Thank God for the Crusades

"Medieval historians have long known that popular culture image of the crusades has nothing at all to do with the events themselves"
-Thomas Madden Professor of History and Director of the Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies at Saint Louis University

"Many in today's society believe the false history presented by critics. Enforced by the media, Hollywood and other outlets, popular perception of historical events reigns supreme even when that perception is completely at odds with historical reality"
-Steve Weidenkompf The Glory of the Crusades

“Great historical myths die hard....writers continue to spread traditional myths....even though they are fully aware of the new findings. They do so because they are determined to show that religion, and especially Christianity, is a dreadful curse upon humanity.”
-Rodney Stark Bearing False Witness: Debunking Centuries of Anti-Catholic History

What Were the Crusades?

"Urban viewed the Crusade as a pilgrimage, the aim of which was not to conquer but to visit the place of pilgrimage and then return home. Later popes maintained the understanding of the Crusades as just, defensive wars with the central goal of the recovery of ancient Christian territory. Heroic men and women of faith, rooted in love of Christ and neighbor, undertook the Crusades as acts of self-defense and recovery of stolen property. This is the proper understanding of these important events in Church history"
-Steve Weidenkopf Were the Crusades Just Wars?


The word crusade was not used until 1706. At the time the events took place they were known as armed pilgrimages to the holy land. They were undertaken at great loss of life, money, and earthly gain to go and risk for fellow Christians under persecution, to retake christian lands from Muslim conquerors, to sacrifice for God and to put the holy sites back in christian control. The crusades were controlled generally by the church, but also by kings with rules and regulations such as no prostitution, no gambling, no swearing and violators could be put to death. Often many crusaders went in small groups or alone. A few larger groups that went are now known as the first, second, third crusade etc. For a time line of the major events during the period see links below.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/...ic_crusad.html
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2009...rspective.html

Crusades Were a Defensive Action Against Muslim Aggressors

“The Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression—an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands....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, which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as 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. That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They 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.
-Thomas Madden the Real History of the Crusades


"The Crusades were born from the violent aggression of Islam, which had conquered ancient Christian territory in the Holy Land and North Africa and established a large foothold in Europe within a century of Muhammad’s death in the early seventh century. Particularly troublesome to Christian Europe was the conquering of Jerusalem in 638 by an Islamic force that sacked the city for three days and destroyed over 300 churches and monasteries. ".......The invasion of Christian territory, Muslim persecution of native Christians and pilgrims, plus the threat posed to the Christian Byzantine Empire, were all legitimate reasons to engage in defensive warfare and Pope Urban II cited them as justification for the First Crusade.”
-Steve Weidenkopf The Glory of the Crusades

The crusaders saw their cause as a defensive action to protect themselves from further attacks and to reclaim lost christian territories taken by Muslim expansion over the past few hundred years. In 1071 a few years before any pope called for crusade, Islamic Turks captured the byzantine Emperor and destroyed there army. Constantinople was about to fall to the seljuk Turks who raped, tortured, and killed Christians while destroying pilgrimage sites. The new Emperor called other christian nations for help. The emperor send word to Pope urban if helped was not received, thousands more Christians would be raped, tortured, murdered and “the most holy relics of the savior” would be lost. With Constantinople under threat and with the emperor recently killed and his army destroyed by invading Muslims. The west believed it would unlock all of Europe to further Islamic expansion, so the west responded.

"For your brethren who live in the east are in urgent need of your help.. For, as the most of you have heard, the Turks and Arabs have attacked them and have conquered the territory of Romania as far west as the shore of the Mediterranean and the Hellespont...They have occupied more and more of the lands of those Christians, and have overcome them in seven battles. They have killed and captured many, and have destroyed the churches and devastated the empire.”
-Pope Urban II (1088-1099): Speech at Council of Clermont, 1095


“The history of Islam has essentially been a history of conquest...the crusaders far from being an outrageous proto type of western imperialism, as it taught in most schools, were...one of the few occasions when Christians took the offensive to regain the “occupied ground.”
-Historian Paul Johnston


“Islamic provocations: by centuries of bloody attempts to colonize the West and by sudden new attacks on Christian pilgrims and holy places.”
-Rodney Stark God's Battalions Harper one 2009


“From the safe distance of many centuries, it is easy enough to scowl in disgust at the Crusades.. But we should be mindful that our medieval ancestors would have been equally disgusted by our infinitely more destructive wars fought in the name of political ideologies.. it is a fact that the world we know today would not exist without their effortsl have followed Zoroastrianism, another of Islam's rivals, into extinction”
-Thomas Madden


Help Christians Traveling to the Holy Land and Christians Suffering Under Islamic Rule

"The Crusades were also a response to the severe persecution of indigenous Christians living in the occupied territories, whose lives were severely restricted and who suffered constant pressure to convert to Islam Christian pilgrims were also subjected to harassment and violence, which demanded a defensive response from Christendom. The Seljuks, who were known for their brutality, threatened pilgrims to the holy sites in Palestine. As an example, a group of 12,000 German pilgrims led by Bishop Günther of Bamberg in 1065 was massacred by the Seljuks on Good Friday, only two days' march from Jerusalem."
-Steve Weidenkopf The Glory of the Crusades

“Open extermination of christian populations and the disappearance of eastern christian culture”
-Bat Ye'or “the myth of Islamic tolerance” interview

A major reason for the crusades was to help persecuted Christians under Muslim control and to protect their own citizens who wished to travel to the holy lands in safety. Muslims had made travel to the holy lands expensive, near impossible, as well as dangerous with a real threat of both torture and murder of pilgrims who attempted the travel. In one severe instance in 1065 12,000 unarmed German pilgrims were slaughtered. Under Islamic rule rape, murder, torture, forced into slavery, prostitution, and forced conversions were all things Christians suffered from. No new churches or synagogues were allowed to be built Christians were prohibited from praying out loud [even in churches or houses] or reading the bible. They were not allowed weapons, were taxed and were to “feel inferior, humiliated, punished those who would not convert.” In 705 Muslims assembled Arminian Christians nobles in a church and burned them to death. More than 6,000 Jews were massacred in Morocco and In 1032 as many in Grenada. In 1570 Muslims murdered tens of thousands of Christians in Cyprus. In the 8th century 70 pilgrims from Asia minor were executed. Shortly after 60 were crucified. In the late 8th century Muslim attacked the monastery of Saint Theodosius and slaughtered the monks while destroying churches in Bethlehem. In 796 Muslims burned to death 20 monks from a monastery. In 809 mass rape and murder in Jerusalem. On Palm Sunday 923 churches were destroyed and Christians killed. Egyptians Muslim ruler Hakim had 30,000 churches burned or pillaged and had the Holy Sepulchre destroyed and Jesus tomb partially destroyed.

"Muslim Turkish invasions in the 1050's caused much if not more mayhem and destruction than the crusades were able to achieve." -Christopher Tyerman God's War: A New History of the Crusades Harvard university Press

"We have heard, most beloved brethren, and you have heard what we cannot recount without deep sorrow how, with great hurt and dire sufferings our Christian brothers, members in Christ, are scourged, oppressed, and injured in Jerusadlem, in Antioch, and the other cities of the East... are either subjected in their inherited homes to other masters... they are flogged and exiled as slaves for sale in their own land... has invaded the lands of those Christians and has depopulated them by the sword, pillage and fire; it has led away a part of the captives into its own country, and a part it has destroyed by cruel tortures; it has either entirely destroyed the churches of God or appropriated them for the rites of its own religion. They destroy the altars, after having defiled them with their uncleanness. They circumcise the Christians, and the blood of the circumcision they either spread upon the altars or pour into the vases of the baptismal font. When they wish to torture people by a base death, they perforate their navels, and dragging forth the extremity of the intestines, bind it to a stake; then with flogging they lead the victim around until the viscera having gushed forth the victim falls prostrate upon the ground. Others they bind to a post and pierce with arrows. Others they compel to extend their necks and then, attacking them with naked swords, attempt to cut through the neck with a single blow. What shall I say of the abominable rape of the women? To speak of it is worse than to be silent. The kingdom of the Greeks is now dismembered by them and deprived of territory so vast in extent that it can not be traversed in a march of two months..."at least let the great suffering of those who desired to go to the holy places stir you up. Think of those who made the pilgrimage across the sea! Even if they were more wealthy, consider what taxes, what violence they underwent, since they were forced to make payments and tributes almost every mile, to purchase release at every gate of the city, at the entrance of the churches and temples, at every side journey from place to place: also, if any accusation whatsoever were made against them, they were compelled to purchase their release; but if they refused to pay money, the prefects of the Gentiles, according to their custom, urged them fiercely with blows....They not only demanded money of them, which is not an unendurable punishment, but also examined the callouses of their heels, cutting them open and folding the skin back, lest, perchance, they had sewed something there. Their unspeakable cruelty was carried on even to the point of giving them scammony to drink until they vomited, or even burst their bowels, because they thought the wretches had swallowed gold or silver; or, horrible to say, they cut their bowels open with a sword and, spreading out the folds of the intestines, with frightful mutilation disclosed whatever nature held there in secret. Remember, I pray, the thousands who have perished vile deaths, and strive for the holy places from which the beginnings of your faith have come.
--Pope Urban II (1088-1099): Speech at Council of Clermont, 1095 August. C. Krey, The First Crusade: The Accounts of Eyewitnesses and Participants, (Princeton: 1921), 36-40


Liberate Jerusalem


“If you are conquered, you will have the glory of dying in the very same place as Jesus Christ”
-Pope Urban

[going]”On Pilgrimage to wage war on foreign peoples and defeat barbaric nations, least the holy city of Jerusalem be held captive and the holy sepulcher of the lord Jesus to be contaminated any longer.”
-Raymond of Saint- Gills

Another goal was the liberation of Jerusalem and other places made holy by the life of Christ. Crusaders saw themselves as pilgrims performing acts of righteousness on their way to the Holy Sepulcher. The Crusade indulgence they received was canonically related to the pilgrimage indulgence. This goal was frequently described in feudal terms. When calling the Fifth Crusade in 1215, Innocent III wrote:

“will not Jesus Christ, the king of kings and lord of lords, whose servant you cannot deny being, who joined your soul to your body, who redeemed you with the Precious Blood … condemn you for the vice of ingratitude and the crime of infidelity if you neglect to help Him?Of holy Jerusalem...This very city, in which, as you all know, Christ Himself suffered for us, because our sins demanded it, has been reduced to the pollution of paganism and, I say it to our disgrace, withdrawn from the service of God...Who now serves the church of the Blessed Mary in the valley of Josaphat, in which church she herself was buried in body? But why do we pass over the Temple of Solomon, nay of the Lord, in which the barbarous nations placed their idols contrary to law, human and divine? Of the Lord's Sepulchre we have refrained from speaking, since some of you with your own eyes have seen to what abominations it has been given over”... -Pope Urban II (1088-1099): Speech at Council of Clermont, 1095 August. C. Krey, The First Crusade: The Accounts of Eyewitnesses and Participants, (Princeton: 1921), 33-36

Crusading was a Spiritual Journey of Self Sacrifice

“Considering how many are my sins and the love, clemency and mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ, because when he was rich he became poor for our sake, I have determined to repay him in some measure for everything he has given me freely although I am nor worthy. And so I have decided to go ti Jerusalem where God was seen as man and spoke with men and to adore the place where his feet trod.”
-Stephen of Neublons

