The Crusades: Cool or Recently Taboo?

[Stealthybear00]

So I am studying everything I can get my hands on about the Crusades and all involved. To me, this seems like a multifaceted and important discussion to have going on, but many of my classmates and collegues have a slight aversion to this topic because war is messy and these wars are possibly on thin ice presently with the multiple situations going on in the Middle East. I would love to talk with anyone about anything concerning this subject: Just War Theory, impacts, causes, battles, monastic military orders...whatever really. Its late now though so I will stop here.

Dieu li volt...God wills it...hmmmm?

[Amazing Rando]

So I am studying everything I can get my hands on about the Crusades and all involved. To me, this seems like a multifaceted and important discussion to have going on, but many of my classmates and collegues have a slight aversion to this topic because war is messy and these wars are possibly on thin ice presently with the multiple situations going on in the Middle East. I would love to talk with anyone about anything concerning this subject: Just War Theory, impacts, causes, battles, monastic military orders...whatever really. Its late now though so I will stop here.

Dieu li volt...God wills it...hmmmm?

Hi Stealthybear :hi: Awesome name by the way! :rofl:

I'd be glad to talk about these subjects with you. What seems to be on your mind?

[CatholicSage]

The Crusades, particularly the First Crusade, are very interesting to me. They represent an attempt by European Christians to unify under the banner of Christ and fight for a just cause: defense from the Muslim invaders in the East (and the West, as far as Spain is concerned). The Crusades were largely successful in this regard, though as everyone knows the territory that was gained in the (so-called) Holy Land was eventually re-retaken by the Muslims. It is also possible that the trade routes that the Crusaders opened up by capturing Jerusalem and the surrounding regions may have helped spark the Italian Renaissance.

Oh, and there's also a cool movie coming out soon about the Second Crusade I believe(where Saladin enters the picture), called Kingdom of Heaven. Here's the site: www.kingdomofheavenmovie.com. It's directed by Ridley Scott, so it ought to be good.

[Raptor]

:popcorn:

[Amazing Rando]

The Crusades, particularly the First Crusade, are very interesting to me. They represent an attempt by European Christians to unify under the banner of Christ and fight for a just cause: defense from the Muslim invaders in the East (and the West, as far as Spain is concerned).

Hold on LS- Do you consider killing non-Christians for the sake of not being Christian just?

The Crusades were largely successful in this regard, though as everyone knows the territory that was gained in the (so-called) Holy Land was eventually re-retaken by the Muslims. It is also possible that the trade routes that the Crusaders opened up by capturing Jerusalem and the surrounding regions may have helped spark the Italian Renaissance.

Thus... because of the Italian Renaissance, the deaths of countless Muslims is justified? :hrm:


Oh, and there's also a cool movie coming out soon about the Second Crusade I believe(where Saladin enters the picture), called Kingdom of Heaven. Here's the site: www.kingdomofheavenmovie.com. It's directed by Ridley Scott, so it ought to be good.

Sounds good! I'll be sure to catch it.

[CatholicSage]

Hold on LS- Do you consider killing non-Christians for the sake of not being Christian just?


No, but that's not what the Crusades were. The First Crusade was inherently defensive/counteroffensive in nature; they were not targetted against Muslims simply because they were Muslims, they were targetted against Muslims because Muslims had been invading and conquering Christian lands and peoples for centuries. The beginning of the events leading to the First Crusade was the taking of Jerusalem by (I believe) the Turks and the refusal to allow Christian pilgrimages there. Soon after, Antioch and Nicaea were taken, and the Byzantine Emperor applied to the West for help. This was the spirit in which the Crusades were launched: love for one's neighbor and the desire to liberate, not the hatred of Muslims or Jews.

