at this time, the Caliphate controlled the trade between Asia and the West and the Silk Road had been weakened by the rise of islamic turks in Central Asia.
the Mongols didn’t took control of it before the end of the 13th century. they tried to renew trade with the West around 1280, after the last Crusades.
[/quote]
Yeah, I guess you are right. I was thinking Ottoman Turks.
The Mongols took over parts of modern day Afghanistan and Pakistan around 1219. They conquered Baghdad 1258. The Crusaders actually let the Mameluke Egyptians cross their territory when they beat the Mongol advance. 1260 Mamluke leader Baibars calls for a Jihad against the Crusaders in the Middle East and systematically destroys their outposts. So the Crusaders were still around when the Mongols invaded. Look it up.
[quote]spiderman739 wrote:
Sure they were armed but the peasantry were not an official part of the crusade and left for the Holy Land well ahead of the proper crusade army. Being dirt poor and with bugger all to take care of before leaving, they just up and left. There were no logistics in place to deal with them between Europe and the Middle East. And without the protection of the crusade army, lots of them met with a rather grisly ending.[/quote]
How were they not official? The Crusades were not even called crusades until much later after they happened. They were all called pilgrimages. Yes, they did meet a grisly ending because they were not hardened men (warriors/barbarians/soldiers/knights). However, they were still part of the pilgrimages.
Not a lot, what you have to understand is until ~650 A.D. the majority of Europe, Asia Minor, the Middle East, Asia was land of Christians. [/quote]
[quote]BBriere wrote:
You’re right in that the Church really didn’t acquire much new land, but most of Europe was not Christian until around 900AD. [/quote]
I should have been more specific, I wasn’t referring to new/unconquered/foreign lands, what I meant was how much actual land they acquired, like your property is the church, and I’m your neighbour, and you got me all psyched up to go out crusading, but I’m poor as fuck, so you’re like hey, I’ll buy that plot(at a discount) and send you on your way. In other words I’m talking about them possibly being deceptive in order to acquire more land for the church from donated money. Hope that’s more clear.
[/quote]
I don’t think it was a matter of being deceptive as a way of getting land, they genuilnly wanted a crusade for most of the reasons mentioned previously. The idea of a crusade was being talked about before Pope Urbans time, specifically Pope Gregory VII and after the Battle of Manzikert. Doesn’t mean they were against profiting from it where possible ;).[/quote]
I assume that it might be a point of interest to Matty that the Papal Estates have been given back to those countries that sold it the Church to fund their pilgrimages.
[quote]kamui wrote:
Claude Levi Strauss explains better what i had in mind when i said our history would have been vastly different if we had directed our forces along the Silk Road rather than to the Holy Hand.
in the last pages of Tristes Tropiques :
“Today, it is behind Islam that I contemplate India; the India of Buddha, prior to Muhammad who - for me as a European and because I am European - arises between our reflection and the teachings which are closest to it. The hands of the East and the West, predestined to be joined, were kept apart by it.
The West should return to the sources of its torn condition: by way of interposing itself between Buddhism and Christianity, Islam islamized us when, in the course of the Crusades, the West let itself be caught in the opposition to it and thus started to resemble it, instead of delivering itself - in the case of the inexistence of Islam - to the slow osmosis with Buddhism which would christianize us even more, in a sense which would have been all the more Christian insofar as we were to mount beyond Christianity itself. It is then that the West has lost its chance to remain woman”
[/quote]
I’ll have to say Tristes must be a good writer, because I didn’t understand a word said.
[quote]kamui wrote:
Claude Levi Strauss explains better what i had in mind when i said our history would have been vastly different if we had directed our forces along the Silk Road rather than to the Holy Hand.
in the last pages of Tristes Tropiques :
“Today, it is behind Islam that I contemplate India; the India of Buddha, prior to Muhammad who - for me as a European and because I am European - arises between our reflection and the teachings which are closest to it. The hands of the East and the West, predestined to be joined, were kept apart by it.
