Christianity Is Not To Blame For The Crusades......

[Nephi]

It is also of concern to me that while Christians apparently have no difficulty in directing their ill-conceived and otherwise ignorant posts at .... (fill in the blank) they are inevitable the first to claim that it is all terribly unfair and one has to play by 'the rules' when such posts happen to be directed at them.

You called me ignorant, called Christians in general ignorant, called me Islamophobic, called me biased and said I have an agenda. Somehow I think those constitute as personal attacks that ignore the content of my arguments.

Again you refused to show me how my posts have been in any way ignorant. Other than your conjectural opinion, of course.

If you would've been more open to debate in regards to posting your references, citations, and sources as you've been asked to multiple times then you could've proven us to be "ignorant."

This thread is nothing more than a thinly disguised attack on Islam.

The world at large is rather tired of Christians claiming the high moral ground when their own faith is in such turmoil.

Hypocrisy comes to mind.

We're in a thread about the Crusades, and we had a tangent about the militancy of Islam - how is this hypocrisy?

I have attempted add some balance to the thread. But I see that balance is not part of the agenda.

If you would have supported your side of the argument with sources other than making conjectural claims and cries of "ignorance," and "Islamophobia!" then your opinion would have been greatly appreciated.

 

[Nick T]

The Byzantine Emperor Alexius I, defender of the Eastern Church, requested Pope Urban II for help against the invading Seljuk Turks. I somehow do not think this constitutes as "no such concern."

Huh? So the Byzantine emperor, Alexius I Comnenus, didn’t plead for the West’s aid in repelling the constant onslaught of the Seljuk Turks? Again, wayseer, are you joking?

I am afraid that this romantic idea that the Crusades were somehow good for the Eastern Church does not stand up to historical scrutiny.
Yes, Alexios requested western aid (although I haven’t read that he envisioned anything close to a crusade) and yes, one of the reasons given by the Pope for the first crusade was concern for the Eastern Christians (or at least feigned concern… I’m a bit suspicious of his motives but that’s something that cannot be proven either way). However it is important to differentiate in history between the ideal and how it was put in practice.

Now it is true that there are some aspects in which the Crusaders were of aid to the Eastern Christians within the Empire; the First Crusade helped in the capture of Nicea from the Turks and it could be argued that they provided a distraction for the Muslim powers in the Middle East; however neither of these are central to the crusades in any way and are instead rather the side affect of them being there (or in the case of Nicea the side affect of them travelling there).

The actions of the Crusaders certainly do not live up to these romantic visions of coming to aid the Eastern Churches.
Upon capturing Antioch the Crusaders replaced the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch with their own Latin Patriarch, forcing the Patriarch into exile at the Court of Constantinople. During 400 years of Islamic rule the Patriarchate had survived yet when it comes under Frankish rule the Patriarchate is exiled in favour of Latin Clergy.
When the Crusaders took Jerusalem the Orthodox Patriarchate, which had been persecuted greatly during the reign of the insane Caliph Al-Hakim (who went mad and considered himself divine), was promptly exiled to Constantinople just like their Antiochene counterparts, and were only permitted re-entry every Pascha because the Latin Patriarchs that replaced them could not perform the Miracle of the Holy Flame (in fact this is one of the reasons why the holy miracle was later denounced by the Papacy as a “fraud”).
Both of these Eastern Orthodox Patriarchates were exiled to Constantinople by Crusaders and replaced with Latin Patriarchs and both were only able to be reinstated when their respective sees were re-taken by the Islamic nations.

And it wasn’t just the First Crusade that saw Latin oppression of the Orthodox. During the occupation of Cyprus the number of Orthodox Bishops was reduced and many were forced to reside outside of their towns. Also they remained inferior to the Latin Catholic Clergy throughout Crusader rule.

The 4th Crusade is the most obvious example of the damage done by the Crusaders to the Orthodox Church. While I understand that the attack on Constantinople itself was condemned by the Papacy, the subsequent suppression of the Orthodox clergy in favour of the Latins (just as had occurred in Antioch, Jerusalem and Cyprus) throughout the “Latin Empire” did not so much as ignite a squeak of protest; indeed the new Venetian Patriarchate was approved by the Pope (not to mention the fact that it was only once the Patriarchate was Latin that the Rome recognised the authority of Constantinople as per Chaledon.)

So I think it is quite abundantly clear that despite the stated intention of the Crusades in practice they did nothing but oppress the Orthodox Church.
It is indeed supremely ironic that the two oldest Orthodox Sees in the world were exiled under the rule of fellow Christians and were only permitted to return under Islamic rule. This is not the actions of a group that wishes to defend Christendom, but rather the actions of those who seek only to extend the arm of the Western Church at the expense of local Muslim and Christian communities.

