Crusades

[BeBMan]

I get the impression that these are often presented as examples for an especially "evil" form of war/conquest. Why is that?

Not that I want to excuse anything done there, esp. during the first crusade which ended as we all know in a big massacre. However, it's not that these things were that uncommon throughout history. And certainly they were not limited to christians.....but usually nobody seems to care as much about the things done for example during ancient times.

For example the Romans had no problem to wipe out even bigger cities completely (Carthage, Corinth), not to mention the fate of smaller tribes, eg. in Gaul or Germania which often were nearly or completely rooted out, and not to mention lots of other little details (people fight to death for entertainment, slavery, torture etc.) which were no better than things happening during medieval times, esp. during the crusades.

Still ancient Rome (as said, only one example, I could also refer to other sides and periods) often seems to be viewed in a completely different light than the middle ages, where the cliché of the evil, dark times is much more common and persistent.

Discuss

[lord of the mark]

Re: Crusades

Originally posted by BeBro
I get the impression that these are often presented as examples for an especially "evil" form of war/conquest. Why is that?

Not that I want to excuse anything done there, esp. during the first crusade which ended as we all know in a big massacre. However, it's not that these things were that uncommon throughout history. And certainly they were not limited to christians.....but usually nobody seems to care as much about the things done for example during ancient times.

For example the Romans had no problem to wipe out even bigger cities completely (Carthage, Corinth), not to mention the fate of smaller tribes, eg. in Gaul or Germania which often were nearly or completely rooted out, and not to mention lots of other little details (people fight to death for entertainment, slavery, torture etc.) which were no better than things happening during medieval times, esp. during the crusades.

Still ancient Rome (as said, only one example, I could also refer to other sides and periods) often seems to be viewed in a completely different light than the middle ages, where the cliché of the evil, dark times is much more common and persistent.

Discuss

I will make three points about the massacre in Jerusalem at the end of the first crusade. Muslims of course mention it often, and to some extent it makes sense for them to, cause muslim detractors are inclined to diss Islam based on stuff that was routine in pre-modern times, and why shouldnt they do the same back?

For Jews, its significant not only as one more massacre (after all there were plenty of others, and generally the others werent justified by the 'well this is what you do when you win a siege' rule) but because it, at least temporarily, virtually eliminated the Jewish presence in Jerusalem. Its important to the history of the Jewish community in the land of Israel.

But I guess the larger thing, is the contradiction to the holiness of Jerusalem, presumably the very thing the crusaders were nominally fighting for. OK, so the rule was still that a massacre after a siege was routine - but this was, you know, Jerusalem. Wouldnt it have made sense to, you, know, make an exception? I mean if youre going to just be ordinary fighters of the time, why not stay home and fight your local enemies (as many european knights did)?

Also cause these guys were Christians. Lots of folks have this huge problem with what Joshua et al did, despite not being too concerned with what early Iron age conquerors routinely did.

Of course it would be wrong to be negative towards anyone who has a special interest in the crusades, esp designers of Civ2 scenarios

[BeBMan]

Well, just to be clear, my point isn't that things done during the middle ages, esp. during the crusades couldn't be labeled "evil" from a certain POV, rather why it isn't done in the same way for other "evil" things done before or (to some extent) afterwards.

So basically, why the wider perception is so different (at least that's my impression).

I think you have some good points about Muslim/Jewish/Christian perception though.

But sometimes I also think it has to do with the general negative image of the middle ages, while for example ancient, esp. Greek-Roman times are often idealized for all the nice architecture, philosophy, literature etc. (which isn't wrong per se, but after all it's only part of the bigger pic like the cruel things are only part of the bigger pic in medieval times)

[germanos]

I have no answer to the OP, but I have a question: as of when DO the crusades get a negative connotation? (apart from the Muslim/Jew point of view obviously)

[BeBMan]

Good question. I have to admit that I don't know it precisely. IIRC some things (like the massacre in Jerusalem or the 4rth crusade turning against Constantinople) were already seen as "bad" in medieval times, although quickly rationalized away because in general the crusades were seen as justified. I think that they are totally seen as negative is a relatively recent thing of the 20th century (but as said, I'm not absolutely sure on this), and it's mainly a thing of public perception - historians are usually more balanced about it since it isn't their main business to give moral judgements (here I'm quite sure ).

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by BeBro
Well, just to be clear, my point isn't that things done during the middle ages, esp. during the crusades couldn't be labeled "evil" from a certain POV, rather why it isn't done in the same way for other "evil" things done before or (to some extent) afterwards.

So basically, why the wider perception is so different (at least that's my impression).

I think you have some good points about Muslim/Jewish/Christian perception though.

