native stupidity
news
When I'm reading here "Mongols" , "Ancient Greeks" , "Ancient Rom" I
demonically laugh. "HO,HO,HO,HO".
Wake up , look at world and open your fucking eyes!
All those histories is a bunch of legends created by politicians or
politician's employees.
Better then me it's told at
http://www.revisedhistory.org/investigation-historical-dating.htm
or here http://www.knowledge.co.uk/sis/ancient.htm
but I'll try to explain myself.
"Never been" histories :
-Ancient Greek (rewritten from actual medieval Byzantine empire.Political
need : to get independence from strong Islamic Turkey )
-Ancient Rom (rewritten from actual medieval Byzantine empire.Political
need : the same)
-Ancient Israel (rewritten from actual medieval Byzantine empire = Israel
in Bible.The real Jerusalem is Istanbul but they moved it because the same
political need )
-Ancient England (Rewritten from medieval Byzantine empire.Real history
begins from 1400 . The far away province of empire)
- Ancient Germany and France (the same as England)
- Ancient China (The real history (if any) is lost. The most chronicles
rewritten from medieval Byzantine empire translating names. Great Wall is
300 years old , max. The real history is lost because of competition between
dynasties.)
- Ancient Egypt ( older then other civilizations by 200 - 300 years only.
First available "holy land")
- Great Mongols (in reality never existed. Have been created by Russians
to explain attacks on Europe. Russians = Mongols. The same nation)
Do You think it's a hoax? HO,HO,HO,HO ........
They don't lie when they CAN'T lie. 700 years ago they ALWAYS lied........
Hey You! Don't fuck with "ancient" civilizations, THINK! Use your fucking
brain if You have any.
ArtKramr
>From: "news" whatT...@GetReal.com
>Date: 11/2/02 10:29 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <dQUw9.171156$%h2.1...@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Excellant post. Now go away and don't come back.
Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
Dalton Dietz
"news" <whatT...@GetReal.com> wrote in message
news:dQUw9.171156$%h2.1...@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>Losing illusions is fucking hard. And it hurts like a hell.
>When I'm reading here "Mongols" , "Ancient Greeks" , "Ancient Rom" I
>demonically laugh. "HO,HO,HO,HO".
>Wake up , look at world and open your fucking eyes!
>All those histories is a bunch of legends created by politicians or
>politician's employees.
>Better then me it's told at
>http://www.revisedhistory.org/investigation-historical-dating.htm
>or here http://www.knowledge.co.uk/sis/ancient.htm
The authors are crack pots who steadfastly ignore the ENORMOUS
problems with their theories. Their ideas only work if you carefully
select only a very tiny fraction of the evidence.
>but I'll try to explain myself.
>"Never been" histories :
> -Ancient Greek (rewritten from actual medieval Byzantine empire.Political
>need : to get independence from strong Islamic Turkey )
> -Ancient Rom (rewritten from actual medieval Byzantine empire.Political
>need : the same)
> -Ancient Israel (rewritten from actual medieval Byzantine empire = Israel
>in Bible.The real Jerusalem is Istanbul but they moved it because the same
>political need )
> -Ancient England (Rewritten from medieval Byzantine empire.Real history
>begins from 1400 . The far away province of empire)
> - Ancient Germany and France (the same as England)
> - Ancient China (The real history (if any) is lost. The most chronicles
>rewritten from medieval Byzantine empire translating names. Great Wall is
>300 years old , max. The real history is lost because of competition between
>dynasties.)
> - Ancient Egypt ( older then other civilizations by 200 - 300 years only.
>First available "holy land")
> - Great Mongols (in reality never existed. Have been created by Russians
>to explain attacks on Europe. Russians = Mongols. The same nation)
>
>Do You think it's a hoax? HO,HO,HO,HO ........
>
>They don't lie when they CAN'T lie. 700 years ago they ALWAYS lied........
>
>Hey You! Don't fuck with "ancient" civilizations, THINK! Use your fucking
>brain if You have any.
>
>
Eric Stevens
Oida
sure. does china really exist? have you been there? is WW II a lie? is
my name herta ignaz? find out for yourself or just accept it... :)
hf
oida
Paul J Gans
I did. You're a troll.
--- Paul J. Gans
Helen Cebis
subject: 'The Holocaust Never Existed' are you? You sound the same, I can't
remember your name but good Lord please leave. This is absurd. You are a
Grade A Troll.
"news" <whatT...@GetReal.com> wrote in message
news:dQUw9.171156$%h2.1...@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
rob_lancs
"MD" <m...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.182e6537...@news.tn.comcast.giganews.com...
> whatT...@GetReal.com says...
>
> An excellent example of "native stupidity." You too can
> demonstrate your vast education with:
>
> "fucking hard."
> "demonically laugh. "HO,HO,HO,HO"."
> "open your fucking eyes!"
> "All those histories is [sic] a bunch of legends ... "
> "Do You think it's a hoax? HO,HO,HO,HO ........"
> "Hey You! Don't fuck with "ancient" civilizations, THINK!"
> "Use your fucking brain if You have any."
>
Well I certainly am. This morning, for the first time, I finally opened my
f**king eyes, & looked out the front window of my house. Only to find that
my house is in fact in 7th century Byzantium, as it presumably has been all
along. And all this time I thought I was living in England. The scales have
fallen from mine eyes! Thanks for opening them, MD! HO,HO,HO,HO indeed!
Rob
>
whatTheHell
insult anybody either.
Do remember cheap "Matrix" movie? We have the same cituation in history.
It's just matter of time for You relaize the horrible truth that known
history begins from 1500 only.
Hundereds honest historians , writers , scientists are out of the job.
The real history is just a thouzand broken pieces of glass, who will gather
them?
visit http://www.jesus1053.com/en/index.html
Love You, stupid people.
Brian P.
no more than 6,000 years old.
--
Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------
respond to bdpli...@bellsouth.net
"whatTheHell" <whatT...@GetReal.com> wrote in message
news:YKdx9.164846$Q3S....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
Kelvyn Stevens
responding to) the f*****g brain as demonstrated in this post....
kelvyn.
William Palmer
> You're not the same guy who tried to get into Australia to delivers on the
> subject: 'The Holocaust Never Existed' are you? You sound the same, I can't
> remember your name but good Lord please leave. This is absurd. You are a
> Grade A Troll.
Yes, he is, and his post is the silliest bale
of horsefeathers I've seen this weekend. However,
even a bale of horsefeathers can contain a grain
or two of reality, and no one who knows much about
history can deny that "histories" have been created
and destroyed many times, depending on who's in
charge of the writing and publishing. Look for
instance at Geoffrey of Monmouth's THE HISTORY OF
THE KINGS OF ENGLAND. It makes for an interesting
read, but I don't think too many people believe
today that Brutus (even the OTHER "Brutus")
founded the British royal dynasty! On the
other hand, for our troll to suggest that
history is simply not worth bothering with
because of the fog of earlier distortions is
plain ridiculous. It is just a matter of trying
to see beyond past distortions (even sincere ones,
like Geoffrey's, who very likely felt he was reporting
the truth while he was relying far too much on
myth). But far from invalid scholarship being
a reason not to study history, it is instead
merely another challenge to the serious historian.
A fascinating book I have read in this vein is
INVENTING THE MIDDLE AGES, by Norman F. Cantor.
D. Spencer Hines
it is instead merely another challenge to the serious historian. A
fascinating book I have read in this vein is INVENTING THE MIDDLE AGES,
by Norman F. Cantor."
William Palmer
--------------------------
Absolutely Right....
That book exposes a gaggle of academic frauds ---- and greatly angered
many of Norman Cantor's colleagues ---- who saw it as "talking out of
school."
Deus Vult.
"It may be said that, thanks to the 'clercs', humanity did evil for two
thousand years, but honoured good. This contradiction was an honour to
the human species, and formed the rift whereby civilisation slipped into
the world." "La Trahison des clercs" [The Treason of the Intellectuals]
(1927) Julien Benda (1867-1956)
Ubique Quo Fas Et Gloria Ducunt --- Motto of the Royal Artillery
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly. All original
material contained herein is copyright and property of the author. It
may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an attribution
to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly given, in
writing.
------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
rob_lancs
Rob
By the way, have you ever heard of the word 'sarcasm'? Or 'irony'?
"Kelvyn Stevens" <kelvyn...@DELETEyahoo.co.nz> wrote in message
news:tohx9.597$cB5.1...@news02.tsnz.net...
Hasan Murtaza
"History is bunk" Henry Ford.
http://phrases.shu.ac.uk/meanings/182100.html
Meaning history is nonsense.
"Kelvyn Stevens" <kelvyn...@DELETEyahoo.co.nz> wrote in message
news:tohx9.597$cB5.1...@news02.tsnz.net...
Alice K. Turner
"D. Spencer Hines" <D._Spenc...@usa.edu> wrote in message
news:24jx9.1849$Qh5....@eagle.america.net...
> "But far from invalid scholarship being a reason not to study history,
> it is instead merely another challenge to the serious historian. A
> fascinating book I have read in this vein is INVENTING THE MIDDLE AGES,
> by Norman F. Cantor."
>
> William Palmer
> --------------------------
>
> Absolutely Right....
>
> That book exposes a gaggle of academic frauds ---- and greatly angered
> many of Norman Cantor's colleagues ---- who saw it as "talking out of
> school."
Loved that book.
Alice Turner
D. Spencer Hines
Deus Vult.
"It may be said that, thanks to the 'clercs', humanity did evil for two
thousand years, but honoured good. This contradiction was an honour to
the human species, and formed the rift whereby civilisation slipped into
the world." "La Trahison des clercs" [The Treason of the Intellectuals]
(1927) Julien Benda (1867-1956)
Ubique Quo Fas Et Gloria Ducunt --- Motto of the Royal Artillery
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly. All original
material contained herein is copyright and property of the author. It
may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an attribution
to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly given, in
writing.
------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
"Alice K. Turner" <atur...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:epDx9.74620$Up6.17...@twister.nyc.rr.com...
Alexander Hay
like someone just got an F on a Freshman College Paper and is a little
disappointed...
MD wrote:
> whatT...@GetReal.com says...
>
> An excellent example of "native stupidity." You too can
> demonstrate your vast education with:
>
> "fucking hard."
> "demonically laugh. "HO,HO,HO,HO"."
> "open your fucking eyes!"
> "All those histories is [sic] a bunch of legends ... "
> "Do You think it's a hoax? HO,HO,HO,HO ........"
> "700 years ago they ALWAYS lied........"
> "Hey You! Don't fuck with "ancient" civilizations, THINK!"
> "Use your fucking brain if You have any."
>
> I'm not convinced.
--
Alexander J. Hay III, esq.
Attorney at Law
Tel. (US): 713-680-3033
Fax. (US): 713-680-0502
email: alexan...@post.harvard.edu
ASSET PROTECTION, TAX REDUCTION AND INTERNATIONAL INVESTING.
NEW: http://www.squireorg.com/privacypassport/
whatTheHell
hurts but brings the great portion of reality.
I pity the snobs who never been down in the dirt , I pity the pigs who never
realized that sky is above.
And all of them need the NAMES to separate one type from another. Fucking
funny.
Names.... They have to have names to separate "us" and "them". They need
explain why the names are true. They need the history as a basis for the
names.
Fucking names:
"Americans", "Russians", "Greeks" . . . .. . . . . . "Islamic nation".
Why do they need word "motherland"? The main meaning of it is a readiness
to die for it.
Hey! Punch yourself in the eye and say : "My motherland is THE
EARTH. Not your fucking nation."
If You hear on TV "American Morning". Turn off TV. The morning can't be
American. It's just a morning.
Why do they need words "Great Nation" for? To explain why they can do
anything around the world......
Hey! Punch yourself in the eye and say : "I'm not a GREAT
NATION because the humanity is the only nation."
Why do they need ANCIENT civilizations for? Because They looking in the
past for the rights of the GREAT power they want to have today......
Just listen "Great Rom", "Great Greece" , "Great Arabs", "Great........
Why all the "greats" in the past? Today I see just a bunch of stupid
jerks.... May be the "greats" never been ?
Hey! I almost forgot.... Punch yourself in the eye!
Do You remember what Elaine from "Seinfeld" said to Jerry about the GREAT
orgasms, moaning, sweating? Fake, fake,fake,fake,.....
And now when your eyes are bleeding and You understand that You're ALONE and
don't have ANY past and at the same time responsible for everybody on the
Earth, take a shovel and start dig the kaki . And may be You'll find small
piece of truth.
Amen.
Kelvyn Stevens
whatT...@GetReal.com says...
Do You know the great feeling when somebody punch You in the eye? It's kinda
hurts but brings the great portion of reality.
And you think God didn't have a sense of humour !!
Igor
"whatTheHell" <whatT...@GetReal.com> wrote in message
news:PwIx9.176395$Q3S....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
Alexander Hay
tiresome.
whatTheHell wrote:
--
Renia
understand the phrases they have picked up. Further, they have no sense
of history so I don't know why they choose to send this to historical
newsgroups. And, I think the writer is a punch-drunk (or otherwise)
18-year-old who is still out to save the world, as we all once were. You
certainly can't save the world by changing the past. But you can
contribute to saving the world by being very aware of what went on in
the past.
Renia
D. Spencer Hines
And well put....
Deus Vult.
------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
"Renia" <ren...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:3DC869C0...@ntlworld.com...
William Palmer
> it is instead merely another challenge to the serious historian. A
> fascinating book I have read in this vein is INVENTING THE MIDDLE AGES,
> by Norman F. Cantor."
>
> William Palmer
> --------------------------
>
> Absolutely Right....
>
> That book exposes a gaggle of academic frauds ----
I did not quite see it that way. It seems to me that
some of the people Cantor focused on were brilliant
scholars, while others were somewhat the opposite.
However, I felt that Cantor's main message was that
historians have likely always "spun" things, to
a greater or lesser degree, depending on where
they are coming from regarding their politics
or their philosophy. Cantor focused
on historians of the Medieval period, since
that was his own area of study. But it seems
to me that would agree that very likely the
same sort of thing goes on in any area that is
heavily studied by historians. Therefore,
the real message is NOT "don't read books
by historians of the Middle Ages," but "when
you are reading a book by ANY historian, always
keep in mind that he or she may well have politics,
philosophy, or personal biases that might have
colored the person's selection, conclusions, etc.
Cantor talks about most or all of the respected
20th Century historians of the Middle Ages,
and he certainly is not suggesting that
none of them are worth reading.
and greatly angered
> many of Norman Cantor's colleagues ---- who saw it as "talking out of
> school."
I can believe that. Historians and other scholars
always flatter themselves that they have a proper
scientific objectivity about their work. Most of
the time, the reality their scholarship suggests
otherwise.
a.g.b-p
William Palmer
> Am I? I know my language is bad but the intentions never. Never tried to
> insult anybody either.
> Do remember cheap "Matrix" movie? We have the same cituation in history.
>
> It's just matter of time for You relaize the horrible truth that known
> history begins from 1500 only.
> Hundereds honest historians , writers , scientists are out of the job.
> The real history is just a thouzand broken pieces of glass, who will gather
> them?
Silliest twaddle I've read today. Not the movie, that
is, but your notion that a MOVIE, the brainstorm of a
handful of couple of writers and a director, has something
significant to say regarding the way people should
approach history. Same yourself some embarrassment
and take it to alt.cyberpunk or rec.arts.sf.movies.
a.g.b-p.
D. Spencer Hines
Deus Vult.
"It may be said that, thanks to the 'clercs', humanity did evil for two
thousand years, but honoured good. This contradiction was an honour to
the human species, and formed the rift whereby civilisation slipped into
the world." "La Trahison des clercs" [The Treason of the Intellectuals]
(1927) Julien Benda (1867-1956)
Ubique Quo Fas Et Gloria Ducunt --- Motto of the Royal Artillery
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly. All original
material contained herein is copyright and property of the author. It
may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an attribution
to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly given, in
writing.
------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
"William Palmer" <willia...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:cbc76035.02110...@posting.google.com...
Yes. I never said that Cantor said "none of the historians he discusses
are worth reading."
Please don't try to put words in my mouth.
Neither did I say that only Mediaeval Historians have biases.
| and greatly angered
| > many of Norman Cantor's colleagues ---- who saw it as "talking out
of
| > school."
|
| I can believe that. Historians and other scholars
| always flatter themselves that they have a proper
| scientific objectivity about their work. Most of
| the time, the reality their scholarship suggests
| otherwise.
| a.g.b-p
Correct.
Julien Benda is right on the mark ---- academic historians became
ADVOCATES rather than striving for OBJECTIVITY.
Therefore the academic historians have lost a great deal of clout and
prestige.
The public frequently look to independent scholars ---- such as David
McCullough ---- rather than to academic historians ---- when they buy
History books.
McCullough is also a FAR better writer than most academic historians.
DSH
Neville Lindsay
>
> Ubique Quo Fas Et Gloria Ducunt --- Motto of the Royal Artillery
Of course - Hines just had to be a Shirtlifter. And he does mix up his Latin
and French.
NL
DS King
> The writer must be a non-native English speaker who doesn't actually
> understand the phrases they have picked up.
A charitable view, certainly a possibility.... but I don't see why it *must* be.
> Further, they have no sense
> of history so I don't know why they choose to send this to historical
> newsgroups.
