NationStates Jolt Archive

I've seen the "Crusades" brought up as an argument against Christianity about a thousand times in this forum, it’s silly. I fail to see how the mere mentioning of the Crusades is regarded and accepted as Christian aggression at all, and targeted as an insult against modern day sensibilities.

It should be called simply the bickering or the inevitable clash of cultures.

Let's look at the hundred years leading to the first Crusade shall we? (this is going to be huge, but I'm going for accuracy here). Show me how I am wrong in this regard...

-----------

989AD: At The Council of Charroux, the bishops of Aquitaine (the more southern maritime areas of France on the Atlantic coast) suggest that the Church should be able to guarantee "that the poor can live in peace". (Runciman, The First Crusade.) Might such a suggestion later involve the Church in military adventurism? By 1000AD, William "the Great", Duke of Guienne, expanded on this idea at The Council of Poitiers, which he had convened. It was no accident that church properties were also not safe from military action. By 1016, the French nobility had subscribed to a peace movement wanting a guarantee that peasants and clerics, their crops and animals, would not be interfered with. The other side of the coin here was demonstrated when it began to be promoted that arms could be taken up legitimately against anyone breaking such a peace code. From notions of The Peace of God reigning in Western society, which was supported by William the Conqueror by 1042, arose an idea that "he who slays a Christian sheds the blood of Christ". In sum, the later response of the Papacy was to direct the obviously aggressive tendencies of Christians into warfare against the Heathen, when Moslem power could spring into France from Spain, when Moslem civilization was often seen as superior to Western ways, when Arabic shipping or piracy made Western trade insecure in the Mediterranean. In short, the Westerners were less well-organised than Arabic/Moslem societies.

995AD: Islam: Aleppo is taken from Mohammedans by emperor Basil.

996AD: Islam: Spain, Moorish capture of city of Leon. Al-Masnur now takes Compostella. In Africa, Al-Mansur's generals have victories in Mauretania. (Item from Historians' History of the World. 1907, Vol. 8, pp. 38ff.)

1000AD: Kiev is now the Viking capital of Russia.

From 1000AD: Turkey transforms Islamic Society and carries Islam into India and Europe.

Between 968AD-1000AD: Vikings in Spain and Portugal find Moors fierce enemies, as the Moors use "Greek fire" (naptha) against them, via catapults from small ships. Half-naked Viking oarsmen have little means of fending off Greek fire, and go home beaten.

1000AD: The Byzantine Emperors, (Comnena/Comnenus) are coping badly with Arabs and Turks. From Venice, Doge Pietro I Orseolo travels on his triumphal Dalmation cruise.

1002AD: Islam: Spain, Death of Al-Mansur. His brother Abdul-Malik succeeds to his office of hajib. (Item from Historians' History of the World, 1907, Vol. 8, pp. 38ff.)

1009AD: Islam: Spain, Muhammed, cousin of Hisham, revolts. Sanchol is put to death. Muhammed Al-Mahdi imprisons Hisham and assumes caliphate. Revolt of the Berbers, who occupy Cordova. Hisham abdicates in favour of Suleiman, a relative. Muhammed escapes to Toledo, but recovers Cordova with the help of the Catalonians. (Item from Historians' History of the World, 1907, Vol. 8, pp. 38ff.)

1009AD: Jerusalem: Holy Sepulchre destroyed by Al Hakim. Christians capture Cordova in Spain from the Moors.

1010AD: Islam: Hakim destroys Christian Churches in Syria. Founds sect of Druses. He ends murdered by his sister, in regard of her son's interests, and she becomes regent for Hakim's son, Dhahir. Dahir makes treaty with Byzantine emperor Romanus Argyrus, permitting him to rebuild church in Jerusalem. From Dahir's reign dates decline of Fatimite power in Syria. (Item from Historians' History of the World. 1907, Vol. 8, p. 43.) In Islamic Spain in 1010, Defeat of Muhammed, the Slavs and Berbers desert him. Hisham recovers the throne. Murder of Muhammed.

1013AD: Islam: First Islamic treatise on surgery, by Al-Zahwari. In Islamic Spain, Suleiman takes Cordova and Hisham disappears, fate still unknown.

1016AD-1090AD: In Southern Italy, loose groups of Normans from France operate in bands, sometimes as banditti, with a mind to oust Moslems settlers from the peninsula. Finally there are Norman raids on Byzantine territory from Italy. (See career of De Hautevilles). In Spain, overthrow of Suleiman by the Slavonic element headed by Khairan and Ali of Hammud. Ali is made Caliph.

1016AD: Vikings, France: Norman pilgrims from France, returning from Jerusalem, aid the Prince of Salerno in Italy and the Duke of Apulia against the Saracens. (As one view, see above, also that the movements of the Vikings were "the last great folk movement of Europe".)

1016AD: Italy: The Pisans of Italy begin to try to conquer the Moors of Sardinia at behest of Pope Benedict VIII.

1018AD: Pope Benedict VII makes decrees against clerical marriage and concubinage.

1019AD: India: Moslem conquest of Punjab in India.

1014-1020AD: The King of Navarre, Sancho III The Great, begins to plan a counter-attack against Moslem power in Spain. A league of Christian princes is coordinated. Nobles of Leon and Castile are interested, as is Sancho-William, Duke of Gascony. In 1018, when Moslems threatened Countess Erselinde of Barcelona, Roger of Tosni, from Normandy, went to her assistance. The anti-Moslem tendency here melded with Cluniac influences. Raymond-Berengar I of Barcelona begins to try to push the Moors southward.

1017AD: Islam, Spain: Revolt of Khairan, who sets up Abd ar-Rahman (IV) Mortada, great-grandson of Abd ar-Rahman as anti-caliph, Murder of Ali, who is succeeded by his brother Kasim. Fierce civil war results. (Item from Historians' History of the World. 1907, Vol. 8, pp. 38ff.)

1025AD: Islam, Spain: Muhammed is driven from Cordova. Yahya b. Ali is in power, but slain at Seville. Hisham III, brother of Mortada, is raised to the throne. (Item from Historians' History of the World. 1907, Vol. 8, pp. 38ff.) The caliphate is so disorganised that Hisham abdicates the empty title in 1031AD.

1026-1027AD: About 700 Christian pilgrims visit Jerusalem. One of them is Richard, Abbot of St Vannes of Verdun. (Item from Jean Richard)

1030AD: Islam: Mohammedan victory of Byzantines at Azaz.

From 1031AD: Islam, Spain: in Moorish Spain, the Caliphate is so disorganised that independent states or emirates arise. The fall of the Omayyad dynasty breaks the last link of unity, and emirates arise at Saragossa, Toledo, Valencia, Badajoz, Cordova, Seville and Granada. Christian states seized opportunities to reconquer Spain, aided by the hero, El Cid. (Item from Historians' History of the World. 1907, Vol. 8, pp. 38ff.)

