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, 09:15 AM   #241
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yōḥānān View Post
However the OP doesn't specify the kind or nature of the victor or victory.
Last time I checked, the Crusades (the OP) were by definition undisputed military expeditions.

At the risk of overstating the obvious as explicitly required here,their victor (the OP) necessarily couldn't be defined but in military terms.

Last edited by sylla1; November 15th, 2012 at 09:47 AM.
sylla1 is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 15th, 2012, 10:30 AM   #242

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

Mine was just an observation on this phenomenon, which I feel difficult to define exclusively military.
I repeat what is written before, it is a defeat of the Crusaders. Europeans have squandered their resources in Holy Land in a continuous way, without having time to recover and without having established a permanent domination.
In my opinion, the Crusades were a series of uncoordinated operations, a compartment fire of resources on both sides.
Andros is online now  
Old November 15th, 2012, 10:42 AM   #243
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andros View Post
Mine was just an observation on this phenomenon, which I feel difficult to define exclusively military.
I repeat what is written before, it is a defeat of the Crusaders. Europeans have squandered their resources in Holy Land in a continuous way, without having time to recover and without having established a permanent domination.
In my opinion, the Crusades were a series of uncoordinated operations, a compartment fire of resources on both sides.
Especially from the side who unilaterally and senselessly began these futile military expeditions.

Because the defender side ultimately simply won.

Guess we might fundamentally agree here.
sylla1 is offline  
Old November 15th, 2012, 01:49 PM   #244

DreamWeaver's Avatar
Misanthropologist
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Wales
Posts: 10,209
Blog Entries: 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post
Last time I checked, the Crusades (the OP) were by definition undisputed military expeditions.

At the risk of overstating the obvious as explicitly required here,their victor (the OP) necessarily couldn't be defined but in military terms.
Actually, crusades historians argue over defining crusades, there are different schools of thought. Its dangerous not to be a pluralist in the UK these days.


Historians love petitfogging and dividing stuff up into schools of thought after all.

Last edited by DreamWeaver; November 15th, 2012 at 01:55 PM.
DreamWeaver is offline  
Old November 15th, 2012, 03:37 PM   #245
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by DreamWeaver View Post
Actually, crusades historians argue over defining crusades, there are different schools of thought. Its dangerous not to be a pluralist in the UK these days.


Historians love petitfogging and dividing stuff up into schools of thought after all.
Any relevant source on any definition of the term "Crusade" in History that may explicitly exclude military expeditions?

(Seriously, guess we are not talking here about any "Crusades" against tobacco or cancer, right?)
sylla1 is offline  
Old November 15th, 2012, 09:22 PM   #246

Yōḥānān's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2012
From: Portugal
Posts: 2,521

To avoid consensus and going to the source that coined the term:

Quote:
The Crusades were expeditions undertaken, in fulfilment of a solemn vow, to deliver the Holy Places from Mohammedan tyranny. The origin of the word may be traced to the cross made of cloth and worn as a badge on the outer garment of those who took part in these enterprises. Medieval writers use the terms crux (pro cruce transmarina, Charter of 1284, cited by Du Cange s.v. crux), croisement (Joinville), croiserie (Monstrelet), etc. Since the Middle Ages the meaning of the word crusade has been extended to include all wars undertaken in pursuance of a vow, and directed against infidels, i.e. against Mohammedans, pagans, heretics, or those under the ban of excommunication. The wars waged by the Spaniards against the Moors constituted a continual crusade from the eleventh to the sixteenth century; in the north of Europe crusades were organized against the Prussians and Lithuanians; the extermination of the Albigensian heresy was due to a crusade, and, in the thirteenth century the popes preached crusades against John Lackland and Frederick II. But modern literature has abused the word by applying it to all wars of a religious character, as, for instance, the expedition of Heraclius against the Persians in the seventh century and the conquest of Saxony by Charlemagne.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Crusades

Last edited by Yōḥānān; November 15th, 2012 at 09:35 PM.
Yōḥānān is offline  
Old November 16th, 2012, 05:31 AM   #247

DreamWeaver's Avatar
Misanthropologist
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Wales
Posts: 10,209
Blog Entries: 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post
Any relevant source on any definition of the term "Crusade" in History that may explicitly exclude military expeditions?