Of course, the ideal couldn't be played out perfectly and we've all heard of the debacle of Jerusalem, in which many inhabitants were killed despite the best efforts of the Christian commanders like Godfrey of Bouillon and Raymond of Toulouse. It marred a great victory, but even so it did not approach the violence that some accounts attribute to it ("ankle-deep in blood") and certainly not the violence of today's wars, even in terms of percentage rather than numbers alone.



Thus... because of the Italian Renaissance, the deaths of countless Muslims is justified? :hrm:


No, I was just pointing out one possible interesting outcome of the Crusades. "Countless" is a bit of a loaded term, too.

Another interesting outcome was the founding of the Knights of St. John, famous as the Hospitallers. Very cool, those knights :wink:


Sounds good! I'll be sure to catch it.


It looks gorgeous. I hope it lives up to the visuals.

[FirstSunday33ad]

Let's be honest and call a spade a spade, the Crusades were an attempt to break the Muslim monopoly on the spice/silk trade using religion as justification. Once there, the Europeans couldn't get out and the war became their Vietnam. Towards the end any criminal or malcontent was packed off to Palestine to fight in the latest Crusade. The Holy Land was to the European what the Eastern Front was to the German of World War II.

[furay]

That movie, Kingdom of Heaven, looks like more generic Hollywood garbage.

[Amazing Rando]

That movie, Kingdom of Heaven, looks like more generic Hollywood garbage.

:yes: If only, like most hollywood garbage, it were not based on real events! :bawl: Definitely one of the low points of the church's history.

[Thomas More]

Let's be honest and call a spade a spade, the Crusades were an attempt to break the Muslim monopoly on the spice/silk trade using religion as justification. Once there, the Europeans couldn't get out and the war became their Vietnam. Towards the end any criminal or malcontent was packed off to Palestine to fight in the latest Crusade. The Holy Land was to the European what the Eastern Front was to the German of World War II.

Sorry but your analogy is flawed. You cannot compare wars, namely because all wars are diffrent as to motives. Each of the crusades was decidedly diffrent from eachother and trying to tack modern motives to their underrlying cause is foolish.

The first crusade was a religious exercise for Western Europe, the only reason it ever occoured was byzantiums call for aide. Since the battle of Manzikurt the Byzantines had been on the ropes and wanted the Church in Rome to send some Frankish heavy cavalry (the best in the world at that time). Alexius wrote a sob story about fellow Christinas being totured and killed in the holy land by Muslims (these things were happening but it was the Turks doing it for the most part). Preachers like Peter the Hermit traveled around preaching horror stories which incited peasents to take the cross.

The second crusade which will always be linked to the Cistercians and Bernard de Clairvaux. I consider this the most "holy" (Because it was endorsed by a Saint and all :ahem:) of Crusades it was also the most poorly run, they attacked the only ally that the Crusader states had and lost. Bernard could hardly beleive it.

The Third Crusade is the focus of Ridley Scott's movie pitted the merciless cruel patricidal Richard vs the merciless genocidal Jihadist named Sala Al Din. Europeans have romanticized both figures as paragons of virtue neither were.


The fourth crusade had to do with economics namely the Doge of Venice wanting to make Venice europes premeire trading city so they sojourned to Constantinople and sacked it and the booty is still on display in Venice to this day.

out side of this most of the following Crusades were internal of never got much support.

However that last big battle that could be seen as a continuation of the Crusades was Malta in 1565, we all owe thanks to the Order of St. john of the Hospital, because that battle smashed the creme of the Turkish army and their forces combined with the Holy League smashed the Turkish navy at Lepanto stopping all possiblilty of the Turks overunning Europe.

[Dienekes]

The Crusades were in reality a relatively pointless war. The true reason to what happened is only written in documents found Rome and to a much lesser degree in Istanbul as to why the war was fought.

