The Crusades

[old_abe]

The Crusades were a series of military campaigns—usually sanctioned by the Papacy—that took place during the 11th through 13th centuries. Originally, they were Roman Catholic Holy Wars to recapture Jerusalem and the Holy Land from the Muslims, but some were directed against other targets, such as the Albigensian Crusade against the Cathars of southern France, the Northern Crusades, and the Fourth Crusade which conquered Constantinople.

Were the Crusades just? Was it right for the Pope to fight to regain control of the Holy Land?

[hannibal]

Think a lot of Muslims regard the war in Iraq as a modern crusade, one of Zarqawi speeches mentioned it. They seem to forget Islamic armies conqured Spain and stopped from invading France.I don't know if they were just, think some of the Christian pilgrims were being attacked. I think the West would of been less advanced if they hadn't of happened. The stranglehold the Muslims and Venitians had on trade from the east after the crusaders were kicked out forced Europeans to explore the Atlantic.

[SwampFox]

hannibal hit the nail on the head. At least with the First Crusades, there was justification in why they happened on the part of the Christian forces. There was a strong Muslim incursion into parts of Europe that needed to be pushed back for the sake of both Christianity and their civilization in their eyes.

With that being said, certainly unjust acts were performed as some perverted the original cause that they were fighting for.

However, the idea that all of the crusades were totally unprovoked and just a Christian church picking on the Muslims is a fallacy.

[kahn]

hannibal hit the nail on the head. At least with the First Crusades, there was justification in why they happened on the part of the Christian forces. There was a strong Muslim incursion into parts of Europe that needed to be pushed back for the sake of both Christianity and their civilization in their eyes.

With that being said, certainly unjust acts were performed as some perverted the original cause that they were fighting for.

However, the idea that all of the crusades were totally unprovoked and just a Christian church picking on the Muslims is a fallacy.

There is still a rather large Muslim influence in Europe today, especially France. I don't think the Europeans are too happy about what is happening today. However, I don't see a future "Crusades" happening.

IMO, the Christians should have just stayed in Europe, and not marched 1000s of miles to fight for Land they did not live on. They were probably more curious about the spices, and precious metals found in the Middle East then they were about the land.

[h1story]

Let's not forget the prestige aspect of crusades to hold holy land.

[Confederate]

Europe learned a lot from the Cusade's. Europe pretty much when back to the stone ages when you think about it. Ancient greece and Rome,look at the architecture they had, and thinking. With the rise of the Roman Catholic Church Thousands of book's were destroyed, and a lot of knlowledge with it. We went back to living in run down hut's. In the Middle East however Science was at a high,Learning,Architecture.

[Ymeto]

I don't know if they were just, think some of the Christian pilgrims were being attacked. I think the West would of been less advanced if they hadn't of happened.

The history of the Crusades is such a confusing thing and the problem is that all of the crusades get lumped into one, which should be avoided. Pilgrims being attacked did have a small part to due with the declaration of the first crusade, but the main reason was actually Byzantium. The Islamic Empire was threatening to conquer Byzantium around 1095. Even though they were different religions the Papacy feared the spread of Islam so they decided to help their Christian Orthodox “cousins” in Byzantium. Pope Urban 2nd rallied all the Christians he could to go to help the Byzantine Empire and retake Jerusalem while they were in Asia Minor.

With this in mind I think they were very just. An enemy empire was threatening a Europe that had not seen any unity since the Roman Empire so the Pope used the only possible thing he could to help unify the people to face the threat, which was religion.

The countless murders of innocent Jews throughout Europe and all the innocent people that were murdered throughout the Asia minor was not just, but I feel the military actions and "re-conquering" of the Holy Lands were. Then again, Saladin was also just in taking them back years later.

[Nikd]

Crusades for the Europeans, but thievery and plundering for the Arabs and a hoxe for the Greeks that means the crusades for the rest of the world.

[Nick]

The war on terror today is a holy war in the eyes of many Muslims.
When they are defeated they will, like the Christians after the crusades, question the principles and morals of jihad and become more secular.
Islam hasn't experienced its own enlightenment, so mentally they're 500 years behind us.

[Tancred]

I get tired of the Crusades being portrayed as European aggression. People seem to forget that the holy land was Christianized centuries before the Islamic religion even existed. The Crusades were an attempt to reclaim what had been theirs. That's my take on it anyway.

For those with an interest in the subject, I highly recommend The First Crusaders, 1095-1131 by Jonathan Riley-Smith.

Much of this book deals in the personal records and letters of the real Crusaders. When you read it you find out that many of these people truely believed in the cause and sold most or all of their property to pay for the trip. Many left a knight and came back a serf, if they came back at all. This is a refreshing view as opposed to the popular opinion that paints all the Crusaders as blood-thirsty opportunists.





Tancred

[Nikd]

I get tired of the Crusades being portrayed as European aggression. People seem to forget that the holy land was Christianized centuries before the Islamic religion even existed. The Crusades were an attempt to reclaim what had been theirs. That's my take on it anyway.

For those with an interest in the subject, I highly recommend The First Crusaders, 1095-1131 by Jonathan Riley-Smith.

Much of this book deals in the personal records and letters of the real Crusaders. When you read it you find out that many of these people truely believed in the cause and sold most or all of their property to pay for the trip. Many left a knight and came back a serf, if they came back at all. This is a refreshing view as opposed to the popular opinion that paints all the Crusaders as blood-thirsty opportunists.





Tancred
If i may : R. Grousse "History of the Crusades" covering the time from 1096 - 1376 and
Amin Manouf "History of the Crusades from the Arab view" really intresting, if you see them you see no args about the facts but it's really intresting to see what the other side has to say about the same facts.

[Comet]

I get tired of the Crusades being portrayed as European aggression. People seem to forget that the holy land was Christianized centuries before the Islamic religion even existed. The Crusades were an attempt to reclaim what had been theirs. That's my take on it anyway.

For those with an interest in the subject, I highly recommend The First Crusaders, 1095-1131 by Jonathan Riley-Smith.

Much of this book deals in the personal records and letters of the real Crusaders. When you read it you find out that many of these people truely believed in the cause and sold most or all of their property to pay for the trip. Many left a knight and came back a serf, if they came back at all. This is a refreshing view as opposed to the popular opinion that paints all the Crusaders as blood-thirsty opportunists.





Tancred


The Riley-Smith book is a classic and is one of the major authorities on the First Crusade....a really good book.

I know people get tired of hearing about the Crusades as European aggression....but it's hard to come up with any real definitive answer other than that. For a while, the Byzantines sought the help of the Latin west in hopes to relieve the Islamic threat. It fell on deaf ears until the first crusade. A colleague of mine described the first crusade as an unnecessary slaughter of thousands simply because the Latin West was "bored". I don't know if I totally agree with this take, but I would say that Christianity opened a can of worms that has never been sealed. A lot of animosity between the religions of the West come primarily from the effects of the Crusades. I think Christian leaders sought a smoke screen for the Investiture Controversy (power struggle between the Church and Kings of Europe) which really began to pick up steam in 1076. What better way to put the issue on the back burner? Just my opinion anyway.

[Breth]

The Crusades are misunderstood, like most wars, or as in this case ... series of wars.

I think that the Islamic nations were the first to make thier movem, capturing some places. They wanted money like everybody else, they were actually doing pretty good, charging pilrims and such to go and see things that were religous.

Though to think that the Europeans fought for God .... is a fallace also. I remember what my history teacher told me he once read, we had discussions such as this.... he had read something which summer up the Crusades in three words: "God, Glory, and Gold" is one reason but many also think "Greed, Glory, and Gold."

The Muslims are still there today, but I dont think Crusades is really right or wrong .... but it maybe could be argued as offensive or defensive for whichever side.

[Nikd]

The Crusades are misunderstood, like most wars, or as in this case ... series of wars.

I think that the Islamic nations were the first to make thier movem, capturing some places. They wanted money like everybody else, they were actually doing pretty good, charging pilrims and such to go and see things that were religous.

Though to think that the Europeans fought for God .... is a fallace also. I remember what my history teacher told me he once read, we had discussions such as this.... he had read something which summer up the Crusades in three words: "God, Glory, and Gold" is one reason but many also think "Greed, Glory, and Gold."

The Muslims are still there today, but I dont think Crusades is really right or wrong .... but it maybe could be argued as offensive or defensive for whichever side.
In 1071 a great Byzantine army is crushed near a city in the shores of Lake Van - Mantzikert (the start of the end). Emperor Romanus IV is betrayed and blinded.
Till 1081 all of Minor Asia belongs to the Turks, Emperor Alexius I is in desperate situation (similar to that of 1453), Turks in the east Petzenegs from North, Normans from West siege the empire like hungry wolfs.
So he decide to call the Pope Urbanus I for help, promising that the Greek-orthodox chirch will be subdued to the Roman-catholic chirch.
The Pope answers with a call to all christians to "free" the Holy Lands from the Turkish "plague" and relief the eastern "brothers".
But the call had much more greater effect ! Actually Alexius I counted a few hundred Knights and he see before the walls of Konstantinopel a huge army !
With leaders some of his greatest enemies (Bohemund).
What cuased that leaders to leave?
Sure not their faith.
Proof : The 1st thing that they do was to split between them the lands taken from Turks (Antioch), they go to Jerusalem AFTER the army was in the first sight of revolt ! (the simply soldier was a believer).
So no offense, no defence.
Profit is the answer.

[BoudiccasWrath]

First, I think it is important to point out that the term "crusade" in the context of the medieval period is not a word with an agreed upon defintion by scholars. There seems to be two distinct camps; the traditionalists such as Hans Eberhard Mayer, who believe that only the ones which have the goals of recapturing Jerusalem and the Holy Sepulchre can be called crusades. For the revisionists who represent the other major group, such as Jonathon Riley-Smith, any papal sanctioned war against infidels can be termed a crusade. The reconquista in Spain and the wars against other Christians and pagans can all be called crusades under this take on the word.

As for motives of the crusaders, naturally many went for different reasons. Some did go for greed and glory, while others went for the spiritual benefits. Medieval crusading charters are a good source for who went and why, and more than often they reflect spiritual reasons.

With regards to colonizing Palestine or that the crusaders were simply motivated by greed, much of the evidence we have seems to argue against either of those being major motivators. Very few remained after the battles were won or the cities were taken. Much of the settlers who did eventually show up had never taken the cross themselves. Crusading was an expensive venture and was not profitable. Many families had to sell land or take out loans in order to cover the costs. Unwanted sons were not simply shipped off on a crusade to get rid of them; this would have cost the family a good chunk of change.

[CelticBard]

Just? The whole concept of just war is unjust. A religion of peace should not be led by a man who sanctioned children being sent to the Holy Land to try and win it back with their tears only to be sold en masse into slavery. The Crusades were and still are an obstacle in Christian - Muslim relations.

[BoudiccasWrath]

Just? The whole concept of just war is unjust. A religion of peace should not be led by a man who sanctioned children being sent to the Holy Land to try and win it back with their tears only to be sold en masse into slavery. The Crusades were and still are an obstacle in Christian - Muslim relations.

As Marcus Bull writes in the Oxford Illustrated History of the Crusades,

"The Standard position, which became associated with Augustine and was refined in later centuries, was that the moral rectitude of an act could not be judged simply by examining the physical event in isolation: violence was validated to a greater or lesser degree by the state of mind of those responsible, the ends sought, and the competence of the individual or body which authorized the act."

You might say, how convienent or that's utter bull, but the establishment found ways to rectify the situation and in the end they themselves as indeed many of their followers sincerely believed in the "justness" of their acts.

In a feudal society, I can easily see how one can sell the idea of a crusade (complete with violence and all) by putting a spin on it emphasizing how Christ lost his patrimony, Jerusalem, and that they had to take it back for him.

The people of medieval Europe lived in a very different time.....

[CelticBard]

Oh yea in a society dominated by the Christian church it would be very easy for a religious leader to gather men to a cause, no matter how foolish or unjust, so long as it is in the name of god.

[Comet]

Just? The whole concept of just war is unjust. A religion of peace should not be led by a man who sanctioned children being sent to the Holy Land to try and win it back with their tears only to be sold en masse into slavery. The Crusades were and still are an obstacle in Christian - Muslim relations.

As Marcus Bull writes in the Oxford Illustrated History of the Crusades,

"The Standard position, which became associated with Augustine and was refined in later centuries, was that the moral rectitude of an act could not be judged simply by examining the physical event in isolation: violence was validated to a greater or lesser degree by the state of mind of those responsible, the ends sought, and the competence of the individual or body which authorized the act."

You might say, how convienent or that's utter bull, but the establishment found ways to rectify the situation and in the end they themselves as indeed many of their followers sincerely believed in the "justness" of their acts.

In a feudal society, I can easily see how one can sell the idea of a crusade (complete with violence and all) by putting a spin on it emphasizing how Christ lost his patrimony, Jerusalem, and that they had to take it back for him.

The people of medieval Europe lived in a very different time.....

Forget feudal society.....it's easy to have that stuff happen now.....just look at the Iraq war. I guarantee their was a spin put on the information Bush gave us for going to war. The first thing that comes to mind is the WMD debate. Bush changed his wording several times to justify his reason to go to war.

Crusaders were able to "justify" their actions because the Church told them their actions were aiding God. There just werent enough people thinking for themselves at this time. The Church had control over the minds of men since Constantine backed the Church. That is one of the major reasons the time period is called the Dark Ages. There was really no such thing as learning.....people throughout society only knew of their world because of what the Church had told them. That is what is meant by being "just" in this case. The people of the time period believed it to be just. Only in hindsight can we determine that their cause was unjust.

[CelticBard]

I'm under the impression that the only "just" war is a war in defence. And not going with the notion of the best defence is not a good offense.

[BoudiccasWrath]

That is one of the major reasons the time period is called the Dark Ages. There was really no such thing as learning.....people throughout society only knew of their world because of what the Church had told them.

I wouldn't short change the "dark ages" or middle ages as much as you have. There was learning, there was advancement, and institutions and advancements born of this period laid foundations and impacted every later age.

Sure, it wasn't a golden age, but it surely was not devoid of any learning or advancement.

[CelticBard]

The Crusades happened in the High Medieval Age, which Historians, Archaeologists, and the likes clearly define as seperate from the Dark Age, which immediately followed the decline of Rome.

[Comet]

That is one of the major reasons the time period is called the Dark Ages. There was really no such thing as learning.....people throughout society only knew of their world because of what the Church had told them.

I wouldn't short change the "dark ages" or middle ages as much as you have. There was learning, there was advancement, and institutions and advancements born of this period laid foundations and impacted every later age.

Sure, it wasn't a golden age, but it surely was not devoid of any learning or advancement.

What sort of learning are you talking about? I would assume you are talking about Church sponsored and sanctioned learning. Look at who is considered the "learned" individuals of that period....if you werent associated with the Church, what chance did you have of learning anything? I can't think of one original thinker of the time period. Actually, Peter Abelard is one individual I can think of....but he is around when the Universities are beginning to get up and going...for some reason 1140 comes to mind....I will have to check that later. Anyway, it took nearly 800 years before the first Universities began to take hold.....prior to Christianity there were schools/academies.....places of learning without a Christian "twist". Of course, like you mention, there maybe some learning taking place....but it's most likely going to be associated with the Church. However, if there are other areas in Western Europe where society is not under the control of the Church, I would certainly like to know......I definitely enjoy learning more from others :D

[CelticBard]

Even Ibn Fadland, who recorded his Journey to Russia, his travels among the Turks, Bulgars, Khazars, etc. in 922 C.E., had a religious twist on his writings, although he was Muslim, not Christian. It is hard to find unbiased records and histories from the Medieval period that aren't bent toward the realm of religious zeal instead of historic duty. The Venerable Bede, he wrote an Ecclesiastical History of England. Numerous others wrote numerous other ecclesiastical histories instead of histories.

[Comet]

Even Ibn Fadland, who recorded his Journey to Russia, his travels among the Turks, Bulgars, Khazars, etc. in 922 C.E., had a religious twist on his writings, although he was Muslim, not Christian. It is hard to find unbiased records and histories from the Medieval period that aren't bent toward the realm of religious zeal instead of historic duty. The Venerable Bede, he wrote an Ecclesiastical History of England. Numerous others wrote numerous other ecclesiastical histories instead of histories.

Exactly right.....that is why I made the comment I did. Religion dictated the Dark Ages.....it is also known as the Age of Faith. Now shift your attention to the Renaissance period. There was a major shift in the way people saw their world. People began to see themselves as humans with beauty, grace, and style. Maybe the world wasn't such a bad place to live in....a view opposite of what the Church taught for more than a century. Throughout Renaissance culture, paganism became a dominate theme....not Christianity...especially in art and literature. Yes, there was still Christian art and the like, but it was no longer the dominate theme. It really is indicative of what the Renaissance is all about.....the rebirth of a successful pre-Christian past (Ancient Greece and Rome)

[CelticBard]

Renaissance art ressembles Classical art much more than does any other period. The perfect, peak beauty rather than the obscure, confusing pictures of people being as tall as buildings or purely crude as it was during the Medieval age, or Baroque, when everyone was much fuller, you could say larger than life, but still proportional.

[Comet]

Renaissance art ressembles Classical art much more than does any other period. The perfect, peak beauty rather than the obscure, confusing pictures of people being as tall as buildings or purely crude as it was during the Medieval age, or Baroque, when everyone was much fuller, you could say larger than life, but still proportional.


I kinda like the ability to make confusing pictures of people being as tall as buildings......that means I have hope looking taller than I really am :oops:

[BoudiccasWrath]

What sort of learning are you talking about? I would assume you are talking about Church sponsored and sanctioned learning. Look at who is considered the "learned" individuals of that period....if you werent associated with the Church, what chance did you have of learning anything? I can't think of one original thinker of the time period. Actually, Peter Abelard is one individual I can think of....but he is around when the Universities are beginning to get up and going...for some reason 1140 comes to mind....I will have to check that later. Anyway, it took nearly 800 years before the first Universities began to take hold.....prior to Christianity there were schools/academies.....places of learning without a Christian "twist". Of course, like you mention, there maybe some learning taking place....but it's most likely going to be associated with the Church. However, if there are other areas in Western Europe where society is not under the control of the Church, I would certainly like to know......I definitely enjoy learning more from others :D

I get the impression that you are equating any knowledge, learning, etc. ascertained with the help or under the influence of the Church as something to be discounted. The Church did play a beneficial hand in knowledge and learning through the middle ages.

The humanist movement of the post-middle ages owes a debt to the ideas of people like Petrarch, since the "rebirth" of the Renaissance was not a sudden awakening of culture from the slumber of the previous age, but a continuation of medieval foundations.

(I know this is short and doesn't convey exactly what I want to say but I'm out of time for the moment)

[Illg]

CelticBard:


I think BoudiccasWrath and others are right about the so-called "Dark Ages". I belong to an e-mail list composed largely of medieval scholars, some of whom are quite well-known. The consensus on that group is that there really wasn't any such thing as the "Dark Ages". While it's true that after Rome's power disintegrated, and the "empire" migrated to Constantinople, there was aa good deal of what might best be called "reorganization and realignment" in Western Europe, there was never any total absence of learning or trade. Populations shrank in some places, for a variety of reasons, however, which made certain things rather difficult. There were fewer people to cultivate land, for example, and there was less trade because there were fewer people. But there were still population centers, and churches kept records. People did what they could, and increasingly, rulers(Charlemagne and Alfred come to mind)encouraged eduaction whenever they could. Bottom line, a designation of "Dark Ages" is excessively simplistic.
Anne G



The Crusades happened in the High Medieval Age, which Historians, Archaeologists, and the likes clearly define as seperate from the Dark Age, which immediately followed the decline of Rome.