The West should return to the sources of its torn condition: by way of interposing itself between Buddhism and Christianity, Islam islamized us when, in the course of the Crusades, the West let itself be caught in the opposition to it and thus started to resemble it, instead of delivering itself - in the case of the inexistence of Islam - to the slow osmosis with Buddhism which would christianize us even more, in a sense which would have been all the more Christian insofar as we were to mount beyond Christianity itself. It is then that the West has lost its chance to remain woman”
[/quote]
I’ll have to say Tristes must be a good writer, because I didn’t understand a word said.[/quote]
indeed(owl pic represents my poor understanding of what Claude Levi Strauss wrote)
[quote]spiderman739 wrote:
Sure they were armed but the peasantry were not an official part of the crusade and left for the Holy Land well ahead of the proper crusade army. Being dirt poor and with bugger all to take care of before leaving, they just up and left. There were no logistics in place to deal with them between Europe and the Middle East. And without the protection of the crusade army, lots of them met with a rather grisly ending.[/quote]
How were they not official? The Crusades were not even called crusades until much later after they happened. They were all called pilgrimages. Yes, they did meet a grisly ending because they were not hardened men (warriors/barbarians/soldiers/knights). However, they were still part of the pilgrimages.[/quote]
What I mean is that, they were not part of the Crusade that Pope Urban was calling for. When he gave his speech at Cleremont he was appealing to the nobility and royalty of Europe. The last thing he wanted was a bunch pf peasants getting in the way of what he visualised as a military campaign.
[quote]kamui wrote:
Claude Levi Strauss explains better what i had in mind when i said our history would have been vastly different if we had directed our forces along the Silk Road rather than to the Holy Hand.
in the last pages of Tristes Tropiques :
“Today, it is behind Islam that I contemplate India; the India of Buddha, prior to Muhammad who - for me as a European and because I am European - arises between our reflection and the teachings which are closest to it. The hands of the East and the West, predestined to be joined, were kept apart by it.
The West should return to the sources of its torn condition: by way of interposing itself between Buddhism and Christianity, Islam islamized us when, in the course of the Crusades, the West let itself be caught in the opposition to it and thus started to resemble it, instead of delivering itself - in the case of the inexistence of Islam - to the slow osmosis with Buddhism which would christianize us even more, in a sense which would have been all the more Christian insofar as we were to mount beyond Christianity itself. It is then that the West has lost its chance to remain woman”
[/quote]
I’ll have to say Tristes must be a good writer, because I didn’t understand a word said.[/quote]
indeed(owl pic represents my poor understanding of what Claude Levi Strauss wrote)[/quote]
Here is what I think he means (and I may be WAY off base here).
If the crusades hadn’t happened, Buddhism would have had a bigger influence of Christianity and taken it to a new level. By warring with the Muslims, Christianity was influenced by and became more like the very thing it was supposed to be fighting.
By launching the crusades, Christianity lost the chance to develop into something better.
[quote]spiderman739 wrote:
Sure they were armed but the peasantry were not an official part of the crusade and left for the Holy Land well ahead of the proper crusade army. Being dirt poor and with bugger all to take care of before leaving, they just up and left. There were no logistics in place to deal with them between Europe and the Middle East. And without the protection of the crusade army, lots of them met with a rather grisly ending.[/quote]
How were they not official? The Crusades were not even called crusades until much later after they happened. They were all called pilgrimages. Yes, they did meet a grisly ending because they were not hardened men (warriors/barbarians/soldiers/knights). However, they were still part of the pilgrimages.[/quote]
What I mean is that, they were not part of the Crusade that Pope Urban was calling for. When he gave his speech at Cleremont he was appealing to the nobility and royalty of Europe. The last thing he wanted was a bunch pf peasants getting in the way of what he visualised as a military campaign.[/quote]
I would like to read the speech, do you have a copy you recommend?
Well, therein lies the problem. There is no totally accurate account of the speech. Most accounts were written by people who were there but some time later, or by people who heard from others.
