Impact of Crusades
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Medieval Europe
Forum Discription: The Middle Ages: AD 500-1500
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=14014
Printed Date: 09-Jun-2024 at 18:09
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Impact of Crusades
Posted By: Peter III
Subject: Impact of Crusades
Date 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. |
Replies:
Posted By: Moustafa Pasha
Date 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:
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=1m4fbJyQ4pkC&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&sig=VS6VNRGpcpNMnvmM1CL1yGe9XVM&dq=impact+of+crusades+in+europe&prev=http://scholar.google.com/scholar%3Fq%3Dimpact%2Bof%2Bcrusades%2Bin%2Beurope%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D - http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=1m4fbJyQ4pkC&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&sig=VS6VNRGpcpNMnvmM1CL1yGe9XVM&dq=impact+of+crusades+in+europe&prev=http://scholar.google.com/scholar%3Fq%3Dimpact%2Bof%2Bcrusades%2Bin%2Beurope%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D
|
Posted By: rider
Date 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. ------------- |
Posted By: Peter III
Date 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. |
Posted By: Mila
Date 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. ------------- |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2006 at 14:08
Costly for whom? The King of France did very well out of that, thankyou very much. ------------- |
Posted By: Peter III
Date 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 Béziers). The list goes on for a long time when it comes to French atrocities during the crusade. |
Posted By: Komnenos
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2006 at 14:31
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"> |
Posted By: Peter III
Date 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.
|
Posted By: çok geç
Date 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.
Source: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0419-02.htm - http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0419-02.htm ------------- D.J. Kaufman Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk. |
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2006 at 18:01
Improvement: during the Crusades... in plural.
The worst being the atrocity of October the 13th... 1307 ------------- |
Posted By: R_AK47
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2006 at 01:14
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.
Yes it is.
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.
|
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2006 at 05:17
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.
No, I am afraid it still isn't. ------------- |
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2006 at 08:01
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. ------------- |
Posted By: Paul
Date 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? ------------- Light blue touch paper and stand well back http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
Posted By: Mila
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2006 at 09:39
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.  ------------- |
Posted By: R_AK47
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2006 at 10:12
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.
|
Posted By: R_AK47
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2006 at 10:15
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.
|
Posted By: Seko
Date 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.
------------- |
Posted By: Mila
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2006 at 12:52
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. ------------- |
Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2006 at 15:22
Some of the later Crusades, in the 14th, 15th, and 16th centuries, were astronomically expensive because they usually involved co-ordinating naval expeditions with the movements of land forces. So ships had to be contracted from the Italian republics and built on the spot for these ventures. The Italian republics were not always willing to provide shipping and transportation for crusaders in the late era because they often had lucrative trading contacts in Ottoman and Muslim ports. The cost fell on the Roman curia and nearly bankrupt the papacy on several occasions.
For further reading, see Norman Housley, The Later Crusades, 1274-1580: From Lyons to Alcazar. (Oxford UP, 1992).
------------- http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas |
Posted By: çok geç
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2006 at 17:02
|
I might add to what Seko and Mila have both eliquently explained that the Ottomans developed from early times the Millet system, where each religious donomination is supervised by their community leaders who subsribe to a higher authority of same donomination under the Empire sphere. Those Millets included Orthodox Christians, Armenian Churches, Jews..etc
A force converstion will just contradict this fact. You dont need that system if you prefer a force conversion policy. Treated like second class citizen? that is extremely disputed depending on time frame, occasions, and the group who can be subjected into that. To remain objective, when you talk for instance about higher taxes in a specific time frame on Orthodox Christians for instance as proof of lower citizenship, then you have to explain why Muslims in Egypt revolted against high taxes too in 1700's and both Cyprus Orthodox and Cyprus Turks revolted at the same time against high taxes in late 1600's. ------------- D.J. Kaufman Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk. |
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2006 at 18:18
No it is not... actually, during the 7th century, in the territories that the Muslims conquered, many people converted peacefully because in that way their lefe was easier and they hadn't got to pay many taxes.
------------- |
Posted By: Philhellene
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2006 at 18:56
|
I see you didn`t read Theophanes the Confessor.
|
Posted By: R_AK47
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2006 at 20:20
I see, they were apparently simply bullied and bribed into converting to islam during that time period. This doesn't sound very peacefull to me either.
|
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2006 at 20:26
|
Interesting. Any references on the bullying/ bribing to convert matter? ------------- |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2006 at 20:55
I feel the need to clarify what actually occurred in the 7th century Near East, as the understanding presented here needs some rectification. The situation for the peoples living in the Byzantine Near East at the time of the Arab invasions was pretty awful. On the one hand, they were persecuted for being mostly Monophysite rather than Orthodox Christians, and persecuted heavily. The Byzantines throughout their history were notoriously intolerant of heretics. Also, the local population was traumatised and fearful after having suffered heavily from the recent Byzantine-Persian war. Although Byzantium had won, the populations in the region had suffered heavily. Exhausted by warfare, the local population anxiously sought a power who had the military strength to guarantee them some peace. Taxes were also very high. The Byzantine armies operated on a very expensive basis, something which would only change after the Arab invasions when the Byzantines developed their thema system of military and political organisation. The Byzantine bureaucracy was huge, corrupt and expensive. The Byzantine court also taxed heavily to fund its extravegant ceremonies, imperial largesse and other court paraphernalia. Egypt itself simply had its grain taken so the Byzantines could continue distributing free bread in Constantinople. Finally, the Byzantines were a largely Hellenic people. The peoples in Palestine, Syria and Egypt had much stronger Semitic roots. They could hardly fail to notice that their rulers were, to a significant extent, foreign. Now that the situation is in its proper context, what happened after the Arab armies began their invasion could be better understood. The Arabs operated on a militarily efficient basis, possessing excellant logistics, good cavalry, a strong martial tradition and also being imbued with the ideological strength of a powerful new faith. When the Arabs conquered these regions, they did so quickly. With the Arabs in charge, a number of key changes took place. Firstly, government was more tolerant to the Monophysites than that of the Orthodox Byzantines so the local Christian got a better deal there. This was persuasive, not coercive, for the local man to convert. Also, the Arab military was successful in holding these regions against counter-attack and even pushed further afield, the local peoples could now expect a measure of security which was lacking under the Byzantines. Also, the success of the Arab military impressed them. To a medieval mind, military success was an indicator of who God truly favoured. The locals looked at Arab success and benevolence compared to the Byzantines and drew their own conclusions. The Arabs were also Semites, ethnically closer to the local peoples than the Byzantine Greeks. Taxes were also lower under the Arabs than under the Byzantines, because the armies, bureaucracies and courts were replaced with much more cost effective models. The locals therefore found it much easier to identify with their new lower taxing, Semitic rulers than the distant, high taxing Greek ones. ------------- |
Posted By: Mila
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2006 at 20:58
|
^ Great post :)
------------- |
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 16-Aug-2006 at 09:58
Second that. Indeed it is a great post.
This is plain stupid... ------------- |
Posted By: çok geç
Date Posted: 16-Aug-2006 at 16:38
|
I will third it. Really impressive summary. Great post no doubt. ------------- D.J. Kaufman Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk. |
Posted By: Philhellene
Date Posted: 16-Aug-2006 at 20:05
Theophanes and books of martyrs (for example - "Passio XX martyrum Sabaitarum").
|
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 16-Aug-2006 at 21:35
|
I'm not familiar with "Passio XX martyrum Sabaitrum". What does it say?
Theophenes - The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor" I pressume is the other source.
Here's a nicely biased quote:
AM 6122 [A.D. 629]
In this year died Muhammad, the leader and false prophet of the Saracens, after appointing his kinsman Abourbacharos [Abu Bakr] to his chieftainship. At the same time his repute spread abroad and everyone was frightened.
Then goes on to discuss the story of the ten wise Jews. Is this your reference?
The early muslims were tolerant unlike some of the Muslim Egyptian leaders of the 10'th century. But let's here what Theophanes had to say.
