tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19833734.post4677921226537894187..comments2024-02-22T19:21:40.330-05:00Comments on Muhlberger's World History: A thought-provoking characterization of the First CrusadeUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19833734.post-57941376346586482032008-07-15T15:48:00.000-04:002008-07-15T15:48:00.000-04:00"But you have to admit that *a lot* of people were..."But you have to admit that *a lot* of people were very on high idealistic goals in 1096." should be "very high on."Steve Muhlbergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18136005762428407135noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19833734.post-38195776428925556032008-07-15T15:47:00.000-04:002008-07-15T15:47:00.000-04:00Thanks for the further comment and the link to yo...Thanks for the further comment and the link to your abstract. I am sure that some of my readers will appreciate that.<BR/><BR/>When you said "very wrong," I thought you were talking specifically about the quotation I cited. For me, this quotation eerily reflected Ivo Andric's comments on the enthusiasm for war in Europe in 1914. There is a beautiful and terrifying quotation in his novel The Bridge on the Drina, which I can't put my hand on at the moment. But the meaning of that paragraph as I remember was that many of the people of Europe felt unjustifiably like entire heritage of all history was theirs to do with as they wished, and that any great thing that they imagined was possible. Surely the people who actually went on crusade, whether they were suckered or not, were told and believed that what they were doing by going to Jerusalem was an exceptional thing, otherwise why go at all? the Crusaders did not destroy the world to the extent that the World War I generation did, but they destroyed a lot, including many of themselves. All wars are very destructive, and all warriors risk ultimate disappointment, whether they seek personal gain or idealistic goals. But you have to admit that *a lot* of people were very on high idealistic goals in 1096. And I see the same in 1914.Steve Muhlbergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18136005762428407135noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19833734.post-5651648646056913272008-07-15T15:19:00.000-04:002008-07-15T15:19:00.000-04:00Sure, Steve. I should say first that I generally ...Sure, Steve. I should say first that I generally really liked Tyerman's book...<BR/><BR/>The biggest problem here (for me) is that it's so cynical. It treats those who responded as if they didn't have the ability to reason adequately and were "suckered" into it. I don't like the word "manipulation" here. I don't like the suggestion that society was somehow "immature" in 1095, as if Europe could've shaken it off if the pope had just waited a few years. Finally, I don't like the division it suggests between "elite" (clerical) and "popular" (lay) culture. I don't think that distinction, for this period, is really tenable anymore. <BR/><BR/>I deal with a lot of this, and in much greater depth, in <A HREF="http://www.idst.vt.edu/humanities/medieval/gabriele/crusade_abstract.html" REL="nofollow">my forthcoming monograph.</A>Matthew Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11971159578332078338noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19833734.post-73478004912440517512008-07-15T13:10:00.000-04:002008-07-15T13:10:00.000-04:00Matt,I'd be glad if you'd explain here your "very ...Matt,<BR/><BR/>I'd be glad if you'd explain here your "very wrong" characterization.Steve Muhlbergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18136005762428407135noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19833734.post-10961492637057490782008-07-15T12:18:00.000-04:002008-07-15T12:18:00.000-04:00Thanks for posting this! I'd read right by it las...Thanks for posting this! I'd read right by it last time I looked at Tyerman. <BR/><BR/>It's very wrong but fascinating, nonetheless...Matthew Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11971159578332078338noreply@blogger.com