Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

The crusades . . . . .

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Manda View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 18-Dec-2007
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
  Quote Manda Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: The crusades . . . . .
    Posted: 28-Dec-2007 at 23:58
Greetings, I know that many of you have probably answered this about a hundred times, but I am a bit new and curious about these events.
 
Based on the crusades of medieval Europe (1095 - 1289) I impose this question to you;
 
"Do you think the crusades were worthwhile?"
 
Please give reasons for your answers.
 
I remember my history teacher asking us this, and everyone in the class had a different answer with different reasons, I could probably predict the same outcome but i know people in this forum contemplate and listen to other's views to provide their answers with in depth reasons.
 
Thank you in advance, and sorry if this topic is a bit broad.
- Manda
 
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Dec-2007 at 02:26
Depends for whom and in long term or short term factors. It certainly was not profitable for the political landscape. Its severity especially during the sack of Jerusalem and reprisals under reorganized realms such as of Zengi doomed the new states and created a rift between two emerging ideologies. Gazis and Crusaders emerged out of it. For Europe it was profitable in terms of technology and academics, the Crusades brought back to Europe what it missed in terms of academics and scientific breakthroughs alongside some lost classics. Overall there were negative effects in loss of life and creating a long standing view of ''Frankish'' inferiority among the more progressive and wealthier eastern states.
Back to Top
pekau View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Atlantean Prophet

Joined: 08-Oct-2006
Location: Korea, South
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3335
  Quote pekau Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Dec-2007 at 10:46

Well, this question is broad and could be justified in many different ways depending on what evidences you are bringing. As es bih pointed out, Western civilizations absorbed unique technologies and academic knowledge that later helped the Western progress in terms of science. (Gunpowder is one example.)

There are other evidences that could be used as well. Death toll due to the Crusade is disturbing, and Christian crusades failed to maintain the Holy Land under their  sphere of influence. The failure of Crusade eventually led to Muslim dominated Holy Land, and eventually allowed the Turks to sack Istanbul and change the balance of power in Europe.

But really, the possibility is endless.

     
   
Join us.
Back to Top
Aster Thrax Eupator View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 18-Jul-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1929
  Quote Aster Thrax Eupator Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Jan-2008 at 14:49

When it comes to the technological advantages of the time, certainly not - most of the large armies and forces put in there were expensive to maintain, prone to mutiny, tactically inept in desert and middle eastern conditions, and were ineffectual at the end of the crusading period. )(EDIT) Regard the example of Louis IX in - who went into Egypt against the Mamluks and had his whole army more or less slaughtered. The Latin empire in the early 1200s (...which had arisen from the Crusading forces sent by the Pope to aid the Byzantine emperor Alexius V and to place him back on his throne from which he had been usupred by (I think...) his uncle) obviously had the potential to give Europe quite a lot of money, but it did not because the crusaders remained in Constantinople and the core territories of the Byzantine empire and formed a micro-empire, and so not much of the potential revenue actually went to the European nations at all. Also, the Latin empire just destablisized the Byzantine empire even more and caused confusion within the empire which was actually a buffer state between the South of Europe and the Ayyubids and Persians, so destablising it was probably a bad idea for the crusaders who relied of Byzantine supplies, support and use as a base of operations. The more I write and read about the subject the more it seems like a complete disaster - even the Crusading forces were divided among eachother and when they were in the holy land, they often founded their own kingdoms so that none of the booty went back to Europe whatsoever. Although trade routes were probably aided by the creation of the kingdom of Jerusalem and other crusading kings, it is unlikely that the Byzantine fleet and Crusading fleet at this period could do much to prevent spadaric raids by Muslim pirates and Ayyubid and Mamluk fleets. Its also worth pointing out that, however, in contrast it did socially and spiritually unite Europe and it's many nations in a way that was never really considered in the medieval period. Many nations adhered to the pope's call for peace in Europe for the duration of the crusades and perhaps from this perspective I did give a period of respite for the early/mid medieval economies and societies to get up on their feet as it were.



