When did medieval warfare end?
Ian Goss
When did medieval warfare end(in Europe)? I own several sources that
that say not until the thirty years war. By this time the various sides
had large professonal armies that were employed full time by the
goernment. Before, the professional armies were mostly mercenaries. So,
did medieval warfare end with the advent of firearms? Or with the
introduction of large professional armies that were not mercenaries?
Mark E. Anderson
Ian Goss (go...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: When did medieval warfare end(in Europe)? I own several sources that
my thoughts lie in the direction of the rise of the professional
governmental armies. this, more than the mercenary companies,
represents the end of the "warrior tradition" in which it was
the battle prowess of the individual that mattered, not how well
the individual held up his part in a unit. alot of the medieval
view was centered around the importance of individual combat
prowess. with the end of the warrior traditions as the major
force on the battle field, the nobility were more and more cut
off from the centers of power. obviously, this is extremely
brief and happily trounces alot of other observations, but i
do think that one useful marker of medieval transition is the
rise/fall of professional armies.
--
mark anderson * Incorrigible punster. *
wom...@nmrfam.wisc.edu * Please do not incorrige. *
http://www.nmrfam.wisc.edu
Gordon Lasslett
wombats@rana (Mark E. Anderson) wrote:
>Ian Goss (go...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: When did medieval warfare end(in Europe)?
>
>governmental armies.
>
Wasn't Cromwell's New Model Army really the end of the medieval army. "The plain
russet-coated captain that knows what he fights for and loves what he knows."
(And Mark I hope Wombat is not your nickname . . . Wombat - eats roots & leaves. A
very old Aussie joke.) Gordon
--
*******************
* Gordon Lasslett *
* Sydney NSW *
* Australia *
* las...@ibm.net *
*******************
Walter Nelson
Ian Goss (go...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: When did medieval warfare end(in Europe)? I own several sources that
: that say not until the thirty years war. By this time the various sides
: had large professonal armies that were employed full time by the
: goernment. Before, the professional armies were mostly mercenaries. So,
: did medieval warfare end with the advent of firearms? Or with the
: introduction of large professional armies that were not mercenaries?
To answer that question, one must first define what is meant by "Medieval
Warfare".
Warfare was in a constant state of evolution from the beginning of the
"Middle Ages" (whenever the hell that was) to the end (whenever the hell
that was).
Feudal armies, if they ever really existed in any pure sense, were pretty
much gone by the 14th Century (if not earlier).
Cavalry took a fearful drubbing in the 14th and 15th Century at the hands
of English longbowmen and Swiss Pikemen.
Royal armies of paid mercenaries, with big artillery trains, became pretty
much the norm in the 15th Century.
Spain fielded a standing army, with long-service regiments, corps of
engineers and artillery, and even old-soldier's homes in the 16th Century
(the idea that Cromwell invented the European standing army is *EXTREMELY*
anglo-centric--it ignores the Spanish and French contributions and only
testifies to how far behind the English were).
Cheers,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Nelson | INSERT PITHY WITTICISM HERE
RAND |
walter...@rand.org |
___________________________________________________________________________
Joseph M. Emmanuel
On 5 Jun 1996 16:16:08 GMT, wal...@thoreau.rand.org (Walter Nelson) wrote:
>Spain fielded a standing army, with long-service regiments, corps of
>engineers and artillery, and even old-soldier's homes in the 16th Century
>(the idea that Cromwell invented the European standing army is *EXTREMELY*
>anglo-centric--it ignores the Spanish and French contributions and only
>testifies to how far behind the English were).
>
>Cheers,
Their army, of course, was influenced by Arabs, who have been in Spain for
centuries. Indeed there are numerous stories about how Arabs would fight
with heavily armed nights. They would prolong the fight without getting to
close to the heavy night. The night would get exhausted after a while. It
was then that the Arab fighter would attack and kill the exhausted night.
Indeed for this reason Europe abundant the heavy cloths of the old ways of
war and chose the light way of Arab fighters.
-Joseph (mait...@indirect.com)
Unity Of All Under
One God
For more information send me an email
Paul J. Gans
Ian Goss (go...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: When did medieval warfare end(in Europe)? I own several sources that
: that say not until the thirty years war. By this time the various sides
: had large professonal armies that were employed full time by the
: goernment. Before, the professional armies were mostly mercenaries. So,
: did medieval warfare end with the advent of firearms? Or with the
: introduction of large professional armies that were not mercenaries?
Medieval wars ended when the middle ages ended. Exactly when that
happened is mostly a matter of personal preference. Most opt for a
date between 1450 and 1500.
The manner in which wars were fought has had almost no effect on
choices for the date of the end of the middle ages.
----- Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
Paul J. Gans
Mark E. Anderson (wombats@rana) wrote:
: Ian Goss (go...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: : When did medieval warfare end(in Europe)? I own several sources that
: : that say not until the thirty years war. By this time the various sides
: : had large professonal armies that were employed full time by the
: : goernment. Before, the professional armies were mostly mercenaries. So,
: : did medieval warfare end with the advent of firearms? Or with the
: : introduction of large professional armies that were not mercenaries?
: my thoughts lie in the direction of the rise of the professional
: governmental armies. this, more than the mercenary companies,
: represents the end of the "warrior tradition" in which it was
: the battle prowess of the individual that mattered, not how well
: the individual held up his part in a unit. alot of the medieval
: view was centered around the importance of individual combat
: prowess. with the end of the warrior traditions as the major
: force on the battle field, the nobility were more and more cut
: off from the centers of power. obviously, this is extremely
: brief and happily trounces alot of other observations, but i
: do think that one useful marker of medieval transition is the
: rise/fall of professional armies.
I *know* I'm going to start another war here, but, with all
respect, this is not so. Medieval studies have gone through
enormous changes in the last decade or two. But much of what
is common knowledge about the middle ages is the "wisdom" of
forty years ago.
The "warrior" tradition died young, if it ever existed. From
the 11th century onward (though its roots may be traced even
earlier) major figures surrounded themselves with what were often
called "household" troops.
In times of troubles, major figures (a term I am using to include
kings, dukes, etc.) would call in their military dependents to
augment the household troops. Their success in doing this varied.
For some dependents their required term of service was short,
for others, the king or duke was required to pay expenses. For
still others, they were not obligated to serve outside of a
given geographic area.
Thus early on major figures began to find "shortcuts". Even
by the mid-1100's cash was being collected in lieu of service.
This was, of course, not universal--many still served. But it
enabled, for example, King Stephen to hire troops giving him
a more-or-less permanent army.
By the 1200's major figures had a coterie of household knights
around them. These were augmented by all sorts of other persons:
mounted and foot archers, mounted serjents, foot soldiers,
technical support people (i.e. carters, miners, grooms, etc.)
The entire business was clearly becoming too complex to depend
on "customary" military aid by dependents.
It is also becoming more and more clear that medieval armies,
when they fought (which was not as often as one might think),
fought under fairly close command control. Folks did not, as
we once thought, go off helter-skelter seeking an individual
opponent, nor did knights charge at will at whatever target they
thought appropriate. Disobedience to one's military superiors
was a punishable offense. Of course, during battle, things often
got confused. They still do.
There was no single point in time at which medieval armies became
"permanent". Armies were (and are) incredibly expensive to
maintain, and while kings, counts, dukes, etc., always maintained
*some* troops, armies then as now were expanded by a variety of
means in time of war.
As for knights in particular, this is a very complex topic. While
the nobility was entitled to knighthood (if they met some simple
provisions), knighthood was not limited to the nobility. Nor did
knighthood imply membership in the nobility. Nor were non-knights
forbidden to wear armor. Indeed, non-knights often rode into
battle fully armored.
To further complicate matters, by the mid-12th century, more than
half of the British nobility who were eligible to claim knighthood
were refusing the "honor". This was primarily an economic choice,
as being a knight meant maintaining expensive armor, several
expensive (and otherwise useless) horses, at least two or three
specialized supporters (squires, etc.) and so on. Further, knights
had certain obligations that were expensive and bothersome, in
particular serving as local judges or forest wardens.
I have only skimmed the surface here. This is a very complex
field. And while we are all interested in the clash and bang
of battle, the underlying social mechanisms that provided the
armies were not at all simple.
------- Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
Wanthat
I just a book on Louis the Xiii et Richlieu (France in the Age of Louis
XIII and Richelieu, Vcitor-L. Tapie [ La France de Louis XIII ed de
Richlieu])- which suggested that being able to establish a standing
professional army was a revolution in warfare, in that they didn't
evaporate when money or interest diminished. The success of Richlieu was
that he consolidated the nation tightly under the king. In your context,
the nobles were just as much trouble as the mercenaries, since they would
go home whenever that seemed more important that the war ( I think I
remember an article about this being a major problem in the American War
of Independence). In one case a French nobleman left the field because it
was melon season. Louis XIV even further dominated his nobles and
therefore the army.
I am about to start a book called Crises in Europe, ed. Tevor Aston -
covering the years before the 30 years war and ending just after the end
of the Franco - Spanish war (end of 30 year's war ??). This might be a
good reference as well.
Further another article suggest that Aldolphus II Gustavus (sp?)
rearranged his army to have a more co-ordinated attack from various
components (cavalry, archery and artillery)
Turnerpfj
When did Charles Oman say that it ended?
Since his is (if somewhat old) still the landmark book on the subject, his
answer seems definitive - unless some specialized definition of "medieval
warfare" is intended.
-pfjt
----------------------------------------------------
The REAL King Arthur, A History of Post-Roman Britannia, A.D.410-A.D.593.
Available from from SKS Publishing Co., 1306 Parkway Ct., Houston, Tx.
77077 @ $29.95.
----------------------------------------------------
Donald Tucker
Here's 2 cents more:
"With the discovery of Gunpowder war passed into its
technological phase. Valour gave way to mechanical
art: he who could weild the superior weapon was the
more formidible foe, irrespective of his social
position or courage. For as Carlyle has said, the
genuine use of gunpowder is 'that it makes all men
alike tall'. In short it democratizes fighting."
"The Decisive Battles of the Western World and their
Influence on History" J.F.C. Fuller (3 vol., 1955, 1956,
1957 Eyre & Spottiswoode) vol 1, p 471 (chronicle 16).
So this is a reasonable alternative to the professional
army criterion.
comments?
Cheers ___,__<@~__,___
Donald /^/^/^[#]^\^\^\
Petrodactyls may have led to _/|\_
medieval dragons! " " © DHT
WMclean290
Professional armies and gunpowder are two landmarks for the end of
medieval warfare. Here are some more:
The end of the dominance of the man-at-arms.
Fully armored cavalry were never unbeatable, or the only arm that
mattered. but they did tend to dominate warfare during the early and high
medieval period, not in numbers, but in effectivness. By the 13th c.,
infantry armies that were totally outclassed in cavalry imposed a few
crushing defeats on their opponents. By the 14th c. it happened often. Yet
fully armored cavalry was important, and sometimes decisive, as late as
the 16th c.
Private Castles:
The new cannons made these very vulnerable by 1500, yet they would
sometimes put up a stout defense as late as the 1640s.
Feudal Armies
Armies that were even primarily raised by feudal levies were rare by the
14th c. However, many of the features of feudalism survived in the retinue
and indenture armies of the 15th c.
You get different dates depending on what landmarks you chose, and whether
you look at "the beginning of the end" or "the last gasp of the system"
Will McLean
Jim
Donald Tucker wrote:
<snip>
> For as Carlyle has said, the
> genuine use of gunpowder is 'that it makes all men
> alike tall'. In short it democratizes fighting."
It seems to me that the Swiss pikemen and English longbowmen were already
democratized. Once these soldiers learned not to flee in terror when a mounted
knight charged -- as peasants are prone to do (I sure as heck would be!), then
old-style Medieval warfare was doomed. This took training and discipline, which
standing armies no doubt facilitated. But it had already started.
Cheers.
Jim DeLoach
Paul J. Gans
Donald Tucker (bs...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
:
: Here's 2 cents more:
:
: "With the discovery of Gunpowder war passed into its
: technological phase. Valour gave way to mechanical
: art: he who could weild the superior weapon was the
: more formidible foe, irrespective of his social
: genuine use of gunpowder is 'that it makes all men
: alike tall'. In short it democratizes fighting."
:
: "The Decisive Battles of the Western World and their
: 1957 Eyre & Spottiswoode) vol 1, p 471 (chronicle 16).
:
: So this is a reasonable alternative to the professional
: army criterion.
:
: comments?
Not to diss Fuller, but he *is* out of date, I think
that I can make a case against this. First, it would
be purposeless to have medieval warfare end long before
the end of the middle ages, and cannon were in use
in Europe in the 1300's.
But more than this: the crossbow was just as deadly a
weapon as early individual guns. And it didn't take any
more training to learn how to use one. It was, after
all, the crossbow that fortified towns would stockpile
to be handed out to citizens of the town in case of siege.
And the armies of the time were far more "democratic" than
legend tells us. The number of nobles involved was always
small.
And, you will rember that guns did not rule all. Swords
were still carried by fighting men as late as when? The
American Civil war? Surely nobody can picture a Napoleonic
battle (land or sea) using only guns.
So the gun was not all *that* decisive. Or did Mr. Colt
finally produce the decisive weapon?
------ Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
guthlac
bs...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Donald Tucker) wrote:
>
>Here's 2 cents more:
>
>"With the discovery of Gunpowder war passed into its
>technological phase. Valour gave way to mechanical
>art: he who could weild the superior weapon was the
>more formidible foe, irrespective of his social
>position or courage. For as Carlyle has said, the
>genuine use of gunpowder is 'that it makes all men
>alike tall'. In short it democratizes fighting."
>
>
>"The Decisive Battles of the Western World and their
>Influence on History" J.F.C. Fuller (3 vol., 1955, 1956,
>1957 Eyre & Spottiswoode) vol 1, p 471 (chronicle 16).
>
>So this is a reasonable alternative to the professional
>army criterion.
>
>comments?
>
>Donald /^/^/^[#]^\^\^\
> Petrodactyls may have led to _/|\_
>
>
I've got two more cents..
It wasn't just gunpowder that evened the field. Pikes became the main
battlefield weapon in the late 15th century and remained so into the 17th
century. Gunpowder was mainly in support of the pikes due to the lack of
accuracy of the early gunpowder weapons. Together they made the poor man
the equal of the rich knight, at least on the battlefield...
Joseph M. Emmanuel
At 04:29 AM 6/12/96 GMT, you wrote:
>>Their army, of course, was influenced by Arabs, who have been in Spain for
>>centuries. Indeed there are numerous stories about how Arabs would fight
>>with heavily armed nights. They would prolong the fight without getting to
>>close to the heavy night. The night would get exhausted after a while. It
>>was then that the Arab fighter would attack and kill the exhausted night.
>>Indeed for this reason Europe abundant the heavy cloths of the old ways of
>>war and chose the light way of Arab fighters.
>Sir,
>
>Please post sensible ideas. Gunpowder was the reason for the end of
>the heavily armoured knight. Arabs had NOTHING to do with it.
>
>Your posts are so arab-centric and fallacious that you are my first
>entry into kill file.
>
>God save your little wooden head.
>
>stonewal
I am not an Arab, but your stupid anti Arab sentiments are from your pure
ignorance. Indeed this anti Arab hate in the West has blinded so many that
they can not acknowledge any contribution they (Arabs) have made to our
civilization. People who are so self centric, who can not acknowledge
others contributions, history has shown, are domed.
The use of gun powder in guns came much later in history. Nights were
extinct long before. Indeed when Arabs were running Spain, there was no
night was left. They were gone long time ago. Arabs did not fight with
guns. They fought with swords.
Get of your brain washed ignorant state and use your logic, if you have
any, and see the Western propaganda and brain washing of you to see history
not the way it exactly happened, Jeeeze@#:(.
WMclean290
In article <31be550f...@nntp.indirect.com>,
mait...@mail.indirect.com (Joseph M. Emmanuel) writes:
>The use of gun powder in guns came much later in history. Nights were
>extinct long before. Indeed when Arabs were running Spain, there was no
>night was left. They were gone long time ago. Arabs did not fight with
>guns. They fought with swords.
Yes, the Arabs wiped out nights in Spain. Sunset and darkness in the
evening did not return to the peninsula until the Reconquista, when the
Spanish could finally have Dark Ages again.
This was probably caused by excessive export of nights to points east to
supply demand for "A Thousand and One Arabian Nights", a popular Arabic
diversion.
Reports of Spanish Knights (with an initial K) surviving throughout the
Middle Ages, and ultimately pushing the Arabs out of Spain are a
Eurocentric fabrication. The Arabs only abandoned Spain so they could
finally get some sleep again.
Will McLean
Walter Nelson
guthlac (gut...@pop.erols.com) wrote:
: I've got two more cents..
: It wasn't just gunpowder that evened the field. Pikes became the main
: battlefield weapon in the late 15th century and remained so into the 17th
: century. Gunpowder was mainly in support of the pikes due to the lack of
: accuracy of the early gunpowder weapons. Together they made the poor man
: the equal of the rich knight, at least on the battlefield...
I would agree that pikes were a major contributor to the evolution of
modern warfare, but I think you understate the importance of firearms, and
therefore overstate the relative importance of pikes.
First, I would like to address the assertion that a lack of accuracy of
early firearms made them subsidiary to pikes. You could certainly argue
that the "handgonne", which was touched off by a match held in the hand was
inaccurate. Having fired one, I can tell you that it is difficult to
point, let alone aim. However, that problem was fixed very early on, and
smoothbore arquebuses/muskets attained a level of accuracy that did not
really change until the advent of rifles.
By what measure would you assert that a Brown Bess was more accurate that a
matchlock musket? The matchlock musket at least, has a rest to steady it,
and it was therefore, probably, somewhat more accurate than the later
weapon. I would also argue, however, that accuracy in a military weapon is
highly overrated. A weapon's accuracy is relevant only if it is aimed--if
soldiers do not aim, their shots are more or less random within a certain
beaten zone in the vicinity of the target. A random shot from a smoothbore
is no more likely to hit than a random shot from a rifle (or longbow or
crossbow for that matter).
Anyone who has practiced target shooting with a firearm or bow knows that
there are many factors that go into a good shot, such as concentration, a
good sight picture, smooth trigger pull/release, and even breath control.
If any one of these, or several other key factors, are missing, the shot
will be essentially random. Now try to apply these while your target is
doing its level best to kill you, and you are pumped up on adrenalin and
fear (Better not rush that shot! Don't be out of breath! Don't be
shaking!). It is no wonder that every mathematical calculation ever done
of marksmanship in battle has show that it takes several hundred or even
thousand shots to bring down one enemy. Accuracy is not what it is
cracked up to be. Fortunately, people were packed into huge, tight
formations, so even random shots could hit somebody.
However, 16th Century military authors, such as Barrett and Williams were
under the impression, based upon battlefield experience, that firearms did
more execution than any other weapon on the field, and this is certainly
supported by contemporary practice, with Shot reaching parity with Pikes
in the late 16th Century, and then coming to greatly outnumber them in
most armies of the 17th Century. As soon as the socket bayonet allowed
everyone to become a musketeer, pikes disappeared almost instantly. This
doesn't really argue for the Pike's superiority, or for a greater reliance
being placed on it than the musket.
The partnership of the Pike and Shot, together made up a force that
revolutionized warfare, but the Pike was on a downward slide and the gun
was moving up in importance. It was a gradual tactical evolution, based
upon real world experience, that relegated the pike to a secondary role.
It had nothing to do with the poor accuracy of early firearms.
I don't mean this to flame you, since you are only repeating what many
others, who should know better, have said. You just happened to have hit
upon one of my pet peeves.
Walter Nelson
Joseph M. Emmanuel (mait...@mail.indirect.com) wrote:
: The use of gun powder in guns came much later in history. Nights were
: extinct long before. Indeed when Arabs were running Spain, there was no
: night was left. They were gone long time ago. Arabs did not fight with
: guns. They fought with swords.
You are incorrect on every point. Please check your sources.
Donald Tucker
Ian Goss (go...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: When did medieval warfare end(in Europe)?
Good discussion so far. Clearly the period of "Medieval warfare"
is *not* the same as the "Medieval period". I see the "Medieval
period" as being defined by many factors, the most important
perhaps being a general point-of-view, paradigm, mindset, meme or
whatever term you prefer, that is epitomized by faith in an
orderly universe as opposed to the following period of rationalist
questioning. So what consititutes "Medieval warfare"? I think
our discussion boils down to two criteria:
1. Composition of armies.
2. Class equalizing technology
I assess each in turn.
1. Composition of armies.
i. Feudal armies, i.e. those raised under feudal obligations
may or may not have been the dominant form during "Medieval
warfare". They virtually disappeared by the 14th Century
or earlier. But many of the feudeal features were retained
in 15th century retinue and indenture armies.
ii. Small "mercenary" armies were used increasingly during the
Medieval period.
iii. Permanent armies, increased in size during the Medieval
period. By the 15th monarch paid for large armies with
seige equipment and artillery trains. By the 16th century,
as noted by Ian Goss (go...@ix.netcom.com):
>Spain fielded a standing army, with long-service regiments,
>corps of engineers and artillery, and even old-soldier's
>homes.
