PYF Historical Fun Fact: (USER LOSETH POSTYNG PRIVILYGES FOR FOUR AND TWENTY HOURS)

The Something Awful Forums > Main > Post Your Favorite: Carefully Curated > PYF Historical Fun Fact: (USER LOSETH POSTYNG PRIVILYGES FOR FOUR AND TWENTY HOURS)

«‹›380 »

A Festivus Miracle: Dec 19, 2012; I have come to discourse on the profound inequities of the American political system.

Trojan.exe posted:

Fun fact:

Henry VIII was absolutely paranoid about disease and getting sick, and a lot of his practices regarding foul humours in the air are actually a lot of things that is done in the modern world to help prevent disease from spreading. He was considered a tad irrational about these habits since there was no way at the time to prove what was going on, but he may have been onto something because he was especially adamant about being clean and would try to pass ordinances for the sake of better hygiene but without the luck of widespread participation from others. Whenever plague struck, Henry would isolate himself because he believed that something bad was in the air. The practices regarding the king's son and only male heir were especially rigid for the times. The separate home of his son Edward were washed at least a few times a day and anyone who was around the boy needed to be clean and sweet smelling. Edward was also rarely at court for Henry's fear of the boy dying from illness.

It's kind of weird to think about since Henry VIII was an extremely intelligent man, and who knows what sort of scientific advances he would have made had he not been a monarch. On the flipside, the root of this paranoia is thought to exist because of his family members who had died of illnesses, especially his elder brother Arthur, and likewise the diligent efforts to keep his son clean were because Edward was the only male heir. Still, his attitude about how illnesses spread was spot on and well before it's time. The only other person around this time I can think of with the idea the illness is spread through the air was by an Italian physician, Girolamo Fracastoro, who in 1546 suggested that disease was spread in the air via spores.

Also related, despite a lot of the myths that tend to perpetuate about not bathing, Henry VIII was also known for bathing frequently with heated water and his courts would move depending on the nature of the water supply. Although baths might not have been an every day thing, he did keep himself clean and expected the same of his court. Undergarments, especially linen chemises, were a great source of pride among nobles and keeping them clean and having a fresh garment everyday helped keep the body and clothing clean. Hands were always washed before the start of a meal, etc. Even if others did not comply, he did make a since effort in making reformations when it came to cleanliness.

In a weird twist of irony, Edward VI would die of tuberculosis.

Both ironic because of his fathers habits toward sanitation, and historically ironic because of the absurd lengths to which Henry went to conceive a male heir.

# ? Apr 14, 2016 00:59

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 28, 2024 23:31

Platystemon: Feb 13, 2012; BREADS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fpok24QaAU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cs29ky8DeBw

# ? Apr 14, 2016 01:13

duckmaster: Sep 13, 2004; Mr and Mrs Duck go and stay in a nice hotel.

One night they call room service for some condoms as things are heating up.

The guy arrives and says "do you want me to put it on your bill"

Mr Duck says "what kind of pervert do you think I am?!

QUACK QUACK

Gabriel Pope posted:

By the 17th century or so, the English were well on their way towards assimilating the native Celtic cultures of the British Isles. Between physical dominion of the Isles (somewhat unofficial in Scotland's case) and increasing economic hegemony from the nascent industrialization of England, enough English goods and culture were being exported that local traditions were being overwhelmed. Anglicization offered increased material wealth and generally met little resistance, so by the time Scotland and England formally united the Scots were well on their way to becoming English people with funny accents. The only holdouts were a few backwater highland clans that even other Scots looked down on for their backwardness.

This process probably would have continued until native Scottish culture died out entirely, except that things turned political. The highland clans were (unsurprisingly) huge supporters of the royal Scottish House of Stuart, which became a thorn in the monarchy's side when the crown passed over to the House of Hanover. After several uprisings centered in the highlands, Parliament decided that the clans' Scottishness was to blame and passed a series of acts banning kilts and other aspects of highland culture in an attempt to suppress them. This was just too much for a lot of Anglicized Scots, since it completely destroyed the polite fiction that the Union (still less than half a century old) was an equal partnership. The fact that most Scots thought that the kilt-wearing highlanders were a bunch of idiot rednecks and a millstone around their country's neck was beside the point--they were their idiot rednecks and England had no right to gently caress with them. Swept up in the tide of feelings that would later coalesce into the Romantic movement, a lot of intellectuals began quietly wearing kilts, founding Scottish societies, and promoting the Scots language.