[Comet]

[quote="Illg"]CelticBard:


I think BoudiccasWrath and others are right about the so-called "Dark Ages". I belong to an e-mail list composed largely of medieval scholars, some of whom are quite well-known. The consensus on that group is that there really wasn't any such thing as the "Dark Ages". While it's true that after Rome's power disintegrated, and the "empire" migrated to Constantinople, there was aa good deal of what might best be called "reorganization and realignment" in Western Europe, there was never any total absence of learning or trade. Populations shrank in some places, for a variety of reasons, however, which made certain things rather difficult. There were fewer people to cultivate land, for example, and there was less trade because there were fewer people. But there were still population centers, and churches kept records. People did what they could, and increasingly, rulers(Charlemagne and Alfred come to mind)encouraged eduaction whenever they could. Bottom line, a designation of "Dark Ages" is excessively simplistic.
Anne G

Maybe I should have rephrased my post.....there is no question there was learning taking place.....however, it was the quality of learning that was taking place and who controlled what was being learned. As a Christian historian, there is no question in my mind thyat the Church dominated the medieval period. Everyone ate, slept, and breathed Christainity. This is where learning suffered greatly. In attempts to control the masses....which is why there was power struggles for political power between the Church and State....the Church undermined the development of education for the common folk. This is why many of my colleagues call this time period the "dark ages". I think we need to ask ourselves this question....If the Church did not have as much control and power during the medieval period, would movements like the Renaissance occur earlier? Would the university have come about earlier than the 11th century? Just a couple of things to think about.

[Illg]

Comet:

It is certainly true that, in the West, the Church "controlled" learning for some time after the fall of Rome. But then, you have to remember that until strong rulers could exercise their rule, the Church was probably about the only reasonably stable institution that was around. Churches, IOW, were always there, regardless of what petty kings or other rulers came and went. And, at least in part due to (some) disruptions caused by the so-called "Migration Period", a lot of ancient learning was simply lost.

It is also interesting to note that some of the strongest rulers of medieval times tended to *encourage* learjning(Church sponsored or otherwise), if, for no other reason than theyneeded scribes to write and record their deeds. Think Charlemagne. Think King Alfred. Among others. As I said, the Church was often about the only stable istutution around

Also, oddly enough, many people in the Middle Ages knew --- sort of --- the histories and actions of their ancient predecessors the Greeks and Romans. By thge early 12th century, there were several tales about Alexander the Great. These stories tended to be, uh, pretty "fantastic", but at least people knew he existed. It is a myth to think that "suddenly" people discovered all this "lost learning" at the dawn of the Renaissance; there were attempts at preservation centuries earlier.
Anne G

[Comet]

Comet:

It is certainly true that, in the West, the Church "controlled" learning for some time after the fall of Rome. But then, you have to remember that until strong rulers could exercise their rule, the Church was probably about the only reasonably stable institution that was around. Churches, IOW, were always there, regardless of what petty kings or other rulers came and went. And, at least in part due to (some) disruptions caused by the so-called "Migration Period", a lot of ancient learning was simply lost.

It is also interesting to note that some of the strongest rulers of medieval times tended to *encourage* learjning(Church sponsored or otherwise), if, for no other reason than theyneeded scribes to write and record their deeds. Think Charlemagne. Think King Alfred. Among others. As I said, the Church was often about the only stable istutution around

Also, oddly enough, many people in the Middle Ages knew --- sort of --- the histories and actions of their ancient predecessors the Greeks and Romans. By thge early 12th century, there were several tales about Alexander the Great. These stories tended to be, uh, pretty "fantastic", but at least people knew he existed. It is a myth to think that "suddenly" people discovered all this "lost learning" at the dawn of the Renaissance; there were attempts at preservation centuries earlier.
Anne G

King Alfred and Charlemagne did what they could to preserve and promote but their attempts never caught on.....which doesn't really explain why learning never caught hold and developed like it did after the "dark ages". Yes, there were men such as Charlemagne and Alfred....but after that....who else? When you start talking about intellectuals of the period you can maybe name one or two. Again, Peter Abelard comes to mind. However, he isn't around until the 11th Century. Of course, by this time, you start seeing the rise of some pretty strong rulers....hence the investiture controversy... church rule was being infringed upon by the secular authorities.

I tend to disagree slightly about the myth of lost learning you speak of. If there was preservation on a wide scale.....wouldn't there have been more individuals such as the Medici or even John of Gaunt who sought out the best artists, writers, and minds of Europe. Patronage had been around since Ancient Rome.....you just don't hear much of it during the early medieval period. So, in some instances, learning was suddenly found again. Those who tried before....such as Abelard....were heavily frowned upon. In fact, many were considered heretics. Remember, the rise of popular heresy is beginning to develop after the 11th century. Many of those groups translated the bible into their own language so that they could read it for themselves. The result was hard persecution and death from the Church which then turned to sedition from secular authorities....on the recommendation from the Church.

BTW.. You got a brilliant mind and I'm fortunate to have gotten to read your responses on this subject. You really should be a historian/teacher :D

[Illg]

Comet:

Among other things, there were steep population declines. There simply weren't the people or the economics, so to speak, although commerce and "learning" never died out entirely. There was a plague pandemic(the first one)in, I believe the seventh century, which contributed greatly to the population decline. And there was no technology, as in modern times, to prevent its spread. There were also climate deteriorations in some places, which didn't help either agriculture or the populations which depended on it.

In the 1350's by contrast, there were more trade networks, more or less functioning emergin national societies(England and France being the prime examples in Western Europe), and significantly, more *people*. When the second pandemic struck(popularly known as the "Black Plague", but more correctly referred to as the Great Dying), Europe lost a lot of population, and there was considerable disruption. But there were, by that time, institutions already in place or coming into place, that prevented such "deterioration". IOW,there was no longer a centralilzed "empire", but there were networks of commerce, trade, and other exchanges that had developed since the fall of Rome. But they took a fair amount of time to develop fully.

I do not expect you to necessarily agree with my ideas. However, I have been told by several medieval specialists that the idea of a "Dark Ages", though popular, is a serious misunderstanding of what was really going on. The fall of Rome did end certain kinds of stability, and it took time, partly for some of the reasons I've suggested above, to create new stable institutions, this does not mean they didn't exist. It simply means they were, for a long time, not widespread. If it seems to modern students that the Church had some sort of "stranglehold" on education, that is because, between about 500 AD and about 1100 or so, churches were often the most stable institutions in Western Europe(Constantinope is a different story, and I know very little about it). But, as circumstances slowly began to stabilize and travel became somewhat easier, there were some people(even churchmen)who managed to get around quite a bit. And they wrote down their impressions. Some of them even exercised some influence over the often weak rulers of the time.

The bottom line, so to speak, is that the situation was much more complex than a lot of people like to believe.
Anne G

[Comet]

That is why I like ideas....their your own and you can share them with others. :) I did not totally disagree with your ideas....I simply disagree on parts. Like I said before, all your points are valid. But I think you underestimate the Catholic Church's power during the medieval period and the knowledge of the common man at that time. Demographics always plays an important part in any historical interpretation. However, even with the difference in demographics and the "unstable" nature of the medieval period, there were instances in which learning could have still been firmly established. The Church's growing political and social power (spritiual influence can do that to people, especially if they do not have an understanding of the world around them) and wanting to maintain their control disrupted the development and maintaining of learning.

I also think it depends on which medieval historian you talk to. Most of my colleagues firmly feel the same way as I on the subject. However, two of my other colleagues tend to agree with a very similar version you have presented. There is obviously still a lot of debate about the nature of the "dark ages". It sure is interesting to see the various points of view on the topic given the access to pretty much the same primary source material. It's definitely a subject that will be hotly debated for time to come.

[CelticBard]

See I always viewed as being akin to the Greek Dark Age, an era between eras where history had to once again build to another zenith. The end of the Roman Empire started the European Dark Age, which was ended by the Medieval Age, like the Greek Dark Age was ended with the rising of the city states. Dark Ages aren't actually Dark, although the Church controlling the press makes it seem a rather Dark and superstitious time, they're just the transition phases. Like a border culture of the timeline. It has bits and pieces of the older culture left over and bits and pieces of the newer culture mingling with it.

[Breth]

See I always viewed as being akin to the Greek Dark Age, an era between eras where history had to once again build to another zenith. The end of the Roman Empire started the European Dark Age, which was ended by the Medieval Age, like the Greek Dark Age was ended with the rising of the city states. Dark Ages aren't actually Dark, although the Church controlling the press makes it seem a rather Dark and superstitious time, they're just the transition phases. Like a border culture of the timeline. It has bits and pieces of the older culture left over and bits and pieces of the newer culture mingling with it.


Actually i think there are dark ages, though litterally darker. I watched a moive on how global warming is just a cycle which is taking place, and the Dark Ages were actually in an ice age, not as serious as the earliest one but still serious, they even showed how when the earth warmede up, trade went up too from crops and wines. Interesting.

[CelticBard]

Are you talking about the Little Ice Age, which started in the 14th Century? Made Europe starve and weakened them so that the plague could cause much greater devastation. Much later than the 6th Century "Dark Age."

[Breth]

Are you talking about the Little Ice Age, which started in the 14th Century? Made Europe starve and weakened them so that the plague could cause much greater devastation. Much later than the 6th Century "Dark Age."

No, it was in Dark Age, I think around 400-700 bce.

[CelticBard]

Well I know the Earth's climate was different during ancient times up to the Little Ice Age, Mesopotamia was much lusher than it is now, North Africa was much closer climate-wise to that of Italy and Greece, but now those places are arid. I've never heard of a Dark Age Ice Age and wouldn't trade and crops diminish during an Ice Age? I'm not a farmer or anything, but don't crops not grow as well in the winter?

[Breth]

As the climate turned colder more movements of people from Europe and the steppe led to the gradual defeat of the Western Empire over the next 100 years. The Western Empire entered a period of lawlessness called the Dark Ages which lasted from around 1500 to 1000 years ago. The continued fighting of the warrior kings of Europe ensured that no nation emerged to build a new empire. Byzantium was not defeated until about 550 years ago.

Theres a source.

[CelticBard]

That definitly is a source, but that's about all it is. Being a source and being credible are two entirely different subjects. Right next to that quote there is a NASCAR history link, I'm sorry but I don't trust anything that advertises NASCAR next to its simplified version of the History of the Universe. The first one billion some pages of that site must be pretty boring, haha. I'd take wikipedia over that any day. Plus I see nothing about trade, commerce, or agriculture in that whole bit you quoted.

[Breth]

That definitly is a source, but that's about all it is. Being a source and being credible are two entirely different subjects. Right next to that quote there is a NASCAR history link, I'm sorry but I don't trust anything that advertises NASCAR next to its simplified version of the History of the Universe. The first one billion some pages of that site must be pretty boring, haha. I'd take wikipedia over that any day. Plus I see nothing about trade, commerce, or agriculture in that whole bit you quoted.

Wheres your source denying it? I dont see any "Warm preiods" during that time.

[CelticBard]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

Graph from Wikipedia.

Hmmm. Looks like the world was continually getting warmer in the Dark Ages, the Little Ice Age looks like an ice age, but the Dark Ages don't.

[Comet]

What do each of the colored lines on the graph mean?

[es_bih]

The war on terror today is a holy war in the eyes of many Muslims.
When they are defeated they will, like the Christians after the crusades, question the principles and morals of jihad and become more secular.
Islam hasn't experienced its own enlightenment, so mentally they're 500 years behind us.


Islam experienced it's own Enlightenment when Ibn Sinna and other Islamic philosophers/thinkers/ scientists taught European monks what reason is how to use reason, wrote treatsies and books on Medicine, Astronomy, Astrology, Math, Science,......... . Get over your Eurocentric view, the Enlightenment would not have happend if it were not for Islamic science, Islamic culture, and Islamic intellectuals who copied down classical works, got the 0 from the Indians, developed advanced Mathematics, developed the Printing Press, developed Medicine-syringe-, etc.


www.muslimheritage.com (http://www.muslimheritage.com)

www.1001inventions.com (http://www.1001inventions.com)


ps. the present state is not univeral in the Islamic world, nor is it a progress but degression from what once was


I suggest

Venture in Islam vol. I, II, III by Marshall Hodgson

[es_bih]

I get tired of the Crusades being portrayed as European aggression. People seem to forget that the holy land was Christianized centuries before the Islamic religion even existed. The Crusades were an attempt to reclaim what had been theirs. That's my take on it anyway.

For those with an interest in the subject, I highly recommend The First Crusaders, 1095-1131 by Jonathan Riley-Smith.

Much of this book deals in the personal records and letters of the real Crusaders. When you read it you find out that many of these people truely believed in the cause and sold most or all of their property to pay for the trip. Many left a knight and came back a serf, if they came back at all. This is a refreshing view as opposed to the popular opinion that paints all the Crusaders as blood-thirsty opportunists.





Tancred


Those Christians largerly over centuries decided to convert to Islam, they are the natives to that land, they changed religions, the Arabs were so few in number, the original Arabs that is who ventured outside of the Peninsula, and were mostly soldiers, and lived in barrack cities usually near a major provincial capital. Europeans were not native to the Holy Land, the muslims who used to be christians were and still are, and they are the heirs to that land not some Norman duke in search of glory. So yes they were agressors, just like the Armies of the Caliphate were.

[Bloodhound]

Personally I believe that a lot of supposed "christian" crusades were simply a means for grasping clerics to gain more land and become rich. The problem with the crusades was the fact that, divinely inspired or not, a lot of evil acts were committed under the belief that the pilgrims were "absolved" of any sins for the duration of the crusade. Ridiculous!!!

[Eyza]

Bloodhound:

There are a lot of reasons the Crusades "happened". Some of it really did stem from the religious fervor of the time. Other aspects did involve greed, trade routes, preexisting conflicts, etc. etc. This whole series of episodes is extremely complicated, and the motivations varied over time.
Anne G

[Lucius]

Some of it really did stem from the religious fervor of the time.

Yes. The "Christians" reckoned that they were re-conquering what the "Muslims" had conquered in 636. True, they had conquered it from the Persians, but the Persians had only conquered the Levant from the Romans in 628, so that's just a technicality because by then, the Romans had ruled the Levant for six centuries.

Anyway, how long must a conqueror hold a particular piece of real estate before the next conqueror becomes the bad guy aggressor? If I take the position that the side that won the latest battle has the better claim, that's the same as "might makes right." Why can't the Arabs and Franks and Romans and Turks all have an equal claim and let the best man win? And the last time I checked, the issue hadn't been totally settled yet. The Europeans still have a foothold there (Israel).

[Nikd]

Simply border are political agreement the army guard this agreement - so whichever is weak must succumbed to the strong.

[stung]

One big thing that set off the crusades was when the Seljuk Turks took overasia minor from the byzantines leaving the byzantines only a tiny territory of coastline along the hellespont,if the Turks were to also take that than they could possibly have next invaded europe,the first crusade drove them back though.

[es_bih]

They would not have, Alp Arslan nor his sucessor were interested in that, they were rather interested in eradicating the Fatimid Caliphate, which had been headed by a Shi'a dynasty that they as Sunnis wanted to curb, and control. Schismatic wars were common in Islamic lands as well.

[stung]

How do you know what they would have wanted.

[Melisende]

There was a lot of factional fighting within the Muslim communities than is generally assumed. Many assume that because they were united under a Saladin or Nur ed-Din that they were alsways thus. But, like Europeans, they too had their fair share of dynastic and religious quarrels.

[Comet]

How do you know what they would have wanted.

You don't...that is why you try the best you can going on circumstantial evidence :). BTW...welcome to the forum

[Comet]

There was a lot of factional fighting within the Muslim communities than is generally assumed. Many assume that because they were united under a Saladin or Nur ed-Din that they were alsways thus. But, like Europeans, they too had their fair share of dynastic and religious quarrels.

Good point. Islam had been divided for centuries prior to the Crusades. The Shiite/Sunni sectarian violence was just as much of a problem as it is today.

[Eyza]

Comet and Melisende:

And, even in those days, there was the little problem of the Shiites. At certain times during this period, various Muslim rulers were dealing with the Assassins, who operated in Syria but are believed to have originated in Iran(but then, Syria, even today, is full of odd little sects).
Anne G

[Nikd]

What "set off the crusades" was the destruction of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem. Also, France and Italy were under Muslim attacks well into the 10th century. The Reconquista was also a motivating factor.

And the desperation of Alexius I in 1081 who called upon help from the Pope to hold his empire. Of course Alexius I expected only mercenaries not a crusade.

[Melisende]

True - I think Alexius thought he would get a small group of knights / nobles to nuetralise local resistance and pack up and head back home again.

But as Ceasar's once said - I came, I saw, I conquered... (or words to that effect).

[stung]

What "set off the crusades" was the destruction of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem. Also, France and Italy were under Muslim attacks well into the 10th century. The Reconquista was also a motivating factor.
The Franks always had an easier time fighting the muslims than the byzantines did,but then again they were stronger so it made sense.

[Eyza]

Comet:

Well "the Church" "dominated" some parts of Europe, in certain ways. But while individual churchmen were often powerful influences in some aspects of earlier medieval society, they weren't the whole picture. There are known instances of people of all classes, resisting churchmen and what they considered to be Church meddling. And there was also the little problem of corrupt popes, even in that early time. Some popes were clearly under the influence, at certain times, of "outside" forces. As for education, it is true that at certain times, monks were almost the only literate people around. But there were places and times, even in the earlier Middle Ages(I refuse to call them the "dark ages" any more), where it was thought to be a good thing to be able to read and write, if you had the opportunity to do so, and education was thus encouraged. One famous "encourager" of such education was the English King Alfred.
Anne G

[stung]

Just where are you getting that idea?? Battle of Tours? :rolleyes:


724 - The Emir of Andalusia raids southern France capturing Carcassone and Nimes.

730 - Muslim forces occupy Avignon and Narbonne

735 - Muslim forces capture the city of Arles

792 - The Emir of Cordova issues a 'jihad' against the 'infidels' in Spain and France. The city of Narbonne is destroyed

838 - Muslims sack Marseilles
Sorry to burst your bubble but the arabs were first beaten by duke guido of aquataine at the battle of touluse,than later they came back with a larger army under Abdul Rahmen,this time Duke Guido is defeated and goes running to Charles Martel,Martel beats the arabs and kills Rahmen,than proceeds to recapture the rest of southern France,beating the muslims again at avignon and at the river Berre,he beseiges Narbonne but dousn't take it his sons later capture it and defeate a few attempted raids,face it all this big would be conqueres eventually lose to somebody.:D

[Nikd]

Manzikert was walled and Myriocephalum a shallow passage in mountains.

[stung]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but you haven't explained yourself yet.

I've shown that France was subjected to repeated raids/invasions from Muslims and you simply rattle off wikipedia.

