The Official Legacy Series Discussion Thread

Well, another reason the Pope had for declaring the Crusade was also to infringe on the Orthodox Church's sphere of influence. The Byzantine Empire at that time, despite some current preceptions, was no where near the sick man of Christendom and was holding its own against the Seljuk Turks, and any Crusader state in the Levant would allow the the Pope to have a signficant say in Mideast affairs.

We have to remember that the popes of then were very significant secular leaders of Latin Europe (due to the typical absence of any significant temporal leader) in addition to being the spiritual leaders, and so worldly calculations too often figured into the actions of the Holy See at that time.

Going back to Legacy, any chance we'll see the Black Sun in action?

 

What does this have to do with the Crusades, exactly?

To begin with, there wasn't any such creature as a "Peace" movement in medieval Europe, certainly not in the sense that we have them today. The Church wasn't that foolish, though they did work long and hard to prevent conflicts when they could (and sometimes in an entirely misguided way; attempting to ban tournaments, for instance).

It could be argud, indeed, that the Crusades were a good thing for the Pope in terms of religious politics, but doesn't your implid disaproval of the continuing struggle of the Church to assert more authority over its rambunctious, and in some cases only recently civilized followers clash with your stated approval of it's attempts to curtail their war-wagng even to a limited degree?

As for the desire to send the troops "killing people and pillaging somewhere else", that's unlikely to have been more than a minor consideration. Crusading was a serious enterprise; it was undertaken by some of the most wealthy and influential warriors of the time, and in many cases put a terrible strain on the economy, whether local or national, leading most of the participants to return home after the immediate fighting had ended, and the immediate objctive, Jerusalem recovered, Jerusalem defended, had been met, with the usual result that the Templars and Hospitallers were left to try and fend off incursions by playing the internal rivalries of their foes against each other in order to prevent them from presenting a unified front, not a very savvy example of politics, if we accept that politics was the main motivation, except in perhaps a religiously political sense, as very few lords really seemed interested in commiting to an enterprise that interfered with their ability to direct their own lands, and coming down to Outremer to help out once in a while could be considered fulfilling the letter of the law if not the spirit of it, though that would be to attribute a religious cynicism to medieval Europe that didn't really develop until much later in its history.

On the other hand, the repeated thrusts into Europe by the Turks, like the conquest and occupation of India, or expansion throughout the Middle East, may have been motivated in some ways by the simple proclivity of most human societies to expand at the expense of their neighbours, but can be tied directly to the modern terror campaigns being waged by Islamic militants for the fact that they both have the weight of their religious teachings supporting them, indeed, are or were in many ways an extension of them, and I don't think it's insignificant that many Islamic militants seem to hope for a renewed Caliphate, which for many yars was synonomous with the Ottoman Empire, its power and influence

 

If UBL and his friends actually took the time to read the history books about Akbar, Saladin and other notables, methinks they might have second thoughts.

As for the Muslims going into India and the Middle East, one might also ask the reason for the Teutonic Order and the Conquistadors?

Personally, I'm more inclined to believe that money was a factor in the cases mentioned above. India had wealth, the Middle East had wealth, the Baltic Gulf... while it had fertile enough land, grant you, the Aztecs and Incas had wealth. Somehow, I suspect that even if the Arabs and Spainards had been atheists who painted their toenails neongreen, they would have found a reason to go abroad and conquer.

 

There was a Peace movement in the 10th to 12th centuries, which countless people far, far more knowleable people than I have written huge amounts. Secondly, the Crusades weren´t economically disastrous to those high and mighty that went on them. They might be disastrous otherwise, like the one count of Toulouse, who was the victim of a coup by his brother when he was fighting in Tripoli. But usually the Crusades gave opportunities and their own fiefs to lesser spawns of ruling houses, like the Normans of Southern Italy, who got the principality of Antioch to Bohemund, a younger son of Robert Guiscard. The Lusignans cot Cyprus to rule for almost 300 years etc.

