Noordelike kruistogte, 1260-1410 CE

Noordelike kruistogte, 1260-1410 CE


Die geskiedenis van die Jode in Europa

Die geskiedenis van die Jode in Europa strek oor 'n tydperk van meer as tweeduisend jaar. Sommige Jode, 'n Joodse stam uit die Levant, [1] [2] [3] [4] migreer na Europa net voor die opkoms van die Romeinse Ryk. 'N Opvallende vroeë gebeurtenis in die geskiedenis van die Jode in die Romeinse Ryk was die verowering van Pompeius van Judea wat begin in 63 vC, hoewel Alexandriese Jode voor hierdie gebeurtenis na Rome gemigreer het.

Die Joodse bevolking van Europa voor die Tweede Wêreldoorlog was na raming naby 9 miljoen, [5] of 57% van die Jode wêreldwyd. [6] Ongeveer 6 miljoen Jode is dood tydens die Holocaust, gevolg deur die emigrasie van 'n groot deel van die oorlewende bevolking. [7] [8] [9]

Die Joodse bevolking van Europa in 2010 was na raming ongeveer 1.4 miljoen (0.2% van die Europese bevolking) of 10% van die wêreld se Joodse bevolking. [6] In die 21ste eeu het Frankryk die grootste Joodse bevolking in Europa, [6] [10] gevolg deur die Verenigde Koninkryk, Duitsland, Rusland en Oekraïne. [10]


Laai nou af!

Ons het u maklik gemaak om 'n PDF -e -boek te vind sonder om te grawe. En deur aanlyn toegang tot ons e -boeke te hê of dit op u rekenaar te stoor, het u maklike antwoorde met The Northern Crusades. Om aan die gang te kom om The Northern Crusades te vind, vind u tereg ons webwerf met 'n uitgebreide versameling handleidings.
Ons biblioteek is die grootste hiervan, wat letterlik honderdduisende verskillende produkte verteenwoordig het.

Uiteindelik kry ek hierdie e -boek, dankie vir al hierdie The Northern Crusades wat ek nou kan kry!

Ek het nie gedink dat dit sou werk nie, my beste vriend het hierdie webwerf vir my gewys, en dit werk! Ek kry my gewildste e -boek

wtf hierdie wonderlike e -boek gratis ?!

My vriende is so kwaad dat hulle nie weet hoe ek al die e -boek van hoë gehalte het nie, wat hulle nie het nie!

Dit is baie maklik om kwaliteitboeke te kry)

soveel vals webwerwe. dit is die eerste een wat gewerk het! Baie dankie

wtffff ek verstaan ​​dit nie!

Kies net u klik en dan die aflaai -knoppie en voltooi 'n aanbod om die e -boek te begin aflaai. As daar 'n opname is, neem dit slegs 5 minute, probeer 'n opname wat vir u werk.


Prins Oleg brei grondgebied uit, skuif die hoofstad na Kiev

Rurik en sy broers arriveer in Staraya Ladog.

Beelde van fyn kuns/erfenisbeelde/Getty Images

Dit was na 840 dat Scandanavian Vikings in Oos -Europa bekend gestaan ​​het as “ Varangians ” of “Rus ” — die gevestigde Viking -heerskappy oor Slawiese stamme in wat Kiëvan Rus genoem word. Eers was die streek verdeel tussen drie edele broers.

“ Die oudste, Rurik, bevind hom in Novgorod, die tweede, Sineus, in Beloozero en die derde, Truvor, in Izborsk, en#x201D vertel van die Russiese Primêre Kroniek, 'n geskiedenis van die streek wat in die 12de eeu deur Kievan -monnike voltooi is. Vanweë hierdie Varangiane het die distrik Novgorod bekend gestaan ​​as die land van Rus. woord vir “men wat roei. ”)

Die broers van Rurik is binne twee jaar oorlede, en daarom het hy hul gebied geëis en Novgorod as die hoofstad van sy domein gevestig. Nadat Rurik gesterf het, het sy opvolger prins Oleg van Novgorod (of Oleg die profeet) die stad Kiev in 882 verower en die hoofstad van Novgorod na Kiev verhuis. Benewens die verkryging van nuwe gebiede om die grootte van Kiëf -Rus te vergroot, het Oleg ook sy rykdom vergroot deur 'n gunstige handelsooreenkoms met Konstantinopel, die hoofstad van die Bisantynse Ryk, te beding.


Verdere bewyse dat Tartaria 'n Islamitiese Ryk was, en dat die Noordelike Kruistogte van die 12de-15de eeu teen die Islamitiese Tartare van Rusland en Oos-Europa was

Miskien was daar sekere streke, ek onthou hoe ek ou skilderye gesien het van al die abramiese vlae wat aan die pale bo 'n oënskynlike tartêre stad vasgeheg is.

Met dit gesê. Ek vertrou geen abrahamitiese godsdiens nie en glo dat dit die oortuigings, wetenskappe en beskawings van die verlede is. Hierdie deel van die groot tartary se tydlyn is naby sy vernietiging.

Wetenskap het 'n revolusie gehad in die stad Bagdad waar dit Europa bereik het

Hoe is die Abrahamitiese gelowe verantwoordelik vir hierdie suiwering van die geskiedenis, toe Moslemlande en hul beskawings die afgelope 100+ jaar deur ons in die steek gelaat is? Letterlik is ander Saoedi -Arabië, wat basies Amerika van die Midde -Ooste is, die enigste Moslemland wat nog nie vernietig is nie of nog nie vernietig is nie.

Ek het ook onlangs saamgevat dat die Tartariese ryk 'n gesamentlik verenigde Moslem -wêreldryk was. Ek was dus geïnteresseerd en het navorsing gedoen oor prestasies wat Moslems ten behoewe van die mensdom behaal het. Ek het nooit geweet dat sommige soos 'Avicenna' 'n Moslem was nie, lol

Bewyse, sê ek. En fwiw, Bewyse =/= bewys.

Waarom is die tekeninge in Frans? (Allemagne, Pologne, ens.)

Ekskuus vir die laat opmerking, maar ek sien nie hoe daarop dui dat die Lipka -Tatare bestaan ​​en dat hulle moskees gebou het, u argumente ondersteun nie. Aangesien daar 'n heeltemal redelike hoofstroom historiese verduideliking is waarom en hoe hulle daar gekom het, sou u dit meer as net bewys as 'n deel van 'n Islamitiese ryk wat in Rusland en die Baltiese Oseaan bestaan ​​het. U sal meer bewyse moet lewer as die van die hoofstroom; die blote bestaan ​​van hierdie mense en hul moskees is dit nie. U wys eenvoudig op hul bestaan ​​en lei u verhouding met ander Moslem -groepe in Oos -Europa af, en vermy dit gerieflik om die werklike bewyse voor te lê wat aantoon dat hulle eens aan die verenigde imperiale entiteit behoort het. Die standaard van bewyse hier is eenvoudig te laag.


Inhoud

Die naam Franci dit was nie 'n stamnaam nie, maar binne 'n paar eeue het dit die name van die oorspronklike mense wat dit uitgemaak het, verduister. Na aanleiding van die presedente van Edward Gibbon en Jacob Grimm, [16] is die naam van die Franken gekoppel aan die Engelse byvoeglike naamwoord eerlik, wat oorspronklik "gratis" beteken. [17] Daar was ook voorstelle dat Frank afkomstig is van die Germaanse woord vir "spies" (soos in Oud -Engels franca of Oudnoors frakka). [18] Woorde in ander Germaanse tale wat "fel", "vet" of "onbeskof" beteken (Duits frech, Middelnederlands vrac, Ou Engels frǣc en Ou Noors frakkr), kan ook betekenisvol wees. [19]

Eumenius het die Franke toegespreek oor die teregstelling van Frankiese gevangenes in die sirkus in Trier deur Konstantyn I in 306 en sekere ander maatreëls: Is dit 'n slegte probleem? Is daar 'n aantal infida mobilitas? ("Waar is die wreedheid van jou nou? Waar is die ooit onbetroubare wispelturigheid?"). [20] [21] Latyn feroces is dikwels gebruik om die Franke te beskryf. [22] Hedendaagse definisies van Frankiese etnisiteit wissel beide volgens tydperk en standpunt. 'N Formulier wat deur Marculf omstreeks 700 nC geskryf is, beskryf die voortsetting van nasionale identiteite binne 'n gemengde bevolking toe dit verklaar dat "al die mense wat [in die amptenaar se provinsie woon], Franken, Romeine, Bourgondiërs en dié van ander nasies leef ... hulle wet en hulle gebruik. ” [23] Professor Christopher Wickham, wat in 2009 geskryf het, het daarop gewys dat "die woord 'Frankies' vinnig opgehou het om 'n eksklusiewe etniese konnotasie te hê. Noord van die Loire-rivier blyk dit dat almal teen die middel van die 7de eeu uiterlik teen die einde van die 7de eeu as 'n Frank beskou is. [behalwe Bretons] Romani [Romeine] was daarna in wese die inwoners van Aquitanië ". [24]

Afgesien van die Die geskiedenis van die Franken deur Gregorius van Tours, het twee vroeë bronne die mitologiese oorsprong van die Franke vertel: 'n werk uit die 7de eeu, bekend as die Kroniek van Fredegar en die anonieme Liber Historiae Francorum, 'n eeu later geskryf.