1035AD: Fulk Count of Anjou, (Fulk Nerra), makes a second pilgrimage to Jerusalem. (Item from Jean Richard) Fulk makes another pilgrimage in 1039. In 1035, due to death of his father, William the Bastard, later William the Conqueror of England, inherits the Duchy of Normandy. In time he later had to fend off attacks on his life due to his claims to inheritance

1035AD: Appears in France the family Lusignan, destined to provide notable Crusaders in the Holy Land and also to do well in Norman England and with descendants in England. Also about 1035AD, (See Runciman on The First Crusade), Duke Richard III of Normandy leads a large pilgrimage to Jerusalem.

1038AD: Turkish invasion: The Ghuzz are a nomadic tribe from the steppe of the Aral Sea, and recent converts to Islam. Recently, a condittiere led by the Turk, Mahmud of Ghazna, help destroy the Samanid Empire. The Ghuzz' dominant tribe are the Seljuks, who in 1038 settle in Khorassan and Khorezm. Seljuks later raid as far as Armenia. (Item from Jean Richard)

1054AD: Peace Council at Narbonne. Split between Rome and Constantinople. ("The Emperors of Constantinople were the first sovereigns [including, the Popes] who regarded slavery as a disgrace to mankind and a misfortune to the state in which it existed... Justinian I, in the Sixth Century, proclaimed it to be the glory of the Emperor to accelerate the emancipation of slaves...".)
(Finlay, History of the Greeks, pp. 55-56)

1054AD: Schism between the Western and Eastern Christian churches. In 1054, 300 Christian pilgrims are expelled from Jerusalem by Saracens. (Item from Jean Richard)

1055AD: Islam: Oppressed by the emir, the caliph calls for aid from the Seljuk Turk, Toghril Beg (Toghrul), who enters Baghdad, overthrows the Buyids, and takes their place. (Item from Historians' History of the World. London, 1907., Vol. 8, pp. 32ff.) In 1055, Toghril becomes Sultan. The Seljuks are Sunni Moslems.

1057AD: There appear in Southern Italy, the petty-baron, Norman-Viking family the De Hautevilles, led by Tancred. The family decides to oust Moslems from the peninsula, in kind of crusade before the Crusades that comes to the attention of the Papacy in Rome.

1058AD: Islam: Fatimite caliph publicly recognised as caliph in Baghdad by Buyids. About this time, occurs persecution of Christians in Alexandria. (Item from Historians' History of the World. 1907, Vol. 8, p. 43.)

1060AD: Normans fight the Arabs 1060 to 1090 in Italy. In 1063 the Normans had some success against Arabs under a papal banner. In 1060 is beginning of Norman conquest of Moslems in Sicily. (Item from Historians' History of the World. 1907, Vol. 8, p. 43.)

1063AD: Pope Alexander II gives a blessing to Knights of Aquitaine to fight in Aragon (Spain) against the Moors. Later, of the leaders of Crusade I, Bohemond had fought in Sicily, and Raymond IV of Toulouse had fought in Spain, so in a sense, Raymond of St. Gilles was involved in "crusades before the Crusades".

1063AD: The King of Aragon, Ramiro I, is murdered by a Moslem as his forces are gathering for a great anti-Moslem offensive. "His death stirred the imagination of Europe." (Runciman, The First Crusade, p. 90) Pope Alexander II began to rally military assistance for Ramiro's plans. French knights began to move south across the Pyrenees for such purposes, which were still alive by 1073.

1064-1065AD: A large band of 7000 Germans makes a noted pilgrimage to the Holy Land. Pilgrims were becoming increasingly interested in The Holy Relics of Christ's Passion.

1064AD: Up to 7000 Christian pilgrims go to Jerusalem, including four German bishops. (The total figure may be exaggerated.) About 1064, some pilgrims included a count of Barcelona, a Count Luxemburg, Count Flanders, Berenger-Raymond of Barcelona and William IV of Toulouse. (Item from Jean Richard)

1069AD: Islam: Great famine in Fatimite Egypt, followed by pestilence. The Turk Nasir ad-Daulah conquers caliph, who is only nominal ruler thereafter till death of Nasir in 1072. (Item from Historians' History of the World, 1907, Vol. 8, p. 46.)

1071AD: Islam: A Turkish adventurer, Atsiz ibn Abaq, captures Jerusalem after little struggle and soon occupies much of Palestine.

1071AD: Islam: Seljuk Turks capture Jerusalem in 1071 under Atsiz, who also takes Ramla; they are "ruder in manners" in the management of holy places than their predecessors. In 1071, a new sultan, Alp Arslan, routs the emperor at Manikert, and in the trouble later, a little-known Norman solder of fortune, Roussel of Bailleul, carved out a principality for himself. (Item from Jean Richard)

1071AD: Crusaders: Parts of the Byzantine Empire now need to be protected by the De Hauteville-led Normans of Southern Italy. Robert De Hauteville captures Bari and Amalfi in 1071, then Salerno in 1076. He plans to conquer Greece and perhaps even the Byzantine Imperial Crown. It may be no accident he plans this as the Seljuk Turks are overrunning or disturbing the maritime provinces of the Byzantine Empire. To meet this crisis, Emperor Alexius I Comnena appeals to Venice for support.

1071AD: Crusaders: Byzantine defeat of Manzikert, capture of Jerusalem by Atsiz.

1071AD: Islam: Moslems take Baghdad by 1055-1071. In 1071, Usurpation of Flanders by Robert of Frisia.

1073AD: In Leon-Castile, Spain, a new anti-Moslem expedition is organised by Ebles of Roucy. Pope Gregory VII suggests other princes join him, adding that it is permissible if knights keep lands taken from Moslems. In 1073, Gregory VII becomes Pope.

1076AD: Islam: Fatimite Egypt is invaded by Turkomans, Kurds and Arabs, under Aksis; routed in second battle by Gemali. (Item from Historians' History of the World, 1907, Vol. 8, p. 37, p. 43.) The Seljuk Turns conquer Syria from the Fatimiates and take Jerusalem. Deposition of Gregory VII at Synod of Worms; retaliatory excommunication of Henry IV.

1077AD: Recapture of Jerusalem by Atsiz. Submission to Pope of Henry IV at Canossa. Philip I inherits the Vexin area of France.

1079AD: On Byzantine orders, the last Armenian prince of the old Bagratid Dynasty (supposedly descended from Biblical figures David and Bathsheba), is killed, after he had murdered the Archbishop of Caesarea. The Byzantines had dispossessed the Armenians. Shortly, one of this prince's relatives, Roupen, rebelled and set himself up in the hills of north-west Cilicia, establishing the Roupenians. Somewhat west, another rival Armenian stronghold was established by Oshin, son of Hethoum (The Hethoumians). When Crusaders settled in the Holy Land, it was almost inevitable they would begin to intermarry with Roupenians or Hethoumians, so embedding themselves in well-established rivalries.

1081AD: Robert De Hauteville and his son Bohemond are in Albania attacking Durazzo, from where an old Roman road runs straight through the Balkans to Constantinople. Venice attacks these Normans in the first formal successful Venetian naval battle, a battle personally led by the Doge. Anna Comnena, daughter of Emperor Alexius, wrote a report. Later, Bohemond De Hauteville is as willing to take land from Byzantines as from Moslems. Finlay (History of Greece, p. 64) records that Robert Guiscard sailed in June 1081 from Brindisi with 30,000 men and 150 ships. Corfu surrendered to him. He landed in Epirus without resistance.

1081AD: Alexius Comnenus/Comnena seizes Constantinople, which his troops loot. He then turns his attention to the Normans in Italy and also the Pechenegs.

1084AD: Antioch falls to the Seljuk Turks.

1085AD: Castilians in Spain recapture Toledo from Moslem forces. Later however is a strengthening and revival of Moslem military resolve in Spain. Anti-Moslem adventures in Spain became a kind of sport for Christian knights-in-training, who were already land-hungry and would only be otherwise fighting amongst themselves for scarce resources in a baron-ridden-and-riddled France. The attitudinal bases of what became the Crusades are already laid down, especially amongst the Normans, who only a few generations earlier had been pagan, free-booting Vikings.

1085AD: Islam: Spain, Capture of Toledo by Alfonso VI of Castile. In 1085, The Count of Mauguio becomes a papal vassal.

1086AD: Mahdiya is captured and burned by the Pisans and the Genoese. (Item from Historians' History of the World, 1907, Vol. 8, p. 43.)

1086AD: In England, production of the Domesday Book, a registration of assets for the new regime of William De Conteville, the Conqueror. In Spain, invasion by the Almoravides at Sagrajas (Zalaca).

1087AD: Publication in England of Domesday Book. Register of national/private assets. In 1087, Death of William De Conteville, the Conqueror.

1089AD: French Crusade against the Moors in Spain preached by Pope Urban II.

1090AD: Islam: Hassan b. Sabba, of Nishapur, organizes a deadly band of Karmathians called The Assassins.

1090AD: Approx: The Assassins: (From hashishin, a taker of hashish). At the end of the 11th Century, Hasan-i Sabbah founded the Ismali sect. (He followed the Ismali doctrine of the Fatimid Caliphate in Cairo). The Ismali revival in Persia opposed the Seljuk (Turkish) regime. When the Fatimid caliph Mostansir died in 1094, Hasan and Persian Ismalis refused to recognize the new Caliph of Cairo and gave allegiance to his deposed older brother Nizar. (There are complicated dynastic implications here). The Assassins were said to take hashish to induce ecstatic visions (of paradise?) before they murdered their victims.
Hasan and his followers made changes in Ismali doctrines including the murder of the sect's enemies as a religious duty. Hasan from 1090 became the first "Old Man of the Mountain", and seized the castle of Alamut in a close valley near Kazvin. A network of sect strongholds arose all over Persia and Iraq, with network members in cities of the enemy. Seljuk attempts to get the master of the Assassins failed. Early in the Twelfth Century, the Persian Assassins extended activities to Syria, and later the Assassins attacked Crusaders and Turks alike. The greatest Master of the Assassins was Rashid ud-Din Sinan (died 1192), who twice attempted to kill Saladin.
The Assassins of Alamut were finally destroyed by the Mongols and the deadliest of their own enemies, the Mameluke Sultan Bibars (Baibars). By 1256, the Alamut stronghold was destroyed. In modern times, the vestiges of the Assassins sect answers to the Aga Khan. Crusader Conrad of Montferrat was one victim of Assassins. Dante later adopted the term "assassin" to mean any professional, secret murderer.

1090AD: Last (Moslem) Sicilian town surrenders to the Normans (De Hautevilles). (Item from Historians' History of the World, 1907, Vol. 8, p. 46.)

By 1091AD: The Crusader Roger De Hauteville (1031-1101, eighth son of a notable Crusader father, Tancred, who has no notable forebears in French history) is trying to evict Arabs from Southern Italy, where they had been since the Ninth Century. In 1091AD is completion of Norman conquest of Sicily.

1092AD: Islam: Death of Malik Sha, successor of Alp Arslan. Decline of Turkish Seljuk power. In 1092, Marriage of Philip I and Bertrada of Montfort (Anjou).

1094AD: Council of Rheims summoned by Philip I. Excommunication of Philip I by Hugh of Die at Council of Autun. Capture of Valencia by El Cid.

1094AD: Islam: Death of Muktadi, his son Mustazhir succeeds. (Item from Historians' History of the World. London, 1907., pp. 32ff.)

1094AD: Death of Mustansir, succeeded by his son Mustali Abul-Kasim. Government is in the hands of Afdal, son of Gemali. In his reign occurs The First Crusade. (Item from Historians' History of the World, 1907, Vol. 8, p. 43.)

1095AD: Crusaders: March, Council of Piacena, then in November, Council of Clermont. Beginning of The First Crusade to Palestine as preached by Pope Urban II.
The the First Crusade (1095-1099) that set off Godfrey of Bouillon in a blaze of holy hope was called by Pope Urban II at the council at Clermont-Ferrand in France in 1095. The view was that in Jerusalem, Moslem factions had (deliberately?) despoil The Holy Sepulchre, straining relations. The Moslems are also accused of interfering with Christian pilgrims' progress. Pope Urban II may have been influenced by a call for help from the Byzantine Emperor Alexius I, against the Turks. The Pope promises that a Crusade, a holy war, could expiate sins and that the homes of baronial crusaders will be protected by truces. The latter promise is important to notice. France in the time of William the Conqueror - England was not much better - was the setting for feuds, vendettas, squabbles, murders and assassinations, power grabs, rivalries, betrayals and double-crossing. Sons or nephews rose up against their powerful fathers or uncles. Women connived or cowered. Bastard sons were particularly hard to deal with, most notably in the case of William the Conqueror, who survived several attempts to get rid of him in his earlier years, which a historian says "annealed" his character - and taught him the powers of violence.

1095AD: Crusaders: By now, a noted French fighter of Moslem forces in Spain is Raymond of St Gilles, Count of Toulose, Marquis of Provence, who early becomes an enthusiastic recruit to the spirit of Crusading in the Holy Land. By July 1096 another recruit was Hugh of Vermandois, brother of King Philip of France. Genoa would be asked for maritime support for any Crusade. The Genoese fleet set sail in July 1097.
Reference item: Richard W. Unger, The Ship in the Medieval Economy, 600-1600. Montreal, 1980.*

1095AD-1099AD: The First Crusade.

Nice copy/paste, do you have an opinion of your own on the matter? Like lets say an argument to make and if so, please share it with us?

Waaaaaaay too much to read :P

But hey, Ill summarize my views on the Crusades for the lazy amoung us.

The whole thing was a landgrab. It happens all the time regardless of the religion of the area where it occures.
Essentially, the Pope says, "Boys, those *^%*& Muslims are sitting on our land, go get 'em!"
A bunch of peasants go "Huzzah!" and run off to the Holy Land.
The Pope mumbles, "And of course I get a major publicity boost and some more subjects," then giggles through all fifty seven of his teeth 'cause hes almost as inbred as most of Europes royalty.

Anyway, yeah, basicaly it was the corrupt authority of the era taking advantage of anti-Muslim sentiments and faith.
And Ive just opened the door for somebody to say "ZOMGBUSH!"...I feel dirty >_<

Let me just add to what has been said, the short version was, convert to Christianity or DIE!.. no flaw there? I think so!

Nice copy/paste, do you have an opinion of your own on the matter? Like lets say an argument to make and if so, please share it with us?

It was way more than just a copy paste, it took about forty minutes of digging through for relevant stuff, looking for anything that might be about the condition before the Crusades, but not other stuff.

It was way more than just a copy paste, it took about forty minutes of digging through for relevant stuff, looking for anything that might be about the condition before the Crusades, but not other stuff.

Oh so you copy/pasted from many sources.. good for you. :rolleyes:

How are the Crusades a positive point in the history of Christianity?

I think most people use the crusades as an example of flaws of Christianity in the same way that terrorist bombings are seen as a flaw of Islam. Anytime anyone attacks another person physically because of their beliefs it is wrong.

Hitler was on a crusade. Bush is on a crusade. Religion does more killing than good, in my opinion. That is why this flaw is repeatedly brought up.

How are the Crusades a positive point in the history of Christianity?

I think most people use the crusades as an example of flaws of Christianity in the same way that terrorist bombings are seen as a flaw of Islam. Anytime anyone attacks another person physically because of their beliefs it is wrong.

Hitler was on a crusade. Bush is on a crusade. Religion does more killing than good, in my opinion. That is why this flaw is repeatedly brought up. It was mostly for land and power, not religion. The Crusades weren't an example of flaws in Christianity - Jesus wasn't keen on that sort of thing - but rather an indication of man's flaws.

Oh, and humans cause more killing than good. Slay 'em. :D

Oh so you copy/pasted from many sources.. good for you. :rolleyes:

Lolzorz.

Lolzorz. Don't be so el337ist. :eek: inexcusable, sorry.

the reason that 'Crusade' has a pejorative meaning is that the idea engaging in a "holy War' is so alien to our western, post-Christian society. Further, an institutionally strong Christianity is itself anathma to many in the west (including the Anglo-American west for the past 500 years), and of course the tradition of the separation of Church and State is so strong. Finally, since the Crusades were ridden with atrocity, especially from the contemporary mindset (which seeks to impose itself on all other cultures and eras) and were a part of the Western European cultural heritage, it comes in hadny for one of our favorite sports: self-flagellation and guilt-mongering.

How are the Crusades a positive point in the history of Christianity?
Because they came close (not terribly close, admittedly) to liberating the holy land from the rotten infidel towelheads who think they have some claim to Christ's homeland because they have the poor taste to live there.

the reason that 'Crusade' has a pejorative meaning is that the idea engaging in a "holy War' is so alien to our western, post-Christian society. Further, an institutionally strong Christianity is itself anathma to many in the west (including the Anglo-American west for the past 500 years), and of course the tradition of the separation of Church and State is so strong. Finally, since the Crusades were ridden with atrocity, especially from the contemporary mindset (which seeks to impose itself on all other cultures and eras) and were a part of the Western European cultural heritage, it comes in hadny for one of our favorite sports: self-flagellation and guilt-mongering. What has "cultural imperialism" that you seem to speak of got to do with disliking the mass slaughter and single-minded killing that took place in Jerusalem?

Oh so you copy/pasted from many sources.. good for you. :rolleyes:

Without copy and paste, how do you recite history, memory? :rolleyes:

Without copy and paste, how do you recite history, memory? :rolleyes:

I'm just a little unclear as to why you think it was okay and no flaw was involved. I can read up on history on my own time.. I'd like to know why you think the crusades were ok?

there is not "inevitable clash of cultures".



" How are the Crusades a "Christian" flaw?" ?


Crusade is a word used by Christians (at the time of the Crusades)
to justify war (in the name of their God).
When I (being of similar background) hear the word "crusade"
I immediately think of blood and guts and rape and cutting off people's
arms all in the name of God. It's what the word is.

What's funny is that the Christian God says "thou shalt not kill".

How can it be more plain?

Only Christians can and have ever done "Crusades".

What has "cultural imperialism" that you seem to speak of got to do with disliking the mass slaughter and single-minded killing that took place in Jerusalem?


You are stacking the deck with this question. Its not simply a matter of "disliking" the more brutal events in the 1st Crusade, but of taking the most lurid events, without any historical context, and using them to 'prove' that "we" are no better than "them". It is indeed cultural imperialism to judge the events of the past by the standards of the present. And in "crusade" being a negative term, to some extent that is precisely what we are doing.

One can feel aversion for atrocities without having it color one's overall attitude towards the religion in whose name they were committed - particularly when that religion is almost certainly the most historically influential as regards the evolution towards the world we live in now.

I'm just a little unclear as to why you think it was okay and no flaw was involved. I can read up on history on my own time.. I'd like to know why you think the crusades were ok?

The Crusades are a result of the events before them and of the time. The wars for territory by both Muslims and Christians and barbarians for Spain, Sicily, Turkey and Cyprus etc., predate the crusades for hundreds of years.

“Okay’ is not the issue. The Issue is that aggression was from every side, not one side deciding one day to attack a peaceful neighbor. The accusation is ridiculous.

The two things every student of history must know about the Crusades:

1] The Christians lost.
2] Orlando Bloom looks hot in armor.

:D

The two things every student of history must know about the Crusades:

1] The Christians lost.
2] Orlando Bloom looks hot in armor.

:D

Thankfully, someone with a reasonable argument. :D

there is not "inevitable clash of cultures".



" How are the Crusades a "Christian" flaw?" ?


Crusade is a word used by Christians (at the time of the Crusades)
to justify war (in the name of their God).
When I (being of similar background) hear the word "crusade"
I immediately think of blood and guts and rape and cutting off people's
arms all in the name of God. It's what the word is.

What's funny is that the Christian God says "thou shalt not kill".

How can it be more plain?

Only Christians can and have ever done "Crusades".

As has been indicated...twice now, the Crusades were not initiated by God. There was no voice from the sky that said, "Y'know...I was wrong. Go kill all the dirty heaten muslims.", a particularly demented European monarch (IMO, none of the popes from the period qualify as such) decided that it would be good to snag a bit of land.
Just out of curiosity, what do you think of when you hear "Jihad"? How 'bout "pogrom"? "Farhud", maybe?

A jihad, as you know, is basicaly a Crusade when used by such as Bin-Laden. From what I know of history, a Jihad was only initiated to regain lost land, of course, that definition isnt what people think of now, is it?
A pogrom is basicaly a mini-Holocaust, government organized racial violence, usualy against Jews.
And a Farhud would be an Arabic Pogrom, at least according to Wikipedia.

Lovely, isnt it? And you know, your average Pogrom isnt intitiated for religious reasons (although that might be an outward excuse) usualy its the same as the Crusades, kicking out the evil Jews and indicentally taking their property.

THe crusades were a flaw in the church. That's all. There was no religion about it. As mentioned, it was a land grab. No one cared for converting others. You don't rape the women of the men you want to convert. At least I wouldn't, not exactly shining a bright light on christianity. It was an abuse and the church used religion to control people. Giving christians the fault for that would be like giving the founding fathers the fault for the Patriot Act. In a way. I think. maybe.

Oh so you copy/pasted from many sources.. good for you.

What... you've never handed in a written report for school? XD I'm sure he could have reworded it anyway and it wouldn't have been copied and pasted, but who cares about that? But he did a poor job of copying and pasting.

1000AD: Kiev is now the Viking capital of Russia.

What in all blazes does that have to do with the crusades, for example?

Out of the top of my head (since I can't be bothered to read the whole thing):
- the Crusades may not be a Christian "fault", but they were provoked by the idea of Christian solidarity (I don't know if you mention Mantzikert in this very long thread, but you should see in the main cause, alongside the Reconquista); the notion was that Christianity was in peril, and it's obvious that the papacy (Clement, wasn't it?) was the inflaming agent - significantly, it persuaded by making a bizarre point ("you are killing each other at home, come and fight for a good cause" or something like that - it's in the original call-to-arms; it should also argue against the image of "Christian peace")
- Jerusalem had been occupied for some 400 years by the time of the First Crusade; there had been persecution of Christians a hundred years prior to the Crusade, but it was carried by apostate caliphs, and it was mainly aimed at Sunnis (and also Jews) - there was little knowledge of it in the West (or, probably, none) and it would be hypocritical to name Oriental Christians as "Christian victims", since they were heretics according to both Constantinople and Rome.

It doesn't strike at the validity of Christianity, but it highlights the fact that Christianity is interpretation and that no person or church has the absolute authority on Christ's teachings. Protestants today may say, "I just read the Bible," but back then, many Catholics would have said similar things. The idea that our faith and conscience come after reason violates reason itself. Early Protestants did not come to their conclusions through divine inspiration, but through reason, which led to new interpretations of scripture.

The Catholic Church said that they were the authority, and early Protestants opposed that. Because of Catholicism's history of reason before faith (from St. Thomas Aquinas), early Protestants didn't oppose reason, but rather, they used different reasoning to justify different interpretations of scripture, which contradicted Catholicism.

But nowadays, Protestantism's roots are lost. Or at least with the mainstream fundamentalist fanatics, this is true. Because early Protestants didn't say, "It's my way or the highway," because they were the minority, therefore, they could not be so intolerant. And their beliefs were faith grounded upon reason, not reason grounded upon faith.

The black plague proved that faith-healing doesn't work. When people got sick, the Catholic clergy attempted to heal the sick and it did nothing, so the church lost its validity... And yet, TODAY, ignorantly enough, we still have many groups engaged in faith-healing, even relying on it in place of modern medicine.

The Crusades don't disprove Christianity. But they destroy the credibility of any Christian church or Christian pundit, whether Catholic or not. The Crusades as well as the Inquisitions, the Salem Witch Trials, and numerous other events have taught that no one may 'sanction' what Christianity is, saying that another is or isn't a Christian, but rather, that it's up to God to decide (which coincides with the scripture, "Don't judge others or else you will be judged").

the notion was that Christianity was in peril, and it's obvious that the papacy (Clement, wasn't it?) Constantinople and Rome.
I think it was a Pious (II, possibly) or Innocent.

The Crusades don't disprove Christianity. But they destroy the credibility of any Christian church or Christian pundit, whether Catholic or not. The Crusades as well as the Inquisitions, the Salem Witch Trials, and numerous other events have taught that no one may 'sanction' what Christianity is, saying that another is or isn't a Christian, but rather, that it's up to God to decide (which coincides with the scripture, "Don't judge others or else you will be judged").
I hate to double post, and I dont mean to attack you, but...
All of your examples above can be attributed to (respectivly) a land/political grab, a truely crazy person and paranoia, and just plain paranoia.
The (Spanish, Im assuming) Inquisition was (essentially) Torquemundas (sp?) personal crusade against Jews and Moores, which was authorized by the Spanish royalty because of paranoia. The Salem Witch Trials have been carried out a number of times against a number of religious groups, including against Christians, see: The Roman Empire. Wierdo mono-theists who wouldnt worship Ceaser. What to do with them? Well, thats easy.

Meh :P

1000AD: Kiev is now the Viking capital of Russia.

What in all blazes does that have to do with the crusades, for example?

It has to do with the timeline of how the Vikings were both attackers and defenders of Constantinople and the Byzantine Empire’s outer regions. And in addition to that, they have much history fighting Muslims in the entire era:


Between 968AD-1000AD: Vikings in Spain and Portugal find Moors fierce enemies, as the Moors use "Greek fire" (naptha) against them, via catapults from small ships. Half-naked Viking oarsmen have little means of fending off Greek fire, and go home beaten.

1057AD: There appear in Southern Italy, the petty-baron, Norman-Viking family the De Hautevilles, led by Tancred. The family decides to oust Moslems from the peninsula, in kind of crusade before the Crusades that comes to the attention of the Papacy in Rome.

By 1091AD: The Crusader Roger De Hauteville (1031-1101, eighth son of a notable Crusader father, Tancred, who has no notable forebears in French history) is trying to evict Arabs from Southern Italy, where they had been since the Ninth Century. In 1091AD is completion of Norman conquest of Sicily.

Jerusalem had been occupied for some 400 years by the time of the First Crusade; there had been persecution of Christians a hundred years prior to the Crusade, but it was carried by apostate caliphs, and it was mainly aimed at Sunnis (and also Jews) - there was little knowledge of it in the West (or, probably, none) and it would be hypocritical to name Oriental Christians as "Christian victims", since they were heretics according to both Constantinople and Rome.

Jerusalem was conquered and re-conquered several times in the very hundred years just before the first Crusade. In fact, in 1071AD: Crusaders: Byzantine defeat of Manzikert, capture of Jerusalem by Atsiz. And Again in 1077AD.

Only a single generation of (Seljuq) Turkish (or “Turcoman”) ruled Jerusalem and the encompassing Palestine area from 1071 until 1099.

As to persecutions, they go both ways as well, some directed specifically at the Christians, included executions for refusing to apostasize to Islam. During the first two decades of the 8th century (for example) under the reigns of Abd al-Malik, his son Sulayman, and Umar b. Abd al-Aziz. Georgian, Greek, Syriac, and Armenian sources report both prominent individual and group executions (for eg., sixty-three out of seventy Christian pilgrims from Iconium in Asia Minor were executed by the Arab governor of Caesarea, barring seven who apostasized to Islam, and sixty Christian pilgrims from Amorion were crucified in Jerusalem).

Nice copy/paste, do you have an opinion of your own on the matter? Like lets say an argument to make and if so, please share it with us?