The Crusades were economically disastrous to those areas that the Crusaders passed through and which were their targets. Those that financed them and gave ships for transport etc usually benefited from them mightily, like the major trading cities of Italy (Venice, Genoa, Pisa) who got very beneficial trading treaties with - and important rights in - the new Crusading states. Like no taxes and their own areas in major cities of the Crusader states. And sometimes, like Venice in 1204, large landholdings in the Aegean sea.

What comes to the conquests of SeldjukTurks in the 11th century, Muslim incursions and later conquest of parts of India, or the Ottoman Turks beginning in the 14th century, they had specifically no religious background. Basically most of these, like the successes of the Conquistadors, were result of the weakness of their targets, and as this weakness became evident, what were basically expeditions in search of pillage changed to conquest. Often this took a long time - Muslim excursions into India in search of pillage started in the late 10th century and didn´t really turn in to conquest until the 12th century. The Viking attacks followed the same trajectory.

Neither the Middle Eastern peoples against Seldzuks, the Indians against the Muslims or the Native peoples of Americas presented a common front against the invaders, because they did not comprehend the scale of what was happening and also because they let old rivalries get before common good, like the Tarascans did in 1520 when they turned down the Aztec call for help against the Spanish and their native allies. And same goes to the people of the current Baltic states, who were fragmented into small groups, and even when they sometimes could cause severe troubles against (especially) the Germans and Danes, they couldn´t beat them back as they acted as small groups without co-ordination

 

The thing is, neither the Teutonic Knights (who by that point were fighting fellow Christians like the rest of Europe) nor the Conquistadors had a direct religious mandate for conquest, unlike some of their contemporaries.

Let's hear some names then, if you'd be so kind.

Like Richard coeur de lion, for example?

I can't say I can agree with a blanket statement of that magnitude.

Which was basically the same pattern that defined Islamic expansion from the first- raiding, followed by creeping occupation of territory.

Rejected. Viking raids were conducted without benefit of a religious directive to conquest in the name of deity. They may have settled in some areas they had preyed upon, but unlike their Islamic counterparts, this was not part of a larger, culturally-unified scheme aimed at mass conquest, and they gradually became assimilated into the surrounding population over the years.

And this relates to what?

 

To be honest, I can't recall if the Muslims (the ones who went into India, for starters) had a religious mandate themselves. I really need to relearn the history I've forgotten (if I have the time)

Of course, defining religious mandate is a bit hard. Does it simply constitute having a member of the clergy by your side, the sanction of a recognized spiritual authority or just simply having divine inspiration?

One could argue that the Pope's declaration dividing Spanish and Portuguese spheres in east and west was a mandate, but then one must ask if a temporal act by a spiritual leader becomes a religious act?

Now I wish I had doctorate in theology.

 

The thing is, neither the Teutonic Knights (who by that point were fighting fellow Christians like the rest of Europe) nor the Conquistadors had a direct religious mandate for conquest, unlike some of their contemporaries.

Pope Innocent III(1198-1216) was an eager supporter of the then Crusades in the eastern Baltic. As a way of making the area more enticing, it was called the "land of the [Virgin] Mary" by supporters of the enterprise. The popes supported Crusades and gave mandates of conquest in Eastern Europe until the conversation of the until then pagan Lithuanians in 1386.

Let's hear some names then, if you'd be so kind.

Let´s see... I have not many books on hand, but the Peace movement is mentioned in passing in the bi-lingual Clarendon Press edition(1989) of Rodolfus Glauber´s works, The Five Books of the Histories, and The Life of St William. It´s edited by Neithard Bulst and it has in the index 8 references to the Peace movement under the names of "Peace of God" and "Truce of God". Fredric L. Cheyette´s Ermengard of Narbonne and the World of the Troubadours(2001) have 2 references to the Peace movement in it´s index. Elisabeth Vodola´s Excommunication in the Middle Ages(1986) has a reference to the Truce of God in it´s index.

