Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Peter III
Pretorian
Joined: 13-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 159
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Impact of Crusades Posted: 14-Aug-2006 at 11:32 |
I was curious to see what people thought about how the Crusades impacted Europe, both culturally and economicaly.
|
|
Moustafa Pasha
Samurai
Joined: 19-Jun-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 133
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Aug-2006 at 13:01 |
It seems that the crusades had a great impact on Europe. To learn more please click on the following website:
|
|
rider
Tsar
Suspended
Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4664
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Aug-2006 at 13:03 |
Kingdoms wasted huge amounts of money for Crusading and overall just to kill thousands of battle-hardened Christian veterans in France.
|
|
Peter III
Pretorian
Joined: 13-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 159
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Aug-2006 at 13:33 |
Does anyone know what the most expensive European crusade was? Besides the Reconquista, I always thought the Cathar Crusade was a really costly one, both in the amount of lives lost and the amount of money spent.
|
|
Mila
Tsar
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 17-Sep-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4030
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Aug-2006 at 14:00 |
Crusade is a dirty word in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Medieval Bosnia was all but destroyed by crusaders hoping to destroy the Bosnian Church and its followers. Had they been successful, there would be no Bosnia and Herzegovina today. Most of Bosnia would be Croatia, and a tiny sliver in the southeast would probably have been returned to Montenegro.
If the Ottomans had not come when they did, it'd be finished. We'd have been destroyed by the forces of Roman Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity. And this isn't some Muslim's revised version of Bosnian history, this is - we know - how people felt at the time and why they converted en masse and so willingly to Islam.
|
[IMG]http://img272.imageshack.us/img272/9259/1xw2.jpg">
|
|
Constantine XI
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Aug-2006 at 14:08 |
Originally posted by Peter III
Does anyone know what the most expensive European
crusade was? Besides the Reconquista, I always thought the Cathar
Crusade was a really costly one, both in the amount of lives lost and
the amount of money spent. |
Costly for whom? The King of France did very well out of that, thankyou very much.
|
|
Peter III
Pretorian
Joined: 13-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 159
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Aug-2006 at 14:19 |
Maybe it wasn't so costly in terms of money, but in terms of lives, it was a terrible crusade(i.e. the massacre at Bziers). The list goes on for a long time when it comes to French atrocities during the crusade.
Edited by Peter III - 14-Aug-2006 at 14:22
|
|
Komnenos
Tsar
Retired AE Administrator
Joined: 20-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4361
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Aug-2006 at 14:31 |
Originally posted by Peter III
Maybe it wasn't so costly in terms of money, but in terms of lives, it was a terrible crusade(i.e. the massacre at Bziers). The list goes on for a long time when it comes to French atrocities during the crusade. |
In terms of troops employed and casualties suffered, the Albigensian Crusade was a rather small affair, compared to the Crusades in Palestine.
It was more noteworthy for the hatred on both sides and the fanatism and brutality with which the Crusaders conducted the war.
I remember reading about Simon de Montfort's campaign, and being astonished that with a relatively small army, a couple of thousand knights, he could create such havoc in the Languedoc.
|
[IMG]http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i137/komnenos/crosses1.jpg">
|
|
Peter III
Pretorian
Joined: 13-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 159
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Aug-2006 at 14:43 |
I agree with you, Komnenos. It was pretty brutal when compared to crusades inside Europe, but not at all when compared to the crusades fought in the Middle East. I don't really know much about the Baltic Crusades though.
I agree that the crusade is remembered more for the brutality, rather than the amount of lives lost.
Edited by Peter III - 14-Aug-2006 at 17:33
|
|
ok ge
Arch Duke
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 29-Aug-2005
Location: Saudi Arabia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Aug-2006 at 15:35 |
Crusade is not necessary a bad word in English. You still can hear phrases like "We will lunch a relentless crusade on drugs". However, if a Middle Eastern hear this word "Crusade", he will only think of savage, barbaric invasion with extreme hatred and fanaticism.
Despite that crusades brought many knowledge and enhanced trade within Europe and exposed many Europeans to oriental goods and products, the cannotation of the word is only a negative image in the Middle East.
Till today, the impact of crusade campaign is extremely negative to the region. Every European Christian power that occupied the region is viewed as a new launched crusade. Even the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was called by many a "new crusade" despite it is the US and not a European army. I would note an interesting phrase that President George W. Bush said and did not pay attention to its huge negative impact on the perception of US war on terror. While he intended the perceived positive meaning of a crusade, his usage of the word did not send any messege but a negative one to the Muslim word.
Published on Monday, April 19, 2004 by Reuters |
Bush Letter Cites 'Crusade' Against Terrorism |
|
|
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Years after President Bush set off alarm bells in the Muslim world by referring to his war against terrorism as a "crusade," the word that Arabs equate with Christian brutality has resurfaced in a Bush campaign fund-raising letter, officials acknowledged on Sunday.
The March 3 letter, which Bush-Cheney Campaign Chairman Marc Racicot sent to new campaign charter members in Florida, lauded the Republican president for "leading a global crusade against terrorism" while citing evidence of Bush's "strong, steady leadership during difficult times."
