History of the crusades?

sortofSufi · 2012-05-25T09:25:01.414578+00:00

Not QUITE the Crusades, but I found "First Crusader: Byzantium's Holy Wars" by Geoffrey Regan an entertaining read. It argues that Byzantium in the seventh century was fighting "holy wars" and that Heraklios could be considered a crusader.

a_half_eaten_twinky · 2012-05-25T06:40:04.675646+00:00

Toot as Darth Vader is the best.

EDIT - It's Bubbles, sorry. But the two characters are so similar she shifts into Toot a couple of times.

Sickivionkey · 2012-05-25T02:56:50.035591+00:00

It was the mailbag episode. They did a bunch of little tiny "myths" and tests.

Miser-a-um · 2012-05-24T20:19:30.877013+00:00

Emotion plays a big deal in horniness. I was in a relationship with a guy that started out well, but after about six months or so I realized I wasn't attracted to him either physically or emotionally. We were living together (we started out as roommates, not in a relationship) and I was young and stupid so I stayed in it to try and "make it work". Eventually after months of not having sex and not feeling sexual at all, he called me frigid. I broke up with him soon after and I didn't have a successful relationship for a while after that. Compounding it was the few times that we DID have sex, it was painful and awkward and I didn't enjoy it in the slightest. I masturbated for physical release, but I didn't feel "horny". I too thought that I was "broken" or even asexual.

It lasted until I met the guy I'm with now. I'm INCREDIBLY attracted to him physically. He has a fantastic body. More importantly (for me), he has an amazing brain: smart, funny, creative, caring...basically everything the other guy wasn't. On top of that, he was willing to explore the things the other guy wasn't and now sex is mindblowing. We live in a small apartment and I have to brush up against him when I'm passing him at his computer to leave the bedroom and sometimes that innocent contact is enough to get me going. We hold hands while walking and the only thing I want to do is drag him into the nearest bush.

tl;dr - Sometimes it feels like I'm horny ALL THE TIME and it's because of how much I'm emotionally and physically attracted to my partner. Conversely, your sex drive was probably diminished greatly by how you didn't feel comfortable with your former partner.

peetss · 1 day

In DARE class, I learned that you could always identify a "pothead" by long pinky nails.

Cameronisftw · 1 day

The Renaissance wasn't really my thing, but didn't the church fund some of his early work and say that that heliocentrism was a possibility?

Cameronisftw · 1 day

Oh come on, some in the 17th century even noted the middle ages as being "the age of faith," as followed by "the age of reason" soon after

Those people were Renaissance philosophers and had a noted anti-medieval bias. We take what they say about that time period with a grain of salt.

We aren't seriously debating whether religion was responsible for the dark ages are we?

Yes. We are. Because no, they weren't.

Cameronisftw · 2 days

There was a belief in Europe that considered the natives of the Americas inferior and thus fine to enslave because they weren't Christians. Enslaving them would "better" them. Juan Gines de Sepulveda wrote a bit about it. He mentions their culture as being degenerate. He doesn't specifically mention literature though, so QuitReadingMyName MIGHT be right on that one point. I wouldn't hold my breath though.

Though I suspect you hate history a lot more.

I laughed.

Cameronisftw · 2 days

We really do. Posts like this make me pull my hair out (academically and metaphorically speaking).

Cameronisftw · 2 days

Uh...whoo. Busy question. If I were forced to give an answer, I'd probably have to cop out and say "a little of both".

As mentioned throughout this thread, Christianity served a vital role in keeping literate culture alive throughout the rather rough period Europe had following the fall of Rome. Christianity is one of the factors Europe is in the shape it is now (for all the good and the bad that implies) because of aggressive campaigns of pagan conversion throughout Eastern Europe, Scandinavia, and Ireland.

However, Christianity as a temporal power (as in, Christians trying to exert secular power) had downsides too. There's a long struggle for power throughout the Middle Ages between the Papacy and the Patriarch of Constantinople over who had ultimate authority over the church. As the debate grew more and more heated and both sides began to paint the other as heretical and evil, Byzantium found itself stranded without European allies and facing a resurgent Islam alone. It might have been harder to pull off the Fourth Crusade (originally supposed to go to Egypt, "hijacked" by some groups, sacked Constantinople, slaughtered much of the population and destroyed much of the city) if the West hadn't so successfully painted the Greeks as basically no better and possibly worse than the Muslims in the centuries leading up to that. A lot of that propaganda came from the papacy as they were trying to assert their authority. The Fourth Crusade was basically the deathknell for Byzantium (and I'm a Byzantinist so I'm a little biased about it :P)

If I had to give a more academic answer, I'd say that it's had its uses but it's probably best that we, as a species, leave it in the past. Like any other philosophy, it can be and was twisted for nefarious and greedy ends that would probably leave the founders scratching their heads. Speaking solely from my own opinion, I think we're better off having had it if only because without it...I wouldn't have beautiful Gothic cathedrals and amazing Arabic Orthodox chants to listen to. I'm an atheist and I love that stuff.

Cameronisftw · 2 days

Medieval and church history's probably the thing I'm the most passionate about. The phrase "The last time religion ran things, we got the Dark Ages" and its variants (including the one in OP's) never ceases to rile me up (academically speaking, of course).

Cameronisftw · 2 days

Except the question is not "would the lack of religion leave us more advanced?" but "would Europe be more advanced were it not for Christianity's influence in the Middle Ages be it negative or positive?" In short, it's an analysis of specific historical events triggered by the OP's misuse of the term "Dark Ages". If you want to ignore historical facts in order to argue some broader philosophical concept, more power to you. That's not the question at hand here.

Cameronisftw · 2 days

First, we need to look at what "Dark Ages" means from the viewpoint of a historian versus the viewpoint encouraged in popular culture. Most historians consider the "Dark Ages" to be the period in history after Rome, the beacon of culture and literature and stability that it was, collapsed, leaving behind a power vacuum. With it went the stability and rule of law that Rome exerted on Europe. Most importantly to the definition of "Dark Ages", with it went the literate culture capable of keeping records. That is what "Dark Ages" means to a historian: it was "dark" because there are comparatively fewer records from that period compared to the time before and the time after.

Popular understanding of the "Dark Ages" is of a period of scientific regression and theocratic dogma. This is wrong. It's BECAUSE of the church that literate culture survived the fall of Rome. Europe, during that period, did not have the capabilities to create schools without churches: the only literate men in Europe were in the Church. The only surviving writings from the past were held by the churches. The universities began as schools to train the priesthood. Kingdoms in the "Dark Ages" were ephemeral and did not lend the stability needed for the propagation of the literate culture needed for schools. They rarely lasted longer than a generation or two after their founder's death. The only place where you could get that stability was the church. The only place where people knew how to read/write and thus teach was the church.

Atheism has nothing to do with the church in the middle ages. Being a Christian then didn't mean that you had to deny science and be a Biblical literalist, just as it doesn't always mean that now. The church in the Middle Ages saw education as a way of understanding God's creation, just as many people see it now.

Cameronisftw · 2 days

Of course.

Did you know that when Mehmed II conquered Constantinople, he too claimed the title of Caesar of the Romans? "Kayser i-Rum" (I probably butchered that spelling.) Some Byzantines, after the fall, despised the Latin West so much that there was a minor literary tradition of considering the Ottomans, once they took the city, as a continuation of Rome as decreed by God. God supposedly sent him to conquer the city to keep it from falling to the Latins and to keep their version of Christianity unspoiled by the Catholics.

Cameronisftw · 2 days

Moscow called itself "Third Rome" as well, after the fall of Constantinople. The legacy of Rome holds a fascinating sway over European history since the fall and has influenced it in so many ways.

Cameronisftw · 2 days

I THINK he's referring to Theophilus' destruction of the Serapum in Alexandria in 391, which MAY have held PART of the Great Library's records. Historians seem to be in disagreement on that one. Granted, Late Rome's not really my thing so there may be something else I'm missing.

Cameronisftw · 2 days

That's not what I said.

What I said is that religion had little to do with the wars in Europe until the wars of the Reformation. Wars in Europe at the time (between European nations and not extending outward) generally involved question of succession, wealth, etc. Not religious issues. So of course the belligerents are both Catholic (and the church, a few times, did try to step in and mediate a truce). But your argument that the Church was responsible for war and suffering are all examples from after the Protestant reformation and not relevant to the "Dark Ages" and countofkrakow's argument that in the Middle Ages, the pope unified Western kingdoms.

Cameronisftw · 2 days

Just...stop talking.

Cameronisftw · 2 days

To play Devil's advocate, only the Byzantines called themselves Roman. They were the Greek Empire to the medieval Europeans after the pope in 800 saw that, because Irene (a woman) ruled in Constantinople, the title of Roman Emperor was vacant and gave it to Charlemagne for saving him from the Lombards (and because he wanted to thumb his nose at the Patriarch of Constantinople). Otto I then took the title for himself as he considered what he would then call the Holy Roman Empire was founded by Charlemagne. Both the Byzantines and the HRE claimed to be the continuation of Rome, though neither possessed the city.

