PDA

View Full Version : Interesting facts about the Crusades.



Grim Reaper
24 Jul 07,, 19:15
Perhaps it was discussed already and many of you know it, but I just came across it and decided to share it with you. This is in no way meant to be a hate topic, just pointing out some facts.


The Muslim Game:

Muslims love talking about the Crusades… and Christians love apologizing for them. To hear both parties tell the story, one would believe that Muslims were just peacefully minding their own business in lands that were legitimately Muslim, when Christian armies decided to wage holy war and "kill millions.”

The Truth:

Every part of this myth is a lie. By the rules that Muslims claim for themselves, the Crusades were perfectly justified, and the excesses (though beneath Christian standards) pale in comparison with the historical treatment of conquered populations at the hands of Muslims.

Here are some quick facts…

The first Crusade began in 1095… 460 years after the first Christian city was overrun by Muslim armies, 457 years after Jerusalem was conquered by Muslim armies, 453 years after Egypt was taken by Muslim armies, 443 after Muslims first plundered Italy, 427 years after Muslim armies first laid siege to the Christian capital of Constantinople, 380 years after Spain was conquered by Muslim armies, 363 years after France was first attacked by Muslim armies, 249 years after Rome itself was sacked by a Muslim army, and only after centuries of church burnings, killings, enslavement and forced conversions of Christians.

By the time the Crusades finally began, Muslim armies had conquered two-thirds of the Christian world.

Europe had been harassed by Muslims since the first few years following Muhammad’s death. As early as 652, Muhammad’s followers launched raids on the island of Sicily, waging a full-scale occupation 200 years later that lasted well over two centuries and was punctuated by massacres, such as that at the town of Castrogiovanni, in which 8,000 Christians were put to death. In 1084, ten years before the first crusade, Muslims staged another devastating Sicilian raid, burning churches in Reggio, enslaving monks and raping an abbey of nuns before carrying them into captivity.

In theory, the Crusades were provoked by the harassment of Christian pilgrims from Europe to the Holy Land, in which many were kidnapped, molested, forcibly converted to Islam or even killed. (Compare this to Islam’s justification for slaughter on the basis of Muslims being denied access to the Meccan pilgrimage in Muhammad’s time).

The Crusaders only invaded lands that were Christian. They never attacked Saudi Arabia or sacked Mecca as the Muslims had done (and continued doing) to Italy and Constantinople.

The period of Crusader “occupation” (of its own former land) was stretched over less than two centuries. The Muslim occupation is in its 1,372nd year.

The period of Crusader “aggression” compresses to about 20 years of actual military campaign, much of which was spent on organization and travel. (They were from 1098-1099, 1146-1148, 1188-1192, 1201-1204, 1218-1221, 1228-1229, and 1248-1250). By comparison, the Muslim Jihad against the island of Sicily alone lasted 75 grinding years.

Unlike Jihad, the Crusades were never justified on the basis of New Testament teachings. This is why they are an anomaly, the punctuation of fourteen centuries of relentless Jihad that began long before the Crusades and continued well after they were over.

The greatest crime of the Crusaders was the sacking of Jerusalem, in which 30,000 people were said to have been massacred. This number is dwarfed by the number of Jihad victims, from India to Constantinople and Narbonne, but Muslims have never apologized for their crimes and never will.

What is called 'sin and excess' by other religions, is what Islam refers to as the will of Allah.

astralis
24 Jul 07,, 19:36
grim reaper,

gee, that sure sounded like cold, dry facts to me. no slant in there at all, nope.

in any case, this has been discussed for the ten millionth time; go read the other posts below instead of repeating ad infinitum.

Kansas Bear
25 Jul 07,, 01:41
This sounds oddly familiar.....


:biggrin:

Arnold123
06 Sep 07,, 11:42
Sounds like you think they are the army of the anti-Christ?

ExNavyAmerican
23 Sep 07,, 13:43
I don't apologize for the Crusades -the Catholics executed them :))

And, the holy land doesn't belong to Christians; It belongs to Israelis.

Otherwise, I think Grim Reaper made the point I've been trying to make. HOWEVER, that does not justify bloody pillaging against everyone (note, EVERYONE) by the Catholics

ExNavyAmerican
23 Sep 07,, 13:50
astralis;

Do you have a problem with facts? You keep denying your left-wing leanings; but your emnity with facts suggests you are indeed a liberal. Granted, not all of what GR posted was objective, but a lot of it was cold, dry facts .