“How does a man love according to divine precept his neighbor as himself when, knowing that his Christian brothers in faith and in name are held by the perfidious Muslims in strict confinement and weighed down by the yoke of heaviest servitude, he does not devote himself to the task of freeing them? … Is it by chance that you do not know that many thousands of Christians are bound in slavery and imprisoned by the Muslims, tortured with innumerable torments?”
-Pope Innocent III

"Crusading," Professor Jonathan Riley-Smith has rightly argued, was understood as an "an act of love"—in this case, the love of one's neighbor. The Crusade was seen as an errand of mercy to right a terrible wrong. As Pope Innocent III wrote to the Knights Templar, "You carry out in deeds the words of the Gospel, 'Greater love than this hath no man, that he lay down his life for his friends.'"
-Thomas Madden the real story of the crusades


“The biblical text cited to justify participation in the crusades were predominantly the teachings of Jesus in the new testament- references of love, humility, self sacrifice for the good of ones neighbor, and son on. The crusades were understood as an act of humble, loving service in which people risked their lives to liberate eastern Christians from the threat of Muslim invasion of Christianize lands as well as Muslim attacks and actions of humiliation against christian pilgrims to the holy lands”
-Matthew Flannagan and Paul Copan Did god Really Command genocide” Baker Books 2014


The Call of Abraham was used to support crusades in Genesis 12 portraying the difficulties of a crusader leaving his family for economical uncertainty while facing difficulty in the long journey with a possibility of death. Crusading was seen as spiritual journey and love/sacrifice to God were the major themes. A major crusading verse was Luke 9.23 of denying one self, and taking up their cross. Also Maccabees [catholic books] and various passages in the Gospels were used. Numbers 21 21-24 were used as reason for just [defensive] war, after Islam expansion.

"Documentary evidence predating the conquest of Jerusalem, such as letters and charters, nonetheless confirms that most crusaders were primarily inspired to set out for the holy land by personal christian devotion...In short, most noblemen who joined the crusade did so from a simple and sincere love of god ...The evidence for the aristocratic response to the crusade message, strongly suggest that spiritual concerns dominated the minds of Latin nobility while they took to the cross "
-Thomas Asbridge The first crusade a new history the roots of conflict between Christianity and Islam


"There is one motivator that outweighed all others: faith...Above all, love of God, neighbor, and self drove participation in the Crusades.........Love of God and the desire to serve him dominated the themes of Crusade preachers. Popes and preachers used the image of a Crusader denying himself and taking up the Cross in imitation of the Savior to motivate warriors. Urban II told the assembly at Clermont that “it ought to be a beautiful ideal for you to die for Christ in that city where Christ died for you...... “It is a sure sign that he burns with love for God and with zeal when for God’s sake he leaves his fatherland, possessions, houses, sons and wife to go across the sea in the service of Jesus Christ”
-Steve Weidenkopf is a lecturer of Church History at the Notre Dame Graduate School of Christendom College


Crusaders were driven by faith in wanting to please God and self sacrifice for those persecuted. As one crusader said "carrying the cross” so that afterword, they may be carried to haven by the cross."Odo of burgundy said "the journey to Jerusalem as a penance for my sins.... since divine mercy inspired me that owing to the enormity of my sins I should go to the sepluchure of our savior, in order that this offering of my devotion might might be more acceptable in the sight of god." Urbonat Clermat stated "it ought to be a beautiful ideal for you to die for Christ in that city were Christ did for you." Eudes of chateaurout said "as sigh that man loves god when he cast aside the world.... for gods sake he leaves his fatherland, possessions, houses sons and wife to go across the sea in the service of Jesus Christ."


“Whoever, therefore, shall determine upon this holy pilgrimage and shall make his vow to God to that effect and shall offer himself to Him as a, living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God..If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me if anyone desired to follow the Lord zealously, with a pure heart and mind, and wished faithfully to bear the cross after Him, he would no longer hesitate to take up the way to the Holy Sepulchre....Brethren, we ought to endure much suffering for the name of Christ - misery, poverty, nakedness, persecution, want, illness, hunger, thirst, and other (ills) of this kind, just as the Lord saith to His disciples: 'Ye must suffer much in My name,' and 'Be not ashamed to confess Me before the faces of men; verily I will give you mouth and wisdom,' and finally, 'Great is your reward in Heaven.”
-Pope Urban II (1088-1099): Speech at Council of Clermont, 1095


During the first crusade, it was items of religious nature that influenced and pushed on the pilgrims such as the holy lance in Antioch that completely changed the campaign.


"pope] Gregory did not sell this planned expedition as holy war...but of mercy and act of charity ….It was prayer,fasting and sermons that kept the crusade going at Jerusalem"
-Thomas F. Madden The New Concise History of the Crusades


"Priests and other clerics who will be in the Christian army, both those under authority and prelates, shall diligently devote themselves to prayer and exhortation, teaching the crusaders by word and example to have the fear and love of God always before their eyes, so that they say or do nothing that might offend the divine majesty. If they ever fall into sin, let them quickly rise up again through true penitence. Let them be humble in heart and in body, keeping to moderation both in food and in dress, avoiding altogether dissensions and rivalries, and putting aside entirely any bitterness or envy, so that thus armed with spiritual and material weapons they may the more fearlessly fight against the enemies of the faith, relying not on their own power but rather trusting in the strength of God "........." others who have taken up the cross, and those who may still do so, to carry out their vows to the Lord "
-FOURTH LATERAN COUNCIL (1215)


Were the Crusades a Conquest?

"the first crusaders and pope, thought all land would be returned to the byzantine empire"
The New Concise History of the Crusades Thomas F. Madden

No. At the end of the first crusade only 4,000 Europeans stayed, they did not view it as a conquest but as a armed pilgrimage. With a few staying behind to defend Jerusalem. It was often the noble class that stayed behind that had wealth and lands in Europe not the peasantry looking for new lands. The holy lands were not a colony of European nations but were independent of europe and money was continually sent from europe to support the holy land kingdoms.


Crusades for Wealth?

"We now know that greed cannot have been the dominate motive among the first crusaders , not least because as recent research has shown, for most participants the expedition promised to be utterly terrifying and crippling expensive."
-Thomas Asbridge The first crusade a new history the roots of conflict between Christianity and Islam

"This charge can be easily debunked with the simple fact that going on Crusade was an extraordinary expense—costing a knight four to five times his annual income. From being enriched, the vast majority of Crusaders suffered financial hardship as a result of their participation. Indeed, in order to finance such an expensive undertaking, many knights and their families sold or mortgaged their land and possessions"
-Steve Weidenkopf The Glory of the Crusades


Popes, Bishops, and Kings started taxing their people to help pay for the crusades because no one could afford to go. Many kings spent the nations entire treasury and multiple years worth of income of the entire country just to fund a large crusade. Knights sold vineyards, mills, land and even entire counties to help pay for the voyage. The church helped fund the crusades with taxes. When the 4th crusade sacked Constantinople for loot, the Pope [who had excommunicated the crusade] condemned them saying they were after earthly treasure, not heavenly treasure. In 1063 a crusade was called for Spain with rich land and close by, yet few answered because they cared for the holy lands not money.

"The ideals of love and sacrifice and not the gain and conquest that are the dominating ideals of much crusading activity...crusading was motivated by piety and not the gain of land, entailing much suffering and hardship"
-Heath Thomas Jeremy Evans Paul Copan Holy War in the Bible

“Scholars have discovered that crusading knights were generally wealthy men with plenty of their own land in Europe. Nevertheless, they willingly gave up everything to undertake the holy mission. Crusading was not cheap. Even wealthy lords could easily impoverish themselves and their families by joining a Crusade. They did so not because they expected material wealth (which many of them had already) but because they hoped to store up treasure where rust and moth could not corrupt...Of course, they were not opposed to capturing booty if it could be had. But the truth is that the Crusades were notoriously bad for plunder. A few people got rich, but the vast majority returned with nothing.”
-Thomas Madden

“Most went at immense personal cost, some of them knowingly bankrupted themselves to go...crusading was very expensive undertaking...the best estimates is that a typical crusader needed to raise at least four times his annual income before he could set forth.””
-Rodney Stark God's Battalions Harper one 2009


Were Jews to be Harmed?

"The Jews are not to be persecuted, nor killed,nor even forced to flee" -St Bernard of clairvaux- most famous preacher of second crusade

“It is important to note that almost everywhere....bishops attempted, sometimes even at the peril of their own lives, to protect the Jews.” -Leon Poliakon Historian

Jews were the only officially protected non christian group in medieval European society. St. Bernard frequently preached that the Jews were not to be persecuted he said

“Ask anyone who knows the Sacred Scriptures what he finds foretold of the Jews in the Psalm. "Not for their destruction do I pray.”

The crusade lead by Emich that killed innocent Jews was going against church decree. For his acts his crusade was denied entry past Hungary to continue on their crusade. Knight in Hungry attacked and destroyed his force. John bishop of Speyer hid and saved Jews from the oncoming crusade and after went and persecuted those crusaders who had killed Jews. Bishop Rothard allowed Jews to enter his refuge in Mainz to than only be killed by a mob for it.

“Jews prior in Germany were protected by the crown and local lords, they thrived along the rhine, some local bishops tried to protect the Jews but many were killed all the same."
-Thomas F. Madden The New Concise History of the Crusades

“It is fitting that you go forth against Muslims however, anyone who attacks a jew and tries to kill him it is as though he attacks Jesus himself.”
-Bernard of clairvaux


A War Between Religions? A Religious war? A war of Conversion?

"the distinction between holy war and pilgrimage was real. The crusades usually referred to themselves as "pilgrim" or "cross bearers".
-The New Concise History of the Crusades Thomas F. Madden

“Christian rulers tolerated Muslim religion and made no effort to convert them.”
-Rodney Stark God's Battalions: The Case for the Crusades

The war was not primarily between two religions, it was between two groups of people that happened to be of separate religions. The wars happened because of a people group of people, that attacked another group, committed crimes such as rape, murder, forced conversion and conquest. Than in response, another people group, banned together and attacked the first group. No question there was religious nature to many motives, but had these been simply separate countries within western Europe or middle east, a war would have broken out.

“once their rule had been established the Franks proved remarkably tolerant in their treatment of non-Christian subjects.the Franks allowed complete religious freedom to all their subjects.” While Hamilton stresses that Jewish synagogues and rabbinic schools existed in many of their towns, contemporary Muslim sources noted with surprise that mosques were allowed to function in the crusader states (albeit not in Jerusalem itself) and Muslim subjects were even allowed to participate in the haj. This was because, as Jotischky notes, “the First Crusade was a war of liberation and conquest; it was not a war for the extermination or conversion of Muslims.” Far from being forced to convert, the Muslim villagers were run by a council of elders who in turn appointed a “rayse” to represent the community to the Christian lord, while all spiritual and social matters were regulated by the imams in the community in accordance with Sharia law!
-Jonathan Riley-Smith, Atlas of the Crusades, Swanston Publishing Ltd, 1191, p. 16

Many times christian in the holy lands allied with Muslims against other Christians or fought to help Muslims against invading Christians and vice verse. The king of Jerusalem Fredrick befriended and knighted Muslim emir Fakhr-ad-din. In fact many crusaders saw not Islam, but the Byzantine empire as the true enemy. Some of the awful crimes committed, were done against Christians in the holy lands. Finally Muslims and Jews were allowed to practice their religion in crusader states.