But sometimes I also think it has to do with the general negative image of the middle ages, while for example ancient, esp. Greek-Roman times are often idealized for all the nice architecture, philosophy, literature etc. (which isn't wrong per se, but after all it's only part of the bigger pic like the cruel things are only part of the bigger pic in medieval times)

yup, its that whole renaissance, classical is good, dark ages bad thingie.

BTW, if you think the Romans get a free pass from the Jews for what they did in Jerusalem, or elsewhere, you'll be happy to know they dont, we have a whole holiday (Tisha b'av) that in part commemorates the fall of Jer to the Romans, and a long section of the Yom Kippur service that discusses the martyrdom of a group of rabbis by the Romans after the second revolt.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by BeBro
Good question. I have to admit that I don't know it precisely. IIRC some things (like the massacre in Jerusalem or the 4rth crusade turning against Constantinople) were already seen as "bad" in medieval times, although quickly rationalized away because in general the crusades were seen as justified. I think that they are totally seen as negative is a relatively recent thing of the 20th century (but as said, I'm not absolutely sure on this), and it's mainly a thing of public perception - historians are usually more balanced about it since it isn't their main business to give moral judgements (here I'm quite sure ).

Apparently as late as 1917 when Allenby marched into Jerusalem identification with the crusaders was seen as positive (although the different impact on the Jews was noted as well)

[germanos]

I have a hunch it's a protestant thing.

Wasn't there a crusade after the one that sacked constantinople? At least there were plenty after the first one sacked Jerusalem, so that's clearly not the trigger.

[germanos]

Oh, and George W. Bush has still positive connotations with the crusades today

[Barnabas]

The issue of the crusades that annoys me is the "westerners should apologize for it" thing

since no one asks muslims to apologize for conquering everything from the atlantic to india, or invading spain

[Blaupanzer]

If one is trying to distinguish one's current war from those of the past, the Crusades are probably not the first thing to bring up to Muslims. Bush started by saying we were going to fight only the "bad guys," not all of Islam. Then he said he was on a crusade, most of which were aimed at Islam directly. This alarmed a lot of people. Further, the crusades do have a nasty reputation as dirty wars.

Most wars got a much more critical examination and negative reputation after WW I. This period seems to be timeframe in which all the bad, rather than glorious, events seemed to get emphasized regarding most of the wars in history, at least by Western analysts.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
The issue of the crusades that annoys me is the "westerners should apologize for it" thing

since no one asks muslims to apologize for conquering everything from the atlantic to india, or invading spain

Are there such voices?
I haven´t heard of such a thing to date.
Only of the crusade being seen as something rather evil.


As for the OP:
I think there are three things which might have to do with it:

1. They are nearer in time than the evil things done by the romans/greeks

2. For the crusades you have eyewitness accounts describing the massacres in detail. This isn´t the case for the evil things the romans did. In the historical records for the romans you only learn about the fact that the city xy was razed to the ground, but no historican has written in detail about the atrocities roman legionaries did when they razed the city (after all history was written by the victor and the roman historians were uintelligent enough to know that it would not be wise to give any eyewitness acccounts about thése things).
If there were eyewitness accounts (for examples by the few people that survived the roman massacres) they haven´t survived till today (either lost in the mists of time, or destroyed by the romans themselves)

3. As mentioned in this thread this crusade was considered to be some holy task and it was ordered by the pope (therefore by the highest ranking catholicn christian). So it is measured by higher standards than any normal war.
It would have been different if the crusades had been ordered by any king or duke. Look for example at the 30 years war. Although it can be considered as a religious war, it was at the same time more of a political power struggle between the catholic and protestant fractions in germany and it wasn´t openly ordered by anyone of the high ranking clerics. So although this war depopulated whole regions in germany (with 25% of the population of the german states getting killed) and also had massacres, like for example Madgdeburg, it isn´t mentioned as often as the crusades.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by germanos
Wasn't there a crusade after the one that sacked constantinople? At least there were plenty after the first one sacked Jerusalem, so that's clearly not the trigger.

There were several. Constantinople was taken during the 4th crusade; there were at least 4 or 5 more, depending on what counts as a "real" crusade in your book.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
The issue of the crusades that annoys me is the "westerners should apologize for it" thing

since no one asks muslims to apologize for conquering everything from the atlantic to india, or invading spain

It's mostly a political correctness thing, it's acceptable to bash the West while bashing other civilizations is a nono in some circles.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST


2. For the crusades you have eyewitness accounts describing the massacres in detail. This isn´t the case for the evil things the romans did. In the historical records for the romans you only learn about the fact that the city xy was razed to the ground, but no historican has written in detail about the atrocities roman legionaries did when they razed the city (after all history was written by the victor and the roman historians were uintelligent enough to know that it would not be wise to give any eyewitness acccounts about thése things).
If there were eyewitness accounts (for examples by the few people that survived the roman massacres) they haven´t survived till today (either lost in the mists of time, or destroyed by the romans themselves)

er, no.