Baie sê dat die Franke oorspronklik van Pannonia afkomstig was en eers die oewer van die Ryn bewoon het. Toe steek hulle die rivier oor, marsjeer deur Thüringen en vestig hulle in elke distriksdistrik en elke stad met langhare konings wat uit hul voornaamste en edelste familie gekies is.

Die skrywer van die Kroniek van Fredegar beweer dat die Franke oorspronklik uit Troje kom en die werke van Vergilius en Hiëroniem aangehaal het:

Salige Jerome het geskryf oor die ou konings van die Franken, wie se verhaal die eerste keer deur die digter Virgil vertel is: hulle eerste koning was Priamus, en nadat Troy deur bedrog gevange geneem is, het hulle vertrek. Daarna het hulle as koning Friga gehad, daarna het hulle in twee dele verdeel, waarvan die eerste na Masedonië gegaan het; die tweede groep wat saam met Friga uit Asië vertrek het, het die Frigii genoem, gevestig op die oewer van die Donau en die Oseane. Weer verdeel in twee groepe, waarvan die helfte saam met hul koning Francio na Europa gegaan het. Nadat hulle met hul vroue en kinders deur Europa gekruis het, het hulle die oewer van die Ryn beset en nie ver van die Ryn nie, het hulle begin om die stad "Troje" (Colonia Traiana-Xanten) te bou.

Volgens historikus Patrick J. Geary verraai hierdie twee verhale 'beide die feit dat die Franken min van hul agtergrond geweet het en dat hulle moontlik 'n mate van minderwaardigheid gevoel het in vergelyking met ander mense uit die oudheid wat 'n ou naam en glorieryke tradisie gehad het . (.) Beide legendes is natuurlik ewe fabelagtig, want selfs meer as die meeste barbaarse mense het die Franken geen gemeenskaplike geskiedenis, afkoms of tradisie van 'n heroïese migratietydperk nie. Soos hulle Alemanniese bure was hulle teen die sesde eeu redelik onlangse skepping, 'n koalisie van Rynse stamgroepe wat lank afsonderlike identiteite en instellings gehandhaaf het. " [26]

Die ander werk, die Liber Historiae Francorum, voorheen bekend as Gesta regum Francorum voordat dit in 1888 deur Bruno Krusch gepubliseer is, [27] beskryf hoe 12 000 Trojane, onder leiding van Priam en Antenor, van Troje na die Donrivier in Rusland en verder na Pannonia, wat aan die Donau lê, naby die See van Azov vestig. . Daar stig hulle 'n stad met die naam Sicambria. (Die Sicambri was die bekendste stam in die Frankiese vaderland in die tyd van die vroeë Romeinse ryk, wat nog onthou word, alhoewel hulle verslaan en versprei is lank voordat die Frankiese naam verskyn het.) Die Trojane het by die Romeinse leër aangesluit om hul taak te bestuur. vyande in die moerasse van Mæotis, waarvoor hulle die naam Franks (wat "fel" beteken) ontvang het. 'N Dekade later vermoor die Romeine Priam en verdryf Marcomer en Sunno, die seuns van Priam en Antenor, en die ander Franke. [ aanhaling nodig ]

Vroeë geskiedenis Redigeer

Die belangrikste primêre bronne in die vroeë Franke is die Panegyrici Latini, Ammianus Marcellinus, Claudian, Zosimus, Sidonius Apollinaris en Gregorius van Tours. Die Franke word die eerste keer genoem in die Augustaanse geskiedenis, 'n versameling biografieë van die Romeinse keisers. Nie een van hierdie bronne bevat 'n gedetailleerde lys van watter stamme of dele van stamme Frankies geword het nie, of met betrekking tot die politiek en geskiedenis nie, maar om James aan te haal (1988, p. 35):

'N Romeinse marslied wat met vreugde in 'n vierde-eeuse bron opgeteken is, hou verband met die 260's, maar die Franke se eerste verskyning in 'n kontemporêre bron was in 289. [. ] Die Chamavi is al in 289 as 'n Frankiese volk genoem, die Bructeri van 307, die Chattuarri van 306–315, die Salii of Salians van 357, en die Amsivarii en Tubantes van ongeveer. 364–375.

Die Frankes is in Romeinse tekste albei as bondgenote beskryf (laeti) en vyande (dediticii). Omtrent die jaar 260 dring een groep Franke tot by Tarragona in die huidige Spanje, waar hulle die streek ongeveer 'n dekade lank geteister het voordat hulle deur die Romeine gedemp en verdryf is. In 287 of 288 dwing die Romeinse keiser Maximianus 'n Frankiese leier Genobaud en sy mense om sonder 'n geveg oor te gee.

In 288 verslaan die keiser Maximianus die Saliaanse Franken, Chamavi, Frisii en ander Germaanse mense wat langs die Ryn woon, en verplaas hulle na Germania minderwaardig om mannekrag te verskaf en die vestiging van ander Germaanse stamme te voorkom. [28] [29] In 292 verslaan Constantius, die vader van Konstantyn I [30] die Franken wat hulle by die monding van die Ryn gevestig het. Dit is na die nabygeleë streek Toxandria verskuif. [31] Eumenius noem dat Constantius die Franken wat hulle daar gevestig het en ander wat die Ryn oorgesteek het, 'doodgemaak, verdryf, gevange geneem en ontvoer' het en ander wat die Ryn oorgesteek het. nationes Franciae vir die eerste keer. Dit lyk waarskynlik dat die term Frank in hierdie eerste periode 'n breër betekenis gehad het, soms ook die kus -Frisii. [32]

Die Die lewe van Aurelian, wat moontlik deur Vopiscus geskryf is, noem dat in 328 Frankiese plunderaars gevange geneem is deur die 6de Legioen wat in Mainz gestasioneer was. As gevolg van hierdie voorval is 700 Frankes dood en 300 is in slawerny verkoop. [33] [34] Frankiese invalle oor die Ryn het so gereeld geword dat die Romeine die Franken op hul grense begin vestig het om hulle te beheer.

Die Frankes word genoem in die Tabula Peutingeriana, 'n atlas van Romeinse paaie. Dit is 'n 13de-eeuse kopie van 'n 4de of 5de eeuse dokument wat inligting uit die 3de eeu weerspieël. Die Romeine het die vorm van Europa geken, maar hulle kennis blyk nie uit die kaart nie, wat slegs 'n praktiese gids was vir die paaie wat van punt tot punt gevolg moes word. In die middelste Ryn van die kaart is die woord Francia naby 'n spelfout van Bructeri. Buite Mainz is Suevia, die land van die Suebi, en verder is dit Alamannia, die land van die Alamanni. Vier stamme by die monding van die Ryn word uitgebeeld: die Chauci, die Amsivarii ('Ems dwellers'), die Cherusci en die Chamavi, gevolg deur qui et Pranci ('wat ook Franke is'). Dit impliseer dat die Chamavi as Frankies beskou is. Die Tabula was waarskynlik gebaseer op die Orbis Pictus, 'n kaart van twintig jaar arbeid in opdrag van Augustus en daarna deur die Romeinse tesourie -afdeling gehou vir die bepaling van belasting. Dit het as sodanig nie oorleef nie. Inligting oor die keiserlike afdelings van Gallië kom waarskynlik daaruit voort.

