Carnal Reason

3 Responses to “The story behind the story”

1. Paco Malo, on September 22nd, 2006 at 12:00 am Said:

   Nice little anecdote, shame it isn’t close to accurate.

   First of all, Manuel II Palaiologos was a Byzantine emperor, not emperor of “all the Romans”. By this time the Roman empire had split in half. More precisely, the Byzantine empire was all that was left of the Roman empire it devolved from; the western half of the old Roman empire was in such a state of disarray that in doesn’t even warrant the label empire.

   Moreover, Manuel II Palaiologos’ capital, Constantinople, was under siege by the Ottoman empire at the time the discussion in question took place. He was a monarch in the middle of a war for survival that he was losing badly. Manny’s statement, quoted by the Pope, taken in this context, makes perfect sense.

   Finally, it should be noted that the only reason the Ottoman empire’s leadership had a chance of taking Constantinople at all is that Constatinople had been weakened earlier, fatally, by the Venetian fleet hired to transport western crusaders to the holy land. The Venetians decided to stop off and sack Constantinople along their way to secure the quite profitable outcome of this venture for Venice. In short, it was Venetian greed that made the ultimate fall of Constatinople to the Ottoman Empire possible.

   Draw your own conclusions. All I want to say is that real history does fall into tight little bedtime story bundles, as Sribal Terror presents it.

2. pwyll, on September 22nd, 2006 at 11:14 am Said:

   I don’t understand your point. What I found interesting in Scribal Terror’s post was this
   

   Manuel’s conversations about Islam therefore took place with an expert in Sharia law in the presence of the sultan. It was Manuel who was in a position of subordination to his Muslim overlords and was at the time a guest of the Qadi.

   How interesting indeed, that in the old days of Muslim ascendency, no one offered to cut off the head of the questioning infidel, although they could easily have done so. Instead, his gracious hosts encouraged him to speak his mind and amused themselves by answering his objections and correcting his misconceptions, as they understood them.

   Your comments reinforce the notion that Palaiologos was politically weak. It is interesting the he spoke from a weak position, and yet survived saying things that today occasion hysteria and bloodshed.

   The Muslims calling for the Pope’s head today are a more excitable lot than the ones Palaiologos dealt with. This is because their indignation is an orchestrated, politically motivated sham. Their performance is designed to exploit western media and to intimidate critics. It is theatre.

3. Paco Malo, on September 22nd, 2006 at 1:59 pm Said:

   First and foremost, your analysis, pwyll, is sound except for one point. You state that, “[their, (the Muslim 'mob', in my view)] performance is designed to exploit western media and to intimidate critics. It is theatre.” I disagree with limiting the purpose of the performance as aimed at only western media; it is aimed at worldwide media.

   Second, the recitation of the history and context of the conversation in question is just wrong. The conversation took place between an emperor going down to defeat, and the representative of an opposing emperor defeating him in a war. This is a conversation on imperial politics and warfare, not religion. Your quoted source has got her facts wrong, the cardinal sin in sound historiography.

   Finally, I feel I add to the discussion by bringing facts about the Venetian’s role in all this into our discussion. The most important of the many ironies here is that it was Christian greed that lead to the ultimate fall of its eastern capital, not Ottoman power just after the golden age of Islam.