The Crusades (split off)

[LightSpectra]

Racism came about because of Europeans attributing the economic and technological backwardness of non-European countries to inherent defects in race. In the middle ages, there was no such rift between civilizations, and Europeans were well-aware that the Middle East had made several technological advancements that had not reached Europe yet.

 

[ParkCungHee]

And it also required the concept of inheritable defects. That really didn't hold sway much in those days.

 

[aronnax]

Getting your history from Eddie Izzard is about as good an idea as getting it from Rowan Atkinson or Stephen Fry; funny, good for a little diversion, but

Link to video.

Can't you just let me make fun of the stupidity of this thread without backlash?

 

[Yui108]

why do you think so?

Because it never is outside of a video game. I assume you mean all of Christendom pitted against the Dar-Al-Islam. How do you even fairly define either of those parties? Do we seperate the Orthodox and Catholics, and the Sunni and Shi'ite?. What about regions that were ruled and lived-in by opposite faiths? What percentage of each "civilization" needs to be involved for it to be a "clash"?

 

[ParkCungHee]

Lets not forget those that just didn't participate.
Disregard Crusades.
Acquire Leinster.

 

[civ_king]

Because it never is outside of a video game. I assume you mean all of Christendom pitted against the Dar-Al-Islam. How do you even fairly define either of those parties? Do we seperate the Orthodox and Catholics, and the Sunni and Shi'ite?. What about regions that were ruled and lived-in by opposite faiths? What percentage of each "civilization" needs to be involved for it to be a "clash"?

This very much so

 

[Squonk]

Because it never is outside of a video game. I assume you mean all of Christendom pitted against the Dar-Al-Islam. How do you even fairly define either of those parties? Do we seperate the Orthodox and Catholics, and the Sunni and Shi'ite?. What about regions that were ruled and lived-in by opposite faiths? What percentage of each "civilization" needs to be involved for it to be a "clash"?

I'm not sure if you're fighting against a concept, or merely against your own ridiculed vision of it. Obviously, not every person in one civ was at war with another. But then, it never is so about any larger group of people.
Orthodox and catholics? It really wasn't that important... In Byzantium, perhaps, especially after 1204. But even when it comes to Byzantium, they were involved with the crusades. The crusades were called out of orthodox emperor's instigations, he was supposed to help them on the way to Jerusalem and would have, was it not for a certain person (was it Steven of Blois?) didn't convince him and crusaders were already defeated. Later on, during Manuel Komnenos' times, but even during Kalojoannes' reign, the empire considered itself a sort of patron of Outremer.

Shia and sunni? Hardly relevant. I don't see your point.

Of course, that doesn't mean that all christians were bent on killing christians and vice versa. There were muslims participating in christian holidays, there were crusaders befriending local muslims, there were traders on both sides etc. Obviously. But that doesn't change the fact that muslims, at least were aware of their obligation to spread the borders of islam, and christians were aware it is their duty to protect / conquer the Holy Sepulchre. Their personal or communal interest may have made them act against these moral obligations, but it was not frequently denied; Venetians trading with muslims were well aware they are doing wrong and felt obligated to visit sanctuaries and ask God for forgivance.

 

[civ_king]

I'm not sure if you're fighting against a concept, or merely against your own ridiculed vision of it. Obviously, not every person in one civ was at war with another. But then, it never is so about any larger group of people.
Orthodox and catholics? It really wasn't that important... In Byzantium, perhaps, especially after 1204. But even when it comes to Byzantium, they were involved with the crusades. The crusades were called out of orthodox emperor's instigations, he was supposed to help them on the way to Jerusalem and would have, was it not for a certain person (was it Steven of Blois?) didn't convince him and crusaders were already defeated. Later on, during Manuel Komnenos' times, but even during Kalojoannes' reign, the empire considered itself a sort of patron of Outremer.

Shia and sunni? Hardly relevant. I don't see your point.

