Crusades

[Faith24]

OK, I'm not really an expert on this area but I would really appreciate if somebody can give me some pointers. From what I understand, the first crusade was launched to regain back Jerusalem from Muslim. Some of these were Muslim Turks who later converted to Islam, took over the Byzantine Empire, and so this put a threat to European leaders. However the case may be, one of the common objection I get is this:[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]

[/FONT]Jews were killed by crusaders. What was the reason for that?

Also by 4th crusade, Constantinople was took over. What happen there? I mean, it's a war so people would definitely get hurt. Sorry had to do some edit.

 

[drich0150]

OK, I'm not really an expert on this area but I would really appreciate if somebody can give me some pointers. From what I understand, the first crusade was launched to regain back Jerusalem from Muslim. Some of these were Muslim Turks who later converted to Islam, took over the Byzantine Empire, and so this put a threat to European leaders. However the case may be, one of the common objection I get is this:

Why did Christians killed the European Jews and were massacre from town to town?

Is it correct to say "European Jews"? Because there weren't much Jews in Palestine at the time of the crusade. Was this the Holocaust? Or was this still part of the first crusade?

What about the 4000 Christians in Zumin, Yugoslavia and the destruction of Belgrade? They were killed also. what was the caused of that? Also within the 4th crusade, Constantinople was took over. What happen there? I mean, it's a war so people would definitely get hurt.

Do you have any reference material that highlights anything you mentioned here?

At first glance I can not confirm or deny anything you are representing.

 

[Faith24]

Do you have any reference material that highlights anything you mentioned here?

At first glance I can not confirm or deny anything you are representing.

Hi Drich, I got this material from about.com. You can read it here:

Violence in the Crusades | Causes, History, and Violence of the Crusades

The middle of the 5th paragraph is where my concern is.

"Emich's followers decided that before they traveled across Europe to kill God's enemies, it would be a good idea to eliminate the infidels in their midst. Thus suitably motivated, they proceeded to massacre the Jews in German cities like Mainz and Worms. Thousands of defenseless men, women and children were chopped, burned or otherwise slaughtered."

 

[Faith24]

OK let me clarify this again....

Why did the crusaders, while on their way to Jerusalem, slaughter the Jews and families? Oh wait.. was it Juerusalem or was it Europe? Ok I'm confused. Anyway, there was a Jewish eyewitness who escaped the event, later written by The First Crusade by August Krey if I'm not misaken?

Medieval Sourcebook: Rhineland Jews 1096: Christian Sources

Some of these Jews who escaped to the Bishop of Ruthard for safety but they died there shortly after by the crusaders. So why did the crusaders killed them?

 

[Faith24]

I guess it's both in Jerusalem and in Europe that the Jews will killed.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

Because, despite some clergy persons who most certainly would never have regarded the bloodshed of innocents even remotely acceptable it was a violent conquest, and they were so motivated by a sense of holy obligation that the infidel--including the Jews--had to suffer for the sake of God. That's what happens when God is attached to the sword; your enemy becomes God's enemy, and God's enemy must die. Deus Vult.

In the case of the Fourth Crusade, yes they decided not to even bother trying to wrest Jerusalem back and instead decided to conquer the "heretics" in Constantinople.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[drich0150]

Hi Drich, I got this material from about.com. You can read it here:

Violence in the Crusades | Causes, History, and Violence of the Crusades

The middle of the 5th paragraph is where my concern is.

"Emich's followers decided that before they traveled across Europe to kill God's enemies, it would be a good idea to eliminate the infidels in their midst. Thus suitably motivated, they proceeded to massacre the Jews in German cities like Mainz and Worms. Thousands of defenseless men, women and children were chopped, burned or otherwise slaughtered."

you are ware that the articles on ask.com are self published are you not?

Do you have a more substantial reference to back your claim, such as the oxford English encyclopedia: The Crusades

This reference seems to tell a different version of events.

That said I do not want to deny the brutality of the crusades, nor the pointlessness of them from my perspective. I am sure you are a smart person, and can easily distinguish the difference between the established requirements of a faith, and the actions of self righteous men who look to further their own agendas.

If you can not make that distinction then all you have to do is open a bible and compare the actions of those in whom you have questioned with what scripture records.

 

[AlexBP]

Why did the crusaders, while on their way to Jerusalem, slaughter the Jews and families?

They did not.

