Let's discuss the Crusades!

[Root of Jesse]

The myth of the Crusades, to sum it up, is that "During the Crusades, an expansionist, imperialist Christendom, directed by the Pope, brutalized, looted and colonized a tolerant, and peaceful Islam."
In recent years, these claims have been utterly refuted by distinguished historians. They propose that the Crusades were precipitated by Islamic provocations-by centuries of bloody attempts to colonize the West and by sudden new attacks on pilgrims and holy places. Although the Crusades were initiated by pleas from the Pope, this had nothing to do with hopes of converting Islam. Nor were the Crusades organized and led by surplus sons, but by the heads of great families who were fully aware that the costs of crusading would far exceed the very modest material rewards that could be expected; most went at immense personal cost, some of them knowingly bankrupting themselves to go. Also, the Crusader kingdoms were not sustained by locals, but required huge subsidies from Europe to stand for the 200 years they existed. Also, it is unreasonable to impose modern ideas of just war and proper military conduct on medieval warfare-Christians and Muslims both observed quite different rules. Finally, modern ideas espoused by American Presidents that Muslims have harbored resentment over the Crusades for centuries are wrong. Muslim antagonism about the Crusades didn't appear til about 1900 with the decline of the Ottoman Empire and the onset of European colonialism in the Middle East.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I agree that in dealing with this subject, and Scripture, , it is important that we should confine ourselves to the Word of God, and
not go to Tradition. Yet, when nine out of ten believe what they have learnt from
Tradition, we have a thankless task, so far as pleasing man is concerned.
(paraphrase of E.W.Bullinger)

 

[Root of Jesse]

I agree that in dealing with this subject, and Scripture, , it is important that we should confine ourselves to the Word of God, and
not go to Tradition. Yet, when nine out of ten believe what they have learnt from
Tradition, we have a thankless task, so far as pleasing man is concerned.
(paraphrase of E.W.Bullinger)

When you're speaking of the traditions of men, yes. But the Traditions of God, you're wrong. We believe our Traditions (as opposed to traditions, which are practices) come from God Himself through the Holy Spirit which is guiding the leadership of our Church.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

The origin of the first Crusade rests in the Byzantine loss at Manzikert in 1045.
This allowed marauding Seljuk Turks to enter Anatolia and robbed the Byzantines of some of there most important military Themes.

Consequently Emperor Alexius I requested a few Western knights to help repel the Seljuks. Pope Urban II then used this as a pretence to call for mass mobilisation of soldiers to free the holy lands and push back the Saracen.

This follows many years of Islamic expansion. The Umayyad Caliphate had overrun Byzantine North Africa, Visigothic Spain, Sicily and much of the Levant before collapsing. The successor states continued this process of Gazi expansion, so Islam was by no means peaceful at all.
The Normans had just recently expelled the Muslims from Sicily and Italy itself had been attacked in 9th century.
Along with this continuous animosity, we see the Fatimid and Sunni rivalry in the Holy land resulting in disruption of Christian Pilgrimage and atrocities against them.
The Crusades can be argued to be a European response or self-defence in depth against Islamic expansionism.

The later Crusades were usually led by Kings at great personal cost to their realms and themselves (such as Richard I who nearly bankrupted England and was imprisoned and had to be ransomed on his return).
The first Crusade itself was led by High nobility like Raymond of Toulouse or Robert Curthose of Normandy. Most of the soldiers went home after a formal crusade was dissolved and few of these were excess sons, but Lords and their immediate Heirs.
The states of Outremer however required constant funding as their military situation remained precarious throughout their existence, so a good economic base could never be fully established. Second sons and so forth did gradually make their way there in hope of employment or getting fiefs, but they were by no means the chief element of Crusades.

