|
I'm into volume 2 now and, um He says "I'm not here to give a detailed account of the crusades; my focus is on the popular madness in Europe which gave rise to them" and then he spends about 150 pages giving a detailed account of the first three crusades?
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2019 19:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 19, 2024 21:43 |
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I think that's a difference in what we consider "history" now vs what was considered history then. Back then social history wasn't a priority to anything like the degree it is now; detailed history would mean like detailed troop movements in particular battles etc. Right, but he outright says: quote:It would be needless in this sketch, which does not profess to be so much a history of the Crusades, as of the madness of Europe, from which they sprang, to detail the various acts of bribery and intimidation, cajolery and hostility, by which Alexius contrived to make each of the leaders in succession, as they arrived, take the oath of allegiance to him as their suzerain. that he is going to focus on "the madness of Europe" that engendered the Crusades, and not on the Crusades itself; but for every page discussing the factors in Europe that kicked off this or that Crusade -- the "popular delusions" that this book purportedly discusses -- there's 20 detailing the military actions of the Crusade itself which have little if anything to do with the thesis of the book.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2019 20:21
|
|
|
I'm reading the section on poisoning now, and he mentions that, as the poison mania gripped France and the prisons increasingly swelled with poisoners, the commission of other crimes decreased in proportion. And I wonder: how many of those people are poisoners who would have, before, chosen some less fashionable form of murder? And how many of them are innocent people accused by angry neighbors or political enemies of being poisoners, knowing that it's a charge everyone is very ready to believe? In fact, the poison mania seems to have a lot in common with the witch mania (although Mackay decries the latter as murderous superstition, and reports the former as the gospel truth). The poisons, when administered properly, mimic the effects of natural afflictions and diseases; they are scentless, tasteless, and generally undetectable, making it impossible to prove that someone wasn't poisoned; and confessions are extracted on the rack or via other tortures, in the course of which the alleged poisoner not only admits their own guilt, but names a rash of co-conspirators to be delivered to the dungeons. At least some of these convictions do have more basis in fact than the ones for witchcraft; poisoners condemned by their own words in letters to their accomplices, for example, or poison-sellers caught in sting operations. And it seems likely that at least a few of the mysterious potions and powders confiscated in investigations were indeed poisons, and not cosmetics, cleaning supplies, alchohol of dubious provenance, would-be love potions, etc. But I do wonder if it is truly anywhere near as many as Mackay believes.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2019 20:12
|
|
|
Yeah, that was one of the things that started me thinking along these lines -- the poison he describes is very implausible as a poison, but makes perfect sense as a story people tell each other about poison to justify persecuting "poisoners". It's presented very differently, but once you step back from Mackay's framing, the parallels to the witch panic are pretty glaring.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2019 13:31
|
|