|
I think people's views of the Crusades also, in the 20th century, get tied up with attitudes about imperialism and colonialism/anticolonialism. So in the mid 20th century, it got seen as the first act of European imperialism;Europeans coming with ideas of exploitation on their mind to the Middle East, trying to take it over and colonize it. Meanwhile, with the growth of Arab nationalism,, the Crusades and the resistance against them becomes a big deal. Saladin gets his Kurdishness erased and becomes an Arab (Sadaam Hussein names a province in Iraq after him), Palestinian rhetoric compares the Zionists to Crusaders, and so on.
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2018 03:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 12:42 |
|
|
Salah-al-din was Kurdish?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2018 12:47
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:Salah-al-din was Kurdish? Yes he was.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2018 13:46
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:here's a thing, i am super SUPER religious as well as superstitious but to this day it is still difficult for me to put myself into the mindset of Protestants I was raised deeply catholic, and now I'm decidedly not religious. I honestly don't understand the logic of non-religious people not grasping how religion was the main motivating factor. If anything I'm more likely to cynically blame "religion" for all that suffering than just economic factors or whatever. In my experience discussing the crusades, the most common dynamic is religious folks minimizing the blame of "religion" for the crusades, not atheists or whatever. I get that we are discussing scholars here, so maybe that dynamic shifts for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2018 14:10
|
|
|
Because blaming the crusades just on religion is like blaming ISIS solely on religion. Religion provides the flavor, the theme, the superficial justification, but the underlying cause is utterly predictable. Any time you have a long period of widespread instability and power vacuum and you have a demographic flood of hopeless young men - you get some kind of hideously violent mass movement. As sure as the sun rises and sets.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2018 16:48
|
|
|
Imagined posted:Because blaming the crusades just on religion is like blaming ISIS solely on religion. Religion provides the flavor, the theme, the superficial justification, but the underlying cause is utterly predictable. Any time you have a long period of widespread instability and power vacuum and you have a demographic flood of hopeless young men - you get some kind of hideously violent mass movement. As sure as the sun rises and sets. what was hopeless about the lives of the warrior class in 9th to 11th century Western Europe? And how many of them were enough to make a "flood" in the Early and High Middle Ages?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2018 16:53
|
|
|
You need to separate out the components too. The crusades began because the Roman Emperor wanted western mercenaries to come fight for him and reclaim the eastern reaches of the empire that had been lost to the Turks. They continued because it didn't take long for the westerners to stop caring all that much what the emperor wanted and to instead go for their personal motivations, whether those be land, an adventure, remission of sin, the glory of god, whatever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2018 16:54
|
|
|
It's cool that the thread has mentioned the crusades recently as I have some questions about that and the Ottomans. I liked the podcast "Fall of Rome" by Patrick Wyman so I followed him onto his new format on Wondery. the ads suck but I find story telling a good way to hear about history in an entertaining way. https://wondery.com/shows/tides-of-history/ In his last podcast, episode 35, "Holy War and the Rise of the Ottomans" he mentions gaza. Gaza is the term he uses to describe the 'holy war' conducted by the Turks in Anatolia and Europe and says 'jihad' is completely different term used in a different context and by different people. Anyone heard of that term 'gaza' being a holy war? Google just gives the obvious results all about the 'gaza strip' and Palestine. His source for the episode (and presumably the term 'gaza' and it's difference to jihad) was "Between Two Worlds - The Construction of the Ottoman State" by Cemal Kafadar. Anyone here have info or opinions on the term 'gaza', on Patrick Wyman - Tides of History, and that book that made up his source material for that episode? I kind of want to know more about the Ottomans too so any other podcasts or audio-books? Fo3 fucked around with this message at 17:19 on Nov 3, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2018 17:11
|
|
|
I don't know Arabic but I'm guessing it's related to this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghazi_(warrior) In the History of Byzantium podcast he always refers to the Arab raids in Anatolia as Jihad though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2018 17:26
|
|
|
Yeah, I've never heard of anything but jihad either, but the description for the podcast I mentioned was: "The Ottoman Empire rose from humble beginnings in Anatolia to dominate a vast swathe of territory. Holy war, gaza, was a powerful driving force behind that expansion. At the Battle of Nicopolis in 1396, Ottoman holy war clashed directly with its Christian equivalent: crusading."