While there were peaceful Muslims who made and kept truces with the Crusaders, there was a constant call throughout the period to expell them entirely. Atrocities were committed on both sides and I myself find it disingenuous that we praise Saladin for sparing the population of Jerusalem in 1187 against the Christian massacre when they took the city in 1099, yet ignore all the other times he DID massacre inhabitants. This was more an exception that proves the rule, which is why the Europeans praised this act so highly.
The Christians were by no means thugs nor were the Muslims Angels. This is modernist fantasy to denigrate our own ancestors to show ourselves 'tolerant' or 'progressive' today.

What really strikes me is that when Europe stopped Crusading, what happened? The Byzantine Empire was gradually overrun and the Turks camped at the gates of Vienna. This clearly shows the both defensive and offensive nature of the Crusades and the expansionist tendencies of the Islamic states.

I also agree that the Islamic world largely forgot about the Crusades until quite recently, as we seldom remember wars we won for very long, but nurse resentment when we lose. Unfortunately, although it was 200 glorious years, Christendom lost Outremer to the Mamluks, so why would Muslims then remain resentful? It makes little sense.

 

[Philip_B]

I think the crusades need to be considered separately. They have some common themes, yet each had a different story. Much them we would think represents the wrong kind of kingdom theology. The forth of course led to the sacking of Constantinople for the benefit of the Venetians, and ultimately weakened the City and the Byzantine Empire so much that the first city founded as a Christian City was defeated and became a Islamic City. Christians fighting Christians is one of the saddest things about the Crusades.

 

[Armoured]

Lets discuss the Crusades, yes.

First thing to understand about them is that they were a product of their time, and trying to shoehorn them into justifying any sort of modern ideological narrative is, at best, misguided.

 

[tickingclocker]

The myth of the Crusades, to sum it up, is that "During the Crusades, and expansionist, imperialist Christendom, directed by the Pope, brutalized, looted and colonized a tolerant, and peaceful Islam."
In recent years, these claims have been utterly refuted by distinguished historians. They propose that the Crusades were precipitated by Islamic provocations-by centuries of bloody attempts to colonize the West and by sudden new attacks on pilgrims and holy places. Although the Crusades were initiated by pleas from the Pope, this had nothing to do with hopes of converting Islam. Nor were the Crusades organized and led by surplus sons, but by the heads of great families who were fully aware that the costs of crusading would far exceed the very modest material rewards that could be expected; most went at immense personal cost, some of them knowingly bankrupting themselves to go. Also, the Crusader kingdoms were not sustained by locals, but required huge subsidies from Europe to stand for the 200 years they existed. Also, it is unreasonable to impose modern ideas of just war and proper military conduct on medieval warfare-Christians and Muslims both observed quite different rules. Finally, modern ideas espoused by American Presidents that Muslims have harbored resentment over the Crusades for centuries are wrong. Muslim antagonism about the Crusades didn't appear til about 1900 with the decline of the Ottoman Empire and the onset of European colonialism in the Middle East.

No one so far has gotten the Christians and the Muslims to agree that the Crusades were the result of and thus the fault of both sides. To hear tales told of the Crusades in any Muslim country's history books, you would think Christians were the most vile people in the world. To hear tales told of the Crusades in any Christian country's history books, you would think Muslims were the most vile people in the world.

What is key is both sides never again fought each other in so open a fashion. Did both sides learn their lesson from that? Yes and no. Yes, we both learned that religious wars are futile. No, we learned that certain groups can and will pick up where open religious wars ended, continuing the fighting in an underhanded and cowardly manner in order to gain whatever they can for themselves. It's the history of mankind.

 

[Philip_B]

I think we teach History very poorly. We think it is about Who, What, When and Where. The question we consistently omit from History is Why.

The lesson of History is that we do not learn the lesson of History.

I believe the reason for this is the question we consistently omit from History is Why.

 

[Armoured]

I think we teach History very poorly. We think it is about Who, What, When and Where. The question we consistently omit from History is Why.

The lesson of History is that we do not learn the lesson of History.

