History as no one else knows!

Message Share Topic Printable Version Google Delicious Digg StumbleUpon Windows Live Yahoo Bookmarks reddit Facebook MySpace Newsvine Furl Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic

Originally posted by DreamWeaver

It is trivial becaue your debating semantics that arent even relavent. There are not ties of vassalage between Al-Kamil and Frederick II, no personal oaths of loyalty and subserviance, Frederick's entire career shows that he serves no man. Also even if your argum,ent were true and had any basis, which it doesnt, simply being granted permission to enter does not a vassal make. The city itself was returned to the Franks by the treaty in February 1229, it was in their posession again. Frederick only enters the city in March 1229 after it has been returned. Frederick didnt need permission to enter the city, because it was his as King of Jerusalem. He didnt need to ask permission of Al-Kamil because it was no longer under muslim control. It ws his city, under his control. Not vassalage.

I sort of figured you would respond in such a manner!    But relevancy that I see, may not be relevant to you since you follow the consensually approved version of the past whereas, I do not!

Following your rules, we must consider that the Muslim leader(s) just moved out of the way in Jerusalem (one of there most holy of cities) and welcomed the infidels to go where ever they wanted!  Of course no one has ever seen a copy of the so called treaty, and thus we only know of it as a "treaty" via Christian sources!  Thus most of what you use as "fact" is, again, only ancedotal material!

Again your very quotation betrays you!  

Where are the Islamic sources?  If some exist, just how ancedotal are they?

You see semantics are sometimes relevant and sometimes not!  Via semantics, I conclude that a "King of Jerusalem" cannnot really be considered one if the King does not control Jerusalem!

Thus, for reasons unknown to modern historians, like yourself, the Islamic authorities in Egypt, gave Fred a reason to be able to brag that he had restored Jerusalem to Christianity!  But, we do not know just what price Fred actually paid?

Perhaps it was hundreds of thousands of Sous!/ Dinars / Sheckels, etc.?  Perhaps it was a promise that Christian Europe and its Christian allies in the Levant, whould not raise any arms against Egypt or Islam for ten years?

Your words, from the above;  "There are not ties of vassalage between Al-Kamil and Frederick II, no personal oaths of loyalty and subserviance, Frederick's entire career shows that he serves no man."

Yes a good retort, but Fred was in somewhat of a quandry concerning his relationship with the Pope and Rome in general!  Thus, to be able to return into the good graces of "your Grace" himself, there is little to argue about, if Fred did indeed place a "personal oath of loyalty between himself and Al-Kamil!"  If indeed he did so, there is little way anyone other than the two leaders knew of it, or if there was a signed document, there was little reason for Fred to keep his copy!  After all, he was the "Holy Roman Emperor!"

"Denial, is not a river in Egypt!" 

Perhaps, "perhaps", is the most apt word here?  

Thanks for your always, well considered replies!

Edited by opuslola - 20-Aug-2010 at 17:22