Osama bin Laden's view of the Crusades

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Whatchu talkin' 'bout, Willis?

"The northern triangular section of the city, which extended between St. Stephen's Gate and the Gate of Jehoshafat and which was known in medieval times as the Juiverie, enclosed the quarters of the native Christians. Often referred to in medieval chronicles as 'Syrians," they formed the most underprivileged community in Jerusalem under Latin rule and were despised by their Latin neighbours. Medieval Latin pilgrims placed them at the bottom of the demographic scale next to Muslims, or "Saracens."

The native Christians were more inclined towards Salah al-Din than towards the Latins. For besides their hostile relations with the Latins and their linguistic and ethnic identification with the Arabs of the area, they were also influenced by the Greek Orthodox Church in Byzantium. Byzantium at this time was an ally of Salah al-Din. The Emperor Isaac II Angelus had confirmed an agreement with Salah al-Din in A.D.1185, according to which Salah al-Din offered to convert existing Latin churches in the Holy Land to the Christian rite once they had been recovered.

Once in Jerusalem, Salah al-Din seems to have contacted the leaders of the native Christian community through an Orthodox Christian scholar from Jerusalem, known as Joseph Batit. Batit, as Runciman says, had even secured a promise from the leaders of the community that they would open the gates of the city in the vicinity of Salah al-Din, but this did not take place because the R Latins decided to surrender the city."

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/salahdin.html

The Crusades began at the request of the Eastern shortly after the great schism between the Eastern and Western churches. It was one of the objectives of the pope to help the Eastern emperor but also to see if he could heal the split. By the time, though, of the events of the movie, 1187, that split had not been healed and there was open hostility between Eastern and Western churches, particularly in the holy city where the Church of the Holy Sepulcher was held by the Latins to the exclusion of the Eastern Church. In 1181, for example, all Latins in Constantinople were massacred. The Eastern Empire formed an alliance with Salah al-Din in 1185 as described in the attached article for the purpose of taking Jersalem and restoring Eastern control over the Holy Land's churches.

A short time later after the events in the movie, when the third Crusade attempted to retake Jerusalem, the German armies traveling overland were met with armed resistance by the Eastern Empire. Only after a war did the Eastern emperor grant passage to the Western army.

When the next, fourth, Crusade was being planned, one of the plans being hatched by the Western emperor was to take Constantinople as a first step in retaking Jerusalem so to again open the land passage between Germany and the Middle East. It is not surprising therefore that the Crusaders went after Constantinople as Constantinople had joined with a Salah al-Din against the West.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
That's the most retarded thing I've ever heard. Now I'm convinced more than ever that Ned suffers from some form of paranoid dementia.

I'm sorry, Boris. But you liberals are tone deaf to anti-Americanism and anti-Christianity. In fact, you are shocked when a movie displays genuine patriotism or belief, as in Mel Gibson's the Passion of the Christ, or perhaps in his Braveheart.

I almost expect to see anti-Americanism in most Hollywood movies. But what I did not expect was to see it from an animated children's movie.

[chequita guevara]

Saladin wasn't a Turk.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It is not surprising therefore that the Crusaders went after Constantinople as Constantinople had joined with a Salah al-Din against the West.

The Crusaders actually went after Constantinople because of blatent greed and nothing else. It had nothing to do with liberating the Holy Land.

perhaps in his Braveheart.

Braveheart? You mean the movie that just about every historian has said is totally false?

I almost expect to see anti-Americanism in most Hollywood movies. But what I did not expect was to see it from an animated children's movie.

Finding Nemo being anti-American. I have now seen the dumbest statement ever made on Apolyton.

I annoint thee as dumbest.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Saladin wasn't a Turk.

True, but was that your only objection to my post? I thought you were saying that the West had no justification in taking Constantinople, now an ally of the Saracens, who held the ME, against the West.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
True, but was that your only objection to my post?

Yep.

No, I'd just read about the massacre of Latins the other day, though my source says it took place in 1171. In those days, that would constitute a causi belli. Doesn't change the fact that they took the city to loot it to pay Venice for the ships.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Fun facts on the 4th Crusade:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Crusade

By 1201 the crusader army was collected at Venice, though with far fewer troops than expected. The Venetians, under the aged and possibly blind doge Enrico Dandolo, would not let the crusaders leave without being paid the full amount agreed to originally of 85,000 silver marks, but the crusaders could only pay 51,000, and that only by reducing themselves to extreme poverty. The Venetians barricaded them on the island of Lido until they could decide what to do with them.

