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 19th, 2012, 07:45 AM   #301

DreamWeaver's Avatar
Misanthropologist
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Wales
Posts: 10,365
Blog Entries: 6

Quote:
Again, if you would like us to continue discussing virtually anything about the fascinating issue of the centuries-long Reconquista a brand new ad hoc thread would be an absolute requirement, as it is only tangentially related to the OP here.
Agreed, Johnincornwall might have much to say on the matter, knowledgeable fellow on the subject as he is. It really is a topic within a topic here.
DreamWeaver is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 19th, 2012, 07:50 AM   #302
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by DreamWeaver View Post
No, not me, Im a Pluralists with Popularist leanings, not a Generalist.

Definition issues as always. If one is a crusader, does on crusade? You can be a crusader in spain, crusading about, but not on a Crusade in spain. Distinction, hardly a gross exaggeration. Highly applicable in the 12th and 13th Centuries. Innocent III only rescinded crusading priveleges for Spain in 1213 if I recall correctly, after Las Navas des Tolosa. Could those who fought be termed crusaders? Potentially they could, though not all would agree to such a notion.


On a related note, the Templars and Hospitallers were quite well represented in Aragon and Castile, along with other native Mlitary Orders to Iberia itself. Though off the top of my head i know not how involved they were in the active progression of warfare in the region. Not my really my area.



However....[Insert overly long semantical debate where nothing is decided here]....and also the simple chronological fact that if Crusading comes about as of 1095, actions prior to it, whcih includes a goodly proportion of the Reconquista, could not be attributed to it in the same manner
For anyone Pluralist / Generalist enough:

Crusade in Europe: Dwight David Eisenhower: 9780801856686: Amazon.com: Books
Crusade in Europe: Dwight David Eisenhower: 9780801856686: Amazon.com: Books


Relevant semantics aside, the relevant point here is of course that the OP couldn't be reasonably answered but under a traditionalist definition, i.e. understanding a "Crusade" as any (western) Christian military expedition explicitly addressed to conquer Jerusalem and the surrounding Holy Land during the high Middle Ages.

More explicitly, the portentous military expedition that finally conquered the centuries-long unconquerable Constantinople, a major historical watershed on a global scale by any standard, is systematically and virtually universally named the Fourth (4th; IV) Crusade.

Click the image to open in full size.

There's a rather good and actually equally universal reason for such an absolutely systematic ordinal trend.
The numbering of some authors may sometimes vary a bit on any successive expeditions (the so-called "minor Crusades") but hardly so at all on the first four major historical expeditions.

Otherwise, no common victor (the OP) would be even conceivable encompassing all the myriad absolutely heterogeneous and often contradictory conflicts mixed under the sweeping generalization of the pluralist approach for the term "Crusade".

As anyone could easily verify, of course.

Needless to say, under any traditionalist approach my conclusions on the OP must still remain the same, at least until any relevant contrary evidence might be shown here.

Last edited by sylla1; November 19th, 2012 at 08:09 AM.
sylla1 is offline  
Old November 19th, 2012, 08:07 AM   #303
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by DreamWeaver View Post
Agreed, Johnincornwall might have much to say on the matter, knowledgeable fellow on the subject as he is. It really is a topic within a topic here.
With all due respect to Mr Johnincornwall and any other argumentum ad verecundiam, the centuries-long Reconquista couldn't be any more objectively a topic well, well, well beyond the OP here.

Aside of discussing exclusively the brief isolated episodes around the XII century that were called in hindsight a Crusade, of course.

That would be a rather distorted and restricted way of discussing something as complex as the centuries-long Reconquista, IMHO.

Just IMHO.
sylla1 is offline  
Old November 19th, 2012, 08:13 AM   #304

DreamWeaver's Avatar
Misanthropologist
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Wales
Posts: 10,365
Blog Entries: 6

Certainly beyond the Pluralist remit, a Generalist would have a very hard time pushing for this one.


