Judging History (branch off from election thread)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

After all adjustments an average American still pays less than an average Englishman. That's all that matters.



Oh fine, be that way, here's your evidence:
http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/

I will emphasize this part:
"Inuit-Norse relations seem to have been fairly friendly at times, hostile at others. Few Inuit objects have been unearthed at the farms. Various Norse items, including bits of chain mail and a hinged bronze bar from a folding scale, have been found at Inuit camps in Greenland, mainland Canada, and on Baffin, Ellesmere, and Devon Islands. These are suggestive of commerce between the two peoples, but they may also have been seized by Inuit during raids on hunting parties in the Nordseta or plundered from farms."

From the Sagas we know that Norse would never trade away their weapons or armor. They were raided.

The Norse in Vinland, not the Norse in Greenland. Also, the Vinland episode is several hundred years before the Norse died out in Greenland. We can also be quite sure of why they died out: They starved, excavations in Greenland have shown that the Norse resorted to eating their dogs, the final stage of starvation before death.

There's one story related in that article which indicates 3 Norwegian ships and a number of Inuits came to blows, but it also says that two of the ships left after the Norse won the battle and only then could Innuit master the third.

[rvg]

The Norse in Vinland, not the Norse in Greenland. Also, the Vinland episode is several hundred years before the Norse died out in Greenland. We can also be quite sure of why they died out: They starved, excavations in Greenland have shown that the Norse resorted to eating their dogs, the final stage of starvation before death.

There's one story related in that article which indicates 3 Norwegian ships and a number of Inuits came to blows, but it also says that two of the ships left after the Norse won the battle and only then could Innuit master the third.

If the Inuits could raid the Norse, what would prevent the Beothuks from doing the same?

[Skullheadhq]

So the people that preached, lead, and fought in the Crusades were OK then?

The Turks and Caliph Hakim before them had horribly mistreated the Christians and Jews in Palestine. Hakim ordered the destruction of the Holy Sepulchre and the Church of the Resurrection in 1009 and was only allowed to be rebuilt in 1042 with Byzantine money, no compensation was given.

Anatolia, Christian since 200-300AD and Byzantine core territory since ages, was conquered by the zealous Seljuqs after the civil war following the battle of Manzikert. This was preceded by centuries of raiding of Byzantine lands and two sieges of Constantinople by the arabs and even Rome was sacked by the arabs once and later raided. Syria and Egypt, the centre of Christianity, was subjugated by the Jihad following the death of Muhammed. The crusade was an answer to the call for help from their Byzantine allies.

Freshly quickened by the divine correction, you must apply the strength of your righteousness to another matter which concerns you as well as God. For your brethren who live in the east are in urgent need of your help, and you must hasten to give them the aid which has often been promised them. For, as the most of you have heard, the Turks and Arabs have attacked them and have conquered the territory of Romania [the Greek empire] as far west as the shore of the Mediterranean and the Hellespont, which is called the Arm of St. George. They have occupied more and more of the lands of those Christians, and have overcome them in seven battles. They have killed and captured many, and have destroyed the churches and devastated the empire. If you permit them to continue thus for awhile with impunity, the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked by them. On this account I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ's heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends

When the first crusade was called, the majority of the population in Syria and Palestine were (non-Chalcedonian) Christians like the Syriacs and the Maronites, suffering under arab joke for centuries.

But of course, the crusades were evil and muslims are innocent victims.

[Hax]

And now for the serious historical interpretation, with preferable less quoting from Wikipedia:

The Turks and Caliph Hakim before them had horribly mistreated the Christians and Jews in Palestine. Hakim ordered the destruction of the Holy Sepulchre and the Church of the Resurrection in 1009 and was only allowed to be rebuilt in 1042 with Byzantine money, no compensation was given.

It's funny that you should mention both the Turks (I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you mean the Seljuq Turks, who were relative newcomers at this stage in history) and the Caliph al-Hakim, who were not only political opponents, but followed completely different lines of ideology. Let's get going, on to a short history of Islam.

Islam isn't really that monolithic y'all know, right. The Fatimid Caliphate was of a distinct brand of Shi‘a Islam known as Isma'ilism or Sevener Shi‘ism. The Seljuk Sultans adhered to Sunni Islam, and their qadis were mostly of the Hanafi school of jurisprudence.

