United 93

Error message

Deprecated function: implode(): Passing glue string after array is deprecated. Swap the parameters in drupal_get_feeds() (line 394 of /var/www/pied-piper.ermarian.net/includes/common.inc).

Pages

AuthorTopic: United 93
moonear
Infiltrator
Member # 5410
 written Thursday, May 18 2006 12:40 Profile #101
Oh, this isn't central to anything, but you also wanted to know why I cited Palestine as the core of Christianity. Well, Jesus Christ and his followers started here, Egypt is where Christian Monasticism first arose and Asia Minor is where St. Paul first took Christianity outside of Palestine. Europe was the periphery. That it has importance to other religions as well doesn't change these facts.

--------------------
"Dikiyoba ... is demon ... drives people mad and ... do all sorts of strange things."

"You Spiderwebbians are mad, mad, mad as March hares."
Posts: 687 | Registered: Wednesday, January 19 2005 08:00
Slarty
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
 written Thursday, May 18 2006 13:12 Profile Homepage #102
quote:
Originally written by Mouthpiece:

quote:
The First Crusade was indeed intended to reconquer lost territory, but that does not make it defensive. It involved attacking territories that were held by Muslims and were not attacking the West.
The first point, well I will not argue it again and the latter point is unsupported by a history of 400 years of constant, military expansion of the Islamic world.
I didn't say the West had never been attacked by Islamic empires. What I said is that it launched an offensive against territorities that were not attacking it, and had not been recently.

The crux of our disagreement seems to be that I classify a strategic military action involving sending troops to another country, which was motivated partly by defensive needs, as an attack, whereas you classify it as defensive. Is that fair?

quote:
quote:
The stated goal was not to protect people and ensure the safety of pilgrimages, as one might expect from a U.N. peacekeeping mission. This was an invasion, pure and simple.
I pointed you to recorded history of the Popes call to pilgrimage which explicitly stated that this was to protect people and not to take territory.
Yes, and I explained to you why I am not willing to take a speech made by the Pope as direct historical fact, particularly when it is contradicted by the historical record. If you disagree with my logic on that one, then I think we have little hope of ever agreeing on anything with regard to history.

quote:
Also, I provided you with two texts, both of which cite the territories taken from Christian lands AND provide documentation for their claim. Don't be lazy and demand I provide the original reference, go read the text and examine its documentation yourself.
"Don't be lazy, Slarty, spend days embarking on a research project just to satisfy Fatman." I read all of your texts that are easily available online, and the most recent one was patently ridiculous. I've already explained why.

quote:
This represents about 2/3 of the Christian population of that time (Europe was not as densly populated). Note also, contrary to your understanding of history, that significant parts of Europe were under muslim control.
Thank you for explaining that. However, I'd like to ask -- for a THIRD time -- for a reference to the sources you got that from. I'd like to read more about it and see where they got their information from. I'm still skeptical on the figures.

quote:
However, I will say that your arguments have not presented sources, I have presented sources...
So, this paragraph pretty much COMPLETELY IGNORES my last post. I think I'm done here.

quote:
that has been rigorously tested by academics and accepted in the academic world as a text for University level courses gives weight to its arguments.
There is no way in hell that that last text of yours has been "rigorously tested by academics."

quote:
If you reject, for instance, Riley-Smith's qualifications to comment on the Medeival period I will do my own facepalming.
You haven't quoted Riley-Smith. I don't reject his qualifications, but that doesn't mean I'm going to accept anything he says without examining it critically. And if he is in fact a respectable historian, I imagine he wouldn't have it any other way.

--------------------
Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central
Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00
radix malorum est cupiditas
Lifecrafter
Member # 6403
 written Thursday, May 18 2006 13:31 Profile #103
quote:
Originally written by The Ingebritsens' Car:

quote:
This represents about 2/3 of the Christian population of that time (Europe was not as densly populated). Note also, contrary to your understanding of history, that significant parts of Europe were under muslim control.
Thank you for explaining that. However, I'd like to ask -- for a THIRD time -- for a reference to the sources you got that from. I'd like to read more about it and see where they got their information from. I'm still skeptical on the figures.
Those two sentences must be taken seperately, the second he's failed to answer, but the first can only be held up if you consider non-European Christians to be relevant here. They were under no influence by the European church and the European church pretended they did not exist, but they were christians all the same. And when counting their numbers into that of European christianity, 2/3 isn't such a hard number to swallow at all.

