|
On May 13 2012 01:45 nttea wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2012 22:24 babybell wrote:On May 12 2012 22:17 nttea wrote:
I've always felt blaming religion for wars is pretty ridiculous, they're mostly motivated by human greed and politics. From what i can see Islam and Christianity are pretty indistinguishable from each other in their Hypocrisy and vileness. That's not a fair statement. Take Islam for example. The Arab expansion was incredible and throughout the Arab sultanates during from the 7th century and for a long period of time that lasted until the 13th or 12th, depends on how you look at it, these areas of Northern Africa, the Iberian Peninsula and the Middle East went from depressed unorganized areas into the world's center of culture. Religion helps to consolidate the masses and provide a clear set of goals. That isn't always bad for the people and good for some supposed "puppeteers". Well those areas going from "depressed unorganized areas into the world's center of culture" could just as well be attributed to cultural and political unification, which could have been any entity and didn't have to be Islam (much like what happened when alexander conquered the middle east) Still doesn't mean the religion isn't full of shit. edit: but errr... my main point was Christianity and Islam are very similar religions  good or bad.
Never said religion was not full of shit :D
I just pointed out what you stated, that religion as a motivator made cultural and political unification possible.
|
Please do not turn this into a flame war about religion. The Crusades is an incredibly interesting topic that is rich with knowledge.
|
At the time, the Muslims weren't really very united until at least post Saladin. They didn't see it as "white Europeans trying to force their way on us." It was just a war over territory. The whole unjust religious invader thing never really came up untill hundreds of years later and was used as justification for 9/11.
|
Looking at a single event in history (well several since there were about 13 or so) and trying to view it fairly in its entirety is impossible. There are so many facets that need to be addressed to properly evaluate the crusades that trying to do so by means of forum post is pointless, and kind of silly...
|
I always hate when militant anti-theists try to claim that religion is the cause of almost all wars, including the crusades which I always considered more complicated than just "closed-minded bible-thumpers warring the heathens", despite fervent objections from said group that somehow if religion didn't exist, a large amount of wars would have never happened. It's ironically naive.
It's basically like "I earned my PHD in history the second I converted to anti-theism..."
|
On May 12 2012 21:44 SiroKO wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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, and demonization of the whole so called "imperialistic" Occident as well. But more interistingly, I've also heard random people making claims that led me to believe that not many actually know what were the motives and reality of the crusades, and thus explaining the rethorical success of the demagogues mentionned above. I can't prevent people from lying, so my post is there to enlighten the ones not too interested in history. I wouldn't discuss at length of the details of the Crusades, and whether or not they were victorious, I will just situate them in their historical perspective. ![[image loading]](http://www.middle-ages.org.uk/images/crusaders.jpg) CrusadersI). IntroThe Crusades were a series of religious expeditionary wars composed of European Christian (Catholic) fighters united under the banner of Christianity. They were called by the Pope and several European leaders with the goal of fighting Islamic expansionism, which, after trying to invade France through Spain earlier in History (battle of Tours 732), was currently conquering Christian Oriental lands (Byzantine) plus cutting off access to Jerusalem for Christian pilgrimages. Ironically, the concept itself of "just war" used by Obama to explain the motives of some of the recent American wars, emerged from the Crusades. I say this because a lot of Obama supporters seem to be at the very least agnostic. II). Historial perspectiveFirst of, it is very important to keep in mind that the Crusades were reactionary expeditions. It was the Great Seljuq Empire (sunni Muslims) which initiated the conflict with the Christian Byzantines, and launched a series of invasions and wars which ended up being disastrous for the Byzantine Empire. The Battle of Manzikert (1071) was the nail in the coffin and signed the military lose of the Byzantines. The first crusade came 20 years after that. ![[image loading]](http://minimumwagehistorian.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/byzantine-empire-1000-1100.jpg) Throughout all of them, unnecessary atrocities were commited on the Christian side. No one is denying that. Sacking of Jerusalem, large massacres, notably during the first crusade after the assieged refused to surrender and that the gates were breached. ![[image loading]](http://warandgame.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/emilesignol-thetakingofjerusalem.jpg) First crusade victory, Jerusalem is takenBut 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. In the end, Constantinople finally fell to the Islamic Ottomans on 29 May 1453. ![[image loading]](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ptAqeqIdoX0/TKV-ux-L4QI/AAAAAAAADwo/LK8o0C2qb8k/S1600-R/The+Fall+of+Constantinople,+29+May+1453+II.jpg) Fall of Constantinople After that, the whole region got gradually more and more Islamized and is now 95 to 100% Muslims. III). ConclusionI'm under the impression that most people believe Orient has always been Islamic thus see the Crusades as an unjust war of conquest. This wasn't meant to be a technical essay, but I hope a lot of you will now understand better the stupidity of this claim.
