Most Important Medieval Battles

[Curt Emanuel]

I've been lurking for several weeks and haven't noticed a lot of
Medieval content even though there are several very competent posters
here. So I'm going to throw something out and see what happens. Besides,
I need something to get me in the Kalamazoo mood.

What do you think were the five most important medieval battles, and why?

For me, important means something which substantially altered the course
of events in such a way that, without this battle and the outcome, it's
very likely that history would have evolved in a substantially different
way down the road. Out of my list I think the first three were pretty
fundamental, the fourth I can argue very strongly, and my 5th was
plucked from about 10 choices, because I felt like it. I'm putting the
year in parentheses.

Vouille (507) - A couple of pretty important things were determined
here. First that Clovis and the Franks would become the premier power in
continental Europe. Second that Theoderic and Alaric would be unable to
maintain what at the time looked like a budding Empire from the Italian
peninsula into Iberia. In addition, at the time almost all of the other
Western Kingdoms were Arian. Only the Franks were Orthodox. If the
Franks and Clovis lose, I think it's likely that things would have been
very different - no Merovingians, Arian rather than what we call
Orthodox Christianity and possibly (this is less likely) a Gothic Empire.

Yarmouk (636) - This was probably the key battle of the Islamic Conquest
against the Byzantines and gave Islam Syria, where they launched the
captures of Jerusalem, Egypt, etc. I think it could be paired with the
718 Siege of Jerusalem since those two pretty much established the
Byzantine-Islamic balance that lasted for several centuries.

Hastings (1066) - I ain't talking about this one but I think it's pretty
obvious.

Las Navas de Tolosa (1212) - The Reconquista had been going on for some
time, slowly, but for the two decades prior to this battle the Arabs had
been making rapid gains. This battle both turned the tide and really
depleted Arab forces and strength. I think there's a strong chance that
if the Arabs had won the Reconquista would have been stopped cold.

Kosovo (1389) - I actually had a hard time coming up with a fifth. For
pretty much every one I came up with - Manzikert, Bouvines, Orleans - I
think that even if things had gone the other way, in the long run events
would have progressed similarly. Kosovo's in the same category. The
Ottomans invaded Serbia with a tremendous force. Serbia raised pretty
much everyone to fight. Technically the Ottomans won but it was pretty
much a draw, with tremendous casualties on both sides. Problem is, the
Ottomans had more men in Anatolia, Serbia didn't and over the next
couple of decades was taken over. I think it's possible that if Serbia
had won decisively the Turkish advance would have stopped there and the
West may have been able to save Constantinople. More likely is that
things would have gone on the same general way though things such as the
fall of Constantinople might have been delayed a few decades.


--
-----
Curt Emanuel
ceman...@gmail.com
http://medievalhistorygeek.wordpress.com/

[Bill]

In article <jo3dn7$8n3$1...@dont-email.me>, ceman...@gmail.com says...

>
> I've been lurking for several weeks and haven't noticed a lot of
> Medieval content even though there are several very competent posters
> here. So I'm going to throw something out and see what happens. Besides,
> I need something to get me in the Kalamazoo mood.
>
> What do you think were the five most important medieval battles, and why?
>

Let's be controversial.

Falkirk and the start of 'the infantry revolution'.

--
William Black

When you hear the words 'Our people are our greatest asset' then it's
time to leave.

[AlexMilman]

On May 5, 10:33 am, Curt Emanuel <cemanue...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Vouille (507) - A couple of pretty important things were determined
> here. First that Clovis and the Franks would become the premier power in
> continental Europe. Second that Theoderic and Alaric would be unable to
> maintain what at the time looked like a budding Empire from the Italian
> peninsula into Iberia. In addition, at the time almost all of the other
> Western Kingdoms were Arian. Only the Franks were Orthodox. If the
> Franks and Clovis lose, I think it's likely that things would have been
> very different - no Merovingians, Arian rather than what we call
> Orthodox Christianity and possibly (this is less likely) a Gothic Empire.
>
> Yarmouk (636) - This was probably the key battle of the Islamic Conquest
> against the Byzantines and gave Islam Syria, where they launched the
> captures of Jerusalem, Egypt, etc. I think it could be paired with the
> 718 Siege of Jerusalem since those two pretty much established the
> Byzantine-Islamic balance that lasted for several centuries.
>

What of Guadalete (712)? Survival of the Visigothic Kingdom (assuming
that winning this battle would prevent further invasion) would mean a
lot of things including absence of the Reconquista, probably different
history of France (how absence of the Muslim invasion would change
it?).

> Hastings (1066) - I ain't talking about this one but I think it's pretty
> obvious.
>

[Some critics claimed that events on the Island of Miracle were
totally unimportant by definition but I'm not one of them :-)]

> Las Navas de Tolosa (1212) - The Reconquista had been going on for some
> time, slowly, but for the two decades prior to this battle the Arabs had
> been making rapid gains. This battle both turned the tide and really
> depleted Arab forces and strength. I think there's a strong chance that
> if the Arabs had won the Reconquista would have been stopped cold.
>

I doubt it. The same Alphonso VIII had been totally defeated at
Alarcos, 17 years prior to Las Navas de Tolosa but ended up with
loosing few pieces of territory South of Toledo. Tide was clearly
changing.

> Kosovo (1389) - I actually had a hard time coming up with a fifth. For
> pretty much every one I came up with - Manzikert, Bouvines, Orleans - I
> think that even if things had gone the other way, in the long run events
> would have progressed similarly. Kosovo's in the same category. The
> Ottomans invaded Serbia with a tremendous force. Serbia raised pretty
> much everyone to fight. Technically the Ottomans won but it was pretty
> much a draw, with tremendous casualties on both sides. Problem is, the
> Ottomans had more men in Anatolia, Serbia didn't and over the next
> couple of decades was taken over. I think it's possible that if Serbia
> had won decisively the Turkish advance would have stopped there

Highly questionable. IIRC, general situation in Serbia was a mess
(including absence of unified kingdom) and the Ottoman conquest was
just a matter of time.

> and the
> West may have been able to save Constantinople.

Even total disaster (for teh Ottomans) at Ankara did not save it.

> More likely is that
> things would have gone on the same general way though things such as the
> fall of Constantinople might have been delayed a few decades.
>

Benevento (1266), if lost by Charles of Anjou, there would be no
Angevian kingdom in the Southern Italy (and perhaps Hohenstaufen would
survive as a dynasty), no Spanish (Aragon) involvement and,
eventually, no pretext for starting Italian Wars few centuries later
(with all following results).

[Paul J Gans]

I agree with your first choices. Here though I think that Manzikert
was more fundamental. But it isn't a simple matter.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[Paul J Gans]

Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>In article <jo3dn7$8n3$1...@dont-email.me>, ceman...@gmail.com says...
>>
>> I've been lurking for several weeks and haven't noticed a lot of
>> Medieval content even though there are several very competent posters
>> here. So I'm going to throw something out and see what happens. Besides,
>> I need something to get me in the Kalamazoo mood.
>>
>> What do you think were the five most important medieval battles, and why?
>>

>Let's be controversial.

>Falkirk and the start of 'the infantry revolution'.

That's reasonable, but not for Falkirk itself, with which I think
you'd agree.

There are those who question the "infantry revolution", claiming that
the infantry was always the more important arm and the least reported.

I don't know if that is right, but the argument has strength. The
cavalry never won a siege. Hastings was won by the infantry. And
since the western European cavalry represented the nobility, it was
always what was reported during the days when the monks wrote
history. As that changed, so did the reported nature of battle.

But there clearly was change over time. I've dealt with this before,
mostly in the Great Horse Harness debate and the paper I wrote about
it. When does evolutionary change become revolutionary? That's a
very hard decision.

Surely the military side that has not seen a given formation before
might think the change revolutionary, but was it really? The medievals
knew the history of battle including the Roman and the Greek combat
techniques. The well-read among them were probably "surprised" by
nothing. Nevertheless, things changed.

[ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk]

In article <jo3dn7$8n3$1...@dont-email.me>, ceman...@gmail.com (Curt

Emanuel) wrote:

> What do you think were the five most important medieval battles, and
> why?

You missed Constantinople 1204. That was what finished the Byzantine
Empire as a major power. Even after the Greeks recaptured Constantinople
the Empire was never as powerful as it was before 1204.

Ken Young

[Kathy]

"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:jo4kcr$k4k$3...@reader1.panix.com...

I missed the OP for some reason, but would like to piggyback here and come
down on the side of Stamford Bridge over Hastings. If Harold had not had to
fight at Stamford Bridge, he and the Fyrd would have been in better
condition and strenght at Hastings, and it may well have gone the other way.

Snip

--
Kathy

[Surreyman]

On May 6, 9:44 am, ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> In article <jo3dn7$8n...@dont-email.me>, cemanue...@gmail.com (Curt

>
> Emanuel) wrote:
> > What do you think were the five most important medieval battles, and
> > why?
>
>  You missed Constantinople 1204. That was what finished the Byzantine
> Empire as a major power. Even after the Greeks recaptured Constantinople
> the Empire was never as powerful as it was before 1204.
>
>  Ken Young

Tours?

Surreyman

[Renia]

On 05/05/2012 15:33, Curt Emanuel wrote:
> I've been lurking for several weeks and haven't noticed a lot of
> Medieval content even though there are several very competent posters
> here. So I'm going to throw something out and see what happens. Besides,
> I need something to get me in the Kalamazoo mood.
>
> What do you think were the five most important medieval battles, and why?

The Albigensian Crusade, however you want to define a battle. While
these massacres were confined to an area of South-West France, they seem
to have had implications for social displacement and emigration all over
Europe. As an aside, an entire faith was decimated, but its mystery
lingers on.

Being not a battle-monger, I couldn't comment on any others!

[Bill]

In article <jo4km4$k4k$4...@reader1.panix.com>, gan...@panix.com says...

>
> Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >In article <jo3dn7$8n3$1...@dont-email.me>, ceman...@gmail.com says...
> >>
> >> I've been lurking for several weeks and haven't noticed a lot of
> >> Medieval content even though there are several very competent posters
> >> here. So I'm going to throw something out and see what happens. Besides,
> >> I need something to get me in the Kalamazoo mood.
> >>
> >> What do you think were the five most important medieval battles, and why?
> >>
>
> >Let's be controversial.
>
> >Falkirk and the start of 'the infantry revolution'.
>
> That's reasonable, but not for Falkirk itself, with which I think
> you'd agree.
>
> There are those who question the "infantry revolution", claiming that
> the infantry was always the more important arm and the least reported.

The well known academic argument that runs:

'It isn't a contemporary term so it isn't valid'.

>
> I don't know if that is right, but the argument has strength. The
> cavalry never won a siege. Hastings was won by the infantry.

That's arguable.

It was certainly lost by infantry, Harold had no horsed troops...

[Curt Emanuel]

You're right. Far better than Kosovo. I debated including Hattin or the
siege of Jerusalem, not for impact then but for spawning literature
(decided that wasn't the kind of important I was going for) but for some
reason the 4th Crusade never crossed my mind.

--
--------
Curt Emanuel
ceman...@gmail.com

[Curt Emanuel]

732 was on my list of contenders for 5th. From the Arab side of things
it probably didn't matter much but for the Franks it was huge re morale.

[Curt Emanuel]

I thought about including it. Might have been better as a
conversation-starter anyway. I decided not to because the Comnenas seem
to have pretty much righted things within 30 years.

[Curt Emanuel]

On 5/5/2012 1:53 PM, AlexMilman wrote:
> On May 5, 10:33 am, Curt Emanuel<cemanue...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Vouille (507) - A couple of pretty important things were determined
>> here. First that Clovis and the Franks would become the premier power in
>> continental Europe. Second that Theoderic and Alaric would be unable to
>> maintain what at the time looked like a budding Empire from the Italian
>> peninsula into Iberia. In addition, at the time almost all of the other
>> Western Kingdoms were Arian. Only the Franks were Orthodox. If the
>> Franks and Clovis lose, I think it's likely that things would have been
>> very different - no Merovingians, Arian rather than what we call
>> Orthodox Christianity and possibly (this is less likely) a Gothic Empire.
>>
>> Yarmouk (636) - This was probably the key battle of the Islamic Conquest
>> against the Byzantines and gave Islam Syria, where they launched the
>> captures of Jerusalem, Egypt, etc. I think it could be paired with the
>> 718 Siege of Jerusalem since those two pretty much established the
>> Byzantine-Islamic balance that lasted for several centuries.
>>
>
> What of Guadalete (712)? Survival of the Visigothic Kingdom (assuming
> that winning this battle would prevent further invasion) would mean a
> lot of things including absence of the Reconquista, probably different
> history of France (how absence of the Muslim invasion would change
> it?).

I left the Arab Conquest out for two reasons. First is more general; the
Visigoths were one profoundly screwed up kingdom. If there was ever an
argument in favor of hereditary kingship, they're it - nothing like just
about fighting a civil war every time a king died.

Second is related to the events of 711. Roderic was killed in a battle
with what amounted to a scouting party. Musa had a much larger army (the
real army) than Tariq and according to the sources - which are really
weak for this - was pissed that his subordinate had gotten the glory. If
Roderic had managed to defeat Tariq I have a hard time seeing how he'd
have stood up to Musa.

If the Arabs wanted Spain, they were getting it. The Visigoths weren't
long for this world if anyone really went after them. If Roderic had
happened to win the first battle there was another waiting for him
against a larger, more well equipped one so I don't think another
outcome would have made much of a difference.

Of course another outcome would have meant the Visigoths weren't what
they were and half or more of Roderic's army wouldn't have deserted him,
Christian factions and Jews wouldn't have supprted the Arabs, Count
Julian wouldn't have invited the Arabs in and helped them, etc. The
Visigoths were just a mess.

>
>> Hastings (1066) - I ain't talking about this one but I think it's pretty
>> obvious.
>>
> [Some critics claimed that events on the Island of Miracle were
> totally unimportant by definition but I'm not one of them :-)]
>
>> Las Navas de Tolosa (1212) - The Reconquista had been going on for some
>> time, slowly, but for the two decades prior to this battle the Arabs had
>> been making rapid gains. This battle both turned the tide and really
>> depleted Arab forces and strength. I think there's a strong chance that
>> if the Arabs had won the Reconquista would have been stopped cold.
>>
>
> I doubt it. The same Alphonso VIII had been totally defeated at
> Alarcos, 17 years prior to Las Navas de Tolosa but ended up with
> loosing few pieces of territory South of Toledo. Tide was clearly
> changing.

I don't. In those 17 years things were pretty much at a stalemate.
Christians raided Arab territories and maybe grabbed a fortress or two,
Arabs raided Christian territories and maybe grabbed a fortress or two.
The Christian victory (and the number of Arabs killed) tipped the
balance in their favor. I think it would have tipped the balance in the
opposite direction if the Arabs had won in similar fashion.

I'm using the term "Arabs" loosely here. Obviously some were from
families that had lived for centuries in Spain.

