Crusades

[Cyclotron]

I really can't take this argument much further. You just don't know that much about the Crusades, Ned. Your misconceptions about the Crusades generally are legion, and your analysis incredibly simplistic. I don't think you could find any writings like your own unless you went back to medieval times and read Christian commentators then. No modern scholar of the Crusades worth his salt would take your view seriously. You're simply wrong, and some research and good reading would educate you about the conflict better than I can.

Go for "A History of the Crusades," a Stephen Runicman classic. It's three volumes, but it's quite good and an interesting read. Then I'd recommend "The Crusades Through Arab Eyes" by Amin Maalouf, who looks at the Crusades using more arab and turkish sources. Together they're a good start to understanding the Crusades. You'll find that even those sources, written decades apart and using two very different viewpoints, acknowledge the same basic facts and interpretations that I've argued here.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
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.

I agree with most what you posted, but afaik pilgrimage was very common in christiantiy (to several destinations, Jerusalem being one of them, others were for example Rome and Santiago de Compostela in Spain), and that from early on. Pilgrimages to the holy land were done from the 4th century AD. And often they were done in bigger groups, not only by individuals. Sometimes even kings with their entourage went on the pilgrimage, like the King of Norway in 1003 (to Jerusalem).

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
The Franks fought for their own reasons, not to protect the Empire or save the Comnemnids.

But isnt that usually the case throughout history? Why should the Franks have cared about central anatolia? Enough to send a force large enough to make a difference? when small purely merc forces went out, in later times, they had a tendency to change sides.

I mean given the history of the land of Israel at that time, the motivations of individual crusaders for leaving their own lands, and the evolving religiosity of medieval europe, its not wild that the crusaders would go for Israel, rather than muck around in the vastness of Asia Minor. Im not agreeing with Ned, but questioning the apparent implication that the crusaders were any more nefarious than any of the other players involved.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
- 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.

Obligatory reminder of how small Israel is - Ascalon/Ashkelon isnt that far from Jerusalem.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
They went to Jerusalem, which had been Muslim controled for a few centuries before Pope Urban II's call.
.

Just under 300 years, IIUC. Glad we have a marker for the longest it takes for defacto control of Eretz Israel to convert to de jure right. Happy Chanukkah


Posting in 2006, 58 years since the rebirth of Jewish independence, 87 years since the establishment of the mandate for a Jewish National Homeland, 124 years since the establishment of Zionist settlements at Rishon Le Zion and elsewhere.

[Ned]

Cyclotron, what you say is true and is consistent with what I said. I don't know where we disagree. I maintain that the Crusades were a response to Turk aggression against the Eastern Empire, cutting off pilgrimages to the Holy Land, and a request for help from the Eastern Empire. You disagreed only with the pilgrimages aspect, on which point you, not me are flatly wrong. And yet, you insist that I am completely wrong about what I said.

The level of help requested varied over time, true. Gregory VII planned to lead 50,000 men to the East in the 1070's. That venture was called off because of intervening causes.

But it is also true that the Turks began conquering Europe proper in 1088 by defeating the Romanians and occuppying the Danube near the Black Sea. That caused alarm in Europe.

The Eastern Emperor asked the Count of Flanders for aid in 1095. His request was modest. In response, Urban II called the Council of Clermont. Abassadors from the Eastern Emperor attended and were "warmly" received. The council called for what we now know as the crusades. (There is nothing to suggest that the Emperor's ambassadors tried to STOP the crusades.) The crusaders destination in all cases was Constantinople with a mission to attack the Turks, defeat them and continue on to take Jerusalem. This is what they attempted, in fact. That the Eastern Empire was not exactly pleased that so many Western troops arrived under independent command, is largely irrelevent to this discussion.

Imran, you are a complete ass. The Crusaders did attack the Turks in Asia Minor. They were defeated and took refuge in Armenia before moving South to Antioch and Jerusalem.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04543c.htm

[Ned]

BeBro, I smell a rat. I think Cy and Imran are contending that the crusades were undertaken without justification, consistent, it appears, with modern anti-Western revisionism. Well, to put it frankly, I strongly disagree with this view.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Imran, you are a complete ass. The Crusaders did attack the Turks in Asia Minor. They were defeated and took refuge in Armenia before moving South to Antioch and Jerusalem.

The People's Crusade (peasants and lower class folk who wanted to march on Jerusalem) were defeated by the Seljuk Turks. The actual Crusaders (led by Kings and whatnot) only fought the Turks on their WAY to Jerusalem... only when they were in their path. They didn't bother them otherwise. This is shown by the fact the Seljuks were still around after the First Crusade and no pressure had been lifted from the Byzantine Empire.

The entire focus of the Crusaders was Jerusalem. Read Pope Urban II's speech at the Council of Clermont. They didn't care about calls from help by the Byzantines! They could care less... they just wanted to take back Jerusalem, Antioch, and the rest of the Holy Land.