By the time that the Acts of Proscription were repealed 40 years later, there were a lot of Scots eager to practice their heritage. Unfortunately their heritage had been illegal for a couple generations and had mostly been forgotten even before then--and even though traditional Scots were no longer legally second class citizens, they were still second class economically and pro-English landowners continued to oppress them pretty heavily. So there was a certain amount of guesswork involved in the Scottish revival. Pick a traditional Scottish folk song: chances are the version of it you know was written by Robert Burns around 225 years ago, maybe as an adaptation of an earlier song, but often an original composition. The Highland Games? Well, the Scottish clans definitely had athletic competitions, which periodically included some of the modern heavy games, but the canonical Highland Games were created in the 19th century. The Celtic harp? The construction and playing of the original were dead arts; Gaelic revivalists created a new design based on the ancient one. Even the kilts that patriotic Scots wore to thumb their noses at England were developed into their modern form in the 1720s--by an Englishman, no less. (Scottish bagpipes and pipe music have a pretty unequivocally authentic and unbroken tradition, though, mostly because it was kept alive in British army regiments.)

I don't have time to get into it right now, but Irish culture follows a very broadly similar pattern--though the assimilation was much less amicable and the suppression was much harsher.

hahahaha do you actually think the Jacobite rebellion was about a Scottish nationality? It was about making an Italian prince the King of Scotland for reasons that you haven't even acknowledged in this post, which makes it impossible to take you seriously.

I suppose you think people in clans were all in the same family as well?

# ? Apr 14, 2016 02:47

coronatae: Oct 14, 2012

A White Guy posted:

In a weird twist of irony, Edward VI would die of tuberculosis.

Wasn't Edward VI also a really sickly child or did I make that up out of one of my "Princess Elizabeth" historical ya novels

# ? Apr 14, 2016 03:04

ToxicSlurpee: Nov 5, 2003; -=SEND HELP=-; Pillbug

coronatae posted:

Wasn't Edward VI also a really sickly child or did I make that up out of one of my "Princess Elizabeth" historical ya novels

He was. That was part of why Henry VIII was so dead set on keeping him safe and alive while making another male babby. You know, a backup just in case the worst happened.

Which it did. Henry of course died in 1547 when Edward was 9. He died at 15; the years he "ruled" were mostly run by a regency council. He wasn't well in general but got very, very sick and died pretty young. He named Lady Jane Grey as successor. The problem there was who was "supposed" to succeed was one of his half-siblings. She was also quite young at the time; just a teenager. She ruled for like two weeks before the council and the more legally legitimate heir Mary deposed her, charged her with high treason, and sentenced her to death. She was initially spared but then her and her husband were later killed during more social unrest and rebellions. History exonerated her but was not kind to Mary.

poo poo sucked in England at the time. Henry VIII's religious fuckery made a lot of people very unhappy. The child king and political ambitions abounding seriously goobered up the works. The war with Scotland didn't help nor did the financial fuckery Henry VIII got up to. Mary I didn't last long either; she tried to force the nation back into Catholicism and came down on Protestants hard. Mary of course also didn't last very long and had at least one false pregnancy. She badly wanted to have a child to remove Elizabeth from the line of succession and kept trying to make her husband (Philip II of Spain) the de facto ruler.

She failed of course which led to Elizabeth I being queen. Mary probably died of a mix of cancer and influenza.

Fun fact about Elizabeth I: she wanted to be really pale so she caked her face in white makeup. At the time this contained lead which hosed her up something fierce. So she responded with more white makeup. Eventually this caused her hair to fall out and she became...less than desirable. This is sometimes assumed to be part of why she put the idea of marrying out of her mind later in life. Despite this she lived to be nearly 70 and was, all told, a far, far better ruler than the few people who came before her.

In any event when she was old and ravaged she banned mirrors from the palace.

# ? Apr 14, 2016 03:30

coronatae: Oct 14, 2012

Hell that's what I plan to do when I reach a certain age. Thank you for the informative post! I've read a fair amount of Tudor history but it's a lot easier to digest in such a concise summary. Catherine Parr seemed like she was a cool lady. Anne of Cleves, too, she owned.