You seem to be the biased one to me.

astralis
23 Sep 07,, 23:49
exnavyamerican,

do tell me which of my positions is left-leaning at all. ;)

as for my knowledge of the facts, try actually challenging them...if you're going to resurrect an old thread, bring on something new. you haven't even re-hashed an old argument yet.

ExNavyAmerican
24 Sep 07,, 05:15
exnavyamerican,

do tell me which of my positions is left-leaning at all. ;)

I'll point them out as we go along.


as for my knowledge of the facts, try actually challenging them...if you're going to resurrect an old thread, bring on something new. you haven't even re-hashed an old argument yet.

No you don't. You're the one that challenged GR's post without citing any counter points. most of what he gave went along with dates. Most of what he said was objective but you acted as if all he said were rants. And I never said you weren't knowledgeable; I just said you have an emnity with facts. That doesn't mean you don't know them; it simply means you don't like them for whatever reason.

Franco Lolan
24 Sep 07,, 06:23
Great post Reaper. Thanks!

gunnut
24 Sep 07,, 09:42
do tell me which of my positions is left-leaning at all. ;)

Big government? :biggrin:

By the way, I have never apologized for the crusades. I didn't do it. I wasn't even there.

dave lukins
24 Sep 07,, 10:20
Big government? :biggrin:

By the way, I have never apologized for the crusades. I didn't do it. I wasn't even there.

Glyn was:biggrin:

astralis
24 Sep 07,, 15:27
exnavyamerican,


No you don't. You're the one that challenged GR's post without citing any counter points. most of what he gave went along with dates. Most of what he said was objective but you acted as if all he said were rants. And I never said you weren't knowledgeable; I just said you have an emnity with facts. That doesn't mean you don't know them; it simply means you don't like them for whatever reason.

they're not "cold dry facts" because they're tinted with one-sided commentary and a very obvious bias.

it is as if i said that since the ascension of christ, christians have brutally tortured, murdered, enslaved, raped, burned, and forcibly converted millions and millions of people...and left it at that.

that certainly is true, but it is also slanted.

GR's post was along the same lines as the schoolyard argument, "well i'm bad but he's worse- and so he had it coming."

that's all fine and well as internet argument, but it is not for a second "cold, dry facts."

ExNavyAmerican
25 Sep 07,, 08:47
exnavyamerican,



they're not "cold dry facts" because they're tinted with one-sided commentary and a very obvious bias.

it is as if i said that since the ascension of christ, christians have brutally tortured, murdered, enslaved, raped, burned, and forcibly converted millions and millions of people...and left it at that.

that certainly is true, but it is also slanted.

GR's post was along the same lines as the schoolyard argument, "well i'm bad but he's worse- and so he had it coming."

that's all fine and well as internet argument, but it is not for a second "cold, dry facts."

Agreed. Not everything he said was objective; he obviously favors the Crusaders-as do I. But also agreed that the atrocities commited could not be justified; I don't apologize for them. But the actual Crusades were not unjustified; no more unjustified then the Allied invasion of France at the close of the Napoleonic Wars; or the Allied invasion of Germany at the close of WW2. This is where we clash.

astralis
25 Sep 07,, 16:26
exnavyamerican,


But the actual Crusades were not unjustified; no more unjustified then the Allied invasion of France at the close of the Napoleonic Wars; or the Allied invasion of Germany at the close of WW2. This is where we clash

i agree, that is where we clash.

we can connect the "the Allied invasion of France at the close of the Napoleonic Wars or the Allied invasion of Germany at the close of WW2" as part of one long, organized campaign/war.

we cannot do the same for the crusades, for a multitude of reasons.

- the muslim attacks in italy and france were not part of a directed, organized campaign, but instead represented a series of raiding parties and land grabs by various different muslim groups. in this way it was akin to the vikings, yet we do not speak of norse/"heathen" campaign against christendom.

- the crusades were not organized in response to this, not even as the veneer. they were organized in response to what WAS a directed military campaign against the byzantine empire. but after the fall of jerusalem, and the squabbling between the crusader city-states, even this fell apart- as demonstrated by the happenings of the fourth crusade.

that's why i'm so loath to try to weave the crusades into this narrative of some thousand-year christian-islamic war. this is what osama bin ladin espouses, and it represents poor history and modern-day politicization of what was in effect a disjointed series of economic/land raids by both sides.

besides, what justification is needed, after all? looking back, neither the crusaders nor the muslims needed justification for what they were doing. the enemy were heretics if not outright infidels, and they needed killing. and what was wrong with the large amount of loot afterwards? jus en bello and jus ad bellum were not exactly at the top of their minds.