However, the word "crusade" recalls a historical trauma for the Muslim world, which was besieged by Christian crusaders from Europe during the Middle Ages.
In the weeks following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington, Bush caused an uproar by telling reporters: "This crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take awhile." Faced with worldwide consternation over the remark, the White House later said Bush regretted his use of the term.
On Sunday, Racicot said the fund-raising letter's purpose was to underscore Bush successes in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"That letter was focused upon the single-minded efforts of the president, in coalition with other members of the international community, to undertake a mission to liberate people and protect the cause of freedom -- not just for a moment, not for a day, not for 10 years but for 100 years," the former Montana governor said in a conference call with reporters.
"And quite frankly, I think that's the tone of the letter and that's what it was meant to reflect."
2004 Reuters Ltd | |
Edited by ok ge - 14-Aug-2006 at 15:36
|
D.J. Kaufman
Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk.
|
|
rider
Tsar
Suspended
Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4664
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Aug-2006 at 18:01 |
Originally posted by Peter III
long time when it comes to French atrocities during the crusades. |
Improvement: during the Crusades... in plural.
The worst being the atrocity of October the 13th... 1307
|
|
R_AK47
Baron
Joined: 25-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 468
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Aug-2006 at 01:14 |
Originally posted by Mila
Crusade is a dirty word in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Medieval Bosnia was all but destroyed by crusaders hoping to destroy the Bosnian Church and its followers. Had they been successful, there would be no Bosnia and Herzegovina today. Most of Bosnia would be Croatia, and a tiny sliver in the southeast would probably have been returned to Montenegro.
If the Ottomans had not come when they did, it'd be finished. We'd have been destroyed by the forces of Roman Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity. |
Which crusade are you specifically speaking of? I doubt the medieval Christian Bosnians were thrilled when the muslim Ottoman Turks invaded and pillaged their land.
Originally posted by Mila
And this isn't some Muslim's revised version of Bosnian history,
|
Yes it is.
Originally posted by Mila
we know - how people felt at the time and why they converted en masse and so willingly to Islam. |
They converted "en masse" to Islam because if they did not they would be executed or at the very least treated with great prejudice as second class citizens.
|
|
rider
Tsar
Suspended
Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4664
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Aug-2006 at 05:17 |
I doubt the medieval Christian Bosnians were thrilled when the muslim Ottoman Turks invaded and pillaged their land. |
I doubt they though of it that way.... they saw two pillagers, one Christian going to the east, other, Muslims going to the west. Nothing more.
Many Crusades had foot troops moving through the Balkans. I do not think that any was totally direceted towards it though. Maybe the Fourth but that was a complete failure.
Originally posted by R_AK47
Originally posted by Mila
And this isn't some Muslim's revised version of Bosnian history, | Yes it is. |
No, I am afraid it still isn't.
Edited by rider - 15-Aug-2006 at 05:19
|
|
Seko
Emperor
Spammer
Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8595
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Aug-2006 at 08:01 |
Originally posted by R_AK47
They converted "en masse" to Islam because if they did not they would be executed or at the very least treated with great prejudice as second class citizens. |
Actually, the Bosnians had no such experience. Facing a death squad due to some sort of failed religious conversion is a myth that you may seem to fondly propagate. Most Bosnians were affiliated with Roman Catholic Christianity surrounded in a sea of Eastern Orthodoxy. Many supported reformations. Eventually most were shun as heretical. The limitation that the Bosnians had that her neighbors didn't was due to a lack of priests and strong affiliation.
The Serbians and Greeks had a strong representation of Orthodox priests to direct the faithful. Since the Bosnians were dualists and less inclined to support one particular church over another she was persecuted by both. That's when the Ottomans arrived on the scene. After the arrival of the Ottomans, the Bosnians found the advantages of identifying with her rulers. Over a course centuries they converted to Islam. This was not a quick process by any means.
|
|
Paul
General
AE Immoderator
Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 952
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Aug-2006 at 09:29 |
They got lots of undesirables out of Europe and made them the problem of someone else.. Can you imagine Europe if the crusaders had stayed?
|
|
|
Mila
Tsar
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 17-Sep-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4030
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Aug-2006 at 09:39 |
Originally posted by Seko
Actually, the Bosnians had no such experience. Facing a
death squad due to some sort of failed religious conversion is a myth
that you may seem to fondly propagate. Most Bosnians
were affiliated with Roman Catholic
Christianity surrounded in a sea of Eastern Orthodoxy. Many
supported reformations. Eventually most were shun as
heretical. The limitation that the Bosnians had that her neighbors
didn't was due to a lack of priests and strong affiliation.
The Serbians and Greeks had a strong representation of Orthodox
priests to direct the faithful. Since the Bosnians were dualists and
less inclined to support one particular church over
another she was persecuted by both. That's when the Ottomans
arrived on the scene. After the arrival of the Ottomans, the Bosnians
found the advantages of identifying with her rulers. Over a
course centuries they converted to Islam. This was not a quick
process by any means. |
I've read this exact point of view as well, from very respectable sources. I think it's part of the story, certainly.
