Christianity's Great Achievments

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by SociableMartian
Of course the crusades and others were pure holy wars.

Pure and uter nonsense. I suppose that's why they lterally bathed the streets of the holy city of Jerusalem in the blood of Christian and non-Christian alike and sacked Constantinople, a Catholic city at the time on thier way there.

[SociableMartian]

Perhaps but if christianity helped them believe what they were doing was right, even if it was not directly to blame it must still take some of the 'credit'.

[SociableMartian]

Originally posted by DinoDoc


Pure and uter nonsense. I suppose that's why they lterally bathed the streets of the holy city of Jerusalem in the blood of Christian and non-Christian alike and sacked Constantinople, a Ctholic city at the time on thier way thier.

Well the wars wouldn't have even occured if it weren't for Christianity.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by SociableMartian
Well the wars wouldn't have even occured if it weren't for Christianity.

The wars were only tangentially about Christianity. I find this comment dubious at best.

[SociableMartian]

Explain how they would have started if it weren't for Christianity. The Pope was the one who called for Christian countries to retake the Holy Land and I doubt the Monarchies of Europe would have gone to the considerable expense of fighting a major war for no reason at all.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by DinoDoc


The wars were only tangentially about Christianity. I find this comment dubious at best.

Why must you insist on quoting SociableMartian, DinoDoc? Some of us have him on ignore. Goddamned DL.

[SociableMartian]

I'd love this conclusive proof of my DL status.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Guynemer
Why must you insist on quoting SociableMartian, DinoDoc? Some of us have him on ignore. Goddamned DL.

Sorry. I knew not what I was doing.

[BeBMan]

Explain how they would have started if it weren't for Christianity. The Pope was the one who called for Christian countries to retake the Holy Land and I doubt the Monarchies of Europe would have gone to the considerable expense of fighting a major war for no reason at all.

Oh, European nobles and the Italian sea traders had their fights with Muslims in Spain, North Africa, Southern Italy etc even before the crusades. The reasons were hardly religious, control of trade routes, gaining territory and simply plundering the hell off the rich Arabian cities played a big role. The economy of the Arabic hemisphere was a lot better than Europe´s at that time, it was a valuable target.

Most of the European knights of the first crusade cared more about the personal wealth they could reach due to a military action.

I would say the pope´s call was a mobilizing factor, but not the only reason for the crusades.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by DinoDoc


Sorry. I knew not what I was doing.

That's okay. I tormented you with Sava's incoherent ramblings. We're even now.

[SociableMartian]

Originally posted by BeBro
Oh, European nobles and the Italian sea traders had their fights with Muslims in Spain, North Africa, Southern Italy etc even before the crusades. The reasons were hardly religious, control of trade routes, gaining territory and simply plundering the hell off the rich Arabian cities played a big role. The economy of the Arabic hemisphere was a lot better than Europe´s at that time, it was a valuable target.

True but that's to be expected. Minor raids are a lot less damaging than all out warfare.

Most of the European knights of the first crusade cared more about the personal wealth they could reach due to a military action.

True again, but then again I'm sure this can be said for many holy wars.

I would say the pope´s call was a mobilizing factor, but not the only reason for the crusades.

But the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak?

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by SociableMartian


True but that's to be expected. Minor raids are a lot less damaging than all out warfare.

The reconquista was certainly not a minor raid. And the Italian trade cities fought constantly for dominance in the Mediterranean (ok, not only against the Arabs, but to a big part).

True again, but then again I'm sure this can be said for many holy wars.

Agreed, but then again I would say "religious" wars are mainly fought because of other interests. Most of the knights would not have moved a single mile into the holy land when they hadn´d thought of their personal goals first.

But the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak?

Probably.

[SociableMartian]

Originally posted by BeBro
The reconquista was certainly not a minor raid. And the Italian trade cities fought constantly for dominance in the Mediterranean (ok, not only against the Arabs, but to a big part).

Yep but wasn't the reconquista at least partially religion based? After all surely if the Spanish had been all muslim the war would not have been fought and they would have accepted Arab rule.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by SociableMartian


Yep but wasn't the reconquista at least partially religion based? After all surely if the Spanish had been all muslim the war would not have been fought and they would have accepted Arab rule.

Not in the beginning, really. Initially it was mainly a war of the aristocracy in Northern Spain to get the territory ruled by the Moors. But yes, religious aspects got more and more important. Finally it was treated like a "regular" crusade into the holy land, I don´t recall in which year it was officially recognized as crusade, but AFAIK that was a long time after it started.

[S. Kroeze]

Originally posted by Adam Smith
Is the dignity of the individual original or unique to Christianity? Did other religions such as Bahai or Buddism have similar ideas or sooner. (sp? Its just too late at night to worry about it.)

Also question whether Crusades-engendered trade had anything much to do with the formation of Capitalism. The Crusades did bring about increased trade. Venetian traders realized gains from trade, and used the proceedes of a successful expedition to finance the next. But gains from trade is not Capitalism. Capitalism usually refers to the use of monetary capital as a specific factor of production. This requires some sort of external market for capital and payment for capital, ie, interest. What the Venetians had was an internal finance mechanism. Their capital was not available for a price in a market, so it was not Capitalism. The Church's discouragement of charging interest inhibited the growth of such markets. When capital markets did develop, they usually came thorugh Jewish groups such as Florentine goldsmiths and, later, the Fugger banking family.

Hi, Adam Smith!

It's a pleasure to meet you again. As usual, I agree with you.
The Church forbade 'usury'. It was -more or less- a deadly sin, resulting in eternal condemnation!
(though I do not think the Fuggers were Jews)