------------- |
Posted By: Philhellene
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2006 at 06:59
|
See AM 6135 where caliph Omar is taking off the crosses from christian buildings and AM 6182 where caliph Abu l-Malik is trying to destroy some christian temples. But the belief of muslims wasn`t strong and I think the muslim rulers started these persecutions only to spite Byzantine governement. According to Nicephorus (see his “Breviurium”) alexandrian patriarch Cyrus even tried to baptize Omar and his army. He had a big influence on Omar and he needed to marry Eudocia Augusta or one of Heraclius` daughters to him and to pay him a tribute but Heraclius rejected, sent his general Marianus against Omar and crushed Cyrus` hopes. The fact that it was possible shows us the weakness of muslims` belief – a man who saw Mohammed and was his close friend could betray his prophet. «Passions of thwenty monks from the monastery of Saint Saba» is a story of monks killed by muslims in 796 or 797. |
Posted By: Peter III
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2006 at 11:13
|
I never thought the Ottomans were that harsh towards Christians. Of course there are going to be some cases of government sponsored brutality towards christians, but in general they weren't terrible when it came to Christian-Muslim relations. |
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2006 at 12:04
I appreciate the time you took to share your personal views. Now, back to the quotes from those books as well! ------------- |
Posted By: Philhellene
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2006 at 12:27
|
Now, back to the quotes from those books as well!
You want me to quote "Passions..."? or to give you excerpts from Theophanes?
|
Posted By: R_AK47
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2006 at 19:50
Its the truth, call it what you want.
|
Posted By: R_AK47
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2006 at 19:52
Indeed, Philhellene is right. This is very true.
|
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2006 at 20:47
|
This is a weak arguement.
First of all, no quotes were given for verification. Second, let's say Philhellene presented an adequate resemblance of Theophanes original writings. Where did Theophanes get his information from? Especially since he is supposed to have lived over 100 years later than the death of Caliph Omar. In summary we could assume that Theophanes, a Greek ascetic, who founded a monastary and was an iconodule, was partial to his religion. He also held office under Constantine V. We could assume that his statements about Omar and the Prophet Muhammad were questionable due to his loyalties to Byzantium/Eastern Orthdoxy. Next, the opinion and following deductions from Philhellene are personal and not necessarily the judegment that most readers would make. How come? Why would Philhellene call the beliefs of muslims as 'wasn't strong' at that time. That they were interested in spiting the Byzantines, due to removing Christian symbolism from newly conquered buildings? Looks more like a process of removing idol imagery per the Islamic faith instead of spiting a conquered foe. Then he goes on an interesting leap of faith by saying that Omar was tempted into Christianity because Cyrus tried to baptize Omar and his army. OK. Not really. Doesn't mean a thing. Lastly, he wrote: "The fact that it was possible shows us the weakness of muslims` belief – a man who saw Mohammed and was his close friend could betray his prophet." Wrong. It was nearly impossible no matter how hard Omar's enemies tried to convert him or renounce his marriage offers. Omar had the world at his beckoning. He was a close companion of the Prophet. He was given the title of Caliph. Now does anyone actually believe that such a man would turn tail or even come close to renouncing his religion and the power of office under such circumstances? Aledging a weakness can be done by people of any stripe. As is the case attempted by those above. Without reference to the writings of Theophanes we are left to debate the material presented by Philhellene. I'll provide a couple links on Omar regarding his history. http://anwary-islam.com/companion/umar-bin-khatab.htm - http://anwary-islam.com/companion/umar-bin-khatab.htm http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umar_ibn_al-Khattab - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umar_ibn_al-Khattab ------------- |
Posted By: Peter III
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2006 at 22:20
| Very good points, seko. It is stupid basing an entire argument on the belief of one historian, and probably a biased one as well(as seko was saying). Any historian, or amateur historian for that matter, should realize the problems with basing an argument on the writings of one historian. |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2006 at 23:04
I'm glad the post meets with such popular approval. If you guys really like it, don't be shy to nominate, second or third it for post of the month  http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=13316 - http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=13316 ------------- |
Posted By: Leonardo
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2006 at 08:12
Ironically it was only from XVIII century on that the word "crusade" in the modern polemical sense was invented by antichristian writers and intellectuals. As far as I know in "crusaders" times the word "crusade" not even existed. When in XIX century islamic intellectuals started to learn European languages and to read European books they found the word "crusade" and its polemical sense and happily adopted it ...
|
Posted By: Komnenos
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2006 at 09:12
In German, the term "Kreuzfahrt" was in use from the 13th century onwards. As it shares its latin root "crux=cross" with the terms for the adventures in Palestine in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries in other European languages, (French: croisade ?) , I would suggest that all these terms were in use in Europe during the High Middle Ages.
You're surly right, that the additional polemical meaning was introduced much later. ------------- [IMG]http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i137/komnenos/crosses1.jpg"> |
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2006 at 11:46
Have you ever heard such a line as the "Truth is out there". If you haven't watch X-Files, and note that the truth is out 'there', not here.
Do you really base all your beliefs on one historian: do you read Prokopios and believe his 'Secret Histories' to be so true that they don't lie a word? ------------- |
Posted By: Leonardo
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2006 at 13:01
It's interesting to know that when Pope Urban II declared the first "Crusade" (1097) neither he nor others ever used the word which in English is translated as "Crusade". The words used were indeed "iter" (journey) or "peregrinatio" (pilgrimage) and this words were used also for the following "crusades".
As you have written, it seems that the word "Crusade" or its equivalents in other western European languages doesn't date back before the late XIII century, when the last "crusades" were ending and it's only in the XVIII century that the word started to be used systematically and mostly polemically up to nowadays.
|
Posted By: çok geç
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2006 at 18:16
I'm refering to therm today. The same impact on a Middle Eastern hearing it today will not differ than a Middle Eastern who will hear the common term of those Crusaders at those times and eras. Adopting the term "Crusaders" later does not mean no one knew about their existance and named them different names. Muslims scholars and intellectual named them various names and obviously learned of their impact on the first day, simply because they were living on the target of all those crusades!
Names such as fideles Sancti Petri, Christ milites or peregrinatio or other names were unified later to be what is today called the "Crusade" or in Arabic "Alsaleebiyoon"= Those who wore the Cross. Some common names to them in Arabic that were replaced by AlSalaeebiyoon were Jund Al Maseeh (soldier of the Messiah) and Al Hujjaj Al Musalaheen (the Armed Pilgrimages) as usually the pilgrimages donnot carry arms. ------------- D.J. Kaufman Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk. |
Posted By: Philhellene
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2006 at 19:45
Yeah, but I need some time to translate it from Russian. And I can give you Greek version of the excerpts too.
|
Posted By: Timotheus
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2006 at 21:38
| The Crusades are one of the four main reasons fundamentalist Muslims hate the west. That's the most relevant impact of the Crusades for the modern human. |
Posted By: Nestorian
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2006 at 00:02
|
One of the unknown episodes of early Muslim Egypt are the Coptic rebellions against Islamic rule. When the Byzantines attempted to recapture Alexandria from the Arabs, the Alexandrians welcomed them, both Greeks and Indigenous Egyptian Christians. The reason was because of the high taxes under the Arabs, so this means that lower taxes under Islam is itself a myth. Moreover, one should note that the Arabs utilised bureacrats who formerly served the Byzantine empire who served under the Arabs so that current administrative and fiinancial practices would not have changed that much. In addition, as the Arab Caliphate was on a war footing, it required money and supplies to literally sustain a "war machine" (not meant to connotate negative image).
However, the leader of the expedition, Manuel (not the Emperor) squandered his popularity with even worse extortions than the Arabs and eventually lost his support when the Arabs recaptured Alexandria.
Another instance is the Siege of Constantinople in 717-718. An Arab fleet arriving to supply the Arab besiegers were crippled by the mass desertion of its Christain crew to the Emperor Leo, which, circumstantial evidence suggests, engineered this event. However, the significance is that these Monophysite Christians were welcomed with open arms. Evidently, the Christians still felt themselves "Roman" to desert the Arabs.
During the 8th and 9th century, there were two huge indigenous Egyptian Christians rebellions against the harshness of Islamic rule. THis is possible because of majority Christian population during that tiime. By the 10th century, Egypt was majority Muslim.
So I think, in this instance, we should neither assume Islamic rule was benevolent, but neither oppressive. But overall, a combination of both in fluctuating periods. There was an overall discriminatory practice of law against Christians, but even so, it can be considered "toleration" of religious practice as long as there were stipulations that elevated the Muslims above the other "People's of the Book".
Another thing left unmentioned is the relationship between Orthodox and Monophysites in later centuries. There were large communities of Syrian Monophysite settled in Thrace and in Anatolia within the empire. Moreover, in the Byzantine reconquest of the Syria, Cilicia and Armenia, the empire extended toleration to the other Jacobite, Nestorian and Monophysite sects as well. Much to the consternation of the more "purely Orthodox" clergymen of Constantinople, but not to the Byzantine Emperor's who felt nothing wrong with it.
On another point, is it logical and consistent to compare how Christians treat their sectarian counterparts and how Islam treat their religious counterparts? THey are two differnet situations and yet we treat it as one. As is the case in this thread where we discuss how Orthodox treat Monophysites and how Muslims treat Monophysites.