"Our only first-hand account of the Roman assault on the Temple comes from the Jewish historian Josephus Flavius. Josephus was a former leader of the Jewish Revolt who had surrendered to the Romans and had won favor from Vespasian. In gratitude, Josephus took on Vespasian's family name - Flavius - as his own. We join his account as the Romans fight their way into the inner sanctum of the Temple:

"...the rebels shortly after attacked the Romans again, and a clash followed between the guards of the sanctuary and the troops who were putting out the fire inside the inner court; the latter routed the Jews and followed in hot pursuit right up to the Temple itself. Then one of the soldiers, without awaiting any orders and with no dread of so momentous a deed, but urged on by some supernatural force, snatched a blazing piece of wood and, climbing on another soldier's back, hurled the flaming brand through a low golden window that gave access, on the north side, to the rooms that surrounded the sanctuary. As the flames shot up, the Jews let out a shout of dismay that matched the tragedy; they flocked to the rescue, with no thought of sparing their lives or husbanding their strength; for the sacred structure that they had constantly guarded with such devotion was vanishing before their very eyes.


...No exhortation or threat could now restrain the impetuosity of the legions; for passion was in supreme command. Crowded together around the entrances, many were trampled down by their companions; others, stumbling on the smoldering and smoked-filled ruins of the porticoes, died as miserably as the defeated. As they drew closer to the Temple, they pretended not even to hear Caesar's orders, but urged the men in front to throw in more firebrands. The rebels were powerless to help; carnage and flight spread throughout.

Most of the slain were peaceful citizens, weak and unarmed, and they were butchered where they were caught. The heap of corpses mounted higher and higher about the altar; a stream of blood flowed down the Temple's steps, and the bodies of those slain at the top slipped to the bottom.

When Caesar failed to restrain the fury of his frenzied soldiers, and the fire could not be checked, he entered the building with his generals and looked at the holy place of the sanctuary and all its furnishings, which exceeded by far the accounts current in foreign lands and fully justified their splendid repute in our own.

As the flames had not yet penetrated to the inner sanctum, but were consuming the chambers that surrounded the sanctuary, Titus assumed correctly that there was still time to save the structure; he ran out and by personal appeals he endeavored to persuade his men to put out the fire, instructing Liberalius, a centurion of his bodyguard of lancers, to club any of the men who disobeyed his orders. But their respect for Caesar and their fear of the centurion's staff who was trying to check them were overpowered by their rage, their detestation of the Jews, and an utterly uncontrolled lust for battle.


Most of them were spurred on, moreover, by the expectation of loot, convinced that the interior was full of money and dazzled by observing that everything around them was made of gold. But they were forestalled by one of those who had entered into the building, and who, when Caesar dashed out to restrain the troops, pushed a firebrand, in the darkness, into the hinges of the gate Then, when the flames suddenly shot up from the interior, Caesar and his generals withdrew, and no one was left to prevent those outside from kindling the blaze. Thus, in defiance of Caesar's wishes, the Temple was set on fire.

While the Temple was ablaze, the attackers plundered it, and countless people who were caught by them were slaughtered. There was no pity for age and no regard was accorded rank; children and old men, laymen and priests, alike were butchered; every class was pursued and crushed in the grip of war, whether they cried out for mercy or offered resistance.

Through the roar of the flames streaming far and wide, the groans of the falling victims were heard; such was the height of the hill and the magnitude of the blazing pile that the entire city seemed to be ablaze; and the noise - nothing more deafening and frightening could be imagined.

There were the war cries of the Roman legions as they swept onwards en masse, the yells of the rebels encircled by fire and sword, the panic of the people who, cut off above, fled into the arms of the enemy, and their shrieks as they met their fate. The cries on the hill blended with those of the multitudes in the city below; and now many people who were exhausted and tongue-tied as a result of hunger, when they beheld the Temple on fire, found strength once more to lament and wail. Peraea and the surrounding hills, added their echoes to the deafening din. But more horrifying than the din were the sufferings.

The Temple Mount, everywhere enveloped in flames, seemed to be boiling over from its base; yet the blood seemed more abundant than the flames and the numbers of the slain greater than those of the slayers. The soldiers climbed over heaps of bodies as they chased the fugitives."

References:
Josephus' account appears in: Cornfield, Gaalya ed., Josephus, The Jewish War (1982); Duruy, Victor, History of Rome vol. V (1883). "