[the crusaders]"even during the expedition to Jerusalem, they demonstrated a more malleable attitude towards Muslims, engaging in extensive negotiations with fatimids of Egypt, pursuing limited alliances with Muslim rulers of northern Syria like Omar of Azaz and happily formulating a series of admittedly exploitative truces with the emirs of southern Syria,Lebanon and Palestine. The evidence of this is intermittent, and to an extant our Latin sources seem keen to present the crusade as an intense and unbending religious conflict. In reality, contact may have been continuing on a completely different level. Raymond of Aguilers asserted that a Latin priest and visionary Evremar went to Muslim city of Tripoli to rest and recuperate during the latter stages of the siege of Antioch suggest that cross-cultural interaction may actually have been far more common than we know.
-The first crusade Thomas Asbridge a new history the roots of conflict between Christianity and Islam


The Jerusalem Massacre

The first crusaders killed many non combatants during the capture of Jerusalem Records range from a few hundred to 75,000 [yet the city population was only 20,00-30,000]. However many inhabitants were not killed but captured and ransomed. While yet others were expelled from the city. It was common practice in Europe and the middle east of time period, that after a siege many that had remained in the city would be killed.

“It is probable that anywhere from several hundred to 3,000 were slain by the crusaders" -Steve Weidenkomp The glory of the crusades

But what of the reports of crusaders that described the incident as blood flowing as high as ankles? Those were biblical references to Rev 4.20 and Isiah 63.3


Islamic Understanding of the Crusades

The crusades were not a part of Muslim history after the retaking of the holy land. No books were written until 1899 when the first Arabic book on crusades was written. For hundreds of years Muslims did not remember the crusades as a major event in Islamic history but they were viewed as small local events and since they won, they were soon forgotten.

“Claims that Muslims have been harboring bitter resentments about the crusades for a millennium is nonsense. Muslim antagonism about the crusades did not napper until about 1900...And anti crusader feelings did not become intense until the founding of the state of Israel”
-Rodney Stark God's Battalions: The Case for the Crusades

“From the safe distance of many centuries, it is easy enough to scowl in disgust at the Crusades. Religion, after all, is nothing to fight wars over. But we should be mindful that our medieval ancestors would have been equally disgusted by our infinitely more destructive wars fought in the name of political ideologies. And yet, both the medieval and the modern soldier fight ultimately for their own world and all that makes it up. Both are willing to suffer enormous sacrifice, provided that it is in the service of something they hold dear, something greater than themselves. Whether we admire the Crusaders or not, it is a fact that the world we know today would not exist without their efforts ll have followed Zoroastrianism, another of Islam's rivals, into extinction”
-Thomas Madden Professor of History and Director of the Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies at Saint Louis University


Main References

-The First Crusade A New History The Roots of conflict Between Christianity and Islam Thomas Asbridge Oxford university Press 2004
-The New Concise history of the crusades Thomas Madden Rowman and Litterfeild Publishing inc Lanham/Boulder/New York/ Toronto/Oxford 2006
-Gods Battalions Rodney Stark Harper one Publishers 2009
-The Glory of the Crusades Steve Weidenkopf Catholic Answers press 2014
-Holy War in the Bible Christian Morality and an Old testament problem Heath Thomas Jeremy Evans Paul Copan IVP Academic Dowers Grove Illinois Inter Varsity press 2013
-The Story of Christianity the early Church to the Dawn of the reformation Justo Gonzalez Harper one Publishing 2010
-Gods war Christopher Tyerman Harvard u Press 2006
-Did God Really Command Genocide Paul Copan Baker Books 2014

That's some dank stuff, bro!

Can't wait for "Thank God for Stalin"!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

That's some dank stuff, bro!

Can't wait for "Thank God for Stalin"!

---

Do tell why you believe so and why you think we would be better off had the crusades not occurred.

I think the biggest benefit of the crusades was to send all these angry, horny, pissy, and single men about 1000 miles away from trouble.. to cause trouble somewhere else. It bought peace (relatively) in EU for the next few years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Griffin Robert Faulkner

I think the biggest benefit of the crusades was to send all these angry, horny, pissy, and single men about 1000 miles away from trouble.. to cause trouble somewhere else. It bought peace (relatively) in EU for the next few years.

---

"Many in today's society believe the false history presented by critics. Enforced by the media, Hollywood and other outlets, popular perception of historical events reigns supreme even when that perception is completely at odds with historical reality"
Steve Weidenkompf The Glory of the Crusades

"Medevil historians have long known that popular culture image of the crusades has nothing at all to do with the events themselves"
Thomas Madden Professor of History and Director of the Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies at Saint Louis University

Aren't you the same bloke who wrote a wall of text to ‘prove’ that slavery in the U.S. of A. was a good thing and that it wasn't slavery anyway?

Nice to see that the propaganda spamming continues.
Crusaders were bad, because they were an aggressive war, resulting into unnecessary death. Like the expansion of the Caliphate.

That simple, but feel free to show us how the count of Boulogne was threatened by the invasions of the Caliph of Egypt.

Also can you please use somewhat more respectable sources than religious nuts, like the American Thinker?

Thanks,
Regards,

Crandar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crandar

Nice to see that the propaganda spamming continues.
Crusaders were bad, because they were an aggressive war, resulting into unnecessary death. Like the expansion of the Caliphate.

That simple, but feel free to show us how the count of Boulogne was threatened by the invasions of the Caliph of Egypt.

Also can you please use somewhat more respectable sources than religious nuts, like the American Thinker?

Thanks,
Regards,

Crandar.

---

Could you support that the crusaders were the aggressors please? likewise that the Americans and British in ww2 were the aggressors.


I would suggest you learn history before Urbans call, than you would find a very different perspective. I would also request you learn of historic Islam [not what modern liberals tell us] and you will find out why any non Islamic nation was threatened. But in a quick summary here is an answer to your question.




“the Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression—an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands. With enormous energy, the warriors of Islam struck out against the Christians shortly after Mohammed's death. They were extremely successful. 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 old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as 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. That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They 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.
Thomas Madden the Real History of the Crusades

"The Crusades were born from the violent aggression of Islam, which had conquered ancient Christian territory in the Holy Land and North Africa and established a large foothold in Europe within a century of Muhammad’s death in the early seventh century. Particularly troublesome to Christian Europe was the conquering of Jerusalem in 638 by an Islamic force that sacked the city for three days and destroyed over 300 churches and monasteries. ".......The invasion of Christian territory, Muslim persecution of native Christians and pilgrims, plus the threat posed to the Christian Byzantine Empire, were all legitimate reasons to engage in defensive warfare and, and Bl. Pope Urban II cited them as justification for the First Crusade.”
Steve Weidenkopf The Glory of the Crusades

Yeah, I know the propaganda of Christian fundamentalists, but I think that justifying your war, by something happened 400 years ago is dishonest and a very stupid excuse.

Cheers,
Crandar.

@Crandar: do notice the fact that he's all for the Catholic Church in the same post where he more or less says that Protestantism is da best thing evur.

And yes, I checked and he is the same bloke who said that enslavement of black people wasn't bad because they weren't really slaves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crandar

Yeah, I know the propaganda of Christian fundamentalists, but I think that justifying your war, by something happened 400 years ago is dishonest and a very stupid excuse.

Cheers,
Crandar.

---

I would agree with i think if that were the case. However as i am sure your aware and ignoring, Islam was expanding and the crimes associated for 400 years up to the present day the crusades was called [and after]. To try and say the crusade was called for one event that happened 400 years before would be dishonest, and so very stupid. But I am all to aware of the atheistic and liberal propaganda.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Barto

@Crandar: do notice the fact that he's all for the Catholic Church in the same post where he more or less says that Protestantism is da best thing evur.

And yes, I checked and he is the same bloke who said that enslavement of black people wasn't bad because they weren't really slaves.

---

Never have been for the catholic church, do appreciate the crusades though.

You will not be able to support your second sentence with anything i have written. It is just an attempt to drive this thread off topic and attack me personally because you dont like the actual history of the crusades. I would suggest not reading the thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by total relism

I would agree with i think if that were the case. However as i am sure your aware and ignoring, Islam was expanding and the crimes associated for 400 years up to the present day the crusades was called [and after]. To try and say the crusade was called for one event that happened 400 years before would be dishonest, and so very stupid. But I am all to aware of the atheistic and liberal propaganda.

---

I'm not aware, so please tell me were were the Caliphate of Egypt and Islam attacking W. European Christians generally and the domains of Godfrid specifically.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crandar

I'm not aware, so please tell me were were the Caliphate of Egypt and Islam attacking W. European Christians generally and the domains of Godfrid specifically.

---

"that there is a profound, moral difference between the use of force for liberation and the use of force for conquest. You were here to liberate, not to conquer, and so you and those others did not doubt your cause. And you were right not to doubt.”
President Ronald Reagan - June 6, 1984 POINTE DU HOC THE 40TH ANNIVERSAY OF THE NORMANDY INVASION, D-DAY


Ok so I can see from your modern perspective why you would not see Islam a threat to countries yet attacked by Islam, however i think the historical perspective of the crusading time period would change that for you. So Islam [historic Islam] was on a mission from the Koran to conquer the world and bring all people under Islamic rule. They had expanded and taken around 2/3 of the christian world territory wise forcing conversions, murdering and harassing christian pilgrims to the holy lands. They continued to expand into Europe in places like spain, Italy and In 1071 a few years before any pope called for crusade, Islamic Turks captured the byzantine Emperor and destroyed there army. The new Emperor called other christian nations for help. With Constantinople under threat and with the emperor recently killed and his army destroyed by invading Muslims. The west believed it would unlock all of Europe to further Islamic expansion, so the west responded. Byzantine was the strongest of the christian nations and it was about to fall. So while many western nations had not been directly attacked, they all would have fallen had they not united and responded when they did. They were fighting as a defensive action.

The crusades also set out to take back lost christian lands especially the holy lands so pilgrims could travel there without being killed or have their money stolen by Muslims.

"The Crusades were also a response to the severe persecution of indigenous Christians living in the occupied territories, whose lives were severely restricted and who suffered constant pressure to convert to Islam Christian pilgrims were also subjected to harassment and violence, which demanded a defensive response from Christendom. The Seljuks, who were known for their brutality, threatened pilgrims to the holy sites in Palestine. As an example, a group of 12,000 German pilgrims led by Bishop Günther of Bamberg in 1065 was massacred by the Seljuks on Good Friday, only two days' march from Jerusalem."
Steve Weidenkopf The Glory of the Crusades

Except that Seljuks about to conquer Europe is only your opinion, unsupported by facts and common sense.
And the Caliphate of Egypt remains absent from your narrative, unless we apply collective judgment, because both Seljuks and Fatimids were Muslims (although they fought each other), while Islam is still irrelevant to the Byzantine crushing defeat at Manzikert or the Turkic expansion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by total relism

Never have been for the catholic church, do appreciate the crusades though.

You will not be able to support your second sentence with anything i have written. It is just an attempt to drive this thread off topic and attack me personally because you dont like the actual history of the crusades. I would suggest not reading the thread.