[ Thursday, May 18, 2006 13:31: Message edited by: radix malorum est cupiditas ]

--------------------
??? ??????
???? ?????
Posts: 883 | Registered: Wednesday, October 19 2005 07:00
Zeviz
Nuke and Pave
Member # 24
 written Thursday, May 18 2006 15:11 Profile Homepage #104
Slarty, if you actually read what people say, instead of hearing what you think they are saying, you'd realize that they aren't as horribly racist as you think. For example:
quote:
Originally written by The Ingebritsens' Car:

...
quote:
from http://www.doaks.org/Crusades/CR03.pdf
Extra large load of horse manure!
...
The essay's thesis, that Islam always tried to impose its will by force and Christianity never has, is laughable. And what a surprise -- it is an essay coming from a Catholic institution!
...
You claim that: "The essay's thesis" is "that Islam always tried to impose its will by force and Christianity never has". However, the essay never claims this, not even talking about making this its thesis:

In the opening paragraph, the author ctitisizes the idea of "holy wars" and draws paralels between Islamic conquests (I will not use the term "jihad", since you claim it means something different) and Crusades.

In the concluding paragraph, the author says:
quote:
In conclusion, then, Muslims believed force might be used to bring all people under the sway of Islam; Western knights believed that they were called not only to defend but to "exalt" Christianity and that attacks on its enemies could be holy and meritorious. The Byzantines believed that war was neither good nor holy, but was evil and could be justified only in certain conditions that centered on the defense of the empire and its faith. They were convinced that they were defending Christianity itself and the Christian people, as indeed they were.
Note that the word "exholt" is in quotes and author shows some disapproval for Crusaders throughout the essay. I don't understand how you interpret the above paragraph to say that "Islam always tried to impose its will by force and Christianity never has". The essay obviously glorifies the Byzantines, but the author speaks as harshly about Crusaders as he does about Muslim conquerors.

Here is another quote from the essay:
quote:
They [the Byzantines] would have been utterly appalled at the preaching of St. Bernard and his call for the extermination of the infidel (delenda penitus), as well as his assertion that killing an enemy of Christ was not homicide, but malecide.
That doesn't sound like a claim that "Islam always tried to impose its will by force and Christianity never has" to me.

Over the last several posts, you keep shouting out the same arguments at Fatman, ignoring all responces. First you demand sources, then, when they conflict with your pre-conseptions, you sweep them aside, without even bothering to read them.

As for the actual topic of Crusades, I am not sufficiently knowlegeble on the subject to provide meaningful contribution to the discussion. (And "you are wrong, because some random guy online says so" isn't a meaningful contribution.)

--------------------
Be careful with a word, as you would with a sword,
For it too has the power to kill.
However well placed word, unlike a well placed sword,
Can also have the power to heal.
Posts: 2649 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00
moonear
Infiltrator
Member # 5410
 written Thursday, May 18 2006 15:21 Profile #105
Slarty, for the third time look at the texts written by Riley Smith and by Madden. Ifthe last text your refer to is the one by Runciman, I have not used this as a basis for ony of my arguments.

With respect to defensive vs. offensive, I am characterizing the entire crusade as a defensive war (defense of Byzantium, the pilgrims, holy places) not individual battles. This would be similar to Allied powers being in a defensive war against Axis expansion, but conducting many offensives of their own in WW II.

With respect to interpretation of history, the texts that I have read on the subject (and I admit they are not exhaustive and reflective primarily of modern scholarship) supports the contention that invasion and conquering of foreign lands was not a primary motivation of the vast majority of individuals, including key figures. In a nutshell, leaving many details out, at the time of the crusades the muslims were an ascending power, more advanced in technology and science than Europe and imposing their will on weaker populations. The establishment of European "colonies" were not primarily about economic advancement but about providing outposts against further muslim advances. Muslim advances are historical fact, establishing military outposts is a historical interpretation. The outposts were an economic drain on Europe and survived only with infusions from Europe. This is a historical fact based on records. Historical records also seem to show that these outposts remained primarily foreign (Madden's estimate was 90% of the population) with a ruling elite and a military force drawn from crusaders.

We will both agree that crusading kingdoms were established, I suspect we may disagree as to what this actually meant in practice.

Witah respect to the Popes statements, for me what was interesting was reading how these claims got repeated in sermons and in writings around that time, that the barrage of documents at that time propounded this motivation of a holy war. So, I guess my reading of catholicism on this issue points to this as their primary motivator. One thing to remember as well is that the Pope was not near as powerful and the papacy not near as united as it is today. I think the history of the crusades bears this out, the difficulty that the Pope had in trying to control or direct influence over crusaders.

[ Thursday, May 18, 2006 15:44: Message edited by: Mouthpiece ]

--------------------
"Dikiyoba ... is demon ... drives people mad and ... do all sorts of strange things."

"You Spiderwebbians are mad, mad, mad as March hares."
Posts: 687 | Registered: Wednesday, January 19 2005 08:00
Slarty
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
 written Thursday, May 18 2006 15:41 Profile Homepage #106
First off, I never accused anyone of racism -- are you thinking of TM's post?

