Orthodox Crusades

[unmerged(8913)]

But that's true everywhere. CK rationalises magnate power by province, it doesn't mean a lord personally owned anything like that area.

Yes, but the difference is that those landowners in the Byzantine Empire didn't 'rule' in any real sense of the word. The way I understand it is that the comperable landowners in the west ruled over those lands as vassal to the king, which was quite different than the model of Byzantines. Also, some of what I've read on the subject indicates that there was a significantly greater amount of land owned outright by small farmers in the Byzantine Empire than in the west.

 

[Earl Uhtred]

I have a map here which I wish I could scan - Somerset and Wiltshire showing land ownership in 1066. The biggest landowner by quite a long way is the Church, followed at some remove by the King, the local earls and the Queen. But there's a lot of white too, 50% perhaps, which I assume was held by the lesser nobility and free peasants (plus common / untilled etc). I do notice most of the good land belongs to the big four, however.

Naturally I bet most of this was turned on its head post Conquest but it's the best map of its kind I have.

 

[Old Joe]

if theres some exact action in CK like "crusade" button, so yes i agree, orthodox didnt make any crusade, but that is rather political speculations of pope to continue dominate with his influence intriguing with all greedy european robber-like monarchs to take some compaigns against rich arabia hehe, and all that was just excuse to agressive actions, so if byzantia pulling back turks by centuries in defencive it cant called as crusade of course, but when russians beat mongols at kulikovo, to back them from their lands, they didnt called it crusade, but rightfully they can call it, in today meaning of this word, but those days it was only Popes previlegies, his exclusive right, and very profitable political lever of control

 

[unmerged(18477)]

In Snowball version of CK orthodox also have possibilities to declare crusade, but as they say "with several restrictions"

 

[gweinel]

Well I am pro orthodox crusades. In the era of Heraclitus (Byzantine-Perso wars) byzantines actually made holy war against the persians. So that was a kind of crusade that has many similarities and even more fanatism from the catholics (even the patriach of Constantinopole helped the people in the siege). I don't see a reason not to include an orthodox crusade.

Konstantine

 

[unmerged(13573)]

@gweinel
I absolutely agree with you about Heraclius waging holy war. But the Byzantine art of waging it (in terms of organization, etc) was very different from the western crusades. Since the Byzantines saw their emperor as Gods representative his wars were of a holy nature. So every war they fight is a kind of crusade. I think Geoffrey Regan's book "First Crusader" tries to make that point as well.
The Byzantines dont need to call upon the western concept of crusade, they have their own already.

 

[gweinel]

@gweinel
I absolutely agree with you about Heraclius waging holy war. But the Byzantine art of waging it (in terms of organization, etc) was very different from the western crusades. Since the Byzantines saw their emperor as Gods representative his wars were of a holy nature. So every war they fight is a kind of crusade. I think Geoffrey Regan's book "First Crusader" tries to make that point as well.
The Byzantines dont need to call upon the western concept of crusade, they have their own already.

I agree with you. I think it has to defined what is a *crusade*. If crusade is the holy religious war of a christian church with the help of the the great states (or the opposite) against the muslims then of course orthodox must be able to make crusades. If crusades are all the machinations of typical western crusade (the need of papacy to gain power, the need of vassalls to createnew lands etc) the orthodox church should be off.

Konstantine

 

[Mishko]

I agree with you. I think it has to defined what is a *crusade*.

A crusade is a war against the non-belivers that involves the crusading host. A crusading host is an army that was summoned by the Pope to fight the non-belivers. Ergo, only Catholics have Crusades. Keep it simple.
Cheers,
Milos

 

[Havard]

A crusade is a war against the non-belivers that involves the crusading host. A crusading host is an army that was summoned by the Pope to fight the non-belivers. Ergo, only Catholics have Crusades. Keep it simple.

A crusade was not necescarily against non-believers (like the crusade agains Markward of Antweiler and agains Peter of Aragon), and not all host summoned by the Pope were crusades (like the Guiscard's force supporting the Pope against the Emperor)...

A more accurate definition would be that a Crusade is a war called by the Pope agains an enemy, in which those who volunteered were granted absolvation of sins upon completion and protection of their interrest while away.

 

[Tolstoyevsky]

The ultimate purpose of the crusades was not to fight the non-believers, but to retake the Holy Land or, to be more specific, to facilitate the access of the pilgrims to this particular place.

 

[gweinel]

The ultimate purpose of the crusades was not to fight the non-believers, but to retake the Holy Land or, to be more specific, to facilitate the access of the pilgrims to this particular place.

You mean only the first three crusades. There were more. The fourth that ransacked Constantinopole and others later against the Ottomans.

Konstantine

 

[Earl Uhtred]

You mean only the first three crusades. There were more. The fourth that ransacked Constantinopole and others later against the Ottomans.

Konstantine

Yip. Tunis, Riga, Toulouse and Constantinople were all the subjects of crusades.