Crusades: Good or Bad?

[Proteus_MST]

So other than the ostensible casus belli, holy wars are the same as non-holy wars. Business as usual, nothing to see here.

Nope ...
in holy wars the participants of one side believe that they get to heaven for their raping, plundering, vandalising, robbing, murdering and the assorted other disgusting past times.

[grumbler]

Nope ...
in holy wars the participants of one side believe that they get to heaven for their raping, plundering, vandalising, robbing, murdering and the assorted other disgusting past times.

I don't believe the victims of the raps, robberies, vandalization, murders, and assorted other disgusting pastimes really cared about the motives of the perps. Certainly those crimes weren't significantly more frequent or severe in "holy wars." Compare the fate of Baghdad (entirely wiped out in a non-religious war, with death toll estimates of 300,000 to 800,000) to Jerusalem (still extant after the capture in a "holy war," with death tolls in the range of 3,000-30,000).

[Bereta_Eder]

While I accept that religious motives for crimes are distinctively repulsive, other ideologies (i.e. freedom which means oil) are very nearly despicable and used in the same pseudo ideological fashion.

[Proteus_MST]

I don't believe the victims of the raps, robberies, vandalization, murders, and assorted other disgusting pastimes really cared about the motives of the perps. Certainly those crimes weren't significantly more frequent or severe in "holy wars." Compare the fate of Baghdad (entirely wiped out in a non-religious war, with death toll estimates of 300,000 to 800,000) to Jerusalem (still extant after the capture in a "holy war," with death tolls in the range of 3,000-30,000).

That the Crusaders didn´t destroy Jerusalem should be natural ... after all it was the holy city ... one of their targets for freeing from the infidels.
Nevertheless they slaughtered a large portion of its human population, muslims, jewsd (and partially even christians), no matter whether man, woman or child.

William of Tyre, who took part in the 3rd crusade as a chronicler had a nice account of the Terrors wrought upon the inhabitants of the city.
While surely, in normal wars there was the 3 days of plunder rule, when a city didn´t give up, it seems like the carnage of Jerusalem was impressive even to those standards

…Regardless of age and condition, they laid low, without distinction, every enemy encountered. Everywhere was frightful carnage, everywhere lay heaps of severed heads, so that soon it was impossible to pass or to go from one place to another except over the bodies of the slain. Already the leaders had forced their way by various routes almost to the center of the city and wrought unspeakable slaughter as they advanced. A host of people followed in their train, athirst for the blood of the enemy and wholly intent upon destruction. . . . So frightful was the massacre throughout the city, so terrible the shedding of blood, that even the victors experienced sensations of horror and loathing.

…A crowd of knights and foot soldiers... massacred all those who had taken refuge [in the court of the Temple]. No mercy was shown to anyone, and the whole place was flooded with the blood of the victims.

It was indeed the righteous judgment of God which ordained that those who had profaned the sanctuary of the Lord by their superstitious rites and had caused it to be an alien place to His faithful people should expiate their sin by death and, by pouring out their own blood, purify the sacred precincts.

It was impossible to look upon the vast numbers of the slain without horror; everywhere lay fragments of human bodies, and the very ground was covered with the blood of the slain. It was not alone the spectacle of headless bodies and mutilated limbs strewn in all directions that roused horror in all who looked upon them. Still more dreadful was it to gaze upon the victors themselves, dripping with blood from head to foot, an ominous sight which brought terror to all who met them. It is reported that within the Temple enclosure alone about ten thousand infidels perished, in addition to those who lay slain everywhere throughout the city in the streets and squares, the number of whom was estimated as no less.