I lifted this from Wiki, but it is actually a pretty good rundown of the different versions;
“There exists no exact transcription of Urban II’s speech. The five extant versions of the speech were written down quite a bit later, and they differ widely from one another. All versions of the speech except that by Fulcher of Chartres were probably influenced by the chronicle account of the First Crusade called the Gesta Francorum (dated c. 1102), whose author also gives a version of the speech. Fulcher of Chartres was present at the Council, but his version of Urban’s speech was written 1100-1106; Robert the Monk may have been present, but his version dates about 1106. The two remaining versions are even later, and written by authors who did not attend the speech. The five versions of Urban’s speech reflect much more clearly what later authors thought Urban II should have said about the First Crusade, than what Urban II himself actually did say to launch the First Crusade. In contrast, there are four extant letters written by Pope Urban II himself about crusading, to the Flemish (dated December 1095); to the Bolognese (dated September 1096); to Vallembrosa (dated October 1096); to Catalonian counts (dated either 1089 or 1096â??1099). It is Urban II’s own letters, rather than the paraphrased versions of his speech, that reveal his actual thinking about crusading.”
The point that they all agree on though was that it was a bloody good speech that inspired people to take the cross there and then.
[quote]Here is what I think he means (and I may be WAY off base here).
If the crusades hadn’t happened, Buddhism would have had a bigger influence of Christianity and taken it to a new level. By warring with the Muslims, Christianity was influenced by and became more like the very thing it was supposed to be fighting.
By launching the crusades, Christianity lost the chance to develop into something better.
I THINK that is what he meant. Am I right? [/quote]
Not a lot, what you have to understand is until ~650 A.D. the majority of Europe, Asia Minor, the Middle East, Asia was land of Christians. [/quote]
[quote]BBriere wrote:
You’re right in that the Church really didn’t acquire much new land, but most of Europe was not Christian until around 900AD. [/quote]
I should have been more specific, I wasn’t referring to new/unconquered/foreign lands, what I meant was how much actual land they acquired, like your property is the church, and I’m your neighbour, and you got me all psyched up to go out crusading, but I’m poor as fuck, so you’re like hey, I’ll buy that plot(at a discount) and send you on your way. In other words I’m talking about them possibly being deceptive in order to acquire more land for the church from donated money. Hope that’s more clear.
[/quote]
I don’t think it was a matter of being deceptive as a way of getting land, they genuilnly wanted a crusade for most of the reasons mentioned previously. The idea of a crusade was being talked about before Pope Urbans time, specifically Pope Gregory VII and after the Battle of Manzikert. Doesn’t mean they were against profiting from it where possible ;).[/quote]
The Church really didn’t start to become the bloated beast that it was until the late Middle Ages. By the time of the Crusades, Europe was really too fragmented to do much in terms of land collection. The vassal states really were under localized control only, and the Church had a hard enough time controlling it’s small lot of land in Italy. 1000AD was kind of the marking point of the growth of Church estates, but it was still extremely small and only as influential as the kings would allow it to be.
[quote]Here is what I think he means (and I may be WAY off base here).
If the crusades hadn’t happened, Buddhism would have had a bigger influence of Christianity and taken it to a new level. By warring with the Muslims, Christianity was influenced by and became more like the very thing it was supposed to be fighting.
By launching the crusades, Christianity lost the chance to develop into something better.
I THINK that is what he meant. Am I right? [/quote]
yup[/quote]
I now expect everyone to show respect to my out of this world reading comprehension skills!!
I’m interested to know what the writer bases his idea on as I wouldn’t have pictured Buddhism and Christianity flourishing side by side.
[quote]Here is what I think he means (and I may be WAY off base here).
If the crusades hadn’t happened, Buddhism would have had a bigger influence of Christianity and taken it to a new level. By warring with the Muslims, Christianity was influenced by and became more like the very thing it was supposed to be fighting.
By launching the crusades, Christianity lost the chance to develop into something better.
I THINK that is what he meant. Am I right? [/quote]
[quote]Here is what I think he means (and I may be WAY off base here).
If the crusades hadn’t happened, Buddhism would have had a bigger influence of Christianity and taken it to a new level. By warring with the Muslims, Christianity was influenced by and became more like the very thing it was supposed to be fighting.
By launching the crusades, Christianity lost the chance to develop into something better.
