Timbuktu desecrated

[Gob]

The Reconquista was a period of 770 years (539 years in Portugal) in the Middle Ages during which several Christian kingdoms succeeded in retaking the Iberian Peninsula from the Muslim kingdoms collectively known as Al-Andalus.

The Islamic conquest of the Christian Visigothic Kingdom in the 8th century (711-718)[1] extended over almost the entire peninsula. Historians date the Reconquista as beginning at the Battle of Covadonga in the north-west of the peninsula in 722 and completed when the last remaining Muslim government, the Nasrid dynasty of the Kingdom of Granada, in the south-east, was defeated in 1492. With the Nasarid defeat, the entire Iberian Peninsula had been brought back under Christian rule.

Because of its great duration the Reconquista has a complex history. Christian and Muslim rulers commonly became divided among themselves and fought. Alliances across faith lines were not unusual. The fighting along the Christian–Muslim frontier was punctuated by periods of prolonged peace and truces. Blurring matters even further were the mercenaries from both sides who simply fought for whoever paid the most.

[dgs49]

For the record - not that anybody gives a shit - my posting referred to "man-made strife," and not specically to the destruction of religious artifacts, about which I care not a bit.

[dales]

What if the Vatican Antiquites Museum was blown to smitereens?

[loCAtek]

LOL Gob, you sound like this parody;



...when you focus on nothing but the religions of the Iberians and the Moors. Here, posted for the third time is historical observation, that the politics were more important than the faith;

Christian and Muslim rulers commonly became divided among themselves and fought. Alliances across faith lines were not unusual

As for Ferdinand, history also notes;

It may fairly be said of him that he was purely a politician. His marriage in 1469 to his cousin Isabella of Castile was dictated by the desire to unite his own claims to the crown, as the head of the younger branch of the same family, with hers, in case Henry IV should die childless. When the king died in 1474 he made an ungenerous attempt to procure his own proclamation as king without recognition of the rights of his wife. Isabella asserted her claims firmly, and at all times insisted on a voice in the government of Castile. But though Ferdinand had sought a selfish political advantage at his wife's expense, he was well aware of her ability and high character. Their married life was dignified and harmonious; for Ferdinand had no common vices, and their views in government were identical. The king cared for nothing but dominion and political power.
His character explains the most ungracious acts of his life, such as his breach of his promises to Columbus, his distrust of Ximenez and of the Great Captain. He had given wide privileges to Columbus on the supposition that the discoverer would reach powerful kingdoms. When islands inhabited by feeble savages were discovered, Ferdinand appreciated the risk that they might become the seat of a power too strong to be controlled, and took measures to avert the danger. He feared that Ximinez and the Great Captain would become too independent, and watched them in the interest of the royal authority. Whether he ever boasted, as he is said to have boasted, that he had deceived Louis XII of France twelve times, is very doubtful; but it is certain that when Ferdinand made a treaty, or came to an understanding with any one, the contract was generally found to contain implied meanings favorable to himself which the other contracting party had not expected. The worst of his character was prominently shown after the death of Isabella in 1504. He endeavored to lay hands on the regency of Castile in the name of his insane daughter Joanna, and without regard to the claims of her husband Philip of Habsburg. The hostility of the Castilian nobles, by whom he was disliked, baffled him for a time, but on Philip's early death he reasserted his authority. His second marriage with Germaine of Foix in 1505 was apparently contracted in the hope that by securing an heir male he might punish his Habsburg son-in-law. Aragon did not recognize the right of women to reign, and would have been detached together with Catalonia, Valencia and the Italian states if he had had a son. This was the only occasion on which Ferdinand allowed passion to obscure his political sense, and lead him into acts which tended to undo his work of national unification. As King of Aragon he abstained from inroads on the liberties of his subjects which might have provoked rebellion. A few acts of illegal violence are recorded of him -- as when he invited a notorious demagogue of Saragossa to visit him in the palace, and caused the man to be executed without form of trial. Once when presiding over the Aragonese cortes he found himself sitting in a thorough draught and ordered the window to be shut, adding in a lower voice, "If it is not against the fueros." But his ill-will did not go beyond such sneers. He was too intent on building up a great state to complicate his difficulties by internal troubles. His arrangement of the convention of Guadalupe, which ended the fierce Agrarian conflicts of Catalonia, was wise and profitable to the country, though it was probably dictated mainly by a wish to weaken the landowners

It was said that he was raised a Humanist by his father; having only been dubbed 'The Catholic' very late in life, at age 50, after achieving most of his politcal machinations, some of which involved influencing the Vatican, much more than it influenced him.
It was said the manipualtive King was who Machiavelli based his 'Prince' on.

http://www.wga.hu/tours/spain/ferdina2.html

[Gob]

The completion of the Reconquista was not the only significant act performed by Ferdinand and Isabella in that year. In March 1492, the monarchs issued the Edict of Expulsion of the Jews, also called the Alhambra Decree, a document which ordered all Jews to either be baptized and convert to Christianity or leave the country.

[loCAtek]

Your point was?

[Gob]

That you know nothing?

[loCAtek]

Who decided who were the heretics, if not the church?

Obviously, King Ferdinand II (who influenced King Henry VIII, his son-in-law) did not heed the church, but made his own faulty determinations of what benefited him most. King Henry his protoge, would later simply drop all pretenses.

The main architect behind the Spanish Inquisition was King Ferdinand II.


