|
I suggest everyone watch Niall Ferguson's "Civilization: Is the West History." It spends a fair amount of time comparing and contrasting both sides during that period.
And, in my honest opinion, religion is, in its ultimate core, supposed to be "good," supposed to be a codification of the natural ideals of humans (i.e. it's obvious that murder is morally reprehensible; the Bible's Ten Commandments simply codifies it). The sad thing is that, throughout history, key religious figures have used religion as an excuse to further their personal agendas. Others are also misguided by their faith into believing that they are morally ascendant or superior than others.
That's the situation in my country; the Catholic bloc is constantly meddling with politics, many times wrongly so (such as the very controversial Reproductive Health Bill). In the southern half of the country, notably Mindanao, the Muslims exert a lot of political control, as well as "bully" others (my mother was the victim of one), simply with the claims that their religion is morally ascendant (hence the existence of the Abu Sayyaf, MNLF and MILF groups).
As a whole, I don't condemn religion or religious people; we are all free to believe what we want to. However, this freedom of belief ends when other's freedom of belief starts. The same way some Catholics or Muslims force upon others the general rhetoric of "You religion is shitty/wrong/filled with lies, and mine is correct/the absolute truth." It's despicable. The same way many try to erode science (remember Galileo and Darwin) just because it contradicts literal translations of religious texts; the same way it was used as a pretext for war (The Crusades), the same way it was used as a reason for genocide (The Holocaust), religion is a good thing (in the sense that there are good core values within it) manipulated to justify inhuman acts.
That's why I never buy it when someone attempts to defend the negative actions of their religious sect (regardless of which specific sect). That's why, in my eyes, the damage and atrocities caused by the Church through The Crusades (anyone remember the Children's Crusade in 1212?) can't be excused by "moral" or religious defense, or even as a retaliatory move; Hitler used the same arguments against the Jews, claiming that they caused the defeat of Germany in WWI, that they are inferior (physically and in moral/religious terms).
'Nuff said.
|
On May 14 2012 18:22 DN.rSquar3d wrote:
I suggest everyone watch Niall Ferguson's "Civilization: Is the West History." It spends a fair amount of time comparing and contrasting both sides during that period.
I was excited by that series but it completely failed to even look at the actual question until the last episode. The rest of it was all about what made the west "great".
Then I saw Ferguson himself on a current affairs panel show and he is an awfully reactionary neocon. Steer well clear.
|
There's this little thing called "money".
Jerusalem of those days was filled with gold and other jewelry, and since church is driven by it's greed, the crusades started.
Yes, the "official" reason of crusades was the war to take back the Holy City but in the end it's all money. For example, the Teutonic knights(one of the knight orders created by the crusades) managed to loot enough to start own counrty, proclaming that they no longer depend on Rome.
Well, that's the reason I hate church as whole.
|
On May 14 2012 18:44 DidYuhim wrote:
There's this little thing called "money".
Jerusalem of those days was filled with gold and other jewelry, and since church is driven by it's greed, the crusades started.
Yes, the "official" reason of crusades was the war to take back the Holy City but in the end it's all money. For example, the Teutonic knights(one of the knight orders created by the crusades) managed to loot enough to start own counrty, proclaming that they no longer depend on Rome.
Well, that's the reason I hate church as whole.
Actually, Tyre & Acre were richer than Jerusalem, being trading ports and the gateway between the orient and the west. Tyre & Acre were where the King of Jerusalem derived his power.
The Teutonic Knight's vast wealth (along with the Templars and Hospitallers) wasn't due to looting, but more due to the grants of land made to them across Western Europe. For example, there's a place near me here called 'Temple Newsam' - the temple indicates it was owned by the Templars.
|
On May 14 2012 18:17 Tobberoth wrote:
Why is this thread still in general? Why is it even opened? Seems to break a ton of TL rules. The OP has already been completely destroyed by intelligent people in the thread and has evaded their arguments for the whole topic... It just seems like dumb racism now, get it closed or moved.