Agreed.
> And, I think the writer is a punch-drunk (or otherwise)
> 18-year-old who is still out to save the world, as we all once were. You
> certainly can't save the world by changing the past. But you can
> contribute to saving the world by being very aware of what went on in
> the past.
>
And it is better to approach the world with some empathy, like yourself, rather
than to jump in with both feet on the assumption that all recorded history is a
pack of lies and that nobody who ever lived (excepting oneself, of course) has the
brains to count past ten without taking their shoes off.
DSK
Paul J Gans
[...]
The publication of "Inventing the Middle Ages" caused a
great deal of stir among those who knew the individuals
profiled. This was a wider range of people than just
medieval historians.
>I did not quite see it that way. It seems to me that
>some of the people Cantor focused on were brilliant
>scholars, while others were somewhat the opposite.
Actually, all were very well-known medievalists who had
made major contributions.
>However, I felt that Cantor's main message was that
>historians have likely always "spun" things, to
>a greater or lesser degree, depending on where
>they are coming from regarding their politics
>or their philosophy.
Not really. Nobody can be really objective and experience
shows that the worst are those who *think* they can be
objective.
What Cantor was doing was "exposing" what *he* thought
were the biases of those he profiled. Of course, this
is seen through *his* biases, and since he knew, for better
or worse, many of those he profiled, there *were* biases.
Some *were* friends, others professional rivals. He had
strong opinions about all of them.
>Cantor focused
>on historians of the Medieval period, since
>that was his own area of study. But it seems
>to me that would agree that very likely the
>same sort of thing goes on in any area that is
>heavily studied by historians.
Yes. This is exceptionally well-known among historians,
particularly among academic historians. People are products
of their own societies, environment, and heredity. No
two people see things exactly the same way.
>Therefore,
>the real message is NOT "don't read books
>by historians of the Middle Ages," but "when
>you are reading a book by ANY historian, always
>keep in mind that he or she may well have politics,
>philosophy, or personal biases that might have
>colored the person's selection, conclusions, etc.
In part. You should extend that to newpaper folks,
TV talking heads, writers of magazine articles,
politicians, and posters in newsgroups. Of course
you knew that already.
>Cantor talks about most or all of the respected
>20th Century historians of the Middle Ages,
>and he certainly is not suggesting that
>none of them are worth reading.
>and greatly angered
>> many of Norman Cantor's colleagues ---- who saw it as "talking out of
>> school."
>I can believe that. Historians and other scholars
>always flatter themselves that they have a proper
>scientific objectivity about their work. Most of
>the time, the reality their scholarship suggests
>otherwise.
Actually, it was generally not seen as talking out
of school. That's a biased viewpoint on the part of
the poster. ;-)
As I understand it, objections were based on several
things. The main one was, people said, misrepresentation
of the thoughts and opinions of the people profiled. Cantor
attributed political beliefs to some that are felt to be
very wrong. This feeling came from friends and former
students of the people profiled.
Many others were rather upset about Cantor's descriptions
of the private lives of some of his subjects. It is
felt that he was not only very wrong in many cases, but
in being wrong wrecked havoc on those profiled who were
still alive as well as on the families of those dead.
If you recall in the book, Cantor plays armchair
psychaiatrist in a number of cases, "explaining" behavior
in terms of assumed psychological conditions.
In other words, many feel that it was more than a shoddy
job. Rather, some feel, it was a hatchet job.
What "Inventing the Middle Ages" does is present Cantor's
view of how the field *should* have developed. And it
expresses his anger at not having been considered one of
those "inventors" himself. (Cantor left active work as
a medieval historian while quite young and devoted most
of the rest of his career to academic administration.)
In short, it was a book that left many students and friends
of those profiled aghast and with no real way of having what
they think the truth catch up with the stories Cantor told.
Nevertheless it remains a very interesting book. But one
*must* read it with the things I mention in mind.
----- Paul J. Gans
PS: Of course, my view is biased also. However, I've
tried to report as fairly as I can. And in the interest
of fair reporting I should mention that I've known Norman
Cantor for many years as a collegue. I've also been told
"the other side" by at least half a dozen students and
friends of some of the people Cantor discussed.
If you want more insight into all of this, I suspect that
the soon-to-be-published book "Inventing Norman Cantor"
(by Norman Cantor) will yeild it. I've not yet seen the
book but friends who have seen the manuscript say that he's
rather open about his own biases and problems -- though he
doesn't always see how they have affected his work and
opinions.
D. Spencer Hines
biased viewpoint on the part of the poster. ;-)"
Paul J. Gans ---- my pet goose
--------------------------------------
[N.B. With reference to Norman Cantor's exposé of several Mediaeval
Historians, "The Back Story", in _Inventing The Middle Ages_. ---- DSH]
Not true at all....Note the evasive language ---- weasel-words ----
"generally not seen" ---- a standard Gansian transparent ploy.
Many academics have taken the position that Cantor should have confined
what he said to private conversations in the faculty club or in other
sanctuaries of the Academy. They deeply resent the fact that he "went
public" and told US ---- the Great Unwashed General Public ---- all this
inside baseball about mediaeval historians ---- i.e., talking out of
school.
It's also important to understand that Gans broke with Cantor a long
time ago and is not a friendly colleague. He has said as much
himself ---- although he'd like you to forget it and trust his
judgement.
Gans always likes to trust to short-term, May-Fly memories ---- when it
comes to talking out of both sides of his mouth....
>>Further, I know Cantor. He was at New York University for
>>many years. In my opinion he was a very strange man,
>>haunted by dark shadows. He was in some ways brilliant.
>>But it was clear to most that he was very angry at the
>>medieval establishment for not recognizing him as one of
>>the leading lights in medieval studies. It is true that
>>they did not. But then he, Cantor, had done no real
>>medieval history for many many years, having gone instead
>>into administration.
>>
>>He came to NYU as the Dean of the College of Arts and
>>Sciences. I happened to be a member of what could be
>>termed the Colleges' "executive committee" at the time
>>and thus worked closely with Cantor for a number of years.
>>As an administrator he was brilliant, but flawed. He
>>often assumed that the fact that he'd come to a logical
>>conclusion about something meant (a) that everyone else
>>would come to the same conclusion and (b) that all would
>>agree on action. The real world doesn't work that way.
>>
>>When he was forced to resign as Dean, he decided that
>>some faculty were his friends and some his enemies.
>>Curiously, he got most of it quite backwards -- listing
>>as friends many of those who had worked to undermine him.
>>At the same time he shunned many of those who had been
>>most supportive.
>>
>>His withdrawal from administration saw the start of his
>>popular writing career. He made no secret that his book,
>>the one you review, would cause "them" to sit up and take
>>notice. He knew that it (and he) would be hated for it
>>and he knew (as turned out to be fact) that he'd laugh
>>all the way to the bank.
>>
>> ----- Paul J. Gans
One of the keys to understanding Gans's animus towards Cantor [other
than a markedly different academic success and fame, coupled to the
popularity and profitability of his books] is the appreciation that
Cantor is very much an assimilated Jew, with a real Ph.D. in History
from Princeton ---- whereas Gans bears deep scars, has no credentials in
History and tends to have really corrosive hatred toward many
Christians ---- particularly Christian fundamentalists and Roman
Catholics. Just read some of his posts in the SHM archives ---- and
hundreds of posts in talk.origins.
Cantor believes that the Church was a great and important civilizing
influence in the Middle Ages, whereas Gans hates and distrusts the
Church and the clerisy and takes pot shots at it/them whenever he can.
Until I called him out on it, Gans was continually taking cheap shots
and lying here on SHM about Roman Catholics whenever he felt an itch to
do so.
He stuck his tail between his legs and behaved much better after that
severe chastising. But, as always with Gans, it took several subsequent
behavior-modification sessions and generous applications upside the head
with the rhetorical 2 by 4 before he actually shaped up ---- for a
while.
As usual, Gans is quite unable to hide his prejudices, hates and
discontents ---- and they leak out ---- over time ---- from his own
mouth.
Vide Supra.
How Sweet It Is!
William Palmer
Thanks for your interesting response. While I
certainly enjoyed Cantor's book, I can see that
it might upset some in the academic world. Another
angle on this is that INVENTING THE MIDDLE AGES is
really what is sometimes called a popularization.
That is, it was aimed at general readers. Many
of the people who read Cantor's book likely had
never read any of the books by the historians whom
Cantor focuses on. That probably added to the
annoyance on the part of some historians: Here
was Cantor explaining their profession to the
general reading public, and doing so in a way
that many in the profession did not always
approve of. It is not hard to imagine there
may be a bit of envy involved in the attacks
on Cantor: His book no doubt sold far better
than anything most of his critics have written,
and academic types are notorious for looking
down their noses at popularizers. Of course,
while a typical popularizer would write a
history book aimed at the general reader
rather than scholars, Cantor did something
different, and actually unique, in writing
a popular book about the profession itself.
a.g.b-p
Paul J Gans
[major snip of my older material]
>Thanks for your interesting response. While I
>certainly enjoyed Cantor's book, I can see that
>it might upset some in the academic world.
Why single out the academic world? The only
reason for singling out the academic world that
I can thing of is that most of the former students
of those savaged by Cantor are in the academic world.
They know first-hand of the errors in Cantor's
presentation.
>Another
>angle on this is that INVENTING THE MIDDLE AGES is
>really what is sometimes called a popularization.
>That is, it was aimed at general readers.
Yes.
>Many
>of the people who read Cantor's book likely had
>never read any of the books by the historians whom
>Cantor focuses on.
Correct. So they had no way to judge the accuracy
of the book.
>That probably added to the
>annoyance on the part of some historians: Here
>was Cantor explaining their profession to the
>general reading public, and doing so in a way
>that many in the profession did not always
>approve of.
Nothing Cantor wrote "explained" the profession
to anybody. What he wrote was what he believed
to be the working styles of a number of men. His
linking their SUPPOSED political beliefs to their
professional conclusions is very suspect because,
I am told, he often got their political beliefs
wrong.
He did the same with what he thought he knew of
the sexual behavior of many of these men. Of course,
the sexual behavior of famous people, even if they
were previously unknown to the reader, is always
intesting.
>It is not hard to imagine there
>may be a bit of envy involved in the attacks
>on Cantor: His book no doubt sold far better
>than anything most of his critics have written,
>and academic types are notorious for looking
>down their noses at popularizers.
That's two separate thoughts. Yes, there may
have been some financial envy. But don't forget,
most academic historians have taken what amounts
to vows of poverty, else they would have gone into
some other field.
As for looking down their noses at popularizers,
that is, I think, wrong. Some academic historians
write well and sell well. Many more don't. Writing
in a decent popular style is not easy. Cantor certainly
does it. But that's not why historians often take
umbrage at popularizers. The main reason is that
popularizers leave an enormous mess behind them that
has to be cleaned up by the academics. Academics
are still fighting the fire ignited by William
Manchester's "A World Lit only by Fire".
>Of course,
>while a typical popularizer would write a
>history book aimed at the general reader
>rather than scholars, Cantor did something
>different, and actually unique, in writing
>a popular book about the profession itself.
No. He did not write about the profession.
He wrote biographical sketches about individuals
whom he tried to put into place in a scheme he
invented. He certainly did not paint a picture
of the (then) current state of medieval history.
Entire movements and subjects were left out.
There is, in his book, no real mention of medieval
literature, art history, military history, history
of technology, etc., etc.
So what you get is a skewed view. And, if you
are not *in* the field and read nothing else,
how are you to know that it is skewed?
---- Paul J. Gans
D. Spencer Hines
Paul J. Gans
We have seen this Vague Generality stated on many occasions.
It's worthless.
What we need is a specific list of confirmed "errors."
D. Spencer Hines
"Grandly conceived and brilliantly executed... It is the best book about
historians I have read in years, and not only a pleasure to read but
exciting to read."
Gordon Craig, Professor Emeritus of History, Stanford University.
D. Spencer Hines
Generalities ---- sans specifics.
"They know first-hand of the errors in Cantor's presentation." ----
That's what he tells us ---- each and every time ---- no more.
Gans never tells us _specifics_ about *confirmed errors* ---- or even
the names of the people who are making these alleged accusations ----
these so-called "former graduate students" of the historians discussed
in the book.
In Other Words ---- The Usual Aspecific "Trust Me" Twaddle.
----------------------------
Au contraire:
Specifics:
"Entertaining historiography should be an oxymoron but this book is an
exception.
Cantor's point of departure is the fact that historical understanding of
the Middle Ages is essentially a 20th century phenomenon. According to
Cantor, and this is creditable, very little written on this topic prior
to 1900 is useful.
In this book, Cantor is concerned with exposing the connections between
20th century concerns and ideas and study of Europe from the fall of the
Roman Empire to the Renaissance. This is not a systematic
historiography. Cantor reviews the lives and works of a substantial
number of prominent scholars on a case by case basis and doesn't attempt
to develop any general scheme or description of the evolution of
scholarship in this area. Cantor shows how the personal and ideological
preoccupations of these scholars colored or directed their work.
The pioneering German students of medieval kingship, Schramm and
Kantorowicz, were members of the radical right who detested the Weimar
Republic. Their longing for a charismatic leader who would restore
German hegemony was reflected in their groundbreaking biographies of
important German emperors. Their wishes for a modern charismatic leader
were granted, but in a form they came to regret. [Hitler ---- DSH]
Cantor does not view these scholars and the other individuals he
discusses as simply imposing reflections of their contemporary
preoccupations on the past. Rather, the contemporary preoccupations
often lead to important insights. The great student of medieval
monastic life, David Knowles, was himself a monk with significant
personal conflicts over his vocation and strained relationships with his
ecclesiastical superiors. These conflicts appear to have equipped
Knowles with a unique ability to penetrate the psychology of medieval
religious life.
Implicit in Cantor's descriptions is the idea that no single scholar or
group of scholars is able to describe the medieval world wholly. The
existence of contemporary preoccupations, conflicts, and ideologies
leads to multiple different ideas of the past, ultimately generating
complementary truths. Cantor is not a relativist and clearly believes
that some approximation of historical truth is obtainable and in fact,
has been obtained to some extent." ****** [Emphasis DSH]
In other words, unlike Gans, who has no credentials of any sort in
History ---- Cantor *does* believe there are historical facts. ---- DSH
"In terms of the fairness of Cantor's individual portraits, only someone
with Cantor's knowledge of the literature and the personalities involved
can really judge the accuracy of his analyses. I have enough knowledge
to make a reasonable judgement about some of his portraits. His
discussions of CS Lewis and JRR Tolkien are insightful. His description
of the remarkably competent American scholars Charles Haskins and Joseph
Strayer* as functioning within the Progressive tradition seems to me to
be right on the mark. On the other hand, some of the discussion of the
Annalist School of French social historians is less evenhanded and at
times is more of a denunciation than an analysis. Cantor knew a fair
number of these individuals and is not above indulging in gossip. He is
also a very good writer and this book reads very easily. An additional
good feature is that Cantor includes an appendix with a list of
essential books about the Medieval World."
Roger Albin
Professor of Neurology at the University of Michigan, a
physician-scientist working on Parkinson's disease and related
disorders. "Reading, particularly history and good literature, is my
major recreation. I have also preserved my adolescent interest in
science fiction and fantasy."
* Joseph Strayer supervised Norman Cantor's doctoral dissertation at
Princeton. ---- DSH
Deus Vult
Stan
> Quite Tobie-esque.
> >
> >
> > Hey You! Don't fuck with "ancient" civilizations, THINK! Use your fucking
> > brain if You have any.
> >
> >
Stan
William Palmer
In the first place, all original writing IS copyrighted,
so your notice is unnecessasy. Even so, if you actually
expect to protect what you have written, you would have to
be able to argue in court that whatever you are asserting
your copyright over involves one of the traditional
literary forms. While that would certainly include
a newsgroup "stand alone" (an orginal post, such as an
informal essay, a poem, or short story, that is entirely
written by you) it is far more questionable whether that
could include an off-the-cuff thread discussion remark.
Further, let us not forget the principle of fair use,
either. That is, if someone was doing a newspaper
article on Usenet culture and happened to quote
something you said on a thread, it is very unlikely
that a court would allow a suit for copyright
violation, since your remarks were posted in the
course of a discussion in a public forum. On
top of that, courts are very hesitant to get
involved in copyright matters where no dollar
amount can be placed on the damages. Exactly
what kind of monetary damages could you possibly claim
regarding violation of copyright if someone quoted
what you said in a Usenet thread discussion? Further,
if you think you can prevent someone from taking what
you said in one forum and reposting it another Usenet
forum, you are fooling yourself. Such without-
permission transfers of information around Usenet may
be seen by some as rude, but they are certainly a
well-established part of Usenet tradition. Feel
free to use your copyright notice, but if you are
a realist, you will soon find it is meaningless,
regarding your ability to protect, as copyrighted
material, your Usenet thread-discussion comments.
alt.genius.bill-palmer
(Temporary publishing headquarters: upstairs at rec.arts.prose)
wil...@ix.netcom.com
William Palmer
[...]
> Cantor's point of departure is the fact that historical understanding of
> the Middle Ages is essentially a 20th century phenomenon. According to
> Cantor, and this is creditable, very little written on this topic prior
> to 1900 is useful.
