Lahore's only Hindu temple razed

[Straybow]

Context, molly b, context. Try reading the whole paragraph and you'll understand who "they" are.

Likewise, we were talking about peasants in Muslim lands being "overwhelmingly Christian" as I had blithely asserted in the general and since acknowledged that it probably only applied to the lands conquered or freed by the Crusaders. You brought up Manzikert, not I; it is not relevant to that context.

Go ahead and post a map showing Saxony, as though I didn't know where Medieval Saxony or Charlemagne's empire were. Even though I demonstrated some knowledge of this by mentioning Saxons in places outside Charlemagne's reach and/or already Christian. (irony??)

Just as I would have been correct if I had left it at the general "Turks" instead of off-handedly specifying "Othmanli" in a fit of blather, you used the general "Saxons" instead of specifying "Saxony." Sauce for the goose and all that.

Shall we continue, Molly Nitpicker? The "Arab" Christians of the NME spoke Aramaic, a northern Semitic language. The invading Arabs spoke Arabic, a distinct language of the southern Semitic branch. These languages were no more mutually intelligible than, say, Spanish and French.

The Aramaic speakers no more "welcomed" the conquering Muslims than they "welcomed" rule from Constantinople. They certainly didn't "welcome" equally severe persecution of all the Christian sects as a relief from their own persecution under Byzantine rule.

As Christians they had a hand in the political processes, with the occasional Emperor siding with them and offering the hope of turning the tables, or at least relenting of the persecution and offering hope of peace. Under Islam there was no hope of betterment, no favorite sects in the court.

Many converted to Islam simply because they sought to escape the new, more equal persecution. It is a fact; go look it up. The Arabs treated them only marginally better than the Christians, still requiring them to pay the same taxes. Go look it up.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Straybow
Context, molly b, context. Try reading the whole paragraph and you'll understand who "they" are.

Actually no, since it just appeared, and was divorced from any previous reference. There was no context.

Likewise, we were talking about peasants in Muslim lands being "overwhelmingly Christian" as I had blithely asserted in the general and since acknowledged that it probably only applied to the lands conquered or freed by the Crusaders. You brought up Manzikert, not I; it is not relevant to that context.

I brought up Manzikert because you asserted that the Ottoman Turks not the Seljuk Turks were the occupying Muslim power :

The Crusades began in western Asia Minor, which had only been held by the Othmanli a decade or so.

Given that it was the defeat of the Byzantine army under Romanus Diogenes at Manzikert by the Seljuks and their subsequent occupation of Anatolia and disruption of the pilgrimage trade to the Holy Land that prompted Alexius I of Byzantium to appeal to the Western church and states for aid and thus spark off the First Crusade, I'd have thought getting that fairly salient point right is quite relevant.

After all, there's only a few more Crusades and a Muslim reconquest of Jerusalem between the Seljuks and the Ottomans coming to power....

In any case, the First Crusade really began in Western Europe- massacres of Jews being one of its notable early 'accomplishments'.

Go ahead and post a map showing Saxony, as though I didn't know where Medieval Saxony or Charlemagne's empire were. Even though I demonstrated some knowledge of this by mentioning Saxons in places outside Charlemagne's reach and/or already Christian.

Uh-huh. 'Some knowledge'.

As is evident from your post it seems you confused Christian ANGLO-SAXON kingdoms in England with pagan SAXONS in continental Europe.

If you have any evidence for Christian SAXON kingdoms bordering or near Charlemagne's empire, then I'm sure mediaeval and French and German historians will be fascinated to see this.

At least one was farther east than Charlemagne ever conquered, in what is now Poland.

Then I'm sure you have evidence for this too, don't you ?

Charlemagne and Alcuin and the Church seem to have laboured under the apprehension that the SAXONS were pagan- so did the SAXONS too:

The SAXONS were finally brought under Frankish supremacy by the great Frankish ruler, Charlemagne, after a bloody struggle that lasted thirty years (772-804). Charlemagne was also able to win them to Christianity, the SAXONS being the last German tribe that still held persistently to belief in the Germanic gods.

The Catholic Encyclopaedia

and also:

The missionary zeal of Saint Boniface in the conversion of the Germans was the velvet glove around an uncompromising iron fist: the defeats of the pagan SAXONS in 782 were followed by near-genocidal massacres. In 785 Charlemagne decreed that any SAXON refusing to be baptized or indulging in behaviour insultingto the Church was to be executed.

Cambridge Illustrated History: France by Peter Jones

The SAXONS

From their homeland in Schleswig-Holstein in northern Germany...they began to harass the coasts of western Europe and Britain, along with the Franks and other neighbouring peoples. Their attacks intensified in the 4th Century a.d. .

The SAXONS who migrated to eastern Britain helped to create several small Germanic kingdoms... together with the Angles and Jutes they came to be known as ANGLO-SAXONS to distinguish them from the SAXONS on the European mainland.

A large proportion of SAXONS had not left their homelands on the lower Elbe and the adjacent coasts and though they too were always vulnerable to the Franks, the power and influence of these continental SAXONS grew during the 6th Century.

The name SAXON was generally applied by this time to a loose grouping of tribes which lay in northern Germany between Frisia and Mecklenburg. The SAXONS remained pagan until the 8th Century and their conversion thereafter was a slow process in which ANGLO-SAXON and Frankish missionaries played a leading part.

In 772 Charlemagne's troops seized the great SAXON sanctuary of Eresburg and destroyed their great Idol, the Irminsul... etc, etc...

'Ancestors: The Origins of the People and Countries of Europe' by Martin Berg & Miles Litvinoff

Just as I would have been correct if I had left it at the general "Turks" instead of off-handedly specifying "Othmanli" in a fit of blather, you used the general "Saxons" instead of specifying "Saxony." Sauce for the goose and all that.

Uh huh. You'll notice my use of 'SAXONS', as opposed to ANGLO-SAXONS, was quite correct and particular. Vagueness would appear to be your sauce of choice, not mine....

At least 4 Saxon kingdoms were in Britain

Tee hee.

I'm rather familiar with the ANGLO-SAXON Heptarchy. That would be seven kingdoms by the way.

The "Arab" Christians of the NME spoke Aramaic, a northern Semitic language. The invading Arabs spoke Arabic, a distinct language of the southern Semitic branch. These languages were no more mutually intelligible than, say, Spanish and French.

