#Post initial Anglo Saxon invasion | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

cincinnatusvirtue · 5 years ago

Text

On this day: The Sack of Constantinople 1204, The Fourth Crusade damages Christendom and shapes history...

The Christian Crusades of the Middle Ages have a mixed legacy in the the long lens of history. In the modern age, they are reviled by some and still upheld as noble, even holy ventures by others. Depending on the particular Crusade the participants, their motivations and their outcome had varying degrees of impact long term. Perhaps none however had the long term ramifications, though unforeseen at the time of the Fourth Crusade of 1204.

The Fourth Crusade stands out because it saw not only the one time the Crusades were not directed at their original target of removing Muslim powers from the Holy Land in the Levant but instead changed their trajectory to attack a fellow Christian power, the Byzantine Empire or Eastern Roman Empire as it was known as or just Roman Empire. The Byzantine Empire was the successor to Rome, since it was the continuation of the ancient Roman Empire, albeit with its capital in Constantinople, straddling Europe and Asia between the Balkans and Anatolia between the Black and Mediterranean Seas. Overtime it had shifted its language and cultural focus from a Latin one to a Greek speaking one and a religious flavor of Christianity different from the Catholic Church of Western Europe, known as the Greek or Eastern Orthodox Church.

The Fourth Crusade came out a complex mix of ever present Byzantine internal politics and civil war, Western Crusader and Papal idealism and economic opportunism. As well as a mix of cultural and religious differences between the Western and Eastern branches of Christianity. To get a sense of how we get to the events of 1204 we need to look further back to an overview of the Byzantine Empire and the various threats they faced.

The Byzantine Empire was essentially an outgrowth of civil division within the ancient Roman Empire and the subsequent split lead to the founding a new capital in the east, by Roman Emperor Constantine, the first Roman Emperor to become nominally Christian. The city was named Constantinople though this was not initially Constantine’s planned name. It was located on the shores of the Bosporus, a channel that runs between the European continent and Asian Continent in modern day Turkey, where the Balkans and Anatolia meet. A literal crossroads of East meets West. It was located near the site of a former ancient Greek colony called Byzantium, hence the name later attached to describe the Eastern Roman Empire. The Byzantine Empire was name given centuries after its fall, it was only ever referred to by its inhabitants as the Roman Empire, because even though it evolved from Latin speaking Romans to Greek speakers, the political institutions remained very much influenced by the ancient Roman Empire and unlike the Western Roman Empire, it withstood the invasions of the various Germanic and other barbarian tribes in the 5th century and continued unbroken into the Middle Ages. The terms Byzantine Empire and Eastern Roman Empire, Roman Empire are used interchangeably hereafter in this post to mean the same polity.

The Byzantine Empire struggled as a bulwark against various barbarian tribes of differing origins over the centuries and increasingly it turned to its Christian religion as an inseparable component of its culture, which also took on a Greek flavor. The Greek language was the majority of the populace in this part of the world but the political and military elites spoke Latin until the 7th century, after which they too spoke Greek which developed from Koine Greek into Medieval Greek. Simultaneously there were serious differences between the religious authorities and the Emperors. While the Byzantine Empire did reclaim parts of Italy and Western Europe and North Africa, the differences between the Pope in Rome and religious authorities in Constantinople along with the Emperor himself was causing a rift between the East and Western Churches. As a result with these schisms lead to the development of the Eastern Orthodox Church separate from the Catholic or Roman Catholic Church. A particular break came when King of the Franks Charlemagne was crowned Holy Roman Emperor in the 9th century, giving rise to a new “claimant” to the Roman throne among the German speaking peoples of Central Europe who had also converted to Christianity. The Holy Roman Empire was never unified completely in the format of the Byzantine Empire, it was actually a collection of various kingdoms, fiefdoms and principalities among Central Europe, namely in the German, Italian, French speaking regions as well as the Low Countries. However, it too proclaimed itself the successor to the ancient Roman Empire, albeit its formation was really a form of political solidarity with the Roman Pope now at odds with the Roman Emperor in Constantinople, this lead to a break in relations between Rome and Constantinople that never really recovered completely.

In the 7th century a new threat, that of the Arabs and religion of Islam appeared on the Roman Empire’s southern borders in the Levant and North Africa. The Arabs surprisingly and quickly overran much of the Eastern Roman Empire. Taking the Levant including Syria and spreading to North Africa and eventually to Sicily, parts of Southern Italy and even the Iberian Peninsula then part of the Germanic Kingdom of the Visigoths in the coming generations. The Eastern Roman Empire was eventually able to stabilize parts of its eastern borders in Anatolia but had to withstand Arab invasions and even attempted sieges of Constantinople itself, but the city with its famously thick and high walls proved too much for the Arabs to defeat them. Additionally, they were helped by their sometimes rival the First Bulgarian Empire, a synthesis of Slavic tribes who migrated south in the 6th century from Eastern Europe along with the nomadic Turkic Bulgars who ruled over the area known as Bulgaria as the elite. Ultimately, the Islamic Caliphate which spread from Spain to the Middle East was divided by internal rivalries and new dynasties which lead to a fracturing within the Islamic world. This development provided some relief to the Byzantines as time went by, the Byzantines were able to regain parts of their strength in territories lost to the Arabs, at least partially.

The Byzantine Empire also dealt with the issue of various peoples from the north including the aforementioned Bulgarian Empire which originated with the Slavs intermingling with Byzantine citizens and later included the nomadic Turkic Bulgars. However, the Slavs south of the Danube River were the most populous group in this region and eventually the Bulgars were absorbed into their people which now called themselves Bulgarians. The Bulgarians however did adopt Christianity, namely the Orthodox branch of Christianity and spread this among their fellow South Slavs, this worked to occasionally smooth relations with the Byzantine Greeks but the rivalry remained both powers for control of the Balkans. Additionally, various other Turkic tribes and nomadic peoples over the years such as the Avars, Pechenegs, Cumans and Magyars (Hungarians) rode into the areas bordering the Byzantine Empire and variously they battled the Byzantines as well as each other. This was Constantinople’s preference, a paid for form of diplomacy, to play off the various barbarian peoples as soon as a new one showed up, the Byzantine Empire was immensely wealthy due to large amounts of gold, valuable trade routes and territories to tax. By paying off the latest arrivals, they could replace an older threat and work as vassals or allies of the Byzantine Empire at varying times.

Another, people the Byzantines had to deal with was the Kievan Rus, a combination of East Slavic tribes that due to internal strife supposedly invited a group of Vikings, known as Varangians to the Greeks to rule over them. The Vikings founded Kiev, the modern capital of Ukraine and ruled over as a political elite over these Eastern Slavs, in time they were absorbed into the Slavic majority like the Bulgars and their Slavic subjects. They formed a medieval state that served as the later basis for the modern states of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus and their Slavic peoples. The Kievan Rus, raided Byzantine lands including Constantinople but were repelled by the city’s famously impregnable walls and the secret weapon of the Byzantines, a Medieval take on the flamethrower known as Greek fire which destroyed the Rus’s navy. Greek fire’s exact method of deployment is a mystery but suffice to say it was a fearsome weapon that effectively repelled many an enemy. In time, the Rus too converted to Orthodox Christianity, becoming a sometimes ally of the Byzantines. They further assisted the Byzantines by sending Scandinavian mercenaries from Sweden, Denmark and Norway to Kiev and onto Constantinople to serve in the Byzantine army, first as mercenary infantry and later into a specialized elite personal guard of the Byzantine Emperors, the Varangian Guard which were quite fearsome in their reputation. This tradition would carry on for the remainder of the Byzantine Empire’s existence. Though the composition of the Varangian guard switched from Scandinavian Rus to Anglo-Saxons from England and others following the Norman Invasion of England.

The Normans, descendants of Viking raiders who pillaged France and were given their own duchy, Normandy, also spread to different parts of Europe. The Normans named after their Viking ancestors called the Norsemen or Northmen which became Norman. Developed their own distinct subculture of Viking influenced warfare, French dialect along with unique architecture and customs. The Normans most famously attacked and conquered England under William, Duke of Normandy or William the Conqueror. Ending Anglo-Saxon rule of England in 1066, the Normans formed a new political elite in the British Isles in union with Normandy. They also conquered Southern Italy, including Sicily, ending Arab/Islamic rule there and they attacked the Balkan possessions of the Byzantine Empire in raids. To varying degrees both sides were successful.