The destruction and raids on their(France) cities would indicate they didn't "have an easier time fighting the Muslims". What your wikipedia didn't tell you is that the Reconquista limited Muslim raids from Spain thus saving France from constant raids/invasions. The ERE had no barrier and was subjected to constant raids/invasions, ie. Manzikert, Myriocephalum...
Again but no my son,what do you main i haven't explained myself,are you blind ?i just did,i have demonstrated that the French armies had no problem beating arab armies,unlike the weaker Byzantines who buy this time had lost syria,egypt and north africa,what i said is backed up buy real proffesional historians,not kids like you who just play historian on the internet forums.:D

[stung]

If losing numerous cities to raids and invasions is your proof...... :rolleyes:




Unlike the ERE that was attacked from 634 by Arabs until the fall of Constantinople in 1453 by Turks, the 'French' only suffered a few hundred years worth of raids/invasion. Yet again, you're comparing 'apples and oranges'.



In true comparison, provide evidence by "real professional historians" on how long the French lasted in the Middle East during the Crusades. Not weak statements from kids like you who just play historian on the internet forums.
Little boy,you need to read The age of Charled Martel,the Osprey title the age of Charlemighn,where real(unlike you)historian David Nicolle states that one of the main reasons for the stopping of arab expansion was defeates by the Franks,you can also read the dictionary of wars for more proof my son:p

[Eyza]

stung:

I thought we were talkling about the actual Crusades here? Not the stopping of the Arab expansion? I mean, I think these are two somewhat different circumstances being discussed here. Not to mention different eras.
Anne G

[stung]

stung:

I thought we were talkling about the actual Crusades here? Not the stopping of the Arab expansion? I mean, I think these are two somewhat different circumstances being discussed here. Not to mention different eras.
Anne G
Yeah KB is immature and got off topic,though in the first crusade at least the crusaders kicked ass,beating back the turks who had in turn earlier beaten the byzantineas as always.

[Comet]

Comet:

Well "the Church" "dominated" some parts of Europe, in certain ways. But while individual churchmen were often powerful influences in some aspects of earlier medieval society, they weren't the whole picture. There are known instances of people of all classes, resisting churchmen and what they considered to be Church meddling.


I agree to a certain extent. I think some is the key word here. It depends on the time period you are asking. If you are suggesting the early medieval period, it would be rather difficult for the Church to have dominated all of Europe...they were still in the process of converting. Whereas in the late medieval period, nearly all of Europe is Christian...one of the reasons why the medieval period is also known as the "Age of Faith". Not to mention that the majority of common people saw life through the eyes of Christian cosmology. You factor this ideology into the everyday life of a commoner and you have all of life's most difficult questions answered by your local bishop, priest, monk, etc. I'm not saying that every single individual was under this influence...in fact, you even pointed out that many individuals resisted churchmen. If we go back and look at exactly when this resistance became consistent...I have a feeling it would suggest the beginnings of the rise of popular heresy.

BTW, the two really important men that come to mind when I think education in the medieval period is Alfred (which you mentioned) and Charlemagne. Other than that, I can't think of any other important individuals who stressed the importance of reading and writing. Anybody else have any suggestions? I know there were several individuals who were considered great thinkers, but I don't think many of them were considered great educators. Probably the greatest educator that I can think of would have been Martin Luther and Philip Melanchthon. Melanchthon was responsible for the reorganization of the German curriculum during the later stages of the Reformation. I guess this kinda goes off topic so if anyone would like to start another thread on this please feel free to do so :)

[Comet]

Again but no my son,what do you main i haven't explained myself,are you blind ?i just did,i have demonstrated that the French armies had no problem beating arab armies,unlike the weaker Byzantines who buy this time had lost syria,egypt and north africa,what i said is backed up buy real proffesional historians,not kids like you who just play historian on the internet forums.:D

First, professional historians can be wrong. Not to mention that their work can be biased and full of assumptions. Be very careful on who you use as an authority. Don't assume what people tell you. If you really want to prove your point, try using a primary source. BTW, if you really did use wikipedia...DON'T. Although it's a decent site for background information...it isn't the greatest site to use when trying to prove a point.

[Comet]

Not according to documented history.

"Charles then moved on Septimania and besieged Narbonne. Despite his victory over an Arab relief force on the Berre River, he could not take the town." -- p.45
"The Carolingians" by Pierre Riche'

Is this a primary source??? When you say documented history, that usually means the use of a primary source. I don't mean to pick at you and Stung, but it doesn't do any good for the both of you to keep smack talking back and forth, it does no good trying to prove points that are meaningless without primary sources.

I guess its the teacher in me:o

[stung]

You REALLY are insecure to continue this sorry mantra...




Not according to documented history.

"Charles then moved on Septimania and besieged Narbonne. Despite his victory over an Arab relief force on the Berre River, he could not take the town." -- p.45
"The Carolingians" by Pierre Riche'



Well sonny, it's quite clear you haven't!! LMAO

"The successful defense of Constantinople saved Christian Europe from Moslem invasion. Its importance transcends even that of the later Battle of Tours/Poitiers, Islam's high water mark in the West." -- "The Harper Encyclopedia of Military History".

"...the armies of the Prophet were obliged to travel the entire length of the Mediteranean to the Straits of Gibralter before they could invade the continent -- thus extending their lines of communication and supply almost to breaking point and rendering impossible any permanent conquests beyond the Pyrenees. Had they captured Constantinople in the 7th century rather than the fifteenth, all Europe -- and America -- might be Muslim today.

And Western civilization recognized its saviour. It was not only the Khagan of the Avars and the Slav tribal leaders in the Balkans who sent embassies of congratulation, with requests for assurances of peace and friendship: it was also the Lombard and Frankish princes of the West." --"Byzantium The Early Centuries". MY SON,MY SON,MY SON,I told you my primary sources and yes i did read "The dictinary of war" and it backs up what i said,youre scared too read it, I thought your mother and i raised you better than that,also you need to be origional with your put downs and stop copying me:D

[PADDYBOY]

Don't you folks know when you're being baited :rolleyes:

I prefer to ignore waspy things ;)

[stung]

You REALLY are insecure to continue this sorry mantra...




Not according to documented history.

"Charles then moved on Septimania and besieged Narbonne. Despite his victory over an Arab relief force on the Berre River, he could not take the town." -- p.45
"The Carolingians" by Pierre Riche'



Well sonny, it's quite clear you haven't!! LMAO

"The successful defense of Constantinople saved Christian Europe from Moslem invasion. Its importance transcends even that of the later Battle of Tours/Poitiers, Islam's high water mark in the West." -- "The Harper Encyclopedia of Military History".

"...the armies of the Prophet were obliged to travel the entire length of the Mediteranean to the Straits of Gibralter before they could invade the continent -- thus extending their lines of communication and supply almost to breaking point and rendering impossible any permanent conquests beyond the Pyrenees. Had they captured Constantinople in the 7th century rather than the fifteenth, all Europe -- and America -- might be Muslim today.

And Western civilization recognized its saviour. It was not only the Khagan of the Avars and the Slav tribal leaders in the Balkans who sent embassies of congratulation, with requests for assurances of peace and friendship: it was also the Lombard and Frankish princes of the West." --"Byzantium The Early Centuries". Also my son you say that the failure of the arabs to capture constantinople saved europe?LOL,how do you know that? you don't,the arabs might have captured constantinople only to later be beaten buy either the franks to their west,or the bulgers or avars or the english or the scandinavians or anybody else they may encouter,all were stronger than the byzantines,think about that kiddo.:D

[stung]

My mistake. I thought this was a forum for discussing history. :rolleyes:

Maybe your moderators should remove trolls like 'stung'.:eek:
Your just upset because you lost the argument that you yourself started.:rolleyes:

[Ankrom]

The Franks always had an easier time fighting the muslims than the byzantines did,but then again they were stronger so it made sense.

Little boy,you need to read The age of Charled Martel,the Osprey title the age of Charlemighn,where real(unlike you)historian David Nicolle states that one of the main reasons for the stopping of arab expansion was defeates by the Franks,you can also read the dictionary of wars for more proof my son:p


Just joined and have been reading this thread. I must have missed something.

Where exactly does it say in Osprey's "The Age of Charlemagne" that Franks were stronger than the Byzantines?? I can't seem to find it.:confused:

[stung]

Just joined and have been reading this thread. I must have missed something.

Where exactly does it say in Osprey's "The Age of Charlemagne" that Franks were stronger than the Byzantines?? I can't seem to find it.:confused:
It dousn't say it in the book,but it's an obvious coclusion,since the facts are that the franks faced the same enemy the byzantines did but with the opposite results,the byzantines were consistanly beaten by the arabs and lost huge amounts of territory(syria,egypt,north africa)wheras the franks lost no territory and ussually beat the arabs,so yeah the frankish armies were more powerful than the byzantine ones:o

[Eyza]

Comet:

Of course you're right about Charlemagne. I probably forgot to mention him, because I know less about Charlemagne than I do about Alfred(which, admittedly isn't all that much). Both men encouraged education. And they were both, in different ways, tremendously influential. England, in particular, tended to have some pretty well-educated people --- of both sexes, BTW, during that period. I know less about the areas Charlemagne influenced, but I wouldn't be surprised if similar things weren't true. The Church was the main filter of this education, but that is in part because it was the only real "structure" that had the means to do this in many places. The importance of both Charlemagne and Alfred is, they provided the seeds for later, alternative structures of education.
Anne G


I agree to a certain extent. I think some is the key word here. It depends on the time period you are asking. If you are suggesting the early medieval period, it would be rather difficult for the Church to have dominated all of Europe...they were still in the process of converting. Whereas in the late medieval period, nearly all of Europe is Christian...one of the reasons why the medieval period is also known as the "Age of Faith". Not to mention that the majority of common people saw life through the eyes of Christian cosmology. You factor this ideology into the everyday life of a commoner and you have all of life's most difficult questions answered by your local bishop, priest, monk, etc. I'm not saying that every single individual was under this influence...in fact, you even pointed out that many individuals resisted churchmen. If we go back and look at exactly when this resistance became consistent...I have a feeling it would suggest the beginnings of the rise of popular heresy.

BTW, the two really important men that come to mind when I think education in the medieval period is Alfred (which you mentioned) and Charlemagne. Other than that, I can't think of any other important individuals who stressed the importance of reading and writing. Anybody else have any suggestions? I know there were several individuals who were considered great thinkers, but I don't think many of them were considered great educators. Probably the greatest educator that I can think of would have been Martin Luther and Philip Melanchthon. Melanchthon was responsible for the reorganization of the German curriculum during the later stages of the Reformation. I guess this kinda goes off topic so if anyone would like to start another thread on this please feel free to do so :)

[Eyza]

Stung:

I haven't read that particular Osprey book, but I wonder why you rely so heavily for your arguments on a book that basically is more about what might be called "military tactics and equipment in various eras", than on what actual historians might have had to say about this? Worse, if there is no actual statement, in some form, of your conclusion, then one can only infer that this is your opinion, and not an obvious fact, let alone conclusive proof of anything.
Anne G

[Comet]

Stung:

I haven't read that particular Osprey book, but I wonder why you rely so heavily for your arguments on a book that basically is more about what might be called "military tactics and equipment in various eras", than on what actual historians might have had to say about this? Worse, if there is no actual statement, in some form, of your conclusion, then one can only infer that this is your opinion, and not an obvious fact, let alone conclusive proof of anything.
Anne G

I was thinking the same thing :rolleyes:

[Ankrom]

It dousn't say it in the book,but it's an obvious coclusion,since the facts are that the franks faced the same enemy the byzantines did but with the opposite results,the byzantines were consistanly beaten by the arabs and lost huge amounts of territory(syria,egypt,north africa)wheras the franks lost no territory and ussually beat the arabs,so yeah the frankish armies were more powerful than the byzantine ones:o


Does David Nicolle compare the Frankish armies with the Byzantine armies? I didn't find that either.

In his book "Armies of the Muslim Conquest", David Nicolle states that the reasons why Arab Muslim expansion in the West came to a halt; Raids were no longer very profitable; Muslim manpower was stretched to an absolute limit, different terrain and climate made Muslim styles of warfare unsuitable, and there was a political crisis at the heart of the Caliphate.

[stung]

Does David Nicolle compare the Frankish armies with the Byzantine armies? I didn't find that either.

In his book "Armies of the Muslim Conquest", David Nicolle states that the reasons why Arab Muslim expansion in the West came to a halt; Raids were no longer very profitable; Muslim manpower was stretched to an absolute limit, different terrain and climate made Muslim styles of warfare unsuitable, and there was a political crisis at the heart of the Caliphate. In that book hr may have said that but in his book"the age of charlimighn(spelling)he states the obvious,the arabs couldn't beat the franks and theirfore they couldn't take over france,you see to conquer an area you must first defeat it;s armies,also just look at the facts,at the time the byzantines were always losing and the franks winning it's as plain as that.

[Melisende]

David Nicolle has a new book out with Helen Nicholson - will try and locate the title - just read the darn thing a couple of months ago.

David compares the Templars and Muslim equivalent in rather good detail.


Found it - "God's warriors : knights templar , saracens and the battle for Jerusalem" - by Helen Nicholson and David Nicolle.

[Comet]

In that book hr may have said that but in his book"the age of charlimighn(spelling)he states the obvious,the arabs couldn't beat the franks and theirfore they couldn't take over france,you see to conquer an area you must first defeat it;s armies,also just look at the facts,at the time the byzantines were always losing and the franks winning it's as plain as that.

There are several simplistic explanations for your conclusion...all of which were mentioned by AlpErTunga. However, there is one that stands out as one of the easiest explanations for this so called "obvious solution". It would be much easier for the Franks to defeat the Arabs because their manpower was stretched to the limit...think of it this way...Napoleon and Hitler both lost to the Russians in their respective campaigns because their manpower, supplies, etc. were stretched to the brink of collapse; which is exactly what happened. I think the invading Arabs, instead of collapsing and losing the entire Iberian peninsula, decided to scale back their attacks against the Franks. It's a "take what you can get" scenario. You can't win on the battlefield if you don't have the manpower or supplies.
Now let's look at the Byzantine empire...their location is on the doorstep of the heart of Islam. With easy access to the Byzantines (who stretched themselves thin due to expansion) it's easy to conclude that the Byzantines are going to have more of an issue with the Muslim invaders...their manpower and supplies could easily be replenished.

[Ankrom]

In that book hr may have said that but in his book"the age of charlimighn(spelling)he states the obvious,the arabs couldn't beat the franks and theirfore they couldn't take over france,you see to conquer an area you must first defeat it;s armies,also just look at the facts,at the time the byzantines were always losing and the franks winning it's as plain as that.

Are we reading the from the same book??:confused:

In David Nicolle's, "Age of Charlemagne", page 23....
"Their(Muslim) threat had petered out, however, partly as a result of early Carolingian resistance, but mostly because the Islamic conquerors had over-extended their lines of communication and their available military manpower."

As for the Byzantines....
"The First Crusade 1096-1099" by David Nicolle, page 9....
"Some might claim that the First Crusade was 'caused' by the rise of Islam and its conquest of Palestine, the Christian Holy Land, in the 7th century AD. Others focus on a sequence of events beginning with the Byzantine Empire's reconquest of eastern Anatolia and northern Syrian in the 10th century...."

[Eyza]

Melisende:

This sounds like an interesting book(having just gotten through reading two "Crusade oriented" pieces of fiction; something I don't normally bother with). I may look these books up some time.
Anne G

[stung]

Are we reading the from the same book??:confused:

In David Nicolle's, "Age of Charlemagne", page 23....
"Their(Muslim) threat had petered out, however, partly as a result of early Carolingian resistance, but mostly because the Islamic conquerors had over-extended their lines of communication and their available military manpower."

As for the Byzantines....
"The First Crusade 1096-1099" by David Nicolle, page 9....
"Some might claim that the First Crusade was 'caused' by the rise of Islam and its conquest of Palestine, the Christian Holy Land, in the 7th century AD. Others focus on a sequence of events beginning with the Byzantine Empire's reconquest of eastern Anatolia and northern Syrian in the 10th century...."
I have noticed that David Nicolle is biased towards the muslim culteres.

[Edgewaters]

I have noticed that David Nicolle is biased towards the muslim culteres.

I don't think there's any "bias" there. It's a simple fact: look at a map. The heart of Islamic power lay in two centres, Mesopotamia and Egypt. Spain is a long, long way away, a distant outlier of the culture.

The Muslim raids into Frankish territory were not even close to being full-blown invasion, they were light scouting raids, and not repeated over centuries as the great wars with Byzantine were. If the Franks couldn't turn a few raiders back I would be surprised, but I am not surprised that they failed to dislodge them from Spain.

[Eyza]

Edgewaters:

I didn't know that they were "light scouting raids". But there were Muslim kingdoms in Spain by that time, I believe. Whether or not they were "connected" with the other parts of the "Muslim Empire" of the time.
Anne G

[Edgewaters]

Edgewaters:

I didn't know that they were "light scouting raids". But there were Muslim kingdoms in Spain by that time, I believe. Whether or not they were "connected" with the other parts of the "Muslim Empire" of the time.
Anne G

Light scouting raids is probably a bit of an exaggeration on my part - there were Muslims forces of up to 80 000 involved at Tours for instance - but campaigns were not sustained and did not feature the weight of forces seen closer to the Islamic heartland. They were basically conquests of opportunity which were eventually, and predictably, staunched as the Franks achieved some level of cohesion and organization in their own lands. In Asia Minor or the Near East, a single victory over an army of that size would be not be a "turning point" as there were many much larger victories achieved by Byzantine against Islamic groups. Especially during the late 900s when Arabic power collapsed (caught between Turks and Byzantines) and Byzantium stormed its way clear to northern Iraq and onto the Tigris-Euphrates basin.

Islam was never any sort of united empire, but, there were large empires within Islam. Spain was very much connected with the rest of the Islamic world, it began as a farflung holding of the Umayyad Caliphate (which I believe was centered in Egypt) and went on to become the property of the Abbasid Caliphate (based out of Baghdad) and various others over the course of time.

[stung]

I don't think there's any "bias" there. It's a simple fact: look at a map. The heart of Islamic power lay in two centres, Mesopotamia and Egypt. Spain is a long, long way away, a distant outlier of the culture.

The Muslim raids into Frankish territory were not even close to being full-blown invasion, they were light scouting raids, and not repeated over centuries as the great wars with Byzantine were. If the Franks couldn't turn a few raiders back I would be surprised, but I am not surprised that they failed to dislodge them from Spain.
If they were just raids than they certainly were large scale ones,as the emir of spain personally came and was killed in his invasion or raid into france,also the arabs ussually softened up an area by raiding before moving in with an invasion force,it's not really known and is debated as to weather it was an occupation forces or large scale raids that were beaten in france,as later Abdul Rahmens son invaded and was beaten in the wars of 736-737 as said by professor Antonio Santosuosso in his book,"Barbarians,Marauders and Infidels".

[Eyza]

Stung:


If they were just raids than they certainly were large scale ones,as the emir of spain personally came and was killed in his invasion or raid into france,also the arabs ussually softened up an area by raiding before moving in with an invasion force,it's not really known and is debated as to weather it was an occupation forces or large scale raids that were beaten in france,as later Abdul Rahmens son invaded and was beaten in the wars of 736-737 as said by professor Antonio Santosuosso in his book,"Barbarians,Marauders and Infidels".