HistoricalDavid
25 Sep 07,, 19:56
One small trivia fact: Constantinople, then the Eastern nerve centre of Orthodox Christianity, was ransacked in 1204... by Christian crusaders.

Jus ad bellum indeed - ransack your 'own side'! Frankly, I don't see the rationale behind attaching your personal glory to either side, or indeed to any side in any non-current war.

TopHatter
26 Sep 07,, 00:52
One small trivia fact: Constantinople, then the Eastern nerve centre of Orthodox Christianity, was ransacked in 1204... by Christian crusaders.

Ah yes, the infamous Fourth Crusade.

Not a very noble venture that one.

The Latin soldiery subjected the greatest city in Europe to an indescribable sack. For three days they murdered, raped, looted and destroyed on a scale which even the ancient Vandals and Goths would have found unbelievable.

Tarek Morgen
26 Sep 07,, 01:00
uhm actually the "rape and murder part" when the goth and vandals sacked rom (410/455) were rather harmless compared to similar events , but I guess I am going a bit too off-topic.

ExNavyAmerican
26 Sep 07,, 09:05
exnavyamerican,



i agree, that is where we clash.

we can connect the "the Allied invasion of France at the close of the Napoleonic Wars or the Allied invasion of Germany at the close of WW2" as part of one long, organized campaign/war.

we cannot do the same for the crusades, for a multitude of reasons.

- the muslim attacks in italy and france were not part of a directed, organized campaign, but instead represented a series of raiding parties and land grabs by various different muslim groups. in this way it was akin to the vikings, yet we do not speak of norse/"heathen" campaign against christendom.

Uh, what? Please tell me you're kidding. How about the Islamic invasion of Europe in the 7th century? The Battle of Pointers ring a bell? Charles Martel?

And, as far as the Viking go, it was viewed originally as an attack against Christendom.


- the crusades were not organized in response to this, not even as the veneer. they were organized in response to what WAS a directed military campaign against the byzantine empire. but after the fall of jerusalem, and the squabbling between the crusader city-states, even this fell apart- as demonstrated by the happenings of the fourth crusade.

Agreed that the Crusades fell apart. But you're narrative about them being a response to Seljuk invasions of the Byzantine Empire makes them justified.


that's why i'm so loath to try to weave the crusades into this narrative of some thousand-year christian-islamic war. this is what osama bin ladin espouses, and it represents poor history and modern-day politicization of what was in effect a disjointed series of economic/land raids by both sides.

Oh, I agree

Well, not entirely with this part. The original Muslim invasion of Europe was an organized Jihad to bring all of Europe under the crescent.


besides, what justification is needed, after all? looking back, neither the crusaders nor the muslims needed justification for what they were doing. the enemy were heretics if not outright infidels, and they needed killing. and what was wrong with the large amount of loot afterwards? jus en bello and jus ad bellum were not exactly at the top of their minds.

Oh my God! We agree again! You're right; neither need justification. I just don't like the undo negative attention given the Crusades.

The Chap
26 Sep 07,, 14:46
The "I'm bad but he's worse" and the variation "Well, he started it etc" may seem at best adolescent yet we should not forget that historical animosity twixt nations, races, religions and ideologies drive most of human history.

Is the drive for aesthetic and mechanical innovation in F1 not an extension of kids racing RC cars or Go-Karts?

Is there not an aspect to Marx co-incident with playground envy?

The communal feeling of righteous injustice (:rolleyes: ) is nurtured by a near universal aversion to the intricate. Sum it up. Give it to me in English. Easy Einstein. Long story short. Etc. (:biggrin: )

Just as teenagers need to feel the world is against them, so to carve a niche scholars revise.

To label something as a school playground argument does not mean that it is flawed. I submit that it says more about the pack/herd nature of man than a hefty sociology tome. Conrads knitting machine.

Plus ca change!:)

astralis
26 Sep 07,, 15:55
exnavyamerican,


Uh, what? Please tell me you're kidding. How about the Islamic invasion of Europe in the 7th century? The Battle of Pointers ring a bell? Charles Martel?