# ? Apr 14, 2016 04:00

Josef bugman: Nov 17, 2011; Pictured: Poster prepares to celebrate Holy Communion (probablY)

This avatar made possible by a gift from the Religionthread Posters Relief Fund

It didn't help Henry that the only martial victory of his reign came when his wife and troops at home kicked Scotland in the face whilst he threw money and men at the French and failed miserably.

# ? Apr 14, 2016 08:33

El Estrago Bonito: Dec 17, 2010; Scout Finch Bitch

Platystemon posted:

I still think it�s surprising that educated people knew the world was round a thousand years before Columbus set sail, but germ theory didn�t take hold till the nineteenth century.

A lot of this has to do with the Crusades. Several Islamic enlightenment thinkers had sort of figured out how disease spread. At least they had narrowed it down to invisible somethings that could be spread from person to person and could be spread by blood, water and contact with contaminated soil. Avicenna was one of the people who figured out that a bunch of diseases were being spread by fleas and that bathing and applying oil to your skin could stop them, he's probably single handedly responsible for reducing the effect of the black plague on a bunch of middle eastern nations just because of that. I mean, the Canon of Medicine is wrong about a whole grip of things, but it's very much right on the cusp of breaking through to modern medical theory, especially for being written during a time where chemistry and similar things were really just getting off the ground. The Crusades basically stopped his writings and the writings of similar scientists (if you want to get pedantic they were among some of the first True Scientists since Avicenna pioneered what would later become the scientific method but that's whatever) from reaching Europe or being spread as far as they maybe should have been. There's a lot of evidence that had the golden age not ended in foreign invasion and the establishment of Outremer, or if modern medical treatises from the Middle East had been more readily available in 1500s and 1600s Europe we might have seen science get a much needed head start from where it did in reality.

# ? Apr 14, 2016 09:07

Necrothatcher: Mar 26, 2005

ToxicSlurpee posted:

Fun fact about Elizabeth I: she wanted to be really pale so she caked her face in white makeup. At the time this contained lead which hosed her up something fierce. So she responded with more white makeup. Eventually this caused her hair to fall out and she became...less than desirable. This is sometimes assumed to be part of why she put the idea of marrying out of her mind later in life. Despite this she lived to be nearly 70 and was, all told, a far, far better ruler than the few people who came before her.

In any event when she was old and ravaged she banned mirrors from the palace.

Once I got cornered by a manic history conspiracy theorist who was convinced Elizabeth I was secretly a man in drag. His story went that Henry VIII had an illegitimate son (called Neville) by one of the maids at his country estate. Liz got sent there as a young girl and befriended the boy, but then she died in a freak accident. Fearing the King's wrath, the servants figured that as he hadn't seen his daughter in a while and his illegitimate son looked pretty girly, they substituted the two.

Apparently this explains why Liz never had children, why she didn't have a bathroom maid, her propensity for high ruffs (to hide her adam's apple) and her saying "I know I have the body of a weak and feeble woman, but I have the heart and stomach of a king".

As evidence he pointed me to this 'banned' portrait of Liz, which he says shows her with a 5 o'clock shadow.

# ? Apr 14, 2016 12:37

Hogge Wild: Aug 21, 2012; by FactsAreUseless; Pillbug

I thought that she had syphilis and the disease and the treatments made her bald and barren

# ? Apr 14, 2016 15:44

Alhazred: Feb 16, 2011

Speaking of royals and cross dressing. In 1756 the French king needed access to empress Elizabeth of Russia. The problem was that the British controlled the border and they only allowed women and children to cross it. Luckily the king's secret service had a man called Chevalier d'Eon that could pass as a woman and he successfully infiltrated Elizabeth's court. In 1774 the secret service was abolished and d'Eon demanded to be recognized as female because d'Eon claimed to have been assigned female at birth. The government agreed but required that d'Eon dress appropriately in women's clothing. During that a betting pool was started on the London Stock Exchange about d'�on's "true" sex. In 1810 d'Eon died in poverty and an autopsy revealed that d'Eon had "male organs in every respect perfectly formed",

# ? Apr 14, 2016 17:48

BravestOfTheLamps: Oct 12, 2012; by FactsAreUseless; Lipstick Apathy

Elizabeth I also never married, so it was pretty reasonable to avoid getting children.