In the 11th century, the Byzantines can reconquered Bulgaria, ending a threat their but to the east were facing a new threat, the nomadic Turks coming from the steppes of Central Asia. The Turks had converted to Islam along with the Persians and other Iranian peoples of Central Asia and with this brought a renewed threat of Islam to the Roman Empire’s borders. In 1071, the Byzantine suffered a defeat at the Battle of Manzikert from the Seljuq Turks who established the Great Seljuq Empire, the first major nomadic Islamic Turkic Empire to threaten the Byzantines. They quickly settled into the Anatolian heartland of Byzantine lands replacing the previously Greek majority here. During the reign of Byzantine Emperor Alexios I Kommenos (1088-1118), the First Crusades were called by the Alexios working with then Pope Urban II in 1095. Promoting a reconciliation of sorts between East and West Christendom. The goal was to restore Anatolia and the Levant to the Byzantine Empire from the various Muslim rulers since the Seljuqs and their fellow Muslims in the Levant were divided. Eventually a mix of Italo-Norman, French and other Western European armies “took up the Cross” and became the Crusaders hell bent on Christian restoration of the Holy Land. The deal was they were to get help drive Muslims from these lands and restore Byzantine rule to them in exchange for spiritual clean slates from the Pope himself to satisfy their religious fervor and get monetary and military support from a reformed Byzantine army and navy that prior to Alexios had been neglected and underfunded due to corruption, civil war and decreased tax bases. The Crusaders had to swear and oath of nominal fealty to Alexios, even the Normans he previously fought. The First Crusade turned out to be successful though its intention of restoring lands to Byzantium only went so far. In Anatolia, the Crusaders with their heavy armor and weaponry decimated the light cavalry of the Turks and the Byzantines were able to partially restore control over Anatolia. In the Levant however, the Crusaders receiving limited support from the Byzantines decided to take matters into their own hands and create Crusader states in parts of modern Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Israel and Jordan for themselves, even retaking Jerusalem. Forming the Counties of Tripoli and Edessa, the Princapality of Antioch and the Kingdom of Jerusalem, these states were nominally to become vassals of the Byzantine Empire since their Christian populace was majority Greek but they would be de-facto independent at varying times over the course of their existence.

As the 11th century gave way to the 12th century other Crusades were undertaken, the Second Crusade was more widespread trying to curtail Muslim reconquest of Anatolia and the Levant which resulted in a Crusader failure in Anatolia but a stalemate in the Levant preserving the Crusader states there. Meanwhile, Christians successfully retook the Muslim controlled parts of Portugal and Spain, known as Al-Andalus and the Crusaders in Northern Europe started to locally convert some Western Slavs who had long resisted conversion to Christianity to moderate levels of success. By the end of the 12th century, the Third Crusade was launched to revive the now reconquered parts of the Levant including Jerusalem that fell into Muslim hands of the Ayubid Sultanate, founded by an ethnic Kurd, named Saladin who became Sultan of Egypt and Syria and fought against Richard the Lionheart, King of England. The Crusaders regained partial control of the coastal regions of the Levant but not the interior and a truce was made between Richard and Saladin out of mutual respect and exhaustion.

The dawn of the 13th century saw Pope Innocent III, want to build on the successes of the Third Crusade and launch a Fourth Crusade to complete retaking Jerusalem once more. During the time of the Third Crusade though, tensions with the Byzantine Empire and Western Europeans resumed. Frederick I Barbarossa, Holy Roman Emperor and his army tried to get permission from the Byzantines to cross over into Anatolia but which was granted but saw an early end after Frederick drowned fording a river. The Germans were accused of conspiring with the resurgent Second Bulgarian Empire and Serbia both of which had broken away and reclaimed their independence from the Byzantines once more after a century and half of reconquest. Furthermore, the English took Cyprus from the Muslims but did not return to the Byzantines, instead handing it over to the Knights Templar, one of several Latin (Catholic) Christian military orders founded during the Crusades.

The Byzantines had for centuries been the most dominate city in Christendom in Constantinople, it was the largest and most cosmopolitan city in Europe reaching populations between 500,000-1,000,000 at its peak. It had long retained ancient Rome’s political machinations, as well as cultural innovations, public baths, forums, aqueducts, a racing arena for chariots and other classical Roman monuments and structures. It also housed ornate Christian churches such as the Hagia Sophia and with the Orthodox’s Church’s rich artwork of elaborate mosaics and golden icons it was awe-inspiring to anyone ,Christian or pagan who entered it’s triple set of walls for its sheer grandeur alone. A sense of bringing “Heaven on Earth” was something the Byzantines sought to do for any foreign dignitary.

The Byzantine capital was also the center of commerce in the Mediterranean, where east meets west. Its former vassal, the Italian city-state, the Republic of Venice had over the centuries become independent and became a commercial and naval power on its own and it had sought to become the Byzantine Empire’s biggest benefactor for trade. In time it sought to replace the Byzantine Empire as the commercial power of the region. The Venetians at first were granted favorable trade conditions which actually disadvantaged and further weakened the Byzantine economy and customs-tax revenues, this was the result of short-term convenience the Byzantine rulers often needed to lighten the burden on their treasury, making short term political gains at the expense of long term financial ruin. While Alexios I and his immediate descendants increased Byzantine rule and prestige over the course of the 12th century, they gradually fell back into civil war, corruption and sometimes downright oppressive violence to maintain order. Eventually they were replaced in a coup by the interrelated Angelos dynasty and reigned from 1185 until the events of 1204. Even within the dynasty there was infighting. Isaac II Angelos ruled for years, incompetently until replaced by his brother Alexios III Angelos who had Isaac, ritually blinded and sent into retirement was typical of Byzantine custom. His own reign was marred by financial mismanagement and corruption, outsourcing the navy to Venetian mercenaries and corrupt bureaucrats selling military and religious equipment to for personal gain. Once again the Byzantine Empire found itself virtually bankrupt and unable to pay its armies.

Alexios III was now being plotted against by his nephew Alexios, son of Isaac II. It was his nephew who escaped imprisonment and made his way to the Holy Roman Empire and into the court of his brother in law, the King of Germany Philip of Swabia who was married to Alexios’ sister Irene Angelina. Alexios would play a pivotal role in the events of 1204. Quite separate from his own plans, the Fourth Crusade was already being planned by Pope Innocent III with the typical goal of reclaiming Jerusalem in mind at the same time. The Venetian Republic agreed to provide the naval fleet and some ground support in exchange for a handsome sum from the mostly French and German Crusaders who were to partake in the voyage. The Crusaders were expected to pay the Venetians a large sum for their transport. In part, because the Venetians halted all other naval and commercial development for a year to build a sea worthy fleet with the expectation of being paid upon the Crusaders arrival in Venice which was expensive to a maritime power reliant on seafaring commerce. The Venetian head of state, known as the Doge was at this time a man nearly 100 years old and partially blinded by the Byzantines years before, by the name of Enrico Dandolo. Dandolo and the Venetians were surprised when the French and Germans showed up with limited funds. The Venetians had seemingly built a fleet a great personal expense and now could not expect a reimbursement. As a result the Venetians held the Crusaders hostage and demanded a negotiated payment from the Crusaders since it looked like the Crusade would no longer happen now. They received a partial payment, taking a collection from all the Crusaders but it was not enough to recoup their losses and so the stand off continued. At this point Dandolo proposed a new idea, the Venetians would partake in spoils of the Crusade, not part of the original agreement and the debt could be paid off. Additionally, Dandolo decided the Crusaders could work off their debt in part by helping Venice reclaim the Croatian city of Zara on the Adriatic Sea. This area nominally belonged to the Venetians but a group of Croatian pirates had taken over this port and disrupted Venetian commerce, if the city could be retaken with Crusader help, the Venetians would consider the debt partially restored. This had the added benefit of deescalating tensions with the Crusaders residing in Venice out of fear that their hostage ordeal may lead to violence there and at least in Croatia they could be placed elsewhere.