It would explain why most Bosniaks who didn't wish to convert to Islam
chose to flee to Croatia or Italy - including our Queen, Katarina
Kosaca-Kotromanic. It would explain why Bosnjak is a Croatian
last-name. She even gave Bosnia to Rome, declaring it the property of
the Pope should it ever be liberated. But that same document talks
about her bitter sense of betrayl that her people welcomed the Ottomans
so quickly.
There certainly were those who continued to convert over time, as is always the case.
As for being under a death squad, that much is certainly true in a less
exxaggerated sense. From what I've read, we lost an extraordinary
number of people - almost constantly - for a region with such a small
total population - [to our neighbours, as I thought you meant, not to the Ottomans].
EDIT: I thought you were replying to me, not R_AK47. I thought your
words were in reference to what I wrote. I'll leave my reply though,
because what you said makes sense that way too.
Edited by Mila - 15-Aug-2006 at 09:41
|
[IMG]http://img272.imageshack.us/img272/9259/1xw2.jpg">
|
|
R_AK47
Baron
Joined: 25-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 468
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Aug-2006 at 10:12 |
Originally posted by Seko
Actually, the Bosnians had no such experience. Facing a death squad due to some sort of failed religious conversion is a myth that you may seem to fondly propagate. Most Bosnians were affiliated with Roman Catholic Christianity surrounded in a sea of Eastern Orthodoxy. Many supported reformations. Eventually most were shun as heretical. The limitation that the Bosnians had that her neighbors didn't was due to a lack of priests and strong affiliation.
The Serbians and Greeks had a strong representation of Orthodox priests to direct the faithful. Since the Bosnians were dualists and less inclined to support one particular church over another she was persecuted by both. That's when the Ottomans arrived on the scene. After the arrival of the Ottomans, the Bosnians found the advantages of identifying with her rulers. Over a course centuries they converted to Islam. This was not a quick process by any means. |
It is common knowledge that the Ottoman Empire was very prejudice towards Christian citizens and treated them as second class citizens. As I stated earlier, at the least the Christian Bosnians could expect that treatment.
|
|
R_AK47
Baron
Joined: 25-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 468
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Aug-2006 at 10:15 |
Originally posted by Mila
It would explain why most Bosniaks who didn't wish to convert to Islam chose to flee to Croatia or Italy - including our Queen, Katarina Kosaca-Kotromanic. It would explain why Bosnjak is a Croatian last-name. She even gave Bosnia to Rome, declaring it the property of the Pope should it ever be liberated. But that same document talks about her bitter sense of betrayl that her people welcomed the Ottomans so quickly.
|
If there was nothing to fear about being a Christian in the Ottoman Empire, then why did those Bosnians who decided not to convert to islam flee the country as you stated? People don't flee the country unless there is something to fear. The idea of peacefull conversions to islam in conquered countries is a myth.
|
|
Seko
Emperor
Spammer
Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8595
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Aug-2006 at 12:27 |
Common knowledge and various generalizations vary depending on where one is from and the type of history being read. You asked about Bosnia and my answer, though not in extreme detail, serves its point. The Ottomans, especially, during the enlargement years, were more liberal at that time, especially, when compared to Spanish empire, for example. Assuredly, fear among a foreign religion is natural. Yet the Bosnians found a safe haven spritually and militarily with the Ottomans. In fact, there was religious opposition based on Koranic grounds when attempts of forced 'Islamization' occured in 1517 and 1647 within the empire by the Sultan. The Ottomans came and administrated with a sort of laizze fair attitude regarding religious affinity. Christians were given the legal right to practice as they wished. Unlike the Crusader's Catholic armies of 1204 and 1444. Who brutalized all within her path. Eastern Orthodox-Catholic relations were more hormonized within the empire than across her borders. In essence there was religious autonomy for most Christians and Jews of the empire.
Edited by Seko - 15-Aug-2006 at 12:32
|
|
Mila
Tsar
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 17-Sep-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4030
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Aug-2006 at 12:52 |
Originally posted by R_AK47
If there was nothing to fear about being a Christian in
the Ottoman Empire, then why did those Bosnians who decided not to
convert to islam flee the country as you stated? People don't
flee the country unless there is something to fear. The idea of
peacefull conversions to islam in conquered countries is a myth. |
Bosnia had been conquered and its people were left two choices.
1. Flee to Croatia, renounce the Bosnian Church, be baptised as a Roman Catholic, and live there - maybe you'll be better off.
2. Remain in Bosnia, in a period of uncertainty, while the Queen
herself was exiled to Rome, convert to Islam, hide from the Catholics
between 'big brother's' legs, and maybe - just maybe - you'll be better
off.
I'm sure neither choice was easy to make but, obviously, most Bosnians
went with the latter. To imply the Ottomans converted Bosnians by force
is simply wrong.
|
[IMG]http://img272.imageshack.us/img272/9259/1xw2.jpg">
|
|