>
>
>> Kosovo (1389) - I actually had a hard time coming up with a fifth. For
>> pretty much every one I came up with - Manzikert, Bouvines, Orleans - I
>> think that even if things had gone the other way, in the long run events
>> would have progressed similarly. Kosovo's in the same category. The
>> Ottomans invaded Serbia with a tremendous force. Serbia raised pretty
>> much everyone to fight. Technically the Ottomans won but it was pretty
>> much a draw, with tremendous casualties on both sides. Problem is, the
>> Ottomans had more men in Anatolia, Serbia didn't and over the next
>> couple of decades was taken over. I think it's possible that if Serbia
>> had won decisively the Turkish advance would have stopped there
>
> Highly questionable. IIRC, general situation in Serbia was a mess
> (including absence of unified kingdom) and the Ottoman conquest was
> just a matter of time.
>
>> and the
>> West may have been able to save Constantinople.
>
> Even total disaster (for teh Ottomans) at Ankara did not save it.
>
>> More likely is that
>> things would have gone on the same general way though things such as the
>> fall of Constantinople might have been delayed a few decades.
>>
>
> Benevento (1266), if lost by Charles of Anjou, there would be no
> Angevian kingdom in the Southern Italy (and perhaps Hohenstaufen would
> survive as a dynasty), no Spanish (Aragon) involvement and,
> eventually, no pretext for starting Italian Wars few centuries later
> (with all following results).

Won't argue with you on this one (won't argue much with anyone for
picking something over Kosovo).

[Curt Emanuel]

For me, this was more of a movement and response to it (and masked
land-grab) than a battle but YMMV. Might make another interesting
discussion question - the five most important deviant (from a
contemporary perspective) social movements.

[Tronscend]

"Curt Emanuel" <ceman...@gmail.com> skrev i melding
news:jo3dn7$8n3$1...@dont-email.me...

> I've been lurking for several weeks and haven't noticed a lot of Medieval
> content even though there are several very competent posters here. So I'm
> going to throw something out and see what happens. Besides, I need
> something to get me in the Kalamazoo mood.
>
> What do you think were the five most important medieval battles, and why?

>

> Vouille (507) Yarmouk (636) -
> Las Navas de Tolosa (1212) - > Kosovo (1389)

Some of the absentee battles concern the power struggle between various
continental tribes, proto-kingdoms and "spheres of influence" that gave us
France, Germany, Italy .... and they went on from Roman times up to ....
1989 (Berlin Wall)? (Or should we include the Yugoslav Troubles?)

And then there is the central european resistance to periodic inroads from
the east (Huns, Tartars, Magyars, Mongols); the map at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_invasions_of_Europe
shows that this must have been busy times, indeed, with the Magyars
raiding as far as Luxemburg and Bremen.
Until the Battle of Lechfeld (955), that is.
But there are probably many more examples.

> For me, important means something which substantially altered the course
> of events in such a way that, without this battle and the outcome, it's
> very likely that history would have evolved in a substantially different
> way down the road. Out of my list I think the first three were pretty
> fundamental, the fourth I can argue very strongly, and my 5th was plucked
> from about 10 choices, because I felt like it. I'm putting the year in
> parentheses.

> Hastings (1066) - I ain't talking about this one but I think it's pretty
> obvious.

What, for the purpose of this discussion, is "substantially different"?
Consider "internal affairs" of England as a "black box", would the output
of the UK at the times of Elisabeth have been substantially different
with a more northward, instead of French, oriented UK?

MVH,

T

[AlexMilman]

Following exactly the same line of arguing, Kosovo has to be
disqualified: the Balkans in general and Serbia specifically had been
a mess. Serbian victory would just mean a delay of inevitable conquest
(just as later victories under Janosh Huniady and Matias Corwin just
postponed Ottoman conquest of Hungary).

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Hastings (1066) - I ain't talking about this one but I think it's pretty
> >> obvious.
>
> > [Some critics claimed that events on the Island of Miracle were
> > totally unimportant by definition but I'm not one of them :-)]
>
> >> Las Navas de Tolosa (1212) - The Reconquista had been going on for some
> >> time, slowly, but for the two decades prior to this battle the Arabs had
> >> been making rapid gains. This battle both turned the tide and really
> >> depleted Arab forces and strength. I think there's a strong chance that
> >> if the Arabs had won the Reconquista would have been stopped cold.
>
> > I doubt it. The same Alphonso VIII had been totally defeated at
> > Alarcos, 17 years prior to Las Navas de Tolosa but ended up with
> > loosing few pieces of territory South of Toledo. Tide was clearly
> > changing.
>
> I don't. In those 17 years things were pretty much at a stalemate.

Which is exactly my point: the Moors could not exploit results of a
great victory. The tide was turning.

> Christians raided Arab territories and maybe grabbed a fortress or two,

IIRC, they were mostly holding a ground slightly North of Toledo.

> Arabs raided Christian territories and maybe grabbed a fortress or two.

Not "maybe", they took, among other places, Calatrava. But they did
not have strength for re-re-conquest.

> The Christian victory (and the number of Arabs killed) tipped the
> balance in their favor. I think it would have tipped the balance in the
> opposite direction if the Arabs had won in similar fashion.

They did at Alarcos and could not exploit it.

Las Navas de Tolosa was one of the great 'token' battles: an eye-
catching event to identify a clear turning point (even if tendency was
already there).

>
> I'm using the term "Arabs" loosely here. Obviously some were from
> families that had lived for centuries in Spain.

Or they had been the Berbers. "Moors" is a safer term.

Another overlooked battle was Worskla (1399). If Witold won, history
of the Eastern Europe could be seriously different. His loss for all
practical purposes made Lithuania dependent on Poland and seriously
limited his penetration into the Russian territories, leaving Great
Princedom of Moscow the leading _Russian_ state (even if he ended up
as a 'protector').

Battle of the Marchfeld (1278) - established (until after WWI)
Hapsburg rule over Austria.

Battle of Aljubarrota (1385) - Portugal gained independence from
Castile.

Staying (not a real battle) on Ugra River (1476) - a token event that
established complete independence of Moscow from the Golden Horde (and
turn of the tide in the terms of who was conquering whom in the
future).

Probably one of the Swiss victories over Hapsburgs - established
independence of the Swiss cantons and one can say, started "infantry
revolution" (something I don't really believe in :-)).

[AlexMilman]

On May 5, 9:38 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >In article <jo3dn7$8n...@dont-email.me>, cemanue...@gmail.com says...

>
> >> I've been lurking for several weeks and haven't noticed a lot of
> >> Medieval content even though there are several very competent posters
> >> here. So I'm going to throw something out and see what happens. Besides,
> >> I need something to get me in the Kalamazoo mood.
>
> >> What do you think were the five most important medieval battles, and why?
>
> >Let's be controversial.
> >Falkirk and the start of 'the infantry revolution'.
>
> That's reasonable, but not for Falkirk itself, with which I think
> you'd agree.

If anything, Falkirk was won by exactly the same schema as Hastings:
combination of cavalry and archers against infantry seriously lacking
long range weapons. So, what was 'revolutionary' about this battle?

> But there clearly was change over time.  I've dealt with this before,
> mostly in the Great Horse Harness debate and the paper I wrote about
> it.  When does evolutionary change become revolutionary?

It did not, unless one is looking for the catchy slogans.

[Erilar]

I'm not that into battles, either, but I agree about the importance of the
often- neglected Albigensian "crusade".


--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist with iPad

[SolomonW]

One of the earlier battles of Islam like the Battle of Badr. A major loss
by Muhammad would probably have destroyed Islam. You could then butterfly
most of medieval history.

[AlexMilman]

On May 5, 9:38 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

>  The
> cavalry never won a siege.

Which probably means that neither Huns nor Mongols ever won a
siege. :-)

[Bill]

In article <1c5b6a43-b8a3-4f7c-8d29-eeb0efce0a55
@j16g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, alexm...@msn.com says...

>
> On May 5, 9:38 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> > Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >In article <jo3dn7$8n...@dont-email.me>, cemanue...@gmail.com says...
> >
> > >> I've been lurking for several weeks and haven't noticed a lot of
> > >> Medieval content even though there are several very competent posters
> > >> here. So I'm going to throw something out and see what happens. Besides,
> > >> I need something to get me in the Kalamazoo mood.
> >
> > >> What do you think were the five most important medieval battles, and why?
> >
> > >Let's be controversial.
> > >Falkirk and the start of 'the infantry revolution'.
> >
> > That's reasonable, but not for Falkirk itself, with which I think
> > you'd agree.
>
> If anything, Falkirk was won by exactly the same schema as Hastings:
> combination of cavalry and archers against infantry seriously lacking
> long range weapons. So, what was 'revolutionary' about this battle?
>

It wasn't won by cavalry but by archers using artillery bows.

[AlexMilman]

Or "Battle of the 13 sides" (1201): Genghis won but had been wounded
by an arrow and, initially, there was a suspicion that this arrow is
poisoned. Genghis death in 1201 would probably mean no unification of
the Mongols (alternative, Jamuha, seems to be unappealing person:
subordinates had been leaving him even when he was successful). This
would mean no Mongol Empire with all possible consequences from China
to Eastern Europe.

[Michael Kuettner]

"Curt Emanuel" wrote in message news:jo5rot$cc2$1...@dont-email.me...

It's a little more complicated than that. If Martell had lost at Tours, he
would
have been finished. The supremacy of the Austrasian hausmeier wasn't that
old;
Eudo of Aquitane had dealings wuth the enemy, wide parts of the later
Frankia
were not very sympathetic towards him.
Now look at Tours : St. Martin of Tours was _the_ Saint of the Frankia. had
his
grave been plundered by Abdarrahman, Martell would have lost his
legitimation.
No victory at Tours, no Frankia as we know it and no Carolus Magnus.
Europe would have looked completely different.
So yes, Tours was important - Kosovo (Serbs on both sides, btw) is rather
unimportant
in comparison.

Cheers,

Michael Kuettner

[AlexMilman]

On May 6, 1:00 pm, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <1c5b6a43-b8a3-4f7c-8d29-eeb0efce0a55
> @j16g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, alexmil...@msn.com says...

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 5, 9:38 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> > > Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >In article <jo3dn7$8n...@dont-email.me>, cemanue...@gmail.com says...
>
> > > >> I've been lurking for several weeks and haven't noticed a lot of
> > > >> Medieval content even though there are several very competent posters
> > > >> here. So I'm going to throw something out and see what happens. Besides,
> > > >> I need something to get me in the Kalamazoo mood.
>
> > > >> What do you think were the five most important medieval battles, and why?
>
> > > >Let's be controversial.
> > > >Falkirk and the start of 'the infantry revolution'.
>
> > > That's reasonable, but not for Falkirk itself, with which I think
> > > you'd agree.
>
> > If anything, Falkirk was won by exactly the same schema as Hastings:
> > combination of cavalry and archers against infantry seriously lacking
> > long range weapons. So, what was 'revolutionary' about this battle?
>
> It wasn't won by cavalry but by archers using artillery bows.

It was, as I said, won by a combination of a cavalry and archers.
Neither cavalry nor archers won it alone. Period.

[Felix Reuthner]

AlexMilman wrote:

> Which probably means that neither Huns nor Mongols ever won a
> siege. :-)

If a Mongol gets off his horse, is he still cavalry? :)

[AlexMilman]

On May 7, 12:40 am, "Michael Kuettner" <Michael.Kuett...@gmx.at>
wrote:
> "Curt Emanuel"  wrote in messagenews:jo5rot$cc2$1...@dont-email.me...

Much more compelling point of view than one of Gibbon. :-)

> So yes, Tours was important - Kosovo (Serbs on both sides, btw) is rather
> unimportant
> in comparison.

Kosovo, especially the 1st one, was unimportant in almost any aspect
except for it becoming a national legend. Not that its outcome changed
too mush: many of the Serbian princedoms already were Ottoman vassals
by the time of this battle and there was even some kind of a national
unification under the Ottomans, which turned to be fatal for the
Hungarians at the 2nd battle of Kosovo: Serbian Despot, Brankovich
refused to join Hunyadi (considering Hungarians a greater danger for
his territory than the Ottomans) and after the battle Hunyadi had been
captured by ... surprise, surprise, the Serbs.

[AlexMilman]

Of course, unless you want to make Paul's statement into 'La Palice
truth'. :-)

[an issue of the Mongolian horses climbing up the walls and up the
tress had been, IIRC, discussed at some length with a resulting (rare)
agreement of both parties involved]

[Curt Emanuel]

No - that's exactly MY point. To 1195 the Christians had the upper hand.
After 1195 things were in mostly a stalemate (though the Arabs raided
Castile pretty heavily and took the fortresses south of Toledo). The
10-year peace treaty the Christians agreed to was directly a result. So
1195 was turning point.

1212 was the next turning point. Within a year the Christians, after
making no significant gainss in 17 years had taken over Duenas,
Alcantara, and were able to besiege Merida. Las Navas de Tolosa began
the end of the Almohads.

One battle and the balance of power changed from roughly even to
decisively Christian. All you need to look at is what happened the next
4 decades and look at the date when that all began to take place.

>
>> Christians raided Arab territories and maybe grabbed a fortress or two,
>
> IIRC, they were mostly holding a ground slightly North of Toledo.

The Arabs had the south road to Toledo

>
>> Arabs raided Christian territories and maybe grabbed a fortress or two.
>
> Not "maybe", they took, among other places, Calatrava. But they did
> not have strength for re-re-conquest.

They didn't retake Toledo which may have been stupid. They were able to
achieve a balance, which hadn't existed before.

[Curt Emanuel]

I don't buy that Martel's position was that tenuous. Obviously if he'd
been killed or the Franks devastated from a defeat it would have been a
problem but he was a second-generation ruler. Eudo was a problem but
he'd been that for a long time. The reason Martel was able to take so
many with him to Tours was precisely because his position was secure
enough for him to not worry about rebellion. So long as he managed to
survive with his forces relatively intact, I doubt that would have
changed. Neustria, Austrasia and the tribal leaders hadn't had enough
time to forget how he'd defeated them. He likely would have had some
trouble but nobody had shown they could challenge him militarily.

[Renia]

YMMV? What does that mean?

Regarding the Cathars, I suppose you would have to define what you mean
by "a movement", as opposed, say, to the Spanish Inquisition, which
could be described as a Catholic "movement". Perhaps the Crusades
themselves were another "movement". Perhaps any religious war is one
"movement" against "another"?

[Paul J Gans]

Yes, but the heartland of the Empire was never regained.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[Paul J Gans]

We can never know, of course, but I think that a Saxon victory
orients England towards the east and northeast. And there is
then no English entanglement with France.

Indeed, given the land and eventually population advantage,
England might have become the leading "Northern" nation and
Europe might have had a totally different history.

[Paul J Gans]

AlexMilman <alexm...@msn.com> wrote:
>On May 5, 9:38 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >In article <jo3dn7$8n...@dont-email.me>, cemanue...@gmail.com says...
>>
>> >> I've been lurking for several weeks and haven't noticed a lot of
>> >> Medieval content even though there are several very competent posters
>> >> here. So I'm going to throw something out and see what happens. Besides,
>> >> I need something to get me in the Kalamazoo mood.
>>
>> >> What do you think were the five most important medieval battles, and why?
>>
>> >Let's be controversial.
>> >Falkirk and the start of 'the infantry revolution'.
>>
>> That's reasonable, but not for Falkirk itself, with which I think
>> you'd agree.

>If anything, Falkirk was won by exactly the same schema as Hastings:
>combination of cavalry and archers against infantry seriously lacking
>long range weapons. So, what was 'revolutionary' about this battle?