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2018 18:13
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:You need to separate out the components too. The crusades began because the Roman Emperor wanted western mercenaries to come fight for him and reclaim the eastern reaches of the empire that had been lost to the Turks. They continued because it didn't take long for the westerners to stop caring all that much what the emperor wanted and to instead go for their personal motivations, whether those be land, an adventure, remission of sin, the glory of god, whatever. Wasn't there also the aspect of the Byzantine Emperor wanting to reconquer more recently owned, valuable territory for the empire, while all those Catholics had been drawn there under the promise of seeing and freeing the holy land that hadn't been imperial territory for 400 years?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2018 18:14
|
|
|
It's a little unclear but the consensus seems to be that the emperor wanted to hire a few thousand knights as mercenaries, and things rapidly spiraled out of control
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2018 18:19
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:Wasn't there also the aspect of the Byzantine Emperor wanting to reconquer more recently owned, valuable territory for the empire, while all those Catholics had been drawn there under the promise of seeing and freeing the holy land that hadn't been imperial territory for 400 years? That's debated. Anthony Kaldellis has a good argument that the First Crusade was organized straight up as a Roman military expedition with foreign forces and that the leaders of the crusade understood this and acted accordingly, but they sort of got out of imperial control once they got past Antioch since that was as far as the empire was planning to retake. Also the reputation of the Romans had been damaged because the people's crusade showed up way too early and the empire hadn't had time to prep supplies yet, which contributed to the whole insane debacle and got back to the west as Roman duplicity rather than their own fault. The cracks between the two sides continued widening as both talked past each other, had different priorities, religious conflict, etc until both the Romans and the crusaders pretty much hated each other.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2018 18:20
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:It's a little unclear but the consensus seems to be that the emperor wanted to hire a few thousand knights as mercenaries, and things rapidly spiraled out of control mercenaries, man
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2018 18:41
|
|
|
The Romans had recently been thrashed at Manzikert and were in bad shape thanks to the Doukas family. Alexei wanted help from the western church that wasn't mercenaries, since Manzikert was decided, in part, by unreliable mercenaries (and treachery, of course). It was the Pope's idea to turn it into a crusade, and then things spiraled out of control into the mess they ended up being. In theory the crusaders were supposed to be under Roman orders, and turn captured lands over to Roman control, but Bohemond had other plans. sullat fucked around with this message at 20:07 on Nov 3, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2018 19:59
|
|
|
The crusaders seemed to think that Alexios would accompany them with a Roman army and maybe lead the expedition himself. Alexios ended up barely helping and doesn't seem to have had the ability or desire to defend anything outside of Anatolia.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2018 21:18
|
|
|
Fo3 posted:Yeah, I've never heard of anything but jihad either, but the description for the podcast I mentioned was: "The Ottoman Empire rose from humble beginnings in Anatolia to dominate a vast swathe of territory. Holy war, gaza, was a powerful driving force behind that expansion. At the Battle of Nicopolis in 1396, Ottoman holy war clashed directly with its Christian equivalent: crusading." I mean one important thing on a distinction between this Jihad vs Gaza, could be a difference between the Turkish Ottomans, and Arab's attacking into Anatolia under the Caliphate. OctaviusBeaver posted:The crusaders seemed to think that Alexios would accompany them with a Roman army and maybe lead the expedition himself. Alexios ended up barely helping and doesn't seem to have had the ability or desire to defend anything outside of Anatolia. To be fair the Romans did have soldiers with the First Crusade under one of Alexios generals Taktikos was following the Crusaders around, but at Antioch he and Bohemond got in a slap fight over ~something~ and he went back to Constantinople. That kinda neatly matched up with the Crusaders starting to carve up their own Kingdoms, instead of handing land off to the Romans. This is kinda why out of reading at the very least some published books like the one by Kaldellis Fromage mentioned that I think his postulation that the Crusade was a Roman military expedition first, or at the very least the Romans were able to keep a leash on Crusader ambitions until they got out of Anatolia and the Emperor had less ability to keep them under his control. sullat posted:The Romans had recently been thrashed at Manzikert and were in bad shape thanks to the Doukas family. Alexei wanted help from the western church that wasn't mercenaries, since Manzikert was decided, in part, by unreliable mercenaries (and treachery, of course). Norman Mercenaries might be pretty near the top of my list of least reliable mercenaries ever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2018 22:52
