Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

But I have read that among the upper echelons of society Muslims were far greater educated than their Christian rivals.

Tis true. Charlemagne pushed really hard to create a literate nobility, but after his death no one really seemed to care. Middle Age nobles were largely illiterate in Europe. Contact with Islamic Culture however was a early factor in increasing European literacy.

However I have read that scholars have noted that Saladin's fame in his time among Europeans owes much to his reputation for being a very chivalrous man, even more so than many of his European opponents (which was interesting cause he stabbed people in the back ALOT. The Crusades were one big power game for him ).

Not that that was particularly hard to do. Muslim knight equivalents were more akin to samurai then European knights, you were expected to be pious, educated, an able ruler and administrator and be skilled in the arts as well as a good fighter.

The distinction should be noted that many of the combatants on the Islamic side of the first 3 crusades, were Seljuk Turks. They were at the time, largely uneducated, and quite barbaric by the standards of Islamic civilization. Now what I don't know is how many of these Turks made up these armies. My guess would be a smaller number than natives to the region long there since the Conquests.

That said, Samurai weren't really the nicest guys on the block, in spite of their reputation. The thing about elite warrior classes with a monopoly on force is that... Well they have a monopoly on force

 Frazzled wrote:

 Mr. Burning wrote:
The Romanians got rid of their Jewish population without any real prodding from Germany.

11 million seems a high number, but believable, Russian civvies would account for a lot. Lets not forget liquidated individuals and groups such as the polish leadership and intelligentsia.

Put another way, excluding what I would call direct holocaust/final solution victims, 4 miilion people terminated is shocking enough.

Still the way to counter the hangers on of this resurgence in Nazism is to educate them, not about the holocaust but the fallacies of romanticism about the Nazis themselves, particularly the SS/Waffen SS.

I prefer the Patton method of dealing with Nazis myself.

Run'em over with a tank?

Why yes actually.

Not that that was particularly hard to do. Muslim knight equivalents were more akin to samurai then European knights, you were expected to be pious, educated, an able ruler and administrator and be skilled in the arts as well as a good fighter.

To be fair, european knights were also expected to be all these things too. Not that they were successful

The difference between the ideal and what actually would happen is stark.

Not that this was anybody's fault really. It just happened.


The Japanese and Muslim cultures hadn't just experienced a major sociatal collapse so they had the infrastructure to support art and science. Although they did experience stagnation towards the end which did lead to a collapse of sorts eventually.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Not that that was particularly hard to do. Muslim knight equivalents were more akin to samurai then European knights, you were expected to be pious, educated, an able ruler and administrator and be skilled in the arts as well as a good fighter.

To be fair, european knights were also expected to be all these things too. Not that they were successful

The difference between the ideal and what actually would happen is stark.

Not that this was anybody's fault really. It just happened.


The Japanese and Muslim cultures hadn't just experienced a major sociatal collapse so they had the infrastructure to support art and science. Although they did experience stagnation towards the end which did lead to a collapse of sorts eventually.

Samurai PR is just that, PR. In truth they were just killers who kept the peasant down and could you just for not bowing properly. Chivalry is a lie.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I recommend the following book "An Arab-Syrian Gentleman and Warrior in the Period of the Crusades" by Usamah Ibn-Munqidh http://www.amazon.com/Arab-Syrian-Gentleman-Warrior-Period-Crusades/dp/0231121253 it's available on the various ebook devices as well and I found it extremely fascinating as a primary source document on the period in general and Arabic/Muslim culture/society at the time. I'd offer to send you the copy I needed for school last semester but I found it so enjoyable it's earned a permanent spot on my shelves.

Sounds marvellous. Added to my list.

That's just the number I've always heard, I think it varies if you count mass killings out side of Germany proper, like the slaughter of Russian civilians. I'll look in to it when I have a second.

Once you add in Russian civilians who died in the general course of the war you quickly get up to 20 million.

The 9 million figure (which I see has now been revised to 11 million thanks to excellent sources provided to me by a helpful person by pm) is purely talking about people killed through organised mass murder. Those who were shot by SS death squads following behind the main German advance. Those who were killed when the ghettos were cleared out. And those who died in the work camps and extermination camps. For a long time that number was believed to be 9 million, and has since been revised to 11 million.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
Tis true. Charlemagne pushed really hard to create a literate nobility, but after his death no one really seemed to care. Middle Age nobles were largely illiterate in Europe. Contact with Islamic Culture however was a early factor in increasing European literacy.

However I have read that scholars have noted that Saladin's fame in his time among Europeans owes much to his reputation for being a very chivalrous man, even more so than many of his European opponents (which was interesting cause he stabbed people in the back ALOT. The Crusades were one big power game for him ).

Yeah, I always see historians talk about Saladin's reputation for nobility, and then they describe what he did.... I guess everything's relative to the time and place it occurred in.

That said, Samurai weren't really the nicest guys on the block, in spite of their reputation. The thing about elite warrior classes with a monopoly on force is that... Well they have a monopoly on force

Yeah, that's a good way of summing it up. The guy with the weapon is always going to be prone to throwing his weight around.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Samurai PR is just that, PR. In truth they were just killers who kept the peasant down and could you just for not bowing properly. Chivalry is a lie.