Salians Edit

Die Saliërs is die eerste keer genoem deur Ammianus Marcellinus, wat Julian se nederlaag van "die eerste Franke van almal, die wat die Saliërs genoem het," beskryf het in 358. [35] [36] Julian het toegelaat dat die Franke in Texuandrië bly as fœderati binne die Ryk, nadat hulle van die Ryn-Maas-delta daarheen verhuis het. [37] [38] Die 5de eeu Notitia Dignitatum noem 'n groep soldate as Salii.

Enkele dekades later het Franken in dieselfde streek, moontlik die Saliërs, die Scheldtrivier beheer en het die vervoerskakels na Brittanje in die Engelse kanaal ontwrig. Alhoewel Romeinse magte dit kon regkry, kon hulle nie die Franke verdryf nie, wat steeds as seerowers gevrees word.

Die Saliërs word oor die algemeen beskou as die voorgangers van die Franken wat suidweswaarts gestoot het na wat nou die moderne Frankryk is, wat uiteindelik deur die Merovingers regeer is (sien hieronder). Dit is omdat die Merowingiese dinastie die Saliese wet gepubliseer het (Lex Salica) dit geld in die Neustriese gebied vanaf die rivier die Liger (Loire) tot by die Silva Carbonaria, die westelike koninkryk wat deur hulle gestig is buite die oorspronklike gebied van die Frankiese nedersetting. In die 5de eeu het Franken onder Chlodio die Romeinse lande binnegedring in en buite die "Silva Carbonaria" of "houtskoolbos", wat deur die gebied van die moderne westelike Wallonië geloop het. Die woud was die grens van die oorspronklike Saliese gebiede in die noorde en die meer geromaniseerde gebied in die suide in die Romeinse provinsie Belgica Secunda (ongeveer gelykstaande aan wat Julius Caesar lank gelede 'België' genoem het). Chlodio het Tournai, Artois, Cambrai en tot by die Somme -rivier verower. Chlodio word dikwels gesien as 'n voorouer van die toekomstige Merovingiese dinastie. Childeric I, wat volgens Gregory van Tours 'n bekende afstammeling van Chlodio was, is later as administratiewe heerser oor die Romeinse Belgica Secunda en moontlik ander gebiede. [39]

Uit die geskiedenis van Childeric blyk dit dat hy saam met die Romeinse magte in die Loire -gebied, redelik ver in die suide, aktief was. Sy afstammelinge het die Romeinse Gallië heers tot daar, en dit het die Frankiese koninkryk Neustrië geword, die basis van wat Middeleeuse Frankryk sou word. Die seun van Childeric, Clovis I, het ook beheer geneem oor die meer onafhanklike Frankiese koninkryke oos van die Silva Carbonaria en Belgica II. Dit het later die Frankiese koninkryk Austrasië geword, waarna die vroeë regskode 'Ripuarian' genoem is.

Ripuarians Redigeer

Die Rynland -franke wat naby die deel van die Ryn gewoon het van ongeveer Mainz tot Duisburg, die streek van die stad Keulen, word dikwels afsonderlik van die Saliërs beskou, en soms in moderne tekste wat Ripuarian Franks genoem word. Die Ravenna -kosmografie stel dit voor Francia Renensis ingesluit die ou civitas van die Ubii, in Germania II (Germania Inferior), maar ook die noordelike deel van Germania I (Germania Superior), insluitend Mainz. Net soos die Saliërs, verskyn dit in Romeinse verslae, sowel as aanvallers en as bydraers tot militêre eenhede. Anders as die Salii, is daar geen rekord van wanneer, indien ooit, die ryk amptelik hul woning binne die ryk aanvaar het nie. Hulle het uiteindelik daarin geslaag om die stad Keulen te besit, en dit lyk asof hulle op 'n stadium die naam Ripuarians verkry het, wat moontlik 'riviermense' beteken het. 'N Merowingiese regskode is in elk geval die Lex Ribuaria, maar dit geld waarskynlik in al die ouer Frankiese lande, insluitend die oorspronklike Saliese gebiede.

Jordanes, in Getica noem die Riparii as hulpverleners van Flavius ​​Aetius tydens die Slag van Châlons in 451: "Hi enim affuerunt auxiliares: Franci, Sarmatae, Armoriciani, Liticiani, Burgundiones, Saxones, Riparii, Olibriones." [40] Maar hierdie Riparii ("rivierbewoners") word vandag nie as Ripuariese Franken beskou nie, maar as 'n bekende militêre eenheid gebaseer op die rivier die Rhône. [41]

Hulle gebied aan weerskante van die Ryn het 'n sentrale deel van Merovingiese Austrasië geword, wat gestrek het tot onder meer Roman Germania Inferior (later Germania Secunda, wat die oorspronklike Saliese en Ripuariese lande insluit, en ongeveer gelyk is aan Middeleeuse Neder -Lotharingia) sowel as Gallia Belgica Prima (laat -Romeinse "België", ongeveer middeleeuse Bo -Lotharingia), en land op die oostelike oewer van die Ryn.

Merowingiese koninkryk (481–751) Redigeer

Gregory van Tours (Boek II) het berig dat daar klein Frankiese koninkryke gedurende die vyfde eeu bestaan ​​het rondom Keulen, Tournai, Cambrai en elders. Die koninkryk van die Merowingers het uiteindelik die ander oorheers, moontlik vanweë die verband met die Romeinse magstrukture in Noord -Gallië, waarin die Frankiese militêre magte blykbaar tot 'n mate geïntegreer was. Aegidius, was oorspronklik die magister militum van Noord -Gallië aangestel deur Majorian, maar na Majorian se dood blykbaar gesien as 'n Romeinse rebel wat op Frankiese magte staatgemaak het. Gregory van Tours berig dat Childeric I vir 8 jaar verban is terwyl Aegidius die titel "King of the Franks" beklee. Uiteindelik het Childeric teruggekeer en dieselfde titel ingeneem. Aegidius sterf in 464 of 465. [42] Childeric en sy seun Clovis I is albei beskryf as heersers van die Romeinse provinsie Belgica Secunda, deur sy geestelike leier in die tyd van Clovis, Saint Remigius.

Clovis verslaan later die seun van Aegidius, Syagrius, in 486 of 487 en laat toe die Frankiese koning Chararic in die tronk sit en teregstel. 'N Paar jaar later vermoor hy Ragnachar, die Frankiese koning van Cambrai, en sy broers. Nadat hy die koninkryk van Soissons verower het en die Visigote uit die suide van Gallië verdryf het tydens die Slag van Vouillé, vestig hy Frankiese hegemonie oor die grootste deel van Gallië, uitgesluit Bourgondië, Provence en Bretagne, wat uiteindelik deur sy opvolgers opgeneem is. Teen die 490's het hy al die Frankiese koninkryke wes van die Maasrivier verower behalwe die Ripuariese Franken en was hy in staat om die stad Parys sy hoofstad te maak. Hy word die eerste koning van alle Franke in 509, nadat hy Keulen verower het.

Clovis I het sy koninkryk verdeel tussen sy vier seuns, wat verenig het om Bourgondië in 534 te verslaan. Interne stryd het plaasgevind tydens die bewind van die broers Sigebert I en Chilperic I, wat grootliks aangevuur is deur die wedywering van hul koninginne, Brunhilda en Fredegunda, en wat het voortgegaan tydens die bewind van hul seuns en hul kleinseuns. Drie verskillende sub -koninkryke het ontstaan: Austrasia, Neustria en Bourgondië, wat elkeen onafhanklik ontwikkel het en probeer invloed uitoefen op die ander. Die invloed van die Arnulfing -stam van Austrasië het verseker dat die politieke swaartepunt in die koninkryk geleidelik ooswaarts na die Rynland verskuif het.

