Crusaders rehabilitated?

Whilst Pope John Paul II still apologised for the Christian invasion of Palestine during the two centuries of Crusades, the new regime under the German Pope Benedict XVI seems to have had a change of mind.
It recently sponsored a conference in the Vatican that seeks to rehabilitate the European hordes that descended on the Near East, the Byzantine Empire and the Jewish population of Europe, not to mention all the other places they cleansed.

Professor De Mattei noted that the desecration of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem by Muslim forces in 1009 had helped to provoke the First Crusade at the end of the 11th century, called by Pope Urban II.
He said that the Crusaders were �martyrs� who had �sacrificed their lives for the faith�. He was backed by Jonathan Riley-Smith, Dixie Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Cambridge University, who said that those who sought forgiveness for the Crusades �do not know their history�. Professor Riley-Smith has attacked Sir Ridley Scott�s recent film Kingdom of Heaven, starring Orlando Bloom, as �utter nonsense�.
Professor Riley-Smith said that the script, like much writing on the Crusades, was �historically inaccurate. It depicts the Muslims as civilised and the Crusaders as barbarians. It has nothing to do with reality.� It fuels Islamic fundamentalism by propagating �Osama bin Laden�s version of history�.

From: The Times/UK

Could it be that this reversal of opinion is in connection with recent political events, and the widening ideological gap between the Western and Islamic world. Is it this a valid historical re-evaluation of the Crusades, or yet another symptom of Islamophobia in the West?
I think we should be told.








Edited by Komnenos

The posted quotes from Professor De Mattei and Jonathan Riley-Smith are correct.  Its good to see that some people out there refuse to repeat the same liberal/politically correct garbage that the media constantly spews about the crusades.  The crusades were a righteous reconquest of Christain lands that were forcibly stolen from them.  I agree with the quote of Kingdom of Heaven being "utter nonsense".  I hear that the full version of the movie will soon be released on DVD.  Rumor is that it may portray events more balanced, but I doubt it.  As for the desecration of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, it was actually completely demolished (I know that a tiny shrine was eventually allowed back on the site, but that does not make everything right).  I wonder what the muslims feared so much that they had to attempt to destroy all evidence of Christianity?

Edited by R_AK47

Ok ok, let's keep our heads together on this one. Firstly, one of the most important things my semester long unit on the Crusades taught me is that you cannot assess Crusaders as one homogeneous bloc. They were made up of a number of different players, all with different motives and interests. Some were ignorant peasants, others were opportunistic merchants, others impoverished knights, others devout priests, yet others the flower of European chivalry driven forth by idealism. In all of this you have to remember the Crusading movement was a heterogeneous bloc, not a homogeneous one.

The facts of the times were that the world was about to be hit by a military expansion of Western Europeans one way or another. You take a highly militarised society, add massive population growth, add increasing naval skills, thrown into which are commercial interests and further add the ideologically fractured state of the medieval Mediterannean world and you are bound for conflict. Western Europe was militarily and economically on the rise after centuries of struggle, she was going to make her presence felt. Large scale conflict was an inevitability.

Unfortunately, that conflict took place with a particularly macabre cruelty and pittilessness which it need to have had the ideology of Crusade never emerged. Rather than engaging in conventional military conflict, Crusades had a particularly fanatical and cruel element to them. For that we most definitely are able to lay blame at the religious authorities of the day.

As to the cultural superiority issue, the Islamic world at the time was simply alot wealthier and more advanced. Think what you like but it was a fact, Western Europe was more of a backwater back then. Because of that the Westerners naturally came across as more uncouth than those living under Islam or Byzantium. However, we see in the Crusader Kingdoms themselves that once the Westerners had access to the Eastern wealth and experience with the culture, that they adapted quite readily to a higher standard of culture.

As for the reassement of "sacrificing themselves for their faith", in some instances that did occur. But overall the leaders and organisers of the Crusades were motivated by earthly desires.

Originally posted by Voyager Some comments: Islamophobia is not some Western disease but instead afraid of Islamic agression. Crusades were based in the Islamic Jihad. Killing in the name of religion was something that Muslims taught Christians to do. And Christians since the 17th century no longer kill for religion, unlike Muslims who still continue their Jihads across the globe. As for you observation about recent political events and the re-evaluation of Crusades, of course you'e right, but you should know already that history is political. For example, in the last few decades, through the influence of the naive idealists of the 1960's, the West was demonised whereas the rest of the world was treated as noble savages.Well, things are changing again... As for those who said that Crusaders were cruel, well, as far as I know, war is cruel.

I agree.

People are all equal in the face of God.

As long as you understand  that we are more equal...

Edited by Boreas

arent you enough crusader at latin america?

So christians begin to kill after Islam? (for religion)

so you want to say, killing for religion began with muslims?

you want to say also, all christians choosed christianity with they own wish?(Romans did nothing)

Plus you want to say a german learned how to kill for religion from an arab.

or an arab tought franks how to kill christians for christian religion?

or do you think only fourth crusader, crusaders killed other christians?

Interestingly when muslims were protecting jerusalem, christians were living inside of city. When crusaders took city, that christians were killed by crusaders. I understand you they learned all of this from muslims.

Now I am enlightned.

Crusaders came jerusalem for protect innocent christians from barbarian muslims, so they protected christians.

 

 

Yup. They started killing muslims after Islam

Well, it's a natural result. There were actually no Muslims before Islam, so that's a sensible point.

Originally posted by Komnenos Originally posted by R_AK47 The armies of islam invaded the Christian lands first.  Islam made the first strike.  The Crusades were a Christian defense against the hordes of islam that were bent on converting the earth to islam by the sword.  We should glorify the Crusaders and be gratefull to them.  If it were not for thier heroic actions, we today would all be living in intolerant muslim countries that kill people for drawing cartoons. It seems not only the Pope should apologise, but also AE's admin, for some of the staff that is posted in this forum. Which I hereby do.

 It isnt often that this happens, but words truly escape me.