And, as far as the Viking go, it was viewed originally as an attack against Christendom.


sure, there was the battle of poitiers, which probably represented the one serious muslim attempt to get at france. however, was this done in conjunction with the great assault on constantinople in 717? was this attempt at outright conquest renewed for hundreds of years up until the crusades? (a four hundred year span of time, equivalent to how long the roman empire lasted.)

not even the crusaders viewed the battle of poitiers as justification (if any actually KNEW of it, which i find doubtful), nor did they view this as some hundred-year strategic counter-attack.


But you're narrative about them being a response to Seljuk invasions of the Byzantine Empire makes them justified.

which is different from the original idea that the crusades were a response to muslims trying to bring all of europe under the crescent. by the way, why the impetus for "justification"? to be honest, the byzantines viewed the crusaders as little more than uncouth mercenaries, useful heretics that could be used against the still-worse islamic infidels and were only a short step up from the truly barbarous bulgarians (whom they also used). the crusaders certainly felt much the same way about the byzantines, whom they also viewed as heretics and as part and parcel of a worn-out empire. they were not so much concerned with keeping the byzantines as a bulwark of europe but in it for the money and the promise of eternal salvation.

this talk of justification is a modern political construct, nothing more, nothing less.


Oh my God! We agree again! You're right; neither need justification. I just don't like the undo negative attention given the Crusades.

nice to see you agree with me :biggrin: the point of the matter is that the religious aspect of the crusades (and the muslim raids/response before and after) are over-emphasized.

they were not the grand, strategic clash of civilizations which modern-day commentators like to point it out to be. crusader and arab would quite merrily cooperate raiding caravans. they would make deals allowing the crusader to consolidate his position while the arab fought off the byzantines (and vice-versa). the crusader would attack other christian (not even greek orthodox) cities with no compunction, and despite the injunctions of the pope. the byzantines merrily massacred westerners within their city walls, the crusaders eagerly repaid them and more in the fourth crusade, while the pope was eager to establish dominance over the byzantine patriarch.

the whole thing was a cluster-fk from beginning to an end on every side. looking for justification is ridiculous.

ExNavyAmerican
27 Sep 07,, 05:22
exnavyamerican,



sure, there was the battle of poitiers, which probably represented the one serious muslim attempt to get at france. however, was this done in conjunction with the great assault on constantinople in 717? was this attempt at outright conquest renewed for hundreds of years up until the crusades? (a four hundred year span of time, equivalent to how long the roman empire lasted.)

The Arab assault on Constantinople (the several assaults actually) were all part of the original Jihad. They weren't coordinated because the Islamic world had already becom a collection of feuding emirates, but it was all for the same goal. I'm just saying that, "They started it."


not even the crusaders viewed the battle of poitiers as justification (if any actually KNEW of it, which i find doubtful), nor did they view this as some hundred-year strategic counter-attack.

which is different from the original idea that the crusades were a response to muslims trying to bring all of europe under the crescent. by the way, why the impetus for "justification"? to be honest, the byzantines viewed the crusaders as little more than uncouth mercenaries, useful heretics that could be used against the still-worse islamic infidels and were only a short step up from the truly barbarous bulgarians (whom they also used). the crusaders certainly felt much the same way about the byzantines, whom they also viewed as heretics and as part and parcel of a worn-out empire. they were not so much concerned with keeping the byzantines as a bulwark of europe but in it for the money and the promise of eternal salvation.

Western European men were not ignorant of the useful part the Byzantines played. When Constantinople fell, there was indeed alarm in Europe. Granted it wasn't the widespread panic that accompanied Rome's fall, but it was alarming to them.


this talk of justification is a modern political construct, nothing more, nothing less.

They didn't have a concept of "unjustifed wars", or "illegal wars". Maybe they had the right idea: war is war is war.


nice to see you agree with me :biggrin:

'Twas a surprise.


the point of the matter is that the religious aspect of the crusades (and the muslim raids/response before and after) are over-emphasized.

they were not the grand, strategic clash of civilizations which modern-day commentators like to point it out to be.

The Muslim invasions (Pointers, the 2-3 sieges of Constantinople) were examples of two civilizations clashing in a decisive moment of history. Western civilization was on the line. The crusades, I'd agree, were small potatoes.


crusader and arab would quite merrily cooperate raiding caravans. they would make deals allowing the crusader to consolidate his position while the arab fought off the byzantines (and vice-versa). the crusader would attack other christian (not even greek orthodox) cities with no compunction, and despite the injunctions of the pope. the byzantines merrily massacred westerners within their city walls, the crusaders eagerly repaid them and more in the fourth crusade, while the pope was eager to establish dominance over the byzantine patriarch.

