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- Share your view

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345>
Author
DreamWeaver View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel

Suspended

Joined: 02-May-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 555
  Quote DreamWeaver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: The Crusades- Share your view
    Posted: 12-May-2010 at 05:26
They did join up with Byzantium in the mid to late 12th Century, didnt work out so well after what initially appeared quite promising. The possession of Antioch ofcourse remained a major stumbling block.
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4620
  Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-May-2010 at 16:40
I feel that Maximus, had a very good close to his/her last post! I.e. , the crusades did not end until the 17th century!

It is interesting from a couple of viewpoints! For instance, was not the expansion of the Othman Empire not also a "crusade?", or those of other Islamic attacks upon the North, South, East and West?

Does any one even consider that our consensual history even admits that Islamist, also actually occupied parts of Europe, outside of Spain!

For example, parts of S. France, and even inland France, even into Switzerland, were occupied by Saracens/ Moors, etc.!

Not even to mention the parts of Italy so settled!

Rome is even said to have been sacked by them!

Regards,
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
DreamWeaver View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel

Suspended

Joined: 02-May-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 555
  Quote DreamWeaver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-May-2010 at 16:55
Do not confuse or equate Crusades and Crusading with the ideals of Jihad. Though they may very well appear similar at a glance, they are intrinsically different in their nature and deelopment.


Armies at the gates of Rome in early middle ages and at the gates of Vienna in 1683.
Back to Top
Patrinos View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 05-Sep-2006
Location: Moreas
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 473
  Quote Patrinos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-May-2010 at 07:10

The Crusades- Share your view
 

Simply. The natural next stage of the barbarian invasions and pillaging of the late ancient age...

A little bit more enriched with excuses[muslim occupation of Jerusalem, fighting in the name of Christianity(against Byzantion too...Confused )etc], but with similar results and mentality.

"Hellenes are crazy but they have a wise God"
Kolokotronis
Back to Top
DreamWeaver View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel

Suspended

Joined: 02-May-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 555
  Quote DreamWeaver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-May-2010 at 10:32
Would you care to expand the idea?
Back to Top
Patrinos View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 05-Sep-2006
Location: Moreas
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 473
  Quote Patrinos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-May-2010 at 13:21

Originally posted by DreamWeaver

Would you care to expand the idea?

I can't really believe that the mob of the western European countries really-really cared about Jerusalem and the Holy Lands, (I doubt if 95% of them knew where about these places were...). 

Adventurism and will of gaining wealth through pillaging were the two most important factors that moved all these masses eastwards.  Factors not very much different from those that moved Goths, Vandals, Huns, etc centuries before...

I can't see anything romantic and chivalrous in all these waves of  ignorant farmer-warriors... while sacking Polis..., for example.

"Hellenes are crazy but they have a wise God"
Kolokotronis
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4620
  Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-May-2010 at 14:36
Actually some people believe that Constantinople was in actuality Jerusalem!

Right across the narrow straight from Istanbul (just a few miles) still stands the burial site and "Golgatha" of Jesus / Joshua!

Just go to Istanbul and ask for the tour? It is, I believe, called Mt. Bekov?, or something similar!, or "Yusa Tepesi!"

See;http://culturecityistanbul.blogspot.com/2009/11/yusa-joshua-tomb.html

There are, I believe even some crusader texts, that involve people on ships watching Jerusalem burn? My ability to find such text right now is limited, but I can assure you that it exists!

Thus, Constantinople could have been the ultimate destination of the Crusade? It would be easy (for the Western Catholics) to compare the Jews to the Orthodox Byzantines, in many regards! Especially within the hateful seperation that existed between the two religions at that time!

It seems that there might well have existed numerous "Holy Cities" in the past, just like there were numerous "Alexandrias", etc.! As well as at least two Babylon's!

As Patrinos said above; "I can't really believe that the mob of the western European countries really-really cared about Jerusalem and the Holy Lands, (I doubt if 95% of them knew where about these places were...)."