The Normans were predominately an infantry force at Hastings.

>> But there clearly was change over time.  I've dealt with this before,
>> mostly in the Great Horse Harness debate and the paper I wrote about
>> it.  When does evolutionary change become revolutionary?

>It did not, unless one is looking for the catchy slogans.

[Paul J Gans]

I don't think the religious element was nearly as important as
was the unification of France. Without the Crusade it is possible
(I don't know about "likely") that what is now southern and southeastern
France remain more or less independent with a totally different type
of civilization.

[Paul J Gans]

That's a good point. Without Islam the history of all of Europe is
totally different.

[Paul J Gans]

Nope. Western cavalry was clearly meant from context. However
the Huns and the Mongols were quite willing to get off their
horses at sieges. In the early days the westerners were not.

[Paul J Gans]

But Tours was not an invasion of France. It was a reconnaissance
in force already at the limits of its ability to penetrate France.

They did not hold territory, they simply rode through.

The main problem was the distance between the Islamic holdings in
Spain and the Frankish areas of France is 732.

[Curt Emanuel]

Your Mileage May Vary - basically means that I think this is pretty much
opinion and yours is as valid as mine.

[Brian M. Scott]

On Sun, 6 May 2012 13:56:18 -0700 (PDT), AlexMilman
<alexm...@msn.com> wrote in
<news:f65d18a4-897c-426e...@d8g2000vbw.googlegroups.com>
in soc.history.medieval:

But did they swim moats in armor?

Brian

[Tronscend]

"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> skrev i melding
news:jo76nc$bte$4...@reader1.panix.com...

Thx.

Is it possible that the whole French debacle
- arrested development in general due to sapping of resources?
The 100YW can't have been a source of income, really?

- slowed the development of naval power?
Britain came late to that, IIRC.

MVH,

T

[Weland]

An overlooked one I think is Battle of Eddington. Without an England,
or a pagan England, the Middle Ages and many of those battles would look
a lot different. I'm not saying it belongs in the top 5, but perhaps a
top 10.

[Tronscend]

"Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> skrev i melding
news:jo7psm$f12$1...@dont-email.me...

> ...... Without an England, ........ the Middle Ages ........would look a
> lot different.

Intriguing. How so?

T

[AlexMilman]

On May 6, 8:59 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

> AlexMilman <alexmil...@msn.com> wrote:
> >On May 5, 9:38 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> >> Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >In article <jo3dn7$8n...@dont-email.me>, cemanue...@gmail.com says...
>
> >> >> I've been lurking for several weeks and haven't noticed a lot of
> >> >> Medieval content even though there are several very competent posters
> >> >> here. So I'm going to throw something out and see what happens. Besides,
> >> >> I need something to get me in the Kalamazoo mood.
>
> >> >> What do you think were the five most important medieval battles, and why?
>
> >> >Let's be controversial.
> >> >Falkirk and the start of 'the infantry revolution'.
>
> >> That's reasonable, but not for Falkirk itself, with which I think
> >> you'd agree.
> >If anything, Falkirk was won by exactly the same schema as Hastings:
> >combination of cavalry and archers against infantry seriously lacking
> >long range weapons. So, what was 'revolutionary' about this battle?
>
> The Normans were predominately an infantry force at Hastings.

And they also had a seemingly powerful cavalry. The point is that
(unless explained in a meaningful way) Falkirk does not look as a
'revolutionary' battle.

[AlexMilman]

On May 6, 10:33 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
> On Sun, 6 May 2012 13:56:18 -0700 (PDT), AlexMilman

> <alexmil...@msn.com> wrote in

Taking into an account that they had been explicitly forbidden to swim
naked in an open water (which leaves question of the indoor pools
widely open), most probably, they did.

Of course, another theory insists that the Mongols had been
disintegrating when coming anywhere close to the water (or even under
intensive rain) and had to be airlifted to cross the rivers.

Or were you talking about the Mongolian horses (they also had been
carrying an armor so your question may be misinterpreted)?

[AlexMilman]

On May 6, 9:03 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

I can find some famous examples for the 'late' days when the knights
refused to do such a thing but it seems that there were numerous
examples for the reasonably 'early' Middle Ages where quite willing to
go up the ladders.

Anyway, as formulated, your statement means that the western knights
remained on a horseback all the time siege continued. :-)

[AlexMilman]

On May 6, 7:11 pm, Curt Emanuel <cemanue...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/6/2012 11:17 AM, AlexMilman wrote:


> >>>> Las Navas de Tolosa (1212) - The Reconquista had been going on for some
> >>>> time, slowly, but for the two decades prior to this battle the Arabs had
> >>>> been making rapid gains. This battle both turned the tide and really
> >>>> depleted Arab forces and strength. I think there's a strong chance that
> >>>> if the Arabs had won the Reconquista would have been stopped cold.
>
> >>> I doubt it. The same Alphonso VIII had been totally defeated at
> >>> Alarcos, 17 years prior to Las Navas de Tolosa but ended up with
> >>> loosing few pieces of territory South of Toledo. Tide was clearly
> >>> changing.
>
> >> I don't. In those 17 years things were pretty much at a stalemate.
>
> > Which is exactly my point: the Moors could not exploit results of a
> > great victory. The tide was turning.
>
> No - that's exactly MY point. To 1195 the Christians had the upper hand.
> After 1195 things were in mostly a stalemate (though the Arabs raided
> Castile pretty heavily and took the fortresses south of Toledo).

Which means that they could not exploit results of their victory.
Which means that dynamic already changed.

>The
> 10-year peace treaty the Christians agreed to was directly a result. So
> 1195 was turning point.

If you want to call it this way, I have no problems. You are missing
my point: "turning point" in this (and many other cases) was just an
event emphasizing existing trend.

>
> 1212 was the next turning point. Within a year the Christians, after
> making no significant gainss in 17 years had taken over Duenas,
> Alcantara, and were able to besiege Merida. Las Navas de Tolosa began
> the end of the Almohads.
>
> One battle and the balance of power changed from roughly even to
> decisively Christian.

Christians had been already on offensive for quite a while and could
afford losses here and there because the Moors could not exploit their
victories to the full extent. The Moors had been on decline and a
single significant loss for them was catastrophic. We are talking
about the same thing in the different ways.

[AlexMilman]

Do you think that if Alfred lost to the Danes England would remain
heathen for the next few centuries? After all, Danes accepted
Christianity within 50 - 60 years after this event.

[AlexMilman]

On May 6, 9:11 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> Michael Kuettner <Michael.Kuett...@gmx.at> wrote:
> >"Curt Emanuel"  wrote in messagenews:jo5rot$cc2$1...@dont-email.me...

You have no respect to Gibbon Almighty (well, neither do I). :-)

The most compelling argument in a favor of conquest theory that I'm
aware of (Gibbon, AFAIK, did not bother with the trifles like proof,
logistics, numbers, etc.) is that there was some pattern of the Arab
conquest in Europe: 1st, harass and reduce centers of resistance and
then move in (presumably, this was what they had been planning to do
in Aquitaine and more or less did along the Med coast of France).
Their true intentions or physical abilities to accomplish such a thing
beyond Southern France is anybody's guess but I doubts that they had
resources adequate for real conquest of these territories.

>
> They did not hold territory, they simply rode through.
>
> The main problem was the distance between the Islamic holdings in
> Spain and the Frankish areas of France is 732.

Exactly. And the numbers they had in their disposal.

[AlexMilman]

On May 6, 11:19 pm, "Tronscend" <tronf...@frizurf.no> wrote:
> "Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> skrev i meldingnews:jo76nc$bte$4...@reader1.panix.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > Tronscend <tronf...@frizurf.no> wrote:
>
> >>"Curt Emanuel" <cemanue...@gmail.com> skrev i melding

AFAIK, it was a source of income for some individuals and even for the
royal family (when the things were in English favor): one of the
income items was ransoming turned into something like modern publicly
held company: you invested into equipment of <whoever> and this made
you entitled to a certain percentage of the future ransoms and
looting.

On a state level, IIRC, one of the main points on which population of
England was adamant is that war must be paid for by the French
territories. Which did not contribute too much to English popularity
in France and when their possessions in France started shrinking made
funding of the war more and more problematic.

[SolomonW]

On Sun, 6 May 2012 09:24:32 -0700 (PDT), AlexMilman wrote:

> On May 6, 12:01 pm, SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 05 May 2012 10:33:07 -0400, Curt Emanuel wrote:

>>> I've been lurking for several weeks and haven't noticed a lot of
>>> Medieval content even though there are several very competent posters
>>> here. So I'm going to throw something out and see what happens. Besides,
>>> I need something to get me in the Kalamazoo mood.
>>
>>> What do you think were the five most important medieval battles, and why?
>>

>>> For me, important means something which substantially altered the course
>>> of events in such a way that, without this battle and the outcome, it's
>>> very likely that history would have evolved in a substantially different
>>> way down the road. Out of my list I think the first three were pretty
>>> fundamental, the fourth I can argue very strongly, and my 5th was
>>> plucked from about 10 choices, because I felt like it. I'm putting the
>>> year in parentheses.
>>

>>> Vouille (507) - A couple of pretty important things were determined
>>> here. First that Clovis and the Franks would become the premier power in
>>> continental Europe. Second that Theoderic and Alaric would be unable to
>>> maintain what at the time looked like a budding Empire from the Italian
>>> peninsula into Iberia. In addition, at the time almost all of the other
>>> Western Kingdoms were Arian. Only the Franks were Orthodox. If the
>>> Franks and Clovis lose, I think it's likely that things would have been
>>> very different - no Merovingians, Arian rather than what we call
>>> Orthodox Christianity and possibly (this is less likely) a Gothic Empire.
>>
>>> Yarmouk (636) - This was probably the key battle of the Islamic Conquest
>>> against the Byzantines and gave Islam Syria, where they launched the
>>> captures of Jerusalem, Egypt, etc. I think it could be paired with the
>>> 718 Siege of Jerusalem since those two pretty much established the
>>> Byzantine-Islamic balance that lasted for several centuries.
>>

>>> Hastings (1066) - I ain't talking about this one but I think it's pretty
>>> obvious.
>>

>>> Las Navas de Tolosa (1212) - The Reconquista had been going on for some
>>> time, slowly, but for the two decades prior to this battle the Arabs had
>>> been making rapid gains. This battle both turned the tide and really
>>> depleted Arab forces and strength. I think there's a strong chance that
>>> if the Arabs had won the Reconquista would have been stopped cold.
>>

>>> Kosovo (1389) - I actually had a hard time coming up with a fifth. For
>>> pretty much every one I came up with - Manzikert, Bouvines, Orleans - I
>>> think that even if things had gone the other way, in the long run events
>>> would have progressed similarly. Kosovo's in the same category. The
>>> Ottomans invaded Serbia with a tremendous force. Serbia raised pretty
>>> much everyone to fight. Technically the Ottomans won but it was pretty
>>> much a draw, with tremendous casualties on both sides. Problem is, the
>>> Ottomans had more men in Anatolia, Serbia didn't and over the next
>>> couple of decades was taken over. I think it's possible that if Serbia

>>> had won decisively the Turkish advance would have stopped there and the
>>> West may have been able to save Constantinople. More likely is that

>>> things would have gone on the same general way though things such as the
>>> fall of Constantinople might have been delayed a few decades.
>>

>> One of the earlier battles of Islam like the Battle of Badr. A major loss
>> by Muhammad would probably have destroyed Islam. You could then butterfly
>> most of medieval history.
>

> Or "Battle of the 13 sides" (1201): Genghis won but had been wounded
> by an arrow and, initially, there was a suspicion that this arrow is
> poisoned. Genghis death in 1201 would probably mean no unification of
> the Mongols (alternative, Jamuha, seems to be unappealing person:
> subordinates had been leaving him even when he was successful). This
> would mean no Mongol Empire with all possible consequences from China
> to Eastern Europe.

And South all the way to India and Egypt.

[AlexMilman]

Indeed. And even if this empire did not stay forever, its impact had
been quite significant and, among other things, included shaping of
the Russian absolute monarchy (and, arguably, Russian state all the
way to the present) with the domino effects well beyond borders and
time frame of the Mongolian Empire.

[Erilar]

Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

An interesting one, I'd expect 8-)



--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist with iPad

[AlexMilman]

On May 6, 8:59 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

> AlexMilman <alexmil...@msn.com> wrote:
> >On May 5, 9:38 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> >> Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >In article <jo3dn7$8n...@dont-email.me>, cemanue...@gmail.com says...
>
> >> >> I've been lurking for several weeks and haven't noticed a lot of
> >> >> Medieval content even though there are several very competent posters
> >> >> here. So I'm going to throw something out and see what happens. Besides,
> >> >> I need something to get me in the Kalamazoo mood.
>
> >> >> What do you think were the five most important medieval battles, and why?
>
> >> >Let's be controversial.
> >> >Falkirk and the start of 'the infantry revolution'.
>
> >> That's reasonable, but not for Falkirk itself, with which I think
> >> you'd agree.
> >If anything, Falkirk was won by exactly the same schema as Hastings:
> >combination of cavalry and archers against infantry seriously lacking
> >long range weapons. So, what was 'revolutionary' about this battle?
>
> The Normans were predominately an infantry force at Hastings.
>

To avoid pointless bickering, what I'm trying to say is following.

Infantry in various forms and numbers was present almost always. Even
within standard subject of the jokes, the Mongols, in China the native
troops started switching to their side on the reasonably early stages
of conquest so their armies there most probably DID have a sizable
infantry component. Admittedly, this was not the case during conquest
in the Central Asia (Khwaresm) or Eastern Europe but they did have
trained engineering corps.

As far as the Western Europe is involved, it does not make sense to
even consider "revolution" in the terms that infantry was not there
and then suddenly materialized as genie from the bottle. It is
obviously an absurd basic assumption and it does not even make sense
to argue against it because this never was the case.

One may talk about "revolution" in the terms that from the "junior"
branch (as the name "infantry" indicates) it evolved/changed/
<whatever> into the main (as in "recognized as the most important")
branch of the European armies. This, of course, was an evolutionary
process with the "weight" changing in infantry's favor for quite a few
centuries with the ...er.... "final acknowledgement" coming probably
by the time of the Napoleonic Wars: Clausewitz in his description of
the Jena campaign makes it clear that Prussian generals (and the whole
army) still had a notion (carried from the time of Friedrich the
Great) that Prussian cavalry attacking sword in hand can destroy any
infantry (with his own post factum remarks that few infantry
battalions could repel any cavalry charge).

There were, of course, earlier recognitions, like de Comnin's remarks
that the archers supported by the dismounted knights (not exactly an
"infantry" but reasonably close in tactical terms) were a recipe for
success (OTOH, if you read Froissart, you'd have problems with
figuring out if the English archers played any significant role: he
was writing for aristocratic audience which, of course, knew about
unpleasant facts of life and had been using them extensively but was
not quite ready to acknowledge them as worthy of recording).