What if we compare how Christians and Muslims treat their sectarian counterparts? Then perhaps, we could get an idea of toleration based on a consistent criteria/scenario.
Sources:
John Julius Norwich, Byzantium: the Early Centuries and Byzantium: The Apogee
http://www.copts.net/history.asp#arab - http://www.copts.net/history.asp#arab
|
Posted By: Philhellene
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2006 at 10:29
|
The Crusades are one of the four main reasons fundamentalist Muslims hate the west. That's the most relevant impact of the Crusades for the modern human.
I think one of the main reasons of this hate is the creation of Israel in 1948. |
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2006 at 11:01
|
Well, it shouldn't have been done seeing Isrealis' today doings.
------------- |
Posted By: Komnenos
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2006 at 12:14
The various Islamic caliphates offered a sanctuary for a number of Christian heretical sects.
A prime example are the Paulicians, a gnostic sect that later came under Manichaen influence, who was based mainly in Eastern Anatolia and Armenia, where they were serverely presecuted by the orthodox Church and the Byzantine State.
In the mid 9th century, the Paulicians established a semi-independent state in eastern Cappadocia, a theocracy with Arab support and protection.
However, if the Arab motive for tolerating heretic Christian sects is a question of religious principles, or that of political considerations, is open to debate. In the case of the Paulicians, it was surely political, as the heretic theocracy was a valuable ally for the Caliphates in the permanent war on the frontiers against the Byzantines. ------------- [IMG]http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i137/komnenos/crosses1.jpg"> |
Posted By: çok geç
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2006 at 17:54
Any othe supporting source than the US. Copts Association?
I will offer another view that contradict the victimization of Egypt history. Did the Copts welcome the invasion?
"In all of this it would appear that the Arabs were actually assisted by the Egyptians, who found the Muslims more tolerant than the Byzantines. In return for a tribute of money and food for the troops of occupation, the Christian inhabitants of Egypt were excused military service and left free in the observance of their religion and the administration of their affairs."
So in fact, it supports Komnenos' observation. Were taxes higher after the conquest?
"Conversions of Copts to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam - Islam were at first rare, and the old system of taxation was maintained for the greater part of the first Islamic century. "
Would tax be always lower? I doubt it. Im sure over taxation is common by any government and in fact, it did impact all of the residents of Egypt including Muslims. I quote again from Wikipedia:
"In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/828 - 828 another Egyptian revolt broke out. And in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/831 - 831 the Copts joined with the Muslims against the government."
To point out the high taxation of Egypt as only directed to Copts is telling half of the story and drawing a conclusion that is if not biased, definitely incomplete.
Source of all above quotes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_early_Arab_Egypt - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_early_Arab_Egypt ------------- D.J. Kaufman Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk. |
Posted By: Timotheus
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2006 at 21:39
That's a good second reason - not only England and France instituting the state but also America supporting it. The others would be because the USA has troops in Mecca, and because fundamentalist Muslims see the entire West as Christian. |
Posted By: R_AK47
Date Posted: 20-Aug-2006 at 00:10
Of course it should have been done. Israel has done nothing wrong.
|
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 20-Aug-2006 at 00:56
|
Israel dates from 1948, several centuries after the time period we are discussing. This thread is not about Israel.
------------- |
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 20-Aug-2006 at 03:23
Sorry, Constantine, I just have to. And it might bring us closer to our final target; anyways, I am sorry.
But they did create a section of the world that can't live in peace. Do you say that that is good?
But the entire west was Christian; it does not matter which Christian. Even todays (I can't speak about the US) no European country has it's state religion as Islam. We have it Catholic, Orthodox, Lutherian and others but not Islam. They have the complete right to see us as Christians. ***************** I totally agree with member_profile.asp?PF=1771&FID=14 - çok geç 's post. Conversion can be peaceful and due to the stupid large Byzantine taxes (the Byzantines however weren't stupid) the natives decided it would be better to them, to have the Caliphate rule over them. ------------- |
Posted By: Philhellene
Date Posted: 20-Aug-2006 at 03:43
|
Even todays (I can't speak about the US) no European country has it's state religion as Islam.
I think in modern Europe there is no such term as "state religion".
|
Posted By: Komnenos
Date Posted: 20-Aug-2006 at 04:09
Although in practise rather nominal, the reigning monarch of the United Kingdom is still the titular head of the Church of England (Anglican), and thus the Anglican faith is the "state religion" of the UK.
The position is still reflected in the title " defender of the faith" that all British monrach bear. ------------- [IMG]http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i137/komnenos/crosses1.jpg"> |
Posted By: Philhellene
Date Posted: 20-Aug-2006 at 04:16
| Ok, Britain monarchy is an exception to the rule. |
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 20-Aug-2006 at 04:32
|
Well, all Eastern European countries do have a state religion although
it does not mean that you ave to be a practitioner of that religion. We
do have the term religious freedom but the religion that is prcticed
the ost, should be the state religion. ------------- |
Posted By: Nestorian
Date Posted: 20-Aug-2006 at 05:19
|
@Constantine
I meant Islam's relationship with Muslim sects, not Christian sects, that is considered a reliigious relationship, not a sectarian one.
@ Cok Gec
U said that Egyptian welcomed the Arabs, that is true, but you forget, I mentioned activities after the welcome by the Egyptians of Arabs by which they rebelled and deserted to the Byzantines when the opportunity arose.
\
And yes, conversion in Egypt was slow, but you must remember that the Copts held steadfast to their faith despite oppressive taxation. This shows that Islam had to overcome an early strong and indigenous Christian tradition in Egypt before finally making Egypt a strongly Muslim country.
Another source besides the Coptic assocation includes Warren Treadgold, a famous Byzantine historian who mentions the desertion of Coptic Christians to the Byzantines to be settled as citizens in the empire as well as the Byzantine attempt to recapture Alexandria and the welcome of the Byzantines by the Egyptians before the general Manuel foolishly squandered that support.
As for Egyptians excused from military service, I disagree, why would you arm a majority religious population with weapons in the first place? It is most likely a prohibition than an exemption. Think about it? If I conquered a region where my religion was a foreign minority, would it be sensible to allow that religious majority to be armed and hence, a potential threat?
An unarmed majority is definitely easier to control and govern. Moreover, it is not a wise policy to initiate persecution against a religious majority. The fact that there were religious persecution of Egyptians (in fluctuating periods, not consistently to be fair) when Christians were a majority and in which major rebellions were the result shows the short-sightedness of particular unwise governors.
Besides, I have no reason to doubt the integrity and honesty of the Egyptian Christians. I think that people just make them out to be "ungrateful" subjects. Its easier to say someone is lying and ungrateful than to accept harsh facts. Generally, I thnk the Copts have maintained their large size due to their strong faith and loyalty to their faith under pressure than under benign rulers.
The Jizya tax was used as revenue to continue the armament and the military momentum of the Arab Caliphate. More for the benefit of the Musliim warriors than exempting Christians from combat.
The Copts did join with Muslim in rebelling against high taxation, but how often was that? High taxation for those who pay Jizya was consistently high, but not consistently for Muslims. The grievances and hardship of Copts were more burdensome than for Muslims. It is fortunate that the Muslims rulers of Egypt relented now and then because of their need for the talents of the native Egyptian Christians.
On another point, which actually puts the Muslims in a good light is the population movement caused by the Byzantine reconquest durng the 10th and 11th centuries. When the Byzantines recaptured former territories, Muslims moved out and strengthened the Muslim element in surrounding regions while the Christians in Muslim territories moved towards Byzantine territory hence increasing Muslim population in the Middle East and not so much through persecution.
However, we are not talking about huge demographic changes, but we are talking about significant long term demographic changes that proceeded thereafter. Byzantium has generally been tolerant of other Christian sects after losing Monophysitian regions as evidenced by the large settlements of Monophysites in Thrace and in Anatolia and also the rise of church building activity in regions recaptured by the Byzantines. The Bogomils and Paulicians are notorious exceptions, but it must be pointed out that they are closer to Manichaeism than Christianity and henceforth regarded worse than Monophysitism which apart from issue of the nature of Christ is by and large similar the Chalcedonian position.
I must add and commend the friendly atmosphere of discussion in this particular thread.
