Some History

[PeterG]

This is wrong too, Wayne:

The Crusades were a turning point for Western Europe (this was the end of the "Dark Ages"). The returning soldiers told stories of the lands they visited and people became interested in other cultures for the first time. The Crusaders discovered spices that allowed food to last longer and taste better. The women in Europe found they liked the fabrics from the East and this got trade really moving.

The next two centuries led to advances in technology and the arts we know as the Renaissance

As for the Crusaders bringing back spices, the Venetian Republic had been doing that for centuries, trading with Byzantium.

The Dark Ages is the period from the collapse of the Roman Empire in 476AD to 1000AD. It is a term originally referring to literature and his no longer used by historians. It is in effect, the early Medieval Age. See Dark Ages - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Renaissance is an entirely different epoch. It started in Italy as the Rinascimento, the 'rebirth' of literature and the arts. Petrarch was the leading light, and he coined the term 'Middle Ages' to denote the period between the collapse of Rome and the Rebirth. From Florence the Renaissance spread out wards to France and then gradually to the rest of Europe.

But the main error is that you still seem to think that:

... anti Semitism had it’s roots in the Crusades. The periodic slaughter of European Jews usually coincided with the Crusaders leaving or returning.

Jewish moneylenders financed many of the Crusader campaigns. The pretext of Jewish responsibility for the death of Jesus was a convenient excuse to avoid repaying these loans and the general public persecuted the Jews as they came to believe the Crusader excuses. There was also the matter of the Jews in the Middle East siding with the Muslims.

From then up to the nineteenth century anti Semitism was usually based on Jewish financial practices, supposed counterfeiting or the infamous blood libel.

This is just a partial list of the enactments by the Christians against Jews:
Synod of Elvira (306) prohibited intermarriage and sexual intercourse between Christians and Jews, and prohibited them from eating together.
Councils of Orleans (533-541) prohibited marriages between Christians and Jews and forbade the conversion to Judaism by Christians.
Trulanic Synod (692) prohibited Christians from being treated by Jewish doctors.
Synod of Narbonne (1050) prohibited Christians from living in Jewish homes.
Synod of Gerona (1078) required Jews to pay taxes to support the Church.
Third Lateran Council (1179) prohibited certain medical care to be provided by Christians to Jews.
Fourth Lateran Council (1215) required Jews to wear special clothing to distinguish them from Christians.
Council of Basel (1431-1443) forbade Jews to attend universities, them from acting as agents in the conclusion of contracts between Christians, and required that they attend church sermons.

None of these has anything to do with any Crusade nor money lending nor the other thousand and one excuses. AntiSemetism has been ingrained and endemic in Europe since late antiquity. It culminated in the Holocaust and is stirring yet again. You would have thought that after the Holocaust that bigoted antiSemitism, or to give it its real name, Judeophobia, would have died of shame.

For later ages I would recommend you read A People Apart - The Jews in Europe 1789-1939 by David Vital (Oxford University Press. 1999)

Peter

[Wayne]

Excellent posts Peter.

As I said I didn't go into Jewish history so it's all good for giving me direction. I am only online a short time so will only comment on a few points you made.

Point 2.The story of Troy is mythical.
It is wrong to think of the Pharisees invading in a planned way or formed alliances. There were great migratory pressures comparable to the Barbarian invasions into the 5th century Roman Empire. They seem to have struck terror much like the Vandals and Huns did in later generations.

Most of the evidence points to them being some sort of alliance even if they never planned invasions. Sort of like opportunistic pirates I guess. Migratory pressures seems to be incorrect as they never settled the countries they invaded.

Just about everything we know are theories based on the facts we have.
I live in Australia and we have a lot of evidence on the indiginous inhabitants but scientists can't decide if they arrived 40,000 or 60,000 years ago, if there was only one race or two separate races or even where they came from. All because there are so many options.

Wayne said: the Romans invaded 102 years later in 63BC.

Peter said: The Romans didn't 'invade'. Judea was a client kingdom of Syria, which was defeated by Pompeii in 63 BC.