---

You posted "What happened in America and the south is better described as servitude, not slavery" only last month.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crandar

Except that Seljuks about to conquer Europe is only your opinion, unsupported by facts and common sense.
And the Caliphate of Egypt remains absent from your narrative, unless we apply collective judgment, because both Seljuks and Fatimids were Muslims (although they fought each other), while Islam is still irrelevant to the Byzantine crushing defeat at Manzikert or the Turkic expansion.

---

Interesting, with what logic and facts would you use to claim Islam was not going to expand into further christian territory like they had the 400 years previous. How is Islamic ideology irrelevant to Muslim expansion in your opinion.

while i agree islam had nothing to do with the battle that put the byzantine under, it did have everything to do with why islam was expansionist and why the west reacted.


Maybe a modern analogy might work. Republicans go around killing all the democrats and tacking control of state governments in 2/3 of the states. California is in trouble and is almost about to go under. After 400 years of this process democrats react to them being killed and in defense, look to protect the rest of California from this fate and even restore some democrats in some of the states they were kicked out of, or murdered, or worse, forced to join the republican party. Would that be aggressive or reactive in your mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Barto

You posted "What happened in America and the south is better described as servitude, not slavery" only last month.

---

you said

" he is the same bloke who said that enslavement of black people wasn't bad because they weren't really slaves."

I never said they were not slaves. i said their condition was more what we consider servitude rather than slavery. I also said


"As a Christian I do not think slavery is a good or wanted practice. I also see the South as moving away from our founder’s view of slavery. I see slavery as inconsistent with the beliefs and values of many of the freedom and liberty loving founders of the republic of this nation. These founders overwhelmingly wanted to outlaw slavery.

"Slavery is a moral evil in any society...more so to the white than to the black."
-Robert E Lee 1856

I am saying that slavery as commonly assumed is not the slavery of the majority in the American South. This modern vast evil view of slavery started post ww2. I will defend the South and slavery; not to say slavery was good, but to tell the side of slavery and of the Confederacy that most would otherwise not hear. Telling only part of the history of the south is misleading, and that is what we have a lot of today. Many people picture slavery as a white man with whip in hand, ready to use on any black slave; and slaves working in the field, mistreated and abused. While it is true that horrible things happened during slavery and in the Confederacy, these were the exception, not the rule. I am also making the assumption that you all know the terrible things that did occur during slavery, such as rape, murder, mistreatment, etc. These offenses can happen whenever one sinful human being [we all are sinful] has power over another [Just look at the totalitarian governments of last century]. My hope here is to fill in the historical facts you may be missing, to give a bigger and more accurate picture of slavery in the south.

Yes, yes, you claimed to be aiming for accuracy and then said that slaves aren't slaves but serfs.

Then you quote this:
‘Western Civilization might have been completely overrun by the forces of Islam … The Christians fought to defend themselves from foreign conquest, while the Muslims fought to continue conquering Christian lands’

But I'll have to admit that our ancestors were the ones invading the Moslems and not the other way around.

As an example, a group of 12,000 German pilgrims led by Bishop Günther of Bamberg in 1065 was massacred by the Seljuks on Good Friday, only two days' march from Jerusalem."

Other sources claim they were attacked by bandits, saved by the local Fatimid (Moslem!) rulers and they eventually returned home.

We can do this all day.

Incidentally, you have repeatedly claimed that anyone disagreeing with you is unChristian and/or a Marxist. Guess my religion and political leanings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Barto

Yes, yes, you claimed to be aiming for accuracy and then said that slaves aren't slaves but serfs.

Then you quote this:
‘Western Civilization might have been completely overrun by the forces of Islam … The Christians fought to defend themselves from foreign conquest, while the Muslims fought to continue conquering Christian lands’

But I'll have to admit that our ancestors were the ones invading the Moslems and not the other way around.

---

That is a interesting. I would enjoy you telling me how Muslim nations somehow ended up with 2/3 of the previous christian lands while we were invading them and they were not invading us. You would also have to rewrite the Koran while your at it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Barto

As an example, a group of 12,000 German pilgrims led by Bishop Günther of Bamberg in 1065 was massacred by the Seljuks on Good Friday, only two days' march from Jerusalem."

Other sources claim they were attacked by bandits, saved by the local Fatimid (Moslem!) rulers and they eventually returned home.

We can do this all day.\

---

lets assume these mysterious other sources are correct, i dont see how Muslim bandits killing Christians on the way to the holy land changes anything. I dont see how that makes them any safer on their travels through Muslim territory or changing why the west responded.

Pope Urban II (1088-1099): Speech at Council of Clermont, 1095
" at least let the great suffering of those who desired to go to the holy places stir you up. Think of those who made the pilgrimage across the sea! Even if they were more wealthy, consider what taxes, what violence they underwent, since they were forced to make payments and tributes almost every mile, to purchase release at every gate of the city, at the entrance of the churches and temples, at every side journey from place to place: also, if any accusation whatsoever were made against them, they were compelled to purchase their release; but if they refused to pay money, the prefects of the Gentiles, according to their custom, urged them fiercely with blows. What shall we say of those who took up the journey without anything more than trust in their barren poverty, since they seemed to have nothing except their bodies to lose? They not only demanded money of them, which is not an unendurable punishment, but also examined the callouses of their heels, cutting them open and folding the skin back, lest, perchance, they had sewed something there. Their unspeakable cruelty was carried on even to the point of giving them scammony to drink until they vomited, or even burst their bowels, because they thought the wretches had swallowed gold or silver; or, horrible to say, they cut their bowels open with a sword and, spreading out the folds of the intestines, with frightful mutilation disclosed whatever nature held there in secret. Remember, I pray, the thousands who have perished vile deaths, and strive for the holy places from which the beginnings of your faith have come.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Barto

We can do this all day.\

Incidentally, you have repeatedly claimed that anyone disagreeing with you is unChristian and/or a Marxist. Guess my religion and political leanings.

---

Or we can all night. that is the great thing about forums, the discussion never has to end while there is interested parties. I told that to my wife, we can do it all night, she did not think that such a great idea:laugh4:

I dont aspect people to agree with me, i know they wont. I never called anyone here a marxists. I was called a christian fundamentalist and in response pointed out they were a liberal atheist. Hopefully showing their attempt to marginalize me [calling me a fundamentalists] could be put back on them [or anyone] and it has nothing to do with truth. He can be as liberal/marxists/atheist as he wants, but that does not change history. I could be a fundamentalist catholic apologist, neither would that change history.

I think the larger issue that everyone has with it being an invasion as opposed to a war of liberation is the time difference. It was not an immediate reaction to Manzikert, Yarmuk had had happened hundreds of years before so it was NOT a reaction to islamic aggression of even the same decade. Even the Byzantines who at first were okay with the crusades helping them reclaim parts of anatolia didn't want the crusaders to continue on and make war with the fatmids.

It's not like the decade following the last Ottoman siege of Vienna during which it's expanse was gradually pushed back to the southern balkans, there was no immediate reaction to any major event at the time that made the muslim threat greater than immediately after manzikurt. The reason the first crusade was even successful is largely due to the fact that there was so much turkoman infighting that no major concerted response was able to happen until the siege of Antioch.

I'll agree with the premise that the crusades were good for western civilization in it's export of unlanded younger sons and a general renewing of trade and cultural ties with the near east, but to white wash it is silly. The time period was absolutely brutal for minorities no matter where. Was the looting and pillaging of jewish villages within 'germany' on the way to the crusades justified in any way? The crusaders were for the most part appallingly ignorant which is one of the reasons the later crusaders couldn't understand why their comrades within the Kingdom of Jerusalem, Tripoli, or Antioch were not so keen on making war on all the surrounding muslims. None of this excuses the outrages that were committed against christian minorities but it in the context of the period was totally normal. Bear in mind that last pagans of northern europe were and would continue to be 'converted' to christianity for quite some time.

I think you'd do better trying to determine what the acceptable time limitations are for liberating an ethnic/cultural/or coreligionist people. I could feel justified in a war against 'Islamic State' for the outrages that they have and continue to do, I could not feel justified in a war against Tunisia or Algeria for the crimes of the Barbary Coast states 200 years ago. The amount of time past does matter. Your broad definition is like the Chinese claiming the whole of East Asia because of the Qing Empire's previous hegemony there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spmetla

I think the larger issue that everyone has with it being an invasion as opposed to a war of liberation is the time difference. It was not an immediate reaction to Manzikert, Yarmuk had had happened hundreds of years before so it was NOT a reaction to islamic aggression of even the same decade. Even the Byzantines who at first were okay with the crusades helping them reclaim parts of anatolia didn't want the crusaders to continue on and make war with the fatmids.

It's not like the decade following the last Ottoman siege of Vienna during which it's expanse was gradually pushed back to the southern balkans, there was no immediate reaction to any major event at the time that made the muslim threat greater than immediately after manzikurt. The reason the first crusade was even successful is largely due to the fact that there was so much turkoman infighting that no major concerted response was able to happen until the siege of Antioch.

I'll agree with the premise that the crusades were good for western civilization in it's export of unlanded younger sons and a general renewing of trade and cultural ties with the near east, but to white wash it is silly. The time period was absolutely brutal for minorities no matter where. Was the looting and pillaging of jewish villages within 'germany' on the way to the crusades justified in any way? The crusaders were for the most part appallingly ignorant which is one of the reasons the later crusaders couldn't understand why their comrades within the Kingdom of Jerusalem, Tripoli, or Antioch were not so keen on making war on all the surrounding muslims. None of this excuses the outrages that were committed against christian minorities but it in the context of the period was totally normal. Bear in mind that last pagans of northern europe were and would continue to be 'converted' to christianity for quite some time.

I think you'd do better trying to determine what the acceptable time limitations are for liberating an ethnic/cultural/or coreligionist people. I could feel justified in a war against 'Islamic State' for the outrages that they have and continue to do, I could not feel justified in a war against Tunisia or Algeria for the crimes of the Barbary Coast states 200 years ago. The amount of time past does matter. Your broad definition is like the Chinese claiming the whole of East Asia because of the Qing Empire's previous hegemony there.

---

The Crusades were a defensive reaction to Muslim aggression in the same way that Alexander's campaign was a defensive reaction to Persian aggression under Darius and Xerxes. Give it another 50 years, and we can expect to see China conduct a defensive campaign against Britain's aggression in the Opium Wars.

I do like the sources total_relism quotes.

The brave white Christian men defended their honor and their families in a time of great need against the hordes of the Saracen swarm.
- William Wilko, in Crusading Christian Hero

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spmetla

I think the larger issue that everyone has with it being an invasion as opposed to a war of liberation is the time difference. It was not an immediate reaction to Manzikert, Yarmuk had had happened hundreds of years before so it was NOT a reaction to islamic aggression of even the same decade. Even the Byzantines who at first were okay with the crusades helping them reclaim parts of anatolia didn't want the crusaders to continue on and make war with the fatmids.

It's not like the decade following the last Ottoman siege of Vienna during which it's expanse was gradually pushed back to the southern balkans, there was no immediate reaction to any major event at the time that made the muslim threat greater than immediately after manzikurt. The reason the first crusade was even successful is largely due to the fact that there was so much turkoman infighting that no major concerted response was able to happen until the siege of Antioch.

