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 December 3rd, 2012, 06:03 PM   #361

DreamWeaver's Avatar
Misanthropologist
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Wales
Posts: 10,445
Blog Entries: 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post
Another relevant primary source on the Crusade's religious fanaticism, Saint Bernard de Clairvaux's call for the Second Crusade:
Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post
Another illustrative first-hand fanatic pearl: (Guibert of Nogent, Gesta Dei per Francos)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post
Another one: Gregorius VII's bull Audita tremendi, calling for the Third Crusade.
Quote:
Elementary sources analysis 101: being first hand material doesn't mean that it is relevant for the issue at hand.

...this has what to do with objective waste?




...oh yes nothing, this is one of those red herring things isnt it.
DreamWeaver is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 3rd, 2012, 07:16 PM   #362
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,933

Quote:
Originally Posted by DreamWeaver View Post
...this has what to do with objective waste?




...oh yes nothing, this is one of those red herring things isnt it.
So you were able to hear after all?

But not of read with the minimal care, it seems.

Nope, fallacious red herrings were just your endless links on the Patrologia of a related thread.

As timely explained above, your requirement of primary sources on waste is just deliberately absurd poor methodology.

(Yup, desperate times call for desperate measures)

Of course, as surely you couldn't ignore, the economic analysis of economic concepts like waste requires secondary-plus sources.

For example, this noice post from a related thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DreamWeaver View Post
With the greater establishment and clarification of crusading doctrine by the Church post Lateran IV, ecclesiatical taxation became a ready and convenient source for supplying finances to any crusading army. While of great value and use, since a 5-10% tax on ecclesiastical property could produce a considerable sum of money, much still relies upon the actual individual magnates and their own resources. Those of considerable position such as the King of France or rulers of great lordships might get by, but lesser magnates might fall short, and some notably did, Joinville in the 7th Crusade, Duke of Burgundy in the 3rd, and so have to rely upon their social/political superiors to bail them out. Louis IX spent about 6x his annual in come on the 7th Crusade, for which we have extensive financial accounts and it has been estimated that on average a magnate heading to the Latin East would have to provide some 4x his annual income to undertake the task. Crusading isnt cheap.
(Yup, emphasis is mine)

Nope, it wasn't cheap; it was an incredibly waste of resources; and we are yet to talk about the evidently immense waste of lives,

Naturally, if you may still consider this superb evidence of waste as mere "red herring", you may ask the author of this nice post about the relevant primary sources
sylla1 is offline  
Old December 3rd, 2012, 07:27 PM   #363
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,933

For the record. this is what Simon Lloyd has to say about the aforementioned Gargantuan waste of money from the pious fanaticism of (Saint) Louis IX of France:
Quote:
Probably the best documented is Louis IX’s first crusade, estimated by the French government in the fourteenth century to have cost Louis 1,537,570 livres tournois between 1248 and his return to France in 1254.

The accounts list sums paid for provisions and clothing for the king and his household, the wages of knights, crossbowmen, and sergeants, the replacement and purchase of horses, mules, and camels, hire and provisioning of shipping, gifts and loans to crusaders, the king’s ransom after he was taken prisoner by the Muslims in April 1250, work on fortifications in the Holy Land, and so on.

This sum is equivalent to more than six times his typical annual income of 250,000 livres, but it cannot be considered to be the total cost to the king since it has been estimated that Louis also subsidized, through contracts, gifts, and loans, around 55 per cent of the crusaders accompanying him.

Nor does it allow for ‘hidden costs’, such as the large sums involved in constructing the new royal port of Aigues Mortes, specifically chosen for embarkation, or the costs incurred by Louis in seeking to pacify and stabilize his kingdom before departure.

A figure closer to 3,000,000 livres, or twelve times his budgetable annual income, is probably nearer the mark.
(Yup, as usual emphasis is mine)

Hint: the account lists are the primary source for Lloyd's superb analysis on such religiously fanatic economic waste of proportions hardly ever recorderd.