(Seriously, guess we are not talking here about any "Crusades" against tobacco or cancer, right?)

Giles Constable wrote an article on defining the crusades, its name currently eludes me though I can check later when I have material to hand. Christopher Tyerman's Debate on the Crusades also covers it in his later chapters.


I am refering here to The Crusades, capital C, in a largely medieval context, as opposed to more modern notions of crusades against crime or poverty. All of which general contain some form of military aspect, greater or lesser. Though there are some where the term military might be used dubiously, or where despite the presence of the military, little to no military action was taken.


Did the Crusades have a victor? The question of the OP.

1. What is a Crusade?

2. What are victory conditions?


The answers to 1 and 2 are of course variable. But I shall limit myself to the first.

The answer is as it currently stands, academic historians cand decide, depends on what shcool of though you place yourself in. There is a notable Oxford vs Cambridge split in the anglo-phone sphere of the field. Now the OP doesnt define what Crusades manes, and thus it is open to the same debate as the academics pursue in the matter. Besides it allows for a greater expansion of the thread.

What is a Crusade? If one (traditionalists, of which there seem to be an ever dwindling number) define it as purely an armed/military pilgrimage to the Latin East then they are relatively few in number and their oputcome is quite clear and obviously a failure in purely military/political terms. Yet this is too simplistic and black and white and the field of crusade studies has moved on since the 1960's to more Pluralist ideas. A Crusade is any armed expedition called by or endorsed by the Papacy receiving crusading priveleges. Now the category has expanded. There are noew more crusades to consider, Iberia, the Baltic, Southern France, Italy, Sicily, Germany, Greece etc. Yet such a definition is also under scrutiny. (I unfortnately can not remember the names of the other schools of though off the top of my head). If it looks like a crusade, walks like a crusade and talks like a crusade, then it is a crusade. Such definitions then push the boundary of crusading outwards chronologically beyond the usual c.1095-1300 bracket as well as including ventures which never before would have been considered, or which had no connection or endorsement by the Papacy. An example that comes to mind, though I can not recall who wrote the paper (I shall have to keep an eye out for it) considered Byzantine Crusades as conducted by the Greek Orthodox Church as opposed to the Papacy. Likewsie others (Tyerman) have argued that some crusades long considered as such, 1-3 no less, were in fact not crusades for various reasons.

The problem becomes that there are many many crusades, and not all of them are against Islam, thus removing the obvious Christendom vs Isam dichotomy. As the number of crusades increases, with different objectives and purposes then the number of potential victors also increases. Especially where crusading traditions become established where Islam was never the enemy in the first place. If victory is then defined by the sheer number of win:lose then the Latin East becomes but part of a greater picture and of lesser value numerically, if indeed it should be considered at all in the first place.


However that said, I assume that the the OP was referring to the limited context of traditional crusades to the Latin East and as such you and, I Sylla, are both well aware that the answer there is painstakingly obvious. Though I do hope my little post here was at the least a little bit informative and thought provoking, so as to slightly alleviate the the next 100 posts.
DreamWeaver is offline  
Old November 16th, 2012, 06:54 AM   #248

Kirialax's Avatar
Megas Domestikos
 
Joined: Dec 2009
From: Canada
Posts: 3,521
Blog Entries: 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by DreamWeaver View Post
An example that comes to mind, though I can not recall who wrote the paper (I shall have to keep an eye out for it) considered Byzantine Crusades as conducted by the Greek Orthodox Church as opposed to the Papacy.
I would be most interested in this, given the ongoing (and somewhat stale, honestly) debate about the idea of sacred warfare in Byzantium.
Kirialax is offline  
Old November 16th, 2012, 06:57 AM   #249

DreamWeaver's Avatar
Misanthropologist
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Wales
Posts: 10,209
Blog Entries: 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirialax View Post
I would be most interested in this, given the ongoing (and somewhat stale, honestly) debate about the idea of sacred warfare in Byzantium.

