Over at the wide-ranging and consistently interesting Economic History Blog, Ben reviews an article by Molly Greene which says that the northern powers did not simply displace the Mediterranean ones, but that instead there was a sort of interregnum, a vacuum filled by “pirates and lesser powers such as Malta [who] created a climate of constant violence on the sea. Commercially smaller players thrived, in particular the Greeks.” Echoing what we already know of the Reconquista–by no means simply Moors vs Christians–he writes:
Unlike what the commonly used lexicon of Holy War could let us believe, there was no strict religious divide. Merchants from a religion were often protected by governments of another religion, while pirates regularly attacked coreligionists. “Certain apparently impermeable boundaries were actually crossed with some regularity and little fuss”. For instance, the English captains were forced by treaty to defend their Muslim Tunisian passengers against Christian pirates.
Similar posts
- Bollocks in 16th century Spanish writing
Where arse turns up regularly in jokes, proverbs and stories, bollocks–cojones–in CORDE’s version of sixteenth century Spain seem to be confined - Symbols of French nation and state: rooster vs eagle in the 18th & 19th century corpus
With some vague rabbitings on my silence and the rebirth of the humanities. - Unnacompanied into the woods?
The other day someone gave me the (impeccable) English translation of Gabriel Tortella’s classic El desarrollo de la España contemporánea. Historia - more sport = more votes?
Although Spanish playing fields are not the 2m-deep clay solution of their English cousins, I’m still a bit surprised that Zapatero - Irak/Irac/Iraq
There’s an interesting comment by Antoni to a piece in which he mysteriously comes to the conclusion that an article dealing
Comments