That's exactly what they were. Crusades for power, wealth, and glory. I'm sure many of the common soldiers thought they were doing the right thing, but even they had promises of riches. The Pope's lust for Constantiople is displayed by the fact that the Venician fleet sent to relieve the city during the siege by Mohammed II didn't even engage in battle. The Byzantine emperor (Constantine XI) pledged the east to the Roman Church, and much more for relief: the pope didn't do anything.


the whole thing was a cluster-fk from beginning to an end on every side. looking for justification is ridiculous.

Yes. I agree.

Kansas Bear
27 Sep 07,, 08:31
The Byzantine emperor (Constantine XI) pledged the east to the Roman Church, and much more for relief...
1. Constantine XI couldn't pledge the east to the Roman Church. The Orthodox and Roman Churches had already made an agreement at the Council of Florence(1439).


the pope didn't do anything
2. At the time of the siege of Constantinople, the pope did call for aid. France was still recovering from the Hundred Years War, as was England. Kings of Portugal and Castile were engaged in crusades of their own. Other monarchs gave their 'excuses'. "Byzantium: The Decline and Fall", by Norwich, p416

The Pope's lust for Constantiople.......
3. If the Pope was 'lusting' for Constantinople, why did he send food and supplies? Why did he call for military aid for Constantinople?

is displayed by the fact that the Venician fleet sent to relieve the city during the siege by Mohammed II didn't even engage in battle
4. The only mention of any Venetian 'fleet' consists of the dozen or so Byzantine, Genoese, and Venetian trading vessels that fled with refugees after the fall of Constantinople.

As a matter of fact, in the middle of May of 1453 the Venetian Senate was still deliberating about sending a fleet to Constantinople.--"Byzantium:The Decline and Fall", by Norwich, p420

ExNavyAmerican
27 Sep 07,, 08:58
1. Constantine XI couldn't pledge the east to the Roman Church. The Orthodox and Roman Churches had already made an agreement at the Council of Florence(1439).

Well, yes it could since it was not originally accepted by the Orthodox masses. Because of that, the union never became official until Constantine proclaimed so in Hagia Sophia in 1452. He expected it to bring support from the west, but it brought none, and it angered his people



2. At the time of the siege of Constantinople, the pope did call for aid. France was still recovering from the Hundred Years War, as was England. Kings of Portugal and Castile were engaged in crusades of their own. Other monarchs gave their 'excuses'. "Byzantium: The Decline and Fall", by Norwich, p416

He called for aid. But didn't make much of an effort. Europe historically jumped at his command; they didn't this time. I'm willing to bet he didn't try hard enough. enough.


3. If the Pope was 'lusting' for Constantinople, why did he send food and supplies? Why did he call for military aid for Constantinople?

It's a fact that the Pope made very little effort in comparasin to the efforts previous popes had made to accomplish crusades. What's funny is that he didn't have any problems collecting forces for the battle of Lepanto 50 years later -everyone had probems than too. It doesn't make sense. Also, take the 4th Crusade. Granted, it originally was meant for Alexandria, and only diverted to Constantinople because a claimant for the Byzantine throne (John, I believe) had promised financial support in exchange for the crusaders' support in putting him on the throne. But the fact remains, the pope didn't correct the mistake did he? Indeed, the empire that existed between 1204 and 1260 was called "the Latin Empire". Fact.


4. The only mention of any Venetian 'fleet' consists of the dozen or so Byzantine, Genoese, and Venetian trading vessels that fled with refugees after the fall of Constantinople.
--"Byzantium:The Decline and Fall", by Norwich, p420

There was a Venician fleet sent, but it didn't engage. It gave some excuses about weather. My assertion about the pope is opinion, but it's supported by the past relations between Constantinople and Rome. It's also supported by the surprising lack of effort the pope exhibited.

btw, My reference is "The Byzantines and Their World", by Arnott

EDIT: I just remembered that the Byzantine claimant who the crusaders seeked to put on the throne name was actually Isaac Angelus

Ironduke
27 Sep 07,, 10:39
He called for aid. But didn't make much of an effort. Europe historically jumped at his command; they didn't this time. I'm willing to bet he didn't try hard enough. enough.

It's a fact that the Pope made very little effort in comparison to the efforts previous popes had made to accomplish crusades.
The Pope's temporal power had severely diminished by this time. France and England were locked in a major war for much of a 100 years which ended 6 1/2 months after Constantinople fell. Spain was finishing up the Reconquista. There were several decades of Western schism with the Avignon antipopes. The Holy Roman emperors authority had vastly declined, and the HRE became far less cohesive that it was in the past.