The planned attack on Zara reached the Pope who threatened excommunication of any Crusader French, German or Venetian or other Italian who attacked Zara since it was a fellow Christian city and already the Fourth Crusade’s purposes were being perverted. A papal sanctioned legate and entourage was sent to oversee the religious aspects of the Crusade and report back to the Pope. The Pope’s threats were intentionally withheld from the bulk of the Crusaders by the Venetians and some of the Crusader leaders who saw profiteering opportunities here. Though some Crusaders, devout in their religious convictions and sworn oaths refused to partake in an attack against fellow Christians the bulk of the army joined the Venetians in November of 1202, despite the Croats displaying the Cross as fellow Catholics, the city was taken after a few weeks. Immediately the Venetians and the Crusaders fought into a violent brawl leaving 100 dead as they disputed the spoils of the conquered city. The Pope receiving the news of the attack, excommunicated the entire army, though news of the excommunication was likewise withheld from the rank and file. However, the Pope would later grant an absolution to the army.

While wintering in the warmth of Croat coast, Alexios Angelos, who had escaped his uncle and reigning Byzantine Emperor, Alexios III to Germany made his way to Zara. He had been plotting to overthrow his uncle and take control of Byzantium for himself but in his exile abroad he needed a vehicle for his plans. The cousin of his brother in law, the German King happened to be the nominal leader of the Fourth Crusade, an Italian noble and soldier of German descent by the name and title of Boniface of Montferrat. Though by the Siege of Zara Boniface was merely a figurehead, the Venetian Doge Enrico Dandolo had more or less usurped the Crusade for his and Venice’s purposes. Nevertheless, Alexios hearing about the Crusader army, arrived at their winter camp in Zara and proposed a new alternative to their venture, instead of going to the Holy Land as planned why not detour to Constantinople and force his uncle give up the throne, in exchange Alexios would be proclaimed the new Emperor and pay off the Crusaders handsomely including the Venetians with promises to more than recoup the Venetians present losses. The timing and machinations of the various Crusaders, the Venetian Doge and the would be Byzantine pretender to the throne could not have been more perfect. Like the planned attack on Zara, Constantinople was a controversial target as a fellow Christian city, albeit one the Catholic or Latin Crusaders as they were known as, saw as still somewhat for their adherence to the Orthodox denomination which was alien and strange to the Catholics. Both denominations had sense of superiority to the other. The Doge was eager to gain riches from Constantinople to recoup his country’s losses and also to avenge an earlier massacre of Venetians and other of Italians in the Venetian Quarter of Constantinople years before by the Greek populace. Some Crusaders who were present at Zara but refused to partake in the attack, including the English noble Simon de Montfort refused to partake in the attack on Constantinople and left for the Kingdom on Hungary and eventually lead a small but unsuccessful contingent to the Holy Land, attempting to complete the original mission of the Crusade as intended.

Alexios additionally promised not only to pay off the Crusaders debts to the Venetians for the Crusade’s assistance in his coup but to resupply and reinforce the Crusade onto the Holy Land. Additionally, he promised to bring the Greek Orthodox Church (nominally subservient to the Emperor) under Papal authority. Unbeknownst to Alexios while his promises were too tempting to the Crusaders and Venetians, the practical reality of implementing them were beyond his reach. Doge Dandolo however, had spent time in Constantinople as a diplomat for Venice years before and was well aware of the complex and fluid politics of Byzantium and likely doubted the veracity of Alexios’s promises. Nevertheless by early 1203 the Crusader and Venetian flotilla were en-route to Constantinople. When Pope Innocent caught wind of this plot he warned against further attacks against Christian cities, at least nominally, but did not outright condemn this specific venture for reasons not exactly known, though probably for political reasons.

The Crusader-Venetian army arrived on the outskirts of Constantinople in June of 1203, having left Croatia in April. The city had a population of half a million and a permanent garrison of 15,000 regular troops, including 5,000 of the Varangian Guard. The sudden appearance of a fellow Christian army caught the city off guard and indeed the Byzantines could not call for reinforcements from other parts of the Empire in a timely manner. They sent an emissary to the Emperor Alexios III, stating the goals were to depose him peacefully if possible. Indeed that was the primary goal of the venture, depose Alexios III and replace him with his nephew and then be paid off rather handsomely before continuing onto the Holy Land as envisioned. The first fight between Byzantine troops and the Crusaders was an easy Crusader victory as heavily armored Frankish knights from France easy outperformed their Byzantine counterparts. Nevertheless, taking the city itself was going to be a daunting task and not something they initially thought who be necessary, though they came prepared just in case.

In July, the Crusaders began the siege proper by trying to cross the Bosporus and take the suburb Galata, the Crusaders would break into the sub channel of the Bosporus, known as the Golden Horn, which would allow the Venetian navy to park their fleet there and they could assault the sea walls of the city proper. Indeed, the Crusaders launched an amphibious landing onto Galata and took routed the Byzantine defenders, though a mercenary force of English, Danish and Italian troops held the strategic Tower of Galata. Eventually the tower fell and many attacks and bloody counterattacks. The Golden Horde itself was defending by a large chain but by taking Galata, the chain was cut and the Venetian fleet was allowed entry into the Golden Horn. At this point, Alexios Angelos was indeed paraded outside the city walls as if he were to be the Emperor, but to his and the Crusaders’ surprise they were jeered by the Greeks. Constantinople had been accustomed to coups and changing reigns in their emperors over the years and they cared little about the exiled prince or his blinded and retired father, they felt Alexios III was adequate as a ruler, he may not have been especially popular but he wasn’t so disliked that the city would depose him for his nephew, not at foreign coercion. This in turn soured the mood of the Crusaders and built resentment, thinking they would be hailed as liberators.

Now the assault on the city was absolutely necessary to achieve their goals, even if it was limited in scope. The Crusaders and Venetians made several attempts but were repulsed by the Byzantine troops. Though in July 11th, the Venetians captured some portions of the sea walls and towers before the Varangian Guard dispersed them, but the Venetians set off a fire to cover their retreat, this fire damaged a good portion of the city and left 20,000 people homeless. Finally, Alexios III personally lead a force to confront the Crusaders but before a fight could commence, he lost heart and retreated even though he outnumbered the Crusaders at that juncture. The fire and the disgraceful retreat prior to a right disheartened the city, Alexios III abandoned the city in disgrace, fearful of the implications of this, the city’s nobility actually brought back his deposed brother, the blinded former emperor, Isaac II out of retirement and declared him the Emperor once more in the hopes this would dissuade further conflict and allow them to save face.

The Crusaders had achieved the goal of deposing Alexios III, though they had not placed his nephew on the throne which meant no guarantee of pay. To remedy this, the Crusaders demanded that Alexios be made co-emperor alongside his restored father, a tradition that had occurred on occasion throughout Roman history. Alexios Angelos was now Alexios IV Angelos and he realized upon taking the throne that the imperial treasury was in fact far more depleted than he thought, meaning he could fulfill his promises to Crusaders so easily. His uncle had made off with precious jewels, further depleting the treasury. The result was a demand to the citizenry and the Church to provide their religious icons and melt them down to make silver and gold coins with which to pay his mercenary army, it was only a partial payment. It was viewed as a sign of desperation and weakness, making the populace have disdain for their new emperor and his army of mercenaries. Alexios IV then asked the Crusaders to renew their contract for another six months until April 1204 to gather more time to collect their payment and to help him secure his rule against his uncle who was regrouping elsewhere. Taking 6,000 Crusaders he marched to fight his uncle Alexios III near Adrianople, a nearby large city. The remaining army of Crusaders and Venetians stayed in outskirts of the city sort of holding the city in an hostage situation. During this time a riot broke out killing some Venetian merchants in the Venetian quarter once more. The Venetian marines and sailors retaliated by setting another fire to the city, greater than the first leaving 100,000 citizens homeless.

