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 23rd, 2012, 04:26 PM   #21
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by Homo Badensis View Post
What do I have to prove? The muslim aggression in the whole mediterranean region? That the muslims occupied as much christian land as they could? You can read that up in any basic history book, it´s not like I am coming up with something fancy. It´s basic knowledge. Also, you can read in any history book that the crusades started to "free the holy sites" and to support the Byzantines against muslim troops. So of course the muslim war on non-muslims provoked all this.
Nope, it's more like you are coming with a deliberately totally distorted chronology and facts for your crystal clear agenda.

Not that pretending to ignore the fate of the Orthodox Christians under the Crusader ravage that was purportedly "helping" them is going to change the facts an inch.

Not to mention the obviousness that before any invasion from one side there has regularly been an invasion of the other side, and so on ad infinitum.

(In the Middle East and elsewhere all around this Planet all along History, for that matter)

Meaning in this case that the Arab invasions centuries before the Crusades that you are so pathetically & fallaciously trying to use as such a poor excuse were naturally preceded by invasions of the Christian Romans (your "BYzantines") even pre-dating Muhammad himself.

And of course, one can go back & back to any previous invasion of the previous invasion of the previous invasion at least down to Cain & Abel
sylla1 is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 23rd, 2012, 04:27 PM   #22
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,459

At least part of the reason is a fundamental aspect of western Christianity as a fundamentally geographically "displaced" religion.

The enterity of biblical history plays out somewhere other than where they found themselves, and yet they had a very intimate and at times in place quite ardent relationship with the biblical geography. The notion to somehow bridge that gap — make up for this deficit — was in no way inconsistent.

The advent of Islam is pretty much incidental to this. Western Christianity would still be displaced compared to those bits of Holy Land geography it considered of primary religious significance.
Larrey is offline  
Old November 23rd, 2012, 04:34 PM   #23
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by Larrey View Post
At least part of the reason is a fundamental aspect of western Christianity as a fundamentally geographically "displaced" religion.

The enterity of biblical history plays out somewhere other than where they found themselves, and yet they had a very intimate and at times in place quite ardent relationship with the biblical geography. The notion to somehow bridge that gap — make up for this deficit — was in no way inconsistent.

The advent of Islam is pretty much incidental to this. Western Christianity would still be displaced compared to those bits of Holy Land geography it considered of primary religious significance.
Just remember that the advent of Islam was a half millennium before the Crusades.

Not to mention that the Crusades actually emerged in the remote western & central Europe, and amazingly so not among the eastern Christianity bordering Islam.

So it seems clear that the facts were far more complex than that.

That might be one of the reasons why there is actually no scholar consensus on the origin of the Crusades to this very day.
sylla1 is offline  
Old November 23rd, 2012, 05:38 PM   #24
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post
Just remember that the advent of Islam was a half millennium before the Crusades.
In fact, the year 500 of the Islamic Calendar corresponded to 1106-1107 AD, when for the first time ever an European king went on Crusade.
(I.e. between the First & Second Crusades)

Last edited by sylla1; November 23rd, 2012 at 05:46 PM.
sylla1 is offline  
Old November 24th, 2012, 01:13 AM   #25
Citizen
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 28

I distorted nothing in my chronology, although it was reduced to some basic events.

1. Centuries of islamic aggression, beginning with Muhammad himself and his aim to "cleanse" the Arab Peninsula from non-mulims, and including the conquest of the Holy Land from Christians and Jews and submitting and opressing them as second class citizens ("Dhimmis"), as well as the attempt to conquer Europe.
2. The Byzantines´ call for help against a still aggressive muslim community.
3. The Crusades.

Yes, the conquest of the Levante happened some centuries before the crusades, but people were aware how it had happened and they also were aware of the situation of the Christians there. Combine that with the fact that the muslims still fough the rest of the world (compare Byzantine call for help), and you can understand the crusades.

The crimes that crusaders committed on their way, even against Christians, are in another book. I condemn them. But not the "reconquista" of the Holy Land.