I believe the reason for this is the question we consistently omit from History is Why.

The "why" of the Crusades is pretty well understood by actual historians. The problem is there are an awful lot of revisionists desperately trying to rewrite the "why" to justify modern political rhetoric.

 

[Philip_B]

Pope Urban II then used this as a pretense to call for mass mobilisation of soldiers to free the holy lands and push back the Saracen.

Why?

The Crusades can be argued to be a European response or self-defence in depth against Islamic expansionism.

That is one possible Why. It may apply to some crusades more than others.

Atrocities were committed on both sides and I myself find it disingenuous that we praise Saladin for sparing the population of Jerusalem in 1187 against the Christian massacre when they took the city in 1099, yet ignore all the other times he DID massacre inhabitants.

That is True.

What really strikes me is that when Europe stopped Crusading, what happened? The Byzantine Empire was gradually overrun and the Turks camped at the gates of Vienna. This clearly shows the both defensive and offensive nature of the Crusades and the expansionist tendencies of the Islamic states.

Perhaps the seeds of the fall of Constantinople and the Byzantine Empire was are found in the sacking of Constantinople by Western Crusaders of the fourth Crusade which denuded the city of so much of its wealth and life, such that it never recovered. If you start asking why Constantinople fell, you may find Western Christians may be as much to blame as anyone else.

At the heart of the Crusades is a Kingdom and Caliphate mindset that is about wealth and territory. Many Christians and Muslims today will recognize that the true battle is for heart and minds, and dare I say it souls.

Psalm 122.6
O pray for the peace of Jerusalem :
may those who love you prosper.​

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Why?

Pope Urban's call to Crusade according to Fulcher of Chartres:
"Most beloved brethren: Urged by necessity, I, Urban, by the permission of God chief bishop and prelate over the whole world, have come into these parts as an ambassador with a divine admonition to you, the servants of God. I hoped to find you as faithful and as zealous in the service of God as I had supposed you to be. But if there is in you any deformity or crookedness contrary to God's law, with divine help I will do my best to remove it. For God has put you as stewards over his family to minister to it. Happy indeed will you be if he finds you faithful in your stewardship. You are called shepherds; see that you do not act as hirelings. But be true shepherds, with your crooks always in your hands. Do not go to sleep, but guard on all sides the flock committed to you. For if through your carelessness or negligence a wolf carries away one of your sheep, you will surely lose the reward laid up for you with God. And after you have been bitterly scourged with remorse for your faults-, you will be fiercely overwhelmed in hell, the abode of death. For according to the gospel you are the salt of the earth [Matt. 5:13]. But if you fall short in your duty, how, it may be asked, can it be salted? O how great the need of salting! It is indeed necessary for you to correct with the salt of wisdom this foolish people which is so devoted to the pleasures of this -world, lest the Lord, when He may wish to speak to them, find them putrefied by their sins unsalted and stinking. For if He, shall find worms, that is, sins, In them, because you have been negligent in your duty, He will command them as worthless to be thrown into the abyss of unclean things. And because you cannot restore to Him His great loss, He will surely condemn you and drive you from His loving presence. But the man who applies this salt should be prudent, provident, modest, learned, peaceable, watchful, pious, just, equitable, and pure. For how can the ignorant teach others? How can the licentious make others modest? And how can the impure make others pure? If anyone hates peace, how can he make others peaceable ? Or if anyone has soiled his hands with baseness, how can he cleanse the impurities of another? We read also that if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into the ditch [Matt. 15:14]. But first correct yourselves, in order that, free from blame , you may be able to correct those who are subject to you. If you wish to be the friends of God, gladly do the things which you know will please Him. You must especially let all matters that pertain to the church be controlled by the law of the church. And be careful that simony does not take root among you, lest both those who buy and those who sell [church offices] be beaten with the scourges of the Lord through narrow streets and driven into the place of destruction and confusion. Keep the church and the clergy in all its grades entirely free from the secular power. See that the tithes that belong to God are faithfully paid from all the produce of the land; let them not be sold or withheld. If anyone seizes a bishop let him be treated as an outlaw. If anyone seizes or robs monks, or clergymen, or nuns, or their servants, or pilgrims, or merchants, let him be anathema [that is, cursed]. Let robbers and incendiaries and all their accomplices be expelled from the church and anthematized. If a man who does not give a part of his goods as alms is punished with the damnation of hell, how should he be punished who robs another of his goods? For thus it happened to the rich man in the gospel [Luke 16:19]; he was not punished because he had stolen the goods of another, but because he had not used well the things which were his.