The numbering system is of ocurse a legacy of historiogrpahical traditions laid down from 15th-19th centuries
DreamWeaver is offline  
Old November 19th, 2012, 08:41 AM   #305
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by DreamWeaver View Post
Certainly beyond the Pluralist remit, a Generalist would have a very hard time pushing for this one.


The numbering system is of ocurse a legacy of historiogrpahical traditions laid down from 15th-19th centuries
Under your own criteria, you mean.

Again, that depends largely on the exact criteria required by the Pluralist / Generalist author in turn, as there is simply no consensus.

It is indeed a legacy of a historiographical tradition still extant and virtually universally accepted so far; you would have a hard time trying to identify the Fourth Crusade in any scholar paper by any other name,

BTW, please note that the traditionalist Crusade of the Emperor Frederick II (regularly but not always numbered as the Sixth one) would hardly qualify either under the pluralist or the populist criteria from Giles Constable as explained by you above, as it was actually sponsored by an overtly excommunicated Monarch, and explicitly not by the Pope in turn.

Again, there's a good reason for that,

Last edited by sylla1; November 19th, 2012 at 08:50 AM.
sylla1 is offline  
Old November 19th, 2012, 08:52 AM   #306

DreamWeaver's Avatar
Misanthropologist
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Wales
Posts: 10,365
Blog Entries: 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post
Under your own criteria, you mean.

Again, that depends largely on the exact criteria required by the Pluralist / Generalist author in turn, as there is simply no consensus.
Not really. The Pluralistsic school of thought still requires that crusades contain the various crusading priveleges and beneficies granted by the Papacy for the act of taking the cross. Spain, the Baltic, Southern France etc are by them all crusades, but the Children's Crusade is not. Crusade in Europe wouldnt really fall into that category, unless the Papacy was issuing such benefices of which I am unaware. Generalsist, well a different kettle of fish there.


There is some consensus within the academic field itself, not absolute by any means, but more then enough for Jonathan Riley-Smith to have declared in 1998 that Pluralism (something he put forward) had won the day.
DreamWeaver is offline  
Old November 19th, 2012, 08:59 AM   #307

DreamWeaver's Avatar
Misanthropologist
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Wales
Posts: 10,365
Blog Entries: 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post
BTW, please note that the traditionalist Crusade of the Emperor Frederick II (regularly but not always numbered as the Sixth one) would hardly qualify either under the pluralist or the populist criteria from Giles Constable as explained by you above, as it was actually sponsored by an overtly excommunicated Monarch, and explicitly not by the Pope in turn.
Sixth is a bit of an anomally. The papacy initially supported it and called it forth only to excommunicate Frederick during it. Yet those who had undertaken the corss prior to theat excommunication and already traveleld to the Latin East ahead of the Emperor (1225-1227) were thus still covered by the papacy, and their actions sanctioned and they themselves received the benefices. As for the army that followd under Frederick directly, while he was excommunicate, I am not aware of any of the indulgences and other priveleges being rescinded for the army at large.
DreamWeaver is offline  
Old November 19th, 2012, 09:01 AM   #308
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

That said, relvant semantics aside, the relevant point for the OP here is again, in plain language, that it would be plainly impossible to designate a single common victor for all the potential Crusades that may be encompassed by the non-traditionalist criteria (either pluralist, populist or generalist)

Under the later aforementioned criteria, a specif victor must be proposed for each single purported Crusade.

For example, the victors of the Albigensian Crusade were specifically the Papacy of Innocenzo III and the French monarchy of the House of Capet.

But the victors of the Egyptian Crusade of Louis IX were specifically Baibars and the Ayyubid state.

And so on.
sylla1 is offline  
Old November 19th, 2012, 09:07 AM   #309

DreamWeaver's Avatar
Misanthropologist
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Wales
Posts: 10,365
Blog Entries: 6

easiest way to do it.
DreamWeaver is offline  
Old November 19th, 2012, 09:29 AM   #310
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by DreamWeaver View Post
easiest way to do it.
Indeed; a purported Crusade is presented here, any victor(s) is/are suggested, we debate.

Any candidate?
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 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.