The first war started with a letter from Constantinople to Rome asking for help from the possibility of a MONGOL invasion above the Islamic Empire. The letter aparently asked for around 200-300 heavy cavalry knights to help patrol the border. The Pope however had a completely different idea and jumped on it (many speculate that one of the cardinals whose name I have completely forgotten was really the mastermind) he went out to the streets of Rome and gave a huge speech to everyone that anyone who fought in a Crusade to fight the Muslims and create a military buffer state that would have a higher chance of stopping the Mongols would immediatly go to Heaven when they die and they would not have to pay for any indulgences against past sins.

Needless to say when an entire army came to Constantinople instead of 300 knights the Emperor went into histerics especially since the leader of this army was Bohemund (I believe it was this guy, I have a tendency to get my Normans confused) a Norman and rival of the Emperor.

Constantine then sent another letter to the Pope discusing these problems and they both came together and the idea of Freeing Jerusalem of the infidel.

After this both the Pope and Constantine started the propaganda of the evil Islams who would eat babies and so forth, however it is not as well known that the Muslim people were not blind to the gathering of the army and were starting relatively the same rumors about the "evil Franks" (there word for Eastern Europeans)

So the Emperor Alexis went back to the army and told the Norman and the Bouillon brothers how thigs were to be run, and they in a way of speacking laughed in his face until he pointed out that only he could feed their vast army so after a few days of starving the three pledged their grudging allegiance to the young Emperor, which would be broken repeatedly through the war by both the Emperor and the generals.

After that the marching orders came in and the army with the Normans and Germans in front (considered best footmen and knights respectively) and the rest in loose formation in the back. The first seige went quite well until because of the growing freedom of the three generals the Emperor went to the town and convinced them to surrender which made everyone mad do to the fact that they could not plunder the town like they wanted

The first real battle of the the War started in a pass where the Normans got too far ahead and the Muslims made an ambush using leg bows for maximum range and strength and then charging with light cavalry, the Normans were unorganized and though they put up a good fight they were outmaneuvered and out flanked however I like to use this battle as a show as the weakness of arrows to real armor the Normans were wearing a type of leather mesh and still the arrows weren't going through, one historian said that he saw soldiers running around with 20-40 arrows sticking out of them and acted like nothing was happening. I added this just for those who believe that the bow and arrow is the best weapon in this type of warfare when repeatedly through history (with some exceptions) it is shown that they are overrated. After close to 3 hours of fighting the German Knights show up and form a charge on the weaker Muslim cavalry then the rest of the army came and the Muslims retreated

And that is the start of the first Crusade.

[Thomas More]

The Crusades were in reality a relatively pointless war. The true reason to what happened is only written in documents found Rome and to a much lesser degree in Istanbul as to why the war was fought.

The first war started with a letter from Constantinople to Rome asking for help from the possibility of a MONGOL invasion above the Islamic Empire. The letter aparently asked for around 200-300 heavy cavalry knights to help patrol the border. The Pope however had a completely different idea and jumped on it (many speculate that one of the cardinals whose name I have completely forgotten was really the mastermind) he went out to the streets of Rome and gave a huge speech to everyone that anyone who fought in a Crusade to fight the Muslims and create a military buffer state that would have a higher chance of stopping the Mongols would immediatly go to Heaven when they die and they would not have to pay for any indulgences against past sins.

Needless to say when an entire army came to Constantinople instead of 300 knights the Emperor went into histerics especially since the leader of this army was Bohemund (I believe it was this guy, I have a tendency to get my Normans confused) a Norman and rival of the Emperor.

Constantine then sent another letter to the Pope discusing these problems and they both came together and the idea of Freeing Jerusalem of the infidel.

After this both the Pope and Constantine started the propaganda of the evil Islams who would eat babies and so forth, however it is not as well known that the Muslim people were not blind to the gathering of the army and were starting relatively the same rumors about the "evil Franks" (there word for Eastern Europeans)

So the Emperor Alexis went back to the army and told the Norman and the Bouillon brothers how thigs were to be run, and they in a way of speacking laughed in his face until he pointed out that only he could feed their vast army so after a few days of starving the three pledged their grudging allegiance to the young Emperor, which would be broken repeatedly through the war by both the Emperor and the generals.