"You have seen for a long time the great disorder in the world caused by these crimes. It is so bad in some of your provinces, I am told, and you are so weak in the administration of justice, that one can hardly go along the road by day or night without being attacked by robbers; and whether at home or abroad one is in danger of being despoiled either by force or fraud. Therefore it is necessary to reenact the truce, as it is commonly called, which was proclaimed a long time ago by our holy fathers. I exhort and demand that you, each, try hard to have the truce kept in your diocese. And if anyone shall be led by his cupidity or arrogance to break this truce, by the authority of God and with the sanction of this council he shall be anathematized."

After these and various other matters had been attended to, all who were present, clergy and people, gave thanks to God and agreed to the pope's proposition. They all faithfully promised to keep the decrees. Then the pope said that in another part of the world Christianity was suffering from a state of affairs that was worse than the one just mentioned. He continued:

"Although, O sons of God, you have promised more firmly than ever to keep the peace among yourselves and to preserve the rights of the church, there remains still an important work for you to do. Freshly quickened by the divine correction, you must apply the strength of your righteousness to another matter which concerns you as well as God. For your brethren who live in the east are in urgent need of your help, and you must hasten to give them the aid which has often been promised them. For, as the most of you have heard, the Turks and Arabs have attacked them and have conquered the territory of Romania [the Greek empire] as far west as the shore of the Mediterranean and the Hellespont, which is called the Arm of St. George. They have occupied more and more of the lands of those Christians, and have overcome them in seven battles. They have killed and captured many, and have destroyed the churches and devastated the empire. If you permit them to continue thus for awhile with impurity, the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked by them. On this account I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ's heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends. I say this to those who are present, it meant also for those who are absent. Moreover, Christ commands it.

"All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins. This I grant them through the power of God with which I am invested. O what a disgrace if such a despised and base race, which worships demons, should conquer a people which has the faith of omnipotent God and is made glorious with the name of Christ! With what reproaches will the Lord overwhelm us if you do not aid those who, with us, profess the Christian religion! Let those who have been accustomed unjustly to wage private warfare against the faithful now go against the infidels and end with victory this war which should have been begun long ago. Let those who for a long time, have been robbers, now become knights. Let those who have been fighting against their brothers and relatives now fight in a proper way against the barbarians. Let those who have been serving as mercenaries for small pay now obtain the eternal reward. Let those who have been wearing themselves out in both body and soul now work for a double honor. Behold! on this side will be the sorrowful and poor, on that, the rich; on this side, the enemies of the Lord, on that, his friends. Let those who go not put off the journey, but rent their lands and collect money for their expenses; and as soon as winter is over and spring comes, let hem eagerly set out on the way with God as their guide."

Perhaps the seeds of the fall of Constantinople and the Byzantine Empire was are found in the sacking of Constantinople by Western Crusaders of the fourth Crusade which denuded the city of so much of its wealth and life, such that it never recovered. If you start asking why Constantinople fell, you may find Western Christians may be as much to blame as anyone else.