Of course, that doesn't mean that all christians were bent on killing christians and vice versa. There were muslims participating in christian holidays, there were crusaders befriending local muslims, there were traders on both sides etc. Obviously. But that doesn't change the fact that muslims, at least were aware of their obligation to spread the borders of islam, and christians were aware it is their duty to protect / conquer the Holy Sepulchre. Their personal or communal interest may have made them act against these moral obligations, but it was not frequently denied; Venetians trading with muslims were well aware they are doing wrong and felt obligated to visit sanctuaries and ask God for forgivance.

play the Sword of Islam modmod (Civ IV BTS), it will help you understand the complex geopolitics

 

[Dachs]

play the Sword of Islam modmod (Civ IV BTS), it will help you understand the complex geopolitics

This is like telling me that I might get a handle on pre-First World War Europe if I play Victoria, except slightly more outrageous.

 

[Squonk]

I think he was making fun of me, although it only indicates he didn't read my post with care.

 

[Elta]

This is like telling me that I might get a handle on pre-First World War Europe if I play Victoria, except slightly more outrageous.

I am glad I am not the only one who got a hearty laugh out of that

 

[civ_king]

This is like telling me that I might get a handle on pre-First World War Europe if I play Victoria, except slightly more outrageous.

I know, I knew you'd get some lulz out of it ^.^

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

And were started because Seljuk Turks were slaughtering Christians and the Byzantine emperor begged him for help

No that was the pretext for the Crusades. The reason for the Crusades was to stop infighting between European lords over land, and the only reason so many knights went on crusade was in search of new manors for themselves. "Deus volt" just made them feel good about it and provided a way to convince poorer people to fight and die for the benefit of their overlords.

 

[Dachs]

No that was the pretext for the Crusades. The reason for the Crusades was to stop infighting between European lords over land, and the only reason so many knights went on crusade was in search of new manors for themselves. "Deus volt" just made them feel good about it and provided a way to convince poorer people to fight and die for the benefit of their overlords.

But that's emphatically not true. Nobles impoverished themselves to get to Outremer, in some cases yielding rights over the estates they already controlled and descending into what passed for "poverty" for an aristocrat at the time to get to the East. A few families did manage to control estates in both Outremer and Western Europe, but if given a choice between the two - and due to Hierosolymitan legal codes regarding absenteeism, they were often forced into that very choice - the ones in the East generally took priority, whether they generated more wealth than did the ones back home (usually not the case, due in part to Hierosolymitan law and the prerogatives of the monarch, who employed the justification of military exigency to exercise rather more control over his aristocracy's land holdings than was the norm back West - and due in part to the fact that twelfth-century Palestine and Syria simply weren't that wealthy) or not. In general, see published works by Christopher Tyerman, to which I could give more precise citations if I were with my books.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

But that's emphatically not true. Nobles impoverished themselves to get to Outremer, in some cases yielding rights over the estates they already controlled and descending into what passed for "poverty" for an aristocrat at the time to get to the East. A few families did manage to control estates in both Outremer and Western Europe, but if given a choice between the two - and due to Hierosolymitan legal codes regarding absenteeism, they were often forced into that very choice - the ones in the East generally took priority, whether they generated more wealth than did the ones back home (usually not the case, due in part to Hierosolymitan law and the prerogatives of the monarch, who employed the justification of military exigency to exercise rather more control over his aristocracy's land holdings than was the norm back West - and due in part to the fact that twelfth-century Palestine and Syria simply weren't that wealthy) or not. In general, see published works by Christopher Tyerman, to which I could give more precise citations if I were with my books.

I don't see why both can't be true. If I were a European lord, beset with conflict at home over my land, both with the king and other lords, and I thought greater riches lay East (which popular culture did reflect a belief of), then I might be tempted to give up much of my "riches" at home in anticipation of greater returns abroad. It doesn't too much matter whether that belief was right or not, once you get there you probably aren't coming back - especially if the Pope is promising you paradise for succeeding in your ostensible goal of seizing back the Saracen-controlled Holy Land.

At any rate, the issue of conflict betwixt princes was the prime reason for the Pope calling for such ventures.

Besides, there were more crusades than those to Outremer, as you well know. Can you really say Drang Nach Osten wasn't about obtaining new feudal holdings?

 

[Dachs]

I don't see why both can't be true. If I were a European lord, beset with conflict at home over my land, both with the king and other lords, and I thought greater riches lay East (which popular culture did reflect a belief of), then I might be tempted to give up much of my "riches" at home in anticipation of greater returns abroad. It doesn't too much matter whether that belief was right or not, once you get there you probably aren't coming back - especially if the Pope is promising you paradise for succeeding in your ostensible goal of seizing back the Saracen-controlled Holy Land.

