Crusades

[Ned]

Re: Re: Re: Crusades

Originally posted by Cyclotron


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.

Are you kidding, the Arabs were on the warpath against the Roman Empire, East and West, almost continuously from their earliest days. The Franks defeated the Muslim advance into Gaul. The Franks tried to retake Spain, but were themselves defeated.

The Arabs took Sicily and Southern Italy and almost took Rome. They continuously made war on both East and West.

When the Turks took over, they renewed their assault on the Eastern Empire. Military victories caused the Eastern Emperor to appeal for aid. Thus the crusades.

The crusades were in the nature of rescue mission. They did not flow from nothing. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression.

We know the rest. The Muslim aggression continued until all Europe was again threatened.

But the tide turned, and soon the Arabs were out of Spain and the Ottoman Empire fell. But Muslim aggression is back in full force and has to be recognized for what it is. This is not something new.

The PC world will not tell the uneducated the truth about Islam. We call it a "peaceful" religion. That, my friends, is the epitome of the Big Lie.

[Barnabas]

Re: Re: Re: Crusades

Originally posted by Cyclotron


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.

What is "their territory"?

Much of it had been conquered by turks from the byzantines very very recently just 3 years ago, and still had the intact christian populations, and back then the "syrian coast" still had christian majorities, as late as the XX century, christians were the majority in lebanon, one third of syrians, and the majority in Galilee, without mentioning the millions of greek and armenian christians in anatolia.

The first crusade was called after the byzantine emperor asked the Pope for help due to the byzantine defeat in Manzikert, I tend to see the crusades as the delated response to the arab conquests of Christian lands.

Anyway, the crusades were a failure, unless you count the spanish reconquista as crusades.
If I recall correctly some english crusaders helped Portugal conquer Lisbon from the muslims, and their 1000 years alliance goes back to that time, when Castille tried to conquer Portugal, they were defeated in Aljubarrota by the portuguese with help of english longbow archers.

[Cyclotron]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Crusades

Originally posted by Ned
Are you kidding, the Arabs were on the warpath against the Roman Empire, East and West, almost continuously from their earliest days.

Sure, etc. etc., but because none of that is common knowledge, you can't use it to argue that the reason people villify the crusades is because they have a PC perception of Islam as awesome and peaceful and free from criticism. In fact, they don't by and large have any perception of Islam aside from OBL, Saddam, and the Ayatollahs. What you and I know as students of history does not pass for common knowledge, so it is largely irrelevant to your argument.

So please do not lecture me on the Arab conquests. It's plainly not germane to this discussion.

The crusades were in the nature of rescue mission. They did not flow from nothing. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression.

Bullsh*t. The Muslims had taken Jerusalem hundreds of years before, the wars to "retake" them were not responses to agression. There was aggression on the part of the Turks against the Byzantines, but Jerusalem was at the time in the hands of the Fatimids, not the Turks - and the Fatimids were allies of the Byzantine Empire at the time. The Crusades were a "response" to incessant fighting in Europe that the Pope saw could be redirected for his own gain, not a response to any kind of real aggression.

As for the rest of your odd characterization of all of Muslim history being uniquely "aggressive," well, I scarcely know where to start. The expansion of Islam was as "aggressive" as the expansion of Christianity at the expense of the pagans centuries before. To say that one is characterized by aggression and one is not is simply absurd. Both Christianity and Islam have constantly fought for more territory. On the Muslim side, there's the initial conquests of Muhammed and his successors, of North Africa, Spain, the Levant, and eastwards toward India. Later, you have the expansion of the Ottomans up to Vienna. On the Christian side, the Drang nach Osten and the associated Northern Crusades, the Reconquista, the Eastern Crusades, and the rapid expansion of later Christianity under the auspices of Imperialism, from Cortez to the British Empire in Africa.

How can you possibly make any reasoned assertion as to which is more "aggressive?"

[Cyclotron]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Crusades

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
What is "their territory"?

The territory they had ruled for several hundred years. Nobody has ever ruled an area forever. The Levant was long lost to the Byzantines, who had aboslutely no illusions during the Crusades that they would be retaking it. The Crusaders went to retake the Holy Land, not Anatolia (which is what you were referring to).