Online the ancient version of Catholic Encyclopaedia has this_
Truce of God. Wikipedia has this article Peace and Truce of God.

I can't say I can agree with a blanket statement of that magnitude.

I can´t agree with a blanket denunciation of that magnitude.

The Crusader armies and the people that followed, whether they were passing through friendly territory or occupying unfriendly one, lived from the land. So, for example in the land route through Hungary and the Greek possessions of the Eastern Roman Empire they were not a welcome sight to the locals.

The Crusaders way of war was often one of a long attrition - sieges lasting months, even years and the defenders often destroying themselves part of the countryside around in an effort to make the situation harder for the invaders - that ended in bloodbaths in which large number of the population of a sieged city, for example, were murdered, and significant portion of the survivors then left, and with them and those that had been killed the cities and areas lost much of their prosperity.

Like Richard coeur de lion, for example?

He lost his freedom for a short time, not his fortune nor his realm - which he then regained - and this loss of freedom was more a result of the route he chose to take when he returned, than of going to the Crusade itself.

Which was basically the same pattern that defined Islamic expansion from the first- raiding, followed by creeping occupation of territory.

Not really. The Islamic expansion during the first century after the birth of the Caliphate was something of a blitzkrieg and often there were little military action, as the local peoples in the Middle East were weary of the long war between the Eastern Roman Empire and the Sassanid Iran and often just submitted to the Muslims in exchange of them being left to mind their own business in peace. In Spain the Muslim armies, mainly of Berbers, had lot of Christians with them and the Visigothic rulers got little support from the local Christian population who largerly was relieved of getting rid of them.

"Creeping occupation of territory" rarely happened even later; the great successes of the Ottoman Turks against Christian and Muslim adversaries were often result of short wars, which were followed by long campaigns on the new frontiers. Instead of "creeping occupation of territory" there was of "creeping" conversion to Islam and assimilation to Arabic Culture of the local population.

And this relates to what?

All of the above, I hope. Or at least it should...

 

Umm, Legacy?

 

Umm, Legacy?

Legacy, Legacy... Where have I heard that before? It does sound vaguely familiar...

You are, of course, totally correct. My apologies.

 

Perhaps I should have said "directly enshrined in their holy book then". In any event, the situation of the Ordensland was unique in many ways, and it should be noted that the impetus for direct military action, as in the case of the Syrian Crusades was the result of the locals being persecuted by their non-Christian neighbours.

Thank you.

However, my point still stands. Your original reference to the capitalized "Peace movement" would not have been in keeping with the immediate implication that could be drawn from it, i.e. that the modern "Peace movement" is in some way an evlution or outgrowth of the Peace of God or the Truce of God, both of which were rather limited in their goals by comparison, and in many ways seem more devoted to the niceties of professional military courtesy and curtailing disruption of land-work (limiting fighting to certain days of the week) than any devotion to the sort of blanket "peace" as pursued by those of our contemporaries already mentioned.

Which was not, I seem to rcall, universally the case, hence my comment.

The Crusaders way of war was often one of a long attrition - sieges lasting months, even years and the defenders often destroying themselves part of the countryside around in an effort to make the situation harder for the invaders - that ended in bloodbaths in which large number of the population of a sieged city, for example, were murdered, and significant portion of the survivors then left, and with them and those that had been killed the cities and areas lost much of their prosperity.

Aren't you neglecting to take into account the fact that he nearly bankrupted his kingdom to go on Crusade?

Admittedly, that at least is true.

 

Er, QM...

I quite understand the current discussion's interest... but can you have it elsewhere?

- Keralys

 

After answering to this, I will stop. Promise.

Perhaps I should have said "directly enshrined in their holy book then". In any event, the situation of the Ordensland was unique in many ways, and it should be noted that the impetus for direct military action, as in the case of the Syrian Crusades was the result of the locals being persecuted by their non-Christian neighbours.