So you created a post that should clear misconceptions and in the process created post full of simplifications and even false statements ?
Let's start with the fact that for many the killing blow for the Byzantine Empire was aside from 1071 defeat, the conquest of Constantinople by the crusaders. How does this fit into your simplified view ?
Also concept of just war was known in antiquity and as we know it is mostly attributed to Romans and Greeks, although it had to exist even before.
Another thing is that presenting Byzantine Christians and western Crusaders as united by some kind of common Christian cause is another great simplification. Crusades were Catholic (not Christian) wars. Byzantines were mostly against crusades, especially after the first one.
In conclusion you seem to try to blame Muslim aggression for the Crusades by pointing out that the lands were Christian before that. To that I can easily point out that before that they were pagan and constant wars in the area make any assignment of blame unending process as we go back in history.
|
OP is so biased it's not even funny. I hope no one takes what he has purported as facts seriously. Saying the Crusades were reactionary is hopeful at best. I think you just hate Muslims.
|
On May 13 2012 02:18 Alexstrasas wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2012 01:21 Kukaracha wrote:On May 13 2012 00:49 Alexstrasas wrote:
Why no one talks about the pillages, enslavements, crucifications etc. of the christian population? Why no one talks about the deportation of thousands of peninsular women? One muslim general alone took around 300,000 peninsular woman (supposedly virgins, so most likely underage girls) with him to Damascus. We do, because we have a genuine interest in history. We're not trying to prove that muslims are good or evil. Personally I don't give a damn, I'm simply interested in our past. I don't see where you took the idea that no one talks about the "pillages, enslavements, crucifications etc. of the christian population", atlhough it is true that the christian population was originally treated better by the conquerors of Spain, who were far more advanced than the indigenous population. The fact that you come from Portugal yourself is meaningless, by the way. Most of the population is unaware of their own history. On May 13 2012 00:49 Alexstrasas wrote:
Another thing this general took was one of the biggest peninsular treasures, a jewelled table belonging to King Solomon, wich takes us to the other point wich is the retarded glorification of claims of Muslim cultural and scientific contributions, like saying that the library of Cordoba alone had more Greek philosophical texts than all of Western Europe combined.
Well shit, if they pillaged then hauled half of the treasures from europe no wonder they had a great library. Pillage was fairly common back then. How do you think crusaders survived the long walk through Europe? How many cities do you think they burned to the ground? To put it simply, the only difference was that crusaders burnt everything when muslims were civilized enough to preserve valuable texts and knowledge. From your post I also don't expect you to know anything about antiquity, but many texts in the possession of sultans had simply been kept ever since the fall of the Roman empire. On May 13 2012 00:49 Alexstrasas wrote:
Here is a recap of the crusades. Muslims were shitting all over europe, Christians got pissed, gathered up took europe back then launched a counter-atack. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Read my first post and the post above it. You have obviously no idea of what you're talking about, and should at least admit it. Despite you claiming that you only seek history accuracy, pretty much the sum of all you posted is "your wrong, wrong, worng muslims were more civilized". Are you sure you arent a muslim yourself? You just seem extremely biased. Also yeah deporting thousands of little girls to make them sexual slaves is civilized as fuck. Crusaders pillaging and burning shit is irrelevant, because they were reacting to the muslim occupation (and their pillaging), the main ideia was only retribution not the preservation of culture. Saying that its meaningless that i am from Portugal is rediclous, history of Portugal was in my school curriculum one way or the other since like pre-school up to the university. Also again, just to reiterate, im not saying that shady stuff didnt took place, especialy in the later crusades, but that surely wasnt their main purpose and you cant blame everyone for the mistakes of a few.
Offer some evidence for you deportation claim, please.