I'll agree with the premise that the crusades were good for western civilization in it's export of unlanded younger sons and a general renewing of trade and cultural ties with the near east, but to white wash it is silly. The time period was absolutely brutal for minorities no matter where. Was the looting and pillaging of jewish villages within 'germany' on the way to the crusades justified in any way? The crusaders were for the most part appallingly ignorant which is one of the reasons the later crusaders couldn't understand why their comrades within the Kingdom of Jerusalem, Tripoli, or Antioch were not so keen on making war on all the surrounding muslims. None of this excuses the outrages that were committed against christian minorities but it in the context of the period was totally normal. Bear in mind that last pagans of northern europe were and would continue to be 'converted' to christianity for quite some time.

I think you'd do better trying to determine what the acceptable time limitations are for liberating an ethnic/cultural/or coreligionist people. I could feel justified in a war against 'Islamic State' for the outrages that they have and continue to do, I could not feel justified in a war against Tunisia or Algeria for the crimes of the Barbary Coast states 200 years ago. The amount of time past does matter. Your broad definition is like the Chinese claiming the whole of East Asia because of the Qing Empire's previous hegemony there.

---

Great post and thanks for your perspective. I think your correct in saying some find it hard to see the crusades as being defensive since they were not [at least many of them were not] directly attacked. But think of this, would the crusades have happened had islam not expanded? of course not. Medieval Europe was connected only through the catholic faith, that was their bond. That aspect which was vital to their society was under threat and attack by Islam, that is undeniably from the previous 400 years. Just because today we view ourselves as servants of a nation, does not mean they did not view them selves as servants of Christ first. So when you cannot visit the holy lands, and your brothers [in Christ not in government] are persecuted, and when a religion of pagans [their view of Islam] is threatening you and your brothers call for help, than you respond.

"Although Crusaders responded to the papal call to engage in armed pilgrimage for a multitude of reasons, there is one motivator that outweighed all others: faith. Medieval people were steeped in the Catholic Faith; it permeated every aspect of society and their daily life. Above all, love of God, neighbor, and self drove participation in the Crusades.........Love of God and the desire to serve him dominated the themes of Crusade preachers. Popes and preachers used the image of a Crusader denying himself and taking up the Cross in imitation of the Savior to motivate warriors. Bl. Urban II told the assembly at Clermont that “it ought to be a beautiful ideal for you to die for Christ in that city where Christ died for you...... “It is a sure sign that he burns with love for God and with zeal when for God’s sake he leaves his fatherland, possessions, houses, sons and wife to go across the sea in the service of Jesus Christ.....Urban II granted an indulgence to anyone who “for devotion alone, not to gain honor or money, goes to Jerusalem to liberate the Church of God.”
Steve Weidenkopf is a lecturer of Church History at the Notre Dame Graduate School of Christendom College


But really it was a mix of things mentioned in my op [such as a recapture of the holy lands and allow pilgrims to visit them] the direct cause was the pleas for help from byzantine and the fact its emperor had dies and the army wiped that made the west know fear an Islamic expansion into europe not just from the south but the east.


Yes it was bad for minorities in any country during that time period, just see how those europeans Christians were treated under Islamic rule, that was a cause of the crusade. I am glad for the crusades, i do not approve of their every action. for the treatment of jews see here from my op

Were Jews to be Harmed?

"The Jews are not to be persecuted, nor killed, nor even forced to flee"
St Bernard of clairvaux- most famous preacher of second crusade

Jews were the only officially protected non christian group in medieval European society. St. Bernard frequently preached that the Jews were not to be persecuted:

Ask anyone who knows the Sacred Scriptures what he finds foretold of the Jews in the Psalm. "Not for their destruction do I pray," it says. The Jews are for us the living words of Scripture, for they remind us always of what our Lord suffered … Under Christian princes they endure a hard captivity, but "they only wait for the time of their deliverance."Popes, bishops, and preachers made it clear that the Jews of Europe were to be left unmolested.

In a modern war, we call tragic deaths like these "collateral damage." Even with smart technologies, the United States has killed far more innocents in our wars than the Crusaders ever could. But no one would seriously argue that the purpose of American wars is to kill women and children.

The crusade lead by Emich that killed innocent Jews was against church decree. For his acts his crusade was denied entry past Hungary to continue on their crusade. Many Christians fought against him. John bishop of Speyer hid and saved Jews from the oncoming crusade and after went and persecuted those crusaders who had killed Jews. Bishop Rothard allowed Jews to enter his refuge in Mainz to than only be killed by a mob for it.

“Jews prior in Germany were protected by the crown and local lords, they thrived along the rhine, some local bishops tried to protect the Jews but many were killed all the same."
Thomas F. Madden The New Concise History of the Crusades



Ignorant? why do you say so? because they did not want to make war? I would disagree, their purpose is was not what you think, this was not a war against islam.

Were the Crusades a Conquest?

"the first crusaders and pope, thought all land would be returned to the byzantine empire"
The New Concise History of the Crusades Thomas F. Madden

No. At the end of the first crusade only 4,000 Europeans stayed, they did not view it as a conquest but as a armed pilgrimage. With a few staying behind to defend Jerusalem.

A War Between Religions? A Religious war? A war of Conversion?

"the distinction between holy war and pilgrimage was real. The crusades usually referred to themselves as "pilgrim" or "cross bearers".
The New Concise History of the Crusades Thomas F. Madden

The war was not primarily between two religions, it was between two groups of people that happened to be of separate religions. The wars were because of a people group of people, that attacked another group, committed crimes such as rape, murder, forced conversion and conquest. Than in response [crusades] another people group, banned together and attacked the first group. No question there was religious nature to some motives, but had these been simply separate countries within western Europe or middle east, a war would have broken out.

“once their rule had been established the Franks proved remarkably tolerant in their treatment of non-Christian subjects.” He notes that “the Franks allowed complete religious freedom to all their subjects.” (Hamilton, p. 49.) While Hamilton stresses that Jewish synagogues and rabbinic schools existed in many of their towns, contemporary Muslim sources noted with surprise that mosques were allowed to function in the crusader states (albeit not in Jerusalem itself) and Muslim subjects were even allowed to participate in the haj. This was because, as Jotischky notes, “the First Crusade was a war of liberation and conquest; it was not a war for the extermination or conversion of Muslims.” Far from being forced to convert, the Muslim villagers were run by a council of elders who in turn appointed a “rayse” to represent the community to the Christian lord, while all spiritual and social matters were regulated by the imams in the community in accordance with Sharia law!
(Jonathan Riley-Smith, Atlas of the Crusades, Swanston Publishing Ltd, 1191, p. 16 among others.)

Muslims in the Crusader States

Many times christian in the holy lands allied with Muslims against other Christians, or fought to help Muslims against invading Christians and vice verse. The king of Jerusalem Fredrick befriended and knighted Muslim emir Fakhr-ad-din. In fact many crusaders saw not Islam, but the Byzantine empire as the true enemy. Some of the awful crimes committed, wee done against Christians in the holy lands. Finally Muslims and Jews were allowed to practice their religion in crusader states.

[the crusaders]"even during the expedition to Jerusalem, they demonstrated a more malleable attitude towards Muslims, engaging in extensive negotiations with fatimids of Egypt, pursuing limited alliances with Muslim rulers of northern Syria like Omar of Azaz and happily formulating a series of admittedly exploitative truces with the emirs of southern Syria,Lebanon and Palestine. The evidence of this is intermittent, and to an extant our Latin sources seem keen to present the crusade as an intense and unbending religious conflict. In reality, contact may have been continuing on a completely different level. Raymond of Aguilers asserted that a Latin priest and visionary Evremar went to Muslim city of Tripoli to rest and recuperate during the latter stages of the siege of Antioch suggest that cross-cultural interaction may actually have been far more common than we know.
The first crusade Thomas Asbridge a new history the roots of conflict between Christianity and Islam

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

I do like the sources total_relism quotes.

The brave white Christian men defended their honor and their families in a time of great need against the hordes of the Saracen swarm.
- William Wilko, in Crusading Christian Hero

---

why must you reject historical evidence of something you wish not to believe in and resort to claims of racism? are we allowed to have an evidence based discussion around you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by total relism

why must you reject historical evidence of something you wish not to believe in and resort to claims of racism? are we allowed to have an evidence based discussion around you?

---

I wasn't actually making any claims of racism. But what do you have against Crusading Christian Hero? It is right up there with The Glory of the Crusades, A New History, and a New Concise History in reputable books and works with no clear overt agendas in the slightest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

I wasn't actually making any claims of racism. But what do you have against Crusading Christian Hero? It is right up there with The Glory of the Crusades, A New History, and a New Concise History in reputable books and works with no clear overt agendas in the slightest.

---

lets say those authors have a secret agenda to convert all to Catholicism and make all people love the crusaders. How would that change history or facts?

Maybe instead they wish to clarify misunderstandings about the crusades and use history not Hollywood as a source.

A Neo-Nazi declares that Hitler did nothing wrong. A neo-Confederate affirms the history of a just Lost Cause. A Christian fanatic justifies any aggression as necessary and intrinsically righteous when it is in the defense of Christendom.

These have little to do with history and much to do with personal identity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by total relism

Great post and thanks for your perspective. I think your correct in saying some find it hard to see the crusades as being defensive since they were not [at least many of them were not] directly attacked. But think of this, would the crusades have happened had islam not expanded? of course not. Medieval Europe was connected only through the catholic faith, that was their bond. That aspect which was vital to their society was under threat and attack by Islam, that is undeniably from the previous 400 years. Just because today we view ourselves as servants of a nation, does not mean they did not view them selves as servants of Christ first. So when you cannot visit the holy lands, and your brothers [in Christ not in government] are persecuted, and when a religion of pagans [their view of Islam] is threatening you and your brothers call for help, than you respond.
[/I]

---

The first crusade I honestly look at as similar to when a Qaran is burned and you get the rumor mill in the muslim world about the evil west and then violent riots and so on.

There were some crusaders who did display a since of chivalry and christian piety (Raymond de Toulouse) but the looting and pillaging they did on the way to Constantinople through 'christian' lands was already inexcusable and demonstration of more of a mob than an army. The oaths and money they took in Constantinople to Emperor Alexius were not followed through the moment he didn't have an army nearby to enforce the oath (Bohemend keeping Antioch). The sack and slaughter within Jerusalem was again an example inconsistent with christian behavior. You quote many sources saying how Jews were not to be harmed but they were certainly slaughtered wholesale on the way to Outremer.

The weakness of the Empire and Alexius asking for military help was the catalyst, yes, but the reaction was decades late and not in the way needed. The romans had hoped for mercenary bands, not ill-disciplined independent armies pillaging the lands of the empire which they were supposed to help.

The borders of islam were already beginning to shrink at the start of the crusades. The Empire had survived Manzikert and the turmoil and civil war that followed and was actually more threatened by the Normans in Sicily and Southern Italy. The reconquista was underway in Spain and the threat there was nothing like it was before when Charles Martel fought the battle of Tours.

