Ah, the irony. This is not about the Man from Canterbury, as many of you might suspect, however. History, as they say, repeats itself, and I hope that everyone will be able to appreciate this article. Feel free to comment.
Printable View
Ah, the irony. This is not about the Man from Canterbury, as many of you might suspect, however. History, as they say, repeats itself, and I hope that everyone will be able to appreciate this article. Feel free to comment.
Interesting, but in my opinion almost certainly an invention. King John was of course a master of political expediency, so he would have known that any such plan would simply have resulted in him losing his whole base of support in England and being ousted and even executed. The whole idea is so ridiculous that I don't think it could have ever entered his mind.
It seems ridiculous alright. But on deeper consideration, think about it: a muslim kingdom in Spain, enemies of France with a lenient stance of religion and quite decentralised even by the standards of the time. All the while a muslim Outremer was ruled by christians, a christian Spain ruled by muslims. Within the context, it isn't so crazy to imagine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furious Mental
Besides, it would allow him to later recreate himself as the liberator from the muslim yoke if it came to that...
What it does illustrate is how what is now seen as definitive of our culture is historically far more contingent than many would care to admit.
I don't think the analogies of Outremer and Andalusia apply. Those were both multi-ethnic and multi-religious societies that were accustomed to the religion of their ruler changing from time to time. With the exception of some Scandinavian settlers (and even when certain parts of England were ruled by formerly Norse or Danish kings they typically converted to Christianity and certainly didn't suppress it) England had been completely Catholic for centuries; certainly if you had asked any Englishman in John's era if he was Catholic or not he would have thought you were a total clod because everyone was Catholic. The idea of a Muslim king and sharia law would have been unthinkable. The obvious counter-argument to this is to say that at some point the English were not Christian and were converted, like the Danes and Norse were by Harald Finehair and Olaf Trygvasson. But again that is a false analogy because converting people from a polytheistic village faith is relatively easy, especially with the resources of the world's biggest religious organisation behind you. That is, of course, another reason why this notion of England becoming a Muslim kingdom would have been ridiculous; it would have resulted in instant loss of support from the entire ecclesiastical baronage, which after the lay baronage was of course the second largest class of landowners and thus the second largest class of persons with money and soldiers. The article would have you believe that this had already happened but it hadn't; Innocent III's imposition of Stephen Langdon as Archbishop of Canterbury was resented not only by John but also by most of the English bishops. And within a few years John had resolved with dispute with the Pope anyway. I very much doubt that England could have been converted to Islam within that timeframe, so you see this whole silly plan would simply have been a completely disproportionate response to a problem which could be dealt with by diplomacy.