Mark E. Anderson (wombats@rana) argued that:
>professional governmental armies...represents the end of
>the "warrior tradition" in which it was the battle prowess
>of the individual that mattered, not how well the individual
>held up his part in a unit. alot of the medieval view was
>centered around the importance of individual combat prowess.
>with the end of the warrior traditions as the major force
>on the battle field, the nobility were more and more cut
>off from the centers of power.
Paul J. Gans (ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu) elucidated that:
>The "warrior" tradition died young, if it ever existed.
>From the 11th century onward (though its roots may be
>traced even earlier) major figures surrounded themselves
>with what were often called "household" troops.
>In times of troubles, major figures (a term I am using to
>include kings, dukes, etc.) would call in their military
>dependents to augment the household troops. Their success
>in doing this varied.
>For some dependents their required term of service was
>short, for others, the king or duke was required to pay
>expenses. For still others, they were not obligated to
>serve outside of a given geographic area.
>Thus early on major figures began to find "shortcuts".
>Even by the mid-1100's cash was being collected in lieu of
>service. This was, of course, not universal--many still
>served. But it enabled, for example, King Stephen to hire
>troops giving him a more-or-less permanent army.
>By the 1200's major figures had a coterie of household
>knights around them. These were augmented by all sorts of
>other persons: mounted and foot archers, mounted serjents,
>foot soldiers, technical support people (i.e. carters,
>miners, grooms, etc.) The entire business was clearly
>becoming too complex to depend on "customary" military aid
>by dependents.
>medieval armies <snip> fought under fairly close command
>control. Folks did not<snip> go off helter-skelter seeking
>an individual opponent <snip>. Disobedience to one's
>military superiors was a punishable offense. <snip>
>There was no single point in time at which medieval armies
>became "permanent". <snip> kings, counts, dukes, etc.,
>always maintained *some* troops, [and] expanded by a variety
>of means in time of war.
>As for knights in particular,<snip> the nobility was
>entitled to knighthood [but] knighthood was not limited to
>the nobility. Nor did knighthood imply membership in the
>nobility. Nor were non-knights forbidden to wear armor.
>Indeed, non-knights often rode into battle fully armored.
>[B]y the mid-12th century, more than half of the British
>nobility who were eligible to claim knighthood were refusing
>the "honor". [to avoid] maintaining expensive armor, several
>expensive (and otherwise useless) horses, at least two or
>three specialized supporters (squires, etc.) [plus other
>obligations that were expensive and bothersome, in
>particular serving as local judges or forest wardens.
WMclean290 (wmcle...@aol.com) focused on:
>The end of the dominance of the man-at-arms.
>Fully armored cavalry were never unbeatable, or the only arm
>that mattered. but they did tend to dominate warfare during
>the early and high medieval period, not in numbers, but in
>effectivness. By the 13th c., infantry armies that were
>totally outclassed in cavalry imposed a few crushing defeats
>on their opponents. By the 14th c. it happened often. Yet
>fully armored cavalry was important, and sometimes decisive,
>as late as the 16th c.
Wanthat (wan...@aol.com) wrote:
>a book <snip> France in the Age of Louis XIII and Richelieu,
>Vcitor-L. Tapie <snip> which suggested that being able to
>establish a standing professional army was a revolution in
>warfare, in that they didn't evaporate when money or interest
>diminished.
There does not seem to be any point where we can say that the
composition of armies changed an extent that we could use to
mark the end of "Medieval warfare".
So lets look at the other criterion.
2. Class equalizing technology
i. Swiss Pikemen and English longbowmen devastated knights on
horseback, by the 14th century.
ii. Gunpowder weapons had a similar effect. As I noted in an
earlier post, quoting Fuller:
>"With the discovery of Gunpowder war passed into its
>technological phase. Valour gave way to mechanical
>art: he who could wield the superior weapon was the
>more formidible foe, irrespective of his social
>position or courage. For as Carlyle has said, the
>genuine use of gunpowder is 'that it makes all men
>alike tall'. In short it democratizes fighting."
>
>"The Decisive Battles of the Western World and their
>Influence on History" J.F.C. Fuller (3 vol., 1955, 1956,
>1957 Eyre & Spottiswoode) vol 1, p 471 (chronicle 16).
guthlac <gut...@pop.erols.com> commented on this by writing:
>It wasn't just gunpowder that evened the field. Pikes
>became the main battlefield weapon in the late 15th century
>and remained so into the 17th century. Gunpowder was
>mainly in support of the pikes due to the lack of
>accuracy of the early gunpowder weapons. Together they made
>the poor man the equal of the rich knight, at least on the
>battlefield...
And Jim <j...@cellnet.com> similarly commented:
>It seems to me that the Swiss pikemen and English
>longbowmen were already democratized. Once these soldiers
>learned not to flee in terror when a mounted knight charged
><snip> then old-style Medieval warfare was doomed. This
>took training and discipline, which standing armies no doubt
>facilitated....
But Paul J. Gans (ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu) dissented:
>Not to diss Fuller, but he *is* out of date, I think
>that I can make a case against this. First, it would
>be purposeless to have medieval warfare end long before
>the end of the middle ages, and cannon were in use
>in Europe in the 1300's.
>But more than this: the crossbow was just as deadly a
>weapon as early individual guns. And it didn't take any
>more training to learn how to use one. It was, after
>all, the crossbow that fortified towns would stockpile
>to be handed out to citizens of the town in case of siege.
>And the armies of the time were far more "democratic" than
>legend tells us. The number of nobles involved was always
>small.
>And, you will rember that guns did not rule all. Swords
>were still carried by fighting men as late as when? The
>American Civil war? Surely nobody can picture a Napoleonic
>battle (land or sea) using only guns.
>So the gun was not all *that* decisive. Or did Mr. Colt
>finally produce the decisive weapon?
Please don't diss Fuller, he's long dead and can't
respond :^) I wish there was a contemporary military
historian that could tackle the issues in *all* important
battles since the bigining of recorded history and
come up with something half as impressive.
I agree on the role of both pikes, esp when used in Swiss
type formation, and the crossbow. In fact, the Catholic
church, speaking for the Medieval establishment, condemned
the crossbow. On refection, if had to choose a technology
that marked the begining of the end of Medieval warfare, it
would be the crossbow. It was effective and could be used
by alomost anyone. Longbowmen needed *lots* of training to
be effective. Pikemen needed *lots* of courage to stand
their ground.
As for the *effectiveness* of gunpowder weapons, this improved
steadily but even as late as WW I millions died running
between trenches on bayonet charges. Late Medieval guns
were not very effective. But cannon--a weapon that did
*not* equalize the status of persons on the batllefield--did
change the character of medieval war. It was superior to
the trebuchet in that it could knock holes in castle walls.
WMclean290 (wmcle...@aol.com) noted about private castles:
>The new cannons made these very vulnerable by 1500, yet
>they would sometimes put up a stout defense as late as the
>1640s.
As for the swords issue its a mixed bag. Until recent times
swords were an officer's weapon, relatively ineffective
compared to other weapons but a sign of class. They were
replaced by the officer's pistol, another class demarcating
weapon that was relatively ineffective. Swords were last
used effectively in the 19th century when they were still
superior to pistols for calvary charges.
If we look beyond the Medieval period (which I arbitrarily
end at 1500) we find that there are big changes in the
16 century when the style of battles is a pike and musket
combination. This is well described in a post by Walter
Nelson (wal...@thoreau.rand.org)
><snip> the "handgonne", which was touched off by a match
>held in the hand was inaccurate. <snip> but smoothbore
>arquebuses/muskets attained a level of accuracy that did
>not really change until the advent of rifles.
><snip> accuracy in a military weapon is highly overrated.
>A weapon's accuracy is relevant only if it is aimed--if
>soldiers do not aim, their shots are more or less random
>within a certain beaten zone in the vicinity of the target.
><snip> [whether] smoothbore <snip> rifle (or longbow or
>crossbow....
><snip>Fortunately, people were packed into huge, tight
>formations, so even random shots could hit somebody.
>However, 16th Century military authors, such as Barrett
>and Williams were under the impression, based upon
>battlefield experience, that firearms did more execution
>than any other weapon on the field, and this is certainly
>supported by contemporary practice, with Shot reaching
>parity with Pikes in the late 16th Century, and then
>coming to greatly outnumber them in most armies of the
>17th Century. As soon as the socket bayonet allowed
>everyone to become a musketeer, pikes disappeared almost
>instantly. This doesn't really argue for the Pike's
>superiority, or for a greater reliance being placed on it
>than the musket.
>The partnership of the Pike and Shot, together made up a
>force that revolutionized warfare, but the Pike was on a
>downward slide and the gun was moving up in importance.
>It was a gradual tactical evolution, based upon real world
>experience, that relegated the pike to a secondary role.
>It had nothing to do with the poor accuracy of early
>firearms.
There does not seem to be any point where we can say that the
class equalizing technology (gunpowder, pikes, longbows, crossbows)
changed the character of battles to the extent that we could use to
mark the end of "Medieval warfare". We also have to note that
the other improvements in technology (canon, better fighting ships,
seige techniques, fortification technology [culminating in the
18th cent cannon resistant low walls of Vauban] also developed
gradually.
So lets look at the net effects of all of these changes. Warfare in
the 13th century AFAIK is clearly still "Medieval war". By the late
16th century, with gunpowder weapons, pikes, massed infantry (paid by
Monarch, Prince, Town or Church) and cannon it is post Medieval. So
pick a date in that range.
We could complicate the issue further by adding the criterion of
*why* wars were fought in the Medieval period as opposed to the
following period.
But this post is long enough. As Cromwell said "Ye have sat too
long!"
Cheers ___,__<@~__,___
Donald /^/^/^[#]^\^\^\
Petrodactyls may have led to _/|\_
medieval dragons! " " © DHT
Joseph M. Emmanuel
On 10 Jun 1996 18:10:46 GMT, ga...@scholar.nyu.edu (Paul J. Gans) wrote:
>Donald Tucker (bs...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
>:
>: Here's 2 cents more:
>:
>: "With the discovery of Gunpowder war passed into its
>: technological phase. Valour gave way to mechanical
>: art: he who could weild the superior weapon was the
>: more formidible foe, irrespective of his social
>: position or courage. For as Carlyle has said, the
>: genuine use of gunpowder is 'that it makes all men
>: alike tall'. In short it democratizes fighting."
>:
>:
>: "The Decisive Battles of the Western World and their
>: Influence on History" J.F.C. Fuller (3 vol., 1955, 1956,
>: 1957 Eyre & Spottiswoode) vol 1, p 471 (chronicle 16).
>:
>: So this is a reasonable alternative to the professional
>: army criterion.
>:
>: comments?
>
>
>Not to diss Fuller, but he *is* out of date, I think
>that I can make a case against this. First, it would
>be purposeless to have medieval warfare end long before
>the end of the middle ages, and cannon were in use
>in Europe in the 1300's.
>
>But more than this: the crossbow was just as deadly a
>weapon as early individual guns. And it didn't take any
>more training to learn how to use one. It was, after
>all, the crossbow that fortified towns would stockpile
>to be handed out to citizens of the town in case of siege.
>And the armies of the time were far more "democratic" than
>legend tells us. The number of nobles involved was always
>small.
>
>And, you will rember that guns did not rule all. Swords
>were still carried by fighting men as late as when? The
>American Civil war? Surely nobody can picture a Napoleonic
>battle (land or sea) using only guns.
>
>So the gun was not all *that* decisive. Or did Mr. Colt
>finally produce the decisive weapon?
>
> ------ Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
I agree with you absolutely:). That is what I have been trying to say.
Many here though are so predigest against Arabs that took my assertion as
being tented with Arabic simpethy@:\. It was the Arabs, who were light in
armory, with no heavy metal on their horses (and/or themselves) were able
to tire their opponents (nights) by playing cat and mouse with them (not
getting to close to the night) mad the nights to come to the point of
exhaustion. IT was then that Arabs would close in and kill the night.
Nights had to abandon their traditional armory and start fighting with
lighter outfit. That was the end of the era we are talking here.
You may not find this in many books, but I have seen it mentioned in some
(do not ask me for the source, I do not remember were i read it).
Ian Goss
>I agree with you absolutely:). That is what I have been trying to
say.
>Many here though are so predigest against Arabs that took my assertion
as
>being tented with Arabic simpethy@:\. It was the Arabs, who were
light in
>armory, with no heavy metal on their horses (and/or themselves)
The Arabs were as heavily armored as Knights(with a K). Most of them
wore at least hauberks(although if you look at Arab prints it wont look
like they are because they wear surcoats over them). The wealthier wore
lammelar cuirasses over their mail.
were able
>to tire their opponents (nights) by playing cat and mouse with them
(not
>getting to close to the night) mad the nights to come to the point of
>exhaustion. IT was then that Arabs would close in and kill the night.
>Nights had to abandon their traditional armory
What does armor have to do with how sophisticated an opponent is?
and start fighting with
>lighter outfit. That was the end of the era we are talking here.
>
>You may not find this in many books,
Or in any books.
but I have seen it mentioned in some
>(do not ask me for the source, I do not remember were i read it).
>
>
> -Joseph (mait...@indirect.com)
> Unity Of All Under
> One God
> For more information send me an email
>
Why do keep spelling Knights with no k?
Paul J. Gans
Jim (j...@cellnet.com) wrote:
: Donald Tucker wrote:
: <snip>
: > For as Carlyle has said, the
: > genuine use of gunpowder is 'that it makes all men
: > alike tall'. In short it democratizes fighting."
:
Which is why untrained peasants were not used unless one was in
extremis.
Medieval warfare was disciplined. Don't pay attention to the
legends about individual combat and no combat control.
Paul J. Gans
Donald Tucker (bs...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
[An excellent summary of this thread.]
I have little to add to Tucker's excellent post, but I will
expand on one or two points:
: WMclean290 (wmcle...@aol.com) focused on:
:
: >The end of the dominance of the man-at-arms.
: >Fully armored cavalry were never unbeatable, or the only arm
: >that mattered. but they did tend to dominate warfare during
: >the early and high medieval period, not in numbers, but in
: >effectivness. By the 13th c., infantry armies that were
: >totally outclassed in cavalry imposed a few crushing defeats
: >on their opponents. By the 14th c. it happened often. Yet
: >fully armored cavalry was important, and sometimes decisive,
: >as late as the 16th c.
Kelly DeVries has a forthcoming book, _Infantry Warfare in the
Early 14th Century_, subtitled "Discipline, Tactics, and Technology",
Boydell & Brewer, 1996. ISBN 0 85115 567 7. Unfortunately it is
quite expensive. I will quote the publisher's blurb:
"This book departs from the conventional view of the dominance
of cavalry in medieval warfare, demonstrating the importance
of infantry, and the nature of infantry tactics throught a
detailed examination of nineteen battles fought in England
and Europe between 1302 and 1347--including Courtrai, Loudon
Hill, Bannockburn, Martgarten, Halidon Hill, Morlaix, Staveren,
and Neville's Cross--in which large infantry forces participated
and in most cases won the day. The author uses the evidence
supplied by first-hand accounts of the battle--a major feature
of this study--to argue that victory came not because of
superior technology, even when the longbow was used, but
due to the solid and disciplined infantry line making a
defensive stand able to withstand the attacks of opposing
soldiers, whether cavalry or infantry."
[deletions]
On the question of technology:
: But Paul J. Gans (ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu) dissented:
:
: >Not to diss Fuller, but he *is* out of date, I think
: >that I can make a case against this. First, it would
: >be purposeless to have medieval warfare end long before
: >the end of the middle ages, and cannon were in use
: >in Europe in the 1300's.
:
: >But more than this: the crossbow was just as deadly a
: >weapon as early individual guns. And it didn't take any
: >more training to learn how to use one. It was, after
: >all, the crossbow that fortified towns would stockpile
: >to be handed out to citizens of the town in case of siege.
: >And the armies of the time were far more "democratic" than
: >legend tells us. The number of nobles involved was always
: >small.
:
: >And, you will rember that guns did not rule all. Swords
: >were still carried by fighting men as late as when? The
: >American Civil war? Surely nobody can picture a Napoleonic
: >battle (land or sea) using only guns.
:
: >So the gun was not all *that* decisive. Or did Mr. Colt
: >finally produce the decisive weapon?
:
: Please don't diss Fuller, he's long dead and can't
: respond :^) I wish there was a contemporary military
: historian that could tackle the issues in *all* important
: battles since the bigining of recorded history and
: come up with something half as impressive.
You could try Delbrouk. But he's somewhat outdated too.
Do not make the mistake I made in assuming that our knowledge
of the middle ages is static. There have been tremendous
strides made in the last 20 years. Indeed, the early romantic
view of medieval battles as being knight against knight in a
vainglorious free-for-all has been very hard to dispell. The
problem with both Fuller and Delbrouk is that they wrote *before*
much of the new material was uncovered.
I've had to learn about all of this and it was not easy. Among
the hardest parts to learn ist that the armored heavy cavalry,
the "knights", were not a homogeneous class. Indeed a fair
fraction, perhaps the majority, were commoners, serjents,
appointed because they could *fight*. And I had to learn that
the "typical" medieval army (if there was any such thing)
included lots of foot. In fact, infantry tactics were so important
that often the mounted cavalry dismounted and fought on foot.
What one must do, as DeVries has done, is go back to the
original sources and read what they say. Next best is to get
hold of one or another current book on the subject such as
Contamine.
[deletions]
Paul Broeker
Joseph M. Emmanuel (mait...@mail.indirect.com) said this about that:
: The use of gun powder in guns came much later in history.
Previously, many other concoctions were tried in guns. Spices worked well
but were very expensive. Salt was tried, but no soldier who was worth his
salt was willing to invest his salary in place of gun powder. Luck thing
China was discovered or we would still not know what to use in guns to
this day.
--
--Paul Broeker **********************************************
Santa Maria CA * NOW YOU CAN EXERCISE WHILE YOU USE YOUR *
* COMPUTER . . . WITH A NORDIC TRAKBALL *
pbro...@slonet.org **********************************************
Dave Meichsner
>"With the discovery of Gunpowder war passed into its
>technological phase. Valour gave way to mechanical
>art: he who could weild the superior weapon was the
>more formidible foe, irrespective of his social
>genuine use of gunpowder is 'that it makes all men
>alike tall'. In short it democratizes fighting."
It may have democratized fighting, but it did not bring about the end on
Medieval Warfare. It was used in cannons as early as the 1300's, which
is by definition part o f Medieval Warfare. In the beginning cannon and
arquebusiers were ineffectual and mainly used to scare the enemy with a
sound and light show. End of Medieval Warfare could be said to be in the
past when weapons involving gunpowder became *the main* weapons in
fighting a war. This was a slow evolutionary process with many shades of
gray. I suppose it depends on your definition of Medieval Warfare.
WMclean290
In article <4pqs2a$h...@twizzler.callamer.com>, pbro...@callamer.com (Paul
Broeker) writes:
>Joseph M. Emmanuel (mait...@mail.indirect.com) said this about that:
>
>: The use of gun powder in guns came much later in history.
>
>Previously, many other concoctions were tried in guns. Spices worked
well
>but were very expensive. Salt was tried, but no soldier who was worth
his
>salt was willing to invest his salary in place of gun powder. Luck thing
>China was discovered or we would still not know what to use in guns to
>this day.
You are being unfair to Mr. Emmanuel. Clearly he is thinking of the early
experimental use of Gun Powder in Flowerpots, Hourglasses, and Biscuits,
all with limited success, before someone hit on the clever idea of trying
the stuff in a Bombard they happened to have lying around.
Will McLean
Joseph M. Emmanuel
On 14 Jun 1996 05:07:22 GMT, pbro...@callamer.com (Paul Broeker) wrote:
>Joseph M. Emmanuel (mait...@mail.indirect.com) said this about that:
>
>: The use of gun powder in guns came much later in history.
>
>Previously, many other concoctions were tried in guns. Spices worked well
>but were very expensive. Salt was tried, but no soldier who was worth his
>salt was willing to invest his salary in place of gun powder. Luck thing
>China was discovered or we would still not know what to use in guns to
>this day.
Still my point stands:). Gun powder which made guns efficient and
economical to use came much later in history. Knights and Medieval period
was finished long time before gun ever became a viable weapon to use in
battles.
Joseph M. Emmanuel
On 13 Jun 1996 22:31:05 GMT, go...@ix.netcom.com(Ian Goss) wrote:
>The Arabs were as heavily armored as Knights(with a K). Most of them
>wore at least hauberks(although if you look at Arab prints it wont look
>like they are because they wear surcoats over them). The wealthier wore
>lammelar cuirasses over their mail.
Still they were not "as heavy."
> were able
>>to tire their opponents (nights) by playing cat and mouse with them
>(not
>>getting to close to the night) mad the nights to come to the point of
>>exhaustion. IT was then that Arabs would close in and kill the night.
>>Nights had to abandon their traditional armory
>What does armor have to do with how sophisticated an opponent is?
Nothing. IT has to do with getting tired faster when you have so much
metal on you and your horse.
>Why do keep spelling Knights with no k?
Freudian slip:)? You are right I just plain forget the K. Sorry.
Ian Goss
>Still my point stands:). Gun powder which made guns efficient and
>economical to use came much later in history. Knights and Medieval
period
>was finished long time before gun ever became a viable weapon to use
in
>battles.
>
I don't think so. Knights(or heavy cavalry) were still around long
after guns were useful in battle. Guns became a force on the
battlefield about 1520 when wheelocks were introduced. These were much
better than the previous matchlocks. The age of knighthood died about
the middle of the sixteenth century.
Although one could argue that knighthood never died. They are still
around in the form of British(or anyone else bestowed with the honor)
dignitaries.
Ian Goss
In <31c27fd7...@nntp.indirect.com> mait...@mail.indirect.com
(Joseph M. Emmanuel) writes:
>
>On 13 Jun 1996 22:31:05 GMT, go...@ix.netcom.com(Ian Goss) wrote:
>
>>The Arabs were as heavily armored as Knights(with a K). Most of them
>>wore at least hauberks(although if you look at Arab prints it wont
look
>>like they are because they wear surcoats over them). The wealthier
wore
>>lammelar cuirasses over their mail.
>
>Still they were not "as heavy."
Let us define heavy please. It seems to me that they had qiute a bit of
metal on them. It is a total misconception that Middle Eastern armies
during this period were light(or ever were). Even during the Yarmuk
campaigns, most Arabs wore armor.
>> were able
>>>to tire their opponents (nights) by playing cat and mouse with them
>>(not
>>>getting to close to the night) mad the nights to come to the point
of
>>>exhaustion. IT was then that Arabs would close in and kill the
night.
>>>Nights had to abandon their traditional armory
>
>>What does armor have to do with how sophisticated an opponent is?
>
>Nothing. IT has to do with getting tired faster when you have so much
>metal on you and your horse.
During the Crusades, horses did not wear armor. They wore white
"surcoats". This was for protection against the sun. The Arabs did the
same. Usually horses never wore armor until the latter days of the
Hundred Years war. Anyways why would the "Arabs" not get as tired(or
more tired) as the crusaders?
guthlac
wal...@thoreau.rand.org (Walter Nelson) wrote:
>
>The partnership of the Pike and Shot, together made up a force that
>revolutionized warfare, but the Pike was on a downward slide and the gun
>was moving up in importance. It was a gradual tactical evolution, based
>upon real world experience, that relegated the pike to a secondary role.
>It had nothing to do with the poor accuracy of early firearms.
>
>I don't mean this to flame you, since you are only repeating what many
>others, who should know better, have said. You just happened to have hit
>upon one of my pet peeves.
>
>Cheers,
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Walter Nelson | INSERT PITHY WITTICISM HERE
>RAND |
>walter...@rand.org |
>________________________________________________________________________
I don't consider your response a flame as you are discussing rather than
ranting. In fact, I generally agree with you. A force of pike facing a
force of mixed pike and handgonne would be at a great disadvantage and
unless it was able to force the engagement quickly would lose. I am more
concerned with teh middle ages when the pike was still dominate over the
handgonnes. This may be a matter of hte military minds of hte period not
appreciating the strengths of the gonnes but pikes were still the
dominate weapon. They did, as you pointed out, start a slide almost
immediately after the 15th century with the gunpowder weapons gradually
overtaking them in importance and eventually eclipsing them totally.
-jr
Joseph M. Emmanuel
On 15 Jun 1996 16:31:02 GMT, go...@ix.netcom.com(Ian Goss) wrote:
>Let us define heavy please. It seems to me that they had qiute a bit of
>metal on them. It is a total misconception that Middle Eastern armies
>during this period were light(or ever were). Even during the Yarmuk
>campaigns, most Arabs wore armor.
That is the point we do not agree. Knights were heavy with armors on them
and on their horses. Arabs never had those HEAVY metal on them. If you
say they did, then you are saying something which is not true.
>During the Crusades, horses did not wear armor. They wore white
>"surcoats". This was for protection against the sun. The Arabs did the
>same. Usually horses never wore armor until the latter days of the
>Hundred Years war.
We are not talking about the "Crusades" (at least I am not). We are
talking about the time when first Arabs entered Europe through Spain.
>Anyways why would the "Arabs" not get as tired(or
>more tired) as the crusaders?
The whole point is that the light wight wariors won since they could tire
out the other guy. If this simple concept is hard to understand, then I do
not know how I can explain it better:).
Joseph M. Emmanuel
On 15 Jun 1996 16:38:38 GMT, go...@ix.netcom.com(Ian Goss) wrote:
>I don't think so. Knights(or heavy cavalry) were still around long
>after guns were useful in battle.
Cavalry, I agree, but Knight as known in history were in decline. Indeed
the advent of cavalry was a natural result of Knights being killed in
battles with warriors lighter equipped than them (mostly Arabs). Cavalry
became the answer to the problem. A well organized, light armored group of
warriors became much more effective in battles. That is why Arab invasion
was stopped in spain and never spread to europe.
>The age of knighthood died about
>the middle of the sixteenth century.
Yes old habits die hard:). Although their age might have lasted that long,
they were in steady decline for century or two. Whatever was called a
Knight by this time was an isolated case, not a norm.
>Although one could argue that knighthood never died. They are still
>around in the form of British(or anyone else bestowed with the honor)
>dignitaries.
We are talking here about Knights as a organized, fighting force. Knights
as an ideal, defender of the weak, etc. is another story.
Ian Goss
In <31c3b6ea...@nntp.indirect.com> mait...@mail.indirect.com
(Joseph M. Emmanuel) writes:
>
>On 15 Jun 1996 16:31:02 GMT, go...@ix.netcom.com(Ian Goss) wrote:
>
>>Let us define heavy please. It seems to me that they had qiute a bit
of
>>metal on them. It is a total misconception that Middle Eastern armies
>>during this period were light(or ever were). Even during the Yarmuk
>>campaigns, most Arabs wore armor.
>
>That is the point we do not agree. Knights were heavy with armors on
them
>and on their horses. Arabs never had those HEAVY metal on them. If
you
>say they did, then you are saying something which is not true.
How heavy do you think armor is? The Arabs wore chain mail. Yes, they
did. I know that this may come to a surprise to you but it is true. Can
you give some sources that say otherwise?
>>During the Crusades, horses did not wear armor. They wore white
>>"surcoats". This was for protection against the sun. The Arabs did
the
>>same. Usually horses never wore armor until the latter days of the
>>Hundred Years war.
>
>We are not talking about the "Crusades" (at least I am not). We are
>talking about the time when first Arabs entered Europe through Spain.
Well why did you not say so in the first place? And the Arabs did not
invade Spain. The Moors did. Another thing, knights did not exist
during this period. The *only* resistance the moors had in Spain was
the Vandals(?). They were "barbarians". Most of them were probably
"lighter" than the moors.
>>Anyways why would the "Arabs" not get as tired(or
>>more tired) as the crusaders?
>
>The whole point is that the light wight wariors won since they could
tire
>out the other guy.
I don't know of a single instance in which Europeans lost because they
had heavy armor.
And this "heavy" thing is starting to piss me off. Chain mail (which
was not worn in Spain at this time by anyone but the Muslims) was not
heavy. If you think that a 30 lb. hauberk is heavy then you need to
work out.
If this simple concept is hard to understand, then I do
>not know how I can explain it better:).
I understand all right, it is just seems stupid and ludicrous to me. I
am sorry if it seems like I'm flaming you, but you seem to think that
the only people who wore armor was the Europeans. And for the last time
IT WAS NOT HEAVY!!
Ian Goss
>Cavalry, I agree, but Knight as known in history were in decline.
Indeed
>the advent of cavalry was a natural result of Knights being killed in
>battles with warriors lighter equipped than them (mostly Arabs).
It seems to me that you have an Arab-centric view. Knights always lost
to the Arabs. No. And it was usually the other way around. Knights won
more battles than they lost during the crusades.
Cavalry
>became the answer to the problem. A well organized, light armored
group of
>warriors became much more effective in battles. That is why Arab
invasion
>was stopped in spain and never spread to europe.
It was stooped in Spain by a group of "knights"(heavy cavalry). Read
some history.
>>The age of knighthood died about
>>the middle of the sixteenth century.
>
>Yes old habits die hard:). Although their age might have lasted that
long,
>they were in steady decline for century or two. Whatever was called a
>Knight by this time was an isolated case, not a norm.
I agree here. They were more a social elite by then.
Dick Wisan
In article <4purbb$d...@news12.erols.com>, guthlac
> wal...@thoreau.rand.org (Walter Nelson) wrote:
>
>>
>>The partnership of the Pike and Shot, together made up a force that
>>revolutionized warfare, but the Pike was on a downward slide and the gun
>
> ...They did, as you pointed out, start a slide almost
> overtaking them in importance and eventually eclipsing them totally.
The pike disappeared with the invention of the bayonet, which "made
the musketeer his own pikeman". A musket with fixed bayonet was cer-
tainly less deadly than a pike, but doubling the effective number of
_both_ pikes and guns evidently more than made up the difference.
--
R. N. (Dick) Wisan - Email: internet WIS...@hartwick.edu
- Snail: 37 Clinton Street, Oneonta NY 13820, U.S.A.
- Just your opinion, please, ma'am: No fax.
Steve Hand
In article <1996Jun16....@hartwick.edu>, wis...@hartwick.edu (Dick
Wisan) wrote:
>The pike disappeared with the invention of the bayonet, which "made
>the musketeer his own pikeman". A musket with fixed bayonet was cer-
>tainly less deadly than a pike, but doubling the effective number of
>_both_ pikes and guns evidently more than made up the difference.
>
>--
>R. N. (Dick) Wisan - Email: internet WIS...@hartwick.edu
> - Snail: 37 Clinton Street, Oneonta NY 13820, U.S.A.
> - Just your opinion, please, ma'am: No fax.
But in the century before the invention of the bayonet the ratio of
pikemen to musketeers went from 2:1 to 1:4. Clearly the pike was in
decline well before the bayonet arrived to totally supplant it.
Steve Hand
Editor In Chief, Run 5 Magazine
Strategic Studies Group
http://www.ssg.com.au
fleur-de-lis
>During the Crusades, horses did not wear armor. They wore white
>"surcoats". This was for protection against the sun. The Arabs did the
Actually, I have to disagree here. The "surcoats" you refer are called
as caparisons or housings, and they seldom were white, rather displaying
their master's coat of arms (being a quick heraldic display). More often
than not the horses actually were armored: either mail or similar padded
haqueton as the men-at-arms wore under their hauberks. The caparisons were
adopted ca. 1150, about the same time as was heraldry developed.
Even if there was no mail under the caparison, a loose cloth offers (much
like a hanging drape) good protection against blows from underneath (against
infantry trying to hamstring the horses)
>same. Usually horses never wore armor until the latter days of the
>Hundred Years war.
During the latter days of the 100YW, the knights had almost universally
adopted the habit of fighting on foot.
Joseph M. Emmanuel
On 16 Jun 1996 14:48:31 GMT, go...@ix.netcom.com(Ian Goss) wrote:
>Well why did you not say so in the first place? And the Arabs did not
>invade Spain. The Moors did. Another thing, knights did not exist
>during this period. The *only* resistance the moors had in Spain was
>the Vandals(?). They were "barbarians". Most of them were probably
>"lighter" than the moors.
I see the problem. You are talking about a complete different era. Arabs
rulled Spain for centuries.
Walter Nelson
Ian Goss (go...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: >Still my point stands:). Gun powder which made guns efficient and
: >economical to use came much later in history. Knights and Medieval
: period
: >was finished long time before gun ever became a viable weapon to use
: in
: >battles.
: >
: I don't think so. Knights(or heavy cavalry) were still around long
: after guns were useful in battle. Guns became a force on the
: battlefield about 1520 when wheelocks were introduced. These were much
: better than the previous matchlocks. The age of knighthood died about
: the middle of the sixteenth century.
The wheelock never replaced the matchlock. The flintlock replaced the
matchlock in the middle of the 17th Century. The wheelock was delicate and
expensive, and was used primarily by cavalry. Infantry retained the
matchlock until something better--but not much more expensive, came along.
One might also argue that "the Age of Knighthood" was ended not by guns,
since cavalry still played an extremely important, and often dominant role
on the 16th Century battlefield, but by the rise of mercenary and
professional cavalry forces in the 15th and 16th Century--that turned
knights into paid employees on a par with low-born scumbags (or rather,
turned them into professional officers commanding companies of low-born
professional scumbags).
Cheers,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Nelson | INSERT PITHY WITTICISM HERE
RAND |
walter...@rand.org |
___________________________________________________________________________
Mark E. Anderson
Steve Hand (sh...@ssg.com.au) wrote:
: In article <1996Jun16....@hartwick.edu>, wis...@hartwick.edu (Dick
: Wisan) wrote:
: >The pike disappeared with the invention of the bayonet, which "made
: pikemen to musketeers went from 2:1 to 1:4. Clearly the pike was in
: decline well before the bayonet arrived to totally supplant it.
: Steve Hand
: Editor In Chief, Run 5 Magazine
: Strategic Studies Group
: http://www.ssg.com.au
does this, however, more reflect some other factor, such as
the economics or even logistics of handgonnes? i bring this
up because the 1:4 number was also the number of longbows
to men-at-arms that the english were often striving for. this
suggests to me more than just coincidence.
--
mark anderson * Incorrigible punster. *
wom...@nmrfam.wisc.edu * Please do not incorrige. *
http://www.nmrfam.wisc.edu
Walter Nelson
: out the other guy. If this simple concept is hard to understand, then I do
: not know how I can explain it better:).
If it was all that simple, and light weight warriors were so inherently
superior to the steel cased bufoons you seem to think Europeans were--how
did the Crusaders conquer Jeruasalem, and hold it from 1099 to 1187? If
Arab warriors were so superior, why did it take them 88 years to send this
tiny force of European invaders packing? Thousands of "Franks" were born,
grew to adulthood, grew old and died in the Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem,
while around them, they were surrounded by hundreds of thousands of Arabs
whom you claim, could have whipped them with ease. How could this be?
Could it be that both light and heavy forces have their tactical advantages
and disadvantages, and the victory of one over another is as much a result
of the skill of the commanders, the relative size of the forces, the
morale of the troops, the terrain, the weather and just dumb luck, as it
was a bunch of stupid human tanks running themselves into exhaustion while
the clever Arabs run circles around them?
And let us also consider Spain, where the foolishly overarmored Christian
Spanish gradually drove the vastly superior and ever-so-much-more-clever
Moors back, until they finally pushed them off the peninsula entirely.
I am not saying that heavily armored knights (and Christian armies had a
lot more than just knights in them) would always beat Arabs because they
were so clearly superior--that would be utter nonsense. It would be just
as foolish as saying that Arab armies were always superior to Europeans.
Ian Goss
In <31c4f03e...@nntp.indirect.com> mait...@mail.indirect.com
(Joseph M. Emmanuel) writes:
>
>On 16 Jun 1996 14:48:31 GMT, go...@ix.netcom.com(Ian Goss) wrote:
>
>>Well why did you not say so in the first place? And the Arabs did not
>>invade Spain. The Moors did. Another thing, knights did not exist
>>during this period. The *only* resistance the moors had in Spain was
>>the Vandals(?). They were "barbarians". Most of them were probably
>>"lighter" than the moors.
>
>I see the problem. You are talking about a complete different era.
Arabs
>rulled Spain for centuries.
No we are talking about the same damn thing. The Arabs did nto rule
Spain. Just because you are Muslim does not make you an Arab. The MOORS
invaded and ruled (parts of) Spain for 700 years. Sure there were Arabs
in the invasion force, but most of the troops were moors.
Walter Nelson
Mark E. Anderson (wombats@rana) wrote:
: Steve Hand (sh...@ssg.com.au) wrote:
: : In article <1996Jun16....@hartwick.edu>, wis...@hartwick.edu (Dick
: : Wisan) wrote:
: : >The pike disappeared with the invention of the bayonet, which "made
: : pikemen to musketeers went from 2:1 to 1:4. Clearly the pike was in
: : decline well before the bayonet arrived to totally supplant it.
: does this, however, more reflect some other factor, such as
: the economics or even logistics of handgonnes? i bring this
: up because the 1:4 number was also the number of longbows
: to men-at-arms that the english were often striving for. this
: suggests to me more than just coincidence.
This argument would suppose that pikemen were significantly more expensive
than Shot, which they certainly were not--especially by the later 17th
Century when they had discarded almost all of their armor. Their pay was
comparable to that of the shot, but I am sure they didn't go through pikes
as quickly as the Shot went through powder, balls and match.
I think the explanation must have been more tactical than economic. It
argues for a situation that Barrett described in the 1590s when he said
that, in his day, commanders were relying almost entirely upon shot to
fight the battle, and not coming to push of pike as often as they used to.
The prevalance of longbows was, IMHO, also a factor of tactics over
economics. The men-at-arms were mostly billmen or pikemen, who were not
more expensive than the bows. The gentry-based men-at-arms constituted a
very small proportion of the English armies. There were lots of longbowmen
in the English armies because they won battles, not because they were
cheaper--or am I misunderstanding your point.
John Murphy
>Early 14th Century_, subtitled "Discipline, Tactics, and Technology",
>Boydell & Brewer, 1996. ISBN 0 85115 567 7. Unfortunately it is
>quite expensive.
>of the middle ages is static. There have been tremendous
>strides made in the last 20 years. Indeed, the early romantic
>view of medieval battles as being knight against knight in a
>vainglorious free-for-all has been very hard to dispell. The
>problem with both Fuller and Delbrouk is that they wrote *before*
>much of the new material was uncovered.
>original sources and read what they say. Next best is to get
>hold of one or another current book on the subject such as
>Contamine.
Better yet, in my opinion, is J.F. Verbruggen's "The Art of Warfare in
Western Europe During the Middle Ages". It was originally published in
Dutch in 1977, and the English translation of that year left out the
footnotes.
A new edition is being published by Boydell & Brewer in July which
includes the footnotes, I presume translated. I have tried unsuccessfully
to order it from local bookstores, they can only order books already in
print. You CAN order it from some stores, however, I understand and the
price is a steep $53 but worth it.
An excellent study of medieval tactics. For strategy a better source
would be something like R.C. Smail's "Crusading Warfare" which is getting
old but is such an influential work that its conclusions have been
re-hashed over and over again by many other works covering different
geographical areas (within the Western European sphere of influence).
-John Murphy
Azure 7
Hello,
I've always thought that the decline and disapearance of heavy
calvary from European warfare was a question of manuverablity.
Heavy calvary have always been a shock troop. They took this role
away from the chariot early in history as horse mounted soldiers proved to
be more manuverable than chariotiers. But as heavy infantry developement
becomes more sophistacated, their effectiveness was reduced, hence the
golden age of infantry in Europe under the Roman empire.
But as organized military declined along with central goverment, the
training required for effective infantry no longer exist or is possible,
and with the adaptation of the stirup, which allowed a mounted man a
definate edge in combat. Thus the resurgency of the mounted troop.
Now heavy calvary have always been an important part of military
since antiquity, and in every culture I can think of. Even the Mongols had
heavy calvary, the only difference is in the degree which they were armed
and armoured. As to the conquest of Spain by the muslim during the 800s
A.D. At then there was no such classification of Knights as we have come
to know it in modern time. Knighthood as a whole wasn't really formalized
for couple more centuries after that. Besides which, I am not aware of
any formally organized heavy calvary under the Visigoth. And light calvary
is only good at harrasing the enemy, or goading them into taking rash
actions, only the heavy calvary can truely force a decision on a
battlefield (provided we are talking about an calvary only encounter or
they are the main shock troop on both side). And in this the European
heavy calvary system worked remarkably well as it was demastrated in the
various crusades in the middle east, where they won distanction despite
lack of resources and numbers.
Now back to the origional question. "When did Medieval warfare end?",
this can be answered in two folds. Knights as the military unit which we
traditionally associate with feudalism, and who is called to action by his
liege lord was pretty much over during the Hundred year war (in western
Europe atleast) toward the end of the hundred year war. Both sides
collected levys from each lord/duke/earl/baron/knights, and used the money
to hire mercenaries who formed the backbone of the army. (There is an
excillent book on this topic called Knights in History, by an author who's
name I don't recall right now.)
However, the heavily armed horsemen in full body plate armour
didn't really start to decline until the late 1400 hundreds, where there
was several disastrus actions between the Hapsburg and the Swiss
confederece. Where, the Swiss was able to use well disaplined pikemen in
phlanx formation to defeat armoured "knight" weilding lances. The main
reason for the defeat was a question of length. The long pikes the swiss
used was just simply longer than the lances the knights where carrying.
(Actually this was demestrated a centry earlier during the battle of
Bannockburn in Scotland, between the forces of Robert the Bruce and Edward
II of england.) In order to deal with this new force militarily they had
to make calvaries more manuverable, plus the increased uses of firearms on
the battle field forced the heavy calvary to shed some of those cumbersome
armour so they can better flank the infantry mass, thus born the
flamboyant figure of the cavlarier, or more modern calvary as you
recongize from the army of Gustav of Sweden, Louis the XIV of France and
so on. However, as firearms becomes more developed the armour becomes
increasingly unnecessary, and was abondoned in favour of speed. But even
late as the Napoleanic wars some elite, heavy calvary shock troop still
sports breat plates, such as the carabiniers<sp> and Curassier<sp> (to
those who can spell I apologize for my horrible attept.)