Seeing as you view the crusades as the element that put a halt to Islamic expansion consider this: they actually led to rise of the Ottoman Empire which was only dismantled a century ago. If the crusades had not happened and instead that energy went into the reconquest of Spain and aiding the romans there's a good chance that the borders of 'christendom' would have at least included most of asia minor. The crusades instead led to the consolidation of power that allowed the Mamluks to defeat the Mongols, for the Ottomans to reunite the various Turkoman tribes and enter Eastern Europe. Bear in mind that the the latin crusaders betrayed and destroyed the remains of Eastern Roman and the scattered remnants of it and the 'Latin Empire' only opened the doors to the Turks.

As for it being a noble catholic cause, just remember that Catholicism as you know it now did not exist then. Minor differences in tradition and liturgy had led the mutual excommunication a few decades before the crusades. The Pope as an undisputed leader of the Western church was a new concept seeing as they only had attained true independence from Constantinople following the coronation of Charlemagne and continued to undermine Western/and Eastern Imperial authority within Italy leading to incessant warfare between the various city states until the 1870s.

You list a lot of sources but I will recommend you read Sir Steven Runciman's volumes on the History of the Crusades. He gives a very even and fair treatment to the crusades without the hyperbole of current scholarly works written with our contemporary war with islam shading opinions for against the crusades. The websites you link and quote from are very selective and have a very obvious bias. They do quote primary sources as well but without proper context.

To be clear I don't think people need to be ashamed of the crusades but nor should they "thank god" for them either. They happened, for better and worse and led to the world we live in. Revisiting them and trying to brand them as evil or as truly justified is pointless because they were controversial within 'christendom' even when they began and always will be. It's this same type of logic that when flipped on it's head is used to justify suicide-bombing civilians in the west due to acts done by the 'christian west' in the middle east or to try and push Israel back into the sea.

I'll agree with Montmorency that your debate has less to do with history and more to do with your personal identity. You do quote a lot of primary sources but your conclusion remains that Christianity was right to push out Islam because it was there first, that same logic can be used by every previous religious group in the region going back to ancient Sumeria. Remember that christianity that spread out of the middle east peacefully through proselyting and martyrdom is not at all like the formalized Roman church that was established as a State religion and forced on the inhabitants of the Empire. By your logic the Hellenic/Roman/ and the various local religions (such as Judaism too) have every right to kick out the christians too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by total relism

Maybe instead they wish to clarify misunderstandings about the crusades and use history not Hollywood as a source.

---

Monty summed up the point I was making rather nicely.

As for my knowledge of the era, it is actually pretty good and not based on holiday. I simply don't have the appetite to response to outright bias because there is actually no point. The actual answer is simply to read reputable works and journals on the subject. There is even the whole saga during the third Crusade where Richard the 1st who led the crusaders wanted to pair his daughter with Saladin's brother to forge a peace. Never mind the fourth Crusade where they ransacked Constantinople and effectively destroyed the Byzantine Empire (Christian on Christian). The whole narrative that the Crusade is some almighty defensive war to Muslim aggression is laughable though also controversial due to certain elements who try to 'defend' the Crusaders as a legitimate movement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by total relism

Do tell why you believe so and why you think we would be better off had the crusades not occurred.

---

From your OP:

Quote:

---

The first crusaders killed many non combatants during the capture of Jerusalem. However many inhabitants were not killed but captured and ransomed, while yet others were expelled from the city. It was common practice of time period that after a siege many that had remained in the city would be killed. This was common in both Europe and the middle east. Records range from a few hundred to 75,000 [city population only 20,00-30,000

---

You know, when Stalin killed millions, you have to consider that the US made the Japanese inhuman and put them in cages and Hitler killed millions, too. And Staling definitely fought a defensive war since the ancient lands of communism were being threatened. So where is Steve Weidenkopf's book "The Glory of Stalin"?

The idea of calling them "ancient christian lands" is pretty silly in the first place given that they were conquered by the Romans and then everyone was converted to Christianity when it became the new state religion or even before that. If they were ancient Christian lands 400 years after the Romans converted them to Christianity, then surely the Christians were invading ancient Islamic lands 400 years after the caliphs converted them to Islam? At best they were (partially, as in Palestine) ancient Jewish lands but depending on how far your history goes back or which lands you're talking about, they were even ancient pagan lands before that. Would you defend a pagan reconquering of the area as well?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

A Neo-Nazi declares that Hitler did nothing wrong. A neo-Confederate affirms the history of a just Lost Cause. A Christian fanatic justifies any aggression as necessary and intrinsically righteous when it is in the defense of Christendom.

These have little to do with history and much to do with personal identity.

---

a relativist does not believe in truth and so think everyone thinks as himself. Therefore he thinks all people believe as they wish the truth to be rather than the truth leading them to their conclusions. SO he needs not disuse anything of evidence, just label people or groups, brand them, give them some derogatory name or motive, and you have yourself a post on total war.org.

These kind of posts have little to do with history and much to do with personal identity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by total relism

a relativist does not believe in truth and so think everyone thinks as himself. Therefore he thinks all people believe as they wish the truth to be rather than the truth leading them to their conclusions. SO he needs not disuse anything of evidence, just label people or groups, brand them, give them some derogatory name or motive, and you have yourself a post on total war.org.

These kind of posts have little to do with history and much to do with personal identity.

---

Just as I said. The people to whom I refer form their idea of history independently of any evidence, because it is fundamentally a matter of who they are and not what has been. For such individuals there is only one set of possibilities in history, and these follow naturally from present experience and not any particular past events. Therefore, their answers will always come to the same thing no matter the extent of their study; the conclusion is pre-determined.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by total relism

SO he needs not disuse anything of evidence, just label people or groups, brand them, give them some derogatory name or motive, and you have yourself a post on total war.org.

---

I'm glad you have reached such clarity when reading your own posts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spmetla

The first crusade I honestly look at as similar to when a Qaran is burned and you get the rumor mill in the muslim world about the evil west and then violent riots and so on.

---

so the burning of a book equals 2/3 of christian lands taken, Christians mass murdered, tortured, forced to convert, the holy land taken and innocent pilgrims enslaved or killed. Add on top the slow advancement onto your own lands [and families] an attack on your society as a whole, and that equals a burning of a book? sir i cannot disagree more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spmetla

There were some crusaders who did display a since of chivalry and christian piety (Raymond de Toulouse) but the looting and pillaging they did on the way to Constantinople through 'christian' lands was already inexcusable and demonstration of more of a mob than an army.

The oaths and money they took in Constantinople to Emperor Alexius were not followed through the moment he didn't have an army nearby to enforce the oath (Bohemend keeping Antioch). The sack and slaughter within Jerusalem was again an example inconsistent with christian behavior. You quote many sources saying how Jews were not to be harmed but they were certainly slaughtered wholesale on the way to Outremer.

---

I was more referring to the first crusade and the overall goals of the crusades, not the 4th where they deviated from the plan or other crimes committed. I dont endorse everything done by all crusaders at all times. Just the overall purpose and intended goals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spmetla

The borders of islam were already beginning to shrink at the start of the crusades. The Empire had survived Manzikert and the turmoil and civil war that followed and was actually more threatened by the Normans in Sicily and Southern Italy. The reconquista was underway in Spain and the threat there was nothing like it was before when Charles Martel fought the battle of Tours.

---

I would have to disagree. clearly they had the upper hand and Constantinople was in intimidate danger. Spain was fighting back, but that would not end in victory until 1500 with crusades and help from the rest of europe, its fate was far from certain at the time of the first crusade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spmetla

Seeing as you view the crusades as the element that put a halt to Islamic expansion consider this: they actually led to rise of the Ottoman Empire which was only dismantled a century ago. If the crusades had not happened and instead that energy went into the reconquest of Spain and aiding the romans there's a good chance that the borders of 'christendom' would have at least included most of asia minor. The crusades instead led to the consolidation of power that allowed the Mamluks to defeat the Mongols, for the Ottomans to reunite the various Turkoman tribes and enter Eastern Europe. Bear in mind that the the latin crusaders betrayed and destroyed the remains of Eastern Roman and the scattered remnants of it and the 'Latin Empire' only opened the doors to the Turks.

---

Interesting, perhaps true, but it is hypothetical. The way things were going before the crusades since the rise of islam, had they continued that same path, its hard to see a christian europe left.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spmetla

As for it being a noble catholic cause, just remember that Catholicism as you know it now did not exist then. Minor differences in tradition and liturgy had led the mutual excommunication a few decades before the crusades. The Pope as an undisputed leader of the Western church was a new concept seeing as they only had attained true independence from Constantinople following the coronation of Charlemagne and continued to undermine Western/and Eastern Imperial authority within Italy leading to incessant warfare between the various city states until the 1870s.

---

I think that would be a separate issue but i am not one to defend the catholic church either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spmetla

You list a lot of sources but I will recommend you read Sir Steven Runciman's volumes on the History of the Crusades. He gives a very even and fair treatment to the crusades without the hyperbole of current scholarly works written with our contemporary war with islam shading opinions for against the crusades. The websites you link and quote from are very selective and have a very obvious bias. They do quote primary sources as well but without proper context.

---

thanks for the suggestion i have heard of him and read a few of his quotes i believe in the books i have read. as for my sources if you can show fault that would help me improve my op and would welcome it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spmetla

To be clear I don't think people need to be ashamed of the crusades but nor should they "thank god" for them either. They happened, for better and worse and led to the world we live in. Revisiting them and trying to brand them as evil or as truly justified is pointless because they were controversial within 'christendom' even when they began and always will be. It's this same type of logic that when flipped on it's head is used to justify suicide-bombing civilians in the west due to acts done by the 'christian west' in the middle east or to try and push Israel back into the sea.

---

to me they are justified and i am glad for them, i care not who agrees with me, that is the benefit of being a admitted lunatic:laugh4:

the logic comparison only applies perhaps, to a koran believing Muslim worldview, of course not to my own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spmetla

I'll agree with Montmorency that your debate has less to do with history and more to do with your personal identity.

---

I thought the same thing about his post, it had to do with his identity and had nothing to do with history. that is why my post had historical data to show where and why i held my opinion, where his was void of anything but his relativism and identity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spmetla

You do quote a lot of primary sources but your conclusion remains that Christianity was right to push out Islam because it was there first, that same logic can be used by every previous religious group in the region going back to ancient Sumeria.

---

Yes in part of course my worldview as a christian sees christian retaking their land from Muslims as good, a Muslim would not see this as good for the same reason. However the previous religious groups were more than not converted by preaching, not my christian armies forcing them to convert [Islam] neither were the other atrocities committed or the capture of holy lands done in the same way. so i dont think its the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spmetla

Remember that christianity that spread out of the middle east peacefully through proselyting and martyrdom is not at all like the formalized Roman church that was established as a State religion and forced on the inhabitants of the Empire. By your logic the Hellenic/Roman/ and the various local religions (such as Judaism too) have every right to kick out the christians too.

---

agreed, but same as the above. But even if true, to me it would still be the lesser of two evils having the crusaders rather than Muslim control, again that is my worldview coming into play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

From your OP:


You know, when Stalin killed millions, you have to consider that the US made the Japanese inhuman and put them in cages and Hitler killed millions, too. And Staling definitely fought a defensive war since the ancient lands of communism were being threatened. So where is Steve Weidenkopf's book "The Glory of Stalin"?