Alhazred posted:

Speaking of royals and cross dressing. In 1756 the French king needed access to empress Elizabeth of Russia. The problem was that the British controlled the border and they only allowed women and children to cross it. Luckily the king's secret service had a man called Chevalier d'Eon that could pass as a woman and he successfully infiltrated Elizabeth's court. In 1774 the secret service was abolished and d'Eon demanded to be recognized as female because d'Eon claimed to have been assigned female at birth. The government agreed but required that d'Eon dress appropriately in women's clothing. During that a betting pool was started on the London Stock Exchange about d'�on's "true" sex. In 1810 d'Eon died in poverty and an autopsy revealed that d'Eon had "male organs in every respect perfectly formed",

Of course this inspired an anime

# ? Apr 14, 2016 18:37

A Fancy 400 lbs: Jul 24, 2008

To be fair, there have been plenty of western books, movies and plays based on her too.

# ? Apr 14, 2016 19:03

RagnarokAngel: Oct 5, 2006; Black Magic Extraordinaire

BravestOfTheLamps posted:

Elizabeth I also never married, so it was pretty reasonable to avoid getting children.

I'm pretty sure it's accepted she was afraid any man she married would basically control the throne and push her into irrelevance. Considering how royal politics tend to work she probably wasn't off.

# ? Apr 14, 2016 21:54

Plucky Brit: Nov 7, 2009; Swing low, sweet chariot

El Estrago Bonito posted:

A lot of this has to do with the Crusades. Several Islamic enlightenment thinkers had sort of figured out how disease spread. At least they had narrowed it down to invisible somethings that could be spread from person to person and could be spread by blood, water and contact with contaminated soil. Avicenna was one of the people who figured out that a bunch of diseases were being spread by fleas and that bathing and applying oil to your skin could stop them, he's probably single handedly responsible for reducing the effect of the black plague on a bunch of middle eastern nations just because of that. I mean, the Canon of Medicine is wrong about a whole grip of things, but it's very much right on the cusp of breaking through to modern medical theory, especially for being written during a time where chemistry and similar things were really just getting off the ground. The Crusades basically stopped his writings and the writings of similar scientists (if you want to get pedantic they were among some of the first True Scientists since Avicenna pioneered what would later become the scientific method but that's whatever) from reaching Europe or being spread as far as they maybe should have been. There's a lot of evidence that had the golden age not ended in foreign invasion and the establishment of Outremer, or if modern medical treatises from the Middle East had been more readily available in 1500s and 1600s Europe we might have seen science get a much needed head start from where it did in reality.

I think the Mongol invasions and in particular the destruction of Baghdad's libraries was more responsible for the loss of knowledge and general regression in the medieval Middle East.

# ? Apr 14, 2016 21:58

ToxicSlurpee: Nov 5, 2003; -=SEND HELP=-; Pillbug

RagnarokAngel posted:

I'm pretty sure it's accepted she was afraid any man she married would basically control the throne and push her into irrelevance. Considering how royal politics tend to work she probably wasn't off.

Historians don't have a 100% nailed down reason but there are suggestions that it was mostly political. A gently caress load of people had a lot to gain for themselves and their houses during the time of political turmoil that the century was in England by marrying the queen. She was probably very worried that whoever she married would push her out of power and into irrelevance because he was king and she was not. There was also the potential for massive political upheaval if she picked the wrong husband. The interesting thing about her remaining unmarried was that it created a situation where the options were still open. If she married options became closed which guaranteed that people who could no longer gain by marrying her/having a relative marry her would very likely get pissed off and raise arms.

If memory serves there were actually multiple times that she headed off political problems by suggesting that she might maybe, I don't know, perhaps possibly some day marry some dude from some particular house that had political ambitions. When the storm passed she'd lose interest. She had a poo poo load of marriage offers but as history shows never actually took any of them. It's also quite possible that she knew she was infertile as it's suggested that she had at least one lover along the way but again there's a ton of uncertainty on the details.

Royal marriages were pretty much always political at the time and there was no way she could get away from the politics of marrying or not marrying. It turned out in her case that not marrying anybody ever was a good political move. For decades people were trying to be That Guy that Married the Queen and failing which helped create some stability.

Of course her getting married and pumping out an heir or two would also have ramifications within her now completely disinherited extended family. With no heir of her own it ended up going to James I (who was also James VI of Scotland) fairly smoothly with little major fanfare. Of course the political fuckery that had been going on for like a century at that point led to him dealing with nasty, nasty plots pretty much immediately.

edit: I'm a dumbass he was James VI not James IV.