 

[Nephi]

I am afraid that this romantic idea that the Crusades were somehow good for the Eastern Church does not stand up to historical scrutiny.
Yes, Alexios requested western aid (although I haven’t read that he envisioned anything close to a crusade) and yes, one of the reasons given by the Pope for the first crusade was concern for the Eastern Christians (or at least feigned concern… I’m a bit suspicious of his motives but that’s something that cannot be proven either way). However it is important to differentiate in history between the ideal and how it was put in practice.

Obviously you know quite a bit about the treatment of the Orthodox under the Latin Crusaders - and thank you for what you shared.

Now I will absolutely agree that the "aid" the Orthodox received was anything but good, and that the Crusades ended up doing a lot of harm against Holy Orthodoxy as you described. I was merely countering wayseer's assertion that the Orthodox Church had no concerns and thus implying they wouldn't have wanted the West to intervene, Crusade, or send aid; I didn't mean to imply that the Crusades were nice and good for Orthodoxy.

 

[dcyates]

[/b]

I am afraid that this romantic idea that the Crusades were somehow good for the Eastern Church does not stand up to historical scrutiny.
Yes, Alexios requested western aid (although I haven’t read that he envisioned anything close to a crusade) and yes, one of the reasons given by the Pope for the first crusade was concern for the Eastern Christians (or at least feigned concern… I’m a bit suspicious of his motives but that’s something that cannot be proven either way). However it is important to differentiate in history between the ideal and how it was put in practice.

Now it is true that there are some aspects in which the Crusaders were of aid to the Eastern Christians within the Empire; the First Crusade helped in the capture of Nicea from the Turks and it could be argued that they provided a distraction for the Muslim powers in the Middle East; however neither of these are central to the crusades in any way and are instead rather the side affect of them being there (or in the case of Nicea the side affect of them travelling there).

The actions of the Crusaders certainly do not live up to these romantic visions of coming to aid the Eastern Churches.
Upon capturing Antioch the Crusaders replaced the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch with their own Latin Patriarch, forcing the Patriarch into exile at the Court of Constantinople. During 400 years of Islamic rule the Patriarchate had survived yet when it comes under Frankish rule the Patriarchate is exiled in favour of Latin Clergy.
When the Crusaders took Jerusalem the Orthodox Patriarchate, which had been persecuted greatly during the reign of the insane Caliph Al-Hakim (who went mad and considered himself divine), was promptly exiled to Constantinople just like their Antiochene counterparts, and were only permitted re-entry every Pascha because the Latin Patriarchs that replaced them could not perform the Miracle of the Holy Flame (in fact this is one of the reasons why the holy miracle was later denounced by the Papacy as a “fraud&#8221.
Both of these Eastern Orthodox Patriarchates were exiled to Constantinople by Crusaders and replaced with Latin Patriarchs and both were only able to be reinstated when their respective sees were re-taken by the Islamic nations.

And it wasn’t just the First Crusade that saw Latin oppression of the Orthodox. During the occupation of Cyprus the number of Orthodox Bishops was reduced and many were forced to reside outside of their towns. Also they remained inferior to the Latin Catholic Clergy throughout Crusader rule.

The 4th Crusade is the most obvious example of the damage done by the Crusaders to the Orthodox Church. While I understand that the attack on Constantinople itself was condemned by the Papacy, the subsequent suppression of the Orthodox clergy in favour of the Latins (just as had occurred in Antioch, Jerusalem and Cyprus) throughout the “Latin Empire” did not so much as ignite a squeak of protest; indeed the new Venetian Patriarchate was approved by the Pope (not to mention the fact that it was only once the Patriarchate was Latin that the Rome recognised the authority of Constantinople as per Chaledon.)

So I think it is quite abundantly clear that despite the stated intention of the Crusades in practice they did nothing but oppress the Orthodox Church.
It is indeed supremely ironic that the two oldest Orthodox Sees in the world were exiled under the rule of fellow Christians and were only permitted to return under Islamic rule. This is not the actions of a group that wishes to defend Christendom, but rather the actions of those who seek only to extend the arm of the WesternChurch at the expense of local Muslim and Christian communities.