You patronising nit. His arguement was that the crusades were not a flaw in Christian doctirne or beliefs and went on to prove it. How about YOU display an arguemnt rather than just patronising others

I hate to double post, and I dont mean to attack you, but...
All of your examples above can be attributed to (respectivly) a land/political grab, a truely crazy person and paranoia, and just plain paranoia.
The (Spanish, Im assuming) Inquisition was (essentially) Torquemundas (sp?) personal crusade against Jews and Moores, which was authorized by the Spanish royalty because of paranoia. The Salem Witch Trials have been carried out a number of times against a number of religious groups, including against Christians, see: The Roman Empire. Wierdo mono-theists who wouldnt worship Ceaser. What to do with them? Well, thats easy.

Meh :P
I agree.

But the point is: Reading the Bible and declaring yourself a Christian, even sincerely, does not immediately make you sane, rational, or moral person. And no one can claim to have the "true" interpretation of the scripture except by reason. And, with the exception of Unitarian Universalists, I've yet to see any Christian denomination put forth any theology which is founded upon only the most basic assumptions.

I hate to double post, and I dont mean to attack you, but...
All of your examples above can be attributed to (respectivly) a land/political grab, a truely crazy person and paranoia, and just plain paranoia.
The (Spanish, Im assuming) Inquisition was (essentially) Torquemundas (sp?) personal crusade against Jews and Moores, which was authorized by the Spanish royalty because of paranoia. The Salem Witch Trials have been carried out a number of times against a number of religious groups, including against Christians, see: The Roman Empire. Wierdo mono-theists who wouldnt worship Ceaser. What to do with them? Well, thats easy.

Meh :P
It was Torquemada. (You should have an apostrophe in there, though...)

Hitler was on a crusade. Bush is on a crusade. Religion does more killing than good, in my opinion. That is why this flaw is repeatedly brought up.
Crusade is a religious war. Hitler and Bush are secular leaders.

Only Christians can and have ever done "Crusades".
Muslims did them to, and the worst thing is, they still do them. The only difference is that they call them "jihads".

But the point is: Reading the Bible and declaring yourself a Christian, even sincerely, does not immediately make you sane, rational, or moral person. .

I dont think I've ever met anyone who claimed that to be the case. What makes you a sane, rational and moral person would be putting Jesus's teachings into practice

I'm just a little unclear as to why you think it was okay and no flaw was involved. I can read up on history on my own time.. I'd like to know why you think the crusades were ok?

The title of the thread seems to indicate that the author is questioning the "Christian" nature of the flaw, not that there was in fact a flaw of some kind.

The crusades are not an example of a Christian flaw, they are an example of the the flaws in non-secular govt's

The crusades are not an example of a Christian flaw, they are an example of the the flaws in non-secular govt's

*Decides to take the time to think of secular governments that have existed*

*Communist China*
*Soviet Union*
*North Korea*
*Cuba*

*Decides to take the time to think of secular governments that have existed*

*Communist China*
*Soviet Union*
*North Korea*
*Cuba*


Oh so are yous aying you approve of how those govt's are run? I wouldnt want to live under any of them.

But I think you completely missed the point anyway. That of religious fanaticism extending into control over military action.

Nah, my point was that your point didn't make any sense. How can you blame 'non-secular-governments' when secular-governments have fared no better...

oh I didn't read that right. oops sorries

still, it's an issue of power and people who want it. you let power hungry religious leaders make governmental decisions and it leads to the killing of people with differing spiritual/ or lack of spiritual beliefs by armies. if you take them out of the equation then you get other power hungry folk send our soldiers to kill people for more obvious reasons like land and resources.

You patronising nit. His arguement was that the crusades were not a flaw in Christian doctirne or beliefs and went on to prove it. How about YOU display an arguemnt rather than just patronising others

On the contrary, no actual argument was made, and he went on to post a lot of 'evidence'.

What we have is a 'conclusion', and some 'evidence'... no 'argument', and no explanation.

Everyone already KNEW that the area was in conflict before... it's hardly news. What would have been nice, is an explanation of WHY Ph33rdom believes what he believes, and what leads to that conclusion... not just 'Christians never dunnit... bish, bash, bosh... sorted'.

Muslims did them to, and the worst thing is, they still do them. The only difference is that they call them "jihads".

According to most of the Muslims I've known, a 'jihad' is about self-improvement.... fighting your own demons. Thus, you have to play pretty fast and loose with the term jihad, to come up with the definition that is so oft attributed to Islamic Fundamentalists.

The 'Crusades' on the other hand, were a church-sanctioned war of aggression. Looks like a world of difference to me.

Whether it was right or not will be an arguement that goes on for ages. However, I strongly believe that it was inevitable. Islam changed the political and religious landscape around it and, more significantly, brought a new order with it. Yet no one was strong enough to challenge Islam until Europe rose. It had awesome weaponry for the time, and its religious zeal transcended even the bitterest of feudal wars. It is worth noting that the First Crusade was launched by a pope, a religious figure that was the only one all of Christendom listened to.

According to most of the Muslims I've known, a 'jihad' is about self-improvement.... fighting your own demons. Thus, you have to play pretty fast and loose with the term jihad, to come up with the definition that is so oft attributed to Islamic Fundamentalists.

The 'Crusades' on the other hand, were a church-sanctioned war of aggression. Looks like a world of difference to me.
The Jihads of the middle ages (in fact, most of them I think) were launched in response to the Crusades, usualy sponsored by the local religious leaders or rulers, to regain land was the main goal. A 'pre-emptive Jihad' wasnt allowed :P

The 'Crusades' on the other hand, were a church-sanctioned war of aggression. Looks like a world of difference to me.
You just finished the post above the one here, acting like everyone already knew that the world political outlook at that time was mainly violent interactions between the groups involved before the crusades, and then here you again state a simplistically 'wrong' statement that one side was blindly aggressive and at fault. Both sides were aggressive. Both sides were advancing the war. The Byzantines were losing ground quickly, the wars in Spain were going back and forth, the Muslims were lost in the peninsula of Italy but still fighting in Sicily up until the very year before the first Crusade. How is it nothing but a ‘church sanctioned war of aggression?’ Utter nonsense.

That’s why I posted the history, That's why people should read it. Ignorance is tiresome. The crusades were the end result of hundreds of years of build up. The original call to arms for what we call ‘the Crusades’ today came only after many previous wars and fields of battle, as marked in my first post. The first call to arms for what we call the First Crusade was most defiantly not a call of aggression, but a call to arms in defense of the lost territories to which they considered the aggressions against them…


Excerpt from one version of Pope Urban's speech
…"Although, O sons of God, you have promised more firmly than ever to keep the peace among yourselves and to preserve the rights of the church, there remains still an important work for you to do. Freshly quickened by the divine correction, you must apply the strength of your righteousness to another matter which concerns you as well as God. For your brethren who live in the east are in urgent need of your help, and you must hasten to give them the aid which has often been promised them. For, as the most of you have heard, the Turks and Arabs have attacked them and have conquered the territory of Romania [the Greek empire] as far west as the shore of the Mediterranean and the Hellespont, which is called the Arm of St. George. 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. If you permit them to continue thus for awhile with impurity, the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked by them. On this account I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ's heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends. I say this to those who are present, it meant also for those who are absent. Moreover, Christ commands it.

"All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins. This I grant them through the power of God with which I am invested. O what a disgrace if such a despised and base race, which worships demons, should conquer a people which has the faith of omnipotent God and is made glorious with the name of Christ! With what reproaches will the Lord overwhelm us if you do not aid those who, with us, profess the Christian religion! Let those who have been accustomed unjustly to wage private warfare against the faithful now go against the infidels and end with victory this war which should have been begun long ago. Let those who for a long time, have been robbers, now become knights. Let those who have been fighting against their brothers and relatives now fight in a proper way against the barbarians. Let those who have been serving as mercenaries for small pay now obtain the eternal reward. Let those who have been wearing themselves out in both body and soul now work for a double honor. Behold! on this side will be the sorrowful and poor, on that, the rich; on this side, the enemies of the Lord, on that, his friends. Let those who go not put off the journey, but rent their lands and collect money for their expenses; and as soon as winter is over and spring comes, let hem eagerly set out on the way with God as their guide."

I’m not going to sit here and pretend that the end results of their actions were good or Godly, but neither can you sit there and claim that it was purely aggression either.

You just finished the post above the one here, acting like everyone already knew that the world political outlook at that time was mainly violent interactions between the groups involved before the crusades, and then here you again state a simplistically 'wrong' statement that one side was blindly aggressive and at fault. Both sides were aggressive. Both sides were advancing the war. The Byzantines were losing ground quickly, the wars in Spain were going back and forth, the Muslims were lost in the peninsula of Italy but still fighting in Sicily up until the very year before the first Crusade. How is it nothing but a ‘church sanctioned war of aggression?’ Utter nonsense.

That’s why I posted the history, That's why people should read it. Ignorance is tiresome. The crusades were the end result of hundreds of years of build up. The original call to arms for what we call ‘the Crusades’ today came only after many previous wars and fields of battle, as marked in my first post. The first call to arms for what we call the First Crusade was most defiantly not a call of aggression, but a call to arms in defense of the lost territories to which they considered the aggressions against them…


Excerpt from one version of Pope Urban's speech
…"Although, O sons of God, you have promised more firmly than ever to keep the peace among yourselves and to preserve the rights of the church, there remains still an important work for you to do. Freshly quickened by the divine correction, you must apply the strength of your righteousness to another matter which concerns you as well as God. For your brethren who live in the east are in urgent need of your help, and you must hasten to give them the aid which has often been promised them. For, as the most of you have heard, the Turks and Arabs have attacked them and have conquered the territory of Romania [the Greek empire] as far west as the shore of the Mediterranean and the Hellespont, which is called the Arm of St. George. 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. If you permit them to continue thus for awhile with impurity, the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked by them. On this account I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ's heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends. I say this to those who are present, it meant also for those who are absent. Moreover, Christ commands it.

"All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins. This I grant them through the power of God with which I am invested. O what a disgrace if such a despised and base race, which worships demons, should conquer a people which has the faith of omnipotent God and is made glorious with the name of Christ! With what reproaches will the Lord overwhelm us if you do not aid those who, with us, profess the Christian religion! Let those who have been accustomed unjustly to wage private warfare against the faithful now go against the infidels and end with victory this war which should have been begun long ago. Let those who for a long time, have been robbers, now become knights. Let those who have been fighting against their brothers and relatives now fight in a proper way against the barbarians. Let those who have been serving as mercenaries for small pay now obtain the eternal reward. Let those who have been wearing themselves out in both body and soul now work for a double honor. Behold! on this side will be the sorrowful and poor, on that, the rich; on this side, the enemies of the Lord, on that, his friends. Let those who go not put off the journey, but rent their lands and collect money for their expenses; and as soon as winter is over and spring comes, let hem eagerly set out on the way with God as their guide."

I’m not going to sit here and pretend that the end results of their actions were good or Godly, but neither can you sit there and claim that it was purely aggression either.

So, how was I wrong? It was church-sanctioned... and it certainly wasn't a bagle-swapping party. It WAS a war of aggression.

According to most of the Muslims I've known, a 'jihad' is about self-improvement.... fighting your own demons. Thus, you have to play pretty fast and loose with the term jihad, to come up with the definition that is so oft attributed to Islamic Fundamentalists.

The 'Crusades' on the other hand, were a church-sanctioned war of aggression. Looks like a world of difference to me.
Would you care to look into the history of Islam? Islamic society is rooted in one of the largest and fastest land-grabs in history.

The crusades were definitely unmerited, but they had far more to do with Italian merchants seeking to monopolize Mediterranean trade and the Pope wishing to unite Europe in a common cause so he could more effectively control them. Religion was just used as an excuse.

So, how was I wrong? It was church-sanctioned... and it certainly wasn't a bagle-swapping party. It WAS a war of aggression.

A war of aggression is not motivated by self-defense nor is it an attempt to regain control over lost territories. Your description of it as a war of aggression is unsubstantiated.

You seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that two distinct worlds had collided, primarily brought on as a result of Islamic expansion during the decades prior to the first Crusade, and an expansion agenda that led them to grow and expand at the expense mainly of the Byzantine empire but also of the Spanish and southern Mediterranean territories of the time; requiring the vast consolidation of ‘European power’ to reassert the supremacy of Rome over those territories recently lost. Had the Turks been able to seize control of the East and focus entirely on the West and Constantinople, western civilization would have been faced with an enemy the likes of which the European world had not seen since the Fall of Imperial Rome and would not see again until the Mongol horde a couple of hundred years later.

In the end however, the Byzantine Empire was nearly sacrificed entirely due to the devastating affects of hosting and conducting the world war front (effectively world war anyway) between the earth’s two most bitter rivals of the time: Christianity and Islam.

You just finished the post above the one here, acting like everyone already knew that the world political outlook at that time was mainly violent interactions between the groups involved before the crusades, and then here you again state a simplistically 'wrong' statement that one side was blindly aggressive and at fault. Both sides were aggressive. Both sides were advancing the war. The Byzantines were losing ground quickly, the wars in Spain were going back and forth, the Muslims were lost in the peninsula of Italy but still fighting in Sicily up until the very year before the first Crusade. How is it nothing but a ‘church sanctioned war of aggression?’ Utter nonsense.
Although the Byzantine Empire was Christian, they weren't officially allied with the Holy Roman Empire.

And the Catholic Church went beyond reclaiming the Byzantine Empire. Even after they'd reclaimed the Byzantine Empire's lands, although there were some skirmishes started by the Muslims, some of the crusades were unprovoked acts of aggression by the Holy Roman Empire, even in times of peace.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

Scroll down and read the history for each crusade. Several of the crusades were unprovoked.

Killing Jews is one. Christians are supposed to love the jews. Not Kill them. The crusades must have really missed out the "Forgive them father for they don't know what they have done" part.

Clearly by slaying the Jews is not the act of God, or his word.

Would you care to look into the history of Islam? Islamic society is rooted in one of the largest and fastest land-grabs in history.

The crusades were definitely unmerited, but they had far more to do with Italian merchants seeking to monopolize Mediterranean trade and the Pope wishing to unite Europe in a common cause so he could more effectively control them. Religion was just used as an excuse.

Religion cannot be 'just an excuse', when one of the founding motivations behind the crusade is a papal sanction. Sure, it's not the whole story, but the church definitely approved, and condoned. Hence, "Church-sanctioned".

I'm sorry, my friend, but I'm not buying into this "it was all about cookies" revisionist version of history that you and Ph33r seem to want to peddle.

Islam is the 600 years YOUNGER brother of Christianity, and let's look at how Islam parallels Christianity through that 'younger brother' filter.... what were Christians doing 600 years ago, I wonder? Sure - Islam was an expanding religion even prior to the crusades... but, isn't that what religions do? Isn't that what Cortez brought to the natives? Isn't that what the Christian settlers did in the New World? Perhaps one can argue that, since the Islamic enlargement did NOT involve hanging groups of natives in 13's - as a tribute to a religious icon - the Islamic expansion was actually MORE civilised than the Christian expansions that have followed? And this from the YOUNGER brother?

Try to rewrite it all you like. Islam was expanding in the 'holy land', and the church didn't like it, and the merchants didn't like it, and the Christianised European monarchies didn't like it. So - they went and killed them. And the church cheered them on.

I'm sick of this revisionist history. "No, honest... the Christians were just there to bring presents and kittens"...

A war of aggression is not motivated by self-defense nor is it an attempt to regain control over lost territories. Your description of it as a war of aggression is unsubstantiated.

You seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that two distinct worlds had collided, primarily brought on as a result of Islamic expansion during the decades prior to the first Crusade, and an expansion agenda that led them to grow and expand at the expense mainly of the Byzantine empire but also of the Spanish and southern Mediterranean territories of the time; requiring the vast consolidation of ‘European power’ to reassert the supremacy of Rome over those territories recently lost. Had the Turks been able to seize control of the East and focus entirely on the West and Constantinople, western civilization would have been faced with an enemy the likes of which the European world had not seen since the Fall of Imperial Rome and would not see again until the Mongol horde a couple of hundred years later.

In the end however, the Byzantine Empire was nearly sacrificed entirely due to the devastating affects of hosting and conducting the world war front (effectively world war anyway) between the earth’s two most bitter rivals of the time: Christianity and Islam.

Utter trash.

You are ignoring the fact that Islam actively embraced Christianity and Judaism during it's early expansion - which, let's face it, is better than can actually be said for Christianity in the same situation.

I'm not ignoring the fact that Islam was expanding.... but I'm also not ignoring the fact that Islam is no more an interloper in the area than Christianity was before it, and Judaism before that. I don't accept the 'we lost the Holy Land' excuse as justification for a war in the middle east... and I certainly don't accept that Islam and Christianity were 'earth's two most bitter rivals'. The only reason there was a bloody war, was the simple fact that Christians were no more eager to see a new 'native' religion than the Jews or Romans had been a few hundred years earlier.

How is it you admit that Rome consolidated power... and I'm sure you know who wielded that power... and yet STILL deny that the crusades were church-sanctioned? Or 'aggressive' apparently... yes... it was a pillow-war, wasn't it?

It was mostly for land and power, not religion. The Crusades weren't an example of flaws in Christianity - Jesus wasn't keen on that sort of thing - but rather an indication of man's flaws.

Oh, and humans cause more killing than good. Slay 'em. :D


Christianity supported that. We do not speak about Jesus but about organized religion called Christianity which actively supported every possible crime that can be done.

That's my point about Crusades - example of Christianity in action

Utter trash.

You are ignoring the fact that Islam actively embraced Christianity and Judaism during it's early expansion - which, let's face it, is better than can actually be said for Christianity in the same situation.


What do you mean by the expression ‘embraced?’ Perhaps you mean a double fisted grip around the throat? They (Muslim expansion leaders) are no worse than anyone else really, but how you can call them ‘better’ is beyond me… There were endless war and fighting from Spain to Turkey and Egypt to Greece, between Muslims and Muslims, Christians and Christians, Muslims and Christians, and barbarians and everyone else.

1010AD: Islam: Hakim destroys Christian Churches in Syria. Founds sect of Druses.

1038AD: Turkish invasion: The Ghuzz are a nomadic tribe from the steppe of the Aral Sea, and recent converts to Islam. The Ghuzz' dominant tribe are the Seljuks, who in 1038 settle in Khorassan and Khorezm. Seljuks later raid as far as Armenia.

1055AD: Oppressed by the emir, the caliph calls for aid from the Seljuk Turk, Toghril Beg (Toghrul), who enters Baghdad, overthrows the Buyids, and takes their place, the Seljuks are Sunni Moslems.

1058AD: Fatimite caliph publicly recognized as caliph in Baghdad by Buyids. About the same time persecution of Christians in Alexandria is taking place.

1071AD: Seljuk Turks capture Jerusalem in 1071 under Atsiz, who also takes Ramla; they are "ruder in manners" in the management of holy places than their predecessors.

1076AD: Fatimite Egypt is invaded by Turkomans, Kurds and Arabs, under Aksis and are routed in the second battle by Gemali. The Seljuk turns and also conquers Syria from the Fatimiates take Jerusalem.

1077AD: Recapture of Jerusalem by Seljuk Turks under Atsiz.

1084AD: Antioch, Byzantine Empire’s pearl of the east, fell completely in 1085, through treason, to the Seljuk Turks. The army of the First Crusade re-captured Antioch in 1098 after a half-year siege. Bohemond I was made prince of Antioch. His principality, which extended from Iskenderun (Alexandretta) southward beyond Latakia, was one of the most powerful of the Crusaders' states. In 1268 the Mamluks captured and sacked the city; it was further damaged by Timur in 1401. Antioch never regained it’s previous capital standing

And of course, you say, it was nothing but a war of aggression to satisfy the Pope’s antagonistic personality because he was a Christian in 1095AD. :rolleyes: I'm not the revisionist historian in this conversation.

Let me just add to what has been said, the short version was, convert to Christianity or DIE!.. no flaw there? I think so!
Actually they didn't want them to convert they just wanted them to die. Buts whats your point, its not like Christianity is the only religion to have ever pulled shit like this.

And of course, you say, it was nothing but a war of aggression to satisfy the Pope’s antagonistic personality because he was a Christian in 1095AD. :rolleyes: I'm not the revisionist historian in this conversation.

What a curious individual you are. You insist that I am the revisionist, and then 'invent' an entire sentence of material that you claim I have said....

I believe they are looking for you in the Emerald City, since the Wizard left.