Edited by Aster Thrax Eupator - 09-Jan-2008 at 18:25
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900
  Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Jan-2008 at 15:23
Regard the example of Louis XIX in the 9th Crusade - who went into Egypt against the Mamluks and had his whole army more or less slaughtered and was himself killed.
Huh?
Maybe you mean Louis IX however the rest of the details are mixed. He was in Egypt in the 7th crusade, was defeated, captured but later ransomed, but he died in the 8th crusade against Tunis, not killed but from illness.
Back to Top
Aster Thrax Eupator View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 18-Jul-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1929
  Quote Aster Thrax Eupator Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Jan-2008 at 18:23
Oh - fair enough. I haven't read anything on the crusades for a while so I was a tad rusty on that point...
Back to Top
Reginmund View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 08-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1943
  Quote Reginmund Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Jan-2008 at 16:06
You forget to mention though that the crusaders did not set out to learn new technology or discover lost classics, they set out to gain a remission of sins and win a Papally guaranteed salvation by fighting and possibly dying for the Holy Land. I'm not saying more wordly motives never entered the picture, but on the theological level this was the purpose of the crusade, and as such it did not matter if you captured Jerusalem or died from the first arrow fired, the spiritual rewards expected would have been the same. Without first understanding this it is impossible to comprehend why European kings and nobles for centuries continually embarked on the most farfetched military adventures that even if successful were mostly deficit undertakings that left their position at home vulnerable.
Back to Top
Sun Tzu View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 31-Oct-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 362
  Quote Sun Tzu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jan-2008 at 13:18
Well the place that they were fighting for still the same place they fight today... obviously we have not learned a thing.
Sun Tzu

All warfare is based on deception - Sun Tzu
Back to Top
eaglecap View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 15-Feb-2005
Location: ArizonaUSA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3959
  Quote eaglecap Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Jan-2008 at 01:17
Originally posted by Reginmund

You forget to mention though that the crusaders did not set out to learn new technology or discover lost classics, theyset out to gain a remission of sins and wina Papally guaranteedsalvationby fighting and possibly dyingfor the Holy Land. I'm not saying morewordly motives never entered the picture, but on the theological level this was the purpose of the crusade, and as such it did not matter if you captured Jerusalem or died from the first arrow fired, the spiritual rewards expected would have been the same. Without first understanding this it is impossible to comprehend why European kings and noblesfor centuries continuallyembarked on the most farfetched military adventures that even if successful were mostly deficit undertakings that left their position at home vulnerable.


This is partly true but on the most part the Crusades were influenced by socio/ecomomic reasons. Remember this region and North Africa were once Christian dominated. This conflict did not begin with the Crusades. Of the four sits sacred to christians three are under Muslim control today; Constantinople, Jerusalem and Alexandria. Rome is the only site that is still Christian but they did try and take it in the 9th C. AD

The great Cathedrals of Europe were built during this era so the contribution in architecture greatly influenced Europe. I wonder how much really came from the Greeks, Persians and E. Indians?

allowed the Turks to sack Istanbul - at that time it was Constantinople but like that song goes Istanbul-Constantinople - Istanbul.....
Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 04-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1409
  Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jan-2008 at 15:19
If we're taking a strictly ethical viewpoint, then of course they were wrong. The First crusade was no originally a mission to take Jerusalem - It was more of a European Alliance sending troops to help the Byzantines against the Turks. The Byzantines let the alliance down however, and Jerusalem was too tempting when they got that far. The State established was then defended by a highly militaristic society (Jesus would surely have loved that) and hung on for a few hundred years. If you take the position that all crusades subsequent to the first crusade where ethically right, then thats a different argument altogether (You can make the argument that subsequent crusades were in defence of a state all European Countries had some fondness for, but in reality did little to help in other ways)
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jan-2008 at 15:59
Who profited from the Crusades?
 
