Dear Cover to Cover, D. Smithson, moderator:

This subject is so vast several doctorates are possible to address it.

Your guest had interesting and admittedly novel views on this topic.

He only mentioned one of two thirty, ( 30 ), years wars and totally avoided any mention of the hundred years wars, 1337 - 1453. Oversimplifying: increased European populations, dwindling arable soil with unprecedented trade route competition and emerging industries were contested between European nobels, manarchs, pope's, the Roman Church, for control of the new vast wealth realized from emerging technologies that enchanced market expansions. The conflicts were centered on controlling knowledge, new technologies and populations while reserving their exploitation exlusively for the benefit of the ruling elete, a familiar theme. The question was, who would be that elete and who would have the right to benefit the most?

He overlooks the hard sell of any type of christianity over pegan Europeans. Patriachial hegonomy was a common European theme among the rights to ascendency to a crown and inheritence. A female was overlooked to the French crown because she was not a man so a son of the brother of a deceased king was chosen with the approval of the papacy. This would not have occured in the English crown where heads roled to enable the divorce of a monarch, ostensibly for religious preferences, the inspiration for an English bible and again more and better, local control of the subjects.

The problems remaining in Northern Ireland, the middle East and Bosnia are religiously rooted. Not much historical time has passed since most people in Western civilization were ruled by theocracies. Hassner also neglects the conflicts and influences contributed by Muslim and Islamic rule over modern Europe and the extent they influenced the onset of the Renessance.

I can't speak of Hassner's motivs or why he is said to be popular with students but from what his remarks represent; he appears suspicious in his attempt to revise history by down playing the contributions and motivations that religious rulers have played in armed conflicts, seemingly unresolvable and enduring over many, many lifetimes. Then, as now, follow the money. In the context of historical, economic politics, Hassner has relevant credibility.

I consider many of Hassner's directions of emphasis and ommissions, heretical.

Celie C.