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 17th, 2012, 04:22 PM   #281

Gnaeus's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Jul 2012
From: Toronto
Posts: 197

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yōḥānān View Post
Which was what?
I was asking what was the legitimate reason the church had for the Crusades?
Gnaeus is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 17th, 2012, 04:27 PM   #282

Bamboozle's Avatar
Academician
 
Joined: Apr 2012
From: Oregon
Posts: 88

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnaeus View Post
I was asking what was the legitimate reason the church had for the Crusades?
To "retake the Holy Land from the infidels". That's the basis of the whole Crusading ideal, although in most of the Crusades the Franks fought more over wealth and land than over religious things.
Bamboozle is offline  
Old November 17th, 2012, 04:37 PM   #283
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yōḥānān View Post
I assume you say that because Saddam had no authority to issue a Jihad only a religious authority can do that. However the Reconquista in the designated period was sometimes an act of Crusade and for the rest of the time within the spirit. And unlike Saddam the Catholic Church had legitimacy to issue a Crusade.
You can't be serious.

Please check out the term Reconquista in any regular (non-Papal) dictionary

Whatever any Pope may have imagined of his own relevance, the Reconquista lasted for eight centuries; the local people were fiercely fighting centuries before and centuries after the Crusade era.

And no, they didn't wait for any Papal blessing to fight for the re-conquest of their land.

Deliberately or not, you are using the whole term "Reconquista" for what were at best a fistful of expeditions sponsored by any Pope in turn to help the locals, and which BTW analogous to the "help" given to the Roman Empire, often destroyed the local Christians too.

Regarding >90% of the Reconquista by any standard, the Popes were simply entirely absent; period.
sylla1 is offline  
Old November 18th, 2012, 02:28 AM   #284

caldrail's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,769

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.
The winner, as Terry Jones dryly puts it, were the merchants of Venice who walked away with the cash.
caldrail is offline  
Old November 18th, 2012, 02:54 AM   #285
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

And other trade cities too, especially from Italy, and especially after the IV Crusade; excellent point,
sylla1 is offline  
Old November 18th, 2012, 06:09 AM   #286

Yōḥānān's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2012
From: Portugal
Posts: 2,471

Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post
You can't be serious.

Please check out the term Reconquista in any regular (non-Papal) dictionary

Whatever any Pope may have imagined of his own relevance, the Reconquista lasted for eight centuries; the local people were fiercely fighting centuries before and centuries after the Crusade era.

And no, they didn't wait for any Papal blessing to fight for the re-conquest of their land.

Deliberately or not, you are using the whole term "Reconquista" for what were at best a fistful of expeditions sponsored by any Pope in turn to help the locals, and which BTW analogous to the "help" given to the Roman Empire, often destroyed the local Christians too.

Regarding >90% of the Reconquista by any standard, the Popes were simply entirely absent; period.
No need to get touchy. Considering the case of my country I would hardly agree with you. The importance of the Crusades and of the spirit of the Crusades was of great relevance in many decisive battles like the taking of Lisbon but also decisive battles at the level of the Iberian Peninsula like the battle of Las Navas de Tolosa were a consequence of that Christian unity and papal intervention.

Battle_of_Las_Navas_de_Tolosa Battle_of_Las_Navas_de_Tolosa


There was also a negative side to this need of Papal legitimacy and that was the growth in privileges and possessions of religious orders. Afonso II the third king of Portugal was excommunicated for limiting those privileges.

Last edited by Yōḥānān; November 18th, 2012 at 06:29 AM.
Yōḥānān is offline  
Old November 18th, 2012, 08:18 AM   #287
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yōḥānān View Post
No need to get touchy. Considering the case of my country I would hardly agree with you. The importance of the Crusades and of the spirit of the Crusades was of great relevance in many decisive battles like the taking of Lisbon but also decisive battles at the level of the Iberian Peninsula like the battle of Las Navas de Tolosa were a consequence of that Christian unity and papal intervention.

Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


There was also a negative side to this need of Papal legitimacy and that was the growth in privileges and possessions of religious orders. Afonso II the third king of Portugal was excommunicated for limiting those privileges.
"Touchy" is not the right word here and has nothing to do with the facts.

Navas de Tolosa was indeed the culmination of centuries of war against the local Muslims, ultimately against fierce recently converted invaders from north Africa, well beyond the scope of any particular Pope.

The relevant point is that for already some time the fight against the residual Muslims realms of Spain had been restricted almost exclusively to Castille.

Nobody did dispute the objective help of some international Crusade spirit now & the.

In the case of the portentous clash 1212, it helped unite the diverse Christian kingdoms in a common effort against the Almohades, notoriously excluding Portugal.

What is absolutely unhistorical is the pretension that the Reconquista as a whole could be attributed to any Crusade called by any Pope.

Last edited by sylla1; November 18th, 2012 at 08:39 AM.
sylla1 is offline  
Old November 18th, 2012, 10:02 AM   #288

DreamWeaver's Avatar
Misanthropologist
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Wales
Posts: 10,175
Blog Entries: 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnaeus View Post
I was asking what was the legitimate reason the church had for the Crusades?
It fulfilled the prerequisite for the reasons of just war as laid down by St. Augustine.

It had legitimate power because society of the time deemed it to be so.
DreamWeaver is online now  
Old November 18th, 2012, 10:34 AM   #289

Yōḥānān's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2012
From: Portugal
Posts: 2,471

Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post
"Touchy" is not the right word here and has nothing to do with the facts.

Navas de Tolosa was indeed the culmination of centuries of war against the local Muslims, ultimately against fierce recently converted invaders from north Africa, well beyond the scope of any particular Pope.
It was the culmination of the defeat of Castille by the Moors in the Battle of Alarcos and the arrival in the Peninsula of Muhammad al-Nasir. It was a Crusade called by Pope Inocent III.



Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post
In the case of the portentous clash 1212, it helped unite the diverse Christian kingdoms in a common effort against the Almohades, notoriously excluding Portugal.
Why excluding Portugal? The Portuguese fought in that battle.
Yōḥānān is offline  
Old November 18th, 2012, 10:36 AM   #290

Yōḥānān's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2012
From: Portugal
Posts: 2,471

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnaeus View Post
I was asking what was the legitimate reason the church had for the Crusades?
I would subscribe the reason given by DreamWeaver.
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 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.