This confused me. How did Pompeii defeat without invading? Or did you mean that Pompeii defeated Syria and Judea was theirs by default?

But non-Muslims could only practice their religions on payment of tribute. They also had a poll tax and a property tax imposed upon them.

That was one of the economic reasons I mentioned. As a rule Muslims paid no tax so they discouraged conversion to Islam (in spain at least but possibly elsewhere) to keep their tax base high.

I see little evidence of this being a golden age in Jewish culture.

In Andelusia it was in regards to science, art, poetry etc. It was hundreds of years before the rest of the world caught up with them.

Anti-Semitism was rampant in Europe long long before 1492.

I agree but I had probably worded my post wrong. I made a point of separating the anti Semitism resulting from the Crusades from that of the reconquista.

Unfortunately history is too complicated to do justice in a short post.

[Za Rodinu]

Originally Posted by PeterG

.You say that 'Roman rule ended [in Palestine] in 638 AD'. But the Roman Empire ended on 4 September 476 AD. By 638 the Roman Empire had long been swept away and we are into the early Middle Ages. I think you must mean Byzantium, the eastern portion of the empire based on Constantinople.

If I may go into [picky mode on], I'd say no, the Roman Empire did not end on 476 AD (not CE, damn!). The Roman Empire as you know was divided in two parts, Eastern and Western, and the Oriental part went on as the Roman Empire until the fall of Constantinople in 1453 to the Turks.

And to speak of the Fall of the Roman Empire (Western part) is great for dramatic effect, but in fact the Empire underwent a protracted and irregular evolution from the let's call it Classical form (single emperor, dynastic) through to the last figurehead emperor (Romulus Augustulus) deposed in you 476 AD, passing through several phases of military anarchy, power sharing (Augusts and Caesars), dissolution into patriciate, etc.

This is a surprisingly good summary: List of Roman Emperors - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[picky mode off]

[Wayne]

Fourth Lateran Council (1215) required Jews to wear special clothing to distinguish them from Christians.

Didn't the Pope reverse this one? I'm sure i read that yesterday while I was reading some websites.

I agree with you that persecution was widespread but I did mention that it was more likely due to lies told to the people by those with something to gain. I think my problem was trying to be too brief :-)

And you raise a good point. Anti-Semitism is not linguistically correct. Judeophobia is ok but I don't think "phobia" conveys the seriousness of descrimination.

[Wayne]

Sorry about the bold. I have a very slow connection and find it quicker to copy paste quotes and it seems to make my whole post bold if the quote has bold in it.

[PeterG]

Originally Posted by Za Rodinu

If I may go into [picky mode on], I'd say no, the Roman Empire did not end on 476 AD (not CE, damn!). The Roman Empire as you know was divided in two parts, Eastern and Western, and the Oriental part went on as the Roman Empire until the fall of Constantinople in 1453 to the Turks.

Yes, as you say, the Roman Empire was divided after Constantine into East and West. Nonetheless, historians generally refer to the western half, with the senate in Rome, as being the Roman Empire and, to save confusion, the Eastern Roman Empire is generally referred to as Byzantium, particularly after the schism with Rome dividing Christianity into Orthodox and Catholic. The official and liturgical language of Byzantium was Greek, that of Rome remained Latin. There was an attempt to revive the Roman Empire in the west in 800 AD when Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne in Rome as emperor, the date generally regarded as the foundation of the Holy Roman Empire (the title came into use in 1273 with the election of Rudolf of Hapsburg), but it came to nothing on his death, when the Carolingian empire disintegrated.

Following the German King Otto I (Otto the Great) expedition to Italy in 961 there was an attempt by him to yet again revive the Roman Empire, he had himself crowned Emperor but it was a meaningless gesture. In effect Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire was just an empty title assumed by German emperors, being ostensible elected to it by the German 'Council of Electors'. King George I of Great Britain, for example, was an Elector. The Holy Roman Empire limped along until 1806, when Napoleon ended it.