Guess even you may be able to hear the fanatic waste by now, huh?
sylla1 is offline  
Old December 3rd, 2012, 07:58 PM   #364

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

It was a waste towards the later Crusades of the 1200s, but other Crusades were very successful. The First Crusade established a powerful kingdom from a demoralized and bedraggled army. The Fourth Crusaders, numbering about 20,000, overwhelmed the 30,000 defenders of Constantinople and plundered far loot far more worth than the costs of the original expedition - not to mention the Latin Empire that they were to rule for more than half a century.

Your claim that every Crusade was a whirlpool of men and resources is true to an extent, but many states gained greatly from them. The Venetians were transformed into a mercantile superpower with domination of the seas, for instance.
Bamboozle is offline  
Old December 3rd, 2012, 08:19 PM   #365
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,933

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bamboozle View Post
It was a waste towards the later Crusades of the 1200s, but other Crusades were very successful. The First Crusade established a powerful kingdom from a demoralized and bedraggled army. The Fourth Crusaders, numbering about 20,000, overwhelmed the 30,000 defenders of Constantinople and plundered far loot far more worth than the costs of the original expedition - not to mention the Latin Empire that they were to rule for more than half a century.

Your claim that every Crusade was a whirlpool of men and resources is true to an extent, but many states gained greatly from them. The Venetians were transformed into a mercantile superpower with domination of the seas, for instance.
As our Dreamweaver rightly & clearly explained, Crusades weren't cheap, not by a long shot; some eloquent examples of the Gargantuan costs involved have already been posted above.

At the risk of overstating the obvious, the military success of the First Crusade itself didn't prevent it from having been objectively a colossal absurd waste of resources & lives...

The Fouth Crusade may have been an economic success (even if presumably just for the Venetians and a couple of warlords) precisely because it immediately abandoned the fanatic Crusade Spirit and became a purely rapine expedition; the money didn't come from Holy Land but from fellow Christians, both Catholic & Orthodox.

The Venetians and other Mediterranean cities became major powers precisely because they deliberately avoided the fanatic Crusader spirit, so allowing themselves to do business with all sides, as BTW our Dreamweaver so clearly explained in a related thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DreamWeaver View Post
Indeed one can see in the various decrees from Ecumenical councils from the Third Lateran 1179 onwards throughout the 13th Century a ban on shipping contraband to Egypt and other Muslim states with the threat of sanction and excommunication. That the Papacy kept having to issue such edicts implies that they werent being followed.

Last edited by sylla1; December 3rd, 2012 at 08:53 PM.
sylla1 is offline  
Old December 4th, 2012, 04:30 AM   #366

DreamWeaver's Avatar
Misanthropologist
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Wales
Posts: 10,445
Blog Entries: 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post
So you were able to hear after all?

But not of read with the minimal care, it seems.

Nope, fallacious red herrings were just your endless links on the Patrologia of a related thread.

As timely explained above, your requirement of primary sources on waste is just deliberately absurd poor methodology.

(Yup, desperate times call for desperate measures)

Of course, as surely you couldn't ignore, the economic analysis of economic concepts like waste requires secondary-plus sources.

For example, this noice post from a related thread: (Yup, emphasis is mine)

Nope, it wasn't cheap; it was an incredibly waste of resources; and we are yet to talk about the evidently immense waste of lives,

Naturally, if you may still consider this superb evidence of waste as mere "red herring", you may ask the author of this nice post about the relevant primary sources

A meme I think.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 31265567.jpg (93.9 KB, 13 views)
DreamWeaver is offline  
Old December 4th, 2012, 04:50 AM   #367

DreamWeaver's Avatar
Misanthropologist
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Wales
Posts: 10,445
Blog Entries: 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post
So you were able to hear after all?

But not of read with the minimal care, it seems.

Nope, fallacious red herrings were just your endless links on the Patrologia of a related thread.

As timely explained above, your requirement of primary sources on waste is just deliberately absurd poor methodology.

(Yup, desperate times call for desperate measures)

Of course, as surely you couldn't ignore, the economic analysis of economic concepts like waste requires secondary-plus sources.

