The Crusades (hell, Jerusalem, Christians, Christ, muslims)

[Quiddity]

Originally Posted by Ryan2065

This I will agree with Victor. I was also just pointing out that the Eastern world did learn from the Muslims in terms of science and culture and things of that nature. It just seemed like you didn't agree that the Crusaders brought back scientific advancements and other things like that.

Of course they did. Bringing such things can't be a bad thing. What I oppose is how they did it. Surely you'd agree that killing people off and taking land was not the way?

Originally Posted by Ryan2065

This does not address the crusaders who slaughtered the people who lived in Jerusalem and came back as war heroes. It seems if you slaughter and do nothing your actions are condemned, but if you slaughter and get Jerusalem you are a hero.

Are you talking about the Jews?
Isn't that what I directly addressed already?

Originally Posted by Ryan2065

I do not think Victor is saying the Crusades were great and all the Crusaders were heroes, he is merely trying to clear up some misconceptions about the Crusades.

Thank you.

[Quiddity]

Originally Posted by Djamila

You did, just by your manner and how you speak of them and the Crusades.

Do you think what the Muslims did at the time was right? Yes or No

I'll ask myself the same question:

Do you think what the Crusaders did was just?

I think it was just for what they were initially sanctioned to do. Which is help the brothers of the East from the Muslim forces.

Attrocities such as Jerusalem and sacking of Constanople I condemn. They were not in accordance to what they were sanctioned to do.

[Quoth The Raven]

Originally Posted by Victor

I don't mind correction one bit. But if your going to do it, please give me a source.

I just recently waded through a long and extremely dull 2 inch thick book on the history of the crusades (which from memory was actually called 'A History of The Crusades'...I don't recommend it, it was like paddling a canoe across a lake of jelly with an icypole stick)
Basically the gist of it was, there was a lot of infighting amongst the French nobles, which the pope at the time - being one of aforementioned nobles by birth - was a bit angsty over and wanted a solution to. So then he got a letter from someone (I can't remember exactly who...Flanders rings a bell though for some reason) saying,
'Dear Pontiff,
the Muslims are restless and have been rodgering the occasional bishop over the church alter...please send help.'
The pope went 'A-ha! This'll give the restless Frenchies something to do!', and so he went off tp France and whipped them into a frenzy.
Nobles and soldiers being what they are, took a bit of time to organise and deploy. In the meantime, some old bloke who was frocked up as a monk took his donkey, gathered up a massive peasant army and headed off toward the holy land, making a complete hash of things as they went, pillaging the odd village and stealing sheep and such. As you do, when you're engaged in the Lord's work.

[Quiddity]

Originally Posted by Quoth_The _Raven

I just recently waded through a long and extremely dull 2 inch thick book on the history of the crusades (which from memory was actually called 'A History of The Crusades'...I don't recommend it, it was like paddling a canoe across a lake of jelly with an icypole stick)
Basically the gist of it was, there was a lot of infighting amongst the French nobles, which the pope at the time - being one of aforementioned nobles by birth - was a bit angsty over and wanted a solution to. So then he got a letter from someone (I can't remember exactly who...Flanders rings a bell though for some reason) saying,
'Dear Pontiff,
the Muslims are restless and have been rodgering the occasional bishop over the church alter...please send help.'
The pope went 'A-ha! This'll give the restless Frenchies something to do!', and so he went off tp France and whipped them into a frenzy.
Nobles and soldiers being what they are, took a bit of time to organise and deploy. In the meantime, some old bloke who was frocked up as a monk took his donkey, gathered up a massive peasant army and headed off toward the holy land, making a complete hash of things as they went, pillaging the odd village and stealing sheep and such. As you do, when you're engaged in the Lord's work.

Couple of things to note:

1. The vast majority of Crusaders were not peasants but well to do land owners.
2. The Frenchies were but little motivation for the Pope. Eastern affairs were much more important in regards to political-dogmatic church matters.
3. I took offense to the "Lord's work" comment. If you had read some of the letters of the Pope/bishops you would not say no such things.