Die Frankiese koninkryk is in 613 herenig deur Chlothar II, die seun van Chilperic, wat sy edeles die Edik van Parys verleen het in 'n poging om korrupsie te verminder en sy gesag weer te bevestig. Na die militêre suksesse van sy seun en opvolger Dagobert I, het die koninklike gesag vinnig afgeneem onder 'n reeks konings, tradisioneel bekend as les rois fainéants. Na die Slag van Tertry in 687 het elke burgemeester van die paleis, wat voorheen die hoof van die koning was, die mag tot in 751, met die goedkeuring van die pous en die adel, die laaste Merovingiese koning Childeric afgesit III en homself laat kroon. Dit het 'n nuwe dinastie, die Karolingers, ingewy.

Karolingiese ryk (751–843) Redigeer

Die eenwording wat die Merovingers bereik het, verseker die voortsetting van wat bekend geword het as die Karolingiese Renaissance. Die Karolingiese Ryk is geteister deur onderlinge oorlogvoering, maar die kombinasie van Frankiese bewind en die Romeinse Christendom het verseker dat dit fundamenteel verenig was. Frankiese regering en kultuur was baie afhanklik van elke heerser en sy doelwitte, en daarom het elke streek van die ryk anders ontwikkel. Alhoewel die oogmerke van 'n heerser afhang van die politieke alliansies van sy familie, het die voorste gesinne van Francia dieselfde basiese oortuigings en idees van die regering gedeel, wat beide Romeinse en Germaanse wortels gehad het. [ aanhaling nodig ]

Die Frankiese staat het sy mag oor die meerderheid van Wes -Europa teen die einde van die 8ste eeu gekonsolideer en ontwikkel tot die Karolingiese ryk. Met die kroning van hul heerser Karel die Grote as die Heilige Romeinse keiser deur pous Leo III in 800 nC, word hy en sy opvolgers erken as wettige opvolgers van die keisers van die Wes -Romeinse Ryk. As sodanig het die Karolingiese Ryk geleidelik in die Weste gesien word as 'n voortsetting van die antieke Romeinse Ryk. Hierdie ryk sou aanleiding gee tot verskeie opvolgerstate, waaronder Frankryk, die Heilige Romeinse Ryk en Bourgondië, hoewel die Frankies identiteit bly die naaste geïdentifiseer met Frankryk.

Na die dood van Karel die Grote word sy enigste volwasse oorlewende seun keiser en koning Lodewyk die Vroom. Na die dood van Lodewyk die Vroom, volgens die Frankiese kultuur en wetgewing wat gelykheid vereis tussen alle lewende manlike volwasse erfgename, is die Frankiese Ryk nou verdeel tussen Louis se drie seuns.

Deelname aan die Romeinse weermag Edit

Dit is bekend dat Germaanse mense, insluitend die stamme in die Ryn -delta wat later die Franken geword het, sedert die dae van Julius Caesar in die Romeinse leër gedien het. Nadat die Romeinse administrasie in die 260's in Gallië ineengestort het, het die leërs onder die Germaanse Bataafse Postumus in opstand gekom en hom tot keiser uitgeroep en daarna die orde herstel. Van toe af is Germaanse soldate in die Romeinse leër, veral Franke, uit die geledere bevorder. 'N Paar dekades later het die Menapiaanse Carausius 'n Bataaf -Britse rumpstaat op Romeinse grond geskep wat deur Frankiese soldate en plunderaars ondersteun is. Frankiese soldate soos Magnentius, Silvanus en Arbitio het gedurende die middel van die 4de eeu kommandoposisies in die Romeinse leër beklee. Uit die vertelling van Ammianus Marcellinus is dit duidelik dat beide Frankiese en Alamanniese stamleërs volgens Romeinse lyne georganiseer is.

Na die inval van Chlodio het die Romeinse leërs aan die Ryngrens 'n Frankiese 'franchise' geword, en dit was bekend dat Franken Romeinse agtige troepe hef wat deur 'n Romeinse wapen- en wapenindustrie ondersteun word. Dit het ten minste geduur tot die dae van die geleerde Procopius (ongeveer 500 - ongeveer 565), meer as 'n eeu na die afsterwe van die Wes -Romeinse Ryk, wat geskryf het waarin hy eersgenoemde beskryf het Arborychoi, nadat hulle met die Franken saamgesmelt het, het hulle hul legionêre organisasie behou in die styl van hul voorvaders gedurende die Romeinse tyd. Die Franken onder die Merovingers het die Germaanse gewoonte met Romaanse organisasie en verskeie belangrike taktiese vernuwings versmelt. Voor hul verowering van Gallië het die Franken hoofsaaklik as 'n stam geveg, tensy hulle deel was van 'n Romeinse militêre eenheid wat in samewerking met ander keiserlike eenhede geveg het.

Militêre praktyke van die vroeë Franke Edit

Die primêre bronne vir Frankiese militêre gebruik en bewapening is Ammianus Marcellinus, Agathias en Procopius, laasgenoemde twee Oos -Romeinse historici wat skryf oor Frankiese ingryping in die Gotiese Oorlog.

Met die skryf van 539 sê Procopius:

Op hierdie tydstip het die Franke gehoor dat sowel die Gote as die Romeine swaar gely het deur die oorlog. vergeet vir die oomblik hul eed en verdrae. (want hierdie nasie in vertrouensaangeleenthede is die mees verraderlike ter wêreld), hulle versamel dadelik onder die leiding van Theudebert I onder die leiding van Theudebert I en marsjeer na Italië: hulle het 'n klein kavalleriekamp oor hul leier, en dit was die enigste wat met spiese gewapen was, terwyl die res voetsoldate was sonder boë of spiese, maar elkeen het 'n swaard en skild en een byl gedra. Die ysterkop van hierdie wapen was nou dik en uiters skerp aan beide kante, terwyl die houthandvatsel baie kort was. En hulle is altyd gewoond om hierdie byle tydens die eerste aanklag op 'n sein te gooi en sodoende die skild van die vyand te verbrysel en die mans dood te maak. [43]

Sy tydgenoot, Agathias, wat sy eie geskrifte gebaseer het op die trope wat deur Procopius neergelê is, sê:

Die militêre toerusting van hierdie mense [die Franke] is baie eenvoudig. Hulle ken nie die gebruik van die pos of griewe nie en die meerderheid laat die kop onbedek, net 'n paar dra die helm. Hulle het hul kiste kaal en die rug naak teen die lendene, hulle bedek hul dye met leer of linne. Hulle bedien nie te perd nie, behalwe in baie seldsame gevalle. Voetgeveg is 'n gewone en 'n nasionale gewoonte, en hulle is vaardig daarin. By die heup dra hulle 'n swaard en aan die linkerkant is hul skild vasgemaak. Hulle het geen boë of slings nie, geen raketwapens behalwe die byl met twee kante en die angon wat hulle die meeste gebruik nie. Die angels is spiese wat nie baie kort of baie lank is nie. Hulle kan, indien nodig, gebruik word om soos 'n spies te gooi, en ook hand -tot -hand geveg. [44]

Alhoewel bogenoemde aanhalings gebruik is as 'n verklaring van die militêre praktyke van die Frankiese nasie in die 6de eeu en selfs geëxtrapoleer is na die hele tydperk voor Charles Martel se hervormings (vroeg in die middel van die 8ste eeu), het historiografie na die Tweede Wêreldoorlog beklemtoon die oorgeërfde Romeinse kenmerke van die Frankiese weermag vanaf die begin van die verowering van Gallië. Die Bisantynse skrywers bied verskeie teenstrydighede en probleme aan. Procopius ontken die Franke die gebruik van die spies terwyl Agathias dit een van hul primêre wapens maak. Hulle stem saam dat die Franke hoofsaaklik infanteriste was, byle gegooi het en 'n swaard en skild gedra het. Beide skrywers weerspreek ook die gesag van Galliese skrywers van dieselfde algemene tydperk (Sidonius Apollinaris en Gregorius van Tours) en die argeologiese bewyse. Die Lex Ribuaria, die vroeë sewende eeuse regskode van die Rynland of Ripuarian Franks, spesifiseer die waardes van verskillende goedere by die betaling van 'n wergild in natura, terwyl 'n spies en skild slegs twee werd was solidi, 'n swaard en skede is op sewe gewaardeer, 'n helm op ses en 'n "metaal tuniek" op twaalf. [45] Scramasas en pylpunte is talryk in Frankiese grafte, hoewel die Bisantynse historici dit nie aan die Franken toewys nie.

