I may not be an expert on the Crusades however near east history has always held an interest for me. After becoming disillusioned with my atheistic world view I traveled and studied for over ten years eventually stealing a Theology related masters degree, and a few year later I became a Christian. Btw Wikipedia is a good resource, but I wouldn't write a thesis or desertion using information from it as an exclusive source.
Thanks for your reply~
: { >
This seems like a very round-about way to say "I am not as well-versed in the history of the Crusades as I ought to be in order to discuss this". Let's go through what you brought up earlier;
— The Crusades were a delayed response for CENTURIES of Muslim aggression, that grew ever fiercer in the 11th Century. The Muslims focused on Christians and Jews…forcing conversions, plundering and mortally wounding apostates.
Forced conversions, plundering of peoples who don't believe the way they did, slaughtering non-believers...
Yeah, sorry, that's not gonna fly here. Muslims and Christians both are equally responsible for being murderous savages to people who did not worship the way they thought they should.
— The Crusades were a DEFENSIVE action, first called for by Pope Urban II in 1095 at the Council of Clermont.
..No. The Catholic Church used the appeal for aid by the Byzantines as a fig-leaf to seize Jerusalem from them. The Western Church had countless opportunities prior to this to intervene and aid their Eastern cousins. They didn't because they were intentionally waiting for the Seljuks to weaker the Byzantines enough that they(the Byzantines) could not fight back when the CC decided to seize the Holy Land. The Byzantines were seeking aid in
Anatolia. The Papacy instead invaded the Holy Land. It was naked aggression with a half-hearted attempt to make it seem like they were coming to the rescue of their brothers in the faith.
— The Crusades were a response against Jihad, which is obligatory against non-Muslims entering “Muslim lands’”. (Muslim lands are any lands invaded and conquered by Islam.)
See the above.
— The Crusades were jihad-provoked and not imperialistic actions against a “peaceful”, native Muslim population. The Crusades were NOT for profit, but rather to recover the Holy Land brutally invaded and conquered by Muslims…who conquered for profit and as a notch on their superiority belt.
The Muslims were by no means peaceful. And it
was for profit. Specifically to seize the Holy Land and use it as a base to recapture extremely lucrative trade routes. The Middle East was where goods from India and East Asia inevitably passed through before making it to Europe proper. Undoubtedly the rank-and-file of the Crusader armies thought they were on a holy mission. But the people at the top were exploiting the good will and faith of their people to increase their own wealth.
— The lands conquered by the Crusaders were NOT colonized under the Byzantine Empire. The Empire withdrew its support so the Crusaders renounced their agreement.
The Byzantines withdrew their support because the Crusaders blatantly ignored where the Byzantines actually
needed help.
I cannot stress this enough; if the Crusades were what you claim they were,
why did they not actually aid the Byzantines? This is no different than what happened in the Baltic with the Teutonic Order. The King of Poland asked for aid, the Teutonic Order comes in and begins seizing land from the weakened Polish kingdom and refuses to turn it back over.