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 8th, 2012, 10:47 AM   #421

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Black Knight View Post
It is my understanding that the crusades were simply the manifestation of the societal expansion of Latin Christendom. Would none of you agree that, prior to the first crusade, europe west of Constantinople was in a state of cultural expansion? As we all know, the vikings and magyars were at the time both being brought into the cultural sphere of the christian "Europe".

Is there a corolation between the epansion of Latin Europe and the contraction of Orthodox Europe? Perhaps events further east in Iran invloving the Islamic practice of Turkifying the military caste, and the political break-up of the islamic world have something to do with it.

My argument is thus: Enormous civilizational movements like the Crusades can never be watered down to a paragraph.

You may be interested in this.

[ame="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Crusades-Expansion-Catholic-Christendom-1000-1714/dp/0415371287/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1354992407&sr=8-2"]The Crusades and the Expansion of Catholic Christendom, 1000-1714: Amazon.co.uk: John France: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41B3tu3PG4L.@@AMEPARAM@@41B3tu3PG4L[/ame]
DreamWeaver is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 8th, 2012, 11:58 AM   #422
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Mar 2010
From: Montréal
Posts: 512

Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post
Why should my background modify the objective facts?
Because sylla1, you can't understand a car just by its color and outside look. No matter what arguments I'm going to bring forth, you're always going to retire in your comfortable ''facts are facts'' zone. So if you're not going to be moved by any arguments, that means something in the back of your head is articulating the view you have of the Crusades. You're either old, religious, or a victim of the way you were raised.
BrowniesRule is offline  
Old December 8th, 2012, 12:27 PM   #423
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,933

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrowniesRule View Post
Because sylla1, you can't understand a car just by its color and outside look. No matter what arguments I'm going to bring forth, you're always going to retire in your comfortable ''facts are facts'' zone. So if you're not going to be moved by any arguments, that means something in the back of your head is articulating the view you have of the Crusades. You're either old, religious, or a victim of the way you were raised.
There's no big mystery on what is "articulating" my view, namely the objective relevant hard facts (without "quotation marks") quoted by yours truly and others all along this thread.

BTW, have you actually checked them?
Who knows, those facts may help "articulate" your own view too.

In my mind and in basically any other the objective purpose of the Crusades couldn't have been any better attested; namely the fanatic Penance of the Sins by Holy warfare.

Unsurprisingly so, in pragmatic terms such expeditions were as a whole objectively an immense waste of lives & resources, even for the invaders themselves (not to talk about the victims, either Muslim, Jewish or Christian)

Easy as that...

Exactly which objective relevant hard evidence would you find so hard to "articulate" about such evident categorical statements?

Be honest: would finding any contrary relevant hard evidence be so difficult or impossible here to justify asking other posters for their personal details for attempting an informal psychoanalysis?

(BTW, guess you are already well aware that such attempt would be a blatant fallacious ad hominem, right?)
Quote:
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.
READ MORE.

Being that the case, then it is implied that the strength of the already available evidence used by yours truly couldn't be any greater, right ?
sylla1 is offline  
Old December 8th, 2012, 03:19 PM   #424
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Mar 2010
From: Montréal
Posts: 512

Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post
BTW, have you actually checked them?
Who knows, those facts may help "articulate" your own view too.
Well sylla1, you're not impressing me with your 19th century view of history. History isn't just a bunch of facts that make sense by themselves. Historians (serious and goofy ones) will always be slaves to interpretation, just as you interpret the fact that the Crusades were a waste with some numbers you found in 19th century books. In absence of serious figures, I do not lose my time with trivial numbers that are not facts, but unreal projections at best. The worst part is, you just take numbers at face value without even comparing them to other theoretical numbers like the global population of Europe or other military expeditions.


Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post
Unsurprisingly so, in pragmatic terms such expeditions were as a whole objectively an immense waste of lives & resources, even for the invaders themselves (not to talk about the victims, either Muslim, Jewish or Christian)
Here's the knot of all the problems your arguments carry. If the participants didn't consider the Crusades as a waste (I've never seen any mention of waste in Foucher de Chartes, The anonymous chronicle, later crusaders like Villehardouin and Clari, and even in muslim sources), why qualify it as a waste anyway?
You were never able to answer that query, nor will you ever be able to. That's why I started questioning myself about what could possibly make you harbour such a view.

It is perfectly legitimate to seek such answers in a field of expertise defined by the background of the contributors who manipulate the ''facts''. This is the missing knob of your thought-processing machine, and this is the reason that some historians are more qualified and more pertinent than others. Just as Mark Damen is unqualified to talk about the Crusades because he is not trained in the field of the Crusades or even the Middle Ages, your views of the Crusades are distorted by SOME kind of SOMETHING, be it your age, your education, or your religious stance. I don't know what it is, and you probably don't even know what it is either.

Here's what I perceive your train of thought to be; You do not see the use of checking one's background when you see numbers or considerations about a particular topic because you see facts as self-relevant. It's incredible that you can conceive facts as self-relevant, because facts are all reported by someone. It doesn't matter to you to know where the ''hard facts'' come from?
Mapping your thoughts is a very difficult exercise.
BrowniesRule 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.