For example, this noice post from a related thread: (Yup, emphasis is mine)

Nope, it wasn't cheap; it was an incredibly waste of resources; and we are yet to talk about the evidently immense waste of lives,

Naturally, if you may still consider this superb evidence of waste as mere "red herring", you may ask the author of this nice post about the relevant primary sources
Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post
For the record. this is what Simon Lloyd has to say about the aforementioned Gargantuan waste of money from the pious fanaticism of (Saint) Louis IX of France:
(Yup, as usual emphasis is mine)

Hint: the account lists are the primary source for Lloyd's superb analysis on such religiously fanatic economic waste of proportions hardly ever recorderd.

Guess even you may be able to hear the fanatic waste by now, huh?


Yes we have the accounts. The problem is Sylla is that while knowing the costs is all well and good, the concepts of waste (objective waste no less) is a judgement call, a decision of worth, that something was or was not worth it. Something may cost a lot, but are those costs justifiable or considered worth it.

You have said that they were an objective waste, yet you have failed to subjectively define what that objective waste is or means. Nor have you provided any material to attempt to support your claim and justify it with in the the currently non-existant criteria.


Lloyd here has not offered an analysis of waste, let alone a superb one. He has merely stated an element of cost. There is no mention or reference or discussion of the relative merits and flaws of this expenditure.

As I said earlier

Quote:
Please provide your elementary review of primary source materials defining, judging and quantifying the nature of waste and resources that was detrimental to European society c. 1000-1300. Please show how this racks up in potential gains vs losses scenario, in not only military, but economic, social, political, theological and cultural terms.


You have unfortunately made an error with an assumption, that in questioning Waste one must be opposed to the notion of its existence. That there was waste or that there wasnt waste. This is a false dichotomy. Im not calling a Rose by another name, the name of the Rose isnt even a question. Waste is immaterial and of no great use in debates on the subject matter, its why the academic field stopped talking about it. It is too simple, too stringent, too limited, to describe and understand the vast interconnected relationships and networks that spanned the medieval Mediterranean and Europe, and which the crusades were but a part and factor. Terms such as waste are lamentably poor and clumsy to describe and comprehend the vast detail. Its a sweeping generalisation.

The field ism so much greater than that. You have approached the matter in such simple terms as a layman or undergraduate would without concern for the complexities of the matter. Had you at any point considered the impact of the crusading phenomena in other fields and matters. Artistic and literary creations, fashions, genres and styles? The artistic creations and inspirations of the phenomena? Aristocratic and cultural diaspora? The Political economic benefits in not just general European terms as part of the Commercial Revolution, but in terms of specific countries administrations, national government, and national finance? Likewise had you considered such approaches from a Muslim perspective beyond the immediate military angle? Had any of these myriad of factors been included in your analysis of what is to be deemed waste?

Its not rocket science it is history. At crusader conferences nobody talks about crusades, there is far too much more to be said. We arent talking about the name of the Rose, we are talking about the bush it grew on, the garden in which it grew, the flower arranging, the horticulture and aesthetics and artists interpretations of the rose, the way in which it was worn, if I keep running with Rose analogies . It is the case that we, academics, have simply moved beyond the rose, and you have not.
It still stands and you still havent done it. All you have done is evade, deflect by accusing others of fallacies and dress it all up in windy verbiage.


That isnt going to cut it Sylla, that's rather poor history and style.

Quote:
Nope, fallacious red herrings were just your endless links on the Patrologia of a related thread.
Why are they red herrings?

The PL links were stated because I cited them in post, they are the footnotes specificaly detailing what I said. You choose to quibble the PL but not the actual argument they were going with. Nor were they endless, they were quit finite. I provided you with the column numbers so that you might look for yourself. They are free and online, the nature of their online formatting does not permit for specific page links, but I gave you those so you could read it yourself. Are they red herrings because they dont discuss demographics? Did you read the argument in that post, they were quite relevent to what I said. I gave you names, dates and events, I then provided yuo with the source for those name dates and events.


So I ask again, how is your Latin? You do have Latin dont you? You wouldnt just accuse them of being Red Herrings because you couldnt read them right? That would be a ridiculous thing for me to think.


Incidentally is corss posting matters from another thread not a violation of Historum forum rules? I had awlays imagined it was, but I could be wrong there.

