Why did Knights Go on the Crusades?

I'd say for a man who had one of his own childhood friends tortured to death (and torture seems a mild description of it) as a form of execution, the word bastard is putting it very, very mildly.  There is every indication that he took great pleasure in what he did to those around him--read his reaction to the execution of the Earl of Atholl who was one of his own relatives and incidentally had been fleeing, escorting women to Norway when he was captured. Read the vengeance he took against some of those same women. I consider Edward something of a ravening beast feeding on every weaker creature around him. (What was the death toll when he massacred the city of Berwick again? Try to find another single atrocity in England or Scotland with a death count even close to that high) But you already knew that.  I can't manage to find that any good he did outweighed the evil. Of course, I'll freely admit a good deal of that evil was in my own country and to my own people, and no one ever said Scots don't have long memories.

However, I will give you that he was a better than average king in his own country. Although his personal courage was never questioned, I have some questions about his generalship. I'm not so sure he could have captured Jerusalem--but pure speculation.

There's no point in getting into this and it was fiercely debated just recently in another thread. The people who admire the man will admire him. The ones who hate him will hate him.

I'll manage to bite my tongue and not answer any defenses of him however much it hurts. :)

Originally posted by Parnell Originally posted by JRScotia Originally posted by Parnell What! A Scot who doesn't like Edward the Longshanks! Never! I dislike him less than you might think. He had certain virtues and did some good things in England -- but anyone who says that PEACE was one of his virtues isn't being realistic. Edit: LOL Ok. I DON'T dislike him less than you might think. I admit that I despise Edward Longshanks with a passion but I make an ATTEMPT to be fair about it and see the good that he did (which did exist) along with the purely evil. (The massacre of Berwick-on-Tweed and the execution of most of the leadership of Scotland and Wales, the destruction of... Yeah, it's a long list but you get the idea) But it's VERY difficult to see the man as a promoter of peace. I'd regard Edward as one of the greatest medieval kings of England. Still a bastard though.

Edited by JRScotia - 29-May-2009 at 17:41

Personal remarks are uncalled for, Wulfstan.  If you want to defend Edward, defend him. That's your right. Attacking other posters is not.


Edited by JRScotia - 29-May-2009 at 17:03

The man's name came up. Instant argument between the rabid anglophile and the rabid Scots nationalist. We don't like each other (to put it mildly) and it's a good excuse to sharpen the swords and have at each other.

No. It has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

I really think the question had been answered as well as such a general question could be though even before the traditional hostilities broke out. There was a myriad of reasons.
 
From a modern viewpoint, it's just impossible to understand.

What were the motives of Irish, Scottish or Welsh crusaders? How much do we know about them? Do we know any famous ones? I know Earl Ragnvald of Orkney participated in a Norwegian crusade in the 1150s, but I doubt he counts as Scottish.

Crusaders came from all over western Europe, though French may have played a special role. If scandinavians role as vikings are very well known (perhaps even excaggerated, since there is some confusion between being a "viking" and a person from a specific part of Europe), there role in the crusades may be less known and perhaps underestimated. Perhaps "crusades" here in a wider sense, as fighting for faith anywhere, not only in "Holy Land".

Originally posted by fantasus Crusaders came from all over western Europe, though French may have played a special role. If scandinavians role as vikings are very well known (perhaps even excaggerated, since there is some confusion between being a "viking" and a person from a specific part of Europe), there role in the crusades may be less known and perhaps underestimated. Perhaps "crusades" here in a wider sense, as fighting for faith anywhere, not only in "Holy Land"

Absolutely, the understanding of the crusade was gradually expanded by the Catholic Church itself and by the time of Innocent III any military campaign against Muslims, pagans or heretics could receive the papal indulgence that was given to the first crusade.

Crusading in Scandinavia was diverse. The Kingdom of Norway sent two major crusades; one in the wake of the first crusade in 1107, which fought the Muslims in Iberia and on several Mediterranean islands before arriving in the Holy Land, where they took part in the siege of Sidon by preventing the Fatimid fleet from supplying the city. The second was the aforementioned crusade in the 1150s, which followed much the same route.

While the Norwegians only embarked on crusades to the Holy Land, the Danes also crusaded in the Baltic. A Danish crusade in 1147 christianized the Wends (at least formally) and in 1219 established Danish Estonia. The Swedes on the other hand seem to have exclusively crusaded in the Baltic (there is no record of Swedish crusaders in the Holy Land), especially against the Finns and Novgorod. The traditional story is that the Swedes conquered and christianized the Finns through three crusades, in the 1150s (the coast), the 1250s (inner Finland, Tavastia) and lastly in the 1290s (southeast Finland, Karelia). This can be considered one of the most successful crusades, as it succeeded in making the Finns christians and Finland remained a part of the Swedish kingdom for 600 years.

Originally posted by Englander Many diffrent reasons, all personnel to the knight.   some for loyality, some for justice, some for their faith, some to be with the others, some for adventure, some to aid their fellow Christians   Then some were for conquest, greed, wealth, to manipulate the situations, to gain power.

