This is the last time I shall respond to your frankly embarrassing attempts to make historical arguments. You've cited nothing, you've offered nothing, and you continually take the work of Kaldellis out of context and refuse to accept what is on paper. Let me fix this for you one more time, then you'll be so kind as to stop derailing a thread ostensibly about CK3.
I am citing Jonathan Riley-Smith. I am citing Jonathan Phillips. I am citing Matthew Gabriele and John Haldon. I'm probably citing even more here too. No one denies Pope Urban II's address was an expliticly Christian call-to-arms against the "pagans". But did you know that 'taking the cross' could be commuted for money, and in fact it was prevalent across the thirteenth century? If religious differences had been the only justification for crusading, do you not think that the Church would have taken a dim view of this practice? The fact it didn't attests to the religious element being subordinate to other concerns. Would you like to see the text of a late crusader vow?except the crusade indulgences had also always been accompanied with a revelation about the religious differences between the faithfuls and the heretics by the pope. religious differences had always been spelled out in capital letters to those who took the cross. i dont have asbridge handy but this sounds suspiciously like what you did with, well, everyone else, that is, using a different argument to apply an extremely narrow definition.
The text was in Latin, I have provided a decent translation. Do you see any mention of killing Muslims, for fighting for religious differences, or fighting at all? No you don't, because crusader vows tended to be vague because the crusaders did not want to be fettered in such a way. As you will remember from Frankopan, the First Crusade vows made to Alexios I were quite specific, which possibly explains why the Western crusaders were averse to making these vows. Yet we are quite confident that these men made vows to ecclesiastical figures in order to receive the Cross without any problem at all, which leads us to one conclusion - the vows crusaders had made about committing to a faith-based war were just as vague as the one I have provided. Historians cannot fathom what someone thought all those years ago; we can only use the available evidence to explain the past, and when it comes to Crusades, the idea that the Latins went to war purely for the purpose of slaughtering Muslims is laughable and unsupported by a wide range of sources.In the name of God Amen. Endowed with such fiery devotion for the sins of his nation, he made a vow to the Lord to visit the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. Should he be prevented from fulfilling his promise in person, he will undertake to send another in his place. He has undertaken to do this personally at the next passage to the Holy Land proclaimed by the holy Roman See. The rural dean has therefore conferred the Cross on him with the proper and customary ceremony.
I literally do not know what to say here. I am unable to respond to such utter drivel. The author is lamenting that Byzantine Studies has struggled to accept what the rest of the field of history has, can't you see that? He mentions the Etruscans and the Carians were assimilated into Rome, and thus became Romans! Either way these groups were gone by the time the Western Empire collapsed to leave the ERE. And, if once again you'd read the book, you'd know that it embraces a theory of race that is not deterministic - your ancestry does not determine your ethnicity. The only way you could read that particular paragraph and come out thinking that the Byzantine Empire was multiethnic is if you believe in racial determinism. I do not, the humanities does not and Kaldellis certainly does not either.these social sciences clearly do not include history, because the author mentions explicitly that "Yet Byzantine Studies has not fully made the transition to this postwar model. I will mention two reasons for this failure." and unless you want to query on the contextual definition of 'mention' v 'claim,' i think it's clear here that the guy is arguing about the multiethnicity of rome.
First off, I said 229-232, not 239. Secondly, you and I are not reading the same book, if of course I suppose you aren't flat out lying. Since you have trouble locating words on a page, I'll find them for you:93 on is about how romaness in byz wasnt a concept from the top down, some queries about what constitutes official definition, then some more about roman nationalism. 239 on is about ethnic revolts. the only noteworthy thing about all of this is the amusing passing mention of robert guicard being a terrorist.
"Romania was, then, a territory, a jurisdiction, a state named after a people, and an abstract national identity that had needs and honour; it was something to be defended and on whose behalf one might toil and labour. If it existed in modern times, we would have no difficulty in identifying it as a nation-state." - p.92
"The vast majority of the subjects of Romania were Romans. Even those subjects of Romania who were described as ethnically different - primarily Slavs and Armenians at this time - were not subject to special legal regimes, especially if they were Orthodox, as most of them seem to have been. Members of these minorities could rise to the top, so long as they learned Greek and were Orthodox, but this brought them to the verge of becoming Romans themselves." - p.231
"This requires that we recognise the Romans as a group distinct from rest, as in fact they are consistently presented in all the sources, both Byzantine and foreign. It also requires that discard notions of immutable ethnicity, or race, which retain a hold on Byzantine Studies due to the claims pressed by nationalist schools of historiography and the field's own unreconstructed view of ethnicity, which predates the mid-twentieth century." - p.272
Mockery is not a form of argument. Unless you can produce source evidence of your position (can you actually define your position?) then all you are doing is making a lot of pointless noise.why do you think i quoted the author to explain his view? my assumption is that we both know what the author view is. i quoted the author to mock his argument, which i have explained since the post before.