I too have had an interesting discussion with a Muslim friend about sensitive topics like apostasy.
|
Posted By: Philhellene
Date Posted: 20-Aug-2006 at 05:29
|
AM 6135 In this year Omar started to build a temple in Jerusalem, but his building didn`t stand, but fell. When he asked about the reason, Jews sad him: «If you don`t take off the cross from the Mount of Olives, your building will never stand». And then the cross from the Mount of Olives was taken off and the building didn`t fall. And becuase of that the haters of Christ threw down a lot of crosses. AM 6182 Meanwhile Abimelech (Αβιμελεχ) started to build a temple in Makka (Μακκα) and he wanted to get the columns from Saint Gethsemane, and certain Sergius, Christian man, general-accountant (I think this is λογοθετης) of Mansur who was friendly to Abimelech, asked him (i.e. Abimelech), and his friend patricius, the most important man among the Palestinian Christians, named Klesos (Κλαυσυς) asked him (Abimelech) not to do that and they (both) asked and persuaded Justinian to send him instead of these other columns and it happened (i.e. Justinian sent the columns). |
Posted By: Philhellene
Date Posted: 20-Aug-2006 at 05:33
|
AM 6135  AM 6182  |
Posted By: Philhellene
Date Posted: 20-Aug-2006 at 10:00
But Cyrus wasn`t his enemy unlike Heraclius. He was his friend. That`s very important.
|
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 20-Aug-2006 at 15:30
|
From what you posted I could gather the following meaning. Cyrus wanted to seal an alliance by asking Herclius to allow his daughter to marry Omar. Did I read that correctly? Heraclius then refused his daughter and the marriage (alliance). Cyrus also tried to baptize Omar and his army.
So how does that make Omar weak in faiith? ------------- |
Posted By: Philhellene
Date Posted: 20-Aug-2006 at 16:07
| How could Cyrus even hope to baptize Omar if he was a good Muslim? How could these negotiations be possible? |
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 20-Aug-2006 at 16:11
|
Good question. Whether he tried can mean many things. Eventually he was unsuccessful. Could you share the quote in english about this matter if it all possible. I would like to know the process involved and the validity of it. ------------- |
Posted By: çok geç
Date Posted: 20-Aug-2006 at 16:13
Deserted to Byzentine whenever an opportunity arose? I'm confident some, but you make it sounds as if they (all) did so. I highy doubt that. Read the following out of Wikipedia:
"The Persian occupation allowed Monophysitism to resurface in Egypt, and when imperial rule was restored by Emperor Heraclius in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/629 - 629 , the Monophysites were persecuted and their patriarch expelled. Egypt was thus in a state of both religious and political alienation from the Empire when a new invader appeared"
"Most of the Egyptian Christians welcomed their new rulers: the accession of a new regime meant for them the end of the persecutions by the Byzantine state church. Thus ended 973 years of Græco-Roman rule over Egypt."
Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegyptus_%28Roman_province%29
Why would they desert to Byzentine then? Not to find the religious tolerance they lacked for hundred of years. Neither to get lower taxes because simply the Byzentine empire was well-known for over-taking due to corruption, and contineous military operations which need to be funded.
The fact that some of these taxations hit the Egyption Muslim hard, meant it is a decline of the Empire and a high corruption signals. Very normal cycle of any government. Surely they held on Christianity long, but that is due to cultural and historical reasons. Armenians stayed Christians for centuries of Muslim rule by Abbasyds and Ottomans.
Ah I see. So a Byzentine historian recording about Egypt and Coptic during the Muslim invasion. Really impressive that he stayed very objective in his views (or did he?).
Why would you arm the whole population as you say? I did not stress on exemption of military as you mentioned. However, since you already stated it, probably you mean the drafting of Copts to be in Muslim armies. That would be more proper than starting the point with "arming the majority".
Neither do I doubt their integrity in a general way. But common sense says that as much as you should leave a space of doubts to a Serb who is recording the Ottoman Empire history in the Balkan , I should do the same to a minority that might be angered by the fact that they lost their culture and religion to a new coming invaders. Comprende? ------------- D.J. Kaufman Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk. |
Posted By: Philhellene
Date Posted: 20-Aug-2006 at 18:46
|
Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegyptus_%28Roman_province%29
Wikipedia is a great thing, but we don`t know if the author of this article used reliable sources.
the Byzentine empire was... over-taking due to corruption...
Arabian (I mean Arabian countries) corruption is also well known.
|
Posted By: Nestorian
Date Posted: 21-Aug-2006 at 00:43
|
Just because I said they deserted when the opportunity arose does not mean all of them did? Isn't it simple, they deserted when the opportunity arose?? But it is clear a majority did not have the opportunity. Christians living on the frontier did when Byzantine raids transferred them into the empire as settlers. Didn't you read what I said before? Relations between Monophysites and the Chalcedonians improved remarkably after the Byzantines lost Monophysite regions. There were large communities of Monophysites inside the empire and the fact that the rise and increase of church-building and monasteries after the Byzantine reconquest of areas where large populations of Monophysites lived is evidence enough.
As for Byzantine corruption, YOU MAKE it sound like they have the monopoly on corruption. And their Arab neigbours weren't? Thats just myopic.....
And you exaggerate when you say Byzantine were high, taxes were generally high in the medieval world. You don't find many Byzantines deserting to the Arabs do you? Perhaps rebel leaders for political purposes.
Perhaps you'd like to explain the extortionate practice of Muslim governors targetting the Coptic Patriarch for money? Since these governors had short tenures, the motivation to make as much money as possible was very high. The patriarch was a natural target for ransom.
Treadgold is a historian of Byzantium. Just becayse a person is a Byzantine historian does not automatically make them partisan either.
Another well kknown historian is Walter Kaegi, historian of Byzantine and Islamic studies too and he confirms the same thing.
My point still stands, you don't give access to weapons to a religious majority, though they accepted you becayse you were their enemies' enemy, it does not necessarily mean you "like" them.
The Copts are not the same as the Serbs, in their homeland region of Serbia, they were the majority, not the minority. IN Egypt, for a long time, the Copts were the minority. If it is biased that the Copts resent the discrimination and occasional persecution suffered by them it is still a fact, yes a historical fact. Not all biases should be dismissed if they can be proven.
Perhaps you will find this enlighten Cok Gec
http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/pdfs/holmes.pdf - http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/pdfs/holmes.pdf
------------- Isa al-Masih, both God and Man, divine and human, flesh and spirit, saviour, servant and sovereign |
Posted By: çok geç
Date Posted: 21-Aug-2006 at 17:24
|
Does it matter if they fixed the problem after they lost? The Byzentine rule over Syria was as oppressive in terms of high-taxation and religious intolerance. Which caused the local Christian population to welcome the Muslim invasions. I quote from the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch in Eastern United States (so it is a Christian church of original Syrians and away from the influence of Syrian government who someone can argue can pressure the puplication of the church): "The Position of the Syrians Toward the Islamic Conquest >From the above it becomes clear that the religious conflicts in the Christian church, the attempts of the powers to force the issues of the council of Chalcedon upon the other churches by force, to throw its members in prison, to kill them, to ban them and to drive them out alienated the Syrian Christians. All these unchristian deeds only sowed hate and aversion in the hearts of the Syrians against the powers. The Persian powers in their empire oppressed both West and East Syrians in general to force them under tyrannical policies and Zoroastrian beliefs. Therefore the Syrians under the and Persian powers saw the Islamic conquerors as liberators and not as occupiers. The Syrians put great hope in them, not only because the Muslims liberated them from their religious trouble but also because they relieved the Syrians of the burdensome that were placed on their backs. They said, "Praise be to God, who delivered us from the unjust Byzantines and who put us under the rule of the just Muslim ."
Source: http://www.syrianorthodoxchurch.org/library/Articles/history.htm - http://www.syrianorthodoxchurch.org/library/Articles/history.htm
Byzentine still have not learned the lesson. Continuing the same oppressive policies in Egypt. They lost Egypt after. Guess what? The same scenario occurs in other incidents of North African conquest. So after losing all Monophysite states, they decided to became tolerant? They need a good publication for sure to convince Monophysite Christians that they have changed their attitude toward them.
Yes, at the time of the invasion, they were known to be corrupt with high taxes and combined with religious intolerance. I already posted to you the example of Syrian attitudes to the conquest of Muslims and they also mentioned "high taxation". Not a coincidence that it happened in two different places and of two different time frames. It is a signal that all of the Empire provinces had the same problem.
About high taxes, that was already answered and I will show you that 50% more taxes is not the normal of the medieval world. Regarding focusing on a group that deserted to one side. Your post seems to conceal an objective view by telling that deserted Copts to Byzentine are signs of intolerance Muslim rule, but deserted byzeintineans are "perhaps rebel leaders for political purpose". A double standard indeed. In any case, to give you an example, during the reign of Constans II, while a civil war is going between Ali and Muawiyah in the Muslim Empire (a point of no conquest and no military compaign against Byzeintine) a division of 5000 slavs deserted to the Arabs who were settled in Palestine in 665 AD.