[Ned]

Imran,

Why did they all assemble at Constantinople? Was it because they thought they were welcome there?

Their first action was a siege of Nicea. The Turks held it. Nicea is close to Constantinople.

Later actions against the Turks were "unsuccessful." They turned South, through Armenia, due to necessity. Had they defeated the Turks, who knows what would have happened.

They next took Antioch. Who held that?

"At this council [Piacenza] Urban was able to broach the subject of the Crusades. The Eastern Emperor, Alexius I, had sent an embassy to the pope asking for help against the Seljuk Turks who were a serious menace to the Empire of Constantinople. Urban succeeded in inducing many of those present to promist to help Alexius, but no definite step was taken by Urban till a few months later, when he summoned the most famous of his councils, that at Clermont in Auvergne. The council met in November, 1095; thirteen archbishops, two hundred and twenty-five bishops, and over ninety abbots answered the pope's summons. The synod met in the Church of Notre-Dame du Port and began by reiterating the Gregorian Decrees against simony, investiture, and clerical marriage. The sentence, which for some months had been threatening Philip of France, was now launched against him, and he was excommunicated for adultery. Then the burning question of the East was discussed. Urban's reception in France had been most enthusiastic, and enthusiasm for the Crusade had spread as the pope journeyed on from Italy. Thousands of nobles and knights had met together for the council. It was decided that an army of horse and foot should march to rescue Jerusalem and the Churches of Asia from the Saracens. A plenary indulgence was granted to all who should undertake the journey pro sola devotione, and further to help the movement, the Truce of God was extended, and the property of those who had taken the cross was to be looked upon as sacred. "

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15210a.htm

[BeBMan]

Ned, your argument of crusades being a response was how it was viewed (and justified) at the time, however, that doesn't change the fact that many had completely other motivations. Thing is, there is a difference between the "official" justifications (say by the pope) and the reasons and motivations behind the crusades (esp. the first here) and of those that took part or advocated them. And since a lot of different parties were involved, you find as well lots of different interests.

In theory the crusaders should indeed help the eastern empire. In Constantinople several leaders of the first crusade had to swear loyalty to the Byzantine crown, and their conquests on the way to the holy land should become fiefdoms of the eastern empire due to that. The reality however was different, those leaders did care mainly about establishing their own realms, and when those realms (the crusader states) were de facto there the Byzantine empire was too weak to enforce the rule over those territories.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by BeBro
I agree with most what you posted, but afaik pilgrimage was very common in christiantiy (to several destinations, Jerusalem being one of them, others were for example Rome and Santiago de Compostela in Spain), and that from early on. Pilgrimages to the holy land were done from the 4th century AD. And often they were done in bigger groups, not only by individuals. Sometimes even kings with their entourage went on the pilgrimage, like the King of Norway in 1003 (to Jerusalem).

Pilgrimage, yes, but not specifically pilgrimage to Jerusalem. That was relatively uncommon until the increasing prosperity of Europe around the beginning of the 11th century allowed it. There's a reason the king of Norway went in 1003, and Charlemagne considered such a project - they were Kings, and could do that. For the average person or even lower-station church official, pilgrimage to Jerusalem only became a popular idea less than 100 years before the Crusades.

Next, LotM:

Obligatory reminder of how small Israel is - Ascalon/Ashkelon isnt that far from Jerusalem.

Of course, but my example illustrates that clearly the attack on Fatimid territory was not an accident, but a concerted invasion of the Byzantines' allies for purposes of carving out a permanent kingdom, invalidating the claim that the Crusaders were only acting on the interests of the Byzantines.

Im not agreeing with Ned, but questioning the apparent implication that the crusaders were any more nefarious than any of the other players involved.

They weren't any more nefarious. Ned seems to believe they were fighting a "defensive" war, and I am pointing out that they were violent freebooters who saw a chance for glory, plunder, and possible salvation, and took it. I don't think that makes them any different from a lot of other violent freebooters throughout history and religious tradition. Certainly the Venetians, the Papacy, certain Muslim Lords (esp. in Homs and Aleppo, IIRC), occasionally the Byzantines, the Armenians, the Kwarazmians later on - these folks are also nefarious when they get their chance. This is, however, irrelevant to the perception of the Crusaders, because the Crusaders are known far better than any of those other groups.

And Ned, well...

modern anti-Western revisionism

Oh dear Lord. Okay, I'm going out to lunch and then I'll address this travesty.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Um.. Ned, why wouldn't they assemble at Constantinople? They had to have a supply line starting somewhere. This wasn't 1941, it wasn't easy to land on the beach and easily supply yourself from across the water.

You'll also note that Nicea was on the way to Jerusalem. The only other major action against the Turks was Dorylaeum, also on the way (the Turks were actually planning an ambush there).

In fact the Crusaders defeated the Turks in all their actions against them as they marched through Asia Minor. If they wanted to, they probably could sweep the Seljuk Turks back from the gates of Constantinople, but that wasn't their goal. They used the 'threat to the East' for the ultimate goal, which was taking Jerusalem.

