What do you think of the Crusades?

[SarahJoy]

Then can you please advise the forum why there was Christian v. Christian infighting during all the crusades?]

Hey there, sorry, but I haven't been on for a week.
Christians were fighting Christians because just like all people, they each have their own persuasions and beliefs. Some Christians believed that the Holy Land could be conquered by means of peace treaties; others were bent on only war. The Templars are most renowned for this attitude.
The Templars were origionally a trading Order organized by the Pope himself. It wasn't until later that the Pope arranged for them to become a military order. Catholasism back then believed in killing all those who stood agianst the Pope, since the Pope is 'infallible'.
The king of Jerusalem at the time, Baldwin the 4th, had made peace treaties with Salah al Din, however, the Templars only wanted war, since that is what the Pope posted them to do.
What you end up getting is a King who promotes peace, men hired to kill all who try to succeed with peace and then they get hung for breaking a royal edict, and of course, everyone is wanting vengence on both sides.

As i stated in my previous post, nothing was done as God ordered it to be done!

TanteBelle​

 

[SarahJoy]

Lulz...

So the crusades were fought out of the blanket-term greed. Why not call them the greedades?]

Haha, good call, mate! You hit the nail right on the head!

TanteBelle​

 

[Kas]

oh my gosh

the templars were established as a militairy order after the first crusade... nothin like a trading order...

papal infallibility was never declared until the 1800... and not during the crusades...

...and finally... the crusades were undertaken at great personal cost to those who took the lords calliing... these people were hereos of the faith for the most part... holy martyres... saviours of Europe... but sadly not of the holy land or byzantium...

 

[Nooj]

saviours of Europe

Who did they save Europe from exactly?

Not a few of them were murderers of Jews. Many of them were murderers of innocent Muslims. Hardly Christ-like behaviour.

 

[Kas]

They saved Europe from Islamic Jihad sorry did you miss that... as I recall the Jews of Spain served as the spies of Islamic invaders... no one denies the massacres but they were condemned by the church... also, where is your knowledge of moslems massacres of Christians during this time or of the oppression forced on Christians...

 

[visionary]

They saved Europe from Islamic Jihad sorry did you miss that... as I recall the Jews of Spain served as the spies of Islamic invaders... no one denies the massacres but they were condemned by the church... also, where is your knowledge of moslems massacres of Christians during this time or of the oppression forced on Christians...

Are you speaking of Genghis Khan

 

[Kas]

no not Ghenkis Khan.... the 1400 years of continued Islamic aggression agaisnst Christians...

 

[visionary]

no not Ghenkis Khan.... the 1400 years of continued Islamic aggression agaisnst Christians...

tell me more

 

[Nooj]

They saved Europe from Islamic Jihad

Nonsense. Western Europe was safe from invasion, irregardless of whether the Crusade happened or not. They did not go to the Middle East because they wanted to save Europe from Islam, as can be seen clearly in their accounts. They accomplished nothing of that sort either.

as I recall the Jews of Spain served as the spies of Islamic invaders...

I suspect you'll have some evidence for this.

The Jews of the Rhineland had done nothing wrong and thousands of them, man and women and child were slaughtered with the name of God on their lips. That was just the First Crusade. With subsequent Crusades, new persecutions arose. And when they took Jerusalem, they set fire to the synagogue that Jews had barricaded themselves in with predictable consequences. Even the oh-so-honourable lords extorted money from the Jews.

no one denies the massacres but they were condemned by the church...

1) Doesn't stop your 'saviours' being murderers.
2) The Church condemned the forced conversions of Jews, but they did not condemn the whole sale massacring of Muslim cities, and it wasn't just Jerusalem either. I guess Jews had to be saved because they stand testimony to the utter failure of Judaism and the triumph of Christianity (the official policy of why the Jews were still being tolerated in Europe), whereas the Muslim man, woman and child could be slaughtered like dogs.

also, where is your knowledge of moslems massacres of Christians during this time or of the oppression forced on Christians...

"They did it too!" is not a valid excuse.

 

[Athaliamum]

lets not forget it was Islamic aggression that lead to the crusades... and its still happening today... reviving infact...

Let's not forget that so called "christian" countries (Russia mostly) have been going in to Arab providences (Sarajavo, Afganistan, Chechnya etc.) and killing Arabs for years. If you know a dog is the type to bite would you go up and pull its tail? And if you do who's fault is it for the dog biting? The dog or the one to pull the tail?

Now I don't agree with jihad by any degree but we are not blameless as a world community in this type of aggression as it takes so strong a hold. I can understand why young arab men who are abducted in their early teens, taken to concentration camps, beaten, tortured and gang sodomised before being let go may be a little angry and open to picking up a gun and waging war. Any religion, irrespective of which one, have always been institutions where corrupt men have tried to manipulate power by passive-aggressive to just plain aggressive methods to gain control of people.

This is a circular issue, no one side is blameless, each is being fueled by sin and until we can treat each other with love and worry about our own planks rather then everyone else's splinters it will continue to happen. One sided attitudes will only continue to escalate the violence and pour salt on raw wounds. Yes defend yourself from the biting dog if it comes near you or is in your home but don't go out of your home and into it's kennel, poke it with a stick and then cry foul when it turns around and rips your head off.

 

[SarahJoy]

papal infallibility was never declared until the 1800... and not during the crusades...]

Thanks for your post, but just one thing: what was the purpose then of all the inquisitions if the Pope was not considered 'infallible' before the 1800's?
I understand what you are saying, though. Yes, the Pope was not considered 'infallible' until 1870 by law, however, the theology of the Pope's infallibility was first developed during the 9th century.

TanteBelle​

 

[Holy Roller]

It looks like the liberal educators have been doing more brainwashing than I thought.

 

[ContraMundum]

Let's not forget that so called "christian" countries (Russia mostly) have been going in to Arab providences (Sarajavo, Afganistan, Chechnya etc.) and killing Arabs for years.

Yugoslavs, Afghans and Chechens are not Arabs. Sarajevo was not invaded by Russia, and the Afghan gov't begged the USSR to intervene against the Taliban to save them from being overthrown. Like morons, the US gov't supported the Taliban because they fought "commies" (who were in fact trying to assist the elected Afghani gov't to build schools etc in Afghanistan). Weird.

But, back to the point: What you mean to say is that there has been aggression against Muslim nations in recent times. This is easily established and you are right about that.

However, during the Crusades, there was Muslim aggression against everybody they could reach. That's what Islam was about in those days- conquest. From the start, Islam has conquered to spread. From the wars of Mohammed himself to the "Wars of Arab Conquest" of his successors there has always been an expansionist agenda. This is partly because certain parts of the planet are considered an Islamic Waqf, and also because Islam is a missionary religion following the example of its founder by spreading the religion with the sword.

For examples, consider the conquest of Spain, and the further incursion into Europe resulting in the Battle of Tours, which saved Europe. In the later Crusades, other portions of Europe were attacked, including the conquest of Turkey, the Siege of Malta, and the invasion of Wallachia, Transylvania, Moldavia, Serbia, Bosnia, Albania, Chechnya, etc etc etc. All Christian territories subjected to Islamic military aggression.

 

[Athaliamum]

Yugoslavs, Afghans and Chechens are not Arabs.

You are right CM. I chose poorly with my words. I should have said Muslims instead of Arbas and communities instead of providences.

I guess the point is that both religions have enforced their religion by the sword and therefore create a circular conflict. It isn't as one sided in "aggression" as it has been made out to be by both sides so blanket statements in that regard are untrue and really in essence irrelevant. It has become a world game of tit for tat.

 

[Nooj]

It looks like the liberal educators have been doing more brainwashing than I thought.

You've got a massive conspiracy complex. Liberal educators this, liberal educators that. However, if you've bothered to read the Crusade literature, you'll know that the position I'm arguing for is the majority position held by Crusade historians today. Are they liberal educators too?

Like morons, the US gov't supported the Taliban because they fought "commies" (who were in fact trying to assist the elected Afghani gov't to build schools etc in Afghanistan). Weird.

The US didn't support the Taliban. They did support the muhajideen who basically ruined the country after everyone left Afghanistan high and dry once the Soviets pulled out. Then the Taliban rose from the ashes so to speak.

All Christian territories subjected to Islamic military aggression.

Steven Runciman, a noted Byzantine apologist, was opposed to the Crusades for precisely that reason, because he thought that the Crusades weakened the Byzantine Empire to such an extent that Western Europe doomed the Balkans to Muslim slavery.

 

[Holy Roller]

If someone thinks the crusades were some kind of Christian atrocity where people were forced to convert at swordpoint, then yes. You have been brainwashed by the liberal educator.

 

[ContraMundum]

The US didn't support the Taliban. They did support the muhajideen who basically ruined the country after everyone left Afghanistan high and dry once the Soviets pulled out. Then the Taliban rose from the ashes so to speak.

True- but the US did in fact support the Taliban as well- although the Taliban was not the ruling faction during the war, still being in infancy with little organisation outside of the Pashtuns.

Steven Runciman, a noted Byzantine apologist, was opposed to the Crusades for precisely that reason, because he thought that the Crusades weakened the Byzantine Empire to such an extent that Western Europe doomed the Balkans to Muslim slavery.

I'm curious about his thoughts on that.

 

[Nooj]

I've got my HSCs, so you'll have to wait a little.

 

[ContraMundum]

I've got my HSCs, so you'll have to wait a little.

You obviously don't go to Xavier's College!

No worries, post it when you can!

 

[Nooj]

You obviously don't go to Xavier's College!

No worries, post it when you can!

I'm wracked by procrastination, so I'll just wittle away the minutes on this. Steven Runciman was a famous medieval historian, he wrote a landmark series called 'History of the Crusades' that's basically on every library shelf. His book Byzantine Civilization is still one of the best on the Byzantine Empire, despite dating from the 1930s.

Anyway, as a pro-Hellenist, he condemns the Crusades, in particular the Fourth Crusade (although the earlier ones came in for their fair share of criticism too) as having irreversibly weakened the real bastion of Christendom. He was the one who coined the famous phrase: "the Holy War itself was nothing more than a long act of intolerance in the name of God, which is the sin against the Holy Ghost."

I'm not going into why the Fourth Crusade happened, it's a long and complicated event that may have happened by accident. The Westerners came and broke the empire in 1203-4 and then couldn't put it back together again. Latin self-interest just fed into the political chaos.

In History of the Crusades (volume 3, 477) Runciman writes that the Byzantium Empire was so weakened that it could 'no longer guard Christendom against the Turk', which lead to 'persecution and slavery' for the 'innocent Christians of the Balkans'. Basically the Ottomans conquered large swaths of the Balkans, and Runciman supposed that the Byzantines might have kept the Muslims from Europe a while longer yet, if only their Christian brothers hadn't dealt them such a devastating blow. He may have been right.

The unified bulwark, which had withstood three Caliphates and repelled Muslim assaults and raids for centuries, fragmented into separatist Greek states. Even when Constantinople was retaken by the Greeks in 1261, it remained a shadow of its former self. The Byzantines from then on appealed to Western help all the time, using union of the two Churches as the drawing card. A sad, pathetic state of affairs.