You say:

Originally Posted by Za Rodinu

And to speak of the Fall of the Roman Empire (Western part) is great for dramatic effect, but in fact the Empire underwent a protracted and irregular evolution from the let's call it Classical form (single emperor, dynastic) through to the last figurehead emperor (Romulus Augustulus) deposed in you 476 AD, passing through several phases of military anarchy, power sharing (Augusts and Caesars), dissolution into patriciate, etc.

Not quite sure where you get that 'but in fact' from.
First the emperors of Rome were not emperors by dynastic right, although many tried to be succeeded by their sons; although a formality, all had to be elected by the Senate. The dynastic right of Kings is a feudal concept.

There were dynastic families, the Julio-Claudian one being the most famous, starting with Augustus and ending with Nero. But many of the Roman emperors were raised to the purple (as the term had it) by the acclamation of their troops, Constantine the Great, for example.

What phases of military anarchy? I suppose the year 69 BC, the 'Year of the Four Emperors', could be regarded as one of anarchy. Caesar's civil war and the civil war following his death were mainly fought in Spain and Africa, but there was no 'military anarchy'.

You mention 'power sharing (Augusts and Caesars)'. There was never any power sharing between an Augustus and a Caesar. Augustus was a honorary title conferred by the senate on Gaius Octavian, the first emperor, and subsequently adopted by all emperors. Julius Caesar was so called, but in his memory, the title Caesar was conferred on the emperor's designated successor.

The titles are themselves interesting. Originally 'emperor'' (imperator simply meant 'general', it was a title of military command. Then, with Augustus, 'imperator' became the title of supreme command over the whole Roman army, in British WW2 terms, the CIGS*. It was but a short step to it becoming the praenomen of all the emperors with the power of decreeing peace or war. Julius Caesar, was granted the office of Dictator. In Roman times this title didn't have the meaning of tyrant that it has now, it was an appointment to supreme command in an emergency for a period of six months, after which it had to be renewed. In republican Rome, every magistrate had potestas (general powers) but only four, the dictator, consul, praetor, magister equilibrium, had imperium.

Augustus, who maintained the fiction that the republic was still in existence, called himself principes inter pares (First among Equals), a title which gave the holder the right to be the first speaker in the Roman Senate. It was a powerful right, as other senators would follow his line. But the title, adopted by all the subsequent emperors, became shortened to Princeps and from it we derive our word Prince. And from Caesar, the titles Kaiser and Tsar. He derived his 'imperium' (emperorship) by becoming perpetual consul.

I am not sure what you are referring to here:

dissolution into patriciate, etc.

The patriciate is simply the nobility of Rome, both in republican and in imperial times. To the patricians alone belonged membership of the three original Roman tribes, which (to name them in their official order) were called Titiies, Ramnes, and Luceres. Knowledge of these three tribes is lost in prehistory, but the Romans regarded them as important (think of them as modern orders of knighthood, the Order of the Garter, etc, except that instead of individuals it was families that were admitted). The important part is that the tribe organisation had a special connexion with the cavalry service of the army and from it sprang the equites, the Roman aristocratic cavalry officer class who played a major part in the late republic.

Best regards,
Peter

* Says he, trying desperately to get back to WW2

[PeterG]

Hi Wayne

Regarding the points you raised

Originally Posted by Wayne

Migratory pressures seems to be incorrect as they never settled the countries they invaded.

But the Philistines are the People of the Sea. They were defeated in prehistory by Ramses II, we know that from Egyptian victory monuments, and settled on the seaboard of Canaan. Not only did they settle, they eventually gave their name to the whole territory: Palestine.

This confused me. How did Pompeii defeat without invading? Or did you mean that Pompeii defeated Syria and Judea was theirs by default?