I was merely quoting Edgewaters' original post. That's why I said I wasn't aware that these incursions were "just raids". And Edgewater himself mentioned in his next post that they were more than "just raids". And he has a good point when he says(and I know this is true), that the Muslims of that time, and later, were never the "unified" force that some Westerners seem to think they were. The Arab kingdoms of Spain, from which these incursions were launched, were more or less independent of the contemporaneous Abbasids of Baghdad; in fact various caliphs of Baghdad were on (more or less) frliendly terms with, among others, Charlemagne. In any case, the defeat at Tours stopped "Muslim advances" --- from Spain, and pretty much defined the limits there. They didn't define any limits anywhere else Muslims ruled.
Anne G

[stung]

Stung:




I was merely quoting Edgewaters' original post. That's why I said I wasn't aware that these incursions were "just raids". And Edgewater himself mentioned in his next post that they were more than "just raids". And he has a good point when he says(and I know this is true), that the Muslims of that time, and later, were never the "unified" force that some Westerners seem to think they were. The Arab kingdoms of Spain, from which these incursions were launched, were more or less independent of the contemporaneous Abbasids of Baghdad; in fact various caliphs of Baghdad were on (more or less) frliendly terms with, among others, Charlemagne. In any case, the defeat at Tours stopped "Muslim advances" --- from Spain, and pretty much defined the limits there. They didn't define any limits anywhere else Muslims ruled.
Anne G
The muslims faced other defeats in Nubia and in the northern iran provence of Gilan at the hands of the Dailimites.

[stung]

Also if you go to the all empires forums theres a topic about osprey titles where someone noticed the same thing that David Nicolle is an "easterophile"

[stung]

There are several simplistic explanations for your conclusion...all of which were mentioned by AlpErTunga. However, there is one that stands out as one of the easiest explanations for this so called "obvious solution". It would be much easier for the Franks to defeat the Arabs because their manpower was stretched to the limit...think of it this way...Napoleon and Hitler both lost to the Russians in their respective campaigns because their manpower, supplies, etc. were stretched to the brink of collapse; which is exactly what happened. I think the invading Arabs, instead of collapsing and losing the entire Iberian peninsula, decided to scale back their attacks against the Franks. It's a "take what you can get" scenario. You can't win on the battlefield if you don't have the manpower or supplies.
Now let's look at the Byzantine empire...their location is on the doorstep of the heart of Islam. With easy access to the Byzantines (who stretched themselves thin due to expansion) it's easy to conclude that the Byzantines are going to have more of an issue with the Muslim invaders...their manpower and supplies could easily be replenished.
The arabs were in no way streched to the limits,there was nothing wrong with the armies that invaded France,they just lost.

[Comet]

The arabs were in no way streched to the limits,there was nothing wrong with the armies that invaded France,they just lost.

Really? I think Edgewaters, Eyza, and I have been pretty consistent in demonstrating how they were stretched and fragmented in the Iberian Peninsula. We are not saying there was anything wrong with the army, I believe we are saying that the reason for their "lack of effort" was a matter of logistics.

However, I would like to see what you have for primary source material to accurately assess that what we have told you is incorrect.

[stung]

Really? I think Edgewaters, Eyza, and I have been pretty consistent in demonstrating how they were stretched and fragmented in the Iberian Peninsula. We are not saying there was anything wrong with the army, I believe we are saying that the reason for their "lack of effort" was a matter of logistics.

However, I would like to see what you have for primary source material to accurately assess that what we have told you is incorrect.
I have already told you in earlier posts my sources,also their was no fragmentation or lack of effort,they tried to do what they had been doing for 100 years and that was conquering,but they were defeated as simple as that.:D

[Comet]

I have already told you in earlier posts my sources,also their was no fragmentation or lack of effort,they tried to do what they had been doing for 100 years and that was conquering,but they were defeated as simple as that.:D

I saw some of your sources...but I didn't see any primary sources that you used. Could you point out which sources you were using again?

[Eyza]

Comet:

The lack of primary sources bothered me, too. I guess that's why I told Stung earlier, that this was more likely his opinion, which he is, of course, free to hold if he insists, than actual fact.
Anne G

[stung]

I saw some of your sources...but I didn't see any primary sources that you used. Could you point out which sources you were using again?
Just look at my earlier posts,one of my sources was from a book called barbarians,marauders and infidels,you guys need to give me your sources instead of making things up like they arabs lack of effort,even though in reality they tried the best they could.

[Eyza]

Stung:

Just FYI: Barbarians, Marauders, and Infidels doesn't sound like a primary source. If you look in the back of the book, where the author lists his/her source material, it is there you will find "primary sources". I don't know what these would be for the time of Charles Martel or Charlemagne, but my guess is, they are likely to be monastic chronicles of one kind or another, or perhaps letters, directives, etc. Reread the book and see what you come up with. Then, if you can, read whatever primary sources(see above) that you can get your hands on. Then come back here and try to back up you assertions. Until then, what you say will most likely be considered just your personal opinions on this matter.
Anne G:mad:

Just look at my earlier posts,one of my sources was from a book called barbarians,marauders and infidels,you guys need to give me your sources instead of making things up like they arabs lack of effort,even though in reality they tried the best they could.

[stung]

Stung:

Just FYI: Barbarians, Marauders, and Infidels doesn't sound like a primary source. If you look in the back of the book, where the author lists his/her source material, it is there you will find "primary sources". I don't know what these would be for the time of Charles Martel or Charlemagne, but my guess is, they are likely to be monastic chronicles of one kind or another, or perhaps letters, directives, etc. Reread the book and see what you come up with. Then, if you can, read whatever primary sources(see above) that you can get your hands on. Then come back here and try to back up you assertions. Until then, what you say will most likely be considered just your personal opinions on this matter.
Anne G:mad:
Look it up on wikipedia,and the book i mentioned is a fine source and is quoted:p

[Eyza]

Stung:

I'm sure the book is a "fine source" if you are interested in getting an overview. But I wouldn't rely too much on Wikipedia, either. Wikipedia could hardly be called a "primary source". My advice still stands.
Anne G

[stung]

Stung:

I'm sure the book is a "fine source" if you are interested in getting an overview. But I wouldn't rely too much on Wikipedia, either. Wikipedia could hardly be called a "primary source". My advice still stands.
Anne G
My facts still stand,why did you think that their was a lack of effort by the arabs?things were fine for them by the time the invasions took place.

[Eyza]

stung:

why do you keep reiteratinig the same old, same old? I'm not claiming that things were "fine" for the Muslims, just that the situation was a lot more complicated than you are making it appear. And it looks to me as if you just want to argue, rather than try to learn something about the period you claim to have the "true facts" for. That is why I suggested --- and I still suggest --- seriously --- that you start digging for more primary source material to back up your assertions than you previously have been doing.
Anne G

[stung]

[quote=Eyza;19506]stung:

why do you keep reiteratinig the same old, same old? I'm not claiming that things were "fine" for the Muslims, just that the situation was a lot more complicated than you are making it appear. And it looks to me as if you just want to argue, rather than try to learn something about the period you claim to have the "true facts" for. That is why I suggested --- and I still suggest --- seriously --- that you start digging for more primary source material to back up your assertions than you previously have been doing.
Anne G[/quote I suggest that you list your primary sources as i have already,you keep saying the same thing ,and whats wrong with the sources,i cited?:eek:

[Edgewaters]

Stung:

Just FYI: Barbarians, Marauders, and Infidels doesn't sound like a primary source. If you look in the back of the book, where the author lists his/her source material, it is there you will find "primary sources".


Unlikely. Most books of that ilk will list scholarly works which, in turn, may reference primary sources.

[Comet]

Unlikely. Most books of that ilk will list scholarly works which, in turn, may reference primary sources.

If it's a real good scholarly work, it will separate primary and secondary sources in a bibliographical list...at the very least. However, many like to use (such as myself and my colleagues) footnotes or endnotes that let you examine each source used, whether its primary or secondary.

[Eyza]

Comet and Edgewaters:

Depends on when they were written. Bibliographies do usually, in my experience, separate primary and secondary sources, and even if there are footnotes(which seems to be a much more common practice nowadays), there is usually some reference to page numbers where you can find the appropriate notes. Either way, looking at the source material used, is an extremely useful way of getting more information(assuming you have a way of getting it in the first place --- which is not always the case)>
Anne G

[Edgewaters]

If it's a real good scholarly work, it will separate primary and secondary sources in a bibliographical list...

IF. I don't know the work in question, but it sounds like it's aimed at a popular audience, so ...

[Comet]

IF. I don't know the work in question, but it sounds like it's aimed at a popular audience, so ...

Yes, that is what I thought as well. The source in question seems to be something aimed for those with little to no knowledge of the subject...usually a sign that it is aimed at a popular audience. Of course, I would have to get a closer look at the book...maybe we can get a portion of the book previewed at Amazon or Barnes and Noble websites?

[stung]

Yes, that is what I thought as well. The source in question seems to be something aimed for those with little to no knowledge of the subject...usually a sign that it is aimed at a popular audience. Of course, I would have to get a closer look at the book...maybe we can get a portion of the book previewed at Amazon or Barnes and Noble websites?
Good idea

[Eyza]

Comet and Edgewaters:

If you're starting from Ground Zero, some popular book like this may well be a perfectly good place to start. If the author is any good at all, s/he will list some sorts of references, which will give you a clue as to where to start looking if you want to dig deeper. This is what I have had to do.
Anne G

[Comet]

Here's just one review on that book Stung keeps telling us to look at:

http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=125971152641260



From what I gather, this was a book that was intended as a survey. Which means it's a secondary source and NOT a primary source. This also provides me with other questions. Does it have a strong bibliography in the back of the book? It should have some sort of primary/secondary bibliography in the back...being written by a "scholar". How consistent is this author? The review mentions many mistakes made on dates and events...of course, this is all publishing, but as a professor who is supposed to be an authority on a topic...wouldn't you have your historical facts straight? For some reason, that seemed to bother me quite a bit.

I want to add that this is only one review. There was another by a Clifford Rogers that I had to pay to get to. To me, this one may provided a better review than this one did. If someone could get a hold of that review please post it.

[Eyza]

Comet and all:

It sounds as though this book, whether "scholarly" or not, is a confused mess. But as you say, it's only one review. And I'd like to add my voice to yours in asking to see the other one, if anybody wants to pay for it.
Anne G

[Ankrom]

I couldn't find any information on that book posted by that KB guy. Oddly, I couldn't find his post either.

Anyway, I found the book, "The Carolingians", although I don't own it. Is there anyway to find out the bibliography on this book??

[southernlady]

Carolingians (http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-Carolingns.html)

Is that the one you are looking for? Liz

[Ankrom]

Carolingians (http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-Carolingns.html)

Is that the one you are looking for? Liz


I believe the one that KB guy mentioned was by Pierre Riche'.

[southernlady]

Okay, I'll try again...

As to the book under question, I happened across this curriculum which suggest that the book IS a secondary and not a primary source. It calls it a "Book of Interest" Medieval/Mediaeval Studies (http://www.lib.uwo.ca/weldon/news/hottopics/archive2006/feb06.shtml) and then scroll down to about the middle of the page. Liz

[southernlady]

The Carolingians : A Family Who Forged Europe by Pierre Riché (Author), Michael Idomir Allen (Translator) (http://www.amazon.com/Carolingians-Family-Who-Forged-Europe/dp/0812213424) This one, right? Liz

[Comet]

The Carolingians : A Family Who Forged Europe by Pierre Riché (Author), Michael Idomir Allen (Translator) (http://www.amazon.com/Carolingians-Family-Who-Forged-Europe/dp/0812213424) This one, right? Liz

This is a perfect example of what we've been talking about. This book has both primary and secondary sources (although amazon just lists the books he uses without separation). I wonder if we can get a list of books for the Barbarians book. I will see what I can find. Thanks southernlady :)

[Comet]

Here is where you can get a list of sources for Barbarians, Marauders, and Infidels:

http://www.amazon.com/Barbarians-Marauders-Infidels-Medieval-Warfare/dp/book-citations/0813391539/ref=sid_dp_av/102-2228138-1348148?ie=UTF8&qid=1189618848&citeType=citing&sr=11-1#citing


Quite an extensive list...there should be various primary sources in there. However, I can see why the book reviewer didn't care much for his work...too much time period cover. I have seen good short reviews for this book and many bad reviews...it seems to be a matter of preference whether to hang ones hat on this book or not. Although, my point would be better reinforced by using a primary source :).

[Ankrom]

This is a perfect example of what we've been talking about. This book has both primary and secondary sources (although amazon just lists the books he uses without separation).


Would that mean the information he posted was correct?

[Comet]

Would that mean the information he posted was correct?


No. What it means is that he (Stung) can go back and check the primary sources. Same with KB. They both can go back and check the primary sources to reinforce their opinions. This little adventure was more for Stung than KB (you should check out their "debate" if you haven't already). There is always a chance that the author, whether a professor or not, has made some historical inaccuracies in their books. From what the one book review was mentioning, the author of Barbarians, Marauders, and Infidels made those mistakes. Anytime there are mistakes in a scholarly work (in any book frankly) the authenticity and credibility of the book comes into question. Now, I will say that this is only one book review. Other opinions on the book will most likely differ.

[stung]

No. What it means is that he (Stung) can go back and check the primary sources. Same with KB. They both can go back and check the primary sources to reinforce their opinions. This little adventure was more for Stung than KB (you should check out their "debate" if you haven't already). There is always a chance that the author, whether a professor or not, has made some historical inaccuracies in their books. From what the one book review was mentioning, the author of Barbarians, Marauders, and Infidels made those mistakes. Anytime there are mistakes in a scholarly work (in any book frankly) the authenticity and credibility of the book comes into question. Now, I will say that this is only one book review. Other opinions on the book will most likely differ.
And all you posted was just your little opinion,which is not backed up by any primary source,your just upset that others are agreeing with me:)

[Comet]

And all you posted was just your little opinion,which is not backed up by any primary source,your just upset that others are agreeing with me:)

lol this has nothing to do with me being upset. I'm too old to get upset about little things like this. And who is agreeing with you? Yes, I did state my opinion, but I never said it was fact...which is what you did. That is why we are asking for your sources...in history, NOTHING is absolute. There aren't too many right or wrong answers...all we have is the written record...which can be a problem in itself. I want you to realize this has nothing to do with who is right and who is wrong. It has everything to do with credibility and respect towards the study of history. I hope you will eventually understand what I am trying to say...hopefully your history teacher is telling you the same sort of thing as well.

With that being said...tell me if you are currently taking a history class. I would love to see how other high school teachers are teaching history. Any new ideas that I can add to my own would be great :)

[PADDYBOY]

lol this has nothing to do with me being upset. I'm too old to get upset about little things like this. And who is agreeing with you? Yes, I did state my opinion, but I never said it was fact...which is what you did. That is why we are asking for your sources...in history, NOTHING is absolute. There aren't too many right or wrong answers...all we have is the written record...which can be a problem in itself. I want you to realize this has nothing to do with who is right and who is wrong. It has everything to do with credibility and respect towards the study of history. I hope you will eventually understand what I am trying to say...hopefully your history teacher is telling you the same sort of thing as well.

With that being said...tell me if you are currently taking a history class. I would love to see how other high school teachers are teaching history. Any new ideas that I can add to my own would be great :)


Comet
Good post :)

Stung
Welcome to the site :)

[stung]

lol this has nothing to do with me being upset. I'm too old to get upset about little things like this. And who is agreeing with you? Yes, I did state my opinion, but I never said it was fact...which is what you did. That is why we are asking for your sources...in history, NOTHING is absolute. There aren't too many right or wrong answers...all we have is the written record...which can be a problem in itself. I want you to realize this has nothing to do with who is right and who is wrong. It has everything to do with credibility and respect towards the study of history. I hope you will eventually understand what I am trying to say...hopefully your history teacher is telling you the same sort of thing as well.

With that being said...tell me if you are currently taking a history class. I would love to see how other high school teachers are teaching history. Any new ideas that I can add to my own would be great :) I graduated back in 1999:)

[PADDYBOY]

I graduated back in 1999:)


So you really are KBs dad :D

[bjeweled]

My first day here...how enlightening. Thank you! With so many intellectuals in this forum, does anyone have knowledge about the saracen dagger? Any ideas as to the carvings in the handle of a saracen, and their meanings?

[stung]

So you really are KBs dad :D
Very true

[stung]

So you really are KBs dad :D
Also,speaking of which,we haven't hearde from KB in a while,where could have my son run off to?perhaps to cry after that spanking i gave him?

[PADDYBOY]

Also,speaking of which,we haven't hearde from KB in a while,where could have my son run off to?perhaps to cry after that spanking i gave him?


Why did you spank him, did he do something wrong ? :confused:

[Comet]

Why did you spank him, did he do something wrong ? :confused:

Yeah, what did he do? :(

[Lucius]

Yeah. Why spank?

[stung]

Yeah. Why spank?
He tried to molest the dog.

[Belisarius]

Has this thread just wandered off the path? You know what happens when you wander off the path....

[Eyza]

Belisarius:

The way to get people back on the path is to propose a new thread!(vbg)
Anne G

[Edgewaters]

Here is where you can get a list of sources for Barbarians, Marauders, and Infidels:

http://www.amazon.com/Barbarians-Marauders-Infidels-Medieval-Warfare/dp/book-citations/0813391539/ref=sid_dp_av/102-2228138-1348148?ie=UTF8&qid=1189618848&citeType=citing&sr=11-1#citing


Quite an extensive list...there should be various primary sources in there.


SHOULD be, but there aren't. Not one.

In fact, many of the sources appear to be introductory works of the same general caliber as this.

[Comet]

SHOULD be, but there aren't. Not one.

In fact, many of the sources appear to be introductory works of the same general caliber as this.

I just went through some of them..there are a couple of primary sources in there...one's that I have in my own library....but that is all I can point out. The Chronicles of the Crusades is a pretty good one...but you're right, primary sources seem to be lacking in this work. I could only count two works that were legitimate. Still a lot of questions about this work, I'm afraid.

[Ankrom]

He tried to molest the dog.


Come on. This is a history forum. Spare us the childish insults.

I will not be a hard nosed Commander of this forum. Every site must have rules to keep order and to maintain a fun and productive forum. The following rules are very simple and easy to follow. All registered users must abide by the rules. None of them will hinder your stay here at Historum.

Posting Rules:
1. All posts must be in English.
2. No excessive cursing.
3. No racial or derogatory remarks towards anyone.

[Melisende]

Maybe we should create a list of both primary and secondary sources that members here think would be of value and / or interest to those studying or researching this topic.

Most of us have read really good, and really bad books - so the benefit of experience for those just starting out.

[Belisarius]

Belisarius:

The way to get people back on the path is to propose a new thread!(vbg)
Anne G

I've started 11 so far...your turn! :D

[stung]

Come on. This is a history forum. Spare us the childish insults.
OK,KB hasn't posted on here since he lost our argument;

[stung]

OK,KB hasn't posted on here since he lost our argument;
My statement still stands that the various west european powers were all stronger than Byzantium.There is no denying that they had a more effective armies.