Perhaps more countries would have come to their aid if they weren't so darn busy elsewhere. And let's not forget the depopulation that occurred during the Black Death... overpopulation in Europe was one factor that spurred the crusades in the first place.

ExNavyAmerican
27 Sep 07,, 11:47
The Pope's temporal power had severely diminished by this time. France and England were locked in a major war for much of a 100 years which ended 6 1/2 months after Constantinople fell. Spain was finishing up the Reconquista. There were several decades of Western schism with the Avignon antipopes. The Holy Roman emperors authority had vastly declined, and the HRE became far less cohesive that it was in the past.

All true. But they organized themselves pretty well only 50 years later tp fight the battle of Lepanto. It's not fact, it's conjecture, but I do think that the Pope wanted the Eastern Church gone, and with it, the Eastern Roman Empire (as it was known). In a letter to the crusaders who sacked Constantinople Pope Innocent III didn't rebuke them for capturing the city; he rebuked them for defiling the holy places.


Perhaps more countries would have come to their aid if they weren't so darn busy elsewhere. And let's not forget the depopulation that occurred during the Black Death... overpopulation in Europe was one factor that spurred the crusades in the first place.

Well, Venice came to their aid; but they weren't in a hurry to surrender their trade monopoly.

Kansas Bear
27 Sep 07,, 14:11
Well, yes it could since it was not originally accepted by the Orthodox masses. Because of that, the union never became official until Constantine proclaimed so in Hagia Sophia in 1452.


The 'union' was official enough with Pope Eugenius IV to send a 'crusade' against Byzantium's enemies(Turks). Unfortunately this 'crusade' was destroyed at the Battle of Varna 1444. Effectively sealing Constantinople's fate.


He expected it to bring support from the west, but it brought none, and it angered his people.

As soon as John Palaeologus VIII had returned(Feb 1440) from the Council of Florence, it was already being universally condemned. Yet that didn't stop Eugenius from sending military assistance.

Kansas Bear
28 Sep 07,, 20:55
btw, My reference is "The Byzantines and Their World", by Arnott


FYI, Peter Arnott was a Professor of Dramatic Arts. Not a historian. Might I suggest John Julius Norwich's Byzantium series..

ExNavyAmerican
29 Sep 07,, 10:30
FYI, Peter Arnott was a Professor of Dramatic Arts. Not a historian. Might I suggest John Julius Norwich's Byzantium series..

Well, he wrote the book dramatically. But I've no reason to believe it isn't historically acurate. Sorry if I won't take your word for it.

Ironduke
29 Sep 07,, 10:39
All true. But they organized themselves pretty well only 50 years later tp fight the battle of Lepanto. It's not fact, it's conjecture, but I do think that the Pope wanted the Eastern Church gone, and with it, the Eastern Roman Empire (as it was known). In a letter to the crusaders who sacked Constantinople Pope Innocent III didn't rebuke them for capturing the city; he rebuked them for defiling the holy places.
The 3rd Battle of Lepanto occurred 118 years after the fall of Constantinople in 1571. Let's not forget that we're talking about the post-Machiavelli age. From 1494-1559, Italy was ravaged by the worst wars it had seen since the fall of the Western Roman Empire, and therefore unable present a united front against the Ottomans prior to that time. Though not as great, much of the 15th century saw much warfare between the Italian city-states as well.

Kansas Bear
29 Sep 07,, 17:36
Well, he wrote the book dramatically. But I've no reason to believe it isn't historically acurate. Sorry if I won't take your word for it.

If Arnott, says the Venetian "fleet" wouldn't engage the Ottoman Fleet, then Arnott needs to do some reading.


On June 5, long before he heard the awful news, the Pope agreed to pay the Venetian Senate 14,000 ducats to hire and crew five galleys for four months. The Venetian galleys, already on their way to Constantinople, were waiting at Chios for a suitable wind. There they heard of the fall of Constantinople from some Genoese ships which had escaped. --"Constantinople 1453" by David Nicolle, p83



Late March- early April: Pope sends three Genoese ships to Constantinople with arms and provisions but these are storm-bound at Chios

15 April: Large Byzantine vessel and the three Genoese-Papal warships delayed by contrary winds, sail from Chios.

20 April: Large Byzantine vessel and three Genoese-Papal warships break through Ottoman blockade into Constantinople. --"Constantinople 1453", by Nicolle, p92

:eek:

Ironduke
13 Nov 07,, 12:28
4. The only mention of any Venetian 'fleet' consists of the dozen or so Byzantine, Genoese, and Venetian trading vessels that fled with refugees after the fall of Constantinople.
The Genoese actually played a larger role than any of the other Italian city-states.

