Crusades

[Voltron]

This fell into my mail box. Some might ask why post it in this forum? I think it is too controversal for the normal forums.

Misconceptions about the Crusades are all too common. Generally portrayed as a series of unprovoked holy wars against Islam, they are supposed to have been the epitome of self-righteousness and intolerance -- a black stain on the history of the Catholic Church in particular and Western, Christian civilization in general. Since September 11, variations of this theme have been used to explain -- even justify -- Muslim terror against the West. Former president Bill Clinton himself, in a speech at Georgetown University, fingered Muslim anger at the Crusades as the "root cause" of the present conflict.

But the truth is that the Crusades had nothing to do with colonialism or unprovoked aggression -- and in A Concise History of the Crusades, renowned medieval historian Thomas F. Madden sets the record straight. The Crusades, he shows, were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense. Their entire subsequent history is one of Western reaction to Muslim advances -- they were no more offensive than was the American invasion of Normandy.

Get hundreds of "politically incorrect" facts like these:

• Islam was born in war and grew the same way. From the time of Mohammed, the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword.

• With enormous energy, the warriors of Islam struck out against the Christians shortly after Mohammed's death. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt -- once the most heavily Christian areas in the world -- quickly succumbed.

• By the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul.

• The Byzantine Empire was reduced to little more than Greece. In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of western Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East.

• The end of the medieval Crusades did not bring an end to Muslim jihad -- Islamic states like Mamluk Egypt continued to expand in size and power, and the Ottoman Turks built the largest and most awesome state in Muslim history.

• Under Suleiman the Magnificent the Turks came within a hair's breadth of capturing Vienna, which would have left all of Germany at their mercy. At that point Crusades were no longer waged to rescue Jerusalem, but Europe itself.

• It is often asserted that Crusaders were merely lacklands and ne'er-do-wells who took advantage of an opportunity to rob and pillage in a faraway land. Recent scholarship has demolished that contrivance. The truth is that the Crusades were notoriously bad for plunder. A few people got rich, but the vast majority returned with nothing.

• The Ottoman Turks conquered not only their fellow Muslims, thus further unifying Islam, but also continued to press westward, capturing Constantinople and plunging deep into Europe itself. By the 15th century, the Crusades were no longer errands of mercy for a distant people but desperate attempts of one of the last remnants of Christendom to survive. Europeans began to ponder the real possibility that Islam would finally achieve its aim of conquering the entire Christian world.

• In 1529, Suleiman the Magnificent laid siege to Vienna. If not for a run of freak rainstorms that delayed his progress and forced him to leave behind much of his artillery, it is virtually certain that the Turks would have taken the city.

• Whether we admire the Crusaders or not, it is a fact that the world we know today would not exist without their efforts. Without the Crusades, Christianity might well have followed Zoroastrianism, another of Islam's rivals, into extinction

I might go order this book.
http://www.conservativebookservice.com/bookpage.asp?prod_cd=C6424&sour_cd=CBE025501

[IIvan]

Good god man!! so conservative you want to try to justify the crusades? Just let it go.

[QUOTE]I might go order this book. conservativebookserviceQUOTE] :rolleyes:

[Neserk]

Good god man!! so conservative you want to try to justify the crusades? Just let it go.



That is an insult to conservatives everywhere. I've known quite a few of them and *none* would ever justify the crusades!

[Sayhey]

How about the Inquisition? Can we go back and show what a wonderful time that was as well?

[Frohickey]

How about the Inquisition? Can we go back and show what a wonderful time that was as well?

Only if you have Spanish in you. ;)

[Voltron]

seems to me people are responding to the concept or the idea and not the evidence or the reasoning behind it. The guy who wrote that book makes it sound plausible. I havn't read the book and probably won't really buy it, but I'm open minded enough to contemplate that he might be right. That is the deffinition of open mindedness aint it? Not closing your mind to an idea without actually delving into the arguments pro and against?

[Neserk]

As soon as someone puts "liberal" or "conservative" as a selling point I stop listening. While I consider myself liberal I would never use that to sell my ideas. I prefer logic and reasoning. But that is just me.

[IJ Reilly]

How about the Inquisition? Can we go back and show what a wonderful time that was as well?

Noooobody expects the...

Never mind. :o

Anyway, I googled this author. Turns out he's a major darling of the Right. Now, what interest the Right has in making the Crusades look more justified is a bit of a mystery to me. Well now on second thought...

[diamond geezer]

In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of western Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East.


I wonder how the Emporer felt when his "brothers" from western Europe turned up, sacked Constantinople and raped all the nuns.

The Crusaders continued on raping and killing both Christians and Muslims as it was to difficult telling them all apart.

Didn't Jerusalem have a large Christian population, whom had been living in peace with their Muslim neighbours?

They also were all put to the sword by their western brothers.

Some people seem to think that Muslims are trying to take over the World, like some people believe in that Elders of Zion c#@p.

[wwidgirl]

Many of your "politically incorrect" facts are pretty well-known to anyone with even a cursory knowledge of Islamic History. Islam spread rapidily from around 700-1100. What is surprising is that it was spread with comparatively very little violence in comparison to Christian expansion (ie. the Byzantine Empire). Jews and Christians were not forced to convert (again compare to the violent conversion of "heretics" and "infidels" by the Christians) but were instead made to pay a tax (the Jizya) so it was not in the interest of the Muslims to have people convert to Islam.

The concept of the Jihad was not conceived until AFTER the Crusades and it is argued that Jihad originated from the idea of the Crusades (Holy War).

Muslim expansion was often by the sword but how is that different from Christian expansion at the time? Comparatively, Muslim expansion was much more peaceful than Christian expansion.

"• It is often asserted that Crusaders were merely lacklands and ne'er-do-wells who took advantage of an opportunity to rob and pillage in a faraway land. Recent scholarship has demolished that contrivance. The truth is that the Crusades were notoriously bad for plunder. A few people got rich, but the vast majority returned with nothing."

Actually this is not true. This is rarely "asserted" by people who know anything about Islamic history. There were many reasons for the Crusades. Some of those are: to stop in-fighting in Europe because of lack of land; to regain the Holy lands from the infidels; to expand the infleunce of the Catholic Church; and to regain access to pilgrammage sites. And most of the Crusaders were Noblemen. Little was in fact gained by the Crusades except a re-opening of trade Routes via the italian cities.

[takao]

economical the crusades were _the major_ event for western europe...but that doesn't justify them...

1.Byzanz/Konstatinopel got tearn apart by christian armies...

2. the besieges of Vienna were like 300 years after the Crusades: Austria fought 9 wars against the osmanic empire ("the turkish wars") how many were started by turkish: most of them...how many where started because some other western european nation said:"attack austria and we give you that and that" funny...those are nearly the same which were started by the turkish...(yeah dead french kings i am looking at you) :rolleyes:
Vienna was one of the central cities of the "Sacrum Imperium Romanum Nationis Germanicae"...do you really believe the besige was ended by weather ? it started snowing _after_ the siege:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Vienna

3. the ottomanic empire was far from being united all the time
was it a danger to western nations...yes
was it as dangerous as the huns 700 years before ?...no way

4.before,during and after the crusades the european forces had enough power left to fight each other all the time
yes the balcan changed it's owner a few times but that was it...the "the turkish wars" were far from "the whole christian world is collapsing"

[Krizoitz]

I love how so many peopl etry and take the crusades, one of the most complex socio-religious-political events in history and simplify it to "it was all this sides fault". Both sides were involved in the war and the attrocities. Many of the wars justifications were supposedly for religious reasons. Mostly it was about power and money and land. Both sides wanted it. Both sides had reasons, some of them good some of them not so good. They happened. We learn from them, we move one. Trying to use the Crusades as a reason to justify any of the current violence, to me, seems like a little bit of a stretch. I think we need look no further than fanatical religious leaders (on both sides) and people being raised in a culture of hatred, a culture that views the other as less than human, to find the cause of the problem.

[pseudobrit]

This troll'l post any piece of **** item he comes across as if it were worthy of debate.

Hey, I hear conservativenewsservice.com is running an article that proves that 2+2=5. Discuss. And, please, don't be such a typical dirty liberal as to dismiss the idea out of hand, keep an open mind.

