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 24th, 2012, 06:47 AM   #31
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by DreamWeaver View Post
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.
Demographics is only advanced as another potential contributor among myriad for the evident aggressive condition of the western European Christianity by the XI & XII centuries.

In any case, it is hardly just any private personal conclusion of Prof. Damen.

At the end of the day, nobody knows yet why did the Crusades appear as they did; period.

When any easy obvious explanation is so ostensibly lacking for the apparently sudden appearance of massive religious violence on such scale, it is perfectly valid to explore any available alternative.

In any case, the "coincidence" is actually hard evidence, and it is there to be explained.
So easily & categorically dismissing it a priori as "mere coincidence" might seem as not a terribly careful methodology.

From the rest of Prof. Damen's explanation it's clear that the horses are placed before the cart, and that he is carefully weighting several diverse relevant hypotheses.
IMHO pretending to cherrypick one hypotesis alone and to quote it out of context would be plainly fallacious.
sylla1 is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 24th, 2012, 06:56 AM   #32

DreamWeaver's Avatar
Misanthropologist
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Wales
Posts: 10,266
Blog Entries: 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post
Demographics is only advanced as another potential contributor among myriad for the evident aggressive condition of the western European Christianity by the XI & XII centuries.

In any case, it is hardly just any private personal conclusion of Prof. Damen.

At the end of the day, nobody knows yet why the Crusades appeared as they did; period.

When any easy obvious explanation is so ostensibly lacking for the apparently sudden appearance of massive religious violence on such scale, it is perfectly valid to explore any available alternative.

In any case, the "coincidence" is actually hard evidence, and it is there to be explained.
So easily & categorically dismissing it a priori as "mere coincidence" might seem as not a terribly careful methodology.

From the rest of Prof. Damen's explanation it's clear that the horses are placed before the cart, and that he is carefully weighting several diverse relevant hypotheses.
IMHO pretending to cherrypick one hypotesis alone and to quote it out of context would be plainly fallacious.

Not really.

The papacy called other crusades, they urged the populace of the Latin West to go to the Latin East. These appeals failed, they were not taken up. The Latin East regularly appealed to their co-religionist to come to help them. Diplomatic efforts were intense across the 1160's-1180's yet produced nothing of note. Only with the fell of Edessa and the fall of Jerusalem were responses on any magnitude made.

The crusades are dictated by the events of the Levant, not the demographics of Europe. That they conveniently coincide with the demographics is just that, convenient, convenient for those that might wish to divest themselves of those unwanted extra family members. Yet if those extra bodies were unneeded, the Latin East was still there regardless. They could have gone at any other time, but they didnt, they went when a need in relation to specific events in the east called them. Cart before the horse. This is the easier and more obvious solution.


You of course noted that I only quoted a specific part, as opposed to the whole, which I then discussed his obvious errors on. I have made no mention of the rest of his argument or my opinions there on.

To assume that one might disagree with the whole because of one disagrees with a single element of it would be fallacious. IMHO. Period.

Last edited by DreamWeaver; November 24th, 2012 at 07:07 AM.
DreamWeaver is offline  
Old November 24th, 2012, 07:20 AM   #33
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by DreamWeaver View Post
Not really.

The papacy called other crusades, they urged the populace of the Latin West to go to the Latin East. These appeals failed, they were not taken up. The Latin East regularly appealed to their co-religionist to come to help them. Diplomatic efforts were intense across the 1160's-1180's yet produced nothing of note. Only with the fell of Edessa and the fall of Jerusalem were responses on any magnitude made.

The crusades are dictated by the events of the Levant, not the demographics of Europe. That they conveniently coincide with the demographics is just that, convenient, convenient for those that might wish to divest themselves of those unwanted extra family members. Yet if those extra bodies were unneeded, the Latin East was still there regardless. They could have gone at any other time, but they didnt, they went when a need in relation to specific events in the east called them. Cart before the horse.


You of course noted that I only quoted a specific part, as opposed to the whole, which I then discussed his obvious errors on. I have made no mention of the rest of his argument or my opinions there on.

To assume that one might disagree with the whole because of one disagrees with a single element of it would be fallacious. IMHO. Period.
Yes, really.

You're absolutely right; that's a fine description of the fallacy you are attempting here.

Prof Damen presented hard evidence; I can find no "obvious errors" as you have presented none.

IMHO this would be one of the obvious reasons why there is currently no scholar consensus of the origin of the Crusades.

As anyone here could easily verify, of course.

In any case, we can rest reasonably sure that such origin was definitely multifactorial.

It couldn't be any more over-simplistic and frankly naive to the NTh degree to pretend that any historical phenomenon so evidently utterly complex could have been explained from the "events of the Levant" (basically just Constantinople asking for some mercenaries).

Of course, it would be far easier for all parts involved to conclude that the Crusades were just gratuitous spontaneous massive psychosis.
Just a coincidence.
God's will.

In any case, an exponentially better explanation than blaming any events a half-millennium earlier...

God only knows why people like prof. Damen and other scholars may try to make things any more complex, huh?
sylla1 is offline  
Old November 24th, 2012, 07:22 AM   #34

DreamWeaver's Avatar
Misanthropologist
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Wales
Posts: 10,266
Blog Entries: 6

You are evidently missing the point.

Quote:
You're absolutely right; that's a fine description of the fallacy you are attempting here.
Dig you fallacy pit deeper Sylla, you made an assumption and I called you on it.


Prof Damien has provided very little.

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.
He is suggesting that the demographics of Europe gave rise to the 2nd and 3rd Crusades. This is ludicrous.

Crusading appeals by Adrian IV in 1157, Alexander III in 1165 and 1166, 1169 and 1181. Papal Bulls issued with crusading indulgences and benefices for those who took the cross. All of these are in response to appeals directly from the Latin East and the reception of diplomatic envoys. Very little happened.

