So lets say a bomb goes off in the Vatican killing the pope...

[Dinner]

If Hera got his way and the Pope called for a Crusade (wouldn't happen but we're playing what if) then what number would it be? There were nine in the mideast, one in Spain, one in the South of France, on in the Balkans, one against the Tartars, one in Spain, and... Am I missing one?

Edit: Wiki says there was the Alexandrian Crusade in Egypt too.

[Tuberski]

Yep, pretty much. That's the way pretty much all history is like nowadays.

You obviously have different books than I had.

ACK!

[Heraclitus]

Note that, at the time of the original Crusades, western Europe was little more than a collection of warlords and their thugs lording it over the peasantry, while the Arab world was pretty much the apex of civilization. Today, the circumstances are nearly reversed, and you see their lunatics flying planes into our buildings. Holy Wars are how barbarian peoples deal with their troubles. Hopefully the Arabs will learn, like we did, to civilize themselves once they're done with the hacking and the burning.

You do realize the cursades where a response to Muslim conquests right?

[Heraclitus]

If Hera got his way

Hey I didn't say I wanted a crusade. I just asked what you guys think would happen.

[Heraclitus]

its a giant conspiracy to keep the white man down

Yeah the man is keeping us down!

[GePap]

You do realize the cursades where a response to Muslim conquests right?

Bull****.

The Muslims took the Holy Land in 639AD. Even with how slow things were back then, a 400 year lag hardly indicates a "response." The First Crusade was a Papal power play, a way for the Pope to use the troubles of the Byzantines after their defeat at Manzikert and the loss of central Anatolia to the Turks to enhance his power over the feudiing rulers of Western Europe.

And as for the actual question, I find it ridiculous that anyone takes a "Crusade" even remotely seriously after such an attack. But then Poly is meant to lowest common denominator discussions....

[Drake Tungsten]

But then Poly is meant to lowest common denominator discussions....

[Riesstiu IV]

Western powers already support one holy war: the Israeli Jewsade.

[Ben Kenobi]

The Muslims took the Holy Land in 639AD. Even with how slow things were back then, a 400 year lag hardly indicates a "response."

Well, considering the fact that those same Arabs battled back and forth with Byzantium over Antioch, conquered all of Christian north Africa, most of Christian Spain, and drove as far north as Tours in a scant 100 years, I daresay the Christians had much more pressing problems then the Holy Land.

Rome was beseiged, and burnt. Constantinople beseiged twice, both of which failed.

The Crusades for the recovery of the holy land could only occur when the rest of the west was relatively secure. Even so, those in Spain, were denied permission to go, as they had more pressing matters with the reconquista.

The First Crusade was a Papal power play, a way for the Pope to use the troubles of the Byzantines after their defeat at Manzikert and the loss of central Anatolia to the Turks to enhance his power over the feudiing rulers of Western Europe.

Actually, it was a response by Christians to shore up the Byzantines shortly after Mazinkert, as well as to avenge the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

[Ben Kenobi]

You obviously have different books than I had.

Yes, things have changed. I have older history books, and the new ones today are very different.

[DaShi]

That's because they were written by Giambattista Vico.

[Heraclitus]

Bull****.

The Muslims took the Holy Land in 639AD. Even with how slow things were back then, a 400 year lag hardly indicates a "response." The First Crusade was a Papal power play, a way for the Pope to use the troubles of the Byzantines after their defeat at Manzikert and the loss of central Anatolia to the Turks to enhance his power over the feudiing rulers of Western Europe.

And as for the actual question, I find it ridiculous that anyone takes a "Crusade" even remotely seriously after such an attack. But then Poly is meant to lowest common denominator discussions....

I didn't say a response to the conquest of the holy lands. I said a response to Muslim conquests.

[Elok]

You do realize the cursades where a response to Muslim conquests right?

And 9/11 was a response to U.S. Imperialism, or whatever. The Muslims didn't take over anything belonging to the West in the first place, and Byzantium was hardly a papal ally. They'd excommunicated each other less than fifty years before the Crusades started, and the Fourth Crusade was actually directed against Constantinople. The whole "we must fight for Christendom" thing was a shallow excuse to cover up a plain land-grab.

[Ben Kenobi]

Fourth Crusade was actually directed against Constantinople.

I knew you were going to post this.

The 4th crusade was directed against the Muslims. The reason they got sidetracked is because when they were in Greece, a deposed Byzantine emperor offered to pay the crusaders if they would sack Constantinople, and would reinstall him as Emperor. The sack the city, and the emperor can't find the money to pay the crusaders, so they loot the city.

Far as I can see, while the leadership of the crusaders should simply have executed the traitor and shipped his head to Byzantium, it doesn't meant that the Crusade was directed at Constantinople.

I think that was probably the most horrifying result. Brothers and sisters in Christ should have worked together.

As for the Holy Land not belonging to the west, I really don't understand why someone who is Orthodox wouldn't want to regain the Christian east.

[Ben Kenobi]

The whole "we must fight for Christendom" thing was a shallow excuse to cover up a plain land-grab.

So it's just a coincidence that Alexius appealed to the west to send the Crusaders to the east after Mazinkert?