PDA

View Full Version : The Crusades



Ironduke
01 Jan 04,, 20:26
ironman422
Registered User
(1/1/04 8:42)
Reply | Edit Re: CRUSADERS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe the aim of the Crusades was not unjustified, although many of the acts committed by the Crusaders were.

Christian Europe had been at the receiving end of an Arab and Turkish onslaught for over 400 years when the First Crusade was launched. Moors from Africa invaded and conquered Spain, and were only stopped at Tours in NW France by Charles Martel in 732.

Arabs were running amok in the Mediterranean, conquering Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica, parts of southern Italy, sacking Rome and St. Peter's basilica in 846 A.D. forcing the Pope to flee.

Throughout the 7th-9th centuries, there were multiple attacks on Constantinople by Arab fleets.

The Byzantines were being invaded by Seljuk Turk armies in the 10th and 11th centuries.

In the 10th century Moors from Andalusia set up pirate dens along the coast of southern France, disrupting commerce, raiding towns such as Marseilles, taking slaves, etc.

To suggest that the Crusades were unjustified wars of conquest is short-sighted.

Leader
01 Jan 04,, 22:24
The Europeans were responding to being attacked. Doubt that any acts committed by the Euros were any worst then acts committed by the Muslims. Besides judging ancient conflicts by modern standards is a waste of time.

Trooth
02 Jan 04,, 01:07
I agree that you cannot judge the ast by today's standards. For that reason i am not sure you can attribute more to the attacks on the Euros. they weren't coordinated int eh same way the response was.

Also we know the standards of the response, it was those 2000 year old teachings.

D.C
02 Jan 04,, 01:20
The crusades were begun with very noble and justified reasons. But as with anything that human hands touch, the methods used to make the idea come to life were less then noble.

Leader
02 Jan 04,, 02:55
Originally posted by Trooth
I agree that you cannot judge the ast by today's standards. For that reason i am not sure you can attribute more to the attacks on the Euros. they weren't coordinated int eh same way the response was.

Also we know the standards of the response, it was those 2000 year old teachings.

Which were interpreted very differently 1000 years ago.

Officer of Engineers
02 Jan 04,, 04:59
Well, that's an assumption that both the Crusaders and the Sword of Islam were both united against each other. The fact was that it was not one big war nor a bunch of little wars but a migration of both east and west of marauders.

What people tend to forget is that the Turks originally came from the Mongol Steppes and their move into the Middle East was anything but peaceful. Perhaps only the Mongols surpassed their feriocity.

Trooth
02 Jan 04,, 19:15
My point is that whatever your interpretation. People of the time felt that the only way to achieve a proper society was to ensure that only their morality and culture was pre-eminant. They took their justifcation for this from their teachings and proceeded to debate the matter at length using swords.

Leader
02 Jan 04,, 19:19
Originally posted by Trooth
My point is that whatever your interpretation. People of the time felt that the only way to achieve a proper society was to ensure that only their morality and culture was pre-eminant. They took their justifcation for this from their teachings and proceeded to debate the matter at length using swords.

So that makes the Crusades unjustified? How?

Trooth
02 Jan 04,, 19:38
Because it isn't a civilised way to behave. And one of the principles of the crusades was to liberate the civilised lands from the barbarians.

If we took that argument to its logical conclusion we would still believe the earth was flat, that the heavans revolved around it and the different races of humans were in fact different species.

Leader
02 Jan 04,, 19:50
Originally posted by Trooth
Because it isn't a civilised way to behave. And one of the principles of the crusades was to liberate the civilised lands from the barbarians.

If we took that argument to its logical conclusion we would still believe the earth was flat, that the heavans revolved around it and the different races of humans were in fact different species.

The ancient Europeans simply respond to and invasion of their lands with an attack of their own. I can't fault them for taking the only course they could. You label them uncivilized. Be what standard can you judge a 1000 year people. Did they kill civilians? Sure. But that was the reality of the time.

Trooth
02 Jan 04,, 20:07
Well, the interpretation fo the time was the the vile race should be removed from the civilised lands int he name of Christ and Christ's teachings. Further they were to not be contained, or controlled by wiped out.

Christ's teachings remain the same today as they were then and whislt i am not a religious person i am not convinced He would endorse said genocide.

Leader
02 Jan 04,, 20:13
Originally posted by Trooth
Well, the interpretation fo the time was the the vile race should be removed from the civilised lands int he name of Christ and Christ's teachings. Further they were to not be contained, or controlled by wiped out.

Christ's teachings remain the same today as they were then and whislt i am not a religious person i am not convinced He would endorse said genocide.

Christ’s teachings are in fact very different today, then they would 1000 years ago. For one, those teachings are put in a very flowery light now. A thousand years Jesus wasn't seen as all peace and love, like he is today.

Officer of Engineers
03 Jan 04,, 03:58
I think people got alot of things mixed up here. There were over 5 major Crusades and about 11 minor ones. Not all of them and in fact, not one can be attributed to any one single goal.

To state that Europe was responding to Islamic invasions ignore the fact that Europe wasn't united. The English couldn't care less about the Spaniards and their Crusades against the Moors. The French were allied with the Turks to check the Russians. In fact, the Europeans were fighting more amongst themselves than against Islam. Even Richard the Lionhearted was kidnapped for ransom in Europe.

About the only thing that gave the Crusades some sort of historical unity was the call by the various Popes to embark on liberating the Holy Lands.

On the other side of the coin, the Arabs were far from being united. Salidin was not a military leader by any stretch of the imagination. He managed to negotiate a truce between the various factions and even then, it wasn't wholly united. You've had various tribes that were actually bribed by Constinople to stand aside.

About the only thing that can be said about the Crusades was that it was a mess from beginning to end.

Lunatock
03 Jan 04,, 05:00
Off the top of my head. Probably the biggest screw up was when Jerusalem was taken the first time. English Knights, maybe also French Knights.

They tried three times to get over the wall, into the city. Figuring God was mad at them. They decided to atone for any sins. By walking around the city barefoot. Once each time for all three times they were kept out.

As soon as they made the third trip around. They rushed to put thier shoes back on. And attacked Jerusalem in a frenzy.

This time, they managed to breach the wall. Then proceeded to start killing Muslims and Christians alike. The Jews in Jerusalem tried to bribe the Knights. And were instead locked in a Synagogue, and it was burned down.

The same book I read that from, said that in some places the blood was knee deep. And that is where the saying, "The streets shall flow with the blood of the non-believers", originated from.

TopHatter
04 Jan 04,, 05:28
I personally that it's sick that those animals set out to "liberate" the "Holy Lands" at the behest of the Pope, the "supreme spritual leader" of Christianity and ended up raping, butchering and plundering everything they happened upon that wasnt bolted to the ground

Officer of Engineers
04 Jan 04,, 05:47
I think people lose sight here that Christiandom was not united. The original call was by the Byzantium Emperor, the head of the Greek Othadox Church to Roman Catholic Europe. The way the Roman Catholic Europeans behaved in Constinople, the Greek Othadox Church must have wondered would the Muslims be any worst.

Ironduke
19 Jan 04,, 02:15
I truly wonder sometimes what the world would be like today if the Crusaders in the 4th Crusade had chosen not to conquer Constantinople.

For it's entire history, the Byzantine Empire served as a buffer between East and West holding off Arabs and Turks over the successive centuries.

The Byzantine Empire may have very well survived, and even expanded into some of it's old dominions had not the Crusaders taken Constantinople.

Also, though, the Renaissance, sparked by arrival of Byzantine refugees in Italy in the 15th century, might have been delayed considerably.

There was a saying in Gibbon's book, that in the mid-15th century, the population of Constantinople would have rather seen a turban in the city than whatever the Roman Catholic headress was.

coldharvest
28 Mar 04,, 15:36
Sir!
I respectfully submit a paragraph from "A History of the Crusades" by Sir Steven Runciman.

By nightfall on 3 June there was no Turk left alive in Antioch;
and even from nieghbouring villages to which the Franks had never penetratted the Turkish population had fled, to seek refuge with Kerbogha. The houses of the citizens of Antioch,
of Christians as well as of Moslems, were pillaged. The treasures and the arms found there were scattered or wantonly destroyed. You could not walk on the streets without treading on corpses, all of them rotting rapidly in the summer heat.
But Antioch was Christian once more.

Sir.

The Chap
20 Aug 04,, 08:21
Not a fair question as phrased. Were they justified? Depends really. What are the criteria? I'd love something more specific !

The Chap
20 Aug 04,, 08:39
The crusades were begun with very noble and justified reasons. But as with anything that human hands touch, the methods used to make the idea come to life were less then noble.

BOLLOCKS. Urban II was up for a srap partially due to loss of trade income and then green Venitian eyes turning to the decadently defended Constantinople and with her near incomprehensible wealth. Also a politically astute move to - at least temporarilly - unite an increasingly fractious Cristendom. Don't forget that even in the period from the first to the fifth Crusades most of european Christendom was more buisilly engaged killing each other. The French, ever keen to make money out of the Middle East, were only hampered in their efforts by the fact that the English and her allies, (no Act of Union yet; ~ 1602?) the Welsh (longbowtastic), the Scots ("Braveheart" is bs) and Irish mercs kept wiping out their dynastic lines in every single battle that is legend: Crecy, Poitiers, Agincourt. This guaranteed infighting. I'm not even going to start on Germanic europe.

The Chap
20 Aug 04,, 08:41
My point is that whatever your interpretation. People of the time felt that the only way to achieve a proper society was to ensure that only their morality and culture was pre-eminant. They took their justifcation for this from their teachings and proceeded to debate the matter at length using swords.

Plus ca change eh?

The Chap
20 Aug 04,, 08:55
Off the top of my head. Probably the biggest screw up was when Jerusalem was taken the first time. English Knights, maybe also French Knights.

They tried three times to get over the wall, into the city. Figuring God was mad at them. They decided to atone for any sins. By walking around the city barefoot. Once each time for all three times they were kept out.

As soon as they made the third trip around. They rushed to put thier shoes back on. And attacked Jerusalem in a frenzy.

This time, they managed to breach the wall. Then proceeded to start killing Muslims and Christians alike. The Jews in Jerusalem tried to bribe the Knights. And were instead locked in a Synagogue, and it was burned down.

The same book I read that from, said that in some places the blood was knee deep. And that is where the saying, "The streets shall flow with the blood of the non-believers", originated from.

I believe it was the French under the command - if such a thing can be said - of someone I frankly (ha, ha) can't recall.

Watcher
08 Nov 04,, 23:37
The sad thing is that the europeans claimed to fight against "barbarians", while the enemy culture was actually totally superior and more advanced than their own, as they still knew many things that the europes lost after the fall of the ancient greek and roman empires (thus the Dark Age) and were worlds behind their enemies in their science and education :rolleyes:

Patrick Brazil
30 Jan 05,, 01:58
The sad thing is that the europeans claimed to fight against "barbarians", while the enemy culture was actually totally superior and more advanced than their own, as they still knew many things that the europes lost after the fall of the ancient greek and roman empires (thus the Dark Age) and were worlds behind their enemies in their science and education :rolleyes:

What about Muslim culture was 'totally superior and more advanced' to European cultures during the crusades?

Veni Vidi Vici
31 Jan 05,, 00:36
What about Muslim culture was 'totally superior and more advanced' to European cultures during the crusades?
At the time the Arabs had were more cultured and technolgicaly advanced then the crusaders. The arabs made great contributions to science and mathematics as well as other technoligies and arts. Cities controled by arabs at the time were actually much more comfortable then their european counterparts. You'd never know it today eh?

Jonathan Locke
12 Feb 05,, 03:13
I wonder, if the Pope was the one that led the Crusades, how come the Bible says that killing poeple is wrong, even if they are "infidels"? Was the world back then so ignorant that they could not see with their eyes the massacre they were comitting? i consider the crusades the first Holocaust

Hawg166
16 Feb 05,, 21:45
The Colonel was right you make more out of the start of the Crusades than what it was and you dont ponder what it became. Alexius asked for help period. Rome did not envisio the huge turn out that spread outside the nobility and into laeity. Chances are great that the nobles, werent very happy about it. It is true that many of the nobility had indeed made pilgrimages to the Holy Land prior to the call of the first Crusade. Stephen of Blois is an easy example. It is correct to assume then that the nobles knew some of the hardships that they would face just provisionng there own army, and could never have envisioned the logistical nightmare that would result from the huge turn out of laeity. The reasons for that are disputable, the second son syndrome, monastic reform and the changes in personal accountability for ones sin. There may have even been some wishing to die in the Holy Land considering the Apocolypse was surely at hand. Best to be found doing Gods bidding when He came back. Pick a reason anyone will work and all are valid to a point. But what became of the Crusades was not planned. It was plain and simple proprietarial warfare on a large scale. Land was conquered and land was givin back. It was more about economies than about religion among the mainstream nobility. Remember that the original plan was to liberate Jerusalem. Well Jerusalem did get liberated and the Crusades continued for hundreds of years. In fact Saladin negotiated to give Jerusalem back to the Crusaders in exchange for Acre but the Crusaders refused it. It was about proprietarial warfare pure and simple. With the exception of Stephen of Blois who went back to Jerusalem after returning to Europe, most nobles that were threatened with excommunication for not completing the pilgrimage didnt care. If they stayed to fight they faced loosing a kingdom in Europe to rivals. If they left and were excommunicated they could simply buy their way back in. On the level of the laeity I believe you would find more concern with religion. Again most peasants had never traveled to the Holy Land and only knew that it was a land of milk and honey. Thousands rallied to the preaching of Peter the Hermit who told them what a glory it would be. They never expected what they found on the road to Damascus. And as the Colonel said it was never a clearly defined set of sides. Saladin conquered Damascus and helped develop the concept of JIHAD from a strictly personel spiritual battle to an outward expression of spirituality. He conquered Muslims himself. Christians fought Christians true. Usually because they deserved it, like the Byzantines that asked for help but refused to feed the masses that came to help them. They deserved to get beaten by their own allies, but regardless evryone did fight everyone. The Crusades should never be looked at as a strictly Christian versus Islamic confrontation.
That is just an opinion didnt mean to ramble.

lwarmonger
16 Feb 05,, 21:57
I think people got alot of things mixed up here. There were over 5 major Crusades and about 11 minor ones. Not all of them and in fact, not one can be attributed to any one single goal.

To state that Europe was responding to Islamic invasions ignore the fact that Europe wasn't united. The English couldn't care less about the Spaniards and their Crusades against the Moors. The French were allied with the Turks to check the Russians. In fact, the Europeans were fighting more amongst themselves than against Islam. Even Richard the Lionhearted was kidnapped for ransom in Europe.

About the only thing that gave the Crusades some sort of historical unity was the call by the various Popes to embark on liberating the Holy Lands.

On the other side of the coin, the Arabs were far from being united. Salidin was not a military leader by any stretch of the imagination. He managed to negotiate a truce between the various factions and even then, it wasn't wholly united. You've had various tribes that were actually bribed by Constinople to stand aside.

About the only thing that can be said about the Crusades was that it was a mess from beginning to end.


That is very true, but I would like to add on that a lot of the impetus driving the crusades was the fact that Europe was so very splintered. You had a caste devoted to warfare, and much of what they did was war upon one another. Over a long period of time, this ravaged much of Europe (look into the companies in France during the Hundred year war, and their impact on society... a bit late for the crusades, but still a good example). Solution? Send the knights (often a very polite term for well equipped brigand) over to ravage someone else. The muslims were far away, but reachable, and heathens to boot, so sending all your excess fighting men there was a good idea.

This is referring to the crusades to the Middle East. The Crusades in Spain had a very different driving force behind them, and was more of a Spanish endeavour.

jon_j_rambo
21 Feb 05,, 04:52
Would need some more information about the Crusades. First thoughts, it didn't seem like self defense, rather murder. We are suppose to preach the word, not chop people up. Now, if it's in a valid defense of your nation, that is a different story, but it doesn't appear so.

FlyingCaddy
25 Feb 05,, 05:21
It's ironic that the most successful Crusade (the First) was commanded by mid level nobles. The one I remember most was Robert Guiscard's son Bohemund. The other thing is although the Crusade was foisted upon Alexius, he played it well have the crusaders pledge oaths of allegiance and restoration to him.

Metak
09 Apr 05,, 05:04
I wonder, if the Pope was the one that led the Crusades, how come the Bible says that killing poeple is wrong, even if they are "infidels"? Was the world back then so ignorant that they could not see with their eyes the massacre they were comitting? i consider the crusades the first Holocaust
The Koran say's the same thing, and there are more extremist islamic terror groups than any others, it's not often that you see Christians flying planes into building's is it?!! :mad:

Metak
09 Apr 05,, 05:05
If only the different Christian sects could come together and fight against our modern day common enemy, which is Islam

Watcher
05 May 05,, 21:07
The Koran say's the same thing, and there are more extremist islamic terror groups than any others, it's not often that you see Christians flying planes into building's is it?!! :mad:

Why should they? They have bombs to drop from their planes and missles to launch from far away, with a leader claiming to fight for god (among other things) :confused:

Bill
05 May 05,, 21:38
And when was the last time the US intentionally dropped a bomb into a skyscraper full of civilians?

Oh....

ChrisF202
05 May 05,, 22:16
Whats the deal with this move "Kingdom of Heaven". How biased is it? Has anyone seen it yet?

Watcher
06 May 05,, 10:49
And when was the last time the US intentionally dropped a bomb into a skyscraper full of civilians?

World War 2, although it were ordinary houses, not skyscrapers

After that there weren't intentional murders, but a lot of death civilians as part of the collateral damage

Bill
06 May 05,, 21:12
Everyone bombed civvies in WWII....long before the US became involved.

Watcher
07 May 05,, 02:44
Everyone bombed civvies in WWII....long before the US became involved.

Sure, I don't want to say that all were playing nice except the USA; just that the USA did some of the same dirty things too.

Others certainly did much more horrible things, but the USA are not without some guilt.

Praxus
07 May 05,, 03:48
Sure, I don't want to say that all were playing nice except the USA; just that the USA did some of the same dirty things too.

Others certainly did much more horrible things, but the USA are not without some guilt.

What we did, was moral. If you would like to debate it, Im game.

deadkenny
07 May 05,, 11:53
A good point was raised regarding the bombing of civilians in WWII, although I'm not sure this thread is the most appropriate place to debate it. Certainly not to single out the US in WWII, the Germans and Japanese started deliberate bombing of civilian targets. The British were less apologetic about it, with their 'area bombing' strategy. If anything the US was most insistant on at least trying to target strategic 'assets' rather than civilians in general. However, Dresden and Hiroshima had been cities that had not generally been targetted before being used for 'demonstrations' of devestation. 'Morality' isn't really the point IMHO, as it is not universal. Cannibals would say it's 'moral' for them to kill and eat other human beings. But I am curious as to the basis for the distinction, between say Hiroshima and 9/11. Is it the method (military bomber / nuclear bomb vs. hijacked civilian passenger plane), the target (entire city vs. large office towers), the overall context (open total war vs. 'peacetime') or the objective (total defeat of wartime opponent vs. forcing a policy change in a 'political' opponent)?

vivi
27 Sep 05,, 13:31
someone make use of it

EricTheRed
10 Apr 06,, 05:08
The Crusades were a defensive action against the Arabs who were invading Christian lands. IMO The Crusades were a good idea but horribly executed.

astralis
10 Apr 06,, 17:40
The Crusades were a defensive action against the Arabs who were invading Christian lands. IMO The Crusades were a good idea but horribly executed.

the crusades were a series of wasteful military actions initiated by a pope who was eager to consolidate his power and further extend his secular political might over the rising power of the kings. the kings themselves supported the crusades mostly because they wanted to send off their troublemakers and their nobles that would otherwise challenge their power. each king had their own personal and political reasons, for going, too. in the end, it was hardly an example of "united christianity" fighting for reasons of pure religious fervor. common soldiers and knights were told that by fighting for god they would gain their martyrdom and a free ticket in heaven, something they felt would be hard to get into because most of them could not afford indulgences.

the extent to which the crusaders felt they were on a "defensive action" can be seen by what they did to the people, both the byzantines and the christians in the region, whom they were supposed to be "defending."

the byzantines and those christians soon had a new saying: "better than the turban of the turk than the tiara of the pope."