Upon Alexios IV’s return from facing his uncle the tensions with his Crusader army lead a decline in relations between him, his subjects and the Crusaders. His own father resented his co-ruling and began to denounce him. He declared his refusal to help the Crusaders after December 1203 and lead at least an attempt to force the Crusaders away which failed. The Crusaders were incensed at having been shortchanged in their promises. Meanwhile, the Byzantine senate tried to declare a noble the new emperor in early 1204, following Isaac II’s death from natural causes. Their appointee declined and instead another Byzantine nobleman who apposed the Crusaders, named Alexios Doukas, from a previously imperial and noble family was declared emperor after he launched a coup in which he paid the Varangian Guard to arrest Alexios IV, Alexios IV was strangled to death in prison by the Varangians. Doukas was now declared Alexios V and he was committed to ridding himself of the Crusaders like he had just deposed his predecessor.

In fact, Alexios V personally lead several attempts to attack the Crusader encampment and forays to find food and supplies outside the city, though many Byzantine troops were killed and Alexios V nearly lost his life. His also raised funds to help the common citizenry endearing him to the populace. Nevertheless, that February he attempted to negotiate with Doge Enrico Dandolo. The terms were deemed to harsh and to no avail. It was around this time, Alexios IV was in fact killed, since his restoration to the throne was a demand of theirs. News of his death angered the Crusader encampment further, though relations had been strained they still saw him as the one negotiator within Byzantium who could pay them off. In March, all Catholic Westerners who resided in the city were expelled. Though the Muslim populace was allowed to reside and had in fact helped the Greek Orthodox citizens and troops in their fights. At this point, the Crusaders and Venetians planned to take matters into their own hands, they would take the city by force and the Byzantine Empire with it, dividing the spoils among themselves.

April 1204 saw the final siege begin which Alexios V resisted until April 12th when the Crusaders managed to penetrate the city walls, altogether, a first in the nearly 900 years of the city. Alexios V fled by boat. Another emperor was declared briefly in the form of Constantine Laskaris but when the Varangian Guard refused to fight further, the siege was over. The Byzantine capital fell for the first time, for the next three days a plundering phase took place, riches religious icons were stolen and melted down for coin, the Hagia Sophia, the most sacred cathedral was desecrated by the Crusader army, the Crusaders murdered and robbed every day citizens and raped Greek women including nuns. After three days, the pillaging was ceased and division of the spoils was made.

A treaty partitioning the empire was made between Venice and the Crusaders. The Venetians were given advantageous trade rights, a collection of spoils including Four Bronze Horses taken from the Hippodrome, known now as the Horses of St. Marks in Venice. The also acquired many Greek islands in the Aegean Sea. Meanwhile, the Crusaders got Constantinople and its environs declaring a new Catholic empire, known to them as the Empire of Constantinople but known to history as the Latin Empire. The Hagia Sophia became a Catholic Church during this time. The Latin Empire would exist for another 57 years. Baldwin of Flanders was elected its first Emperor, while Boniface of Montferrat was made King of a vassal state, the Kingdom of Thessalonica, based in northern Greece. Meanwhile, various Byzantine noble refugees established Byzantine rump states which claimed to be the true successors and continuation of the Byzantine Empire: The Empires of Nicaea and Trebizond and the Despotate of Epirus in various parts of Greece and Anatolia. These states over the next several decades would engage in civil war and fights with the Latin Empire and its vassal states. Meanwhile, the Latin Empire found itself at odds with the neighboring Second Bulgarian Empire and indeed in short time, the Bulgarians would defeat both Baldwin and Boniface in battle, killing them both and Dandolo would die of old age. Eventually in 1261, the Palaiologos dynasty which ruled Nicaea reclaimed Constantinople after the Latin Empire was weakened due to infighting and losses to the Bulgarians and other Byzantine rump states, was conquered. The “reunified” Byzantine Empire was partially restored for another two centuries but it never reclaimed its former glory and gradually gave way to more internal fighting and external threats such as the Bulgarians and eventually the Ottoman Turks whose empire eventually conquered Constantinople and later Trebizond officially ending the last remnants of the Byzantine and Roman Empire in 1453 and 1461 respectively, renaming the city Istanbul in the 20th century.

The Fourth Crusade increased East-West tensions and unknowingly paved the way for the Turkish takeover of the Balkans and rise of the Ottomans centuries later. The impact could not have been experienced at the time and the events leading to 1204′s Sack of Constantinople developed out of a complex and at times reactionary web of intrigue with multiple actors that lead to its happening, the ripple effects of which would help shape the modern world.

#on this day #byzantine empire #latin empire #constantinople #fourth crusade #venetian republic #the crusades #military history #east west schism

17 notes · View notes

ckc4me · 6 years ago

Text

BRITISH SEAPOWER IN THE AGE OF ARTHUR

Naval battle as portrayed in the 5th century Virgilis Romanus MS. It portrays a classical era sea battle, but the illustration dates to the time of Post Roman British sea-power.

The Brittonic Period–the fifth and early sixth centuries of Britain–was a pivotal period in British history and as such it remains the subject of much contentious debate. There is still no academic agreement as to the chronology or even the precise sequence of events for the Brittonic era. [1]

Nevertheless, in recent decades a certain degree of consensus has slowly emerged among scholars that the cessation of direct Roman political control over the British Isles did not automatically spell the collapse of civilized life in the former diocese of Britannia; some manner of organized Romano-British polity continued on after the cessation of Imperial control.[2] While virtually all texts bearing on the period remain problematical and intensely debated, the archaeology of the era has begun to tilt more in the favor of continuity than discontinuity in fifth century Britain.[3]

Many scholars have begun to question the whole ideology of the “Anglo-Saxon Invasion.” instead arguing for a more complex process of military recruitment, trade and immigration, which only in later stages devolved into outright conflict.[4] A few academics have even tried to make the case that southeastern Britain had already been German-speaking well before the arrival of the Romans, although this hypothesis remains an outlier.[5] Whatever model one may choose to reconstruct the events of fifth and early sixth century Britain, however, one important aspect of the era remains virtually ignored: Brittonic sea power and its relationship to the military and political events of the era. Despite the voluminous secondary literature relating to the Brittonic Period–the storied Age of Arthur–almost no one has discussed naval aspects of Post-Roman Britain.[6] If discussed at all, it has generally been within the context of an assumed Saxon naval dominance of Britain and its surrounding seas during the whole of the fifth and sixth centuries.

Both Celtic and Saxon style vessels may have been employed by British fleets in the Age of Arthur. Artist’s reconstruction of the Guernsey Ship

While no one questions the military importance of Saxon, Irish and Pictish sea power during this period, when it comes to the native British and their seafaring capabilities, a curious myopia affects English historiography.

It could be argued that, like the question of Arthur’s historical existence, there is no direct evidence for British seafaring for this period, much less of a Brittonic navy or fleet. To a certain extent this is a specious argument, for actual written documents relating to Britain contemporaneous to the fifth century are nearly non-existent. The written evidence that does survive consist of: inscribed stones, mostly grave markers; a copy of the Aeneid believed to have originated from a British scriptorium of the period; plus later copies of material ascribed to St. Patrick’s authorship.[7] There are odds and ends of material from continental sources dating to the fifth and sixth centuries relating to events in Britain, but after the defeat of the British usurper Constantine III, Latin and Greek writers of the Roman Empire were little concerned with events in the former Roman diocese. Almost all other information we possess exist either as transcriptions of the oral tradition or much copied (and thus corrupted) texts dating to the periods following it. These later texts are subject to their own set of problems of accuracy or credibility. Yet the situation for Scotti, Picti and Saxons sources is the same or worse for this period: all these cultures were pre- or proto-literate and one must rely on transcribed oral traditions or later texts for evidence relating to their history as well. Yet in all these cases, no one questions their seafaring prowess or the naval influence they wielded during this era.

Lead ingots with Celtic inscriptions recovered from the Plumanoch wreck, ca 5th cent AD off the coast of France.