There is where I take issue with Cantor, and where,
I argue, his own spin puts him in horse blinders
regarding his subject. No one has ever convinced
me that there is a better work on the Crusades
available than Francois Michaud's HISTORY OF THE
CRUSADES, 1877. The ironic thing is, while this
work no doubt influenced every scholar mentioned
in Cantor's book, he never discusses Michaud at
all. Of course, that is not a careless omission
on Cantor's part. It is a matter of his personal
philosophy, of where he himself is coming from as
a historian. In other words, while I enjoyed
Cantor's book thoroughly, he is clearly a victim to
same sort of thing he points to in the work of
his fellow scholars.
>
> In this book, Cantor is concerned with exposing the connections between
> 20th century concerns and ideas and study of Europe from the fall of the
> Roman Empire to the Renaissance. This is not a systematic
> historiography. Cantor reviews the lives and works of a substantial
> number of prominent scholars on a case by case basis and doesn't attempt
> to develop any general scheme or description of the evolution of
> scholarship in this area.
That is certainly true. He could not do that without
crediting Michaud for his 19th century scholarship.
Cantor shows how the personal and ideological
> preoccupations of these scholars colored or directed their work.
--And in so doing he writes a very entertaining
book while at the same time falling victim to the
very thing he skillfully identifies in others.
a.g.b-p
>
Paul J Gans
>[...]
>
>> Cantor's point of departure is the fact that historical understanding of
>> the Middle Ages is essentially a 20th century phenomenon. According to
>> Cantor, and this is creditable, very little written on this topic prior
>> to 1900 is useful.
>There is where I take issue with Cantor, and where,
>I argue, his own spin puts him in horse blinders
>regarding his subject. No one has ever convinced
>me that there is a better work on the Crusades
>available than Francois Michaud's HISTORY OF THE
>CRUSADES, 1877. The ironic thing is, while this
>work no doubt influenced every scholar mentioned
>in Cantor's book, he never discusses Michaud at
>all. Of course, that is not a careless omission
>on Cantor's part. It is a matter of his personal
>philosophy, of where he himself is coming from as
>a historian. In other words, while I enjoyed
>Cantor's book thoroughly, he is clearly a victim to
>same sort of thing he points to in the work of
>his fellow scholars.
Well, I think that you'll find that no medieval
historian today would agree with you. There are
several reasons for this. Today we know a lot more
about the Crusades than we did in 1877. There are
far more sources, far better translations, and
far more understanding of the period.
For example, in the intervening century, we now have
available all sorts of *Arab* sources on the Crusades.
As you've already noted, sources are biased. And
western sources are certainly biased in various
directions. Thus considering Arab sources is very
important.
Further, we know much more about the politics and
peoples of Europe during the crusading era. The fault
is not Michaud. He doubtless did an excellent job with
the material he had at had.
Today, the best (general) books on the Crusades are
those by the late Sir Steven Runciman and Jonathan Riley-Smith.
Excellent specialized works also exist such as John France's
"Victory in the East: A Military History of the First Crusade".
Cantor's purpose was to consider those who "invented" the
current study of the Middle Ages. Of course, to Cantor,
the term covers only western Europe, a region sometimes
known here as the "Bermuda Triangle". The current study
was really developed in the period just before, during,
and just after World War II. So you can't fault him for
not discussing authors living before that time.
---- Paul J. Gans
[snip]
Al Griffith
> Today, the best (general) books on the Crusades are
> those by the late Sir Steven Runciman and Jonathan Riley-Smith.
> Excellent specialized works also exist such as John France's
> "Victory in the East: A Military History of the First Crusade".
On the subject of the Crusades, I've been sorely tempted to buy _The Crusades
Through Arab Eyes_ by Amin Maalouf. Has anyone here read it? Is it worth
purchasing?
Al
David C Pugh
news:CFN375708...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Yes and yes.
He's a novelist/journalist, not a historian, and is basically rehashing
Gabrieli, but it is a really excellent introduction for someone who hasn't
seen it this way round before. Bit of a best-seller, and deservedly so.
--
David
"From ghouls and ghosties, and long-leggety beasties, and things that go
bump on the Net, Good Lord, deliver us"
crosses snipped
Chris Camfield
I have not, but I have heard nothing but good things about it.
Chris
Paul J Gans
Yes, I've got it (and read it). I thought it excellent for
opening western eyes to the way the Crusades were and are
viewed in the Middle East.
Scholars quibble a bit about it, claiming that his choice of
sources isn't balanced enough, but then, quibbling is an
academic hobby.
---- Paul J. Gans
D. Spencer Hines
Paul J. Gans
----------------------
No.
Quibbling is far more than just "an academic hobby" ---- it is indeed a
core element of the entire academic enterprise.
It is often quite appropriate in certain circumstances ---- in point of
fact, essential to good scholarship.
However, academics, being creatures of habit, often carry this practice
of incessant quibbling into the Real World of Business, Management,
Politics, Law and Economics ---- where it can become severely
dysfunctional.
This irreducible fact is yet another reason why, in the main, with
notable exceptions to be sure ---- academics often make very poor
managers, leaders and politicians.
Even the academics themselves understand the primordial truth of what I
say here, because they often castigate and excoriate their own
administrators ---- who are, after all, frequently just academics who
have risen to their levels of incompetence.
Deus Vult
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Sol Disinfectus Optimus Est. Peccatoris Justificatio Absque
Paenitentia, Legem Destruit Moralem.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of
in your philosophy." ---- William Shakespeare [1564-1616] The Tragedy of
Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, Act I, Scene V, Line 166-167
Dan Goodman
news:qVpz9.190$1O2....@news4.ulv.nextra.no:
> "Al Griffith" <agri4042@REMOVE_THIS.bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
> news:CFN375708...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> On Sat, 9 Nov 2002 17:34:03 +0000 (UTC) Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> > Today, the best (general) books on the Crusades are
>> > those by the late Sir Steven Runciman and Jonathan Riley-Smith.
>> > Excellent specialized works also exist such as John France's
>> > "Victory in the East: A Military History of the First Crusade".
>>
>> On the subject of the Crusades, I've been sorely tempted to buy _The
> Crusades
>> Through Arab Eyes_ by Amin Maalouf. Has anyone here read it? Is it
>> worth purchasing?
>>
>
> Yes and yes.
>
> He's a novelist/journalist, not a historian, and is basically
> rehashing Gabrieli, but it is a really excellent introduction for
> someone who hasn't seen it this way round before. Bit of a
> best-seller, and deservedly so.
One thing in the introduction which showed that government may not have
changed as much as we sometimes think:
Arab refugees from Jerusalem pleaded with the Caliph of Baghdad to do
something.
He appointed a committee to study the problem.
Paul J Gans
[references to the "Crusade Through Arab Eyes" deleted]
>One thing in the introduction which showed that government may not have
>changed as much as we sometimes think:
>Arab refugees from Jerusalem pleaded with the Caliph of Baghdad to do
>something.
>He appointed a committee to study the problem.
Of course governments have not changed. They've been around
for thousands of years. Every permutation, I dare say, has
already been tried.
It is one reason to read history.
---- Paul J. Gans
D. Spencer Hines
People generally don't like for a single man or woman to make decisions
without *some* input from a Council, a Cabinet or a Committee.
Good leaders listen to what these groups have to say and THEN make a
decision.
Of course, a bad idea can be BURIED in a committee too ---- that's
another very useful function they have.
Gans has obviously never taken Management 101.
How Sweet It Is!
Academic committees, however, are often the most pitiful ---- frequently
as useless as teats on a boar.
Deus Vult
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Sol Disinfectus Optimus Est. Peccatoris Justificatio Absque
Paenitentia, Legem Destruit Moralem.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of
in your philosophy." ---- William Shakespeare [1564-1616] The Tragedy of
Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, Act I, Scene V, Line 166-167
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly. All original
material contained herein is copyright and property of the author. It
may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an attribution
to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly given, in
writing.
------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:aqmu8c$9ac$3...@reader1.panix.com...
William Palmer
> In soc.history.medieval Al Griffith <agri4042@remove_this.bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> >On Sat, 9 Nov 2002 17:34:03 +0000 (UTC) Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> >> Today, the best (general) books on the Crusades are
> >> those by the late Sir Steven Runciman and Jonathan Riley-Smith.
> >> Excellent specialized works also exist such as John France's
> >> "Victory in the East: A Military History of the First Crusade".
>
> >On the subject of the Crusades, I've been sorely tempted to buy _The Crusades
> >Through Arab Eyes_ by Amin Maalouf. Has anyone here read it? Is it worth
> >purchasing?
>
> Yes, I've got it (and read it). I thought it excellent for
> opening western eyes to the way the Crusades were and are
> viewed in the Middle East.
The thing I would want to know is this: Did
the author own up to the things that were going
on the Middle East when the Crusaders had to
intervene, or does he merely whine? You
could ask the same thing about some of the
World War II histories written by Germans and
Japanese. If such authors deal with their
material in a straight-forward fashion, their
input can be immensely valuable to scholars.
But if they are simply complaining and
rationalizing wrongs, then their work is not
helpful to anyone who is trying to get an
objective understanding of what actually
transpired. And make no mistake about it:
the Crusades was not simply a case of those
"big bad Europeans" pushing folks around. For
one thing, there were quite a few brigands
and assassins who had set up shop in castles
in the Holy Land, and they had been preying
on pilgrims. That certainly needs to be
taken into account, and I would ask how the
author of this book dealt with that, whether
he met the issue fair and square or tried to
whisk it under the carpet. The thing that
annoys me is this: because SOME Crusaders
were cut-throats, now our liberal spin doctors
in the history profession are trying to tar
all Crusaders with the same brush. So, all
of sudden, the Muslims are all wearing white
hats and here come the "evil Europeans in their
black hats." Get something straight: I'm
not buying into it. The Crusades were a
massively cataclysmic human endeavor, and
good and evil, as always in great wars, was
intertwined in the actions of both sides.
This great conflict had high drama, it had
sweep, it had its heroes and its villains.
But some people today are no better than
those of earlier times who took a rather
childish view that all the Crusaders were
noble and good. Now, we are supposed to
believe that they all were ignoble and bad.
It is a sad commentary, that's all I can
say...
alt.genius.bill-palmer
(Temporary office: upstairs at rec.arts.prose)
wil...@ix.netcom.com
Al Griffith
> The thing I would want to know is this: Did
> the author own up to the things that were going
> on the Middle East when the Crusaders had to
> intervene, or does he merely whine?
"Had to intervene?"
Al
Eric Dockum
> "...quibbling is an academic hobby."
>
> Paul J. Gans
> ----------------------
>
> No.
>
> Quibbling is far more than just "an academic hobby" ---- it is indeed a
> core element of the entire academic enterprise.
>
> It is often quite appropriate in certain circumstances ---- in point of
> fact, essential to good scholarship.
>
> However, academics, being creatures of habit, often carry this practice
> of incessant quibbling into the Real World of Business, Management,
> Politics, Law and Economics ---- where it can become severely
> dysfunctional.
>
> This irreducible fact is yet another reason why, in the main, with
> notable exceptions to be sure ---- academics often make very poor
> managers, leaders and politicians.
>
> Even the academics themselves understand the primordial truth of what I
> say here, because they often castigate and excoriate their own
> administrators ---- who are, after all, frequently just academics who
> have risen to their levels of incompetence.
>
> Deus Vult
>
It's ----
Hilarious.
So quibbling in your view is :
"indeed a core element of the entire academic enterprise."
"in point of fact, essential to good scholarship."
You view explains the motivation and content of a lot of your posts,
when taken with the (American for your convienence) dictionary
definition as follows:
----------------------
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language:
Fourth Edition. 2000.
Quibble
SYLLABICATION: quib·ble
INTRANSITIVE VERB:
Inflected forms: quib·bled, quib·bling, quib·bles
1. To evade the truth or importance of an issue by raising trivial
distinctions and objections. 2. To find fault or criticize for petty
reasons; cavil.
NOUN:
1. A petty distinction or an irrelevant objection.
2. Archaic A pun.
ETYMOLOGY: Probably diminutive of obsolete quib, equivocation, perhaps
from Latin quibus, dative and ablative pl. of qu , who, what (from its
frequent use in legal documents). See kwo- in Appendix I.
OTHER FORMS: quib bler —NOUN
SYNONYMS: quibble, carp1, cavil, niggle, nitpick, pettifog
These verbs mean to raise petty or frivolous objections or complaints:
quibbling about minor details; a critic who constantly carped;
caviling about the price of coffee; an editor who niggled about
commas; tried to stop nitpicking all the time; pettifogging about
trivialities.
--------------------------
Hence according to you:
"1. To evade the truth or importance of an issue by raising trivial
distinctions and objections."
or
"2. To find fault or criticize for petty reasons; cavil."
is
"indeed a core element of the entire academic enterprise." and "in
point of fact, essential to good scholarship."
Or are you using a radically different meaning of Quibble? Please let
these Gentle Readers know.
Of course I could go on about Yale's English Grammer 101 which seems,
judging from your post, to approve of multiple hyphenation ---- but
that would be quibbling wouldn't it?
Perhaps Quibble can be the new one word response to your posts?
Reminds me of a very old joke:
(while introducing a group of famous people) "and at the back I can
see Rudyard Kipling, - stop it, you will go deaf"
hence
"and in this newsgroup I can hear Hines quibbling, stop it before we
all get deafened"
Or is a Quibble related to a Tribble? Small furry, with no aparrent
purpose, and capable of seemingly endless reproduction.
Eric the Unreal Brit.
Alex
> >On Sat, 9 Nov 2002 17:34:03 +0000 (UTC) Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> >> Today, the best (general) books on the Crusades are
> >> those by the late Sir Steven Runciman and Jonathan Riley-Smith.
> >> Excellent specialized works also exist such as John France's
> >> "Victory in the East: A Military History of the First Crusade".
>
> >On the subject of the Crusades, I've been sorely tempted to buy _The Crusades
> >Through Arab Eyes_ by Amin Maalouf. Has anyone here read it? Is it worth
> >purchasing?
>
> Yes, I've got it (and read it). I thought it excellent for
> opening western eyes to the way the Crusades were and are
> viewed in the Middle East.
Just out of a curiosity, does this book reflects a (tiny and
absolutely
insignificant) fact that the Crusades, whatever their ideological
background,
were mostly a failed attempt to stop a Muslim aggression? The fact
that
the lands in question became Muslim as a result of a conquest (and the
issue
of how most of the population became converted to Islam is a very
interesting
subject) is often overlooked. BTW, I'm not sure that the title
"Through Arab
Eyes" is anything but anachronism. AFAIK (corrections are gladly
accepted),
most of the contemporary population in the area were not necessarily
the "Arabs" at the time of Muslim conquest and the main military
opponents
of the Crusaders had been Seldjuk Turks and then Mameluks (with
ethnicity
being anything but arabic).
>
> Scholars quibble a bit about it, claiming that his choice of
> sources isn't balanced enough,
What a big surprise! Will I be completely off mark with an assumption
that
"pre-history" of the Crusades (Islamic conquest) is conveniently
ommitted
and that a continued aggression against Bizantian Empire (a formal
reason for
the 1st Crusade, AFAIK) is also played down?
BTW, what (if it is revealed in this book) is the author's view on the
earlier Islamic conquest of Iran, Middle East, Northern Africa and
Spain?
Are they safely ignored so make a convenient self-victimization more
plausible?
[It looks like the Muslims came with this very convenient formula that
works
really well on the liberal minds :-)]
>but then, quibbling is an
> academic hobby.
>
as well as a political correctness... [anything is OK as long as it
is not done by the Europeans] :-)
Soren Larsen
"Alex" <am...@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:f8e58188.02111...@posting.google.com...
> Just out of a curiosity, does this book reflects a (tiny and
> absolutely
> insignificant) fact that the Crusades, whatever their ideological
> background,
> were mostly a failed attempt to stop a Muslim aggression? The fact
> that
> the lands in question became Muslim as a result of a conquest (and the
> issue
> of how most of the population became converted to Islam is a very
> interesting
> subject) is often overlooked. BTW, I'm not sure that the title
> "Through Arab
> Eyes" is anything but anachronism. AFAIK (corrections are gladly
> accepted),
It was mostly the Arabs who wrote the chronichles not the "natives" so the
title is OK
> most of the contemporary population in the area were not necessarily
> the "Arabs" at the time of Muslim conquest and the main military
> opponents
> of the Crusaders had been Seldjuk Turks and then Mameluks (with
> ethnicity
> being anything but arabic).
>
>
>
> What a big surprise! Will I be completely off mark with an assumption
> that
> "pre-history" of the Crusades (Islamic conquest) is conveniently
> ommitted
> and that a continued aggression against Bizantian Empire (a formal
> reason for
> the 1st Crusade, AFAIK) is also played down?
Not only are you off the mark, you are not even in the race.
You are probably in a bar 3 blocks or so from the stadium.
The book starts with King Kildish Arslan in Nicea getting information
about Frankish forces approaching Constantinople and being worried
about their intentions.
It then describes how the Turks got in possesion of Nicea and how
the closeness of Constantinople affected them; dreams of taking
Constatinople and fear of reconquest.
