Borealis said:
I have read it. I wouldn't have posted the link if I didn't stand by it.
I have no doubt you stand by it, I simply do not think you know enough about the subject to make an educated assessment of the validity of the article.
So all priests and bishops were just as ignorant? How about the kings and their advisors? They were all a bunch of medieval rednecks who didn't know a damn thing? Please. The arrogance of the modern mind is staggering.
The same Bishops and priests who believed the world was flat, burned women as witches, and were barely literate? How arrogant to insist on such extraordinary abilities such as literacy.
Let me put it bluntly. If the Crusades had not been fought, and Islam not pushed back, you would be bowing to Mecca five times a day, and so would everyone else in the West. Dissent wouldn't be an option, nor would freedom of anything that wasn't explicitly allowed in the Koran. Clear enough for you?
And as usual youre not speaking with an ounce of knowledge. In the Middle East in Muslim countries the vast majority of people, who are Muslim, do not bow down to Mecca five times a day, the legal code is only nominally based on the Quran (nominally is defined as existing in name only). So no it is not clear since having studied the area, as well as lived there, your comments make no sense.
Which Inquisition? There were several. But this is the Crusades we're discussing, so feel free to start another topic on the Inquisition; apparently there haven't been enough of them on CF yet.
Wow. You did not even bother reading any other material the author produced. Thats what I call scholarship!!!
Wow...so Spain and North Africa are located near the Persian Empire? No wonder people say Americans don't know anything about geography.
So I take it you have never seen a timeline of Islamic Empire expansion? You are aware that the push West was by different sovereigns and that the initial push was East?
I thought you were a student of the Middle East. This may come as a shock, but Christianity really did begin in Palestine. Jerusalem, to be specific. And if you bother to look at a historical map, you'll see that there were a LOT of Christian churches scattered all over Asia Minor. And yes, they thrived until the Islamic invasion.
Actually they thrived after the Islamic invasion, but you would never know it. Have you ever actually visited Jerusalem or the ME? Do you know anything about Christian history? You were aware of the various heresies that flourished in these areas? Please name some heretical groups that still exist in Europe.
Heresy was stamped out, not churches. The Church has always had an obligation and a sacred duty to protect the true teachings of Christ and the Apostles. And so they did, using whatever methods were considered appropriate at the time. Today, you don't see Catholic Inquisitions like those of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Times change, and methods do also. Heresy, however, must always be stopped. That's why the Church held so many ecumenical councils.
You are aware that many of the Eastern Churches (Coptic for example) were considered heretical? If Rome had sway what would have happened to the Copts? BTW, the Copts still exist.
So did he or didn't he? If he would never have requested aid from the Pope, then why did he request aid from the Pope? Granted, he didn't get the exact aid he expected.
Have you ever picked up a book about the ME or Christianity? You are aware that East is not synonymous with Eastern Orthodoxy, or Orthodoxy in general for that matter, and that there are sects in the East that never recognized the legitimacy of the Patriarchs? Some recognized their patriarchs and not others.
Are you really this unstudied in Christian history?
So did he or didn't he? If he would never have requested aid from the Pope, then why did he request aid from the Pope? Granted, he didn't get the exact aid he expected.
Again you are aware that the Byzantine Emperor did not speak for the sects in Jerusalem for example?
I'm aware of what the Pope actually said. For those who care to read it, here are several translations on one link
Quote it, dont provide a link. What was actually said? What were the specific charges? How do these charges relate to the actual request.
That the earliest Crusaders were little more than robber-barons isn't secret knowledge. The Pope sought to channel them into a worthy cause, rather than have them pillaging among their own people. So he sent them after the Turks, for what was considered a good reason at the time, a just war. Whether today's scholars consider it a just war or not is utterly irrelevant; if we aren't allowed to judge other present-day cultures by our own standards, then we have no right to judge past ones that we dislike either.
But this is completely contradictory to the article you posted, claimed to have read, and then professed your support for?
Some of them were, yes. All of them? Nice try. And as you pointed out, the Eastern Christians weren't exactly friends with the West at that point, although of course their historical records of the time are completely without any anti-Papal bias whatsoever, right?
Once again, the Alexiad was a Byzantine source, which spoke specifically from a Byzantine point of view, you are correct (not that I believe you were aware of that), but do you really want to discount a source you have never read, or ever knew existed?
How is heresy a good thing, exactly? As for what happened in Jerusalem, yes, innocents were slaughtered. I never said the Crusades were completely pure. But consider this: there was no internet, no satellite communications, no telephone, no telegraph, no way for the Pope to have any control whatsoever on the Crusaders once they left Europe. News didn't travel fast in medieval times. So how could the Pope have stopped the massacres from happening? Give them orders before they left? Prove he didn't and that they were simply ignored.
So your answer to the butchering of Christians is simply How is heresy a good thing, exactly??!?!?! What exactly were the comments Urban made in calling for the Crusades?
I dont think it included killing Christians.
Compared to the economic situation in Europe, the Near East was still powerful and wealthy. After the Cold War, the former Soviet Bloc was economically weak and suffered a great deal of 'aftershocks,' both politically and economically. Compared to central Africa, though, they were still a mighty force to be reckoned with.
