In my opinion, it is a good analysis from a historical point of view. Especially the critique of the "historiography of the painting." It's not easy to find such insights on Debaser. However, I am a bit perplexed by the idealism and faith that you suggest would emerge from certain figures. Undoubtedly, these are part of every person, their convictions, and their culture, but from the conclusion, it seems that the idea that the Battle of Lepanto was merely the resolution of a conflict between two cultures emerges too strongly, almost Spenglerian (which I obviously do not believe). In short, that part lacks the materialist aspect in your analysis, an aspect that still seems predominant in the review.
Thank you for stopping by and leaving such a nice comment. Speaking of Lepanto, I believe that the tactical and material level intertwines with the spiritual one. The battle was indeed a decisive reaction to a state of siege of which Mediterranean Europe was objectively a victim, but it's important to consider that there would have been no Holy League, and no battle, if the various European powers had not put aside their particularisms. The true mediator was Don Giovanni, and he succeeded because he always acted in the name of faith. His figure is indeed exceptional, and in his time, he could be considered enlightened and even tolerant.
That they have set aside their particularisms is a fact, and I have nothing to say about it. But as it has always been, everyone tends to mind their own business, so to speak, hehe, and despite the sincerity of one’s ideas and beliefs, history has never been written for mere ideals (whether unfortunately or fortunately is up for debate, though I tend to lean toward the latter). It was just that in a certain part, the discussion on cultural clash didn’t seem too clear to me, and it seemed that the material aspect was being overlooked. But I see that what you call "spiritual" has been brought back.
The Ottomans too acted in the name of their faith, the spread of which by the point of the sword was one of the strongest bonds of their multi-ethnic society. Thus, from a certain point of view, the battle was indeed a clash of religions. My analysis, ultimately, is just a draft that aims more to stimulate reflection than to provide answers, but what I care about is trying to illustrate the various elements that coalesce at the climax of the battle and that go well beyond, as you rightly point out, a mere clash of cultures.
You are right.. Just consider what the Venetians did, allied with the Turks until the day before Lepanto and once again allies a few months later, despite having emerged victorious. They conducted their business in a way that could be defined as unscrupulous but was nothing more than political realism. However, their participation in the battle was driven by a different impulse.. It was the horror at the massacre of Famagusta, the contempt for Venice itself, and the public outrage at having allied with infidel murderers that pushed, at that particular emotional moment, to take the field against the allies of a week before..
Yes, quite shareable. I find something to argue about regarding the discussion of the French Revolution (liberté, égalité, fraternité—after the Restoration, very little remained) that swept away the Renaissance political system (be clear, please: which political system?). Since I’m at it, I raise a question: how much does the end of the Ottoman caliphate and the loss of geopolitical preeminence by any Muslim state entity have to do with the rise of fundamentalism?
For clarity, it is not accurate to speak of a Renaissance political system. My reference is to the fact that the Enlightenment and the Revolution instilled ideas of rationalism and nationalism that have, among other things, led European powers to feel paternalistically superior to the rest of the world to the point of feeling legitimized to lead it at any cost. I believe that integralism arises when nationalism, exploited by Western powers, supplants the traditional policy of religious expansion that was at the core of the Ottoman social balance.
The ethnic pressures within an empire that used faith as both a glue and an economic engine have eliminated the relative tolerance enjoyed by the subjugated subjects. I wouldn't want to oversimplify things too much, but I believe that with social mobility nullified and Westernization reforms aborted for external reasons, what remains are ethnic rivalries and the strongly religious and codified spirit of the Quranic society; it is in this humus that fundamentalism has found nourishment.
In my opinion, the drive towards an imperialist European mindset has its roots in the late Middle Ages and fully materializes with the colonization of the Americas. We are quite in agreement on the discussion of integralism, although I wanted to emphasize the universalistic scope of Islam, which, as you pointed out, is opposed by the traditional Western practice of divide et impera.
Great, but my fellow countryman Pio V, in light of the role he played in putting the whole affair together, deserved at least a mention. I wasn't familiar with the painting: it has a nice dynamism of lines (an expression that came to me instinctively, with no pretension of claiming a competence I don't possess).
iside
17 nov 13extro91
18 nov 13Hetzer
18 nov 13extro91
18 nov 13Hetzer
18 nov 13extro91
18 nov 13Hetzer
18 nov 13extro91
18 nov 13hjhhjij
18 nov 13Hetzer
18 nov 13Safet Osmanovic
18 nov 13Hetzer
18 nov 13Hetzer
18 nov 13Safet Osmanovic
18 nov 13TheJargonKing
20 nov 13billyburke
20 nov 13Hetzer
20 nov 13Nico63
22 nov 13Hetzer
22 nov 13Rubik
11 jan 14gognavergogna
16 jan 14