Neither does the book fail to remark that there were more churches
in Nicea than mosques and that the Turks knew very well that the
Greek majority of the population rather were praying for victory to
basileus Alexius Komnenos than for sultan Kildish Arslan
I know it is tedious and timeconsuming process, but sometimes it
pays to read the book before you review it
>
> BTW, what (if it is revealed in this book) is the author's view on the
> earlier Islamic conquest of Iran, Middle East, Northern Africa and
> Spain?
> Are they safely ignored so make a convenient self-victimization more
> plausible?
Not much self-vitimization in the book unless of course you count
Arabs on the business end of the crusades being against them as
self-vitimization.
Cheers
Soren Larsen
David C Pugh
news:f8e58188.02111...@posting.google.com...
> > >On the subject of the Crusades, I've been sorely tempted to buy _The
Crusades Through Arab Eyes_ by Amin Maalouf. Has anyone here read it? Is
it worth purchasing?
> >
> > Yes, I've got it (and read it). I thought it excellent for
> > opening western eyes to the way the Crusades were and are
> > viewed in the Middle East.
>
> Just out of a curiosity, does this book reflects a (tiny and
> absolutely insignificant) fact that the Crusades, whatever their
ideological
> background, were mostly a failed attempt to stop a Muslim aggression? The
fact
> that the lands in question became Muslim as a result of a conquest (and
the
> issue of how most of the population became converted to Islam is a very
> interestingsubject) is often overlooked.
No, Alex, IIRC the book doesn't do that. Thing is about revanches and
counter-revanches, both sides can regard them as wars of defence or
reconquest. If I were arguing your side, I would point out that Antioch had
only been in Muslim hands for about a decade and was populated by
Christians. Palestine had been in Muslim hands a lot longer and was
populated by both; Byzantium still claimed it, technically, in the same
sense that Taipei used to claim the mainland.
BTW, I'm not sure that the title
> "Through Arab
> Eyes" is anything but anachronism. AFAIK (corrections are gladly
> accepted),
> most of the contemporary population in the area were not necessarily
> the "Arabs" at the time of Muslim conquest and the main military
> opponents> of the Crusaders had been Seldjuk Turks and then Mameluks (with
> ethnicity> being anything but arabic).
Yes, but none of those guys wrote history. The "Arab Eyes" are the
historians like Ibn al-Athir, al-Qalanisi, and the participant and memorists
like Baha' ad-Din and 'Imad ad-Din. These aren't Turks. Or Arab-speaking
Christians -- AFAIK none of the latter group wrote anything, the nearest you
come are the Armenian histories.
> What a big surprise! Will I be completely off mark with an assumption
> that
> "pre-history" of the Crusades (Islamic conquest) is conveniently
> ommitted
> and that a continued aggression against Bizantian Empire (a formal
> reason for
> the 1st Crusade, AFAIK) is also played down?
Nope. But Alex, it isn't meant to be a balanced history. Look at the
title. It's about how the Muslims at the time saw, felt and wrote.
Paul J Gans
>> In soc.history.medieval Al Griffith <agri4042@remove_this.bigpond.net.au> wrote:
[...]
>> >On the subject of the Crusades, I've been sorely tempted to buy _The Crusades
>> >Through Arab Eyes_ by Amin Maalouf. Has anyone here read it? Is it worth
>> >purchasing?
>>
>> Yes, I've got it (and read it). I thought it excellent for
>> opening western eyes to the way the Crusades were and are
>> viewed in the Middle East.
>The thing I would want to know is this: Did
>the author own up to the things that were going
>on the Middle East when the Crusaders had to
>intervene, or does he merely whine?
I find "whining" a rather strange term. The author reprints
material from Arabic sources. If there is any whining, it
is in the sources.
>You
>could ask the same thing about some of the
>World War II histories written by Germans and
>Japanese. If such authors deal with their
>material in a straight-forward fashion, their
>input can be immensely valuable to scholars.
>But if they are simply complaining and
>rationalizing wrongs, then their work is not
>helpful to anyone who is trying to get an
>objective understanding of what actually
>transpired.
There is no "objective" in history. One has
to understand that. All historical writing is
biased. And all historial writing is untrustworthy
to one extent or another.
That is why it is important to read multiple sources
(if there are any). The result is that you then form
your own somewhat biased opinion on what happened.
>And make no mistake about it:
>the Crusades was not simply a case of those
>"big bad Europeans" pushing folks around. For
>one thing, there were quite a few brigands
>and assassins who had set up shop in castles
>in the Holy Land, and they had been preying
>on pilgrims. That certainly needs to be
>taken into account, and I would ask how the
>author of this book dealt with that, whether
>he met the issue fair and square or tried to
>whisk it under the carpet.
Well, one *might* ask you for some source for
that claim...
Safety for pilgrims varied from time to time depending
on the conditions in the region at the time. At the
time of the crusades, however, travel was, as far as
I know, at least as safe as travel in Europe.
>The thing that
>annoys me is this: because SOME Crusaders
>were cut-throats, now our liberal spin doctors
>in the history profession are trying to tar
>all Crusaders with the same brush.
Geez, what is it with you political folks? Crusaders
took part in a number of highly unchristian activities
and were rarely, if ever, punished for it by the church
or the secular leaders.
Crusaders ran the gamut from pious men to criminals. Nothing
strange about that.
>So, all
>of sudden, the Muslims are all wearing white
>hats and here come the "evil Europeans in their
>black hats." Get something straight: I'm
>not buying into it.
I think I get off here. Your mind is already made
up. If I were you I'd chose what sources I read
very carefully or you will be a very unhappy
person.
[...]
----- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
Newsgroups trimmed to soc.history.medieval
The Maalouf book? No, it does not pretend to be a history
of the Crusades. What it presents is the Arab reaction to
the Crusades. The author begins in 1096.
As for the others, France assumes that the reader already
knows most of the political background. His interest is
in the military.
The others, Runciman and Riley-Smith go into the political
situation in great detail.
>>
>> Scholars quibble a bit about it, claiming that his choice of
>> sources isn't balanced enough,
>What a big surprise! Will I be completely off mark with an assumption
>that
>"pre-history" of the Crusades (Islamic conquest) is conveniently
>ommitted
>and that a continued aggression against Bizantian Empire (a formal
>reason for
>the 1st Crusade, AFAIK) is also played down?
Depends on the book. See above.
>BTW, what (if it is revealed in this book) is the author's view on the
>earlier Islamic conquest of Iran, Middle East, Northern Africa and
>Spain?
>Are they safely ignored so make a convenient self-victimization more
>plausible?
>[It looks like the Muslims came with this very convenient formula that
>works
>really well on the liberal minds :-)]
You too with the liberal bit? None of the authors I've cited
is American, so you can put that to rest. As for Maalouf, he
simply reports what was written at the time. We *do* have to
live with that, you know....
As far as I know, today the argument still rages among historians
as to the Crusades. One group takes them as a reaction to
Muslim aggression. The other takes them as an attempt to
project European power into the Middle East and carve out
kingdoms there. For my part both seem to be correct.
The history of the relations between the Byzantines and the
Crusaders is very complicated. I don't pretend to understand
all of the ins and outs. But it is fairly clear that the
Crusaders did not really want to be under Byzantine control.
>>but then, quibbling is an
>> academic hobby.
>>
>as well as a political correctness... [anything is OK as long as it
>is not done by the Europeans] :-)
C'mon Alex. I can't help it that the Bush administration has
not declared war on Saudi Arabia.
---- Paul J. Gans
Roger Pearse
> Just out of a curiosity, does this book reflects a (tiny and
> absolutely
> insignificant) fact that the Crusades, whatever their ideological
> background,
> were mostly a failed attempt to stop a Muslim aggression? The fact
> that
> the lands in question became Muslim as a result of a conquest (and the
> issue
> of how most of the population became converted to Islam is a very
> interesting
Glad someone else feels this way. It's only a question of time before
the amazed but joyous Arabs seek bogus compensation claims as a way to
tax the infidel.
On a less depressing note, perhaps I may be forgiven for saying that
the Chronicle of John of Nikiu, which is online at
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers, at the end contains a contemporary
account of the Arab invasion of Egypt in the 7th century.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
Alex
Even if "had" is too strong word (they did not _have_ to), it's not like
this was a one-sided history: the Muslims conquered these, mostly Christian,
areas, converted most of the population into Islam and kept advancing (as
much as their own disorganization allowed) against the (Christian) Bizantian
Empire. In other words, the Crusades were a _reaction_ on the aggression.
Just as the anti-Ottoman coalitions of the early modern period were a reaction
on the continued Turkish conquest (the wars of XVIII - XIX century had been
different).
I wonder, why it's so difficult to acknowledge that politically correct
picture of the ever-peaceful Muslims attacked by the vicious Christians
is not 100% correct: they just conquered Middle East, Persia, the whole
Northern Africa, most of Spain, landed in Italy, penetrated into the
Central Asia and Caucass. And, with an amazing speed, most of the local
population in all these places rejected their initial religions and
converted into Islam. IIRC, Zaraostrism was a main religion in Persia
for appr. millenia, there should be "incentives" for such a sudden change
of heart. In other words, while the crusaders definitely had not been the
angels, their opponents were not any better (with some exceptions on both
sides).
Paul J Gans
>> On 10 Nov 2002 21:18:19 -0800 willia...@prodigy.net (William Palmer) wrote:
>>
>> > The thing I would want to know is this: Did
>> > the author own up to the things that were going
>> > on the Middle East when the Crusaders had to
>> > intervene, or does he merely whine?
>>
>> "Had to intervene?"
>Even if "had" is too strong word (they did not _have_ to), it's not like
>this was a one-sided history: the Muslims conquered these, mostly Christian,
>areas, converted most of the population into Islam and kept advancing (as
>much as their own disorganization allowed) against the (Christian) Bizantian
>Empire.
But that's not what happened. Most of the population in recently
conquered Turkey was not converted and remained faithful to the
Greek Orthodox Church.
>In other words, the Crusades were a _reaction_ on the aggression.
That is certainly one valid way to look at it.
[...]
>I wonder, why it's so difficult to acknowledge that politically correct
>picture of the ever-peaceful Muslims attacked by the vicious Christians
>is not 100% correct: they just conquered Middle East, Persia, the whole
>Northern Africa, most of Spain, landed in Italy, penetrated into the
>Central Asia and Caucass.
But Alex, *nobody* is arguing that way. It *was* argued that
way in the past, which again is one reason why I suggest folks
new to medieval history stick to books published in the last
20 years or so.
>And, with an amazing speed, most of the local
>population in all these places rejected their initial religions and
>converted into Islam. IIRC, Zaraostrism was a main religion in Persia
>for appr. millenia, there should be "incentives" for such a sudden change
>of heart. In other words, while the crusaders definitely had not been the
>angels, their opponents were not any better (with some exceptions on both
>sides).
And nobody claims any different. You seem to be reacting to
what you *fear* people are saying, not to what they actually
are saying.
---- Paul J. Gans
Al Griffith
> What a big surprise! Will I be completely off mark with an assumption
> that
> "pre-history" of the Crusades (Islamic conquest) is conveniently
> ommitted
> and that a continued aggression against Bizantian Empire (a formal
> reason for
> the 1st Crusade, AFAIK) is also played down?
Um, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it Christian Crusaders who sacked
Christian Constantinople, capital of the Christian Byzantine Empire, in 1204?
Al
Al Griffith
> BTW, what (if it is revealed in this book) is the author's view on the
> earlier Islamic conquest of Iran, Middle East, Northern Africa and
> Spain?
> Are they safely ignored so make a convenient self-victimization more
> plausible?
> [It looks like the Muslims came with this very convenient formula that
> works
> really well on the liberal minds :-)]
As distinct from those minds that are happy to make judgments on books they
haven't actually read?
> as well as a political correctness... [anything is OK as long as it
> is not done by the Europeans] :-)
I would have thought that anyone who cared about history would want to see
events from more than one perspective, would want to see both sides of the
story? How does that come to be equated with Political Correctness? It often
seems that those who toss about accusations of Political Correctness have
their own political axes to grind.
Al
Al Griffith
> The thing I would want to know is this: Did
> the author own up to the things that were going
> on the Middle East when the Crusaders had to
> intervene, or does he merely whine? You
[snip]
> whisk it under the carpet. The thing that
> annoys me is this: because SOME Crusaders
> were cut-throats, now our liberal spin doctors
> in the history profession are trying to tar
> all Crusaders with the same brush. So, all
> of sudden, the Muslims are all wearing white
> hats and here come the "evil Europeans in their
> black hats."
That sounds just a teensy bit like....whining.
Al
Paul J Gans
Yeah, but they deserved it... ;-)
---- Paul J. Gans
A Tsar Is Born
> am...@hotmail.com (Alex) wrote in message news:<f8e58188.02111...@posting.google.com>...
> > Just out of a curiosity, does this book reflects a (tiny and
> > absolutely
> > insignificant) fact that the Crusades, whatever their ideological
> > background,
> > were mostly a failed attempt to stop a Muslim aggression? The fact
> > that
> > the lands in question became Muslim as a result of a conquest (and the
> > issue
> > of how most of the population became converted to Islam is a very
> > interesting
> > subject) is often overlooked. [etc]
If you're against everyone who ever conquered another country,
precisely whom do you support? I can't think of many people (the
Aborigines and the Innuit maybe) who did not get where they are by
conquering someone else. The commanders in the Book of Judges would
none of them have gone unpunished at the Nuremberg tribunal.
The Arabs found it so easy to conquer Syria and North Africa in the
7th century because those regions had been so barbarously mis-ruled by
Constantinople for generations, including fierce persecutions of local
religious groups deemed heretical in the capital. The local Christians
much preferred Muslim rule, and were considerably better treated under
it than Muslims were in any Christian country but polyglot Norman
Sicily.
But Roger and Alex are both missing the point of the book under
discussion -- on purpose, I suspect. The point is that we in the
(erstwhile Christian) West have always read, by and large, the
Christian, Western accounts of events in which the Muslims were (it is
hard to deny this) at least as important figures, with just as much
right to their opinions of what was going on. We will understand it
all better if we know what they saw and heard and thought. But
understanding doesn't appear to be in the Roger and Alex canon.
If, as Al Griffith suggests, we are really interested in what happened
(as opposed to our personal political-religious agenda), then we ought
to be interested in rival accounts of events that took place so long
ago we can't derive our own opinions from much else. Since Roger and
Alex ONLY want to read history that agrees with what they have
previously decided should be true, facts have little appeal to them,
and this book is not for them. Indeed, history is not for them -- they
should confine themselves to fiction and religious tracts.
If you do not wish to see Muslims as civilized compared to Christian
crusaders, fine, but I suggest you read ANYBODY's account of the three
conquests of Jerusalem: by the Muslims under Omar, by the Christians
under Godfrey, and by the Muslims under Saladin, and tell me which
group sounds more humane. (The Christian and Muslim takings of
Constantinople also make a fascinating contrast.)
By the way -- while I love Runciman, who read quite a lot of Muslim
sources and who deals with one issue no one else seems to bring up:
why pilgrimage even became an issue in Christian Europe, I have
recently found Zoe Oldenbourg's history of the Crusades (called The
Crusades), and she discusses a number of issues slighted by Runciman,
such as the reasons the Crusading population was never very large and
was, therefore, doomed to ultimate destruction as soon as the Muslims
got mad enough to join forces. (Very instructive, especially if, like
me, you are a Jew who thinks the Israelis are behaving like idiots.)
Jean Coeur de Lapin
Alex
> In soc.history.medieval Alex <am...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Al Griffith <agri4042@REMOVE_THIS.bigpond.net.au> wrote in message news:<CFN375717...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> >> On 10 Nov 2002 21:18:19 -0800 willia...@prodigy.net (William Palmer) wrote:
> >>
> >> > The thing I would want to know is this: Did
> >> > the author own up to the things that were going
> >> > on the Middle East when the Crusaders had to
> >> > intervene, or does he merely whine?
> >>
> >> "Had to intervene?"
>
>
> >Even if "had" is too strong word (they did not _have_ to), it's not like
> >this was a one-sided history: the Muslims conquered these, mostly Christian,
> >areas, converted most of the population into Islam and kept advancing (as
> >much as their own disorganization allowed) against the (Christian) Bizantian
> >Empire.
>
> But that's not what happened. Most of the population in recently
> conquered Turkey was not converted and remained faithful to the
> Greek Orthodox Church.
You probably have in mind Asia Minor (I'm not sure that "Turkey" existed
at the time in question in any meaningful shape and form, IIRC, there
were numerous Seldjuk sultanats). I was talking (perhaps I was not very
clear) about the mass conversions in the areas conquered by the Arabs:
Northern Africa, Middle Easte, Iran, Spain. Of course, there were (more or
less) numerous Christians and Jews after the conquest but a major part of
the population had been converted into Islam really fast. AFAIK, population
of Iran had been almost completely converted.
>
> >In other words, the Crusades were a _reaction_ on the aggression.
>
> That is certainly one valid way to look at it.
Another is a "victimization" of the Muslims. Which, IMHO, belongs to the
same category as a total victimization of the Christians and "heroization"
(AKA, a complete whitewash) of the Crusades. :-)
>
> [...]
>
> >I wonder, why it's so difficult to acknowledge that politically correct
> >picture of the ever-peaceful Muslims attacked by the vicious Christians
> >is not 100% correct: they just conquered Middle East, Persia, the whole
> >Northern Africa, most of Spain, landed in Italy, penetrated into the
> >Central Asia and Caucass.