So you can say medieval warfare was defined by massed charges of
heavily armoured horsemen had ended, around the 1400, as massed organized
pikemen made it's appearance again on the battle field. However,
knighthood as an social class, didn't end until much later.
Sorry for the long windedness.
Cheers,
John.
Actually
H.D. Miller
In article <4q43ot$5...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>, go...@ix.netcom.com(Ian
Goss) wrote:
The people who invaded Spain were a mixed army of Berbers and Arabs, led
by Arabs. Gibraltar, Jabal Tariq (Tariq's Mountain), is named for their
Arab general.
The people who were beaten in 711 by the invading Arabs were Visigoths, a
Germanic tribe who had adopted Roman customs and Catholicism.
The term "Moors" is not only not descriptive or specific (roughly as
specific as the term "Orientals" when used to describe Japanese, Chinese,
Koreans, et al.) but is also generally seen as a product of a Western,
imperialistic mindset.
The people who ruled Islamic Spain were Arabs and, much later, Arabized
Berbers (the Almohads and Almoravids). Until the political
(self)destruction of Cordoba in the 11th century, the rulers of Al-Andalus
were all from the Ummayad dynasty, part of the same dynasty that had ruled
the center of the Muslim empire from Damascus, until being supplanted by
the Abassids in 750. As far as your contention that the Arabs didn't
rule in Spain, I would only say that its exactly the same as saying that
the John F. Kennedy wasn't an American but rather an Irish President of
the United States. The ruling class in Spain always, always, always
self-identified as Arabs. They had Arabic names. They spoke Arabic. They
patronized Classical Arabic poets. And most of them had been adopted into
traditional Arab/Bedouin tribes through the muwallad system. Even the
large population of Slavs and Scandanavians, who had been brought to
Al-Andalus as slaves, readily adopted Arab customs, to the exclusion of
what ever customs they had originally had. By the 10th Century, the
Ummayad caliphs of Spain (all direct descendants of Umar, a friend of the
Prophet and one of the first caliphs), including the greatest Spanish
Caliph, Abd ar-Rahman III, had blond hair and blue eyes. Why? Becuse of
a pronounced preferanece among them for fair-skinned women. Yet despite
the fact that the Spanish Ummayads were shot through with Slavic and
Scandnavian blood, they were considered the purest of the pure Arabs. You
see, there are two definitions of Arab. The first is the absolute strict
defintion you have seized upon in your argument ("The only real Americans
are the Indians"). The second is the broader definition which says that
anyone who is adopted into an Arab tribe, takes on Arabic customs and
self-identifies as an Arab is an Arab ("America is the great melting pot,
turning immigrants into Americans") And in Spain everyone who wanted to
be someone became an Arab (except for the Jews, of course, but that's
another story)
Here's a short, true story for you: Around 800 A.D. a group of Norsemen
sailed up the Guadalquiver (Wadi al-Kabir, "Big River") into the interior
of Spain, looking for easy pickens among the riches of al-Andalus.
Charmed by the warm weather, the fresh fruit, the beguiling music they
heard along the banks and, most importantly, the beautiful women, the
Norsemen abandonded their original intentions. (Certainly, the fact that
there was at least one mosque built out of captured Norse longboats on the
banks of the Guadalquiver had nothing to do with their change of heart.)
After a parlay and negociations with local dignitaries, the Norsemen
converted en masse to Islam, a welcoming religion, took Muslim wives and
set up shop as farmers. They were assimilated quickly into Andalusian
life, and within a couple of generations all that remained of their
previous existance were a handful of unprouncable patronymics (Abu
abd-Allah Ahmed ibn Magnussen).
H.D. Miller
Joseph M. Emmanuel
On 17 Jun 1996 06:36:29 GMT, ha...@delta.hut.fi (fleur-de-lis) wrote:
>In article <4puog6$e...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com> go...@ix.netcom.com(Ian Goss) writes:
>
>>During the Crusades, horses did not wear armor. They wore white
>>"surcoats". This was for protection against the sun. The Arabs did the
>
>Actually, I have to disagree here. The "surcoats" you refer are called
>as caparisons or housings, and they seldom were white, rather displaying
>their master's coat of arms (being a quick heraldic display). More often
>than not the horses actually were armored:
That is how I understood it too. The armors were heavy and tiresome if the
fight would prolong.
Joseph M. Emmanuel
On 17 Jun 1996 16:30:25 GMT, wal...@thoreau.rand.org (Walter Nelson)
wrote:
>One might also argue that "the Age of Knighthood" was ended not by guns,
>since cavalry still played an extremely important, and often dominant role
>on the 16th Century battlefield, but by the rise of mercenary and
>professional cavalry forces in the 15th and 16th Century--that turned
>knights into paid employees on a par with low-born scumbags (or rather,
>turned them into professional officers commanding companies of low-born
>professional scumbags).
>
>Cheers,
Whatever the main reason(s), guns were not the only one. It seems a
mistake to think "the Age of Knighthood" ended only because of guns. I
think they were gone long time before, or were in the last leg of their
decline, when gun came to the picture. Maybe gun put the final nail on
their coffin, but it was not the only reason they vanished.
Joseph M. Emmanuel
On 17 Jun 1996 17:14:05 GMT, go...@ix.netcom.com(Ian Goss) wrote:
>No we are talking about the same damn thing. The Arabs did nto rule
>Spain. Just because you are Muslim does not make you an Arab. The MOORS
>invaded and ruled (parts of) Spain for 700 years. Sure there were Arabs
>in the invasion force, but most of the troops were moors.
Did they speak Arabic?
I am talking about the influence of Arabic on Spanish/Frence and English.
Muslims, at least in the begining of Islam, most spoke Arabic (even if they
were not Arab). Indeed every Muslim is encouraged to know Arabic. If by
Moors you mean a people who were Muslim and invaded Spain, Still my point
stands.
Moors who, I assume, spoke Arabic, influenced Spainsh language. Spanish
language (and Arabs speaking Muslims in France) influenced French and
French influenced English. That is the point I am trying to get accross.
fleur-de-lis
In article <4q43ot$5...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> go...@ix.netcom.com(Ian Goss) writes:
>>>Well why did you not say so in the first place? And the Arabs did not
>>>invade Spain. The Moors did. Another thing, knights did not exist
>>>during this period. The *only* resistance the moors had in Spain was
>>>the Vandals(?). They were "barbarians". Most of them were probably
>>>"lighter" than the moors.
The "barbarians" in Iberian Peninsula that date were not Vandals. They were
Visigoths, and they had had their kingdom - very regualrized kingdom BTW,
there for some 300 years. Their last king, Rodrigo, was killed in the
battle of Guadalete AD 711. The warlord Pelayo, who founded the kingdom of
Asturias (the predecessor of the Castilian and the Leonese states) in the
Asturian mountains, declared himself as the successor of the Visigoths and
as the heir of Rodrigo. The Reconquista has traditionally been count to have
begun at the battle of Covadonga AD 718.
>No we are talking about the same damn thing. The Arabs did nto rule
>Spain. Just because you are Muslim does not make you an Arab. The MOORS
>invaded and ruled (parts of) Spain for 700 years. Sure there were Arabs
>in the invasion force, but most of the troops were moors.
And Berbers finished off what was left of the Moorish Andalusia. The Cordoba
caliphate had disintegrated in the early 11th century into small taifa states,
which were helpless against the Castilian onslaught. The first Berbers to
arrive wehere the Almoravids (al-Murabitum) 1085, who conquered the Muslim
Spain and defeated the Castilians at Zallaca 1086. The Almohades, who crushed
the Almoravid rule 1145, were even more fanatical and stricter Muslims htan
the Almoravids. The Almohad rule ended effectively at the decisive battle
of las Navas de Tolosa 1212. Although the Moors revived the Kingdom of Granada
1238, after that battle the completion of the Reconquista was only a matter
of time.
Interestingly, the Arabs and Berbers in Algeria don't get well along with
each other, although they both are Muslims...
Ian Goss
In <31c66797....@nntp.indirect.com> mait...@mail.indirect.com
>>Spain. Just because you are Muslim does not make you an Arab. The
MOORS
>>invaded and ruled (parts of) Spain for 700 years. Sure there were
Arabs
>>in the invasion force, but most of the troops were moors.
>
I speak German and Japanese. I belong to nether one of those ethnic
groups. Speaking a language is differnt than belonging to an ethnic
groiup.
>I am talking about the influence of Arabic on Spanish/Frence and
English.
>Muslims, at least in the begining of Islam, most spoke Arabic (even if
they
>were not Arab).
I thought we were talking about the end of medieval warfare. Other
string. : )
H.D. Miller
> In article <4q43ot$5...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> go...@ix.netcom.com(Ian
Goss) writes:
> >>>Well why did you not say so in the first place? And the Arabs did not
> >>>invade Spain. The Moors did. Another thing, knights did not exist
> >>>during this period. The *only* resistance the moors had in Spain was
> >>>the Vandals(?). They were "barbarians". Most of them were probably
> >>>"lighter" than the moors.
(snip)
> >No we are talking about the same damn thing. The Arabs did nto rule
> >Spain. Just because you are Muslim does not make you an Arab. The MOORS
> >invaded and ruled (parts of) Spain for 700 years. Sure there were Arabs
> >in the invasion force, but most of the troops were moors.
>
> And Berbers finished off what was left of the Moorish Andalusia. The Cordoba
> caliphate had disintegrated in the early 11th century into small taifa states,
> which were helpless against the Castilian onslaught. The first Berbers to
> arrive wehere the Almoravids (al-Murabitum) 1085, who conquered the Muslim
> Spain and defeated the Castilians at Zallaca 1086. The Almohades, who crushed
> the Almoravid rule 1145, were even more fanatical and stricter Muslims htan
> the Almoravids. The Almohad rule ended effectively at the decisive battle
> of las Navas de Tolosa 1212. Although the Moors revived the Kingdom of Granada
> 1238, after that battle the completion of the Reconquista was only a matter
> of time.
>
> Interestingly, the Arabs and Berbers in Algeria don't get well along with
> each other, although they both are Muslims...
Again, I must object to the terms moors and Moorish. What do you mean
when you say the "Berbers finshed off what was left of the **Moorish**
Andalusia?"
Define "Moors" and "Moorish"
Ian Goss suggests that the rulers of Al-Andalus was not Arabs and Arabized
Muslims but "moors". OK, who were the "Moors" and where did they come
from? Were they Berbers (the Muslim North-African tribesmen)? Wait, they
can't be Berbers because fler-de-lis says that the Berbers did away with
"Moorish Andalusia." So we've ruled out Berbers and Arabs, who does that
leave in charge of Moorish Spain? Somebody give me a definition of Moor
that isn't vague or self-contradictory.
The problem with the term Moor is that from the very first usage it has
been too vague and too loaded with European misconceptions. Think about
Othello for a second. Shakespeare says he's a "Moor," but where is he
from? North Africa presumably. But if that's true, why is he always
portrayed as a Black on the current stage, despite the fact that none of
the indiginous people of that region are Negroid. Another point, Othello
is soldiering for Venice against the Turks. Does this mean he's not a
Muslim? He shows no indication of having any Muslim religion or even any
passing acquaintance with Islam. (If nothing else, we should be able to
agree that, at the least, "Moorish" culture has a strongly Islamic
component.) Shakespeares usage of the word Moor is nearly as vague and
non-descriptive as most modern usages of the word. The word arose in an
era when we knew very little about the Islamic world, and when Turks,
Saracens and Moors were the boogeymen. The word should be discarded, just
as we have dicarded the word Saracen before it.
The people who invaded Visigothic Spain in 711 were a mixed, Muslim Army
of Berbers and Arabs, led by Arabs. They were not the mythical "Moors".
(Note that the first Berbers arrived in 711, not with the Almoravids in
1085.) The people who ruled Al-Andalus were Muslims. Not the mythical
"Moors." For the first 300 years, Al-Andalus was ruled by Arabs descended
from the Ummayad dynasty. Following that, there was an 80-year period of
political instability in which petty kingdoms rose and fell quickly (These
were the taifa states, whose rulers were known as the "Party Kings", I
love that phrase, from the arabic word "taifa" which means party or
sect.) Then, in 1085, in resonse to the capture of Toledo by Alfonso VI,
the Almoravids (Muslim Berber tribesmen led by Arabized Berbers.) were
invited into to Al-Andalus to counter the Christian threat. They were
Islamic fanatics, but they did not significantly alter the culture of
Andalusia. Arabic was still the language of government and Islam, albeit
a more strict version, was still the dominant religion. If anything, the
Almoravids quickly were corrupted by the luxurious standard of living to
be found in Al-Andalus, which is why they were replaced by the even more
fanatical Almohads. The Almohads were no more sucessful than the
Almoravids in changing the culture. (As an aside, even the Christians had
a rough time of it with Andalusian culture. Up to 200 years after the
fall of Toledo, the Christians of of that city were still writing their
legal contracts in Arabic. I can show you 13th century religious bequests
made to the Catholic Church drawn up in Arabic, following Islamic notarial
forms and legal boilerplate, in which the only Latin characters are the
signitures of priests who are accepting the benefice.)
It's really very simple to understand if the correct, descriptive terms
are used.
--
.
Mark E. Anderson
Walter Nelson (wal...@thoreau.rand.org) wrote:
: Mark E. Anderson (wombats@rana) wrote:
: economics. The men-at-arms were mostly billmen or pikemen, who were not
: more expensive than the bows. The gentry-based men-at-arms constituted a
: very small proportion of the English armies. There were lots of longbowmen
: in the English armies because they won battles, not because they were
: cheaper--or am I misunderstanding your point.
: Cheers,
: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Walter Nelson | INSERT PITHY WITTICISM HERE
: RAND |
: walter...@rand.org |
: ___________________________________________________________________________
yeah, don't ask me where i put my brain on that following post.
actually, i do recall part of what i was thinking... ah, or
whatever it was my brain did on a monday.
anyway, tactics was one main driving force. my logistics bit
was a muddle from thinking about supporting the cannon which
were more and more carried on campaign. it may have simplified
things not to have to carry bows, bowstring, several types of
arrows, powder and shot. changing to all powder and several
types of shot may have been handy. adding the word "economics"
comes from logistics always being a drain on the pocketbook.
how's that for clarity and cleverness :-\
H.D. Miller
In article <4q5mgm$e...@nntp.hut.fi>, ha...@delta.hut.fi (fleur-de-lis) wrote:
> Interestingly, the Arabs and Berbers in Algeria don't get well along with
> each other, although they both are Muslims...
Interestingly, the Catholic Irish and the Protestant Irish don't get along
well with each other, although they are both Chrisitan and Irish...
The fact that the Berbers and the Arabs of Algeria currently have a
contentious relatioship doesn't mean that they weren't allies, bound
together by Islam, throughout the 8 Andalusian centuries. Much has been
made of the fact that the Almoravids and the Almohads were mostly made up
of Berber tribesmen, rather than Arabs. But all of this overlooks the
fact that the rulers of the Almohads and the Almoravids were throughly
Arabized, and saw themselves as Arabs, not Berbers. They spoke Arabic,
patronized Arabic poetry, had Arab names, and invariably fabricated family
histories that included at least one of the Companions of Muhammad as an
ancestor, in an attempt to establish their bona fides.
I think a lot of the confusion comes not from the identities of the
rulers, who had embraced Arabic culture fully, but from the troops these
rulers employed. What was significant about the Almohad and Almoravid
invasions was the introduction of a large number of hillbillies (or the
Andalusian equivalent) into a cosmopolitan and sophisticaded society. It
was the same as setting a hundred thousand, heavily-armed, Appalachian,
snake-handling Christians loose in New York City. There are bound to be
some problems, and it will be commented upon by the locals, but it isn't
the end of a distinctive New York Culture. (Although, I bet cab drivers
would be more polite.) The same thing happened with the Almoravids, the
locals were appalled by the ignorance of the North African tribesmen, and
the berbers were appalled by the decadence of the Andalusians. The
Almoravidians briefly persecuted Jews and the irreligious, in an effort to
bring about religious conformity, but soon gave it up when they realized
it affected trade and the income from taxes. Within 20 years of their
arrival, their religious fires had been put out by good living. (Think of
all those snake-handlers in NYC after 20 years: some will have gone back
to Hogwaller Kentucky; some will still be sipping strychnine and talking
about the Book of Revelations in storefront churchs in the Bronx; but most
of the rest of them will have been assimilated by the great melting pot.
Nevermind what will happen to their kids!) The culture of Al-Andalus was
remarkably hetrogeneous, and was able to assimilate a large number of
immigrants quickly. And although there were distinctive Berber quarters
in most cities, the Berbers adopted themselves well to the culture.
Ian Goss
>Ian Goss suggests that the rulers of Al-Andalus was not Arabs and
Arabized
>Muslims but "moors".
Now I did not say that. The rulers of Muslim Spain were "Arab" for the
first generation or so. After that they were Berber or Moorish(North
African muslims). The entire invading army was "Moorish", sure they had
Arab commanders, but the core of the army was Moorish(or whatever you
want to call them).
OK, who were the "Moors" and where did they come
>from? Were they Berbers (the Muslim North-African tribesmen)? Wait,
they
>can't be Berbers because fler-de-lis says that the Berbers did away
with
>"Moorish Andalusia." So we've ruled out Berbers and Arabs, who does
that
>leave in charge of Moorish Spain? Somebody give me a definition of
Moor
>that isn't vague or self-contradictory.
I'm think maybe Moors is like "Saracens". Just a catch-all term.
>The problem with the term Moor is that from the very first usage it
has
>been too vague and too loaded with European misconceptions. Think
about
>Othello for a second. Shakespeare says he's a "Moor," but where is he
>from? North Africa presumably. But if that's true, why is he always
>portrayed as a Black on the current stage, despite the fact that none
of
>the indiginous people of that region are Negroid.
Ever been to north Africa? Plenty of 'em are Black.
other point, Othello
>is soldiering for Venice against the Turks. Does this mean he's not a
>Muslim?
N0, it means hes being paid well.
shows no indication of having any Muslim religion or even any
>passing acquaintance with Islam. (If nothing else, we should be able
to
>agree that, at the least, "Moorish" culture has a strongly Islamic
>component.) Shakespeares usage of the word Moor is nearly as vague
and
>non-descriptive as most modern usages of the word. The word arose in
an
>era when we knew very little about the Islamic world, and when Turks,
>Saracens and Moors were the boogeymen. The word should be discarded,
just
>as we have dicarded the word Saracen before it.
This word bugs me but it has hardly been discaded. In my sisters world
history book, the word Saracen is used repeatedly. This book is only
two years old too.
Dave Forth
Joseph M. Emmanuel wrote:
>Still my point stands:). Gun powder which made guns efficient and
>economical to use came much later in history. Knights and Medieval period
>was finished long time before gun ever became a viable weapon to use in
>battles.
I have a copy of a drawing of a fully armored knight whose breast plate
has a mounting points for a gun.
The knight was never finished as such he just evolved as battle
conditions changed into heavy cavalry.
Dave
St. Ives, England
WMclean290
In article <hdmiller-180...@acs-arap1.cis.yale.edu>,
hdmi...@minerva.cis.yale.edu (H.D. Miller) writes:
> As far as your contention that the Arabs didn't
>rule in Spain, I would only say that its exactly the same as saying that
>the John F. Kennedy wasn't an American but rather an Irish President of
>the United States.
Umm. I think that contention was aimed at the assertion that Spain was
conquered by the cunning tactics of Arabic light horse. If much of the
invading armies were Berbers and Slavonians, what tactics did they use?
Berbers and Slavonians might have been light horsemen, I don't know. Seems
unwise to just assume that they were, though.
Will McLean
Joseph M. Emmanuel
That is it, West does not want to accept (acknowledge) the contribution of
Arab culture it has received. It is easier to call them Moors thatn Arabs.
Arabs should be put down in any turn and made to look as terorists, etc.
The good thing is that truth does not stay hidden for ever. We eventually
have to accept the contribution of other cultures on human progress. We
have to acknowledge other's high cultural and civil setups. It should not
only be true for Arabs but for everyone.
Internet is a good vessel for this. Historical lies has to end if human
ever want to be free of pregidicity, discrimination, hate and seperation.
Joseph M. Emmanuel
On 18 Jun 1996 20:51:47 GMT, go...@ix.netcom.com(Ian Goss) wrote:
>Now I did not say that. The rulers of Muslim Spain were "Arab" for the
>first generation or so. After that they were Berber or Moorish(North
>African muslims). The entire invading army was "Moorish", sure they had
>Arab commanders, but the core of the army was Moorish(or whatever you
>want to call them).
First, did they speak Arabic? If yes then again Arabic language have
influenced Spanish, right? Spanish has influenced French and French
English. My point stands:).