What actually happened is this. Pope Urban II issued the call for the crusade in 1095. Knights and nobles across Europe began organizing for an expedition to the Middle East immediately, but this took several years. In the meantime, rogue preachers operating outside the Church's control were stirring up a violent fervor among the laity, particularly peasants and the poor. The most famous of these preachers was Peter the Hermit. These preachers roused angry mobs in a number of places, and the mobs were soon out of control and attacking many people, including Jews. There were massacres of the Jews in several German cities, but the Church leaders were always opposed to them. Eventually a disorganized mass of peasants lead by Peter the Hermit marched across eastern Europe to Turkey, where they were almost all killed.

The actual event known as the First Crusade was unrelated to any of this disorganized mob activity. It consisted of knights and other nobility as well as their retainers, almost all of them from France. They traveled on a more southernly route across the Byzantine Empire, and they were noted for their good behavior along the route. While not everything they did upon arriving in the Middle East was so well-behaved, they did not loot and pillage the Jews or anyone else on the way across Europe.

So the bottom line of why there were attacks against the Jews is that it was senseless mass violence, not an attack by the crusaders.

 

[Faith24]

They did not.

What actually happened is this. Pope Urban II issued the call for the crusade in 1095. Knights and nobles across Europe began organizing for an expedition to the Middle East immediately, but this took several years. In the meantime, rogue preachers operating outside the Church's control were stirring up a violent fervor among the laity, particularly peasants and the poor. The most famous of these preachers was Peter the Hermit. These preachers roused angry mobs in a number of places, and the mobs were soon out of control and attacking many people, including Jews. There were massacres of the Jews in several German cities, but the Church leaders were always opposed to them. Eventually a disorganized mass of peasants lead by Peter the Hermit marched across eastern Europe to Turkey, where they were almost all killed.

The actual event known as the First Crusade was unrelated to any of this disorganized mob activity. It consisted of knights and other nobility as well as their retainers, almost all of them from France. They traveled on a more southernly route across the Byzantine Empire, and they were noted for their good behavior along the route. While not everything they did upon arriving in the Middle East was so well-behaved, they did not loot and pillage the Jews or anyone else on the way across Europe.

So the bottom line of why there were attacks against the Jews is that it was senseless mass violence, not an attack by the crusaders.

Atheist will say that Peter the Hermit and them did not follow the precedures, not because of their actions. They were rejected by the Church. How do you deal with that?

 

[AlexBP]

That's exactly what I'm saying. Peter the Hermit was neither a Crusader nor a Catholic clergyman. He was a uncontrolled, violent, and probably mentally ill individual who started up his own movement.

 

[Faith24]

That's exactly what I'm saying. Peter the Hermit was neither a Crusader nor a Catholic clergyman. He was a uncontrolled, violent, and probably mentally ill individual who started up his own movement.

Wasn't he the leader of the crusaders and a preacher of some sort?

Anyway, let me clarify you from what I understand about this issue so far:

First, the Pope did not order killings against the Jews. But Peter the Hermmit did not follow the rules, so they did killed the Jews! Am I correct?

But the atheist I was having a discussion with is saying: "Look, Peter did not follow the rules, (assuming the Pope allowed the crusaders to killed the Jews).. Therefore he was rejected by the church."

This seems to be like a distortion. Because if the Pope had allowed the killings of the Jews, then Peter the Hermt would had done exactly the right thing. But no, they did wrong. Thus were rejected by the Pope. Am I getting this correct?

 

[elman]

Wasn't he the leader of the crusaders and a preacher of some sort?

Anyway, let me clarify you from what I understand about this issue so far:

First, the Pope did not order killings against the Jews. But Peter the Hermmit did not follow the rules, so they did killed the Jews! Am I correct?

But the atheist I was having a discussion with is saying: "Look, Peter did not follow the rules, (assuming the Pope allowed the crusaders to killed the Jews).. Therefore he was rejected by the church."

This seems to be like a distortion. Because if the Pope had allowed the killings of the Jews, then Peter the Hermt would had done exactly the right thing. But no, they did wrong. Thus were rejected by the Pope. Am I getting this correct?

No the Pope allowing the killing of the Jews would still have been wrong.

 

[salida]

OK, I'm not really an expert on this area but I would really appreciate if somebody can give me some pointers. From what I understand, the first crusade was launched to regain back Jerusalem from Muslim. Some of these were Muslim Turks who later converted to Islam, took over the Byzantine Empire, and so this put a threat to European leaders. However the case may be, one of the common objection I get is this:

Jews were killed by crusaders. What was the reason for that?

Also by 4th crusade, Constantinople was took over. What happen there? I mean, it's a war so people would definitely get hurt. Sorry had to do some edit.

Hollywood vs. History

Hopefully, this can clarify some things.