[takao]

I love how so many peopl etry and take the crusades, one of the most complex socio-religious-political events in history and simplify it to "it was all this sides fault". Both sides were involved in the war and the attrocities. Many of the wars justifications were supposedly for religious reasons. Mostly it was about power and money and land. Both sides wanted it. Both sides had reasons, some of them good some of them not so good. They happened. We learn from them, we move one. Trying to use the Crusades as a reason to justify any of the current violence, to me, seems like a little bit of a stretch. I think we need look no further than fanatical religious leaders (on both sides) and people being raised in a culture of hatred, a culture that views the other as less than human, to find the cause of the problem.

exactly... for me this whole talking about crusades bla-bla muslim/christian aggression bla bla justification... seems so... irrelevant...
i guess the correct response for such threads should be :"crusades/religous motivated campaigns ? no thanks...we already had that" and then just move on ;)

[Taft]

This is the most ludicrous thread ever.

Half of the items in Voltron's list (must...try...harder...to...ignore) reference occurances in the 15th and 16th centuries. The only problem? The crusades had been going on since the 11th century.

By the the 15th century, the crusades had trasformed into something far different from their original intent. At that point, the crusades were a minor part of a larger battle between the Ottoman empire and Europe. Just as every major European country in that time period was vying to expand their empire, so was the Ottoman.

No, the crusades were born as a result of the Byzantine empire (a Christian people) trying to settle in Palestine, which at the time was in Turkish control. When they failed, losing their army to the Turks, they began to plead with the West for assistance. That assistance came in the form of the Crusades.

The Crusades were brutal. They were bloody. Some of the acts of the Crusades were even just plain evil (the sacking of Jerusalem in 1099 or Constantinople in 1204 to name but two). But, to be realistic, that was how empires were run in those days. "Expand the empire" was the battlecry of nearly eery nation in that time. War was not the exception that it is today.

So, on one hand, the Chrisitians, in the name of the church, committed some horrible and evil acts. On the other hand, they weren't that much different than every other group back then. To try to deny either of those facts would be an exercise in futility.

All of the facts of the crusades are layed out here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusader

I suggest anyone who thinks the Christians were totally right and just or totally evil to read up on it and discover the truth.

Taft

[IJ Reilly]

This is the most ludicrous thread ever.

So I return to my question: why are we even discussing the Crusades? Who is interested in trying to make this a relevant topic for today, and why?

[Taft]

So I return to my question: why are we even discussing the Crusades? Who is interested in trying to make this a relevant topic for today, and why?

Good question. Easy answer: Voltron, who is pushing the agenda of "make your enemy look like absolute evil." The underlying premise is that violence against Muslims was justified by necessity throughout history. In this alternate universe, all Muslims want to forcibly convert the world's populations to radical Islam and wipe out all traces of other religions. Especially Christianity. And since all Muslims believe this, they are all a step away from becoming terrorists.

And of course, such rhetoric would give us even more reason to clamp down on Muslims in this country. You know, for safety reasons. They are, after all, the enemy of Christianity, which is a fundamental belief that all true Americans share. Therefore, they are enemies of America, too.

Its the same bile which spews from Coulter's frigid lips. Go read her last 10 or so columns. Its enough to make you lose faith in humanity altogether. Even more sad, previously moderate pundits such as David Horowitz have also been towing this line as of late. Especially in relation to the Palestinian vs. Isreali conflict. (ALL Palestinians are barbaric thugs out to squash the Jews in any way possible. etc. etc.)

This lack of understanding of other cultures and the irrational fear that accompanies it is a very dangerous thing. This is the type of thinking that makes Islamic extremists to give their lives to stop the "evil capitalist American infidels." Reverse it and you have "we must stop the evil, Godless, barbaric Muslim terrorists." Bad stereotyping at its worst.

Taft

[Voltron]

Good question. Easy answer: Voltron, who is pushing the agenda of "make your enemy look like absolute evil." The underlying premise is that violence against Muslims was justified by necessity throughout history. In this alternate universe, all Muslims want to forcibly convert the world's populations to radical Islam and wipe out all traces of other religions. Especially Christianity. And since all Muslims believe this, they are all a step away from becoming terrorists.