[Cyclotron]

Let's begin.

modern anti-Western revisionism

You can call me names all you want, but if I'm a anti-Western revisionist, you're a Euro-centric apologist. So let's just leave it, shall we?

First of all,

I think Cy and Imran are contending that the crusades were undertaken without justification

Nobody undertakes anything without justification. That is not what I'm saying. Justifications are always complicated; we have in the Crusades a distinct difference between what people said, and the real reason people did things. These are not terribly difficult to disentangle provided you don't just take everything on its face value.

Here is your assertion (emphasis mine):

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

I assume the Muslim aggression you are referring to was the Turkish invasion of Anatolia. If so, the Crusades were hardly a response - the Crusaders were interested in Anatolia only insofar as it was the best way to get from Europe to the Levant. The Crusaders were not interested in "defeating" the Turks as a viable force; such a project would have been impossible for them anyway, and it wouldn't have gotten them any closer to the Levant and Jerusalem, their actual objective. Because the assistance of the Empire was neccessary at the beginning of the expedition, they initially aided the Byzantines, but did everything with the utmost reluctance, chafing at the Byzantine minders and countermanding the Emperor's orders. Bohemond, one of the most important of the initial crusaders, had invaded the Empire with his Norman family before the Crusades began. The Crusaders thought the Greeks were decadent fools and heretics to boot; they cooperated only as far as was neccessary. Antioch, which the Emperor had specifically claimed, was claimed by the Crusaders and wasn't given back to the Byzantines until the Byzantines forced them.

The Crusaders immediately went to Jerusalem and took Jerusalem from a Byzantine ally, profoundly damaging Byzantine foreign relations and demonstrating the total disregard the Crusaders had for Byzantine goals. The Emperor wanted a force of mercenaries; he got an army of unruly warriors that rejected his authority and broke his agreements as soon as they felt strong enough to do so.

Thus, if the Muslim aggression was the Turkish invasion of Anatolia, the assertion that the Crusades were a response to this is utterly false. While the Pope may have found the Emperor's request for mercenaries opportune, it was not that request which provided the main impetus for the Crusades, and the Crusaders themselves certainly never acted like allies of Byzantium or a "rescue force." The Fourth Crusade was not a wierd anomaly; it was the logical result of a weakening Empire and a Venice at the zenith of its power combined with the already fierce hatred and distrust of the Byzantines on the part of the Franks.

So we have an attack by the Crusaders on a Byzantine ally unaffiliated with the original grievance of Anatolian territory. I am not saying that there was no justification for the Crusades. In fact, there were many reasons - the Crusaders wanted money, power, and land, and many also had sincere beliefs that Jerusalem should be returned to Christian hands. The Pope was also religiously motivated, but he realized as well that this was an opportunity to redirect violence within Christendom to a target outside of Christendom, and he furthermore hoped that the Crusades would bolster his power against the Eastern church and the Empire. The Emperor at first thought that Western mercenaries would be valuable in retaking Anatolia; he realized very quickly he had made a grave mistake, but at first he too had his motivations for supporting the Crusades.

But it is also true that the Turks began conquering Europe proper in 1088 by defeating the Romanians and occuppying the Danube near the Black Sea. That caused alarm in Europe.

That's preposterous. The Muslims had been raiding into Italy, the Alps, and France for hundreds of years before that. The Muslims were busily fighting the Christian Kingdoms in Spain, far closer to the Franks than Romania and the Black Sea. The idea that Muslim inroads in the Black Sea area would be more "alarming" than Muslim rule in nearby Spain and the Medditerranean is sheer lunacy.

I hope I have adequately addressed your arguments. You are quite simply mistaken about the Crusades; if you insist on ignoring what I'm telling you and calling me a "revisionist," well, you're beyond hope.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by 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.

Crusades weren't ruled by a common sense. Take II crusade: called to re-establish county of Edessa, ment to attack Aleppo, but turned out to attack Damascus -Jerusalem's ally against Aleppo!- instead of Aleppo, because Damascus was mentioned in the Bible
and Aleppo not. Simply liberating a place mentioned in the Bible has more appeal than liberating completely unknown villages and cities in eastern Anatolia.

Originally posted by Cyclotron


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.

Holy Sepulchre was destroyed thrice in 1,5 century before crusades:
-by As-Sannagi, fatimid gouvernor of Jerusalem
-by Al-Hakim bi-amr Allah
-by Seldjuk Turks
taking into account how little did two haves of christianity know about each other, I wouldn't be suprised if it was only after a long time that stories about persecution of christians (under Al-Hakim mostly) reached western Europe.
Yahya al-Antaki, orthodox patriarch of Alexandria, a man of high culture, couldn't even find the names but of few popes for the last centuries, the same as Sa'id b. Batriq

[Cyclotron]

That's really interesting, I would have suspected there to be more records than that; I suppose we take the speed of knowledge and information for granted these days.