Oh dear. I'm not sure what point you're getting at, if any. Many Arabs spoke Aramaic too since it had been an imperial lingua franca in the Parthian and Sassanid Empires and was a trading language used in preference to Imperial Greek in the Middle East. It is possible to be bilingual or multilingual you know....

They certainly didn't "welcome" equally severe persecution of all the Christian sects as a relief from their own persecution under Byzantine rule.

Ho-hum

What persecution are you referring to ?

Given that the Byzantines viewed the Armenians, Nestorians and Jacobites and Copts as heretics and either overtaxed or physically attacked or exiled them, I'm not sure how this was meant to worsen under the Caliphate, which didn't care which Christian sect they belonged to.

Here's Steven Runciman in 'A History of the Crusades, Vol. 1 The First Crusade' :

Besides the Monophysites and the Nestorians, there was another community in the eastern provinces that was constantly opposed to the imperial (Byzantine) government, that of the Jews.

and:

Except in the cities of Palestine the Orthodox were a minority. They were named contemptuously the Melkites, the Emperor's men.

Further on:

The Arabs quickly overran the country. The heretic Christians submitted to them without demur. The Jews gave them active help, serving as their guides.

And for good measure, here's the (Christian) Jacobite Patriarch of Antioch, Michael the Syrian on the Islamic Conquest:

"... the God of vengeance, who alone is the Almighty...raised from the south the children of Ishmael to deliver us by them from the hands of the Romans."
[this deliverance] " ...was no light advantage for us."

Michael The Syrian vol.II pp. 412-413

It is a fact; go look it up.

You see, it's my humble opinion that if you're going to present something as being a fact, you don't invite someone else to look it up.

If you're so sure of your information you present it, with or without references.

So far facts haven't been your strong point, but you've been long on unsupported assertions and assumptions.

Likewise, we were talking about peasants in Muslim lands being "overwhelmingly Christian" as I had blithely asserted in the general and since acknowledged that it probably only applied to the lands conquered or freed by the Crusaders.

See, still haven't seen any hard evidence for this. Probably because you originally said this:

At the start of the Crusades the peasants living in Muslim-held lands were still overwhelmingly Christian.

followed by this:

Armenia and other eastern regions had been conquered a century or so earlier. Peasants in cities and towns were still almost entirely Christian (plus Zoroastrian in the east).

I notice you also stray into the history of Zoroastrianism, not supported by any references I see.

It seems to me on reading this you probably haven't read Richard Frye's 'The Heritage of Persia' . It might be a good start.

A final word to the Patriarch of Jerusalem in the 9th Century, writing to his colleague in Constantinople:

" [the Muslim authorities] they are just and do us no wrong nor show us any violence."

Letter of Theodosius of Jerusalem to Ignatius of Constantinople.

Molly Nitpicker?

Oh, it is to larf.

If only your posts weren't so louse-y with mistakes and unfounded assertions and assumptions, I wouldn't have to use my nitcomb of correction.

[Straybow]

Oh, good show, Molly B!

My bum leg gives me time to return to OT and I thought to check up on this old thread. You really put alot of effort into that post! But was it worth it? By all means, let us review.

Originally posted by molly bloom
Actually no, since it just appeared, and was divorced from any previous reference. There was no context.

Hmmm, I guess we should re-examine the text:

Originally posted by Straybow
Manzikert is in Armenia, not on the western end of Asia Minor directly across from Constantinople. Although, of course, they* were overwhelmingly Christians and fled into the west from the murderous Seljuks, only to be later conquered there (by whomever) as well. They* reportedly lined the route of the Crusaders with cheering throngs. [* marked for emphasis]

The paragraph did open with a statement about the conquest of Armenia, which I thought sufficient for establishing the identity of the peoples described as fleeing into the west. It was in response to somebody bringing up something about Manzikert. If this was insufficient to establish context, then I apologize for overestimating the readers' faculties. I guess we'll call that one point for you.

I brought up Manzikert because you asserted that the Ottoman Turks not the Seljuk Turks were the occupying Muslim power :

Except that the error was exposed immediately by lotm, and had no bearing on the remaining content regarding the Turkish conquest of Asia Minor. It was long dead before you brought up Manzikert, which was both immaterial and pedantic name-dropping. My point.

Given that it was the defeat of the Byzantine army under Romanus Diogenes at Manzikert by the Seljuks and their subsequent occupation of Anatolia and disruption of the pilgrimage trade to the Holy Land that prompted Alexius I of Byzantium to appeal to the Western church and states for aid and thus spark off the First Crusade, I'd have thought getting that fairly salient point right is quite relevant.

"Fairly salient" and "relevant," except Manzikert is not on the route. The salient point was the occupation of western Asia Minor.

"Fairly salient" and "relevant," except that it does show Muslim control over all of Anatolia was barely more than 20 years at that point.

"Fairly salient" and "relevant," except that you then ignored the role of Armenian Christian refugees as well as Greeks who could not flee the Seljuk onslaught, and remained unconverted, showing that indeed the majority of the Anatolian population remained Christian at the time of the Crusade. Which was at the heart of my initial argument.

After all, there's only a few more Crusades and a Muslim reconquest of Jerusalem between the Seljuks and the Ottomans coming to power.... [sic]

Just as there were only a few hundred years from the Muslim conquest of Palestine and Syria to the conquest of Asia Minor. You might have noticed in your Googling there were less than 30 years from Manzikert to 1st Crusade. My point.

In any case, the First Crusade really began in Western Europe- massacres of Jews being one of its notable early 'accomplishments'.

Immaterial to the discussion; a desperate ploy to raise emotional response. No points.

As is evident from your post it seems you confused Christian ANGLO-SAXON kingdoms in England with pagan SAXONS in continental Europe.

If you have any evidence for Christian SAXON kingdoms bordering or near Charlemagne's empire, then I'm sure mediaeval and French and German historians will be fascinated to see this.

Again, you only spoke of Charlemagne converting "the Saxons" by force. You did not specify Saxony, nor distinguish between the Old* Saxons and the Anglo-Saxons, who were Christian. My point (see below).

It is my impression that Silesia was not conquered by Charlemagne, and I'll stand by that. Perhaps Silesia was not Saxon at the time. You may exercise your mighty Google-fu and nit-pick that if it makes you happy. Meanwhile, I'll concede the point and move on.