Anyway, Muslims committed atrocities when conquering Spain (I use it, but I mean Iberian Peninsula) from Vizygoths (Germans who also conquered Spain). Christian reconquista committed atrocities when conquering Spain. Which one was worse. Hard to say. The fact that at that point in time Muslim Spain was one of the cultural centers of the world far above anything in Christian Europe apart only Byzantine Empire is quite well documented. Their treatment of conquered populations also is documented and appears much better than later treament of Muslims by Christian rulers. Jews are particularly glaring example.
|
On May 13 2012 02:19 shell wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2012 02:14 Jodzog wrote:On May 13 2012 02:05 shell wrote: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. WHAT????????? not only is that incredibly wrong is also very stupid... The bizantine empire started in 320s after christ, when the roman empire fell and was divided in oriental empire (bizantium) and western empire. Since islam only apeared in 622 how can byzantium be an agressor against Islam? Get you fact rights my friend because you don't know shit.. He said against the arabs, not again Islam, it is not the same thing. Arabs existed way before Islam. Maybe you should be less offensive and certain about yourself ? Next time please just read calmly. I know it's not the same thing but even that is incredibly stupid since way before the arabs were anything more then nomads the romans were allready in charge of that area and before the romans there were the jews. TL e-thugs FTW
Byzantines and Persians were using Arabs against each other and fighting Arabs quite often. It is quite true that Byzantines were aggressor against Arabs at some point in time and Arabs were aggressors at some other point in time. Romans never conquered all of Arab territory.
|
I came here to see an intellectual discussion about the Crusades, not a religion-bashing contest. Use your brains please.
OP, I can't help but say that you're oversimplifying this by a HUGE margin. The Crusades were not a just war simply because of the fact that they were launched in aggression. You're right, the Muslims were responsible for launching aggressive expansionist policies as well, and that is not justified either, but simply because the opposition of the Crusaders weren't justified does not by extension mean that the Crusaders were justified.
- Wrote my dissertation on the crusades.
|
Although there are some arguments to redeem the crusaders not a lot of valid ones are actually named in the OP, which seems to try to educate people on a subject it knows very little about.
For instance the battle of Manzikert you reference, you forget to mention that the reason this battle turned out so badly was DUE to the European powers, mercenary armies where commonplace, and in this situation the Byzantine emperor used European Catholics for this purpose. However, halfway through the battle the Europeans backstabbed the Byzantines, taking their modern-day Greek holdings to form the Latin Empire (which collapsed soon after).
And what you forget to mention about the first crusade that could actually help your argument is that Saladin razed the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem in 1010, possibly the most important Church for all Christians based on Jerusalems significance to the Christians and the many pilgrimages that centered around it, this action had brought the Christians into a incredibly aggressive state of mind against the muslims (one could compare it with what would happen if modern day Christians razed Mecca), a sentiment easily abused by the Pope when he called for the Crusade in 1096, combined with regional conflicts, zealousness and wealth of the nobility that took part it is understandable that the French, Belgian and Norman rulers involved heeded the call.
At the end of the day though it's all powerplays, what you need to understand is that unlike the Muslims, which where under the rule of massive empires in the time period the crusader took place, Europe was in no such state of union, whereas the Sunni or Shiite Caliph could just summon massive armies from their vast lands the European states needed a leader they could all serve under to combine their forces, due to European feudal history and renewed religious significance, the only persons that could take this role was the pope and patriarch.
If you can look at history without projecting your own religious beliefs onto it it should be pretty clear that Crusades, Jihads or any other war that ever happened where just plays to increase power through whatever means was effective at that time, be it developing an understanding with the Pope/Caliph or just gaining more land to rule.
|
On May 13 2012 04:52 Vorps wrote:
I came here to see an intellectual discussion about the Crusades, not a religion-bashing contest. Use your brains please.
OP, I can't help but say that you're oversimplifying this by a HUGE margin. The Crusades were not a just war simply because of the fact that they were launched in aggression. You're right, the Muslims were responsible for launching aggressive expansionist policies as well, and that is not justified either, but simply because the opposition of the Crusaders weren't justified does not by extension mean that the Crusaders were justified.
- Wrote my dissertation on the crusades.