After that the marching orders came in and the army with the Normans and Germans in front (considered best footmen and knights respectively) and the rest in loose formation in the back. The first seige went quite well until because of the growing freedom of the three generals the Emperor went to the town and convinced them to surrender which made everyone mad do to the fact that they could not plunder the town like they wanted

The first real battle of the the War started in a pass where the Normans got too far ahead and the Muslims made an ambush using leg bows for maximum range and strength and then charging with light cavalry, the Normans were unorganized and though they put up a good fight they were outmaneuvered and out flanked however I like to use this battle as a show as the weakness of arrows to real armor the Normans were wearing a type of leather mesh and still the arrows weren't going through, one historian said that he saw soldiers running around with 20-40 arrows sticking out of them and acted like nothing was happening. I added this just for those who believe that the bow and arrow is the best weapon in this type of warfare when repeatedly through history (with some exceptions) it is shown that they are overrated. After close to 3 hours of fighting the German Knights show up and form a charge on the weaker Muslim cavalry then the rest of the army came and the Muslims retreated

And that is the start of the first Crusade.


Uhm the Mongols were not on the scene for another 150 years, There were some issues with the Byzantines particuraly after the disaster at Manzikurt but those were all with Muslims. Namely the Islamic Tukish tribes who were harrassing the Byzantines and Christian pilgrims. They were also carveing out a kingdom against the Armenians and the local remnants of the Caliphate, being rather indiscriminante in who they fought for or against.

[Cynic Sage]

After this both the Pope and Constantine started the propaganda of the evil Islams who would eat babies and so forth, however it is not as well known that the Muslim people were not blind to the gathering of the army and were starting relatively the same rumors about the "evil Franks" (there word for Eastern Europeans)


Didn't Constantine die before the first Crusade? Isn't Constantine from the later days of the Roman empire and the first Crusade the middle ages?

[Straylight]

Constantine died in 332. The First Crusade didn't happen until about 750 years later. The Byzantine emperor partly responsible for the First Crusade was Alexios Komnenos.

[Darth Executor]

The Crusades were in reality a relatively pointless war. The true reason to what happened is only written in documents found Rome and to a much lesser degree in Istanbul as to why the war was fought.

The first war started with a letter from Constantinople to Rome asking for help from the possibility of a MONGOL invasion above the Islamic Empire. The letter aparently asked for around 200-300 heavy cavalry knights to help patrol the border. The Pope however had a completely different idea and jumped on it (many speculate that one of the cardinals whose name I have completely forgotten was really the mastermind) he went out to the streets of Rome and gave a huge speech to everyone that anyone who fought in a Crusade to fight the Muslims and create a military buffer state that would have a higher chance of stopping the Mongols would immediatly go to Heaven when they die and they would not have to pay for any indulgences against past sins.

Needless to say when an entire army came to Constantinople instead of 300 knights the Emperor went into histerics especially since the leader of this army was Bohemund (I believe it was this guy, I have a tendency to get my Normans confused) a Norman and rival of the Emperor.

Constantine then sent another letter to the Pope discusing these problems and they both came together and the idea of Freeing Jerusalem of the infidel.

After this both the Pope and Constantine started the propaganda of the evil Islams who would eat babies and so forth, however it is not as well known that the Muslim people were not blind to the gathering of the army and were starting relatively the same rumors about the "evil Franks" (there word for Eastern Europeans)

So the Emperor Alexis went back to the army and told the Norman and the Bouillon brothers how thigs were to be run, and they in a way of speacking laughed in his face until he pointed out that only he could feed their vast army so after a few days of starving the three pledged their grudging allegiance to the young Emperor, which would be broken repeatedly through the war by both the Emperor and the generals.