Charlemagne and Alcuin and the Church seem to have laboured under the apprehension that the SAXONS were pagan- so did the SAXONS too: [MB quotes several sources]

Except you also cited instances when the Anglo-Saxons interceded with Charlemagne to end persecutions of their continental Saxon brethren as proof of forcible conversion. Can't have it both ways, Molly Nitpick. Of course, I never once contended that Saxons in 8th century Briton were pagan or that those of Saxony were not. My point.

Uh huh. You'll notice my use of 'SAXONS', as opposed to ANGLO-SAXONS, was quite correct and particular. Vagueness would appear to be your sauce of choice, not mine.... [sic]

Wrong. The scholarly distinction is to call the continental pagans Old Saxons. Such an egregious oversight means no nit-picker points for you, one for me (see * above).

I'm rather familiar with the ANGLO-SAXON Heptarchy. That would be seven kingdoms by the way.

Given that Northumbria, East Anglia, and Mercia were Angeln, one applies the advanced science of subtraction (q.v.). Hence, four Saxon kingdoms. My point.

Oh dear. I'm not sure what point you're getting at, if any. Many Arabs spoke Aramaic too since it had been an imperial lingua franca in the Parthian and Sassanid Empires and was a trading language used in preference to Imperial Greek in the Middle East. It is possible to be bilingual or multilingual you know.... [sic]

You said the Muslims spoke the same language. So now a few Arabs speaking a bit of trade jargon constitutes a common language, as though the Greeks would not likewise have among them those who spoke Aramaic...

Hmmm, kinda sounds like me saying Christians were the "overwhelming majority" when they were only a largest aggregate in many regions. My point.

Given that the Byzantines viewed the Armenians, Nestorians and Jacobites and Copts as heretics and either overtaxed or physically attacked or exiled them, I'm not sure how this was meant to worsen under the Caliphate, which didn't care which Christian sect they belonged to.

Didn't I say that the Muslim persecution of Christians was mostly equal regardless of sect? Thank you for the point.

Here's Steven Runciman in 'A History of the Crusades, Vol. 1 The First Crusade' : [and some other citations]

Oooh, so there were a whole bunch of Christians still around and defiantly unconverted at the time of the first Crusade. Maybe your source on the First Crusade will also tell you who rose up and massacred Muslim garrisons as the Franks marched south, or how many thousands of non-Jacobite Christians were expelled from Antioch when the governor feared the same.

And no wonder. Antioch was taken by the Byzantines and "re-Christianized" for over a century until captured by Muslims around the same time as Nicea. My point.

You see, it's my humble opinion that if you're going to present something as being a fact, you don't invite someone else to look it up.

I've just given you a little help. My dead tree notes are boxed away and I can't be arsed to look them up or find an online substitute for this silly argument. You can do it if you just try... but you are correct in that telling you to look it up will award no points to me.

You can acknowledge it when it turns out I'm right.

A final word to the Patriarch of Jerusalem in the 9th Century, writing to his colleague in Constantinople:

" [the Muslim authorities] they are just and do us no wrong nor show us any violence."

Letter of Theodosius of Jerusalem to Ignatius of Constantinople.

Everyone loves the resounding praise of a lackey. Theodosius neglects to mention how Christians were forbidden to proselytize or baptize any not born of Christian parents (merely the things Jesus commissioned the believers to do), to build new churches or repair old ones, buy property outside their quarter, etc. My point.

Kinda like the way atheists want to treat Christians (e.g., Cort). Kinda like the way Muslims today in many countries want to treat other religions (e.g., bending rules to raze a historic Hindu structure). My point again.

And finally†, you are penalized one nit-picker point for thrice using four dots in conversational ellipsis instead of three and one form point for thinking anyone would be impressed with your ZOMFG resurch skillz.

12 for me
0 for Molly B

†Hadda figure some way to rig the outcome

[Elok]

Thread necromancy is an abomination in the eyes of the MODs.

[Spiffor]

Thread necromancy only occurs when the resurrector has nothing to add of interest.

This is not the case in this thread. We are witnessing thread revival which is white magic (and thus goode)

[LordShiva]

Regardless, my mouth waters at the prospect of molly coming back here to put the beat down on Straybow

[Straybow]

You forgot the popcorn

[molly bloom]

Re: Oh, good show, Molly B!

Originally posted by Straybow

The paragraph did open with a statement about the conquest of Armenia, which I thought sufficient for establishing the identity of the peoples described as fleeing into the west. It was in response to somebody bringing up something about Manzikert. If this was insufficient to establish context, then I apologize for overestimating the readers' faculties. I guess we'll call that one point for you.

You know, for someone who on occasion can't write grammatically correct English, your taking would-be potshots at the supposed deficiencies of my faculties is rather amusing, not to say ironic..

The 'they' in your sentence does not refer back to anyone, since Armenia, Manzikert, Asia Minor and Constantinople are terms referring to geography, not to the inhabitants of places.

I can recommend a good beginner's guide to English....

Except that the error was exposed immediately by lotm, and had no bearing on the remaining content regarding the Turkish conquest of Asia Minor. It was long dead before you brought up Manzikert, which was both immaterial and pedantic name-dropping. My point.

There's a difference between being pedantic and being precise; you chose to belittle the knowledge of 'Orientalists' earlier in the thread, and yet so far have managed to clog up this thread with any numbers of errors, regarding the early history of Islam and the Crusades. Knowing the history of the period immediately before the Crusades and what prompted them are neither immaterial nor pedantic in a discussion about the Crusades.

Given that the Seljuk Turks' defeat of the Byzantines at Manzikert is a decisive battle in the history of Asia Minor, the Middle East, the Crusades, Byzantium, Islam and world history, getting the Seljuks mixed up with the Ottomans is not just an error, it's a travesty.

except Manzikert is not on the route.

And ? We weren't talking about Swan Hellenic guided tours. Just a world famous battle that prompted a call for help to the Christian West and resulted in the occupation of the Holy Land.

except that it does show Muslim control over all of Anatolia was barely more than 20 years at that point.

Which has no bearing on anything. At this time, might made right. Who was going to enforce international mediation ? The Coptic Patriarch of Alexandria ?

except that you then ignored the role of Armenian Christian refugees as well as Greeks who could not flee the Seljuk onslaught, and remained unconverted, showing that indeed the majority of the Anatolian population remained Christian at the time of the Crusade.

I ignored nothing of the sort. This indicates to me that you haven't read anything on the occupation of Anatolia by the Seljuks, or much on the history of Byzantium post-Manzikert.