The fall of Constantinople in 1453 was in part due to the sack in 1204, but also due to the Civil War with John VI Catakezenos, the Catalan Vengeance, Orthodox opposition to the Council of Florence, Mehmet's desire to finally take Constantinople, Realpolitik etc. The West has significant blood on its hands when it comes to the fall of Constantinople I agree, along with the Ottomans.
The fact is though that if large scale Crusades like those of the High Middle Ages had been launched in the 15th century, then the piecemeal Ottoman conquest of Byzantine Europe and Trebizond would not have taken place and Constantinople would not even have been threatened by them. The Ottomans would have then been fighting Crusaders in Anatolia or Syria. Crusades were always a risk to the native inhabitants, Christian or otherwise, as it is difficult to control feudal armies and often the leadership can be lacking scruples like in the 4th when they highjacked the Crusade for secular aims.

At the heart of the Crusades is a Kingdom and Caliphate mindset that is about wealth and territory. Many Christians and Muslims today will recognize that the true battle is for heart and minds, and dare I say it souls.

Psalm 122.6
O pray for the peace of Jerusalem :
may those who love you prosper.​

Not entirely. For the most part wealth and territory were considered, but there are examples like Frederick II's peaceful negotiated return of Jerusalem to Christian hands and the fairly amicable relationship between the Crusaders and Fatimid Egypt initially which shows far more is at play here than just greed. It is anachronistic to ascribe such motives alone to the Crusaders when all human actions are usually multifactorial.

As an aside, the Caliph in Baghdad was fairly unconcerned with the Crusades as his post was largely ceremonial at this stage, so most of the Islamic fighting was done by Turkish and Arab Emirs acting on their own initiative often supported by their Imams. The Fatimid Caliph was quite friendly to the Crusader states at the beginning of the period as they acted as a good buffer to the Sunnis and only later did Egypt largely turn against them under the Ayyubids and Mamluks.

 

[Armoured]

Pope Urban's call to Crusade according to Fulcher of Chartres:
"Most beloved brethren: Urged by necessity, I, Urban, by the permission of God chief bishop and prelate over the whole world, have come into these parts as an ambassador with a divine admonition to you, the servants of God. I hoped to find you as faithful and as zealous in the service of God as I had supposed you to be. But if there is in you any deformity or crookedness contrary to God's law, with divine help I will do my best to remove it. For God has put you as stewards over his family to minister to it. Happy indeed will you be if he finds you faithful in your stewardship. You are called shepherds; see that you do not act as hirelings. But be true shepherds, with your crooks always in your hands. Do not go to sleep, but guard on all sides the flock committed to you. For if through your carelessness or negligence a wolf carries away one of your sheep, you will surely lose the reward laid up for you with God. And after you have been bitterly scourged with remorse for your faults-, you will be fiercely overwhelmed in hell, the abode of death. For according to the gospel you are the salt of the earth [Matt. 5:13]. But if you fall short in your duty, how, it may be asked, can it be salted? O how great the need of salting! It is indeed necessary for you to correct with the salt of wisdom this foolish people which is so devoted to the pleasures of this -world, lest the Lord, when He may wish to speak to them, find them putrefied by their sins unsalted and stinking. For if He, shall find worms, that is, sins, In them, because you have been negligent in your duty, He will command them as worthless to be thrown into the abyss of unclean things. And because you cannot restore to Him His great loss, He will surely condemn you and drive you from His loving presence. But the man who applies this salt should be prudent, provident, modest, learned, peaceable, watchful, pious, just, equitable, and pure. For how can the ignorant teach others? How can the licentious make others modest? And how can the impure make others pure? If anyone hates peace, how can he make others peaceable ? Or if anyone has soiled his hands with baseness, how can he cleanse the impurities of another? We read also that if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into the ditch [Matt. 15:14]. But first correct yourselves, in order that, free from blame , you may be able to correct those who are subject to you. If you wish to be the friends of God, gladly do the things which you know will please Him. You must especially let all matters that pertain to the church be controlled by the law of the church. And be careful that simony does not take root among you, lest both those who buy and those who sell [church offices] be beaten with the scourges of the Lord through narrow streets and driven into the place of destruction and confusion. Keep the church and the clergy in all its grades entirely free from the secular power. See that the tithes that belong to God are faithfully paid from all the produce of the land; let them not be sold or withheld. If anyone seizes a bishop let him be treated as an outlaw. If anyone seizes or robs monks, or clergymen, or nuns, or their servants, or pilgrims, or merchants, let him be anathema [that is, cursed]. Let robbers and incendiaries and all their accomplices be expelled from the church and anthematized. If a man who does not give a part of his goods as alms is punished with the damnation of hell, how should he be punished who robs another of his goods? For thus it happened to the rich man in the gospel [Luke 16:19]; he was not punished because he had stolen the goods of another, but because he had not used well the things which were his.