At any rate, the issue of conflict betwixt princes was the prime reason for the Pope calling for such ventures.

Maybe that works for, say, the first two decades of the Crusading era, for parts of the nobility. After 1110 or so, there's no way very many people buy the "mo moneh" argument. And neither applies to the overwhelming majority of pilgrims, whose chances of securing land holdings in the East were basically nonexistent. And what about all the people who went to the East without participating in a crusade, who could not have relied on a Papal get-out-of-jail-free card? What about the kings and nobles like the party with Prince Edward of England (later to be Longshanks) who did one-shot Crusades with no expectation of staying at all, and who were very aware that plunder would not even begin to cover their transport costs?

Minimizing the very real importance of faith and mystical reasons for pilgrimage are so 1950s, very Runcimanesque. Not every religious occurrence in history was some kind of opiate or cover for baser intentions; people actually believed this stuff.

Besides, there were more crusades than those to Outremer, as you well know. Can you really say Drang Nach Osten wasn't about obtaining new feudal holdings?

Well, since the majority of nobility who went to Prussia and Livonia didn't get any land out of it, and as participants in a monastic order of warriors had very little opportunity to come by any in the first place, I'd say that that applies less to the Baltic crusades than to Outremer, if anything. It might work for the Swedish in Finland, though honestly I've little idea as to how that went (and my copy of Christiansen is thirty miles away).

Besides, the historiographical concept of Drang nach Osten is discredited in a thirteenth- and fourteenth-century context, and widely recognized for what it was: Eastern European (and sometimes German) historians and propagandists playing the nationalism card in the context of the very real nineteenth- and twentieth-century German interest in land in the East. Ostsiedlung is better, partly because it's not such a loaded term and partly because it emphasizes the role of German Stadtrecht and the large-scale migration of peasantry, both of which were largely - far from entirely, but "largely" - peaceful.

 

[innonimatu]

Mostly because the concept of race didn't really exist (ethnicity yes, race no)? Or am I misunderstanding it?

Wasn't race invented in the "Enlightenment"?

It's true that the concept of race as we know it didn't exist. But It's not as simple. It was an age when most of the world was unknown and explorers themselves expected to meet really different humanoid races. Medieval fantasies about humanoid being liven in far-away uncharted lands were many. Meeting people with a slightly different appearance would not meet the expectation of what was a different race.

The modern idea of human races seems to have developed as a consequence of the exploration of the planet, of the end of new frontiers to search and new creatures to find. Much of the interior of the continents was still unexplored, but by the early 18th century it was clear that there was no major civilized nation still unknown. The fabled other races didn't exist, only the ordinary humans. So, we created them anyway!

Was the whole enlightenment also a consequence of this exploration? It contributed, certainly. Its main characteristic was (in my opinion) the assertion of scientific authority, and that could only happen once exploration had separated fantasy from reality. To borrow from the title from that famous recent book, you man infer that a black swan doesn't exist, but you still risk coming upon one in some uncharted land! The kind of scientific inference on which the new worldview of the enlightenment rested depended on the world being already (roughly) explored. Only then could "authoritative" conclusions be drawn about nature, and a philosophical edifice built upon the new natural sciences.

 

[Torgny]

Why dont Christians ever condemn the Crusades and the willing spread of STDs

Yes, I think that it is time for the Catholoc church to apology for the crusades (protestant religion was not yet invented at that time). The crusades originally started against the Muslims, but the last big crusade was against other Christians!!! 1209-1229 pope Innocent III and the king of France killed several hundred thousand cathars in a twenty year long crusade. Yes, the pope called this a crusade. Southern France had largely left the Catholic church and adopted the cathar faith. Pope Innocent III restored the power in southern France to the Catholic church through a crusade.

 

[civ_king]

Yes, I think that it is time for the Catholoc church to apology for the crusades (protestant religion was not yet invented at that time). The crusades originally started against the Muslims, but the last big crusade was against other Christians!!! 1209-1229 pope Innocent III and the king of France killed several hundred thousand cathars in a twenty year long crusade. Yes, the pope called this a crusade. Southern France had largely left the Catholic church and adopted the cathar faith. Pope Innocent III restored the power in southern France to the Catholic church through a crusade.

LOLWUT?

 

[Torgny]

Here is a link with more information about the last crusade


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade