ciman and John Julius Norwich, who is no historian. The entry of scholars into popular Crusade history does not seem to be welcomed in all quarters.
Were the Crusades OK?
Written by
in
Comments
-
Bankruptcy?
-
Well yes, something of an anachronism there…
-
m=civilised stereotype. Anyway, the long-term consequences for the Armenians of this invasion have been infinitely more devastating than the temporary impact the crusades had on the Muslim world. In my amateur opinion,the First Crusade had plenty of justification. It’s obvious they should have concentrated on winning back Anatolia (which is what the Byzantines wanted) rather than sending a huge force to seize Jerusalem (but hindsight is a wonderful thing).
-
Doesn’t bankruptcy just mean you don’t have any money left? Unless he specifically mentions filing for protection from creditors under Chapter 11 of the US tax code or some other modern equivalent, I wouldn’t call it anachronistic. The OED has “bankrupt” from 1570 meaning “insolvent”, and “bankruptcy” from 1700. That’s later than the crusades, but it predates the modern legal institution of “bankruptcy”, I believe. Didn’t they have debtor’s prison back then?
-
Well, I did a bit of Googling around both the Crusades and banking (and then usury). It does seem that usury was legal until 1190 (I think) and that was roughly the end of the Second Crusade, so I suppose it’s possible that some Crusaders borrowed money, and their debts ruined them, and so the lending of money was outlawed, though I can’t find a source to support this.
Heh — lending money was illegal for a time in late medieval Britain, so I doubt there were debtor’s prisons. I think they came in later, in the 18th century with the rise of capitalism and raising money for enterprise. The banning of usury was all to do (he says overconfidently) with a misreading of the Jesus and the moneylenders in the temple story. Jesus didn’t object to lending money; just to the abuse of the holy place. -
nly knows, and they all had different laws, all subject to change without notice, and they were still half-feudal (at least) anyway: If the Duke wants to borrow money, well, he’s the guy with the thugs, right?
Given my weak grasp of the history of the time, this may all be pure hogwash, of course.
Leave a Reply