The completion of the Reconquista was not the only significant act performed by Ferdinand and Isabella in that year. In March 1492, the monarchs issued the Edict of Expulsion of the Jews, also called the Alhambra Decree,[2] a document which ordered all Jews to either be baptized and convert to Christianity or leave the country.[3]
Ferdinand forced all Muslims in Castile and Aragon to convert, converso Moriscos, to Catholicism, or else be expelled. Some Muslims that remained were mudéjar artisans, who could design and build in the Moorish style. This was also practiced by the Spanish inquisitors on the converso Marrano Jewish population of Spain.

Wiki

What would be falsely claimed as acts of the Church, were actually machinations of the greedy, powerful elite.

By the:

Expulsion of the Jews

Main articles: Alhambra Decree and Spanish Inquisition

... Though Isabella opposed taking harsh measures against Jews on economic grounds, Torquemada was able to convince Ferdinand. On 31 March 1492, the Alhambra Decree for the expulsion of the Jews was issued (See main article on Inquisition).[77] The Jews had until the end of July, three months, to leave the country and they were not to take with them gold, silver, money, arms, or horses.[77] Traditionally, it had been claimed that as many as 200,000 Jews left Spain, but recent historians have shown that such figures are exaggerated: Henry Kamen has shown that out of a total population of 80,000 Jews, a maximum of 40,000 left and the rest converted.[78] Hundreds of those that remained came under the Inquisition's investigations into relapsed conversos (Marranos) and the Judaizers who had been abetting them.[79]

I don't think the King and Queen really wanted thier conversion, but thier money.

[Scooter]

It was said the manipualtive King was who Machiavelli based his 'Prince' on.

Well no, Machiavelli cited many examples of princes throughout history to illustrate many of his points, but certainly did not "base" his notion of the ideal ruler on any of them. Unfortunately too many people who have not understood Machiavelli feel compelled to comment on him.

[loCAtek]

Perhaps, I was over-generalizing, so;

Machiavelli refers to many famous leaders in the "The Prince," and an example he uses quite often is King Ferdinand II of Aragon. To fully understand Machiavelli's work and how it relates to King Ferdinand, one must learn more about the king to start.

http://voices.yahoo.com/machiavellis-pr ... tml?cat=38

[Scooter]

Interesting, but he quotes several passages suggesting they were written to refer to Ferdinand, when they do not

[Gob]

Ferdinand was born in Graz, the eldest son of the archduke Charles, the ruler of Inner Austria (Styria, Carinthia, and Carniola), and Maria, a daughter of Albrecht V, duke of Bavaria. From 1590 to 1595 he was educated at the University of Ingolstadt by Jesuits whose aim was to make him a strict, rigidly Catholic ruler.

Assessment.

In the prime of his life Ferdinand was described as a blue-eyed, somewhat corpulent, middle-sized man who wore Spanish court dress. A good-natured, benevolent, affable monarch, he was imbued with the belief in the splendour of the imperial crown and the greatness of his dynasty. Besides German he spoke Italian, French, and Spanish, was fond of music, and liked reading religious books, but his passion was hunting. Although he kept a frugal court, he was a bad financier who too generously gave away the greatest part of confiscated estates to his faithful followers. A very pious Catholic, he especially favoured the Jesuits. Yet, basing his policies chiefly on religious principles, he suffered from discrepancies between his religious goals and the maxims of a modern raison d’état. An indecisive man, he depended much on the influence of his counselors and his Jesuit confessors. Yet in the face of the shifting fortunes of war, he showed much steadfastness, although he often lacked political agility. A person of moderate talents and willpower, he nevertheless exerted a strong influence on the events of his time by his strict and uncompromising religious policy.

By promoting the Counter-Reformation, Ferdinand II set the course of Austrian Habsburg policy for the next century. By creating an independent Austrian court chancellery and by establishing in his will the principles of Austria’s indivisibility and of primogeniture in his family, he made an essential contribution to the country’s national integration. Yet by maintaining the country’s historical provinces and estates, after their subjugation, he preserved the principle of federalism in Austria. Ferdinand’s Roman Catholic contemporaries considered him a saintlike monarch; his Protestant opponents feared him as a tyrant. Roman Catholic historiography of the 19th century assigned him too high a place, while liberal historians were likely to underestimate his importance. Modern historians tend to view Ferdinand’s religious policy as determined by his time, to acknowledge his importance in molding Austria’s provinces into an integral whole, and to see in his imperial policy an attempt at creating a Roman Catholic German state, however inconsistently carried out.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top ... rdinand-II

[loCAtek]

I beg your pardon, but what does that good gentlemen have to do with King Ferdinand II, King of Spain, of whom we were speaking?

Ferdinand II



Ferdinand II, byname Ferdinand the Catholic, Spanish Fernando el Católico (born March 10, 1452, Sos, Aragon—died Jan. 23, 1516, Madrigalejo, Spain), king of Aragon and king of Castile (as Ferdinand V) from 1479, joint sovereign with Queen Isabella I. (As Spanish ruler of southern Italy, he was also known as Ferdinand III of Naples and Ferdinand II of Sicily.) He united the Spanish kingdoms into the nation of Spain and began Spain’s entry into the modern period of imperial expansion.



http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top ... rdinand-II

[Gob]

Nothing at all, just like all the shite you've been posting...

[Sean]

LMFAO

[loCAtek]

...Ah well thX, I do know my shit!

Such as; Spain is not Germany; and a King is not a Holy Roman Emperor.

[loCAtek]

Interesting, but he quotes several passages suggesting they were written to refer to Ferdinand, when they do not

I defer to you since I don't know Machiavelli's works well at all, and usually just the hearsay about him. I made my comments, based on the assertions in the links I provided about King Ferdinand II of Aragon, Spain.

Whatever you'd like to share, would be welcomed.