After that the marching orders came in and the army with the Normans and Germans in front (considered best footmen and knights respectively) and the rest in loose formation in the back. The first seige went quite well until because of the growing freedom of the three generals the Emperor went to the town and convinced them to surrender which made everyone mad do to the fact that they could not plunder the town like they wanted

The first real battle of the the War started in a pass where the Normans got too far ahead and the Muslims made an ambush using leg bows for maximum range and strength and then charging with light cavalry, the Normans were unorganized and though they put up a good fight they were outmaneuvered and out flanked however I like to use this battle as a show as the weakness of arrows to real armor the Normans were wearing a type of leather mesh and still the arrows weren't going through, one historian said that he saw soldiers running around with 20-40 arrows sticking out of them and acted like nothing was happening. I added this just for those who believe that the bow and arrow is the best weapon in this type of warfare when repeatedly through history (with some exceptions) it is shown that they are overrated. After close to 3 hours of fighting the German Knights show up and form a charge on the weaker Muslim cavalry then the rest of the army came and the Muslims retreated

And that is the start of the first Crusade.


:lmbo::lmbo::lmbo:

[Sparko]

Constantine died in 332. The First Crusade didn't happen until about 750 years later. The Byzantine emperor partly responsible for the First Crusade was Alexios Komnenos.

Not to mention no Muslims either until the 6th/7th century.

[Dienekes]

to my learned conterpart that correctly stated that the mongols did not attack until 150 years later.

You are right and the mongols I am thinking of never attacked at all The White Mongols (named after the White River of that time, they were not caucasian) were amassing an army and were pushing other tribes out of the way. the years before the first Crusade the Mongols started their extremely short fighting spree of relatively a decade. However at the time they were feared by the barbarian tribes of the region and pushing them into both Byzantine and the Muslim Empire. It was this threat of invasion I was refering to not the famous Genghis Khan.

[The Curtmudgeon]

So I am studying everything I can get my hands on about the Crusades and all involved. To me, this seems like a multifaceted and important discussion to have going on, but many of my classmates and collegues have a slight aversion to this topic because war is messy and these wars are possibly on thin ice presently with the multiple situations going on in the Middle East. I would love to talk with anyone about anything concerning this subject: Just War Theory, impacts, causes, battles, monastic military orders...whatever really. Its late now though so I will stop here.

Dieu li volt...God wills it...hmmmm?

Well, SBear, I think you're beginning to see just how controversial and un-understood the Crusades are to this day. There are almost as many theories about the Crusades, both individually and as a whole phenomenon, as there are theorists.

Let me add one more item to the stew, if I may. One aspect that I haven't noticed being mentioned here as yet is that there seems to be (I don't mind hedging my bets) a noticeable difference between (a) the purpose for which the Crusades were called and (b) the reasons why many, perhaps most, individuals and leaders joined in. I believe that it is over-simplistic to say, "The Crusades were called for the recovery of the Holy Lands from the Moslems, and therefore they were fought for the recovery of the same." While I will not dispute the high purposes of those such as Urban who were instrumental in starting the Crusading movement, I think that it can be clearly seen that for many of the knights and lords involved, if less so for the lesser ranks, the real attraction was: Land. The Normans as a group already had, and would continue to develop, a noticeable propensity for land-grabbing (something inherited from their Viking or "Northman" ancestors who grabbed Normandy in the first place). I see great similarities between the Norman invasion of Ireland in 1170 and the Norman participation in the Crusades: There was land to be carved out, particularly for younger sons who were not going to inherit their fathers' estates (primogeniture being the law among the Normans as well as all other feudal societies).

And while I've singled out the Normans for this comparison, I doubt very much that they were all that different from their Frankish and German co-Crusaders. Again, I'm talking really about the knight class and the lords; the peasants went either because they owed feudal duties to their lords, or out of probably true spiritual feelings stirred by the Pope's speeches.