Die getuienis van Gregory en van die Lex Salica impliseer dat die vroeë Franken 'n kavalerie was. Sommige moderne historici het eintlik vermoed dat die Franken so baie perde gehad het dat hulle dit kon gebruik om landerye te ploeg en dus tegnologies landboukundige oor hul bure gevorder het. Die Lex Ribuaria spesifiseer dat die waarde van 'n merrie dieselfde was as die waarde van 'n os of 'n skild en spies, twee solidi en 'n hings sewe of dieselfde as 'n swaard en skede, [45] wat daarop dui dat perde relatief algemeen was. Miskien het die Bisantynse skrywers die Frankiese perd as onbeduidend beskou as die Griekse kavallerie, wat waarskynlik akkuraat is. [46]

Merowingiese weermag Redigeer

Samestelling en ontwikkeling Redigeer

Die Frankiese militêre establishment het baie van die reeds bestaande Romeinse instellings in Gallië opgeneem, veral tydens en na die verowerings van Clovis I in die laat 5de en vroeë 6de eeu. Frankiese militêre strategie het gedraai oor die besit en vestiging van versterkte sentrums (castra) en oor die algemeen is hierdie sentrums gehou deur garnisoene van milities of laeti, wat voormalige Romeinse huursoldate van Germaanse oorsprong was. Regoor Gallië het die afstammelinge van Romeinse soldate hul uniforms aangehad en hul seremoniële pligte uitgevoer.

Onmiddellik onder die Frankiese koning in die militêre hiërargie was die leidrade, sy beëdigde volgelinge, wat oor die algemeen 'ou soldate' in diens was weg van die hof. [47] Die koning het 'n elite lyfwag gehad wat die trustee. Lede van die trustee dikwels bedien in centannae, garnisoen nedersettings wat vir militêre en polisiedoeleindes gestig is. Die daaglikse lyfwag van die koning bestaan ​​uit antrustiones (senior soldate wat aristokrate in militêre diens was) en pueri (junior soldate en nie aristokrate nie). [48] ​​Alle hooggeplaaste mans het pueri.

Die Frankiese weermag bestaan ​​nie slegs uit Franken en Gallo-Romeine nie, maar bevat ook Sakse, Alane, Taifals en Alemanni. Na die verowering van Bourgondië (534) is die goed georganiseerde militêre instellings van daardie koninkryk in die Frankiese koninkryk geïntegreer. Die belangrikste onder hulle was die staande leër onder bevel van die Patrisiër van Bourgondië.

Aan die einde van die 6de eeu, tydens die oorloë wat deur Fredegund en Brunhilda aangevoer is, het die Merowingiese vorste 'n nuwe element in hul weermag ingebring: die plaaslike heffing. 'N Heffing bestaan ​​uit al die bekwame manne van 'n distrik, wat verplig was om by die diens aan te meld, soortgelyk aan diensplig. Die plaaslike heffing geld slegs vir 'n stad en sy omgewing. Aanvanklik slegs in sekere stede in Wes -Gallië, in Neustria en Aquitanië, het die konings die reg of mag gehad om die heffing op te eis. Die bevelvoerders van die plaaslike heffings was altyd anders as die bevelvoerders van die stedelike garnisoene. Dikwels was eersgenoemde onder bevel van die graafskappe van die distrikte. 'N Baie skaarser voorkoms was die algemene heffing, wat van toepassing was op die hele koninkryk en wat boere insluit (armes en minderwaardighede). Algemene heffings kan ook in die nog heidense trans-Rynse stamhertogdomme gemaak word op bevel van 'n monarg. The Saxons, Alemanni and Thuringii all had the institution of the levy and the Frankish monarchs could depend upon their levies until the mid-7th century, when the stem dukes began to sever their ties to the monarchy. Radulf of Thuringia called up the levy for a war against Sigebert III in 640.

Soon the local levy spread to Austrasia and the less Romanised regions of Gaul. On an intermediate level, the kings began calling up territorial levies from the regions of Austrasia (which did not have major cities of Roman origin). All the forms of the levy gradually disappeared, however, in the course of the 7th century after the reign of Dagobert I. Under the so-called rois fainéants, the levies disappeared by mid-century in Austrasia and later in Burgundy and Neustria. Only in Aquitaine, which was fast becoming independent of the central Frankish monarchy, did complex military institutions persist into the 8th century. In the final half of the 7th century and first half of the 8th in Merovingian Gaul, the chief military actors became the lay and ecclesiastical magnates with their bands of armed followers called retainers. The other aspects of the Merovingian military, mostly Roman in origin or innovations of powerful kings, disappeared from the scene by the 8th century.

Strategy, tactics and equipment Edit

Merovingian armies used coats of mail, helmets, shields, lances, swords, bows and arrows and war horses. The armament of private armies resembled those of the Gallo-Roman potentiatores of the late Empire. A strong element of Alanic cavalry settled in Armorica influenced the fighting style of the Bretons down into the 12th century. Local urban levies could be reasonably well-armed and even mounted, but the more general levies were composed of pauperes en inferiores, who were mostly farmers by trade and carried ineffective weapons, such as farming implements. The peoples east of the Rhine – Franks, Saxons and even Wends – who were sometimes called upon to serve, wore rudimentary armour and carried weapons such as spears and axes. Few of these men were mounted. [ aanhaling nodig ]

Merovingian society had a militarised nature. The Franks called annual meetings every Marchfeld (1 March), when the king and his nobles assembled in large open fields and determined their targets for the next campaigning season. The meetings were a show of strength on behalf of the monarch and a way for him to retain loyalty among his troops. [49] In their civil wars, the Merovingian kings concentrated on the holding of fortified places and the use of siege engines. In wars waged against external foes, the objective was typically the acquisition of booty or the enforcement of tribute. Only in the lands beyond the Rhine did the Merovingians seek to extend political control over their neighbours.

Tactically, the Merovingians borrowed heavily from the Romans, especially regarding siege warfare. Their battle tactics were highly flexible and were designed to meet the specific circumstances of a battle. The tactic of subterfuge was employed endlessly. Cavalry formed a large segment of an army [ aanhaling nodig ] , but troops readily dismounted to fight on foot. The Merovingians were capable of raising naval forces: the naval campaign waged against the Danes by Theuderic I in 515 involved ocean-worthy ships and rivercraft were used on the Loire, Rhône and Rhine.

Taal wysig

In a modern linguistic context, the language of the early Franks is variously called "Old Frankish" or "Old Franconian" and these terms refer to the language of the Franks prior to the advent of the High German consonant shift, which took place between 600 and 700 CE. After this consonant shift the Frankish dialect diverges, with the dialects which would become modern Dutch not undergoing the consonantal shift, while all others did so to varying degrees. [50] As a result, the distinction between Old Dutch and Old Frankish is largely negligible, with Old Dutch (also called Old Low Franconian) being the term used to differentiate between the affected and non-affected variants following the aforementioned Second Germanic consonant shift. [51]

The Frankish language has not been directly attested, apart from a very small number of runic inscriptions found within contemporary Frankish territory such as the Bergakker inscription. Nevertheless a significant amount of Frankish vocabulary has been reconstructed by examining early Germanic loanwords found in Old French as well as through comparative reconstruction through Dutch. [52] [53] The influence of Old Frankish on contemporary Gallo-Roman vocabulary and phonology, have long been questions of scholarly debate. [54] Frankish influence is thought to include the designations of the four cardinal directions: nord "north", sud "south", est "east" and ouest "west" and at least an additional 1000 stem words. [53]

Although the Franks would eventually conquer all of Gaul, speakers of Frankish apparently expanded in sufficient numbers only into northern Gaul to have a linguistic effect. For several centuries, northern Gaul was a bilingual territory (Vulgar Latin and Frankish). The language used in writing, in government and by the Church was Latin. Urban T. Holmes has proposed that a Germanic language continued to be spoken as a second tongue by public officials in western Austrasia and Northern Neustria as late as the 850s, and that it completely disappeared as a spoken language during the 10th century from regions where only French is spoken today. [55]


William the Conqueror: Background

William was the son of Robert I, duke of Normandy, and his mistress Herleva (also called Arlette), a tanner’s daughter from Falaise. The duke, who had no other sons, designated William his heir, and with his death in 1035 William became duke of Normandy.

