@lordbelh said in Historical Mu* - Looking for interested Staff:
@Lotherio If you want everybody to be tolerant, why the hell have two separate religions in the first place? Part of the tension of that period of time, in that place, was the fear that one side was on the brink of being utterly wiped out, that god was forsaking them, etc, etc. If you take the religion out of the equation, there's actually nothing particularly special about your setting.
The tension at the time is being gorged by taxes and wanting freedom to control your own resources. Same thing we argue in politics now, same thing Crispus Attucks took the first bullet for, freedom. Any painting on what Crispus did about religions freedoms and beyond is done by historians, but the colonies wanted economic freedoms and their autonomy to be true autonomy.
Saying Asturias rose because of religion and religious tension is about the same as saying the American Revolution is about religious tension cause some folks wanted religion freedom. Did religious differences abound at the time, certainly, but between those fighting for American Freedom, not as a result of the King of England wanting to bank off the colonies. I personally see more religious difference in early America between settlers and moving to other areas to have those freedoms rather than wanting to fend off the people collecting the taxes in the end because the other side practiced a different religion.
We are not saying there is no intolerance, we are saying there is no interest in the worst of the worst. There is a difference.
Edit on history:
Much as @bored has pointed out, pedantics will come up between folks insisting on actual history (subjective to their favorite historians take, and they debate these things themselves) and those wanting Hollywood version. Religious pedantics will just crop up because some people just have to go there and can't just play nice.
I can only suggest folks actually take a look at this time period. The Reconqiusta is 700+ years of Spain and Portugal taking shape, carved as it is by Romans, early other conquering forces (Goths/Visigoths). The religious bend doesn't really become a thing until 9th century (just in reference) and more prominent later in the developments in the area, probably in conjunction with the cruscades and just as likely a propaganda tool to paint 'differences' and others as 'in human' or different.
Wikipedia, like it or lump it, is probably closest to the neutral view of history. Versus suggesting the conquest and the early 'reconquest' were huge religious undertakings or heavily influenced by religions at all; or the opposite, that it was all peace between the various groups (evidence suggests they lived in the towns together, but no different than any country, US included, where ethnic groups tend to have their own neighborhoods).
The write up under Kingdom of Asutias and the write up under the Umayyad Conquest of Hispania (check the invasion and the administration section here).
Everything thing else suggestion religious intolerance and that this was a time of religious debacle and debate has been other users suggesting it based on the works of a historian or two (not the entirety of works of numerous historians). It is history, like it or lump it, just the neutral ground points more to politics, alliances and other divisions that do not equate to 'we are Christians, we most remove Muslims' or 'we are Muslims, we most conquer them because they are Christians'.