Not really, the first Crusade to the Middle East was basically the result of the battle of Manzikert in 1071, when the Eastern Roman Empire lost to the Seldjuk Turks, who had after that way open to Anatolya. A decade later, Emperor Alexios I(1081-1118) asked help from the West, the pope Urban II(1088-1099) eventually answered, but the military expedition to help the Eastern Roman Empire was changed to the conquest of the Holy Land. Alexios had thought that the Crusaders would be under the command of the Empire and that all land conquered would belong to the Empire, which of course was not the case. And as the Crusaders thought that the Greeks didn´t help them enough, the relations between the Crusaders and the Greeks soon soured and after the conquest of Jerusalem the Crusaders started to oppress the local Christian population and replaced the Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem with a Latin one. Etc. Helping fellow Christians was an excuse - or more kindly towards the Crusaders, their expectations of the local Christians weren´t correct and they didn´t like truth when they saw it - and at the first available moment the Crusaders turned against them.

I´m finished. Sorry of spoiling the thread. I will forfeit all other points to my esteemed adversary so that this thing stops.

 

Actually, I suggest you guys continue the discussion... just via PM. It's always informative to hear other perspectives, and knowing Q_M as I do, he'd probably take to it with even greater gusto that way.

- Keralys

 

Point taken.

Hmm. Well, I can actually agree with that, to a certain extent, but I promise to desist in continuing to hijack the thread.

 

Thank god

 

umm... No offense guys, but this is a thread for Legacy, not a History review.

 

umm... No offense guys, but this is a thread for Legacy, not a History review.

I thought this was the thread where Ganner mutilates people´s genital areas and faces...

 

No, just general mutilation in general. Apparently, we're waiting on John Ostrander before we post anything more of substance or speculation, so that he can catch up and post in response to the rest of the thread and not have in growing as he gets closer.

Are you just intentionally rude and contrary to people, or does it come naturally to you? You know, I wouldn't have even mentioned this if it had been a general response to the two of them, but (as usual, of late) you directed your response personally. They ceased and desisted - why do you feel the need to comment negatively on anything and everything related to Quiet_Mandalorian? It's clear the two of you don't like each other; why don't you just give him some space instead of being obnoxious? It'd be far more productive, and waste a lot less people's time. Which is something you claim to value, and is usually one of the points you try to bash him over the head with... apparently not realizing how much of the rest of our time you're wasting with it.

I'll be curious to see what the status of this new Empire is, and what the role of the Jed... Ow! Crap! Ganner! *Force pushes the Jedi back away, takes a deep breath* Okay, so, um, I wonder how long it's going to be before Ostrander manages to catch up and we can deinstall this Ganner guard?

- Keralys

 

Umm, what's all the fuss about Ganner?

 

- Keralys

 

Whoah, that's a long time to wait.

 

To anyone who remains afraid that this series will be too dark, I have a simple remedy: Read Republic 83, right now, ASAP and then come back and claim this series will be too dark, for you'll find it difficult as Republic 83 has hope and inpiration that is every bit the equal, if greater than, the darkness embodied by the Sith and the Empire.

JB

 

I agree. Even if there are incredibly dark moments (which is pretty much certain when one considers Ostrander's previous work) it will end well. I would also point out that Republic 78 was a very welcome not very dark story that brought some much-needed hope into the dark era that it covered.

 

After reading up on some specifics for the Legacy comic at newserama.com my outlook on this project has become somewhat more positive. I was happy to hear that they at least have a remotely respectable and intelligent approach and interpretation of the Prophecy and Anakin's impact on the Galaxy through bringing 'balance'. As for the comic possibly being too dark, I certainly hope so. The darker the better. The preview artwork certainly seems rather gritty.

 

I hope that Cade has a makeover, anyways.