ToxicSlurpee has a new favorite as of 22:29 on Apr 14, 2016

# ? Apr 14, 2016 22:26

Arc Hammer: Mar 4, 2013; Got any deathsticks?

Plucky Brit posted:

I think the Mongol invasions and in particular the destruction of Baghdad's libraries was more responsible for the loss of knowledge and general regression in the medieval Middle East.

Yeah from what I know the crusades were actually a major impetus for advancements in science in Europe due to the reestablished trade with the byzantines.

# ? Apr 15, 2016 03:06

Vindolanda: Feb 13, 2012; It's just like him too, y'know?

ToxicSlurpee posted:

edit: I'm a dumbass he was James VI not James IV.

When Elizabeth died Sir Robert Carey rode from London to Edinburgh over around two days in order to be the first to bring the news, due to a tradition of rewarding messengers even if the message was not unexpected. He probably spent the entire time in the saddle and at a gallop, changing horses at each Royal posthouse, and therefore would almost certainly have worn his arse entirely off.

# ? Apr 15, 2016 08:29

Cythereal: Nov 8, 2009; I love the potoo,
and the potoo loves you.

Arcsquad12 posted:

Yeah from what I know the crusades were actually a major impetus for advancements in science in Europe due to the reestablished trade with the byzantines.

Yup. The Islamic Golden Age ended because of the Mongols, not the Crusades.

# ? Apr 15, 2016 15:55

Jump King: Aug 10, 2011

From what I recall the crusaders kind of sucked at conquering. The Mongols however, were really good at it.

# ? Apr 15, 2016 17:02

ToxicSlurpee: Nov 5, 2003; -=SEND HELP=-; Pillbug

MMM Whatchya Say posted:

From what I recall the crusaders kind of sucked at conquering. The Mongols however, were really good at it.

The crusades were also kind of a lovely thing to do because the Muslims controlling the area at the time didn't really care if Christians wanted to visit Jerusalem. For the most part Christians were a largely ignored minority in the area, as were the Jews. Pilgrims were welcome to come in whatever numbers they wanted so long as they didn't cause problems. Non-Muslims could live in the area and get mostly left alone. Merchants could do their thing too.

For a while this was fine until Urban II decided that this was like "making a deal with the devil" and just not OK. It was also tied into some problems the Byzantines were having and asking for support for.

The Crusades were, as a whole, poorly organized, badly executed, and severely under supplied. They were full of zeal and fanaticism but it turns out those things don't win wars. This of course made the Muslims pretty unhappy with much of Europe; this animosity between the two religions is part of why Islamic ideas didn't spread. One theory is that the Italian Renaissance would have been completely unnecessary if Christendom just let Muslim science spread but like the Nazis and Jewish science they just said "gently caress you we'll do this our way!" Only it turns out that math never changes so you can't just do it "your way."

# ? Apr 15, 2016 17:11

RagnarokAngel: Oct 5, 2006; Black Magic Extraordinaire

I'm not defending the crusades, because they were lovely, but it's also kinda white washy to paint the Muslims as the unabashed good guys in all of this.

The status of Christians and Jews in the middle east was highly variable, much like Europeans treatment of non-Christians, it all depended on who was sitting on the throne at the time. While the Qu'ran has rules that address treating Christians and Jews which, while treating them as second class citizens, were pretty fair given the time, the reality is that depending on the place and the ruler these rules could be outright ignored and non Muslims would be treated so badly many would convert to Islam out of sheer desperation to make a decent living. Probably better than being burned at the stake but still not exactly "leaving them alone".

That said the Crusades weren't good, because it was replacing one lovely ideology with another arguably worse one, but I dont like treating Muslims as all enlightened individuals because it sort of dehumanizes them as real people and treats them as a monolithic entity. The Crusaders didn't make significant headway until they allied with other Muslims who opposed whoever occupied Jerusalem at the time on political, rather than religious grounds.

RagnarokAngel has a new favorite as of 17:35 on Apr 15, 2016

# ? Apr 15, 2016 17:16

Arc Hammer: Mar 4, 2013; Got any deathsticks?

Plus there's the fact that the Muslims had conquered a ton of Christian territory in the preceding centuries.