Bulgaroctonus
11 Apr 06,, 21:38
The Crusades were a defensive action against the Arabs who were invading Christian lands. IMO The Crusades were a good idea but horribly executed.
Untrue. Some time before 1095, when Pope Urban II preached the First Crusade at Clermont in France, the Byzantine Emperor Alexius I (r. 1081-1118 AD) had petitioned the West for aid from the West. The cause was the Seljuk Turks , not Arabs, that had overrun Asia Minor after their stunning victory over the Byzantine Army and Emperor Romanus IV Diogenes at Manzikert in 1071 AD. In the insuing period of court intrigue in Constantinople, the Turks set up a sultanate on the Anatolian plateau that the Byzantines were unable to dislodge. Alexius, pressed on numerous fronts during the 1080s and 1090s, appealed for aid.

However, the greatest Muslim danger to the Holy Land had come much earlier. Caliph al-Hakim, one of the Fatimid rulers of Egypt, has been assessed by one scholar as 'a psychopath, ruling by whim and terror.' He murdered his personal servants, his senior officials and military leaders; he issued and rescinded illogical orders whenever the fancy took him. He also attacked Christian and Jewish communities as he pleased and in AD 1009 he ordered the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. News of this outrage reached Europe and undoubtedly helped to stimulate interest in the idea of freeing the Holy Land from the grip of the infidel - the unbeliever. [1]

1. Harris, Roberta L. The World of the Bible. 1995, Thames and Hudson Ltd,
London. p 175

EricTheRed
12 Apr 06,, 05:29
ok then Turks. The point is the pope didnt wake up one day and say. I feel like killing some innocent muslims and have not done anything. The Turks were taking Christian land and needed to be stoped.

astralis
12 Apr 06,, 06:09
ok then Turks. The point is the pope didnt wake up one day and say. I feel like killing some innocent muslims and have not done anything. The Turks were taking Christian land and needed to be stoped.

actually, ericthered,

that was probably fairly close to what the guy was thinking. the muslim turks (and arabs, earlier) had been fighting the byzantines for quite a while now; suddenly, the pope decides to get "holy" and wage a just war for christianity?

more like the invasion gave him the perfect opening to consolidate his power, and give him the opportunity to give the knights in europe something to do other than civil war and tournaments.

lwarmonger
12 Apr 06,, 08:44
that was probably fairly close to what the guy was thinking. the muslim turks (and arabs, earlier) had been fighting the byzantines for quite a while now; suddenly, the pope decides to get "holy" and wage a just war for christianity?

The pope doesn't just decide to "get holy." One must remember the mindset of the time. The Pope personifies "holy." And a cause espoused by the Pope is a "holy" cause. 1095 was a bit before the power of the church was questioned in any meaningful way.



more like the invasion gave him the perfect opening to consolidate his power, and give him the opportunity to give the knights in europe something to do other than civil war and tournaments.

While in part the case, it wasn't entirely. The original crusades were designed by the Pope to establish catholic control over the Holy Land, which was an important religious and temporal cause for the Church (and had been ever since the schism). It wasn't until the 13th and (especially) 14th centuries that the need to get the knights out of Europe became extremely pressing. The "companies" that were given so much sway during the Hundred Years war had acquired too much power and needed an outlet other than looting the peasantry.

I think that far too much high nobility (and too many kings, for that matter) went on the first few crusades for them to simply be a matter of "getting the knights out of Europe." While waged for a number of reasons, initially at least some of the main motivation was religious.

astralis
12 Apr 06,, 23:53
lwarmonger,


The pope doesn't just decide to "get holy." One must remember the mindset of the time. The Pope personifies "holy." And a cause espoused by the Pope is a "holy" cause. 1095 was a bit before the power of the church was questioned in any meaningful way.

certainly, altho i meant as in the pope's own mindset. no doubt he was moved by religion, but there is no question in my mind he was concerned, first and foremost, by the opportunity to expand his secular powers.

obviously it's a fool's errand trying to argue that religious motivation had nothing to do with the crusades. but what i would like to mention- and what is far less covered upon- is that the crusades were certainly not motivated solely by "pure" ideals of religious fervor, but more on down-and-dirty power-plays.

Insomniac
13 Apr 06,, 02:53
450 years prior to the Crusades the Muslims attacked and massacred Christian cities of the Byzantine Empire. Muhammad told them to. Once they took over the cities they removed the right to freedom of religion. The Pope at the time did want to defend himself, but he was in a competition for power against the emperor. Between that period of time until the crusades Christian city fell one after a time and there was no retaliation. Then a bunch of Muslim turks came down from the North and slaughtered or tortured to death every Christian in the middle east. Then they decided to have the crusades and take back their land that the Muslims stole.

I am not defending the Crusades because they were fought without honor or morals, and shear corruption, but the Crusades were not unprovoked. The Muslims caused the Crusades to happen by attacking first. The Muslims always lie on that subject.

Again it must be noted that the Crusades were at the time that the Catholic Church as extremely corrupt (11th-13th centuries). No action can be taking as a true action of Christianity since no one really cared about what the Bible said at that time.
__________________________________________________ _______________


No one can really take any action done by the Christians in the middle ages as true Christianity, simply because of the corruption of the papacy. The Popes were the only ones with Bibles at the time and said whatever they thought was necessary to the people to get them to do what he wanted. The people could only pray he was telling the truth. The Catholic church killed Muslims, Jews, Pagans, and Christians. Christians during the middle ages that actually read the Bible and pointed out the many wrong doings of the pope, backing it with scripture, were quickly put to death. Some of the popes were even known to call upon the powers of heathen (Devil-like) Gods to help them win gambles. With Devil worshippers in the church that were only out for selfish gain and not to spread the word of God, as Christian’s claim their mission is, there was no doubt wars would break out.

The Protestant reform fixed these problems of the pope having total control. The Doctrine of Christianity never changed throughout the reform so Christianity did not have to change, but they had to break away from the corruption of the Catholic church. I searched through the doctrine of the Catholic church and found that it is regarded as demonic according to the Bible.


I did a study of the Crusades and these two posts I made earlier are basically what I found out. The Pope didn't even care about what the Bible said, he just acted as if what he was saying was straight from the Bible to get the people of Europe to do what he wanted. I say that everyone has the right to defend themselves.

Here is what the Bible says regarding others:




“You shall not murder.” –Exodus 20:13

“You shall not murder.” -Deuteronomy 5:17

“But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,” –Matthew 5:44

“Then Jesus said to him, ‘Put your sword back in its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.’” –Matthew 26:52

“Soldiers also asked him, ‘And we, what shall we do?’ And he said to them, ‘Do not extort money from anyone by threats or by false accusation, and be content with your wages.’” -Luke 3:14

“Jesus answered, ‘My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not of this earth.’” –John 18:36


In Luke chapter 22 Jesus did tell his disciples to buy swords, so I believe he wanted them to defend themselves, but only if their lives were at stake. The phrase "Turn the other cheek" did come from the Bible as well.


"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." -Matthew 5:38-42, NIV


"Turn the other cheek" refers to an insult. Christians are called to ignore insults or still be friendly to those who insult them. In regards to treating enemies the Bible says:



"A man who is kind benefits himself, but a cruel man hurts himself." Proverbs 11:17

"Do not rejoice when your enemy falls, and let not your heart be glad when he stumbles." Proverbs 24:17

"Do not say, 'I will do to him as he has done to me; I will pay him back for what he has done.'" Proverbs 24:29

"If your enemy is hungry, give him bread to eat, and if he is thirsty, give him water to drink,..." Proverbs 25:21

By definition, the Crusades were not a religious war for Christianity. The Crusaders just followed the words of the Pope, who was out for seelfish gain and didn't care about the Bible. By definition, it was a religious war for Islam. The Muslims commited atrocities in obedience to the Quran and Hadiths, while the Crusaders commited atrocities in disobedience to the Bible.


The Quran clearly states:


2:216 “Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that ye hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love athing whish is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not.

2:278-279 “O ye who believe! Observe your duty to Allah and give up what remaineth (due to you) from usury, if ye are (in truth) believers. And if ye do not, then be warned of war (against you) from Allah and His messenger…”

3:4 “… Lo! Those who disbelieve the revelations of Allah, their will be a heavy doom…”

3:12 “Say (O Muhammad) unto those who disbelieve: Ye shall be overcome and gathered unto Hell…”

3:28 “Let not the believer take disbeliever for their friends in reference to believers. Whoso doeth that hath no connection with Allah unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them…

3:32 “… Allah loveth not the disbelievers in his guidance.”

3:151 “We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve because they ascribe unto Allah partners, for which no warrant hath been revealed. Their habitation is the Fire, and hapless the abode of the wrong-doers.”

4:37 “… For disbelievers we prepare a shameful doom.”

9:5 “Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.”

There are hundreds of more verses that support violence in the Quran. I don't have the time to waist going through them all, though.

I say, yes, the Crusades were justified, but the atrocities commited there were not.

lwarmonger
13 Apr 06,, 04:14
obviously it's a fool's errand trying to argue that religious motivation had nothing to do with the crusades. but what i would like to mention- and what is far less covered upon- is that the crusades were certainly not motivated solely by "pure" ideals of religious fervor, but more on down-and-dirty power-plays.

Oh, I have no question about that! Medieval warfare was never pretty. However that being said, at the time a blood soaked cause could still be a noble one... as long as the blood soaking it was that of the heathen. And if fighting for the holy cause led to land and plunder... well the heathens are not worthy of what they have anyways.

The outlook of people in modern society has changed substantially in some areas within the last 200 years. With the advent of fully professional (and consistently paid) armies, the need for plunder to sustain one's soldiers has gone down considerably.

Shek
13 Apr 06,, 04:32
By definition, it was a religious war for Islam.
Then why did Christian and Muslim forces join together at points during the Crusades in order to better commit highway robbery?

Insomniac
14 Apr 06,, 05:02
Then why did Christian and Muslim forces join together at points during the Crusades in order to better commit highway robbery?

Just like the Pope didn't care what the Bible said, there were some crusaders who didn't care if what the Pope said was coming from the Bible and they were only out for selfish gain. The same goes for some of the Muslims. They just figured they could start their own mafia together.

jfruser
31 Oct 06,, 01:52
I voted, "Yes, but many of the acts committed during the Crusades were not."

It is a clash of civilizations, what do you expect to happen? This ain't beanbag. I would suggest reading the following through the lens of a medeval westerner.

I take the side of the West versus all comers and view the means used to defend the West as self-justified. Period.

The forces of Islam had overrun the majority of the Eastern Roman Empire and Visigothic Iberia. The ERE had themselves to blame, due to the hash they had made of their rule in the decades before the muslims stripped them of those pesky provinces in the Levant & N Africa and brought the words "existential struggle" new meaning by investing Constantinople.

Whatever the motivation on teh Crusades' participants, the disruption of muslim conquest and taking the fight to their lands was necessary and proper in the clash of civilizations.

Now we get to the "...but many of the acts committed during the Crusades were not" part.

Unfortunately, the West made a hash of it.

To truly take land, you must defeat the existing powers, disperse/remove the local inhabitants sympathetic to the old regime, and plant your own people there as colonists. Most crusaders went a-crusading, killed a few mohammedians, and returned to Europe. No lasting victory and transformation of the facts on the ground could be achieved that way. More "Old Testament" and less "New Testament."

Organization of the crusades was horrific. I leave it to others to recount the ways...

Attacking the redoubt that protects the West from Islam (ERE/Byzantium) was asinine and set up Islam to be a-knocking at Europe's door.

The wanton bloodletting was a terrific mistake, especially since they did not have the guts/foresight of the Romans to disperse the troublesome inhabitants. Perhaps Gibbon was right and Christianity is partly to blame Rome's and subsequent western failure to follow through.

To sum up, my reservations WRT the Crusades are in the execution, not the justification.



The sad thing is that the europeans claimed to fight against "barbarians", while the enemy culture was actually totally superior and more advanced than their own, as they still knew many things that the europes lost after the fall of the ancient greek and roman empires (thus the Dark Age) and were worlds behind their enemies in their science and education :rolleyes:
Well, now, if hte enemy culture was totally superior, just how did it manage to lose Jerusalem the first time 'round?

Oh, there were several/many areas where the muslims had it over the christians. The claim of "total superiority" is unjustified, IMO.

Point for Discussion (As all I have to back it up is speculation)
Also, just how much was Islam responsible for the wonderfulness of their dominion? The lands they captured were, for hte most part, civilized already. The Arab Bedouin tribesmen did not bring much to the table, culture-wise. Greco-Roman civilization in the former ERE lands and Hellenized lands to the east still clinging to the legacy of Alexander the Pretty Darn Good.

One could argue that the wonderfulness of medieval Islam was riding the legacy & coat-tails of Rome & Greece. That the more Islamicised the population became over the centuries, the less the population retained of their former Greco-Roamn and Hellenized civilization. The level of Islamic civilization starts to coast and then retards relative the West until the West overtakes Islamic civilization sometime after Lepanto or Vienna (after Sobieski's thumping of the Turks).

Or...the sheer vitality of Islamic culture re-vitalized the Greco-Roman & Helleized cultures and breathed new life into them...life that slowly faded as Islam faded.

Labud_NS
31 Oct 06,, 12:00
Crusades are totaly unjustified. The real reason is that catholic church wanted more territories. And those crimes in the name of the Christ... It's a heresy. Barbarians from west against great arabic and byzantine civilizations.

glyn
01 Nov 06,, 13:33
Crusades are totaly unjustified. The real reason is that catholic church wanted more territories. And those crimes in the name of the Christ... It's a heresy. Barbarians from west against great arabic and byzantine civilizations.


It is quite plain that you know nothing about the reason for a crusade in the first place. Please consult a reputable history book. It should prevent you from displaying your ignorance on the forum.

Labud_NS
01 Nov 06,, 13:49
I know the reason for the Crusades, because I'm learning it on university.
Byzantine emperor Aleksije (Alex) I asked for a few mercenary units from the west to help him against the Seldjuk Turks. Pope Urban II used that to claim the Holy War against the ubelievers who conquered the Jerusalem. This army came to conqer someone elses teritory. They did many crimes during those wars, especialy in Jerusalem and Carigrad (Constantinopolis).
I can hardly uderstand the first war, when they had an idea to liberate the Holy Grave (but not the crimes comited during it - crimes in the name of Christ). But, what connection has demolishing and robbing of the Byzantine empire with the liberating of Holly Grave?
The Western Europe was in dark age and Byzatium and Arabs were the real civilizations.

glyn
01 Nov 06,, 15:00
I know the reason for the Crusades, because I'm learning it on university.
Byzantine emperor Aleksije (Alex) I asked for a few mercenary units from the west to help him against the Seldjuk Turks. Pope Urban II used that to claim the Holy War against the ubelievers who conquered the Jerusalem. This army came to conqer someone elses teritory. They did many crimes during those wars, especialy in Jerusalem and Carigrad (Constantinopolis).
I can hardly uderstand the first war, when they had an idea to liberate the Holy Grave (but not the crimes comited during it - crimes in the name of Christ). But, what connection has demolishing and robbing of the Byzantine empire with the liberating of Holly Grave?
The Western Europe was in dark age and Byzatium and Arabs were the real civilizations.


To STUDY history, you need to do more than read a few books and memorise a lot of dates, my friend. You need to know what each side now knows about events, and what they thought to be the case then. Putting yourself into the mindset of the ancients is impossible, as human man has become much more sophisticated. If you research, I mean really research a period in history, you will realise that it is the work of a lifetime, and even then you are limited in the number of sources you can study. On any syllabus there is only so much time allocated to a student. It is not enough, hence the superficial 'gloss' of the modern undergraduate.

Labud_NS
01 Nov 06,, 18:05
You don't need "to hold me a letter", as we said, just tell me reasons why the crusades are justified if yuo are an expert for crusades.

glyn
01 Nov 06,, 19:25
You don't need "to hold me a letter", as we said, just tell me reasons why the crusades are justified if yuo are an expert for crusades.

I do not claim to be an expert on the crusades. I was attempting to give you some advice. Whether you take it or not is up to you. Your attitude is simply too juvenile for me to want to continue this correspondence.

Parihaka
01 Nov 06,, 19:34
Basic tenets. Europe was not in a dark age. That term was invented by an Italian, the first of the Humanists and has been discredited. The period of the crusades was a period of clashes of civilizations, the crusades were a small part of the ongoing wars between the states of Europe and the Caliphate. When you start to look at it from that perspective, your understanding increases.

Big Bob
01 Nov 06,, 19:50
Justification is an odd measurement for this subject. The Crusaders did some evil things, but yeah, I doubt they were worse than what the Arabs would've done. The Crusaders weren't really more evil than their enemies, who were probably more insane than the Christians ever could be. The perception that the Arabs are super nice, super advanced, ultra civilized good guys who were being picked on by the evil white European Christians is yet another retarded invention of political correctness, which is perhaps the worst thing ever invented by the Beast. It's like the idea that American Indians were noble savages and that they were very civilized, etc and didn't have any negative traits, and that the only reason they would ever fight back is because they're being picked on by the "white devils".

Labud_NS
01 Nov 06,, 20:00
Well, we have the facts: What Crusaders did when they conqered Jerusalem, and what Salladin did when he took it back?
And the main question:
Why was done the IV crusade war? It didn't have any relations with liberating the Holly Grave. The Byzantium were the christian empire. And the Constantinopolis suffered almost the same that Jerusalem suffered about 100 years earlier.

Parihaka
01 Nov 06,, 23:24
Well, we have the facts: What Crusaders did when they conqered Jerusalem, and what Salladin did when he took it back?
And the main question:
Why was done the IV crusade war? It didn't have any relations with liberating the Holly Grave. The Byzantium were the christian empire. And the Constantinopolis suffered almost the same that Jerusalem suffered about 100 years earlier.