He called for aid. But didn't make much of an effort. Europe historically jumped at his command; they didn't this time. I'm willing to bet he didn't try hard enough. enough.
It's a bit of an exaggeration to assert that European kingdoms "jumped" at the command of the Pope. Furthermore there was a gradual weakening of the Pope's temporal power and influence, to the point where it had grown quite weak by the 15th century.

RustyBattleship
13 Nov 07,, 20:43
Most of my study of the Crusades was with Harold Lamb's book. I love the way he writes history so it is interesting to read.

I liked the part where the Scandanavian Crusaders sacked a few towns along the coast of Europe for practice. When they arrived at Tyre, the British commander wanted to use these "former" Vikings to make a suicide frontal assault from land.

C'mon. They weren't born yesterday.

While the land forces spent time to build seige towers and move them into position for a long-drawn out battle to last for days, they were met at the walls by the Scandanavians.

In true fashion later copied by the United States Marine Corps, they attacked from the lesser protected seaward side and took the city in one day.

At least that's as I remember the book (read it about 45 years ago).

Corrections are welcome (which is what this forum is for).

RustyBattleship
13 Nov 07,, 20:48
I also recall from Harold Lamb's book that when the German Crusaders arrived, they found that the Hospitilars were already using their symbol of a White cross on a black tunic.

So the Germans merely reversed the colors to a Black cross on a White tunic or rather a Black cross formed by a White outline on their original black tunics.

And it's been that way ever since (except when the Nazi "bent" the cross into the Swastika). But even then, the black Maltese cross bordered in white "L"'s was still used to identify vehicles and aircraft.

Probably wouldn't look "as business-like" if it was a white cross with a black border.

clackers
16 Nov 07,, 03:46
So the Germans merely reversed the colors to a Black cross on a White tunic or rather a Black cross formed by a White outline on their original black tunics.

And it's been that way ever since (except when the Nazi "bent" the cross into the Swastika). But even then, the black Maltese cross bordered in white "L"'s was still used to identify vehicles and aircraft.


The Nazis didn't adapt the Crusader cross, RustyBattleship ... they used the already existing swastika symbol (it predates Christ by thousands of years) as a symbol of the Aryan race ...

RustyBattleship
20 Nov 07,, 23:30
The Nazis didn't adapt the Crusader cross, RustyBattleship ... they used the already existing swastika symbol (it predates Christ by thousands of years) as a symbol of the Aryan race ...
Though the symbol commonly called a Swastika has been around for thousands of years (it was the good luck sign of the Navajo Indians) the German's reason for selection was based upon their existing military symbol of the Maltese Cross.

Geometrically the swastika is a gammadion. Four gammas (4th letter of the Greek alphabet) joined by one toe of each gamma. The Maltese Cross is also a gammadion with the outside edges of the gammas against each other. The Maltese Cross (or artistic versions of it) was the symbol of the Crusaders but displayed in colors identifying the home country or supporting group of the Crusaders.

As Harold Lamb explained (hopefully someone else can confirm this) the German Crusader symbol was a white Maltese Cross on a black tunic. Finding the Hospitelers already there with the same color combination, the Germans merely reversed to a Black Cross on a White background. If the tunics remained black, embroidered a white border to represent a Black Cross within it. Note that in both WW I and WW II the Maltese Cross on German military vehicles is bordered in white.

Some renditions of the Maltese cross shoes a very thin cross of another color (such as white on black) showing the division of the gammas.

When the swastika was adopted as the symbol of the National Socialistic German Workers Party, they merely took the standard German Maltese Cross (used in WW I on German airplanes) and rearranged the gammas and called it the HakenKreuz (Hooked Cross). Their choice had nothing to do with ancient designs and rarely referred to it as a Swastika (which I think is an East Indian word). It was redesigning their original military symbol which is a cross.

clackers
21 Nov 07,, 11:44
When the swastika was adopted as the symbol of the National Socialistic German Workers Party, they merely took the standard German Maltese Cross (used in WW I on German airplanes) and rearranged the gammas and called it the HakenKreuz (Hooked Cross). Their choice had nothing to do with ancient designs and rarely referred to it as a Swastika (which I think is an East Indian word). It was redesigning their original military symbol which is a cross.

