th, 2009 02:15 AM
Victor Davis Hanson Pantagruel History Book Reviews 12 July 22nd, 2009 06:24 AM
Victor Hugo Commander History Book Reviews 8 June 11th, 2008 07:11 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.