The rest of the soldiers roved through the city in search of wretched survivors who might be hiding in the narrow portals and byways to escape death. These were dragged out into public view and slain like sheep. Some formed into bands and broke into houses where they laid violent hands on heads of families, on their wives children, and their entire households. These victims were either put to the sword or dashed headlong to the ground from some elevated place so that they perished miserably. Each marauder claimed as his own in perpetuity the particular house which he had entered, together with all it contained. For before the capture of the city the pilgrims had agreed that, after it had been taken by force, whatever each man might win for himself should be his forever by right of possession, without molestation. Consequently the pilgrims searched the city most carefully and boldly killed the citizens. They penetrated into the most retired and out-of-the-way places and broke open the most private apartments of the foe. At the entrance of each house, as it was taken the victor hung up his shield and his arms, as a sign to all who approached not to pause there but to pass by that place as already in possession of another.


When at last the city had been set in order in this way, arms were laid aside. Then, clad in fresh garments, with clean hands and bare feet, in humility and contrition, they began to make the rounds of the venerable places which the Saviour had deigned to sanctify and make glorious with His bodily presence. With tearful sighs and heartfelt emotion they pressed kisses upon these revered spots. With especial veneration they approached the church of the Passion and Resurrection of the Lord. Here the leaders were met by the clergy and the faithful citizens of Jerusalem. These Christians who for so many years had borne the heavy yoke of undeserved bondage were eager to show their gratitude to the Redeemer for their restoration to liberty. Bearing in their hands crosses and relics of the saints, they led the way into the church to the accompaniment of hymns and sacred songs.

http://historymuse.net/readings/WilliamofTyreCAPTUREOFJERUSALEM.htm

[Bereta_Eder]

And all this for the love of (their) God.
How touching.
The Pope must have been radiating with righteous pleasure
(not that byzantium was saint)

[Elok]

The sack of Jerusalem was First Crusade. The third failed to retake Jerusalem. Note also that your source was not born until thirty years after the events described. Another primary source often cited notes men wading in blood up to their calves, or some such; this is sometimes quoted as plausible by scholars, and never mind the problematic physics of the claim.

Yes, it was bloody, just like the sack of Acre many years later. The common factor was that they followed very lengthy and unpleasant sieges (IIRC Jerusalem was only taken after the attackers had gone without water for some time). The result was a frenzy of extraordinary brutality. Plenty of other cities were taken without extraordinary bloodshed (by contemporary standards) in between those two. Which makes it a bit hard to sustain the "religious zeal made them extra-violent" hypothesis.

N.b. that the sack of Constantinople was fairly atrocious as well, and the victims there weren't even a valid target. Schismatics, not even heretics from the West's perspective. The city was only taken to pay off a debt to the Venetians, and the brutality of it was likely due to years of friction between East and West. The Pope was horrified by the news.

[Bereta_Eder]

schematics?

the latins were uncivilized brutes.
they badly copied greek culture and they badly copied christianity.
they make fakes of everything

(or one would say )

And I'm pretty sure the poppy didn't feel remorse.
he hated muslims and orthodox were just slightly more "tolerable" (although being ferocioucly savage on occasion too)

latins were notorious for their envy of byzantium and its longlivity.
when finally its internal strife brought it to a stand still while simoultaneously the western part collapsed and the italian city states emerged, new and commercially powerful, it was only a question of time.

their savagery was such that it was deemed more preferable that the empire would fall to muslims than to catholics.


of course that was then.
now they are equally reactionary

[Bereta_Eder]

on a sligthly related note, I was reading mazaowers ""a short history of the balkans" and it made an impression the sort of osmosis that co-existed between orthodoxy and islam.
when turks couldn't get an imam to bless the fields, they called on the local priest.
when there was trouble they included virgin mary in their prayers. and vice versa.

the thought that christianity and islam can't co-exist is historically negated.

of course that could have been religious superstition of the time. when turkish pirates captured an english vessel and the sailors said they don't believe in god, they made the sailors pray to a catholic altar that was in the hull. a precondition for them to live.


i also took a stroll in a bookstore and came upon a book that tried to explain how the west's secluded personality, the indivinduality, the person, is far away from the eastern christian idea of community, of collective responsability and solidarity.

sounded like an essay on isolation as far as I am concerned, but another thing that popped in my head was that the idea of indivinduality was a centerpiece of ancient greek thinking.