[Quoth The Raven]

Originally Posted by Victor

Couple of things to note:

1. The vast majority of Crusaders were not peasants but well to do land owners.
2. The Frenchies were but little motivation for the Pope. Eastern affairs were much more important in regards to political-dogmatic church matters.
3. I took offense to the "Lord's work" comment. If you had read some of the letters of the Pope/bishops you would not say no such things.

My apologies you took offence...it wasn't intended to give offence, I was referring to the mindset of the people in question.Also my apologies, but for the pope I refer to in particular, the behaviour of the French was quite important.
At the begining of the First Crusade, there was rather a large peasant army, which being less organised and disciplined than the actual people who were trained in warfare managed to move fairly quickly and act as - as they saw it - a Godly inspired rabble. By the time the Nobles caught up to them, they were in damage control for all the stuff the other guys had done in front of them. What was left of the peasants was eventually absorbed by the main army as runners and water carriers and such.

[Quiddity]

Originally Posted by Quoth_The _Raven

My apologies you took offence...it wasn't intended to give offence, I was referring to the mindset of the people in question.Also my apologies, but for the pope I refer to in particular, the behaviour of the French was quite important.
At the begining of the First Crusade, there was rather a large peasant army, which being less organised and disciplined than the actual people who were trained in warfare managed to move fairly quickly and act as - as they saw it - a Godly inspired rabble. By the time the Nobles caught up to them, they were in damage control for all the stuff the other guys had done in front of them. What was left of the peasants was eventually absorbed by the main army as runners and water carriers and such.

The behaivor of the French was only a small aspect of the big picture QTR. Was the Muslim invasions a way to relieve it? I'm sure it was. But I assure you from the numerous readings I have made that was but a small dilema. The Pope was more concerned with unification of the East and West then the French.

[nutshell]

Originally Posted by Victor

How do you think that expansion was accomplished if not by attacking the Eastern empires with fury. They were heading West. So what part of that is not defensive?

But the West just didn't defend their borders, they attacked the land the Muslims had expanded into.

Do you think the American Indians have a valid right to go to war with Americans to reclaim their land? How is your situation different from this?

[nutshell]

Originally Posted by Victor

I don't thank them at all. I think the West surviving had a huge inpact that triggered future events.

I don't know where you go off saying that the poor Christians of the West were mesmerized by Muslim wealth and advancements? Although the Muslims were more advanced in some aspects it had little motivation for the Crusaders.

See:
Scholars have discovered that crusading knights were generally wealthy men with plenty of their own land in Europe. Nevertheless, they willingly gave up everything to undertake the holy mission. Crusading was not cheap. Even wealthy lords could easily impoverish themselves and their families by joining a Crusade. They did so not because they expected material wealth (which many of them had already) but because they hoped to store up treasure where rust and moth could not corrupt.

I did not state that "the Christians of the West were mesmerized by Muslim wealth." I stated that Muslims retained many of the ancient philosophies while making advances in art, science, math, and culture. I'm not sure why that offends you so much. It's well documented as is the fact that Christians took some of these discoveries back to the West. That doesn't mean they were "mesmerized" by them. It means they found some pretty cool things they thought might help their civilization as well. What's wrong with that?

[nutshell]

Most historians I've read tend to see the Crusades as a Lose-Lose situation and the Muslims, to my understanding, place far less emphasis on the Crusades when looking at history than the Christian West does.

[Quiddity]

Originally Posted by nutshell

I did not state that "the Christians of the West were mesmerized by Muslim wealth." I stated that Muslims retained many of the ancient philosophies while making advances in art, science, math, and culture. I'm not sure why that offends you so much. It's well documented as is the fact that Christians took some of these discoveries back to the West. That doesn't mean they were "mesmerized" by them. It means they found some pretty cool things they thought might help their civilization as well. What's wrong with that?

It is only wrong if that is the sole reason they were going to war for. Is it?