Recognition of the Swiss pikemen as a force capable to deliver the
victory ON ITS OWN and subsequent development of the German and
Spanish national infantries was another symptom of the change of
balance. After Battle of Pavia del Guasto, even considered French
gendarmes as obsolete only to acknowledge his mistake after defeat at
Cheresolla (sp). With the growing power of the firearms, "noble"
cavalry was getting less and less important and cavalry in general was
getting less and less aristocratic, which was making social aspect of
'seniority' less and less important even if service in cavalry
remained, in general, more prestigious (even this is a little bit
ambivalent because Randolph Churchill considered acceptance of his son
into Sandhurst cavalry class as a clear sign that his heir is an idiot
with no future).

We are talking about a process that took 3 - 4 centuries. A little bit
too long for "revolution".

[Paul J Gans]

The Hundred Years War was not continuous. Economic development
went on in spite of it -- of course not in areas over which
armies marched...

[Paul J Gans]

Possibly more like Germany at the same point in time.

[Michael Kuettner]

"Curt Emanuel" wrote in message news:jo71bd$br6$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 5/7/2012 12:40 AM, Michael Kuettner wrote:
>
>
>
>> It's a little more complicated than that. If Martell had lost at Tours,
>> he would
>> have been finished. The supremacy of the Austrasian hausmeier wasn't
>> that old;
>> Eudo of Aquitane had dealings wuth the enemy, wide parts of the later
>> Frankia
>> were not very sympathetic towards him.
>> Now look at Tours : St. Martin of Tours was _the_ Saint of the Frankia.
>> had his
>> grave been plundered by Abdarrahman, Martell would have lost his
>> legitimation.
>> No victory at Tours, no Frankia as we know it and no Carolus Magnus.
>> Europe would have looked completely different.
>> So yes, Tours was important - Kosovo (Serbs on both sides, btw) is
>> rather unimportant
>> in comparison.
>

> I don't buy that Martel's position was that tenuous. Obviously if he'd

Really ? Then I suggest you read the Metzer Annalen, among other things.
The times from 714 onwards were bloody and bordered on civil war
between Austrasia and Neustria.

> been killed or the Franks devastated from a defeat it would have been a
> problem but he was a second-generation ruler.

<snort> Good joke.
Let's take a closer look :
Pippin manages to become the supreme hausmeier. His heir would have
Grimoald. That would have been a second-gemeration ruler who would
have the Frankia behind him.
But : Grimoald gets murdered, Theudoald (Karl's stepbrother) becomes heir.
Plektrud is opposed to Karl.
The base in Austrasia gets nervous, the opponents in Neustria and on the
borders become bold.
The Merovingian kings were mere puppets, the church wasn't united and
feuded among themselves.
Let's get back to Plektrud : The widow has the power (Theudoald is a minor).
She takes Karl prisoner in 714/15 and tries to install Theudoald as
Hausmeier
of Dagobert III. and his cousin Arnulf as dux in the Champaigne/Burgundy.
She herself settled down in Koeln and tried her hand at discretum regimen,
IOW the true ruler.
Now the gates wer open for conflict - while Pippin could pull of the role as
the real power behind the throne, Plektrud couldn't. Neustria rebelled and
Theudoald got his ass handed to him 715 at Compiègne.
They took Dagobert and forced him to name Raganfried as hausmeier.
Theudoald is toast, Dagobert dies in the winter 715/16.
Now Raganfried gets to nominate the next Merovinian Childerich II.,
who named himself Chilperich II.
The Pippinids were in dire straits; Raganfried plundered the area of the
Ardennes
and down to the Maas. Together with the Friesen under Radbod (the father in
law
of Grimoald they went to Koeln and Plektrud had to pay ransom.
Now the stage was set for Karl as the last hope auf the Austrasians.
First he battled the Friesen and lost. He wasn't able to beat Chilperich and
Raganfried until 717 at Vinchy. Only then was he able to march against Koeln
and to force Plektrud into a monastery.
Now he names Chlothar IV. as counter - king to Chilperich.
Raganfried allies himself with Eudo, dux of Aquitania (yes, that Eudo).
718 Karl is able to force Eudo into submission; he gets Chilperich & his
treasures.
Since Chlothar hadn't lasted very long, Karl "adopts" Chilperich and gets
named hausmeier in 720. Raganfried was officially out of the game - he ruled
in Anjou until 731 (his death).
Now Karl had to pick up the shards of the Frankia; and also there were
the Friesians, Saxons and Aquitanians. Add to that the duci from east of the
Rhine who always kept distance to the hausmeier and had no quarrels with
aiding their enemies. The Algilolfinger come to mind here ...
Anyway, from 718 on he had war with the Saxons. That should last until
Carolus Magnus ...
Then the war with the Friesians, which would last until 733/34.
The war with Allemannia , 725, 728 and finally 730 (after the death of
Lantfried there's no dux mentioned in Allemannia).
Then there's Bavaria under the Algilolfinger ...

But back to the Frankia : We have an open war between the Austrasians
and Neustrians just ended, war on the borders and the problem of
Aquitania. Eudo was heavy into Moor politics; sadly he was allied with
the wrong Moorish prince. When he died, his enemy Abdarrahman marched
first against Aquitania. He plundered Bordeaux and Poitiers - the loot was
heavy.
The why onwards to Tours ? As others have pointed out, the whole Moorish
campaign wasn't about conquest. It was about plunder - unless they gained
by the connection with Eudo some insight into the inner workings of the
Frankia
under Karl. The grave of St. Martin in Tours was sakrosankt - if they had
managed
to plunder / desecrate it, Karl would be finished. Think along the lines
what
would happen if the Kaaba in Mekka were destroyed ...
Karl would have lost the legitimation as protector of the Frankia - the
shards
he had managed to glue together would have fallen apart again and the
Frankia would have ended up in civil war with the border lords and the Moors
ready to pick up the pieces.

So much for your "second-generation ruler".







> Eudo was a problem but he'd been that for a long time. The reason Martel
> was able to take so many with him to Tours was precisely because his
> position was secure enough for him to not worry about rebellion. So long
> as he managed to survive with his forces relatively intact, I doubt that
> would have changed. Neustria, Austrasia and the tribal leaders hadn't had
> enough time to forget how he'd defeated them. He likely would have had
> some trouble but nobody had shown they could challenge him militarily.

<snort> See above.

Cheers,

Michael Kuettner

[Michael Kuettner]

"Paul J Gans" wrote in message news:jo77f9$bte$9...@reader1.panix.com...

-----------------------------------------------------------

What fucking France? There was no France.
-----------------------------------------------------------

They did not hold territory, they simply rode through.

-----------------------------------------------------------
No, not really. See my other post.
Tours was the target.
-----------------------------------------------------------

The main problem was the distance between the Islamic holdings in
Spain and the Frankish areas of France is 732.

----------------------------------------------------------
Again, what fucking France ? There was no France.
There was only a Frankia which could be broken apart by plundering Tours.
See my other post.

Cheers,

Michael Kuettner

[Tronscend]

"Michael Kuettner" <Michael....@gmx.at> skrev i melding
news:jo95gk$8np$1...@dont-email.me...

>
> <snort> Good joke.
> Let's take a closer look :
> Pippin manages to become the supreme hausmeier. His heir would have
> Grimoald. That would have been a second-gemeration ruler who would
> have the Frankia behind him.
> But : Grimoald gets murdered, Theudoald (Karl's stepbrother) becomes heir.
> Plektrud is opposed to Karl.

....

> Karl would have lost the legitimation as protector of the Frankia - the
> shards
> he had managed to glue together would have fallen apart again and the
> Frankia would have ended up in civil war with the border lords and the
> Moors
> ready to pick up the pieces.
>
> So much for your "second-generation ruler".

Like I said ....

Some of the absentee battles concern the power struggle between various
continental tribes, proto-kingdoms and "spheres of influence" that gave us
France, Germany, Italy .... and they went on from Roman times up to ....
1989 (Berlin Wall)? (Or should we include the Yugoslav Troubles?)

T

[Tronscend]

"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> skrev i melding

news:jo8sv6$i77$1...@reader1.panix.com...

> The Hundred Years War was not continuous. Economic development
> went on in spite of it -- of course not in areas over which
> armies marched...

Thx again, good sir.
I guess I have to get used to not being so elliptic ....
What I meant by "The French Debacle" was not
only the 100YW (just a case in point, really ), but
the whole turn toward France that 1066 led to;
the constant drain of resources to maintain
the Angevin Empire from, say, Stephen to
Henry VII, or even Henry VIII, who also dallied in France
(although it is hard to separate the dynastic debacles
from the merely bad-neighbours-debacles).

All this as opposed to a more, to call it something: North Sea
oriented Britain, if either Harold or Harald had won both
Stamford Bridge and Hastings. Given such a heritage,
"The Influence of Sea Power upon History, 1660-1783"
would have been a book of medieval prophecies.
Like, they wouldn't have had to wait until 1492
to colonize America. (OK, very what-if.)

MVH,

T

[Paul J Gans]

Tronscend <tron...@frizurf.no> wrote:

>"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> skrev i melding
>news:jo8sv6$i77$1...@reader1.panix.com...

>> The Hundred Years War was not continuous. Economic development
>> went on in spite of it -- of course not in areas over which
>> armies marched...


>Thx again, good sir.
>I guess I have to get used to not being so elliptic ....
>What I meant by "The French Debacle" was not
>only the 100YW (just a case in point, really ), but
>the whole turn toward France that 1066 led to;
>the constant drain of resources to maintain
>the Angevin Empire from, say, Stephen to
>Henry VII, or even Henry VIII, who also dallied in France
>(although it is hard to separate the dynastic debacles
>from the merely bad-neighbours-debacles).

It is complicated. Eleanor of Aquitaine married Henry II
and brought with her a major part of France. That part
of France was enormously profitable for the English and
paid their bills for many years.

On the other hand, it was not close by and as events later
showed, not easy to defend.

>All this as opposed to a more, to call it something: North Sea
>oriented Britain, if either Harold or Harald had won both
>Stamford Bridge and Hastings. Given such a heritage,
>"The Influence of Sea Power upon History, 1660-1783"
>would have been a book of medieval prophecies.
>Like, they wouldn't have had to wait until 1492
>to colonize America. (OK, very what-if.)

As you say, it is very hard to deal with what-if's that contain
major changes in history. There are too many contingent things
to be able to say anything with great certainty -- though I'm
fairly sure that without Hastings Saxon England would have been
more oriented toward the Scandinavian countries.

[Tronscend]

"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> skrev i melding

news:jo9u4f$mu7$2...@reader1.panix.com...

Hi,

The debt ever rises ....

> It is complicated. Eleanor of Aquitaine married Henry II
> and brought with her a major part of France. That part
> of France was enormously profitable for the English and
> paid their bills for many years.

Didn't know this (along with myriads of other stuff).
Of course, a source of revenue is to be protected.

The EN wiki on CYW (Caveat: uses the F-word repeatedly!)
says that the France Wars bankrupted the English Crown,
despite the spoils brought home by individual campaigners.
Explicable, I hazard, by some complicated economics formula.

> On the other hand, it was not close by and as events later
> showed, not easy to defend.

What comes to mind, then, is the CPA warning
against throwing good money after bad.

However, momentous decisions ... hindsight ...
Iacta will, to sum it up, be alea.

>>All this as opposed to a more, to call it something: North Sea
>>oriented Britain, if either Harold or Harald had won both
>>Stamford Bridge and Hastings. Given such a heritage,
>>"The Influence of Sea Power upon History, 1660-1783"
>>would have been a book of medieval prophecies.
>>Like, they wouldn't have had to wait until 1492
>>to colonize America. (OK, very what-if.)
>
> As you say, it is very hard to deal with what-if's that contain
> major changes in history. There are too many contingent things
> to be able to say anything with great certainty

Agreed; I only brought it up re: the OP's term
"substantial change" (does that differ from a "major change"?).
Seems to be a .... don't know the term in english ... :
"If substantiality goes up, so does the very-hard-to-deal-withity
on account of contingency/uncertainty."
Correlation?

-- though I'm
> fairly sure that without Hastings Saxon England would have been
> more oriented toward the Scandinavian countries.

To be my own devil's advocate:
(And with such a - probably - very unscholarly reference ... )
Terry Pratchett and stories...
(Was it in "Mort"? Mort prevented a princess' fated death, only to discover
that reality/history reasserted itself despite 'killing-your-own-granddad'.)

France remains, geographically, Britain's closest neighbour, always
a source of lawyer revenue. Hard to see the UK as arch-enemies
of Bohemia, for instance. So a small deduction there.

IOW, perhaps Britain would have 'snapped back' from any 'Norse
orientation' to the same degree that economy/geography overrides culture.
That's why I mentioned America, which would have provided
an economic reinforcement of the Northern Turn; postulated (?)
(or "presuppositioned"?) upon Britain being populous
and industrious enough to exploit the discovery, as the Norse were not.

Which is where navalty enters the picture. Britain had (or had not, at
various times)
a navy of numerous vessels, but used merely to go to Ireland, Flanders and
France
(+ some Claret convoy protection).

---

Well, to sum it up, this subject is tweakable to the exact the same degree
as the term "substantial" wrt. change (Peace offering: ".... , it seems").




MVH,

T

[SolomonW]

On Mon, 7 May 2012 01:02:01 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans wrote:

> SolomonW <Solo...@citi.com> wrote:

>>On Sat, 05 May 2012 10:33:07 -0400, Curt Emanuel wrote:
>
>>> I've been lurking for several weeks and haven't noticed a lot of
>>> Medieval content even though there are several very competent posters
>>> here. So I'm going to throw something out and see what happens. Besides,
>>> I need something to get me in the Kalamazoo mood.
>>>

>>> What do you think were the five most important medieval battles, and why?
>>>

>>> For me, important means something which substantially altered the course
>>> of events in such a way that, without this battle and the outcome, it's
>>> very likely that history would have evolved in a substantially different
>>> way down the road. Out of my list I think the first three were pretty
>>> fundamental, the fourth I can argue very strongly, and my 5th was
>>> plucked from about 10 choices, because I felt like it. I'm putting the
>>> year in parentheses.
>>>

>>> Vouille (507) - A couple of pretty important things were determined
>>> here. First that Clovis and the Franks would become the premier power in
>>> continental Europe. Second that Theoderic and Alaric would be unable to
>>> maintain what at the time looked like a budding Empire from the Italian
>>> peninsula into Iberia. In addition, at the time almost all of the other
>>> Western Kingdoms were Arian. Only the Franks were Orthodox. If the
>>> Franks and Clovis lose, I think it's likely that things would have been
>>> very different - no Merovingians, Arian rather than what we call
>>> Orthodox Christianity and possibly (this is less likely) a Gothic Empire.
>>>
>>> Yarmouk (636) - This was probably the key battle of the Islamic Conquest
>>> against the Byzantines and gave Islam Syria, where they launched the
>>> captures of Jerusalem, Egypt, etc. I think it could be paired with the
>>> 718 Siege of Jerusalem since those two pretty much established the
>>> Byzantine-Islamic balance that lasted for several centuries.
>>>

>>> Hastings (1066) - I ain't talking about this one but I think it's pretty
>>> obvious.
>>>

>>> Las Navas de Tolosa (1212) - The Reconquista had been going on for some
>>> time, slowly, but for the two decades prior to this battle the Arabs had
>>> been making rapid gains. This battle both turned the tide and really
>>> depleted Arab forces and strength. I think there's a strong chance that
>>> if the Arabs had won the Reconquista would have been stopped cold.
>>>
>>> Kosovo (1389) - I actually had a hard time coming up with a fifth. For
>>> pretty much every one I came up with - Manzikert, Bouvines, Orleans - I
>>> think that even if things had gone the other way, in the long run events
>>> would have progressed similarly. Kosovo's in the same category. The
>>> Ottomans invaded Serbia with a tremendous force. Serbia raised pretty
>>> much everyone to fight. Technically the Ottomans won but it was pretty
>>> much a draw, with tremendous casualties on both sides. Problem is, the
>>> Ottomans had more men in Anatolia, Serbia didn't and over the next
>>> couple of decades was taken over. I think it's possible that if Serbia
>>> had won decisively the Turkish advance would have stopped there and the
>>> West may have been able to save Constantinople. More likely is that
>>> things would have gone on the same general way though things such as the
>>> fall of Constantinople might have been delayed a few decades.
>
>>One of the earlier battles of Islam like the Battle of Badr. A major loss
>>by Muhammad would probably have destroyed Islam. You could then butterfly
>>most of medieval history.
>

> That's a good point. Without Islam the history of all of Europe is
> totally different.