# ? Apr 15, 2016 17:27

ToxicSlurpee: Nov 5, 2003; -=SEND HELP=-; Pillbug

RagnarokAngel posted:

I'm not defending the crusades, because they were lovely, but it's also kinda white washy to paint the Muslims as the unabashed good guys in all of this.

The status of Christians and Jews in the middle east was highly variable, much like Europeans treatment of non-Christians, it all depended on who was sitting on the throne at the time. While the Qu'ran has rules that address treating Christians and Jews which, while treating them as second class citizens, were pretty fair given the time, the reality is that depending on the place and the ruler these rules could be outright ignored and non Muslims would be treated so badly many would convert to Islam out of sheer desperation to make a decent living. Probably better than being burned at the stake but still not exactly "leaving them alone".

That said the Crusades weren't good, because it was replacing one lovely ideology with another arguably worse one, but I dont like treating Muslims as all enlightened individuals because it sort of dehumanizes them as real people and treats them as a monolithic entity. The Crusaders didn't make significant headway until they allied with other Muslims who opposed whoever occupied Jerusalem at the time on political, rather than religious grounds.

I know, I was talking about that particular slice of history; the crusades were politically complex and not 100% religiously motivated. A lot of Europe's ideals also depended on who was ruling and who was Pope. Some popes were like "HELL YEAH LET'S HOLY WAR EVERYTHING!" and others were like "nah just let those guys do their thing over there."

It was a very long piece of history covering several centuries. Trying to talk in generalities at all is impossible; really I was referring to the area in and around Jerusalem and what have you. My understanding was that the Muslims in that particular area just kind of shrugged and went "meh, whatever" when Christians showed up.

# ? Apr 15, 2016 18:09

Alhazred: Feb 16, 2011

MMM Whatchya Say posted:

From what I recall the crusaders kind of sucked at conquering. The Mongols however, were really good at it.

Yeah, they even crushed the assassins, a group that even Saladin feared. Fun story about the assassins: Ahmad Sanjar (a Seljuq ruler) tried to drive the assassins from one of their stronghold in Alamut. Hassan-i Sabbah, who was the leader of that group of assassins, sent envoys to negotiate peace but Sanjar rebuffed them. Then one morning when Sanjar woke up there was a dagger stuck in the ground next to his bed. Then a messenger arrived with a message from Sabbah: "Did I not wish the sultan well that the dagger which was struck in the hard ground would have been planted on your soft breast". Sanjar left Alamut alone from that day.

# ? Apr 15, 2016 18:21

hard counter: Jan 2, 2015

ToxicSlurpee posted:

The crusades were also kind of a lovely thing to do because the Muslims controlling the area at the time didn't really care if Christians wanted to visit Jerusalem. For the most part Christians were a largely ignored minority in the area, as were the Jews. Pilgrims were welcome to come in whatever numbers they wanted so long as they didn't cause problems. Non-Muslims could live in the area and get mostly left alone. Merchants could do their thing too.

For a while this was fine until Urban II decided that this was like "making a deal with the devil" and just not OK. It was also tied into some problems the Byzantines were having and asking for support for.

Yeah that's a little too gross a summary. In the East the Byzantines had been hemorrhaging and/or stalemating their eastern territories in endless border conflicts w/the neighboring Muslims in struggles that had a particularly religious flavor, unlike the other conflicts they were having with other neighbors. The west was doing no better where almost the whole of modern day Spain had been conquered through holy war. The particular zeal and success of Muslims was thought to be tied to their militant religious rhetoric that could entice and embolden soldiers whilst giving them a common cause. This type of thinking can be found in a general strategy book, Tactica written by Leo VI the Wise, where Leo spends some time discussing the idea that Christianity as a whole should develop so called Muslim-like stances towards holy war. Church leaders and other religious scholars on both sides of the schism were also writing about this subject as well around the time of Urban II.

You could argue that Urban II's motivations were chiefly political since this was a way for the western church to influence the east, perhaps becoming the first among equals once again (among a whole lot of other positives for the Pope, being able to call down a crusade is a big deal) rather than a genuine belief that Christian Doctrine is best expressed through holy war. Obviously the crusades have since become an embarrassment both philosophically within a church that asks its adherents to love their enemies as much as they love themselves and politically (in the East) where perhaps the most longstanding result wrung out of the whole thing was the smashing of Byzantium in the 4th.