You fail to understand the aggressive and expansive nature of islamic theology, that had led to an outspread of islamic empires that for people back then was nothing less than a declaration of total war against everything non islamic. Understanding it from that perspective is indeed my crystal clear agenda. Why? Because I think it is historically correct. Today political correctness tries to hide the real nature of Muhammad and his early followers, but reading the qur´an and the hadiths is very helpful in understanding the history in the mediterranean region between the 7th and 17th century.

Last edited by Homo Badensis; November 24th, 2012 at 01:23 AM.
Homo Badensis is offline  
Old November 24th, 2012, 05:32 AM   #26

DreamWeaver's Avatar
Misanthropologist
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Wales
Posts: 10,315
Blog Entries: 6

Honestly you lot, I go away to read some charters of the Kingdom of Jerusalem for a day and this is what you all get up to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post

Then, with all due respect, the most elementary review of any hard historical information on the Crusades will show you how extremely absurd is the thought that you did throw here.

To begin with, the Ummayad invasion of Aquitania (Southern France) was more than three centuries before the First Crusade, i.e. like Cromwell relative to us; needless to saym such invader (mjkostly Berbers & Spanish) were entirely unrelated with the population of Palestine slaughtered by the Crusades.

In a nutshell, the Crusaders (fundamentally from western & central Europe) had simply not been in contact with the Muslims (naturally a blanket sweeping generalization to begin with) for being the victims of any aggression.

Even worse, the local ("Orthodox") Christians living in Palestine and the Medieval Roman Empire (Constantinople) who had actually been in contact & sometimes in conflict with the Muslims were even more the victims of the fanatic aggression of the Crusaders than the Muslims themselves.

Quote:
1. Centuries of islamic aggression, beginning with Muhammad himself and his aim to "cleanse" the Arab Peninsula from non-mulims, and including the conquest of the Holy Land from Christians and Jews and submitting and opressing them as second class citizens ("Dhimmis"), as well as the attempt to conquer Europe.
2. The Byzantines´ call for help against a still aggressive muslim community.
3. The Crusades.

Yes, the conquest of the Levante happened some centuries before the crusades, but people were aware how it had happened and they also were aware of the situation of the Christians there. Combine that with the fact that the muslims still fough the rest of the world (compare Byzantine call for help), and you can understand the crusades.

The crimes that crusaders committed on their way, even against Christians, are in another book. I condemn them. But not the "reconquista" of the Holy Land.

I should point out something that often emerges in this field of study, because it stems from the debate of defensive/offensive crusades and the role of Islam and something that really should be considered in those debates, but often is overlooked.

1. We as historians in the 21st century are permitted a rather long period of hindsight where we might look back to the 7th century and examine the historical events from the rise of Islam to the Fist Crusade in the 11th Century and from that make arguments on the relative levels of cultural/military interaction and if Christendom was or was not under attack etc.

2. The people of 1095 and afterwards had their own perceptions. What did they think, how did they see their position? Did they see themselves, did they fell as though they and Christendom were under attack? Regardless of what we 800 odd years later might think of the matter. Source material, the language used, the reasons and justifications given, the rhetoric and themes used in written and visual culture does suggest that (to what extent is debatable) that sort of sense of a threat, or, that such notions had some sort of resonance with the contemporaries.



Now in these sort of debates its very very easy to only consider the former, and the latter is often ignored.
DreamWeaver is offline  
Old November 24th, 2012, 05:46 AM   #27

DreamWeaver's Avatar
Misanthropologist
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Wales
Posts: 10,315
Blog Entries: 6

Quote:

It's hard not to suppose, then, that the Crusades, a century later, are tied to the rapidly changing demographics within Europe, since the first three come every forty years or so, in other words, at intervals of about a generation and a half.
If so, they are, in one respect, a means of bleeding off the ever-replenishing supply of young warriors, especially sons without inheritances or livelihoods and, in general, people seeking some purpose and direction in life.

You see I read this and I think....it is very hard to suppose.

The Fall of Edessa in 1144 and the Fall of Jerusalem in 1187 were dictated by the political and military events of the Levant as and when they occurred. Without the fall of either of these cities, you dont get the 2nd or 3rd Crusades, at least not when the occurred and in the form and manner they did and what they then went to do. (Speculative History for alternatives). 12th Century Europe is relatively lack lustre in major crusading ventures, they have to be shocked into doing it.