by saying that the western church adopted this and the eastern didn't, doesn't that mean that we are in fact further away from the ancient greek dogma?
sounded strange

apparently that has something to do with where the son is flawed from god??

one of the centerpieces of the difference between orthodox and catholics.

apparently the catholic approach sterilizes knowledge and rationality and detaches it from it benefiting from actual experience as well, as is apparently the eastern way.
of course that was all epidermic because I didn't buy the book.
(I bought one about two turkish teenagers trying to flee conservative turkey)

[Elok]

No, I remember reading about the Pope's initial reaction to the Fourth Crusade--which he expressed in print as the polite thirteenth-century Latin equivalent of "what the hell have you idiots done?" He moderated his reaction somewhat once the loot came back, IIRC.

There was tension between the Catholics and the Orthodox from the start of the Crusades; the Latins looted on their way to Constantinople, and the Greeks were total condescending ****s who quibbled over titles and regularly insulted the people who had come to help them. Over the years, it got worse and worse.

Peasant syncretism has no deeper theological implications for Orthodoxy and Islam IMO. Previous generations would happily blend together Jesus and various pagan deities. It's what uneducated people of all times and places do; they pray to every deity they know, just to hedge their bets.

[pchang]

See the Christmas tree

[Elok]

I think that was more like, "welp, we're done with Wotan, let's put the tree up for Jesus this year instead." Which is a subtle distinction, to be sure. A lot of religious change, contrary to what many believe, is not led by bearded elders in councils. More frequently it's just weird ideas spreading amongst the peasants, and gradually creeping its way up the hierarchy from there. Then thousands of years later scholars hatch sinister theories about how The Church deliberately co-opted pagan holy days and symbols to obliterate them.

[ZEE]

Elok is a nerd.

[Sava]

and a racist, bigot, general purpose bag of ****

[C0ckney]

I think that was more like, "welp, we're done with Wotan, let's put the tree up for Jesus this year instead." Which is a subtle distinction, to be sure. A lot of religious change, contrary to what many believe, is not led by bearded elders in councils. More frequently it's just weird ideas spreading amongst the peasants, and gradually creeping its way up the hierarchy from there. Then thousands of years later scholars hatch sinister theories about how The Church deliberately co-opted pagan holy days and symbols to obliterate them.

i think that much of cultural history is the history of adapting old customs to new gods, new masters and new situations. i read a fascinating book a couple of years ago that purported to be about crete, but in reality was a vehicle for the author, using an introduction that took up around 2/3 of the book, to talk about just how ancient many of our current cultural practices are, even though the original significance of them has been lost in the mists of time. he gave many fascinating examples, pointing out some superstitions that come from folk tales as old as civilisation, and some, he alleged, far older, even pre-neolithic. i left it in england, but when i return there i shall fetch it as i really must read it again.

[Bereta_Eder]

yeah I don't agree at all with elok's conclusions (altough I listen to his sources).

Catholics had the reputation of forcefully leading people to their (false ha) religion. You converted or you died.

Muslims had no such barbarity. They equally respected all religions in the koran (not that they were not savages, just less than catholics).

I'm sure a power hungry mobster like the pope of that time, would say something like "who gives a ****" and then the original dimplomatic paper would write: oh drat!


I also disagree on the reading that the obvious osmosis of christianity and islam, that its co-existance can be discarded as peasant folk.

Obvisouly everything is a continuation of everything. The icon talishmen are a total follow up of ancient greek dodecatheon icon talishmen. One from marble the other from copper. Big difference.


I take this co-existance with the idea that it entails: that people can co-exist without much fuss as long as they don't have hungry power dictators up their head (be that al qaeda or the US president or putin) telling them to hate eachother.


(btw the superiority of byzantium can be easily assertained by such simple examples as basil blinding thousand of bulgarian soldiers leaving one with his sight to lead them back to bulgaria. ("the one eyed leads the blind" expression comes from there) or the way they handled romanos after his defeat by the seljuks. (blinded, tortured then thrown to exile etc. lovely times)