Now, the Caliph al-Hakim gets a bad rep in history. It's not exactly clear why, but most of the sources that appear to be so horrible about him are post-Fatimid (who, sadly, wrote very little about him). In any case, while it's true that he showed some erratic behaviour, such as starting this bizarre cult (which eventually led to the Druze, but that's a different story), but non-Muslim sources tend not to describe him as some sort of horrible tyrant. He did come down especially hard on Sunni Muslims, removing them from office and replacing them with others. Particularly Jews and Christians. Yes, the same Jewish and Christians that had "suffered horribly" during his rule. Come on, Skullsie, I'd expected you to use better sources than those written by Sunni Muslims.

Anatolia, Christian since 200-300AD and Byzantine core territory since ages, was conquered by the zealous Seljuqs after the civil war following the battle of Manzikert. This was preceded by centuries of raiding of Byzantine lands and two sieges of Constantinople by the arabs and evenRome was sacked by the arabs once and later raided. Syria and Egypt, the centre of Christianity, was subjugated by the Jihad following the death of Muhammed. The crusade was an answer to the call for help from their Byzantine allies.

Yes, indeed quite horrible. I also think you're totally overplaying the role of religion in the conquest of Syria and Egypt. It should be stressed here that the primary cause for expansion was economical and political rather than religious. It'd be a bit like saying that the Japanese conquest of China, Manchuria and Korea was a religious cause in which they felt they had to spread Zen to this area. Seriously, there were a lot of Buddhist monks that actively supported the conquest of these regions for religious reasons.

As for Arab historiography, have you got any sources to back up the claims that treatment of Jews and (Monophysite) Christians was so bad after the coming of Islam? For example, I don't think anybody is willing to contest the fact that the Christians of Egypt were treated much worse under Byzantine rule than under Arab rule. To the Byzantines, they were heretics. To the Arabs, they were all Christians. Who cares, as long as they pay the taxes. Let's get a bit serious here.

suffering under arab joke for centuries.

Citation required. Also the term is yoke​.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

All more of less true - but even so, you can't look at the Crusades as "yarrr! attack".

Except for the much later expeditions by the Teutonic Knights the Crusader/Jihad Wars were really a long drawn out battle between Eastern Islamic powers and (more) Western Christian ones which ran from about 700 AD when the Muslim armies came roaring out of Arabia up to Ataturk's Turkish reconquests in the 1920's.

People today who decry the Crusades do so either out of ignorance or for ideaological reasons.

Within the larger frame the bit people don't like to talk about is the part where the Greco-Latin West almost completely lost, able to push the frontiers back only to the Western Balkans in the East and Gibralta in the West. That's pretty pathetic militarily speaking, about 2/3rds of Christendom as it was circa 400 AD fell to the various Muslim invasions and basically only Iberia and (much later) Greece were ever recovered.

Of course, we went off to the New World where the heathans were a lot less scary and didn't have massed cavalry and guns.

[Hax]

All more of less true - but even so, you can't look at the Crusades as "yarrr! attack".

Indeed! My apologies if that didn't come across clearly.

This is emphasised even further by Arab historiography, who didn't regard the Crusaders as that much as an alien force, but rather as a continuation of a long series of Byzantine attacks against the Syrian domain. To that effect, various Arab Caliphs, Sultans, and Emirs regarded the Byzantine Emperor as the spokesman for the Crusaders and would rather go to them.

The Crusades didn't really make that much of an impact on the Muslim world as a whole: they were regarded as yet another player in an already troubled field. The Seljuq Empire was falling apart, various kingdoms had declared independence throughout the region and when Muhammad Shah sent an army to relieve or reconquer Jerusalem, it was destroyed. Not by Christian armies, but rather by the Muslim Emirate of Mosul.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Indeed! My apologies if that didn't come across clearly.

This is emphasised even further by Arab historiography, who didn't regard the Crusaders as that much as an alien force, but rather as a continuation of a long series of Byzantine attacks against the Syrian domain. To that effect, various Arab Caliphs, Sultans, and Emirs regarded the Byzantine Emperor as the spokesman for the Crusaders and would rather go to them.

The Crusades didn't really make that much of an impact on the Muslim world as a whole: they were regarded as yet another player in an already troubled field. The Seljuq Empire was falling apart, various kingdoms had declared independence throughout the region and when Muhammad Shah sent an army to relieve or reconquer Jerusalem, it was destroyed. Not by Christian armies, but rather by the Muslim Emirate of Mosul.

It's not you - it's all the mighty Socialist-atheists I'm pre-empting. Not that they care as they consider everything I say LIES anyway.