No, that's not right, Rustybattleship.

Hitler chose the design himself, and talks about it in Mein Kampf:


We National Socialists regarded our flag as
being the embodiment of our party programme. The red expressed the
social thought underlying the movement. White the national thought. And
the swastika signified the mission allotted to us--the struggle for the
victory of Aryan mankind and at the same time the triumph of the ideal
of creative work which is in itself and always will be anti-Semitic.

It was tied up in the belief of ancient white warriors ... you can google the "Thule society" and "Nazi occultism" if you want to know more about some of the whacky background ... it's hard to believe these nutters caused the world so much trouble for a decade

RustyBattleship
21 Nov 07,, 18:34
Hitler chose the design himself, and talks about it in Mein Kampf:


We National Socialists regarded our flag as
being the embodiment of our party programme. The red expressed the
social thought underlying the movement. White the national thought. And
the swastika signified the mission allotted to us--the struggle for the
victory of Aryan mankind and at the same time the triumph of the ideal
of creative work which is in itself and always will be anti-Semitic.

Other readers of this forum can make up their own minds but I must make one more counterpoint (then go on to other things I should be doing instead of this interesting debate).

I do not have a copy of Mein Kampf in its original German. The copy you quote is an English translation. The translater probably chose to use the more recognizable word "Swastiika" than the relatively unknown (then) "Hooked Cross".

And belief of Aryan supremacy doesn't really predate Anno Domini calendar. The Nazis generally referred to the Vikings as the height or start of Aryan people. That would be between 800 AD to about 1200 AD with Leif Ericson's brother-in-law getting killed off by some Indians his crew harrassed around 1,000 AD.

Anyway, have a Happy Thanksgiving and don't eat too much pumpkin pie.

clackers
23 Nov 07,, 01:50
Other readers of this forum can make up their own minds .

Yes, RB, they do need to make up their minds between believing Harold Lamb, a pulp fiction author, or more authoritative sources. Here's the BBC, for instance:


But it is its association with the National Socialist German Workers Party in the 1930s which is etched on the minds of Western society. Before Hitler, it was used in about 1870 by the Austrian Pan-German followers of Schoenerer, an Austrian anti-Semitic politician.

Its Nazi use was linked to the belief in the Aryan cultural descent of the German people. They considered the early Aryans of India to be the prototypical white invaders and hijacked the sign as a symbol of the Aryan master race.

The Nazi party formally adopted the swastika - what they called the Hakenkreuz, the hooked cross - in 1920. This was used on the party's flag (above), badge, and armband.

In Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler wrote: "I myself, meanwhile, after innumerable attempts, had laid down a final form; a flag with a red background, a white disk, and a black swastika in the middle. After long trials I also found a definite proportion between the size of the flag and the size of the white disk, as well as the shape and thickness of the swastika."



Anyway, have a Happy Thanksgiving and don't eat too much pumpkin pie.

As an Australian, we of course don't celebrate that one, but thanks for the thought, anyway! :)

Cheers,
Clarky

zraver
23 Nov 07,, 23:58
if all goes well I will be taking a course on the Crusades this spring. it is a 4300 level course taught by Dr James Brodman UCA History Page -- Master Page (http://www.uca.edu/divisions/academic/history/)

Thiseas
18 Dec 07,, 14:33
One small trivia fact: Constantinople, then the Eastern nerve centre of Orthodox Christianity, was ransacked in 1204... by Christian crusaders.

Jus ad bellum indeed - ransack your 'own side'! Frankly, I don't see the rationale behind attaching your personal glory to either side, or indeed to any side in any non-current war.

How true!! Actually the crusades where the reason that caused the Byzantine empire to collapse , slowly but surely .
The famus horses at Saint Mark wquare at Venice are stolen from Konstantinoupoli's Hypodrome at that time, and they're just an example.
The only reason those invasions hape is that the pope wnaated control of the Eastern Orthodox church as well as the Holy Lands.The welth of those places was , in every way, was enormuus for western europe's standards at that time.
After failing to take over Konstantinoupolis 2 times, they did make it the third, in 1204. The byzantine was beeing hitten from both sides, mongos and other muslims on the one hand, christian on the other.
If europ has to apologise to someone that's Greece.;)

glyn
18 Dec 07,, 14:37
Thiseas, you disappoint me and I expected better from you. :frown: You clearly have an oversized chip on each shoulder and are incapable of debating rationally.