Well, chivalry isn't a lie. Plenty of people acted in chivalrous and noble ways. It's just a mistake to attempt to think an entire class of people acted in that way.

And Chivalry IIRC never said you had to be nice to the peasents or those beneath you. It really only encouraged that of your same social class.

It's worth pointing out that Saladin was incredibly noble over all, and was respected by pretty much everyone who came into contact with him for it. From the perspective of a soldier and warrior he's the kind of general I would have been happy to serve under. He only got brutal (relative to the age) in response to crusader brutality during the third crusade, an escalation of force if you will. Commit enough atrocities and even the most noble man is going to dedicate himself utterly to ripping you a new one and burning your playhouse down.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
It's worth pointing out that Saladin was incredibly noble over all, and was respected by pretty much everyone who came into contact with him for it. From the perspective of a soldier and warrior he's the kind of general I would have been happy to serve under. He only got brutal (relative to the age) in response to crusader brutality during the third crusade, an escalation of force if you will. Commit enough atrocities and even the most noble man is going to dedicate himself utterly to ripping you a new one and burning your playhouse down.

Um I'm referring directly to his in house politics. Saladin used the Crusades to seize power in numerous regions. The Crusades were more his excuse than his cause. He'd make promises and then stab his political allies in the back by taking their lands or their armies. It's always rather convenient for Saladin that he would only increase tensions with the Crusader Kingdoms when some Sultan had something he wanted ("Quick I need your armies to protect you from the Crusaders!" Five months later. "Your army? The only army I see is my army. Thanks for watching my land for me while I was away though!"). Heck he was originally sent to Egypt by the Abbasids to defeat the Fatamids with his uncle, and the moment that was done, his uncle died (and there are plenty of good conspiracy theories about that!) and Saladin looks the Abbasids in the eye and says "Yeah I'm doing my thang now."

Saladin's reputation for nobility is similar to the reputations of most noble men in history. Not all its chalked up to be

I'm not saying he wasn't a shrewd politician, able commander and skilled in fighter as well as warrior, the man had his position for a reason and that rule of the day was political intrigue and being able to stomp the most people to claim what you wanted.

This doesn't stop him from being noble. Unless you take our modern perspective to him, in which case no, he wasn't Ghandhi, he was a warrior king in one of the most brutal periods of human history.

Okay I see what you mean Judge by the standards of the time. Sounds like something I normally try to say XD.

 LordofHats wrote:
Okay I see what you mean Judge by the standards of the time. Sounds like something I normally try to say XD.

true dat

It's an important point to make when talking about history though I think. While some behaviors and actions are down right evil. (Mass murder for example I feel no need to "gain perspective" on) other things we see as brutal or individuals we see as harsh now, are still a product of their times and might be judged a little harshly by modern standards. King John of England is an interesting western example and proof how bias then can extend forward now (mostly thanks to Robin Hood but still) from what we know of the time Prince John was a good king and a better administrator, certainly better then Richard the Lion Hearted who spent most of his time on the throne as far from his throne as he could get. A couple hundred years later and John would be remembered as a good king, but this was still the time period when the Germanic theory of kingship was still in effect in Europe, which... actually I'd compare directly to how Orkz do things.

Can definitely see that. Go find me a piece of popular culture where John isn't a; douche, jerk, womanizer, adulterer, selfish, ahole, all around selfish human being who is a waste of space

He's probably rolling in his grave crying "come on guys I wasn't that bad!"

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
It's an important point to make when talking about history though I think. While some behaviors and actions are down right evil. (Mass murder for example I feel no need to "gain perspective" on) other things we see as brutal or individuals we see as harsh now, are still a product of their times and might be judged a little harshly by modern standards. King John of England is an interesting western example and proof how bias then can extend forward now (mostly thanks to Robin Hood but still) from what we know of the time Prince John was a good king and a better administrator, certainly better then Richard the Lion Hearted who spent most of his time on the throne as far from his throne as he could get. A couple hundred years later and John would be remembered as a good king, but this was still the time period when the Germanic theory of kingship was still in effect in Europe, which... actually I'd compare directly to how Orkz do things.

I think Shakespeare's play probably contributed to the poor reputation of King John as well. The play is one of Shakespeare's lesser known plays now, but it was a big deal in Victorian times.

What was the Germanic theory of kingship?

The Orcs version of kingship. Whoever can kill the old king gets to be the new one.

I'm the biggest an the strongest an I gotz the most boyz so I wear the shiny hat see?

The Germanic tradition was that the king was a warrior and battle leader, it didn't matter if you were a decent administrator if you weren't a rock solid warrior as well.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I'm the biggest an the strongest an I gotz the most boyz so I wear the shiny hat see?

The Germanic tradition was that the king was a warrior and battle leader, it didn't matter if you were a decent administrator if you weren't a rock solid warrior as well.

Okay, thanks for that.

The conflict about it was that European monarchs were trying to establish hereditary rule, but especially in Germany (then Holy Roman Empire) especially, the Germanic theory was preferred and while the Emperor managed to solidify is political position he never established hereditary succession like French and English kings did in the same time period.

 Ratbarf wrote:
The Orcs version of kingship. Whoever can kill the old king gets to be the new one.

You keep what you kill!