# ? Apr 15, 2016 18:44

Tacky-Ass Rococco: Sep 7, 2010; by R. Guyovich

If Anna Komnene is reliable, the situation in Anatolia had more or less stabilized under her father by 1096, and also, the first thing the crusaders tried to do when they got to Constantinople was attack the walls, because western Europeans (i.e., barbarians) are big dopes.

# ? Apr 15, 2016 19:13

Jump King: Aug 10, 2011

The best part of the crusades was before any actual soldiers showed up a rag tag group of peasants assembled themselves into a makeshift army and tried to march down there. They were briefly stopped at Constantinople because whoever was in charge there felt like they were going to get slaughtered if they continued. They rioted and eventually got their way, access to the Turks. They were slaughtered in what was probably the most horrific and complete routs of the time.

E: They also killed a lot of jewish folks and got into a lot of meaningless fights on their trip over.

# ? Apr 15, 2016 19:18

Philippe: Aug 9, 2013; (she/her)

Alhazred posted:

Yeah, they even crushed the assassins, a group that even Saladin feared. Fun story about the assassins: Ahmad Sanjar (a Seljuq ruler) tried to drive the assassins from one of their stronghold in Alamut. Hassan-i Sabbah, who was the leader of that group of assassins, sent envoys to negotiate peace but Sanjar rebuffed them. Then one morning when Sanjar woke up there was a dagger stuck in the ground next to his bed. Then a messenger arrived with a message from Sabbah: "Did I not wish the sultan well that the dagger which was struck in the hard ground would have been planted on your soft breast". Sanjar left Alamut alone from that day.

No-one saw where the assassin went, but there was a group of monks walking around. He could have gone anywhere.

# ? Apr 15, 2016 19:20

A Festivus Miracle: Dec 19, 2012; I have come to discourse on the profound inequities of the American political system.

Some interpretations of the Peasant's crusade actually have Peter the Hermit building up the initial momentum for Urban II to intiate the actual first crusade. But yeah, the peasants basically looted and pillaged their way south across Europe to Anatolia. Eventually, they were ambushed in a ravine in Anatolia - this would've been bad for any professionally trained army, it was even worse for a mob of peasants. Consequently, the Seljuks utterly massacred the 'army'. Of the 40k-20k who set out, only about 3,000 would survive.

# ? Apr 15, 2016 20:10

BravestOfTheLamps: Oct 12, 2012; by FactsAreUseless; Lipstick Apathy

hard counter posted:

This type of thinking can be found in a general strategy book, Tactica written by Leo VI the Wise, where Leo spends some time discussing the idea that Christianity as a whole should develop so called Muslim-like stances towards holy war.

As I recall, the Orthodox Church was very consistent in condemning war as evil, even "holy war".

The same source theorized that this might have contributed to the empire's decline, since it meant that military leaders would be even more ruthless and power-hungry, i.e., even less mindful of what Christianity demanded. Seems a bit far-fetched for me, though.

BravestOfTheLamps has a new favorite as of 20:16 on Apr 15, 2016

# ? Apr 15, 2016 20:13

Cythereal: Nov 8, 2009; I love the potoo,
and the potoo loves you.

Alhazred posted:

Yeah, they even crushed the assassins, a group that even Saladin feared. Fun story about the assassins: Ahmad Sanjar (a Seljuq ruler) tried to drive the assassins from one of their stronghold in Alamut. Hassan-i Sabbah, who was the leader of that group of assassins, sent envoys to negotiate peace but Sanjar rebuffed them. Then one morning when Sanjar woke up there was a dagger stuck in the ground next to his bed. Then a messenger arrived with a message from Sabbah: "Did I not wish the sultan well that the dagger which was struck in the hard ground would have been planted on your soft breast". Sanjar left Alamut alone from that day.

For another comparison, wonder why Baghdad and its environs were a major center of trade, civilization, learning, and agriculture back in the medieval period, and not anymore? The Mongols are why, and they systematically destroyed everything that made that kind of civilization and prosperity possible. It took until the twentieth century for population levels in what are now Iraq and Iran to return to pre-Mongol levels.

# ? Apr 15, 2016 20:29

Tacky-Ass Rococco: Sep 7, 2010; by R. Guyovich

BravestOfTheLamps posted:

As I recall, the Orthodox Church was very consistent in condemning war as evil, even "holy war".

The same source theorized that this might have contributed to the empire's decline, since it meant that military leaders would be even more ruthless and power-hungry, i.e., even less mindful of what Christianity demanded. Seems a bit far-fetched for me, though.