As pointed out in a post above quoting New Advent, I do seem to recall it being largely about Heraclius and his various successors in a 7-11th century context, as opposed to anything concerning the Comneni or post 1261 Byzantines.

Did that thing where I read a bit of it thought to myself that it was interesting and that I should come back to it...then immediately forgot where it was.


Thre is this


First Crusader: Byzantium's Holy Wars: Geoffrey Regan: 9781403961518: Amazon.com: Books
First Crusader: Byzantium's Holy Wars: Geoffrey Regan: 9781403961518: Amazon.com: Books



But its not the one Im thinkg of....it was an article somewhere or other.

Last edited by DreamWeaver; November 16th, 2012 at 07:07 AM.
DreamWeaver is offline  
Old November 16th, 2012, 07:01 AM   #250
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by DreamWeaver View Post
Giles Constable wrote an article on defining the crusades, its name currently eludes me though I can check later when I have material to hand. Christopher Tyerman's Debate on the Crusades also covers it in his later chapters.


I am refering here to The Crusades, capital C, in a largely medieval context, as opposed to more modern notions of crusades against crime or poverty. All of which general contain some form of military aspect, greater or lesser. Though there are some where the term military might be used dubiously, or where despite the presence of the military, little to no military action was taken.


Did the Crusades have a victor? The question of the OP.

1. What is a Crusade?

2. What are victory conditions?


The answers to 1 and 2 are of course variable. But I shall limit myself to the first.

The answer is as it currently stands, academic historians cand decide, depends on what shcool of though you place yourself in. There is a notable Oxford vs Cambridge split in the anglo-phone sphere of the field. Now the OP doesnt define what Crusades manes, and thus it is open to the same debate as the academics pursue in the matter. Besides it allows for a greater expansion of the thread.

What is a Crusade? If one (traditionalists, of which there seem to be an ever dwindling number) define it as purely an armed/military pilgrimage to the Latin East then they are relatively few in number and their oputcome is quite clear and obviously a failure in purely military/political terms. Yet this is too simplistic and black and white and the field of crusade studies has moved on since the 1960's to more Pluralist ideas. A Crusade is any armed expedition called by or endorsed by the Papacy receiving crusading priveleges. Now the category has expanded. There are noew more crusades to consider, Iberia, the Baltic, Southern France, Italy, Sicily, Germany, Greece etc. Yet such a definition is also under scrutiny. (I unfortnately can not remember the names of the other schools of though off the top of my head). If it looks like a crusade, walks like a crusade and talks like a crusade, then it is a crusade. Such definitions then push the boundary of crusading outwards chronologically beyond the usual c.1095-1300 bracket as well as including ventures which never before would have been considered, or which had no connection or endorsement by the Papacy. An example that comes to mind, though I can not recall who wrote the paper (I shall have to keep an eye out for it) considered Byzantine Crusades as conducted by the Greek Orthodox Church as opposed to the Papacy. Likewsie others (Tyerman) have argued that some crusades long considered as such, 1-3 no less, were in fact not crusades for various reasons.

The problem becomes that there are many many crusades, and not all of them are against Islam, thus removing the obvious Christendom vs Isam dichotomy. As the number of crusades increases, with different objectives and purposes then the number of potential victors also increases. Especially where crusading traditions become established where Islam was never the enemy in the first place. If victory is then defined by the sheer number of win:lose then the Latin East becomes but part of a greater picture and of lesser value numerically, if indeed it should be considered at all in the first place.


However that said, I assume that the the OP was referring to the limited context of traditional crusades to the Latin East and as such you and, I Sylla, are both well aware that the answer there is painstakingly obvious. Though I do hope my little post here was at the least a little bit informative and thought provoking, so as to slightly alleviate the the next 100 posts.
You couldn't imagine to what extent is your superb "little post" informative & provoking for yours truly

A million thanks for sharing it with us.

After all has been said, it seems painstakingly obvious that we fundamentally agree, huh?
sylla1 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 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.