Follow TV Tropes
Crusades and conquests of Alexander the Adequate?
You have no proof, and yet you assert it as truth, based solely on the premise that Europeans used to do bad things to other cultures. This seems to be a postcolonialist overreaction at best: simply assuming that cultures were superior until Europeans came along.
Seeing that sexism in general seems to be pretty damn near universal since the dawn of time, I am going to assume sexism until proven otherwise, not the other way around.
Well, there certainly were a whole lot more people adhering to various cultures until the Europeans came along.
Sexism tends to go hand-in-hand with centralization of power and accumulation of resources by an upper class. The less wealthy and centralized a government (generally speaking) the more egalitarian it is.
In that sense it's analogous to discussions about class and race as post-hoc justification for murder, imperialism and exploitation.
'Sexism until proven otherwise,' by the way, is a deeply unhelpful and kind of whig history-esque take. Institutional sexism is not the same across cultures and did not manifest in the same way across the globe.
Edited by math792d on Feb 4th 2019 at 11:02:19 AM
Doesn't that statement imply there exists European monoculture and forget that there are lot of cultures IN europe, including discriminated minority cultures?
I mean, making statements like "There were a lot more cultures before Europeans" forgets that there are European cultures that destroyed other European cultures. And that applies to every continent, I mean pretty sure Chinese culture has assimilated several other ones <_<
The consensus I have heard about that is that the sexisim comes about because only the wealthy ruling classes really care about lines of breeding and "pure blood" which is why you get so much inbreeding in the aristocracy.
Which translates to sexism in attempts to control women's sexuality and trying to prevent children from outside of the bloodline.... that then bleeds down into the lower classes, because they tend to imitate the upper classes.
Edited by Imca on Feb 4th 2019 at 2:15:08 AM
Huh, I just realized that people claiming that "Sexism and discrimination is same everywhere" isn't annoying just because it is belief that assumes every culture is identical(like for example assuming that all religions are patriarchal like some branches of Christianity tends to be), but that it also tends to be followed by assumption that westerners were first one to realize "sexism and discrimination is bad!"
I don't know if I'm generalizing people too much there, but I could swear I've seen similar mindset "Everyone is bad, but we westerners realized it first!" which sounds rather suspicious to me
Edited by SpookyMask on Feb 4th 2019 at 12:27:39 PM
Oh hey, speaking of unhelpful takes.
Yes, being a European I do in fact recognize that Europe is a diverse place with diverse cultures, many of which have been subjugated by other European powers at one point or another.
However, that doesn't detract from the point I was making, which is that murdering your way across three continents and destroying hundreds of indigenous cultures (and in fact enshrining genocide and colonial violence on a large scale as manifest destiny) is so far a tactic unique to European powers or those that modeled themselves on some of these European colonial ideas (see: Imperial Japan).
But saying 'but what about European minorities' is a pointless take when the conversation is about European colonialism. Now, if we were discussing European imperialism, then the conversation becomes relevant.
Edited by math792d on Feb 4th 2019 at 11:43:59 AM
Ghengis Khan was pretty good at it. So were the Chinese, in a way (you can see it in how Chinese languages have displaced many South Asian languages over time).
And I did not mean to generalize, but a lot of cultures were sexist in some way or another.
And before Alexander you had the Persians invading Greece and burning down the Acropolis. And before the Crusades you had a lot of other things the muslims did, which includes, but is not limited to:
-The conquest of the former Christian provinces like Syria and Egypt
- Invading the territory of the Byzantine Empire
-Invading and conquering parts of Spain, and starting at least one serious attempt of conquering France (and possibly more)
- The ruler of Jerusalem who decided to burn down the Church of the Nativity.
Honestly it seems rather pointless to count up on each other's atrocities, especially when you consider that people back then hardly cared whom they killed, as long as it served their goals. Alexander destroyed some of Greeks most important cities before he went on conquering Persia. In fact there is a lot of evidence that he tried to create a multicultural Empire, which many of his Macedonian soldiers and generals did not approve (because they did not want to share the spoils).
There's also the fact that Persian culture gave kings a lot more power and authority than Greek culture did. In that sense the multiculturalism issue was also a question of political power and freedom.
What is the difference between wanting a multicultural empire and just wanting a world-spanning empire, exactly?
An event precipitated by Athenian support of the Ionian Revolts. It's not like Darius spontaneously decided to invade Greece for kicks.
And before the Crusades you had a lot of other things the muslims did, which includes, but is not limited to:
-The conquest of the former Christian provinces like Syria and Egypt - Invading the territory of the Byzantine Empire -Invading and conquering parts of Spain, and starting at least one serious attempt of conquering France (and possibly more) - The ruler of Jerusalem who decided to burn down the Church of the Nativity.
So, let's make a few distinctions here:
The conquest of Syria and Egypt and the invasion of the Byzantine Empire are the same event, both taking place in the early days of Arab expansion under the Rashidun Caliphate. Subsequent invasion of Byzantium and 'Spain' (at the time mostly Visigothic splinter empires) happened under the successor Umayyad Caliphate.