Despite this, we do have some evidence for the existence of Brittonic naval capabilities, albeit much of it indirect. During the late fourth and early fifth centuries, Britain acquired an odious reputation for being “fertile in tyrants.” These Late Roman usurpers of necessity had to make use of sea power to transport their armies unopposed onto the European continent. Control of the sea was thus a sine qua non for any British usurper attempting to seize the Imperial throne. The last such “tyrant” was Constantine III, who began his bid for power beginning in 405. Constantine nearly succeeded in his attempt, but he finally came to an ill end and by 514 the last vestiges of his attempt were erased.[8]

While details of the makeup of the usurper fleets is unknown, we do know that the rank and file of the sailors would have consisted of indigenous seafarers, even if the officers commanding them might have been ethnic Romans. From later British tradition, we know that these Roman usurpers were often viewed as British by the native population of Britannia.[9] After Constantine III’s fall, continental sources fall silent about Britain. There is no evidence that the diocese of Britannia was ever re-occupied, while there is a great deal of circumstantial evidence to indicate that, after Constantine, the Western Empire had but nominal control of most of Gaul and Hispania and, therefore, for the rest of the century a military conquest and reoccupation of Britannia was simply beyond the capabilities of the Empire.[10] Whatever transpired in Britannia after Constantine would have happened under a native polity independent from Ravenna.

Brittonic sailors wore “Venetian Blue” uniforms and their ships were clad in the same color, which blended with sea and sky as an early form of naval camouflage.

On the positive side, we do have direct evidence for the existence of British naval capabilities for the post Roman period. The late Roman writer Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus included a section on naval affairs in his treatise on the Roman military. The naval section of his treatise De Re Militari has rarely been translated, which may account for so few scholars being aware of his mention of British naval forces. The passage is tantalizingly short, but it seems to reflect contemporary Brittonic affairs–not looking back to a previous era, as so much of Vegetius’ treatise does. While scholars debate the precise date of the tome, the best estimates places it in the reign of Valentinian III; a date between 435 and 450 would therefore not be unreasonable.[11]

Despite the paucity of contemporary evidence, there are a few Classical sources which bear indirectly on the subject and to late Roman naval affairs in general. There also exists a large body of traditional accounts which relate to Brittonic Period seafaring and naval activities as well. As with all traditional and folkloric material, these sources must be treated with caution; nevertheless, given the conservative nature of such folk traditions, much legitimate information may be gleaned from them. Lastly, there is a growing body of archaeological and anthropological evidence which bears on the subject and which needs to be properly analyzed and interpreted freed from an anti-Brittonic bias which besets much of English historiography.

Although Saxon naval abilities and capabilities are important for the history of the Brittonic Period, they constitute only a part of the overall subject. Rather than view north German sea-power as a discreet topic isolated from the discussion of Brittonic maritime affairs, a better approach would be to see them as but an element in the larger context of general Brittonic (or British) maritime affairs.

Even after the Saxon revolt, the best archaeological evidence indicates that the native British polity remained intact and up until the mid sixth century, was still the dominant ethnic and military factor in the region. Consequentially, its naval capabilities would have also remained largely intact and substantial. In putting the admittedly fragmentary evidence together for this era, rather than assuming the indigenous folk of Britain as inherently weak and incapable of self-defense, they should be viewed as active players in the history of their island and, despite the many challenges they faced, as generally successful in their response to these challenges, at least until at least the mid-sixth century.

Blackfriars 1 ship. Artist’s reconstruction based on archaeological finds.

Throughout history the native folk of Britain and adjacent isles were renowned as seafarers. Unless there is actual evidence to the contrary, one should also posit them as skilled at naval warfare, eminently capable of both offense and defense at sea and they were certainly no less capable during this initial era of British independence as they were in later, better documented, periods.

In support of this thesis, we may look to one major aspect of Brittonic sea-power that has been overlooked or ignored by historians. This is the fact of British expansion overseas during this period. It is well known that the Celtic British of Post Roman Britain established colonies in northern Hispania and northwestern Gaul during this era. Moreover, one British ruler participated in at least one major military intervention into Roman Gaul during the fifth century.[12] Such colonial expansion and military intervention required maritime capabilities and naval power of some considerable strength to carry out. Even if details of these fifth and sixth century continental activities remain poorly documented, the mere fact of their existence constitutes proof of Brittonic naval sea-power for the period in question.

While much new research is needed and a reassessment of old archaeological and written evidence is called for, even given the current state of knowledge, the role of sea-power in the history of Post-Roman Britain–and Brittonic sea-power–should be regarded as a basic fact, not theory.

Ancient harbor scene showing different types of late Roman vessels such as might be seen at an Arthurian era port in Britain, Britonia or Brittany.

The task for the future, therefore, is to create a synthesis of the diverse material relating to the fact of British sea-power in the fifth and sixth centuries and present it to the relevant readership. It is a remote hope that underwater archaeology will someday recover a well-preserved shipwreck of a British warship or merchantman of the fifth century AD.

Such a narrative may be disputed in its details, or its conclusions criticized, but ultimately it is preferable to make the attempt rather than continuing to allow so large a lacuna continue to exist in the study of the Brittonic era.[13]

Christopher Kiernan Coleman Rex Quodam Futuresque

[1] The term Brittonic was first used by Chris Snyder to describe the distinct period following the Roman era but before Saxon ascendancy, when the native Britons and their culture flourished. This phrase is used in preference to the pejorative “sub” Roman label, or to use the now contentious phrase “Age of Arthur,” which has been much disputed and made anathema to the Minimalist school of English historiography by Professor Dumville since the 1970’s.

[2] See Kenneth Dark, “Centuries of Roman survival in the West” British Archaeology, Issue no 32, March 1998, and Dark, Civitas to Kingdom: British Political Continuity, 300-800 (Studies in the Early History of Britain) (Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1994); Martin Henig, “Roman Britons after 410″ British Archaeology, Issue 68, December 2002.

[3] Christopher Snyder “Sub-Roman Britain an Introduction” Vortigern Studies(1997)

[4] See, for example, Howard Williams, “Forgetting the Britons in Victorian Anglo-Saxon archaeology” in N. J. Higham, Ed., Woodbridge Britons in Anglo-Saxon England (Woodbridge : Boydell Press, 2007) ; Also see Francis Pryor, “The Invasion That Never Was,” Episode 3, Britain AD:(BBC Channel 4, 2004); print edition: Francis Pryor, Britain AD, (NY: Harper Perennial; 2005).

[5] Stephen Oppenheimer, The Origins of the British: A Genetic Detective Story, (London: Constable, 2006)

[6] The number of studies which consider Dark Age Celtic naval developments can be counted on one hand (assuming that hand has been subjected to multiple amputations). See, for example, Bernard S Bachrach, “The Questions of King Arthur’s Existence and of Romano- British Naval Operations” The Haskins Journal 2, 13-28. Although concerned with Germanic naval developments, John Haywood, Dark Age Naval Power: Reassessment of Frankish and Anglo-Saxon Seafaring Activity (London: Routledge, 1991) is also relevant. Geoffrey Ashe, Land to the West (NY: Viking, 1962) while mainly concerned with St. Brendan, disambiguated all the early Classical and Celtic references to seafaring in the western seas, and therefore is of value too. Count Tolstoy, a brilliant non-academic historian, in a wide ranging essay trying to establish a valid chronology for the period, based on the unreliable homily by Gildas, also mentions in passing Arthurian sea-power: see Nikolai Tolstoy, “Early British History and Chronology” Transactions of the Honorable Society of Cymmrodorians, 1964, pg. 308. There is, admittedly, a voluminous literature on Saxon seafaring and ships, which discuss a number of issues related to the Brittonic Navy, but which are outside the purview of this present short essay.

[7] Robert Vermaat, “The Vergilius Romanus: the first British book? Vergil MS Vat. lat. 3867= Romanus” Vortigern Studies; David H. Wright, The Roman Vergil and the Origins of Medieval Book Design. (Toronto, Univ. of Toronto Press 2001); St. Patrick, “A Letter to the Soldiers of Coroticus” AncientTexts.org; Mark Redknap, John M. Lewis and Nancy Edwards Eds., A Corpus of Early Medieval Inscribed Stones and Stone Sculptures in Wales (Cardiff: Univ. of Wales Press, 2007-2013) (three volumes).

[8] Michael Kulikowsky, “Barbarians in Gaul, Usurpers in Britain” Britannia, vol. 31 (2000), 325-345.

[9] See, for example, “The Dream of Maxen Wledig,” The Mabinogion, (Gwyn Jones and Thomas Jones, Eds.) (NY: Everyman’s, 1949).