It seems you have a focus on inflated incidents of history and portraying them as the normal pattern Copts faced in Egypt. Another contrasting view is commonly found (but purposely avoided), such as the following academic published quote that proves the Copts were taxed half of Byzentine taxes! "The -speaking http://www.bethel.edu/~letnie/AfricanChristianity/EgyptMonophysites.html - monophysite majority rejoiced to be free of Byzantine , gained a measure of religious toleration they had not known since the Council of Chalcedon, and found themselves taxed at just over half the rate they had been under the Empire.
For the first four centuries of their , the Arabs treated the Copts with forebearance, in part because Mohammed, whose Egyptian wife was the only one to bear him a son, had said "When you conquer Egypt, be kind to the Copts for they are your proteges and kith and kin." The Copts were therefore allowed to practice their religion freely, and were protected as "People of the Book" as long as they paid a special tax, called the "Geyza." The population became an important source of revenue for the Islamic governors, and at one point they discouraged conversion to Islam for financial reasons. The tax advantages of becoming led to a slow decline in the population until it stabilized at just under 10% of the population. "
My example was simple in which I say, for you to take a Serbian tale of Ottoman rule over Balkan (where they lost land, had part of the population converted), you will normally find a biased pattern of viewing the Ottoman era in the region in their tales. That is normal and expected by any group. Call it a human nature. However, I did post to you another view by also other Coptic. Somehow, not all Copts share your view of history. ------------- D.J. Kaufman Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk. |
Posted By: Nestorian
Date Posted: 21-Aug-2006 at 23:57
|
Does it matter if they fixed the problem after they lost? The Byzentine rule over Syria was as oppressive in terms of high-taxation and religious intolerance. Which caused the local Christian population to welcome the Muslim invasions. I quote from the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch in Eastern United States (so it is a Christian church of original Syrians and away from the influence of Syrian government who someone can argue can pressure the puplication of the church):
You qoute from the Syrian Orthodox Church in America but u forget that while it away from the influence of the Syrian government, it is not away from the influence of the leader of the Syrian ORthodox Church in Syria which is UNDER the influence of the Syrian government.
I'm not saying ti does matter if they fixed the problem, that was never the issue, the issue was that the Arab occupation wasn't exactly as nice and benevolent as initially thought. All you've tried to do is fudge and confuse my arguments with non-relevant events and unrelated arguments. You just can't admit facts when they happen can you?
And the Arab invaders weren't exactly "welcomed" with fanfare and jubilation more a sense of pragmatism and realpolitik so please don't try and portray this as some of "grand" celebration because it wasn't the case.
Yes, at the time of the invasion, they were known to be corrupt with high taxes and combined with religious intolerance. I already posted to you the example of Syrian attitudes to the conquest of Muslims and they also mentioned "high taxation". Not a coincidence that it happened in two different places and of two different time frames. It is a signal that all of the Empire provinces had the same problem. Once again, you are myopic, the Sassanids had high taxes, corruption and religious persecution too. This combination led to their decline and fall. ANd you exaggerate, in areas of the empire where they were extensive attacks by enemies, taxes were indeed high because of the need to recoup lost revenue from devastated territories. The Exarchate of Carthage was one of the more fortunate places not to have oppressive taxation due to its relatively long distance from major conflicts and invasion in the Balkans and the Middle East.
And you seem to think I'm saying persecution and high taxation was consistent in Muslim rule. I never said that, I only said that Muslim rule in Egypt was not as benevolent as expected. Of that I am right. And you yourself have admitted it. I think we are saying the same thing but from a different approach...strangely enough.
Besides Slavs anyone else? You can't use one incident and paint a whole picture of Byzantium can you? The Slavs were not long time residents of the empire but one of many people settled hastily in Byzantine territory who did not share its identity and traditions and therefore felt no loyalty to the empire. Perfectly understandable.
I could mention the Banu Habib, the Khurramites as examples of subjects under Arab rule who deserted to the Byzantines but chose not to because it may lead to a single brushstroke painting a whole picture.
In either case, I am not displaying a double standard. You mentioned exceptions, not the norms.
For the first four centuries of their , the Arabs treated the Copts with forebearance, in part because Mohammed, whose Egyptian wife was the only one to bear him a son, had said "When you conquer Egypt, be kind to the Copts for they are your proteges and kith and kin." The Copts were therefore allowed to practice their religion freely, and were protected as "People of the Book" as long as they paid a special tax, called the "Geyza." The population became an important source of revenue for the Islamic governors, and at one point they discouraged conversion to Islam for financial reasons. The tax advantages of becoming led to a slow decline in the population until it stabilized at just under 10% of the population. "
How very strange that you use "anecdotes" as evidence....
Once again you ignore the massive COptic rebellions....whether with Muslims or not, it does not matter because the Muslims were nto treated the same as the Copts because the Copts were not the equal of Muslims.
Do you expect me to believe Christians and Muslims were equal?
There are many definitions of tolerance, how do you define tolerance?
Indeed, I think the Copts were tolerated under Muslim rule...but tolerance doesn't necessarily mean equality and freedom from discrimination. Tolerance can be defined by the minimal quality of simply allowing somone to exist. But that doesn't mean a person cannot be humiliated as the Copts indeed were.
You showed me qoutes from the Syrian Church and yet you do not accept those from the Coptic Church? Is it because it suits ur purpose only??
Its a good thing the Copts are still large to raise their voices and make themselves heard. ------------- Isa al-Masih, both God and Man, divine and human, flesh and spirit, saviour, servant and sovereign |
Posted By: çok geç
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2006 at 15:53
|
Ah, consiperacy theory. Unfortunately, that is an assumption you made.
First, let us not call each other by names and keep up the respect please. Second, you are repeating what I said exactly. If the Sassanid empire had high taxes too and intolerance, do I care about Sassanid vs Byzentine? You claim that Byzantine policies are similar to other Medieval Empires. However, I did already disapprove that by showing that Muslims after capturing Egypt, taxed only 50% of what Byzentine did. Also, I did mention already that those high Byzantine taxes are due to contineious military operations. Something you repeated again for some reason.
I never said Muslim rule in Egypt was a rosey one all the time (go back to my first post on this thread). However, without my opposition to what you posted, the reader will only get half of the picture. Had you posted examples of tolerance and intolerance, I would have accepted your objectivity.
Yes, other incidents are well reported too. However, you accused me of distracting the flow of the argument, though you are the one who started to diviate the argument by stating examples of deserters to Byzantine, and then asking examples of desertation to the Muslims. Yes, you cannot paint a whole picture of Byzentine from tens of examples even, that applies to you as well.
Sure, you can mention as many examples as you desire. Yet, I didn't ask for any example from the begining. Also, read about them before using them as examples. Banu Habib were an Arab tribe Nisibis who escaped high taxation and started to loot and attack the city before their blood-related Hamdanite attacked them back and defeated them with the Byzentine support. Khurramites were in rebilion against the Abbasyds after their leader Abu Muslim Al Khurrasani was murdered. Where would an opposition escape normally? to the enemy of course. Notice that my examples so far were not of oppositions escaping to the enemy side, rather than citizens and soldiers who totally deserted to the Muslims as chances came out. That is a huge difference you might like to take into consideration.
Let us take a look on the tolerance Egypt enjoyed before the Muslim conquest. From Wikipedia (non-Muslim and non-Coptic source): Copts suffered under the rule of the Byzantine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Roman_Empire - Eastern Roman Empire . The Melkite Patriarchs, appointed by the emperors as both spiritual leaders and civil governors, massacred the Egyptian population whom they considered heretics. Many Egyptians were tortured and martyred to accept the terms of Chalcedon, but Egyptians remained loyal to the faith of their fathers and to the Cyrillian view of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christology - Christology . One of the most renowned Egyptian saints of that period is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Samuel_the_Confessor - Saint Samuel the Confessor .
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coptic_Church - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coptic_Church
I will be surprised if Copts were not celebrating in streets the defeat of Byzentine (Actually you can google those accounts). What happened to Egypt after Muslim conquest was definitely more than "allowing someone to exist".
I dont think you understood the use of the Syrian Church example. Academic publications support the view of predominant tolerance in Egypt as I posted already. When a local church (which mostly unhappy of how it was turned by Muslims conquest into a minority) comes to disclaim other churches exaggerated account of prosecution, then that is something to note. ------------- D.J. Kaufman Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk. |
Posted By: Nestorian
Date Posted: 23-Aug-2006 at 10:08
|
Ah, consiperacy theory. Unfortunately, that is an assumption you made.