You’re entirely correct, Nick (or would you prefer Mr. T ;-)). And naturally, it’s highly unfortunate when Christians of any stripe fail to get along with each other. However, to be perfectly fair, there is quite a bit more to the story than the above. And, granted, at least a part of this failure was due to miscommunication and misunderstanding on both sides.
For instance, Alexius’ letter for help made no mention of Jerusalem. His primary concern was with the steady encroachment of the Seljuk Turks. Especially since they had just recently captured a large portion of Anatolia that brought them practically within spitting distance of Constantinople itself (the Turks even named this region the Sultanate of Rûm; Rûm being the Turkish word for ‘Rome’, since the Byzantines still referred to theirs as the Roman Empire), and Alexius understandably wanted to win this area back and thus to re-establish that buffer zone between him and them. To that end, there is good reason to surmise that he anticipated the West’s reaction to his plea to consist of nothing more a battalion or two of mercenaries who would then assist him in accomplishing those goals. Hence, Alexius would most likely never have expected thousands of high-ranking European nobles and knights (along with even more numerous hangers-on) showing up at his door to answer the call.
On the other hand, in order to add that extra note of desperation – and thus extra incentive on the part of the West – Alexius included in his plea lurid details of the Islamic desecration and destruction of churches and holy sites, the murder, rape and gruesome tortures of Christian pilgrims to the Holy Land, and so on. To Western ears, this of course entailed not merely the need to protect Constantinople but to liberate and protect Jerusalem herself. (In fact, it was only after outlining these atrocities that were occurring beyond the Byzantine border that Alexius added that if Constantinople itself should fall to the Turks, not only would thousands more Christians be murdered, tortured, and raped, but also “the most holy relics of the Saviour,” gathered over the centuries, would be lost.)
Furthermore, there had long been an uneasiness - which at times bordered on antagonism and hostility - between the Western Latin Catholics and the Eastern Greek Orthodox. The Byzantine lifestyle appeared decadent to the more austere Western Europeans and, for their part, the Orthodox held Latin Catholicism in contempt – often persecuting its priests and practitioners.
On top of this, when the Crusaders arrived in Constantinople, Alexius and his court regarded them as little better than barbarians, and it showed. Add to this that Alexius made all the European nobles swear allegiance to him before he would allow them to continue on.
The Europeans thought that when it came to combat they would be merging with the Byzantine army – which far outnumbered them, by the way – and that Alexius himself would lead them into battle. Indeed, Raymond IV of Toulouse specifically stipulated that he would swear his allegiance to Alexius only on condition that the Emperor himself pledged that he would lead the Crusade in person. However, Alexius not only reneged on this vow but he also failed to send his army into battle with the crusaders – even in those battles that concerned the territory he wished to win back from the Turks.
With the crusaders first engagement with the Turks at Nicaea, after laying siege to the city and winning a major, but costly, battle with a far larger Turkish force, on the very morning that they were poised to finally take the city, as the sun rose they noticed Byzantine banners flying from the city towers and Byzantine troops manning the city walls. It turns out that Alexius’ agents were in secret negotiations with the Turks and that they convinced them to surrender the city to Alexius and thus to allow him to smuggle his soldiers into Nicaea that night. Western crusaders were humiliatingly allowed to enter the city only in groups of six or less at a time. (And this was far from the only time they learned of complicity between the Byzantines and those they were fighting.)
To add insult to injury, it was later learned that Turkish commanders and the sultan’s family, instead of being held for ransom, were taken to meet Alexius in Constantinople, were treated as distinguished guests, and were then conducted safely home and in style, leaving them, as the Gesta Francorum put it, “ready to injure the Franks and obstruct their crusade.” The Europeans were especially bitter given that no Greeks had taken part in the battle and yet the city was now theirs.
Subsequent to this, perhaps to appease the knights, Alexius seemingly relented and sent some military support, which however consisted of a paltry 2,000 troops, commanded by a general named Tatikios, the son of an enslaved Turk. Understandably, the crusaders were not impressed.
Later, when the Europeans were laying siege to Antioch, they ran so low on supplies and food they were reduced to eating prickly plants, and then their pack animals, and finally many of their horses. To make matters worse, Tatikios, under the pretense of going back to Byzantium for much-needed food and supplies, left with his small contingent of soldiers and never returned.
There were other times during the campaign that the crusaders became so desperate for food that they were reduced to digging up and consuming the rotting corpses of their dead enemies. Still no food or supplies, much less reinforcements, came from the Byzantines.
I could go on, but I think this should suffice to explain why, perhaps, the Orthodox patriarchs to whom you refer were not treated by the crusaders with the utmost in respect, but were instead sent back to Constantinople in favour of their own Catholic clergy.

 

[Philothei]

But may well be true - particular in light of you Islamphobia




What?




Not quite - in was initially Indian but modified by Islamic scholars.



Are you suggesting they were 'created' by Europe?



As I said, you are blinded by your agenda and bias.



Wrong. Even the name algebra is Islamic.



... and Europe?



As I said, it's your agenda.

Have you studied the Byzantine Empire any at all?{/quote]

No. Have you studies Islam?



You need another course.

Wayseer,

Islamophobia is a Greek word ...

Please let us not throughb throw around words that hurt others can we? no one here is against islam. let us deal with the facts. Some of us here have indeed suffer under Islam or our ancestors. And yeah we know the facts first hand from our own family's experince and lots of information that is black and white NO gray.

If you have study Byzantine History you are familiar with Islam. Theya re interttwined ...How? Islam started in the East. It did zapped a civilation such as Byzantium out...

 

[Ishraqiyun]

Were the Popes responsible for the Crusade and Inquisition against fellow Christians (Cathars) that pretty much destroyed Occitanian civilization?