Thank God for the Crusades

[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.

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.

[total relism]

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.

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.

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

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.

[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.

[Pannonian]

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.

[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

[total relism]

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?

[Beskar]

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.

[total relism]

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

[spmetla]

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.

[total relism]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.