"You have seen for a long time the great disorder in the world caused by these crimes. It is so bad in some of your provinces, I am told, and you are so weak in the administration of justice, that one can hardly go along the road by day or night without being attacked by robbers; and whether at home or abroad one is in danger of being despoiled either by force or fraud. Therefore it is necessary to reenact the truce, as it is commonly called, which was proclaimed a long time ago by our holy fathers. I exhort and demand that you, each, try hard to have the truce kept in your diocese. And if anyone shall be led by his cupidity or arrogance to break this truce, by the authority of God and with the sanction of this council he shall be anathematized."

After these and various other matters had been attended to, all who were present, clergy and people, gave thanks to God and agreed to the pope's proposition. They all faithfully promised to keep the decrees. Then the pope said that in another part of the world Christianity was suffering from a state of affairs that was worse than the one just mentioned. He continued:

"Although, O sons of God, you have promised more firmly than ever to keep the peace among yourselves and to preserve the rights of the church, there remains still an important work for you to do. Freshly quickened by the divine correction, you must apply the strength of your righteousness to another matter which concerns you as well as God. For your brethren who live in the east are in urgent need of your help, and you must hasten to give them the aid which has often been promised them. For, as the most of you have heard, the Turks and Arabs have attacked them and have conquered the territory of Romania [the Greek empire] as far west as the shore of the Mediterranean and the Hellespont, which is called the Arm of St. George. They have occupied more and more of the lands of those Christians, and have overcome them in seven battles. They have killed and captured many, and have destroyed the churches and devastated the empire. If you permit them to continue thus for awhile with impurity, the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked by them. On this account I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ's heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends. I say this to those who are present, it meant also for those who are absent. Moreover, Christ commands it.

"All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins. This I grant them through the power of God with which I am invested. O what a disgrace if such a despised and base race, which worships demons, should conquer a people which has the faith of omnipotent God and is made glorious with the name of Christ! With what reproaches will the Lord overwhelm us if you do not aid those who, with us, profess the Christian religion! Let those who have been accustomed unjustly to wage private warfare against the faithful now go against the infidels and end with victory this war which should have been begun long ago. Let those who for a long time, have been robbers, now become knights. Let those who have been fighting against their brothers and relatives now fight in a proper way against the barbarians. Let those who have been serving as mercenaries for small pay now obtain the eternal reward. Let those who have been wearing themselves out in both body and soul now work for a double honor. Behold! on this side will be the sorrowful and poor, on that, the rich; on this side, the enemies of the Lord, on that, his friends. Let those who go not put off the journey, but rent their lands and collect money for their expenses; and as soon as winter is over and spring comes, let hem eagerly set out on the way with God as their guide."


The fall of Constantinople in 1453 was in part due to the sack in 1204, but also due to the Civil War with John VI Catakezenos, the Catalan Vengeance, Orthodox opposition to the Council of Florence, Mehmet's desire to finally take Constantinople, Realpolitik etc. The West has significant blood on its hands when it comes to the fall of Constantinople I agree, along with the Ottomans.
The fact is though that if large scale Crusades like those of the High Middle Ages had been launched in the 15th century, then the piecemeal Ottoman conquest of Byzantine Europe and Trebizond would not have taken place and Constantinople would not even have been threatened by them. The Ottomans would have then been fighting Crusaders in Anatolia or Syria. Crusades were always a risk to the native inhabitants, Christian or otherwise, as it is difficult to control feudal armies and often the leadership can be lacking scruples like in the 4th when they highjacked the Crusade for secular aims.