[10] Eric Morse, “Decade of Darkness; the Collapse of the Roman Army in the West” (AD 395-405) Royal Canadian Military Institute Lecture (Toronto, Dec. 23, 2014).

[11] Paul D. Emanuele, Vegetius and the Roman Navy, MA Thesis, (Vancouver: Univ. of British Columbia, 1974), 28; Nikolas Boris Rankov, in 2002, in the Proceedings of the XVIIIth International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies, attempted to dismiss the notion of British naval vessels, but Emanuele had already foreseen these arguments in 1974 and successfully countered them in his thesis.

[12] For Britonia, see: Simon Young, “Britonia, The Forgotten Colony” History Today, Vol. 50 Issue 10 (Oct. 2000); Antonio Garcia y Garcia, Historia de Bretona (Lugo: Edita Servivio /Publicacions Deputacion Provincial, 1999). For Brittany, see: Joseph Loth, Emigration Bretonne en Armorique du Ve au VIIe siecle de notre ere (Paris: Picard, 1883); Leon Fleuriot, Les origines de la Bretagne, (Payot, 1980); John Morris The Age of Arthur, Chapter 14, 249-260. On Riothamus and his campaigns in Gaul, see Geoffrey Ashe The Discovery of King Arthur, (London: Guild, 1985), 53-56; Morris, Age of Arthur, ibid; Dane Pestano, “Riothamus and the Visigoths” Dark Age History blog, August 21 2011.

[13] See Christopher K. Coleman, Britain’s Best Bulwark; Celtic British Naval Power in the Brittonic Era (forthcoming).

#KingArthur BrittonicSeapower FirstBritishNavy AgeofArthur

3 notes · View notes

random-thought-depository · 7 years ago

Link

There are no signs of a massacre--no mass graves, no piles of bones. Yet more than a million men vanished without a trace. They left no descendants. Historians know that something dramatic happened in England just as the Roman empire was collapsing. When the Anglo-Saxons ﬁrst arrived in that northern outpost in the fourth century a.d.--whether as immigrants or invaders is debated--they encountered an existing Romano-Celtic population estimated at between 2 million and 3.7 million people. Latin and Celtic were the dominant languages. Yet the ensuing cultural transformation was so complete, says Goelet professor of medieval history Michael McCormick, that by the eighth century, English civilization considered itself completely Anglo-Saxon, spoke only Anglo-Saxon, and thought that everyone had “come over on the Mayﬂower, as it were.” This extraordinary change has had ramiﬁcations down to the present, and is why so many people speak English rather than Latin or Celtic today. But how English culture was completely remade, the historical record does not say.

Then, in 2002, scientists found a genetic signature in the DNA of living British men that hinted at an untold story of Anglo-Saxon conquest. The researchers were sampling Y-chromosomes, the sex chromosome passed down only in males, from men living in market towns named in the Domesday Book of 1086. Working along an east-west transect through central England and Wales, the scientists discovered that the mix of Y-chromosomes characteristic of men in the English towns was very different from that of men in the Welsh towns: Wales was the primary Celtic holdout in Western Britannia during the ascendance of the Anglo-Saxons. Using computer analysis, the researchers explored how such a pattern could have arisen and concluded that a massive replacement of the native fourth-century male Britons had taken place. Between 50 percent and 100 percent of indigenous English men today, the researchers estimate, are descended from Anglo-Saxons who arrived on England’s eastern coast 16 centuries ago. So what happened? Mass killing, or “population replacement,” is one possible explanation. Mass migration of Anglo-Saxons, so that they swamped the native gene pool, is another.

Yet no archaeological or historical evidence from the ﬁfth and sixth centuries hints at the immense scale of violence or migration that would be necessary to explain this genetic legacy. The science hinted at an untold story.

...

Sexual Apartheid in the Ruins of an Empire

An exemplar of this new approach is geneticist Mark Thomas of University College London, whom McCormick invited to speak at Harvard as part of the initiative in December 2007. Thomas was among the scientists who ﬁrst identiﬁed the suggestive pattern of Y-chromosome distribution among British men in 2002; he had been seeking a plausible explanation for the data ever since. As he recounted in a lecture titled, “No Sex Please, We’re English: Genes, Anglo-Saxon Apartheid, and the Early Medieval Settlement of Britain,” Thomas had found that genetically, not one of the English towns he sampled was signiﬁcantly different from the others. Welsh towns, on the other hand, were signiﬁcantly different from each other and from the English towns. Most importantly, he found that inhabitants of the Dutch province of Friesland were indistinguishable genetically from the English town-dwellers. Friesland is one of the known embarkation points of the Angl0-Saxons--and the language spoken there is the closest living relative to English. (“Listening to a Frisian speak,” says Thomas, “is like listening to somebody speak English with a frog in their mouth.”)

In an attempt to explain the remarkable similarity between Frisian and English towns, Thomas and colleagues constructed a population simulation model on a computer. He tested many theories: common ancestry dating back to the Neolithic age; background migration over centuries and even millennia; and a mass-migration event that, he calculated, would have had to involve at least 50 percent replacement--the movement, in other words, of a million people. But most archaeologists and historians who understand the economic capacity of the era, he noted, “ﬁnd such massive contributions to the English gene pool to be completely unacceptable. And maybe they are right. They know more than we do about these things.”

“But still, the genetic data are quite robust,” Thomas pointed out. “This is where the idea of an apartheid-like social structure comes in.” He has advanced a theory that a sexually biased, ethnically driven reproductive pattern, in which Anglo-Saxon males fathered children with Anglo-Saxon females and possibly Celtic females, while the reproductive activities of Romano-Celtic males were more restricted, is the most plausible explanation for the demographic, archaeological, and genetic patterns seen today.

There is some support for this in ancient English laws, which indicate that Britons and Anglo-Saxons were legally and economically different even in the seventh century, long after the initial migration. Thomas cited wergild (blood money) payments as one example: “Killing an Anglo-Saxon was a costly business, but killing a native Briton was quite cheap.” This points to differences in economic status. And differences in wealth “almost always result in differences in reproductive output,” he said. “Sometimes two- and three-fold differences.” To the extent Anglo-Saxons were able to have and support more children, this could lead to a gradual replacement of the indigenous Y-chromosome over many generations. Simulating such an advantage, and choosing an arbitrary ﬁgure of 10 percent migration, Thomas found that the Y chromosomes of native Britons could have been replaced in the general population in as few as ﬁve generations.

The first thing that popped into my mind when I read this was to wonder whether the Saxons practiced polygamy. I did a quick Google search, and the Saxons in England did indeed practice polygamy well into the Christian era. It sounds to me like what happened is Anglo-Saxon England was a society where class and ethnicity was entwined, like it is in the modern U.S.A., and rich men often had multiple wives while poor men often had none. The affluent Saxons plausibly ate better than the poor native British too, which would have meant fewer Saxons dying of disease or hunger in childhood or young adulthood.

Note: in this post I’m using “polygamy” to mean classic polygamy in which some women marry multiple women, women never marry more than one man, and hence there’s a significant number of men who never marry. This seems to be the most common pattern historically, and it sounds like Saxon marriage practices looked like this.

This made me think of an article I found back in May about how there seems to have been a major population-replacement event in Britain around 2500 B.C.E. What I found puzzling and intriguing about that was that construction on Stonehenge seems to have started before the 2500 B.C.E. population replacement event and continued after it; that seems odd if some invading group killed all the natives, I wouldn’t expect much cultural continuity in a genocide scenario. I think maybe something similar to what happened during the Saxon invasion happened in 2500 B.C.E..

I don’t know what part of the genome was looked at by the study that found the 2500 B.C.E. population replacement, but I can imagine a scenario where ethnicity/class mediated difference in male reproductive success leads to something that looks like population replacement on the general nuclear DNA level:

- The invaders establish themselves as a privileged class.

- The invaders practice polygamy and prefer to marry within their own ethnic group. High-status invader men marry invader women, while low-status invader men marry either invader women or native women.