And what is "justification" if not a logical fallacy? If the crusades had not happened, then the arab expansion might not have been stopped, and as you well know: Every action, must face an equal and opposing reaction or it will keep rolling until it meets something that matches it. The rules of causality and logic dictate it.
Though I have to say, Christianity as a religion is a meek pile of shit that wont work politically. Compared with Catholicism, Jewish faith and Islam that is.
Jesus, in many ways was an incredible reformer. He challenged the outer rules. Breaking the sabbath, the whole mess with the collection plate in the temple. The golden rule. Very much an individualist and keen on separating church and state. Muhammad on the other hand, not so much. Probably why we needed a dark age. Had to figure out how to actually draw teachings that work out politically when it comes to Jesus.
|
On May 13 2012 05:18 Scootaloo wrote:
Although there are some arguments to redeem the crusaders not a lot of valid ones are actually named in the OP, which seems to try to educate people on a subject it knows very little about.
For instance the battle of Manzikert you reference, you forget to mention that the reason this battle turned out so badly was DUE to the European powers, mercenary armies where commonplace, and in this situation the Byzantine emperor used European Catholics for this purpose. However, halfway through the battle the Europeans backstabbed the Byzantines, taking their modern-day Greek holdings to form the Latin Empire (which collapsed soon after).
And what you forget to mention about the first crusade that could actually help your argument is that Saladin razed the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem in 1010, possibly the most important Church for all Christians based on Jerusalems significance to the Christians and the many pilgrimages that centered around it, this action had brought the Christians into a incredibly aggressive state of mind against the muslims (one could compare it with what would happen if modern day Christians razed Mecca), a sentiment easily abused by the Pope when he called for the Crusade in 1096, combined with regional conflicts, zealousness and wealth of the nobility that took part it is understandable that the French, Belgian and Norman rulers involved heeded the call.
At the end of the day though it's all powerplays, what you need to understand is that unlike the Muslims, which where under the rule of massive empires in the time period the crusader took place, Europe was in no such state of union, whereas the Sunni or Shiite Caliph could just summon massive armies from their vast lands the European states needed a leader they could all serve under to combine their forces, due to European feudal history and renewed religious significance, the only persons that could take this role was the pope and patriarch.
If you can look at history without projecting your own religious beliefs onto it it should be pretty clear that Crusades, Jihads or any other war that ever happened where just plays to increase power through whatever means was effective at that time, be it developing an understanding with the Pope/Caliph or just gaining more land to rule.
You can always go deeper when talking about history.
The intelligence lies in distinguishing what is necessary and what is not.
Assuming someone doesn't know about something when he doesn't directly talk about it proofs you're not interested in a meaningful discussion but rather showing off your knowledge.
Besides, it wasn't Saladin who razed the Holy Sepulcre in ~1010, since he lived in the XIIth century and led the Muslim army against the third crusade.
|
On May 13 2012 05:35 Madkipz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2012 04:52 Vorps wrote:
I came here to see an intellectual discussion about the Crusades, not a religion-bashing contest. Use your brains please.
OP, I can't help but say that you're oversimplifying this by a HUGE margin. The Crusades were not a just war simply because of the fact that they were launched in aggression. You're right, the Muslims were responsible for launching aggressive expansionist policies as well, and that is not justified either, but simply because the opposition of the Crusaders weren't justified does not by extension mean that the Crusaders were justified.
- Wrote my dissertation on the crusades. And what is "justification" if not a logical fallacy? If the crusades had not happened, then the arab expansion might not have been stopped, and as you well know: Every action, must face an equal and opposing reaction or it will keep rolling until it meets something that matches it. The rules of causality and logic dictate it. Though I have to say, Christianity as a religion is a meek pile of shit that wont work politically. Compared with Catholicism, Jewish faith and Islam that is. Jesus, in many ways was an incredible reformer. He challenged the outer rules. Breaking the sabbath, the whole mess with the collection plate in the temple. The golden rule. Very much an individualist and keen on separating church and state. Muhammad on the other hand, not so much. Probably why we needed a dark age. Had to figure out how to actually draw teachings that work out politically when it comes to Jesus.
At the point when crusades happened the islamic expansion was at its weakest already. And note that arab is not equal to islamic. Most of the expansion at that time was done by Turks and crusades did not stop it, arguably crusades actually helped it in the long term by crippling Byzantine Empire. Arabs states in that time were divided and not united. So crusades definitely did not stop any arab exapnsion.
|
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, and demonization of the whole so called "imperialistic" Occident as well.