You've got to start examining things in historical context. Take a look at the conquests and attacks against the Christian west, prior to and subsequent of, the crusades. Also examine the ongoing internecine wars within Islam itself. Now tell me again about the civility of Islam and the barbarity of Christendom:rolleyes:
http://www.barkati.net/english/chronology.htm

Labud_NS
02 Nov 06,, 12:44
I know that Arabs conquered the Spain, but there wasn't the massive slaghterers like this one at Jerusalem.
Anyway, noone can tell me thing I ask the third time:

Why was done the IV crusade war? It didn't have any relations with liberating the Holly Grave. The Byzantium were the christian empire. And the Constantinopolis suffered almost the same that Jerusalem suffered about 100 years earlier.

ahmet
02 Nov 06,, 15:24
I know that Arabs conquered the Spain, but there wasn't the massive slaghterers like this one at Jerusalem.
Anyway, noone can tell me thing I ask the third time:


Quote:
Why was done the IV crusade war? It didn't have any relations with liberating the Holly Grave. The Byzantium were the christian empire. And the Constantinopolis suffered almost the same that Jerusalem suffered about 100 years earlier.

Cos Constantinapolis were very rich at that time and the crusade forgot their real mission passing by Byzantium. So, they decided to loot the richness of the city. Btw, Byzantium was Orthodox. And of course that's a big black dirt in the history of the Christianity.

Labud_NS
02 Nov 06,, 15:50
That's what I want to say, the real cause of crusades, especialy for the IV war was robbery of rich civilizations such as Byzantine and Arab.

Parihaka
02 Nov 06,, 20:16
That's what I want to say, the real cause of crusades, especialy for the IV war was robbery of rich civilizations such as Byzantine and Arab.
Name me a war that isn't about stealing someone else's resources.

Labud_NS
02 Nov 06,, 20:51
There are few wars that isn't about stealing someone else's resources (for example I Balkan war). But those wars are few. And those wars are not justified. Only two kind of wars are justified: defensive wars and liberating wars.

astralis
02 Nov 06,, 21:51
labud,


Only two kind of wars are justified: defensive wars and liberating wars.

that's not good enough. by 1945 nazi germany was fighting a defensive war, and i'd still say that wasn't justified by a long shot.

as for liberating wars, one's definition of liberation may not be another's...

you need to look at wars on a case-by-case basis, and through the concepts of jus en bello and jus ad bellum.

Labud_NS
02 Nov 06,, 21:59
labud,



that's not good enough. by 1945 nazi germany was fighting a defensive war, and i'd still say that wasn't justified by a long shot.

as for liberating wars, one's definition of liberation may not be another's...

you need to look at wars on a case-by-case basis, and through the concepts of jus en bello and jus ad bellum.

You're right about that we need to look at wars case-by-case. But, when I say defensive war, I mean the defensive war in it's roots.;)

Parihaka
02 Nov 06,, 22:19
as for liberating wars, one's definition of liberation may not be another's...

Depends also on what exactly it is that you are liberating;)

Bill
03 Nov 06,, 02:13
About the only thing that can be said about the Crusades was that it was a mess from beginning to end.
This can be rightly said- with a very few very famous exceptions- about any war in history.

War is a chaotic beast.

Amled
06 Dec 06,, 11:45
This can be rightly said- with a very few very famous exceptions- about any war in history.
Wan'na start a thread about the exceptions?

fazyninja
16 May 07,, 17:44
At the time the Arabs had were more cultured and technolgicaly advanced then the crusaders. The arabs made great contributions to science and mathematics as well as other technoligies and arts. Cities controled by arabs at the time were actually much more comfortable then their european counterparts. You'd never know it today eh?
To name a few cordoba, toledo, granada, baghdad, damascus are the few that spring to mind.

fazyninja
16 May 07,, 18:33
"Well, now, if hte enemy culture was totally superior, just how did it manage to lose Jerusalem the first time 'round?

Oh, there were several/many areas where the muslims had it over the christians. The claim of "total superiority" is unjustified, IMO."

well maybe they lost it the same way they lost spain, which was that they had more of their attention on making their lands better and less effert put into the army (i also know that at the time in spain muslims were begining to divide, but thats a different matter) whereas the ottoman empire was a bit of both,
"The Ottomans were the first state to maintain a standing army in Europe since the Roman Empire. The Janissaries have been likened to the Roman Praetorian Guard and they had no equivalent in the Christian armies of the time, where the feudal lords raised troops during wartime"

that statemeant shows two things, first that islam (well ottomans at least) were more advanced in military and second that the ottomans put a lot of effort into expanding rather than increasing status as a place of culture and
knowledge as al andalus (islamic spain) did.

i have been reading most of the threads on islam and i find that when anyone says something like islam was more advanced people always seem to mock the idea, without knowing any of the facts, i mean we all know about some of the other great empires like rome and persia, and i am not say islam was better in every aspect from its rivaling medival empires, but if you do some reading you will be fairly suprised as to what the muslims did in some places such as spain. i am NOT saying that you have to read about it to understand the time period but its a good read and was very inspiring for me. (sorry for the sp)

Kansas Bear
16 May 07,, 22:11
that statemeant shows two things, first that islam (well ottomans at least) were more advanced in military and second that the ottomans put a lot of effort into expanding rather than increasing status as a place of culture and
knowledge as al andalus (islamic spain) did.

Which murdered Christians WELL before the crusades were even contemplated.


i have been reading most of the threads on islam and i find that when anyone says something like islam was more advanced people always seem to mock the idea, without knowing any of the facts, i mean we all know about some of the other great empires like rome and persia, and i am not say islam was better in every aspect from its rivaling medival empires, but if you do some reading you will be fairly suprised as to what the muslims did in some places such as spain. i am NOT saying that you have to read about it to understand the time period but its a good read and was very inspiring for me. (sorry for the sp)


Consider that western "Europe" was in a tranformation phase following the collapse of the WRE, when Muslim armies started raiding from Sicily to Poitiers. What effects would there be on the "culture" and/or technological achievements for that area of the world? Read your history, most churches(St.Paul/St.Peter/Monte Cassino for example) were destroyed by these "armies". Following the fall of the WRE, churches were western europe's centers of learning.

fazyninja
17 May 07,, 00:30
i do not have the answers for that particular statment, but obvisouly instead of answering back with facts about how islam is not cultural you answered back with another how they have killed in the past, everyone else is pure and all that justifying what europe did that everyone goes on about all the time. in all fairness its a military website so i gues i should just go back to talking about man stuff, correct!

Kansas Bear
17 May 07,, 00:52
i do not have the answers for that particular statment,
No surprise there.




but obvisouly instead of answering back with facts about how islam is not cultural you answered back with another how they have killed in the past,
Check the topic of this thread. Apparently YOU are in the wrong place.




everyone else is pure and all that justifying what europe did that everyone goes on about all the time.

Wow. Typical generalization from someone that doesn't know history.




in all fairness its a military website so i gues i should just go back to talking about man stuff, correct!

Why don't you continue to talk about vague and unmeasurable concepts. While pretending you know something about the subject.:rolleyes:

Apache
13 Jun 07,, 13:54
well maybe they lost it the same way they lost spain, which was that they had more of their attention on making their lands better and less effert put into the army

Actually the Arabs lost Jerusalem the first time because they were divided politically & they couldn't unite against the Crusaders. It had nothing to do with wanting to make their lands better.


The Ottomans were the first state to maintain a standing army in Europe since the Roman Empire. The Janissaries have been likened to the Roman Praetorian Guard and they had no equivalent in the Christian armies of the time, where the feudal lords raised troops during wartime

This is a true statement & the Janissaries were an impressive force to be reckoned with. They had no equivalent to the Christian armies because the Janissaries were composed almost entirely of enslaved Christians I'm not aware of Europeans capturing Muslims wholesale & turning them into a army to fight their own people.


that statemeant shows two things, first that islam (well ottomans at least) were more advanced in military and second that the ottomans put a lot of effort into expanding rather than increasing status as a place of culture and
knowledge as al andalus (islamic spain) did.

The Ottomans were on par with the Europeans militarily, I wouldn't say they were more advanced. They took advantage of the division of the Western European Kingdoms; the same as the Barbarians took advantage of the Western Roman Empire's problems. The Christian Kingdoms in al-andalus eventually united & were able to re-conquer the entire Iberian peninsula because of Muslim infighting.

laertes
13 Jun 07,, 23:09
This is a true statement & the Janissaries were an impressive force to be reckoned with. They had no equivalent to the Christian armies because the Janissaries were composed almost entirely of enslaved Christians I'm not aware of Europeans capturing Muslims wholesale & turning them into a army to fight their own people. .

Let me guess, they would simply butcher them, right? why to raise armies from them, please dont sell stories about benevolent middle age christian history.

And slavery was a common practice ın these days virtually all over the world, you may not recall of capturing muslim boys but im sure you will remember how well treated black slaves on their journey to America..

Devshirme system, this system from which jannissaries were raissed, also used to raise highest administrative cadres of the empire, many if not most of the ruling elite of the empire born as christians..




The Ottomans were on par with the Europeans militarily, I wouldn't say they were more advanced. They took advantage of the division of the Western European Kingdoms; the same as the Barbarians took advantage of the Western Roman Empire's problems. The Christian Kingdoms in al-andalus eventually united & were able to re-conquer the entire Iberian peninsula because of Muslim infighting.

I would say Ottomans took advantage of a lack of a strong power on their entourage, in eastern europe and in Anatolia in their early beginnings but later faced difficulties as they faced with the united forces of christian europe as they enlarged and grew in power. And many western contemporaries were considering Ottoman armies as undefeatable in the 16th and 17th centuries, btw.

zraver
14 Jun 07,, 00:06
I would say Ottomans took advantage of a lack of a strong power on their entourage, in eastern europe and in Anatolia in their early beginnings but later faced difficulties as they faced with the united forces of christian europe as they enlarged and grew in power. And many western contemporaries were considering Ottoman armies as undefeatable in the 16th and 17th centuries, btw.

And then the end of the renascensse period and then the age of enlightenment and the early industrial revolution swamped the Ottomans in terms of technology, wealth, and population.

The Ottomans had gone into steady decline shortly after they took Constatinople. Thet still grew by fits and spurts, but the loss of the Italian trading centers coupled with new European ocean going technologies meant the economic fabric of the empire began to unravel, and what moneies they had became tied upin endless brushfire wars in the Balkans. By the time the young country known as the United States showed up willing to trade Turkey was willing to sign over its sovergien rights just to get some sort of trade going.

laertes
14 Jun 07,, 00:16
The Ottomans had gone into steady decline shortly after they took Constatinople.

Actuall it is assumed that they started to decline much later after 1683, loss of the battle of Vienna. In the late 16th and ealry 17th century they were most powerful after capturing Constantinople.

Apache
14 Jun 07,, 01:04
Let me guess, they would simply butcher them, right? why to raise armies from them, please dont sell stories about benevolent middle age christian history.

I never said Middle Age Christian history was benevolent, I said that they never had an army division composed entirely of former Muslims that were enslaved. Which is true. The Egyptians also had a similiar type army called the Mamluks. Not sure why you are putting words in my mouth.


And slavery was a common practice ın these days virtually all over the world, you may not recall of capturing muslim boys but im sure you will remember how well treated black slaves on their journey to America..

No doubt there Muslims who were made into slaves by Christians in the middle ages. But slavery wasn't as widespread in Western Europe during the Middle Ages... the Feudal System had taken its place.

Also remember that African Blacks weren't only exploited by what eventually became the USA. Prior to the 15th century, Arabs were the biggest exporters of African slaves, hence the development of cities such as Zanzibar & Dar El Salaam on the East African coast. Hell, the Africans themselves were brutal slaveowners. Europeans & Arabs didn't pull up to shore and grab Africans; stronger African tribes sold slaves to them. But that's another topic.

Only about 10% of the slaves that came from Africa ended up in the United States; the rest went to the Caribbean, South & Central America. Anyway, I bet none of the African-Americans here now would voluntarily go back to Africa. We've come a long way.


Devshirme system, this system from which jannissaries were raissed, also used to raise highest administrative cadres of the empire, many if not most of the ruling elite of the empire born as christians..
Interesting, I'll have to read more on the subject. Still seems pretty horrible that you could "tax" conquered people by taking their children as slaves for your army. Glad this practice isn't around.

Didn't the Turks eventually kill off the Janissaries in the 19th Century?

zraver
14 Jun 07,, 01:29
Actuall it is assumed that they started to decline much later after 1683, loss of the battle of Vienna. In the late 16th and ealry 17th century they were most powerful after capturing Constantinople.

Depends on PoV. As an example some people think Hilter Lost WW2 after the defeat at (insert battle here) while others contend his failure to go to a war time footing early enough doomed him to eventual defeat right form the start. I am contneding that the Turks closing off the med as THE major trade objective and focuse of Europe is what doomed thier economy and thus eventually the empire.

Triple C
14 Jun 07,, 08:21
I am more inclined to argue that the advances in European military technology and organization in the sixteenth century rather than the seventeenth began the decline of the Ottoman Empire. The Turks lost the First Siege of Vienna at 1529 and Battle of Lepanto at 1571 ended Turkish expansion at land and sea. In the former battle they hurled 120,000 men at a weakly held Vienna and was forced to turn back by a force less than one sixth their number. In Lepanto a joint Catholic fleet, composed of Spain, the myriad Italian city-states, and the Knights of Malta destroyed almost the entire Turkish navy. In both battles the European superiority in weaponry and shock infantry was decisive.

ExNavyAmerican
14 Jun 07,, 14:25
I think they were justified in the same way I think Iraq was justified.

The crusades were a series of wars just the same as any others. Yes, they were partly in pursuit of religious ends; but who cares? War is war, be the motive religious or political. And, in this case, the crusades were both.

This is my stance:

They probably saved Europe for a while longer by pinning down the Turks and Arabs, thereby halting the destruction of the slowly declining Byzantine Empire for a while.

They were in retaliation for Moslem persecution of Catholic and Christian pilgrims in the holy land; therefore justified politically.

The acts that were commited during the crusades were not that atypical for the day. They were worse because it was a war between two religions dead-set against each other, and the atrocities were commited by BOTH sides. And I don't condemn any of them. It was an uncivilized time.

glyn
14 Jun 07,, 15:53
[QUOTE=ExNavyAmerican;381797]

They were in retaliation for Moslem persecution of Catholic and Christian pilgrims in the holy land;

Surely the Christians were exclusively Catholic in this period? The great schisms had yet to come.

ExNavyAmerican
14 Jun 07,, 16:25
Surely the Christians were exclusively Catholic in this period? The great schisms had yet to come.

Catholic is used to refer to either Eastern Orthadox or Roman Catholic. When I said "Christian", I was refering to the "heretics".

The Great Schism had occured about 40 years before the 1st crusade.

I'd agree that there were mostly catholics in this time. But there were minor churches that were separate.

astralis
14 Jun 07,, 18:01
exnavyamerican,


They probably saved Europe for a while longer by pinning down the Turks and Arabs, thereby halting the destruction of the slowly declining Byzantine Empire for a while.



i highly, highly doubt that. it was the crusades that seriously helped to unify the bickering arabs, especially under the leadership of saladin. also, the fourth crusade resulted in the SACKING of constantinople- certainly not something that helped "halt the destruction" of the byzantine empire. the byzantines were certainly aware of this- they were so afraid of the eventual backlash of the arabs that they actually secretly sided with the arabs to impede the third crusade.



They were in retaliation for Moslem persecution of Catholic and Christian pilgrims in the holy land; therefore justified politically.

and the crusaders treated the christians in the holy land so well that soon, the popular saying among christians was "Rather the turban of the Turk than the tiara of the pope."

ExNavyAmerican
14 Jun 07,, 18:47
exnavyamerican,



i highly, highly doubt that. it was the crusades that seriously helped to unify the bickering arabs, especially under the leadership of saladin. also, the fourth crusade resulted in the SACKING of constantinople- certainly not something that helped "halt the destruction" of the byzantine empire. the byzantines were certainly aware of this- they were so afraid of the eventual backlash of the arabs that they actually secretly sided with the arabs to impede the third crusade.

I'm aware of what happened on the 4th crusade, but the point is that the Crusades pinned down the Arabs and Turks in the Middle East; thus diverting them from the Eastern Empire for 300 years. I don't buy your "they were afraid of a backlash" remark because the Crusades served many purposes. Some of which were to reinforce the Byzantines. The 1st crusade originated as a crusade to help the Byzantines at the request of emperor Alexius I, and was the most successful. It resulted in the reunification of the Moslem world, but that didn't help them much because the Crusader States remained until 1300 (200 years after the Arabs reunited) The fact is that the Crusades did indeed help Europe remain free for a couple centuries.

The 4th crusade went awry when it turned out that they didn't have the finances to make it to ALEXANDRIA, and were forced to take Zara. Then, a claimant to the Byzantine throne asked for help in a palace war in exchange for finances in support of the Crusade. But, when the emperor didn't pay up, the Crusaders sacked Constantinople FOR THE TIME BEING. The Byzantine Empire came back about 60 years later, and lived for 200 years. The 4th crusade merely strengthened the crusaders with plunder that was put to good use.


and the crusaders treated the christians in the holy land so well that soon, the popular saying among christians was "Rather the turban of the Turk than the tiara of the pope."

Again, you missed the point. The point is that the Crusades were military offences in legitimate wars. In war, crap happens. The Catholic church proved in an early instance how corrupt it is, but that's beside the point. Would you deny that the crusades were in support of military objectives? If you do, pick up a history book.

astralis
14 Jun 07,, 19:58
exnavyamerican,


I'm aware of what happened on the 4th crusade, but the point is that the Crusades pinned down the Arabs and Turks in the Middle East; thus diverting them from the Eastern Empire for 300 years.

it didn't pin them down so much as stir them up and organize them. and what the crusaders did during the fourth crusade, with the empire split into three states, probably did more to hurt the byzantine cause than the arabs and turks would have.


The 4th crusade went awry when it turned out that they didn't have the finances to make it to ALEXANDRIA, and were forced to take Zara. Then, a claimant to the Byzantine throne asked for help in a palace war in exchange for finances in support of the Crusade. But, when the emperor didn't pay up, the Crusaders sacked Constantinople FOR THE TIME BEING. The Byzantine Empire came back about 60 years later, and lived for 200 years. The 4th crusade merely strengthened the crusaders with plunder that was put to good use.

so, the crusaders saved the byzantine empire by plundering it and putting money to good use, eh ;)

in any case, what the crusaders did do, did not hold a candle to what the mongols did to the arabs and what the timurids did to the turks. that, more than anything, kept the byzantine empire going.


Would you deny that the crusades were in support of military objectives? If you do, pick up a history book.

i certainly didn't deny that. what i AM questioning is exactly how useful the crusades were for christians, when one of the lasting legacies of the crusades was the unification of the heretofore quarreling arabs, the sack of constantinople, and a situation where the christian inhabitants of the supposedly liberated holy lands preferred the turks to the crusaders.

ExNavyAmerican
15 Jun 07,, 01:20
it didn't pin them down so much as stir them up and organize them. and what the crusaders did during the fourth crusade, with the empire split into three states, probably did more to hurt the byzantine cause than the arabs and turks would have.