Regards,

http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
DreamWeaver View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel

Suspended

Joined: 02-May-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 555
  Quote DreamWeaver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-May-2010 at 18:32
A gentleman of the old school then, whom Im afriad I must disagree with. The two prevalent schools of though on the matter  are avarice vs religious devotion.


It is not neccessary to know where Jerusalem was. It is what it meant, the idea, that really mattered to people. Crusading was not a profitable venture for the vast majority of people who undertook it. Money and greed are not a viable factor, religious motivation is.


It is true that many accounts refer to pilgrims and crusaders seeing Constantinople (Antioch as well and other cities) and believeing them to be Jerusalem.
Back to Top
Patrinos View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 05-Sep-2006
Location: Moreas
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 473
  Quote Patrinos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-May-2010 at 13:20

 

Originally posted by DreamWeaver

A gentleman of the old school then, whom Im afriad I must disagree with. The two prevalent schools of though on the matter  are avarice vs religious devotion.


Well, I don't think that history is black and white. Religious devotion, as we've seen in many cases in many nations(Greeks included), played not few times important role in the historical events. But I don't think in the case of the Crusades it was the primal factor.

And we are not sure if they started from their towns in Burgundy and Flandres(for example) without even thinking the possibility of plundering and pillaging, but we are sure that when they reached the places they intended to go they practiced these ...methods...methodically...


"Hellenes are crazy but they have a wise God"
Kolokotronis
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1962
  Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-May-2010 at 15:59
Originally posted by DreamWeaver

A gentleman of the old school then, whom Im afriad I must disagree with. The two prevalent schools of though on the matter  are avarice vs religious devotion.
Another factor might be looting out of economic or logistical necessity. I do not think many of the armies (Christian or Muslim) had regular pay systems or logisitics.  That meant "living off the land" through voluntary donations from supporters, coerced "tribute" from nueterals and plunder from real and imagined hostiles.


Edited by Cryptic - 17-May-2010 at 13:36
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4620
  Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-May-2010 at 18:04
Wow! The above are some great posts!

Maybe, I will be capable of making some posts, equally entertaining?

regards,

Edited by opuslola - 16-May-2010 at 18:19
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
DreamWeaver View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel

Suspended

Joined: 02-May-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 555
  Quote DreamWeaver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-May-2010 at 03:32
A question of  crusade to sack and pillage, or sack and pillage to crusade?
 
 
An army, especially of something th size of the First Crusade cant sustain such a campaign without  it. Richard I in the Third Crusade had to use the money gathered from Messina and Cyprus to pay for the siege of Acre and the entire camapign, on top of what he had managed to raise in his own lands prior to starting.
 
Sacking and pillaging cities was and is a general truth of warfare. 
Back to Top
Maximus Germanicus View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian

Suspended

Joined: 08-May-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 171
  Quote Maximus Germanicus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-May-2010 at 05:26
Originally posted by Patrinos

[QUOTE=DreamWeaver]Would you care to expand the idea?

 

I read a book a few years ago, I can't recall the exact name (I didn't care to much for it all in all but the early chapters were good), anyway the author theorized that the Current East-West tensions were the natural order and had been since the Persians and Greeks, so they Peloponnesian wars, The Crusades, the Turks at Vienna, The Us in Iraq was part of a perpetual conflict.

Huntington also comments on this, in his theory the Crusades are still going on (while I won't go that far )it is an interesting position Below is an excerpt from Hunnington that a copied and pasted.

 

He believes that some of the factors contributing to this conflict are that both Christianity (upon which Western civilization is based) and Islam are:
  • Missionary religions, seeking conversion of others
  • Universal, "all-or-nothing" religions, in the sense that it is believed by both sides that only their faith is the correct one
  • Teleological religions, that is, that their values and beliefs represent the goals of existence and purpose in human existence.

More recent factors contributing to a Western-Islamic clash, Huntington wrote, are the Islamic Resurgence and demographic explosion in Islam, coupled with the values of Western universalism - that is, the view that all civilizations should adopt Western values - that infuriate Islamic fundamentalists.

All these historical and modern factors combined, Huntington wrote briefly in his Foreign Affairs article and in much more detail in his 1996 book, would lead to a bloody clash between the Islamic and Western civilizations. Along with Sinic-Western conflict, he believed, the Western-Islamic clash would represent the bloodiest conflicts of the early 21st century. Thus, the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and subsequent events including the Afghanistan and Iraq wars have been widely viewed as a vindication of the Clash theory.[citation needed]

 Core state and fault line conflicts

In Huntington's view, intercivilizational conflict manifests itself in two forms: fault line conflicts and core state conflicts.

Fault line conflicts are on a local level and occur between adjacent states belonging to different civilizations or within states that are home to populations from different civilizations.

Core state conflicts are on a global level between the major states of different civilizations. Core state conflicts can arise out of fault line conflicts when core states become involved.[6]

These conflicts may result from a number of causes, such as: relative influence or power (military or economic), discrimination against people from a different civilization, intervention to protect kinsmen in a different civilization, or different values and culture, particularly when one civilization attempts to impose its values on people of a different civilization.

 



Edited by Maximus Germanicus - 17-May-2010 at 09:52
Back to Top
Maximus Germanicus View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian

Suspended

Joined: 08-May-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 171
  Quote Maximus Germanicus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-May-2010 at 05:32
Originally posted by DreamWeaver

A question of  crusade to sack and pillage, or sack and pillage to crusade?
 
 
An army, especially of something th size of the First Crusade cant sustain such a campaign without  it. Richard I in the Third Crusade had to use the money gathered from Messina and Cyprus to pay for the siege of Acre and the entire camapign, on top of what he had managed to raise in his own lands prior to starting.
 
Sacking and pillaging cities was and is a general truth of warfare. 
 
You are absolutley right. In fact that practice continues to this day. Want an example. Have you ever looked at Operational Art (OA). Operational Art is how Military staffs paln battles. On the BF diagram they have control line that seperate units . In US Operational art control lines are generally striaght. However Soviet lines are crooked and will move around towns,why you ask. Becuase each unit gets certain cities to plunder in order to resupply food and water or whatever they can get.
 
Your right esp med armies had to sack and pillage to raise money, also war booty was given to troops as part of thier compensation, so towns had to be sacked.
Back to Top
DreamWeaver View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel

Suspended

Joined: 02-May-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 555
  Quote DreamWeaver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-May-2010 at 05:38
Ah the clash of civilisations, East vs West.
 
 
Though I fear the concept of the crusades continuing into the modern day is to misunderstand the crusades and their purpose and what they mean. The conflicts of the present I dont think can really be seen as an extension or continuation of the Crusades, though such terminology and language may be applied to them.
Back to Top
Maximus Germanicus View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian

Suspended

Joined: 08-May-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 171
  Quote Maximus Germanicus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-May-2010 at 09:56
Originally posted by DreamWeaver

Ah the clash of civilisations, East vs West.
 
 
Though I fear the concept of the crusades continuing into the modern day is to misunderstand the crusades and their purpose and what they mean. The conflicts of the present I dont think can really be seen as an extension or continuation of the Crusades, though such terminology and language may be applied to them.
 
I agree, but did the crusades start the east west tension we have today, or did the moors invasion of europe start the crusades. It seems to me the Arabs were the orginal aggressors. There has been perpetual tension since.
 
I feel the crusades were justified. The Arabs started the the invasions of Europe (followed by the Turks) The Crusades were the first example if fight them over here so we don't have to fight them on our lands.
Back to Top
Patrinos View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 05-Sep-2006
Location: Moreas
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 473
  Quote Patrinos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-May-2010 at 10:19
Originally posted by Maximus Germanicus

Originally posted by DreamWeaver

Ah the clash of civilisations, East vs West.
 
