"Crusaders" offensive, bad word.

Ah lads, your faux outrage is way behind the times. We've already had this discussion a couple of years ago, and it was Irish related too.

The righties getting upset over the lefties is equally as faricial since there wasn't a murmur out of them at the time.

hopefully this crawling servile move will preserve NZ from any retaliation attacks.

And in Belfast we have:

Wibbs wrote: »

The crusades were a shit show for all concerned. A land grab by eastern and western powers fighting over the same bit of dirt in the middle east that has rarely not been fought over. On the Western end it they were successful in consolidating Europe itself, to the east and to the south when Andalus fell. Going on the example of how the Muslim empire evolved, if it had succeeded in conquering Europe, wave goodbye to the renaissance, the printing press revolution, the enlightenment. All of which made almost no inroads into the caliphate.

Not this again... It was a shining light. For an all too brief time. A couple of centuries in after a dynasty change and Jews and Christians were fleeing the place. The church intent on destroying knowledge is also extremely dubious historically and more a case of reformation revisionism than anything. Aristotle was but for a brief time required reading for clergy and the church busied itself for centuries digging up as much of the western classical world as it could(while the Islamic world was busy digging up the eastern Greek. The "science" of the Quran is almost entirely Greek in influence). The Renaissance was a return to the classical world and heavily patronised by the church. It was actually the later reformation Protestants that were hellbent on rejecting all that "paganism". Martin Luther referred to Aristotle as a devil in human form.

Though as someone once remarked while listening to the witnesses after a minor car crash; I don't have much hope for history.

Indeed, the Crusades were a sh8tstorm for all involved - but in the West we act like 'our' side are to be celebrated when the reality is they were invaders into a region they had tenuous links with - and they used religion to justify invasion and slaughter to the extent of calling it a Holy War. And they were roundly beaten back.
The Crusaders were a pillaging army intent expanding their land holdings and spreading their religion. Where have we heard that justification recently?

There were several Muslim empires with significant differences between them. Some Turkish, some Arabic. Yes, they sought to expand. It's what empires do. European empires did the same - and they also sought to impose their religion on the conquered.

The argument can be made, and has been by historians expert in the time period, that the Italian Renaissance (I assume this is the one you are referring to) wouldn't have happened without Muslim expansion as it caused the mass movement of people to Europe. Educated Refugees bringing knowledge suppressed in Christendom sparked the flames. And yes, knowledge was suppressed because education was strictly confined to a chosen few and controlled by the Church. The Medici (as financial bankers and as Popes) did more for the Renaissance than the Church ever did. Although the Borgia were great patrons when they controlled the Papacy.

Without the Muslim expansion we also wouldn't have coffee or surgery or anything that required 'zero'. Like to see people code using Roman numerals...


And yes - that again. Regardless of what happened afterwards the fact remains the Caliphate of Cordoba was a shining light of diversity, education, and science in the European darkness of the Middle Ages. It was certainly preferable to the situation after their Catholic Majesties Ferdinand and Isabella took control and unleashed the Inquisition.

As I said, I don't care what a rugby team calls themselves. But when people start claiming things that are historically inaccurate I do care. It's my job to care.

nothing like a bit of ethno self flagellation

Lads, just a second, I've popped the kettle on and opened a packet of biscuits. I for one love education and discussion.


OK. Carry on.

Wibbs wrote: »

Yet it very much reads like Christian imperials bad, Islamic imperials not so bad. Read your own posts back. They have more than the hint of orientalism, hence my comment. This part: the Caliphate of Cordoba was a shining light of diversity, education, and science in the European darkness of the Middle Ages also betrays a particular worldview too and its not nearly so simplistic as that. It certainly was the case for the first few centuries. Ditto for the wider Islamic world, but started to go very much south in the last centuries of rule there and the rest of Europe wasn't all peasantry squatting in ditches. The Inquisition part also has more than the hint of the post reformation angle on things.

Or you could go ahead and challenge them, point out what errors I have made with regard to the texts. I mean you're the historian, I'm the rank amateur, so it should be a walk in the park for you.

I did challenge them. I pointed out it was Turks not Arabs for a start. I pointed out that Jerusalem had been Muslim for centuries by the time of the 1st Crusade. I pointed out that the only reason Jerusalem was a holy site for Christianity was due to the Roman Empire in the first place.

Firstly, the role of the Historian is to try and understand why people did what they did when they did it. There is no place for judgement calls or this was right/wrong. Objectivity is the aim. So personally while I am not fan of anybody building empires or the imposition of religion upon anybody my personal opinion matters not a jot.
I laid out the facts.
It was the expansion of the Seljuk Turks (not Arabs) into Byzantine Empire lands that led to Constantinople requesting mercenary aid from the Pope that kicked off the Crusades.
A growing empire was threatening a contracting empire. It happens all the time with empires. The expanding Protestant English empire threatened the contracting Catholic Spanish empire. The Greeks threatened the Persians. The Romans threatened Cartage. The Ottomans threatened the Hapsburg's Holy Roman Empire. Etc etc.

You assumed incorrectly I favoured one side or the other when I made no such statement. I simply said it's what empires do - they expand by subjugating conquered people. Constantine, by making the Roman empire mono- religion, brought the imposition of a religion into the package. Christianity spread globally on the back of the expansion of European empires. Islam tried the same tactic but with less success.

Of course it's not that bloody simple. That is why it takes a life time to get to grip with the complexities - but you reduced it to European Christians taking back holy places from Muslim Arabs and I pointed out, in a very simplified version, that this is simply not true. That is the spin.

Would I want to live in a Muslim world?!?! Would I uck! But that doesn't mean I am prepared to spout Crusaders 'good', Saracens 'bad'. Each did what they did for their own reasons and I will not sugar coat the actions of the Crusaders who you portrayed as the wanna be saviours of the Holy Places. Some were. Most weren't.
Overall, they were the latest in a series of invaders keen to impose their will. The Muslims weren't sunshine and lollipops - in the case of the Crusades they were defending the lands they had conquered centuries before from invaders while also having an eye on the goal of expanding themselves. And they were different ethnic groups very concerned with getting one over on their internal rivals in the Muslim world win the grand prize of Top Caliphate.
Much like European kings were doing in Christendom.

The Caliphate of Cordoba was a centre of learning. This is a fact.
It finally ended once and for all when Ferdinand and Isabella conquered Granada. This is a fact.
Ferdinand and Isabella unleashed the Inquisition. This is a fact.
The Inquisition tortured and burned people for not being Roman Catholic enough. This is a fact.
Ferdinand and Isabella also ushered in the Early Modern era signalling the end of the Middle Ages. This is a fact.
Ferdinand and Isabella did what they believed was the right thing to do according to their beliefs. Saladin did what he believed was the right thing to do according to his beliefs.

Whether or not I, wearing my historian hat, agree with their beliefs is not the point. My job is to try and understand their beliefs and how it influenced their actions. Were I to allow my personal opinion to interfere I would be a rank amateur. Do not make the make mistake that when I say this, according to the sources, is what happened that I either approve or disapprove.

Like your car crash analogy - I can say what I saw as an individual. But as a historian I would need to read every report on the crash and draw a conclusion based on the evidence. Which may, ironically, conflict with what I thought I saw as I, personally, have only one viewpoint and not all the facts.