Granted. It organized the Arabs. But, it doesn't change the fact that the unified Arabs still had to contend with a Crusader army at their neck before they could finish off the Byzantines (known as the Defender of Europe).


so, the crusaders saved the byzantine empire by plundering it and putting money to good use, eh

Saving the Byzantines for the sake of it is secondary in this scenario. Them conquering the Byzantines is better the the Arabs or Turks doing it at the time because, if the Crusaders control the isthmus, it's not going to induce them to invader Europe. I was pointing out the value of the Crusaders saving the Byzantines so that their strategic position didn't fall to the Moslems. It wouldn't exactly matter if their strategic position fell to Europe. ;)

Though the Crusades were mostly military failures, they did serve a purpose; because even military offences due to fail have to be countered by an enemy army-an enemy army that can be used elsewhere. Namely, againt the Eastern Empire.


in any case, what the crusaders did do, did not hold a candle to what the mongols did to the arabs and what the timurids did to the turks. that, more than anything, kept the byzantine empire going.

I'll agree with you there. The Mogols completely overran the Turks and Arabs, and barely touched the Byzantines except for a raid conducted by Timur against Smyrna.


i certainly didn't deny that.

That's the agenda I'm trying to push. Because, if gotten through, it shows that the Crusades are nothing else but demonized military expeditions in legitimate wars.


what i AM questioning is exactly how useful the crusades were for christians, when one of the lasting legacies of the crusades was the unification of the heretofore quarreling arabs, the sack of constantinople, and a situation where the christian inhabitants of the supposedly liberated holy lands preferred the turks to the crusaders.

The unification of the Arabs and Turks would've happened anyway. And in this case didn't accomplish much. Because the Seljuk Turks were soon being challenged by the Ottoman Turks.

The point about the Christians is valid, but it was used as a reason to go to war; and it was legitimate. It's the same thing if your citizens are being herded into death camps. Regardless of what happened afterwards, it was a legitimate reason to go to war, and one of many.

The sack of Constantinople is probably one of the weiderst phenomena in history. It was so randome, and unexpected. But, in this case, it was a military success for the Crusades, and the Byzantines did stage a comeback under the Emperor of Nicaea. It certainly didn't help the Byzantines, but it was a successful crusade.

nabilfannoush
18 Jun 07,, 20:41
For me, the long and short of it, it depends on what one means by 'justified'.

If we take the 'official' reason for the crusades (i.e. bringing the light of Christianity back to the land "desecrated" by the "infidels") I doubt that either Jesus Christ or Mohammad would approve of the confusion and chaos of bloodletting that ensued, regardless of who won, so that as a justification has tanked.

From a military strategy point of view, it is very hard to asses a justification. As our distinguished officer has pointed out, it's not as if both sides were always united against each other in faith, purpose or strategy. Alliances and loyalties shifted and bickering and clashes were common on both sides with confusing constancy. hell there were times when Muslim Emirs and settled Crusader princes were actually allies against another alliance, and without getting into details, some victories and campaigns were nothing more than accidents.

Personally, if I may be excused for being cynical, the crusades were just a waste of everybody's time. Whole populations got slaughtered needlessly, cities were laid to waste, whole countries have been bled white of gold and men, and in the end everybody went home.

Guinnessman
19 Jul 07,, 22:45
For me, the long and short of it, it depends on what one means by 'justified'.

If we take the 'official' reason for the crusades (i.e. bringing the light of Christianity back to the land "desecrated" by the "infidels") I doubt that either Jesus Christ or Mohammad would approve of the confusion and chaos of bloodletting that ensued, regardless of who won, so that as a justification has tanked.

From a military strategy point of view, it is very hard to asses a justification. As our distinguished officer has pointed out, it's not as if both sides were always united against each other in faith, purpose or strategy. Alliances and loyalties shifted and bickering and clashes were common on both sides with confusing constancy. hell there were times when Muslim Emirs and settled Crusader princes were actually allies against another alliance, and without getting into details, some victories and campaigns were nothing more than accidents.

Personally, if I may be excused for being cynical, the crusades were just a waste of everybody's time. Whole populations got slaughtered needlessly, cities were laid to waste, whole countries have been bled white of gold and men, and in the end everybody went home.


In addition to defining what we mean by 'justification', we should maybe look at it from a contemporary point of view.

By the sounds of it Jesus would probably not have approved (Mohammed seemed a bit more keen for a decent scrap every now and again...). However, when Urban II called for the First Crusade, he did look to the writings of Church scholars for what constituted a 'just war'. And as far as most Catholics of the time were concerned, the Pope was basically God's mouthpiece. From their perspective, the Man Upstairs did approve.

Same with the situation re strategy. The First Crusade was an example of military coordination unheard of at the time. The fact that the Western Europeans - always jockeying with each other for advantage - managed to take Jerusalem and establish Outremer for such a long period of time is quite impressive, considering they were operating so far away from home territory in an area populated mostly by the adherents of an opposing religion, in a climate drastically different from their own.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not disagreeing with your basic premise. Just pointing out that at the time it was (initially at least) a remarkably succesful endeavour. The initial principles and ideals of the Crusaders were soon affected by a degree of realpolitik, which applies to the Muslims as well, as you rightly pointed out. I guess it really boils down to that most basic of justifications - if a plan involving dealing with a supposedly sworn enemy will mean the continuation of a hold on (for example) Jerusalem, then that there is justification enough.

astralis
24 Jul 07,, 20:04
guinnessman,

trying to look for "justification" here is the simplest thing in the world.

muslims seeking to create an aura of victimization would like us to believe that the crusades were something of a proto-imperialistic expedition that presaged hundreds of years of western domination and humiliation.

OTOH, christians seeking to create an aura of victimization would like us to believe that the crusades were purely self-defensive in nature, and that if "excesses" were committed, "well the muslims did it too."

in short, there were enough atrocities and wrongdoings on both sides that people can find all the "evidence" they need to create their own justification. doesn't mean it's good history.

Kansas Bear
25 Jul 07,, 01:44
muslims seeking to create an aura of victimization would like us to believe that the crusades were something of a proto-imperialistic expedition that presaged hundreds of years of western domination and humiliation.

Which can be read almost on a daily basis.


OTOH, christians seeking to create an aura of victimization would like us to believe that the crusades were purely self-defensive in nature, and that if "excesses" were committed, "well the muslims did it too."

Just exactly what christians are stating this?

astralis
25 Jul 07,, 02:12
kansas bear,


Which can be read almost on a daily basis.

i'm not surprised. for the most part, christianity has moved towards less militancy, after hundreds of years of blood-letting. islam still has a major problem with this.

also...given the state of the islamic world today- especially compared to the west- is it really so hard to understand that muslims (especially the ones whom refuse to take a hard look at some of their decisions and ideas) have a greater desire to create that aura of victimization?


Just exactly what christians are stating this?

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/history-warfare/39704-interesting-facts-about-crusades.html

;)

Kansas Bear
25 Jul 07,, 04:09
kansas bear,



i'm not surprised. for the most part, christianity has moved towards less militancy, after hundreds of years of blood-letting. islam still has a major problem with this.

also...given the state of the islamic world today- especially compared to the west- is it really so hard to understand that muslims (especially the ones whom refuse to take a hard look at some of their decisions and ideas) have a greater desire to create that aura of victimization?

More like ME governments keeping their populations historically ignorant.




http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/history-warfare/39704-interesting-facts-about-crusades.html

;)

So one obscure undocumented post and that's equivalent to the near daily rehashing of the Crusades by ME governments? Amazing.

astralis
25 Jul 07,, 05:25
kansas bear,


So one obscure undocumented post and that's equivalent to the near daily rehashing of the Crusades by ME governments? Amazing.

don't be disingenuous. i was comparing ideas and not how often it is re-hashed throughout the world today. do you think i would want to, or i am so stupid, as to suggest that we manufacture bilious propaganda at the same level of the despotic middle east governments?

what i WAS trying to get across, before you obscured the debate, was to say that both sides (the loud-mouthed ones which try to create this aura of victimization, whose numbers at the moment weigh a good deal more heavily on the muslim side) unquestionably use their own perspectives on history to score a point.

and yes, as a christian, i do say that there is christian propaganda on this point- certainly more than "one obscure undocumented post" (as seen by such books as these (http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Guide-Crusades-Guides/dp/0895260131)), while certainly less than the garbage brought forth by middle east governments seeking to divert attention away from their own misdeeds.

Kansas Bear
25 Jul 07,, 06:36
kansas bear,

If you'd like to save on typing, you can call me KB.



and yes, as a christian, i do say that there is christian propaganda on this point- certainly more than "one obscure undocumented post" (as seen by such books as these (http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Guide-Crusades-Guides/dp/0895260131)), while certainly less than the garbage brought forth by middle east governments seeking to divert attention away from their own misdeeds.


Have you read the book by Robert Spencer?? Perhaps(I've not read the book) his perspective is from the religious POV and not the historical one. I seriously doubt he has a degree in History, of any type.

Have you read Karsh's "Islamic Imperialism"??

astralis
25 Jul 07,, 15:36
kb,

the problem with all this is that it rapidly turns into a pissing contest. who did what to whom when, and how much.

suffice it to say that the crusades, as with the islamic raids that came before the crusades, were fundamentally a mixture of political power-grabbing (both domestically and otherwise) and economic raiding, with a thick veneer of religion on top, to distract from the more tawdry goals above.

and today's search for justification, either christian or muslim, is a method by which they seek to distract from the fact that ugly things were committed by each respective side.

Kansas Bear
27 Jul 07,, 22:35
kb,

the problem with all this is that it rapidly turns into a pissing contest. who did what to whom when, and how much.

Which isn't historiography, and never has been.

But don't expect me to sit idle while some 'person' tells me that Mehmed's Firman is THE 2nd OLDEST human rights document.:rolleyes:



suffice it to say that the crusades, as with the islamic raids that came before the crusades, were fundamentally a mixture of political power-grabbing (both domestically and otherwise) and economic raiding, with a thick veneer of religion on top, to distract from the more tawdry goals above.

In no way do I believe the Crusades were religiously motivated. Politically motivated? Possibly. Revenge motivated? Most likely.

"It is necessary to look for the origin of a crusading ideal in the struggle between Christians and Muslims in Spain and consider how the idea of a holy war emerged from this background." -- Norman Cantor.

Yet, we both know which 'religion' was spread by the sword. History gives a vivid picture of that fact.


and today's search for justification, either christian or muslim, is a method by which they seek to distract from the fact that ugly things were committed by each respective side.

Is it? Correct me if I'm wrong, didn't a certain pope publically apologize for the Crusades? To the Orthodox faith? To the Islam faith? Guess some 'christians' missed that part.

And just because Robert Spencer(MA Religious Studies) writes a book about Islam(which I haven't read), does that remove the facts established by historians like Cantor, Heather, Gibbon, Karsh, and Riche'? I don't believe so.

snc128
28 Jul 07,, 21:02
The Koran say's the same thing, and there are more extremist islamic terror groups than any others, it's not often that you see Christians flying planes into building's is it?!! :mad:

they r not islamic.they r purely terrorist that follow their own desires and aiming to use the uniting power of Islam.but conscious ppl will never support them.as it was valid for crusaders,those who r ignorant and can believe everything that is intended to impose in his/her limited brain will follow them.
both crusaders and current terrorists has the similar claim.'we did it in the name of God,for God's sake.' the problem is not religion but those who hold the power of religion and deceive ignorant,innocent ppl.
unfortunately,this occasion does not acquit their actions.

snc128
28 Jul 07,, 21:15
I did a study of the Crusades and these two posts I made earlier are basically what I found out. The Pope didn't even care about what the Bible said, he just acted as if what he was saying was straight from the Bible to get the people of Europe to do what he wanted. I say that everyone has the right to defend themselves.

Here is what the Bible says regarding others:



In Luke chapter 22 Jesus did tell his disciples to buy swords, so I believe he wanted them to defend themselves, but only if their lives were at stake. The phrase "Turn the other cheek" did come from the Bible as well.



"Turn the other cheek" refers to an insult. Christians are called to ignore insults or still be friendly to those who insult them. In regards to treating enemies the Bible says:



By definition, the Crusades were not a religious war for Christianity. The Crusaders just followed the words of the Pope, who was out for seelfish gain and didn't care about the Bible. By definition, it was a religious war for Islam. The Muslims commited atrocities in obedience to the Quran and Hadiths, while the Crusaders commited atrocities in disobedience to the Bible.


The Quran clearly states:



There are hundreds of more verses that support violence in the Quran. I don't have the time to waist going through them all, though.

I say, yes, the Crusades were justified, but the atrocities commited there were not.

Kur'an itself is a cause and effect series.giving the paragraph as a whole, instead of picked sentences, is more moral.

Kansas Bear
29 Jul 07,, 16:59
both crusaders and current terrorists has the similar claim.

I'm sure prior attacks by Muslims had NOTHING to do with the crusades....:rolleyes:

"When Pope Leo VI(928-929CE) appealed for resistance against the Arabs threatening Rome...."

"Pope John X had managed in 916 to dislodge a force of Arab invaders based along the Garigliano River."

"The pontiff(Pope John VIII 872-882) called for help against the Arab raiders who were pillaging Campania and the Sabine Hills south of Rome, destroying churches and threatening the city itself." -- Pierre Riche'

"The first proximate cause of the Crusades, was the advancement of the Seljuq Turks.

The second proximate cause for the Crusades, was the dangerous weakening of the Byzantine Empire. In 1071 the Byzantine Army was almost annihilated at Manzikert...." -- Will Durant

"It is necessary to look for the origin of a crusading ideal in the struggle between Christians and Muslims in Spain and consider how the idea of a holy war emerged from this background." -- Norman Cantor.


Not that you would know who Cantor, Durant, or Riche' are. :rolleyes:


Ignorance of history, doesn't make one exempt of the facts.

Arnold123
03 Sep 07,, 10:56
There are as many reasons for war as there are people on the planet and all can be justified from one point of view or another.

The wars that are justified from a religious point of view usually turn out to be the most aggressive and bloody. When analysing these and there outcomes there seems to be little to recommend them over the secular. The norm rather is that all concerned retire to lick their wounds after a level of acceptable accomplishment or to save enough strength to fight another day.

Religion is usually sighted as justification to back a shaky secular claim; tracts from theological texts being quoted to back this up are usually narrowed to suit the purpose of justification.

If we take the three major texts we find that the only wars that are actually justified are the ones ordered by the deity of the text concerned. Depending on your text depends on what you might call this type of war.

However the only successful war ordered by a deity is when the instructions of the said deity are carried out to the letter, all else is doomed to failure as the texts indicate.

When one looks at the so called human wars none have had an outcome of any lasting fulfilling or peaceful effect. Thus you might say, at the very best, they give, in terms of human history, no permanent solution.

So when we look at the Crusades which were touted as a religious exercise, what was gained in human terms? There was no glorious Christian heyday probably because someone had confused, or used, Christianity with religion.

We can see plenty of these negative outcomes in history and the religious texts such that no-one really has an excuse for going to war other than for personal or political greed.

So how do we justify the Crusades?

glyn
03 Sep 07,, 11:34
So how do we justify the Crusades?


They can't. It was started by a few 'devout' religious fundamentalists who through their contacts were able to bring pressure to bear on the Pope. He was in turn able in those times to instruct the kings and like Topsy, it just grew. Those who started it undoubtably felt they would be rewarded in the next life! To those involved it must have been seen as a glorious adventure. After all they were summoned to it not only by their monarchs but by Gods representative on earth.
If HE was involved how could they fail?

Arnold123
04 Sep 07,, 07:30
He wasn't and they did.

zraver
05 Sep 07,, 22:12
So when we look at the Crusades which were touted as a religious exercise, what was gained in human terms? There was no glorious Christian heyday probably because someone had confused, or used, Christianity with religion.

Really, I could have sworn the crusades helped Europe break free of the dark ages, rediscover the classics and redirect Moslem agression away from Spain and Italy. If we look at the roughly 1000 years between the end of the Western Roman Empire (476) and the begining of the age of colonisation (1492) 1095 is an almost exact half way point. Prior to the 1st Crusade Moslem agression was all but unchecked, after 1095 it still expamnded but agaisnt the periphery of the Western European world.

Kansas Bear
06 Sep 07,, 06:21
Really, I could have sworn the crusades helped Europe break free of the dark ages, rediscover the classics and redirect Moslem agression away from Spain and Italy. If we look at the roughly 1000 years between the end of the Western Roman Empire (476) and the begining of the age of colonisation (1492) 1095 is an almost exact half way point. Prior to the 1st Crusade Moslem agression was all but unchecked, after 1095 it still expamnded but agaisnt the periphery of the Western European world.


Actually, the Reconquista took alot of "heat" off France. Although, Italy continued to be attacked well into the 10th century. Following Alexius I's plea for assistance, the Sermon at Clermont was nothing but a call of unsatiated revenge.

Arnold123
06 Sep 07,, 07:41
When we ask, 'were the Crusades justified' we have to say, 'with respect to what?'. They where called by 'The Pope', nominally in the name of God, so what do we have to say with respect to the name of God?

astralis
06 Sep 07,, 16:39
zraver,


Really, I could have sworn the crusades helped Europe break free of the dark ages, rediscover the classics and redirect Moslem agression away from Spain and Italy.


ironically it was because of the crusades that western europe discovered it had a taste for spices and other eastern goods, which provided an impetus for the voyages of discovery later.

also, fall of constantinople led to a surge of former byzantine scholars to flee to the west, starting up the renaissance.

as for re-directing muslim aggression from spain, probably not as the almoravid moors did not play a role in the holy land. if anything, it weakened the christian effort there, as the pope had to promise all sorts of spiritual boons to prevent gung-ho christian crusaders from leaving spain to go fight in the holy land.

all in all, a very complex picture.



If we look at the roughly 1000 years between the end of the Western Roman Empire (476) and the begining of the age of colonisation (1492) 1095 is an almost exact half way point. Prior to the 1st Crusade Moslem agression was all but unchecked, after 1095 it still expamnded but agaisnt the periphery of the Western European world.

byzantine empire did a good job. i would argue that if anything, the crusaders weakened the byzantines far worse than the muslims did; furthermore, the thing that vastly slowed down muslim conquests were not the crusaders but the mongols, whom ripped through the ummah at a speed which the crusaders could not even dream about.

Arnold123
07 Sep 07,, 07:28
What was the original intent of the crusades?

astralis
07 Sep 07,, 15:24
arnold,

1. free the holy land from islamic domination, specifically jerusalem
2. unite secular kingdoms, which had been gaining power at the expense of the pope, back to the pope's leadership
3. stop squabbling among christendom in western europe
4. score political points off the byzantine empire

Kansas Bear
07 Sep 07,, 20:55
byzantine empire did a good job. i would argue that if anything, the crusaders weakened the byzantines far worse than the muslims did;



Ignoring the fact, that Alexius IV was a part of the 4th Crusade and the crusaders were merely pawns in ANOTHER ERE civil war! Ignoring the facts, that Yarmouk(muslims) and Manzikert(muslims) were direct causes of the crusades.

The Byzantines weakened themselves, through their own civil wars, far worse than what crusaders did.

astralis
07 Sep 07,, 21:26
kansas bear,


The Byzantines weakened themselves, through their own civil wars, far worse than what crusaders did.

i see. so the byzantines inflicted a wound on themselves worse than the sack of constantinople, the creation of the latin empire on top of constantinople, the splitting of the byzantine empire into two seperate states, the elimination of the byzantine emperor, the revival of bulgaria, and the renewed attention of the seljuks?

lazybastard
07 Sep 07,, 21:36
kansas bear,



i see. so the byzantines inflicted a wound on themselves worse than the sack of constantinople, the creation of the latin empire on top of constantinople, the splitting of the byzantine empire into two seperate states, the elimination of the byzantine emperor, the revival of bulgaria, and the renewed attention of the seljuks?

