Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Literary criticism hypocricies
Then proceed to act exactly like close-minded, bitter, ignorant people.
I have no favouritism towards His Dark Materials, but could people at least not fall into abyss staring?
Comments
>TVTropes/Headscratchers
>literary criticism
Lel.
Also, I assume most of those Headscratchers aren't made by Xtians, but rather tropers wanting to feel self-righteous about themselves by going against mainstream opinion.
IJBM: Pop-cultural misinterpretation of the Crusades.
It was a lot more than "hur hur different religion". That's a very simple and convenient explanation for those who want a simple and convenient version of history, but the Crusades only describe one timespan of that intercontinental conflict, which goes back to the fall of the Roman Empire. Christendom largely didn't give a damn that some people, far off to the East, had a different religion.
Long story short, the Ancient Roman Empire had a lot of land towards the end of its lifespan, and much of its peripheral lands had been taken from North Africa and the Middle East. When the Empire converted to Christianity, these lands became Christian over time as well. When Rome fell, there was no deterrent force protecting these peripheral lands, so they began to full into the hands of the reasonably young Muslim faith via military conquest. Europe was now divided into Christian lands and pagan lands; the former being the land which the Romans had held in their time, while the latter were the lands that still belonged to the various tribal groups that survived Roman imperialism.
It wouldn't be until the Late Middle Ages that Europe was ideologically unified by the power of the Catholic Church in almost its entirety, and in the few centuries after the fall of Rome, the remains of Christian society couldn't hope to hold the peripheral territories of Ancient Rome. Instead, they looked inward to consolidate their own power locally, allowing the sea to protect them from advances to the South and the Byzantine Roman remnant to protect them from the East. All the same, Muslim forces advanced into the Iberian peninsula, eventually being turned back by Charlemagne's grandfather when they too heavily threatened Frankish lands.
Conflicts between Christian Europe and the Muslims continued throughout this time as Muslim forces pressed their economic, numerical and strategic advantages. But Europe continued to consolidate, with the lands we know today as France and Germany forming Charlemagne's Holy Roman Empire. At this stage, most of Western and Central Europe was under Christian consolidation, providing a more united front under the shared authority of the Vatican. The Muslims had failed to strike quickly and furiously enough to make for a wider conquest of Europe, and while military disputes continued, Muslim forces were more cautious from there on, mostly holding on to the Iberian peninsula at best.
During the High Middle Ages, in the 11th century, Muslim aggression began to stir again. They continued to harry the Byzantines in the East, and more Christian lands were falling to them, including lands of religious significance. Now, some five hundred years after the Ancient Roman Empire, Catholic Europe embarked on the First Crusade. This is notable for being the first medieval European offensive against the Middle East that wasn't based solely on defending taken lands, but also included some form of payback as deterrence. The idea of the Crusade was to reclaim Jerusalem, of course, but also to showcase the military potential of united Christendom against the united Muslim forces. In addition, the First Crusade allowed Europe to capture and hold a variety of trade routes, augmenting both military and civilian economy.
The Crusades were essentially Europe's belated counterattack towards Muslim aggression following the fall of the Ancient Roman Empire. By and large, they were calculated efforts based on a five-hundred year history of conflict and loss. What you have to understand here is that the Middle East was, by and large, more powerful and advanced than Europe at the time. In this case, Europe is "the little guy", and its kind of astounding that the Muslims didn't take Europe almost entirely. The Crusades themselves were obsoleted part way into the Renaissance, as Christian Europe continued to embrace not only its own medieval elements, but also embraced what it had learned from the Muslims, not to mention the rediscovery and recovery of Greek and Roman texts. The Middle East largely ceased hostilities at this point, because Europe had the cultural and technological might of three different wider cultures at its back, including information from the Muslims themselves.
And that is the short version.
Also, this is exceedingly off-topic.
now
tell us about why all the templars in modern crime fiction are stupid
go go go
I haven't been around long, but what happened to running away from Alex's rants.
That said, let's see what the fuss i-
>TV Tropes headscratchers
ahahahaha no.
It's Alex's rants or listening to Gigantula.
Which would you prefer?
The Order was goddamn disbanded in 1312, whereas the equally famous and relevant Hospitalier and Teutonic Orders pretty much still exist, albeit not in a military capacity. If there's honestly a conspiracy that begins in the Middle Ages and continues through to today, one of those Orders will have something to do with it. That's unlikely enough as it is, though.
In basis, the Templar conspiracy is based on the financial wealth of the Knights Templar. Many non-combatant members of the Order were essentially bank clerks in all but name, with the Templars establishing a prototypical form of international banking. This became a significant part of Europe's infrastructure and disappeared in 1312 with the disbanding of the Templars. Conspiracy theories and fictional speculations are generally based on what happened to this money, with some considering the possibility that the Templars continued to exist as a shadow organisation pulling the strings from behind. This is stupid, because the Templars were mostly knights and knights only care about swords and dragons and princesses and stuff.