|
|
|
I’m not trying to troll but there is no way any human could believe transubstantiation is real.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2018 22:55
|
|
|
euphronius posted:I’m not trying to troll but there is no way any human could believe transubstantiation is real. So all the people who do believe it aren't human? No way could that be considered a troll.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2018 22:58
|
|
|
If someone came to you and said their Wonder bread form Walmart turned into a 2000 year old maybe fictional being you’d wonder about them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2018 23:02
|
|
|
euphronius posted:If someone came to you and said their Wonder bread form Walmart turned into a 2000 year old maybe fictional being you’d wonder about them. Perhaps you should talk to the folks in this thread about the matter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2018 23:05
|
|
|
No thank you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2018 23:06
|
|
|
In this moment, I am euphronius. Not because of any phony god's blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my intelligence.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2018 23:12
|
|
|
I’m not even trying to be dumb or whatever. I get believing in Christ or Muhammad or Vishnu but transubstantiation ? As the Roman Catholics say it goes down? Even priests think that’s wack.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2018 23:15
|
|
|
euphronius posted:I’m not even trying to be dumb or whatever. I get believing in Christ or Muhammad or Vishnu but transubstantiation ? As the Roman Catholics say it goes down? Even priests think that’s wack.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2018 23:29
|
|
|
It seems like when they reached out to the Pope on the sole basis of sharing the same religion (mostly), they shouldn't've been all that surprised when the people the pope sent wound up focused on the pilgrimage angle and not so focused on saving somebody else's empire.Jack2142 posted:Norman Mercenaries might be pretty near the top of my list of least reliable mercenaries ever. There is something fun about all the stories of rulers hiring a bunch of soldiers and expecting them to behave unconditionally and then it turns out like a mad scientist and their monster abomination. At least it's fun back in the era of monarchs pushing peasants around instead of the era when there are popular theories on human rights that professional killers tend to ignore. euphronius posted:I’m not trying to troll but there is no way any human could believe transubstantiation is real. Well that wafer does turn all gooshy in your mouth.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2018 23:30
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:It seems like when they reached out to the Pope on the sole basis of sharing the same religion (mostly)
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2018 23:31
|
|
|
euphronius posted:I’m not even trying to be dumb or whatever. I get believing in Christ or Muhammad or Vishnu but transubstantiation ? As the Roman Catholics say it goes down? Even priests think that’s wack. I'm not sure you understand what it means, or what the concepts of "miracle", "spirit", or "faith" imply. Not the thread for such a discussion, but please don't drop into an ancient history thread and talk poo poo about someone else's faith. (Is this the part where I say "thank you and God bless", or is that only on Reddit?) Edit: HEY GUNS post is, as usual for such topics, a better reply than mine. Ynglaur fucked around with this message at 00:21 on Nov 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 00:17
|
|
|
I went to 8000 years Of Catholic school. I know what transubstantiation is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 00:23
|
|
|
euphronius posted:I went to 8000 years Of Catholic school. I know what transubstantiation is. your posts are not transubstantiating into good posts on our end, friend
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 00:30
|
|
|
That's clearly due to your lack of faith in euphronius' intelligence.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 00:39
|
|
|
A post may participate in the accidents of a shitpost and yet contain, by the power of God, the real essence of Comedy Gold
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 00:44
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:Have you read aristotle? Not making fun of you, it depends on a set of ideas created by aristotle and extended by later philosophers. without that specific scaffold of why things are the way that they are, it won't make sense I’m partial to Plato.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 00:48
|
|
|
Fo3 posted:Yeah, I've never heard of anything but jihad either, but the description for the podcast I mentioned was: "The Ottoman Empire rose from humble beginnings in Anatolia to dominate a vast swathe of territory. Holy war, gaza, was a powerful driving force behind that expansion. At the Battle of Nicopolis in 1396, Ottoman holy war clashed directly with its Christian equivalent: crusading." A significant part of why the Ottomans won at Nicopolis is French knights getting dunked on by a charge of Christian heavy cavalry on the Ottoman side, so, uh...