Secondly, no matter who the people who ruled th Spain, still Baghdad was
the center of the empire (Arabic). So again Arab culture would influence
Spain, etc. Your use of Moors, etc. seems to be an attempt to muddy the
discussion. I am glad H. D. Miller jumped in and clarified most of the
confusion. He sure seems knows what he is talking about (Thanks H. D:)).
fleur-de-lis
In article <hdmiller-180...@acs-arap15.cis.yale.edu> hdmi...@minerva.cis.yale.edu (H.D. Miller) writes:
>> Interestingly, the Arabs and Berbers in Algeria don't get well along with
>> each other, although they both are Muslims...
>well with each other, although they are both Chrisitan and Irish...
Not at all surprising. The history of those groups of people is different,
they are of different sects (which more often than not hate each other more
furiously than the practitioneers of other religions), there is a loooooong
history of oppression and even their language stock is often different.
I wouldn't count Protestant Irish as Irish anyway, but rather as Anglo-Irish.
>The fact that the Berbers and the Arabs of Algeria currently have a
>contentious relatioship doesn't mean that they weren't allies, bound
>together by Islam, throughout the 8 Andalusian centuries.
Norwegians and Danes do have even longer tradition of Christianity (both
Catholic and Lutheran) and mutual alliance, yet it doesn't make the Norvegians
into Danes or vice versa. Finland was part of Sweden from 1153 to 1809. Still
it didn't make Finns into Swedes.
>made of the fact that the Almoravids and the Almohads were mostly made up
>of Berber tribesmen, rather than Arabs. But all of this overlooks the
>fact that the rulers of the Almohads and the Almoravids were throughly
>Arabized, and saw themselves as Arabs, not Berbers.
It isn't the rulers but the people which defines the nationality. Sure was
the Czar of Russia besides his official duties also the Grand Duke of
Finland from 1809 to 1917, yet it didn't Russify the Finns. Interestingly,
until the reign of Nikolai II, hated in Finland as an oath breaker, the Finns
belonged in the most loyal subjects of the Czar.
>They spoke Arabic,
>patronized Arabic poetry, had Arab names, and invariably fabricated family
>histories that included at least one of the Companions of Muhammad as an
>ancestor, in an attempt to establish their bona fides.
My maternal grandmother spoke Swedish, had a Swedish name, taught her
children to speak Swedish and had a long ancestry of Swedish-speaking
fathers and mothers, yet she always identified herself as Finn.
Most of the few nobility here (some 0.05% of the Finnish populace) do speak
Swedish as their first language, are embedded with the Swedish culture,
have Swedish (usually very pompous) names tracing back to the Swedish regime,
yet it still doesn't make them into Swedes.
fleur-de-lis
In article <hdmiller-180...@ycmc14.cluster.cis.yale.edu> hdmi...@minerva.cis.yale.edu (H.D. Miller) writes:
>Again, I must object to the terms moors and Moorish. What do you mean
>when you say the "Berbers finshed off what was left of the **Moorish**
>Andalusia?"
They crushed the taifa puppet kingdoms and united al-Andalus as a part of
their Algerian-Moroccoan state. After the fall of Almohads, the Cordoban
caliphate never emerged; instead the Kingdom of Granada was founded - and
that kingdom is still a part of Spain, as its arms form the base of the
Spanish escutcheon.
>Define "Moors" and "Moorish"
Originally from Latin "Mauri", the North Africans; the North African Muslims.
By skin color dark, yet still of Caucasian stock. Nowadays survives as the
term of the inhabitants of the state of Mauretania, and as a term of heraldry.
Not to be confused with "blackmoor", which has a derogatory side meaning.
>Ian Goss suggests that the rulers of Al-Andalus was not Arabs and Arabized
>Muslims but "moors". OK, who were the "Moors" and where did they come
>from ?
From Northern Africa, the coastal region and inland. Many of them may have
been "mozarabes" (= ones who have Arabized themselves), yet still not Arabs
as the Arabs of Arabia.
> Were they Berbers (the Muslim North-African tribesmen)?
Not necessarily, and they weren't Tuaregs either.
>Othello for a second. Shakespeare says he's a "Moor," but where is he
>from? North Africa presumably. But if that's true, why is he always
>portrayed as a Black on the current stage, despite the fact that none of
>the indiginous people of that region are Negroid.
Most of those people are rather dark by their skin colour - not surprising
since the climate south from Mediterranean doesn't favor being Aryan blonde
Viking. I guess not many actors of the Medieval Central Europe could
distinguish between a Moor and Negroid, since not many of them had ever
seen one in their lives. Didn't King Arthur go crusading in some of the
legends, yet Muhammed wasn't yet even a blink in his father's eyes ?
>Another point, Othello is soldiering for Venice against the Turks. Does
>this mean he's not a Muslim?
No. It means he was either a mercenary, or he just happened to hate the
Ottoman Turks, whom the other Muslims around the region didn't love too much.
Were the Ottoman Turks Arabs ? No, they are Turks. Similarly, although
Persians are Muslims, they are Persians, not Arabs.
>(Note that the first Berbers arrived in 711, not with the Almoravids in
>1085.) The people who ruled Al-Andalus were Muslims. Not the mythical
>"Moors."
Religion != nationality.
>For the first 300 years, Al-Andalus was ruled by Arabs descended
>from the Ummayad dynasty. Following that, there was an 80-year period of
Rule != nationality. Were the Christian and Jewish inhabitants in the
Andalusian states Arabs ?
>the Almoravids (Muslim Berber tribesmen led by Arabized Berbers.) were
>invited into to Al-Andalus to counter the Christian threat. They were
>Islamic fanatics, but they did not significantly alter the culture of
>Andalusia.
But they finished off the Taifa kingdoms. Realpolitik, not cultural
evolution or revolution, was the point of my posting.
>Almoravids in changing the culture. (As an aside, even the Christians had
>a rough time of it with Andalusian culture. Up to 200 years after the
>fall of Toledo, the Christians of of that city were still writing their
>legal contracts in Arabic.
That indicates rather good cultural tolerance and mutual understanding, which
was in very short supply elsewhere around the Europe. On the other hand, most
Indians tend still write their legal contracts in English and run commerce
in English, but it still desn't make the Indians into Englishpeople.
Scots do speak English, are rather integrated in the English culture, form a
country in union with the English yet they are _never_ Englishpeople, or
"Southrons". They are Scots.
Angus Donal Stewart
On Mon, 17 Jun 1996, Joseph M. Emmanuel wrote:
> On 16 Jun 1996 14:48:31 GMT, go...@ix.netcom.com(Ian Goss) wrote:
>
> >Well why did you not say so in the first place? And the Arabs did not
> >invade Spain. The Moors did.
Um...who are the 'Moors', exactly? Sorry, I'm an Arabist, I don't know
this Spanish terminology...(hint...).
> >Another thing, knights did not exist
> >during this period. The *only* resistance the moors had in Spain was
> >the Vandals(?).
Who presumably were bored with Tunisia after Justinian took it back from
them? In the C5th, the Vandals had indeed gone through the Iberian
Peninsula; the 'barbarians' that ruled in it from that time until the
Arab invasion of 711 were the Visigoths. In the C4th Latin writers, who
were jealous and afraid, would have termed these 'barbarians'. But
things change. Especially in changing times, and the 5th-7th centuries
were fairly changing. You might as well say that the French or English
of today are 'barbarians', because some of their ancestors were termed
'barbarian by the Latins. By 711, the Visigoths had established
themselves as 'civilised'. When the rulers of Castile in the C11th want
to pretend they are reviving a state (i.e. _Re_conquista-ing one) it is
the Visigothic Empire they claim to be reviving. This is one reason why
the capture of Toledo (1085) has such significance - it had been the
Visigothic capital. There are still bits of Visigothic wall standing in
Toledo, if one looks hard enough
> >They were "barbarians". Most of them were probably
> >"lighter" than the moors.
>
Silly Visigoths for not eating their greens!
> I see the problem. You are talking about a complete different era. Arabs
> rulled Spain for centuries.
>
????Which era is he talking about????
I had assumed he was talking about the same era, but with different
terminology. In fairness the Spanish term 'moor' may have some
usefulness: though the early Ummayad amirs/caliphs were of undoubted
Arab provenance, after a while it becomes a bit inaccurate to be always
referring to 'Arab'; the Berbers increased in importance, but after a
while the Arab/Berber distinction loses some of its relevance. Rather
than talk of 'Spaniards' and 'Moors', it might be even better to talk of
'Christian and Muslim Spain'. [look out for a forthcoming book on Muslim
Spain, I think from 711 to 1492, by Hugh Kennedy, who works here at
St.Andrews]
luvnhugs,
Angus
Ketil Z Malde
mait...@mail.indirect.com (Joseph M. Emmanuel) writes:
> On Tue, 18 Jun 1996 14:12:16 -0500, hdmi...@minerva.cis.yale.edu
> (H.D. Miller) wrote:
>> Think about Othello for a second. Shakespeare says he's a "Moor,"
>> but where is he from? North Africa presumably. But if that's true,
>> why is he always portrayed as a Black on the current stage, despite
>> the fact that none of the indiginous people of that region are
But Moors _are_ black. Haven't you seen "Robing Hood: Prince of
Lie^H^H^HThieves"? :-)
> That is it, West does not want to accept (acknowledge) the
> contribution of Arab culture it has received.
I think you're exagerrating quite a bit. Nobody's denying that Arab
culture has had an impact on (southern) European culture. Nobody's
denying that the Arab nation(s) were a lot more advanced intellectually
than Western Europe in the middle ages.
However, claiming that Arabic has had _great_ influence on the English
language is a bit outrageous IMHO.
> Arabs should be put down in any turn and made to look as terorists,
I'm not going to comment on modern day Arab culture, but as far as I can
see, you're the only one who has brought this up.
~kzm
David Lloyd-Jones
Ketil Z Malde <ke...@ii.uib.no> wrote:
>mait...@mail.indirect.com (Joseph M. Emmanuel) writes:
>> On Tue, 18 Jun 1996 14:12:16 -0500, hdmi...@minerva.cis.yale.edu
>> (H.D. Miller) wrote:
>>> Think about Othello for a second. Shakespeare says he's a "Moor,"
>>> but where is he from? North Africa presumably. But if that's true,
>>> why is he always portrayed as a Black on the current stage, despite
>>> the fact that none of the indiginous people of that region are
>But Moors _are_ black. Haven't you seen "Robing Hood: Prince of
>Lie^H^H^HThieves"? :-)
Many Cornwallish are black. The distinguished Canadian Roscola
family, of Cornwall extraction, are black in some generations and
branches, white in others, a perfect teaching example of Mendelism.
The black gene is believed to come from survivors of the Spanish
defeat in 1688 who fled north around Scotland and failed to make it
home through the Irish sea route.
-dlj.
Paul Broeker
An article by Laurence Weschler in the June 17th NEW YORKER
magazine is relevant to the current discussion. Weschler is
discussing an upcoming production of Shakespeare's Henry V with
Theodor Meron, an attorney who is advising prosecutors at the
Yugoslav War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague. In addition to his
specialty in the modern laws of war, Meron is a student of medieval
warfare. Here is the relevant paragraph from the article:
"Gradually...the system (of chivalric conventions of war) began
to break down -- for two principal reasons, according to Meron.
First, because of technological advances -- initially, as at
Agincourt, archery, but later artillery and gunfire -- that led to a
decline in face-to-face combat, and, with it, a decline in the
possibility of capture and ransom. And then, because of the breakup
of the unified Christian culture in Europe; the same knights had
completely ignored such rules on the Crusades, for example, during
their often quite brutal engagements with the infidel Arabs, and
when they began seeing one another as infidels, in the wake of the
Reformation, they began ignoring those rules in their own
internecine religious conflicts as well."
--
--Paul Broeker **********************************************
Santa Maria CA * NOW YOU CAN EXERCISE WHILE YOU USE YOUR *
* COMPUTER . . . WITH A NORDIC TRAKBALL *
pbro...@slonet.org **********************************************
Azure 7
>I have a copy of a drawing of a fully armored knight whose breast plate
has a mounting points for a gun.
The knight was never finished as such he just evolved as battle
conditions changed into heavy cavalry.<
One have to be careful about the application of the word Knight in this
case. Knights as a social rank have not disappeared, but rather is still
with us to this very day. And Knight as a rank of noblity lasted well
into the last couple hundred years. However, Knights as tradition sense
of a armed retainer who have feudal obligation to his lord, or to the
crown (who often obtain a title to parcel of lands on the strength of such
obligations) was nearly gone toward the end of the hundred year war.
Rather than any technological advances such as guns or such, instead it's
end was brought by a social and economical change within how a war is run
and finances.
I believe it was Edward III who introduced a system where nobles was able
to pay a fee in lew of any armed serves when the King calls on to this
feudal obiligation. And in turn the king would use this money to hire
mercenaries to fill his army. Often these mercenaries are the same landed
gentries, but more often than not, knight were just that. Landed gentries,
rather than an actual farmed forces.
Since we don't have any means to prove these assumptions to obssolute
certinty, I really recommend a book called "The Knight in History" by
Frances Gies.
Good luck!
- John.
H.D. Miller
> In article <hdmiller-180...@ycmc14.cluster.cis.yale.edu>
hdmi...@minerva.cis.yale.edu (H.D. Miller) writes:
(snip)
> >Define "Moors" and "Moorish"
>
> Originally from Latin "Mauri", the North Africans; the North African Muslims.
> By skin color dark, yet still of Caucasian stock. Nowadays survives as the
> term of the inhabitants of the state of Mauretania, and as a term of
heraldry.
> Not to be confused with "blackmoor", which has a derogatory side meaning.
You've made my point about the term "Moor." It's not only an outdated,
little-used relic of an era when the demographic composition of Al-Andalus
was merely a matter of speculation for European Christians, but it has
seriously negative connotations. Despite your warning about the word
"blackmoor," the two terms are usually confused, enough to make it
offensive.
> >Ian Goss suggests that the rulers of Al-Andalus was not Arabs and Arabized
> >Muslims but "moors". OK, who were the "Moors" and where did they come
> >from ?
>
> From Northern Africa, the coastal region and inland. Many of them may have
> been "mozarabes" (= ones who have Arabized themselves), yet still not Arabs
> as the Arabs of Arabia.
The word "Mozarab" refers to a very specific group in Al-Andalus:
Arabized Christians, especially, although not limited to, those living
under Muslim rule. They even had their own Arabic version of the Catholic
rites called, of course, the Mozarabic rite. The word Mozarab has never
been applied to Muslims because the adoptation of at least some degree of
Arabic culture was a given.
> > Were they Berbers (the Muslim North-African tribesmen)?
>
> Not necessarily, and they weren't Tuaregs either.
Who does that leave? They come from North Africa, but they're not
necessarily Arabs, nor Berbers, nor Turegs. Again the term "Moor" is too
vague.
> >Othello for a second. Shakespeare says he's a "Moor," but where is he
> >from? North Africa presumably. But if that's true, why is he always
> >portrayed as a Black on the current stage, despite the fact that none of
> >the indiginous people of that region are Negroid.
>
> Most of those people are rather dark by their skin colour - not surprising
> since the climate south from Mediterranean doesn't favor being Aryan blonde
> Viking. I guess not many actors of the Medieval Central Europe could
> distinguish between a Moor and Negroid, since not many of them had ever
> seen one in their lives. Didn't King Arthur go crusading in some of the
> legends, yet Muhammed wasn't yet even a blink in his father's eyes ?
Exactly!!! The term moor is from an era when Western Europe knew very
little about the rest of the world. Shakespeare's ignorance about Muslims
was in no ways unusual.
> >Another point, Othello is soldiering for Venice against the Turks. Does
> >this mean he's not a Muslim?
>
> No. It means he was either a mercenary, or he just happened to hate the
> Ottoman Turks, whom the other Muslims around the region didn't love too much.
> Were the Ottoman Turks Arabs ? No, they are Turks. Similarly, although
> Persians are Muslims, they are Persians, not Arabs.
But the Muslim Persians will all, every single one of them, tell you that
they are Muslims first and Persians second. You've convieniently
eliminated the rest of my point about Othello, which is that Shakespeare
had no idea what a "moor" really was, and had no notion of what being a
Muslim meant. Apparently this lack of knowledge continues to apply. So,
feel free to continue to use the term "Moor", but you must be aware that
it is not the term used by Arabists and knowlegable scholars. In fact,
it's one of those great words that immediately brands its user as a person
who has never studied the subject.
> >(Note that the first Berbers arrived in 711, not with the Almoravids in
> >1085.) The people who ruled Al-Andalus were Muslims. Not the mythical
> >"Moors."
>
> Religion != nationality.
You seem to be terribly hung up on *modern* European notions of national
identity, which you are back projecting into the Middle Ages. Muslim has
always been the first and most important identity of every Muslim, and for
the past 1300+ years what has always bound Muslims together as a religion
has been an appreciation for Arabic language and culture. Ideally ALL
Muslims should learn Arabic, and most do. Ideally ALL Muslims should make
at least one pilgrimage to Mecca, and most do. The Islam and Arabic are
inseperable. Even the nuts in the Nation of Islam try to learn Arabic.
> >For the first 300 years, Al-Andalus was ruled by Arabs descended
> >from the Ummayad dynasty. Following that, there was an 80-year period of
>
> Rule != nationality. Were the Christian and Jewish inhabitants in the
> Andalusian states Arabs ?
See above regarding the nationality issue. The Christians were called
Mozarabs, and spoke Arabic and Romance (a Latin dialect written with
Arabic characters). The Muslim rulers of Al-Andalus even exercised the
right of approval over Christian bishops, just as rulers in Christian
Europe did. The Jews were completely Arabized, to the point that most,
including Maimonedes, wrote Hebrew with Arabic characters, and he, like
most Jews, preferred Arabic insetad of Hebrew for everyday use. Many Jews
and a few Christians were courtiers and goverment officials to the Muslim
rulers. Again the culture of Al-Andalus was assimilationist, mostly
tolerant (very tolerant by medieval standards), and polymorphous. The
culture did change over time as various groups of immigrants entered the
area, but it always retained it's Arab core, with even the non-Muslim
minorities adopting Arab customs and names (There was a Bishop of Seville
named 'Ubayd Allah ibn Qasim--'Ubayd Allah means "Servant of Allah.")
> >the Almoravids (Muslim Berber tribesmen led by Arabized Berbers.) were
> >invited into to Al-Andalus to counter the Christian threat. They were
> >Islamic fanatics, but they did not significantly alter the culture of
> >Andalusia.
>
> But they finished off the Taifa kingdoms. Realpolitik, not cultural
> evolution or revolution, was the point of my posting.
Can you even tell me who the party kings were? Can you describe, in
detail, the religious differences between the Almohads and the Almoravids
and the people they replaced in power? Can you tell me the specific
effects, both cultural and political, of the Almoravid invasion, beyond a
vague notion of the elimination of the Taifa kingdoms?
Here's a three-part graduate level test for you: 1) Given a list of 11th
Century Muslim/Andalusian names, distinguish the Berbers and Tuaregs from
the Arabs. 2) Identify the medieval, Berber-language literary
masterpieces. 3) Using the 700 or so pages of Christian-Mozarabic Latin
texts contained in the CORPUS SCRIPTORUM MUZARABICORUM identify those that
date conclusively from after 950.
(Hint for number one: The Berber and Tuareg names will feature a large
number of Muhammads and Abdullahs. Hint for number two: There are none,
the Berber poets wrote in Arabic and completely adopted Arabic cultural
norms and themes. Hint for number three: There are none. By the end of the
10th century, Latin had been completely replaced by Arabic as a literary
and governmental language of choice among the Andalusian Christians. Even
their religious rites were in Arabic.)
> >Almoravids in changing the culture. (As an aside, even the Christians had
> >a rough time of it with Andalusian culture. Up to 200 years after the
> >fall of Toledo, the Christians of of that city were still writing their
> >legal contracts in Arabic.
>
> That indicates rather good cultural tolerance and mutual understanding, which
> was in very short supply elsewhere around the Europe. On the other hand, most
> Indians tend still write their legal contracts in English and run commerce
> in English, but it still desn't make the Indians into Englishpeople.
What it indicates is a recognition on the part of Alfonso VI, and 350
years worth of his successors, that Islamic culture and the Arabic
language had a particularily strong hold on the natives, even long after
those natives had converted to Christianity. One of Alfonso's first acts
upon entering Toledo was to formally reinstate Visigothic law. Yet if the
law of the land was Visigothic, why did the natives continue to use
Islamic-style documents and adjudicate their disputes in the fashion of
the Muslims? Why aren't there any records of trials by ordeal and trials
by combat if the Visigothic laws were reinstated?
Actually there is only one, albeit very famous, trial by fire: the
trial of the Roman Catholic rite versus the Mozarabic rite. Both books
were tossed into a fire to determine which was to be used by the
Christians of Toledo. Reportedly the Mozarabic book jumped out of the
fire, but Alfonso VI, who was influenced by the hardline Cluniacs, kicked
it back in, saying something to the effect of "I'm the King here." And
thus the Roman brand of Catholicism was forced upon the Mozarabs.