The most likely explanation is that the Church took all the money, or that the money re-entered the wider economy over time for whatever reason. Perhaps it was discovered by thieves and spent, perhaps being part of a banking system, it was merely withdrawn and reclaimed by those who actually had primarily legal ownership of it, perhaps a combination, perhaps whatever. In all likelihood, most of us have handled modern abstractions of Templar money. We don't use the same coins today, of course, but as coinage has evolved over time, the new coins have represented the same values, sources and labours of the previous ones. The $20 note in your wallet may well be, in abstract, entirely composed of Templar money. You never know, but there's a decent chance it's true.
The Knights Templar were excellent warriors, scholars and businessmen all, but they're not unique in that respect, and we should look to the simplest and most sensible answers for conundrums like this. The most simple and probable truth is that the Templars were truly disbanded in 1312 and their money re-entered the economy in general, whether that was immediate or whether it took hundreds of years. They're gone, done and dusted. The Templars are no more. Hoping really hard won't bring them back, especially as bad guys. For warrior fanatics clad in iron, they weren't actually particularly bad and tended to be pretty reasonable when it came to, say, not partaking in war crimes. While not the best example of "good" from a modern morale perspective, they were far from villains.
What you think about the popular theory that they ran to Switzerland and started their world-famous banking system?
I love how Alex soldiers on even when Malk and Nova are commenting on his ranting. Like a robot, man.
With that said, I don't understand why anyone would go to TVTropes for literary criticism. But you guys already knew that I don't understand that.
> templars
> speaking german
> eating funny cheese
oh dohoho
IIRC, the Templars were involved in the plot of The Da Vinci Code. What are your thoughts on their portrayal therein?
I haven't read it, but it's probably dumb.
New Years Challenge: Read The Da Vinci Code and tell us your thoughts with as many words as possible by the end of the year.
!
Alex is that robot knight Leonardo da Vinci was designing!
Basically the thing in the book is that Jesus boned Magdalene, and Leonardo knew of it, so he painted no actual chalice at the Last Supper, putting Mary in that place of honor instead. The V-shape made by their bodies represented the sacred feminine, or a vagoo.
So the church didn't like that because they really liked St. Peter and wanted him to be up top, and they feared mightily the power of the sacred feminine, the vagoo. So they repressed this knowledge for two thousand years.
Also Mary was totes not a whore and had a kid by Jesus which eventually became the Merovingians. So this secret was eventually found out when the Crusades came to Jerusalem, and the Priory of Sion and the Templars formed to protect it.
Also Mona Lisa is deliberately androgynous because it represents the sacred union of male and female, as evidenced by the anagram of its name "Amon L'Isa", or Amon and Isis.
Also guys like Newton and junk were Sion members.
TVTropes has never been about literary criticism, and I don't really know where folks get that impression.
Also taking Headscratchers seriously what are you doing man
HDM film was on TV here some year or two ago, on Easter. I found the situation mildly funny.
OK, not going into the main problem with the OP (which others were happy to point out), allow me to give you a piece of advice from my vast wisdom (16).
Stop overusing the word "hypocrisy". For one, it's a loaded word, and it generally predisposes people badly, making it harder to have a reasonable discussion. Second, and perhaps more important, hypocrisy is really, really common ("never met anyone over 18 who hasn't ever been hypocritical about at least something" level of common) and, in general, a very minor transgression/sin, so it's really not worth paying it much attention except in very specific cases.
Um, Alex, when you described the Crusades, I think you forgot the borderline genocide part.
That part's kind of important.
What confuses a lot of Crusade history is the division between civilian paramilitary and actual military; a lot of unprepared, viciously zealous irregulars joined the Crusades. Many were no doubt opportunists, too, from ladder-climbing commoners to rogue knights.
*snark*
Noimporta, I agree with almost all of that, except I think that being hypocritical CAN be a big deal, depending on what the act of hypocrisy is. In this case, it isn't a big deal.
Oh, certainly, that's why I added the ever-so-helpful "generally". I can't really think of an example of non-trivial hypocrisy right now, but it definitely exists.
How's about publicly condemning homosexuality, paedophilia, and drug use and then snorting coke off the toned navels of prepubescent rent-boys?
I'm pretty sure that's happened before.
Well, in that case, the hypocrisy is still the least of your worries.
I find your deliberate attempts to deride me via mispelling offensive.
I suppose it depends on the context. Like, condemning another for being a pathetic hack while being a bitter neckbeard without a life is the apex of unfair judgement and ultimate hilarity.
My Sense Motive check suggests that that was an accidental misspelling. No need to get up in arms about it (just yet at least).
Yeah honestly I misread it as Gigantula most times.
I don't think it was accidental, but I wouldn't read it as derisive either. It's kind of charming, actually. And it rolls off the mouth better.
The way I see it, Gigantula just seems like it would be the way to go with that username, so the human mind would probably be more likely to read it as such. Probably because it rolls off the tongue so well. Speaking of...
Sounds like my thursday night.