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 01:57
|
|
|
quote is not edit?
Squalid fucked around with this message at 08:55 on Nov 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 08:39
|
|
|
Imagined posted:Because blaming the crusades just on religion is like blaming ISIS solely on religion. Religion provides the flavor, the theme, the superficial justification, but the underlying cause is utterly predictable. Any time you have a long period of widespread instability and power vacuum and you have a demographic flood of hopeless young men - you get some kind of hideously violent mass movement. As sure as the sun rises and sets. I would almost argue the exact opposite. Religion, or at least a sense of adventure inspired by religion, was obviously what drove crusaders to drop their lives and head to the holy land. However once the grand adventure is underway the tyranny of necessity begins to assert itself over the idealistic dreams. The ideology is the deep root cause, but the base material requirements constrain the external form. The fourth crusade for example doesn't make any sense if you think it was organized specifically to pillage Christendom's greatest city. It took years to assemble forces from all over Europe, and they paid for their own way. It was an insane risk if you're actually expecting to come out ahead, but making money wasn't the intention. However once the crusaders reached Venice they didn't have nearly enough money to pay what they had promised for transport, and that meant they almost immediately got side-tracked into pulling favors for Venice by seizing Christian and Catholic towns just to get to the holy-land. Then the son of a deposed Emperor appeared promising mountains of silver if they would help put his father back on the throne, and the Constantinople practically fell right into their lap. Supplying armies as they cross continents turns out to be insanely expensive, and the leadership of such an expedition will necessarily be preoccupied with obtaining the wealth to do so. Naturally those already proficient in this task might as well keep a little extra for themselves. . . Squalid fucked around with this message at 09:03 on Nov 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 08:52
|
|
|
euphronius posted:I’m partial to Plato. You can disagree with any part of this. You might disagree with it while still believing the bread turns into God--there are non-Catholics who believe that the bread does this but not the specific doctrine of transubstantiation. (You might throw out the idea of "essences" all together, which is one of the points of dispute between Hinduism and Buddhism.) Imo the real weakness of this argument is that once the Catholics make it dogma they hammer their religion to Aristotelian descriptions of how the world works which implies it's heresy to believe in, I dunno, Heidegger or existentialism instead. But it isn't incoherent. It has a history. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 15:10 on Nov 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 11:50
|
|
|
I know it was a dick move but you gotta admit that taking Constantinople by storm and without gunpowder was really impressive.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 15:34
|
|
|
euphronius posted:I’m not even trying to be dumb or whatever. I get believing in Christ or Muhammad or Vishnu but transubstantiation ? As the Roman Catholics say it goes down? Even priests think that’s wack. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/how-the-science-of-blue-lies-may-explain-trumps-support/
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 15:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 12:42 |
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/how-the-science-of-blue-lies-may-explain-trumps-support/ Uggggggggh, I loving loathe this kind of articles. e: lmao 
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 16:26
|
|