- The descendants of high-status invader men turn into a closed elite that refuses to admit anyone from non-elite lineages. This elite lives well, eats well, so it experiences population growth. There is no upward social mobility into this elite, but there is downward social mobility out of it; as it grows larger disfavored sons are cut out of inheritance, elite men marry their daughters off to “middle class” non-elite men etc.. The descendants of low-status invader men in turn form a “middle class” that assimilates downwardly mobile members of the elite while also marrying native women.

- Because of differences in health and diet the invader-descended closed elite experiences strong population growth, the mixed middle class experiences weak population growth or population stability, and the native-descended lower class experiences population stability or population decline. Because the more affluent middle class men marry polygamously and intermarry with lower class women many lower class men never marry, so even if the lower class women are reproducing at replacement rate the proportion of native DNA in the gene pool will decrease over time.

Come back in five thousand years and take DNA samples and it’ll look like the invaders completely replaced the natives, unless maybe you look at mitochondrial DNA, and maybe not even then if the lower class was reproducing below replacement rate.

I wonder how many times in history this has happened. For instance, might the spread of Indo-European languages and Celtic languages and culture have involved processes like this?

All this suggests something rather interesting about human evolution: agricultural societies can have big class-mediated differences in reproductive success. I’ve been talking in terms of ethnic groups, but you might see similar effects with just class; historically elites have often formed at least somewhat endogamous groups (think of all those comments about inbred aristocrats). David Brin once memorably observed that we’re all descended from the harems of the men who succeeded at becoming nobles, and ... maybe that’s true on something more than the “we all have a lot of ancestors if you go back fifty generations” sense.

I wonder about the implications for human evolution. I think that at the level of the common people agriculture and civilization would probably have intensified the “self-domestication” trend in human evolution, but I think at the elite level it might have done the opposite; very status-seeking people are going to be the most motivated to seek social power.

Incidentally, there’s interesting stuff about other subjects in that “Who Killed the Men of England?” article, I recommend reading it!

#science #history #genetic studies #human evolution #class politics #deep history

105 notes · View notes

squirrelwrangler · 7 years ago

Text

heckofabecca replied to your post: Horse Theft

this is amazing ahhh, wow I love the variation of the horses in Beleriand and how little things that we don’t think of are BIG PROBLEMS!!!! i love this <3

Tweaking it and seeing if maybe expanding on the end bit to post it as a proper fic to AO3. But yes. What can be more me but the elaborate overthinking of what specific animal breeds by population and need one would find in the First Age?

I know the quote specifically says more strength and vigor thanks to living in Valinor and long swords as the reason behind the victory of the Battle-under-the-Stars, but the quote about the Noldor’s superior horses and the general background framework of late antiquity/medieval period for Arda - it is the most natural and obvious conclusion to think -Noldor war strength = greater heavy cavalry. Their preference for stone castles and Tolkien’s, well, Anglo-Saxon love, that the Noldor are the Normans invading England with their better cavalry at Hastings...again I thought this was blindingly obvious. Then to think- okay the ONLY way horses from Valinor get to Beleriand is Fëanorians loading them onto Swanships. And Maglor’s horse troops support this. But then you have Fingolfin and Fingon just as if not more strongly associated with horses - aha those horses were obviously part of a reconciliation gift, probably passed over along with the Noldor High Kingship. (Then thinking hey wait I have Fingon as an equestrian in Valinor -sister and father too that this isn’t a post-Beleriand development - they probably certainly brought their horses with them on the initial Flight from Tirion. Then the next obvious step- Fëanor was stealing everyone’s horses when he also took the ships. That is exactly in-character for him. And it is almost exactly the same act as taking the Swanships and denying this transportation to the majority of the Noldor under his half-brothers/nephews. And ties into the reason why horse theft was considered one of the worst crimes in Iron Age up through medieval and post-medieval and even American Wild West - to murder someone is bad. To strand someone without transportation or livelihood or what was needed to help grow food and survive is worse.)

So then it’s the question of what are the native Beleriand horses- that yes the Sindar did have domesticated horses- this would be a pre-Great Journey development. How rare it was I debated (Sunless world and all that)- but Morogth’s invasion would limit the numbers regardless. So then it was: what breeds? The tarpan as the original European wild horse was where I started, and from cave paintings the common coat colors were bay and black and leopard spotting- though the mousey grullo and light dun are what you see on ‘primitive’ feral or wild horses today. Dorsal eel stripes and zebra-like leg markings. Still- black and bays for forest horses -aha of course that would also be true for Beleriand! Exmoor and Sorraia ponies for most of the looks- Beleriand has a relatively cold climate and it’s either forests, highlands, or steppe. As said, the Marshes of Nevrast around Linaewen have Camargue horses because white horses running across the shallow water is classic romantic imagery and very apropos to Tolkien. The leopard spotting was a classic and popular coat pattern of medieval and Baroque horses and is an ancient look even if nowadays mostly associated with American Appaloosa (Oh wait, Sindar elves having something in common with Native Americans, at least in the Romantic imagery? It’s not like Tolkien never suggested that sarcasm).

Valinorean horses, aside from the ‘taller, more special and magically infused blah blah’, the climate was more equatorial and the constant light says to me they would have been more like a hot-blooded desert breed with light thin skin. Not full on Arabians, but idk, Akhal-Teke. Then again, these ‘Oriental-type’ horses are relatively short.

And open fields and stone castle Noldor need fields for growing crops, which means plough animals. Horses were not the most common plough animal until after the medieval period, but I was only overthinking horses in Beleriand today, not cattle.

Shoeing horses is definitely a Noldor invention.

#heckofabecca #replies

4 notes · View notes

newsnigeria · 6 years ago

Text

Check out New Post published on Ọmọ Oòduà

New Post has been published on http://ooduarere.com/news-from-nigeria/world-news/concerning-the-persecution/

Concerning the persecution and censorship against Santiago Cúneo: DAIA-AMIA as devices of the Anglo-Zionist invasion of Argentina

by Leo del Grosso for the Latin American Ooduarere

translated from the original Spanish by Ana for the Saker blog

On May 5, the following statement was distributed to the public opinion in Buenos Aires, Argentina: “The DAIA, Delegation of Argentine Israelite Associations, reports that its Board of Directors has requested the resignation of its president, Ariel Cohen Sabban, due to facts of public knowledge. The 1st Vice-president, Dr. Alberto Indij, will assume the presidency of the entity “. Signature: Board of Directors of DAIA.

What are these facts of “public knowledge”? An attempt of extortion and sexual abuse, in the best style of the Anglo-American Harvey Weinstein, against the daughter of the editor of the newspaper La Nación, Esmeralda Miter. The newspaper La Nación is a traditional member of the well-known “prostitute press”, which acts as a bishop of the Anglo-Saxon Empire interests and, obviously, has been part of the main supporters, together with Clarín and Infobae, of the Mauricio Macri’s sepoy government. It happened that Esmeralda Miter, a “good girl”, macrist (for Macri supporter, NdT), on her way of becoming a ” TV star”, made some statements questioning the number of Jews executed by the Nazi regime. Textually, she said: “It’s like what happened with the Holocaust, they said it was 6 million but maybe it was not so many”. Unlike her ex-husband, former macrista official Darío Lopérfido, who was immediately summoned by the Inquisition Court of Holocaust Church *Merchants of the Temple*, aka the DAIA, so that he could retract as soon as he questioned the number of missing people during Videla’s sepoy and vendetta dictatorship. The squeeze, because that’s what the meeting behind closed doors was about between Esmeralda Miter and the DAIA, lasted for an hour and a half and, according to her own statements she sat on the bench of the accused, and it was “very hard.” Afterwards, as reported by a TV show, the level of disorientation of Miter Esmeralda was remarkable: it was evident that she repeated, over and ovevr, the script that was forced on her by the inquisitors. But this was not nearly all: the president of the DAIA at that time (mid April), Ariel Cohen Sabban, veteran satyr always alert to abuse women, saw in Esmeralda Miter, who was recently separated from Lopérfido, a vulnerable prey he could extort economically and abuse sexually. This is how he asked Esmeralda for a private meeting, in her apartment, in order to “comfort her”.