[Eyza]

stung:

Are you referring to the immediate period before the Crusades? Or to something earlier? I'm confused.
Anne G

[Comet]

stung:

Are you referring to the immediate period before the Crusades? Or to something earlier? I'm confused.
Anne G


I think I'm just as confused...before Manzikert (1071), I would say Byzantium was stronger than west. After Manzikert, its apparent that Byzantium is heading towards decline. Either way I'm still confused :confused:

[stung]

I think I'm just as confused...before Manzikert (1071), I would say Byzantium was stronger than west. After Manzikert, its apparent that Byzantium is heading towards decline. Either way I'm still confused :confused:
The west was stronger all through the 600's,700's and 800's,the byzantines lost Manzikirk for a reason.

[Eyza]

stung:

I'm not going to argue this poiint extensively, but I don't think what you claim is exactly true.
Anne G

[stung]

stung:

I'm not going to argue this poiint extensively, but I don't think what you claim is exactly true.
Anne G
The byzantines were consistanly beaten by their enemies all throughout the period i listed,the only times they won were when they used greek fire,they were no good at hand to hand fighting anymore.Face it they were weak,you don't show how strong you are buy always losing,in you lose most of the time like the byzantines did,than obviosely your army isn't strong.

[Belisarius]

The byzantines were consistanly beaten by their enemies all throughout the period i listed,the only times they won were when they used greek fire,they were no good at hand to hand fighting anymore.Face it they were weak,you don't show how strong you are buy always losing,in you lose most of the time like the byzantines did,than obviosely your army isn't strong.

You seem to be fixated on proving a point that western armies were somehow "stronger" than Byzantine because Byzantine armies "lost" and Western armies "won". Byzantine armies were therefore [in your opinion] "no good at hand to hand combat".

This is a very oversimplified approach as the two methods of waging war were so disparate. Western warfare was crude, unscientific, and impetuous; a mob of horsemen or infantry would charge another mob of horsemen or infantry, and fight until one side ran away. Byzantines and their enemies [to a greater or lesser extent] used manoeuvre and stratagems, coupled with mainly archery to achieve their aims. Byzantines achieved notable successes in the 7th, 8th and 9th Centuries despite their internal religious and political problems, and continued to survive into the 15th century, unlike some Western Kingdoms and the crusader states.

It’s not so much that the Byzantines were “no good at hand to hand combat”, they just preferred other means.

[stung]

You seem to be fixated on proving a point that western armies were somehow "stronger" than Byzantine because Byzantine armies "lost" and Western armies "won". Byzantine armies were therefore [in your opinion] "no good at hand to hand combat".

This is a very oversimplified approach as the two methods of waging war were so disparate. Western warfare was crude, unscientific, and impetuous; a mob of horsemen or infantry would charge another mob of horsemen or infantry, and fight until one side ran away. Byzantines and their enemies [to a greater or lesser extent] used manoeuvre and stratagems, coupled with mainly archery to achieve their aims. Byzantines achieved notable successes in the 7th, 8th and 9th Centuries despite their internal religious and political problems, and continued to survive into the 15th century, unlike some Western Kingdoms and the crusader states.

It’s not so much that the Byzantines were “no good at hand to hand combat”, they just preferred other means.Western armies were far from crude and employed archery as well,they had tactics and manuver,also what you said about byzantine success is a lie,in the 7th century esspecially,the facts are without doubt,it is not my opinion but historical fact that in the 600's the byzantines were weak and beaten all the time,tell me if they wern't weak than how do you explain all their losses and losing,syria,egypt north africa?the west had plenty of tactics,their is no "right" or "wrong" way to fight,it's whatever works.

[Eyza]

STung:

I think you're half right that early Western armies were not crude and they did have tactics of a sort. But at the same time, I don't think they were as tightly organized in some ways as some other armies. There is some evidence that they used tactics modified from Roman times, but they were much modified, I think. As for archery, I guess since there have always been bows and arrows, archery was used to some extent, but it wasn't the main means of attack or defense until somewhat later, AFAIK. I don't know what you've read on the subject besides the book you mentioned, but you may need to read a little more and a little more deeply.
Anne G

[stung]

STung:

I think you're half right that early Western armies were not crude and they did have tactics of a sort. But at the same time, I don't think they were as tightly organized in some ways as some other armies. There is some evidence that they used tactics modified from Roman times, but they were much modified, I think. As for archery, I guess since there have always been bows and arrows, archery was used to some extent, but it wasn't the main means of attack or defense until somewhat later, AFAIK. I don't know what you've read on the subject besides the book you mentioned, but you may need to read a little more and a little more deeply.
Anne GI know quit a bit about it actually,the standard form of army was similer to old roman armies(which the franks looked to as an ideal)Infantry formed the core with cavalry and light troops in support,the sheild wall was the most common heavy infantry formation,with heavy cavalry left over from late western romans forming the support cavalry,many frankish soldeirs were decended from the last western romans.

[Afrasiyab]

what i call The Crusades is, a greed in disguise of holly commitments.

even though many historians claim that it was for Christianity, this is a bad lie. i mean, they could have made up a better lie to tittle this.

everyone knows that Europe was extremely poor at those times and Christian Church had a great impact on the people. Church misused the religion to manipulate people easily. it can be said that a phobia towards Islam is another reason for those wars as Islam was growing so fast and it was a huge danger for non-Muslims.

but the most important reason is ' to get the wealth of the East'. i mean, many Romans and other European soldiers attacked Anatolia and other Eastern territories but they settled down there and created small kingdoms for themselves. hello, it was for holly Byzantine !

thanks god they attacked the East, they learned a lot. : )

[caterpillar]

There was something deeper!

[Comet]

Western armies were far from crude and employed archery as well,they had tactics and manuver,also what you said about byzantine success is a lie,in the 7th century esspecially,the facts are without doubt,it is not my opinion but historical fact that in the 600's the byzantines were weak and beaten all the time,tell me if they wern't weak than how do you explain all their losses and losing,syria,egypt north africa?the west had plenty of tactics,their is no "right" or "wrong" way to fight,it's whatever works.


First of all, like Belisarius said, the Byzantines managed to survive well into the 15th century. So I think, "Byzantine success is a lie" is a bad generalization. The fact that they did survive and were able to repel Muslim invasions of Constantinople is pretty remarkable. Like all major civilizations, when you get too big, you've stretched your ability to control outlying regions with military force to the bare minimum. Second, I told you in a earlier post, there is no right or wrong answer...you weren't there so you are relying on information from someone else...not to mention someone who lives in this century. Now, if you had some sort of source that deals with that time period I would be convinced to take your opinion as some sort of fact.

[Comet]

what i call The Crusades is, a greed in disguise of holly commitments.

even though many historians claim that it was for Christianity, this is a bad lie. i mean, they could have made up a better lie to tittle this.

everyone knows that Europe was extremely poor at those times and Christian Church had a great impact on the people. Church misused the religion to manipulate people easily. it can be said that a phobia towards Islam is another reason for those wars as Islam was growing so fast and it was a huge danger for non-Muslims.

but the most important reason is ' to get the wealth of the East'. i mean, many Romans and other European soldiers attacked Anatolia and other Eastern territories but they settled down there and created small kingdoms for themselves. hello, it was for holly Byzantine !

thanks god they attacked the East, they learned a lot. : )

This is a pretty good observation. The wealth of the east was something coveted by those in the west. Take a look at the Fourth Crusade. Constantinople sacked by Latin Christianity (I assume this is what you mean by the attack on Anatolia...or was that on a separate occasion?)

[Afrasiyab]

nope, it's true. i meant that Istanbul ( Constantinople), let alone being saved from the Muslims, was officially ' invaded' by the Romans. and that very famous word came out:

IT'S BETTER TO SEE MUSLIM TURBAN RATHER THAN CATHOLIC ROMANS.

: )

[Comet]

nope, it's true. i meant that Istanbul ( Constantinople), let alone being saved from the Muslims, was officially ' invaded' by the Romans. and that very famous word came out:

IT'S BETTER TO SEE MUSLIM TURBAN RATHER THAN CATHOLIC ROMANS.

: )

lol in that part of the world, at that time I bet it was better off ;)

[Ankrom]

.......the byzantines lost Manzikirk for a reason.


It's called betrayal. Doukas marched his troops away and left Romanos to die(which he didn't, he was captured).

[Belisarius]

Western armies were far from crude and employed archery as well,they had tactics and manuver,also what you said about byzantine success is a lie,in the 7th century esspecially,the facts are without doubt,it is not my opinion but historical fact that in the 600's the byzantines were weak and beaten all the time,tell me if they wern't weak than how do you explain all their losses and losing,syria,egypt north africa?the west had plenty of tactics,their is no "right" or "wrong" way to fight,it's whatever works.

Firstly it’s impolite to call people liars, especially if you don’t know them, even on an Internet forum. :p

Secondly in the 7th Century the Byzantines were very successful during the reign of the Emperor Heraclius, who, staring out with a small area surrounding Constantinople, secured his rear by buying of the Avars in 619, and then launched a counter offensive against the invading Persians in 622. He fought two successful battles that we know about Issus and Halys, where he annihilated a Persian army. In 623 he invaded Media where he captured the capital, [modern Tabriz] and the shrine of Zoroaster. In 624 He invaded central Persia, advancing as far as Isfahan, the farthest penetration into Persia by any Roman or Byzantine army. 625 found Heraclius in Kurdistan where he defeated the Persians again at the battle of the Sarus. From 622 to 625 Heraclius re-conquered all the territory lost during the Persian invasion and expanded the Byzantine empire.

Hardly a sign of weakness.

In 626 The Persians and Avars allied and invaded the Byzantine Empire again in overwhelming force besieging Constantinople. The “weak and feeble” Byzantine defenders repulsed a constant assault from both sea and land that lasted ten days [arguably this was Constantinople’s “finest hour”] The Avars and Persians were forced to withdraw, as it transpired, never to threaten the Byzantines again. In 627 Heraclius swept through Syria, Mesopotamia and Southern Armenia, recapturing all Byzantine territory and fortresses forcing the surrender of the Persian army cut off in Chalcedon. At the battle of Nineveh, in December 627 not only did Heraclius defeat a much larger Persian army, but killed its general in single combat. Byzantines weren’t “always weak and beaten” in the 600s.

Thirdly western armies generally employed a decimal organisation, based around war bands of individual chieftains [now called “nobles”] like their “barbarian” forebears. There is no surviving evidence that these armies drilled or performed complex battlefield manoeuvres, but formed in large masses in “shield walls”. Cavalry tactics in the 7th to 8th Centuries were a simple charge at the enemy. Whoever won the first charge tended to win the battle. Wow, how sophisticated. :rolleyes:

Bows were used by some warriors but there is no real evidence of massed archery to soften up an opponent.

Byzantine manuals describe the tactics of Franks and Lombards and how to beat them. They state that only the charge of their cavalry was to be avoided at all costs, though even then an attack on the flank or rear of the unwieldy mass in which they fought could rout them. They could also be drawn into an ambush by a feigned flight and were generally incapable of fighting over difficult terrain. Their reconnaissance and sentry work was poor to non-existent and they generally did not fortify their camps, so night attacks could be particularly successful. In Byzantine eyes, the best way to defeat a Frankish or Lombard army was by attrition, wearing it down by skirmishes and hunger. Frankish supply arrangements were very poor so a protracted campaign would demoralise them and cause widespread desertions. Tellingly the manuals also state Franks could easily be bribed.

Yes Stung, “there is no right or wrong way to fight, its whatever works” and that’s what worked for the Byzantines. ;)

[stung]

Firstly it’s impolite to call people liars, especially if you don’t know them, even on an Internet forum. :p

Secondly in the 7th Century the Byzantines were very successful during the reign of the Emperor Heraclius, who, staring out with a small area surrounding Constantinople, secured his rear by buying of the Avars in 619, and then launched a counter offensive against the invading Persians in 622. He fought two successful battles that we know about Issus and Halys, where he annihilated a Persian army. In 623 he invaded Media where he captured the capital, [modern Tabriz] and the shrine of Zoroaster. In 624 He invaded central Persia, advancing as far as Isfahan, the farthest penetration into Persia by any Roman or Byzantine army. 625 found Heraclius in Kurdistan where he defeated the Persians again at the battle of the Sarus. From 622 to 625 Heraclius re-conquered all the territory lost during the Persian invasion and expanded the Byzantine empire.

Hardly a sign of weakness.

In 626 The Persians and Avars allied and invaded the Byzantine Empire again in overwhelming force besieging Constantinople. The “weak and feeble” Byzantine defenders repulsed a constant assault from both sea and land that lasted ten days [arguably this was Constantinople’s “finest hour”] The Avars and Persians were forced to withdraw, as it transpired, never to threaten the Byzantines again. In 627 Heraclius swept through Syria, Mesopotamia and Southern Armenia, recapturing all Byzantine territory and fortresses forcing the surrender of the Persian army cut off in Chalcedon. At the battle of Nineveh, in December 627 not only did Heraclius defeat a much larger Persian army, but killed its general in single combat. Byzantines weren’t “always weak and beaten” in the 600s.

Thirdly western armies generally employed a decimal organisation, based around war bands of individual chieftains [now called “nobles”] like their “barbarian” forebears. There is no surviving evidence that these armies drilled or performed complex battlefield manoeuvres, but formed in large masses in “shield walls”. Cavalry tactics in the 7th to 8th Centuries were a simple charge at the enemy. Whoever won the first charge tended to win the battle. Wow, how sophisticated. :rolleyes:

Bows were used by some warriors but there is no real evidence of massed archery to soften up an opponent.

Byzantine manuals describe the tactics of Franks and Lombards and how to beat them. They state that only the charge of their cavalry was to be avoided at all costs, though even then an attack on the flank or rear of the unwieldy mass in which they fought could rout them. They could also be drawn into an ambush by a feigned flight and were generally incapable of fighting over difficult terrain. Their reconnaissance and sentry work was poor to non-existent and they generally did not fortify their camps, so night attacks could be particularly successful. In Byzantine eyes, the best way to defeat a Frankish or Lombard army was by attrition, wearing it down by skirmishes and hunger. Frankish supply arrangements were very poor so a protracted campaign would demoralise them and cause widespread desertions. Tellingly the manuals also state Franks could easily be bribed.

Yes Stung, “there is no right or wrong way to fight, its whatever works” and that’s what worked for the Byzantines. ;)


Infact no the byzantines lost over 200,000 fighting men in that war and they never had time to recover before the arabs attacked,clearly all your little "byzantine tactics"didn,t amount to a hill of beans:p because it certaily wasn't helping them,thefranks beat the arabs,succeeding where the byzantines constanly failed,;) there is no debating this,in the 700's if the byzantines tried to start trouble with the franks than the byzantines would have suffered yet another terrible defeat:D

[Belisarius]

Infact no the byzantines lost over 200,000 fighting men in that war and they never had time to recover before the arabs attacked,clearly all your little "byzantine tactics"didn,t amount to a hill of beans:p because it certaily wasn't helping them,thefranks beat the arabs,succeeding where the byzantines constanly failed,;) there is no debating this,in the 700's if the byzantines tried to start trouble with the franks than the byzantines would have suffered yet another terrible defeat:D

So you answer your own question. If the Franks had been in the same position as the Byzantines were when the Arabs came, the Franks would have caved in completely to the Arab invasions, and we would all be writing from right to left in Arabic and facing towards Mecca when we pray.

The Byzantines were resilient enough to weather the storm and their empire survived, albeit reduced in size, for another 700 years. Why would the Byzantines have started trouble with the Franks when they'd already beaten them in Illyria and signed a favourable treaty with Charlemagne that clearly defined the borders of both empires in 810CE?

[stung]

So you answer your own question. If the Franks had been in the same position as the Byzantines were when the Arabs came, the Franks would have caved in completely to the Arab invasions, and we would all be writing from right to left in Arabic and facing towards Mecca when we pray.

The Byzantines were resilient enough to weather the storm and their empire survived, albeit reduced in size, for another 700 years. Why would the Byzantines have started trouble with the Franks when they'd already beaten them in Illyria and signed a favourable treaty with Charlemagne that clearly defined the borders of both empires in 810CE?
No,the byzantines armies were destroyed the first time by the persians for a reason,that reason being that they were not as well traied as they used to be.

[Comet]

No,the byzantines armies were destroyed the first time by the persians for a reason,that reason being that they were not as well traied as they used to be.


But, history is NEVER that clear cut. There are always reasons why something turns out the way they do. There are other factors working here than just simply saying "they were not as well trained as they used to be". If you believe that to be the case, provide us some proof...The best thing you can do here stung is to quit taking the information from Barbarians, Marauders, and Infidels and use a source that has some meaning to this discussion.

[Lucius]

When did the Byzantine Empire begin and end? That would seem to touch on the question of how weak or strong they were.

[Belisarius]

No,the byzantines armies were destroyed the first time by the persians for a reason,that reason being that they were not as well traied as they used to be.

You're going further and further back in time to try and prove a point that can't be proved. Are you saying that the Byzantine armies of 603CE were worse than the armies of say 562, or 552, or 531, or do you want to try 474CE? All these dates are significant in Romano-Byzantine history. Take your pick, or chose your own.

[Belisarius]

When did the Byzantine Empire begin and end? That would seem to touch on the question of how weak or strong they were.

This topic deserves its own thread. I'm sure NikD has much to say on the subject. :)

[stung]

You're going further and further back in time to try and prove a point that can't be proved. Are you saying that the Byzantine armies of 603CE were worse than the armies of say 562, or 552, or 531, or do you want to try 474CE? All these dates are significant in Romano-Byzantine history. Take your pick, or chose your own.
FIRST,YOU DON'T PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH SON,second byzantine armies in the 500's were pretty good,much better than the 600's,also the franks beat the byzantine emporer nikephoros in 807,and in 812 the byzantines were forced to recocnize charlimighn as"basilies" the franks gave them back venice and istria that they had captured from them earlier.:p

[Comet]

FIRST,YOU DON'T PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH SON

You shouldn't yell...it's not polite. No one is trying to put words in your mouth...we are just reiterating what you have told us. Obviously, you are having a difficult time sticking to the site's policies of having a discussion. I refer you to this thread for more information:

http://www.historum.com/showthread.php?t=2262

Now, with that being said, elaborate for me...what are the differences between the Byzantine armies of the 500's and the 600's...and the "answer" should NOT be because they were "weaker" than before. I'm looking for WHY they were weaker...not some generalization.

Also, WHAT made the Franks "better". We've heard lots of crap about tactics and formations. Forget that stuff. I want to hear about logistics...or does it not count in whether an army is "weak" or "strong"?

[stung]

Then tell us what the difference was between the Byzantine armies of the 500's and the 600's...and the "answer" should NOT be because they were "weaker" than before. I'm looking for WHY they were weaker...not some generalization.

Also, WHAT made the Franks "better". We've heard lots of crap about tactics and formations. Forget that stuff. I want to hear about logistics...or does it not count in whether an army is "weak" or "strong"?
The simple and obvious fact that in the 500's they could beat there enimies,tell me now why do you think the arabs beat and dominated the byzantines for 300 years wheras the franks were able to beat the arabs?

[Comet]

The simple and obvious fact that in the 500's they could beat there enimies,tell me now why do you think the arabs beat and dominated the byzantines for 300 years wheras the franks were able to beat the arabs?

Go back to one of my earlier posts...I've mentioned it at least two times. I still haven't heard anything of logistics...I can't decide on whether to accept your theory or not because I have no answer to my question.

