Tweet
Originally posted by Heresson
It depends; the 1st crusade was a reply to pleas of Micheal Dukas (Parakopines) and Alexios Komnenos for help. Eventually, their goal changed, true, but even then, as I've mentioned, Christians held it before Muslims did (and we're returning to the earlier point here).
It depends; the 1st crusade was a reply to pleas of Micheal Dukas (Parakopines) and Alexios Komnenos for help. Eventually, their goal changed, true, but even then, as I've mentioned, Christians held it before Muslims did (and we're returning to the earlier point here).
What I mean is that the Byzantines would benefit from any enterprise to capture the Holy City was a side-bonus, not the main reason that the Crusade was declared. Their goal was Jerusalem, from the very beginning, it did not become this later on the way to help the distressed Byzantines. Isn't that obvious, or am I misinformed about the origins of the Crusades?
Oh, I know. The difference is that Persians never inhabited the lands, and the others inhabited the land no more, and except for Jews, it was not their holy land. Christians still lived in the land at that time,
and it was holy land for them. If it was up to me, I wouldn't give it to crusaders nor to Fatimids or Seldjuks,
but to local population. But it was not possible at that time
and it was holy land for them. If it was up to me, I wouldn't give it to crusaders nor to Fatimids or Seldjuks,
but to local population. But it was not possible at that time
There was no concept of nationality at the time, 3000 years ago I mean when the Persians ruled the land (to be able to think of settlement by "your own people to make it yours". It would mean nothing for a Persian satrap if we told him, "your own people, Persians, do not settle this land therefore it's not yours". For a Persian, Palestine was as Persian as it could get.
What I mean is, once you are determined out of your own sympathies for a certain group, say Christians, there's always a way to imagine theirs was the True Way, they had a Truer Reason.
Why would Christians let their holy land be held by infidels who were attacking them anyway? From a rational point of view, the route of Ist crusade was nonsence. If they wanted to fight Muslims, they should've done it in Spain or inner Anatolia. But it was not about fighting infidel Muslims. First it was about helping Byzantium, and later about "liberating" Holy Land. If in the meantime the pagan Chineese took it, they'd be fighting them as well.
Like you say here, since the reason was not to "fight Muslims" per se but to take Jerusalem from them, they did not bother to stop and think their enterprise in strategic terms. That was what I meant above when I said Vatican did not have strategic thinking to genuinely desire real help for Byzantium.
I disagree. The conflict was around, and while Muslims were losing ground in Iberian Penisula and in Sicily at the time, they recaptured Armenia, part of Georgia and nearly entire Anatolia at this time.
Also, it should be emphasised that while the first crusade was undoubtly the bloodiest and most agressive one (but fourth), it had little impact on perceivement of Christians but Muslims. I recall one complaint of a Muslim at that time about the crusades, but the author sees in it nothing else than what was happening in Sicily or Spain. Up till the Mamluk times, there were always Muslim rulers willing to ally with Christians, and crusaders willing to ally with Muslims.
Muslim zealotry came into existance somewhat earlier, and reborned later on, it was hardly a simple reaction to crusades. Even late Ayyubids, descendants of Salah ad-Din, found themselves allied with crusader states when one of them grew in power too much,
and in the times of Salah ad-Din it was on the Christian side that a project of interreligious dinasty marriage and of common rule over Palestine borned (which is balanced on the other side by earlier excesses of Renaud de Chatillon).
It was only emergance of neophite soldiers whose rule in Egypt and Great Syria owned to victories over Christians and pagans that Muslims found a sudden need to get rid of Outremer. And even these Muslims were allied with Aragon and Byzantium.
At this time, Outremer was practically defenceless. And even earlier, when Mongols lead by Christian Kitboga under rule of leaning towards Christianity Hulagu, Antioch-Tripoly and Armenia stood on their side, but Acco offered Mamluks an alliance against them.
The last decades of Outremer, a real outlet of Muslim fury with massacres in comparison to which excesses of first crusaders pale, was hardly balanced by anything on Christian side at this time (perhaps it was because Mamluks were Turkish
).
Also, it should be emphasised that while the first crusade was undoubtly the bloodiest and most agressive one (but fourth), it had little impact on perceivement of Christians but Muslims. I recall one complaint of a Muslim at that time about the crusades, but the author sees in it nothing else than what was happening in Sicily or Spain. Up till the Mamluk times, there were always Muslim rulers willing to ally with Christians, and crusaders willing to ally with Muslims.
Muslim zealotry came into existance somewhat earlier, and reborned later on, it was hardly a simple reaction to crusades. Even late Ayyubids, descendants of Salah ad-Din, found themselves allied with crusader states when one of them grew in power too much,
and in the times of Salah ad-Din it was on the Christian side that a project of interreligious dinasty marriage and of common rule over Palestine borned (which is balanced on the other side by earlier excesses of Renaud de Chatillon).
It was only emergance of neophite soldiers whose rule in Egypt and Great Syria owned to victories over Christians and pagans that Muslims found a sudden need to get rid of Outremer. And even these Muslims were allied with Aragon and Byzantium.
At this time, Outremer was practically defenceless. And even earlier, when Mongols lead by Christian Kitboga under rule of leaning towards Christianity Hulagu, Antioch-Tripoly and Armenia stood on their side, but Acco offered Mamluks an alliance against them.
The last decades of Outremer, a real outlet of Muslim fury with massacres in comparison to which excesses of first crusaders pale, was hardly balanced by anything on Christian side at this time (perhaps it was because Mamluks were Turkish
).
I didn't mean there was not a state of conflict between forces of Islam and those of Christianity before the Crusades. There sure was, as you give a few examples here. What I mean is, the conflict was at the fringes of both civilizations before and it did not have the overtly, intensely and forceflly religious overtones it had during and after the crusades (so I'm comparing the after with the before).
With the Crusades, the conflict was carried right in the midst of Islamic lands, and the unprecedentedly explicit religious zeal involved in it created a shock in the Muslim world, it embittered the fight in a way that was not there before.
Furthermore, there is a marked increase in the quantity and tone of anti-Islamic literature over centuries, much bitter and intense than before. There was a certain counterpart in the Muslim world for this, but it was not as intense as it was in the West.
Of course, there were occasional treaties or even limited alliances between the Crusader principalities and Muslim rulers, but these were always seen as a necessary evil, something to be endured until whatever reason that urged the alliance was gone. But the bitterness was there as never before the Crusades all the time.
Do you really think the dynamics of conflict between Islam and Christianity were the same or only marginally different before or after the Crusades? If so, this is simply not true at all.
Comment