[...]
You can approach history as a story of exactly what happened and why.
Or you can look at it as a propaganda weapon in some sort of present day conflict.
These are mutually exclusive. Your loyalty either lies with "your side" of the cultural conflict or truth and objectivity.
|
On May 13 2012 03:59 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
I always hate when militant anti-theists try to claim that religion is the cause of almost all wars, including the crusades which I always considered more complicated than just "closed-minded bible-thumpers warring the heathens", despite fervent objections from said group that somehow if religion didn't exist, a large amount of wars would have never happened. It's ironically naive.
It's basically like "I earned my PHD in history the second I converted to anti-theism..."
I don't think anyone other than angsty teenagers think that religion has caused all wars or is the cause of most wars.
However, anyone with any logical and reasoning skills with sufficient understanding of history can put two and two together and realize that religion HAS been and still is a very proficient manner of manipulation and causing wars or creating atmospheres that makes conflicts more likely. Religion is by no means the cause of the Crusades, the wars, or whatever. Humans are. If it wasn't religion it would be something else that madmen would use to justify killing millions, or political leaders from hundreds of years ago would have found other avenues of manipulation.
It is equally naive, however, to say that religion had no part in influencing these events, and the events of dozens of other major conflicts throughout history however. Correlation does not equal causation, I must state. But there is a correlation.
|
On May 12 2012 22:20 RelZo wrote:So, what was the Fourth Crusade again? + Show Spoiler +I originally intended to write a lenghty post about the many reasons the OP is wrong, but I don't have the time nor motivation...he should just read more about the whole era
You can google it if you really want to learn, but here's a quick and dirty summary of the fourth crusade:
Pope Innocent III: Hey guys, we should take the Holy Land back from Muslim control.
European monarchs: No thanks, we're good.
Random European knights: Sure! Let's meet up in Venice and sail down to Egypt and kick some ass.
Venice: What? You need ships? Well, sure we can give you ships, you just have to destroy one of our economic rivals first (a wealthy Christian port city across the Adriatic).
Crusaders: I... I mean I guess so. That sounds okay. *fight*
Innocent III: wtf guys, what are you doing?
Crusaders: We had to, give us a break. *fight*
Crusaders: Holy shit, they have a lot of nice stuff here. The Venetians were right, taking wealthy cities by force fucking rocks!
Venice: See, I told you. While you're at it, Constantinople has even better stuff, you should take that city too...
Crusaders: Fuck yeah, sounds good to me. *fight*
Innocent III: Guys, wtf.
Crusaders: IMMA DESTROY EVERYTHING I SEE BITCHES
Innocent III: Guys, are you fucking kidding me, you're supposed to be fighting a Holy War about a thousand miles away from where you are? I'm going to excommunicate all of you little bastards.
Crusaders: lolololol look at all the fucks I don't give, we're tearing this shit up.
Everybody: Guys, seriously, wtf. Destroying the Library of Constantinople? The Hagia Sofia? Why you such assholes?
Crusaders: Hokay, I think that's probably good. Let's go home! Grab as much expensive shit as you can. *return to Europe*
Innocent III: Whoa, look at all that expensive shit. Nice job, everyone. Can I have some?
The end. Nobody ever took the Crusades seriously ever again, despite their being like 18 more.
|
Was the OP written by FOX News?
I second Mango Chicken... that's really what this seems like.
The OP is so bare... could you at least cite where this information is coming from? Or having at least some more content?
|
Seems like instead of worrying about past crusades about religion, we should focus on current cursades against terrorism... Same horse different colour.
That being said, I would have to agree with your view that it was an unjust war, but it was completely politically motivated and religious has the ability to manipulate the masses to do things like burning women alive etc, so it was just mindless masses all agreeing a man in the sky said these people are evil. Now? Well at least not everyone is so stupid.
|
What about the nothern crusades around the baltic sea, they dont count in your world? The Southern crusades were a series of nonsense wars with little or no chance of lasting gains. a huge scam by the pope inorder to exert power in Europe.
On a personal note i find your post very disturbing with scary nationalistic undertones of nonsense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