---

I dont think a catholic would write a book defending stalins communistic murder of millions of his own people. I think he would right a book that said he does not condone everything every crusader did, but the crusades purpose and overall goals. The crusaders at jurslum did what was common in war at the time after a siege, looted and killed a few thousand people. that is a far cry from what stalin did. So i would argue is defending your home lands compared to communistic control of populace and military aggression. the scenarios are not at all similar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

The idea of calling them "ancient christian lands" is pretty silly in the first place given that they were conquered by the Romans and then everyone was converted to Christianity when it became the new state religion or even before that. If they were ancient Christian lands 400 years after the Romans converted them to Christianity, then surely the Christians were invading ancient Islamic lands 400 years after the caliphs converted them to Islam? At best they were (partially, as in Palestine) ancient Jewish lands but depending on how far your history goes back or which lands you're talking about, they were even ancient pagan lands before that. Would you defend a pagan reconquering of the area as well?

---

????? allow me to help with your history. Christians converted much of the roman empire by preaching, the romans fed them to lions and killed them by the thousands.This only helped it grow. Islam came along hundreds of years later. forced conversions and capture territory through military arms. crusades sought to take back some of that lost christian land [really just the holy lands]

to your question it seems is on the holy lands. That is gods land IMO not mans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Just as I said. The people to whom I refer form their idea of history independently of any evidence, because it is fundamentally a matter of who they are and not what has been. For such individuals there is only one set of possibilities in history, and these follow naturally from present experience and not any particular past events. Therefore, their answers will always come to the same thing no matter the extent of their study; the conclusion is pre-determined.

---

Just as I said. The people to whom I refer form their idea of history independently of any evidence, because it is fundamentally a matter of who they are and not what has been. For such individuals there is only one set of possibilities in history, and these follow naturally from present experience and not any particular past events. Therefore, their answers will always come to the same thing no matter the extent of their study; the conclusion is pre-determined.

To prove it, see who used historical justification for their position.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by total relism

Just as I said. The people to whom I refer form their idea of history independently of any evidence, because it is fundamentally a matter of who they are and not what has been. For such individuals there is only one set of possibilities in history, and these follow naturally from present experience and not any particular past events. Therefore, their answers will always come to the same thing no matter the extent of their study; the conclusion is pre-determined.

To prove it, see who used historical justification for their position.

---

Children usually outgrow repeating the words of others at them before adolescence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Barto

I'm glad you have reached such clarity when reading your own posts.

---

well hay that was not nice at all, and here i thought we were becoming friends. :shrug:

sorry. mistake from a radical pro catholic apologist and crusader lover, my bad.

Quote:

---

so the burning of a book equals 2/3 of christian lands taken, Christians mass murdered, tortured, forced to convert, the holy land taken and innocent pilgrims enslaved or killed. Add on top the slow advancement onto your own lands [and families] an attack on your society as a whole, and that equals a burning of a book? sir i cannot disagree more.

---

I'm not comparing the crimes but the reaction. It's a religious leader preaching death and violence to illiterate ignorant people who then go on rampage, in the case of the crusades a campaign/rampage. I've worked with the Afghan Army and one of their detention centers and have seen far too many ignorant illiterate people detained who feel they were justified by religion in their actions despite being unable to read the teachings of said religion on their own. This is a problem that was prolific throughout the Christian West until well after the Gutenbergs press and we still had literal witch hunts.

Quote:

---

I would have to disagree. clearly they had the upper hand and Constantinople was in intimidate danger. Spain was fighting back, but that would not end in victory until 1500 with crusades and help from the rest of europe, its fate was far from certain at the time of the first crusade.

---

It is not clear that they had the upper hand. The Romans had no turkish fleet to fear, Eastern Europe was not under the threat of invasion, and the turcomans in Anatolia were disjointed and fighting each other as much as the romans, not a clear and present danger like the Seljuks decades before or the Ottomans centuries after. The Normans in Italy were a greater immediate threat the the Empire at the instigation of the Pope himself.
The campaign in Spain would of course take centuries more, that is the same sort of campaign that would have been necessary in the East if it were to result in a similar conclusion. Instead the local power (East Rome) was undermined and eventually sacked by its 'allies' and the limited campaigns by the West in Crusades 2, 3, and 4 always failed in their objectives but left a stronger and more united islamic threat behind each time the campaigners felt they'd spent enough money and blood. Remember that Richard III sacked and conquered allied Cyprus before selling it to the french, he was even imprisoned in Vienna on his way back for thievery.
The major result of the crusades was the consolidation of power for the Mamlukes and Ottomans and their subsequent threats to Europe until the 1680s.

Quote:

---

Yes in part of course my worldview as a christian sees christian retaking their land from Muslims as good, a Muslim would not see this as good for the same reason. However the previous religious groups were more than not converted by preaching, not my christian armies forcing them to convert [Islam] neither were the other atrocities committed or the capture of holy lands done in the same way. so i dont think its the same.

---

I can appreciate this opinion because I'm not a fan of islam in the slightest. However, Christianity was forced on most of Europe when it became the Roman State Religion. There after many elites converted for political and economic expediency. Local pagan temples were forcibly converted into Churches, pagan elites were denied political office and so on. That's one of the major reasons that the Emperor Julian (the Apostate) had success in his restoring pagan temples and treasures from the christian zealots that had plundered them beforehand and advocated freedom of religion instead, shame he died fighting the Persians.
It was the official state christianity that resulted in much of the civil discord in the Empire over which dogma was correct, there's a reason that the Christians of the middle east are for the most part members of Churches not associated with Rome or Constantinople, because they'd been oppressed for their slight differences.
Remember that Jerusalem was surrendered to the muslims centuries before because the Roman Church was too oppressive to the local Syriac Christians and Jews and there was no slaughter of the city following its capture. Yes, in the following centuries many locals converted to Islam but by and large it wasn't forced mass conversion but rather out of political and economic convenience, no different that when the Roman Church enforced it's State Religion in the provinces.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by total relism

sorry. mistake from a radical pro catholic apologist and crusader lover, my bad.

---

Pro-catholic?

?????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Barto

Pro-catholic?

?????

---

joke.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spmetla

I'm not comparing the crimes but the reaction. It's a religious leader preaching death and violence to illiterate ignorant people who then go on rampage, in the case of the crusades a campaign/rampage. I've worked with the Afghan Army and one of their detention centers and have seen far too many ignorant illiterate people detained who feel they were justified by religion in their actions despite being unable to read the teachings of said religion on their own. This is a problem that was prolific throughout the Christian West until well after the Gutenbergs press and we still had literal witch hunts.

---

ok my mistake. I would disagree that the crusaders were ignorant, instead i would call them [generally of course] compassionate and brave. I am unaware of a preacher calling for death and violence, perhaps you could provide some sources. My op provides some of the common sermons used to ignite the crusade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spmetla

I can appreciate this opinion because I'm not a fan of islam in the slightest. However, Christianity was forced on most of Europe when it became the Roman State Religion. There after many elites converted for political and economic expediency. Local pagan temples were forcibly converted into Churches, pagan elites were denied political office and so on. That's one of the major reasons that the Emperor Julian (the Apostate) had success in his restoring pagan temples and treasures from the christian zealots that had plundered them beforehand and advocated freedom of religion instead, shame he died fighting the Persians.
It was the official state christianity that resulted in much of the civil discord in the Empire over which dogma was correct, there's a reason that the Christians of the middle east are for the most part members of Churches not associated with Rome or Constantinople, because they'd been oppressed for their slight differences.
Remember that Jerusalem was surrendered to the muslims centuries before because the Roman Church was too oppressive to the local Syriac Christians and Jews and there was no slaughter of the city following its capture. Yes, in the following centuries many locals converted to Islam but by and large it wasn't forced mass conversion but rather out of political and economic convenience, no different that when the Roman Church enforced it's State Religion in the provinces.

---

i was speaking in general terms not every single instance, i dont disagree with the above. I would point out the crusaders took back Jerusalem without any blood shed either [5th crusade i think/ German crusade?]

Quote:

---

ok my mistake. I would disagree that the crusaders were ignorant, instead i would call them [generally of course] compassionate and brave. I am unaware of a preacher calling for death and violence, perhaps you could provide some sources. My op provides some of the common sermons used to ignite the crusade.

---

I don't have any quotes for any Cardinals, Bishops, Pope etc... that says it but you know as well as I do that there were undoubtedly no shortage of low level clergymen that did just that. Preaching about the wicked hateful turks, mohammedens, saracens and how those inhumane servants of the devil deserve to die. You don't actually need me to find a source stating that explicity for you to believe it, right? I'm sure there were no shortage of the "God hates ****" types around at the time on both sides of the crusades.
Yes, there were more flowery speakers as well but those were aimed toward the more educated as well as toward people that could then donate to a military order instead of needing to put forward service.

The leaders of the crusaders weren't ignorant but as in all movements the rank and file were. Even for the educated West it remains true in our comparatively very well educated militaries.

Quote:

---

i was speaking in general terms not every single instance, i dont disagree with the above. I would point out the crusaders took back Jerusalem without any blood shed either [5th crusade i think/ German crusade?]

---

Technically speaking that wasn't actually a crusade (and it was the sixth not the fifth which was in Egypt). The Western Emperor, Fredrick II was excommunicated so even the military orders (Templars, Hospitallers, Teutonic Order) were not allowed to accompany his 'crusade' but merely shadow it and if chance allowed some action to participate. The Emperor didn't win Jerusalem back but negotiated for it (he got it but under very poor terms), visited it, and then left a disorganized and infighting 'Outremer' behind to continue their self destructive decline.
He was a very practical and not religious man who did his crusade more for domestic reasons. He knew many languages, was more culturally aware due to his Sicilian ties and did not have a blind hatred toward the enemy. The Pope couldn't stand him because he controlled the HRE as well as Southern Italy and Sicily meaning there was no one to really play against him as they had in the past to keep Italy divided and the Papacy strong.

Once again all those efforts could have been put into something more tangible and permanent. During this time period the remenats of Eastern Rome were still attempting to cobble together their empire around Nicaea and efforts would have been better spent if they weren't stuck fighting the latin successors in Constantinople, Bulgaria, and so on. Again I'll point out that during this fragmented and weak period in Greece and Asia Minor the Seljuks still weren't able to even threaten an invasion of Europe and would soon be crushed by the mongols which would then lead to the rise of the Ottomans who would then consolidate power and eventually invade Europe.
Instead of useful help in a theater where victory of a sort could have been possible instead attention was focused on the 'holy land' with half hearted efforts that doomed that enterprise to failure anyhow.

This thread somehow reminds me of that joke...

I'm 12 and what is this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spmetla

I don't have any quotes for any Cardinals, Bishops, Pope etc... that says it but you know as well as I do that there were undoubtedly no shortage of low level clergymen that did just that. Preaching about the wicked hateful turks, mohammedens, saracens and how those inhumane servants of the devil deserve to die. You don't actually need me to find a source stating that explicity for you to believe it, right? I'm sure there were no shortage of the "God hates ****" types around at the time on both sides of the crusades.
Yes, there were more flowery speakers as well but those were aimed toward the more educated as well as toward people that could then donate to a military order instead of needing to put forward service.

The leaders of the crusaders weren't ignorant but as in all movements the rank and file were. Even for the educated West it remains true in our comparatively very well educated militaries.

---

I am not saying its impossible or never happened, but i think it just seem to say more of your prejudices/bias/ assumptions of people who lived in a different time and culture than your own. The church of its day was centralized top to bottom, the lower levels were dictated by the higher ups.