I believe you were originally trying to make some point about there being a majority of non-Muslim peasantry in the lands of Islam. Still awaiting any facts and figures on this, as indeed we are for your census of post-Manzikert Anatolia.

You might have noticed in your Googling there were less than 30 years from Manzikert to 1st Crusade. My point.

I don't google- I study. You might have benefited from both, or either before engaging in this reply. Where have I made some huge point about the time between Manzikert and the launching of the First Crusade ?

Really, the mind boggles.

Immaterial to the discussion; a desperate ploy to raise emotional response. No points.

Nothing of the sort; I notice the subtle differences between the way Islam is portrayed and the way Christianity is depicted in this thread and others. The ostensible aim of the First Crusade (for going on which the Crusaders received absolution for their actions) was to reclaim the holy places of the Middle East for Christianity. Given they'd be under the control of Muslims since the 7th Century, this was a little after the fact, and given also that the Shi'ite Fatimids had encouraged the pilgrim tourist trade, one is at a loss to think why anyone in Western Europe should have thought they had a prior right to run them or own them.

Nonetheless, the accomplishments of the Western Christians in Jew-killing in Western Europe and Christian killing in Eastern Europe were surpassed by the mass slaughter of Jews and Muslims in Jerusalem. Very holy, very noble.

Again, you only spoke of Charlemagne converting "the Saxons" by force. You did not specify Saxony, nor distinguish between the Old* Saxons and the Anglo-Saxons, who were Christian. My point

Which Saxony did you have in mind ? Look I'm sorry if I'm dealing with someone not fully up-to-date on the Carolingian Empire, but he didn't go to war with the Anglo-Saxons of England, he borrowed scholar monks from them.

There's also a difference between the Saxon lands of Charlemagne's time and the later Saxon kingdom- he did after resettle Saxons in his empire. But of course, I'm imagining you're familiar with this period of history...

It is my impression that Silesia was not conquered by Charlemagne, and I'll stand by that. Perhaps Silesia was not Saxon at the time. You may exercise your mighty Google-fu and nit-pick that if it makes you happy. Meanwhile, I'll concede the point and move on.

I'm very happy you have impressions. Perhaps sometime soon you'll back them up with more than just a hint, a metabolic flicker, a whim, and with some FACTS.

By the way, the reason I give the names of the authors of books and the titles of books is so that you might pick some up and learn something.

Call me an optimist...

Wrong. The scholarly distinction is to call the continental pagans Old Saxons. Such an egregious oversight means no nit-picker points for you, one for me

By all means feel free to prove it.

Except you also cited instances when the Anglo-Saxons interceded with Charlemagne to end persecutions of their continental Saxon brethren as proof of forcible conversion. Can't have it both ways, Molly Nitpick. Of course, I never once contended that Saxons in 8th century Briton were pagan or that those of Saxony were not. My point.

I did nothing of the sort. Get some glasses, or someone who can read English better than you to explain what I wrote about Alcuin.

Given that Northumbria, East Anglia, and Mercia were Angeln, one applies the advanced science of subtraction (q.v.). Hence, four Saxon kingdoms. My point.

Tragic, truly. Look up Anglo-Saxon Heptarchy. Please.

You can acknowledge it when it turns out I'm right.

Dear me- Muslim pigs will fly before that unlikeliest of events ever occurs.

[Straybow]

I've committed a travesty and have a tragic interpretation of the heptarchy. I should hang up my scholar's robe in shame. I should surrender my license to post, being unworthy of appearing in the same thread as thou. Or maybe not.

• First, I was not belittling the knowledge of Orientalists, merely their customary assumption that anything Oriental is better than everything Occidental, for which point they usually (and did) raise the issue of the Crusades and conveniently ignore the butchery of the Turks.

There are, of course, a few people who only parrot the list of Crusader offenses without knowledge of the Muslim offenses. In that case no doubt their education is at fault, and belittling the Orientalist bias of that education may serve to enlighten them. Or they may take offense and learn nothing.

Linked to that is the presumption that the Crusaders were there to conquer and convert (if by force) Muslims, whereas the majority of the peasantry were still Christian. This is true for western Asia Minor, Antioch, Aleppo, perhaps other large Syrian cities: the route of the pilgrims and of the Crusaders.

• Second, what was the purpose of bringing up Manzikert? The attempt to retake Manzikert was intended to contained the Turks in Armenia. Neither that battle nor the capture of RD prompted the call for help that sparked the First Crusade. Quite the contrary, a little Googling shows that his capture simply gave his rivals a chance to take over. It was the subsequent fall of Byzantine provinces, which the Byzantines could not stop or reverse, that made common cause with the Pope when the Turks cut off pilgrimage by land.

Certainly the post-Manzikert power struggle weakened the Empire. You could claim the Greeks might have contained the Turks in Armenia; in fact the military units defeated at Manzikert did not suffer great losses. But that is a far cry from claiming a direct causative link between Manzikert and the Crusades.

You see, it is one thing for me to make a broad assertion about the peasantry which applies only to the region of interest in the First Crusade. It is one thing to mention the Othmanli when the Seljuks were in the ascendant. Shame on me for being sloppy.

It is another thing to introduce a highly specific fact, as though to inflict a rhetorical death-blow, which turns out to be inconsequential to the topic. Inconsequential, in that it seems you introduced it simply to highlight the mistake of calling them Othmanli instead of Seljuks (which was dead before you brought it up the first time). And then to make the introduction in the form—"Yeah, Manzikert being such an unimportant battle in world history and all.... "—that is pedantic name-dropping at it's cheesiest.

• Third, you accuse me of "not reading about" the Seljuk occupation and one or two other topics. But apparently it is you who have not read Crusaders' accounts of the situation in Nicea, Asia Minor, and Antioch. You cite some sources and say I should read them, but anyone can cherry-pick sources or quotes from sources. Then you whine when I just tell you to go look up the Crusader accounts. Molly Pot and calling the stray kettle black.

• Fourth, you raise the issue of Charlemagne's pogrom against the pagan Saxons in a manner of the Orientalist litany. Nevermind it is three centuries removed from the Crusades and has nothing to do with Islam and the topic.

In response I attacked your statements at the same level of pedantry, and now you want to complain? OK, let's Google: the incident is of a few thousand nomadic Saxon pagans who oppressed the settled population, who were Christian. Charlemagne forced them to be baptized and threatened them with execution if they defied the Church.

Hmmm, I guess it turns out to be more relevant that I thought, but once again my "point" if you are keeping score: the situation was remarkably parallel to Asia Minor in the First Crusade, with a semi-nomadic tribe oppressing settled Christians...