This is important because of two reasons. The first is that it happened some 300 years before the First Crusade. The second is that we're not even talking about the same Muslims. The Abbasids, largely consisting of Muslim groups that Umayyads had oppressed, overthrew the dynasty and established their own, fracturing the Umayyad Empire in the process. These people, by all accounts the enemies of the caliphate that had attempted to invade Europe, were the Crusaders' primary opposition. And if we're to believe that the Princes' Crusade was launched in response to Muslim encroachment into Europe, it seems odd that it would happen long, long after the Umayyad Caliphate was overthrown. Like, if there was some other explanation, like a Pope trying to shore up his position as the supreme secular and religious authority, maybe on the request of a Byzantine Emperor pressed for time and resources.
The ruler of Jerusalem who decided to burn down the church, by the way, was after the First Crusade, and happened in 1244. This is after the establishment of the Crusader states. Before that, it had been destroyed, yes...by the Samaritans, a Levantine people who were not Arabs, nor Muslims, while Justinian still sat on the Eastern Roman Empire's throne, and Jerusalem was safely in Roman territory.
Come on, my dude, at least bring up the actual violent confrontations between Muslims and Christians without having to invent a whole new one.
Edited by math792d on Feb 5th 2019 at 3:17:18 PM
I can't say what Zarastro meant to say, but, as I understood it, muslim conquests don't justify crusades (nothing does), but they are example of violent land grab perpetrated from East to West. You know, rebuttal to statement that only 'teh West iz ivilz' that was brought up earlier.
What? Are we not talking about jihads and crusades?
I'm referring specifically to the last one in the context of Zarastro talking about pre-Crusade Muslim aggression.
And I'm saying that the Church of the Nativity that he's referring to wasn't destroyed by a Muslim ruler of Jerusalem until after the Crusades were in full swing and there'd been a couple of them already.
Edited by math792d on Feb 5th 2019 at 5:48:22 PM
None of what you said is a real argument against my points. I have described events that noticeably influenced the perception of those who later commited agressive acts against others.
Burning down the Acropolis was something that left a notable impression on the Hellinistic people, and was later used to justify the conquest against Persia. You can now argue whether or not the initial invasion was justified, but you can not really explain the conquest of Alexander out without mentioning the initial Persian invasion.
The same can be said about the crusades. The conquest of Egypt and Syria was of course deemed by Christians as an agressive act, because those territories were part of some of the most important bishop districts. Do you think people back then cared what kind of muslim occupied these territories?
My mistake was to confuse the Church of the Holy Sepulchre with the Church of the Nativity when I looked up the English names for them. But the destruction of the former did happen and was noticeably met with outrage in Christian Europe.
Of course, historians have pointed out that the Pope who called for a crusade (and those who followed) had - besides religious convictions - other, more tangible reasons for doing so. But that hardly justifies the view to see the crusades without any context of the violent struggles that preceeded it, and which were very much present in the minds of the people.
Edit: Paradox has announced the release date for Imperator Rome (04/25/2019). A bit later than I hoped for, though this hopefull will give them time to polish the game more. The last thing we need is another Stellaris launch... .
Edited by Zarastro on Feb 5th 2019 at 9:07:03 PM
Debating whether I want to try to crush Rome first, or wipe out Buddhism first.
I wonder if it is possible to change religions as easily in conquered territories as in other Paradox games like EU 4?
I will also point that conflict between Christians and Muslims did happen after the invasion of the Mediterranean. Constantinople for instance was besieged by the Arabs various times, Hispania was under the friction of the Umayyads and the Kingdom of Asturias, Sicily was the subject of raids and attempted invasions by the rulers of North Africa and Anatolia itself was conquered by the Seljuk Turks, who were the ones that provided the initial impetus for Alexios Kommenoi to seek the help of the Pope and kickstart the
The reason why some of these events aren’t seen as that prominent in the Early Middle Age is because they overlapped with the Viking Age, which wrecked havoc in Septentrional Europe, and with the invasion of the Magyars to Pannonia.
There were two reasons for the Pope kickstarting the Crusades:
Not only did he hope that assisting the Byzantine Empire would help end the Schism (of course the opposite happened, what with greedy nobles keeping the reconquered land and then essentially murdering Byzantium in the Fourth Crusade), but if I recall correctly, the Seljuks had actually cracked down on the pilgrim traffic in the region.
Neither the Pope nor Christian rulers in Europe gave too much of a toss about Islamic powers holding Jerusalem, as long as their subjects were still able to visit the holy sites, and for the most parts Islamic rulers kept the routes open.
The Pope also used it as an opportunity to try and get some of the more Ax-Crazy elements out of Europe and at least fighting someone else far away, IIRC. Remember, the Normans raided Rome itself a few decades prior (among other wars between various Catholic states, and internal struggles), and this was generations after they were at least nominally Catholic themselves.
Well, that's a derivate conflict from the Viking age, after all, part of the reason Europe became se heavily militarized and feudalized was to keep up with the highly mobile and vicious raids of the Northmen.
HoI4 Dev Diary - Achievements
I think you're seriously overestimating how much damage Viking raiders did to Europe outside of that mess in England.
I've thought of the Vikings as cowards for a good while, anyway, but yeah they stuck fairly close to their homelands. Paris was the farthest they ranged for raiding.
Farthest west, anyway. The Swedes caused havoc up and down the Volga for decades as well.
Community Showcase More