As a side note some of the most evil men to ever live have been the most educated and smartest. You seem to have a hidden assumption education makes one no longer a sinner or evil. Allow me from my op

What Biblical Versus Were Used to Support the Crusades?

The Call of Abraham was used to support crusades in Genesis 12 portraying the difficulties of a crusader leaving his family for economical uncertainty while facing difficulty in the long journey with a possibility of death. Crusading was seen as spiritual journey and love/sacrifice to God were the major themes. A major crusading verse was Luke 9.23Then he said to them all: “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me." Also Maccabees [catholic books] and various passages in the Gospels were used. Numbers 21 21-24 were used as reason for just [defensive] war, after Islam expansion.

“ Maybe our understanding of crusades is wrong? And their motivations for it?
Heath Thomas Jermey Evans paul Copan Holy War in the Bible: Christian Morality and an Old Testament Problem

Crusaders were driven by faith in wanting to please God and self sacrifice for those persecuted. As one crusader said "carrying the cross so that afterword, they may be carried to haven by the cross."Odo of burgundy said "the journey to Jerusalem as a penance for my sins.... since divine mercy inspired me that owing to the enormity of my sins I should go to the sepluchure of our savior, in order that this offering of my devotion might might be more acceptable in the sight of god." Urbonat Clermat "it ought to be a beautiful ideal for you to die for Christ in that city were Christ did for you." Eudes of chateaurout "as sighn that man loves god when he cast aside the world.... for gods sake he leaves his fatherland, possessions, houses sons and wife to go across the sea in the service of Jesus Christ."

Pope Urban II (1088-1099): Speech at Council of Clermont, 1095
Whoever, therefore, shall determine upon this holy pilgrimage and shall make his vow to God to that effect and shall offer himself to Him as a, living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, shall wear the sign of the cross of the Lord on his forehead or on his breast. When,' truly',' having fulfilled his vow be wishes to return, let him place the cross on his back between his shoulders. Such, indeed, by the twofold action will fulfill the precept of the Lord, as He commands in the Gospel, "He that taketh not his cross and followeth after me, is not worthy of me."
Dana C. Munro, "Urban and the Crusaders", Translations and Reprints from the Original Sources of European History, Vol 1:2, (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1895), 5-8



During the first crusade, it was items of religious nature that influenced and pushed on the pilgrims such as the holy lance in Antioch that completely changed the campaign.


"pope] Gregory did not sell this planned expedition as holy war...but of mercy and act of charity ….It was prayer,fasting and sermons that kept the crusade going at Jerusalem"
Thomas F. Madden The New Concise History of the Crusades


" Priests and other clerics who will be in the Christian army, both those under authority and prelates, shall diligently devote themselves to prayer and exhortation, teaching the crusaders by word and example to have the fear and love of God always before their eyes, so that they say or do nothing that might offend the divine majesty. If they ever fall into sin, let them quickly rise up again through true penitence. Let them be humble in heart and in body, keeping to moderation both in food and in dress, avoiding altogether dissensions and rivalries, and putting aside entirely any bitterness or envy, so that thus armed with spiritual and material weapons they may the more fearlessly fight against the enemies of the faith, relying not on their own power but rather trusting in the strength of God "........." others who have taken up the cross, and those who may still do so, to carry out their vows to the Lord "
FOURTH LATERAN COUNCIL (1215)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by total relism

I am not saying its impossible or never happened, but i think it just seem to say more of your prejudices/bias/ assumptions of people who lived in a different time and culture than your own. The church of its day was centralized top to bottom, the lower levels were dictated by the higher ups.

As a side note some of the most evil men to ever live have been the most educated and smartest. You seem to have a hidden assumption education makes one no longer a sinner or evil. Allow me from my op

---

Education does not intrinsically make for a good man. But ignorance is intrinsically a bad thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by total relism

I am not saying its impossible or never happened, but i think it just seem to say more of your prejudices/bias/ assumptions of people who lived in a different time and culture than your own. The church of its day was centralized top to bottom, the lower levels were dictated by the higher ups.

As a side note some of the most evil men to ever live have been the most educated and smartest. You seem to have a hidden assumption education makes one no longer a sinner or evil. Allow me from my op

---

Of course I have my biases as you do yours. My opinions however are formed by a love of and deep study of medieval/dark age history mixed with real world military experience in what my opponents at least think is a religious war.

The church of its day was not as strong and centralized as it would be 100 or even 200 years later. This was a time period in which it was attempting to assert its control over the peripheries (especially Wales, Ireland, Scandinavia). The lower levels very much did their own thing which was one of them many complaints that Martin Luther had a few centuries later in their buying 'indulgences.' It'd be reasonable to say that the Bishops had fair control over the Abbeys and Monasteries but over parish priests, friars, pardoners and so on I doubt they had that much control.

I do assume education makes someone smarter and generally less likely to do evil, especially if that education has some general cultural awareness. Ignorance of the other allows one to be used by demagogues, be they religious, fascist, communist, or any other aspect that can group things into us versus them.

Quoting the bible to justify a crusade is no better than a muslim justifying why they are right or a hebrew doing the same from the torah. Bear in mind the later crusades were against Cathars and baltic pagans.

Yes, there were some crusaders that had true and noble intentions to save the levantine christians and make the holy land safe for christian pilgrims but there were no shortage that when to set up their own estates, carve out their own kingdoms, or wealth through ransom and loot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spmetla

Of course I have my biases as you do yours. My opinions however are formed by a love of and deep study of medieval/dark age history mixed with real world military experience in what my opponents at least think is a religious war.

The church of its day was not as strong and centralized as it would be 100 or even 200 years later. This was a time period in which it was attempting to assert its control over the peripheries (especially Wales, Ireland, Scandinavia). The lower levels very much did their own thing which was one of them many complaints that Martin Luther had a few centuries later in their buying 'indulgences.' It'd be reasonable to say that the Bishops had fair control over the Abbeys and Monasteries but over parish priests, friars, pardoners and so on I doubt they had that much control.

---

fair enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spmetla

I do assume education makes someone smarter and generally less likely to do evil, especially if that education has some general cultural awareness. Ignorance of the other allows one to be used by demagogues, be they religious, fascist, communist, or any other aspect that can group things into us versus them.

---

I think intelligence can just make an evil man more dangerous, depends on who is educating and what they are educated in. I think it does nothing to make someone "good" unless of course they are educated and accept certain worldviews. cultural awareness [if we are using this in a modern sense perhaps we have gotten well off topic] seems to be accepting of other beliefs regardless. If that is the case and we are relativists, there really is nothing good or bad of the crusades or education. So if a culture other than your chooses not to educate, and say also enjoys child sacrifice, we must be educated ourselves and tolerate differences in culture, so no standard can tell us who is right or wrong. This is just the reason education makes smart evil men smarter and more dangerous IMO. It also would allow, if taken to its logical conclusion, men like Hitler to stay around unpunished as we must be educated to accept other beliefs and cultures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spmetla

Quoting the bible to justify a crusade is no better than a muslim justifying why they are right or a hebrew doing the same from the torah. Bear in mind the later crusades were against Cathars and baltic pagans.

---

Unless one is writing an OP from a modern protestant perspective such as i did in my op. Than biblical justification matters. of course as i said in my op i think the justification for the crusades is at best suspect. and of course if the bible is true, than of course it contains the only moral framework to know what is good or evil so quoting it in support of a crusade you cannot find a better justification.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spmetla

Yes, there were some crusaders that had true and noble intentions to save the levantine christians and make the holy land safe for christian pilgrims but there were no shortage that when to set up their own estates, carve out their own kingdoms, or wealth through ransom and loot.

---

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God
Romans 3.23

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Education does not intrinsically make for a good man. But ignorance is intrinsically a bad thing.

---

i would agree. and ignorance can be used by intelligent or educated evil men to control or mislead them. that to me is the number one reason education is so important. Its the most important thing to me. However, it cannot as you said, make someone "good" just knowledgeable. However even certain "knowledge" [often not true] can make an evil man out of a good ignorant man.

Quote:

---

I think it does nothing to make someone "good" unless of course they are educated and accept certain worldviews. cultural awareness [if we are using this in a modern sense perhaps we have gotten well off topic] seems to be accepting of other beliefs regardless.

---

I am not one to accept other cultures beliefs regardless. I am someone who tries to understand the thought process and reason behind their actions, some of which are good intent terrible outcome (tortuous 'rituals' to heal that actually harms the sick). Understanding and awareness of other cultures does require or equal acceptance.

Quote:

---

Unless one is writing an OP from a modern protestant perspective such as i did in my op. Than biblical justification matters. of course as i said in my op i think the justification for the crusades is at best suspect. and of course if the bible is true, than of course it contains the only moral framework to know what is good or evil so quoting it in support of a crusade you cannot find a better justification.

---

From that perspective there's point in debate unless you wanted a purely theological debate on whether the crusades were justified according to christian dogma. While your OP pointed to it quite clearly I'd assumed you a open to a wider debate on its general morality especially as you'd written more about it being a defensive war against muslim aggression then you'd had on it's biblical merits and listed many of the instances which demonstrated islamic persecution of christians and infringement on their ability to do pilgrimage.

I'll depart with what I always thought was Jesus's best quote about his followers kingdom not being (or needing to be) of this world and therefore there was no reason to fight though I know the meaning as with everything biblical is up for debate. John 18:36 "Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spmetla

I am not one to accept other cultures beliefs regardless. I am someone who tries to understand the thought process and reason behind their actions, some of which are good intent terrible outcome (tortuous 'rituals' to heal that actually harms the sick). Understanding and awareness of other cultures does require or equal acceptance.

---

ok i agree with that. but we can also view and understand a culture and also see when it is evil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spmetla

From that perspective there's point in debate unless you wanted a purely theological debate on whether the crusades were justified according to christian dogma. While your OP pointed to it quite clearly I'd assumed you a open to a wider debate on its general morality especially as you'd written more about it being a defensive war against muslim aggression then you'd had on it's biblical merits and listed many of the instances which demonstrated islamic persecution of christians and infringement on their ability to do pilgrimage.

---

True. it was both mixed in. What i argued from my op was just that from my modern protestant perspective, i am glad for the crusades. Even if as you pointed out better results [from my perspective] could have been achieved in another hypothetical way. I also yes assumed a morality of the reader to agree that Muslim persecution and conquest of christian lands was a moral wrong that may have even justified the crusades. But we than moved i think very much off topic into worldviews and beliefs. I was simply saying in an atheistic worldview [even if they say muslim persecution and conquest is wrong] have no standard and are no more right or wrong than the muslim to claim a moral high ground. Only a christian worldview can.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spmetla

I'll depart with what I always thought was Jesus's best quote about his followers kingdom not being (or needing to be) of this world and therefore there was no reason to fight though I know the meaning as with everything biblical is up for debate. John 18:36 "Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world."

---

I would say context matters, what jesus said matters and is not open to debate from gods view. It is only when man comes with his relativism [ god said this but it means this to me because i like this better] and his liberalism [ did god really say that, lets skip that part and reinterpret it this way the world wants us to] that the bible is no longer gods word but what modern man can chose it to be.


thanks once more for your perspectives and posts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by total relism

sorry. mistake from a radical pro catholic apologist and crusader lover, my bad.

---

Do not joke about my faith.