Would the 4th Crusade had been redirected to Constantinople if there wasn't rival claimants to the throne at the time?

astralis
07 Sep 07,, 21:41
but the point is,

would the byzantines have been better off had the crusaders not been there at all? i would argue yes.

Kansas Bear
07 Sep 07,, 21:48
Would the 4th Crusade had been redirected to Constantinople if there wasn't rival claimants to the throne at the time?

Part of the "4th Crusade" refused to go to Constantinople. So barring Alexius IV's interference, the 4th would have proceeded to Palestine.

Kansas Bear
07 Sep 07,, 21:52
but the point is,

would the byzantines have been better off had the crusaders not been there at all? i would argue yes.

Would the Byzantines have been better off had the Islamic factions not beaten them at Yarmouk and Manzikert?? That's a definite, yes.

lazybastard
08 Sep 07,, 02:33
but the point is,

would the byzantines have been better off had the crusaders not been there at all? i would argue yes.

Then again, would the byzantines have even been around at by that time if they didn't recover parts of Anatolia in the wake of the First Crusade?

Speedy
08 Sep 07,, 13:58
nothing to see here.

Arnold123
10 Sep 07,, 07:30
[I]arnold,

1. free the holy land from islamic domination, specifically jerusalem
2. unite secular kingdoms, which had been gaining power at the expense of the pope, back to the pope's leadership
3. stop squabbling among christendom in western europe
4. score political points off the byzantine empire


Then ,with hind sight, the crusades went down 4 - 0 on this one and the Pope shot himself in the foot.

zraver
10 Sep 07,, 13:43
[I]arnold,

1. free the holy land from islamic domination, specifically jerusalem
2. unite secular kingdoms, which had been gaining power at the expense of the pope, back to the pope's leadership
3. stop squabbling among christendom in western europe
4. score political points off the byzantine empire


Then ,with hind sight, the crusades went down 4 - 0 on this one and the Pope shot himself in the foot.

I don't see the Crusades as a failure, it stopped Islam's expansion long enough for the Mongols to crush the Caliphate. It relieved population pressure, gained the Pope ascendancy (not back to the Pope, but rather cemented his secular power). The First Crusade saw the end of unmatched/unanswered Islamic invasions. From that point forward the two sides traded blows with Europe eventually emerging on top once the Ottomans fell apart in the backwash of WW1.

astralis
10 Sep 07,, 15:14
zraver,


I don't see the Crusades as a failure, it stopped Islam's expansion long enough for the Mongols to crush the Caliphate. It relieved population pressure, gained the Pope ascendancy (not back to the Pope, but rather cemented his secular power). The First Crusade saw the end of unmatched/unanswered Islamic invasions. From that point forward the two sides traded blows with Europe eventually emerging on top once the Ottomans fell apart in the backwash of WW1.

i should have put in an addendum at this point: the strategic goals of the crusades were largely lost after the first crusade, with the crusaders squabbling among themselves for the fruits of their initial successes.

btw, regarding population pressure, i think black death did a better job of THAT than any army saladin led :biggrin: :eek:

finally, while religion obviously did play a role in the crusades, by the end of the 1500s and the beginning of the 1600s, the terms of the conflict had changed as both sides evolved. by the 1600s, you had european adventurers going to the ottoman empire to reform its military; by the mid-1800s, major european powers (france, UK) were actively supporting the ottoman empire against another christian power, the russians. so i don't think the narrative of religious conflict all the way until WWI is a good one here.

zraver
10 Sep 07,, 17:37
zraver,



i should have put in an addendum at this point: the strategic goals of the crusades were largely lost after the first crusade, with the crusaders squabbling among themselves for the fruits of their initial successes.

btw, regarding population pressure, i think black death did a better job of THAT than any army saladin led :biggrin: :eek:

finally, while religion obviously did play a role in the crusades, by the end of the 1500s and the beginning of the 1600s, the terms of the conflict had changed as both sides evolved. by the 1600s, you had european adventurers going to the ottoman empire to reform its military; by the mid-1800s, major european powers (france, UK) were actively supporting the ottoman empire against another christian power, the russians. so i don't think the narrative of religious conflict all the way until WWI is a good one here.

Byzantium used Turkish Moslem mercs, and the Ottoman;s used vassal Christian troops so there was non-religious interplay. However the re-capture of Jerusalem by the UK in WW1 is certainly seen as a Crusader act by the modern Islamic world.

Ironduke
16 Oct 07,, 10:18
Byzantium used Turkish Moslem mercs, and the Ottoman;s used vassal Christian troops so there was non-religious interplay. However the re-capture of Jerusalem by the UK in WW1 is certainly seen as a Crusader act by the modern Islamic world.
I think what happened with the Empire was much similar to what happened in the 5th century... the Romans allowed Germanic peoples to settle in exchange for military services, then the same with the Turks several hundred years later. The Angles and Saxons were originally mercenaries recruited by the Romano-Brits.

sealion
18 Oct 07,, 18:46
Byzantium never participated in crusades , actually it had been attacked (invasion)by crusaders twice in their way to holly land , and once captured .(answering to the point many replies are saying about participating).What is true is tha Byzantium offered some kind of economical support at the beggining.

JohnFlint1985
20 Oct 07,, 04:49
I truly wonder sometimes what the world would be like today if the Crusaders in the 4th Crusade had chosen not to conquer Constantinople.

For it's entire history, the Byzantine Empire served as a buffer between East and West holding off Arabs and Turks over the successive centuries.

The Byzantine Empire may have very well survived, and even expanded into some of it's old dominions had not the Crusaders taken Constantinople.

Also, though, the Renaissance, sparked by arrival of Byzantine refugees in Italy in the 15th century, might have been delayed considerably.

There was a saying in Gibbon's book, that in the mid-15th century, the population of Constantinople would have rather seen a turban in the city than whatever the Roman Catholic headress was.

Byzantine Empire was dying a long and agonizing death and it started about 150 years before Constantinople fell to the Crusaders. Civil bureaucracy that took the power in about 1040 and ruled the country - ruined it in a little less then 60 years to an extent nobody was able to reverse. Alexius Comnenus tried and did what he can - but eventually failed. Crusaders had more men, were more ambitious and have a sense of direction. (Reminds me of todays Europeans and Arab immigrants in it). Also the objective feudal processes that were stalled for a while by able emperors in the 10th century finally took hold in Byzantine empire after Manzikert battle. In my opinion Byzantines were able to live in antiquity and early Feudalism, but were not able to adept to the high Middle ages and it's youthful energy. They simply had no chance in doing it. So bottom line - Empire was dead by the 1200 and it was only a question of whom will take what was wide open and ripe for taking.

Bulgaroctonus
20 Oct 07,, 05:30
Byzantium never participated in crusades , actually it had been attacked (invasion)by crusaders twice in their way to holly land , and once captured .(answering to the point many replies are saying about participating).What is true is tha Byzantium offered some kind of economical support at the beggining.

Byzantium participated extensively in the Crusades. Emperor Alexios Komnenos (r. 1081-1118) was partially responsible for the the dispatch of the First Crusade and there was Byzantine military involvement across Asia Minor during the Crusaders march to Antioch. In fact, Alexios dispatched a general named Taticius to escort the Crusaders.

Emperor Manuel Komnenos (r. 1143-1180) made an alliance with Raymond of Antioch. His successor, Reynald de Chatillon broke it and Manuel forced Reynald's personal subjugation and forfeiture of Antioch to the empire. Manuel began a campaign against Nur ad-Din in Edessa, but abandoned it, alas.

Manuel's most important involvement with the Crusades was the huge expedition he financed against Fatimid Egypt with his ally, King Amalric of Jerusalem, in 1169. Although it failed, the Emperor committed thousands of troops and at least a fleet of a hundred ships.

After the death of Manuel, the Empire was too weak to play any role in the Crusades except as a victim.

sealion
20 Oct 07,, 10:31
1081 Cyprus was belonging to Byzantine Empire and was invaded by lionheart king of England while in his way to holly land, afterwards was sold to naives-knights (? I m not sure for the spelling of the name in English, I m sorry) how comes for Byzantium to participate into that crusade while it was attacked by crusaders?

JohnFlint1985
20 Oct 07,, 15:32
Byzantium participated extensively in the Crusades. Emperor Alexios Komnenos (r. 1081-1118) was partially responsible for the the dispatch of the First Crusade and there was Byzantine military involvement across Asia Minor during the Crusaders march to Antioch. In fact, Alexios dispatched a general named Taticius to escort the Crusaders.

Emperor Manuel Komnenos (r. 1143-1180) made an alliance with Raymond of Antioch. His successor, Reynald de Chatillon broke it and Manuel forced Reynald's personal subjugation and forfeiture of Antioch to the empire. Manuel began a campaign against Nur ad-Din in Edessa, but abandoned it, alas.

Manuel's most important involvement with the Crusades was the huge expedition he financed against Fatimid Egypt with his ally, King Amalric of Jerusalem, in 1169. Although it failed, the Emperor committed thousands of troops and at least a fleet of a hundred ships.

After the death of Manuel, the Empire was too weak to play any role in the Crusades except as a victim.


It was too weak because of his extravagant policies - no money left. Also he was severely beaten in Asia Minor buy the Turks. I think that instead of concentrating on serving the goals of the crusaders - his more important task was - recovery an creation of strategic depth in Anatolia. Which he only started to do in the end of his life. Empire was week indeed and needed strengthening. It was only holding on the person of the Emperor himself. Who was usually very bright in Comnenus dynasty. But it is not enough. Not then and not even now. The strength of the Empire before, given it's very military nature most of the time and constant warfare with nomads in the East, was in free peasant soldiers. Once they were gone - the base and system of this strength was broken, and the only thing that hold the empire together was a good, smart Emperor. Which after short period of time proved to fatal. BTW
his father John - was more able and smart men in this regard. Manuel - he was a brilliant guy, but in the wrong place and wrong time.

Kansas Bear
20 Oct 07,, 16:19
1081 Cyprus was belonging to Byzantine Empire and was invaded by lionheart king of England while in his way to holly land, afterwards was sold to naives-knights (? I m not sure for the spelling of the name in English, I m sorry) how comes for Byzantium to participate into that crusade while it was attacked by crusaders?

:rolleyes:

1. Richard I was born Sept 1157 so he wasn't invading Cyprus in 1081!!!

2. The 'Crusades' didn't start until 1096.

3. Richard I was part of the 3rd Crusade; different 'Crusades', different people, different objectives.


:rolleyes:

Bulgaroctonus
21 Oct 07,, 02:47
It was too weak because of his extravagant policies - no money left. Also he was severely beaten in Asia Minor buy the Turks. I think that instead of concentrating on serving the goals of the crusaders - his more important task was - recovery an creation of strategic depth in Anatolia. Which he only started to do in the end of his life. Empire was week indeed and needed strengthening. It was only holding on the person of the Emperor himself. Who was usually very bright in Comnenus dynasty. But it is not enough. Not then and not even now. The strength of the Empire before, given it's very military nature most of the time and constant warfare with nomads in the East, was in free peasant soldiers. Once they were gone - the base and system of this strength was broken, and the only thing that hold the empire together was a good, smart Emperor. Which after short period of time proved to fatal. BTW
his father John - was more able and smart men in this regard. Manuel - he was a brilliant guy, but in the wrong place and wrong time.

I have not yet read enough about Manuel's reign to deem him the cause of Byzantium's fall. The defeat at Myriokephalon was serious. At the same time, that campaign could have gone much differently and the Turks owed their victory almost entirely to the terrain. Had it gone differently, we may today be saluting Manuel as the restorer of the Byzantine Empire. If my memory serves me correctly, Myriokephalon was not followed by immediate territorial losses like Manzikert. I think more of the blame must lie with the horrible Angeli emperors.

I do agree that Manuel should have focused more of his efforts on the Turks. The political map of Comnenian Byzantium is haunting with that damn Seljuk Sultunate protuding into Asia Minor.

Good to meet a fellow who knows his Byzantine history though!

JohnFlint1985
21 Oct 07,, 04:53
I have not yet read enough about Manuel's reign to deem him the cause of Byzantium's fall. The defeat at Myriokephalon was serious. At the same time, that campaign could have gone much differently and the Turks owed their victory almost entirely to the terrain. Had it gone differently, we may today be saluting Manuel as the restorer of the Byzantine Empire. If my memory serves me correctly, Myriokephalon was not followed by immediate territorial losses like Manzikert. I think more of the blame must lie with the horrible Angeli emperors.

I do agree that Manuel should have focused more of his efforts on the Turks. The political map of Comnenian Byzantium is haunting with that damn Seljuk Sultunate protuding into Asia Minor.

Good to meet a fellow who knows his Byzantine history though!

Thank you for the compliment -I am only a beginner in Byzantine history. But anyways...
My idea about it is that provided Byzantium had a stinger political and military system Manzikert or Myriokephalon will not make it so catastrophic. Each of these battles were catastrophic in the immediate and long run consequences. Other countries also lost battles - France for instance Lost so many battles in the hundred years war - and still it keep recovering from these losses pretty quickly and eventually had the upper hand. Byzantium was weakened beyond repair by these two.

Also Manuel spent his Rather limited resources too freely.Hungary, Antioch, Egypt. All these campaigns or political maneuvers were very costly and didn't' bring any long lasting and really important results.
Throughout his long rein - he squandered so many good opportunities to make a recovery of Anatolia - that for a politician - it is unforgiving. He didn't' recognize the danger of supporting one of the Turkish sultans of Asia Minor against his rivals - and as a result he got a much more strengthened major sultanate instead. Which after that beat him in battle. So in my opinion he was not a ruler that was needed at that time and place.

Angeli emperors were even more horrible, but at least they knew their limitations - they didn't venture far away from the Great palace an spent their time having good life.

sealion
24 Oct 07,, 05:53
:rolleyes:

1. Richard I was born Sept 1157 so he wasn't invading Cyprus in 1081!!!

2. The 'Crusades' didn't start until 1096.

3. Richard I was part of the 3rd Crusade; different 'Crusades', different people, different objectives.


:rolleyes:

i m sorry , you are right , richard the lionheart came in Cyprus in 1191

Maggot
28 Oct 07,, 03:02
Off the top of my head. Probably the biggest screw up was when Jerusalem was taken the first time. English Knights, maybe also French Knights.

They tried three times to get over the wall, into the city. Figuring God was mad at them. They decided to atone for any sins. By walking around the city barefoot. Once each time for all three times they were kept out.

As soon as they made the third trip around. They rushed to put thier shoes back on. And attacked Jerusalem in a frenzy.

This time, they managed to breach the wall. Then proceeded to start killing Muslims and Christians alike. The Jews in Jerusalem tried to bribe the Knights. And were instead locked in a Synagogue, and it was burned down.

The same book I read that from, said that in some places the blood was knee deep. And that is where the saying, "The streets shall flow with the blood of the non-believers", originated from.

It also never happened. It's right up there with Nero fiddling when Rome burned, as most passed along fictional accounts of History. Yes, the Crusaders took Jerusalem, but it was by negotiating with the city and the gates were opened to them. There was no slaughter.

The entire Historic myth is the result of some bragging knight sending a letter home to say how cool he was and making up stories of the slaughter. Because it was the first news of the taking of Jerusalem to reach Europe, the story spread like wild fire and took on a life of its own. But it didn't happen.

Maggot
28 Oct 07,, 03:04
The Crusades were mostly fought to reestablish whose lake the Mediterranean was. Wars are fought over trade and resources, including land. Otherwise the Crusaders wouldn't have sacked the biggest Christian bastion in the Middle East, at the urging of some Italian merchants. Putting a religious spin on it just made it easier for the masses to swallow. If we are to assume that the Crusades were primary launched to reassert control of Christian principalities over the Mediterranean, then for that alone they were successful.

Maggot
28 Oct 07,, 03:11
Whats the deal with this move "Kingdom of Heaven". How biased is it? Has anyone seen it yet?

Wildly biased and inaccurate. It was a fun movie, but after they turned it into a freedom and liberty movie, in a Crusader setting, it got to be a bit much. I also would have liked it if in the main character's education they actually showed him learning about siege tactics. They also decided to turn a religious order of knights into what most US movies reserve for the red coats.

Bulgaroctonus
03 Nov 07,, 04:22
It also never happened. It's right up there with Nero fiddling when Rome burned, as most passed along fictional accounts of History. Yes, the Crusaders took Jerusalem, but it was by negotiating with the city and the gates were opened to them. There was no slaughter.

The entire Historic myth is the result of some bragging knight sending a letter home to say how cool he was and making up stories of the slaughter. Because it was the first news of the taking of Jerusalem to reach Europe, the story spread like wild fire and took on a life of its own. But it didn't happen.

I believe you are incorrect.

There are multiple primary sources of the slaughter, the Gesta Francorum and Raymond of Aguilers. Consult the Medieval Sourcebook: Medieval Sourcebook: The Siege and Capture of Jerusalem 1099 (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/cde-jlem.html#gesta2)

Why do you assert it did not happen?

Kansas Bear
03 Nov 07,, 04:56
I believe you are incorrect.

There are multiple primary sources of the slaughter, the Gesta Francorum and Raymond of Aguilers. Consult the Medieval Sourcebook: Medieval Sourcebook: The Siege and Capture of Jerusalem 1099 (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/cde-jlem.html#gesta2)


Also, Ibn Al-Athir, Ibn al-Qalanisi, and Abu Sa'ad al-Harawi.

Polybius
19 Jan 08,, 03:06
Reality bytes,


Revisionists cry wolf , blaming to the Crusaders for 'attacking sarracen lands.
They forget that territories were the Crusaders fought were former Christian territories, Judaea, Syria, Egypt , the rest of North Africa .

Those territories were not muslim terrorities but Christians , Islam imperial , colonial , expansive agressive policy of pursuing world conquest attacking , invading and occupying the East, India Caucasos, and WEst, Spain, France, Italy, Asia Minor using slavery to control the population and political, economical mistreatment and blackmail in order to convert the conquered populations to Islam, needed an strong response.


It is truth that the Crusaders perform horrible acts, we , the WEst can confront and admite our at acts , let not forget the string of horrors that the Muslim perpetrator against so many. While the fabled Caliphate of Cordoba is portrait as an oasis and example of mulsim good behavior
First , such cases were not the norm but limited cases and they were not so tolerant and so peaceful and so embracing as portrait by their fans,
their description is overblown out proportion

The Order of St John, is one of my favorites and the famous, Castle of St John of Acre was a military marvel , only supercede by the courage and valour of the members of the order.

The West could be safer if a rebirth of such Military Order could be feasible,
The West lack such strong fiber in this moment , they have a mental strenght and spiritual strenght enourmous

lacking in our present armed forces, as the numereous testimonies of soldier coming back with emotional trauma which really made them disabled.

Those Crusaders lived horribles experiences of war but many were able to perform and to find a higher calling and inner strenght to raise above such horrible scenes of wars


So Bravo for the Crusaders and lets praise for miracles , a New Generations of Christians Crusaders

astralis
20 Jan 08,, 05:21
polybius,

talk about over-romanticizing.

