Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 54 of 54

Thread: Thank God for the Crusades

  1. #31
    Iron Fist Senior Member Husar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    15,617

    Default Re: Thank God for the Crusades

    Quote Originally Posted by total relism View Post
    Do tell why you believe so and why you think we would be better off had the crusades not occurred.
    From your OP:
    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?


    "Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu

  2. #32

    Default Re: Thank God for the Crusades

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    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.
    “Its been said that when human beings stop believing in god they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse, they believe in anything.” Malcolm maggeridge

    The simple believes every word: but the prudent man looks well to his going. Proverbs -14.15
    The first to present his case seems right,till another comes forward and questions him -Proverbs 18.17

    In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
    Genesis 1.1

  3. #33

    Default Re: Thank God for the Crusades

    Quote Originally Posted by total relism View Post
    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.
    Vitiate Man.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  4. #34
    syö minun šortsini Member Space Invaders Champion, Metal Slug Champion, Bubble Trouble Champion, Curveball Champion, Moon Patrol Champion, Zelda Champion, Minigolf Champion El Barto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Battening down hatches
    Posts
    3,248

    Default Re: Thank God for the Crusades

    Quote Originally Posted by total relism View Post
    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.
    good lord| if you're telling the truth you're setting new records for scumminess as a townie -Renata on IM, 16/09/2011
    Feles deliberatissimae subiugare humanitiati sunt, et res solae quae eas desinunt canes sunt.
    I see I've been sigged yet again -Askthepizzaguy, 02/08/2012
    Hindsight is 20/20 Askthepizzaguy, 10/07/2013

  5. #35

    Default Re: Thank God for the Crusades

    Quote Originally Posted by spmetla View Post
    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 View Post
    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 View Post
    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 View Post
    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 View Post
    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 View Post
    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 View Post
    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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by spmetla View Post
    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 View Post
    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 View Post
    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.
    “Its been said that when human beings stop believing in god they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse, they believe in anything.” Malcolm maggeridge

    The simple believes every word: but the prudent man looks well to his going. Proverbs -14.15
    The first to present his case seems right,till another comes forward and questions him -Proverbs 18.17

    In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
    Genesis 1.1

  6. #36

    Default Re: Thank God for the Crusades

    Quote Originally Posted by Husar View Post
    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 View Post
    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.
    Last edited by total relism; 06-29-2017 at 01:14.
    “Its been said that when human beings stop believing in god they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse, they believe in anything.” Malcolm maggeridge

    The simple believes every word: but the prudent man looks well to his going. Proverbs -14.15
    The first to present his case seems right,till another comes forward and questions him -Proverbs 18.17

    In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
    Genesis 1.1

  7. #37

    Default Re: Thank God for the Crusades

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    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.
    “Its been said that when human beings stop believing in god they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse, they believe in anything.” Malcolm maggeridge

    The simple believes every word: but the prudent man looks well to his going. Proverbs -14.15
    The first to present his case seems right,till another comes forward and questions him -Proverbs 18.17

    In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
    Genesis 1.1

  8. #38

    Default Re: Thank God for the Crusades

    Quote Originally Posted by total relism View Post
    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.
    Vitiate Man.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    Member thankful for this post:



  9. #39

    Default Re: Thank God for the Crusades

    Quote Originally Posted by El Barto View Post
    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.
    “Its been said that when human beings stop believing in god they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse, they believe in anything.” Malcolm maggeridge

    The simple believes every word: but the prudent man looks well to his going. Proverbs -14.15
    The first to present his case seems right,till another comes forward and questions him -Proverbs 18.17

    In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
    Genesis 1.1

  10. #40

    Default Re: Thank God for the Crusades

    sorry. mistake from a radical pro catholic apologist and crusader lover, my bad.
    “Its been said that when human beings stop believing in god they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse, they believe in anything.” Malcolm maggeridge

    The simple believes every word: but the prudent man looks well to his going. Proverbs -14.15
    The first to present his case seems right,till another comes forward and questions him -Proverbs 18.17

    In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
    Genesis 1.1

  11. #41
    Coffee farmer extraordinaire Member spmetla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Kona, Hawaii
    Posts
    2,660

    Default Re: Thank God for the Crusades

    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.

    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.

    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.
    Last edited by spmetla; 06-29-2017 at 04:26.

    "Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?"
    -Abraham Lincoln

  12. #42
    syö minun šortsini Member Space Invaders Champion, Metal Slug Champion, Bubble Trouble Champion, Curveball Champion, Moon Patrol Champion, Zelda Champion, Minigolf Champion El Barto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Battening down hatches
    Posts
    3,248

    Default Re: Thank God for the Crusades

    Quote Originally Posted by total relism View Post
    sorry. mistake from a radical pro catholic apologist and crusader lover, my bad.
    Pro-catholic?

    ?????
    good lord| if you're telling the truth you're setting new records for scumminess as a townie -Renata on IM, 16/09/2011
    Feles deliberatissimae subiugare humanitiati sunt, et res solae quae eas desinunt canes sunt.
    I see I've been sigged yet again -Askthepizzaguy, 02/08/2012
    Hindsight is 20/20 Askthepizzaguy, 10/07/2013

  13. #43

    Default Re: Thank God for the Crusades

    Quote Originally Posted by El Barto View Post
    Pro-catholic?