I THINK that is what he meant. Am I right? [/quote]
yup[/quote]
I unno.
[/quote]
How did the Crusades prevent Christianity from becoming like Buddhism? I don’t see a connection, but I may have misinterpreted your idea.
Not my idea, just what I thought the author was trying to say. By going off on crusade, Christianity was thrown into conflict with Islam which resulted in Christianity becoming more similar to Islam.
Had they not gone on crusade to the east, Christianity may well have been influenced by Buddhism and been better off for it.
I am not saying I agree with this or even think it. This is just my interpretation of what that author was offering as an alternative historical “what if…”.
[quote]spiderman739 wrote:
Not my idea, just what I thought the author was trying to say. By going off on crusade, Christianity was thrown into conflict with Islam which resulted in Christianity becoming more similar to Islam.
Had they not gone on crusade to the east, Christianity may well have been influenced by Buddhism and been better off for it.
I am not saying I agree with this or even think it. This is just my interpretation of what that author was offering as an alternative historical “what if…”.[/quote]
Oh, maybe I missed a post somewhere. I don’t really get into “what if” history. If you ever read that book Holy Blood, Holy Grail, it’s written as “what if” history, but then supposed to be taken as serious, scholarly work. The fact is, Christianity was not influenced by either religion. Western Europe began to be influenced by Eastern learning and philosophy following the Crusades, but Christianity did not become more like Islam. I’m not sure what connection the author made between the two.
[quote]Kanada wrote:
(in my view the Western Roman Empire will remain as long as the Pope exists. Now its called the EU.)[/quote]
Interesting idea. So with this in mind what level of corrolation would there be with the current conflicts in the middle east if any? (in your opinion)
I mean do you believe, as iv heard people flaunt this as a kind of conspiracy theory recently, that there is still a religious power struggle at the heart of the current situation between east and west in say iraq and afghanistan?
[quote]stinky-balls wrote:
I’ve just read through this good intelligent thread and enjoyed the knowledge(Apart from the random comment about the Pope and the EU. Hilarious!)
I’m sceptical around much of recorded history, especially medieval and super especially pertaining to the church. Hence, any reports of a particular figure’s motivation should be held at arms length at least due to it’s undoubted editorial nature. But I suppose that’s by the by. good discussion.
[/quote]
Why is this hilarious? The way I see it this is the only relevant part of this thread.
I mean you go on to say basically that much of history is edited (I would include biased or written by the victor etc) which I completely agree with, so then why not focus on where we are right now and whether the pope is still actually pulling the strings or how much of an influence religion still has on world politics. Scary thought.
[quote]Kanada wrote:
(in my view the Western Roman Empire will remain as long as the Pope exists. Now its called the EU.)[/quote]
Interesting idea. So with this in mind what level of corrolation would there be with the current conflicts in the middle east if any? (in your opinion) I mean do you believe, as iv heard people flaunt this as a kind of conspiracy theory recently, that there is still a religious power struggle at the heart of the current middle east situation?[/quote]
Perhaps I’m the one misreading him, but I believe he’s refering to the EU as a new sort of Pope (though secular)…
[quote]Here is what I think he means (and I may be WAY off base here).
If the crusades hadn’t happened, Buddhism would have had a bigger influence of Christianity and taken it to a new level. By warring with the Muslims, Christianity was influenced by and became more like the very thing it was supposed to be fighting.
By launching the crusades, Christianity lost the chance to develop into something better.
I THINK that is what he meant. Am I right? [/quote]
yup[/quote]
I unno.
[/quote]
How did the Crusades prevent Christianity from becoming like Buddhism? I don’t see a connection, but I may have misinterpreted your idea.[/quote]
Because as much as people don’t like to admit it, Christianity and Islam are different versions of each other. By being distracted by each other for a prolonged amount of time, they both began to converge again from the divergence provided by their split from Judaism. The nasty traits Islam had picked up started to rub off on mainstream Christianity and vice versa. Has there been no Crusades, it seems more likely that either of the two would have come into contact with other ideologies and picked up something there.
I disagree with the implication that it would have been purely positive though.