 
Though I fear the concept of the crusades continuing into the modern day is to misunderstand the crusades and their purpose and what they mean. The conflicts of the present I dont think can really be seen as an extension or continuation of the Crusades, though such terminology and language may be applied to them.
 
I agree, but did the crusades start the east west tension we have today, or did the moors invasion of europe start the crusades. It seems to me the Arabs were the orginal aggressors. There has been perpetual tension since.
 
I feel the crusades were justified. The Arabs started the the invasions of Europe (followed by the Turks) The Crusades were the first example if fight them over here so we don't have to fight them on our lands.

With that logic-who started it first- we must put all the blame to ...Agamemnon...and his aggression towards Minor Asia...Smile

The Crusades, I mean the real ones not the chivalrous myths, were unjustified.  They are explainable but not justifiable. 

Things seem much more easy and simple if your "home" has a view on the Atlantic ocean rather being on the edge of Europe(on the east side)...



Edited by Patrinos - 17-May-2010 at 10:22
"Hellenes are crazy but they have a wise God"
Kolokotronis
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: 17-May-2010 at 18:07
Originally posted by Patrinos

 

Originally posted by DreamWeaver

A gentleman of the old school then, whom Im afriad I must disagree with. The two prevalent schools of though on the matter  are avarice vs religious devotion.

Well, I don't think that history is black and white. Religious devotion, as we've seen in many cases in many nations(Greeks included), played not few times important role in the historical events. But I don't think in the case of the Crusades it was the primal factor.

And we are not sure if they started from their towns in Burgundy and Flandres(for example) without even thinking the possibility of plundering and pillaging, but we are sure that when they reached the places they intended to go they practiced these ...methods...methodically...



We share a common Byzantine heritage but at that very few of the crusaders came back wealthy and the mortality rate was about 50% or at least according to Dr. Madden. What showed up on the shores of Constantinople was not what the Emperor had requested, not even close. It is far too complicated for me to answer now with the time I have. Religious devotion of course fueled the Crusades but the Muslims were not less zealous than the Christians.

The Crusades, I mean the real ones not the chivalrous myths, were unjustified. They are explainable but not justifiable.

Much of the Romanticism about the Crusades did not really come to fruition till the European Colonial period.

Edited by eaglecap - 17-May-2010 at 18:11
Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε
Back to Top
DreamWeaver View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel

Suspended

Joined: 02-May-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 555
  Quote DreamWeaver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-May-2010 at 10:07

The Crusades, I mean the real ones not the chivalrous myths, were unjustified. They are explainable but not justifiable.



But thats the problem, they were entirely justifiable and acceptable within the context of their time and creation. Thats why they happened. To the people of Europe in the late 11th through to the early 14th Centuries, to crusade and participate in crusades was acceptable and the campaigns and actions entirey justifiable. What criticism of crusading that exists from the time is not criticism of the institution of crusading itself, but rather the actions of crusaders themselves.

Certainly by our early 21st Century standards and ideals the crusades are unjustifiable. But to make that judgement would a massive anachronism and inherently wrong. Any argument over the whether or not the crusaders were justifiable is for the most part irrelevant. What matters is the people who made the crusades beleived themselves to be justified in doing so. Any debate on justifiability must be placed in the correct place and time, otherwise its meaningless.
Back to Top
bcoakes97 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 01-Jun-2010
Location: Long Island
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5
  Quote bcoakes97 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jun-2010 at 17:20
I believe the Crusades were an excuse to show the newly obtained power of the Pope. Would Jesus approve of this? Would God? No one told the Pope to do this. The Pope just did this as an opportunity to be written in the history books as the man responsible for returning the Holy Land to the Christians. The Popes are responsible for killing millions of people, and using his money to get the seat. To me the Popes didn't care about Christianity, after Gregory at least. Gregory set the standard of what Popes potential could be. God would never approve of killing millions of people being slaughtered(The Pope may say that but not God), even if it is the Holy Land. Religion is an excuse for war, which is why I am an Atheist, but this is a different story.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345>

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 0.078 seconds.