[stung]

Go back to one of my earlier posts...I've mentioned it at least two times. I still haven't heard anything of logistics...I can't decide on whether to accept your theory or not because I have no answer to my question.In the early 300's Diocletion defeated arab invaders,as did shapur2,but by the 6oo's,the roman/byzantine armies had declined,and as such power switched hands.

[Lucius]

FIRST,YOU DON'T PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH SON

stung,

By shouting, and by addressing a fellow poster in a demeaning way, you discredit not only yourself, but also, and perhaps even more importantly, your argument as well.

[Comet]

In the early 300's Diocletion defeated arab invaders,as did shapur2,but by the 6oo's,the roman/byzantine armies had declined,and as such power switched hands.

That still doesn't answer my question...here is a definition of logistics:

The aspect of military operations that deals with the procurement, distribution, maintenance, and replacement of material and personnel.

Now, tell me...what changed between 300 and 600 that contributed to a "weaker" or "stronger":

1. Frankish army
2. Byzantine army

Once you have done that, go back to posts written by Edgewaters, Ezya, Belisarius, myself, and et. and you will see what we are talking about.

[stung]

That still doesn't answer my question...here is a definition of logistics:

The aspect of military operations that deals with the procurement, distribution, maintenance, and replacement of material and personnel.

Now, tell me...what changed between 300 and 600 that contributed to a "weaker" or "stronger":

1. Frankish army
2. Byzantine army

Once you have done that, go back to posts written by Edgewaters, Ezya, Belisarius, myself, and et. and you will see what we are talking about.Tell me than,in your opinion why did the byzantines lose so badly and the franks not,when facing the same enemy?

[Comet]

Tell me than,in your opinion why did the byzantines lose so badly and the franks not,when facing the same enemy?


Here are some of the opinions that have emerged from this discussion:

And he has a good point when he says(and I know this is true), that the Muslims of that time, and later, were never the "unified" force that some Westerners seem to think they were. The Arab kingdoms of Spain, from which these incursions were launched, were more or less independent of the contemporaneous Abbasids of Baghdad; in fact various caliphs of Baghdad were on (more or less) frliendly terms with, among others, Charlemagne. In any case, the defeat at Tours stopped "Muslim advances" --- from Spain, and pretty much defined the limits there. They didn't define any limits anywhere else Muslims ruled. (Anne)

There are several simplistic explanations for your conclusion...all of which were mentioned by AlpErTunga. However, there is one that stands out as one of the easiest explanations for this so called "obvious solution". It would be much easier for the Franks to defeat the Arabs because their manpower was stretched to the limit...think of it this way...Napoleon and Hitler both lost to the Russians in their respective campaigns because their manpower, supplies, etc. were stretched to the brink of collapse; which is exactly what happened. I think the invading Arabs, instead of collapsing and losing the entire Iberian peninsula, decided to scale back their attacks against the Franks. It's a "take what you can get" scenario. You can't win on the battlefield if you don't have the manpower or supplies.
Now let's look at the Byzantine empire...their location is on the doorstep of the heart of Islam. With easy access to the Byzantines (who stretched themselves thin due to expansion) it's easy to conclude that the Byzantines are going to have more of an issue with the Muslim invaders...their manpower and supplies could easily be replenished. (Me)

In his book "Armies of the Muslim Conquest", David Nicolle states that the reasons why Arab Muslim expansion in the West came to a halt; Raids were no longer very profitable; Muslim manpower was stretched to an absolute limit, different terrain and climate made Muslim styles of warfare unsuitable, and there was a political crisis at the heart of the Caliphate. (Ankrom)

In David Nicolle's, "Age of Charlemagne", page 23....
"Their(Muslim) threat had petered out, however, partly as a result of early Carolingian resistance, but mostly because the Islamic conquerors had over-extended their lines of communication and their available military manpower." (Ankrom)

I don't think there's any "bias" there. It's a simple fact: look at a map. The heart of Islamic power lay in two centres, Mesopotamia and Egypt. Spain is a long, long way away, a distant outlier of the culture.

The Muslim raids into Frankish territory were not even close to being full-blown invasion, they were light scouting raids, and not repeated over centuries as the great wars with Byzantine were. If the Franks couldn't turn a few raiders back I would be surprised, but I am not surprised that they failed to dislodge them from Spain. (Edgewaters)

Light scouting raids is probably a bit of an exaggeration on my part - there were Muslims forces of up to 80 000 involved at Tours for instance - but campaigns were not sustained and did not feature the weight of forces seen closer to the Islamic heartland. They were basically conquests of opportunity which were eventually, and predictably, staunched as the Franks achieved some level of cohesion and organization in their own lands. In Asia Minor or the Near East, a single victory over an army of that size would be not be a "turning point" as there were many much larger victories achieved by Byzantine against Islamic groups. Especially during the late 900s when Arabic power collapsed (caught between Turks and Byzantines) and Byzantium stormed its way clear to northern Iraq and onto the Tigris-Euphrates basin.

Islam was never any sort of united empire, but, there were large empires within Islam. Spain was very much connected with the rest of the Islamic world, it began as a farflung holding of the Umayyad Caliphate (which I believe was centered in Egypt) and went on to become the property of the Abbasid Caliphate (based out of Baghdad) and various others over the course of time. (Edgewaters)


My opinion is very much the same as many of my colleagues here...as you can see, there are many different reasons for why the events that you mentioned turned out the way they did. It seems to me that there is a pattern here. I hate to be a teacher again, but can anyone tell me what the pattern is...give you hint...it has a lot to do with maps and logistics :)

[stung]

Here are some of the opinions that have emerged from this discussion:

And he has a good point when he says(and I know this is true), that the Muslims of that time, and later, were never the "unified" force that some Westerners seem to think they were. The Arab kingdoms of Spain, from which these incursions were launched, were more or less independent of the contemporaneous Abbasids of Baghdad; in fact various caliphs of Baghdad were on (more or less) frliendly terms with, among others, Charlemagne. In any case, the defeat at Tours stopped "Muslim advances" --- from Spain, and pretty much defined the limits there. They didn't define any limits anywhere else Muslims ruled. (Anne)

There are several simplistic explanations for your conclusion...all of which were mentioned by AlpErTunga. However, there is one that stands out as one of the easiest explanations for this so called "obvious solution". It would be much easier for the Franks to defeat the Arabs because their manpower was stretched to the limit...think of it this way...Napoleon and Hitler both lost to the Russians in their respective campaigns because their manpower, supplies, etc. were stretched to the brink of collapse; which is exactly what happened. I think the invading Arabs, instead of collapsing and losing the entire Iberian peninsula, decided to scale back their attacks against the Franks. It's a "take what you can get" scenario. You can't win on the battlefield if you don't have the manpower or supplies.
Now let's look at the Byzantine empire...their location is on the doorstep of the heart of Islam. With easy access to the Byzantines (who stretched themselves thin due to expansion) it's easy to conclude that the Byzantines are going to have more of an issue with the Muslim invaders...their manpower and supplies could easily be replenished. (Me)

In his book "Armies of the Muslim Conquest", David Nicolle states that the reasons why Arab Muslim expansion in the West came to a halt; Raids were no longer very profitable; Muslim manpower was stretched to an absolute limit, different terrain and climate made Muslim styles of warfare unsuitable, and there was a political crisis at the heart of the Caliphate. (Ankrom)

In David Nicolle's, "Age of Charlemagne", page 23....
"Their(Muslim) threat had petered out, however, partly as a result of early Carolingian resistance, but mostly because the Islamic conquerors had over-extended their lines of communication and their available military manpower." (Ankrom)

I don't think there's any "bias" there. It's a simple fact: look at a map. The heart of Islamic power lay in two centres, Mesopotamia and Egypt. Spain is a long, long way away, a distant outlier of the culture.

The Muslim raids into Frankish territory were not even close to being full-blown invasion, they were light scouting raids, and not repeated over centuries as the great wars with Byzantine were. If the Franks couldn't turn a few raiders back I would be surprised, but I am not surprised that they failed to dislodge them from Spain. (Edgewaters)

Light scouting raids is probably a bit of an exaggeration on my part - there were Muslims forces of up to 80 000 involved at Tours for instance - but campaigns were not sustained and did not feature the weight of forces seen closer to the Islamic heartland. They were basically conquests of opportunity which were eventually, and predictably, staunched as the Franks achieved some level of cohesion and organization in their own lands. In Asia Minor or the Near East, a single victory over an army of that size would be not be a "turning point" as there were many much larger victories achieved by Byzantine against Islamic groups. Especially during the late 900s when Arabic power collapsed (caught between Turks and Byzantines) and Byzantium stormed its way clear to northern Iraq and onto the Tigris-Euphrates basin.

Islam was never any sort of united empire, but, there were large empires within Islam. Spain was very much connected with the rest of the Islamic world, it began as a farflung holding of the Umayyad Caliphate (which I believe was centered in Egypt) and went on to become the property of the Abbasid Caliphate (based out of Baghdad) and various others over the course of time. (Edgewaters)


My opinion is very much the same as many of my colleagues here...as you can see, there are many different reasons for why the events that you mentioned turned out the way they did. It seems to me that there is a pattern here. I hate to be a teacher again, but can anyone tell me what the pattern is...give you hint...it has a lot to do with maps and logistics :)
First of all ther was nothing wrong with the armies that invaded france,they left from spain and had plenty of supplies,they were identical to those that conquered the near east,also they were not "light scouting raids"if they were raide at all they were large scale ones,some islamic sources say the muslim army at tours was 80,000,not a small force for the time,and if you ever read david nicolle'd "eniemies of rome:the desert frontier" you will see why he is considered somewhat bias,also nicolle in his book "romano-byzantine armies " says that byzantines in the 600's were lacking in disipline,let me guess you also make up excuses as to why the persians were beaten in greece and the mongols beaten by the mamelukes;)

[Comet]

First of all ther was nothing wrong with the armies that invaded france,they left from spain and had plenty of supplies,they were identical to those that conquered the near east,also they were not "light scouting raids"if they were raide at all they were large scale ones,some islamic sources say the muslim army at tours was 80,000,not a small force for the time,and if you ever read david nicolle'd "eniemies of rome:the desert frontier" you will see why he is considered somewhat bias,also nicolle in his book "romano-byzantine armies " says that byzantines in the 600's were lacking in disipline,let me guess you also make up excuses as to why the persians were beaten in greece and the mongols beaten by the mamelukes;)


What do the Persians have to do with this discussion??? The discussion has to do with the Byzantines and the Franks...which you still haven't answered my questions. You keep dancing around my questions and spouting out the same information...information that has nothing to do with what we are talking about. And what Islamic sources are you looking at??? Are we still using Barbarians, Marauders, and Infidels??? You can't say "some Islamic sources say"...many teachers and professors will bury you if you can't provide the information. What are the names or titles of these Islamic works? What about the bias in David Nicolle's book? Provide some examples. Of course, you can just stick with the same old story that the "Byzantines were weaker than the Franks because they lost" scenario...and not back it up with anything.

BTW, I'm not trying to prove you wrong...I'm trying to get you to explain yourself...why do you think the Franks were stronger? Spouting off dates and battles get you no where unless you understand the "big picture". Frankly, and I mean no disrespect, I have this indication that you either don't understand what we are saying (or understand the topic as well as you indicate)or just don't care to understand what is being said. It has already been acknowledge that those battles were won or lost...there is no denying that...however, what is debatable is the information surrounding these battles. Each piece of information provides us a look as to why those battles were won or lost. It just not as simple as you make it seem.

[stung]

What do the Persians have to do with this discussion??? The discussion has to do with the Byzantines and the Franks...which you still haven't answered my questions. You keep dancing around my questions and spouting out the same information...information that has nothing to do with what we are talking about. And what Islamic sources are you looking at??? Are we still using Barbarians, Marauders, and Infidels??? You can't say "some Islamic sources say"...many teachers and professors will bury you if you can't provide the information. What are the names or titles of these Islamic works? What about the bias in David Nicolle's book? Provide some examples. Of course, you can just stick with the same old story that the "Byzantines were weaker than the Franks because they lost" scenario...and not back it up with anything.

BTW, I'm not trying to prove you wrong...I'm trying to get you to explain yourself...why do you think the Franks were stronger? Spouting off dates and battles get you no where unless you understand the "big picture". Frankly, and I mean no disrespect, I have this indication that you either don't understand what we are saying (or understand the topic as well as you indicate)or just don't care to understand what is being said. It has already been acknowledge that those battles were won or lost...there is no denying that...however, what is debatable is the information surrounding these battles. Each piece of information provides us a look as to why those battles were won or lost. It just not as simple as you make it seem.
My son you are the one being buried,look on wikipedia,they say that at tours it was 80,000 arabs,it must have been of importance since the emir himself abdul rahmen was there himself,80,000 is certainly no light raiding force;) fighting in unfamiler terrian was sometimes put forth as to the reason for muslim defeats in spain,as they suffered similer defeats in northern pesia by the dailimites,now you stop dancing around the issues and tell me in your opinion why the arabs lost in france:p :p :p

[Lucius]

In re Tours, Creasy is instructive -

http://www.standin.se/fifteen07a.htm

[stung]

In re Tours, Creasy is instructive -

http://www.standin.se/fifteen07a.htm
Interesting, though it makes the mistake as listing the muslim army as having alot of cavalry,even though in truth both sides mainly fought as heavy infantry,with cavalry in support,cavalry is not known to have been important in this battle,it may have been important in other,later,battles between arabs and franks.

[Comet]

My son you are the one being buried,look on wikipedia,they say that at tours it was 80,000 arabs,it must have been of importance since the emir himself abdul rahmen was there himself,80,000 is certainly no light raiding force;) fighting in unfamiler terrian was sometimes put forth as to the reason for muslim defeats in spain,as they suffered similer defeats in northern pesia by the dailimites,now you stop dancing around the issues and tell me in your opinion why the arabs lost in france:p :p :p

Abdul Rahman was emir of one of the many Islamic groups out there...hardly united. It's also not unusual for the emir to be on such expeditions. Just as Muhammad won directing his troops in the Iberian peninsula, I'm sure Abdul Rahman was following his example...Also, wikipedia...good for background information...hardly something to use as an authority. You do realize that any individual that comes along to wikipedia can change the information you look at? I think you were better off with Barbarians, Marauders, and Infidels ;).

Now, since you insist on making me post my answer to your question for a third time here it is:

And he has a good point when he says(and I know this is true), that the Muslims of that time, and later, were never the "unified" force that some Westerners seem to think they were. The Arab kingdoms of Spain, from which these incursions were launched, were more or less independent of the contemporaneous Abbasids of Baghdad; in fact various caliphs of Baghdad were on (more or less) frliendly terms with, among others, Charlemagne. In any case, the defeat at Tours stopped "Muslim advances" --- from Spain, and pretty much defined the limits there. They didn't define any limits anywhere else Muslims ruled. (Anne)

There are several simplistic explanations for your conclusion...all of which were mentioned by AlpErTunga. However, there is one that stands out as one of the easiest explanations for this so called "obvious solution". It would be much easier for the Franks to defeat the Arabs because their manpower was stretched to the limit...think of it this way...Napoleon and Hitler both lost to the Russians in their respective campaigns because their manpower, supplies, etc. were stretched to the brink of collapse; which is exactly what happened. I think the invading Arabs, instead of collapsing and losing the entire Iberian peninsula, decided to scale back their attacks against the Franks. It's a "take what you can get" scenario. You can't win on the battlefield if you don't have the manpower or supplies.
Now let's look at the Byzantine empire...their location is on the doorstep of the heart of Islam. With easy access to the Byzantines (who stretched themselves thin due to expansion) it's easy to conclude that the Byzantines are going to have more of an issue with the Muslim invaders...their manpower and supplies could easily be replenished. (Me)

In his book "Armies of the Muslim Conquest", David Nicolle states that the reasons why Arab Muslim expansion in the West came to a halt; Raids were no longer very profitable; Muslim manpower was stretched to an absolute limit, different terrain and climate made Muslim styles of warfare unsuitable, and there was a political crisis at the heart of the Caliphate. (Ankrom)

In David Nicolle's, "Age of Charlemagne", page 23....
"Their(Muslim) threat had petered out, however, partly as a result of early Carolingian resistance, but mostly because the Islamic conquerors had over-extended their lines of communication and their available military manpower." (Ankrom)

I don't think there's any "bias" there. It's a simple fact: look at a map. The heart of Islamic power lay in two centres, Mesopotamia and Egypt. Spain is a long, long way away, a distant outlier of the culture.

The Muslim raids into Frankish territory were not even close to being full-blown invasion, they were light scouting raids, and not repeated over centuries as the great wars with Byzantine were. If the Franks couldn't turn a few raiders back I would be surprised, but I am not surprised that they failed to dislodge them from Spain. (Edgewaters)

Light scouting raids is probably a bit of an exaggeration on my part - there were Muslims forces of up to 80 000 involved at Tours for instance - but campaigns were not sustained and did not feature the weight of forces seen closer to the Islamic heartland. They were basically conquests of opportunity which were eventually, and predictably, staunched as the Franks achieved some level of cohesion and organization in their own lands. In Asia Minor or the Near East, a single victory over an army of that size would be not be a "turning point" as there were many much larger victories achieved by Byzantine against Islamic groups. Especially during the late 900s when Arabic power collapsed (caught between Turks and Byzantines) and Byzantium stormed its way clear to northern Iraq and onto the Tigris-Euphrates basin.

Islam was never any sort of united empire, but, there were large empires within Islam. Spain was very much connected with the rest of the Islamic world, it began as a farflung holding of the Umayyad Caliphate (which I believe was centered in Egypt) and went on to become the property of the Abbasid Caliphate (based out of Baghdad) and various others over the course of time. (Edgewaters)


My opinion is very much the same as many of my colleagues here...as you can see, there are many different reasons for why the events that you mentioned turned out the way they did. I'm going to send you a private message...if you would, please check your message box.

[stung]

Abdul Rahman was emir of one of the many Islamic groups out there...hardly united. It's also not unusual for the emir to be on such expeditions. Just as Muhammad won directing his troops in the Iberian peninsula, I'm sure Abdul Rahman was following his example...Also, wikipedia...good for background information...hardly something to use as an authority. You do realize that any individual that comes along to wikipedia can change the information you look at? I think you were better off with Barbarians, Marauders, and Infidels ;).