Thus the Crusades, whether Carolingian, Iberian, or Byzantine, were inspired in defense of oppressed Christians rather than as religious fanaticism. Acts of naked aggression and religious fanaticism abound on all sides, but that was not the impetus from the Christian side.

• Fifth, you attack my assertion of Saxon kingdoms in Briton, repeatedly babbling something about a "heptarchy." In that view of early England there were three Angeln and four Saxon kingdoms, plus the Jutes and various Celtic principalities. Somehow you want to cling to the heptarchy and dispute the constituent four Saxon kingdoms?

Of course the reality is much more complex. Seven kingdoms represents only an idealized view of the politics. The distinction between the Angeln north and Saxon south is dialectic rather than ancestral. That is the reason why I stated it as "at least four Saxon kingdoms" rather than ascribing to the canonical number. All seven can rightly be called Saxon kingdoms.

The term "Anglo-Saxon" was certainly not in use at the time of Alcuin, so I'm not sure why you keep invoking him as "proof" of something. Charlemagne recognized Offa by the title King of the Britons, not King of "Anglo-Saxons." They would all have been categorized as Britons first, and then as Saxons to differentiate them from the Celtic speakers; and Offa as overlord of Britons both Celtic and Saxon.

The term might have been used around the time of Alfred, when the Christians were oppressed by the pagans. Wessex arose to drive out the hated Danes and unite the peoples, and the categorical "Anglo-Saxon" descriptor might have emerged. But that is doubtful. We aren't even sure it was in use in the eleventh century.

The terms Anglo-Saxon and Old Saxon are distinctions drawn long after the fact. You can hardly be adamant about the one and claim ignorance about the other, and then whine that I simply tell you to look it up. Get real.

Now, of course, there are scholars who insist that the Early English weren't Saxons at all. I suppose these guys have a super-scholarly explanation of why the proto-English chose to call three of their most prosperous kingdoms "East Saxe," "West Saxe," and "South Saxe" if indeed there never were Saxons resident. Perhaps they just liked the name and forgot who they were or where they were from.

Maybe that is what you're getting at, mumbling about the heptarchy and getting your caps-lock stuck every time you type "Anglo" or "Saxon." Do enlighten us, if you can.

• Lastly, do you claim you still don't understand who "they" are, or are you still trying to nit-pick the grammar rather than address the point?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Straybow

I've committed a travesty and have a tragic interpretation of the heptarchy.

Yes to part (i), and I can't recall stating the second part. Your reply was tragic indeed.

I should hang up my scholar's robe in shame. I should surrender my license to post, being unworthy of appearing in the same thread as thou. Or maybe not.

Out of the mouths of babes...

• First, I was not belittling the knowledge of Orientalists, merely their customary assumption that anything Oriental is better than everything Occidental, for which point they usually (and did) raise the issue of the Crusades and conveniently ignore the butchery of the Turks.

I don't think you recall what you posted, do you ?

This is what you said:

Yes, LOTM. Hourani, Lewis and numerous other sources (dead tree rather than internet) who aren't among the fawning Orientalists.

'Fawning' Orientalists ? In a reply to L.O.T.M.s' remark about the non-Muslim population of Egypt:

IIRC albert Hourani in "the arabs" states that the majority of peasants in EGYPT were christian at least as late as 1000 CE.

nothing to do with butchery, Christian or otherwise. I don't think anyone interprets 'fawning' as being anything other than insulting or belittling in that context.

There are, of course, a few people who only parrot the list of Crusader offenses without knowledge of the Muslim offenses. In that case no doubt their education is at fault, and belittling the Orientalist bias of that education may serve to enlighten them. Or they may take offense and learn nothing.

There are of course other people who confuse Seljuk and Ottoman and make entirely unsubstantiated and unfounded claims about the persecution of all Christians in the newly won lands of the Caliphate and seem utterly confused about Muslim tolerance for dhimmis and Muslim unwillingness to enact forced conversions on subject peoples.

I wonder who they can be...

Linked to that is the presumption that the Crusaders were there to conquer and convert (if by force) Muslims, whereas the majority of the peasantry were still Christian. This is true for western Asia Minor, Antioch, Aleppo, perhaps other large Syrian cities: the route of the pilgrims and of the Crusaders.

Without using information on the make-up of the population that I've already posted, please back this up. Note that I haven't anywhere stated or given the impression that the Crusaders were on a mission to convert by force the Muslim or Jewish or non-Roman Catholic population. Nice insinuation though...

In any case, your memory is failing you again. This is only what you've amended your original claim to, after having previously stated this (again without a shred of evidence given):

At the start of the Crusades the peasants living in Muslim-held lands were still overwhelmingly Christian.

Uh huh. Still awaiting that census.

Second, what was the purpose of bringing up Manzikert? The attempt to retake Manzikert was intended to contained the Turks in Armenia. Neither that battle nor the capture of RD prompted the call for help that sparked the First Crusade. Quite the contrary, a little Googling shows that his capture simply gave his rivals a chance to take over. It was the subsequent fall of Byzantine provinces, which the Byzantines could not stop or reverse, that made common cause with the Pope when the Turks cut off pilgrimage by land.

Manzikert (as a little googling would further educate you) heralded the collapse of Byzantium's campaign against the Seljuks and the Seljuk occupation of the Byzantine recruiting ground of its Anatolian holdings.

The Fatimids, being Shi'ite heretics viewed Christians with a degree of indulgence and welcomed the financially rewarding Christian pilgrimages to the holy places. The Seljuks, being victorious orthodox Sunni warriors, took a less charitable view to Western trips to the Middle East.

This aptly and succinctly sums it up for you:

A more telling blow falls near the town of Manzikert, in the Armenian borderlands, when the Seljuk Turks rout a Byzantine army under the Emperor Romanos IV Diogenes.

The Seljuk Turks, originating in Central Asia, have made themselves masters of Baghdad and established a protectorate over the Abbasid Caliphate. Their victory over the Byzantines is a stunning blow for the Empire, but one from which recovery should have been possible. Unfortunately the Byzantine political scene is thrown into further disarray by the defeat and there is no effective response to further Seljuk incursions into Byzantine territory.

Over the next ten years virtually all of Asia Minor is lost to the Seljuks, who establish a capital for their new Sultanate of Rum (Turkish for "Rome") at Nicaea.

