Question to Christians (esp) Catholics.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Heresson
(perhaps it was because Mamluks were Turkish ).

Weren't the Mamluks Cherkessy?

[Heresson]

It's a complicated matter. I can explain it to You if You want for I take interest in Mamluk history, but in general first were Turkish mostly, then came Circassians.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


The people of Constaninople after 1204.

All of the crusades weren't defensive.

ALL

[Ancyrean]

My overall point is, regardless of whatever legalisms you can quote about the rightness or righteousness of the Crusades, they were invariably perceived as hostile and fanatical acts of agression by zealots who made a virtue out of their disdain of the Muslims.

The fact that Byzantines were attempting to get the Holy Land back, that they sent a letter to the Vatican asking for help, that Christian Byzantium owned the land some 500 years ago were all non-arguments in the eyes of the Muslim world then. You can say that by conquering that land from Christians in the first place, Muslims themselves committed an act of agression, but in 1099 this was so distant a memory, its invocation was next to senseless and even outrageous at the time. 500 years is really a long time to not do any comparable thing to "defend" eastern Christians, despite the sporadic efforts of the Byzantines you mention.

I would say, to invoke such a "defence" after such a long time with such a reasoning is not very stra'ghtforward an argument.

Secondly,your assertion that

I don't say crusades haven't changed anything. But they were just a part of a long Muslim - Christian conflict.

is true enough. But my further point that I have to emphasise again is that after the Crusades, the conflict took a turn for the incomparably bitter. The Islamic fanaticism rekindled in reaction to Crusaders' fanaticism, and their presence for 300 years in the heart of Islamic lands made fanaticism relatively more visible in Islamic polity than before. Furhtermore, the assertion that

Relations between crusader states and local Muslim amirates were often cordial. Edessa duchy hadn't fallen if it haven't attempted to help its Muslim ally and left its capital defenceless for example (and that dumb II crusade instead of liberatiung it attacked its damascenian ally, it's another case)...

is only partially true. Sure, there were times of alliances between Christian principalities and Muslim kingdoms/sultanates surrounding them, times of cooperation. Sure, all the while trade went on between these entities. But as all these took place, they were invariably considered as necessary evils, arrangements imposed by some pressing circumstance rather than genuine feelings of fraternisation.

There's a good question you ask, which is:

Muslim world held a great deal of hostility towards Christian world without crusades and still does. Not without reasons, but Muslims are generally oversensitive. And crusades are just an excuse for this hostility. What long-lasting harm did the crusades cause to Muslims?

The answer is, it's not a matter of what long lasting harm it did, but rather that it administered a shock to the Middle Eastern Muslim world that rekindled the jihad spirit that had largely died down to local battles with Christians right before the Crusades. Again, if you have examples/battles to quote for the contrary, my point is comparative to the times before and after.

Also, your comment that:

The crusades weren't completely religious, and the further, the less religious they got.

is again true enough, but actually it doesn't fit well with your later assertion that ALL crusades were defensive. To the extent that the need to "defend Christians of the east and to rescue Holy land from the infidels" is a religious excuse for a "defensive attack", then the less religious the movement gets, the less plausable the defensive reasoning becomes .

[molly bloom]

Re: Question to Christians (esp) Catholics.

Originally posted by Thorn
Now my intent here is not to insult, but bring some things to light:

What kind of a twisted religion has its followers eat the dead body of their god and drink his blood (bread and wine)...?


What kind of religion has as their official icon, their diety nailed to a wooden board, with thorns bleeding his head.


Enlighten me please.... cause you all seem a little sick to me in these regards.....

How is this stuff not the same as goat sacrifices in Devil Worship, I really want to know?

If your real intent was not to insult, then might I suggest you look up the definition of the word 'insult' as pertaining to its sense of offending, as I think you're a tad in need of an English dictionary.

Having said that, religions aren't meant to be sensible, or logical, or non-disgusting to non-believers. Dietary laws for instance, can indeed be sensible in a hot climate where food may spoil easily, or be infected with parasites. Laws relating to bodily cleanliness can be sensible when referring to washing of hands and feet and facial orifices in places where mass worship is carried out, and rules relating to physical isolation of priestly castes can be sensible in areas where smallpox or leprosy is rife and religion is a means of enforcing social cohesion or order.

Christianity is by no means alone in having seemingly unattractive aspects: the god nailed to wood and resurrected is mirrored in the Norse myth of Baldur pierced and killed by wood. Celts beheaded their enemies, Phoenicians and Carthaginians sacrificed babies, Aztecs had man tortillas and the Incas practiced child sacrifice.

In Oceania, there is of course ritual sacrifice, cannibalism, and the murder of witches, ritual circumcision, infibulation and scarification.

When pursuing heresies, the Christian church often made a point of stressing the sexual deviation implicit in the alleged heresies- the Templar Inquisition, the Bogomil and Catharist crusades, and of course the Islamic world was viewed as being licentious and decadent.

[Heresson]

I have missed GePap's answer earlier:

Christians had not held the Holy Land since the 7th century.

Not true, John Tzimiskes captured part of it in X century

The Byzantine Emperor asked for help against those nasty Turks, not for a Papal expedition to Jerusalem, which was held at the time by Muslim powers friendly to the Byzantine Emperor.

During the time of crusade, only isolated Acco, Ascalon and Gaza belonged to Fatimids (they were lost to a guy named Atsiz I think first, and later to Seldjuks). Jerusalem was "liberated" by them in 1098, after the start of crusade, shortly before crusaders came to it.