Last edited by DreamWeaver; December 4th, 2012 at 05:58 AM.
DreamWeaver is offline  
Old December 4th, 2012, 07:13 AM   #368
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,933

Quote:
Originally Posted by DreamWeaver View Post
Yes we have the accounts. The problem is Sylla is that while knowing the costs is all well and good, the concepts of waste (objective waste no less) is a judgement call, a decision of worth, that something was or was not worth it. Something may cost a lot, but are those costs justifiable or considered worth it.

You have said that they were an objective waste, yet you have failed to subjectively define what that objective waste is or means. Nor have you provided any material to attempt to support your claim and justify it with in the the currently non-existant criteria.


Lloyd here has not offered an analysis of waste, let alone a superb one. He has merely stated an element of cost. There is no mention or reference or discussion of the relative merits and flaws of this expenditure.

As I said earlier



It still stands and you still havent done it. All you have done is evade, deflect by accusing others of fallacies and dress it all up in windy verbiage.


That isnt going to cut it Sylla, that's rather poor history and style.



Why are they red herrings?

The PL links were stated because I cited them in post, they are the footnotes specificaly detailing what I said. You choose to quibble the PL but not the actual argument they were going with. Nor were they endless, they were quit finite. I provided you with the column numbers so that you might look for yourself. They are free and online, the nature of their online formatting does not permit for specific page links, but I gave you those so you could read it yourself. Are they red herrings because they dont discuss demographics? Did you read the argument in that post, they were quite relevent to what I said. I gave you names, dates and events, I then provided yuo with the source for those name dates and events.


So I ask again, how is your Latin? You do have Latin dont you? You wouldnt just accuse them of being Red Herrings because you couldnt read them right? That would be a ridiculous thing for me to think.


Incidentally is corss posting matters from another thread not a violation of Historum forum rules? I had awlays imagined it was, but I could be wrong there.
You are incidentally naturally wrong,
(as you couldn't ignore)
... just attempting another fallacious red herring,
... and also a desperate measure to induce some mistaken correction from the administration of this website.

Perhaps you should better try to be responsible for what you say and not to cry when your own statements are not helping you.

BTW nice Meme, I love it; Doctor, cure yourself.

The same as judging "style" in any analysis of evidence; desperate measures definitely point out to desperate times.

So arguably you truly expected each and any Historumite here to read Latin just to verify why your red herrings were irrelevant to the issue at hand?
That fact alone couldn't be any more eloquent on your intention to promote deliberate confusion,

Those are excellent primary sources; they were red herrings (by definition; you should check such definition) because they were unrelated to the issue at hand.
And yes, I have previously used the Patrologia in threads related with the Medieval Roman Empire, especially when our Kirialax is involved.

And I'm truly sorry, but nope;
... the concept of profit & waste is as objective as it could be;
... no ethical "value judgement" is involved.

Lloyd clearly shows that contrary to some common misconceptions the Crusader religious fanaticism was as a whole largely pure & pristine; essentially no profits were made from these economically absurd expeditions, in spite of the customary widespread rapine.

Hardly any surprise considering the deeply mystical nature of the primary goal of these expeditions, huh?

What Lloyd and every other relevant source describes is the waste of money (& lives) for the penance of the sins by Holy War.

(Yup, emphasis is mine)

My guess is that if such waste would have been done by any Jihaidists, or by Mesoamerican warriors, (and entirely aside of any irrelevant excuse of anachronism) you wouldn't have any problem in grasping such concept.

Far as I can tell the problem here is just some inherent bias, perhaps chauvinism by proxy.

Of course, fact are facts and no fallacy or apology is going to change them an inch.

So you should better try to show us here any contrary relevant hard evidence showing any objective "profit" from such colossal losses on men & resources..

Considering your well attested abilities on the search through the specialized literature, your evident silence on any such evidence couldn't be any more eloquent.

Last edited by sylla1; December 4th, 2012 at 07:24 AM.
sylla1 is offline  
Old December 4th, 2012, 07:41 AM   #369

DreamWeaver's Avatar
Misanthropologist
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Wales
Posts: 10,445
Blog Entries: 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post
You are incidentally naturally wrong,
(as you couldn't ignore)
... just attempting another fallacious red herring,
... and also a desperate measure to induce some mistaken correction from the administration of this website.
It was just a question, incidental as I said. Hardly desperate, Im doing fine here.