Het jy geweet? William, an Old French name composed of Germanic elements (“wil,” meaning desire, and “helm,” meaning protection), was introduced to England by William the Conqueror and quickly became extremely popular. By the 13th century, it was the most common given name among English men.

William was of Viking origin. Though he spoke a dialect of French and grew up in Normandy, a fiefdom loyal to the French kingdom, he and other Normans descended from Scandinavian invaders. One of William’s relatives, Rollo, pillaged northern France with fellow Viking raiders in the late ninth and early 10th centuries, eventually accepting his own territory (Normandy, named for the Norsemen who controlled it) in exchange for peace.

Just over two weeks before the Battle of Hastings in October 1066, William had invaded England, claiming his right to the English throne. In 1051, William is believed to have visited England and met with his cousin Edward the Confessor, the childless English king. According to Norman historians, Edward promised to make William his heir. On his deathbed, however, Edward granted the kingdom to Harold Godwineson (or Godwinson), head of the leading noble family in England and more powerful than the king himself. In January 1066, King Edward died, and Harold Godwineson was proclaimed King Harold II. William immediately disputed his claim.


Devastation of the Jewish Rhineland

The events of 1096 temporarily stopped the intellectual and social activity of Ashkenazic Jewry. Urban II&rsquos call for the Crusade did more than arouse interest in the armies that went to Jerusalem. Two other groups formed, both of which harmed the Jews: itinerant preachers and bands of German peasants. For the most part, the itinerant preachers were only interested in exploiting the Jews financially, demanding money for provisions. The peasant groups were much more dangerous. These bands coalesced around a charismatic leader and engaged in spontaneous violence against Jews.

In the early stages of the Crusade, these latter groups destroyed the Jewish communities in Speyer, Worms, and Mainz. There are accounts of these peasants ruthlessly slaughtering defenseless people, attacking Jews while in synagogue, and storming royal buildings to massacre the Jews.


What were the crusades?

What comes to mind when you think of the crusades? Earnest and alarmingly buff knights (in shining armor, of course) engaged in against-the-odds quests to accomplish godly deeds in an evil world? Red crosses on pure white backgrounds? Orlando Bloom?

This is not surprising. A quick look at our pop culture and politics in the West reveals a continued fascination with the crusades. Compared with popular representations, the historical reality is more complicated and often less heroic.

How do we define the crusades?

Imagine a man-at-arms in the French city of Clermont in 1095. He is listening to Pope Urban II—the only pope he has ever seen in person!—speak passionately about the need to fight in the Holy Land. His lord is persuaded, and gathers his men and resources. The man-at-arms says goodbye to his family, and departs in 1096 on years of painful journeying and military campaigns. He dies of starvation at Antioch, never seeing Jerusalem. His family never knows his fate. This was crusading.

Now imagine Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor and King of Sicily. Frederick regains Jerusalem from the Muslims without waging war—it helps that he knows Arabic. He is crowned the King of Jerusalem in 1229, but returns to Europe to find the pope waging war on his lands. This, too, was crusading—at least it was for some, though others, like the pope, disagreed.

Finally, imagine an English knight in 1370. He plans to travel to northeastern Europe to fight non-Christians and help Christians there expand their territory. He will go for a season, enjoy feasting and knightly camaraderie, then return home and go back to his regular life, with his reputation enhanced by his trip. You guessed it: this was also crusading.

Crusading took many different forms, and attempting to precisely define crusading has engaged historians in intense debates for more than 150 years.

Scholarly debates

Most of the debates among scholars are concerned with identifying the key characteristics of a crusade. Some, for example, consider only expeditions aimed at Jerusalem or the Holy Land to be crusades. This approach is responsible for the traditional, numbered crusades (i.e., First Crusade, Second Crusade, etc.).

Others downplay the importance of a specific target, and emphasize instead characteristics related to authorization and procedure. These scholars would ask, did a pope authorize the expedition? Did participants take vows and receive certain legal and spiritual privileges? Taking this approach yields a larger number of crusades, spread over a larger geographical area and chronological range. At the same time, some question whether the role of authorities (i.e, the pope) determined a crusade as much as grassroots enthusiasm among ordinary people. These scholars would look, instead, for signs of mass popular support for an expedition. Still others assert that the characteristics of crusading were so diffuse throughout medieval culture that it is impossible and ultimately misleading to attempt to define what was or was not a crusade.

It is also fair to say that many scholars recognize that one can spend too much time seeking a meticulous definition, in essence missing the forest for the trees!

Outward signs

If crusading was so nebulous, how did potential participants know what a crusade was? Remember our man-at-arms in Clermont in 1095? He (and his lord) noticed preaching for a new expedition (perhaps emphasizing a papal proclamation, perhaps not), or heard people around him discussing it. Perhaps he also saw others taking public vows and wearing the sign of the cross on their garments. He may have learned of certain legal privileges designed to encourage participation and help protect property and families in the crusader’s absence. Or perhaps he heard of a papal promise of an indulgence (“indulgence” in this context simply means a spiritual benefit of some kind—the precise kind of indulgence offered for crusading changed over time).

Finally, our man-at-arms was interested in crusading, but for others, someone with authority over them (or someone they loved), may simply have told them it was happening or that they were going. Much like today, some people may have simply paid attention to their taxes at times, especially in the later Middle Ages, both the Church and secular authorities levied funds for new expeditions. Any or all of these factors may have caught people’s attention, especially if they came from a family or region with a tradition of crusade participation. Meanwhile, for those who were the targets of crusader violence, presumably the only sign needed was the sight of an approaching army bedecked with crosses.

Different points of view

While it’s valuable to seek to understand the crusades from the perspective of participants, it’s equally important to seek out different points of view. Internal criticism of the crusading movement was more limited than many today might expect. What criticisms existed were usually leveled at specific expeditions or participants, rather than at the idea of crusading in general or the underlying attitudes towards religion and violence that made crusading possible.

Muslim voices, whether in the Iberian Peninsula (what is now Spain and Portugal), the Levant (the eastern Mediterranean), or further afield, described the crusades in different ways—often as simple territorial expansion, religious warfare, or a combination of the two. Descriptions of the “Franks” themselves (as the crusaders were called) ranged from respect to ridicule to hostility.

Records from Jewish communities around the Mediterranean sometimes described an undiscriminating ferocity and zealous fervor held by many crusaders, a theme also underlined by Christians within Europe who did not conform to Church teachings, and thus were called “heretics.” Some accounts of the crusades from the Byzantine Empire (a medieval state based on the remains of the classical Roman Empire) emphasized the purported “barbarity” and relative naivete of the crusaders.


1,400 Years of Christian/Islamic Struggle: An Analysis

I was very disappointed to see that U.S. News would publish a clearly false article, adopting the world's clearly false, politically correct (PC) view of the place of the Crusades in history. What makes it even worse, the article hides its views under the additional headline falsehood, "The Truth About the Epic Clash Between Christianity and Islam."

The opening heading states, "During the Crusades, East and West first met." This is just totally in error, as any person with the slightest knowledge of history well knows. East and West had been fighting for at least 1,500 years before the first Crusade.

To give just a few examples -- the Persians invaded Europe in an attempt to conquer the Greeks in the fifth century B.C. The Greek, Alexander the Great, attempted to conquer all of Asia, as far as India, in the fourth century B.C. Both the Persians of the east and the Greeks of the west set up colonial empires founded upon bloody military conquest. The Romans established by bloody military conquest colonies in Mesopotamia, northwestern Arabia, and Assyria in the second century A.D.

A different type of bloody conquest occurred through the movement of whole tribal groups between the east and the west. Again, just to name a few, the Huns, the Goths, and the Avars came from as far away as western Asia, central Asia, and China respectively in the fifth through the seventh centuries A.D. Indeed, the Avars from northern China and Mongolia were besieging Constantinople in 626 A.D., at the very moment Mohammed was a merchant in Arabia. Indeed, the Avars, by this siege, were one of the forces that weakened the Byzantines (there were many other, perhaps more important, forces) to the extent that most of the Byzantine mid-eastern empire fell relatively easily to the Muslims.