Why is Manzikert so important to the Crusades ?

The First Crusade is launched

Alexios still lacks the necessary military resources to attempt a reconquest of Asia Minor. He puts out diplomatic feelers to the Pope, Urban II - perhaps a strong mercenary force could be arranged to help free the eastern Christians ?

The original Byzantine request is interpreted by the Pope as a call for a full-blown holy war. At the Council of Clermont, Urban extends the Crusade’s objectives to capture of Jerusalem from the Muslims.

http://byzantium.seashell.net.nz/articlemain.php?artid=time_imp2

Simple, isn't it ?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Straybow

You cite some sources and say I should read them, but anyone can cherry-pick sources or quotes from sources.

Molly Pot and calling the stray kettle black.

Anyone can, but noticeably you don't. I quote from Runciman's far from obscure history of the Crusades and John Julius Norwich's history of Byzantium, amongst others.

You apparently, for all your supposed accuracy, quote from the top of your head, or some other alternate universe, where the history you'd like to have happened actually took place, rather than the history that did in fact take place in our world.

You see, it is one thing for me to make a broad assertion about the peasantry which applies only to the region of interest in the First Crusade.

But ya didn't, did ya, Blanche ?

I'll remind you:

At the start of the Crusades the peasants living in Muslim-held lands were still overwhelmingly Christian.

Still no proof for this. Still waiting, despite asking...

Fourth, you raise the issue of Charlemagne's pogrom against the pagan Saxons in a manner of the Orientalist litany. Nevermind it is three centuries removed from the Crusades and has nothing to do with Islam and the topic.

What is this 'Orientalist litany' ? Not one I learned at Catholic school, or in my catechism I'm afraid. Here's what I said :

So ? Charlemagne converted the Saxons to Christianity by force. I had supposed Christianity to be 'the religion' of peace, yet surprisingly throughout its history (and through the use of scriptural and doctrinal justification) it has been anything but.

and the why:

The Crusades began in western Asia Minor, which had only been held by the Othmanli a decade or so. What I read many years ago indicated the first non-Arab converts were Copts in Egypt near the end of the seventh century. Sorry, mental goof saying it was "nearly two centuries" by thinking end of 700s. The genuine non-Arab converts were mostly the Berbers and Turks. Turks were new to the region and had been polytheists, and thus were heavily proselytized.

being what you said.

The Caliphate armies were instructed not to convert by force:

The treaty which Khalid concluded with the Damascenes is typical of the arrangements that were to be made by the score in many different lands during the next decades.

" This is the treaty which Khalid bin Walid makes with the people of Damascus, on his entry into the town. He assures to them their lives and goods, their churches and the walls of their town. No house will be pulled down or taken away from its owner. To guarantee this, he takes God to witness and promises them the protection of the Prophet, of his successors and of the faithful. He will do no ill to them, so long as they pay the tribute. "

As one Christian Nestorian bishop put it:

"The Arabs to whom God has in our day accorded the dominion, have become our masters, but they do not war against the Christian religion, rather they protect our faith, respect our priests and holy men and make gifts to our churches and convents."

Chapter III, The First Conquests: A History of Mediaeval Islam, by J. J. Saunders

Compares rather well with:

Alcuin:

" The King (Charlemagne) is gone to lay waste the land of the Saxons."

who were apparently:

'detestable and oath-breaking pagans', undoubtedly why there were no qualms about massacring thousands of Saxon rebels surrendered to the Franks by Saxon nobles at the Massacre of Verden.

As Alcuin said of the forcible mass conversions:

Our Lord commanded us to teach the Christian faith and then, after it had been accepted, to baptise. How can the wretched Saxons be forced to believe what they do not believe ?

from: A Portrait of Europe, 300-1300 A.D., Price & Howell

Thus the Crusades, whether Carolingian, Iberian, or Byzantine, were inspired in defense of oppressed Christians rather than as religious fanaticism. Acts of naked aggression and religious fanaticism abound on all sides, but that was not the impetus from the Christian side.

Yeah, right. Exactly what prompted the forcible conversion of European Jews then, before the Crusaders even reached the Middle East, if not religious fanaticism ?

Religious anti-semitism has a long history in Christianity, both Western and Eastern:

A.D. 418 Bishop Severus incites Christians in Mahon to burn synagogues, seize Jews and forcibly baptise them. 540 Jews forced to convert.

A.D. 484 Jews forbidden to reside in Jerusalem; decimation of Samaritan community after revolt. Emperor Zeno builds church on Mount Gerizim.

A.D. 533 Conquest of Vandal Kingdom by Belisarius for Byzantium; edict ordering conversion of synagogues into churches.

Jews forced to convert in Pentapolis, flee to Berber tribes, convert some to Judaism.

A.D. 632 Emperor Heraclius promulgates edict of forced conversion on Jews

Governor of Byzantine Jerusalem attempts to force Jewish community there to convert.

Jews and Samaritans viewed victorious Sasanids as liberators.


Visigothic Spain:

A.D. 589 Third Church Council of Toledo: King Reccared declares Catholicism sole religion of country. Jews forbidden to marry Christian women or own Christian slaves.

A.D. 589 County of Barcelona: regional council compels all residents to rest onSunday

A.D. 612 King Sisebut orders release of Christian slaves owned by Jews

A.D. 613 Expels from Spain Jews who refuse to convert to Christianity

A.D. 633 Fourth Church Council of Toledo: more restrictions against Jews and persecution of converted Jews.

Atlas of Mediaeval Jewish History, Haim Beinart

And just before the Sasanids are knocking on Byzantium's door, Emperor Phocas just can't resist:

If Phocas had any chance left to him of averting disaster, it would have been to encourage [a united front] amongst his subjects. Instead, he chose this of all moments to initiate an all-out campaign for the persecution and forcible conversion of the Jews.

Chapter 13, 'Downward Drift' from 'Byzantium: The Early Centuries' by John Julius Norwich

Remarkably, Christian religious intolerance and anti-semitism was providing a group of people willing to help the future armies of the Caliphate, in the Byzantine provinces in the Middle East, North Africa and Visigothic Spain.

But to be fair, Byzantium also did its level best to persecute, terrorise and fleece the Nestorian and Monophysite Christians of Egypt and Syria too.

Fifth, you attack my assertion of Saxon kingdoms in Briton, repeatedly babbling something about a "heptarchy." In that view of early England there were three Angeln and four Saxon kingdoms, plus the Jutes and various Celtic principalities. Somehow you want to cling to the heptarchy and dispute the constituent four Saxon kingdoms?