Don't get yourself banned for backseat moderating dude  Because that actually is (against) a rule.
And personally I'm very impressed with the OP.
I can't even imagine the "bravery" it takes to keep showing your face in this thread after getting destroyed so badly by other posters with actual knowledge of the matter (and brains). Still, it was fun to see that knowledge for once prevailed over stupidity and bias. That might also be why the mods leave this open.
|
On May 14 2012 18:17 mahO wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2012 06:02 CarniX wrote:On May 14 2012 03:29 mahO wrote:On May 12 2012 21:44 SiroKO wrote:
But historically and globally speaking, whether they toke place in the Balkans (later Crusades in the XVth century) or the Middle-East, this was nothing more than a fight between Islamic expansionism and Christian resistance to it.
This shouldnt be allowed on TL, end of story. We're talking massacres of civilian populations, and this fucking idiot (who I already saw promoting fascists ideas on the 2012 French Presidential thread) claims that it is RESISTANCE. This is just some random racist nerd, who got slapped by an arab when he was 12 and never accepted it, ever since he's even trying to change fucking history to back up his senseless war against Islam and arabs. Seriously, dont you have something else to do in your shitty life than going on an international Starcraft forum promoting your xenophobic ideas? This guy even went on Breivik massacre's thread and tried to argue that his ideas were good, that Islam doesnt belong in Europe, and that it will eventually cause a civil war here? I mean, you guys ban troll alright, but this is just neo-trolling, let this dumb kid open threads like that he'll soon deny Africa's colonization... Well obviously Islam doesn't belong in Europe but neither does Christianity or any other religion. Religion is a unfortunate relic of the past and we should leave it there. Denying reality wont get us anywhere. Even if I agree, religions wont go away, not for centuries at least, and going into a religion war is actually the real danger in Europe, and in the world in general, exactly what this xenophobic idiot OP is trying to cultivate, hate, differences. He's in denial of the fact that Europe is multi-cultural, there is nothing to do about it, and he also forgets that Europe actually needed immigrants from Africa to build our economy, and fill the "lesser jobs". But he, like that mother fucker Breivik, is trying to imply that we should kick Islam out of Europe, it wont happen, we built our societies on securalism, you dont get to change that just because you feel like "arabs" dont fit your ideal of a white supremacist Europe. I could tolerate, even if it's hard to swallow, those ideas, if only these idiots, didnt go as far as changing history and giving excuses to horrible parts of it. Justifying crusades is just a very primal way of insulting a civilisation, a "race", a part of the world, it's pathetic and despicable. Edit: And yes, this thread should be closed, the only goal of the OP is to create a mess and pushing racists to join him into a fascist fest
Dude I have nothing about immigration(as you said, we NEED it) or skin color etc. Not saying we should kick Islam out anymore than we should kick Christianity out.
I just wish we could live in a world were religion didn't exist anymore.
|
On May 12 2012 21:44 SiroKO wrote:
I've witnessed several intellectuals, politicians, manipulating these historical events for a wide variety of reasons.
Mostly for the purpose of demonizing Christianity, which would therefore not be much better than the Islamic faith,
Is it just me or is this claiming that christianity is straight up better than "the Islamic faith"?
Edit: And without evidence there is of course no reason to even take this seriously.
|
On May 14 2012 18:44 DidYuhim wrote:
There's this little thing called "money".
Jerusalem of those days was filled with gold and other jewelry, and since church is driven by it's greed, the crusades started.
Yes, the "official" reason of crusades was the war to take back the Holy City but in the end it's all money. For example, the Teutonic knights(one of the knight orders created by the crusades) managed to loot enough to start own counrty, proclaming that they no longer depend on Rome.
Well, that's the reason I hate church as whole.
1. while money might have been a motivation you should not underestimate the sincerity with that the people believed in christianity in those days. It's a modern day mistake to think that people in those times thought like we do.