Quote:
Perhaps you should better try to be responsible for what you say and not to cry when your own statements are not helping you.
Doctor cure yourself.


Quote:
So arguably you truly expected each and any Historumite here to read Latin just to verify why your red herrings were irrelevant to the issue at hand?
That fact alone couldn't be any more eloquent on your intention to promote deliberate confusion,

Those are excellent primary sources; they were red herrings (by definition; you should check such definition) because they were unrelated to the issue at hand.
And yes, I have previously used the Patrologia in threads related with the Medieval Roman Empire, especially when our Kirialax is involved.
I note how you have avoided answering the question and have simply presented a strawman. I made no mention of other historumites, only you. So tell me, how is your Latin? You should check the definition of Red Herrings there Sylla, they were perfectly relevent as I explained above.


Quote:
And I'm truly sorry, but nope;
... the concept of profit & waste is as objective as it could be;
... no ethical "value judgement" is involved.
So...what is objective waste, and how was this determined, you still havent answered the question.



Quote:
Lloyd clearly shows that contrary to some common misconceptions the Crusader religious fanaticism was as a whole largely pure & pristine; essentially no profits were made from these economically absurd expeditions, in spite of the customary widespread rapine.

Hardly any surprise considering the deeply mystical nature of the primary goal of these expeditions, huh?

What Lloyd and every other relevant source describes is the waste of money (& lives) for the penance of the sins by Holy War.

(Yup, emphasis is mine)
Term waste is all yours, not Lloyds, he makes no mention of it.


Quote:
Far as I can tell the problem here is just some inherent bias, perhaps chauvinism by proxy.
Nope fraid not, couldnt be further from the truth. The problem as far as I can tell is your insecurity complex. You evade, you deflect you disguise it all with word salad concerning logic and fallacies that makes you sound smart and enlightened. Yet it remains a salad, no real meat. I imagine you will ignore and then declare you are returning to the OP soon enough.


Quote:
Of course, fact are facts and no fallacy or apology is going to change them an inch.

So you should better try to show us here any contrary relevant hard evidence showing any objective "profit" from such colossal losses on men & resources..
False dichotomy again Sylla, as I stated some time ago and have also repeated since, I have at no time argued for or against the existence of waste, only its relevence and use. This is all rather simple stuff.

Quote:
Considering your well attested abilities on the search through the specialized literature, your evident silence on any such evidence couldn't be any more eloquent.
False again. You cant do it so you attempt to shift it to me, my silence is of no consequence. You made the claim you back up your arguments, your silence couldnt be any more eloquent.

Last edited by DreamWeaver; December 4th, 2012 at 07:54 AM.
DreamWeaver is offline  
Old December 4th, 2012, 07:56 AM   #370

JohnAshtone's Avatar
Academician
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: Wakefield West Yorkshire, England
Posts: 78

The threads seem to have lost the original point of the question, did the crusades work, to which the answer is yes, no and somewhat as it depends which crusades one refers to.

The crusades into the Baltic certainly worked, those into the Iberian penisular worked, but the ones into the Levant can be argued over till the cows come home, and dependent even then on which ones.

And before either side starts arguing over massacres, and who massacred whom, they are both as bad as each other, precisely because they were people of their time.

Those saying either side was not as bad as the other, come straight into Shakespeare's quote, "a plague on both your houses", any person studying History should know that the morals, ethics and standards of today would have no place in this period of time, anywhere in the world.

Certainly the politically correct clap trap spouted by some is jokeworthy, and any discussion should temper modern day ethics with the reality of life and death for all, pre modern Medicine and anaesthetics, was harsh, short and ugly (much like an ex girlfirend of mine lol) indeed it was sometimes better to despatch someone than leave them in the hope they would recover from wounds, although the nature of the human spirit most probably believed they would recover, and belief was at the centre of the Crusades and defence against them.
JohnAshtone is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Medieval and Byzantine History

Tags
crusades, victor



Search tags for this page
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.