[quote]
The Crusaders did great damage and can be thanked to a great extent for the great decline of Christianity in Syria, Turkey, and the Holy Land.
[quote]

In the sense that II crusade made Byzantine emperor stop siege of Konya, and IV one made turkish progress easier, in the sence that by the way of fighting against remains of Outremer mamluks acted a bit harshly towards Christians, yes.
On the other hand, it's a fault of lack of success of the crusades, not the idea itself.
Also, I crusade allowed Byzantium to regain control over much of Asia Minor, assured Armenians in Cilicia, and by "liberating" much of Suria, stopped progress of Islam for some time. I think moderately good survival of Christianity in Lebanon mountains may owe something to crusades as well.

And lets not forget the bastards of the 4th Crusade that made it only far enough to sack Constantinople. Yeah, real defensive there.

IV crusade was an unfortunate event with many causes... Crusaders didn't want to sail at Byzantium... And even when the crusade changed its course, it's goal was not to destroy it anyway, but restoring of rightful ruler.

Originally posted by Ancyrean
My overall point is, regardless of whatever legalisms you can quote about the rightness or righteousness of the Crusades, they were invariably perceived as hostile and fanatical acts of agression by zealots who made a virtue out of their disdain of the Muslims.
The fact that Byzantines were attempting to get the Holy Land back, that they sent a letter to the Vatican asking for help, that Christian Byzantium owned the land some 500 years ago were all non-arguments in the eyes of the Muslim world then. You can say that by conquering that land from Christians in the first place, Muslims themselves committed an act of agression, but in 1099 this was so distant a memory, its invocation was next to senseless and even outrageous at the time. 500 years is really a long time to not do any comparable thing to "defend" eastern Christians, despite the sporadic efforts of the Byzantines you mention.

Up to the half of IX century, Byzantines were fighting for existance, like other eastern Christian nations.
Western Christians were far away, and had their own problems with - Muslims reached Pirenees, conquered Mediterrean isles, had bases in Provance and Italy,
they attacked Rome.
Hard to expect they could do anything.
I don't think Muslims cared for the reasons Franks came to Syria.
And the question is not exactly how do Muslims perceive crusades, but if their perceivement is correct. Definitely some episodes can be seen as barbaric, and - as these lands are but partially Muslim, the whole thing can be seeen as invasion.
But crusades should be always put in context of earlier (and later) Muslim-Christian history and as such, should cause no bitterness on Muslim side.

I would say, to invoke such a "defence" after such a long time with such a reasoning is not very stra'ghtforward an argument.

Defence is perhaps not the best word, but what I've ment is that if You treat Muslim-Christian conflict as a whole, crusaders can be seen as belated reaction to Muslim conquest of Holy Land and as such are self-defence of Christianity, but only in the overall picture.

Secondly,your assertion that (...)
is true enough. But my further point that I have to emphasise again is that after the Crusades, the conflict took a turn for the incomparably bitter. The Islamic fanaticism rekindled in reaction to Crusaders' fanaticism, and their presence for 300 years in the heart of Islamic lands made fanaticism relatively more visible in Islamic polity than before.

Perhaps, but even here crusades could only just blow the dust of a weapon that already existed.
Also, Muslim fanatism was well and sound elsewhere at the time.

Furhtermore, the assertion that
is only partially true. Sure, there were times of alliances between Christian principalities and Muslim kingdoms/sultanates surrounding them, times of cooperation. Sure, all the while trade went on between these entities. But as all these took place, they were invariably considered as necessary evils, arrangements imposed by some pressing circumstance rather than genuine feelings of fraternisation.

Like any other alliance

is again true enough, but actually it doesn't fit well with your later assertion that ALL crusades were defensive.

There's been a little misunderstanding.
Gamecube64 said that "all crusades were not defensive"
in reply to which I've replied "who says so"
to which chegitz replied: people of C-ple 1204,
to which I replied quoting earlier phrases and saying ALL, which was stressing the part of gamecube's message that was important in that case.

In the beginning, I've said that "They (crusades) were in general a defensive movement".

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Ancyrean
The answer is, it's not a matter of what long lasting harm it did, but rather that it administered a shock to the Middle Eastern Muslim world that rekindled the jihad spirit that had largely died down to local battles with Christians right before the Crusades. Again, if you have examples/battles to quote for the contrary, my point is comparative to the times before and after.

Maybe to the Arabs there was a rekindling, but the Seljuks and Othmanli were actively conquering Byzantine territory. It is hardly a "local battle" when the enemy is in sight across the Bosporus from your capital.

Also, your comment that [The crusades weren't completely religious, and the further, the less religious they got.] is again true enough, but actually it doesn't fit well with your later assertion that ALL crusades were defensive. To the extent that the need to "defend Christians of the east and to rescue Holy land from the infidels" is a religious excuse for a "defensive attack", then the less religious the movement gets, the less plausable the defensive reasoning becomes .

Defensive in that Muslim expansion had been at substantial expense of Christian kingdoms continuously since 632 AD, in both the East and West. The Seljuks were also conquering fellow Muslims in Asia Minor and Syria. If Arabs attacked the Seljuks over those territories it would've been considered "defensive."

[Heresson]

Muslim expansion had been at substantial expense of Christian kingdoms continuously since 632 AD, in both the East and West

Actually, first expeditions against Christian oases (not much fighting, though) and against Byzantines took place before the death of Muhammad.
His adopted son has died in the battle of Mut'a or whatever.