2. the teutonic knights didnt just start their own country. They were called by the polish king to fight and christianise the pagans in prussia and lithuania. So they were vassals of the polish king, even though later on they more or less became independent until Poland and Lithuania teamed up on them.
|
On May 14 2012 05:57 I_Love_Bacon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2012 04:42 Kukaracha wrote:On May 14 2012 03:52 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On May 14 2012 03:29 mahO wrote:On May 12 2012 21:44 SiroKO wrote:
But historically and globally speaking, whether they toke place in the Balkans (later Crusades in the XVth century) or the Middle-East, this was nothing more than a fight between Islamic expansionism and Christian resistance to it.
This shouldnt be allowed on TL, end of story. We're talking massacres of civilian populations, and this fucking idiot (who I already saw promoting fascists ideas on the 2012 French Presidential thread) claims that it is RESISTANCE. This is just some random racist nerd, who got slapped by an arab when he was 12 and never accepted it, ever since he's even trying to change fucking history to back up his senseless war against Islam and arabs. Seriously, dont you have something else to do in your shitty life than going on an international Starcraft forum promoting your xenophobic ideas? This guy even went on Breivik massacre's thread and tried to argue that his ideas were good, that Islam doesnt belong in Europe, and that it will eventually cause a civil war here? I mean, you guys ban troll alright, but this is just neo-trolling, let this dumb kid open threads like that he'll soon deny Africa's colonization... His statement, while an opinion, is not entirely invalid. It sounds more insulting than it is, but given that the start of the Crusades can be pointed to Muslim Expansion into Byzantium territory and their request for aid to the Pope and even centuries later in the 14th, 15th, and 16th centuries aggression can still be seen easily by the Ottoman Turk's movement into Eastern Europe. There are several modern historians (whose names escape me at the moment, but if I had to I could dig through old notes to find) who agree with SiroKO's interpretation of events. I'm not one of them, but I understand its reasoning. Please do post said papers, studies or historians, because Siroko's statements have been awefully vain until now. How is it that the Crusade was led to the east, when more than half of the Iberian peninsula was occupied by Almoravids? How is it that, if the Crusade was supposed to repel the Turk invader, it didn't advance in Turkish territory and chose to fight the Fatimids instead? How is it that armies supposed to fight infidels lost half of their troops attacking and sieging each other? How is it that a simple request for troops - not a cry for help, the Ottoman empire was weakened and the Byzantine army simply lacked in numbers and experience - can be interpreted as a call to "christian resistance"? How can we consider christian territories "united" when Alexis's predecessor had been excommunicated, and when other great threats were the Normans and various uprisings in Greece, all believers in Jesus' divine status? I'll get around to other historians later when I have additional time for digging. As to your 2nd question: The Europeans and the Arabs (I'm using the term extremely loosely here), had the same problem: Neither really understood the structure and organization of their enemy. The Europeans seldom understood the internal workings of their enemies, and likewise the arabs to the Europeans. The Crusades had many different goals, and I wont pretend to suggest that all of them were purely for defensive purposes. However, to many of the Crusaders at the time, that is how they viewed the events. What I mean is, both groups saw their enemies as 1 giant nation w/ unified rulers and a general consensus. This is far from the case. Also, while Spain wasn't a primary goal, it was still a goal to recapture and they made some attempts such as the Siege of Lisbon during the 2nd crusade. The thing about Europeans attacking eachother is that you have to understand the political workings. Countries didn't really exist the way we think of them today. Many times, as the Crusading armies passed through, there were rivals or allies despite being the same "country." Also, supplies were limited and some local rulers either hated the crusaders are wanted to gouge them w/ expensive prices. When you're leading thousands of men who are hungry, it is hard to simply keep walking if a city closes its gates to you. Similarly, the groups that went on the Crusades were usually under the control of different leaders; sometimes they had different goals and ideas. The call for help/aid is obviously tricky to talk about as no actual document is ever found that says exactly what was said in it. It is generally accepted that it was more of a request for troops, however, the Pope saw it as an opportunity to not only beat back the evil Muslims, but also in some vain attempt to convert the Byzantine back to Roman Catholicism. There was still no "unified" Catholicism, but they still considered those in the Byzantine as more like lost or confused distant relatives, whereas the Muslims were anything but. The Ottomans didn't exist at the time of the first Crusade (or maybe the "existed", but weren't really anything resembling a force). You ask a lot of the same questions that I do as well, it should be noted. I don't agree with the theory that essentially it was a "defensive" war from the side of the Christians. Certainly there were some Crusading leaders who believed that the best defense was a good offense. Some saw it as a power grab. Some were extremely pious and believed it was God's will to go about on these Crusades, and even if it wasn't, getting out of purgatory seems like a pretty sweet deal.