Everywhere else too.

[SolomonW]

It would make a good what-if

[Curt Emanuel]

The recent history of Francia showed that whoever had the strongest
force and could beat the others into submission would rule.

That was Martel. If the Arabs won, even if they desecrated Martin's
grave, so long as the Frankish force wasn't devastated, that was still
Martel.

He'd have likely had some trouble and it may have inspired some
rebellion (really the wrong word here, breaking of alliance is better)
but none of them had shown any inclination for allying with each other
and there's no reason to think they would have done that here.

Creatively inventing some scenario where the various groups Martel had
just beat the crap out of suddenly become either stronger or capable of
acting together against him doesn't change the fact that he had the most
men, the most resources, the strongest force and was very capable (and
willing) of beating the crap out of people again.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> Eudo was a problem but he'd been that for a long time. The reason
>> Martel was able to take so many with him to Tours was precisely
>> because his position was secure enough for him to not worry about
>> rebellion. So long as he managed to survive with his forces relatively
>> intact, I doubt that would have changed. Neustria, Austrasia and the
>> tribal leaders hadn't had enough time to forget how he'd defeated
>> them. He likely would have had some trouble but nobody had shown they
>> could challenge him militarily.
>
> <snort> See above.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Michael Kuettner
>
>

--
--------
Curt Emanuel
ceman...@gmail.com

[Michael Kuettner]

"Curt Emanuel" wrote in message news:job4i6$3ro$1...@dont-email.me...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nice try to get around your claim re "second generation ruler".
So the history of Frankia shows that your prior claim is nonsense.
Just for the record.
So onwards to the second one.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

That was Martel. If the Arabs won, even if they desecrated Martin's
grave, so long as the Frankish force wasn't devastated, that was still
Martel.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, that wouldn't have been Martel. I wrote a rathert long post to explain
to you that noone who let the grave of SAINT Martin be plundered
would have the legitimation to rule as a hausmeier.
Karl would have been done for.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

He'd have likely had some trouble and it may have inspired some
rebellion (really the wrong word here, breaking of alliance is better)
but none of them had shown any inclination for allying with each other
and there's no reason to think they would have done that here.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've written about the civil war between Neustria and Austrasia.
Went right over your head, as it seems.
Try to read something besides Gibbons.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Creatively inventing some scenario where the various groups Martel had
just beat the crap out of suddenly become either stronger or capable of
acting together against him doesn't change the fact that he had the most
men, the most resources, the strongest force and was very capable (and
willing) of beating the crap out of people again.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
He had just beat the crap out of the Saxons and Bavarians ?
Fascinating ! Now I wonder why Tassilo and the Saxons bothered
Carolus, if they were so utterly vanquished.

You've admitted your first claim to be nonsense. Your second "claim"
is rather fast back-pedalling and obfuscating with a side-order of insult.

Unless you bring something up to support your "position", it's EOD for me.

Cheers,

Michael Kuettner

[Michael Kuettner]

"Paul J Gans" wrote in message news:jo8sv6$i77$1...@reader1.panix.com...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ah, but no Hundred Years War without Hastings.
Without the HYW France would have had more resources to mess
with the HRE. Which would also have changed the face of Europe.
So yes, Hastings has importance beyond the British Isles.

Maybe we should create another thread : Which were the five most
important battles before 1000 AD and which battles between 1000 and
1500 AD wouldn't have happened without them ?


Cheers,

Michael Kuettner

[Curt Emanuel]

Actually the history of Francia shows that you don't understand words.
See below.

Actually I admitted nothing of the sort. Martel had a contested
situation before he became Mayor of the Palace.

So what? He was proclaimed Mayor as (to the nobility) the legitimate
heir as the son of the previous ruler, compared to a grandchild. He was
the second ruler from the same hereditary line, the son of the previous
ruler - a second-generation ruler.

That's what a second-generation ruler IS. Trying to change the meaning
of a word because you brought it up fallaciously in an argument is a bit
duplicitous.

Either that or you don't know what the term means.

>
> Unless you bring something up to support your "position", it's EOD for me.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Michael Kuettner
>
>
>
>

The second problem with your entire scenario is far more basic and I
should have brought it up earlier but I hadn't really given it that much
thought.

Martin's tomb would have never been desecrated.

Now I have no reason to doubt that had ar-Rahman either not been opposed
or defeated Martel that he would have marched into Tours and destroyed
the tomb and basilica.

This is irrelevant. It was an impossible fact for Islam to have
triumphed over Christianity and a Christian Saint in this way in the
eyes of the Church. Within a week after the Arabs withdrew there would
have been a tomb at the same site, decorated, lit by lamps, etc., etc.

The story would have gone out that Martin would have been able to do
what no secular force could and resist the Arab invaders. Allowing the
truth to become accepted contemporary fact would have been an
impossibility for the Church. The contemporary reality would have been
that the tomb had survived unharmed. Not only that but the tomb would
have been credited with forcing the Arabs to withdraw from Tours and Gaul.

The argument about what the response would have been to the desecration
of the tomb is irrelevant because unless the Arabs stayed and occupied
the city, the reality portrayed by the Bishop and the Church would have
been that the tomb survived unharmed. I am as certain of this as I am
that 'Abd ar-Rhamin was accurately portrayed in _The Mozarabic
Chronicle_ as having a goal of plundering Tours.

It wouldn't have been the first or last time the tomb had been credited
with something it didn't do - unless you believe that the tomb actually
had shattered stone, broken chains, torn cell doors from their hinges, etc.

If Charles Martel had survived the battle with his forces relatively
intact he would have gone on as the ruler of Francia. He wouldn't have
become legendary in the same way and I suppose you can argue that
Zachary wouldn't have named the Pippinids/Carolingians rightful ruler of
the Franks (though Zachary was desperate for allies against the Lombards
so I don't think this would have necessarily gone that differently) but
while he would have lost some of his aura, he still would have been the
most accomplished military leader of the day, with the strongest forces.

It's unlikely that history would have been significantly altered.

BTW - I haven't read Gibbon. Sorry, you seem to be quite a fan.

[AlexMilman]

On May 8, 9:46 pm, "Michael Kuettner" <Michael.Kuett...@gmx.at> wrote:
> "Paul J Gans"  wrote in messagenews:jo8sv6$i77$1...@reader1.panix.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Tronscend <tronf...@frizurf.no> wrote:
> >"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> skrev i melding
> >news:jo76nc$bte$4...@reader1.panix.com...

> >> Tronscend <tronf...@frizurf.no> wrote:
>
> >>>"Curt Emanuel" <cemanue...@gmail.com> skrev i melding

Only if possibility of an alternative King of England marrying heiress
of Aquitaine is completely excluded.

[Curt Emanuel]

Not really. I'm saying that since 1195 things had been basically a
stalemate with some Arab gains and that another big Arab victory would
have created a new normal; one where the Reconquest was pretty much
stopped cold. Keep in mind I'm NOT (and never did) saying that the Arabs
would have rolled back the Christians, just that they wouldn't have lost
any more territory. That doesn't mean that 50 years later the Christians
wouldn't have had a big victory and gotten things going again but at
least for a fair amount of time things would have stabilized (minor
raids, a few castles captured by both sides).

I'm pretty sure you're saying that even if the Arabs had won a decisive
victory the Reconquest would have rolled merrily on. I disagree and I
think we'll need to leave it at that.

[Michael Kuettner]

"Curt Emanuel" wrote in message news:joblpb$ehk$1...@dont-email.me...
<snip>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Much better. You're bringing a reasoned argument.
Btw, sorry for my shitty Win7 "newsreader". It's broken beyond repair.
As soon as I've got some time, I'll change to X-news or something like that.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>
> Nice try to get around your claim re "second generation ruler".
> So the history of Frankia shows that your prior claim is nonsense.
> Just for the record.

Actually the history of Francia shows that you don't understand words.
See below.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
No,not really. See below.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(a) He wasn't the heir of the legitimate ruler - he was no Merovingian.
Let's try not to forget this little fact.
(b) He wasn't the legitimate heir as he was no son of Plektrud; but of
a second wife (Treidelfrau). While those "bastards" had some rights
to a limited inheritance, he would only have been the legitimate heir
if Pippin had proclaimed him so. Which Pippin didn't.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That's what a second-generation ruler IS. Trying to change the meaning
of a word because you brought it up fallaciously in an argument is a bit
duplicitous.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
And I went to the trouble of writing a rather long post to show that
Karl wasn't a second-generation ruler. Why don't you read that again ?
Karl won because he was able; but he had no claim to power besides
the fact that he won battles. So, no - no legitimation by being second
of a dynasty. He earned his hausmeier by showing that he was able
_to defend the Frankia as servant of the king_.
Yes, the ruler was the king; although he was too weak to rule ...

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Either that or you don't know what the term means.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I know exactly what it means. Grimoald would have been a second-
generation "ruler" by birthright. Karl wasn't, as he wasn't the child of
Pippin's wife.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>

The second problem with your entire scenario is far more basic and I
should have brought it up earlier but I hadn't really given it that much
thought.

Martin's tomb would have never been desecrated.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
And that's the main point of our disagreement.
The tomb would have been desecrated, IMO.
That was the whole point of the battle.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Now I have no reason to doubt that had ar-Rahman either not been opposed
or defeated Martel that he would have marched into Tours and destroyed
the tomb and basilica.

This is irrelevant. It was an impossible fact for Islam to have
triumphed over Christianity and a Christian Saint in this way in the
eyes of the Church. Within a week after the Arabs withdrew there would
have been a tomb at the same site, decorated, lit by lamps, etc., etc.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
And here we have the reason why you arrive at different conclusions.
I'll explain my point a little more :
The point of ar-Rahman's little adventure was never conquest.
Rahman came up on top after inner quarrelling; he went after one
of the supporters of his main opponent, who recently died.
That supporter was Eudo. Meaning : Destroy one of his foes (Eudo
had to flee under Frankish protection) and make rich plunder.
Mission accomplished. But : Karl was emerging as the new ruler of the
Frankia and ar-Rahman saw a golden opportunity to send the Frankia
into disorder again - plunder the tomb of St. Martin.
If he succeeds, he has bought at least 10 years because all hell would
break loose in the Frankia.
No worries about bothersome neighbours because the Franks would
have been busy fighting among themselves until (propably) Karl would
again emerge as victor.
That would have been ample time for ar-Rahman to end the strife in Moorish
Spain and become ruler there.
It's a rather convincing scenario - but I don't claim it to be true.
To sum it up :
Why go the extra length to desecrate the grave unless he knew that that
would
have serious repercussions on Karl ? He had rich plunder from Aquitania,
Eudo was neutralized; all he had to do was to go back.
Instead he tried for Tours and died. Why ? Conquest wasn't an option,
the plunder already was more than enough and still ...

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The story would have gone out that Martin would have been able to do
what no secular force could and resist the Arab invaders. Allowing the
truth to become accepted contemporary fact would have been an
impossibility for the Church. The contemporary reality would have been
that the tomb had survived unharmed. Not only that but the tomb would
have been credited with forcing the Arabs to withdraw from Tours and Gaul.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What church ? You seem to think of it as monolithic; it wasn't.
They quarrelled among themselves just like the Franks ...
Your scenario is rather unrealistic.
Not just because of the church, but also because of Karl's followers
who only followed because he won. They would have turned against him.
No legitimation from heaven, no followers.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The argument about what the response would have been to the desecration
of the tomb is irrelevant because unless the Arabs stayed and occupied
the city, the reality portrayed by the Bishop and the Church would have
been that the tomb survived unharmed. I am as certain of this as I am
that 'Abd ar-Rhamin was accurately portrayed in _The Mozarabic
Chronicle_ as having a goal of plundering Tours.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ah, yes. But you forget the main question :
WHY plunder Tours after just having sacked Aquitania ?
He didn't need to do that, he had plunder enough, unless his goal
was to destabilize the Frankia. A weak enemy occupied with himself
is the second-best thing you can get.
The point of Arabs on conquest is a red herring. Which bishop
could try to cover that up ? Quarreling church, quarreling Franks -
the situation isn't like in today's China.
No chance of covering that up.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

It wouldn't have been the first or last time the tomb had been credited
with something it didn't do - unless you believe that the tomb actually
had shattered stone, broken chains, torn cell doors from their hinges, etc.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The tomb, yes. The main holy shrine of the Frankia. You seem to forget
that simple fact.
Anyone not able to defend that was not in favour with god.
That's the long and short of it. Both parties knew that...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

If Charles Martel had survived the battle with his forces relatively
intact he would have gone on as the ruler of Francia. He wouldn't have
become legendary in the same way and I suppose you can argue that
Zachary wouldn't have named the Pippinids/Carolingians rightful ruler of
the Franks (though Zachary was desperate for allies against the Lombards
so I don't think this would have necessarily gone that differently) but
while he would have lost some of his aura, he still would have been the
most accomplished military leader of the day, with the strongest forces.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
He would not have gone on as the ruler of the Frankia, which he wasn't
in the first place. Even a weak Merovingian (the ruler) might have made
a grab for power by dismissing an unsuccessful servant with the eager
help of a Neustrian hausmeier.
Now think of what that would have done to the Frankia.
You always seem to forget that spirituality and (at least the illusion of)
legitimacy were all important.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

It's unlikely that history would have been significantly altered.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yes, that's your opinion. Mine is a little different. History is an
interpretation of facts; I think that my version is nearer to what
happened than yours. And I'm prepared to defend my opinion
unless you can come up with a better interpretation.
That's what historiography is all about, isn't it ?
Without snide remarks.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

BTW - I haven't read Gibbon. Sorry, you seem to be quite a fan.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Not really. But you should read him. Some of your opinions seem
to be influenced by him. Not directly, but his influence is still
detectable.

Cheers,

Michael Kuettner

[AlexMilman]

I disagree with this assessment of the situation.

> Keep in mind I'm NOT (and never did) saying that the Arabs
> would have rolled back the Christians, just that they wouldn't have lost
> any more territory.
>That doesn't mean that 50 years later the Christians
> wouldn't have had a big victory and gotten things going again but at
> least for a fair amount of time things would have stabilized (minor
> raids, a few castles captured by both sides).

You are saying essentially the same thing that I do: balance had been
shifting in Christians favor and that or this military disaster could
only postpone inevitable. By how many years is anybody's guess. I
could be 50 years but most probably it would be much less.