Venice.
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697
  Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Jan-2008 at 06:55
Indirectly, Osman too (of Ottoman fame) 
Back to Top
Knights View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Oct-2006
Location: AUSTRALIA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3224
  Quote Knights Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Jan-2008 at 12:07
Originally posted by Parnell

If we're taking a strictly ethical viewpoint, then of course they were wrong. The First crusade was no originally a mission to take Jerusalem - It was more of a European Alliance sending troops to help the Byzantines against the Turks. The Byzantines let the alliance down however, and Jerusalem was too tempting when they got that far. The State established was then defended by a highly militaristic society (Jesus would surely have loved that) and hung on for a few hundred years. If you take the position that all crusades subsequent to the first crusade where ethically right, then thats a different argument altogether (You can make the argument that subsequent crusades were in defence of a state all European Countries had some fondness for, but in reality did little to help in other ways)


I question the motives of Urban and the Papacy in regards to preaching the Crusade. Yes, Alexios had written to Pope Urban, asking for assistance against the Seljuqs (they'd taken most, if not all of Anatolia). However, one may say this was the perfect opening that Urban was looking for - an opportunity to both extend influence and gain power. Their was no real 'alliane' per se between the Crusaders and the Byzantines, Alexios had merely asked for militaristic help. What he got instead, was tens of thousands or Crusaders on his doorstep. If there is an alliance somewhere in there, it is where Alexios demanded the Crusader leaders return Anatolian provinces to him from the Sultanate of Rum, and also Antioch. Having agreed (with some 'persuasion', and logistics/supply and encampment), the Crusaders did return Anatolia to an extent, but as you said, once they were one a role (in the "Holy Land") their pledge to Alexios was forfeited - markedly through Bohemond's possession of Antioch. So, if anyone broke an alliance, it was indeed the Crusaders rather than Byzantium. So, I don't think the sole reason for Crusade was to help the "Christian Brethren" in Byzantium, but rather to gain lands and power for Western Christendom, in the Holy Land. Well, that's my take on it anyway.

Regards,

- Knights -
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 04-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1409
  Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Jan-2008 at 13:29
The Byzantines broke the alliance when they failed to aid the siege of Antioch. Stephen of Blois, one of the crusaders who fled the siege convinced the Emperor (Who was on his way there) not to go to Antioch as it was unwinnable. He was right, the victory for the crusaders of Antioch is one of the greatest victories of the medieval period considering what they were up against.
Back to Top
Knights View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Oct-2006
Location: AUSTRALIA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3224
  Quote Knights Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Jan-2008 at 21:57
I don't believe it was in their agreement that the Byzantines were obliged to aid in the campaign - they provided, as I said, logistics, supplies and safe passage at Constantinople and over the Bosporus. In addition to this though, a Byzantine army was heading towards Antioch, but (as you said) upon hearing from the fleeing Knights, turned back. I still don't believe there was a true "alliance" - it was more a series of 'favours' and obligations on each other's part. Alexios fulfilled his, the Crusaders, with another prize in mind (carving out Christian Kingdoms in the Holy Land), eventually disregarded their obligation. I must say though, they did do what they were asked prior to leaving Anatolia - it mustn't have been very comforting what happened at Nicaea (I'm assuming you know the story?).

Regards,

- Knights -
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 04-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1409
  Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Jan-2008 at 00:24
They gave Nicae back to the Byzantines?
Back to Top
Knights View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Oct-2006
Location: AUSTRALIA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3224
  Quote Knights Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Jan-2008 at 00:44
Sort of. Basically, when the Seljuq Sultan Kilij Arslan saw that all hope was lost, and fled, he left a message to the Nicaean garrison and predominantly Greek populace to "act in light of their own interests". This effectively meant that rather than allowing Nicaea to fall into the hands of the Franks, they should ensure it comes under Byzantine control. So, Alexios was informed and one night, a portion of his army were accompanied over the lake into the fortress, and before morning, the city was handed over to Alexios. The Franks, who had worked hard at this siege, woke up to see the Byzantine colours flying above the city. Though they most probably would have handed it over to Alexios as was agreed, they intended to loot and pillage first. Now that Alexios had already gained control, this was disallowed. That's got to suck for the Crusaders. I think this may have set off some tempers in the Crusader leaders, leading to their eventual breakaway from the Byzantines.
Regards,

- Knights -
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.188 seconds.