You're right, though, that my paraphrasing of the essay's thesis was overgeneralized in one respect. What I should have said: "Islam always tried to impose its will by force and the Crusaders didn't." However, if the author spoke harshly about the Crusaders, I must have missed that part. The impression I got from the essay was one of a severely biased view. I dunno what else to say.

My arguments to Fatman have been repeated because he hasn't addressed mine. When I challenge his assertion A on grounds of B, he reformulates his assertion in a way that sidesteps the grounds I challenged it with, rather than addressing them. I don't really know how to deal with that other than asking for my challenge to be addressed.

Let's get one thing straight. I NEVER demanded sources. What I demanded was that assertions should be somehow substantiated. Generally, for this kind of topic, that means using sources to explain things. Citing a source is very useful, but it has to be done in the context of a coherent and logical argument; also, it has to be a good source, and that may be the subject of debate. I'm sorry if my initial requests for citations were not so explicit. But I have never held otherwise.

I am, frankly, somewhat offended that you suggest I would drastically change my standards of what constitutes a legitimate argument when it suits my case.

---

Fatman: "Look at these two books" is not a citation. If I'm going to take the time to go find a book, the least you can do is give me a page number. If you wanted to quote a few relevant sentences, that would be even better.

--------------------
Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central
Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00
moonear
Infiltrator
Member # 5410
 written Thursday, May 18 2006 16:03 Profile #107
Slarty,

my reading of the material suggest I was trying to address your points and you were ignoring my rebuttals! There was no intended deception on my part (and I believe the same as you). I think things just got sidetracked as we interpreted each others posts.

My history argument in point form

- Constant and continuous muslim expansion through military means.
- Christian Byzantine being wiped out, Constantinople attacked twice.
- Early peace between muslims and christian pilgrims disrupted around 1000 AD, resulting in massacres of christians and destruction of christian holy places, the curch previously listed in 1009 being one of the most egregious examples because it was such a holy place
- a call from Byzantium for aid
- a catholic response by Pope Urban II providing religious motivation to defend Christendom
- a response from knights, to which the call was directed, and also peasants and others with pious intent
- a military campaign that resulted in the freeing of Jerusalem and establishment of crusader outposts.

Defensive war because (1)aiding the eastern christians (2) protection of pilgrims (3) protection of christian shrines.

Most certainly there were offensive campaigns conducted to acheive the above.

Campaigns 2 and 3 are significant in that they followed the above principals, campaign 4 because it went so horribly awry, further campaigns conducted over the next couple of hundred years not nearly so well supported and all disastrous.

Interesting to note that I read part of one book from an islam point of view (not very scholarly) that had issue with some of the above. Also, somewhere I came across a view that the Crusades from a muslim view were a minor irritant and the use of them as a motivator for things like 9/11 is a recent phenomenom. I cannot recall for the life of me where this is from but on one level it makes sense, after all the muslims won every crusade but the first.

--------------------
"Dikiyoba ... is demon ... drives people mad and ... do all sorts of strange things."

"You Spiderwebbians are mad, mad, mad as March hares."
Posts: 687 | Registered: Wednesday, January 19 2005 08:00
Zeviz
Nuke and Pave
Member # 24
 written Thursday, May 18 2006 16:08 Profile Homepage #108
Sorry if my previous post sounded a bit harsh.

Basically, I saw the argument going in circles with you insisting on Fatman providing all the supporting evidence, despite the fact that your arguments are equally far from some people's "accepted facts". (For example, what about "children's crusade"? Are you going to claim that those children went to conquer lands for establishment of a colonial empire?)

quote:
...
The impression I got from the essay was one of a severely biased view. I dunno what else to say.
That's exactly what I am talking about: the essay was in no way glorifying the Crusaders and in several places drew direct paralels between Crusades and Islamic conquest. So if the essay looked severely biased towards Crusaders to you, either you misunderstood it, or you think that Muslim conquest of Middle East, North Africa and Southern Europe was somehow better than the Crusades.

quote:
First off, I never accused anyone of racism -- are you thinking of TM's post?
Sorry about that. I guess I was confused about who said what in the thread.

[ Thursday, May 18, 2006 16:11: Message edited by: Zeviz ]

--------------------
Be careful with a word, as you would with a sword,
For it too has the power to kill.
However well placed word, unlike a well placed sword,
Can also have the power to heal.
Posts: 2649 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00
Slarty
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
 written Thursday, May 18 2006 16:22 Profile Homepage #109
quote:
Originally written by Zeviz:

quote:
...
The impression I got from the essay was one of a severely biased view. I dunno what else to say.
That's exactly what I am talking about: the essay was in no way glorifying the Crusaders and in several places drew direct paralels between Crusades and Islamic conquest. So if the essay looked severely biased towards Crusaders to you, either you misunderstood it, or you think that Muslim conquest of Middle East, North Africa and Southern Europe was somehow better than the Crusades.
Well, one of us definitely misunderstood the essay. It really sounded to me like it was using kinder words to describe the Crusaders than it was those involved in Islamic conquest.