But let's give the writer the benefit of the doubt and say that the author meant that "During the Crusades, Islam and Christianity first met." This, of course, is also totally false.

Let us review the Muslim conquest. In 624, Mohammed led a raid for booty and plunder against a Meccan caravan, killing 70 Meccans for mere material gain. Between 630 A.D. and the death of Mohammed in 632 A.D., Muslims -- on at least one occasion led by Mohammed -- had conquered the bulk of western Arabia and southern Palestine through approximately a dozen separate invasions and bloody conquests. These conquests were in large part "Holy wars," putting the lie to another statement in the U.S. News article that proclaimed the Crusades "The First Holy War," as if the Christians had invented the concept of a holy war. After Mohammed's death in 632, the new Muslim caliph, Abu Bakr, launched Islam into almost 1,500 years of continual imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquest and subjugation of others through invasion and war, a role Islam continues to this very day.

You will note the string of adjectives and may have some objection to my using them. They are used because they are the absolute truth. Anyone denying them is a victim of PC thinking, ignorant of history, or lying to protect Islam. Let us take each word separately before we proceed further in our true history of the relationship between the Christian west and the Islamic east.

Imperialistic

The Muslim wars of imperialist conquest have been launched for almost 1,500 years against hundreds of nations, over millions of square miles (significantly larger than the British Empire at its peak). The lust for Muslim imperialist conquest stretched from southern France to the Philippines, from Austria to Nigeria, and from central Asia to New Guinea. This is the classic definition of imperialism -- "the policy and practice of seeking to dominate the economic and political affairs of weaker countries."

Colonialist

The Muslim goal was to have a central government, first at Damascus, and then at Baghdad -- later at Cairo, Istanbul, or other imperial centers. The local governors, judges, and other rulers were appointed by the central imperial authorities for far off colonies. Islamic law was introduced as the senior law, whether or not wanted by the local people. Arabic was introduced as the rulers' language, and the local language frequently disappeared. Two classes of residents were established. The native residents paid a tax that their colonialist rulers did not have to pay.

Although the law differed in different places, the following are examples of colonialist laws to which colonized Christians and Jews were made subject to over the years:

  • Christians and Jews could not bear arms -- Muslims could
  • Christians and Jews could not ride horses -- Muslims could
  • Christians and Jews had to get permission to build -- Muslims did not
  • Christians and Jews had to pay certain taxes which Muslims did not
  • Christians could not proselytize -- Muslims could
  • Christians and Jews had to bow to their Muslim masters when they paid their taxes and
  • Christians and Jews had to live under the law set forth in the Koran, not under either their own religious or secular law.

In each case, these laws allowed the local conquered people less freedom than was allowed the conquering colonialist rulers. Even non-Arab Muslim inhabitants of the conquered lands became second class citizens behind the ruling Arabs. This is the classic definition of colonialist -- "a group of people who settle in a distant territory from the state having jurisdiction or control over it and who remain under the political jurisdiction of their native land."

We will talk about "bloody" as we proceed. Because the U.S. News article related only to the Christian west against the Muslim east, except in this paragraph I will not describe the almost 1,500 years of Muslim imperialistic, colonialist, bloody conquest and subjugation of others through invasion and war to the east of Arabia in Iraq, Persia, and much further eastward, which continues to this day.

In any event, because it was the closest geographically, Palestine was the first Western non-Arab area invaded in the Muslim imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquest and subjugation of others. At the time, Palestine was under the rule of the so-called Eastern Roman Empire, ruled from Istanbul by Greek speaking people, and was Eastern Orthodox Catholic. The Eastern Orthodox rule was despotic and the Eastern Roman Empire was in serious decline. The Eastern Orthodox rulers were despots, and in Palestine had subjugated the large population of local Jews and Monophysite Christians. Because the Orthodox were imperialist, colonialist, and bloody, and majored in religious persecution to boot, the Muslim imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquest and subjugation of Palestine, and then Egypt, was made easier. Because of Orthodox weakness and the relative speed of the conquest of Palestine and Israel, I have often seen this Muslim, imperialist, colonialist bloody conquest described by Muslim and PC writers as "peaceful" or "bloodless." This statement is simply not true.

The Muslim imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquest and subjugation of Palestine began with a battle, the August 20, 636, battle of Yarmk (it is believed that 75,000 soldiers took part -- hardly bloodless). With the help of the local Jews who welcomed the Muslims as liberators, the Muslims had subjugated the remainder of Palestine but had not been able to capture Jerusalem. Beginning in July 637, the Muslims began a siege of Jerusalem which lasted for five (hardly bloodless) months before Jerusalem fell in February 638. Arabs did not sack the city, and the Arab soldiers were apparently kept in tight control by their leaders. No destruction was permitted. This was indeed a triumph of civilized control, if imperialism, colonization, and bloody conquest can ever be said to be "civilized." It was at this conquest that many significant hallmarks of Muslim colonialism began. The conquered Christian and Jewish people were made to pay a tribute to the colonialist Muslims. In addition, Baghdad used the imperialist, colonialist, bloody wars of conquest throughout the life of its empire to provide the Caliphate with a steady stream of slaves, many of whom were made eunuchs.

The Muslim conquest of (Christian) North Africa went relatively easily until the native peoples of North Africa (most importantly the Berbers) were encountered west of Egypt. The North African people fought so strongly against the Muslims that the Muslim imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquest in the west was brought to an almost complete stop between Tripoli and Carthage for more than a quarter century. The Muslims broke through in a series of bloody battles followed by bloody (revenge) massacres of the Muslim's (largely Christian) opponents. This Muslim imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquest continued through North Africa and through what is now Spain, Portugal, and southern France, until they were stopped at the battle of Poiters (hardly bloodless) in the middle of France.

I believe that if I had the time, I could show that the Muslims, in their western imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquests, killed two to three times as many Christians as the Christians killed Muslims in all of the Crusades combined.

But let us return to Jerusalem.

The U.S. News article states that after Saladin conquered Jerusalem, "the victorious Saladin forbade acts of vengeance. There were no more deaths, no violence." True, as far as it goes. The article goes on to say, "most Muslims [will] tell you about Saladin and his generosity in the face of Christian aggression and hatred." Thus, the PC people and the Muslims ignore 450 years of prior Muslim aggression and approach the Crusades as being Christian or Western aggression against Islam, beginning out of the blue, without any prior history. Let us go back to the Muslim colonialist occupation of Jerusalem.

When we left our truthful history of Jerusalem, the Muslims, headquartered in Arabia, had just captured Jerusalem. For approximately 100 years, chiefly under the Umayyads, Jerusalem prospered under Muslim rule. Under the succeeding Abbasids, Jerusalem began to decline -- beginning at approximately 725 A.D. The occasion, among other things, was the decline of the central Muslim government, the breaking away from Arabia of far-flung provinces, the growth of warlike revolutionary groups, the growth of extremist Muslim sects, and, perhaps most important, the decision (relatively new) that Muslims had an obligation to convert all Christians and Jews (and "other pagans") to Islam. Thereafter, the true colonial nature of Jerusalem became more apparent. The Abbasids drained wealth from Jerusalem to Baghdad for the benefit of the caliphs, and Jerusalem declined economically. The language of the government became Arabic, and forcible conversion to Islam became the Muslim policy.

In approximately 750, the Caliph destroyed the walls of Jerusalem, leaving it defenseless (they were later rebuilt, in time to defend against the Crusaders). The history of the following three hundred years is too complex and too tangled to describe in a single paragraph. Jerusalem and its Christian and Jewish majority suffered greatly during alternating periods of peace and war. Among the happenings were repeated Muslim destruction of the countryside of Israel (970-983, and 1024-1077) of Jerusalem the wholesale destruction by the Muslims of Christian churches -- sometimes at the direct order of the Caliph, as in 1003, and sometimes by Muslim mobs the total destruction of Jerusalem by the Caliph of Cairo in the early 1020s building small mosques on the top of Christian churches enforcing the Muslim laws limiting the height of Christian churches attacking and robbing Christian pilgrims from Europe attacking Christian processions in the streets of Jerusalem etc.