I did not imply a conspiracy theory nor even thought of it at all. I mentioned facts and the fact is the Syrian Orthodox Church is careful with its activities which reflect in its branches overseas.
First, let us not call each other by names and keep up the respect please. Second, you are repeating what I said exactly. If the Sassanid empire had high taxes too and intolerance, do I care about Sassanid vs Byzentine? You claim that Byzantine policies are similar to other Medieval Empires. However, I did already disapprove that by showing that Muslims after capturing Egypt, taxed only 50% of what Byzentine did. Also, I did mention already that those high Byzantine taxes are due to contineious military operations. Something you repeated again for some reason You did not disprove anything at all, the Arabs did tax the Copts highly and subsequent rebellions and historicaol events showed it. Its up to you to accept it.
I never said Muslim rule in Egypt was a rosey one all the time (go back to my first post on this thread). However, without my opposition to what you posted, the reader will only get half of the picture. Had you posted examples of tolerance and intolerance, I would have accepted your objectivity.
My intention was not to portray only the bad side of Muslim rule in Egypt as the earlier posts alluded to good sides of Muslim rule of Egypt so i decided to balance it. In my opinion, Copts were still second-class citizens with conditions that emphasised their inferiority structurally and culturally, but nonetheless, it was generally not a bad place to live. I would never deny such relativity when compared with other places.
Yes, other incidents are well reported too. However, you accused me of distracting the flow of the argument, though you are the one who started to diviate the argument by stating examples of deserters to Byzantine, and then asking examples of desertation to the Muslims. Yes, you cannot paint a whole picture of Byzentine from tens of examples even, that applies to you as well.
In any case, for other examples that satisfy your refusal to accept reality, Look into all Jacobites, Nestorians, and finally the accounts of Odo of Deuil, a monk of St. Denis and chaplain to Louis VII, accompanied his patron on the second Crusade where he gave a moving account of the conversion to Islam of a large number of crusaders whose treatment they received at the hands of their own commanders, or at the hands of the Greek escorts, the Venetian ship owners, and the Byzantine hosts, contrasted shockingly with that of the Muslims. We can agree that desertions happened on both sides then?? As there are ample examples for both cases?
Sure, you can mention as many examples as you desire. Yet, I didn't ask for any example from the begining. Also, read about them before using them as examples. Banu Habib were an Arab tribe Nisibis who escaped high taxation and started to loot and attack the city before their blood-related Hamdanite attacked them back and defeated them with the Byzentine support. Khurramites were in rebilion against the Abbasyds after their leader Abu Muslim Al Khurrasani was murdered. Where would an opposition escape normally? to the enemy of course. Notice that my examples so far were not of oppositions escaping to the enemy side, rather than citizens and soldiers who totally deserted to the Muslims as chances came out. That is a huge difference you might like to take into consideration.
I cited examples which consists of both citizens (Coptic citizens) and soldiers. What the Banu Habib was negligible, they were enemies of the Hamdanid, and so they fought their enemies? What did you expect?
From one of my earlier sources (from Holmes), Monophysites, Jacobites and Nestorian citizens moved into Byzantine territory because they enjoyed better conditions. In fact, their building activities and membership growth rose at the time of the Byzantine reconquest instead of under Muslims. Thats not to say entire populations of a region, but those fortunate and able to move into Byzantine territory...in the end it didn't matter as the Seljuks undid all that work....:(
Copts suffered under the rule of the Byzantine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Roman_Empire - Eastern Roman Empire . The Melkite Patriarchs, appointed by the emperors as both spiritual leaders and civil governors, massacred the Egyptian population whom they considered heretics. Many Egyptians were tortured and martyred to accept the terms of Chalcedon, but Egyptians remained loyal to the faith of their fathers and to the Cyrillian view of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christology - Christology . One of the most renowned Egyptian saints of that period is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Samuel_the_Confessor - Saint Samuel the Confessor .
I'm not denying Byzantine misrule at all. But my point has been that Muslim rule wasn't as nice as many other Muslim seem to point out. I'm merely balancing the equation when I see it has been misbalanced.
The Muslim governors of Egypt also frequently tortured the Coptic Patriarchs for money and other extortionate practices but I'm not going to say that this happened every single year, century and millenium. But it did happen.
You talk about a sectarian relationship between the Orthodox and the Monophysites, but that is not consistent with comparing Islam's religious and NOT sectarian relationship with the Monophysites. As the criteria is not the same and therefore distortive. The Muslims themselves were not as kind to sectarian deviations within their religion either. If we are talking interrreligious relationships then it is different. As you know, there is a greater hatred for "heretics than infidels."
dont think you understood the use of the Syrian Church example. Academic publications support the view of predominant tolerance in Egypt as I posted already. When a local church (which mostly unhappy of how it was turned by Muslims conquest into a minority) comes to disclaim other churches exaggerated account of prosecution, then that is something to note.
Regarding Egypt, I did post to you previously academic publications that opposes the church exaggerated claim. It is up to you to decide what side you like to adopt. I myself being a Muslim, and out of church influence on my perception, will favor the academic publication. If I will even look back to my personal experience, I have met other living examples of how Coptic church prosecute their converts because of the sensitivity of that issue. I'm also happy go share their contacts with you if you are interested to communicate with them. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coptic_Church - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coptic_Church There are academic publications which also argue the opposite, but they are dismissed as "biased" by those who have a vested interest in doing so. I too say to you that it is up to you accept them if you want.
Famous authors are:
Bat Ye'or
Efraim Karsh
We're going nowhere with this argument it is quite clear.
Perhaps we can agree that the behaviour and rule of states are always in a state of flux and dynamism dependently tied to the unique vicissitudes of time, place, person and circumstance? ------------- Isa al-Masih, both God and Man, divine and human, flesh and spirit, saviour, servant and sovereign |
Posted By: Philhellene
Date Posted: 23-Aug-2006 at 14:03
Nicephorus, Breviarium When Heaclius was in the East, he appointed Johannes Varkenos as his general and sent him against Egyptian Saracens, and he fell in the battle wih them. And Marinus, chief of Thracian army, was defeated in the battle with them, lost a lot of soldiers and hardly escaped. Then Heraclius appointed in his place Marianus as his general, who had a roman title cubicularius. He sent him in Egypt and ordered him to get into touch with Alexandrian patriarch Cyrus and discuss with him the relationship wih Saracens. Cyrus persuaded basileus to make peace with Omar, chief of Saracens, on condition of paying tribute, and he planned to get it by imposing duties on goods without decreasing what was owed to basileus. It was advised to promise Omar one of basileus` daughters to impel Omar to baptize and to become a Christian. Omar and his army obeyed Cyrus, because they loved him. But Heraclius didn`t like it all. When Marianus found out it, he rejected the plans of Cyrus and went into battle with Saracens and he died and lost a lot of soldiers. |
Posted By: çok geç
Date Posted: 23-Aug-2006 at 17:34
|
First, it is an urguable fact that taxes during early centuries of Muslim Egypt were rediciolously lower than those of Byzentine. Raising taxes will always result in miscomfort and rebillion. Although Muslims are encouraged to obey their rulers as long as not in contradiction of the Muslim faith, taxes were high enough in some periods that Muslims of Egypt themselves could not tolerate those taxes despite their so-claimed "privilages". Copts have more incentives to rebell especially that they feel less attached to the Muslim authority. That is simply the fair picture of Egypt flacuating history. If taxes was astronomically high and targetting only the Copts, No Muslim rebellions of taxes would have result. In fact, the Muslim rebillion against those taxes continued even during the Ottoman era when they were encouraged by Al Azhar to revolt in the 18th century.
As far as I recall and this thread show, you actually started the topic of Muslim rule in Egypt with posted accusations. So what earlier posts that allueded the good side of "muslim rule of egypt" that you needed to balance?
Seljuks too took Jerusalem from the more tolerant Abbasid caliphate of the Fatimid and they harrassed Christian pilgrimages which was one of the propoganda used to start the first Crusade beside Byzantine losing the battle of Manzikert. Funny though, first Crusade was far more destructive to Byzantine than the threat of Seljuks.
If you cannot say this happened every single year, century and milienium, then you nullify your earlier statement that they were "frequently tortured". In fact, in Islamic literature and historical accounts, the famous story When the son of the Muslim governor of Egypt beat a Christian on his head after a quarrel, the latter went over to Omar in Madinah asking for justice. Omar summoned the governor and his son and gave the Christian a whip to beat his opponent in the presence of the great men of the state. After the Christian took revenge for himself and abstained from beating the governor himself when Omar asked him to, he said: I have received justice. Christians pray God to reward You!. Turning to his governor, Omar said: Why do you enslave the freely born people? I wonder if any accounts of such conducts even by Byzantine accounts.