Not entirely. For the most part wealth and territory were considered, but there are examples like Frederick II's peaceful negotiated return of Jerusalem to Christian hands and the fairly amicable relationship between the Crusaders and Fatimid Egypt initially which shows far more is at play here than just greed. It is anachronistic to ascribe such motives alone to the Crusaders when all human actions are usually multifactorial.

As an aside, the Caliph in Baghdad was fairly unconcerned with the Crusades as his post was largely ceremonial at this stage, so most of the Islamic fighting was done by Turkish and Arab Emirs acting on their own initiative often supported by their Imams. The Fatimid Caliph was quite friendly to the Crusader states at the beginning of the period as they acted as a good buffer to the Sunnis and only later did Egypt largely turn against them under the Ayyubids and Mamluks.

You seem to be missing the important piece of context that Fulcher was, essentially, 11th century Goering Goebbels.He's a vital historical source, however it is very important to appreciate the context in which he was writing. He wasn't even attempting to be objective.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

You seem to be missing the important piece of context that Fulcher was, essentially, 11th century Goering. He's a vital historical source, however it is very important to appreciate the context in which he was writing. He wasn't even attempting to be objective.

I assume you mean Goebbels, not Goering.

Of course its propaganda. Any speech made to achieve an aim is going to be biased towards it. I think it is highly plausible that Urban's speech was similar if not identical to this. But it nicely illustrates his presumed goals. Opposing Islamic expansion against the Eastern Christians, asserting Papal primacy over Christianity and trying to cement Church holdings in the West while uniting them against a common enemy.

 

[Armoured]

I assume you mean Goebbels, not Goering.

Of course its propaganda. Any speech made to achieve an aim is going to be biased towards it. I think it is highly plausible that Urban's speech was similar if not identical to this. But it nicely illustrates his presumed goals. Opposing Islamic expansion against the Eastern Christians, asserting Papal primacy over Christianity and trying to cement Church holdings in the West while uniting them against a common enemy.

*Facepalm*. Yes, Goebbels. Long day. Thanks for the catch.

It's generally agreed that Urban's main goals were getting as many destabilising warriors out of Catholic Europe as possible, and showing the Byzantines/Orthodox what for. It's lt's also generally agreed that no one ever intended the 1st Crusae to be anything like the mass movement it was. Alexius almost certainly only wanted a handful of elite troops, and Urban almost certainly expected the response to be from a fairly small group of professional soldiers. What they got was a mass migration, which kind of lead to the Crusades becoming self sustaining and culturally normative.

ESPECIALLY once the gains of the 1st Crusade were beaten back in the 12th Century, everything that followed was basically an exercise in "our forebears fought and died for THIS? We can't let these subhumans win!", basically, look at anything the Teaparty has said about the Iraq war in the last 10 years to get some idea of the general paradigm.

The FACTS are, that the Crusade was an over-reaction to a Byzantine request for defensive aid, and that the Muslims weren't generally interested in expanding into Europe through Anatolia until after a couple of centuries of Christian atrocity and betrayal. Rather than trying to assign blame to any particular faction, the whole thing really needs to be looked at holistically, and taken as something of a "perfect storm" of conditions.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

*Facepalm*. Yes, Goebbels. Long day. Thanks for the catch.

It's generally agreed that Urban's main goals were getting as many destabilising warriors out of Catholic Europe as possible, and showing the Byzantines/Orthodox what for. It's lt's also generally agreed that no one ever intended the 1st Crusae to be anything like the mass movement it was. Alexius almost certainly only wanted a handful of elite troops, and Urban almost certainly expected the response to be from a fairly small group of professional soldiers. What they got was a mass migration, which kind of lead to the Crusades becoming self sustaining and culturally normative.