(According to Roman standards, one of the big problems with the Mozarabic
rite was that it was headed away from the notion of the Trinity towards a
strictly monotheistic view of God, whom the Mozarabs called Allah. Sound
familiar?)
If you need anymore proof that the culture of Al-Andalus was Arab/Muslim
read all you can about the Moriscos and their history. The descendents of
converted Muslims and nominally good Spanish Catholics, the Moriscos
continued to produce a secret body of literature, written in Arabic
characters, until their expulsion from Spain in 1609.
Paul J. Gans
fleur-de-lis (ha...@delta.hut.fi) wrote:
: In article <4puog6$e...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com> go...@ix.netcom.com(Ian Goss) writes:
: >same. Usually horses never wore armor until the latter days of the
: >Hundred Years war.
:
: During the latter days of the 100YW, the knights had almost universally
: adopted the habit of fighting on foot.
Perhaps the horses rode the knights in battle? :-)
------ Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
PS: Sorry, I couldn't help it. The mental image conjured up
is too funny.
Therion
Azure 7 (azu...@aol.com) wrote:
: but more often than not, knight were just that. Landed gentries,
: rather than an actual farmed forces.
Great typo.
Therion
Joseph M. Emmanuel
On 19 Jun 1996 14:03:21 +0200, Ketil Z Malde <ke...@ii.uib.no> wrote:
>> That is it, West does not want to accept (acknowledge) the
>> contribution of Arab culture it has received.
>
>I think you're exagerrating quite a bit. Nobody's denying that Arab
>culture has had an impact on (southern) European culture. Nobody's
>denying that the Arab nation(s) were a lot more advanced intellectually
>than Western Europe in the middle ages.
>
>However, claiming that Arabic has had _great_ influence on the English
>language is a bit outrageous IMHO.
H. D. Miller, here in this news group, clearly showed they did. One's
opinion does not change the historical facts.
>> Arabs should be put down in any turn and made to look as terorists,
>
>I'm not going to comment on modern day Arab culture, but as far as I can
>see, you're the only one who has brought this up.
You seems to be embarrassed that I brought it up. I rest my case:).
H.D. Miller
In article <31c9068e...@nntp.indirect.com>,
mait...@mail.indirect.com (Joseph M. Emmanuel) wrote:
> On 19 Jun 1996 14:03:21 +0200, Ketil Z Malde <ke...@ii.uib.no> wrote:
>
> >> That is it, West does not want to accept (acknowledge) the
> >> contribution of Arab culture it has received.
> >
> >I think you're exagerrating quite a bit. Nobody's denying that Arab
> >culture has had an impact on (southern) European culture. Nobody's
> >denying that the Arab nation(s) were a lot more advanced intellectually
> >than Western Europe in the middle ages.
> >
> >However, claiming that Arabic has had _great_ influence on the English
> >language is a bit outrageous IMHO.
>
> H. D. Miller, here in this news group, clearly showed they did. One's
> opinion does not change the historical facts.
>
Sort of. I think the Arabic component of English is limited to some
very important loanwords and concepts, but I don't believe that Arabic had
any substantial impact on the grammar or develepment of English. I am
willing, however, to state that the effects of Arabic on the development
of Spanish were mighty important, although I am not certain how much of
that was passed through to French. One of the problems with your chain of
influences (Arabic-Spanish-French-English) is that it's very difficult to
follow just what came from where. Many of the Arabic words in French are
not the result of Spanish contact, but the result of the occupation of
Algeria. Likewise, many of the Arabic words in English aren't the result
of a French transmission but, of the English involvement in the Middle
East. In both cases these are 19th century borrowings, too far along to
have been the result of medieval doings.
In this group, I am probably the biggest advocate for a theory that
posits a widespread Arab/Muslim influence on Western civilization,
(luckily, I can usually back my outrageous claims up) but I just can't see
any Arabic influence on English grammar, and little on French grammar.
There are some grammatical items which are very similar to Arabic, but
this is most likely coincidence.
It might be possible that the Arab/Muslim mania for grammar and
lexicography somehow affected the way languages were studied in Christian
Europe and this somehow resulted in an attempt to regularize venacular
grammars. But, I've never looked at the question seriously, nor do I know
of anyone who has, so I can't say. Beware, Terra Icognita.
H.D. Miller
Dave Forth
Joseph M. Emmanuel wrote:
[snip]
>The whole point is that the light wight wariors won since they could tire
>out the other guy. If this simple concept is hard to understand, then I do
>not know how I can explain it better:).
If this was true then the heavy knight would never developed in the
first place. The more armour you wore the quicker you got killed! Is
that the idea?
Dave
St. Ives, England
Paul J. Gans
H.D. Miller (hdmi...@minerva.cis.yale.edu) wrote:
[deletions]
: In this group, I am probably the biggest advocate for a theory that
: posits a widespread Arab/Muslim influence on Western civilization,
: (luckily, I can usually back my outrageous claims up) but I just can't see
: any Arabic influence on English grammar, and little on French grammar.
: There are some grammatical items which are very similar to Arabic, but
: this is most likely coincidence.
[more deletions]
I agree with you, pending discussion of the word "widespread".
The language business is a red herring; unimportant except as
I believe you pointed out, the name often came along with the
trade item or the idea.
Most folks interested in medieval history are unaware of the
extent to which Moslems have influenced Europe. (I'm using the
word Moslem because it wasn't just Arabs.)
First there is physical presence. It wasn't just Spain, though
the Arab presence in Spain provided Europe with a great deal of
contact with both Arab and Jewish sources. In addition, Arabs
raided from Spain, reaching as far north as Tours and Paris. They
were *not* stopped in the south by Roland. They also occupied
segments of the south of France for quite a while. Indeed "piracy"
(which is what the Christians called Arab control of the western
Mediterranean during part of this time) was often based in southern
France.
Then there was Sicily and southern Italy. Not only was Sicily an
Arab posession for quite a while (all those folks who claim to be
"pure" Sicilian should be aware of this), but even after the Norman
conquest of the area, Arabs were a notable element in the poplulation.
And one must not forget the middle east. There was an extensive
pilgrim movement to Palestine during the high middle ages preceding
the Crusades. This brought Christians into contact with the
inhabitants of the area, mostly Arabs, but not totally Arab.
Throughout all of this there was trade. Much trade. Big trade.
A fair number of cities in Italy got very very rich from this trade.
Does anyone think that all that was brought back was trade goods?
There is some evidence that the mathematics used by Copernicus
was, in fact, Arab or Syrian mathematics. But I get ahead of
myself.
Next there was intellectual contact. This was enormous. By the
11th century educated Europeans were fascinated by Moslem intellectual
output. Translations of writings were commissioned. Jews were
employed to translate from Arabic into the local languages.
The list of Greek works translated into latin during this time is
quite large. What is just as important was the translation of
Arab works into latin. Algebra and the "modern" use of zero came
from this, as did many other things. Medical ideas were imported
as well. It is no accident that the first University offering a
degree in medicine was in Sicily.
Lastly, and often neglected, there was envy. Europeans who had been
to the middle east or to Spain understood how poorly they really lived.
Anyone who has been to Granada and seen the Alhambra, the impregnable
Alcazar of the last Arab stronghold in Spain, KNOWS how poorly the
Europeans lived.
The reaction to this was enormous. Spending in the aristocracy
skyrocketed. Luxuries were wanted and imported. Nobles vied
with each other trying to be the most "up-to-date". The result
was a constant and severe need for money. This need, in my
opinion, drove a lot of European development and, again in my
opinion, made the European "discovery" of the rest of the world
--for profit, I remind everyone, inevitable.
So one could say that the Moslem world was, in the end, responsible
for the emergence of the Europeans.
-------- Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
Joseph M. Emmanuel
> If you need anymore proof that the culture of Al-Andalus was Arab/Muslim
>read all you can about the Moriscos and their history. The descendents of
>converted Muslims and nominally good Spanish Catholics, the Moriscos
>continued to produce a secret body of literature, written in Arabic
>characters, until their expulsion from Spain in 1609.
Well in Christian spanish culture in South West (USA), and I am sure many
other places, there a saint called The Lady Of Fatimah. She is one of
permanent saints in their culture. Fatimah was the daughter of prophet
Muhammed and many Muslims regard her very highly (almost same as Christians
regard their saints).
Can it be the influence of Islam which made Fatimah to continue to be
regarded as a saint, even after people of Spain were converted to
Christianity?
Joseph M. Emmanuel
> Sort of. I think the Arabic component of English is limited to some
>very important loanwords and concepts, but I don't believe that Arabic had
>any substantial impact on the grammar or develepment of English. I am
>willing, however, to state that the effects of Arabic on the development
>of Spanish were mighty important, although I am not certain how much of
>that was passed through to French. One of the problems with your chain of
>influences (Arabic-Spanish-French-English) is that it's very difficult to
>follow just what came from where. Many of the Arabic words in French are
>not the result of Spanish contact, but the result of the occupation of
>Algeria. Likewise, many of the Arabic words in English aren't the result
>of a French transmission but, of the English involvement in the Middle
>East. In both cases these are 19th century borrowings, too far along to
>have been the result of medieval doings.
>
> In this group, I am probably the biggest advocate for a theory that
>posits a widespread Arab/Muslim influence on Western civilization,
>(luckily, I can usually back my outrageous claims up) but I just can't see
>any Arabic influence on English grammar, and little on French grammar.
>There are some grammatical items which are very similar to Arabic, but
>this is most likely coincidence.
>
> It might be possible that the Arab/Muslim mania for grammar and
>lexicography somehow affected the way languages were studied in Christian
>Europe and this somehow resulted in an attempt to regularize venacular
>grammars. But, I've never looked at the question seriously, nor do I know
>of anyone who has, so I can't say. Beware, Terra Icognita.
>
>H.D. Miller
Can you then explain to me: How come languages in Europe were not as
powerful, as they are now, before influence of Arabic came to Europe?
We still have people in England who speak old English. Their language is
not as expressive as the new English. What made English more expressive
after French invasions?
French has male and female for names, so does Arabic. They use extra
alphabet in their words which are not pronounced, so does Arabic, etc.
I am not saying that Arabic replaced Latin. I am saying it enhanced these
languages.
As you mentioned above: "But, I've never looked at the question seriously,
nor do I know of anyone who has, so I can't say."
Maybe it is time someone look at it and come up with some answers. I see
this as a very good topic to do a research. My assertion on this is, a
personal feeling, based on my familiarity with these languages. I see a
great possibility that there has been much larger influence than
anticipated.
Ketil Z Malde
mait...@mail.indirect.com (Joseph M. Emmanuel) writes:
> Can you then explain to me: How come languages in Europe were not as
> powerful, as they are now, before influence of Arabic came to Europe?
What do you mean by ``powerful''? You seem to assert that Arabic is a
more powerful language than any of the European languages without
bothering to define what you mean by that. Which makes the assertion
basically worthless.
> We still have people in England who speak old English. Their language
> is not as expressive as the new English. What made English more
> expressive after French invasions?
Uh, French? You suggest that French was, by 1066, heavily influenced by
Arabic.
> French has male and female for names, so does Arabic. They use extra
> alphabet in their words which are not pronounced, so does Arabic, etc.
This is getting silly. Norwegian uses gendered nouns. German does.
I'm sure a linguist could point out dozens of languages that do. Does
that mean they all derive from Arabic? Jeez. Norwegian also has silent
letters in words. Bet they didn't have that before the Arabic
influence, eh?
My guess would be that gendered nouns go way back to the Indo-European
common roots of the languages. Silent letters in words would arise when
oral language evolves, while written language does not. (E.g. Old
English ``kn-'' was indeed pronounced with the ``k'')
> I am not saying that Arabic replaced Latin. I am saying it enhanced
> these languages.
I'm not a linguist or anything, but the Arabic influence on English is
certainly a *lot* less than the influence of Latin, German, French,
Norwegian/Danish - and probably also behind Greek, Celtic languages, and
many more.
> As you mentioned above: "But, I've never looked at the question
> seriously, nor do I know of anyone who has, so I can't say."
Have _you_? To my untrained eye, your argument seems to be rather biased,
and unprecise. Have any sources?
Really, that a language has had tremendous impact on another
means more than a handful of loan words, or share some superficial
grammatical properties.
~kzm
Ketil Z Malde
mait...@mail.indirect.com (Joseph M. Emmanuel) writes:
> Well in Christian spanish culture in South West (USA), and I am sure
> many other places, there a saint called The Lady Of Fatimah. She is
> one of permanent saints in their culture.
Encyclopædia Britannica tells us that the Lady of Fatima (no ``h'', but
hey, it's silent anyway :-) is an apparition of the ``virgin'' Mary in
the _village_ of Fatima, in Portugal. See
http://www.cais.com/npacheco/fatima/fatima.html
for details on this.
> Fatimah was the daughter of prophet Muhammed and many Muslims regard
> her very highly (almost same as Christians regard their saints).
That's a different girl.
> Can it be the influence of Islam which made Fatimah to continue to be
> regarded as a saint, even after people of Spain were converted to
> Christianity?
Heh, you wish. However, the influence of Islam definitely comes into
play, as the village is named after a ``12th-century Moorish princess''.
(Moors? What Moors?)
~kzm
H.D. Miller
In article <31ca41cf...@nntp.indirect.com>,
mait...@mail.indirect.com (Joseph M. Emmanuel) wrote:
> Can you then explain to me: How come languages in Europe were not as
> powerful, as they are now, before influence of Arabic came to Europe?
Like many others who have responded to your often very perceptive posts I
have been troubled by the word "powerful".
> We still have people in England who speak old English. Their language is
> not as expressive as the new English. What made English more expressive
> after French invasions?
The adoption a large number of latinate words greatly increased the
vocabulary of English. If you look at carefully at english you will see
that the latinate words are grouped around finance, government, and
scholarship (The result of a Frenchified ruling class) while the germanic
words are in agriculture, seafaring, and descriptions of terrain features
(The result of an Anglo-Saxon peasant class). In those places where the
two groups overlapped, modern English has two words for the same item.
(Food names are like this "swine" and "pork", "cow" and "beef", "sheep"
and "mutton" but notice that the latinate words are focused on the table
product while the Anglo-Saxon words are still on the hoof, so to
speak--producing peasant vs. consuming ruler.) I don't know what you mean
by people in England who still speak old english. Perhaps you mean that
rural sections of the population retain a larger stock vocabulary of words
with germanic roots.
> French has male and female for names, so does Arabic. They use extra
> alphabet in their words which are not pronounced, so does Arabic, etc.
Yes this is true, but it is probably coincidental or the result of the
proto-indoeuropean, "Ur language" (pre-Tower of Babel, religiously and
metaphorically). I used to think that Arabic was the only language with a
singular, plural and dual structure, until it was recently pointed out by
a friend that both Greek and Icelandic (!) have a dual. While I can
believe classical Greek may have influenced Arabic, I can't, for the life
of me, figure out how to link Arabic and Icelandic Old Norse. (maybe those
Icelanders captured by Turks in the "15th century slavery" thread did it.)
> I am not saying that Arabic replaced Latin. I am saying it enhanced these
> languages.
>
> As you mentioned above: "But, I've never looked at the question seriously,
> nor do I know of anyone who has, so I can't say."
>
> Maybe it is time someone look at it and come up with some answers. I see
> this as a very good topic to do a research. My assertion on this is, a
> personal feeling, based on my familiarity with these languages. I see a
> great possibility that there has been much larger influence than
> anticipated.
>
I agree, I think it would make a wonderful topic for a very skilled and
dedicated linguist. Maybe someone reading this will be inspired to
examine the subject.
H.D. Miller
Walter Nelson
H.D. Miller (hdmi...@minerva.cis.yale.edu) wrote:
: Compare this to the rights of your basic 10th century European
: peasant. What would be the odds of his 1) owning property? and 2) being
: compensated for it if some leige-lord demanded it?
:
What were the odds of a Lebanese, Sudanese or Egyptian peasant owning
property and controlling his destiny? I do not ask this to be
argumentative. I honestly don't know, but I have always held the
assumption (perhaps false) that the bottom rung in Islam was not
significantly better off than the bottom rung in Christendom. I would love
to be enlightened regarding the relative position of peasants in the two
worlds.
: What I've been driving at, in my long-winded, convoluted style, is that
: Christianity didn't win the Medieval Cold War, Islam did.
I think you have carried your analogy too far, since it suggests an end
point--a point at which Islam "wins". I don't think we have reached a
significant end point even yet--or if we have, it was in the 18th Century,
when the Turkish Empire finally ran out of steam, and the "Turk" ceased to
tbe the bogy man he once had been.
While it is certainly correct to assert that Christendom gained more from
interracting with Islam than Islam from the Christians, the "cold war"
analogy focuses on conflict, and that conflict continued, even as the
Europeans were assimilating and building upon what they had gained from the
East. Islam gave us astrolabes and zeros and also returned to Europe
our own lost Greek and Roman legacy, but in payment for this priceless
gift, we Europeans spent many centuries killing as many Muslims as we
could manage.
This isn't to say that the Muslims were passive victims who just wanted to
love everybody. Vienna wasn't besieged by people who were looking to make
friends. The animosity was mutual.
But to carry the "Cold War" analogy to its logical conclusion, I think you
would have to say that the West won. In terms of territory lost or gained,
it was a draw. The Muslims were pushed out of places like Spain, Sicily
and the Balkans (which of course, had been Christian to start with), but
held on to the Eastern Roman Empire, which was a far richer prize.
However, if the end result of our "winning" the recent Cold War is the US
emerging as the dominant power in the world, then the historical analogy
would be the dominance of European Christendom, which began in the 16th
Century, and is, perhaps, only now being seriously challenged. One need
only look at the rather sorry position of the Ottoman empire by the 19th
Century (and they were the only Islamic power worth noticing by that time)
to see the decayed position of Islam on the world scene. Europe on the
other hand had experienced several uninterrupted centuries of growth in
economic and military power.
If you are using a war analogy, then you must judge the outcome on a
military and political basis. Science and culture become secondary. On
that basis, after a long struggle, Islam lost the Medieval Cold War (though
it happened after the Middle Ages had ended). Much of the problems we are
experiencing to this day are a result of that defeat, and the European's
exploitation of it.
On an other point, I would suggest that while Islamic legal models may have
had some influence in areas where they had actually occupied ground for a
while, the European models of individual rights owe more to an evolution of
Germanic and Roman systems. I fail to see the connection between Arab
legal scholars and current concepts of eminent domain, but I can see clear
threads of evolution coming out of ancient "common law" models. Some
Europeans always had rights--the great evolution has been that now *ALL*
Europeans have rights. I just don't see that coming from the East. Just
because it may have existed there, doesn't mean that we learned it from
them.
Could the similarities in Islamic and European legal concepts owe more to a
shared Roman heritage than to a direct influence of Arab lawyers upon
Europeans?
Cheers,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Nelson | INSERT PITHY WITTICISM HERE
RAND |
walter...@rand.org |
___________________________________________________________________________
H.D. Miller
In article <4qcpg0$c...@news.nyu.edu>, ga...@scholar.nyu.edu (Paul J. Gans) wrote:
(snip)
>
> Most folks interested in medieval history are unaware of the
> extent to which Moslems have influenced Europe. (I'm using the
> word Moslem because it wasn't just Arabs.)
You're absolutely right to describe it as a Muslim culture, for it
wasn't just Arabs, although it's core was Arabic. (I know I'm supposed
to avoid argument by analogy, but I can't help myself, I'm addicted to it,
so forgive me.) In many ways Muslim Culture, especially my favorite
variety, Hispano-Arab, is very similar to American culture. Just as
America can be called an Anglo-Saxon culture, because it's wrapped around
an English core, so to can Islam be called an Arabic culture, because it's
wrapped around and Arab core. And just as the pure Anglo-Saxon stock of
America was overwhelmed and enhanced by a wonderful, jumbled-up, and
vibrant mixture of cultures and races so to was the initially pure
Meccan-Arab beginning of Islam quickly overwhelmed by a wonderful,
jumbled-up, and vibrant mixture of cultures and races. The analogy is a
very good one (sorry again for patting myself on the back), because the
Arabs were the aristocracy of Islam for just about as long as the
Mayflower Anglo-Saxons were the American aristocracy (300 or so years.)
(deletion)
> Lastly, and often neglected, there was envy. Europeans who had been
> to the middle east or to Spain understood how poorly they really lived.
> Anyone who has been to Granada and seen the Alhambra, the impregnable
> Alcazar of the last Arab stronghold in Spain, KNOWS how poorly the
> Europeans lived.
>
> The reaction to this was enormous. Spending in the aristocracy
> skyrocketed. Luxuries were wanted and imported. Nobles vied
> with each other trying to be the most "up-to-date". The result
> was a constant and severe need for money. This need, in my
> opinion, drove a lot of European development and, again in my
> opinion, made the European "discovery" of the rest of the world
> --for profit, I remind everyone, inevitable.
>
>
> So one could say that the Moslem world was, in the end, responsible
> for the emergence of the Europeans.
