h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Oh, certainly. It's just I feel there's a temptation to ascribe the motivations for the Crusades as purely financial without taking into account that it was a far more spiritual time than today.



Sure AlsoRan80, be my guest.

Thank you so much. !!

Christiane
AlsoRan80

Why the pope asked people to go on the Crusade and why they went on the Crusade are two completely different questions.

It is indeed...but the economic imperatives which led to the various Popse ordering Crusades are rather better understood. (By me, anyway)

The main reason for the pope calling the First Crusade seems to be to establish that he was a higher authority than the kings of Europe. It also was hoped that by lending aid to the Byzantines in driving the Turks out of Anatolia, he would help to unite the Eastern and Western Christian churches, which had split a few year before this.

Not to mention that it helped reduce the number of tournaments and intraeuropean wars, which the Pope was opposed to

>it was a far more spiritual time than today

I don't buy this. For one thing, spirituality is not measurable.

For another thing, the statement falls into the category of "ain't it awful", along with the popular idea that recent history is more violent than prehistory. Google Pinker on Violence (on YouTube).

Firstly, whilst one person's belief may not be quantifiable the proportion of the population who did believe is quantifiable and far more people believed in a literal hell and in the literal truth of the bible back in the middle ages than do so now, after all such beliefs have been mostly relegated to the USA and the Middle East.

As for your second statement, the point about spirituality was made as a statement of fact, whether accurate or otherwise is immaterial, it was not emotive nor does it convey any emotive sentiments, so your "ain't it awful" point is is not valid. As to your third point about the level of violence in modern times, spirituality and violence have no direct proportionate values. Although, as a huge proportion of wars throughout history have been fought on religious, or at least semi religious, grounds it would in fact point to earlier historical times being more violent.

So essentially not a single point you made in that post appears even remotely valid.

That's a shame, G. It would have been an interesting subject to discuss.

I, too, don't buy this 'more spiritual times'. Firstly - I'm not sure what it means. Secondly - if it does mean something (such as 'People went to church more often')...it doesn't really explain anything. *Why* was religion such a significant factor? What was going on beneath the surface?

TB: Was you last line (and accompanying passive-aggressive smiley) really helpful?

Apologies to Gnomon. Once again I have hijacked a perfectly civilised thread of his to thump my barrel.

I agree, the statement about violence appears paradoxical. Pinker agrees too, here is the clip (20 mins or so)
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html


My statement about spirituality I stand by; it can be read the other way too: this age is as credulous as any. A startling proportion of US citizens claim to believe that the world will end in their lifetime (a basic tenet since the beginning of Christianity) and that God will send all people either to heaven or to hell.

The lumping together of "this age is less spiritual" with "this age is more violent" is something I cannot accuse TB of, and I apologise. However, the thing that makes the violence statement seem paradoxical is the same thing that makes the spirituality statement seem paradoxical, namely the taking for granted that this age is (always) the least respectful there has ever been. That's what I don't buy.

>>TB: Was you last line (and accompanying passive-aggressive smiley) really helpful?


Firstly, not sure what you mean about the smiley, as I added no smiley to the line. Secondly, I was merely stating that I could not see how any of the points made in the earlier post could be held as valid, at least without further clarification. It was meant as a purely objective statement.

Also, Sorry Gnomon, didn't mean to cause any upset on yours or anyone else's part. Anyway I have asked Recumbentman if we can continue this else where.

I was looking back to find the journal entry I'd made about writing about the First Crusade, as I'm making good progress on it. I found this, which I'd unsubscribed from. It's sad that the last post in it was from TB Falsename, who died since then.

I'll leave this conversation as it is, and find the other one, where I'll report my progress.