>
> But Alex, *nobody* is arguing that way.
[splork]
AFAIK, this is the way these events are represented not in Middle East.
With a big "Arab hero" Saladin fighting against the Western oppressors
(or whatever the proper terminology).
>It *was* argued that
> way in the past, which again is one reason why I suggest folks
> new to medieval history stick to books published in the last
> 20 years or so.
>
> >And, with an amazing speed, most of the local
> >population in all these places rejected their initial religions and
> >converted into Islam. IIRC, Zaraostrism was a main religion in Persia
> >for appr. millenia, there should be "incentives" for such a sudden change
> >of heart. In other words, while the crusaders definitely had not been the
> >angels, their opponents were not any better (with some exceptions on both
> >sides).
>
> And nobody claims any different. You seem to be reacting to
> what you *fear* people are saying, not to what they actually
> are saying.
>
As I said, be careful about "nobody". By using this word you are completely
ignoring .... well, you are not PC. :-)
BTW, I was reacting on Al's rethoric question "Had to intervene?". Unless
I'm completely mistaken, it implies that the Crusades was an one-sided and
completely unprovoked event. I was just trying to argue that, while
most of the Western countries did not "have" to interfere, they definitely
had some valid "ideological" reasons for such an action (and some more
mundane reasons as well...)
Alex
Al, this is completely irrelevant to what I was saying. In case you got
a wrong impression, I'm not trying to say that the Crusaders had been a
bunch of the idealists with no other goals except purely religious ones.
But the fact remains that the 1st Crusade had been "initiated" by the
advance of Seldjuks on Bizantian Empire and that the 2nd Crusade had been
initiated by the fall of Edessa.
Of course, the participants had other goals as well, including getting a
piece of a valuable property (and/or looting the Jews on the way). All these
things do not change the fact that the whole issue had been triggered by
the Muslim conquest and continued aggression. The same was the case with
the "crusades" of XIV-XVI (?). Jerusalem was safely forgotten but Ottoman
aggression on the Balkans and in Hungary was a clear and present danger.
Alex
> On 11 Nov 2002 07:06:58 -0800 am...@hotmail.com (Alex) wrote:
>
> > BTW, what (if it is revealed in this book) is the author's view on the
> > earlier Islamic conquest of Iran, Middle East, Northern Africa and
> > Spain?
> > plausible?
> > [It looks like the Muslims came with this very convenient formula that
> > works
> > really well on the liberal minds :-)]
>
> As distinct from those minds that are happy to make judgments on books they
> haven't actually read?
You probably did not notice the question marks. They constitute a difference
between the judgement and assumption. I asked the questions to which you
(so far) did not provide the answers.
>
> > as well as a political correctness... [anything is OK as long as it
> > is not done by the Europeans] :-)
>
> I would have thought that anyone who cared about history would want to see
> events from more than one perspective, would want to see both sides of the
> story?
This is nice and well (BTW, who told you that I did not read at least some
Muslim-side versions?). Unfortunately, the title, as I noticed somewhere,
brings some questions about the "perspective". If it was ".... Muslim ....",
it would be reasonable. But ".... Arab ...." sounds anachronistic and gives
an impression of being more political than historical. AFAIK, most of the
population in the areas involved (from Asia Minor to Egypt) were not the "Arabs"
(at least ethnically) at the time of the Crusades. Again, AFAIK, most of the
Muslim leaders were not the Arabs (Turks, Kurds, etc.). So, unless I'm
completely wrong in my assumption about the local population, the "eyes" are
the wrong ones. :-)
>How does that come to be equated with Political Correctness? It often
> seems that those who toss about accusations of Political Correctness have
> their own political axes to grind.
I can assure you that I'm completely impartial to both sides of the equation
and don't feel any particular sympathy neither to the crusaders nor to their
opponents.
Alex
> "Alex" <am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:f8e58188.02111...@posting.google.com...
>
> > > >On the subject of the Crusades, I've been sorely tempted to buy _The
> Crusades Through Arab Eyes_ by Amin Maalouf. Has anyone here read it? Is
> it worth purchasing?
> > >
> > > Yes, I've got it (and read it). I thought it excellent for
> > > opening western eyes to the way the Crusades were and are
> > > viewed in the Middle East.
> >
> > Just out of a curiosity, does this book reflects a (tiny and
> > absolutely insignificant) fact that the Crusades, whatever their
> ideological
> > background, were mostly a failed attempt to stop a Muslim aggression? The
> fact
> > that the lands in question became Muslim as a result of a conquest (and
> the
> > issue of how most of the population became converted to Islam is a very
> > interestingsubject) is often overlooked.
>
> No, Alex, IIRC the book doesn't do that. Thing is about revanches and
> counter-revanches, both sides can regard them as wars of defence or
> reconquest. If I were arguing your side,
David, I am not on any "side". Just asking a number of the obvious questions
and expressing my opinion on how things are often portrayed.
>I would point out that Antioch had
> only been in Muslim hands for about a decade and was populated by
> Christians. Palestine had been in Muslim hands a lot longer and was
> populated by both; Byzantium still claimed it, technically, in the same
> sense that Taipei used to claim the mainland.
>
> BTW, I'm not sure that the title
> > "Through Arab
> > Eyes" is anything but anachronism. AFAIK (corrections are gladly
> > accepted),
> > most of the contemporary population in the area were not necessarily
> > the "Arabs" at the time of Muslim conquest and the main military
> > opponents> of the Crusaders had been Seldjuk Turks and then Mameluks (with
> > ethnicity> being anything but arabic).
>
> Yes, but none of those guys wrote history. The "Arab Eyes" are the
> historians like Ibn al-Athir, al-Qalanisi, and the participant and memorists
> like Baha' ad-Din and 'Imad ad-Din.
I see.
>These aren't Turks. Or Arab-speaking
> Christians -- AFAIK none of the latter group wrote anything, the nearest you
> come are the Armenian histories.
>
> > What a big surprise! Will I be completely off mark with an assumption
> > that
> > "pre-history" of the Crusades (Islamic conquest) is conveniently
> > ommitted
> > and that a continued aggression against Bizantian Empire (a formal
> > reason for
> > the 1st Crusade, AFAIK) is also played down?
>
> Nope. But Alex, it isn't meant to be a balanced history.
Thanks for clarifying this. As in "The Good Soldier Schweik", "this answered
to the most important questions." :-)
>Look at the
> title. It's about how the Muslims at the time saw, felt and wrote.
Well, I would not have problems with this but, taking into an account the
current realpolitik, the _actual_ title sounds like a statement that
the Crusades were a confrontation between "Western" and "Arab" (not
"Muslim") worlds, which they mostly were not, and some other implications
regarding the "native land", etc.
David C Pugh
news:f8e58188.02111...@posting.google.com...
> > > Just out of a curiosity, does this book reflects a (tiny and
> > > absolutely insignificant) fact that the Crusades, whatever their
> > ideological
> > > background, were mostly a failed attempt to stop a Muslim aggression?
The
> > fact
> > > that the lands in question became Muslim as a result of a conquest
(and
> > the
> > > issue of how most of the population became converted to Islam is a
very
> > > interestingsubject) is often overlooked.
> >
> > No, Alex, IIRC the book doesn't do that. Thing is about revanches
and
> > counter-revanches, both sides can regard them as wars of defence or
> > reconquest. If I were arguing your side,
>
> > David, I am not on any "side". Just asking a number of the obvious
questions
> and expressing my opinion on how things are often portrayed.
Hum. You're coming over now as a bit more moderate, shall we say, than when
you started, when it seemed -- repeat, seemed -- as if you were calling for
a new Crusade to liberate the Middle East from the Islamic yoke..... ;-)
I actually agree with you that the First Crusade was not perceived by its
Western participants as a war of conquest, but as a war in defence of human
rights (well, Oriental Christian rights), forward defence and reconquest.
But this time you were (or seemed) far too shrill and Islamophobe for me.
In fact, I've often made this point here on SHM. Got flamed for calling it a
defensive war, too, just like you; despite my notorious interest in and
sympathy for the Islamic world, viz my recent talk with Yusuf. For I can
BOTH consider it as something other than a "barbarian avalanche" AND take an
interest in the Muslim view. In fact, I think I could retell the story from
either side equally well. I don't have any compulsion to make this "white
hats" and "black hats".
> > Yes, but none of those guys wrote history. The "Arab Eyes" are the
> > historians like Ibn al-Athir, al-Qalanisi, and the participant and
memorists
> > like Baha' ad-Din and 'Imad ad-Din.
>
> I see.
I assume you got to this only after replying to Al Griffith.
> >These aren't Turks. Or Arab-speaking
> > Christians -- AFAIK none of the latter group wrote anything, the nearest
you
> > come are the Armenian histories.
> >Look at the
> > title. It's about how the Muslims at the time saw, felt and wrote.
>
> Well, I would not have problems with this but, taking into an account the
> current realpolitik, the _actual_ title sounds like a statement that
> the Crusades were a confrontation between "Western" and "Arab" (not
> "Muslim") worlds, which they mostly were not, and some other implications
> regarding the "native land", etc.
By the above, are you thinking that the Oriental Christians should be
counted as part of the "Arab World", thus preventing it being a conflict of
"West" versus "Arab"? In language, maybe -- in religion, they belong to the
Byzantine World.
It's worth noting that as-Sulami (AFAIR not quoted in Maalouf) linked the
First Crusade to the contemporary doings in both Spain and Sicily. There's
geopolitics for you.
Tell you what. You like asking interesting questions, here's two for you:
(1) Seems to me it could and perhaps should have been called "The Crusade
Through Muslim Eyes". But is it for us to complain -- what objections and
protests were there from Turkish, Kurdish, Persian and other non-Arab
Muslims -- and from Arab Christians -- when Maalouf first published "The
Crusades Through Arab Eyes"?
(2) The English book is a translation of a French translation, "Les
croisades vues par les Arabes". Is this an accurate translation of the
Arabic original? :-)
Alex, can I recommend a novel to you? G.K. Chesterton's "The Flying Inn".
About the defence of Christian beer against the Turks. If you don't adore
this book, sue me. :-)
You'd also love his poem "Lepanto".
Alex
> roger_...@yahoo.co.uk (Roger Pearse) wrote in message news:<3a88eeea.02111...@posting.google.com>...
> > am...@hotmail.com (Alex) wrote in message news:<f8e58188.02111...@posting.google.com>...
> > > Just out of a curiosity, does this book reflects a (tiny and
> > > absolutely
> > > insignificant) fact that the Crusades, whatever their ideological
> > > background,
> > > were mostly a failed attempt to stop a Muslim aggression? The fact
> > > that
> > > the lands in question became Muslim as a result of a conquest (and the
> > > issue
> > > of how most of the population became converted to Islam is a very
> > > interesting
> > > subject) is often overlooked. [etc]
>
> If you're against everyone who ever conquered another country,
> precisely whom do you support?
I don't think that this question makes any sense or has anything to do
with what had been said: that there was/(still is? Paul insists that it is
not there anymore, can't tell if he is right on this or not) a definite
tendency to represent the Muslim side as a 100% victim. BTW, I don't see why
we have to "support" either side on the Crusades. Can we be, God forbid,
just impartial?
> The Arabs found it so easy to conquer Syria and North Africa in the
> 7th century because those regions had been so barbarously mis-ruled by
> Constantinople for generations, including fierce persecutions of local
> religious groups deemed heretical in the capital.
This all is both true and hogwash (you can pick whatever you prefer).
It is probably safe to say that most of the big conquests happened because
population of the conquered territories was mismanaged by their rulers,
ill-treated, etc. If it was not, conquest hardly would be possible.
All these things being said, it was still a conquest and, among the
reasons of the conquerors, freeing the locals from the Bizantian or
Iranian rule (BTW, Iran was ruled by the local dynasty and had an ancient
national religion), definitely was not very high on the list.
>The local Christians
> much preferred Muslim rule,
Not all of them and, with the exception of Asia Minor and Holy Land, they
did not have too many options: nobody was going to help them, anyway.
>and were considerably better treated under
> it than Muslims were in any Christian country but polyglot Norman
> Sicily.
It does not work this way. Christians inhabited these territories _before_
Islam had been invented and before these territories had been _conquered_
by the Muslims. OTOH, the Muslims found themselves under the Christian
rule only in the places that had been _reconquered_. See the difference?
As a (maybe not very good) modern example, what happened after WWII with
the Germans who used to live in Czechoslovakia?
BTW, AFAIK, Sicily was not the only place. Some of the Outremer
principialities (depending on the ruler and balance of force), had been
very lenient to them (IIRC, during the 2nd Crusade this was the case with
Antioch).
>
>
> But Roger and Alex are both missing the point of the book under
> discussion
I can't miss something I don't have. In case you did not notice, I was
asking the questions about its content. And, a completely different
issue, I made some comments about the Crusades without ANY reference to
this book. Should I start a new thread to make it more clear?
> -- on purpose, I suspect. The point is that we in the
> (erstwhile Christian) West have always read, by and large, the
> Christian, Western accounts of events
>in which the Muslims were (it is
> hard to deny this) at least as important figures, with just as much
> right to their opinions of what was going on. We will understand it
> all better if we know what they saw and heard and thought.
Errrr.... Can't tell about you as a representative of the erstwhile
Christian West, but don't you think that not EVERY participant of this
discussion had been fed with this particular diet? With a little stretch
of imagination, you can probably figure out that at least some of "us"
had been on a completely different diet (I'd say, "over-fed" with the
stories about the cruel Crusaders and the noble peaceful ...., etc.).
As a result, something, which is a new and refreshing change for you can
be something completely different for the other(s).
>But
> understanding doesn't appear to be in the Roger and Alex canon.
Just like Mitt Romney, I don't like when other people are trying to say
what my views are. Even less do I like when somebody is trying to tell
what I do and what I do not understand.
>
> If, as Al Griffith suggests, we are really interested in what happened
> (as opposed to our personal political-religious agenda), then we ought
> to be interested in rival accounts of events that took place so long
> ago we can't derive our own opinions from much else. Since Roger and
> Alex ONLY want to read history that agrees with what they have
> previously decided should be true,
Very interesting observation, especially if one takes into an account that
you don't have a clue about what I want or don't want to read, what is
my view on the events, what I do or do not know, etc.
> facts have little appeal to them,
> and this book is not for them. Indeed, history is not for them -- they
> should confine themselves to fiction and religious tracts.
Hopefully, you'll take it as a simple statement of the fact, but this is
extremely stupid on many accounts. To start with, the book, judging by the
comments, represents not _facts_ but _opinions_ of one of the sides. Then,
you are implying that this is the 1st "revelation" of this type, which
is patently untrue. Then, making an obvious assumption that everybody must
have exactly the same subset of knowledge as you do, you consider yourself
qualified to judge what types of a literature I should read and did this
this in a rather stupid way: one can't be "confined" to fiction (probably
80-90% of the world literature is fiction) and your advice to read the
religious tracts is absurd as far as I'm concerned.
>
>
> If you do not wish to see Muslims as civilized compared to Christian
> crusaders,
Probably you should start taking the dried frog pills: you have the same
problem as the Bursar. Who said anything about "civilization", etc?
It's all yours overdeveloped imagination.
>(The Christian and Muslim takings of
> Constantinople also make a fascinating contrast.)
>
Two more stupidities: (a) Constantinople had been taken by the Ottomans, not
by the Arabs. (b) It was looted and quite a few people had been killed
in a process and impaled soon afterwards.
> By the way -- while I love Runciman, who read quite a lot of Muslim
> sources and who deals with one issue no one else seems to bring up:
> why pilgrimage even became an issue in Christian Europe,
Why it is still an issue in the Muslim world? AFAIK, it is also an
issue in the Hindu world and probably in Buddhist world as well. It's a
tiny thing called "religion"....
BTW, pilgrimage was an issue not only in Catholic but also in Orthodox
Europe with its, considerably different social conditions.
> I have
> recently found Zoe Oldenbourg's history of the Crusades (called The
> Crusades), and she discusses a number of issues slighted by Runciman,
> such as the reasons the Crusading population
>was never very large and
> was, therefore, doomed to ultimate destruction as soon as the Muslims
> got mad enough to join forces.
What an amazing discovery! I thought that this was a well-known fact since
(at least) Gibbon's times. Of course, "the Crusading population" never
ammounted to very much beyond the upper class and their personal retainers.
>(Very instructive, especially if, like
> me, you are a Jew who thinks the Israelis are behaving like idiots.)
I am not like you and I don't see an analogy. The "Crusaders" did not
manage/care to crate a nation.
Much better analogy will be Mongols in China (taking into an account the
numbers, practically the same ruling class)- very soon their dynasty had
been overthrown, vs the Golden Horde - a nation had been created and still
exists in the middle of the Russian territories.
BTW, as far as your analogy is concerned, in the modern times Arabs "joined
their forces" at least 3 times.
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Gans) wrote:
> But that's not what happened. Most of the population in recently
> conquered Turkey was not converted and remained faithful to the
> Greek Orthodox Church.
One point to remember is that converts were liable for military
service but not taxed. The Ottomans showed little interest in
converting their subjects and IIRC at one point were actually
discouraging conversion. Most histories of the Ottoman Empire point
out it was more Ottoman than moslem.
