Crusades

[BeBMan]

We also know quite well what happened in other cases. The "history is written by the victor" bit is way too overestimated IMO. It's certainly true in some cases, but not generally.

We should also bear in mind that in many cases (certainly in ancient times) atrocities were often not considered crimes in the same way they are today, and often they were done with the intent to spread fear amongst other enemies, and so the perpetrating side did make no efforts at all to hide them, rather the opposite.

So when Persians destroyed Eretria in 490BC because of its help for the Ionian revolt they did it not only to punish the city itself, or to take it out as an enemy, but also to make an example of it for other cities under their rule.

[Dr Strangelove]

The crusade that sacked Constantinople was usurped by the Venetians who sought to destroy a commercial rival. The Pope punished them by ex-communicating the entire city.

Muslims were not above wiping out cities either. In Spain they exterminated the population of Burgos for putting up a fight.

[Barnabas]

The funny think is muslims won the crusades, and continued advancing, destroying the byzantines and conquering everything up to hungary, attacking vienna twice, but by listening to them, you may think that they lost the crusades

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
The crusade that sacked Constantinople was usurped by the Venetians who sought to destroy a commercial rival.

Kind of. The Venetians contracted with the Crusaders to transport them by sea. The charges were exorbident and eventually, it was agreed that Venice would get 1/4 of everything conquered by the Crusaders. It was then that Venice convinced the Crusaders to attack Christian Constantiople. Venice ended up with Rhodes, Cyprus, Malta, and the artwork which is now St. Mark's Square.

There was also a later "Children's Crusade," where many of the children of Europe took up the cross and marched on the Holy Lands. Like the 4th Crusade, they entered into contracts to go by sea. However, they were taken instead to North Africa and sold into slavery.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Zkribbler

There was also a later "Children's Crusade," where many of the children of Europe took up the cross and marched on the Holy Lands. Like the 4th Crusade, they entered into contracts to go by sea. However, they were taken instead to North Africa and sold into slavery.

Actually, the children's crusade isn't well researched, mainly due to lack of sources. What's known as the children's crusade is merged from several events happened mainly in the first half of the 13th century. There are a number of unsolved problems, for example the number of participants, if they (or the majority) were really children, and if they really planned to go to the Holy Land in something like a "crusade". There are some nice theories though for example that the (in Germany well-known) folk tale of the "Pied Piper of Hamelin" points to the children's crusade.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by BeBro


Actually, the children's crusade isn't well researched, mainly due to lack of sources. What's known as the children's crusade is merged from several events happened mainly in the first half of the 13th century. There are a number of unsolved problems, for example the number of participants, if they (or the majority) were really children, and if they really planned to go to the Holy Land in something like a "crusade". There are some nice theories though for example that the (in Germany well-known) folk tale of the "Pied Piper of Hamelin" points to the children's crusade.

Pied Piper of Hamelin is well known here to. Or at least it used to be. I was in an elementary school performance of a stage version, wherein I got to play the Pied Piper, cause I was the only boy who could the play the recorder (we were taking recorder, not flute) well enough.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by BeBro


Actually, the children's crusade isn't well researched, mainly due to lack of sources. What's known as the children's crusade is merged from several events happened mainly in the first half of the 13th century. There are a number of unsolved problems, for example the number of participants, if they (or the majority) were really children, and if they really planned to go to the Holy Land in something like a "crusade". There are some nice theories though for example that the (in Germany well-known) folk tale of the "Pied Piper of Hamelin" points to the children's crusade.

I recall reading somewhere that the "Children's Crusade" never made it out of Europe. The kids were beset by raiders along their march. There were abductions and rape/murders. By the time they approached a port there weren't enough left.

[Zkribbler]

According to the living god Wikipedia CHILDREN'S CRUSADES the facts of the so-called Children's Crusade are unclear but their appear to be at least two.

One was an effort by children to peacefully convert Muslims and got as far as Genoa, but when the waters failed to part as promised, the crusade broke up, with some children probably going to Rome while others were sold into slavery.

There was also an effort in France, but this crusade was by "boys," probably meaning dispossed poor people. They never left France.

[Cyclotron]

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?

I think it was Stephen Runciman who called the Crusades "one long act of intolerance in the name of God" (I'm paraphrasing here). Maybe they're not considered evil because of the actual slaughter - which was not atypical for the time period - but because the Crusades are perceived as wars of intolerance, and so they strike people as particularly wasteful and unnecessary.

[Ned]

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?

I think Odin had it right. It is PC to bash Christianity, but not other religions and especially not Islam.

But PC is part of a larger "template" that generally is anti-West, at least to the extent of its fundamental culture and values.

[Zkribbler]

Re: Re: Crusades

Originally posted by Ned
It is PC to bash Christianity . . .

It is NOT p.c. to bash Christianity. It is P.C. to bash Chrisitians when they attempt to have the government spend money and effort to spread belief in Christ, e.g. having Nativity scenes set up on government property at Christmas time.

[Cyclotron]

Re: Re: Crusades

Originally posted by Ned
I think Odin had it right. It is PC to bash Christianity, but not other religions and especially not Islam.

But PC is part of a larger "template" that generally is anti-West, at least to the extent of its fundamental culture and values.

Ned, people don't know anything about Islam. There are very few people in the US who can point to a single war or conflict Muslims were involved in before the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, with the exception of the Crusades - and those only because Europeans were involved. If people singled out the Eastern Crusades because they wanted to bash Christianity, they have plenty of far worse material - the Albigensian Crusades, Inquisitions, and so on.

And as far as not bashing Islam, it's hard to find Islam responsible for an invasion of their territory by the Franks. It's not as if the Franks were attacked first. Nobody is saying the Muslims or anyone else were paragons of morality and virtue, or even close, but it can't be denied by any rational person that the Crusades were wars of aggression couched in religious terms by the Franks upon the Muslims. It's not "PC," and your attempt to declare it as such points more to your bizarre Western/Christian inferiority complex than anything else. It's not "anti-West" to say that the Crusades were far from the finest hour of Western Christendom.

[Imran Siddiqui]

[q=Cyclotron]It's not "PC," and your attempt to declare it as such points more to your bizarre Western/Christian inferiority complex than anything else.[/q]

Yep, that hits it right on the head. The Crusades are criticized because Christianity was totally twisted by those in power of the Church at the time in order to justify a war.

[Ned]

Re: Re: Re: Crusades

Originally posted by Zkribbler


It is NOT p.c. to bash Christianity. It is P.C. to bash Chrisitians when they attempt to have the government spend money and effort to spread belief in Christ, e.g. having Nativity scenes set up on government property at Christmas time.

Z, I beg to differ.

[Zkribbler]

I'm assuming you beg to differ because you've seen instances of this. I myself haven't noticed any.

But I tell you what I'm going to do. I'll be more sensative to anyone bashing Christianity. If they do it in my presence, I'll call them on it.

(This does not mean I'll necessary confront someone who is analytically questioning the validity of religion in general or Christianity in particular. But if they're making unfounded hostile generalizations or in other ways "bashing" the religion, they'll hear from me.)