I do nothing of the sort. If you'd pay attention, what I attacked was your astonishingly flexible notion of what and where Saxony was in the days Charlemagne campaigned against the pagan Saxons.

Here's what you said originally:

"The Saxons," right. There were more Saxon kingdoms than you can shake a stick at. At least one was farther east than Charlemagne ever conquered, in what is now Poland. At least 4 Saxon kingdoms were in Britain, and they were Christian long before Charlemagne came to power.

C'mon, didn't you know that? Do your research, man!

The last part affords me even more amusement now.

Here's what 'A Guide To Old English' by Mitchell & Robinson has to say:

Anglo-Saxons

The invading English, therefore, lived in independent kingdoms- there were 10 south of the Humber in 600 A.D.

The Anglo-Saxons were far from primitive. At the time of the Norman Conquests, England- although she no longer led Western Europe in monastic learning as shed had in the 8th Century...

and here's C. Brooke in 'The Saxon and Norman Kings':

The Small Kingdoms

...the 7th and 8th Centuries used to be known as the period of 'the Heptarchy', the 7 kingdoms, although in the constantly shifting sands there were almost always more or less than 7 kings in England.

Christian England:

Synod of Whitby 664 A.D.

... Northumbria and England at large, in the generations following Whitby, in the age of Theodore and the age of Bede, saw a Christian civilisation with Roman and Celtic roots such as could hardly be paralleled on the Continent in this period.

Certainly not by pagan Saxons.

The term "Anglo-Saxon" was certainly not in use at the time of Alcuin, so I'm not sure why you keep invoking him as "proof" of something.

I've never indicated it was. I've said that historians differentiate between Anglo-Saxons in England and Saxons in Continental Europe- especially when discussing Charlemagne's crusades against pagan Saxons!.

Alcuin is quoted for the rather obvious reason of his close personal and professional relationship with Emperor Charlemagne and his knowledge of the crusades against the Saxons....

Charlemagne recognized Offa by the title King of the Britons, not King of "Anglo-Saxons." They would all have been categorized as Britons first, and then as Saxons to differentiate them from the Celtic speakers; and Offa as overlord of Britons both Celtic and Saxon.

Yeah, and I haven't so far raised a point about what Charlemagne called any king of England. I'm aware that Offa considered himself 'Bretwalda' .

If you can find what Charlemagne called Offa, then feel free to show us. I seem to recall Charlemagne addressing him as 'king of Mercia'....

The term might have been used around the time of Alfred, when the Christians were oppressed by the pagans. Wessex arose to drive out the hated Danes and unite the peoples, and the categorical "Anglo-Saxon" descriptor might have emerged. But that is doubtful. We aren't even sure it was in use in the eleventh century.

Uh huh.

It has even been suggested that Alfred's title in the charter, "King of the Saxons", instead of his more usual "King of the Anglo-Saxons", shows Alfred claiming a more limited authority than he did in the 880s and earlier 890s, perhaps under threat from Edward.

http://www.anglo-saxons.net/hwaet/?do=get&type=person&id=EdwardtheElder

his more usual styling :

S 355
A.D. 892 x 899. Alfred, king of the Anglo-Saxons, to Deormod; grant of 5 hides (mansi) at Appleford, Berks., in exchange for land at Harandun (Horn Down near East Hendred, Berks.) and 50 mancuses of gold. Latin with English and English bounds.

Archive: Abingdon

http://www.trin.cam.ac.uk/chartwww/eSawyer.99/S%20342a-57.html

The terms Anglo-Saxon and Old Saxon are distinctions drawn long after the fact. You can hardly be adamant about the one and claim ignorance about the other, and then whine that I simply tell you to look it up. Get real

Ah, get real. I don't whine, I simply ask you for evidence and clarification.

I'm not the one claiming ignorance, nor am I the one displaying it.

If you truly believe that Charlemagne's crusades against pagan Saxons on the continent, in territory adjoining his empire, need clarifying by referring to the Saxons' territory as 'Old Saxony' or the Saxons as 'Old Saxons' then give your reasons for this.

All I've seen so far are your assertions, but no reasons...

Maybe that is what you're getting at, mumbling about the heptarchy and getting your caps-lock stuck every time you type "Anglo" or "Saxon." Do enlighten us, if you can.

I hardly think I've been the one mumbling. I believe I may have enlightened some other people, but in your case my powers have evidently been found wanting. Against ignorance the gods themselves contend in vain...

• Lastly, do you claim you still don't understand who "they" are, or are you still trying to nit-pick the grammar rather than address the point?

When you write something as ungrammatical as this, and with so little proof given to back up your assertions, then you should expect a little helpful criticism:

Manzikert is in Armenia, not on the western end of Asia Minor directly across from Constantinople. Although, of course, they were overwhelmingly Christians and fled into the west from the murderous Seljuks, only to be later conquered there (by whomever) as well. They reportedly lined the route of the Crusaders with cheering throngs.

Note: the 'they' doesn't refer to anyone from anywhere. It might mean the Armenians who escaped to the Taurus Mountains; it could, for all we know, refer to Greek Orthodox Christians who:

...made their way as best they could to the shores of the Black Sea and the Aegean.

S. Runciman, A History of the Crusades 1: The First Crusade

I'm not sure how the 'they' you're vaguely referring to could 'line the route' of the Crusaders in Asia Minor from the Taurus Mountains and the shores of the Black Sea simultaneously.

Bi-location, perhaps ?

[Saras]

Originally posted by Sandman
It's a pity they demolished it. Places of religious worship make nifty bars or rock nightclubs.

[Straybow]

Thank you for reiterating my point that the Saxons in Britain were already Christian, and therefore your categorical statement about Charlemagne forcibly converting the Saxons (unqualified by location) is just as erroneous as my specification of Othmanli in place of Seljuk. I have brought this up in response to every time you bring up "Othmanli" for petty nitpicking, yet you still ask me to "give my reason." If you are going to harp on a casual error, you get the same treatment.

But let's look at your scholarly errors. While Alfred claimed himself King of the Anglo-Saxons the kingdoms and noble houses and population were still didn't think that way. Of course, you stopped your quote just before the full explanation.