Ken Young
ken...@cix.co.uk
Maternity is a matter of fact
Paternity is a matter of opinion
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
am...@hotmail.com (Alex) wrote:
> were mostly a failed attempt to stop a Muslim aggression?
The Seljurk Turkish conquest greatly changed the previous political
pattern. Previous Moslem rulers of Jerusalem had not interfered much
with Christian Pilgrims or Christian places of worship. The change in
policy under the Seljurks made the Western church much more
sympathetic to calls for aid from the Byzantines.
Paul J Gans
>Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message news:<aqpath$4il$4...@reader1.panix.com>...
>> In soc.history.medieval Alex <am...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >Al Griffith <agri4042@REMOVE_THIS.bigpond.net.au> wrote in message news:<CFN375717...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
>> >> On 10 Nov 2002 21:18:19 -0800 willia...@prodigy.net (William Palmer) wrote:
[...]
>> But that's not what happened. Most of the population in recently
>> conquered Turkey was not converted and remained faithful to the
>> Greek Orthodox Church.
>You probably have in mind Asia Minor (I'm not sure that "Turkey" existed
>at the time in question in any meaningful shape and form, IIRC, there
>were numerous Seldjuk sultanats). I was talking (perhaps I was not very
>clear) about the mass conversions in the areas conquered by the Arabs:
>Northern Africa, Middle Easte, Iran, Spain. Of course, there were (more or
>less) numerous Christians and Jews after the conquest but a major part of
>the population had been converted into Islam really fast. AFAIK, population
>of Iran had been almost completely converted.
Yes, I had Asia Minor in mind. I thought that was what was being
discussed, since the discussion revolved around the Crusades.
The quick mass conversions of the original spread of Islam are
notable. I am not well-read on this aspect of Islamic development
and so can't comment.
[...]
>> >I wonder, why it's so difficult to acknowledge that politically correct
>> >picture of the ever-peaceful Muslims attacked by the vicious Christians
>> >is not 100% correct: they just conquered Middle East, Persia, the whole
>> >Northern Africa, most of Spain, landed in Italy, penetrated into the
>> >Central Asia and Caucass.
>>
>> But Alex, *nobody* is arguing that way.
>[splork]
>AFAIK, this is the way these events are represented not in Middle East.
>With a big "Arab hero" Saladin fighting against the Western oppressors
>(or whatever the proper terminology).
Stop reading old history books.... ;-)
Saladin was, in fact, a European hero during the perid after
his death. He was counted as one of the noble knights of
the non-Christian world.
The medievals didn't go in for much rhetoric on "oppressors"
or "victims" in that sense.
[...]
>As I said, be careful about "nobody". By using this word you are completely
>ignoring .... well, you are not PC. :-)
>BTW, I was reacting on Al's rethoric question "Had to intervene?". Unless
>I'm completely mistaken, it implies that the Crusades was an one-sided and
>completely unprovoked event.
Oh, I agree with that. I thought "had to" was a bit overboard.
>I was just trying to argue that, while
>most of the Western countries did not "have" to interfere, they definitely
>had some valid "ideological" reasons for such an action (and some more
>mundane reasons as well...)
Yes, and people continue to argue over the number of folks
motivated by each reason... ;-)
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>"Alex" <am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:f8e58188.02111...@posting.google.com...
[major snip]
>Tell you what. You like asking interesting questions, here's two for you:
>(1) Seems to me it could and perhaps should have been called "The Crusade
>Through Muslim Eyes". But is it for us to complain -- what objections and
>protests were there from Turkish, Kurdish, Persian and other non-Arab
>Muslims -- and from Arab Christians -- when Maalouf first published "The
>Crusades Through Arab Eyes"?
>(2) The English book is a translation of a French translation, "Les
>croisades vues par les Arabes". Is this an accurate translation of the
>Arabic original? :-)
I believe that Maalouf wrote it in French. IIRC he's a Lebanese
Christian now a French national.
[snip]
--- Paul J. Gans
Dan Goodman
@posting.google.com:
> Well, I would not have problems with this but, taking into an account the
> current realpolitik, the _actual_ title sounds like a statement that
> the Crusades were a confrontation between "Western" and "Arab" (not
> "Muslim") worlds, which they mostly were not, and some other implications
> regarding the "native land", etc.
>
To me, _The Crusade Through Arab Eyes" sounds like "This is how Arabs saw
the Crusades". Nothing more.
As for "taking into an account the current realpolitik" -- that way lies
madness, preceded by a whole lot of bad decisions. Ironically,
"realpolitik" never seems to have much to do with reality.
Paul J Gans
>> roger_...@yahoo.co.uk (Roger Pearse) wrote in message news:<3a88eeea.02111...@posting.google.com>...
>> > am...@hotmail.com (Alex) wrote in message news:<f8e58188.02111...@posting.google.com>...
>> > > Just out of a curiosity, does this book reflects a (tiny and
>> > > absolutely
>> > > insignificant) fact that the Crusades, whatever their ideological
>> > > background,
>> > > were mostly a failed attempt to stop a Muslim aggression? The fact
>> > > that
>> > > the lands in question became Muslim as a result of a conquest (and the
>> > > issue
>> > > of how most of the population became converted to Islam is a very
>> > > interesting
>> > > subject) is often overlooked. [etc]
>>
>> If you're against everyone who ever conquered another country,
>> precisely whom do you support?
>I don't think that this question makes any sense or has anything to do
>with what had been said: that there was/(still is? Paul insists that it is
>not there anymore, can't tell if he is right on this or not) a definite
>tendency to represent the Muslim side as a 100% victim. BTW, I don't see why
>we have to "support" either side on the Crusades. Can we be, God forbid,
>just impartial?
Not in this sense. A real question is: why did the Crusaders
go to the Holy Land? We can't now know their reasons in detail.
Of the aristocrats, who were in a position to influence policy,
it could have been that most went to "protect pilgrims". Or
it could have been that most went to "help their brother Christians".
Or it could have been that most went to gain some land for
themselves. The latter *could* be classed as going on a
war of conquest. And indeed, the setting up of what we
call the Crusader states does point in that direction.
On the other hand (there's always another hand) it could be
that it was thought that the best way to protect pilgrims
was to take over land.
Or it could be that there was no majority reason.
But the question is a reasonable historical question. It does
lead to viewing one side or the other as the "bad guys". If
you couple this with the now-known evidence that pilgrims were
having no trouble getting to Jerusalem in the years before the
First Crusade, the waters get even more muddy.
[major snip]
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>In article <aqpath$4il$4...@reader1.panix.com>, ga...@panix.com (Paul J
>Gans) wrote:
>> But that's not what happened. Most of the population in recently
>> conquered Turkey was not converted and remained faithful to the
>> Greek Orthodox Church.
> One point to remember is that converts were liable for military
>service but not taxed. The Ottomans showed little interest in
>converting their subjects and IIRC at one point were actually
>discouraging conversion. Most histories of the Ottoman Empire point
>out it was more Ottoman than moslem.
Yes. I was responding to the notion that those in what is now
Turkey were "converted".
Too much conversion was bad for the tax base. The Ottomans
understood that... ;-)
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>In article <f8e58188.02111...@posting.google.com>,
>am...@hotmail.com (Alex) wrote:
>> were mostly a failed attempt to stop a Muslim aggression?
> The Seljurk Turkish conquest greatly changed the previous political
>pattern. Previous Moslem rulers of Jerusalem had not interfered much
>with Christian Pilgrims or Christian places of worship. The change in
>policy under the Seljurks made the Western church much more
>sympathetic to calls for aid from the Byzantines.
But IIRC, that was temporary. The Seljurks quickly realized
that there was money to be made from the tourist trade.
---- Paul J. Gans
D. Spencer Hines
the Holy Land?"
[...]
"But the question is a reasonable historical question. It does
lead to viewing one side or the other as the "bad guys"."
Paul J. Gans
Dead Wrong....Embarrassingly So, For Gans....
Gans proves, once again, that he is no Historian and has no Sense of
History.
The worst thing one can do when examining a complex historical event is
to "take sides" and identify "bad guys" ---- it is the clear mark of the
uneducated, untutored, unqualified amateur ---- who knows not what he
does.
As Alex has pointed out, the politically correct view of late [at least
before 9/11] has been to see the Crusaders as vicious, crude,
aristocratic, testosterone-poisoned [Gans's own language] Christian
aggressors and the Muslims as innocent victims ---- and this view has
certainly been hard-pressed by Christian-bashers and noble-haters, such
as Gans.
But that certainly doesn't give it any particular historical
credibility.
Deus Vult
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Sol Disinfectus Optimus Est. Peccatoris Justificatio Absque
Paenitentia, Legem Destruit Moralem.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of
in your philosophy." ---- William Shakespeare [1564-1616] The Tragedy of
Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, Act I, Scene V, Line 166-167
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly. All original
material contained herein is copyright and property of the author. It
may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an attribution
to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly given, in
writing.
------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
Roger Pearse
> discussion -- on purpose, I suspect.
I would suggest that you try to understand a post before replying to
it. If you're only interested in your own little religious or
political outlook, as here, you should refrain from sharing your
ignorance and bigotry with the rest of us. As for your praise for
islam, and smarmy political correctness, do I gather that you don't
live in a muslim country? No, I thought not.
David C Pugh
You're right, I read the publisher's name as a French translator's name.
Scrub second question.
Inger E
"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:aqsm4i$dem$1...@reader1.panix.com...
Paul,
if you don't know the reasons why the Crusaders went to the Holy land, than
you have missed all essential factors involved in the Crusades. The
questions around the Crusades are to be read by students in basic courses,
discussed and valuated during the first two semesters in History as well as
in Religion. It's so incredible to read your lines that one hardly would
think that you were a scholar at all revealing that gap of unknowledge of
Medieval History, Economic History of the past and above all in the subject
Religion.
Inger E
Cerinthus
I found Karen Armstrong's "Holy War" quite informative on
the reasons why the Crusaders went in the first place. She
seemed to point to the idea of Holiness attached to physical
places, and this was also a main motive for pilgrimage.
Basically, she said that under this type of thinking places
like Jerusalem would achieve supreme importance in a
person's worldview.
I am not sure of her reception among the medieval studies
world, but I found her book interesting.
Yours,
--
Cerinthus
"The belief in a supernatural source of evil is not
necessary; men alone are quite capable of every wickedness."
-- Joseph Conrad
D. Spencer Hines
History, Economics and Religion are certainly areas of Great Ignorance
for Gans.
He's quite limited in all three....
Deus Vult
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Sol Disinfectus Optimus Est. Peccatoris Justificatio Absque
Paenitentia, Legem Destruit Moralem.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of
in your philosophy." ---- William Shakespeare [1564-1616] The Tragedy of
Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, Act I, Scene V, Line 166-167
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly. All original
material contained herein is copyright and property of the author. It
may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an attribution
to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly given, in
writing.
------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
"Inger E" <inger_e....@telia.com> wrote in message
news:wjpA9.4476$1r1.1...@newsc.telia.net...
Alex
Well, you are putting too many aples and oranges together. :-)
Let's forget for a moment "good vs bad guy" scenario because it
does not make too much practical sense: both sides were approximately
equal as far as Geneva Convention is concerned.
Why the Crusades started?
I think that mostly due to a combination of the reasons. Some of them
(you can add to the list):
1. Religious feelings. We can't discount them. Catholic Church was
powerful and we _do_ know (as far as we can be sure of anything) that
a number of european rulers had been convinced to join various crusades
more or less against their will. And for the Papacy this was an obvious
way to raise its own authority and, quite often, to get a break in its
war against the current emperor. Some of the participants could be even
completely sincere, especially those of the lower classes (over the
ages they had been much more receptive to any ideology then the upper
classes).
2. The issue of pilgrims. It was not very simple and clear even in XIX
century. One of the _formal_ reasons for the Crimea War was demand of
Nicholas I to be acknowledged as a "protector" of the piligrims and the
"holy sites" (in practical terms, get a free hand in Ottoman Empire).
Small wonder that it was even a bigger issue in XII century, especially
with area being politically unstable (all these local emirs and sultans
cheerfully killing each other, etc.). You may notice that Friederich II
limited his "crusade" to making an agreement with the Sultan of Egypt
(IIRC) about a free passage. But you have to have a reasonable leader
on each side plus an ability to enforce the agreement, which was rather
difficult without a strong local power.
3. The issue of a continued Muslim conquest. We can't discount it as a
factor. Muslims had been more or less checked in Spain and Italy but
they had been "clear and present danger" and continued aggression in the
(predominantly Christian) Asia Minor was a fact. Asking for the help
from the ... er ... "fellow christians" was a repeated trait in the later
times. What were the French knights doing at Nikopol?
4. "Pragmatic" reasons like getting a nice princedom for yourslef
and/or simply getting some loot (if you are a lesser figure) could not be
discounted. With the excess of the younger brothers, etc. there was plenty
of people who had no perspectives at home but could hope to win something
in the foreign lands. BTW, look at the "Baltic Crusade". Unlike the main
ones, it did not suffer from an impossible logistics and, as a result,
the big numbers of the Germans of all classes had been persistently
moving eastward, creating a permanent (at least until the end of WWII)
population. In other words, colonization, vs purely "feudal conquest"
(I mean conquest which involves just a change of the ruler).
BTW, going to the HL was not a necessary requisite of the later "crusades".
Practically any military action against the Muslims (or "heretics")
would do if it was blessed by the Pope. St. Louis landed in Egypt and
later, IIRC, in the Northern Africa. "Crusades" had been declared against
the Albigoians and Hussites (definitely fellow Christians).
Paul J Gans
>All the best,
>Roger Pearse
A prime example of why multiply-crossposted threads are poison.
---- Paul J. Gans
William Palmer
> > that
> > "pre-history" of the Crusades (Islamic conquest) is conveniently
> > ommitted
> > and that a continued aggression against Bizantian Empire (a formal
> > reason for
> > the 1st Crusade, AFAIK) is also played down?
>
> Christian Constantinople, capital of the Christian Byzantine Empire, in 1204?
What scholars need to do is put such terrible events
in perspective of the entire vast conflict. The
Crusades were not a simple case of all good guys
in white hats going after bad guys in black hats,
anymore than they were the exact opposite (which
some of the posters on this and related threads
seem to believe).
Putting those wars in the context of the times,
yes, I believe some sort of crusade was both
called for and justified. However, that is
not to say I support everything as far as what
actually transpired. The events leading up to
the sacking of Constantinople were both complex
and murky, regardng what was recorded by
contemporary sources. One creditable theory is
that a small group of greedy plutocrats from one
of the principalities that eventually became Italy
schemed to provoke the thing so that their hirelings
could slip in and steal a fortune during the turmoil.
That is creditable, because if you think about it,
you can envision a situation where there is smoke,
burning, general noise and carnage, and in that
environment, a small group of people who appear
to be acting under color of some royal authority
could get away with a lot, if they used good
planning and knew exactly what they wanted to
steal and where it was located (and of course
had one or more ships waiting for them not
far away.)
The event was black mark on the Crusades,
and a horrible reality of history. However,
it is not any more fair to judge the entire
Crusades by the sacking of Constantinople than
it is to judge the Allies in WW II by the
firebombing of Dresden, which--though I have
no sympathy for the Nazis--was plainly--at
best--an evil error of judgment, as far as
I am concerned. By the same token, we don't
judge the entire Vietnam War by the Mai Lai
massacre, either, at least not if we are
objective. Anyone who thinks you can take
a conflict of vast scope like the Crusades
without having great acts of virtue and
kindness, and horrible acts of evil, by
all major groups involved, simply does not
understand the nature of warfare.
And by the way, as to the individual making
so much noise regarding his allegation that
the Crusaders were "invading Muslim lands,"
he needs to be reminded that Muslims invaded
Europe more than once, and in fact committed
many depredations in places they took over.
(Someone already reminded him, but I am
seconding that.) I would advise the person
involved to try to take off his horse-blinders
and look at what happened regarding both
European history and the history of the
Middle East. His annoying habit of merely
braying is not going to convince anyone that
he has a valid argument when he clearly does
not.
alt.genius.bill-palmer
(Temporary office: upstairs at rec.arts.prose)
wil...@ix.netcom.com
>
> Al
D. Spencer Hines
Paul J. Gans
-----------------------
A prime example of why Gans, my pet goose, is known as ---- Gans The
Illiterate.
And no, it's not a "typo" ---- it's a gaffe.
How Sweet It Is!
Deus Vult.
Karen
I think that is one of the best quick analysis of the causes of the Crusades
that I have seen since I read my professors lecture notes. Excellent!!
I am of the firm belief that the Papacy was the most influential reasons for
the Crusades to occur. They were one of the most powerful forces in Europe
at the time and this was one more way in which they could exert the
influence of the papacy.
Karen
David C Pugh
news:f8e58188.02111...@posting.google.com...
(Alex on the Reasons):
> 1. Religious feelings. We can't discount them. Catholic Church was
> powerful and we _do_ know (as far as we can be sure of anything) that
> a number of european rulers had been convinced to join various crusades
> more or less against their will. And for the Papacy this was an obvious
> way to raise its own authority and, quite often, to get a break in its
> war against the current emperor.
Yes, this was definitely the case in 1095, a moral upstaging of Henry
IV. The second and third crusades not, though.
Some of the participants could be even
> completely sincere, especially those of the lower classes (over the
> ages they had been much more receptive to any ideology then the upper
> classes).