I have long thought that this European envy of Muslim standards of living
was the engine of the Renaissance,. Scholars pay a lot of attention to
the intellectual transfer of philosophies and theories, not just because
it's mightly important, which it is, but also because it's fairly easy to
trace the trail of Aristotelian ideas (the preeminent example) from Greece
to Constantinople to Baghdad to Toledo to Paris. There's a nice handy
paper trail to follow. But it's the mundane, every-day interactions--the
commercial transactions between European Christians consumers and Jewish
and Muslim merchants--that were most important in getting Europe ready to
accept the new intellectualism. It's like the Cold War (to continue with
my argument-by-analogy sins), with a backwards and oppressive Europe
playing the role of the Soviet Bloc, pitted against a modernized and
liberal Islam standing in for the West, especially America. To
oversimplify (another of my faults), you now substitute guitar-playing
trubadours swarming medieval Europe for the Cold War's Voice of America
Jazz broadcasts, sugar-candy for Coca-cola, and colorful cotton and silk
for Levis.
One thing widely discussed by this thread and others in this group as
been the relative military strengths of Islam and Christianity (Please,
lets not start up with the Mongol stuff again!!). And the conclusion we
reached was that the Muslims won some and the Christians won some (just
like the military battles-by-proxy of the Soviets and the Americans). But
these discussions of medieval military might, although important, miss
the point of the overall intellectual conflict. For, at its highest
level, the battle between Islam and Christianity was a war of ideas.
The ideas of Christian Europe were based upon a communal notion of human
society, in which the individual was only a small portion of the socially
stratified whole. (There have been several good books in the last decade
about the 11th and 12th century shift from communal-based identity to
individual identity in Europe). The ideas of Islam prominently featured
the notion that men are free individuals, free to think and free to act
individually (within religious limits). Men are also the possessors of
specific individual, not communal, rights. Let me give you an example: In
Ira Lapidus's book, MUSLIM CITIES OF THE LATE MIDDLE AGES, there is a
discussion of emminent domain as a means of taking private property. Most
Islamic legal schools, allow for emminent domain only if fair compensation
is given to the property owner, and only if the project is vital to the
city (like fortifications) But, according to the Maliki school (one of the
most important legal schools) private property may not be taken, fairly
compensated or not, for any reason at all unless the owner agrees to sell
it!! Compare this to the rights of your basic 10th century European
peasant. What would be the odds of his 1) owning property? and 2) being
compensated for it if some leige-lord demanded it?
What I've been driving at, in my long-winded, convoluted style, is that
Christianity didn't win the Medieval Cold War, Islam did. And Islam won
the same way the West won our Cold War, by having a higher standard of
living and the most attractive set of ideas in the great bazaar of ideas.
The European shift from a communally based notion of identity to a
personal identity, endowed with rights, was the result of European envy
engendered by all of that glorious stuff pouring into Europe from the Near
East. Of course, once the Europeans bought into the ideology of a more
free and equal society (compared to what they had before, at least), in
which risk was properly rewarded with fame, riches and increased social
standing, they asked for a rematch with Islam. This time, helped along by
the discoveries of those daring **individuals** Magellen and Columbus,
they cleaned house.
Here's a final quote to chew on:
"Abraham and the prophets knew than men are free. Christ knew it. The
Saracens knew it. And 200 years after the fall of Granada, the idea was
gaining momentum along the eastern edge of North America."
Henry Grady Weaver, THE MAINSPRING OF HUMAN PROGRESS, The Foundation for
Economic Education, Inc., 1953 (Start of Chapter 12.)
H.D. Miller
Joseph M. Emmanuel
On Thu, 20 Jun 1996 17:31:19 GMT, dfo...@kos.compulink.co.uk (Dave Forth)
wrote:
Not in the beginning. In the beginning European (nights) fought one
another. They both opponents were heavily armed. But when Muslims came
into the picture, they were the one with the light weight warriors. They
developed the strategy to tire the heavy armored nights and then kill them.
Nights realized it, after a while, and lighten their armor to match light
Islamic warriors.
WMclean290
In article <31ca41cf...@nntp.indirect.com>,
mait...@mail.indirect.com (Joseph M. Emmanuel) writes:
>Can you then explain to me: How come languages in Europe were not as
>powerful, as they are now, before influence of Arabic came to Europe?
>
>We still have people in England who speak old English. Their language is
>not as expressive as the new English. What made English more expressive
>after French invasions?
>
>French has male and female for names, so does Arabic. They use extra
>alphabet in their words which are not pronounced, so does Arabic, etc.
>
"Darn this weak and inexpressive Old English! It is only good for
inarticulate gruntings like "Beowulf" and "The Battle of Maldon"! I wish
the French would hurry up and invade us, and bring us crucial innovations
like male and female for names (gosh, Latin has nothing like that!) and an
extra alphabet in their words that are not pronounced! English will never
be a powerful language until we have male and female for names too!"
"Once we have a powerful new language, it will be the end of medieval
warfare as we know it!"
Will
(I'm so happy we have male for names now, just like Arabic)
Murff
In <31c96690...@news.compulink.co.uk> Dave Forth
: [snip]
: >The whole point is that the light wight wariors won since they could tire
: >out the other guy. If this simple concept is hard to understand, then I do
: >not know how I can explain it better:).
: If this was true then the heavy knight would never developed in the
: first place. The more armour you wore the quicker you got killed! Is
: that the idea?
Not necessarily. Lightness of armour confers mobility, but it also requires
it, in the sense that you have to get out of an impending situation which
looks like it will develop into a slugging match, if you wish to fight
again.
If your primary arms are hand-to-hand (or the mounted equivalent), you
are going to trade heavy blows, hence the incentive to develop heavy
armour. If your primary arms are missile weapons of some sort (more important
with the introduction of increasingly reliable and powerful firearms),
and you are not required by tactical doctrine or the threat of social
stigma to stand and fight an opponent in melee, heavy armour would be
expected to reduce your effectiveness.
This does not mean that it is not a good thing to have as much protection
as possible. Just that it is better to have as much protection as you can
afford and still remain effective. Fleur-de-Lis has given us data on his
armour - it could doubtless have been made heavier, but if this was at
the cost of being immobile it would be less effective on a battlefield.
Consider the WW2 comparison between the heavy German Tigers, and the lighter
Russian T-34. It is only with the development of more capable engines that
modern MBTs such as Challenger and M1 have been able to mount very heavy
armour, without turning into metal pillboxes.
--
Murff... http://www.clues.com/~murff/home.html
Rathwig
mait...@mail.indirect.com (Joseph M. Emmanuel) wrote:
>French has male and female for names, so does Arabic. They use extra
>alphabet in their words which are not pronounced, so does Arabic, etc.
>
>I am not saying that Arabic replaced Latin. I am saying it enhanced
these
>languages.
How could Arabic have influenced Latin which was developing in the sixth
century BC in relative seclusion from Arabic, though not Semitic,
influences? It is much more likely, given the history of the spread of the
Roman Empire--and with it, Latin--that Arabic languages and dialects were
influenced by Latin. French is based on that same Latin, and while it may
have some Arabic loan-words , it was not noticeably influenced by Arabic.
>As you mentioned above: "But, I've never looked at the question
seriously,
>nor do I know of anyone who has, so I can't say."
>
>Maybe it is time someone look at it and come up with some answers. I see
>this as a very good topic to do a research.
Yes, and I believe you should do some research as well. It is good that
you have developed a theory, but theories should be based upon research;
research should not be done to prove a theory.
F. Ian Ronald
University of Waterloo
Department of History
H.D. Miller
In article <4qfa43$1...@rand.org>, wal...@thoreau.rand.org (Walter Nelson)
wrote:
> H.D. Miller (hdmi...@minerva.cis.yale.edu) wrote:
> : Compare this to the rights of your basic 10th century European
> : peasant. What would be the odds of his 1) owning property? and 2) being
> : compensated for it if some leige-lord demanded it?
> :
> What were the odds of a Lebanese, Sudanese or Egyptian peasant owning
> property and controlling his destiny? I do not ask this to be
> argumentative. I honestly don't know, but I have always held the
> assumption (perhaps false) that the bottom rung in Islam was not
> significantly better off than the bottom rung in Christendom. I would love
> to be enlightened regarding the relative position of peasants in the two
> worlds.
Actually the odds were pretty good that if the peasant could get the money
together he could own his own land. One of the things you are struck by
if you go read a book on everyday life in medieval Islam is that everyone
participated directly in business. (I reccommend Schlomo Dov Goitein's
very interesting five volume work the Cairo Geniza, A MEDITERRANEAN
SOCIETY) By everyone, I mean everyone, from governmental minister to the
Chief Rabbi of Cairo, down to the lowest street sweeper. Even slaves (who
had amazing rights under Islam) traded for their own accounts, keeping the
profits seperate from their masters. Economic freedom was one of the
things guaranteed by Islam, and social mobility was possible through the
acquisition of wealth, and through education, just as in our society. The
average Egyptian fellah probably had a much better time of it than your
basic European serf. He had a much better diet, better doctors, and if
things got really bad he could always pack it up and move to somewhere
else, as he wasn't legally tied to the land, and the Muslim culture
allowed for and encouraged freedom of travel throughout Islam.
> : What I've been driving at, in my long-winded, convoluted style, is that
> : Christianity didn't win the Medieval Cold War, Islam did.
>
(deletion)
> But to carry the "Cold War" analogy to its logical conclusion, I think you
> would have to say that the West won. In terms of territory lost or gained,
> it was a draw. The Muslims were pushed out of places like Spain, Sicily
> and the Balkans (which of course, had been Christian to start with), but
> held on to the Eastern Roman Empire, which was a far richer prize.
>
> However, if the end result of our "winning" the recent Cold War is the US
> emerging as the dominant power in the world, then the historical analogy
> would be the dominance of European Christendom, which began in the 16th
> Century, and is, perhaps, only now being seriously challenged. One need
> only look at the rather sorry position of the Ottoman empire by the 19th
> Century (and they were the only Islamic power worth noticing by that time)
> to see the decayed position of Islam on the world scene. Europe on the
> other hand had experienced several uninterrupted centuries of growth in
> economic and military power.
You've correctly pointed out the dangers of argument by analogy, which I
had joked about in my post. You are right that by analogy with modern
Cold War, Christendom did win the Medieval Cold War. But, Christendom did
it only by adopting many of the notions of Islam, its penchant for
rationalistic thought and its regard for the positon of the individual in
society. I had used the Cold War analogy only you an understandable
convienience, and you called me on it.
(deletion)
> On an other point, I would suggest that while Islamic legal models may have
> had some influence in areas where they had actually occupied ground for a
> while, the European models of individual rights owe more to an evolution of
> Germanic and Roman systems. I fail to see the connection between Arab
> legal scholars and current concepts of eminent domain, but I can see clear
> threads of evolution coming out of ancient "common law" models. Some
> Europeans always had rights--the great evolution has been that now *ALL*
> Europeans have rights. I just don't see that coming from the East. Just
> because it may have existed there, doesn't mean that we learned it from
> them.
I probably should have made my use of the eminent domain example more
clearly. I wasn't theorizing that the Islamic notion of eminent domain
somehow filtered into Europe. I was merely providing a comparative
example, an example of Islamic rights which could be put up against
European rights.
You are right to point out the most European laws have their basis in a
combination of common law, Roman law, and the legal codes of the germanic
tribes. And you are also right to say that Europeans always had rights.
But, I would point out that those rights were always group-based rather
than individually-based. Carolignian law was a complex system of group
rights. How you were treated depended entirely upon which group you
belonged to. If you were a Bergundian you were liable to the Bergundian
legal codes; if you were Visigoth you were under Visgothic law; If you
were a member of the clergy you were governed by canon law, which exempted
you from the civil authorities. Even the way disputes were settled
depended upon a group action known as oath swearing, where you got
together as many of your kinsmen as possible to swear that you were
innocent. And your opponents gathered their kinsmen together to swear to
your guilt. Guilt or innocence was determined by the number and social
standing of your supporters or detractors. Our modern ideas of legal
evidence, testimony and truth didn't apply at all, and woe be to the
outsider or foreigner accused of a crime under this system. (see THE
SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES IN EARLY MEDIEVAL EUROPE, Davies and Fouracre,
eds.)
By comparison, in Islam one universal law, Shar'ia, applied to all
Muslims, regardless of tribe or nationality. Slaves could, and frequently
did take their masters to law, and frequently prevailed at law. They had
recognized *individual* rights--rights that their condition as slaves
didn't obviate. Non-Muslim foreigners, as long as their weren't
polytheists, had the same rights (although their legal testimony was given
less weight). In court, evidence was taken in a systematic fashion,
testimony was given, and the characters of the accused and the witnesses
were examined closely, before judgement was rendered in accordace with
Shar'ia.
Muslims who were familiar with European legal codes were horrified by
the barbarism of Eruopean legal methods. There is a very amusing Muslim
account of a trial by ordeal and a trial by combat that took place in
Palastine in the 12th century in Amin Malouf's THE CRUSADES THROUGH ARAB
EYES.
Finally, I disagree about Europeans not learning of individual rights
from Islam. The whole possibility of a better way of living was raised by
the importation of goods from Islam into Christian Europe. Christians who
lived on the periphery of Islam, in Spain and Italy, generally enjoyed
more freedom and a higher standard of living than those who lived farther
away. Italian and Spanish merchants started the Christian merchantile
revolution, and remeber that the Renaissance started in Italy a century
and a half before it got rolling in England and Northern Germany.
I've studied and written on the legal life of the Christian Mozarabs
of Toledo in the period immediately following the reconquest in 1085. And
the two things that impressed me the most were the incredible air of
tolerance, and the profoundly Islamic character of their legal structures
and methods of dispute settlement. This is in spite of Alfonso VI's
formal reinstatment of the Lex Visigothorum as the law of the land upon
his entry into Toledo. The Lex Visigothorum was the law of pre-711
Spain, and it prominently featured both oath swearing and the ordeal. It
was also the most profoundly anti-Jewish of all Christian codes, ordering
forced conversion of adults and the removal of children from Jewish homes,
even from the homes of converts. Yet Alfonso, like his Muslim
predecessors, had many Arabic-speaking Jewish courtiers (much to the
extreme consternation of his Cluniac advisors), and the Mozarabs continued
to use Arabic-language, Islamic-style documents and courts until 350 years
after the reconquest, ignoring the Visigotic Codes entirely.
We also know that immediately following the reconquest of Toledo,
European scholars flooded into the city, lured by the availability of
libraries and books. The place was filled with students, learning Arabic,
and reading and translating everything they could get their hands on,
sending intellectual shock waves through Europe. At almost the exact same
moment, Sicily was being reconquered, with an almost identical effect, and
in Bologna, the single existing copy of the Justinian Code was
rediscovered, sitting on a shelf, where it had been forgotten nearly 400
years before. So that the rediscovery of the Christian/Roman legal
tradition coincided with the rise of Islamic rationalism and learning in
the universities of Europe. By the late 13th century, intellectual
battles were being fought in the University of Paris over Ibn Rushd
(Averroes) the great Andalusian-Arab rationalist and individualist thinker
and commentator on Aristotle. So, that while the basis of specific
European legal codes were European-Roman-Germanic, I would say that the
intellectual stimulus for greater individual autonomy was Islamic.
> Could the similarities in Islamic and European legal concepts owe more to a
> shared Roman heritage than to a direct influence of Arab lawyers upon
> Europeans?
There has been much research to show that Shar'ia depended upon Roman,
especially, provincial Roman legal codes. Some of it is convincing, some
of it not. Certianly, the early Muslim built upon the local legal
traditions, but you'd be hard pressed to prove exactly where the
connections lie and what parts of the Shar'ia are Greco-Roman.
H.D. Miller
David Friedman
In article <hdmiller-230...@acs-arap9.cis.yale.edu>,
hdmi...@minerva.cis.yale.edu (H.D. Miller) wrote:
I think both halves of this are mistaken. The description of European
practice describes practices that existed but were not universal--compare
the Icelandic case, where "group membership" (godord) was a voluntary
contractual arrangement and judgement was produced by a reasonably neutral
court. And I think you are confusing the question of whether rights were
group based with the question of whether everyone had identical rights.
Rights in the U.S. at present are individual, but U.S. citizens and
foreign citizens have different rights, so do citizens of different
states, so do adults and children, so do ... .
Perhaps more seriously, the description of Islam as a society in which
everyone was under the same legal rules is not, I believe, accurate. There
are four different schools of law in Sunni Islam; they regard themselves
as mutually orthodox, but produce different legal results. As far as I can
tell by casual reading, a large Muslim city would have had separate judges
and courts for each of the four schools, with each system applying to
those communities within the city that adhered to that law. Thus Ibn
Battuta, to take a notable example, spent some time as the Kharijite Qadi
of Delhi. In addition, I think would have been at least one court system
for the Shia, and separate court systems for Jews and Christians.
Such legal diversity seems to have been typical of both Christians and
Muslims in the Middle Ages. Welshmen in Wales did not come under English
law until the 16th century, Muslims under Christian rule during the
reconquista were, at least for a considerable while, under Muslim law,
Germans and Slavs living in the same areas had separate court systems,
... . (Most of this paragraph is from memory of a paper delivered at U
of Chicago Law School when I was there; I am afraid I have forgotten the
author).
David Friedman
Stella Nemeth
mait...@mail.indirect.com (Joseph M. Emmanuel) wrote:
>Can you then explain to me: How come languages in Europe were not as
>powerful, as they are now, before influence of Arabic came to Europe?
I've been reading this thread, and one problem with this idea is that
the chronology is wrong. WHEN would all of this influence have
happened? For this thesis to work the Arabs in Spain would have had
to have fundamentally influenced the French in the South of France
enough to have totally changed the direction that the language was
going, which would have had to have fundamentally influenced the
language of the North of France (not the same language at the time)
early enough so that the Normans could learn this version of French
and take it to England by 1066.
The problem with this thesis is that when the linguists started
looking at languages this isn't what they saw. What they saw were
languages based on Latin and basic German roots, with lots of loan
words for foreign objects and concepts coming in at various times.
Most of them later than this thesis would allow.
>We still have people in England who speak old English. Their language is
>not as expressive as the new English. What made English more expressive
>after French invasions?
There isn't anyone alive who is speaking Old English on a regular
basis. We aren't even sure what Middle English sounded like, although
we can make a good guess. English is a *powerful* language because it
is open to loan words, which it takes from wherever it can find them
for concepts and objects that either don't already exist within the
language, or for concepts and objects which are slightly different
from others, already named. So we end up with sofa, couch and divan
for upholstered pieces of furniture, and since such pieces of
furniture were more common in the Middle East and Spain and France
than in the England that was importing them (either the idea or the
actual objects) they imported the names for the objects too. And we
regularly pick up Japanese words for raw fish dishes, and Russian
words for political movements even in the 20th Century.
>French has male and female for names, so does Arabic. They use extra
>alphabet in their words which are not pronounced, so does Arabic, etc.
This is meaningless as others have already pointed out.
>I am not saying that Arabic replaced Latin. I am saying it enhanced these
>languages.
Of course it enhanced English. So did words from almost every
language in the world. But not at the right time to make basic
changes to the language. Japanese words are currently enhancing
English right now, but that doesn't mean that Japanese is a major
influence on English. Once again, the timing is off for that.
>As you mentioned above: "But, I've never looked at the question seriously,
>nor do I know of anyone who has, so I can't say."
>Maybe it is time someone look at it and come up with some answers. I see
>this as a very good topic to do a research. My assertion on this is, a
>personal feeling, based on my familiarity with these languages. I see a
>great possibility that there has been much larger influence than
>anticipated.
There really isn't anything to look up, research or come up with
answers about.
Stella Nemeth
s.ne...@ix.netcom.com
Joseph M. Emmanuel
>Certianly, the early Muslim built upon the local legal
>traditions,
>
>
>H.D. Miller
Indeed. The tribes in Arabia had the tradition of elders to settle the
dispute even brfore Islam. Still that is the way thing are supposed to be
settled. Sharia is based on community participation and the witness from
the commuity about the charactor of the accused. The witnesses are also
needed to pass a jusgement on the accuse.
I do not see any similarity in this and Roman-Germanic systems (of course I
do not know much about them either and apprecaite any input). My
assumption is Arabs had this tradition way before any recent culture could
have any influence on theim. They lived a nomadic life with a very ancient
tradition(s).
fleur-de-lis
>: During the latter days of the 100YW, the knights had almost universally
>: adopted the habit of fighting on foot.
>Perhaps the horses rode the knights in battle? :-)
Actually they did that :-) The knights rode to battlefield, but dismounted
to fight on foot; not unlike the mounted archers, whom the horse was only
the means of transportation and who dismounted to shoot. Mounted warfare
came to vogue again only after the 100YW af the adoption of lance-arret and
evolution of the "Maximilian" armour for both the horse and man. The last
time the English knights fought dismounted was at Flodden.
WMclean290
In article <31cbc12d...@nntp.indirect.com>,
mait...@mail.indirect.com (Joseph M. Emmanuel) writes:
>Not in the beginning. In the beginning European (nights) fought one
>another. They both opponents were heavily armed. But when Muslims came
>into the picture, they were the one with the light weight warriors. They
>developed the strategy to tire the heavy armored nights and then kill
them.