True, there is always prosecution of "hertics" inside a religious institution. However, may claim is still valid. Because of the heretic prosecution of Copts under the Byzentine rule, the vast majority of historians will assure that Muslim rule of Egypt in general has been far tolerant than the Byzantine era in general.
Very true, always and to all cases. ------------- D.J. Kaufman Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk. |
Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2006 at 00:09
|
The problem with this forum is that it is dominated by the Islamophiles, Islamists and socialists. To such an extent, that history from a Christian perspective is reflexively, constantly attacked by the aforementioned groups.
The crusades contributed majorly to European civilisations, as it protected us from the Islamic hordes and prevented our cultures, ideologies to devolve by shielding us from the negative influence of Islam. Islam can be considered as a negative influence due to its inherently flawed dogmata, even more than Christianity. Canonical Christianity, intrinsically, is a religion of peace, while Islam doctrinally encourages violence to a certain degree. ------------- |
Posted By: Komnenos
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2006 at 03:51
The problem lies not in this forum, where a majority of contributors reflect a view on the crusades that has become the majority opinion of academic research on the Crusades, in the last century,when it became finally possible in a secular and non-prejudical environment to approach the issue without the ideological ballast that European imperialism and Christian religion had put on it.
That the evaluation of the crusades went sometimes from one extreme, from the apologetic defense of the Crusades as the rescue attempt of Christian and European civilisation (see above), to the other, a total damnation as an agressive and vile attack on the entire Islamic culture, can not be denied.
But most recent historiographies of the Crusades have achieved what was long overdue, a critical appreciation of their preliminaries, motives, course and aftermath, that paid no attention to ideological ballast.
That that research came out with some results that are uncomfortable and
unsettling for Europe, is not terribly surprising.
That there is now a renewed discussion on the crusades, is not so much due to the unearthing of new evidence, but due to a changing political climate.
A number of historians have made the most of the oppurtunity, that the increasing ideological differences between the Islamic and Western world have offered them, and have attempted a further revision of the history of the crusades, with a Christian fundamentalist agenda, and it seems they are trying to roll back time to when it all started. ------------- [IMG]http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i137/komnenos/crosses1.jpg"> |
Posted By: annechka
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2006 at 07:47
|
That there is now a renewed discussion on the crusades, is not so much due to the unearthing of new evidence, but due to a changing political climate. Komenos
Does a change in the present political climate negate or prove what has happened in history? Can present day motives be attributed to people in the past? I think these two questions are extremely important when discussing past events. It is propular now to attribute all sorts of base motives to the crusades (as per the current movie about them). Is this not a swing of the pendulum from complete adulation of crusader motives?.
Of course Christians find this new 'theory' of the crusades uncomfortable. Just as Muslims would find a 'new negative theory' of the conquest of areas by Muslims.
See the posts in the forum regarding the thoughts on the treatment by Muslims in the conquest of Egypt to the Christian Coptics. This is an example of viewing history through the eyes of ones religion. By saying this I am not saying either view is wrong.
|
Posted By: annechka
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2006 at 07:48
| Also Komenos, just curious, what new evidence? |
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2006 at 09:01
Thanks for the quote. Let me see, after the successfull invasions of Egypt, Palestine, and the peaceful entrance into Jerusalem; somehow Omar was tempted by Cyrus into baptism? In 629-30 Heraclius captured Jerusalem. He turned it into a Christian city and barred the Jews entry. In 638 Patriarch Sophronius assisted in the unarmed capture of the city. Because of this, Caliph Omar El-Khatab issued a firman, which granted certain rights to the Christians of the Holy Land and to the Patriarchate. The Patriarch of Jerusalem was recognized as the highest authority on all affairs relating to the holy places, Christian communities, monasteries, and convents. The Patriarchate became the mediator between the Muslim authorities and the Christians. I am not sure of when this date in history occured regarding the temptation of Omar by Cyrus in becoming baptized. Interesting, but still obscure. A foreign policy by Cyrus gone awry. Too bad we don't have many more sources on this event. Though there have been cases of pressured conversions by Islamic leaders in history, I have been focusing on the corrupted accusations towards the early pioneers of Islam and the biased accounts of Theophanes. Here is more info on Cyrus and Omar: http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~fisher/hst372/readings/treadgold1.html - http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~fisher/hst372/readings/treadgold1.html The victorious Arabs retook Damascus, advanced through Syria, and in 637 conquered its northern part, including Antioch and Beroea. At the same time they won a devastating victory over the Persians in Mesopotamia and captured Ctesiphon. Soon the new caliph 'Umar arrived to oversee the annexation of Syria to his domains. After the patriarch Sophronius sadly surrendered Jerusalem early in 638, the Arabs held all of Syria except for some beleaguered coastal cities. Egypt was isolated, and Byzantine Mesopotamia almost defenseless. The governor of Osrhoene John, who was probably its duke, agreed to pay the Arabs one hundred thousand nomismata a year from local revenues not to cross the Euphratse. But after John had made the first payment, the emperor dismissed and exiled him, evidently for exceeding his authority. The main restraint on the Arabs was the plague, which many of them caught from the Syrians and Egyptians. Heraclius finally returned to his capital in 638, over a bridge of boats designed to allay his hydrophobia. In a last attempt to salvage his theological compromise, he issued a statement of faith prepared by the patriarch Sergius, the Ecthesis ("Exposition"). The Ecthesis affirmed the Council of Chalcedon and the two natures of Crhist, forbade further discussion of Christ's energies - which few wanted to discuss anyway - and declared, using language permitted by Pope Honorius, that Christ had one will. This doctrine of one will, or Monotheletism, differed from Monoenergism only in being slightly less muddled. Sergius died just after its promulgation, but the new patriarch Pyrrhus held a council that approved the Ecthesis. In 639, after receiving no tribute from Byzantine Mesopotamia, the Arabs began their conquest of the country. They finished the task with little delay, accepting the surrender of Edessa and storming Dara. Late the same year, other Arabs invaded Egypt. The leader of this expedition, who seems already to have extorted tribute from the Egyptians, was 'Amr ibn al-'As, one of the conquerors of Syria. 'Amr is said to have led no more than four thousand men; once Heraclius's general John had arrived, Egypt was surely defended by more soldiers than this, even without counting the bedraggled garrison troops. But the country was still suffering from the plague, impoverished and demoralized. Since the Egyptian prefect and patriarch Cyrus had intensified his persecution of the Monophysites to force them to accept Monotheletism, a number of Egyptians were ready to cooperate with the invaders. Yet if properly defended the Nile presented the Arabs with a major obstacle. 'Amr easily took the coastal towns on his way, but met firm resistance near the Nile from John and the local dukes. After a furious battle in which John died, 'Amr had to appeal to the caliph 'Umar for reinforcements. John's successor was Theodore, perhaps the same general the Arabs had defeated near Emesa, and in any case a mediocre strategist. Before 'Amr's reinforcements arrived, Theodore and the patriarch Cyrus gathered their forces at the fortified town of Babylon on the Nile, near modern Cairo, but remained on the defensive. By the summer of 640, 'Amr's army had grown to about fifteen thousand men. With these 'Amr attacked the Byzantines north of Babylon, routed them, and besieged Cyrus in the city itself. To reinforce Egypt, Heraclius sent soldiers from the displaced Army of Thrace under its commander Marianus. But the Arabs promptly defeated Marianus and destroyed much of his army. In these dire straits, the besieged patriarch Cyrus reached a tentative agreement to pay 'Amr tribute of two hundred thousand nomismata a year in return for a truce. Cyrus traveled to Constantinople to submit these terms to the emperor, but Heraclius angrily repudiated them and exiled Cyrus. The Arabs went on besieging Babylon, and defeated and killed Marianus in a second battle. As panicked Byzantine soldiers decamped from the Egyptian countryside and poured into Alexandria, the Arabs sealed their conquest of Palestine by taking Caesarea. ------------- |
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2006 at 09:11
Islamophiles, Islamists and socialists? That doesn't do justice to those who have a secular slant towards history who would like to debate age old biases built up through the centuries by the religious elite. Christian, Muslim or otherwise. ------------- |
Posted By: R_AK47
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2006 at 11:28
I agree. This forum is full of communists, liberals, and islamists. Those who disagree with their biased opinions are quickly bashed.