Ironduke
30 Jan 08,, 08:58
polybius,

talk about over-romanticizing.
Heh, the Christians of old took up the holy flaming sword like a D&D Paladin.

Speedy
31 Jan 08,, 08:31
How about the Albigensian Crusade?
Was it justified?

Big K
31 Jan 08,, 08:36
Heh, the Christians of old took up the holy flaming sword like a D&D Paladin.

then i'll take dual-wield scimitars and a long dagger and a short bow ;)

do we use D10 system instead of D20? :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:

Ironduke
31 Jan 08,, 08:48
then i'll take dual-wield scimitars and a long dagger and a short bow ;)

do we use D10 system instead of D20? :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:
Heh, I think you know more about D&D than I do. ;)

Kansas Bear
31 Jan 08,, 14:46
How about the Albigensian Crusade?
Was it justified?

What about the Northern Crusades?

The Hussite Crusades?

It's a pity that most ignore the Reconquista, 750 years of conflict due to Muslim invasion.

Big K
02 Feb 08,, 15:32
Heh, I think you know more about D&D than I do. ;)

:) we play a lot of D&D games, Whitewolf's Vampire the Masquerade/Dark Ages etc.. ;)

Blackleaf
02 Mar 08,, 19:15
One of the most famous warriors of the Crusades was Richard the Lionheart, King of England from 1189 to 1199.

He was the son of King Henry II and the brother of King John, of Magna Carta fame.

Many people say he got his nickname due to his fearlessness on the battlefield during the Crusades.

Richard was a central Christian commander during the Third Crusade, effectively leading the campaign after the departure of Philip Augustus, and scoring considerable victories against his Muslim counterpart, Saladin.

But there is a macabre legend which shows how he REALLY got his name.

The legend goes that the King of England was imprisoned in a foreign King's castle somewhere on the Continent of Europe whilst returning from the Crusades.

The foreign King decided to send a lion into Richard's cell to, obviously, eat Richard for supper.

Richard was having none of it. He wrapped his arm up in a piece of his clothing to protect himself and stuffed it down the lion's throat.

The fearsome King then ripped out the lion's heart. Finding that the door to his dungeon was unlocked, he ran into the banqueting hall where the king and many noblemen were enjoying a great feast.

Defiantly, Richard plonked the still-beating lion's heart onto the table in front of the King.

Richard the Lionheart also had another ingenious way of escaping imprisonment.

After Richard was imprisoned in a foreign dungeon, his minstrel Blondel travelled Europe from castle to castle, loudly singing a song known only to the two of them (they had composed it together) outside each castle. Eventually, he came to the place where Richard was being held, and Richard heard the song and answered with the appropriate refrain, thus revealing where the king was incarcerated.

And England's flag, a red cross on a white background, dates back to the time of Richard the Lionheart (Richard I) and the Crusades. He and his army wore white tunics with red crosses on them. At that time, King Edward the Confessor - England's first saint - was England's patron saint, but Richard the Lionheart decided to make England's patron saint St George.

To this day England's patron saint is St George and its flag is a red cross on a white background.

ameer
07 Apr 08,, 07:05
Not at all. I'd say it's probably my favorite part of history, though.

Merovee
07 Apr 08,, 12:52
To say the Crusades were justified or not is to politicize them. While the Children's Crusades as well as the campaigns that consisted of slaughtering Jews up and down the Rhine were part of the overall Crusades in the end they were conflicts just like any other where various groups competed over resources.

Triple C
26 May 08,, 11:37
In my honest opinion to ask whether a war fought so long ago is justified tend to be futile excercize. What are your criterion of justification? With what moral code do you judge them? Ours, seven centuries after the fact? Medieval Christians? Medieval Muslims? Are we talking about geopolitical and strategic utility? This kind of question is too hard to pin down.

King Six
28 May 08,, 19:45
Was the Arab conquest of the Middle East Justified? Certainly not. (Neither was the Christian conquest of Europe, for that matter, but I'll admit it was slightly more peaceful)

The Arabs took the land by force, I don't see why they complain when others try to do the same. That goes for today aswell (Israel etc..)

Doesn't make sense. Why is it one rule for the Arabs/Muslims and another for the rest when it comes to History of that Area? Why is it only the Arabs are always seen as "Innocent"?

As a neutral, yes, It was justified. On the basis that the Arabs took over the land by force, thus anyone else can try and do the same too. Peaceful religions, yeah right.

Arnold123
02 Jun 08,, 09:13
Was the Arab conquest of the Middle East Justified? Certainly not. (Neither was the Christian conquest of Europe, for that matter, but I'll admit it was slightly more peaceful)

The Arabs took the land by force, I don't see why they complain when others try to do the same. That goes for today aswell (Israel etc..)

Doesn't make sense. Why is it one rule for the Arabs/Muslims and another for the rest when it comes to History of that Area? Why is it only the Arabs are always seen as "Innocent"?

As a neutral, yes, It was justified. On the basis that the Arabs took over the land by force, thus anyone else can try and do the same too. Peaceful religions, yeah right.


You have to try and identify a few starting points:

The Muslim:

1. All Arabs are not Muslims,
2. Muslims feel entirely justified in killing non-Muslims,
3. In the Muslim mind there is no division between religion and government,
4. To the Muslim all non-Muslims have no claim to human rights in Muslim law,
5. Muslims renouncing their religion are liable to be killed,
6. To a Muslim there is no such thing as a neutral person, your either Muslim or not,
7. To a Muslim there is no assurance of forgiveness of sin,
8. To a Muslim the only assurance of direct entry into paradise is to die in Jihad or Hadj,

The Christian:

1. All Christians are not Christian,
2. Christians are never justified in killing others,
3. Christian government is not temporal,
4. To a Christian all non-Christians may claim rights in Christian law,
5. Christians renouncing Christianity may do so without physical fear,
6. To a Christian there is no such thing as a neutral person, you are either a Christian or not,
7. To a Christian there is full assurance of forgiveness of sin,
8. Direct entry into paradise is guarenteed on repentance of sin, as recognised in Christian law, and the acceptance of Christ as Saviour.

snapper
14 Aug 08,, 17:55
I voted yes the crusades were justified but some acts not. Why? a. Muslims invaded Europe and were only stopped at the battle of Tours. b. Christian pilgrims to were being denied access and harrased and robbed on the way to Jerusalem.

glyn
14 Aug 08,, 18:07
[QUOTE=Arnold123;501383]You have to try and identify a few starting points:





1. All Christians are not Christian,
:confused::confused:
2. Christians are never justified in killing others,
They can be in law.
3. Christian government is not temporal,
Ecclesiastical government would be a disaster.
4. To a Christian all non-Christians may claim rights in Christian law,
:confused::confused: What laws?
5. Christians renouncing Christianity may do so without physical fear,
Correct. Thank secular laws for that.
6. To a Christian there is no such thing as a neutral person, you are either a Christian or not,
How many times have christians fought their own kind?
7. To a Christian there is full assurance of forgiveness of sin,
Who says so?
8. Direct entry into paradise is guarenteed on repentance of sin, as recognised in Christian law, and the acceptance of Christ as Saviour.
You have inspected the guarantee? I've never seen it.

King Six
14 Aug 08,, 18:19
I wish Europe kept Thor and Zeus instead of following that Jewish Hippie

Arnold123
15 Aug 08,, 07:48
I wish Europe kept Thor and Zeus instead of following that Jewish Hippie

To denigrate someone you know nothing about shows an extreme lack of principle.

Herodotus
15 Aug 08,, 09:47
To denigrate someone you know nothing about shows an extreme lack of principle.

King Six is young but very cynical and naivee for his age...sad.

Arnold123
15 Aug 08,, 10:42
[QUOTE=Arnold123;501383]You have to try and identify a few starting points:

1. All Christians are not Christian,
:confused::confused:
2. Christians are never justified in killing others,
They can be in law.
3. Christian government is not temporal,
Ecclesiastical government would be a disaster.
4. To a Christian all non-Christians may claim rights in Christian law,
:confused::confused: What laws?
5. Christians renouncing Christianity may do so without physical fear,
Correct. Thank secular laws for that.
6. To a Christian there is no such thing as a neutral person, you are either a Christian or not,
How many times have christians fought their own kind?
7. To a Christian there is full assurance of forgiveness of sin,
Who says so?
8. Direct entry into paradise is guarenteed on repentance of sin, as recognised in Christian law, and the acceptance of Christ as Saviour.
You have inspected the guarantee? I've never seen it.

1. You can call yourself what you want that doesn't prove you are.
2. Who's law?
3. That is your opinion.
4. Christian.
5. Has nothing to do with secular law.
6. Ref. answer 1.
7. God.
8. Start reading the Bible.

King Six
15 Aug 08,, 12:22
To denigrate someone you know nothing about shows an extreme lack of principle.
What?

He was a Jew. He was even called the King of Jews. Also, his lifestyle seemed like a Hippie to me. Some would even call him one of the first Communist/Socialist peoples champion. Whether that's a good or a bad thing depends on your political stance. My heart says it's a good thing but my head knows it isn't.

Is it wrong to think that Thor and Zeus are infinitley more cool?

dichotomic
15 Aug 08,, 13:12
One word: EVOLVE!

If we must die, we die defending our rights.
Sitting Bull

glyn
15 Aug 08,, 13:18
[QUOTE=glyn;531696]

1. You can call yourself what you want that doesn't prove you are.
2. Who's law?
3. That is your opinion.
4. Christian.
5. Has nothing to do with secular law.
6. Ref. answer 1.
7. God.
8. Start reading the Bible.

1. Fair point. Accepted.
2. The law in most countries. Self defence is justifiable homicide.
3. Give me an example where it wasn't.
4. How do you define Christian law in a secular society?
5. It has everything to do with it! People were burned at the stake for even doubting the word of an ecclesiastical bigwig. This is civilised? Or Christian?
6. That's your answer? Pretty feeble, isn't it?
7. Give me proof! In the beginning man created gods.
8. Start, dear heart? I have read it many times, and in many versions. :)

Triple C
15 Aug 08,, 19:48
What?

He was a Jew. He was even called the King of Jews. Also, his lifestyle seemed like a Hippie to me. Some would even call him one of the first Communist/Socialist peoples champion. Whether that's a good or a bad thing depends on your political stance. My heart says it's a good thing but my head knows it isn't.

Is it wrong to think that Thor and Zeus are infinitley more cool?

Cough, cough.

I am an atheist, but this is a little more than out of line. Thor and Zeus are interesting gods to read about, but the theology of the Norse or the ancient Greeks is hardly the stuff to inspire conscientious behavior or ethical scruples.

Accusing someone of being a Jewish-Bolshevik... well, I am sure that's not how want to come across but take my word for it, please don't do that.

Triple C
16 Aug 08,, 09:52
Glyn,

IIRC, Augustine, Acquainas and Martin Luther all wrote treatises on why Christians are, in fact, allowed to kill if it must be done to protect his community from an unjust aggressor.

Christians could not renounce his faith publically without fear of retribution for the better part of Christianity's history after it became the official faith of the Roman Empire and later European kingdoms. Apostasy is heretical and is therefore subject to the attentions of the inquisition, both papal and secular.

glyn
16 Aug 08,, 10:26
[QUOTE=Triple C;532597]Glyn,

IIRC, Augustine, Acquainas and Martin Luther all wrote treatises on why Christians are, in fact, allowed to kill if it must be done to protect his community from an unjust aggressor.

Christians could not renounce his faith publically without fear of retribution for the better part of Christianity's history after it became the official faith of the Roman Empire and later European kingdoms. Apostasy is heretical and is therefore subject to the attentions of the inquisition, both papal and secular.

Er, you've got the wrong guy, Triple C. 'Tis not me that you need to convince! :)

zraver
16 Aug 08,, 10:41
Glyn,
Christians could not renounce his faith publically without fear of retribution for the better part of Christianity's history after it became the official faith of the Roman Empire and later European kingdoms. Apostasy is heretical and is therefore subject to the attentions of the inquisition, both papal and secular.

However the claim to temporal is actually secular vis a vis the Emperor and later the Pope taking on the duties of Pontifax Maximus or head of church and state. Renouncing faith then became the renouncing of the state and treason since they were ultiamtely one and the same.

This is one reason early Christians were persecuted. Rome could not understand how some one could be loyal to both the Empire and idea of Rome and yet worship a what they saw as God a deadman obstenably killed by Romans and Jews. We see the freedom of religion as we understand only begin to emerge after the enlightment in the US and France seperated the power of the first estate from the people of third estate. The process in Britian was slower and took a few more twists and had a lot to do with the ideas brought back by the Empire. However even in the most "enlightend" countries in the west, the Church did not lose its last grip until the bloodbath of WW1 destroyed any remaining faith in God and the old order for a generation.

King Six
16 Aug 08,, 11:10
Accusing someone of being a Jewish-Bolshevik... well, I am sure that's not how want to come across but take my word for it, please don't do that.
Why, what's so wrong about it? Not that I'd consider myself one of those commie type people but there's nothing wrong with suggesting that Jesus was more like them if you applied a modern political ideology(?) to him. The only people who would get offended are those crazy Evangelicals in the USA who talk more about the devil/hell than they do about Jesus, and also think that Jesus was an American Capitalist. :tongue:

Whatever the case. Christianity/Jesus teachings has long been ruined by Rome/The Vatican/USA

Like Gandhi once said "Christians are so unlike their Christ"

Or something like that.

Triple C
16 Aug 08,, 11:30
Jewish-Bolshevik was a term used by the Nazis to denounce their enemies. As I have said, I don't think that's how you want to come accross, but after seeing a couple of Nazi forums hearing the two brought up gives me the creeps.



The only people who would get offended are those crazy Evangelicals in the USA who talk more about the devil/hell than they do about Jesus, and also think that Jesus was an American Capitalist.


That is certainly true. Not all evangellicals are of the same intellectual depth though, I have seen plenty of thoughtful and intellegent Christian to make me wary of painting people with broadstrokes. Religion for some is a great source of moral strength.

snapper
19 Aug 08,, 10:49
Jewish-Bolshevik was a term used by the Nazis to denounce their enemies. As I have said, I don't think that's how you want to come accross, but after seeing a couple of Nazi forums hearing the two brought up gives me the creeps.



That is certainly true. Not all evangellicals are of the same intellectual depth though, I have seen plenty of thoughtful and intellegent Christian to make me wary of painting people with broadstrokes. Religion for some is a great source of moral strength.

Actualy I think there is a good historical case for precisely the opposite; namely that as relegious fervour increases moral rectitude decreases. The extreme cases are suicide bombers who take their own lives and those of innocents due to 'belief'; thus religious belief hinders moral judgement.

Triple C
19 Aug 08,, 11:21
One cannot be either more fanatical or dogmatic then Martin Luther, but he was also responsible for the reconstituition of secular states in Europe. The abolitionist movement in England and America was swayed by religious passions. To me there is also something unqualified in your definition of religiosity. Does one need to be fanatical in order to be devout? The Enlightenment movement was started by mostly Christian thinkers and philosophers. The earliest coherent expression of the concept of religious tolerance was uttered by very devout men such as Milton and Hume. It was a very devout Jasenist jurist (whose name escape me at this moment) who wrote treatise arguing that a virtuous atheist can go to heaven.

Glyn,

Er, you've got the wrong guy, Triple C. 'Tis not me that you need to convince! :)[/QUOTE]

I know, I just thought that you'd be interested ;)

Kansas Bear
20 Aug 08,, 05:16
One cannot be either more fanatical or dogmatic then Martin Luther....


But look what happened to other "reformers" before him!! :eek:

Triple C
20 Aug 08,, 11:10
Does that prove religion is foundementally malignant?

zraver
21 Aug 08,, 04:22
Actualy I think there is a good historical case for precisely the opposite; namely that as relegious fervour increases moral rectitude decreases. The extreme cases are suicide bombers who take their own lives and those of innocents due to 'belief'; thus religious belief hinders moral judgement.

I think Ghandi and Mother Teresa would probably find a way to argue that point if they still lived. it is not the fervour that is dangerous, but the authority using that fervour.

Herodotus
21 Aug 08,, 04:50
But look what happened to other "reformers" before him!! :eek:

That isn't necessarily the case. There has always been vigirous debate in Christanity about the nautre of the religion and the role of the Church, though I would expect the "resident historian" to know that.

Herodotus
21 Aug 08,, 04:57
Actualy I think there is a good historical case for precisely the opposite; namely that as relegious fervour increases moral rectitude decreases. The extreme cases are suicide bombers who take their own lives and those of innocents due to 'belief'; thus religious belief hinders moral judgement.

Do you have any source to back that up, or are you just cliff-noting the headlines. Suicide bombing is not necessarily a religious phenomonon. The secular Tamil Tigers as a group are responsible for more suicide bombings then any other group. And anyway suicide bombing is more a result of political and cultural issues than purely religious ones.

snapper
21 Aug 08,, 10:35
My main point is that religion has paved the way and been cited as a justification for many attrocities - from the pillage of Jerusalem in 1099 to the burning of the Catholic Inquisition and the Albigensian Crusade to the present day Islamic 'Jihad' against the 'Imperialist West'.

Mr zraver says "it is not the fervour that is dangerous, but the authority using that fervour" and this is a kind of chicken and egg thing. Does the fervour create the authority or vice versa. It is undoubtedly a two way process.

I do not argue that religion always makes blinds moral judgement nor even that is the sole cause of such blindness. I simply point to the historical occasions where immoral acts have have been defended by appeal to region and the acts themselves having some root in the blindness of religious 'Righteousness'. It seems that such religious righteousness - the appeal to a holy book or priavte knowledge of the divine will or some such - blocks the normal moral sense of right.

Kansas Bear
21 Aug 08,, 19:39
That isn't necessarily the case. There has always been vigirous debate in Christanity about the nautre of the religion and the role of the Church, though I would expect the "resident historian" to know that.

Tell that to the Cathars,Jan Hus, and Zwingli! I guess that's your idea of "vigorous debate". :eek:



One cannot be either more fanatical or dogmatic then Martin Luther....



But look what happened to other "reformers" before him!!

zraver
22 Aug 08,, 04:08
Tell that to the Cathars,Jan Hus, and Zwingli! I guess that's your idea of "vigorous debate". :eek:

All three of those examples are of Roman Catholic reprisals. No empire dies quietly, but the point you seemed to have missed is at least so far as Hus and Zwingli are concerned is their deaths did not stop the debate. The Reformation occured regardless of what the old guard in the Vatican did. Out of that era we get the Calvanist, Anabaptist, Luthernanism, Puritanism and others. Yet even during this debate and war there remained other Christian groups like the Greek and Eastern Orthodox, Coptics and others.




Mr zraver says "it is not the fervour that is dangerous, but the authority using that fervour" and this is a kind of chicken and egg thing. Does the fervour create the authority or vice versa. It is undoubtedly a two way process.

I do not argue that religion always makes blinds moral judgement nor even that is the sole cause of such blindness. I simply point to the historical occasions where immoral acts have have been defended by appeal to region and the acts themselves having some root in the blindness of religious 'Righteousness'. It seems that such religious righteousness - the appeal to a holy book or priavte knowledge of the divine will or some such - blocks the normal moral sense of right.[/QUOTE]


I doubt it is a two way process at all. It is however a two step process. 1st you tell the masses they are suffering, then 2nd you point them at their supposed oppressors. This tactic can be traced back at least as far Athen's domination of the Delian League at least in the embryonic stages (Persians). It was fully developed by the time pirates sacked a Roman port and gave birth to the empire with the passage of the Lex Gabinia. While it (the two step tactic for inciting the mob) was and is used by various religious groups. It was also used by Marx (bourgeois) and Hitler (Jews and Communist). We even see it today in Russian comments regarding the US as an excuse for Georgia or in post 9/11 speeches by the US president.