>
> I'm pretty sure you're saying that even if the Arabs had won a decisive
> victory the Reconquest would have rolled merrily on.

Rather than making wrong assumptions, you may ask. Or, as an
alternative, to pay more attention to what I already wrote. Your
guessing above is totally wrong.

Alarcos did delay Reconquest for quite a while and defeat at Las Navas
de Tolosa also would have a delaying effect. I stress "delaying".

[Brian M. Scott]

On Mon, 7 May 2012 05:33:45 -0700 (PDT), AlexMilman
<alexm...@msn.com> wrote in
<news:e942ea5b-367a-4902...@a5g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>
in soc.history.medieval:

> On May 6, 10:33 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:

>> On Sun, 6 May 2012 13:56:18 -0700 (PDT), AlexMilman
>> <alexmil...@msn.com> wrote in
>> <news:f65d18a4-897c-426e...@d8g2000vbw.googlegroups.com>
>> in soc.history.medieval:

[...]

>>> [an issue of the Mongolian horses climbing up the walls
>>> and up the tress had been, IIRC, discussed at some
>>> length with a resulting (rare) agreement of both
>>> parties involved]

>> But did they swim moats in armor?

> Taking into an account that they had been explicitly
> forbidden to swim naked in an open water (which leaves
> question of the indoor pools widely open), most probably,
> they did.

> Of course, another theory insists that the Mongols had
> been disintegrating when coming anywhere close to the
> water (or even under intensive rain) and had to be
> airlifted to cross the rivers.

So *that's* what rocs were good for!

> Or were you talking about the Mongolian horses (they also
> had been carrying an armor so your question may be
> misinterpreted)?

The horses, actually. Swimming moats in armor isn't nearly
so exciting as climbing walls and trees, but it still has
its charm.

Brian

[Curt Emanuel]

I don't believe in things being inevitable myself. If it had gotten to a
balance point, which it had, then it would be balanced - could go one
way, could go another, maybe the rest of Spain remains divided. That
would have depended on future events but as time went on things would
have become increasingly more entrenched.

>
>>
>> I'm pretty sure you're saying that even if the Arabs had won a decisive
>> victory the Reconquest would have rolled merrily on.
>
> Rather than making wrong assumptions, you may ask. Or, as an
> alternative, to pay more attention to what I already wrote. Your
> guessing above is totally wrong.

I'm not guessing - when I stated that the reconquest would have been
stopped cold and you disagreed I took you to mean that the Christians
would have continued to make gains.

So now I AM asking: When I wrote, "I think there's a strong chance that

if the Arabs had won the Reconquista would have been stopped cold."

And you replied, "I doubt it." what did you mean? You couldn't have
meant that things would have reached a balance because that is what I
wrote. You now say you don't think the reconquest would have continued.

I was pretty much done with this discussion because I thought we'd
reached a point of disagreement worth just leaving alone, which is fine.

[AlexMilman]

On May 9, 2:08 am, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
> On Mon, 7 May 2012 05:33:45 -0700 (PDT), AlexMilman

> <alexmil...@msn.com> wrote in

> <news:e942ea5b-367a-4902...@a5g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>
> in soc.history.medieval:
>
> > On May 6, 10:33 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 6 May 2012 13:56:18 -0700 (PDT), AlexMilman
> >> <alexmil...@msn.com> wrote in
> >> <news:f65d18a4-897c-426e...@d8g2000vbw.googlegroups.com>
> >> in soc.history.medieval:
>
> [...]
>
> >>> [an issue of the Mongolian horses climbing up the walls
> >>> and up the tress had been, IIRC, discussed at some
> >>> length with a resulting (rare) agreement of both
> >>> parties involved]
> >> But did they swim moats in armor?
> > Taking into an account that they had been explicitly
> > forbidden to swim naked in an open water (which leaves
> > question of the indoor pools widely open), most probably,
> > they did.
> > Of course, another theory insists that the Mongols had
> > been disintegrating when coming anywhere close to the
> > water (or even under intensive rain) and had to be
> > airlifted to cross the rivers.
>
> So *that's* what rocs were good for!

You mean hoping from rock to rock to cross the river? Worked
reasonably well on the small ones (with the rocks in the middle) but
for the big ones, like Volga or Danube they need to be airlifted.

>
> > Or were you talking about the Mongolian horses (they also
> > had been carrying an armor so your question may be
> > misinterpreted)?
>
> The horses, actually.  Swimming moats in armor isn't nearly
> so exciting

Of course. As soon as the moat is filled with the sunken bodies you
can easily walk across.

> as climbing walls and trees, but it still has
> its charm.

You are such a romantic!

[AlexMilman]

Certain things are, regardless of your belief.

> If it had gotten to a
> balance point, which it had,

There are different types of balances: if you are ta the bottom of a
hole, your balance (from physics' point of view) is stable. If you are
on the top of a hill, it is unstable. So, what you said above is
meaningless outside short term scenario.

>then it would be balanced - could go one
> way, could go another, maybe the rest of Spain remains divided.

Developments of the past do not support this scenario. Christians had
been on offensive for quite a while prior to these events and Toledo
was well to the South from the maximum extension of the Moorish power
at the earlier times. Alfonso lost to the Almohades at Alarcos because
he tried to act more or less on his own but the Almohades had been
foreign invaders and, being the Berbers, they were not uniformly
popular even among the Moors. Their ability to bring fresh forces from
Africa was not unlimited and these forces would not stay forever.
OTOH, the perceived danger more or less forces Christian kings of
Spain to join forces and coalition of Castile, Aragon, Navarre and
Portugal was a winning combination.

> That
> would have depended on future events but as time went on things would
> have become increasingly more entrenched.
>
>

They would not because center of Almohades power was in Africa and
conflict of the interests was inevitable.

>
> >> I'm pretty sure you're saying that even if the Arabs had won a decisive
> >> victory the Reconquest would have rolled merrily on.
>
> > Rather than making wrong assumptions, you may ask. Or, as an
> > alternative, to pay more attention to what I already wrote. Your
> > guessing above is totally wrong.
>
> I'm not guessing - when I stated that the reconquest would have been
> stopped cold and you disagreed I took you to mean that the Christians
> would have continued to make gains.

_Eventually_. Which is not the same as "rolled merrily on"

>
> So now I AM asking: When I wrote, "I think there's a strong chance that
> if the Arabs had won the Reconquista would have been stopped cold."
>
> And you replied, "I doubt it." what did you mean? You couldn't have
> meant that things would have reached a balance because that is what I
> wrote. You now say you don't think the reconquest would have continued.
>

You are seemingly confusing 2 different things: (a) temporary balance
of power and (b) long-term tendency.

What you taking for "balance forever" was a temporary balance achieved
after the overwhelming victory achieved due to the invading force. The
victorious side was not strong enough to exploit the victory by
crushing defeated opponent. The very fact that in less than 2 decades
the opposite side was ready for a new major offensive and that this
time opposite side was a coalition under the same person who was
defeated at Alarcos tells a lot about existing long-term dynamics.

[Curt Emanuel]

Sorry, the usage of the term means someone of the subsequent generation
who ruled following the previous ruler. It could be a son. It could also
be a nephew, niece and common usage usually allows a grandchild.

There's no birthright aspect to it - it has everything to do with the
position. It doesn't even have a legitimacy aspect to it in and of
itself. If, in a society which practiced primogeniture a younger son
usurped his father, murdered him, exiled his brother and took over the
throne, he would still be a second-generation ruler. Possibly an
illegitimate one, but still a second-generation ruler.

In Martel's case, the combination of the fact that he was chosen by the
nobility along with his being a second-generation ruler in a region
which placed a high value on bloodline is an indicator of the strength
of his position.

I don't care how long of a post you make otherwise - 100 words, a 10,000
word thesis or a 300,000 word novel. This doesn't change the basic
English usage of the term and you have no authority to make that change.
Charles Martel was a ruler and the son of a father who also ruled. This
makes him a second-generation ruler.

I'm not sure why you're even bothering to bring the Merovingians into
this. Every source agrees that they were nothing more than figureheads
by this time. My favorite is Einhard though you have to allow for some
embellishment writing nearly a century later.

When I use words, such as second-generation ruler" it is for their
meaning, either as defined or as generally accepted use. No post you put
up, of any length, will grant you the authority to change this use.

Michael, I would have absolutely no problem if you posted to show that
this was partially an illusory situation, that being a second-generation
ruler didn't mean all that much back then, etc. I might (probably would)
disagree with you but it wouldn't irritate me at all. However trying to
make an argument by changing the meaning of a common English usage of a
term DOES irritate me. Please stop it.

>>
>
> The second problem with your entire scenario is far more basic and I
> should have brought it up earlier but I hadn't really given it that much
> thought.
>
> Martin's tomb would have never been desecrated.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> And that's the main point of our disagreement.
> The tomb would have been desecrated, IMO.
> That was the whole point of the battle.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The problem is that the contemporary sources do not give Abd ar-Rahman a
religious motivation for the raid into Gaul. According to the
contemporary sources, particularly the Arab ones, he wanted plunder and
loot. The religious motivations ascribed to him have generally been
added by later chroniclers. I suspect more research into this would
reveal a situation similar to that of the Vikings, where the attacks on
religious institutions was incidental.

Religious centers, including a pilgrimage destination like Tours, were
known to be wealthy, poorly defended places. The Vikings went after
various monasteries for this reason. Religious motivations were given to
them by Anglo-Saxon Chroniclers. Based on the contemporary Arab
Chronicles, wealth, not an attack on religion (which would be a bit out
of character considering how tolerant Muslims were of Christians and
Jews in Spain at this time) seems to have been the primary motivation:

From an Anonymous Arab Chronicler:

"And he [Martel] came upon them at the great city of Tours. And
Abderrahman and other prudent cavaliers saw the disorder of the Moslem
troops, who were loaded with spoil; but they did not venture to
displease the soldiers by ordering them to abandon everything except
their arms and war-horses. And Abderrahman trusted in the valour of his
soldiers, and in the good fortune which had ever attended him. But such
defect of discipline always is fatal to armies. So Abderrabman and his
host attacked Tours to gain still more spoil, and they fought against it
so fiercely that they stormed the city almost before the eyes of the
army that came to save it; and the fury and the cruelty of the Moslems
towards the inhabitants of the city were like the fury and cruelty of
raging tigers. It was manifest that God's chastisement was sure to
follow such excesses; and fortune thereupon turned her back upon the
Moslems." The sourcing for this is lousy, from Paul Halsall's Medieval
Sourcebook: http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/source/arab-poitiers732.asp

You can see from this (and the preceeding paragraph I didn't include)
that the prospect of plunder or "spoil" is considered the primary
motivation for the raid. You can also see from this that the Arab
chronicler believes the Arab defeat was divine punishment because they
got greedy - in fact according to him the Arab God got mad when they
went after Tours, where St. Martin's tomb was so it's pretty impossible
to say that according to this a religious war was an objective.

From the Mozarabic Chronicle of 754. I believe this is also online but
I'm pulling mine from Alexander Callander Murray's _From Roman to
Merovingian Gaul: A Reader_ p. 636:

"At that pint 'Abd ar-Rahman, pursuing Duke Eudo, had the urge to
despoil Tours by destroying the palaces and burning the churches, and
when he came head to head with the consul of Austrasia, Charles, a
warlike man from an early age and skilled in the military art, who had
been warned by Eudo."

Again, though he plans to burn the churches, the motivation is to
despoil Tours, to plunder it.

Now to be fair, Fredegar's _Continuation_ which may have been authored
roughly contemporary with the event does say, "... [ar-Rahman] intended
to destroy the house of the blessed Martin." Murray, p 634.

Keeping in mind that this is a Frankish source I think it quite likely
that this is analogous to the Anglo-Saxon sources for the Viking
invasion which described attacks on Christianity as a Viking motivation.
However recent studies have shown that the Viking motivation was loot,
not attacking Christianity. I suspect a detailed look at Tours would
come to the same conclusion (this may have been done by someone but I
haven't read it)

See my sources above. There is very little evidence based on a reading
of the sources that 'Abd ar-Rahman had any motivation for this raid
beyond plunder and loot. Desecrating St. Martin's grave is never
mentioned by an Arab source as a motivation - despoiling churches, as
wealthy, poorly defended places absolutely was and Martin's basilica
would have been caught in this but the mentions of this as the reason
for the Arab raid are the result of Frankish fears, not Arab motivation.

I do find it interesting that you state that Abd ar-Rahman knew with
absolute certainty of the impact of his raid if he succeeded. Not one
single chronicle I have seen states this. Where did you find it?

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The story would have gone out that Martin would have been able to do
> what no secular force could and resist the Arab invaders. Allowing the
> truth to become accepted contemporary fact would have been an
> impossibility for the Church. The contemporary reality would have been
> that the tomb had survived unharmed. Not only that but the tomb would
> have been credited with forcing the Arabs to withdraw from Tours and Gaul.
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> What church ? You seem to think of it as monolithic; it wasn't.
> They quarrelled among themselves just like the Franks ...
> Your scenario is rather unrealistic.
> Not just because of the church, but also because of Karl's followers
> who only followed because he won. They would have turned against him.
> No legitimation from heaven, no followers.
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> The argument about what the response would have been to the desecration
> of the tomb is irrelevant because unless the Arabs stayed and occupied
> the city, the reality portrayed by the Bishop and the Church would have
> been that the tomb survived unharmed. I am as certain of this as I am
> that 'Abd ar-Rhamin was accurately portrayed in _The Mozarabic
> Chronicle_ as having a goal of plundering Tours.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Ah, yes. But you forget the main question :
> WHY plunder Tours after just having sacked Aquitania ?

See sources, above.

> He didn't need to do that, he had plunder enough, unless his goal
> was to destabilize the Frankia. A weak enemy occupied with himself
> is the second-best thing you can get.
> The point of Arabs on conquest is a red herring. Which bishop
> could try to cover that up ? Quarreling church, quarreling Franks -
> the situation isn't like in today's China.
> No chance of covering that up.
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> It wouldn't have been the first or last time the tomb had been credited
> with something it didn't do - unless you believe that the tomb actually
> had shattered stone, broken chains, torn cell doors from their hinges, etc.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> The tomb, yes. The main holy shrine of the Frankia. You seem to forget
> that simple fact.
> Anyone not able to defend that was not in favour with god.
> That's the long and short of it. Both parties knew that...
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The Arabs had no idea of this, based on their sources.

Interesting then that in reading this it seems that it's from Gibbon
where the religious motivation for the raid is the strongest, a reason
you share with him?

From the introduction to the Anonymous Arab Chronicler source I posted
above, "This event looms much larger in Western history than Muslim -
leading to a famous passage of purple prose by Edward Gibbon about
minarets rather than spires in Oxford if the Muslims had won."

I also find it interesting that when you are failing to win an argument
based on merit you choose to make a backhanded insult based on an author
I've never read. For me, this sort of tactic does far more to weaken
your position than strengthen it.

And I'm on the road for four days starting in 45 minutes. I'll apologize
in advance for any typos as I don't have time right now to check for
errors. You'll have to wait until, next week for a reply to any response
you choose to make to this, or we can agree to disagree, shake hands on
that and be done with it.