>
>Nights realized it, after a while, and lighten their armor to match light
>Islamic warriors.
>
>
Then why were the Spanish Knights wearing heavier armor in the 13th and
14th century, when they were pushing the Moslems back, than when the
Moslems first came into the picture?
Yes, I know the Spanish had a lot of light horse in their army then. But
contemporary sources like Froissart show that they considerd the fully
armored man-at-arms to be the real fighting strength of their army.
Still having trouble remembering how to spell Knight? Just remember this
simple rhyme:
Knights with a K go Krunch, Krunch, Krunch
While unarmored Moslems bleed a bunch.
Will
Donald Tucker
David Friedman (dd...@best.com) wrote:
<clip>
>hdmi...@minerva.cis.yale.edu (H.D. Miller) wrote:
<clip>
>>By comparison, in Islam one universal law, Shar'ia, applied
>>to all Muslims, regardless of tribe or nationality. Slaves
>>could, and frequently did take their masters to law, and
>>frequently prevailed at law. They had recognized *individual*
>>rights--rights that their condition as slaves didn't obviate.
>>Non-Muslim foreigners, as long as their weren't polytheists, had
>>the same rights (although their legal testimony was given
>>less weight). In court, evidence was taken in a systematic
>>fashion, testimony was given, and the characters of the accused
>>and the witnesses were examined closely, before judgement was
>>rendered in accordace with Shar'ia.
><clip>, the description of Islam as a society in which everyone
>was under the same legal rules is not, I believe, accurate.
>There are four different schools of law in Sunni Islam; they
>regard themselves as mutually orthodox, but produce different
>legal results. As far as I can tell by casual reading, a large
>Muslim city would have had separate judges and courts for each
>of the four schools, with each system applying to those
>communities within the city that adhered to that law. Thus
>Ibn Battuta, to take a notable example, spent some time as
>the Kharijite Qadi of Delhi. In addition, I think would have
>been at least one court system for the Shia, and separate court
>systems for Jews and Christians.
<clip>
I too am troubled by Mr. Miller's claim that "in Islam one universal
law, Shar'ia, applied to all Muslims, regardless of tribe or
nationality" and "Non-Muslim foreigners <clip> had the same rights".
I admit that I lack specific knowledge on Islamic practice during
the medieval period but David Friedman's comment "There are four
different schools of law in Sunni Islam; they regard themselves as
mutually orthodox, but produce different legal results" seems
generally accurate. [I seem to recall though, that one of the four
schools is Shi`ite--but that's peripheral to the point that there
is more than one law]. According to a note on Islamic Jurisprudence
(Fiqh-ash-Shari`ah) Schools of Thought (Madhaahib) -
"Islamic scholarship has historically asserted its breadth, scope,
and universality in the manifestations of schools of thought
(madhaahib). Traditionally, the four main schools of thought
have encompassed the overwhelming majority of Islamic thought
and jurisprudence in Muslim Civilization. For most Muslims, who
are not initiated in scholastic methods and texts, definitions and
directions for their living Islam is derived through Taqlid."
I checked Taquid and found comments such as:
"Sheikh Umar Barakat, the commentator of Umdat al-salik says:
'It is permissable to follow each of the four Imams (Allah be well
pleased with them), and permissable for anyone to follow one of them
on a legal question. It is not obligatory to follow one particular
Imam on all legal questions'"
This suggests to me that court shopping by the influential is a
problem in Islamic law. I believe my suspicion is confirmed by a
further comment in Taquid that:
"This does not, however, imply that it is lawful to indiscriminately
choose dispensations from each school, or that there are no conditions
for the above mentioned permissability. Imam Nawawi was asked for a
formal legal opinion on whether purusing dispensations in such a
manner was permissable:
Question: "Is it permissible for someone of a particular school too
follow a different school in matters that will be of benefit to him,
and to seek out dispensations?"
He answered (Allah be well pleased with him), " It is not permissable
to seek out dispensatoins (meaning it is unlawful, and the person who
does is corrupt (fasiq)) and Allah knows best" (Fatawa al-Imam
al-Nawawi)."
As for equality of non-Muslims, again I admit my lack of specific
knowledge on Islamic practice during the medieval period but I do
know that in the Ottoman Empire, although ethnic nationality was
not used to discriminate, Islam separated people into the world
of Islam and the world of non-Muslim heretics.
People's lives were defined and divided by religion, called "millets".
People dealt with the state through their millet's leaders in a
hierarchy from local to greater representatives.
Muslims were responsible to the "ulema" for taxes and legal
matters. Members of the Muslim millet (including persons converted
by force to become janissaries) were the only who could bear arms.
They were exempt from some taxes.
The Patriarch of Constantinople had authority over Balkan Orthodox
Christians, but Islamic law prevailed if there was conflict. The
Orthodox church was a "state within a state."
Jews were administered through the chief rabbi and small Christian
minorities were in a separate hierarchy.
I am also concerned about loose usage of the term "freedom".
Consider an extract froma current Islamic pamphlet on Human
Rights in Islam:
"6. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION: Islam gives the right of freedom
of thought and expression to all citizens of the Islamic state
on the condition that it should be used for the propagation of
virtue and truth and not for spreading evil and wickedness.
The Islamic concept of freedom of expression is much superior
to the concept prevalent in the West. Under no circumstances
would Islam allow evil and wickedness to be propagated. It also
does not give anybody the right to use abusive or offensive
language in the name of criticism. It was the practice of the
Muslims to enquire from the Holy Prophet whether on a certain
matter a divine injunction had been revealed to him. If he
said that he had received no divine injunction, the Muslims
freely expressed their opinion on the matter."
III&E Brochure Series; No. 7
(published by The Institute of Islamic Information and Education (III&E)
In other words "You can say anything you want, as long as someone
with the authority to interpret Islam does not disagree with you.
This logic seems to be the basis for actions such as condemning
writers like S. Rushdie to death for what they write or forceably
divorcing a Cairo academic from his wife for his views. AFAIK the
latter action was by a Sunni court, i.e. the "moderate" version of
Islam. If Medieval Islam applied a similar test I certainly would
not accept that it gave "individual freedom" as I recognize it.
So, precisely *what* was the nature of *individual* legal rights
in medieval Islam? I would welcome enlightenment as to how it
differed--if it did--from the material I cited in this post.
Cheers ___,__<@~__,___
Donald /^/^/^[#]^\^\^\
Petranodon: precursor to _/|\_
pendragon " " ©
David Friedman
A couple of further points in this thread:
Joseph M. Emmanuel wrote:
> Indeed. The tribes in Arabia had the tradition of elders to settle the
> dispute even brfore Islam. Still that is the way thing are supposed to be
> settled. Sharia is based on community participation and the witness from
> the commuity about the charactor of the accused. The witnesses are also
> needed to pass a jusgement on the accuse.
>
> I do not see any similarity in this and Roman-Germanic systems (of course I
> do not know much about them either and apprecaite any input). My
> assumption is Arabs had this tradition way before any recent culture could
> have any influence on theim. They lived a nomadic life with a very ancient
> tradition(s).
What you describe is actually quite similar to the Germanic tradition. The
original jury was not a body of unprejudiced neutrals but of members of
the community whose judgement reflected their individual knowledge.
My impression is that similar patterns appear in a wide variety of
"primitive" legal systems, including wergeld (money payment for killing),
feud, institutions to control feud, dispute settlement, etc. The societies
range from (at least) Iceland to Arabia to Papua New Guinea, so while it
is possible that some have common origins, it looks as though the
similarity may be a case of different people finding similar solutions to
similar problems.
Miller wrote that:
>Non-Muslim foreigners, as long as their weren't polytheists, had
>the same rights (although their legal testimony was given
>less weight).
To begin with, non-muslims had to pay a tax from which muslims were exempt
(of course, the muslims had military obligations from which the
non-muslims were exempt). Further, in theory and sometimes in practice,
non-muslims who were not people of the book (i.e. Christians, Jews, and a
third category sometimes interpreted as Samaritans) were required to
convert or leave (either al-Islam in general or Arabia in particular,
depending on what sources you believe). The distinction was not simply
monotheist vs polytheist, but between people within the common
Muslim/Christian/Jewish tradition and people outside it. Mohammed regarded
himself, in essence, as a prophet in the Jewish tradition, and regarded
Jesus as another such.
Finally, many islamic societies enforced elements of the (fictitious)
Covenant of Umar, under which non-Muslim people's of the book were subject
to a variety of restrictions, including not bearing arms, not building
churches, etc.
David Friedman
Joseph M. Emmanuel
On 24 Jun 1996 13:37:22 -0400, wmcle...@aol.com (WMclean290) wrote:
>Then why were the Spanish Knights wearing heavier armor in the 13th and
>14th century, when they were pushing the Moslems back, than when the
>Moslems first came into the picture?
>
>Yes, I know the Spanish had a lot of light horse in their army then. But
>contemporary sources like Froissart show that they considerd the fully
>armored man-at-arms to be the real fighting strength of their army.
They might have been used as special force! Maybe a heavy armored as back
up, or just for a short burst of attack an retreat. The light weighted
majority were the ones who did the rest of the fighting.
What you are saying is possible, but it was not the norm.
>Still having trouble remembering how to spell Knight? Just remember this
>simple rhyme:
>
>Knights with a K go Krunch, Krunch, Krunch
>While unarmored Moslems bleed a bunch.
>
>Will
I see you still carrying your prejudicing against Muslims:). Those
feelings will keep one from truly become a seeker of truth!
Angus Donal Stewart
On 19 Jun 1996, fleur-de-lis wrote:
> In article <hdmiller-180...@ycmc14.cluster.cis.yale.edu> hdmi...@minerva.cis.yale.edu (H.D. Miller) writes:
>
> >Again, I must object to the terms moors and Moorish. What do you mean
> >when you say the "Berbers finshed off what was left of the **Moorish**
> >Andalusia?"
>
He is questioning the use of the term **Moorish**, not what was done.
But M. Fleur does not understand this...
> They crushed the taifa puppet kingdoms and united al-Andalus as a part of
> their Algerian-Moroccoan state. After the fall of Almohads, the Cordoban
> caliphate never emerged; instead the Kingdom of Granada was founded - and
> that kingdom is still a part of Spain, as its arms form the base of the
> Spanish escutcheon.
>
A question for rec.heraldry, I think? "Its" arms do nowt: arms created
expressly for it, after 1492, are indeed in the point of Spain's
coat-of-arms.
> >Define "Moors" and "Moorish"
>
> Originally from Latin "Mauri", the North Africans; the North African Muslims.
> By skin color dark, yet still of Caucasian stock. Nowadays survives as the
> term of the inhabitants of the state of Mauretania, and as a term of heraldry.
> Not to be confused with "blackmoor", which has a derogatory side meaning.
Here is the crucial point!! Read your post!! The word "moor" comes from
a *Latin* root!! There were *never* any people who identified themselves
as "moors"!! "Moor" is a vague generalised term that *does not* refer to
any specific race/people/nation. To attempt to distinguish "moor" from
either 'Arab' or 'Berber' is to make a false distinction, entirely
unhistorical and inaccurate. "Moor" is a catch-all term used by Latinate
Christian Europeans, who did not know, or saw no reason to be either
accurate or specific.
_Some_people_called_"moors"_were_of_Arab_origin;_some_were_of_Berber_origin;
_no_doubt_others_were_of_other_origin;_but_to_attempt_to_distinguish_between
_"moor"_and_'Arab'_is_futile_and_misleading._
>
> >Ian Goss suggests that the rulers of Al-Andalus was not Arabs and Arabized
> >Muslims but "moors". OK, who were the "Moors" and where did they come
> >from ?
>
> From Northern Africa, the coastal region and inland. Many of them may have
> been "mozarabes" (= ones who have Arabized themselves), yet still not Arabs
> as the Arabs of Arabia.
>
'Mozarab' as an historical term, and as it was used contemporaneously,
refers to Christians who had long lived under Muslim rule, where Arab
culture was the dominant culture, and who had come to use Arabic as their
language, but not Islam as their religion.
> > Were they Berbers (the Muslim North-African tribesmen)?
>
> Not necessarily, and they weren't Tuaregs either.
>
<snip>
>
> >(Note that the first Berbers arrived in 711, not with the Almoravids in
> >1085.) The people who ruled Al-Andalus were Muslims. Not the mythical
> >"Moors."
>
> Religion != nationality.
>
Okay. But "moorish" != nothing.
I don't think you've understood the point being made. Whatever their
nationality, their religion was Muslim. *That* was their unifying
factor, not any shared "moorish" nationality (_there_was_no_such_thing_).
> >For the first 300 years, Al-Andalus was ruled by Arabs descended
> >from the Ummayad dynasty. Following that, there was an 80-year period of
>
> Rule != nationality. Were the Christian and Jewish inhabitants in the
> Andalusian states Arabs ?
>
No!! But you are not trying to understand what is being said. The
statement being answered said sommat like: "the Arabs never ruled in
Spain". I'll put it in a syllogism for you. "The Ummayads ruled in
Spain; the Ummayads were Arabs: Arabs ruled in Spain". (Nor were they the
only Arabic dynasty to rule in Spain. Nor should you underestimate the
'Arab' element in the conquest and society of al-Andalus.)
<snip>
>
> Scots do speak English, are rather integrated in the English culture, form a
> country in union with the English yet they are _never_ Englishpeople, or
> "Southrons". They are Scots.
>
I'm glad someone on this newsgroup knows this :-)
Just as Scots are Scots and Sassenachs are Sassenachs, Arabs are Arabs,
Berbers are Berbers, and "moors" never existed, except in the bigoted and
fevered minds of Mediaeval writers and some modern netsurfers...
luvnhugs,
Angus
boud...@euronet.nl
azu...@aol.com (Azure 7) wrote:
>>I have a copy of a drawing of a fully armored knight whose breast plate
>has a mounting points for a gun.
>The knight was never finished as such he just evolved as battle
>conditions changed into heavy cavalry.<
>One have to be careful about the application of the word Knight in this
>case. Knights as a social rank have not disappeared, but rather is still
>with us to this very day. And Knight as a rank of noblity lasted well
>into the last couple hundred years. However, Knights as tradition sense
>of a armed retainer who have feudal obligation to his lord, or to the
>crown (who often obtain a title to parcel of lands on the strength of such
>obligations) was nearly gone toward the end of the hundred year war.
>Rather than any technological advances such as guns or such, instead it's
>end was brought by a social and economical change within how a war is run
>and finances.
>
Indeed, in our country primary school history books teach us that
princes Maurits and Frederic of Nassau, brothers of prince William of
Orange invented modern warfare by changing it from "art" to "science"
during the Eighty years of war against Spain. Those books tell us that
they pre played every battle in miniature before it took place. They
heavilly relied in the organization of their supply lines. Also they
paid much attention on the financial side of the whole thing by making
shure they where backed up by the "Staaten Generaal" (parliament)in
stead of individual noblemen. The money was sought and found in new
and promising colonies in the four corners of the world. This took
place in the late 16th century. The method was so successful that
superpower Spain finally gave the tiny Seven Provincies their
independence.
Boudewijn, The Netherlands
WMclean290
I wrote:
>>Yes, I know the Spanish had a lot of light horse in their army then. But
>>contemporary sources like Froissart show that they considerd the fully
>>armored man-at-arms to be the real fighting strength of their army.
(Joseph M. Emmanuel) responded.
>They might have been used as special force! Maybe a heavy armored as
back
>up, or just for a short burst of attack an retreat. The light weighted
>majority were the ones who did the rest of the fighting.
>
>What you are saying is possible, but it was not the norm.
No. I direct your attention to 13th c. manuscripts that show the front
ranks composed entirely of fully armored men-at-arms, with the light
cavalry behind them, where it's safer. (Interestingly enough, the Moslems
are also shown with lots of men-at-arms in the front rank, which does not
support the notion of the superiority of lightly armored cavalry.)
I direct your attention to Froissart. He describes Spanish armies composed
of thousands of men-at-arms. Sometimes he lists other types of troops,
sometimes he considers them unworthy of mention. When he describes the
course of a battle in detail, it is always the men-at-arms that bear the
brunt of the fighting, and no other types of Spanish troops have a
decisive influence on the outcome.
I have the highest respect for the people that gave Europe Algebra and
Aristotle. But to maintain that lightly armed cavalry rendered armored
men-at-arms obsolete is simply not supported by the facts.
Look, whatever the precise proportions, the Spanish put much more reliance
on armored men-at-arms than the Moslems did, and the Moslems lost. When
the English and French came into Spain in the 14th c., their armies had a
core of men-at-arms and hardly any light horse. The Spanish lost.
Will
fleur-de-lis
In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.960625110151.14552A-100000@langs> Angus Donal Stewart <a...@st-andrews.ac.uk> writes:
>A question for rec.heraldry, I think? "Its" arms do nowt: arms created
>expressly for it, after 1492, are indeed in the point of Spain's
>coat-of-arms.
Actually Granada's arms do date back to the 13th century: at one stage
Granada was Castile's vassal state long before 1492.
>Here is the crucial point!! Read your post!! The word "moor" comes from
>a *Latin* root!! There were *never* any people who identified themselves
>as "moors"!!
There was never a people who identified themselves as Byzantines either.
The people called as Finns in English identify themselves as "suomalaiset".
>_Some_people_called_"moors"_were_of_Arab_origin;_some_were_of_Berber_origin;
>_no_doubt_others_were_of_other_origin;_but_to_attempt_to_distinguish_between
>_"moor"_and_'Arab'_is_futile_and_misleading._
Berber != Arab. Tuareg != Arab. Dark Ages Northern African Muslim != Arab.
Arabic rule != Arabic nationality.
>I don't think you've understood the point being made. Whatever their
>nationality, their religion was Muslim. *That* was their unifying
>factor, not any shared "moorish" nationality (_there_was_no_such_thing_).
Being Muslim doesn't make one to be Arab, and Maronites are both Christians and
Arabs to the boot. Speaking English doesn't make one to be an Englishman, as
any Scotsman may testimony.
>Just as Scots are Scots and Sassenachs are Sassenachs, Arabs are Arabs,
>Berbers are Berbers, and "moors" never existed, except in the bigoted and
And people called "Byzantines" identified themselves as "rhomanoi", Romans,
until 1453. Is it fair to say the Byzantines never existed ?
fleur-de-lis
>No. I direct your attention to 13th c. manuscripts that show the front
>ranks composed entirely of fully armored men-at-arms, with the light
>cavalry behind them, where it's safer. (Interestingly enough, the Moslems
>are also shown with lots of men-at-arms in the front rank, which does not
>support the notion of the superiority of lightly armored cavalry.)
Let us put some military here, ok ?
Men-at-arms formed the shock troops of the castilian armies. They were to
charge the enemy and bash the hell out of him. The lights are support troops.
They are to outflank the enemy, to perform decoy maneuvers, to attack the
rear of the engaged enemy and to secure the flanks, and to harass him and
pursue when routed. They are to avoid the actual combat as long as they can.
The Berber armies relied on spear-armed infantry in close order and in
light cavalry. The idea was to let the Spaniards to charge the phalanx and
then charge the flanks when locked in combat. Too bad the Spaniards usually
enveloped the phalanx with lights and charged the Berber light cavalry instead.
The foot was finished as the enemy cavalry was driven away.
The Grenadines, being of much waealthier stock and more settled than the
Berbers, realized they had no chances against the Castilians on open, and
developed their own heavy cavalry, which fought and was equipped *almost
indistinguishably* like the Castilians. This seems to have disappeared in
the 15th century as the Grenadines reverted to guerrilla tactics.
>Aristotle. But to maintain that lightly armed cavalry rendered armored
>men-at-arms obsolete is simply not supported by the facts.
Actually the opposite seems to be true. 15th century jinetes were much
heavier equipped than 13th century hidalgos.
>Look, whatever the precise proportions, the Spanish put much more reliance
>on armored men-at-arms than the Moslems did, and the Moslems lost. When
>the English and French came into Spain in the 14th c., their armies had a
>core of men-at-arms and hardly any light horse. The Spanish lost.
The English and French acted as mercenaries to various Spanish factions,
and not as independent armies. The Spanish armies had a lot of light jinetes,
which fell as easy victims to archery. Besides that, the Spaniards had not
yet adopted the habit of men-at-arms dismounting when fighting an enemy
with bows. The combined arms of missile troops (archers and crossbowmen)
and heavy shock troops (men-at-arms) was the key of success there.
WMclean290
In article <4qr25m$q...@nntp.hut.fi>, ha...@delta.hut.fi (fleur-de-lis)
writes:
>The English and French acted as mercenaries to various Spanish factions,
>and not as independent armies.
This was certainly the position taken by the French that the Black Prince
captured when fighting to put Pedro the Cruel back on the throne. In
effect, however, the army the Black Prince led was primarily an English
one (or Anglo-Breton-Gascon, if you want to be picky) with Pedro as
nominal commander in chief.
You are quite right that an important part of the English success was good
combined arms cooperation between the men-at-arms and missile troops. My
point was that in these battles the men-at-arms were effective and
decisive, and the light cavalry were not.
Will