The Crusades (moral, blood, church, fanaticism, Jerusalem)

[Ryan2065]

Originally Posted by Jews

Ok, but what does this have to do with the Jews? Am I missing something?

The combination of the Crusaders in Jerusalem being treated as heros back home and Urbans call for the complete destruction of the Turkish and Arab race in the areas invaded (means also civilians) leads me to believe the Crusaders were not actually looked down upon by the church until later (it seems Innocent did)

[Quiddity]

Originally Posted by Ryan2065

The combination of the Crusaders in Jerusalem being treated as heros back home and Urbans call for the complete destruction of the Turkish and Arab race in the areas invaded (means also civilians) leads me to believe the Crusaders were not actually looked down upon by the church until later (it seems Innocent did)

Look up the Council of Clermont. It was called by Pope Urban II. You will see that it has nothing to do with invading the Jews.

[kai]

the fourth crusade

"You vowed to liberate the Holy Land but you rashly turned away from the purity of your vow when you took up arms not against Saracens but Christians… The Greek Church has seen in the Latins nothing other than an example of affliction and the works of Hell, so that now it rightly detests them more than dogs".

pope innocent the 111

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

[Ryan2065]

Originally Posted by Victor

Look up the Council of Clermont. It was called by Pope Urban II. You will see that it has nothing to do with invading the Jews.

Oh this I know... I more mean that the rules could be broken (ie killing innocents) if there was some good military gain... Like the crusaders who slaughtered innocents in Jerusalem but were regarded as heroes back home while the crusaders who killed Jewish people for their money to fund the war were looked down upon.

[Ryan2065]

Kai, I haven't mentioned the 4th crusade because of the sack of the Christian city. The church was immediatly appalled as they should have been and that particular crusade and the seige of Constantople has been given as an example enough times to show the Crusaders wern't good people. Actually so far I've only dealth with the 1st Crusade...

[Ryan2065]

Originally Posted by kai

if they sieged cities with jewish or christian people in them they are not protectors why would they siege? thats a contradiction in terms. and dont get me wrong i condemn the atrocities on both sides, i am just using the old excuse of it was different in those days

Sorry I missed this post... I'll address it now.

The Crusaders were sent to protect Christians in that area but they ended up slaughtering innocent Christian and Jewish people just because they were in a town that was held by Turks and/or Arabs. This is what I meant when I said the Crusaders killed those they were meant to protect and this is probably the part that makes most people look down upon the Crusades.

[kai]

Originally Posted by Ryan2065

Kai, I haven't mentioned the 4th crusade because of the sack of the Christian city. The church was immediatly appalled as they should have been and that particular crusade and the seige of Constantople has been given as an example enough times to show the Crusaders wern't good people. Actually so far I've only dealth with the 1st Crusade...

ok it wasnt meant for you particularly but this is it supports my point that the sacking of jerusalem was not unusual in the middle ages ,

"It is certainly true that many people in Jerusalem were killed after the Crusaders captured the city. But this must be understood in historical context. The accepted moral standard in all pre-modern European and Asian civilizations was that a city that resisted capture and was taken by force belonged to the victorious forces. That included not just the buildings and goods, but the people as well. That is why every city or fortress had to weigh carefully whether it could hold out against besiegers. If not, it was wise to negotiate terms of surrender. In the case of Jerusalem, the defenders had resisted right up to the end. They calculated that the formidable walls of the city would keep the Crusaders at bay until a relief force in Egypt could arrive. They were wrong. When the city fell, therefore, it was put to the sack. Many were killed, yet many others were ransomed or allowed to go free. By modern standards this may seem brutal. Yet a medieval knight would point out that many more innocent men, women, and children are killed in modern bombing warfare than could possibly be put to the sword in one or two days. It is worth noting that in those Muslim cities that surrendered to the Crusaders the people were left unmolested, retained their property, and allowed to worship freely. As for those streets of blood, no historian accepts them as anything other than a literary convention. Jerusalem is a big town. The amount of blood necessary to fill the streets to a continuous and running three-inch depth would require many more people than lived in the region, let alone the city."

Thomas F. Madden is Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of History at Saint Louis University. He is author of A Concise History of the Crusades and co-author of The Fourth Crusade.

[kai]

Originally Posted by Ryan2065

Sorry I missed this post... I'll address it now.

The Crusaders were sent to protect Christians in that area but they ended up slaughtering innocent Christian and Jewish people just because they were in a town that was held by Turks and/or Arabs. This is what I meant when I said the Crusaders killed those they were meant to protect and this is probably the part that makes most people look down upon the Crusades.

as we all know innocents are killed in all wars even wars of today, how hard do you think it was to control these men once they entered a besieged city, the sacking of towns cities went on well after the middle ages i am sorry to repeat my self but it was standard practise,

[kai]

Originally Posted by Ryan2065

The combination of the Crusaders in Jerusalem being treated as heros back home and Urbans call for the complete destruction of the Turkish and Arab race in the areas invaded (means also civilians) leads me to believe the Crusaders were not actually looked down upon by the church until later (it seems Innocent did)

of course they werent it was only relatively recently particularly with the advent of Protestantism that the crusades have been seen as a stain on western history particularly catholic history. the crusades were a direct result of Islamic military expansion into the christian levant, palestine ,syria ,egypt once heavily christian then north africa ,spain, turkey. the crusades used to be looked on as great victories by the muslims with heroic characters like Baibers and saladin remember they won so i am a little puzzled by the victim mentality of some muslims. yes the crusades were brutal but this was medieval warfare and mistakes were made but isnt that the case in all wars. the super power of the time was Islam the christian west suffered centuries of defeat even as late as 1529 suleman the magnificent was besieging Vienna.

[nutshell]

I'd like to point out to a certain person active on this thread, that this thread is posted in the Historical forum so please quit reading religious overtones to my post. They are not there!