[Tronscend]

"Curt Emanuel" <ceman...@gmail.com> skrev i melding

news:joe20q$fah$1...@dont-email.me...


...... this is analogous to the Anglo-Saxon sources for the Viking

> invasion which described attacks on Christianity as a Viking motivation.
> However recent studies have shown that the Viking motivation was loot, not
> attacking Christianity.

I'd be much obliged if you would take the time to post a keyword or three
for googling more on this topic.

MVH,

T

[AlexMilman]

On May 9, 11:29 am, "Tronscend" <tronf...@frizurf.no> wrote:
> "Curt Emanuel" <cemanue...@gmail.com> skrev i meldingnews:joe20q$fah$1...@dont-email.me...

>
> ...... this is analogous to the Anglo-Saxon sources for the Viking
>
> > invasion which described attacks on Christianity as a Viking motivation.
> > However recent studies have shown that the Viking motivation was loot, not
> > attacking Christianity.
>
> I'd be much obliged if you would take the time to post a keyword or three
> for googling more on this topic.
>

AFAIK, people of this time (and for the following centuries) managed
quite well to combine ideology with the personal enrichment so "either
or" scenario is not necessarily applicable.

[Curt Emanuel]

I just did a search using "viking raids economic motivation" and came up
with some pretty good stuff. There's a nice comparison if you remove the
word "economic and you'll find more traditional viewpoints and even more
if you substitute the word "religious."

Here's one good article on it:
http://norwalk.bluerange.se/ark/files/eventfile244.pdf

I'll also point to a blog post I put up from a conference I attended in
February - my comments are fairly general - see those referring to the
first paper:

http://medievalhistorygeek.wordpress.com/2012/04/14/conference-report-vikings-nosectomies-and-a-saint/

And my above statement in a newsgroup post is overly simplistic - there
was almost certainly more than one motivation, however consensus has
been moving in the direction of believing that economics (plunder) was
the primary one.

[Paul J Gans]

Tronscend <tron...@frizurf.no> wrote:

>"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> skrev i melding
>news:jo9u4f$mu7$2...@reader1.panix.com...

>Hi,

>The debt ever rises ....


>> It is complicated. Eleanor of Aquitaine married Henry II
>> and brought with her a major part of France. That part
>> of France was enormously profitable for the English and
>> paid their bills for many years.

>Didn't know this (along with myriads of other stuff).
>Of course, a source of revenue is to be protected.

>The EN wiki on CYW (Caveat: uses the F-word repeatedly!)
>says that the France Wars bankrupted the English Crown,
>despite the spoils brought home by individual campaigners.
>Explicable, I hazard, by some complicated economics formula.

That's the complication. In the years when England had to
actually maintain an army in the field, the cost was
enormous.

Wars are expensive, as the US is finding out.

>> On the other hand, it was not close by and as events later
>> showed, not easy to defend.

>What comes to mind, then, is the CPA warning
>against throwing good money after bad.

Yes, except at the time it is hard to tell what is good and
what is bad.

What you say is true, but with Henry II, the English king became
one of the major peers of France and all that implies. Hard to
get that kind of influence back.

>Which is where navalty enters the picture. Britain had (or had not, at
>various times)
>a navy of numerous vessels, but used merely to go to Ireland, Flanders and
>France
>(+ some Claret convoy protection).

>Well, to sum it up, this subject is tweakable to the exact the same degree
>as the term "substantial" wrt. change (Peace offering: ".... , it seems").

[Curt Emanuel]

For me, an Anglo-Saxon England compared with Norman rule may have had
its largest impact on subsequent social institutions, laws and customs.
I have a harder time tying down changes in political/power situations.

For example - and I know exactly enough to be really dangerous here - I
can't see where common law would have developed in the same way through
much of Western Civilization. Henry II (I think) was the first to allow
court judgments to have the status of establishing law. Up to that time
every few decades someone would try to list all of the laws promulgated
by various rulers and typically if a lower court couldn't find a law to
fit they'd pass the judgment up to a higher authority. I believe there
were bits and pieces of what we'd call common law in some places but
England was where this became systematized. Not sure an A-S England
would have gone that way.

And I'm a bit sorry that my initial post gave this the impetus to go
into a "what-if" direction. Wasn't my intent though I guess it got some
decent discussion going so I'm not completely sorry.

>
>
>> Which is where navalty enters the picture. Britain had (or had not, at
>> various times)
>> a navy of numerous vessels, but used merely to go to Ireland, Flanders and
>> France
>> (+ some Claret convoy protection).
>
>> Well, to sum it up, this subject is tweakable to the exact the same degree
>> as the term "substantial" wrt. change (Peace offering: ".... , it seems").
>


--

--------
Curt Emanuel
ceman...@gmail.com

[Tronscend]

"Curt Emanuel" <ceman...@gmail.com> skrev i melding

news:joeo79$34f$1...@dont-email.me...

Hi,

many thanks for this!

Nice blog, btw. And re Valkyries, I guess proper place was given to
Torgerd Holgabrud (Şorgerğr Hölgabrúğr) and Irpa ...?
Got so inspired I proofread a little old norse in Project Runeberg ....

More about Barrett some other time (nice, but ... unconvincing ...).

MVH,

T

[Tronscend]

"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> skrev i melding

news:jof2ot$fes$1...@reader1.panix.com...

> Tronscend <tron...@frizurf.no> wrote:


>>What comes to mind, then, is the CPA warning
>>against throwing good money after bad.
>
> Yes, except at the time it is hard to tell what is good and
> what is bad.

Yes, that's what tey all say, isn't it ....? :-)

>>IOW, perhaps Britain would have 'snapped back' from any 'Norse
>>orientation' to the same degree that economy/geography overrides culture.
>>That's why I mentioned America, which would have provided
>>an economic reinforcement of the Northern Turn; postulated (?)
>>(or "presuppositioned"?) upon Britain being populous
>>and industrious enough to exploit the discovery, as the Norse were not.
>
> What you say is true, but with Henry II, the English king became
> one of the major peers of France and all that implies. Hard to
> get that kind of influence back.

A case of das Vernünftige ist das Wirkliche - or the belief therein -
if I ever saw one.
But perhaps it only seems .... un-strategic on the background
of our much later natonalism.

Anyhow, thanks a lot again.

MVH,

T

[Tronscend]

"Curt Emanuel" <ceman...@gmail.com> skrev i melding

news:jof3f3$3k3$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 5/9/2012 8:39 PM, Paul J Gans wrote:
>> Tronscend<tron...@frizurf.no> wrote:
>>
>>> "Paul J Gans"<gan...@panix.com> skrev i melding
>>> news:jo9u4f$mu7$2...@reader1.panix.com...
>>

....

>> What you say is true, but with Henry II, the English king became
>> one of the major peers of France and all that implies. Hard to
>> get that kind of influence back.
>
> For me, an Anglo-Saxon England compared with Norman rule may have had its
> largest impact on subsequent social institutions, laws and customs. I have
> a harder time tying down changes in political/power situations.
>
> For example - and I know exactly enough to be really dangerous here - I
> can't see where common law would have developed in the same way through
> much of Western Civilization. Henry II (I think) was the first to allow
> court judgments to have the status of establishing law. Up to that time
> every few decades someone would try to list all of the laws promulgated by
> various rulers and typically if a lower court couldn't find a law to fit
> they'd pass the judgment up to a higher authority. I believe there were
> bits and pieces of what we'd call common law in some places but England
> was where this became systematized. Not sure an A-S England would have
> gone that way.

Well, given a continued "North Sea" orientation, there were always role
models
like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus_VI_of_Norway .

>
> And I'm a bit sorry that my initial post gave this the impetus to go into
> a "what-if" direction. Wasn't my intent though I guess it got some decent
> discussion going so I'm not completely sorry.

My two eyrir: you shouldn't be sorry at all.

MVH,

T

[Odysseus]

In article <jo76nc$bte$4...@reader1.panix.com>,
Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

> Tronscend <tron...@frizurf.no> wrote:
>
<snip>

> >> Hastings (1066) - I ain't talking about this one but I think it's pretty
> >> obvious.
>
> >What, for the purpose of this discussion, is "substantially different"?
> >Consider "internal affairs" of England as a "black box", would the output
> >of the UK at the times of Elisabeth have been substantially different
> >with a more northward, instead of French, oriented UK?
>
> We can never know, of course, but I think that a Saxon victory
> orients England towards the east and northeast. And there is
> then no English entanglement with France.
>
> Indeed, given the land and eventually population advantage,
> England might have become the leading "Northern" nation and
> Europe might have had a totally different history.

Interesting consequences for Scotland, too (although likely much less
important globally): what would it have looked like without having been
"Normanized" under David I? Would it still have been dominated by the
Southrons -- but "Saxonized" instead -- or could it have retained more
of its Celtic character?

--
Odysseus

[Curt Emanuel]

No problem. I don't know enough about this to have the kinds of opinions
I do about other areas but I've read enough to get a feel for what
people are saying - and to know that a movie with Lee Majors and a bunch
of guys in horned helmets isn't very good. ;)

[Tronscend]

"Curt Emanuel" <ceman...@gmail.com> skrev i melding

news:jog94j$ibi$1...@dont-email.me...

>
> No problem. I don't know enough about this to have the kinds of opinions I
> do about other areas but I've read enough to get a feel for what people
> are saying - and to know that a movie with Lee Majors and a bunch of guys
> in horned helmets isn't very good. ;)

If your theroy of the "Viking Bulge" is correct,
that could merely be an ortographic misinterpretation ....

MVH,

T

[AlexMilman]

On May 9, 5:39 pm, Curt Emanuel <cemanue...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/9/2012 11:29 AM, Tronscend wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > "Curt Emanuel"<cemanue...@gmail.com>  skrev i melding

> >news:joe20q$fah$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> > ...... this is analogous to the Anglo-Saxon sources for the Viking
> >> invasion which described attacks on Christianity as a Viking motivation.
> >> However recent studies have shown that the Viking motivation was loot, not
> >> attacking Christianity.
>
> > I'd be much obliged if you would take the time to post a keyword or three
> > for googling more on this topic.
>
> > MVH,
>
> > T
>
> I just did a search using "viking raids economic motivation" and came up
> with some pretty good stuff. There's a nice comparison if you remove the
> word "economic and you'll find more traditional viewpoints and even more
> if you substitute the word "religious."
>
> Here's one good article on it:http://norwalk.bluerange.se/ark/files/eventfile244.pdf
>
> I'll also point to a blog post I put up from a conference I attended in
> February - my comments are fairly general - see those referring to the
> first paper:
>

> http://medievalhistorygeek.wordpress.com/2012/04/14/conference-report...

>
> And my above statement in a newsgroup post is overly simplistic - there
> was almost certainly more than one motivation, however consensus has
> been moving in the direction of believing that economics (plunder) was
> the primary one.

'Economics' was not limited to a simple plundering: wherever they
could, they would settle in the new territories: England, France
(Normandy), Russia, and later in Italy (Normans of the Southern Italy
and Sicily) and even in the Outremer. Taking into an account that
quite a few of them, including Robert Guiscard, started more or less
as the trivial bandits or swords for hire, you can say that the
pattern was more or less the same.

As for the earlier pagan 'true Vikings', they were looting (or trying
to loot) Muslims (and the fellow pagans) as well as Christians so it
was most probably not just a hate of Christianity.

[ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk]

In article <joeo79$34f$1...@dont-email.me>, ceman...@gmail.com (Curt

Emanuel) wrote:

> however consensus has
> been moving in the direction of believing that economics (plunder)
> was the primary one.

I would have thought that had been fairly obvious from the start.
Monasteries like Lindisfarne were isolated defenceless and rich. About
all they lacked to be an ideal target was women. Where religion might
come in is that pagans would not feel any more guilty about targeting a
monastery than a village.

Ken Young

[AlexMilman]

On May 10, 12:35 pm, ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> In article <joeo79$34...@dont-email.me>, cemanue...@gmail.com (Curt

If you look at a broader picture and not just English bitching about
ugly bad pagans looting the monasteries, you can easily see that
vikings fit into a common pattern of the raiding (with the exception
of the means of transportation): before and after their times poor
'peripheral' tribes/nations/<whatever> had made raiding of the richer
neighbors one of the main components of their economy. Think about all
these nomadic tribes of the Eastern Europe. Some of them, at least for
a while, managed to create some kind of an unified state and elevate
raiding to the scale of war (but big part of what Atilla did was
raiding on a great scale with looting and extortion) but many kept
acting on a reasonably small scale (Pechenegs, Polovtsy and numerous
other). It was just a matter of access to the richer territories and
strength of these territories relatively to the strength of the
potential raiders. If they were not strong enough, they could easily
end up as the auxiliary troops or even ally themselves with the locals
fighting another locals (as the Normans on the initial stages of their
activities in Italy; again, many of those personages left Normandy
because there was shortage of land).

[Weland]

On 5/7/2012 7:56 AM, AlexMilman wrote:
> On May 7, 2:25 am, Weland<gi...@poetic.com> wrote:

>> On 5/6/2012 6:11 PM, Curt Emanuel wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 5/6/2012 11:17 AM, AlexMilman wrote:

>>>> On May 6, 9:25 am, Curt Emanuel<cemanue...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 5/5/2012 1:53 PM, AlexMilman wrote:
>>
>>>>>> On May 5, 10:33 am, Curt Emanuel<cemanue...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> Vouille (507) - A couple of pretty important things were determined
>>>>>>> here. First that Clovis and the Franks would become the premier
>>>>>>> power in
>>>>>>> continental Europe. Second that Theoderic and Alaric would be
>>>>>>> unable to
>>>>>>> maintain what at the time looked like a budding Empire from the
>>>>>>> Italian
>>>>>>> peninsula into Iberia. In addition, at the time almost all of the
>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>> Western Kingdoms were Arian. Only the Franks were Orthodox. If the
>>>>>>> Franks and Clovis lose, I think it's likely that things would have
>>>>>>> been
>>>>>>> very different - no Merovingians, Arian rather than what we call
>>>>>>> Orthodox Christianity and possibly (this is less likely) a Gothic
>>>>>>> Empire.
>>
>>>>>>> Yarmouk (636) - This was probably the key battle of the Islamic
>>>>>>> Conquest
>>>>>>> against the Byzantines and gave Islam Syria, where they launched the
>>>>>>> captures of Jerusalem, Egypt, etc. I think it could be paired with the
>>>>>>> 718 Siege of Jerusalem since those two pretty much established the
>>>>>>> Byzantine-Islamic balance that lasted for several centuries.
>>
>>>>>> What of Guadalete (712)? Survival of the Visigothic Kingdom (assuming
>>>>>> that winning this battle would prevent further invasion) would mean a
>>>>>> lot of things including absence of the Reconquista, probably different
>>>>>> history of France (how absence of the Muslim invasion would change
>>>>>> it?).
>>
>>>>> I left the Arab Conquest out for two reasons. First is more general; the
>>>>> Visigoths were one profoundly screwed up kingdom. If there was ever an
>>>>> argument in favor of hereditary kingship, they're it - nothing like just
>>>>> about fighting a civil war every time a king died.
>>
>>>>> Second is related to the events of 711. Roderic was killed in a battle
>>>>> with what amounted to a scouting party. Musa had a much larger army (the
>>>>> real army) than Tariq and according to the sources - which are really
>>>>> weak for this - was pissed that his subordinate had gotten the glory. If
>>>>> Roderic had managed to defeat Tariq I have a hard time seeing how he'd
>>>>> have stood up to Musa.
>>
>>>>> If the Arabs wanted Spain, they were getting it. The Visigoths weren't
>>>>> long for this world if anyone really went after them. If Roderic had
>>>>> happened to win the first battle there was another waiting for him
>>>>> against a larger, more well equipped one so I don't think another
>>>>> outcome would have made much of a difference.
>>
>>>>> Of course another outcome would have meant the Visigoths weren't what
>>>>> they were and half or more of Roderic's army wouldn't have deserted him,
>>>>> Christian factions and Jews wouldn't have supprted the Arabs, Count
>>>>> Julian wouldn't have invited the Arabs in and helped them, etc. The
>>>>> Visigoths were just a mess.
>>
>>>> Following exactly the same line of arguing, Kosovo has to be
>>>> disqualified: the Balkans in general and Serbia specifically had been
>>>> a mess. Serbian victory would just mean a delay of inevitable conquest
>>>> (just as later victories under Janosh Huniady and Matias Corwin just
>>>> postponed Ottoman conquest of Hungary).