Now, since you insist on making me post my answer to your question for a third time here it is:

And he has a good point when he says(and I know this is true), that the Muslims of that time, and later, were never the "unified" force that some Westerners seem to think they were. The Arab kingdoms of Spain, from which these incursions were launched, were more or less independent of the contemporaneous Abbasids of Baghdad; in fact various caliphs of Baghdad were on (more or less) frliendly terms with, among others, Charlemagne. In any case, the defeat at Tours stopped "Muslim advances" --- from Spain, and pretty much defined the limits there. They didn't define any limits anywhere else Muslims ruled. (Anne)

There are several simplistic explanations for your conclusion...all of which were mentioned by AlpErTunga. However, there is one that stands out as one of the easiest explanations for this so called "obvious solution". It would be much easier for the Franks to defeat the Arabs because their manpower was stretched to the limit...think of it this way...Napoleon and Hitler both lost to the Russians in their respective campaigns because their manpower, supplies, etc. were stretched to the brink of collapse; which is exactly what happened. I think the invading Arabs, instead of collapsing and losing the entire Iberian peninsula, decided to scale back their attacks against the Franks. It's a "take what you can get" scenario. You can't win on the battlefield if you don't have the manpower or supplies.
Now let's look at the Byzantine empire...their location is on the doorstep of the heart of Islam. With easy access to the Byzantines (who stretched themselves thin due to expansion) it's easy to conclude that the Byzantines are going to have more of an issue with the Muslim invaders...their manpower and supplies could easily be replenished. (Me)

In his book "Armies of the Muslim Conquest", David Nicolle states that the reasons why Arab Muslim expansion in the West came to a halt; Raids were no longer very profitable; Muslim manpower was stretched to an absolute limit, different terrain and climate made Muslim styles of warfare unsuitable, and there was a political crisis at the heart of the Caliphate. (Ankrom)

In David Nicolle's, "Age of Charlemagne", page 23....
"Their(Muslim) threat had petered out, however, partly as a result of early Carolingian resistance, but mostly because the Islamic conquerors had over-extended their lines of communication and their available military manpower." (Ankrom)

I don't think there's any "bias" there. It's a simple fact: look at a map. The heart of Islamic power lay in two centres, Mesopotamia and Egypt. Spain is a long, long way away, a distant outlier of the culture.

The Muslim raids into Frankish territory were not even close to being full-blown invasion, they were light scouting raids, and not repeated over centuries as the great wars with Byzantine were. If the Franks couldn't turn a few raiders back I would be surprised, but I am not surprised that they failed to dislodge them from Spain. (Edgewaters)

Light scouting raids is probably a bit of an exaggeration on my part - there were Muslims forces of up to 80 000 involved at Tours for instance - but campaigns were not sustained and did not feature the weight of forces seen closer to the Islamic heartland. They were basically conquests of opportunity which were eventually, and predictably, staunched as the Franks achieved some level of cohesion and organization in their own lands. In Asia Minor or the Near East, a single victory over an army of that size would be not be a "turning point" as there were many much larger victories achieved by Byzantine against Islamic groups. Especially during the late 900s when Arabic power collapsed (caught between Turks and Byzantines) and Byzantium stormed its way clear to northern Iraq and onto the Tigris-Euphrates basin.

Islam was never any sort of united empire, but, there were large empires within Islam. Spain was very much connected with the rest of the Islamic world, it began as a farflung holding of the Umayyad Caliphate (which I believe was centered in Egypt) and went on to become the property of the Abbasid Caliphate (based out of Baghdad) and various others over the course of time. (Edgewaters)


My opinion is very much the same as many of my colleagues here...as you can see, there are many different reasons for why the events that you mentioned turned out the way they did. I'm going to send you a private message...if you would, please check your message box.
The original arab armies from the middle east were not ussually as large as 80'000,and none of the thighs you listed(if true) would have hampered the arabs in there invasion of france,face it they were beaten fair and square.;) ;) ;) :p :p :D :D :) :) :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :D :p :p ;) ;) :p :o :) :p :D :D :D :D

[Comet]

The original arab armies from the middle east were not ussually as large as 80'000,and none of the thighs you listed(if true) would have hampered the arabs in there invasion of france,face it they were beaten fair and square.;) ;) ;) :p :p :D :D :) :) :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :D :p :p ;) ;) :p :o :) :p :D :D :D :D

Why?

[stung]

Why?
What do you mean why? those armies were well resed,fully equiped,numerous,well organized and well led,they tried to beat the franks four times and lost each time,the only time they won was the re-match against duke odo,like i posted before they were the same in every way to the armies the conquered the middle east,also you haven't answered my question,how do you explain the byzantines loseing all that territory and being dominated for over 300 years?

[Comet]

What do you mean why? those armies were well resed,fully equiped,numerous,well organized and well led,they tried to beat the franks four times and lost each time,the only time they won was the re-match against duke odo,like i posted before they were the same in every way to the armies the conquered the middle east,also you haven't answered my question,how do you explain the byzantines loseing all that territory and being dominated for over 300 years?

Here is your answer: The same reason why Rome lost it's empire...the same reason why Napoleon lost his Empire...and the reason why Hitler never won World War II. The did not have the necessary means to control every aspect of their empire...in other words, a territory might be in Byzantine hands, but they were unable to defend it with any consistency. A majority of an Empire's resources are going to be in or near the capital city (or other important strategic city). Why do you think Constantinople stood for so long? Because the closer you get to the heart of an empire, the harder it is to conqueror it. The Franks, by no means, had that much territory at any part of their history. You also mention that those armies were "well resed,fully equiped,numerous,well organized and well led". How do you know that? Where you there?

You also mention "they were the same in every way to the armies the conquered the middle east"...what do you mean by that? Are you saying the Muslim armies that lost to the Franks were the same armies that conquered the Middle East? I think you need to go back and take a look at Islamic history...they weren't necessarily the same army.

[Eyza]

Stung:

Go back and read some of your material. While I know very little about this period, and I know even less about the Arab invasions, I think Comet is "right on", as they say, on this issue. The Muslim "empire", such as it was, was centered, by that time in Baghdad. There were Muslim kingdoms in Spain, but they were hardly "united" with Baghdad. And they were, as Comet pointed out, pretty much stretched to their limit invading Tours. There's only so far an entity can be stretched before it breaks. But it had nothing to do with the supposed superiority of the Frankish side; their tactics were probably functionally equal.
Anne G

[stung]

Here is your answer: The same reason why Rome lost it's empire...the same reason why Napoleon lost his Empire...and the reason why Hitler never won World War II. The did not have the necessary means to control every aspect of their empire...in other words, a territory might be in Byzantine hands, but they were unable to defend it with any consistency. A majority of an Empire's resources are going to be in or near the capital city (or other important strategic city). Why do you think Constantinople stood for so long? Because the closer you get to the heart of an empire, the harder it is to conqueror it. The Franks, by no means, had that much territory at any part of their history. You also mention that those armies were "well resed,fully equiped,numerous,well organized and well led". How do you know that? Where you there?

You also mention "they were the same in every way to the armies the conquered the middle east"...what do you mean by that? Are you saying the Muslim armies that lost to the Franks were the same armies that conquered the Middle East? I think you need to go back and take a look at Islamic history...they weren't necessarily the same army.
The only reason why byzantium was not conquered was because constantinople was hard to capture,theur armies were not very effective,the arab armies were the same,they were drawn from certain tribes and fought mostly as heavy infantry with cavalry and archers in support,they used the tactic of speedy attack and withdrawl,like i posted before there was nothing physically hampering the arab troops,they were certainly united enogh to gather 80,000 men and horses,and the defeat must have meant something to them as they would later try to avenge it at the battle of Arles and riverBerre,tell me my lad how do you explain the arab defeats at Toulose,Arles and river Berre?:D

[Comet]

The only reason why byzantium was not conquered was because constantinople was hard to capture,theur armies were not very effective,the arab armies were the same,they were drawn from certain tribes and fought mostly as heavy infantry with cavalry and archers in support,they used the tactic of speedy attack and withdrawl,like i posted before there was nothing physically hampering the arab troops,they were certainly united enogh to gather 80,000 men and horses,and the defeat must have meant something to them as they would later try to avenge it at the battle of Arles and riverBerre,tell me my lad how do you explain the arab defeats at Toulose,Arles and river Berre?:D

More tactics and strategy...no logistics. You, can't fight a war without logistics stung.

The answer to all your questions are located in my last post. Are you sure you understand what I'm trying to say and/or understand the discussion?

BTW, did you see Eyza's post. She talks about the Muslims in Spain and their "unity". You should refer to her post...you've got several people telling you the same thing...we're not saying there was anything wrong with the Arab armies...There was nothing wrong with Napoleon's army...or Hitler's army when he started losing. They just tried to conqueror territory that wasn't logistically possible.

Another question...if the United States loses this war with Iraq...are we considered weak? Is the sectarian violence in Iraq considered to be more powerful than the United States army? We all know how the war is going...this is the same sort of thing you are trying to tell all of us. If you win, you're strong, if you lose, you're weak. That's not how things are explained...that's not how history works.

[Lucius]

Interesting, though it makes the mistake as listing the muslim army as having alot of cavalry

Professor Sir Edward Shepherd Creasy made a mistake? That's interesting.

Every account of the battle I've ever read has the Arab cavalry charging the Frankish square repeatedly all day long until a rumor passed among that cavalry that the Franks were in amongst the Arab train, plundering the plunder; which rumor caused a general retreat. This has been the understanding people have had for centuries, received from eye-witness accounts. Eye-witness accounts can be problematic, but lacking any counter-vailing evidence cannot be dismissed out of hand. Is there counter-vailing evidence?

[Comet]

Professor Sir Edward Shepherd Creasy made a mistake? That's interesting.

Every account of the battle I've ever read has the Arab cavalry charging the Frankish square repeatedly all day long until a rumor passed among that cavalry that the Franks were in amongst the Arab train, plundering the plunder; which rumor caused a general retreat. This has been the understanding people have had for centuries, received from eye-witness accounts. Eye-witness accounts can be problematic, but lacking any counter-vailing evidence cannot be dismissed out of hand. Is there counter-vailing evidence?


Lucius, is there anywhere online that I can get this account...I would search for it myself but I'm doing school work right now...this is the first primary source that has been suggested. Yes, eye-witness accounts can be problematic...however, so can any source. Let me know what you come up with.

[stung]

Lucius, is there anywhere online that I can get this account...I would search for it myself but I'm doing school work right now...this is the first primary source that has been suggested. Yes, eye-witness accounts can be problematic...however, so can any source. Let me know what you come up with.
Osprey books give an account in there book"armies of islam7th-11th centures",cavalry charging a sheildwall?that sounds like a stupid idea,no wonder they lost.

[Lucius]

Lucius, is there anywhere online that I can get this account

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/arab-poitiers732.html

[stung]

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/arab-poitiers732.html
The ealiest muslim accounts (wish i could find it online)simply state that "they went to dispoil the land of the franks and became martyers"

[MrStoff1989]

The crusades were nuts! Battle of Tours anyone?

[stung]

The crusades were nuts! Battle of Tours anyone?
What do yiu mean?

[Belisarius]

We've heard lots of crap about tactics and formations. Forget that stuff. I want to hear about logistics...or does it not count in whether an army is "weak" or "strong"?

Sorry. I was only trying to contribute to the discussion. :o

[Comet]

Sorry. I was only trying to contribute to the discussion. :o

lol actually, you did a fabulous job...and I learned a lot about military tactics from both of you. The comment was directed more towards stung than you Beli...I know this is just my opinion, but wouldn't you say logistics is essential in order to have a legitimate chance to win a battle?

[stung]

lol actually, you did a fabulous job...and I learned a lot about military tactics from both of you. The comment was directed more towards stung than you Beli...I know this is just my opinion, but wouldn't you say logistics is essential in order to have a legitimate chance to win a battle?
The details of the battle are important:D

[Afrasiyab]

The ealiest muslim accounts (wish i could find it online)simply state that "they went to dispoil the land of the franks and became martyers"

uhm, you can not find it online then you must have read it somewhere or personally have the books, right? can you at least tell me the name and other details of the 'accounts'?

religion has been abused in every community for centuries. just like christians abused christianity to get the wealths of The East, the muslim abused Islam to get the lands of The West. this is hilariously true. i am sorry.

The pope declared that whoever fought and died against the saracens will go to 'heaven'.

and the Muslim Leaders declared that whoever fought and died againts Franks will go to 'heaven'.

o ma god, we are so alike. :rolleyes: even the ones whose bones are ash now.:cool:

[stung]

uhm, you can not find it online then you must have read it somewhere or personally have the books, right? can you at least tell me the name and other details of the 'accounts'?

religion has been abused in every community for centuries. just like christians abused christianity to get the wealths of The East, the muslim abused Islam to get the lands of The West. this is hilariously true. i am sorry.

The pope declared that whoever fought and died against the saracens will go to 'heaven'.

and the Muslim Leaders declared that whoever fought and died againts Franks will go to 'heaven'.

o ma god, we are so alike. :rolleyes: even the ones whose bones are ash now.:cool:
No my son,infact:D the arabo frankish war had more to do with territoriality and less with religion;)

[Ankrom]

........look on wikipedia....


Sorry, I prefer REAL sources. Not something posted on wikipedia that can be changed, edited, and tampered.:rolleyes:

David Nicolle doesn't support your opinion, anything else?

[stung]

Sorry, I prefer REAL sources. Not something posted on wikipedia that can be changed, edited, and tampered.:rolleyes:

David Nicolle doesn't support your opinion, anything else?
Actually my son,there are other sources:rolleyes: and David nicolle is one of my sources,but in other David nicolle writing one can see he is bias,if you go over to all empires.com on their forum you can see as a topic his favortisme as an easterophile:D :D :D

[Comet]

Actually my son,there are other sources:rolleyes: and David nicolle is one of my sources,but in other David nicolle writing one can see he is bias,if you go over to all empires.com on their forum you can see as a topic his favortisme as an easterophile:D :D :D


I saw what you were talking about...I don't understand why you think opinions make history fact. That discussion was brought up by one individual and it was debated by some others over there that there will always be some sort of bias. In fact, what he argues is pointless. Technology was much better in the East than it was in the West. I've argued in many cases that without the Arabs/Islam there would probably no Renaissance until much later...while many historians (although in respect to Anne, I will say that this is up for debate) believe that the West was in a "Dark Age". So if we take this into consideration, the Arab armies would be much better than those in the West. However, we have been round and round about what actually happened to the Arab armies in the West. Logistically, there problem was overextension...in the East, there was no such problem. The Arab power base was in Baghdad and other regions very close to the Byzantine Empire. In my opinion, I think David Nicolle is on the right track when discussing the major differences between Eastern and Western armies...which presents no bias whatsoever.

BTW, what other sources do you claim to have? I would love to take a look at them. Unless it's wikipedia of course :)

Would you believe the same forum acknowledges the Golden age of Byzantine Military history is between 600-1204? If this concept is historically accepted by scholars then your argument has a hole in it stung.

[Ankrom]

Actually my son,there are other sources:rolleyes: and David nicolle is one of my sources,but in other David nicolle writing one can see he is bias,if you go over to all empires.com on their forum you can see as a topic his favortisme as an easterophile:D :D :D


So you're saying one of YOUR sources is biased? It sounds to me like when the facts stated by YOUR source doesn't support your delusion, you label them biased and continue your ranting.

The age of Charled Martel,the Osprey title the age of Charlemighn,where real(unlike you)historian David Nicolle states that one of the main reasons for the stopping of arab expansion was defeates by the Franks,you can also read the dictionary of wars for more proof my son:p


In regards to "The Age of Charlemagne", nowhere in that book does David Nicolle state the main reasons for stopping of arab expansion was being defeated by the Franks.

From the book YOU used as a source, found on page 23.....
Their(Muslim) threat had petered out, however, partly as a result of early Carolingian resistance, but MOSTLY because the Islamic conquerors had over-extended their lines of communication and their available military manpower. The collapse of the Umayyad Caliphate in 750 AD and the regional fragmentation of western Islam that rapidly followed then gave Mediterranean Christendom a century of relative peace.

In "Armies of Islam" by Nicolle p 27;
Charles Martel's victory at Poitiers looms large in Christian history but was in reality an unsuccessful large scale Muslim raid.


as later Abdul Rahmens son invaded and was beaten in the wars of 736-737 as said by professor Antonio Santosuosso in his book,"Barbarians,Marauders and Infidels".

From the other source you've used, page 126....

......... although mythology has it as one of the greatest battles of all time. But as P.K. Hatti succinctly states, "In reality, it [Poitiers] decided nothing. The Arab-Berber wave already almost a thousand miles from its starting-place in Gibraltar, had reach a natural standstill. It had lost its momentum and spent itself."


So both of YOUR sources share the same opinion.

Any more 'sources', besides wikipedia??

[Belisarius]

lol actually, you did a fabulous job...and I learned a lot about military tactics from both of you. The comment was directed more towards stung than you Beli...I know this is just my opinion, but wouldn't you say logistics is essential in order to have a legitimate chance to win a battle?

The short answer is "Yes".:) ..and "No". :( The long answer will have to wait until I have more time:D .

[Belisarius]

Actually my son,there are other sources:rolleyes: and David nicolle is one of my sources,but in other David nicolle writing one can see he is bias,if you go over to all empires.com on their forum you can see as a topic his favortisme as an easterophile:D :D :D

Oh please! One of the posters attempts to discredit Dr Nicolle by citing a programme on the History Channel. Give me break!:rolleyes:

[Belisarius]

So you're saying one of YOUR sources is biased? It sounds to me like when the facts stated by YOUR source doesn't support your delusion, you label them biased and continue your ranting.




In regards to "The Age of Charlemagne", nowhere in that book does David Nicolle state the main reasons for stopping of arab expansion was being defeated by the Franks.

From the book YOU used as a source, found on page 23.....


In "Armies of Islam" by Nicolle p 27;





From the other source you've used, page 126....




So both of YOUR sources share the same opinion.

Any more 'sources', besides wikipedia??

Bravo! Excellent post!

[Comet]

So you're saying one of YOUR sources is biased? It sounds to me like when the facts stated by YOUR source doesn't support your delusion, you label them biased and continue your ranting.




In regards to "The Age of Charlemagne", nowhere in that book does David Nicolle state the main reasons for stopping of arab expansion was being defeated by the Franks.

From the book YOU used as a source, found on page 23.....


In "Armies of Islam" by Nicolle p 27;





From the other source you've used, page 126....




So both of YOUR sources share the same opinion.

Any more 'sources', besides wikipedia??

I agree Beli...excellent post Ankrom

[stung]

I saw what you were talking about...I don't understand why you think opinions make history fact. That discussion was brought up by one individual and it was debated by some others over there that there will always be some sort of bias. In fact, what he argues is pointless. Technology was much better in the East than it was in the West. I've argued in many cases that without the Arabs/Islam there would probably no Renaissance until much later...while many historians (although in respect to Anne, I will say that this is up for debate) believe that the West was in a "Dark Age". So if we take this into consideration, the Arab armies would be much better than those in the West. However, we have been round and round about what actually happened to the Arab armies in the West. Logistically, there problem was overextension...in the East, there was no such problem. The Arab power base was in Baghdad and other regions very close to the Byzantine Empire. In my opinion, I think David Nicolle is on the right track when discussing the major differences between Eastern and Western armies...which presents no bias whatsoever.

BTW, what other sources do you claim to have? I would love to take a look at them. Unless it's wikipedia of course :)

Would you believe the same forum acknowledges the Golden age of Byzantine Military history is between 600-1204? If this concept is historically accepted by scholars then your argument has a hole in it stung.Oh ,well,well,well, my boy you seem to think that armies get magically weaker the farther away from their capitil you go,LOL,:p THAT'S THE STUPIDIST THING I EVER HEARD,and that's what you think,listin bucko,run off and read"David Nicolle's, eniemies of rome:the desert frontier"than my son you will see how bias he is,also in his book armies of islam 7th to 11th centeries,it clearly states that tours was an mostly infantry battle,also my son tell me how frankish victories would not have stopped the arabs as it was perhaps the only area where the suffered repeated defeats,also you claim that the arabs where over extended and that somehow magically"weakened them"please,if it weakened them how come they won over the visigoths and the battle of geronne agaist the franks of aquitaine:) ?

