Comments on: European & world history in a nutshell: Control of Trade Routes

By: Julia

Julia — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 01:57:29 +0000

I agree with you that, historically, the main thing to look at in terms of power is the trade routes.

I don’t know the research this came from but my understanding is that the abundance of navigable rivers is considered the reason that Europe grew so quickly when it started growing.

Africa becomes known for the Bedouin, Tuareg, etc. and Europeans become known for shorter jaunts on horseback.

By: Ted

Ted — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 06:23:33 +0000

Anyway, Dude, I sense we both have this Karma.

Chevaliers in a former life, and or ancestry. Because you know all this stuff. Its old hat.

The way it works is now we are working out this karma.

Whats the opposite of finding the good things and going out and fighting for and taking them and keeping the best parts for you and your clan?

The opposite is Making good things from nothing and giving it away to everyone for free.

Its a circle.

By: Ted

Ted — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 05:49:46 +0000

I think being a Norman was a blast. Can you imagine the audacity it takes to build a fleet of viking ships big enough to transport a whole Calvary across the English Channel and then take over the whole country? Just Charge up the hill on horseback and say “yep, this is all ours now.”

By: Ted

Ted — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 05:45:02 +0000

No, I think it was a blast. I am just saying they weren’t so jaded back than that they would lie about the crusades while just doing it for the money, when they did things like sack Sicily for the money.

Getting rich through conquest was perfectly legit back then.

By: The Postmaster

The Postmaster — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 19:23:20 +0000

That’s all these guys did is fight and go to mass and hunt wild boars on horseback for fun and stuff like that.

I don’t know, that doesn’t sound so terrible…

By: Ted

Ted — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 15:40:18 +0000

I agree with you about the reformation.

But at the time of the crusades, though, these guys were really into the whole religious thing. They still acted like Odin worshippers, but were very Catholic.

One thing I wonder too thinking about this stuff, if we aren’t simply seeing some type of collective intelligence at work? Its like we posit some mastermind scheme which assumes, some really clear thinking planning. Like there were some really smooth operators behind it all.

Just like conspiracy theory operates now. But It could just be a kind of collective intelligence, like some field these people were plugged into that had its own logic. Its like the trade networks themselves were intelligent and the used these various people for different ends.

Because how smart is it to be a Knight? To be constantly waging war as your occupation? That’s all these guys did is fight and go to mass and hunt wild boars on horseback for fun and stuff like that. They were barbarians, still.

By: Ted

Ted — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 15:24:49 +0000

I agree with you that, historically, the main thing to look at in terms of power is the trade routes.

As far as the “why?” of the Crusades though, these were people that would fight any where any time for any reason.

It was perfectly justified at the time to fight in order to get rich. No need to cover it up.

I studied these people in my genealogy. The Normans. They were all knights fighting constantly and they were very very very devout Roman Catholics. Fanatically religious. I think it was a Holy War. Not that that’s a good thing, but I think thats what it was. The Normans only had two occupations, Knights and Clergy and some were both.