Dandolo and the Venetians succeeded in turning the crusading movement to their own purposes. Dandolo, who made a very public show of joining the crusade during a ceremony in the church of San Marco di Venezia, had the fleet instead attack the Hungarian port of Zara, a former Venetian possession in Dalmatia (now Zadar in Croatia). The Hungarian king Emeric was Catholic and had himself "taken the cross", meaning he too had agreed to join the crusade. Many of the crusaders were opposed to this, and some, including a force led by the elder Simon de Montfort, refused to participate altogether and returned home. The citizens of Zara made reference to the fact that they were fellow Catholics by hanging banners marked with crosses from their windows and the walls of the city, but nevertheless the city fell after a brief siege. Both the Venetians and the crusaders were immediately excommunicated for this by Innocent III.

Boniface, meanwhile, had left the fleet before it sailed from Venice, and had visited his cousin Philip of Swabia. The reasons for his visit are a matter of debate; he may have realized the Venetians' plans and left to avoid excommunication, or he may have wanted to meet with Alexius III Angelus, Philip's brother-in-law and the son of the recently deposed Byzantine emperor Isaac II. Alexius had fled to Philip when his father was overthrown in 1195, but it is unknown whether or not Boniface knew he was at Philip's court. In any case, Alexius offered to pay off the Crusaders' debt to Venice, if they would restore his family to the Byzantine throne, an offer Boniface found difficult to refuse. Boniface may also have had in mind the former land holdings of his brother Conrad of Montferrat, who had married a daughter of emperor Manuel I Comnenus but had been driven out of the empire around 1190. Alexius returned with Boniface to rejoin the fleet at Corfu after it sailed from Zara, and the Venetians, when they learned of Alexius' idea, were particularly pleased with it. They also had been personally offended by the Byzantines in recent years, as thousands of Europeans (including many Venetians) had been killed in riots against their merchant communities in Constantinople in 1182.

The Crusaders were still reluctant to attack fellow Christians, but the clergy convinced them that the Orthodox Byzantines were the next best thing to the Muslims. They had allied with Saladin against the Third Crusade, and had done nothing to aid the Second Crusade; they should be punished for their lack of support. Unfortunately for them, Alexius Angelus had overstated his importance and it was quickly discovered when the crusaders arrived at the walls of Constantinople that the citizens preferred a usurper to an emperor supported by the hated "Latins". The crusaders and Venetians decided to place Alexius on the throne by force, and an amphibious assault was launched on the city in 1203. Unexpectedly, emperor Alexius III panicked and fled, and the citizens of Constantinople reluctantly welcomed Alexius Angelus back into the city. He was crowned emperor as Alexius IV, and his father Isaac II was restored as co-emperor.

Although Innocent III had again warned them not to attack, the papal letter was suppressed by the clergy, and the crusaders prepared for their own attack, while the Venetians attacked from the sea; Alexius' army stayed in the city to fight, along with the imperial bodyguard, the Varangians, but Alexius himself fled during the night.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

It is not surprising therefore that the Crusaders went after Constantinople as Constantinople had joined with a Salah al-Din against the West.

The Crusaders actually went after Constantinople because of blatent greed and nothing else. It had nothing to do with liberating the Holy Land.

No doubt greed was a motivator. But, the whole point of the Crusade was to take Jerusalem. They diverted to Constantinople in part because it was allied with the enemy and had to be dealt with eventually, else the only passage to the ME was over the water and that was expensive.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Look at my last point. They diverted to Constantinople because the Venitians had hijacked the Crusade and putting Alexius on the throne of the Byzantine Empire would pay their debts and they'd get rid of troublesome rivals.

[chequita guevara]

They didn't go after Constantinople because it had allied with the enemy. Remember that the Crusaders had broken their vows to restore the territory to the Byzantines in the First Crusade, and instead set up their own kingdoms instead. Also remember that "crusaders" were seizing Byzantine territory in Italy and Greece, so the ERE was trying to play both sides off against the other, in order to make the best situation for itself.

Obviously it failed.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Look at my last point. They diverted to Constantinople because the Venitians had hijacked the Crusade and putting Alexius on the throne of the Byzantine Empire would pay their debts and they'd get rid of troublesome rivals.

No doubt that was part of the reason.

But being an enemy of the West and an ally of the Saracens was also a reason.

[chequita guevara]

Don't try and justify it.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
They didn't go after Constantinople because it had allied with the enemy. Remember that the Crusaders had broken their vows to restore the territory to the Byzantines in the First Crusade, and instead set up their own kingdoms instead. Also remember that "crusaders" were seizing Byzantine territory in Italy and Greece, so the ERE was trying to play both sides off against the other, in order to make the best situation for itself.

Obviously it failed.

Now you are justifying why the Eastern Empire switched sides, not whether it did. The Eastern Empire was enormously hostile to the West for many reasons before the start of the Fourth Crusade.

[Lancer]

FOX just reported that a grenade was thrown at Bush in Georgia. Landed 100 ft from him and didn't go off, pin was pulled however.

[chequita guevara]

The ERE was only ever on own side. It's own. It played both sides against each other.