If the surplus populations of the Latin West wanted to become crusaders because they had nothing better to do and needed direction ion life, then they failed to take up any of the possibilities and opportunities for that when it was presented to them. They only do it on any significant scale in 1144 and 1187 when the disastrous events of the Latin East filter back.

Last edited by DreamWeaver; November 24th, 2012 at 07:32 AM.
DreamWeaver is offline  
Old November 24th, 2012, 07:26 AM   #35
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by DreamWeaver View Post
Crusading appeals by Adrian IV in 1157, Alexander III in 1165 and 1166, 1169 and 1181. Papal Bulls issued with crusading indulgences and benefices for those who took the cross.
Another relevant contributor among myriad, no doubt.

Because my sins not being condoned by a priest seems like a perfectly sound justification for the massive slaughter of Muslims, Christians and Jews that for any coincidence had not appeared in previous centuries, on at the whole Eastern Christianity for that matter.

Especially so on a continental scale.

Last edited by sylla1; November 24th, 2012 at 07:36 AM.
sylla1 is offline  
Old November 24th, 2012, 07:35 AM   #36

DreamWeaver's Avatar
Misanthropologist
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Wales
Posts: 10,266
Blog Entries: 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post
.

Because my sins not being condoned by a priest seems like a perfectly sound justification for the massive slaughter of Muslims, Christians and Jews that for any coincidence had not appeared in previous centuries, on at the whole Eastern Christianity for that matter.
Anachronism? Whose justification?


Quote:
God only knows why people like prof. Damen and other scholars may try to make things any more complex, huh?
Because they are very more complex

Last edited by DreamWeaver; November 24th, 2012 at 07:40 AM.
DreamWeaver is offline  
Old November 24th, 2012, 07:41 AM   #37
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by DreamWeaver View Post
Anachronism? Whose justification?
Can't be serious; how could it be any "anachronism" if I'm explicitly comparing it with the contemporary Eastern Christianity?

If anyone here may be looking for any "justifications" at all, rest assured it is definitely not yours truly.
IMHO there couldn't be any more futile & useless task, as I may have mentioned either here or elsewhere all along Historum.

What historian usually try to find are "explanations", a bit different concept.
sylla1 is offline  
Old November 24th, 2012, 07:45 AM   #38

DreamWeaver's Avatar
Misanthropologist
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Wales
Posts: 10,266
Blog Entries: 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post
Can't be serious; how could it be any "anachronism" if I'm explicitly comparing it with the contemporary Eastern Christianity?

If anyone here may be looking for any "justifications" at all, rest assured it is definitely not yours truly.
IMHO there couldn't be any more futile & useless task, as I may have mentioned either here or elsewhere all along Historum.

What historian usually try to find are "explanations", a bit different concept.


Then why do you keep referring to justifications?

Quote:

IMHO there couldn't be any more futile & useless task, as I may have mentioned either here or elsewhere all along Historum.
That's a judgement call, upon what is it based, your own 21st century opinion or those of the populace of Latin Christendom in the 11-13th century Europe? If not the latter then what is it? What relevance does it hold if not?

Quote:

What historian usually try to find are "explanations", a bit different concept.
Which is what we do, and Damien's particular part of that explanation is a bit crap that doesn't match up with historical evidence.
DreamWeaver is offline  
Old November 24th, 2012, 07:49 AM   #39
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by DreamWeaver View Post
You are evidently missing the point.



Dig you fallacy pit deeper Sylla, you made an assumption and I called you on it.


Prof Damien has provided very little.



He is suggesting that the demographics of Europe gave rise to the 2nd and 3rd Crusades. This is ludicrous.

Crusading appeals by Adrian IV in 1157, Alexander III in 1165 and 1166, 1169 and 1181. Papal Bulls issued with crusading indulgences and benefices for those who took the cross. All of these are in response to appeals directly from the Latin East and the reception of diplomatic envoys. Very little happened.

If the surplus populations of the Latin West wanted to become crusaders because they had nothing better to do and needed direction ion life, then they failed to take up any of the possibilities and opportunities for that when it was presented to them. They only do it on any significant scale in 1144 and 1187 when the disastrous events of the Latin East filter back.
Nope, he is explaining that some scholars have suggested that there may be some relation between the demographic evolution of Europe and the chronology of the Crusades.

For any reason it may seem "very little" to you, but it is still hard evidence.

Categorically pretending a priori that it is just "a coincidence" simply couldn't be any poorer methodology.

And again, you are deliberately fallaciously pretending to ignore that this is just one contributor among myriad advanced to explain the still unexplained origin of the Crusades.

"Unexplained" for the scholar community, of course.
Naturally aside of God's will.
sylla1 is offline  
Old November 24th, 2012, 07:54 AM   #40

DreamWeaver's Avatar
Misanthropologist
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Wales
Posts: 10,266
Blog Entries: 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post
Nope, he is explaining that some scholars have suggested that there may be some relation between the demographic evolution of Europe and the chronology of the Crusades.

For any reason it may seem "very little" to you, but it is still hard evidence.
Not what Im reading, my evidence is harder.....its physically extant.

Quote:
Categorically pretending a priori that it is just "a coincidence" simply couldn't be any poorer methodology.
I have assessed it and dismissed it, there is no pretending about it. I simply don't buy it.

Quote:
And again, you are deliberately fallaciously pretending to ignore that this is just one contributor among myriad advanced to explain the still unexplained origin of the Crusades.

"Unexplained" for the scholar community, of course.
Naturally aside of God's will.
Nope that's you and your assumptions again. Just take it on the chin.
DreamWeaver 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.