But yeah...as a Byzantinist, I'm biased towards thinking that Byzantium has a stronger claim on the title "Roman".

Cameronisftw · 2 days

While I dispute countofkrakow's point that the Papacy unified Western Europe (the kings of Western Europe would take issue with that idea...), most of your examples stem from after the Protestant reformation and don't really fit into the relationship between the Papacy and secular rulers in the middle ages.

Also say "fuck" a few more times.

Cameronisftw · 2 days

The Medieval Europeans loved the Romans. Loved, loved, loved them. They loved the architecture. Half of Ravenna in Italy was constructed by Theodoric of the Ostrogoths in a distinctly Roman style: see The Basilica of San Apollinare Nuovo. Charlemagne based the writing style he promulgated in his "renaissance" off of Latin so that it could be read more easily. A ridiculous amount of kings took Roman titles to legitimize and give themselves glory in their own societies. When Einhard wrote "Vita Karoli Magni", the biography of Charlemagne, he made a conscious decision to mimic the writing style of the Roman biographer Suetonius. Many of the problems that would occur in the later Middle Ages between Byzantine East and Latin West would come down to the question of "who is the true continuation of Rome" as both Byzantium and various factions of the West (the Papacy, the HRE, etc) were all heavily invested in who could call themselves the Medieval Rome.

Those are just a couple of examples I can come up with off the top of my head.

Cameronisftw · 2 days

Wrong.

There were plenty of advancements during the Middle Ages that are responsible for creating the Europe we have today. Off the top of my head: farming and agriculture.

For most of the early middle ages, Europe used the Roman style of farming. This was detrimental for various reasons: it was designed around the lighter soil and warmer climes of the Mediterranean. Northern Europe has heavier soil and is colder. Roman farming was probably one of the few places where they didn't actively innovate because they didn't need to: farming was for slaves and Romans had plenty of slaves. Slavery was not as widespread in Europe during the Middle Ages, so the landowners were forced to rely on the peasantry who were not practically infinite (when you're as powerful as Rome, you could always go ransack another barbarian village and press its men into slavery. Christians of the Middle Ages weren't comfortable doing that, at least to each other. Most of the time, anyway).

The heavy plow, introduced in the 6th century or so, allowed for the heavier soil of Northern Europe to be tilled faster and easier and with much less effort. With the plow came the development of the horse collar. Previously, plows were pulled by oxen which are more expensive to maintain and couldn't do as much work as horses, but medieval farmers couldn't use oxen collars on horses. Larger, stronger horses as well as the development of a horsecollar allowed for more farmland to be tilled more quickly. The spread of beans through Europe as a peasant crop created a healthier populace: when combined with a grain (I can't remember if it is oat or wheat), the bean provides a complete protein. Protein was something that much of the peasantry didn't get as meat was expensive. Getting a regular source of protein allowed for more muscle development and more food energy. On top of that, there were changes to the field system (farming certain plots and leaving others fallow as to let them rebuild nutrient reserves) from the way the Romans did it (again, designed for their specific environment). More farmable land that can be farmed without as much effort using devices designed for the soil of Europe beyond the Mediterranean that provided a much more complete nutrition? Between the 11th and 13th centuries, European population BOOMED. This boom in population contributed to, among other things, the Crusades, the Black Death, "medieval colonialism", etc all of which had a massive effect on how Europe is today. Without the Crusades, for example, it's likely that we wouldn't have the Renaissance in the way you think of it.

To say that there were no advances between Rome and the Renaissance is patently false and a symptom of a view of history influenced by the Renaissance writers and philosophers that despised the Middle Ages which is a view that is still (sadly) promulgated today.

Cameronisftw · 2 days

The fact that you call Byzantium "the Roman Empire" makes me happy.

Cameronisftw · 2 days

Religious wars among Europeans were not as common as they would be after the Reformation. The earliest wars were over succession, wealth, and land.

Cameronisftw · 2 days

Galileo was almost seven hundred years after "the Dark Ages".

The Catholic Church bankrolled a number of monasteries, some of which became the first European universities (Paris, Oxford, etc).

It was in the context of churches that several "mini-Renaissances" occured: The Carolingian Renaissance (right in the middle of the so-called "Dark Ages") and the 12th Century Renaissance come immediately to mind. These came about because the Church preserved ancient writings and learning and these were reinterpreted for the period.

bloodfyr

TROPHY CASE

bloodfyr

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login