    ?????
    joke.
    “Its been said that when human beings stop believing in god they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse, they believe in anything.” Malcolm maggeridge

    The simple believes every word: but the prudent man looks well to his going. Proverbs -14.15
    The first to present his case seems right,till another comes forward and questions him -Proverbs 18.17

    In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
    Genesis 1.1

  14. #44

    Default Re: Thank God for the Crusades

    Quote Originally Posted by spmetla View Post
    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 View Post
    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?]
    “Its been said that when human beings stop believing in god they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse, they believe in anything.” Malcolm maggeridge

    The simple believes every word: but the prudent man looks well to his going. Proverbs -14.15
    The first to present his case seems right,till another comes forward and questions him -Proverbs 18.17

    In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
    Genesis 1.1

  15. #45
    Coffee farmer extraordinaire Member spmetla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Kona, Hawaii
    Posts
    2,660

    Default Re: Thank God for the Crusades

    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.

    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.
    Last edited by spmetla; 06-30-2017 at 08:59.

    "Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?"
    -Abraham Lincoln

  16. #46
    Ja mata, TosaInu Forum Administrator edyzmedieval's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Fortress of the Mountains
    Posts
    10,731

    Default Re: Thank God for the Crusades

    This thread somehow reminds me of that joke...

    I'm 12 and what is this?
    Ja mata, TosaInu. You will forever be remembered.

    Proud

    Been to:

    Swords Made of Letters - 1938. The war is looming - and Alexandre Reythier does not have much time left to protect his country.

  17. #47

    Default Re: Thank God for the Crusades

    Quote Originally Posted by spmetla View Post
    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)
    “Its been said that when human beings stop believing in god they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse, they believe in anything.” Malcolm maggeridge

    The simple believes every word: but the prudent man looks well to his going. Proverbs -14.15
    The first to present his case seems right,till another comes forward and questions him -Proverbs 18.17

    In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
    Genesis 1.1

  18. #48
    Headless Senior Member Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    7,168

    Default Re: Thank God for the Crusades

    Quote Originally Posted by total relism View Post
    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.

    Member thankful for this post:



  19. #49
    Coffee farmer extraordinaire Member spmetla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Kona, Hawaii
    Posts
    2,660

    Default Re: Thank God for the Crusades

    Quote Originally Posted by total relism View Post
    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.

    "Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?"
    -Abraham Lincoln

    Member thankful for this post:

    Husar 


  20. #50

    Default Re: Thank God for the Crusades

    Quote Originally Posted by spmetla View Post
    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 View Post
    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 View Post
    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 View Post
    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
    “Its been said that when human beings stop believing in god they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse, they believe in anything.” Malcolm maggeridge

    The simple believes every word: but the prudent man looks well to his going. Proverbs -14.15
    The first to present his case seems right,till another comes forward and questions him -Proverbs 18.17

    In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
    Genesis 1.1

  21. #51

    Default Re: Thank God for the Crusades

    Quote Originally Posted by Pannonian View Post
    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.
    “Its been said that when human beings stop believing in god they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse, they believe in anything.” Malcolm maggeridge

    The simple believes every word: but the prudent man looks well to his going. Proverbs -14.15
    The first to present his case seems right,till another comes forward and questions him -Proverbs 18.17

    In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
    Genesis 1.1

  22. #52
    Coffee farmer extraordinaire Member spmetla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Kona, Hawaii
    Posts
    2,660

    Default Re: Thank God for the Crusades

    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.

    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."
    Last edited by spmetla; 07-01-2017 at 10:10.

    "Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?"
    -Abraham Lincoln

  23. #53

    Default Re: Thank God for the Crusades

    Quote Originally Posted by spmetla View Post
    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 View Post
    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 View Post
    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.
    “Its been said that when human beings stop believing in god they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse, they believe in anything.” Malcolm maggeridge

    The simple believes every word: but the prudent man looks well to his going. Proverbs -14.15
    The first to present his case seems right,till another comes forward and questions him -Proverbs 18.17

    In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
    Genesis 1.1

  24. #54
    syö minun šortsini Member Space Invaders Champion, Metal Slug Champion, Bubble Trouble Champion, Curveball Champion, Moon Patrol Champion, Zelda Champion, Minigolf Champion El Barto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Battening down hatches
    Posts
    3,248

    Default Re: Thank God for the Crusades

    Quote Originally Posted by total relism View Post
    sorry. mistake from a radical pro catholic apologist and crusader lover, my bad.
    Do not joke about my faith.
    good lord| if you're telling the truth you're setting new records for scumminess as a townie -Renata on IM, 16/09/2011
    Feles deliberatissimae subiugare humanitiati sunt, et res solae quae eas desinunt canes sunt.
    I see I've been sigged yet again -Askthepizzaguy, 02/08/2012
    Hindsight is 20/20 Askthepizzaguy, 10/07/2013

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO