The Crusades

[Racoon]

Is anyone else enthralled with this bit of History?? World altering history?
I can't seem to get enough of it...It has everything imaginable, and unimaginable for that matter.

War. Holy Visions. Unholy Alliances. False Promises. Sieges. Slaughters. Lunatics.

Starting with Pope Urban II's plan in 1095.
But Peter the Hermit took the first shot by gathering an army of peasant fanatics and minor knights in 1096. His "troops" behaved badly along the way: thieving, ransacking, killing indescriminately...

To make a long story short, they ended up in Anatolia. Nobody wanted these crazies around . They took refuge in Xerigordon castle, where Kilij Arslan eventually cut off their water supplies, and ambushed them on their way out after repeated deals were made and unmade.

Theres SO much to the Crusades!
So here is some of the Begining...I could read this stuff for hours.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Crusade

[Panjandrum]

One thing that annoys me about peoples attitudes towards the Crusades is that they are often seen as the forerunner of western imperialism and colonialism, when in fact they were a respose to arab/ islamic imperilaism and colonialism. The Crusades where an attempt to stem the tide of islamic conquests, a last-ditch effort by a continent and culture on the brink of annihilation to reverse centuries of defeat at the hands of the arab armies. It is telling that those same liberal scholars who wring their hands over western 'guilt' over colonialism say nothing about the far longer-lasting and more thorough colonialism of the arabs.

[Freddy]

The Childrens' Crusade was the worst. At least the adults could have opted out.

[Qfwfq]

Panjandrum, I find your post somewhat outside the scope of the forum. Please remain on topic.

[Qfwfq]

The Crusades were fought for the same reason as many other military actions in the same area and adjoining ones, i. e. the conjunction between three continents. The band from Asia minor to Sinai/Egypt was the prime land route for traders between the East and both Europe and North Africa.

[Panjandrum]

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

Panjandrum, I find your post somewhat outside the scope of the forum. Please remain on topic.

The crusades cannot be understood without reference to their cause, which was the arab conquest of the middle east. Yet while we are asked to feel ashamed for the crusades, no-one considers the longer-lasting and far more brutal arab conquests to be equally worthy of condemnation.

[Michaelangelica]

Originally Posted by Panjandrum

The Crusades where an attempt to stem the tide of islamic conquests, a last-ditch effort by a continent and culture on the brink of annihilation to reverse centuries of defeat at the hands of the arab armies.

mmm
If that was the case the crusaders should have attacked S Spain.

I see the Crusades as religiously inspired. Jerusalem was the crusaders goal.
If they killed or converted some infidels on the way well-and-good.

I find it interesting that at that time the Arabs were so tolerant of Christians and Jews in their Empire.
The Crusaders were bastards to non-Christians.
They were barbarians compared to the cultured, learned, scientifically advanced Islamic Culture.
The Arabs soon learnt to show no mercy either

The other thing that fascinates me about the crusades is that the Arabs/Islamists have STILL not got over it.
I saw an academic interviewed on TV one night. She was very intelligent and learned in her field but the Crusades STILL rankled with her.
Amazing -let it go Arabs it was a long time ago!!

-- l

[Panjandrum]

Originally Posted by Michaelangelica

mmm
If that was the case the crusaders should have attacked S Spain.

They did. it was called the Reconquista.

I see the Crusades as religiously inspired. Jerusalem was the crusaders goal.
If they killed or converted some infidels on the way well-and-good.

Jerusalem was their stated objective, but the driving force of the Crusades was the appeal of the Eastern Romans for help from Western Christendom. they were religious only to the extent that the opposing forces followed diffrent religions.

I find it interesting that at that time the Arabs were so tolerant of Christians and Jews in their Empire.

This is untrue. Its is a myth, based on western scholars glossing over arab atrocities in order to criticise western governments. The arabs not onlt annihilated entire non-muslim populations, they destroyed ancient and tolerant empires such as Persia and the Hindu kingdoms of north India. Those who remained were treated little better than slaves, were ground into abject poverty by discriminatory taxes, and were frequently the victims of random attacks and forced conversions.

The Crusaders were bastards to non-Christians.
They were barbarians compared to the cultured, learned, scientifically advanced Islamic Culture.

Arab civilisation was the epitome of barbarism. All the high culture they are given the credit for was taken from the older nations they over-ran, particularly from the Greeks, the Persians and the Jews.

The Arabs soon learnt to show no mercy either

I suggest you read up on the career of Muhammed. he was a bandit leader, a murderer, a liar and a child-rapist who openly critisised his followers for showing mercy to his enemies. This is all chronicled by arab historians and biographers, and is not western predjudice.

[Racoon]

A bit on the Arabs and Muslims: (not my words)

Upon the death of the Prophet Mohammed, the Moslem Empire split. The Successors, or Caliphs, branched off. The Shi ites, or followers of the son-in-law, Ali, were in Tripoli. The followers of Fatima, The Prophet's daughter, called the Fatmids, were in Egypt. They had lost their holding on Jerusalem to the Byzantine in 1096. The Selchukid (Seljuk) Turks, were in Syria, each city having its own ruler, and no organization. They were also in Baghdad and had extended into the Byzantine held Anotolia. The Umayyad Caliphate was in Cordova, Spain.

The Arab Empire, though united in Islam, was not very united politically. Revolt, civil war, assassination, all were common. But they had a unique culture that fast spread its influences to the Western Europeans.

They had developed advanced mathematics. They had explored the movements of the stars and planets in the heavens. They taught the Crusaders Chess. They traded in rare spices and silks, some the likes of which the Crusaders had not seen before. They introduced new arts, dance, metalworkings, story telling, all which became incorporated into the culture of the Crusaders, as apparent in clothing, jewelry and literature.

[Qfwfq]

Originally Posted by Panjandrum

The crusades cannot be understood without reference to their cause, which was the arab conquest of the middle east.

But this does lie within what I said. The Arabs have a long history as traders, just like their Hebrew rivals, and this antagonism has never ceased.

What I did leave out was the importance of these areas for military strategy, this goes hand in hand with that for trade. The Arab conquest, reaching the Mediterranean shores, changed the roles in trade between these continents and also gave the military advantage to maintain the position. This was one factor inducing Charlemagne to devise the feudal system that so much shaped the course of European history. The whole of the Middle East has become the crux of today's planetary strategy, it's just a wider scale.

I think we should avoid discussions of "who's better" and "who's worse" and focus instead on the real aim of discussing history: that of better understanding what's behind events, including current ones.