More to the point, the Muslim empires were constantly expansionistic; they still are to this day. It's a tenet of their religion that they are to conquer the infidels.
Wow any number of interesting comments. Lets see
1. Compared to the economic situation in Europe, the Near East was still powerful and wealthy.
Can you support this? From which book did you draw this? Quote please
2. Muslim empires were constantly expansionistic; they still are to this day
Please list the expansionist tendencies of Muslim empires this day. Please list Muslim empires this day. Direct quotes if you please
3. It's a tenet of their religion that they are to conquer the infidels
Quote? Source?
Kindly point out where in point 3 Madden admits that Christians were slaughtered. It's missing from my copy.
Its common knowledge. Were you not aware of the historical record of the conquering of Jerusalem?
Also since you claim to know Christians lived in Jerusalem, do you think the title of Maddens point 3 Myth 3: When the Crusaders captured Jerusalem in 1099 they massacred every man, woman, and child in the city until the streets ran ankle deep with the blood did not include Christians?
And you fail to comprehend the Church's primary mission for the past two thousand years: to preserve the teachings of Christ and the Apostles. False teachings had to be stopped. Remember, this wasn't about political influence; this was about immortal souls and their final disposition. Your beliefs on the matter are completely irrelevant; the Church heirarchy took their responsibility seriously enough to do what they did.
And again you speak without knowledge. What was the specific heresy being stamped out? How did the Crusaders detect this particular heresy as the one they were removing? What instructions did the Pope give them on this issue? Please list sources, since they would invaluable to the historical community.
Again, the commanders on the ground didn't have real-time communications with Rome, and it's well-documented that they often ignored direct orders from Rome when they preferred to do something else. The sacking of Constantinople (done in revenge for the slaughter of Venetian merchants in the region) was forbidden ahead of time by the Pope, and roundly condemned afterwards (and the leaders of the sacking were excommunicated).
Very interesting position. Now Rome is not responsible? How odd.
You continue
I also like how you selectively quote the section and ignore this tiny, unimportant detail: Local bishops and other clergy and laity attempted to defend the Jews, although with limited success. Or were you too busy coming up with flimsy rebuttals to notice it?
Well lets observe your comment. You think the comment Local bishops and other clergy and laity attempted to defend the Jews, although with limited success relieves the Church of responsibility for centuries of anti-Semitism?!?!
You really agree that it is based on an unfortunate byproduct of Crusade enthusiasm? Where did the Crusaders arrive at the the incorrect belief that the Jews, as the crucifiers of Christ, were legitimate targets of the war? Im sure it wasnt from the Local bishops and other clergy and laity.
Well, it's nice that you think so. But since you obviously have never bothered to look at any Catholic sources to counter the anti-Catholic bias you seem more comfortable with, you'll understand that I fail to share your belief.
History must be anti-Catholic, since all of my sources are from historical sources. I do not think the Alexiad is anti-Catholic, for example.
Your condescension is amusing, but misplaced. I obviously know more than you think I do about the subject, which wouldn't be difficult (considering your low expectations).
You shouldnt have gone there. Heres all I have to do
Really, what have you read on the Crusades and the Middle East. List sources please.
Now if you can answer that you can prove me wrong, but Im betting you will find some reason not to answer that has nothing (wink) to do with the fact that you have actually read nothing.
And while it's true that I haven't given the Crusades the same attention I've given the Second World War, I'm not as ignorant as you wish I was. I just choose to ignore the anti-Catholic and anti-Christian viewpoint on the matter and get some real information.
I dont think so. Here are the questions I asked, lets see if you can answer
The same Bishops and priests who believed the world was flat, burned women as witches, and were barely literate?
So I take it you have never seen a timeline of Islamic Empire expansion?
You are aware that the push West was by different sovereigns and that the initial push was East?
Have you ever actually visited Jerusalem or the ME?
Do you know anything about Christian history?
You were aware of the various heresies that flourished in these areas? Please name some heretical groups that still exist in Europe.
If Rome had sway what would have happened to the Copts?
What was actually said? (by the Pope)
What were the specific charges? (by the Pope)
How do these charges relate to the actual request.
Compared to the economic situation in Europe, the Near East was still powerful and wealthy. Can you support this? From which book did you draw this? Quote please
Muslim empires were constantly expansionistic; they still are to this day. Please list the expansionist tendencies of Muslim empires this day. Please list Muslim empires this day. Direct quotes if you please
It's a tenet of their religion that they are to conquer the infidels Quote? Source?
Were you not aware of the historical record of the conquering of Jerusalem?
Also since you claim to know Christians lived in Jerusalem, do you think the title of Maddens point 3 Myth 3: When the Crusaders captured Jerusalem in 1099 they massacred every man, woman, and child in the city until the streets ran ankle deep with the blood did not include Christians?
What was the specific heresy being stamped out? How did the Crusaders detect this particular heresy as the one they were removing? What instructions did the Pope give them on this issue? Please list sources, since they would invaluable to the historical community.
Thats not all of them, but Im running out of time. Please answer these.
