SC - Serving question

[CBlackwill@aol.com]

LrdRas at aol.com wrote:
> 
> In a message dated 5/9/00 12:15:13 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> CBlackwill at aol.com writes:
> 
> << Would the three (or more) Christian Crusades shed any light on the
>  pervasiveness of the Christian Church in medieval life?
> 
>  Balthazar of Blackmoor >>
> 
> Probably, although the crusaders were for the most part members of noble
> households. It does not shed any light on the food aspect that the original
> poster queried. I did try to broach that subject a couple of times but  more
> interest has been shown in other parts of my posts. :-)

Sorry Ras, this is not true. The majority of the crusaders were not
nobles or directly affiliated with noble households. Like any war, most
of those involved were poor. Including but not limited to crusades known
as the Children's Crusade and the Peasant's Crusades- both huge
movements of the underclass that were not only apart from any
'oppressive' nobility or clergy but in some places actively discouraged
by them. This was not for purposes of keeping them 'down', but a
protective measure- most of these peasants left their homes with no
provisions, no weapons or armor, many brought families with them- and
then they attempted thousands of miles on foot. This is not a movement
of people who are bullied by an oppressive master who forces them to
defend the Cross- these are the actions of fervent people- fanatics
even- motivated by their visions of Christ, the Virgin, and the saints.

But that is no matter. You remarked that other portions of your posts
went unanswered? Well I had not answered (until now) because 1) I have
been busy trying to settle into a difficult new job and be an effective
mom 120 miles away from the fikds- and I flat don't have time to respond
to many posts right now. And more importantly, 2) I am still so angry
about your post on the matter yesterday that I dared not respond,
because I could not respond with the dignity and courtesy that was once
the purview of this list. I'm still not sure that I can but I will try.

I made a response to a specific post regarding a book. I gave my honest
opinion as a scholar. You questioned a premise therein and I responded
(with what I'd meant to be a gentle rib about having had your coffee,
because I'd frankly thought you sounded a little cranky). And I made
statements about the general influence of the Church on daily life in
the middle ages, including examples, and I even provided a citation for
a book that covered daily life pretty closely. You responded by claiming
my "theory" is the product of "inaccurate and questionable sources."
Well, my "theories" are the well-known, respected opinions of many
medieval scholars around the world, which fill my bookshelves and many
others. Those "theories" came as a result of many years of study,
including six years careful supervision in a respected program at an
accredited, degree-granting University. This is my avocation, my love,
and my life that you just threw out with the coffee grounds. And in your
own defense, when asked for documentation for your views, you could cite
no period documents or authorities- only one book that has no standing
in the academic community. I respect you and your personal religious
views, but your religious beliefs today have no bearing on what happened
6 or 800 years ago. And citing your religious beliefs in that manner to
support your contentions about period practice is bad scholarship at the
least, and verging on offensive. And has little to do with the original
discussion of fasting and period attitudes towards food.

'Lainie