ITA. It's worth noting the difference between the People's Crusade,
which expressed its sincerity by massacring the Rhineland Jews, and the
Prince's Crusade a year later, run by people who understood economics.
> 2. The issue of pilgrims. It was not very simple and clear even in XIX
> century. One of the _formal_ reasons for the Crimea War was demand of
> Nicholas I to be acknowledged as a "protector" of the piligrims and the
> "holy sites" (in practical terms, get a free hand in Ottoman Empire).
> Small wonder that it was even a bigger issue in XII century, especially
> with area being politically unstable (all these local emirs and sultans
> cheerfully killing each other, etc.).
Again I agree. It's also worth remembering that the term "crusade" is a
horrible anachronism -- at the time it was called a "pilgrimage"
(peregrinatio). Its legal status was an "armed pilgrimage", and all the
canon law of crusade status was related to that.
You may notice that Friederich II
> limited his "crusade" to making an agreement with the Sultan of Egypt
> (IIRC) about a free passage. But you have to have a reasonable leader
> on each side plus an ability to enforce the agreement, which was rather
> difficult without a strong local power.
>
> 3. The issue of a continued Muslim conquest. We can't discount it as a
> factor. Muslims had been more or less checked in Spain and Italy but
> they had been "clear and present danger" and continued aggression in the
> (predominantly Christian) Asia Minor was a fact. Asking for the help
> from the ... er ... "fellow christians" was a repeated trait in the later
> times. What were the French knights doing at Nikopol?
Even if the letter to Robert of Flanders was spurious, that Alexius
Comnenus asked for aid in protecting co-religionists and defending the
Oikumene is a solid fact.
> 4. "Pragmatic" reasons like getting a nice princedom for yourslef
> and/or simply getting some loot (if you are a lesser figure) could not be
> discounted. With the excess of the younger brothers, etc. there was plenty
> of people who had no perspectives at home but could hope to win something
> in the foreign lands.
Riley-Smith's new book (didn't I summarise it a while ago?) pretty well
debunks this angle. For every crusader who got something, dozens died or
were ruined.
BTW, look at the "Baltic Crusade". Unlike the main
> ones, it did not suffer from an impossible logistics and, as a result,
> the big numbers of the Germans of all classes had been persistently
> moving eastward, creating a permanent (at least until the end of WWII)
> population. In other words, colonization, vs purely "feudal conquest"
> (I mean conquest which involves just a change of the ruler).
Same in Spain.
> BTW, going to the HL was not a necessary requisite of the later
"crusades".
> Practically any military action against the Muslims (or "heretics")
> would do if it was blessed by the Pope. St. Louis landed in Egypt
From the Fourth onwards, the idea was to "take out" the main Muslim
power-base; they had decided Jerusalem was strategically unviable if this
was not done.
and
> later, IIRC, in the Northern Africa. "Crusades" had been declared against
> the Albigoians and Hussites (definitely fellow Christians).
Says who? Not the people who declared the crusade. A better example
would be the Staufen Crusade.
--
David
"From ghouls and ghosties, and long-leggety beasties, and things that go
bump on the Net, Good Lord, deliver us"
Crossposting cut.
Dan Goodman
news:k0TA9.475$8E1....@news4.e.nsc.no:
>> 4. "Pragmatic" reasons like getting a nice princedom for yourslef
>> and/or simply getting some loot (if you are a lesser figure) could
>> not be discounted. With the excess of the younger brothers, etc.
>> there was plenty of people who had no perspectives at home but could
>> hope to win something in the foreign lands.
>
> Riley-Smith's new book (didn't I summarise it a while ago?) pretty
> well
> debunks this angle. For every crusader who got something, dozens died
> or were ruined.
>
Which does _not_ rule out people thinking they had a good chance.
David C Pugh
news:Xns92C692DAD66...@209.98.13.60...
Actually, Dan, Riley-Smith deals with that too. Says there were a lot of
people coming home telling people how awful it was out East. And so it
doesn't make sense unless there actually is a religious motivation.
People really did think they were going to Hell if they had shed blood
and didn't do adequate penance. Which in those days was actually a bit more
than three Hail Maries.
"Frequently he ((Tancred of Antioch)) burned with anxiety because the
warfare he engaged in as a knight seemed to be contrary to the Lord's
commands. The Lord, in fact, ordered him to offer the cheek that had
been struck together with his other cheek to the striker, but secular
knighthood did not spare the blood of relatives. The Lord urged him to
give his tunic and his cloak as well to the man who would take them
away, the needs of war impelled him to take from a man already
despoiled of both whatever remained to him. And so, if ever that wise
man could give himself up to repose, these contradictions deprived him of
courage. ((The crusade is preached)) at last, as if previously asleep, his
vigour was aroused, his powers grew, his eyes opened, his courage was born."
Paul J Gans
>Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message news:<aqsm4i$dem$1...@reader1.panix.com>...
[...]
>Why the Crusades started?
>I think that mostly due to a combination of the reasons. Some of them
>(you can add to the list):
>1. Religious feelings. We can't discount them. Catholic Church was
>powerful and we _do_ know (as far as we can be sure of anything) that
>a number of european rulers had been convinced to join various crusades
>more or less against their will. And for the Papacy this was an obvious
>way to raise its own authority and, quite often, to get a break in its
>war against the current emperor.
I agree. But not at the beginning. There is ample evidence
that the Pope and everyone else was quite surprised at the
number of volunteers.
Later Popes used the power of the call as you say for various
political purposes as well as religious ones.
>Some of the participants could be even
>completely sincere, especially those of the lower classes (over the
>ages they had been much more receptive to any ideology then the upper
>classes).
I agree. But even the upper classes were sincere in that they
did not see why they could not act for God while also acting
for themselves.
>2. The issue of pilgrims. It was not very simple and clear even in XIX
>century. One of the _formal_ reasons for the Crimea War was demand of
>Nicholas I to be acknowledged as a "protector" of the piligrims and the
>"holy sites" (in practical terms, get a free hand in Ottoman Empire).
>Small wonder that it was even a bigger issue in XII century, especially
>with area being politically unstable (all these local emirs and sultans
>cheerfully killing each other, etc.). You may notice that Friederich II
>limited his "crusade" to making an agreement with the Sultan of Egypt
>(IIRC) about a free passage. But you have to have a reasonable leader
>on each side plus an ability to enforce the agreement, which was rather
>difficult without a strong local power.
Let's not spread this too far in time. I agree that in the
thousand years prior to the First Crusade the pilgrims from
the west had a very variable experience. Sometimes good,
sometimes bad.
However, the particular reasons the Pope mentioned for calling
the First Crusade were very often quite wrong. Whether that
was because of bad information (probably not) or a calculation
that atrocities would help raise an army, he did paint a very
bleak and untrue picture of the situation *at that time*.
>3. The issue of a continued Muslim conquest. We can't discount it as a
>factor. Muslims had been more or less checked in Spain and Italy but
>they had been "clear and present danger" and continued aggression in the
>(predominantly Christian) Asia Minor was a fact. Asking for the help
>from the ... er ... "fellow christians" was a repeated trait in the later
>times. What were the French knights doing at Nikopol?
Leave later events out. The general feeling was that the
Byzantines could take care of the Turks. The loss at
Manzikert was not, I think, then seen for the ultimate
disaster that it was. What the Byzantines wanted was
some good western heavy cavalry to help round out their
forces. They expected at most a thousand or so experienced
fighters.
What they got was a flood. They (correctly, I think)
figured that the best thing to do with them was to get
them across the Bosphorous as quickly as possible before
there was real trouble.
So any plans of a campaign against the Turks was shelved.
The priority became to help the "Franks" on their way
to Jerusalem.
Had the "Franks" joined forces with the Byzantines it
is possible to argue that they could, in fact, have
driven them back and recoverd much of Anatolia. That
would certainly have changed history in a major way.
But we will never know.
>4. "Pragmatic" reasons like getting a nice princedom for yourslef
>and/or simply getting some loot (if you are a lesser figure) could not be
>discounted. With the excess of the younger brothers, etc. there was plenty
>of people who had no perspectives at home but could hope to win something
>in the foreign lands. BTW, look at the "Baltic Crusade". Unlike the main
>ones, it did not suffer from an impossible logistics and, as a result,
>the big numbers of the Germans of all classes had been persistently
>moving eastward, creating a permanent (at least until the end of WWII)
>population. In other words, colonization, vs purely "feudal conquest"
>(I mean conquest which involves just a change of the ruler).
I agree. Colonization was eventually attempted in the Holy
Land, but it was very hard to do for many reasons.
>BTW, going to the HL was not a necessary requisite of the later "crusades".
>Practically any military action against the Muslims (or "heretics")
>would do if it was blessed by the Pope. St. Louis landed in Egypt and
>later, IIRC, in the Northern Africa. "Crusades" had been declared against
>the Albigoians and Hussites (definitely fellow Christians).
That's a bit more complex. Now you are getting into the area
of Papal politics. The reason for St. Louis's landing was
the (correct, I think) calculation that Egypt had become
the power center of the Middle East. If Egypt could be
knocked out (or better, captured) the Franks would then
have an easy time in Palestine. They were probably right
in this calculation.
One problem. They got knocked out instead of the Egyptians.
---- Paul J. Gans
David C Pugh
> >1. Religious feelings. We can't discount them. Catholic Church was
> >powerful and we _do_ know (as far as we can be sure of anything) that
> >a number of european rulers had been convinced to join various crusades
> >more or less against their will. And for the Papacy this was an obvious
> >way to raise its own authority and, quite often, to get a break in its
> >war against the current emperor.
>
> I agree. But not at the beginning. There is ample evidence
> that the Pope and everyone else was quite surprised at the
> number of volunteers.
Yes, and I'm not sure Urban expected any popular excitement at all. His
references to diverting the murderous energies of the knights suggest that
he saw himself as Alexius' recruiting-sergeant.
> Later Popes used the power of the call as you say for various
> political purposes as well as religious ones.
>
> >Some of the participants could be even
> >completely sincere, especially those of the lower classes (over the
> >ages they had been much more receptive to any ideology then the upper
> >classes).
>
> I agree. But even the upper classes were sincere in that they
> did not see why they could not act for God while also acting
> for themselves.
Yes, the opposition between these things is modern thinking.
(...)
> However, the particular reasons the Pope mentioned for calling
> the First Crusade were very often quite wrong. Whether that
> was because of bad information (probably not) or a calculation
> that atrocities would help raise an army, he did paint a very
> bleak and untrue picture of the situation *at that time*.
Information lag and policy inertia. Moreover, if there was a bad period
under al-Hakim, and then another bad period in the Eighties, is it
unreasonable to fear more bad periods in the future?
> >3. The issue of a continued Muslim conquest. We can't discount it as a
> >factor. Muslims had been more or less checked in Spain and Italy but
> >they had been "clear and present danger" and continued aggression in the
> >(predominantly Christian) Asia Minor was a fact. Asking for the help
> >from the ... er ... "fellow christians" was a repeated trait in the later
> >times. What were the French knights doing at Nikopol?
>
> Leave later events out. The general feeling was that the
> Byzantines could take care of the Turks.
It was???? Let's have some sources.
The loss at
> Manzikert was not, I think, then seen for the ultimate
> disaster that it was.
It wasn't seen for what it was in 1071, by the Byzantines themselves.
But ten years later, with the Turks in Nicaea, just across the Straits?
C'mon.
What the Byzantines wanted was
> some good western heavy cavalry to help round out their
> forces. They expected at most a thousand or so experienced
> fighters.
Agree. My perspective is that, until Antioch, the Muslims thought that
the crusade was just another bunch of Byzantium's barbarian mercenaries.
They'd seen it all before.
> What they got was a flood. They (correctly, I think)
> figured that the best thing to do with them was to get
> them across the Bosphorous as quickly as possible before
> there was real trouble.
>
> So any plans of a campaign against the Turks was shelved.
> The priority became to help the "Franks" on their way
> to Jerusalem.
Disagree completely. Alexius didn't expect the Franks to go to
Jerusalem. That was just PR for the lower orders, he must have reckoned. It
was all about Iconium and Antioch. He didn't just shuffle them off and
forget about them -- he campaigned himself in Bithynia, clearing up behind
the Frankish battering-ram, was intending to go to Antioch himself in the
same errand, and sent Taticios with the Franks as liaison.
> Had the "Franks" joined forces with the Byzantines it
> is possible to argue that they could, in fact, have
> driven them back and recoverd much of Anatolia. That
> would certainly have changed history in a major way.
> But we will never know.
Or again, they might have done a Russel Balliol and created a Frankish
state in Anatolia.
I reckon Antioch was a pretty neat place to have, strategically -- holds the
Syrians out of play.
Alexius' first priority was the western coastlands, which could be and were
held.
(...)
> That's a bit more complex. Now you are getting into the area
> of Papal politics. The reason for St. Louis's landing was
> the (correct, I think) calculation that Egypt had become
> the power center of the Middle East. If Egypt could be
> knocked out (or better, captured) the Franks would then
> have an easy time in Palestine. They were probably right
> in this calculation.
>
> One problem. They got knocked out instead of the Egyptians.
ITA. Remember that Egypt was where the Fourth was supposed to be going.
Richard found that the direct approach didn't work -- if Damascus and Egypt
are hostile, Jerusalem is nothing more than a honey-trap.
Alex
> "Alex" <am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:f8e58188.02111...@posting.google.com...
>
> (Alex on the Reasons):
>
> > 1. Religious feelings. We can't discount them. Catholic Church was
> > powerful and we _do_ know (as far as we can be sure of anything) that
> > a number of european rulers had been convinced to join various crusades
> > more or less against their will. And for the Papacy this was an obvious
> > way to raise its own authority and, quite often, to get a break in its
> > war against the current emperor.
>
> Yes, this was definitely the case in 1095, a moral upstaging of Henry
> IV. The second and third crusades not, though.
Well, the second is controversial. Louis, AFAIK, was acting out of the
religious motives and was heavily influenced by Bernard of Clervaux & Co.
He was not in a direct confrontation with Pope at the time but earlier he
was "sinning" by waging the war against one of his vassals (Count of
Champaign, IIRC, heavily supported by Bernard), trying to enforce
some "unlawful" political marriage, burning a church full of people, etc.
Conrad, was not eager to join but was heavily pressed by the same Bernard
and eventually personally confronted by him during the mass: did not have
too many options.... My impression was that Bernard acted as Pope's proxy
in both cases.
>
> Some of the participants could be even
> > completely sincere, especially those of the lower classes (over the
> > ages they had been much more receptive to any ideology then the upper
> > classes).
>
> ITA. It's worth noting the difference between the People's Crusade,
> which expressed its sincerity by massacring the Rhineland Jews,
Er.... Ah yes, this always was a definite show of sincerity...
>and the
> Prince's Crusade a year later, run by people who understood economics.
[snip]
>
> > 4. "Pragmatic" reasons like getting a nice princedom for yourslef
> > and/or simply getting some loot (if you are a lesser figure) could not be
> > discounted. With the excess of the younger brothers, etc. there was plenty
> > of people who had no perspectives at home but could hope to win something
> > in the foreign lands.
>
> Riley-Smith's new book (didn't I summarise it a while ago?) pretty well
> debunks this angle. For every crusader who got something, dozens died or
> were ruined.
>
There is a difference between "hope" and reality. While each Napoleon's
soldier had been "carrying Marshal's batton in his knapsack", only very
few of them made it to even general's rank. :-)
Most of Ghengis' Mongols did not became rich after all their conquests...
BTW, some of the French nobles who followed Louis in the 2nd Crusade
quite openly expressed their expectations: they had been the close relatives
of the various rulers of Outremer and expected either to fill some "vacancies"
or just have something tailored for them.
> BTW, look at the "Baltic Crusade". Unlike the main
> > ones, it did not suffer from an impossible logistics and, as a result,
> > the big numbers of the Germans of all classes had been persistently
> > moving eastward, creating a permanent (at least until the end of WWII)
> > population. In other words, colonization, vs purely "feudal conquest"
> > (I mean conquest which involves just a change of the ruler).
>
> Same in Spain.
Of course. But in Spain it was a little bit different: it was a "reconquest"
instead of a pure conquest. BTW, any idea what happened with the original
christian population of the territories conquered by Moors?
>
> > BTW, going to the HL was not a necessary requisite of the later
> "crusades".
> > Practically any military action against the Muslims (or "heretics")
> > would do if it was blessed by the Pope. St. Louis landed in Egypt
>
> From the Fourth onwards, the idea was to "take out" the main Muslim
> power-base; they had decided Jerusalem was strategically unviable if this
> was not done.
>
> and
> > later, IIRC, in the Northern Africa. "Crusades" had been declared against
> > the Albigoians and Hussites (definitely fellow Christians).
>
> Says who? Not the people who declared the crusade.
Ah, of course. Still, Hussites were not only Christians but also the Catholics
with a rather minimal (IMHO) difference in the rituals. When both sides got
tired of fighting (and the radical elements had been defeated), this
difference was easily resolved.
>A better example
> would be the Staufen Crusade.
?
Alex
> In soc.history.medieval Alex <am...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message news:<aqsm4i$dem$1...@reader1.panix.com>...
>
> [...]
>
>
> >Why the Crusades started?