Sorry, the term "Ottoman" is much easier to remember than the correct name (after a quick google, search, "Seldjoukids" and "Danichmendits").
What mostly goes against the idea that it truly was a defensive movement is in my eyes the story of the crusade itself. When I first read a bout it, I was sort of shocked and amused at how bizarre and childish it sounded. Crusaders reach this city, one of their leaders captures it and finds it pretty and simply stays there, meanwhile the vanguard of another leader is massacred by another one because they were praying on this land. Oh and this man didn't even get to the party because his forces were massacred in Hungary by the local lords. Quite frankly, it looked like the story of a group of drunk people walking through the city, which is why the whole entreprise was considered a miracle I guess.
I have no trouble considering the first wave - the popular crusade - a mostly religious movement. But the violent character of these times makes me doubt that most of the noblement involved solely wanted to protect their foreign cousin. Constantinople was far away and probably seemed very different from them, too, one should not forget that at such times, a peasant's homeland was his village, not his "country". The ambitions of smaller lords were being actively fought by the Church, and so this Holy War was probably led by ambition for a great deal of the crusaders.
|
On May 12 2012 21:50 Miyoshino wrote:
You should read 'The crusade through Arab eyes'.
Basically everyone did it for their own agenda. The Pope called for the crusades to make the Church more important. Alexius needed help protecting the Byzantine empire (which was created through conquest and unjust invasions in the first place) against the Arabs.
The European nobles that went wanted to conquer new lands to rule.
Suffice to say Alexius wasn't very happy when a mob of unorganized barbarian religious lunatics led by greedy nobles arrived at his gates.
Religion was all an excuse and a manipulation of the common people, as usual. The jews and the orthodox Christians had as much to fear from the crusaders as the muslims did as they say jews, orthodox christians and muslims as basically the same.
There is at least one battle in which arabs and crusaders fought other arabs and other crusaders.
And of all massacres, the cannibalism at Ma'arra was the worst. It was basically crusaders eating whoever they could capture after sacking to achieve 'shock and awe'. The cannibalism wasn't the result of famine among the crusader soldiers. It was meant as intimidation.
Can't believe you want to argue this was a 'just war'. Didn't realize Breivik had internet in his cell block.
User was temp banned for this post.
I can't believe this user was temp banned for this. I'm very disappointed, TL.
User was warned for this post
|
On May 14 2012 21:05 Voltaire wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2012 21:50 Miyoshino wrote:
You should read 'The crusade through Arab eyes'.
Basically everyone did it for their own agenda. The Pope called for the crusades to make the Church more important. Alexius needed help protecting the Byzantine empire (which was created through conquest and unjust invasions in the first place) against the Arabs.
The European nobles that went wanted to conquer new lands to rule.
Suffice to say Alexius wasn't very happy when a mob of unorganized barbarian religious lunatics led by greedy nobles arrived at his gates.
Religion was all an excuse and a manipulation of the common people, as usual. The jews and the orthodox Christians had as much to fear from the crusaders as the muslims did as they say jews, orthodox christians and muslims as basically the same.
There is at least one battle in which arabs and crusaders fought other arabs and other crusaders.
And of all massacres, the cannibalism at Ma'arra was the worst. It was basically crusaders eating whoever they could capture after sacking to achieve 'shock and awe'. The cannibalism wasn't the result of famine among the crusader soldiers. It was meant as intimidation.
Can't believe you want to argue this was a 'just war'. Didn't realize Breivik had internet in his cell block.
User was temp banned for this post. I can't believe this user was temp banned for this. I'm very disappointed, TL.
I can't believe you overlook his audacious last sentence. Equating fellow users with Hitler (or modern day equivalents) has always been a banworthy offense.
|
I always wondered: did the pope really think he was doing good? Or were they just looking for more power, land and money?
|
On May 14 2012 21:55 kranten wrote:
I always wondered: did the pope really think he was doing good? Or were they just looking for more power, land and money?
Not sure if anyone can really answer this truthfully, but I'm constantly amazed with mans ability to lie to themselves. So the answer might actually be "both".
|
On May 14 2012 21:55 kranten wrote:
I always wondered: did the pope really think he was doing good? Or were they just looking for more power, land and money?
Both. Initially, Urban II was looking to end the great schism between eastern and western christianity by providing the byzantines with the support they desired. Innocent III however (1200s) organised expeditions to Egypt with the aim of smashing the Ayyubid power base and thus ensuring the survival of the rump Kingdom of Jerusalem. Only once the Ayyubids were crippled could the Christians seriously hope to recover Jerusalem. Note that Jerusalem is not really at all economically significant. Religion is everything where Jerusalem is concerned.
The whole thing about Holy War is a bit iffy. The rhetoric of Holy War was not employed from the outset, it was only later that theologians siezed upon significance in motivating men to fight. Then you have things like the pope preaching crusades against his political opponents or the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II negotiating the recovery of Jerusalem in the 1220s. Negotiating with the 'infidel' hardly fits with the idea of 'holy war'.
|
On May 14 2012 21:55 kranten wrote:
I always wondered: did the pope really think he was doing good? Or were they just looking for more power, land and money?
It can't be both? To my mind this is one of the things that makes the motivations behind the Crusades so difficult for many people to get their heads around. I think as humans, by and large we are hard-wired to look for simple, black and white answers to questions. Combine this with the fact that religion, especially organized religion is inextricably linked with the Crusades and you have a set of circumstances that are very difficult for us to get our collective heads around.
I don't think its off the mark to argue that the Crusaders and the Papacy were motivated both by a genuine piety and a belief that what they were doing was right. If you read first-hand accounts of the Crusades there is a genuine piety and a belief that the pilgrimage to Jerusalem or another expedition granting the plenary indulgence at its completion would genuinely grant eternal salvation. I also think that there was certainly (especially in the early stages of the Crusading movement) an equally genuine self-interest. That said, realistically, from a rational perspective the risks had to outweigh the rewards. Casualties on Crusade were appalling, the Crusaders had to travel immense distances (This is especially true of the First and Second Crusades during which the Crusaders took the overland route through Anatolia, in later Crusades they tended to travel by ship straight to the Holy Land) and as a result the costs were astronomical. On the First Crusade, there was no way that the Crusaders could really have know what if any temporal rewards they would receive when they reached the Holy Land. In later Crusades and expeditions to the Holy Land, most of the available land was already taken and the crusaders would have needed new conquests in order to have any hope of even breaking even and offsetting the expenses they had already incurred. That said, I also do believe that stories of the fabled riches of the Holy Land and Egypt played a role in motivating people to go on Crusade. I think that the Crusades throw people for a loop simply because of the fact that, in the end, there is no single motivation that can completely explain the motivations of the Crusaders. It's an extremely complicated issue, much like the Crusades them self, now that I think about it.
|
This OP is ridiculous. How can you even pretend to claim some sort of credibility talking on this topic when you make a 30 lines "explanation" of the crusades. It's like the famous "can anyone recap WWII post? - Yes: BOOM BOOM SPLANG SPLANGG YAHHHHH FUCK HITLER" .... your "presentation" (it hurts to call it that way when you actually present nothing of the subject) is the best uninformative post I've ever seen.