Petty kingdoms were always highly vulnerable. When a major power was defeated client-kingdoms were generally quick to signal their submission to the new dominant power. Submission meant paying annual tribute. Tribute was always harsh, but it was preferable to invasion, followed by destruction and slavery as an example to others. Even relatively benign rulers could be quite ruthless in antiquity. The example of Tyre rang down through the ages. After his defeat of the Persian Empire all Phoenicia, with the exception of Tyre, submitted to Alexander. Tyre was considered by the ancients to be completely impregnable. It was then a self-sufficient island at some distance from the shore. What Alexander did should really be rated as the eighth wonder of the world, he had huge blocks and rocks hewn and thrown in the sea. When he started this the Tyreans taunted him as a fool as the first rocks simply disappeared beneath the waves and it seemed an impossible task. It took seven months to build the giant causeway and then Alexander utterly destroyed the city putting everyone to the sword as an example. To this day, Tyre is joined to the mainland.

You can see details here http://joseph_berrigan.tripod.com/id34.html but the finest account is still in Gibbon's Decline and Fall.

Regards,
Peter

[PeterG]

Wayne

Regarding this:

This confused me. How did Pompeii defeat without invading? Or did you mean that Pompeii defeated Syria and Judea was theirs by default?

This may assist you:

A little afterwards Pompey came to Damascus, and marched over Coelenesyria at which time there came ambassadors to him from all Syria and Egypt and out of Judea also, for Aristobulus had sent him a great present, which was a golden vine, of the value of five hundred talents.

The source is Flavius Josephus (c37-c100 AD) in Antiquities of the Jews Book 14, Chapter 3, Para 1, translated from the Greek. Josephus' credentials are impeccable: Josephus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Aristobulus mentioned here by Josephus is Aristobulus II, king of Judea, of the Hasmonean dynasty. With this fabulous gift he is making his submission to Pompey, along with all the other client-kingdoms stretching right down to Egypt.

Peter

[PeterG]

Originally Posted by Wayne

And you raise a good point. Anti-Semitism is not linguistically correct. Judeophobia is ok but I don't think "phobia" conveys the seriousness of descrimination.

Anti-Semitism is an unfortunate expression, Wayne, but alas we are stuck with it.

It is an expression which has a tinge of respectability, like anti-porn, anti-smoking, anti-drinking, anti-war, anti-fascist. There is nothing wrong with being anti something, most of us are.

Let me quote Klaus P. Fischer on this:

The term was actually not coined until 1879, when Wilhelm Marr, a second-rate German journalist and founder of the League of Anti-Semites (Antisemitten Liga), used the word as a political slogan that was designed to unite as many Germans as possible behind a non-partisan movement to fight the detrimental influence allegedly exerted on German society by organised Jewry.

Although a standard scholarly term today, "anti-Semitism" is ambiguous enough on several grounds to make us use it sparingly and cautiously because it stems from the counterfeit coinage of the oppressor who claims in the prefix "anti-" simply to be opposed to "semite", an equally ambiguous term because it can refer to people who are Arabic, Babylonian, Assyrian, and Ethiopian, as well as Jewish. Any discussion of the Holocaust should be aware of linguistic snares and not allow itself to be dominated by the terminology of its perpetrators. (The History of an Obsession - German Judeophobia and the Holocaust, Constable, 1998, pp 23/23)

The term used by Fischer is "Judeophobia" for that is what it is, for a phobia is an irrational fear of something. All phobias require counselling, and in extreme cases, psychiatric treatment.

I sometimes research words and I wrote to John Simpson, the Chief editor of the Oxford English Dictionary, the great twenty volume edition, of which the 3rd edition is in course of preparation. As a result, a revised definition of 'Judeophobia' will be included in it quoting Fischer.

Peter

[PeterG]

Just to tie up this digression on antiquity. Above I said "imperator simply meant 'general', it was a title of military command".

The matter is more complicated than what I set out there. After further thought on the subject I have replaced the old first paragraph, which was in error, here Roman Emperor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia with two expanded paragraphs.

If you find the many names of Romans confusing I give a guide here Genealogy: Ancillary fields: surnames.

For the Emperors I would also recommend Ron Goldsteins Coin Collection here History: Ancillary fields: Coins.

Vale
Petrum