And of course, such rhetoric would give us even more reason to clamp down on Muslims in this country. You know, for safety reasons. They are, after all, the enemy of Christianity, which is a fundamental belief that all true Americans share. Therefore, they are enemies of America, too.

Its the same bile which spews from Coulter's frigid lips. Go read her last 10 or so columns. Its enough to make you lose faith in humanity altogether. Even more sad, previously moderate pundits such as David Horowitz have also been towing this line as of late. Especially in relation to the Palestinian vs. Isreali conflict. (ALL Palestinians are barbaric thugs out to squash the Jews in any way possible. etc. etc.)

This lack of understanding of other cultures and the irrational fear that accompanies it is a very dangerous thing. This is the type of thinking that makes Islamic extremists to give their lives to stop the "evil capitalist American infidels." Reverse it and you have "we must stop the evil, Godless, barbaric Muslim terrorists." Bad stereotyping at its worst.

Taft
No actually I posted it because I thought it was an interesting theory and might actually be true. No hatred here on my part, just curiosity. But you are going to think what you wish to think no matter what I say.

Also I was entertaining the possibilities that it might be possible that the Crusades weren't such a blood thirsty travesty as I've been led to believe but perhaps a defensive measure against others. I wasn't there so I don't know, but it is interesting.

[takao]

... that it might be possible that the Crusades weren't such a blood thirsty travesty as I've been led to believe ...

you know here the austrian flag comes from ? (red-white-red)


These colours are representing Austria since the 12th century and date back to the first Austrian ruling dynasty - the Babenbergers, of whose arm the colours are from.
According the legend, Duke Leopold V. wore a white coat on the conquer of Akkon during the third crusade. When he returned to the camp after this very violent battle, his coat was soaked with the enemies blood and had turned red. Only beneath the
qualifications belt the duke wore around his waist the coat was still white. Since then, the legend tells, the house Babenberg carried this red-white-red in their coat of arm. And since then these colours represent Austria as well.


you might find this interesting as well

[Frohickey]

This troll'l post any piece of **** item he comes across as if it were worthy of debate.

Hey, I hear conservativenewsservice.com is running an article that proves that 2+2=5. Discuss. And, please, don't be such a typical dirty liberal as to dismiss the idea out of hand, keep an open mind.

I thought that Intel recalled every single Pentium chip that had the math error. :p

[IJ Reilly]

Good question. Easy answer: Voltron, who is pushing the agenda of "make your enemy look like absolute evil." The underlying premise is that violence against Muslims was justified by necessity throughout history. In this alternate universe, all Muslims want to forcibly convert the world's populations to radical Islam and wipe out all traces of other religions. Especially Christianity. And since all Muslims believe this, they are all a step away from becoming terrorists.

And of course, such rhetoric would give us even more reason to clamp down on Muslims in this country. You know, for safety reasons. They are, after all, the enemy of Christianity, which is a fundamental belief that all true Americans share. Therefore, they are enemies of America, too.

Its the same bile which spews from Coulter's frigid lips. Go read her last 10 or so columns. Its enough to make you lose faith in humanity altogether. Even more sad, previously moderate pundits such as David Horowitz have also been towing this line as of late. Especially in relation to the Palestinian vs. Isreali conflict. (ALL Palestinians are barbaric thugs out to squash the Jews in any way possible. etc. etc.)

Sadly, I think you are correct. I have to wonder why the National Review thinks this book about the Crusades is so relevant to the 21st century. It all seems to play into a very specific political world view, and nothing, no matter how ancient, is out of bounds if it can lend any support to that view.

BTW, for my money, Horowitz has never been moderate. He started out as a Marxist, and then went abruptly to right-wing reactionary, without any pause to examine the territory in between.

[Krizoitz]

2+2=5


This one is true, 2+2 DOES = 5....for sufficiently large values of 2 :)

[skunk]

This one is true, 2+2 DOES = 5....for sufficiently large values of 2 :)
And for US military planners. :rolleyes:

[pseudobrit]

I thought that Intel recalled every single Pentium chip that had the math error. :p

I thought that would give you 2+2= 4.000000000000012834

[skunk]

I thought that would give you 2+2= 4.000000000000012834
Not significant