ESPECIALLY once the gains of the 1st Crusade were beaten back in the 12th Century, everything that followed was basically an exercise in "our forebears fought and died for THIS? We can't let these subhumans win!", basically, look at anything the Teaparty has said about the Iraq war in the last 10 years to get some idea of the general paradigm.

The FACTS are, that the Crusade was an over-reaction to a Byzantine request for defensive aid, and that the Muslims weren't generally interested in expanding into Europe through Anatolia until after a couple of centuries of Christian atrocity and betrayal. Rather than trying to assign blame to any particular faction, the whole thing really needs to be looked at holistically, and taken as something of a "perfect storm" of conditions.

Urban II tried to steer his 'pilgrimage' toward freeing Jerusalem from the get go as his letters to the Flemish and Bologna immediately thereafter clearly demonstrate. While he did not expect as big a turnout, he clearly envisioned a large scale military event, far more than Alexius had requested. Urban had to contend with an Antipope and bitter Christian infighting and investiture controversies which were all easily solved by the Crusade, so I think you are selling the wily guy a bit short. It did get away from him a bit though especcially with the People's crusade.

As to the Turks, they had recently taken Nicaea and after Manzikert much of central Anatolia had fallen to the Sultanate of Rum, so to say that Islam was not expanding or interested in establishing itself in Anatolia does not hold water, for that is exactly what they had been doing the preceeding 50 years.

But Yes, the first Crusade was a 'perfect storm' that allowed a military escapade with little chance of success to be one of the greatest campaigns of history. If the Saracens had not been fighting each other as well, it probably would not have taken much of anything, for example. Its goals were about Western politics primarily and Islamic expansion secondarily with Orthodox concerns a distant third, in my opinion.

By the later Crusades it was established custom and most countries had interests in Outremer, so I think it is a bit more complicated than you suggest. Some kings like Louis the Pious obviously did it more for plaudits and indulgence than for any gains or stubborness.

 

[Armoured]

Urban II tried to steer his 'pilgrimage' toward freeing Jerusalem from the get go as his letters to the Flemish and Bologna immediately thereafter clearly demonstrate. While he did not expect as big a turnout, he clearly envisioned a large scale military event, far more than Alexius had requested. Urban had to contend with an Antipope and bitter Christian infighting and investiture controversies which were all easily solved by the Crusade, so I think you are selling the wily guy a bit short. It did get away from him a bit though especcially with the People's crusade.

As to the Turks, they had recently taken Nicaea and after Manzikert much of central Anatolia had fallen to the Sultanate of Rum, so to say that Islam was not expanding or interested in establishing itself in Anatolia does not hold water, for that is exactly what they had been doing the preceeding 50 years.

But Yes, the first Crusade was a 'perfect storm' that allowed a military escapade with little chance of success to be one of the greatest campaigns of history. If the Saracens had not been fighting each other as well, it probably would not have taken much of anything, for example. Its goals were about Western politics primarily and Islamic expansion secondarily with Orthodox concerns a distant third, in my opinion.

By the later Crusades it was established custom and most countries had interests in Outremer, so I think it is a bit more complicated than you suggest. Some kings like Louis the Pious obviously did it more for plaudits and indulgence than for any gains or stubborness.

I agree with the gist of this.

 

[Waterwerx]

The Crusades turned out to be just as any other war: For the purpose of plunder, whether it be for land, control, etc. It really makes you wonder where all of the previous wealth of the region ended up in today's world.

It was never intended for Christianity to conquer the world and make it a better place to live in preparation for Christ's return. This is contrary to what Jesus taught. I believe the idea was prevalent just prior to WW-I and with the arrival of WW-II it went out the window.