The first crusade was called after the byzantine emperor asked the Pope for help due to the byzantine defeat in Manzikert, I tend to see the crusades as the delated response to the arab conquests of Christian lands.

But the Crusade wasn't to reconquer Anatolia, was it? It was to reconquer Jerusalem - which wasn't even in the hands of the Turks at the time, and which had been in the hands of the Fatimids - Byzantine allies at the time - and in the hands of Muslims for hundreds of years. Oops!

[Barnabas]

The difference is islam was born conquering, while christianity, before becoming legal, and later official, actually spent a few centuries spreading peacefully till becoming a religion with a significant number of followers in the empire (and often enduring persecutions)
Jesus, Paul, and Peter did not command any army, in comparison to Mohammed, Umar etc

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
The difference is islam was born conquering, while christianity, before becoming legal, and later official, actually spent a few centuries spreading peacefully till becoming a religion with a significant number of followers in the empire (and often enduring persecutions)
Jesus, Paul, and Peter did not command any army, in comparison to Mohammed, Umar etc

How is this relevant to how aggressive the religion is overall, or anyone's ability to make such an assertion? Does the peacefulness of Jesus somehow negate the hundreds of years of oppression, warfare, and murder that is the shared tradition of both Christianity and Islam? "Aggressiveness" should be judged on deeds if you are to do it at all, not on the intentions of one man who was really a pretty nice guy. The only reason Christianity was "peaceful" for that long was because it was a minority scattered throughout the empire; as soon as it became the majority, in comes the brutality. The only difference with Islam is that Islam never had a period of being a weak, persecuted diaspora, and thus could be violent and conquering from the get-go.

[Ned]

C, according to this site, the Turks controlled Jerusalem at the time of the crusades. http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/imper...slamchron.html

Admittedly, the crusades began a general assault on the non Christians surrounding Europe. But that does not make the Muslims into good guys.

I beg to differ on post-Columbian expansion of Europe. It mainly was for empire and gold, not to spread religion per se. In contrast, Muslims were all about spreading their religion.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Ned
C, according to this site, the Turks controlled Jerusalem at the time of the crusades.

Your site is full of crap. I'm sorry, but book after book that I've read says the same thing: the Fatimids reconquered Jerusalem from the Turks about a year before the Crusaders got there. The Fatimids tried to get the Byzantines to stop their Frankish "allies," but the Franks wouldn't listen to the Byzantines, who they already distrusted and despised.

Admittedly, the crusades began a general assault on the non Christians surrounding Europe. But that does not make the Muslims into good guys.

I have not argued this, and neither has anyone else in this thread.

I beg to differ on post-Columbian expansion of Europe. It mainly was for empire and gold, not to spread religion per se.

You know what? You're absolutely right. But you've also opened a whole can of worms with that. Do you really think the Crusades were all about religion? What about all the younger sons of nobility who were shut out of estates in Europe, who suddenly saw a chance for becoming a landed noble out in Outremer? What about the Pope, who knew very well that Europe was plagued by inner turmoil that would be better spent elsewhere? Or the profiteering Venetians, not to mention the 4th Crusade? Or Bohemond of Antioch and his ilk who clearly wanted no part of the whole "religious" part of the crusade so long as there was land and plunder to be had?

Oh, it doesn't stop there, either. The expansion of the Ottomans certainly wasn't a solely religious expedition; it was the deliberate expansion of an empire, no different in theory or practice from the Romans, Persians, or Byzantines. The very initial conquests of the Arabs were certainly religious in nature, but were the conquests of the Umayyads and Abbasids any more religiously based than the Germans of the drang nach osten or the Spanish of Pizarro and Cortez? I don't think that's easily proven.

Virtually all the conflicts we've discussed have been about gold and power as much as religion. You are absolutely right on your appraisal of "post-Columbian expansion" - but again, it's totally irrelevant. Everyone is interested in gold and empire, and these factors applied as much to the Crusaders and the Ottomans as they did to Cortez and Pizarro.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It is interesting to assert the Crusades being in response to Turkish aggression.. especially since any Turkish aggression was against the Byzantine Empire, in Anatolia. But the Crusaders didn't go there. They went to Jerusalem, which had been Muslim controled for a few centuries before Pope Urban II's call.

Not even mentioning the fact the Turks didn't hold the land anymore, of course.