Why the change after nearly 100 years of mostly peaceful Muslim rule? From what I read, there is a general view among the historians that the caliphs had begun to add a religious importance to their conquests, setting conversion to Islam as an important priority their later caliphs had no first-hand remembrance of Mohammed the vast distances of the empire led to independent rulers being established in Spain, North Africa, Cairo, Asia Minor, etc. and the instability of the caliphates and resulting civil wars.

The point about conversion to Islam I find particularly interesting. Many historians believe that the first one hundred years of Muslim conquest were imperialist and colonialist only with little significant forced conversion content. With respect to Jerusalem, there was a particular problem in the fact that generally the Christians and their churches (and to a lesser degree, the Jews) were significantly wealthier than the Muslims. This was largely because beginning in the early 800s with Charlemaigne, Europe adopted a sort of prototype "foreign aid" program for the churches located at the holy places in Jerusalem, where, to the embarrassment of the Muslims, Christian churches and monasteries outshone their Muslim rivals. Many of these churches and monasteries were run by western religious orders reporting directly to Rome under western leaders appointed by Rome (more were subject to Constantinople). Literally thousands of European Christian pilgrims made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem from such places as Germany, France, and Hungary (particularly in the years 1000, 1033, 1064, and 1099). Finally, Muslim rulers and European rulers frequently sought to enter into treaties of support with each other. As a result, Christian churches became the target of Muslims when enemies of those with whom there were European ties were victorious in a civil war. From time to time, Christian churches were rebuilt with Muslim funds when pro-western rulers came to power.

So much for the PC, U.S. News, Muslim outright lie that begins with the statement, "During the Crusades, East and West first met," and that later in the article called the Crusades, "the first major clash between Islam and Western Christendom." What about the long, prior conquest by Islam of Spain and Portugal? What about the battle of Portiers?

The following is just an aside, which I cannot prove, but I have noticed that PC and Muslim statements frequently cut off history when it is not in their favor. Thus, the article gives credence to the widespread belief in Islam that east-west history began with the Crusades. See also as an example of this tendency to begin history where it is convenient, today's Muslim description of the current Israeli occupation of the West Bank without mentioning the fact that the current occupation was caused by the widespread cold-blooded murder of Israeli civilians by Muslims.

But let us move on to the Crusades themselves.

Die kruistogte

First, a word about my personal view of the Crusades. I believe that the murderous and pillaging acts of the Crusaders when they entered Jerusalem were barbaric, unchristian, and evil. This is particularly so as those barbaric, unchristian, and evil acts were carried on in the name of a religion of peace, love, and forgiveness. I believe that the vast bulk of thinking Christians agree with me. I cite as evidence the large numbers of Christians who have recently taken long pilgrimages in the footsteps of the Crusaders, repenting for the Crusader's acts, seeking for forgiveness, and giving penance for the Crusader's barbaric, unchristian, and evil acts.

A question occurs to me here. How many Muslim groups have taken long pilgrimages in the footsteps of the Muslim conquest repenting, seeking for forgiveness, and giving penance for the Muslims imperialist, colonialist, and bloody conquest of Palestine, Egypt, Syria, North Africa, and Spain? This is particularly important as the U.S. News article claims, "For [Muslims] imperialism is a dirty word" Where is Muslim repentance for its imperialism, geographically the largest in all of history, which permits Muslims to call Western imperialism a dirty word?

Let us rewrite the beginning of the U.S. News article as follows: "In 1095, after suffering from the murderous invasions of Muslim conquerors who killed tens of thousands of Christians through four-and-one-half centuries of Muslim imperialist, colonialist conquest, made slaves and eunuchs of Christians for the pleasure of the caliphs, burned down or sacked the holiest churches in Christendom, robbed and killed thousands of Christians on holy pilgrimage, brutally sacked and pillaged Jerusalem, and pillaged the countryside of Israel, western Europe, under the leadership of the Pope, decided to free the people of the Holy Land from their brutal masters and reclaim Christianity's holiest places for free Christian worship."

Now, I fully realize that the previous paragraph is one-sided, that the six centuries of Muslim colonial, imperialist occupation were more complex than are shown in the previous paragraphs, and that the Christians were not always blameless, little babes. However, the previous paragraph has the benefit of not being an outright lie, which is more than I can say for the U.S. News article.

To beat the dog one more time, you may have noted that I stated above that Muslim imperialism has continued until the present. Muslim imperialism has continued without any let-up from ten years before Mohammed's death until today.

Consider the Ottoman invasion of Christian Eastern Europe in which the Ottoman Empire invaded the west and conquered and colonized Greece, all of the Balkans, Romania, Bessarabia, and Hungary, and was stopped only at the outskirts of Vienna in 1529. Consider also the Muhgal conquest of Northern India in the early 1600s. But today? Natuurlik! In the 20th century alone:

1. Muslim Turkey has expelled approximately 1,500,000 Greeks from its empire in the east and replaced them with Turks. They have massacred approximately 2 million Armenians and replaced them with Turks in the west.

2. Muslim Turkey has invaded and occupied northern Cyprus, displacing the Greeks living there.

3. Muslim northern Sudan has conquered much of southern Sudan, literally enslaving its Christian and pagan population.

4. Indonesian imperialism has occupied all of non-Islamic western New Guinea and incorporated into Indonesia.

5. Muslim Indonesia has invaded and conquered Christian East Timor with horrible loss of life.

6. This very day, Muslim Indonesia is attempting to destroy Christianity in what used to be called the Celebes.

7. A half-dozen Arab countries have fought two to four wars (depending how you count) in an attempt to destroy Israel and occupy its territory, and is currently continuing the attempt this very day with the publicly voted consent of 55 of the world's 57 Islamic nations.

8. For no good reason, Muslim Libya has blown up western aircraft, killing many civilians.

9. Muslim Iraq, in an imperialist war of aggression, invaded and occupied Muslim Kuwait.

10. Muslim Iraq, in an imperialist act of aggression, invaded Muslim Iran with a resulting (some estimates say) death of 2 million people.

11. Muslim Albania, this very minute, is attempting to enlarge its borders at Christian Macedonia's expense.

12. Muslim Northern Nigeria has been (and is currently) an aggressor against the Christian south.

13. Muslims expelled approximately 800,000 Jews from their homelands between 1947 and 1955.

14. During Jordan's occupation of the West Bank, the kingdom undertook an unsuccessful attempt to make Jerusalem a Muslim city by forcing out approximately 10,000 Christian inhabitants.

Yes, I know that the reverse has been true. For example, Christian Serbia entered and massacred Bosnian Muslims. The western response was instructive. The west sent troops to protect the Muslims. Serbia gave up its leader to be tried for the crime by an international panel. Will Indonesia do the same with respect to Timor? Or Sudan with respect to southern Sudan?

Question: What is the title of the shortest book in the world? Answer: "The list of Muslim nations who have risked the lives of their soldiers to protect (as with the U.S. protection of Muslims in Kuwait) Christian or Jewish citizens from Muslim imperialism."

Yes, I also know that in the 20th century the west fought two of the bloodiest wars in history. But in the past more than 55 years, the west has developed methods that have led to peace among the west, and all but totally ended western imperialism and colonialism. With former colonies having a large majority in the UN, and the example of the west before it, Islam has continued its imperialist, colonial, bloody wars unabated.

One final point. Muslims base their claim to the city of Jerusalem upon the belief that Jerusalem has been a Muslim city for centuries. It may be that Muslims were never a majority in Jerusalem. We cannot prove this for all time periods, but we know that Muslims were a minority in the first several centuries after the Muslim imperialist conquest and during the century of Christian occupation during the Crusades. And we know that in the Middle Ages, Jerusalem was not considered important to the Muslims, but it was to the Christians and Jews. The Muslims made cities other than Jerusalem the capital of their Palestinian colony. Many Caliphs never even visited Jerusalem. Therefore, there was a steady stream of Jewish and Christian (but not Muslim) immigrants into Jerusalem throughout the Middle Ages, including a major immigration of Karaite Jews in the late eighth and early ninth centuries, and a steady stream of Armenians for hundreds of years, until there were so many Armenians that an Armenian Quarter was established in Jerusalem. Finally, we know that for at least more than the last 160 years, Muslims were a clear minority in Jerusalem. The Muslim Ottomans, and then the British and Israelis, kept careful census record showing the following percentages of Muslim population in Jerusalem:


Kyk die video: de kruistochten