That these Crusades occurred coincidentally with demographics of the Latin West is just that, coincidental. It is very much a case of putting the cart before the horse. Prof Damen though, not his area of speciality though so he might be forgiven for such elementary mistakes.
DreamWeaver is offline  
Old November 24th, 2012, 06:05 AM   #28
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by DreamWeaver View Post
Honestly you lot, I go away to read some charters of the Kingdom of Jerusalem for a day and this is what you all get up to.







I should point out something that often emerges in this field of study, because it stems from the debate of defensive/offensive crusades and the role of Islam and something that really should be considered in those debates, but often is overlooked.

1. We as historians in the 21st century are permitted a rather long period of hindsight where we might look back to the 7th century and examine the historical events from the rise of Islam to the Fist Crusade in the 11th Century and from that make arguments on the relative levels of cultural/military interaction and if Christendom was or was not under attack etc.

2. The people of 1095 and afterwards had their own perceptions. What did they think, how did they see their position? Did they see themselves, did they fell as though they and Christendom were under attack? Regardless of what we 800 odd years later might think of the matter. Source material, the language used, the reasons and justifications given, the rhetoric and themes used in written and visual culture does suggest that (to what extent is debatable) that sort of sense of a threat, or, that such notions had some sort of resonance with the contemporaries.



Now in these sort of debates its very very easy to only consider the former, and the latter is often ignored.
I should point out that the First Crusade couldn't have objectively been any more offensive (successive "traditionalist" Crusades were fundamentally trying to recover the conquests from the First one)

1. Historians from either the 14th, the 21th or the 50th century AD couldn't help but note that there was a half millennium from Muhammad to the Crusades (some three or four centuries from Poitiers) and that there was a whole continent between the Crusaders' homelands and Holy Land.

2. The people of western & central Europe of the time, analogous to let say the Soviet people living under Uncle Joe, the German people under the Führer, modern Jihaidists under some petty dictators, or the fictional humankind of Orwell's 1984 ostensibly certainly perceived a purported aggression of some mysterious evil forces against the realm of Good as the genesis of all what was wrong of their world, a fanatic perception deliberately induced by Otho de Langery aka Urban II and his subordinates partners & successors, eventually by some opportunistic European secular monarchs too.

Ostensibly such perception of evil "aggression" included the Eastern Christianity and even the Jewish people too.

Naturally, the relativistic slippery slope couldn't be any more evident; arguably absolutely no conceivable atrocity or Holy War couldn't be any more easily justified from considering "perceptions".




Last but not least, IMHO History is fundamentally about lessons from past experience, as expressed by the famous Santayana's quotation.
IMHO it would be extremely hard to find any more relevant historical lesson than the well attested & documented effect of deliberately induced centuries-long massive fanatic violence, even among highly civilized people.

Last edited by sylla1; November 24th, 2012 at 06:15 AM.
sylla1 is offline  
Old November 24th, 2012, 06:15 AM   #29

DreamWeaver's Avatar
Misanthropologist
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Wales
Posts: 10,315
Blog Entries: 6

Quote:
2. The people of western & central Europe of the time, analogous to let say the Soviet people living under Uncle Joe, the German people under the Führer, modern Jihaidists under some petty dictators, or the fictional humankind of Orwell's 1984 ostensibly certainly perceived a purported aggression of some mysterious evil forces against the realm of Good as the genesis of all what was wrong of their world, a fanatic perception deliberately induced by Otho de Langery aka Urban II and his subordinates partners & successors, eventually by some opportunistic European secular monarchs too.

Naturally, the relativistic slippery slope couldn't be any more evident; arguably absolutely no conceivable atrocity or Holy War couldn't be any more easily justified from considering "perceptions".
Makes it no less important. To understand it, we must understand them.
DreamWeaver is offline  
Old November 24th, 2012, 06:16 AM   #30
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by DreamWeaver View Post
Makes it no less important. To understand it, we must understand them.
Trust me, we are trying.
sylla1 is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Medieval and Byzantine History

Tags
crusades, reason


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Reason Why [Japan vs US] ? Richard Potato War and Military History 25 April 26th, 2011 02:19 PM
Where does reason come from? coberst Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 23 August 4th, 2009 07:39 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.