And this was a crucial aspect of the intra-Christian side of the Crusades that is rarely talked about: The Byzantine Empire, representing and represented by the Orthodox Church, had requested the Crusades as a means of recovering for itself the lands lately lost to the Moslems. But when the European Crusaders arrived, they staked out lands for themselves, set up kingdoms on the Western European model, and fought almost as much against the Byzantines as against the Moslems. The Fourth Crusade, when Constantinople was sacked and burned, is only the most conspicuous of this intra-Christianity warfare; even in the First Crusade, the Crusaders pillaged and burned while crossing Byzantine territory, long before coming into contact with the Moslems. They weren't there for any spiritual or religious reason, they were there to carve out new lands for themselves.

(Of course, they also pillaged and burned Jewish communities in Europe itself on the way to Constantinople, but I'm concentrating here only on the land-grab aspect of the Crusades, without denying that there were other aspects and reasons active at the same time.)

The (hope that helps muddy the waters some :lol: ) Curtmudgeon

[Thomas More]

to my learned conterpart that correctly stated that the mongols did not attack until 150 years later.

You are right and the mongols I am thinking of never attacked at all The White Mongols (named after the White River of that time, they were not caucasian) were amassing an army and were pushing other tribes out of the way. the years before the first Crusade the Mongols started their extremely short fighting spree of relatively a decade. However at the time they were feared by the barbarian tribes of the region and pushing them into both Byzantine and the Muslim Empire. It was this threat of invasion I was refering to not the famous Genghis Khan.


No the Byzantines were worried about the Turks who were beating the heck out of everyone at the time. More particurally they had blown the majority of their military might in the battle of Mazikurt some 20 years earlier. After that bettle they ceased to have a large standing army and would hire whom they please. So they wanted to hire Norman Knights who were the best heavy calvalry in the world at that time and wrote a letter to Urban II hopeing to illicit sympathy. The Byzantines were rather horrified about what they ended up getting with the shock cavalry they asked for.

[nomad]

I have been interested in this lately too, and while I am nowhere near an expert, there are a couple more issues involved as well which might be related.

First, there was a schism in the church at the time, and Urban II did have some hope that the crusade might cement his faction's dominance. It did help with that.

Second, one interpretation that I have heard is this: Private war was still common in this time in Europe. The crusades were in some sense the Pope's Australia. By uniting the people against a common enemy, the muslims in the holy land, they would stop fighting each other, and many of the more problematic elements would leave Europe. I don't know how accurate it is but it makes some sense. Apparently there were some concessions made towards peace at this time.

[Dienekes]

Yes the Europeans were afraid of the Turks because they had because they had control of Africa and a nice middle region between Europe and China were they had all the profit. However the Muslims had never sent a real attack force against the Byzantines. Many historians thought (until roughly seven years ago) that it was the Turks who were driving the barbarians into northern Europe and Muslim Empire. The Byzantine however did not fear any Mongols because the barbarians didn't travel south to their Empire. All the Emperor wanted was protection against raiders (who were not all Muslim, in fact we have reason to believe that as much as 40% of the raiders were christians). The Pope however did not want barbarians were he ruled and he especially did not want the White Mongols to attack. He was the one who really set across the idea of a buffer state that I spoke of earlier.

Also the Byzantine Emperor did not want Normans, he wanted Frankish Knights, not as powerful but more reliable and were not currently at odds with the Emperor. What he got was everything. And yes he was enraged when he saw the army.

And now for something completely different in the second Crusade Saladin had two generals held captive. He wanted to kill one of them, he grabbed his sword and swung at the neeling mans head, he missed at hit his arm. The other general Guy made a crack at his horrible swordsmanship while Saladins asistants killed the first general. Why I put this in you ask? Because some people believe that Saladin like Richard the Lionheart was a good soldier. This was not true, Saladin bought his position and reseived no training, unlike Richard who trained and fought with his troops. Ironically it was the Christians who brought about the idea of Saladin being a warrior, because only a great fighter could fight against a man like Richard. Just for those who care about this sort of thing.