It was a call to retake the Holy Land, not to stop Turkish aggression.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It is interesting to assert the Crusades being in response to Turkish aggression.. especially since any Turkish aggression was against the Byzantine Empire, in Anatolia. But the Crusaders didn't go there. They went to Jerusalem, which had been Muslim controled for a few centuries before Pope Urban II's call.

Not even mentioning the fact the Turks didn't hold the land anymore, of course.

It was a call to retake the Holy Land, not to stop Turkish aggression.

Imran, how else could the pope get Euro-knights to march?

But, you do have to remember that the Muslims had been destroying churches and shrines for some time, and the Turks had cut of Christian access to Jerusalem.

So the West has cause of its own to proceed. But the could not proceed, realisticallly, without the consent and cooperation of the Eastern Empire. That is why the Eastern Empires call for help was the critical factor in opening the floodgates to Western armies.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Ned
But, you do have to remember that the Muslims had been destroying churches and shrines for some time, and the Turks had cut of Christian access to Jerusalem.

This is untrue. The Pope surely knew of the earlier destrution of the Holy Sephulchre, but that was at the hands of the Caliph Al-Hakim, who was certifiably mad and had been dead since 1021 or so. The Turks were somewhat of an obstacle to overland passage to Jerusalem, but people were still able to come after Manzikert and return to give reports on how "awful" conditions were. While there might be some truth in their statements, they are isolated reports by very biased sources. Additionally, the very idea of a need to make the pilgrimage was new; access to Jerusalem may have been hindered, but people had only cared about pilgrimage to Jerusalem for a relatively short period of time.

So the West has cause of its own to proceed. But the could not proceed, realisticallly, without the consent and cooperation of the Eastern Empire. That is why the Eastern Empires call for help was the critical factor in opening the floodgates to Western armies.

Jerusalem was controlled by an ally of the Byzantines. If what you say was at all true, the Crusaders would have defeated the Turks and left it at that - but they "liberated" (read: slaughtered nearly every person in) Jerusalem and proceeded to carve a Kingdom out of Fatimid domains as far south as Ascalon. If you think for a moment that Pope Urban or anyone else in the West actually cared about the Byzantines, you're mad; the Crusaders and Byzantines hated each other, and relations between the Pope and the Emperor weren't much better. Manzikert was an excuse, not an end in itself. It "excused" the attack on Jerusalem and Muslim domains, not the other way around.

[Ned]

C, now you are in a denial mode, denying that the Eastern Empire called for help in the first place as you seem to think the crusades were the concoction of the Pope that were actually opposed by the Eastern Empire.

[Ned]

According to you, the Fats took Jerusalem only one year before the Knights arrived. But, did they take it before or after the call for aid by the Eastern Empire.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Ned
C, now you are in a denial mode, denying that the Eastern Empire called for help in the first place as you seem to think the crusades were the concoction of the Pope that were actually opposed by the Eastern Empire.

Of course the Byzantines called for help, but the idea of a Crusade did not originate with them. Even Charlemagne had considered an expedition to the Holy Land; Pope Gregory had seriously considered an organized expedition right after Manzikert, before the Byzantines ever asked for help. The request from the Emperor was convenient, but not the real reason for the crusades.

According to you, the Fats took Jerusalem only one year before the Knights arrived. But, did they take it before or after the call for aid by the Eastern Empire.

The Byzantines called for help before the Fatimids retook Jerusalem, but the "help" the Byzantines wanted was not a crusade, nor an expedition against Jerusalem. Alexius wanted some Frankish mercenaries, and that's it. He never really wanted a full autonomous crusade that quickly started ignoring his desires; he certainly didn't want the Franks to go and attack Jerusalem, which he didn't care about. He wanted mercenaries to take back Anatolia from the Turks.

Seriously, pick up a book (Runciman is a good start) and read about how the Byzantines and Crusaders were at each other's throats from the very beginning. The Franks fought for their own reasons, not to protect the Empire or save the Comnemnids.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ned, do you not see how silly you are being here? The Eastern Empire calling for help, means that the West sends troops to fight NEAR the Eastern Empire! Jerusalem is well the **** away from the front lines and had been controlled by the Muslims for a few centuries.

It'd be like the UK calling for help against the Soviets in 1980 and the US landing troops in China and taking Beijing.