I will admit (as I mentioned in my original comments on the essay) that I was rather put off by the first couple of paragraphs, so I may have been inclined to seek out further inequity on its part. But I really don't think I was making it up.

---

I don't know why I've been spending so much time arguing about this today. Some kind of expiation of testosterone on my part, maybe. Anyway, I'm going to bow out now. I think we are at as much agreement as is ever going to happen, and I don't really want to go digging unanswered arguments out of the muck right now.
--t

--------------------
Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central
Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00
moonear
Infiltrator
Member # 5410
 written Thursday, May 18 2006 16:41 Profile #110
Slarty, don't bow out yet. Actually this is slightly different.

What is your opinion of first strike or pre-emptive attacks? Militarily are these offensive means to accomplish a defensive purpose?

Here is another one. Russia argued that its occupation of eastern Europe after WW II was to prevent another European war from occuring on its home soil. After all, noone lost more than Russia in either world war. Acceptable position? better yet, a defensible position?

Should we make these new topics in their own right and open up the floor to those that have long since quit reading our batterings of each other?

--------------------
"Dikiyoba ... is demon ... drives people mad and ... do all sorts of strange things."

"You Spiderwebbians are mad, mad, mad as March hares."
Posts: 687 | Registered: Wednesday, January 19 2005 08:00
Randomizer
Law Bringer
Member # 6785
 written Thursday, May 18 2006 17:50 Profile #111
Slarty
quote:
I appreciate the approbation, but if I'm being compared to Moses, my degree is pretty much irrelevant. On the other hand, I seem to have ended up at the head of at least two religions (the Church of the Nine-Headed Cave Cow, and the Cult of Slartucker) compared to Moses' one. Hah!
The cartoon Non Sequitter covered this point in that you need 1 million followers to move from cult to religion. It'll take a while to get to Moses' level.
Posts: 4643 | Registered: Friday, February 10 2006 08:00
Kelandon
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
 written Thursday, May 18 2006 17:51 Profile Homepage #112
On the contrary, this looks like a very good time to end this discussion.

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
The Immortal
BANNED
Member # 4
 written Thursday, May 18 2006 18:21 Profile Homepage #113
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

On the contrary, this looks like a very good time to end this discussion.
That I agree with Kel makes this point even more sound.

--------------------
*
Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00
Najosz Thjsza Kjras
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
 written Thursday, May 18 2006 18:21 Profile #114
quote:
Originally written by Mouthpiece:

or were installed as rulers by the people they freed.
I'm sorry to only respond to this part, but I've been busy. I'd like to address this in particular for a moment.

To people in the 11th century, the idea of a ruler being 'installed' by 'the people' would be, in a word, disgusting. The entire idea of the Christian leadership principle was that rulers were anointed by almighty God. Kings, princes, dukes, counts, baronets, the God-damn village reve - every authority implicitly relied on divine authority. Someone who took power by virtue of 'popular support' was at best a usurper and at worst a brigand. The alpha and omega of legitimacy was the Church. Period.

That this does not even occur to you makes me seriously doubt you have anything like the understanding of the period necessary to discuss it in this kind of depth. That you're in controversy against people who actually understand the era probably says more about your ideas than it does about theirs. Capisce?
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
Zeviz
Nuke and Pave
Member # 24
 written Thursday, May 18 2006 18:36 Profile Homepage #115
quote:
Originally written by The Worst Man Ever:

quote:
Originally written by Mouthpiece:

or were installed as rulers by the people they freed.
I'm sorry to only respond to this part, but I've been busy. I'd like to address this in particular for a moment.

To people in the 11th century, the idea of a ruler being 'installed' by 'the people' would be, in a word, disgusting. The entire idea of the Christian leadership principle was that rulers were anointed by almighty God. Kings, princes, dukes, counts, baronets, the God-damn village reve - every authority implicitly relied on divine authority. Someone who took power by virtue of 'popular support' was at best a usurper and at worst a brigand. The alpha and omega of legitimacy was the Church. Period.

That this does not even occur to you makes me seriously doubt you have anything like the understanding of the period necessary to discuss it in this kind of depth. That you're in controversy against people who actually understand the era probably says more about your ideas than it does about theirs. Capisce?
Actually, medieval Italy was a patchwork of city-states with forms of government covering everything from republics to aristocratic republics to dictatorships.

Not even talking about Northern Europe that was still largely pagan, and Russia, where the prince chose Christianity at about that time.

I think the idea of divine power of the rulers came much later, when Christianity became more established and kings became much stronger. However, I am not as certain about that.

--------------------
Be careful with a word, as you would with a sword,
For it too has the power to kill.
However well placed word, unlike a well placed sword,
Can also have the power to heal.
Posts: 2649 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00

Pages