It has even been suggested that Alfred's title in the charter, "King of the Saxons", instead of his more usual "King of the Anglo-Saxons", shows Alfred claiming a more limited authority than he did in the 880s and earlier 890s, perhaps under threat from Edward. This is probably going too far: based on its formulation the charter is a local Rochester product rather than one emanating from the king's circle, so the style more likely reflects a Kentish indifference to Alfred's wider authority than a diminishing of that authority. [emphasis added]

So, indeed, your own source indicates that Alfred's claim as King of Anglo-Saxons is jurisdictional, rather then descriptive of an "Anglo-Saxon" people. The people of Kent considered themselves Saxons.

Thanks for citing a source entitled The Saxon and Norman Kings (own goal). Thanks also for conceding that the use of "Heptarchy" is scholarly shorthand for a particular period and region, despite the fact that there often weren't seven kingdoms. And thank you for conceding that it is modern historians who use the term Anglo-Saxon to distinguish Saxons in England from Saxons on the Continent, rather than a term ordinary people of that time would have used.

Meanwhile, no less than the Venerable Bede refered to the continental Saxons as "Old Saxons" (a passage cited in too many places to number). Likewise the Columbia Encyclopedia says, "After the migration to Britain, the Saxons on the Continent came to be identified by historians as the Old Saxons." And here, "Saxons are people from north west Germany or Old Saxony as it is sometimes known. ...The Saxons settled in the south and west of England." These book reviews are certainly indicative of scholarly practice to distinguish those contemporaries on the continent as "Old Saxons." Nine articles are evenly divided between specifying "Old," specifying "Continental," and making no specification in their titles.

Then from the Saxons-Weren't-Saxons crowd, 1911 Enc. Brittanica says, "It is doubtful how far the Saxons who invaded Britain were really distinct from the Angli, for all their affinities both in language and custom are with the latter and not with the Saxons (Old Saxons) of the continent."

Finally, you assert, "If you'd pay attention, what I attacked was your astonishingly flexible notion of what and where Saxony was in the days Charlemagne campaigned against the pagan Saxons." Except you did not say "Saxony," which indeed refers to a specific region and would not have been nit-picked. You made a broad, inclusive statement: "So ? Charlemagne converted the Saxons to Christianity by force."

Returning to the Seljuks and Othmanli, when Othman began to expand his tiny domain north (into Byzantine territory) and south (into Seljuk territory) his main tactic was economic co-opting of the poor Christian population. So two centuries after the First Crusade the Seljuks were still ruling over predominantly Christian peasants in Asia Minor, among whom they had made little progress with proselytizing.

In light of this, let me again clarify who "they" are. "They" are refugees from the "murderous Seljuks" (pretty much what I said). No need to be particular, anybody who met that description will do. "They" were Armenians who fled from the east after the conquest of Armenia proper. They were Greeks who fled after Manzikert. Later all and sundry fled from the Seljuks advancing though central and western Asia Minor "as best they could" (as you quoted Runciman).

"As best they could" meant, naturally, that many could not. Cappadocia is famous for their cliff dwellings where the native Anatolian Orthodox took refuge from the Seljuks. In larger cities families of small children or infirmed parents, without transportation, had no choice but to stay. Others were too stubborn to leave their homes, taking their chances under the conquerors. Still others would see opportunity to profit in the void left behind as the wealthy sell off less mobile possessions.

But you weren't trying to assert, by quoting Runciman, that Asia Minor was emptied of Armenian and Orthodox Christians who wouldn't convert, were you? You weren't trying to assert, by citing "bi-location," that they were displaced to the last man into Cilicia, Trebizond, and Ionia? That cities of a hundred thousand took Islam as their own just because the Seljuks were Muslim?

Certainly you wouldn't make that mistake. Not with Baldwin and other sources on the First Crusade speaking of the predominantly Christian populations of towns near Antioch wiping out the Turkish garrisons. Not with the Crusaders own accounts glossing over the march from Nicea, meeting no resistance despite their weakened state in the insufferable heat. Where were the great armies of Muslim converts? I guess the peasants hadn't converted to Islam en masse in a single generation as you assert.

Remember, this is barely a generation after the Seljuks took over. Their atrocities were still living memory. As soon as the Christian populace felt they would be safe from reprisal the overwhemingly outnumbered Turks fled or suffered reprisal for their own butcheries.

Dang, lost the url of the crusader account that spoke of Greeks and Armenians in Asia Minor lining the roads as the crusaders passed. This was before half the force split off to go south through Armenian-held Cilicia. If I find it again, I'll post it. But you can also page through the above site to find accounts of how the Emperor's legate repeatedly restrained various crusader bands from pillaging, or punished others for pillaging, during the siege of Nicea and along the way to Antioch. Or better yet, read Runciman since you have him handy. The legate would hardly have cared if Turks and their loyal Muslim converts were pillaged or even massacred. The cities and villages were Christian, and by default subjects of the Emperor.

Likewise from above (hardly unique as a source), you can read how the Turks of Nicea were given passage by Alexios to Constantinople where they could secure their own way to Muslim territory. Now, we're not talking about the quarter-million peasants of Nicea, but rather Alp Arsalan and his ruling class who had installed themselves just two decades before.

Could the Sultan and his retainers not retire directly to a friendly city, given Alexios' guarantee? Turk forces summoned from the surrounding territory to lift the siege had been defeated by the Crusaders. The remaining Turkish garrisons of cities such as Dorylaeum, Amorium, Iconium, Ancyra, and Caesarea were sufficient to dominate the Christian peasantry but too small to face the Crusaders. Antioch was too far away, and besides the Turkomen ruler had supported Alp's rivals.

Surely even you must realize that the Turkic tribes who had conquered all the NME east of Egypt and north of Arabia were spread quite thin. In territories that had been Muslim for centuries the Muslim population was sufficient to make ruling fairly easy, but Asia Minor was a different story. Here they used brutality to intimidate the populace.

Ultimately the Crusaders and Greeks were unable to maintain control of all the liberated territories. They, too, were spread thin. Alp Arsalan returned to inland Asia Minor with a large force of Turks and made Iconium (Konya) his new capital. And so we come around to the story of the Othmanli, two centuries later, placed to secure the border with Byzantium because the populace was still Christian and the Turks too few.

Then, of course, we have the Janissaries: Christian children, at first orphans and later children from Christian families selected as a form of taxation, to brainwash into fanatic slave warriors. I bring this up not to vilify but to question why this was deemed necessary. The Othmanli had much better success than the Seljuks with proselytizing through economic incentives. Yet the Turks were still too few in number and had insufficient converts willingly serving in their military.