>>
>>>>>>> Hastings (1066) - I ain't talking about this one but I think it's
>>>>>>> pretty
>>>>>>> obvious.
>>

>>>>>> [Some critics claimed that events on the Island of Miracle were
>>>>>> totally unimportant by definition but I'm not one of them :-)]

>>
>>>>>>> Las Navas de Tolosa (1212) - The Reconquista had been going on for
>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>> time, slowly, but for the two decades prior to this battle the
>>>>>>> Arabs had
>>>>>>> been making rapid gains. This battle both turned the tide and really
>>>>>>> depleted Arab forces and strength. I think there's a strong chance
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> if the Arabs had won the Reconquista would have been stopped cold.
>>
>>>>>> I doubt it. The same Alphonso VIII had been totally defeated at
>>>>>> Alarcos, 17 years prior to Las Navas de Tolosa but ended up with
>>>>>> loosing few pieces of territory South of Toledo. Tide was clearly
>>>>>> changing.
>>
>>>>> I don't. In those 17 years things were pretty much at a stalemate.
>>
>>>> Which is exactly my point: the Moors could not exploit results of a
>>>> great victory. The tide was turning.
>>

>>> No - that's exactly MY point. To 1195 the Christians had the upper hand..

>>> After 1195 things were in mostly a stalemate (though the Arabs raided

>>> Castile pretty heavily and took the fortresses south of Toledo). The

>>> 10-year peace treaty the Christians agreed to was directly a result. So
>>> 1195 was turning point.
>>

>>> 1212 was the next turning point. Within a year the Christians, after
>>> making no significant gainss in 17 years had taken over Duenas,
>>> Alcantara, and were able to besiege Merida. Las Navas de Tolosa began
>>> the end of the Almohads.
>>
>>> One battle and the balance of power changed from roughly even to

>>> decisively Christian. All you need to look at is what happened the next
>>> 4 decades and look at the date when that all began to take place.
>>
>>>>> Christians raided Arab territories and maybe grabbed a fortress or two,
>>
>>>> IIRC, they were mostly holding a ground slightly North of Toledo.
>>
>>> The Arabs had the south road to Toledo
>>
>>>>> Arabs raided Christian territories and maybe grabbed a fortress or two.
>>
>>>> Not "maybe", they took, among other places, Calatrava. But they did
>>>> not have strength for re-re-conquest.
>>
>>> They didn't retake Toledo which may have been stupid. They were able to
>>> achieve a balance, which hadn't existed before.
>>
>>>>> The Christian victory (and the number of Arabs killed) tipped the
>>>>> balance in their favor. I think it would have tipped the balance in the
>>>>> opposite direction if the Arabs had won in similar fashion.
>>
>>>> They did at Alarcos and could not exploit it.
>>
>>>> Las Navas de Tolosa was one of the great 'token' battles: an eye-
>>>> catching event to identify a clear turning point (even if tendency was
>>>> already there).
>>
>>>>> I'm using the term "Arabs" loosely here. Obviously some were from
>>>>> families that had lived for centuries in Spain.
>>
>>>> Or they had been the Berbers. "Moors" is a safer term.
>>
>>>>>>> Kosovo (1389) - I actually had a hard time coming up with a fifth. For
>>>>>>> pretty much every one I came up with - Manzikert, Bouvines, Orleans
>>>>>>> - I
>>>>>>> think that even if things had gone the other way, in the long run
>>>>>>> events
>>>>>>> would have progressed similarly. Kosovo's in the same category. The
>>>>>>> Ottomans invaded Serbia with a tremendous force. Serbia raised pretty
>>>>>>> much everyone to fight. Technically the Ottomans won but it was pretty
>>>>>>> much a draw, with tremendous casualties on both sides. Problem is, the
>>>>>>> Ottomans had more men in Anatolia, Serbia didn't and over the next
>>>>>>> couple of decades was taken over. I think it's possible that if Serbia
>>>>>>> had won decisively the Turkish advance would have stopped there
>>
>>>>>> Highly questionable. IIRC, general situation in Serbia was a mess
>>>>>> (including absence of unified kingdom) and the Ottoman conquest was
>>>>>> just a matter of time.
>>
>>>>>>> and the
>>>>>>> West may have been able to save Constantinople.
>>
>>>>>> Even total disaster (for teh Ottomans) at Ankara did not save it.
>>
>>>>>>> More likely is that
>>>>>>> things would have gone on the same general way though things such
>>>>>>> as the
>>>>>>> fall of Constantinople might have been delayed a few decades.
>>
>>>>>> Benevento (1266), if lost by Charles of Anjou, there would be no
>>>>>> Angevian kingdom in the Southern Italy (and perhaps Hohenstaufen would
>>>>>> survive as a dynasty), no Spanish (Aragon) involvement and,
>>>>>> eventually, no pretext for starting Italian Wars few centuries later
>>>>>> (with all following results).
>>
>>>>> Won't argue with you on this one (won't argue much with anyone for
>>>>> picking something over Kosovo).
>>
>>>> Another overlooked battle was Worskla (1399). If Witold won, history
>>>> of the Eastern Europe could be seriously different. His loss for all
>>>> practical purposes made Lithuania dependent on Poland and seriously
>>>> limited his penetration into the Russian territories, leaving Great
>>>> Princedom of Moscow the leading _Russian_ state (even if he ended up
>>>> as a 'protector').
>>
>>>> Battle of the Marchfeld (1278) - established (until after WWI)
>>>> Hapsburg rule over Austria.
>>
>>>> Battle of Aljubarrota (1385) - Portugal gained independence from
>>>> Castile.
>>
>>>> Staying (not a real battle) on Ugra River (1476) - a token event that
>>>> established complete independence of Moscow from the Golden Horde (and
>>>> turn of the tide in the terms of who was conquering whom in the
>>>> future).
>>
>>>> Probably one of the Swiss victories over Hapsburgs - established
>>>> independence of the Swiss cantons and one can say, started "infantry
>>>> revolution" (something I don't really believe in :-)).
>>
>> An overlooked one I think is Battle of Eddington. Without an England,
>> or a pagan England, the Middle Ages and many of those battles would look
>> a lot different. I'm not saying it belongs in the top 5, but perhaps a
>> top 10.
> Do you think that if Alfred lost to the Danes England would remain
> heathen for the next few centuries? After all, Danes accepted
> Christianity within 50 - 60 years after this event.
>
>
>
In part because of English and Irish pressure. Not only those, but in
part. And the fact that their counterparts in England were pagan
(Alfred forced Christianity)...so paganism may well have hung on longer
if there were a pagan Norse kingdom in what is now England.

[AlexMilman]

Christianity was a 'coming thing' so it was just a matter of time
(IMO): conversions had been happening everywhere, all the way to Rus
(and not without serious resistance) but it seems that you also are
talking about "longer" as opposite to "forever" (or even few
centuries).

[Weland]

>>>>>>>>> if the Arabs had won the Reconquista would have been stopped cold..

>>>>>>>>> Kosovo (1389) - I actually had a hard time coming up with a fifth.. For

>> (Alfred forced Christianity)...so paganism may well have hung on longer etc.

>> if there were a pagan Norse kingdom in what is now England.
>
> Christianity was a 'coming thing' so it was just a matter of time
> (IMO): conversions had been happening everywhere, all the way to Rus
> (and not without serious resistance) but it seems that you also are
> talking about "longer" as opposite to "forever" (or even few
> centuries).

Christianity was still a political tool as Alfred standing in as
Gothrun's god father at baptism shows...the deal was to convert or die
and becoming Christian was a form of recognizing overlordship (as
Charlemagne's forced conversion of the Saxons just over a century before
also demonstrates.) Would the Bluetooth, Rus, and Iceland have been so
ready to accept Christianity with a pagan kingdom in England, and likely
expanding into Ireland. Further though, without Wessex, the mess that
led to 1066 wouldn't have happened, the Norman rise would have occurred
elsewhere or been more restricted or pointed elsewhere, that would have
changed the nature of the Crusades, and so on...

[AlexMilman]

On May 16, 2:23 am, Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
> On 5/15/2012 9:08 AM, AlexMilman wrote:
>
> > On May 15, 3:02 am, Weland<gi...@poetic.com>  wrote:
> >> On 5/7/2012 7:56 AM, AlexMilman wrote:>  On May 7, 2:25 am, Weland<gi...@poetic.com>    wrote:

[]

> >>>> An overlooked one I think is Battle of Eddington.  Without an England,
> >>>> or a pagan England, the Middle Ages and many of those battles would look
> >>>> a lot different.  I'm not saying it belongs in the top 5, but perhaps a
> >>>> top 10.
> >>> Do you think that if Alfred lost to the Danes England would remain
> >>> heathen for the next few centuries? After all, Danes accepted
> >>> Christianity within 50 - 60 years after this event.
>
> >> In part because of English and Irish pressure.  Not only those, but in
> >> part.  And the fact that their counterparts in England were pagan
> >> (Alfred forced Christianity)...so paganism may well have hung on longer etc.
> >> if there were a pagan Norse kingdom in what is now England.
>
> > Christianity was a 'coming thing' so it was just a matter of time
> > (IMO): conversions had been happening everywhere, all the way to Rus
> > (and not without serious resistance) but it seems that you also are
> > talking about "longer" as opposite to "forever" (or even few
> > centuries).
>
> Christianity was still a political tool as Alfred standing in as
> Gothrun's god father at baptism shows...the deal was to convert or die
> and becoming Christian was a form of recognizing overlordship (as
> Charlemagne's forced conversion of the Saxons just over a century before
> also demonstrates.)  Would the Bluetooth, Rus, and Iceland have been so
> ready to accept Christianity with a pagan kingdom in England, and likely
> expanding into Ireland.

AFAIK, for Rus situation in England would be almost completely
irrelevant because acceptance of the Christianity there had been based
on the local factors and the push was coming from a different
direction (mostly from Byzantian Empire). Conversion of Scandinavia
was a long process that was going on for few centuries so England as a
sole source of inspiration is a little bit questionable and it looks
as there was a consisted effort coming from more than one source, even
if England was one of them.

>  Further though, without Wessex, the mess that
> led to 1066 wouldn't have happened,

There was a big stretch of time between Alfred and 1066 so, chances
are that England would be Christian by this time.

> the Norman rise would have occurred
> elsewhere or been more restricted or pointed elsewhere,

This is a very interesting issue. To start with, conversion of the
future Normans had nothing to do with England and so was their initial
'rise' in France. Of course, it is anybody's guess what would happen
in the absence of Alfred but after him there WAS a northern rule for
quite a while. 1066 is, of course, an important event but by this time
relations with Normandy were firmly established and Edward the
Confessor was, IIRC, half a Norman (his mother being a sister of the
Duke of Normandy) and spent years in the Dukedom. So some brouhaha was
probably inevitable (Harald Godwinson was, after all, an usurper).

Then, it is often forgotten that the Normans did 'rise' in more than
one place almost simultaneously: remember their conquests in Italy?

> that would have
> changed the nature of the Crusades, and so on...

Taking into an account that English participation in the Crusades was
not significant prior to the time of Richard I and that, OTOH, the
Italian Normans played extremely important part in the 1st Crusade, I
don't see an immediate impact.

[Weland]

Ok, I retract, you're right. England means nothing to the Middle Ages
and has no importance whatsoever.

[Tronscend]

"Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> skrev i melding
news:jovh4l$e1s$1...@dont-email.me...

Would the Bluetooth, Rus, and Iceland have been so
> ready to accept Christianity with a pagan kingdom in England, and likely
> expanding into Ireland.

IIRC, part of the Xian push came from Germany
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archbishopric_of_Bremen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansgar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_of_bremen


MVH,


T

[AlexMilman]

I did not say THAT so 'whatsoever' is your own contribution. However,
it did not play important role in the 1st Crusade and it has nothing
to do with acceptance of Christianity in Rus. It also had very little
to do with creation of the Duchy of Normandy and Norman conquests in
Italy. If you have problems with accepting the fact that some places
managed not to be totally dependent on England, it is just too bad.

[AlexMilman]

On May 17, 5:21 am, "Tronscend" <tronf...@frizurf.no> wrote:
> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> skrev i meldingnews:jovh4l$e1s$1...@dont-email.me...

And Olaf II of Norway had been baptized in Rouen so you can add French
(Norman) contribution as well.

[Weland]

Ok, sure, I went over the top.

However,
> it did not play important role in the 1st Crusade and it has nothing
> to do with acceptance of Christianity in Rus.

Not directly. The Northern peoples by the end of the tenth century were
the last bastion of paganism. Accepting Christianity meant
acknowledging someone else's overlordship. Like Harold Bluetooth, and
Guthrun. So if we posit then an ENgland under non-CHristian Norse, and
Ireland, there would have less pressure on the Normans when they settled
in Normandy, in fNorway, Sweden act very possibly they would not have
converted and just taken the area. So pagan controlled Greenland,
Iceland, Ireland, England, possibly Normandy, Denmark, Norway and
Sweden.....all these as pagan in the mid-tenth century. What reason
would they have had to convert? A pagan Norse empire stretching from
Greenland to Kiev would have had easily withstood pressures to
convert....only those pesky lost ba picture ttles that forced leaders to
convert stood in the way. If anything, Christianity in the North would
likely have been threatened, or at least a stalemate: pagan Norse
kingdoms in the north, the Christians in the Middle, Islam in the south.
It is doubtful that had Alfred lost Eddington, and so lost Wessex,
that Europe, even the Rus, would have developed in the same way or felt
the same pressures to convert in the late 10th century.

It also had very littl

> to do with creation of the Duchy of Normandy and Norman conquests in
> Italy. If you have problems with accepting the fact that some places
> managed not to be totally dependent on England, it is just too bad.

When the Duchy of Normandy was created, England was a bit busy with the
Viking kingdoms centered on Jorvik and Dublin. So if there was no
England, but the whole island of Brittania under Norse control, that
would rather have significantly tilted the creation of Normandy in a
different direction...if it was ever created at all and had not by that
time become part of a growing Viking kingdom centered in Ireland and
England. So please, remove your face from your ass, think a little bit,
and maybe you can discern the point.