No seriously, if you wanna make a post on something, just make sure you got ALL the information covered. If it's too long OR if you're too lazy, than don't stop halfway through pretending you covered it all, just don't post anything at all ...
|
1019 Posts
as far as I know the first crusade was the only crusade that was actually truly successful because they were able to capture jerusalem while the following crusades were unable to do the same.
|
On May 14 2012 22:47 white_horse wrote:
as far as I know the first crusade was the only crusade that was actually truly successful because they were able to capture jerusalem while the following crusades were unable to do the same.
This is true for the Crusades in the Holy Land, but keep in mind that the Reconquista in Spain, the Albigensian Crusade against the Cathar Heresy in Southern France and the Northern Crusades against the (initially) pagan peoples of the Baltic are also considered Crusades by most modern Crusade historians and they were mostly successful in achieving their aims (Drive the Muslims out of Spain, destroy the Cathar's and Christianize the Balkans respectively).
|
On May 14 2012 22:28 FaiL_SaFe wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2012 21:55 kranten wrote:
I always wondered: did the pope really think he was doing good? Or were they just looking for more power, land and money? It can't be both? To my mind this is one of the things that makes the motivations behind the Crusades so difficult for many people to get their heads around. I think as humans, by and large we are hard-wired to look for simple, black and white answers to questions. Combine this with the fact that religion, especially organized religion is inextricably linked with the Crusades and you have a set of circumstances that are very difficult for us to get our collective heads around. I don't think its off the mark to argue that the Crusaders and the Papacy were motivated both by a genuine piety and a belief that what they were doing was right. If you read first-hand accounts of the Crusades there is a genuine piety and a belief that the pilgrimage to Jerusalem or another expedition granting the plenary indulgence at its completion would genuinely grant eternal salvation. I also think that there was certainly (especially in the early stages of the Crusading movement) an equally genuine self-interest. That said, realistically, from a rational perspective the risks had to outweigh the rewards. Casualties on Crusade were appalling, the Crusaders had to travel immense distances (This is especially true of the First and Second Crusades during which the Crusaders took the overland route through Anatolia, in later Crusades they tended to travel by ship straight to the Holy Land) and as a result the costs were astronomical. On the First Crusade, there was no way that the Crusaders could really have know what if any temporal rewards they would receive when they reached the Holy Land. In later Crusades and expeditions to the Holy Land, most of the available land was already taken and the crusaders would have needed new conquests in order to have any hope of even breaking even and offsetting the expenses they had already incurred. That said, I also do believe that stories of the fabled riches of the Holy Land and Egypt played a role in motivating people to go on Crusade. I think that the Crusades throw people for a loop simply because of the fact that, in the end, there is no single motivation that can completely explain the motivations of the Crusaders. It's an extremely complicated issue, much like the Crusades them self, now that I think about it.
It is clearly both. Humans I've learned over the years always want something, and they rationalize that something, sometimes even think it is a right for them to have that something.
My example may be bizzarre but... Somebody sees a hot woman in the streets, invites her for dinner, have a nice time, etc, the first thing they saw was she is hot, they want sex, then rationalize they love her even when its not necessarily true convincing themselves that it was more than sex. But after you rationalize it becomes really more than just sex, since you convinced yourself...
My knowledge of the crusades is really limited, maybe they conquered the holy land because they though it should be a land of the christian-catolics and as a bonus a rich land and more property for the nobles to profit from. Obviously they could not be driven only by greed, because the risks were huge in the crusades nobody knew if they had any chance, and of course it was an oportunity to get rich while getting your sins forgiven for a cause.
Was it just?, not for us, but for them made all the sense. They would be forgiven, they would earn richess, they would conquer the holy land for the christian-catolics... that's a lot of good reasons to do it.
|
not to de-rail the topic or anything, but did anyone else immediately think of Rome: Total War when looking at that first map?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