Kansas Bear
22 Aug 08,, 05:36
All three of those examples are of Roman Catholic reprisals. No empire dies quietly, but the point you seemed to have missed is at least so far as Hus and Zwingli are concerned is their deaths did not stop the debate. The Reformation occured regardless of what the old guard in the Vatican did. Out of that era we get the Calvanist, Anabaptist, Luthernanism, Puritanism and others. Yet even during this debate and war there remained other Christian groups like the Greek and Eastern Orthodox, Coptics and others.

I never said their deaths stopped any debate. Simply the Catholic church's attempt to suppress any threat to its authority. Hence, Luther's 'fanaticism', was due to his understanding that threats to the Catholic church's authority more often than not resulted in death.

snapper
22 Aug 08,, 11:11
Basicaly when someone one or group appeals to a 'divine law', book or whatever it throws out of the window any normal 'humane' understanding of moral right.

zraver
22 Aug 08,, 18:42
I never said their deaths stopped any debate. Simply the Catholic church's attempt to suppress any threat to its authority. Hence, Luther's 'fanaticism', was due to his understanding that threats to the Catholic church's authority more often than not resulted in death.

It appeared different when I read it, sorry.

Triple C
22 Aug 08,, 19:05
I was making a reference to Luther's adherence to certain Catholic practices that was not explicitedly based on the Bible which was supposed to be the only authority other than grace and faith, not to his attitude towards dissidence. I don't think Luther ever renounced his opposition to theocracy in any degree or form at any point of his life.

Herodotus
22 Aug 08,, 20:29
Tell that to the Cathars,Jan Hus, and Zwingli! I guess that's your idea of "vigorous debate".

Actually I was referring to the ecumenical councils, "vigorous debate" ensued on matters of theology without resorting to violence. There was also a long history of hetrodoxy within the church- Roscellinus, Gilbert of Poitiers, Abelard, Henry of Ghent, Bacon, Peter Lombard, Bonaventure, Wycliff, even Aquinas.

Not to mention there were various sects, and cults, that followed mystics that arose during the Middle Ages-the Beghards, Beguines, etc. The Albigensian Crusade was unfortuante, but as much a by-product of French feudal politics and Philip II's ambitions than of an evil church suppressing all dissent.

Herodotus
22 Aug 08,, 20:39
Basicaly when someone one or group appeals to a 'divine law', book or whatever it throws out of the window any normal 'humane' understanding of moral right.

We are looking at the Crusades with a thousand years of perspective, I think they need to be put in their proper historical context. That being said Christainity has never been a static religion, there have been countless theologians and philosphers who have debated the nature of the religion over the past 2,000 years. I cannot speak for Islam since I do not know much about it.

If it is religious "fundamentalism" that disturbs you, perhaps it is because of the political nature of said fundamentalism. Whether it be al Qaeda, or Pat Robertson, there is a political undercurrent that certainly corrupts whatever "religious" or "moral" message they (all encompassing) attempt, rather poorly, to convey. This is why I am a firm believer in the separation of religion and politics-not in that it protects the secularists, but rather because it protects religion.

snapper
22 Aug 08,, 23:15
We are looking at the Crusades with a thousand years of perspective, I think they need to be put in their proper historical context. That being said Christainity has never been a static religion, there have been countless theologians and philosphers who have debated the nature of the religion over the past 2,000 years. I cannot speak for Islam since I do not know much about it.

If it is religious "fundamentalism" that disturbs you, perhaps it is because of the political nature of said fundamentalism. Whether it be al Qaeda, or Pat Robertson, there is a political undercurrent that certainly corrupts whatever "religious" or "moral" message they (all encompassing) attempt, rather poorly, to convey. This is why I am a firm believer in the separation of religion and politics-not in that it protects the secularists, but rather because it protects religion.

As regards the Crusades, in their own time they were undoubtedly regarded as 'righteous' as well as being a method of getting rid of trouble makers from Europe and, for those that undertook them, no doubt an opportunity for profit and pillage and all the rest.

As to the your larger point yes 'fundamentalism' does disturb me - in any form - since it obscures reason in my opinion.

However my main point is essentialy a differnce of categories: I would argue that those who refer primarily to 'Divine Law' whether in a book or by personal 'revelation' base their arguements on a basis which they claim as almost by definition as unassailable, since it is 'Divine'.

The rest of humanity is left with morality and it's various doctrines which do not claim such absolute correctness but where there are opinions and normal human interaction.

My point is that the claim to divine inpiration and,what have you,claims to over-rule normal human ideas of morality and for myself I regard this as the starting point of many errors. We should remember first that we are humans and for the second time in these forums I dare to quote Nietzsche "There is good good reason to suppose that even the Gods could learn from us humans...we are more humane."

Yes Sir I totaly agree that Politics and Religion are should be kept seperate and when it becomes combined, a in the Crusades and todays Islamic Jihads is dangerous to those who do not share ones faith. I would argue though that such actions essentialy derive from what I would call the 'appeal to divinity' and the adherents are swayed by such an appeal for the politcal purposes of their leaders. In this way the 'appeal to divinity' both over-rides normal morality and is manipulated for political benefit. This is how we would view a Crusade now I would think and how we may perhaps view the present day Jihads.

snapper
22 Aug 08,, 23:21
I must of course qualify the above - many Crusaders were out for personal profit and the 'appeal to divinity' was mereley and excuse for them to seek a fortune in the East.

zraver
23 Aug 08,, 16:41
However my main point is essentialy a differnce of categories: I would argue that those who refer primarily to 'Divine Law' whether in a book or by personal 'revelation' base their arguements on a basis which they claim as almost by definition as unassailable, since it is 'Divine'.

The rest of humanity is left with morality and it's various doctrines which do not claim such absolute correctness but where there are opinions and normal human interaction.

I would contest that. Carl Marx wrote,""In its rational form it is a scandal and abomination to bourgeoisdom and its doctrinaire professors, because it includes in its comprehension an affirmative recognition of the existing state of things, at the same time also, the recognition of the negation of that state, of its inevitable breaking up; because it regards every historically developed social form as in fluid movement, and therefore takes into account its transient nature not less than its momentary existence; because it lets nothing impose upon it, and is in its essence critical and revolutionary." We find similar claims to the TRUTH by Hobbes and his natural law, American Manifest Destiny or Smith and his invisible hand.

It can be argued that the misery and death imposed by Adam Smith's invisible hand on the English lower classes far outweigh the death wrought by all religions combined through out time. Although this is of course a matter of scale in the populations. The pain unleashed by Marx dwarfs anything ever seen in humanity. What all of these had in common with religion was a claim to be above reproach and unassailable.

snapper
24 Aug 08,, 00:31
zraver Sir, I would concur totaly that rigid and "unassailable" belief deprives normal human morality. That the belief is Marxist or fascist makes not a jot of difference and those who hold such 'truths' as unassailable, I would argue have lost sight of normal human morality.

As an aside I attended a lecture in a few months ago by an Professor who's particular interest was Marx: His main point was that Marx was essentialy the attempt to create Heaven on Earth without God. I have to say think he is essentialy correct in that all Utopian dreams and the strict adherence to their dogma without God are to some extent analageous to religions. It is the strict adherence to a dogma though (no matter what it may be - the Bible is dangerous in the hands of some) that loses sight of humanity.

As for Adam Smith... would you then regard him as Marx's tutor? Certainly I would would agree he was a forerunner and yes I suppose on reflection that he must have been a light for Marxist economical theory. To say that Marx is pupil of Smith is probably correct. I would say though that Smith was a pragmatist and Marx an idealist. Smith was more of an observer whereas Marx was a historical revolutionary. That having been said; yes indeed Marxism (and fascism) has been by far the most damaging 'religion' of the last 100 years.

What I would stronly argue against is this "unassailable" or 'appeal to dvinity' call, whatever doctrine in may come in "historical inevitable" Marx may have called it. This is where human - or should I say humane - morality breaks down for "here is the Gospel as written by X...". In general it is wise for we humans to remember that we are...human! We should live by our rules and leave the morality of the Gods to them (they don't seem to good at it in my opinion).

hagakuré
29 Aug 08,, 22:19
When muslim scholars were travelling through the occupied Holy Land they were stunned to find muslim peasantry giving praise to the Franks.

Lesser taxes and "stability" were things these people had never seen before.
This is a fact documented by muslim writers...

Kansas Bear
30 Aug 08,, 01:12
Lesser taxes and "stability" were things these people had never seen before.
This is a fact documented by muslim writers...

Source??

snapper
30 Aug 08,, 05:44
I would be interested in those sources too. I thought the Franks were regarded as barbarious, though that means in Ancient terms only those not sharing ones culture. Those who stayed and were born in the Kindom of Jerusalem generaly had a greater acceptance of the culture of the area and a greater understanding of it politics, (both the Knights Templars and Knight Hospitlars made alliances at different times with Arab powers).

As to the treatment of Moslems living within the Kingdom I believe the Hospitlers would treat them in their hospitals (from Runciman) but I don't know their status as regards tax and carrying weapons etc... Will find out :)

hagakuré
30 Aug 08,, 13:27
Source??

"We passed villages all populated by muslims who lived in great prosperity under Frankish rule"

"One of the great tragedies for muslims is that they complain about the injustice of their own rulers (muslim rulers) , while the behaviour of the Franks, their 'natural' enemies is something they can only praise.
May Allah make an end to this !"

Ibn Djubair

hagakuré
30 Aug 08,, 13:35
I would be interested in those sources too. I thought the Franks were regarded as barbarious, though that means in Ancient terms only those not sharing ones culture. Those who stayed and were born in the Kindom of Jerusalem generaly had a greater acceptance of the culture of the area and a greater understanding of it politics, (both the Knights Templars and Knight Hospitlars made alliances at different times with Arab powers).

As to the treatment of Moslems living within the Kingdom I believe the Hospitlers would treat them in their hospitals (from Runciman) but I don't know their status as regards tax and carrying weapons etc... Will find out :)


They even had an "ambulance" service, a field hospital, 3 different kitchens for muslim, christian and jewish food. Orphans where raised by the hospital and given education, they were the "Children of St.-John".

Parihaka
30 Aug 08,, 22:33
Wiki has this but doesn't reference it.


We left Tibnin by a road running past farms where Muslims live who do very well under the Franks-may Allah preserve us from such a temptation! ... The Muslims own their own houses and rule themselves in their own way. This is the way the farms and big villages are organized in Frankish territory. Many Muslims are sorely tempted to settle here when they see the far from comfortable conditions in which their brethren live in the districts under Muslim rule. Unfortunately for the Muslims, they have always reason for complaint about the injustices of their chiefs in the lands governed by their coreligionists, whereas they can have nothing but praise for the conduct of the Franks, whose justice they can always rely on.
I also found this
Rights: A Critical Introduction - Google Book Search (http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=DrBonZs4gG8C&pg=RA1-PA114&lpg=RA1-PA114&dq=Ibn+Jubair+franks&source=web&ots=nidufbpdUa&sig=rI1nlSjzAgg4JLm_W-DILv6kWv0&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result)

snapper
31 Aug 08,, 00:59
Excellent source material - many thanks :)

falcon1131
09 Nov 08,, 13:29
In reality the crusades at the end they failed, and caused damage not only to the moslems but also to themselves, and beyond that.

The biggest damage was caused by the 4th crusade which really destroyed the Byzantine empire by taking Constantinople in 1204. Although they were only able to keep it for 57 years, and the Byzantines ressurected a kingdom, it was so decayed after that........, that soon ended up being just a principality. When the Ottomans finally took over Constantinople in 1453 from the Byzantines, there wasn't any empire that they took over, there wasn't even a kingdom, the so called Byzantines had in their possession only the city of Constantinople and Morea (southern Greece).
What that meant was that the defences of Europe were now open to the onslaught of the Ottomans.

pate
02 Dec 08,, 09:54
Wasn't the first crusade undertaken to free Spain?

Roosveltrepub
06 Dec 08,, 18:25
The Europeans were responding to being attacked. Doubt that any acts committed by the Euros were any worst then acts committed by the Muslims. Besides judging ancient conflicts by modern standards is a waste of time.

The West was attacked and that launched the Crusades? Are you talking the Albigensian crusade? The rape of Constantinople? The bloodbath at Jerusalem? When was the west attacked by the Middle eastern turkic/arab states? The west was barbaric by Arab and Greek standards. There were Mosques in Constantinope and Christian churches in Jerusalem. How many Mosques were in Jerusalem after the first crusade? How many jews? the Crusades were barbaric. The Mamelukes imitated that barbarism when the last crusader state fell. It was an invasion on indigenous peoples. How could it be just?

zraver
06 Dec 08,, 22:26
The West was attacked and that launched the Crusades? Are you talking the Albigensian crusade? The rape of Constantinople? The bloodbath at Jerusalem? When was the west attacked by the Middle eastern turkic/arab states? The west was barbaric by Arab and Greek standards. There were Mosques in Constantinope and Christian churches in Jerusalem. How many Mosques were in Jerusalem after the first crusade? How many jews? the Crusades were barbaric. The Mamelukes imitated that barbarism when the last crusader state fell. It was an invasion on indigenous peoples. How could it be just?


Your crazy, the arabs or Arabia were not indigenous to the area, although they were close cousins. They were no closer than the Greeks or Latins however after millenia of Hellenic then Roman rule and intermarriage. The Turkomen were definitely not indigenous. The Levant and Asia Minor had been "European" for over a thousand years when the Arabs invaded.

As for barbarism, one of the first acts of Islam was the extermination and expulsion of Jews in Mecca. Then any land conquered had its native religion and culture suppressed and eventually destroyed by an Arab over culture that banned things like human images etc. Wars in the ancient world were barbaric- no one was clean.

Hitman817
07 Dec 08,, 13:41
In reality the crusades at the end they failed, and caused damage not only to the moslems but also to themselves, and beyond that.

The biggest damage was caused by the 4th crusade which really destroyed the Byzantine empire by taking Constantinople in 1204. Although they were only able to keep it for 57 years, and the Byzantines ressurected a kingdom, it was so decayed after that........, that soon ended up being just a principality. When the Ottomans finally took over Constantinople in 1453 from the Byzantines, there wasn't any empire that they took over, there wasn't even a kingdom, the so called Byzantines had in their possession only the city of Constantinople and Morea (southern Greece).
What that meant was that the defences of Europe were now open to the onslaught of the Ottomans.

We would have eventually overrun Byzanz, no matter what.

Hitman817
07 Dec 08,, 13:51
Your crazy, the arabs or Arabia were not indigenous to the area, although they were close cousins. They were no closer than the Greeks or Latins however after millenia of Hellenic then Roman rule and intermarriage. The Turkomen were definitely not indigenous. The Levant and Asia Minor had been "European" for over a thousand years when the Arabs invaded.
Before the Romans and Greeks, there were the Sumerians, Babylonians and Persians for thousands of years. As you can see, your argument is pointless.


As for barbarism, one of the first acts of Islam was the extermination and expulsion of Jews in Mecca. Then any land conquered had its native religion and culture suppressed and eventually destroyed by an Arab over culture that banned things like human images etc. Wars in the ancient world were barbaric- no one was clean.

I think at that time Cristians were the only ones, forcing their belive onto others, or killing them. Moslems usually didn't force others to become Moslems, that would be unislamic. Though there were exceptions to this rule.

zraver
07 Dec 08,, 20:13
Before the Romans and Greeks, there were the Sumerians, Babylonians and Persians for thousands of years. As you can see, your argument is pointless.

The area was settled by Semitic peoples- proto-Arabs if you will. An offshoot of Sumerian cultures, Abraham was from the Sumerian city of Ur. These groups evolved into the Canaanites and Israeli groups and the area was later settled by Mycenaean Greeks (Philistines) and Phoneticians. Persians and Babylonians were invaders who did not stick around. The group that would formally become Arabian Arabs did not arrive in large numbers until the Islamic invasions.


[quote]I think at that time Cristians were the only ones, forcing their belive onto others, or killing them. Moslems usually didn't force others to become Moslems, that would be unislamic. Though there were exceptions to this rule.

caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah destroyed every church he could find including the Church o the Holy Sepulcher. When the Byzantine Emperor paid to have it rebuilt after its destruction and Kakim's death 5,000 people converted back to Christianity after a forced conversion to Islam.

astralis
07 Dec 08,, 22:29
hitman,


I think at that time Cristians were the only ones, forcing their belive onto others, or killing them. Moslems usually didn't force others to become Moslems, that would be unislamic. Though there were exceptions to this rule.

don't kid yourself. the first wave of islamic expansion was so fast that the conquerers needed to force people- a generation or two was not fast enough to do the slow process of peaceful conversion.

afterwards, the whole idea of jiziya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya) was to promote conversion...slightly more subtle, but given how poor people were then it amounted to forced conversion for many, and vastly preferred option for even more.

troung
08 Dec 08,, 00:54
afterwards, the whole idea of jiziya was to promote conversion...slightly more subtle, but given how poor people were then it amounted to forced conversion for many, and vastly preferred option for even more.

The idea behind jiyiza was to support a ruling class. The early Muslim states had problems with that, because once you are taxing people you have a reason not to consider them converted (poll and land taxes were the only "legit" way to tax). Conversion was a source of trouble, politically and economically. There were even disputes, early on, as to whether a non Arab could become a Muslim.

Taxes, according to some, weren't as bad as the ones from the prior regimes.

Not to glorify the Islamic conquests, but Pagans didn't survive in Europe but Christians and Jews survived in the Middle East (fortunes rose and fell of course with different regimes). No dispute that plenty of people were killed for not converting, plenty of people liked the message, and plenty of people wanted to cheat their taxes.

Kansas Bear
14 Dec 08,, 05:04
The West was attacked and that launched the Crusades?

Since you asked;
Sicily attacked 652
Sicily attacked 667
Spain invaded 711, which brings about 460yrs of warfare(Reconquista)
Septimania attacked 719
Nimes, France occupied 725
Narbonne and Avignon occupied 730
Battle of Tours 732
Arles occupied 735
Hisham I calls a jihad Narbonne is destroyed 792
Civi Vecchia attacked 813
Sicily invaded 827
Marseille sacked 838
Rome attacked(the churches of St. Peter & St. Paul damaged) 846
Campagna pillaged 876
Monte Cassino burned to the ground 884
Monte Cassino destroyed again 994
Pisa sacked 1004

astralis
14 Dec 08,, 06:18
KB,

i think we covered this point earlier, but the problem i see with all of this is that the command decisions was so decentralized and had so many other motivating factors other than religion, the whole "west vs islam" thing becomes pointless. i doubt pope urban II launched the crusades because a few hundred years ago sicily and france were attacked, for instance. he had other more immediate, pressing secular and religious motivations.

it's probably more accurate to note that neither "side" was an innocent victim.

