mrgoyette

mrgoyette t1_j40leoc wrote

Specifically regarding Antioch, the Crusaders were definitley not 'unifed in purpose'. Other leading Crusaders disputed Bohemond's claim as 'Prince of Antioch'.

But, there was such an anarchy unleashed in the region at the time that Bohemond basically squatted in Antioch while the other Crusader elements and Byzantine forces were busy pursuing different aims (securing the Cillician borderlands, marching on Jerusalem).

2

mrgoyette t1_j40l3ol wrote

Thank u for pointing these out.

There's a lot of framing in these responses that it was the Muslims who were landless raiders in the First Crusade. The reality is the opposite. Especially when you are considering the specific case of Antioch.

Bohemond (founder of Antioch) was an Italo-Norman from the Hauteville family. The Hautevilles were raider/mercenaries who emigrated to southern Italy and took their land by the sword. The Italo-Normans left French Normandy because of their inability to pursue landed claims there.

Bohemond is frozen out of his own Italo-Norman claims by his father Robert Guiscard. Guiscard had remarried and declared Bohemond a bastard. Bohemond spent the following decades pursuing (and failing to secure) Byzantine lands for himself in Southern Italy and the Balkans. His campaigns often failed due to his inability to maintain supply, pay, and discipline among his men when attempting to seige strongpoints like Larissa in Thessaly (sound familiar??).

The First Crusade 'starts' while Bohemond is sacking Amalfi (again). He decides his prospects are better sacking the Byzantine/Muslim lands in Asia Minor, gathers a crew, and joins the Crusade.

Bohemond's successes in the First Crusade are won by realpolitik. He prevents his men from pillaging the Byzantine heartland and swears an oath of obedience to the Emperor Alexios. This helps him move in to position in the Byzantine borderlands that he's allegedly winning back for the Byzantines.

When the main Byzantine forces are occupied elsewhere , and Bohemond and his men join the siege of Antioch, he realizes his political opportunity. He opens negotiations with the commander of Antioch once the Byzantine representative leaves. Bohemond cuts a deal with the commander of Antioch (a non-Turk who was stifled by the Seljuk Turk ruling administration of the region). Bohemond pays him off and gains access for himself and his men into Antioch, circumventing the need for a long siege.

Bohemond then declares himself 'Prince of Antioch'. The other Crusaders and Byzantine operatives in the region are otherwise occupied in the anarchy of the moment of the First Crusade. No one disputes Bohemond's claim, likely because these disparate and unaligned forces are focused on the rest of Syria, the Cilician borderlands, and pushing their way to Jerusalem.

Bohemond stays put. He cares about establishing a claim to 'his' land, not 'saving' the Holy Land. After 20 years of fighting (for and against!) Byzantines, Lombards, Venetians, Turkish Muslims, Arab Muslims, Arab Christians, and his own Italo-Norman bretheren, he finally won some land for himself.

13

mrgoyette OP t1_j1abqqn wrote

Reply to comment by TheVinylBird in Let It Be by mrgoyette

Yes, and he ultimately might have become the best songwriter of the group. John and Paul didn't want to listen to him. But he had the last laugh, his debut solo album was better than anyone else's.

George struck me as the most into learning about new music and methods. He's hanging out with Clapton etc and bringing his own recording equipment into the sessions.

1

mrgoyette OP t1_j191ysj wrote

Reply to comment by FormalWare in Let It Be by mrgoyette

Parliament/Funkadelic and the Beatles were really contemporaries! George Clinton was born in between Lennon and McCartney.

Clinton's first hit was I Wanna Testify by 'The Parliaments', which came out in 1967. And it's a fucking jam!

And McCartney once said it was the Isley Brothers that got the Beatles out of Liverpool and onto the big stage.

But, I will agree those dudes from Liverpool having that kind of soul in their bodies is really impressive. They just loved good rock music, and thats what they played...

2

mrgoyette OP t1_j18utc6 wrote

Reply to comment by Jengalover in Let It Be by mrgoyette

Me too. Neil Young is probably my favorite artist.

I think the Beatles are a great balance of all the above. 3 excellent songwriters, McCartney's a virtuoso, Lennon is a rocker who just gets what music is all about, and Ringo is a machine.

3

mrgoyette t1_iy8ayjb wrote

Nope, you are right, it's all about your attitude.

My wife must pause TV shows and re-watch certain scenes over if she misses a line of dialogue. She must see and hear every detail to enjoy it. I'm the opposite, I don't like having to closely follow every (frankly often boring) line or scene in a show.

Neuromancer is written for my style of consumption. Gibson is so good at establishing 'vibes'. It's engrossing. You feel like you're inside the book. You'll get it, if you're not obsessed with 'understanding' it.

And, if you'd like, you can read it again (and again!) and get something else out if it the next time. Like any great film, book, or painting.

2

mrgoyette t1_it8x4xr wrote

Not quite Scotland, but King Offa of Mercia minted gold coins containing Arabic script in the style of Caliph al-Mansur of Baghdad in the mid-8th century.

Westerns think of the era of post Roman downfall as a 'dark age', but it was really an age of global trade links being established by technological improvements. Norse longships that could run on ocean and way upriver. Arab warriors incorporating horses into their mobile attacks. And a BIG example of the establishment of Arabic as a wide-ranging spoken and then written administrative language, after the introduction of paper-making from China.

12