> >I think that mostly due to a combination of the reasons. Some of them
> >(you can add to the list):
>
> >1. Religious feelings. We can't discount them. Catholic Church was
> >powerful and we _do_ know (as far as we can be sure of anything) that
> >a number of european rulers had been convinced to join various crusades
> >more or less against their will. And for the Papacy this was an obvious
> >way to raise its own authority and, quite often, to get a break in its
> >war against the current emperor.
>
> I agree. But not at the beginning. There is ample evidence
> that the Pope and everyone else was quite surprised at the
> number of volunteers.
Well, this happens quite often. I suspect that Russian commies had been
rather surprised by the numbers that raised to their support after
October/November of 1917. :-)
>
> Later Popes used the power of the call as you say for various
> political purposes as well as religious ones.
>
And eventually overused this power.
> >Some of the participants could be even
> >completely sincere, especially those of the lower classes (over the
> >ages they had been much more receptive to any ideology then the upper
> >classes).
>
> I agree. But even the upper classes were sincere in that they
> did not see why they could not act for God while also acting
> for themselves.
>
This is very nicely put. :-)
David C Pugh
news:f8e58188.02111...@posting.google.com...
And for the Papacy this was an obvious way to raise its own authority and,
quite often, to get a break in its war against the current emperor.
> >
> > Yes, this was definitely the case in 1095, a moral upstaging of
Henry IV. The second and third crusades not, though.
>
> Well, the second is controversial. Louis, AFAIK, was acting out of the
> religious motives and was heavily influenced by Bernard of Clervaux & Co.
> He was not in a direct confrontation with Pope at the time but earlier he
> was "sinning" by waging the war against one of his vassals (Count of
> Champaign, IIRC, heavily supported by Bernard), trying to enforce
> some "unlawful" political marriage, burning a church full of people, etc.
> Conrad, was not eager to join but was heavily pressed by the same Bernard
> and eventually personally confronted by him during the mass: did not have
> too many options.... My impression was that Bernard acted as Pope's proxy
> in both cases.
The other way round, Alex. Eugenius III was Bernard's sock-puppet ;-)
Your account is perfectly correct, but look at the point of departure again:
the Second Crusade wasn't called because of any papal need to put one over
on the Emperor, as (partly) in 1095 -- the trigger was the fall of Edessa.
No Zangi, no big papal crusade, not right then anyway.
> > Riley-Smith's new book (didn't I summarise it a while ago?) pretty
well debunks this angle. For every crusader who got something, dozens died
or
> > were ruined.
> >
>
> There is a difference between "hope" and reality. While each Napoleon's
> soldier had been "carrying Marshal's batton in his knapsack", only very
> few of them made it to even general's rank. :-)
> Most of Ghengis' Mongols did not became rich after all their conquests...
Yes...... but do read the book. Very nuts-and-bolts, an antidote to
broad-brush speculation.
> BTW, some of the French nobles who followed Louis in the 2nd Crusade
> quite openly expressed their expectations: they had been the close
relatives of the various rulers of Outremer and expected either to fill some
"vacancies" or just have something tailored for them.
No argument there. But there were a lot of Germans along too, and they
cannot have hoped for anything like that.
> > BTW, look at the "Baltic Crusade". Unlike the main
> > > ones, it did not suffer from an impossible logistics and, as a result,
> > > the big numbers of the Germans of all classes had been persistently
> > > moving eastward, creating a permanent (at least until the end of WWII)
> > > population. In other words, colonization, vs purely "feudal conquest"
> > > (I mean conquest which involves just a change of the ruler).
> >
> > Same in Spain.
>
> Of course. But in Spain it was a little bit different: it was a
"reconquest" instead of a pure conquest.
Sure. But same in that the logistics were not impossible.
BTW, any idea what happened with the original christian population of the
territories conquered by Moors?
I guess some converted, some didn't. The ones who didn't are called the
Mozarabs, like the Oriental Christians they spoke Arabic.
Alfonso I of Aragon raided to the sea near Malaga in 1125-26, and
brought back 14,000 of these Mozarabs to colonise empty lands along the
Ebro, so I suppose not all of them were content with Muslim rule -- or they
were offered a much better deal.
> >A better example
> > would be the Staufen Crusade.
>
> ?
Against Frederick II and his successors.
Alex
> "Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:ar1l65$9hv$1...@reader1.panix.com...
>
> > >1. Religious feelings. We can't discount them. Catholic Church was
> > >powerful and we _do_ know (as far as we can be sure of anything) that
> > >a number of european rulers had been convinced to join various crusades
> > >more or less against their will. And for the Papacy this was an obvious
> > >way to raise its own authority and, quite often, to get a break in its
> > >war against the current emperor.
> >
> > I agree. But not at the beginning. There is ample evidence
> > that the Pope and everyone else was quite surprised at the
> > number of volunteers.
>
> Yes, and I'm not sure Urban expected any popular excitement at all. His
> references to diverting the murderous energies of the knights suggest that
> he saw himself as Alexius' recruiting-sergeant.
As a PR campaigns, this and one that preceded the 2nd Crusade, are rather
ambiguous. If the primary goal was to raise a limited numbers of a feudal
militia, the methods were wrong: a lot of propaganda targeted the lower
classes with a resulting "People's Crusade" before the 1st 'official' one.
The 'official' one also got out of hands if we assume that the initial
goal was more modest. Why such a wide-spreaded propaganda all over the
Western Europe?
Bernard of Clervaux also carried a wide-spreaded propaganda among the
France's lower classes (and specifically targeted various criminals) to
raise an infantry and praised himself for practically depopulating
some areas of France. BTW, this infantry, or rather its absense was a
significant factor in a failure of the 2nd Crusade. When Loius and his
cavalry arrived in HL, there was a prolonged delay in a hope that
infantry will eventually join. When the news came that it will not come,
it was a serious blow to Louis prestige and ability to accomplish any
significant military operation.
> (...)
>
> > However, the particular reasons the Pope mentioned for calling
> > the First Crusade were very often quite wrong. Whether that
> > was because of bad information (probably not) or a calculation
> > that atrocities would help raise an army, he did paint a very
> > bleak and untrue picture of the situation *at that time*.
>
> Information lag and policy inertia. Moreover, if there was a bad period
> under al-Hakim, and then another bad period in the Eighties, is it
> unreasonable to fear more bad periods in the future?
There was one more angle to a whole issue of a "piligrimage". Even as far
as the Christians had been involved, it was an open issue who (Catholics
or Orthodox) control what. In other words, which particular holy places
are controlled by each particular branch of a Christianity. This issue
was extremely touchy even in XVIII - XIX century and we can probably safely
assume that it was at least as important in XI. So, for the Papacy, Crusade
was a potential chance to get control over some places which earlier had
been under control of Orthodox Church.
> What the Byzantines wanted was
> > some good western heavy cavalry to help round out their
> > forces. They expected at most a thousand or so experienced
> > fighters.
>
> Agree. My perspective is that, until Antioch, the Muslims thought that
> the crusade was just another bunch of Byzantium's barbarian mercenaries.
> They'd seen it all before.
>
> > What they got was a flood. They (correctly, I think)
> > figured that the best thing to do with them was to get
> > them across the Bosphorous as quickly as possible before
> > there was real trouble.
> >
> > So any plans of a campaign against the Turks was shelved.
> > The priority became to help the "Franks" on their way
> > to Jerusalem.
>
> Disagree completely. Alexius didn't expect the Franks to go to
> Jerusalem. That was just PR for the lower orders, he must have reckoned. It
> was all about Iconium and Antioch. He didn't just shuffle them off and
> forget about them -- he campaigned himself in Bithynia, clearing up behind
> the Frankish battering-ram, was intending to go to Antioch himself in the
> same errand, and sent Taticios with the Franks as liaison.
Agree. A 2nd C. was formally prompted by the fall of Edessa. When Louis&Co
arrived in Antioch, they found that Raymund of Antioch excpected them to
join forces in the direction of Edessa. The only supporter he found was
his close relative, Eleanore of Aquitance (Q of France) who expressed a
wish to join her personal forces with Raymund (she was practically abducted
by her husband to prevent this from happening). Louis and his closest
advisors expressed the intention to go directly to Jerusalem (governed by
another French family with the closer ties to Louis court). Of course, on his
arrival he achieved nothing (except more screwups) and just hanged around
for a year or so.
So this attitude was not strictly "Bizantian".
> > That's a bit more complex. Now you are getting into the area
> > of Papal politics. The reason for St. Louis's landing was
> > the (correct, I think) calculation that Egypt had become
> > the power center of the Middle East. If Egypt could be
> > knocked out (or better, captured) the Franks would then
> > have an easy time in Palestine. They were probably right
> > in this calculation.
> >
> > One problem. They got knocked out instead of the Egyptians.
>
> ITA. Remember that Egypt was where the Fourth was supposed to be going.
> Richard found that the direct approach didn't work -- if Damascus and Egypt
> are hostile, Jerusalem is nothing more than a honey-trap.
IIRC, after his success in Egypt St. Louis landed in Tunisia (or some other
place in Northern Africa), where he eventually died. If true, this is rather
far from HL.
David C Pugh
news:f8e58188.02111...@posting.google.com...
> > Yes, and I'm not sure Urban expected any popular excitement at all.
His
> > references to diverting the murderous energies of the knights suggest
that
> > he saw himself as Alexius' recruiting-sergeant.
>
> As a PR campaigns, this and one that preceded the 2nd Crusade, are rather
> ambiguous. If the primary goal was to raise a limited numbers of a feudal
> militia, the methods were wrong: a lot of propaganda targeted the lower
> classes with a resulting "People's Crusade" before the 1st 'official' one.
I'm not sure Urban intended to preach to everyone. He was at Clermont for a
council, and was preaching to the feudals and the clerics. But hey, we can't
sell tickets to a big outdoor event now without getting a lot of extra folks
coming along, why should they have been able to then ;-)
The later crusades were definitely preached with the aid of an apparatus of
popular orators -- Fulk of Neuilly was a good example, as well as Bernard
himself.
Another thing, remember that the distinction between "knights" and "rabble"
was not as clear as it later became. This is the eleventh century, not the
age of quartered shields and a restricted class -- it's Da Boss and De Boys,
as Paul often reminds us. The so-called People's Crusades had a lot of
"knights" along -- Walter Sans Avoir was a knight, while the worst pogromist
was actually a count, namely Emich of Leiningen. So the distinction is not
so much between knights and people, but those who wanted to plan a campaign
and those who just went for it.
> > (...)
> >
> > > However, the particular reasons the Pope mentioned for calling
> > > the First Crusade were very often quite wrong. Whether that
> > > was because of bad information (probably not) or a calculation
> > > that atrocities would help raise an army, he did paint a very
> > > bleak and untrue picture of the situation *at that time*.
> >
> > Information lag and policy inertia. Moreover, if there was a bad
period
> > under al-Hakim, and then another bad period in the Eighties, is it
> > unreasonable to fear more bad periods in the future?
>
> There was one more angle to a whole issue of a "piligrimage". Even as far
> as the Christians had been involved, it was an open issue who (Catholics
> or Orthodox) control what. In other words, which particular holy places
> are controlled by each particular branch of a Christianity. This issue
> was extremely touchy even in XVIII - XIX century and we can probably
safely
> assume that it was at least as important in XI.
No we can't. "The Great Schism of 1054" is an artefact of hindsight --
at the time of the first crusade there was not the consciousness than the
Roman and the Greek church were irrevocably divided. A hundred years later,
yes, but not in 1095. It was the Crusades themselves that caused all the bad
feeling between the two sides at a popular level.
So, for the Papacy, Crusade
> was a potential chance to get control over some places which earlier had
> been under control of Orthodox Church.
Anachronism for 1095, but true for 1204.
> > Disagree completely. Alexius didn't expect the Franks to go to
> > Jerusalem. That was just PR for the lower orders, he must have reckoned.
It
> > was all about Iconium and Antioch. He didn't just shuffle them off and
> > forget about them -- he campaigned himself in Bithynia, clearing up
behind
> > the Frankish battering-ram, was intending to go to Antioch himself in
the
> > same errand, and sent Taticios with the Franks as liaison.
>
> Agree. A 2nd C. was formally prompted by the fall of Edessa. When Louis&Co
> arrived in Antioch, they found that Raymund of Antioch excpected them to
> join forces in the direction of Edessa. The only supporter he found was
> his close relative, Eleanore of Aquitance (Q of France) who expressed a
> wish to join her personal forces with Raymund (she was practically
abducted
> by her husband to prevent this from happening). Louis and his closest
> advisors expressed the intention to go directly to Jerusalem (governed by
> another French family with the closer ties to Louis court). Of course, on
his
> arrival he achieved nothing (except more screwups) and just hanged around
> for a year or so.
> So this attitude was not strictly "Bizantian".
Manuel was very helpful to the Second Crusade, particularly Conrad, with
whom he developed a close friendship -- but that was more about Italian
politics than about Outremer. The Byzantine interest stopped at Antioch and
Cicilia. As I said, they technically claimed Syria, Palestine and Egypt, but
then Tapei technically claims Mainland China, or used to, doesn't mean they
expected to get it.
> > ITA. Remember that Egypt was where the Fourth was supposed to be
going.
> > Richard found that the direct approach didn't work -- if Damascus and
Egypt
> > are hostile, Jerusalem is nothing more than a honey-trap.
>
> IIRC, after his success in Egypt St. Louis landed in Tunisia (or some
other
> place in Northern Africa), where he eventually died. If true, this is
rather
> far from HL.
El Alamein is rather far from Berlin -- and so?
The Tunisian crusade is after my period, I don't know why St. Louis went
there, but there must have been some notion of doing X so as to do Y later.
Maybe the seaways weren't safe until the Hafsids had been taken out, I don't
know......
Paul J Gans
>"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:ar1l65$9hv$1...@reader1.panix.com...
[...]
>> >3. The issue of a continued Muslim conquest. We can't discount it as a
>> >factor. Muslims had been more or less checked in Spain and Italy but
>> >they had been "clear and present danger" and continued aggression in the
>> >(predominantly Christian) Asia Minor was a fact. Asking for the help
>> >from the ... er ... "fellow christians" was a repeated trait in the later
>> >times. What were the French knights doing at Nikopol?
>>
>> Leave later events out. The general feeling was that the
>> Byzantines could take care of the Turks.
> It was???? Let's have some sources.
>The loss at
>> Manzikert was not, I think, then seen for the ultimate
>> disaster that it was.
> It wasn't seen for what it was in 1071, by the Byzantines themselves.
>But ten years later, with the Turks in Nicaea, just across the Straits?
>C'mon.
Exactly. And even ten years later there was no reason to think
that the balance of power had shifted so decisively. With a
large western heavy cavalry contingent to make up for what was
no longer availabe in the east, no telling what might have been
done. It is clear that Alexius certainly had plans for a counter-
attack...
When a superpower stops being a superpower, it often does not
realize it for a long time.
>What the Byzantines wanted was
>> some good western heavy cavalry to help round out their
>> forces. They expected at most a thousand or so experienced
>> fighters.
> Agree. My perspective is that, until Antioch, the Muslims thought that
>the crusade was just another bunch of Byzantium's barbarian mercenaries.
>They'd seen it all before.
Yup.
>> What they got was a flood. They (correctly, I think)
>> figured that the best thing to do with them was to get
>> them across the Bosphorous as quickly as possible before
>> there was real trouble.
>>
>> So any plans of a campaign against the Turks was shelved.
>> The priority became to help the "Franks" on their way
>> to Jerusalem.
> Disagree completely. Alexius didn't expect the Franks to go to
>Jerusalem. That was just PR for the lower orders, he must have reckoned. It
>was all about Iconium and Antioch. He didn't just shuffle them off and
>forget about them -- he campaigned himself in Bithynia, clearing up behind
>the Frankish battering-ram, was intending to go to Antioch himself in the
>same errand, and sent Taticios with the Franks as liaison.
Ok. I'll agree to that. But I still insist he shoveled them
across the Bosphorous as quickly as he could. It was the
only sensible thing to do. Who knows what mischief the
Franks would otherwise get into.
By the way, you've once again answered your point above.
Alexius clearly had thoughts of reconquest.
>> Had the "Franks" joined forces with the Byzantines it
>> is possible to argue that they could, in fact, have
>> driven them back and recoverd much of Anatolia. That
>> would certainly have changed history in a major way.
>> But we will never know.
> Or again, they might have done a Russel Balliol and created a Frankish
>state in Anatolia.
That too. Especially since relations between the Franks and
the Byzantines were, in my opinion, doomed from the start.
[...]
>> That's a bit more complex. Now you are getting into the area
>> of Papal politics. The reason for St. Louis's landing was
>> the (correct, I think) calculation that Egypt had become
>> the power center of the Middle East. If Egypt could be
>> knocked out (or better, captured) the Franks would then
>> have an easy time in Palestine. They were probably right
>> in this calculation.
>>
>> One problem. They got knocked out instead of the Egyptians.
> ITA. Remember that Egypt was where the Fourth was supposed to be going.
>Richard found that the direct approach didn't work -- if Damascus and Egypt
>are hostile, Jerusalem is nothing more than a honey-trap.
Yup. The First Crusade struck at an extremely opportune time
under circumstances not apt to be repeated. And which weren't.
---- Paul J. Gans