Kernow
18 Dec 08,, 02:23
Because it isn't a civilised way to behave. And one of the principles of the crusades was to liberate the civilised lands from the barbarians.

If we took that argument to its logical conclusion we would still believe the earth was flat, that the heavans revolved around it and the different races of humans were in fact different species.

They weren't cicilised times I'm afraid, far from it.

Kernow
18 Dec 08,, 02:26
The Crusades were a series of military campaigns during the time of Medieval England against the Muslims of the Middle East. In 1076, the Muslims had captured Jerusalem - the most holy of holy places for Christians. Jesus had been born in nearby Bethlehem and Jesus had spent most of his life in Jerusalem. He was crucified on Calvary Hill, also in Jerusalem. There was no more important place on Earth than Jerusalem for a true Christian which is why Christians called Jerusalem the "City of God".

However, Jerusalem was also extremely important for the Muslims as Muhammad, the founder of the Muslim faith, had been there and there was great joy in the Muslim world when Jerusalem was captured. A beautiful dome - called the Dome of the Rock - was built on the rock where Muhammad was said to have sat and prayed and it was so holy that no Muslim was allowed to tread on the rock or touch it when visiting the Dome.

Therefore the Christian fought to get Jerusalem back while the Muslims fought to keep Jerusalem. These wars were to last nearly 200 years

Ironduke
07 Jan 09,, 11:52
When was the west attacked by the Middle eastern turkic/arab states?
There were wars between Arabs and Turks with Western Europe since... the invasion of Spain. The Reconquista was ongoing from the 8th through the 15th century. The Arabs conquered Sicily, and sacked Rome at least twice. The Arabs also held cities in the south of France for decades and advanced deep into the country before being turned back in a couple of battles. There were slave raiding expeditions in France and Italy from the 8th century through the 17th or 18th. Some even went as far as England.

I'm pointing out that there was a history of conflict. I think there is alot of revisionism among current historians -- as campaigns of conquest, the Crusades were not more unjustified than any other war of conquest that's ever taken place.

hongi
08 Jan 09,, 11:13
To suggest that the Crusades were unjustified wars of conquest is short-sighted.
The poll is too broad ranging. The Crusades cover a huge range of military actions, with a huge diversity of participants, with a huge range of differing intentions and motives over several centuries, from the First Crusade to the Fourth Crusade to the Baltic Crusades against the pagans to the Albigensian Crusade and so on. Were they all justified?

Torgut
13 Jan 09,, 05:00
Probably I shouldn't be surprised to see that some people think that a religious war can justified.

Ironduke
13 Jan 09,, 12:19
Probably I shouldn't be surprised to see that some people think that a religious war can justified.
Some people are surprised that any war can be justified. The motives of the Crusades were not entirely religious anyways, there were other factors at work as well.

Johnny W
13 Jan 09,, 19:03
Some people are surprised that any war can be justified. The motives of the Crusades were not entirely religious anyways, there were other factors at work as well.

As with most religiuos wars, there was probably a large amount of greed on the part of those that were less pious.

Deltacamelately
15 Jan 09,, 08:18
The poll is too broad ranging. The Crusades cover a huge range of military actions, with a huge diversity of participants, with a huge range of differing intentions and motives over several centuries, from the First Crusade to the Fourth Crusade to the Baltic Crusades against the pagans to the Albigensian Crusade and so on. Were they all justified?
Nobody's saying they were. However, religion did have its hand in the motivation to fight the Araba/Turks....
One however forgets that these were a 1000 yrs people with very different social/religious constructs and values and young women and wealth did lure a bulk of those ancient warriors. Since you didn't have bullets then, beheading your enemy with a sword was a quick and sure kill, hence barbaric from today's standard. Also, apart from the lust factor, mass raping of women of an enemy tribe was also considered part of an attempt to demoralize / humiliate the enemy into submission.

Torgut
15 Jan 09,, 13:05
As with most religiuos wars, there was probably a large amount of greed on the part of those that were less pious.

I agree on that. But then, I guess it's always like this. Even today, those usually labeled of "Islamic Radicals" and etcetera.... I'm pretty sure some other factors - like tribal disputes, personal conveniences - are also present behind the strict religious motivations.

crazy_bandit
20 May 09,, 13:19
This is such an easy question to answer. We could look today and say are the jihadists who destroyed WTC justified? The answer is no. Corrupt leadership led to crusades just as today it leads to terorism. Both not justified by anything especially not by religion.

Triple C
22 May 09,, 06:19
This is such an easy question to answer. We could look today and say are the jihadists who destroyed WTC justified? The answer is no. Corrupt leadership led to crusades just as today it leads to terorism. Both not justified by anything especially not by religion.

Crazy Bandit,

You might want to read Iron Duke's post right up this page.

The Muslims overran the Eastern Roman Empire, then stormed in to Spain and would have rolled into France if Charles Martel didn't stop them. They killed, raped, pillaged and enslaved their way into power, in the best medieval tradition.

To put it simply, it was a continuation of a geo-strategic conflict between two civilizations. To describe the war as either 'justified' or 'unjustified' is an absurdist attempt at reducing complex phenomenon in history.

Spagnostic
09 Jun 09,, 18:00
This site is so interesting.On one topic you witness a debate almost at academic level and amazed.On the other hand,a few pages back you jump to another topic,and see people are discussing if a war is justified or not(i expected the focus of those debates, would be, whether it was rational or not,for Popedom to conduct a crusade on a such distant land,against superpowers of their time,in other words was the possible gains of that campaign worth the cost?).

It becomes really ridicolous to see people arguing on the legitimacy of this of wars.Considering it was fought some 1000 years ago,where terms like,nationalism, international law,human rights,genocide,mass deportation etc. were not even invented or were absent.Very anachronistic...

dwa
10 Jun 09,, 23:37
i view the crusades as a punitive expedition. they were justified in their barbarity by the barbarity visited upon Europe by the various Muslim factions.

pate
13 Jun 09,, 08:33
Does that justify the crusades though?

Oscar
13 Jun 09,, 12:58
i view the crusades as a punitive expedition. they were justified in their barbarity by the barbarity visited upon Europe by the various Muslim factions.

What are you talking about? If there was barbarity that was mostly on the Crusaders side. The sacking of Jerusalem was seen with horror by the Arabs and even the Byzantines despised them.

Triple C
13 Jun 09,, 18:11
i view the crusades as a punitive expedition. they were justified in their barbarity by the barbarity visited upon Europe by the various Muslim factions.

So it is alright to slaughter, rape and enslave innocent Arab farmers? Because their distant coreligionists in Africa invaded Spain? The Crusaders' justification for their attack is that the Byzantines asked for help, even though it was immediately apparent that they wore out their welcome upon arrival. The Crusaders were a group of comically uncouth marauders.

dwa
14 Jun 09,, 07:26
Does that justify the crusades though?

why not i never said the various muslim factions were not justified in invadeing europe, but said invasion is what led to the crusades


What are you talking about? If there was barbarity that was mostly on the Crusaders side. The sacking of Jerusalem was seen with horror by the Arabs and even the Byzantines despised them.

so the invasions of sicily italy spain portugal france egypt israel syria turkey libya algeria carthage moroco persia ethiopia india ect were done with a halo over ones head. this is how war was fought.


So it is alright to slaughter, rape and enslave innocent Arab farmers? Because their distant coreligionists in Africa invaded Spain? The Crusaders' justification for their attack is that the Byzantines asked for help, even though it was immediately apparent that they wore out their welcome upon arrival. The Crusaders were a group of comically uncouth marauders.

so closing the holy land to pilgrims had nothing to do with it...the holy land was christian long before it was muslim. heck medina was jewish long before it was muslim. the crusaders fought in the way wars were fought at the time. they were justified in that what they did was how things were done. next you going to say that muhammad was not justified in beheading 700 jews in the conquest of medina. this is how life was there was no cnn, no UN and no geneva convention, the term rape and pillage comes to mind.

Officer of Engineers
14 Jun 09,, 07:29
dwa,

Your point is only correct if the Franks cared for the Spaniards. They couldn't cared less. In fact, France asked the Ottomans for help against the Austrians.

And you do realize that once the Crusaders reached the Holy Land, most made tempoary alliances with the Muslim powers to raid caravans and split the spoils.

dwa
14 Jun 09,, 08:01
dwa,

Your point is only correct if the Franks cared for the Spaniards. They couldn't cared less. In fact, France asked the Ottomans for help against the Austrians.

And you do realize that once the Crusaders reached the Holy Land, most made tempoary alliances with the Muslim powers to raid caravans and split the spoils.

so they behaved as their Muslim contemporaries did? was raiding your new neighbors and making alliances what one did after founding new kingdoms. the franks may not have cared for the spaniards but the pope certainly did and he was the force instigating the crusades. there had been talk of retaking lands lost to Islam since they had been lost to Islam. there were christian incursions into Muslim land and Muslim incursions into christian lands to judge ether's behavior by comparing it to current morality instead of the actions of contemporaries is flawed. alliances were also made between the crusader states and the Mongols.

Oscar
14 Jun 09,, 12:17
so the invasions of sicily italy spain portugal france egypt israel syria turkey libya algeria carthage moroco persia ethiopia india ect were done with a halo over ones head. this is how war was fought.

These are wars of conquest...Like it has always happened since the beginning of times.

With arguments like yours one could justify today's Islamic terrorism as "punitive raids" in reprisal of the colonisation of egypt syria libya morocco ethiopia lebanon algeria etc by Western powers.

Triple C
14 Jun 09,, 12:30
so closing the holy land to pilgrims had nothing to do with it...the holy land was christian long before it was muslim.

The First Crusade was a shameless land grab. If the crusaders were there to reclaim Christian lands, they forgot to give it back to Byzantium.


heck medina was jewish long before it was muslim. the crusaders fought in the way wars were fought at the time. they were justified in that what they did was how things were done. next you going to say that muhammad was not justified in beheading 700 jews in the conquest of medina. this is how life was there was no cnn, no UN and no geneva convention, the term rape and pillage comes to mind.

Mohammad was justfied because Medina offered resistance. Thus, shall the city fall the lives of the inhabitants were forfeit. This was the law of war universally recognized by all races and nations of the time and practiced by Wellington and Napoleon.

In contrast, the crusaders massacred the Jews in German and French cities who posed no threat to them and gave their armies free passage. An unconscienable act even by the standards of the day and resoundingly condemned by the religious authorities in those cities.

dwa
14 Jun 09,, 17:42
The First Crusade was a shameless land grab. If the crusaders were there to reclaim Christian lands, they forgot to give it back to Byzantium.



Mohammad was justfied because Medina offered resistance. Thus, shall the city fall the lives of the inhabitants were forfeit. This was the law of war universally recognized by all races and nations of the time and practiced by Wellington and Napoleon.

okay...now your debating the merits of the massacre? really Napoleon and Wellington practiced the law of war in the same moral sense as Mohammad did in the 600s and the crusades in 1095+, they used the same law of war? I dont recall Napoleon every selling a defeated army into slavery.

In contrast, the crusaders massacred the Jews in German and French cities who posed no threat to them and gave their armies free passage. An unconscionable act even by the standards of the day and resoundingly condemned by the religious authorities in those cities.

really an unconscionable act, i suppose the contemporary conquest of India was preformed in a completely different manner.

dwa
14 Jun 09,, 17:46
These are wars of conquest...Like it has always happened since the beginning of times.

With arguments like yours one could justify today's Islamic terrorism as "punitive raids" in reprisal of the colonisation of egypt syria libya morocco ethiopia lebanon algeria etc by Western powers.

really with arguement like mine, wasnt the stated goal of the crusades the RECONQUEST of lost christian lands. Funny thing dont today's Islamic terrorists justify their actions as punative Jihad? in reprisal for the colonisation of egypt syria libya morocco ethiopia lebanon algeria ect by the western powers. nice attempt at a strawman through.

Triple C
15 Jun 09,, 03:29
okay...now your debating the merits of the massacre? really Napoleon and Wellington practiced the law of war in the same moral sense as Mohammad did in the 600s and the crusades in 1095+, they used the same law of war? I dont recall Napoleon every selling a defeated army into slavery.


18th Century Army excerised absolute freedom to kill, rob and rape enemy civilians at will for three days if the city resisted the siege by opening fire on the first assault troops. This is well documented and beyond dispute.

dwa
15 Jun 09,, 04:31
18th Century Army excerised absolute freedom to kill, rob and rape enemy civilians at will for three days if the city resisted the siege by opening fire on the first assault troops. This is well documented and beyond dispute.

i said sell into slavery

Triple C
15 Jun 09,, 08:51
i said sell into slavery

You said Mohamad beheaded 700 Jews in Medina. I gave you concrete and indisputable evidence to show that what he did was well within the accepted norm of Medieval and even Early Modern warfare. I also gave you a concrete and indisputable evidence that for the crusaders the holy war against infidels was pretext to advance their personal ambitions without regard to matters of law or right. I have also pointed out that the crusaders were cruelly disposed to the Jews and even the Pagan Wends in Russia who were blameless and slaughtered/enslaved them. I can see no way in which the atrocious wars of the Dark Ages could be justfied by anyone, nor need to take sides in a war that had long since been concluded.

dwa
15 Jun 09,, 17:51
You said Mohamad beheaded 700 Jews in Medina. I gave you concrete and indisputable evidence to show that what he did was well within the accepted norm of Medieval and even Early Modern warfare. I also gave you a concrete and indisputable evidence that for the crusaders the holy war against infidels was pretext to advance their personal ambitions without regard to matters of law or right. I have also pointed out that the crusaders were cruelly disposed to the Jews and even the Pagan Wends in Russia who were blameless and slaughtered/enslaved them. I can see no way in which the atrocious wars of the Dark Ages could be justfied by anyone, nor need to take sides in a war that had long since been concluded.

the pagans was a different crusade unless we are discussing all crusades. I'm not disputing your evidence but the context it was placed in. The atrocious wars of the dark ages are justified in being the common behavior of the time. This is simply how things were done. I believe you took a side far before i did. Were the crusaders not nice people...obviously but neither was anyone else, all the nice people of the time were the ones being massacred.

The crusades were justified as was the Muslim expansion prior during and after. They were simply a counter conquest.

Big K
15 Jun 09,, 18:16
i believe the kind of justification mentioned in the poll above was a religious one not a strategic or political one.

Triple C
15 Jun 09,, 18:22
the pagans was a different crusade unless we are discussing all crusades. I'm not disputing your evidence but the context it was placed in.


It shows that cruades are land grabs for second- or third-sons in aristocrat families.


The atrocious wars of the dark ages are justified in being the common behavior of the time.

"Reclaiming" your nominal allie's land and than "forgets" to give it back is on the top of poor form at ALL times. And the Jews they massacred on the way in their own territories I presume was icing on the cake. It is your contention that crusading has a causus belli which was the conquest of Byzantine Empire by Muslims. That was not how the deal went down, obviously, as the emperor was absolutely furious at the Frank barbarians who were every bit the ursurper as the Muslims.


This is simply how things were done. I believe you took a side far before i did.

Not at all. I merely take pleasure in finding that one thousand years after the fact, people are still taking sides between two groups of zealots and brigands. I consider all this a rather comical footnote to modern politcal clime.

dwa
16 Jun 09,, 08:17
It shows that cruades are land grabs for second- or third-sons in aristocrat families.

not exactly if were discussing the Teutonic order and the reconquista then that changes the discussion i was asking for you to clarify the boundary i was under the assumption we were discussing only the "holy land" crusades

"Reclaiming" your nominal allie's land and than "forgets" to give it back is on the top of poor form at ALL times. And the Jews they massacred on the way in their own territories I presume was icing on the cake. It is your contention that crusading has a causus belli which was the conquest of Byzantine Empire by Muslims. That was not how the deal went down, obviously, as the emperor was absolutely furious at the Frank barbarians who were every bit the ursurper as the Muslims.

they were invited by the Byzantines sent by the pope and behaved as a conquering horde, but that is simply how people behaved at the time, youre trying your best to apply 21st century morals to the 11 century

Not at all. I merely take pleasure in finding that one thousand years after the fact, people are still taking sides between two groups of zealots and brigands. I consider all this a rather comical footnote to modern politcal clime.

you can say your not taking sides all you want but your posts tell a different story. since this is an interesting discussion and i stated my case why the crusades were justified in their behavior as it was common to act medieval in medieval times. im not saying the crusades or the crusaders were angels or were right just that they were not wrong, and apply what is now consider wrong to then is pointless. its like saying were the vikings a moral people, the answer would be...to what moral code.

Triple C
16 Jun 09,, 12:06
you can say your not taking sides all you want but your posts tell a different story. since this is an interesting discussion and i stated my case why the crusades were justified in their behavior as it was common to act medieval in medieval times.

Actually, dwa, my earlier posts on this thread a year or so ago refuted another poster's claim that the crusades was an unprovoked act of aggression and pointed out that there were geo-strategic justifications for Urban II to incite an offensive on the Muslims. I just do not see how or why we should pass moral judgement on an epoch so alien to our own. Instead, attributing the motives of the agents, the causes of action and analysis of their consequences would be far more meaningful.

dwa
16 Jun 09,, 19:55
Actually, dwa, my earlier posts on this thread a year or so ago refuted another poster's claim that the crusades was an unprovoked act of aggression and pointed out that there were geo-strategic justifications for Urban II to incite an offensive on the Muslims. I just do not see how or why we should pass moral judgement on an epoch so alien to our own. Instead, attributing the motives of the agents, the causes of action and analysis of their consequences would be far more meaningful.

they i guess you had fun playing devils advocate :)

Kansas Bear
20 Jun 09,, 03:10
"...that it was the Moors who inoculated the Christians with a belief in Holy Wars, as an essential part part of their religion." -- Christianity and Islam in Spain 756-1031, by Haines, p.155

Triple C
23 Jun 09,, 07:27
Hey Kansas Bear,

It's not my intention to say that the Crusades were more or less evil than other wars of the medieval world. There is every reason to believe that Urban II was deadly serious about his conviction that the Crusades was a divinely sanction war against a heathen foe to protect Christiandom. There are also signs of Muslim aggression that imply the basic accuracy of his perception of events. However, I refuse to view the Crusades as more or less than a bygone war fought between great powers for bygone concepts of morality.

dwa
23 Jun 09,, 08:44
Hey Kansas Bear,

It's not my intention to say that the Crusades were more or less evil than other wars of the medieval world. There is every reason to believe that Urban II was deadly serious about his conviction that the Crusades was a divinely sanction war against a heathen foe to protect Christiandom. There are also signs of Muslim aggression that imply the basic accuracy of his perception of events. However, I refuse to view the Crusades as more or less than a bygone war fought between great powers for bygone concepts of morality.

i thought that was my talking point? :biggrin:

mikado
18 Jul 09,, 16:12
Hey Kansas Bear,

It's not my intention to say that the Crusades were more or less evil than other wars of the medieval world. There is every reason to believe that Urban II was deadly serious about his conviction that the Crusades was a divinely sanction war against a heathen foe to protect Christiandom. There are also signs of Muslim aggression that imply the basic accuracy of his perception of events. However, I refuse to view the Crusades as more or less than a bygone war fought between great powers for bygone concepts of morality.

Urban planned to use the First Crusade to bring the Byzantines into the Catholic Church. There was strategic calculation alongside the high-minded stuff.