- This topic has 8 voices and 38 replies.
-
Posts
-
Both points seem to have merit… slow economy makes the military attractive. Witness the Age of Exploration… if the oldest son got the ranch, money, and title, the younger sibs had to find something else… often the military for various opportunities for fame, glory, and wealth (or at least security… upon completion of service).So too, folks with a violent (or violence tolerant) streak (and that are basically lawful individuals) might look for an acceptable ways to express this... the military or law enforcement come to mind.This is not to say that all folks in these professions are raging sociopaths, but merely, to indicate folks that are more tolerant of force as an option to positive ends might find these roles suitable for them.
if soldiers are naturally aggressive and inclined to fighting when otherwise idle
I wasn't trying to generalize soldiers like this. I'm not saying they were naturally aggressive and inclined to fighting, but I do think they "wanted" to.
Having nothing to loose, and, perhaps, significant social and / or economic gain (not to mention probable devotion to X'trianity)… why not?
Another point of view about the Crusades (not better nor more objective)The Crusades Through Arab Eyes, by Amin Maalouf, 1983. Amin Maalouf, a Catholic Arab, was born in Beirut, Lebanon, into a cultured family, which had a tradition of business, too. His father, Ruchdi Maalouf, was a writer, teacher, and journalist. Odette, Maalouf's mother, was from a Maronite Christian family. http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/maalouf.htm
I do not exactly understand what they are trying to say here:
Although Western research has scrutinized the religious zeal, and political and economic maneuvers behind the Crusades (1096-1291), Maalouf's book, in which he used Arab accounts, brought to the clash of Eastern and Western cultures a fresh and lesser examined perspective. In the first chapter Maalouf quotes Saladin who said: "Behold with what obstinacy they fight for their religion, while we, the Muslims, show no enthusiasm for waging holy war." Maalouf argued that from the Crusades the west became identified with the forces of progress and Arabs became identified as victims after their traumatic encounter with an alien culture. Maalouf's views have been reviewed by a number of writers dealing with the theme of crusades and the conflict between Islam and Christianity.
I have read it and Maalouf's book is one of the most biased books about the Crusades that has appeared in the past thirty years. He completely ignores the fact that prior to the resurgence of European colonialism in the early 20th Century the Crusades had been largely forgotten in the Muslim World. Reading his book you come away with the impression that the Crusades were a traumatic time for Arabs and the ejection of the Crusaders was an all encompassing goal for 200+ years. That is not true, the Crusades were nuisances to the Arabs but did not really distract them from fighting amongst themselves and even using the Crusaders in their interminable internecine, inter-Arab warfare. Maalouf paints a patently false picture of what the Arabs thought and saw during the Crusades.His work is akin to claiming the DailyKos reflects the totality of current western about about current events.
Another point of view about the Crusades (not better nor more objective)
Is there another point of view (Muslim one, if any) on the Crusades which could enlighten us on how the crusades were experienced by their opponents? Of course it would use different standards than western ones but at least this analysis could be very instructive. (even from a contemporary romancer aka Maalouf)
My main problem with Maalouf's work is not the point of view presented, it is the lack of critical analysis in that presentation. He presents the work of Muslim chroniclers as though it were unvarnished fact, which it was no more than that of Christian chroniclers. The Muslims were engaged in propagandising the Crusades at the time just as much as were the Christians. That it the biggest manifestation of his bias in writing the book. It could have been written by a member of the Muslim Brotherhood.