I want to read this source, this sounds interesting, albeit implausible.

# ? Apr 15, 2016 20:32

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

Cythereal posted:

For another comparison, wonder why Baghdad and its environs were a major center of trade, civilization, learning, and agriculture back in the medieval period, and not anymore? The Mongols are why, and they systematically destroyed everything that made that kind of civilization and prosperity possible. It took until the twentieth century for population levels in what are now Iraq and Iran to return to pre-Mongol levels.

It can't be emphasized enough just how reprehensible the Mongol invasion of Mesopotamia was. They not only depopulated the area, they also systematically destroyed the irrigation systems built and refined since the times of the ancient kingdoms, and made sure this destruction was thorough enough that the remaining population wouldn't have enough manpower to actually restore the agriculture to anything resembling its original extent. Thus they turned a prosperous region into the desolate place we imagine it to be today.

# ? Apr 15, 2016 20:45

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

Jack of Hearts posted:

I want to read this source, this sounds interesting, albeit implausible.

Yeah, I find it hard to believe, the just war theory was developed back when both ROmes were still kicking, and the Byzantines were quite happy waging wars of restoration of the Empire. The Great Schism emerged in part because the "Roman bishop" refused to participate on the Empire's plots to strengthen its territorial holds on the Mediterranean.

# ? Apr 15, 2016 20:47

BravestOfTheLamps: Oct 12, 2012; by FactsAreUseless; Lipstick Apathy

Jack of Hearts posted:

I want to read this source, this sounds interesting, albeit implausible.

I think it was History of the Byzantine State and Society, by Warren Treadgold. But it was only a couple of lines - the book is not worth reading just for that.

BravestOfTheLamps has a new favorite as of 20:54 on Apr 15, 2016

# ? Apr 15, 2016 20:52

hard counter: Jan 2, 2015

Jack of Hearts posted:

If Anna Komnene is reliable, the situation in Anatolia had more or less stabilized under her father by 1096, and also, the first thing the crusaders tried to do when they got to Constantinople was attack the walls, because western Europeans (i.e., barbarians) are big dopes.

"If." - that spartan guy, you know the one.

# ? Apr 15, 2016 21:18

Jump King: Aug 10, 2011

I'd vaguely heard that Mongol's did some decent and fair ruling in some of their conquering, at least in terms of religious liberty. Did they gently caress up some areas worse than others? (Although I guess also every place that got invaded by mongols didn't get invaded by the same mongols at the same time, so there has to be some level of variation.)

# ? Apr 15, 2016 23:31

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

MMM Whatchya Say posted:

I'd vaguely heard that Mongol's did some decent and fair ruling in some of their conquering, at least in terms of religious liberty. Did they gently caress up some areas worse than others? (Although I guess also every place that got invaded by mongols didn't get invaded by the same mongols at the same time, so there has to be some level of variation.)

"Mongols had some good ideas re. religious liberty" is pretty much the same as "The Nazis were right about the autobahns". It's tangentially related to their politics at best. They may have tolerated Christianity and other faiths, but they were genocidal towards Christian peoples who didn't submit nonetheless. The supposed religious tolerance was a thing only because the Mongols didn't feel constrained by theology in enacting their goals, and violated basic religious tenets in order to fulfil their ambitions.Their rule opened up new avenues in the Silk road for a while, but this stability was entirely dependent on the terror they were able to exact upon their subjects. As soon as their elites lost their "touch", everything came crushing down and became worse than it was prior to their rise in power.

The Mongol rule in China especially deserves attention, since they were a wholly negative influence on local development, only mitigated by native advisors who told them that a genocide of all the settled people of the country was not a good idea.

steinrokkan has a new favorite as of 23:40 on Apr 15, 2016

# ? Apr 15, 2016 23:33

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 28, 2024 23:31

Tacky-Ass Rococco: Sep 7, 2010; by R. Guyovich

hard counter posted:

"If." - that spartan guy, you know the one.

You mean that one guy, with the face? Yeah, I know him.

# ? Apr 15, 2016 23:53

The Something Awful Forums > Main > Post Your Favorite: Carefully Curated > PYF Historical Fun Fact: (USER LOSETH POSTYNG PRIVILYGES FOR FOUR AND TWENTY HOURS)

«‹›380 »