Englander these are all good points but before one could really ask that question you really have to ask why did the Arabs go on Jihad 463 prior to the First Crusade?
I have read numerous books about the crusades both secondary and primary and while some of the barbaric actions of some crusaders can never be justified I believe Emperor Alexius Comnena was very justified in asking the West for 5,000 Frankish knights to reclaim Byzantine lands from the Turks. For me as an ethnic Greek the Fourth Crusade had no justification and it is one of three dates which modern Greeks hate; 1071, 1204 and 1453. I will soon have an article published about the fall of Constantinople in a Greek American magazine.

I would suggest reading this:
THE CRUSADES IN CONTEXT
By Dr. Paul Stenhouse © 2007 Chevalier Press. Used by permission.

http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Stenhouse/crusades.01.htm

I am waiting for the library to get a book about the battle of Manzikert 1071 which I believe was part of a Jihad conquest.

Originally posted by Englander Originally posted by eaglecap Originally posted by Englander Many diffrent reasons, all personnel to the knight.   some for loyality, some for justice, some for their faith, some to be with the others, some for adventure, some to aid their fellow Christians   Then some were for conquest, greed, wealth, to manipulate the situations, to gain power. Englander these are all good points but before one could really ask that question you really have to ask why did the Arabs go on Jihad 463 prior to the First Crusade? I have read numerous books about the crusades both secondary and primary and while some of the barbaric actions of some crusaders can never be justified I believe Emperor Alexius Comnena was very justified in asking the West for 5,000 Frankish knights to reclaim Byzantine lands from the Turks. For me as an ethnic Greek the Fourth Crusade had no justification and it is one of three dates which modern Greeks hate; 1071, 1204 and 1453. I will soon have an article published about the fall of Constantinople in a Greek American magazine. I would suggest reading this: THE CRUSADES IN CONTEXT By Dr. Paul Stenhouse © 2007 Chevalier Press. Used by permission. http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Stenhouse/crusades.01.htm I am waiting for the library to get a book about the battle of Manzikert 1071 which I believe was part of a Jihad conquest.   Well i was just saying what motivated Knights.   I know all about the Islamic Conquests and Jihad and how its brushed under the carpet and alot of people think the crusades just happened out of nowhere, Islamics were the overall aggressors, anyone who can read can see it.

I think if you read the article you will find a good answer but also the Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades by Robert Spencer will also help explain this. www.jihadwatch.org -see books
I have read both sides such as the Arabs View of the Crusades,Holy War by Karen Armstrong etc
getting late and Michael Savage in on the radio so time to leave but I will check your answer tomorrow- cheers

I don't deny that some of crusaders were idealistic, but simple pillage was a very strong motive. Europe in that period was poor. On other hand Middle East was very wealthy.

That is true and there were as many motivations to fight in the crusade as there were people and yes the west was poor but the east was not. Which in my case half my ancestors were in the west and the other half in the east or Byantine Empire.


The sacking of Jerusalem, Constantinople (yes - it was christian) are good examples.


Yes it was a sad motivation for people who called themselves Christian but under Allah the Arabs and Turks had their own motivations for sacking various cities. (See Crusades in Context


There were episodes when Christians were greeting Muslims in Jerusalem as saviors from the Crusaders.
This depends on the source you got this from such as “The Crusades through Arab eyes.”

One interesting fact is that multiple christian faits thrived under muslim rule. Under these rulers one faith was forbidden to attack another one. These followers of other faiths would be exterminated as heretics in West. Good example of a large scale extermination of other than Catholic faith are Cathars in France. One can see how many old christian denominations survived in the East

People of the book such as Jews and Christians were still under dhimmi status and had to pay the Jiyza tax or so-called protection tax and were treated as second class citizens. I suggest reading "the Decline of Hellenism in Asia Minor" by Dr. Spero Vyronis and the legacy of Jihad by Dr. Andrew Bostom and you might change your mind

I cannot justify the west’s motivation but for the Byzantine, my ancestors, it was to reclaim territory taken by the Turks. The crusade are too big of a topic to really address fairly but you had some good points.

Originally posted by Englander There was periods during the Crusader states, when Muslims were treated well, better than Islamic lands, a muslim traveller Ibn Jubayr mentions it, reluctently in his writings, of course this is overlooked.   Crusades in the western world have gone from one extreme to the other, the old viewpoint of the righteous, glamouress and romantic crusader has changed  to the modern version, of bloody thirsty christian madman and where Islam does no wrong.   I find the modern viewpoint of the Crusades to be more of a political agenda now anyway, its used to try and paint the Muslim world as "good guys" and Christian world as "bad guys", to help Muslims secure poltical power in modern europe and help liberals believe in their failed "multiculturalism"   People forget that Islam was an Imperial style power and conquestor in its time, its down played to much nowadays.

yes this is true but so was the Jihad against non Muslims did you read the article