Here is what Miter denounced to have happened during that meeting: ”He touched my chest and he wanted to kiss me.” First in the neck and then on the mouth, so I just run away and eluded him. Then I stood up from the armchair and told him he should leave, because I had another meeting agreed in my house too “. Later on, she added: “The situation had become violent and at some point he said ‘stay calm, that I’m not going to catch you.’ A very unpleasant situation.” But the worst thing of all is not this eschatological situation, but how it is evident that the Zionists trade with the victims of the Nazi regime: “He told me that as payback for the damage of my statements I had to travel to Germany with 10 or 12 students to go visit concentration camps and additionally visit the Holocaust Museum. He said it would cost me about 80 thousand dollars to which I replied that I did not have that money. He then replied that I could pay in installments “. I have transcripted the statements of Esmeralda Miter literally because they are irreplaceably and illustrative of the level of indignity and vileness exercised by these “temple merchants”, the Anglo-Saxons, not only in Argentina, but throughout the world, since their modus operandi is always and everywhere the same.

This decadent saga shows the rottenness of an institution that is holder of the Jewish Argentine Appeal described as follows by former executive director of the DAIA, Jorge Elbaum: “the descending paths do not express themselves only in scandalous cases (such as the Cohen Sabbán) in which a pretended Alpha male takes advantage of the vulnerability of a woman who comes from being subjected to public derision as a result of her ignorance and oligarchic training. This marks the make-up and farsighted continuity of an institution that claims to be what it is not (representative of Argentine-Jews), which claims to do what it does not do (fight against all forms of discrimination) and claims to be apolitical when it is a clear boxcar of tail (sometimes locomotive) of the current version of the Argentine right, the PRO “.

But Elbaum falls short and Santiago Cúneo – who also has, same as Elbaum as former executive director of the DAIA, a past with spots he cannot be proud of (i.e. Cuneo was intimately related to Menem, , for business reasons and propagandizes the unprovable hypothesis that Nisman was assassinated, he also called to vote for Macri and recently participated in defamation against North Korea, among other reprehensible performances) – puts things in place by drawing attention to the members of the DAIA as agents of a foreign State such as the Racist State of Israel. Basically, saying “Argentinian right” or “agents of foreign governments”, comes to be the same, in practice. Or, can anyone deny that the Argentinian right has always been the executor, beyond patriotic words, of policies for the benefit of imperialism? But, what comes to be the same in practice, does not exactly mean the same, as it is much clearer and stronger what Cúneo is saying than what Elbaum said: those who are part of DAIA, like everyone in Macri’s government, are agents of an occupation government, of a government totally at the service of other States, for the destruction of Argentinian Nation. That is true, appropriate and essential to say, because it marks the true terms of the main contradiction faced by Argentinians today.

And these foreign agents, forced to face Santiago Cúneo’s correctly incendiary diatribes (in a language often coarse but not deceptive for that matter) have acted as they have been acting with everyone: with tightening, with extortion, with threat, in the same way that the directive council of the DAIA did against Esmeralda Miter, who is a macrista, just like they are and who, in addition, in its eagerness to ingratiate herself with these swine torturers, reached the pathetic point of overacting by saying: “In my opinion, the Jewish community is superior and I wish these were my origins “. This is how the DAIA, a few days after being well represented by the satyr Cohen Sabban (who was asked to resign only to save face), announces that he will initiate criminal proceedings against Santiago Cúneo, whom they obviously accuse of anti-Semitism (what else?) and of pursue of demonizing the Racist State of Israel (as if at all necessary to “demonize”, and as if their diabolical crimes were not already disclosed by themselves), of associating Jews with money and imperialist intentions (Israel , its tentacles like DAIA in Argentina and men as “Satyr” Sabban are the worst possible advertising for Jews – more information on Cohen Sabban and DAIA in this link), of reinstating the denunciation of the “Andinia Plan “(a plan for Anglo-Israeli colonization of whole Patagonia, part of which is proven that the Racist State of Israel pays vacation is Patagonia to its soldiers after they finish military service), of accusing double loyalty in the case of bombings of AMIA premises (DAIA and AMIA always acted as cover-up for the perpetrators of the attacks against the Israeli embassy and against the DAIA-AMIA building, a cover-up denounced by all associations of relatives of the victims of the attacks and the legal cases in which the former directors of the DAIA, such as Rubén Beraja, financial delinquent who bankrupted Banco Mayo and defrauded all its depositors) are completely ingrate and of “impairment of the dignity of an entire community”.

To DAIA, it is not the behavior of Israel what generates hatred against Jews. To DAIA, not the proceeding of Macri, a pawn of the Anglo-Saxon Empire and agent of international usury who has among his most prominent bankers many Jews, are what generates hatred against Jews. To DAIA, it is not the behavior of the DAIA and AMIA members themselves what generate hatred against Jew, although both were masqueraders of massacres against Argentines largely belonging to the “community” (“and what disguise will we use if the judge checks that they have nothing to do?” asked a few years ago a frightened Guillermo Borger, acting president of the AMIA at that time, to Héctor Timerman, former chancellor of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, facing the perspective that out of the memorandum signed between Argentina and Iran it was demonstrated that the Persian nation had nothing what to do with the attacks in Buenos Aires).

Of course, all honest and well-intentioned people are not to make easy generalizations, nor are they indifferent to punishing innocents instead of true culprits. The DAIA and Macri and the IMF, because they are all part of the same conspiracy, constitute an occupation government that seeks to subject the Argentines to imperialist domination, to tear the country apart and plunder its immense natural resources (Islas Malvinas, Atlántico Sur, Patagonia, Guaraní Aquifer , Antarctica Argentina, etc.), all of which Santiago Cúneo argues very well, an occupation government that does not care about Argentines, Jews, or Esmeralda Miter, or anyone else; an occupation government with a war plan that has to come into execution.

And because of saying this, with clarity, with reasoning, with irrefutable arguments, and also with anger, the anger of those who have totally lost patience, that Santiago Cuneo today is being threatened by DAIA, and that Santiago Cuneo had to leave his program in Crónica TV and has had to start transmitting from his own channel on the web, in order to continue expressing himself, running the same fate also ran by journalists like Roberto Navarro, Víctor Hugo Morales, and many more. But the world is getting tired of Anglo-Saxon supramacists: more and more are joining against them, as was seen in Buenos Aires with the one million people who, on May 25th, attended the politico-cultural act of vindication of the May Revolution under the slogan “the Homeland is in danger, not the IMF.” They were present there, from Jorge Elbaum to Santiago Cúneo, from the Grandmothers of the Plaza de Mayo to the general secretaries of several workers’ union organizations that are preparing a general strike, from the youngest without work to the retired ones that do not have enough to pay for their medicines. It is true. Argentina is in danger. Anglos are attacking her with the tactic of the trojan horse, hiding behind any mask, be it religious, cultural, or pseudo-nationalist. Unmasking them is fundamental. This is what Cúneo did in an absolutely frontal and raw way and that is why, beyond differences or coincidences, he deserves decided solidarity.

Here is the original video in Spanish: (alas, no English subtitles available, sorry!)

youtube

Afterword by The Saker: Santiago Cúneo’s case is very interesting because I strongly believe that cases like this one will happen again and again and in other countries. The reason for that is simple: the infinite arrogance of the pro-Israeli lobbies is truly pissing people off who eventually don’t care and simply blow up in anger against this arrogance. Think of it this way: the Israeli propaganda machine is engaged in truly herculean efforts to make everybody cheer Israel or silence them by by hook or by crook. We see that in every western country for sure, and in many others too. Just check out this completely Orwellian story from Myanmar: https://www.rt.com/news/428267-israel-myanmar-education-antisemitism/. Of course, in their hubris and arrogance the Zionists completely failed to realize that they provoke the exact opposite effect: eventually people, especially those capable of critical thinking, begin loathing Israel and Zionism, and then the latter appeal to “anti-Semitism” or the “Holocaust” they just make everybody even more angry.

For all their external successes, I think that the Israelis and their Zionist supporters are already losing the battle due to their arrogance and total inability to understand the human nature. The only question is, as always, the violence and horrors they will inflict on the world before their inevitable downfall.

But in the meantime, heed my words, other “Santiago Cúneo” will pop-up in other countries, like mushrooms after the rain.

The Saker

#Argentina

0 notes