[Ankrom]

Oh ,well,well,well, my boy you seem to think that armies get magically weaker the farther away from their capitil you go,LOL,:p THAT'S THE STUPIDIST THING I EVER HEARD.........


Then you're in denial...

In David Nicolle's, "Age of Charlemagne", page 23....
"Their(Muslim) threat had petered out, however, partly as a result of early Carolingian resistance, but mostly because the Islamic conquerors had over-extended their lines of communication and their available military manpower."

[Ankrom]

run off and read"David Nicolle's, eniemies of rome:the desert frontier"than my son you will see how bias he is,also in his book armies of islam 7th to 11th centeries,it clearly states that tours was an mostly infantry battle...


Wrong yet again...from page 27...

Poitiers(732): mobile raiding, forces Charles Martel's victory at Poitier looms large in Christian history but was in reality an UNSUCCESSFUL large scale Muslim raid...

[stung]

Then you're in denial...
Again but no,my son infact you are the one in denial,Nicolle is only stating his opinion,my other sources wher better,the Barbarians,marauders and infidels one is a better source,you are in denial of the frankish victories,you are a mike tyson fan,you want to see some invicible smashing machine that always wins,when in fact no such thing exists,all the great conquest winning streaks came to an end at some point,an army is like a sports team,you may have a good season or several good seasons but eventually youre bound to lose some games,let me guess kiddo you also make up reasons for the mongol defeats in egypt:rolleyes: oh please.:)

[Ankrom]

Again but no,my son infact you are the one in denial,Nicolle is only stating his opinion,my other sources wher better,the Barbarians,marauders and infidels one is a better source,you are in denial of the frankish victories,you are a mike tyson fan, you want to see some invicible smashing machine that always wins,when in fact no such thing exists,all the great conquest winning streaks came to an end at some point,an army is like a sports team,you may have a good season or several good seasons but eventually youre bound to lose some games,let me guess kiddo you also make up reasons for the mongol defeats in egypt:rolleyes: oh please.:)

I see no facts stated here....

by professor Antonio Santosuosso in his book,"Barbarians,Marauders and Infidels".

From the source you've used, page 126....

......... although mythology has it as one of the greatest battles of all time. But as P.K. Hatti succinctly states, "In reality, it [Poitiers] decided nothing. The Arab-Berber wave already almost a thousand miles from its starting-place in Gibraltar, had reach a natural standstill. It had lost its momentum and spent itself."

Also from YOUR source...p126

The Muslims must have renewed their attack, probably with CAVALRY, several times.

Yet again, you're wrong.

[stung]

Wrong yet again...from page 27...
Also kiddo,it does state that although the muslims got horses in spain most of the fighting was on foot;) still though my son you must read Rome's eniemies:the desert frontier to see how bies Nicolle is:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

[Ankrom]

Also kiddo,it does state that although the muslims got horses in spain most of the fighting was on foot;) still though my son you must read Rome's eniemies:the desert frontier to see how bies Nicolle is:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D


Calling your own sources biased just contradicts everything you've posted, kiddo. So now you're trollling.

[Lucius]

I must be crazy, but here goes -

stung,

You seem to be arguing from the presumption that somebody else is saying that the outcome of that battle in 732 was due to the distance between that place and, say, Damascus, and that the valor and strength of Frankish arms was merely incidental. I don't think anyone is saying that.

And obviously, the "proximate" cause of that outcome was Abdurahman's decision not to refuse battle there. He knew there was nothing else but Charles' army between him and Paris. He should have ridden east and north, forcing Charles to move off the ground he had chosen.

[stung]

Calling your own sources biased just contradicts everything you've posted, kiddo. So now you're trollling.
Sorry kiddo but again you are wrong,in fact you can be biased and still have somethings right,now my son explain to me in you opinion why the arabs(though successful elswar)where repeatedly beaten by the franks;) ?

[Belisarius]

...explain to me in you opinion why the arabs(though successful elswar)where repeatedly beaten by the franks;) ?

Well, no they weren't.

From 822 to 852CE Abd-er-Rahman II enjoyed almost constant victory over Frankish armies, driving them out of Catalonia.

Mohammed I conducted successful campaigns against Galicia and Navarre between 852 and 886CE.

In 903 the Arabs captured the Balaeric Islands, the Frankish army being defeated by Isam-al-Khamlani.

Between 912 and 961CE Abd-er-Rahman III repeatedly defeated the kingdoms of Leon and Navarre forcing them to pay tribute. Ony the occasional military successes of Ordono II of Leon, prevented the complete conquest of his kingdom.

Lastly in 988CE Ibn-Abi Amir al-Mansour inflicted decisive defeats on Leon Navarre and Barcelona, even so far as capturing and sacking the city of Leon itself.

That's just in Spain. Then there's the second Crusade..oops. Then there's the battle of Hattin...oops again.

It was never as one sided as you make out.

[stung]

Well, no they weren't.

From 822 to 852CE Abd-er-Rahman II enjoyed almost constant victory over Frankish armies, driving them out of Catalonia.

Mohammed I conducted successful campaigns against Galicia and Navarre between 852 and 886CE.

In 903 the Arabs captured the Balaeric Islands, the Frankish army being defeated by Isam-al-Khamlani.

Between 912 and 961CE Abd-er-Rahman III repeatedly defeated the kingdoms of Leon and Navarre forcing them to pay tribute. Ony the occasional military successes of Ordono II of Leon, prevented the complete conquest of his kingdom.

Lastly in 988CE Ibn-Abi Amir al-Mansour inflicted decisive defeats on Leon Navarre and Barcelona, even so far as capturing and sacking the city of Leon itself.

That's just in Spain. Then there's the second Crusade..oops. Then there's the battle of Hattin...oops again.

It was never as one sided as you make out.
Sorry my son you are wrong agian,:p please kiddo sight your sources and also my son i never said it was one sided all the time,just that in the 700's the franks kept the arabs out of western europe:D

[Eyza]

Stung:

I know about Hattin. Where are your sources that tell you Belisarius is wrong?
Anne G

[stung]

Stung:

I know about Hattin. Where are your sources that tell you Belisarius is wrong?
Anne Gtell me my son do you know about Arsuf and Jaffa?:D

[Lucius]

Sorry my son

tell me my son

stung,

You have repeatedly addressed other posters in a disrespectful manner. Please explain why you should not be regarded as contemptible.

[stung]

stung,

You have repeatedly addressed other posters in a disrespectful manner. Please explain why you should not be regarded as contemptible.
Because my son ,i was replying to disrespectful posts,just look at how this whole stupid,franks vs arabs post got started,it got started by someone posting a:rolleyes: on their reply,as such he is my son:D

[Lucius]

i was replying to disrespectful posts

stung,

Neither Eyza nor Belisarius nor Ankrom nor Afrasiyab nor Comet nor I was disrespectful of you.

Please be more careful.

[Comet]

Oh ,well,well,well, my boy you seem to think that armies get magically weaker the farther away from their capitil you go,LOL,:p THAT'S THE STUPIDIST THING I EVER HEARD,and that's what you think,listin bucko,run off and read"David Nicolle's


You know, I have been extremely polite in the way I have addressed you. I never once said you were wrong nor did I ever say anything to disrespect you. But what you have done here is not only disrespected me and this forum, but you have disrespected the study of history. It is obvious that you have no understanding of the topic being discussed nor understand the responsibilities of being on a discussion forum. I have tried to contact you through private messages to talk to you privately about your actions...however, you choose to ignore my messages. From your actions, it is difficult for me to believe that you are as old as you say you are...and until you start acting your age (if you did indeed graduate in 1999)...no one is going to take you seriously. As of now, I am done with this particular discussion and I think it's about time to return to the real subject at hand...the Crusades. I think if you want to continue your one sided discussion, you should start a new thread.


With that being said, let's return to the Crusades shall we? One thing that I haven't seen in our discussion of the Crusades (I'm not going back through 20 pages...sorry guys :)) are the factors leading up to the Crusades...we know of the Church and it's influence on the masses to stir up sympathy for the Byzantines. What other factors do we have out there?

[stung]

You know, I have been extremely polite in the way I have addressed you. I never once said you were wrong nor did I ever say anything to disrespect you. But what you have done here is not only disrespected me and this forum, but you have disrespected the study of history. It is obvious that you have no understanding of the topic being discussed nor understand the responsibilities of being on a discussion forum. I have tried to contact you through private messages to talk to you privately about your actions...however, you choose to ignore my messages. From your actions, it is difficult for me to believe that you are as old as you say you are...and until you start acting your age (if you did indeed graduate in 1999)...no one is going to take you seriously. As of now, I am done with this particular discussion and I think it's about time to return to the real subject at hand...the Crusades. I think if you want to continue your one sided discussion, you should start a new thread.


With that being said, let's return to the Crusades shall we? One thing that I haven't seen in our discussion of the Crusades (I'm not going back through 20 pages...sorry guys :)) are the factors leading up to the Crusades...we know of the Church and it's influence on the masses to stir up sympathy for the Byzantines. What other factors do we have out there?
I'm sorry it was KB you was disrespectful to me and I haven't checked my E-mailes in a long time.

[Ankrom]

With that being said, let's return to the Crusades shall we? One thing that I haven't seen in our discussion of the Crusades (I'm not going back through 20 pages...sorry guys :)) are the factors leading up to the Crusades...we know of the Church and it's influence on the masses to stir up sympathy for the Byzantines. What other factors do we have out there?

Will Durant summed it up; first proximate cause was the advance of the Seljuk Turks. The second proximate casue was the weaking of the Byzantine Empire. The third proximate cause was the ambition of the Italian cities to extend their rising commercial power.

Yet when the opportunity arose, Urban II was quick to call a crusade.

[Belisarius]

...I know this is just my opinion, but wouldn't you say logistics is essential in order to have a legitimate chance to win a battle?

Comet, I see we’ve moved on, but since you’d asked the question and I’d already started the response I thought I might as well post it.

It is perhaps reasonable to suppose that the further back in time you go the less reliant on logistics armies are. Modern forces cannot survive for long without adequate re-supply, whereas Hannibal, for example, famously managed to re-equip his entire army with captured Roman equipment after Trasemene, and supported himself in Italy for years by pillaging his enemies lands. Regular organised armies of antiquity still needed supplies of armour, food and equipment to function at peak efficiency, but could in times of necessity easily live off the land. Food could easily be pillaged or hunted, and there were usually enough artisans [blacksmiths, bowyers, fletchers, etc]present to make general minor repairs to armour or weapons.

The advantage a regular supply system gave an army was the ability to operate in a given area indefinitely. Those without such a system would soon eat up the available food and be forced to move on, disperse, or starve. Replacement equipment could only be obtained after a successful battle by stripping the dead, so armies without a guaranteed supply chain tended to be more mobile and launched aggressive short term campaigns to grab what they could in the shortest time.

The Carolingian army was the only “Western” military force that had even a rudimentary supply system. Soldiers mustering for a campaign were to provide 2 months food for themselves, and sufficient weapons and clothing for 6 months. How this was accomplished is not clear as perishables would not last that long. I assume each soldier turn up with a few sheep or cows which could be slaughtered on the march. Chroniclers state that once these supplies were exhausted, discipline in Frankish armies tended to vanish as the army dispersed to pillage the area it was in, friendly or not.

Arab armies tended to copy Byzantine arrangements in the East, but it is interesting to note that the “conquests” of Africa and Spain were carried out as a series of large scale raids. As resistance was crushed, or if no resistance was encountered, the Arabs would settle the area, consolidate their hold and “immigrant-jihadists” from Mesopotamia or Egypt, etc would move through towards the next set of “unconquered” lands.

The Cambridge Medieval History has an interesting quote in that Arabs-Berbers in Spain were reluctant to live or move beyond the “Line of the Olive”. This is defined as the climatic region where olives can grow. Maybe the Franks had nothing to do with staving off the Muslim conquest of Northern Europe, perhaps the weather further north was just not to their liking. ;)

[Belisarius]

Sorry my son you are wrong agian,:p please kiddo sight your sources and also my son i never said it was one sided all the time,just that in the 700's the franks kept the arabs out of western europe:D

I think the word is "cite" your sources. My post was based on a quick trawl through the "Encyclopedia of Military History" by RN and TN Dupuy. The Cambridge Medieval History covers these events in detail, if you're interested.

[Comet]

Comet, I see we’ve moved on, but since you’d asked the question and I’d already started the response I thought I might as well post it.

It is perhaps reasonable to suppose that the further back in time you go the less reliant on logistics armies are. Modern forces cannot survive for long without adequate re-supply, whereas Hannibal, for example, famously managed to re-equip his entire army with captured Roman equipment after Trasemene, and supported himself in Italy for years by pillaging his enemies lands. Regular organised armies of antiquity still needed supplies of armour, food and equipment to function at peak efficiency, but could in times of necessity easily live off the land. Food could easily be pillaged or hunted, and there were usually enough artisans [blacksmiths, bowyers, fletchers, etc]present to make general minor repairs to armour or weapons.

The advantage a regular supply system gave an army was the ability to operate in a given area indefinitely. Those without such a system would soon eat up the available food and be forced to move on, disperse, or starve. Replacement equipment could only be obtained after a successful battle by stripping the dead, so armies without a guaranteed supply chain tended to be more mobile and launched aggressive short term campaigns to grab what they could in the shortest time.

The Carolingian army was the only “Western” military force that had even a rudimentary supply system. Soldiers mustering for a campaign were to provide 2 months food for themselves, and sufficient weapons and clothing for 6 months. How this was accomplished is not clear as perishables would not last that long. I assume each soldier turn up with a few sheep or cows which could be slaughtered on the march. Chroniclers state that once these supplies were exhausted, discipline in Frankish armies tended to vanish as the army dispersed to pillage the area it was in, friendly or not.

Arab armies tended to copy Byzantine arrangements in the East, but it is interesting to note that the “conquests” of Africa and Spain were carried out as a series of large scale raids. As resistance was crushed, or if no resistance was encountered, the Arabs would settle the area, consolidate their hold and “immigrant-jihadists” from Mesopotamia or Egypt, etc would move through towards the next set of “unconquered” lands.

The Cambridge Medieval History has an interesting quote in that Arabs-Berbers in Spain were reluctant to live or move beyond the “Line of the Olive”. This is defined as the climatic region where olives can grow. Maybe the Franks had nothing to do with staving off the Muslim conquest of Northern Europe, perhaps the weather further north was just not to their liking. ;)

Thanks Beli...great info. I'm sure the Franks had something to do with it...it's just like in sports. One team may be favored but you still have to play the game...it's how upsets happen. Good post :)

[stung]

Thanks Beli...great info. I'm sure the Franks had something to do with it...it's just like in sports. One team may be favored but you still have to play the game...it's how upsets happen. Good post :)
Starving off?it's obvious they faced military defeats:)

[Eyza]

Stung:


tell me my son do you know about Arsuf and Jaffa?:D


Whatever else I may be, I'm not your son. And again, what are your sources for your assertions?
Anne G:mad:

[Belisarius]

Starving off?it's obvious they faced military defeats:)

What? I said "staving" not starving.

[Belisarius]

Will Durant summed it up; first proximate cause was the advance of the Seljuk Turks. The second proximate casue was the weaking of the Byzantine Empire. The third proximate cause was the ambition of the Italian cities to extend their rising commercial power.

Yet when the opportunity arose, Urban II was quick to call a crusade.

I've read it was also a tactic to channel the agressive energies of the Western nobility, send them all off to kill infidels or be killed by them and they wouldn't gang up against each other and the church. A crude form of genetic engineering by Pope Urban.

[Comet]

I've read it was also a tactic to channel the agressive energies of the Western nobility, send them all off to kill infidels or be killed by them and they wouldn't gang up against each other and the church. A crude form of genetic engineering by Pope Urban.

Yes, I have heard this as well...and the point is a pretty good one. A very violent society it certainly was...what better way to channel all that aggressive energy by sending them out of Europe and let them take it out on someone else.

[stung]

Stung:





Whatever else I may be, I'm not your son. And again, what are your sources for your assertions?
Anne G:mad:
Because ny boy arsuf and jaffa wher two king richards victories over saliden,my son;)

[Afrasiyab]

No my son,infact:D the arabo frankish war had more to do with territoriality and less with religion;)

you have not told me where you had 'that' information, yet. this was not an answer to my question.

where did you read so ?

[Comet]

Because ny boy arsuf and jaffa wher two king richards victories over saliden,my son;)


What in world does this have to do with this discussion? And for your information, Saladin got the best of King Richard...he took Jerusalem. Don't you have spell check? It's getting hard to understand what you are saying. :confused:

[Comet]

you have not told me where you had 'that' information, yet. this was not an answer to my question.

where did you read so ?


Good luck Afrasiyab..you have no clue what's in store for you :)

[Eyza]

Comet:

I think this is just his own idea and he cherry-picks whatever he reads, in order to support it.
Anne G

[Comet]

Comet:

I think this is just his own idea and he cherry-picks whatever he reads, in order to support it.
Anne G


Exactly right..BTW Anne...I enjoy the word "cherry-pick". I haven't heard that in such a long time...used to be an old basketball term we used when someone wouldn't run down for defense but instead would stand on the other end waiting for someone to throw them the ball for a lay up on offense.

[stung]

What in world does this have to do with this discussion? And for your information, Saladin got the best of King Richard...he took Jerusalem. Don't you have spell check? It's getting hard to understand what you are saying. :confused:
Saliden got the best of Richaed?LOL,are you serious?Saliden got thrashed twice by Richard,check your facts bub:)

[Comet]

Saliden got the best of Richaed?LOL,are you serious?Saliden got thrashed twice by Richard,check your facts bub:)

Who captured Jerusalem then in 1187? I'll give you a hint...it wasn't Richard.

[Afrasiyab]

Who captured Jerusalem then in 1187? I'll give you a hint...it wasn't Richard.


wise :)

ps : SaLadin is said to be Kurdish. LoL

[stung]

Who captured Jerusalem then in 1187? I'll give you a hint...it wasn't Richard.
My son the only reason richard didn't take jeruslem was because he had to return home,because his brother was trying to take the throne.:)

[Afrasiyab]

History is recorded by winners.

[Comet]

My son the only reason richard didn't take jeruslem was because he had to return home,because his brother was trying to take the throne.:)

Really??? But he still lost right? According to what you been telling us, it doesn't matter what distractions or other obstacles were in an army's way. It only matters what happens on the battlefield, right? That makes the Saracens much stronger than those who were with Richard on the Third Crusade. Not to mention he fought for more than five years to try to get back Jerusalem...an attempt that he wasn't even close at. So, according to your theory of how history works, there are no excuses for any defeat...just strong or weak armies.

[stung]

Really??? But he still lost right? According to what you been telling us, it doesn't matter what distractions or other obstacles were in an army's way. It only matters what happens on the battlefield, right? That makes the Saracens much stronger than those who were with Richard on the Third Crusade. Not to mention he fought for more than five years to try to get back Jerusalem...an attempt that he wasn't even close at. So, according to your theory of how history works, there are no excuses for any defeat...just strong or weak armies.
Infact no,by your theory of history the Nazis won WW2,it's apperent that in the third crusade richard was a better general than saliden:D