Exactly, the crusades slowed the muslim advance and therefore saved Europe from islamic conquest. Quetzalcoatl is correct. I wonder if the crusade bashers on this forum who live in Europe would like to live in a Europe dominated by islam which is what might have happened if not for the crusades. I doubt that thier liberal opinions would be tolerated in an islam dominated europe.
|
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2006 at 11:42
|
Instead of trying to add fuel to the fire why don't you add to the discussion. You could do better than simply droping a bomb every now and then. However, if all you do is look around the forum and say you agree with a perspctive you believe in then there's not much more we should expect from you.
------------- |
Posted By: çok geç
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2006 at 12:01
Actually the opposite, Crusaders had a negative impact in the long run on the Byzantine empire. It was not long before the Ottomans (Islam) was already penetrated in Europe to Vienna gates. Islam during the crusade was not a direct threat to Europe. It was already weak as seen in divided Muslim frontiers and the contineous loses of the Moors in Spain (the declining age).
If you would like to decide a point that "protected Europe" from Islam advance, it would be rather the failed capture of Vienna by the Ottomans, and the failed penetration of France by the Moors in the battle of Tours.
In any case, probably Europe would have seen the light of civilization as Spain did much earlier than sinking in centuries of dark ages (hence the name is sufficient to tell you liberty, science encouragement and advancement, and seperation of state and church were all lacked anyhow during that era in Europe more than most surrounding Muslim states) ------------- D.J. Kaufman Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk. |
Posted By: R_AK47
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2006 at 12:22
I assume you are referring to the Fourth Crusade/plunder of Constantinople when you speak of the negative impact. The 4th Crusade was an unfortunate event. However, I don't think that the cruaders that took part in the 4th Crusade should be the only ones blamed for the event. The 4th Crusades original target was Jerusalem, not Constantinople. The Crusade was redirected to Constantinople after Byzantine Prince Alexius Angeles requested their help in returning his father, Isaac II Angeles. The crusaders were promised money, more troops, and unification of the churchs in exchange for helping the Alexius' cause. They were not originally planning on plundering Constantinople, but were actually invited by a Byzantine Prince. Unfortunately for everyone involved things didn't go as planned we and all know the unfortunate result of that. Anyways, you can't say the Crusades in general were negative and bad only because of the events that took place during the 4th. The 1st Crusade was very successfull and the 3rd was somewhat successful as well.
The Christian world had been under assault from islam for hundreds of years up till the time of the crusades. Perhaps one reason the muslims concentrated less on attacking Europe itself during the time of the crusades was because they were too busy fighting against the crusades in the middle east. This relieved pressure on Europe from muslim invasion, because now the muslims were fighting against a Christian counterattack deap within islamic territory. You are correct about the Ottoman advance being stopped later in history than the time period that the crusades in the middle east took place. However, many of the military actions against the Ottomans were themselves Crusades (the Holy League that defeated the Ottomans at Lepanto was a Crusade). When I speak of crusades, I am referring to the Christian military actions in the middle east and other later crusades against the Ottomans in Eastern Europe and the muslims in Spain.
|
Posted By: çok geç
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2006 at 13:09
Actually I had a bigger picture of the negative impact of Crusaders to Byzentine. Many historians point for instance to the privilages that Venetians, Greeks, and merchants of Genova received especially in coastal towns and ports, which resulted in Economic decline of the Byzantine Empire. The 4th Crusade impact was much huge to disappear by the time of the 9th Crusade even.
Crusade missions were successful? In what term?
1- By protecting Eruope from Islam advancement: Actually the states that Crusaders attacked in the Middle East were not those expanding states. They were actually declining states and fractions. So brining war to the middle of the holy land did not reduce the advancement of other expanding Muslim empires. Seljuks for example who bordered the Byzantine were defeated by the first Crusade, but returned back to win to defeat the crusaders in the second crusade. The result is more expansion of Seljuk turks instead. So what expansion was halted by the crusades? Seljuks continued to push more and more despite all crusade missions and by the subtitution of Ottomans, expansion has even reached to the heart of Europe.
2- By protecting Christian civilization and heritage: that is also debatable. As I explained earlier that Muslim advancement was not stoped by crusades. The crusade just fought non-expanding empires in the heart of the middle east. The frontiers of the Byzantine empire were not saved in reality. Furthermore, crusaders brought back home to the heart of Europe more ideologies of the Muslim world than what Muslim armies can do on the frontier. Crusaders in the holy land actually absorbed many local norms and behaviors and even arts. Bringing with them many products, new customs and ideologies such as Avicenna' teachings. Many western scholars attribute the end of dark ages to these ideologies and thoughts that were imported.
3- By unifying the Christian world after centuries of divions: Also not true. In fact, Crusaders caused local Christians population of Middle East to distance themselves more from the papacy of Europe due to incidents of slaughtering all Christians of the holy land indiscrimently as in Jerusalem massacre. Also, crusades inside Europe itself against all "heretics" pushed the gap further.
One thing for sure and most scholars agree on, that the crusader's ideologies itself were not a foundation stone of Europe renaissance. It is hard even to imagine that out of crusader's ideologies, a foundation brick of Europe civilizations can be built on. ------------- D.J. Kaufman Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk. |
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2006 at 14:51
|
Damned, lock this topic or delete it for this has gone too far.
Without the Crusades Europe would have been dominated by Islam? Not in that era. The first reason is: Where the hell is the 10,000 ship Arab fleet that takes Europe? For obviously, during the 12th century, Byzantium would have been much stronger and the Walls of Constantinople thicker.
Again, R_AK47: I would suggest you leave this topic with your ignorant and plain stupid comments. Leave this forum would be another choice. If you keep adding some stupid contents that people can and most likely will argue (because they are so stupid - not the people, but the comments) on then these discussions have no clearer point.
You Quetzalcoatl, however are beginning to sound nationalist.
So, heed my call and lock this topic. ------------- |
Posted By: Philhellene
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2006 at 16:57
|
Damned, lock this topic or delete it for this has gone too far.
Don`t do it! Delete some messages if you want but not whole topic.
For obviously, during the 12th century, Byzantium would have been much stronger and the Walls of Constantinople thicker.
In 12th century Byzantine Empire recovered after Seljuk invasion only with the help of crusaders.
|
Posted By: çok geç
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2006 at 17:48
|
I guess it is a good call by Rider. This topic has been consumed to its limit already and it is going back in cycles. This thread is a redundant repetion of other Crusader threads, such as: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=14184&KW=crusade&PID=260252#260252 - http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=14184&KW=crusade&PID=260252#260252
http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=14183&KW=crusade&PID=260227#260227 - http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=14183&KW=crusade&PID=260227#260227
http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=13564&KW=crusade&PID=248272#248272 - http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=13564&KW=crusade&PID=248272#248272
http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=13530&KW=crusade&PID=247488#247488 - http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=13530&KW=crusade&PID=247488#247488
http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10474&KW=crusade&PID=194732#194732 - http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10474&KW=crusade&PID=194732#194732
and much more already just about Crusades to the Middle East.
------------- D.J. Kaufman Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk. |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2006 at 20:12
Hold on a minute. You are attempting to shift the blame for the 4th Crusade on to the Byzantines themselves here, which I find myself not buying. The Byzantines bear no moral culpability for the rape of their great capital in 1204. The Crusaders had NO right to attack Constantinople. Alexius Angelas (IV) was a deposed prince, who did not understand the state of Byzantine finances and could expect little serious political backing in Constantinople. He was a Byzantine ex-royal whose word carried no weight. Further more, the Papacy explicitly prohibited the attack of Adriatic Catholic settlements and Constantinople, to the extent that Innocent III issued a Papal Bull against it. The Crusaders attacked Constantinople in defiance of their pontiff, with no more legitimacy backing them than a long disenfranchised ex-royal. For them to optimistically put their faith in the promises of a powerless individual who was not an effective representative of Byzantine government only increases their culpability, they were willing to attack the city on the flimsiest of pretexts in expectation of the most hollow of promises. Shifting the blame for the Fourth Crusade to the Byzantines just won't carry the day on this one. ------------- |
Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2006 at 20:23
You, Sir, justify my previous claim. I'm not insulting anyone, my argument is academic. I'm defending the crusades; this is where I stand. Do you expect everyone to be mere automaton with homogenous point of view.
If you disagree with my arguments, then challenge them--like Gok Sec is doing. Of course, it must be done in a civil manner. Reality is harsh, you can't expect everyone to agree with you.
Nationalism? You are raising a storm in a glass of water. ------------- |
Posted By: annechka
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2006 at 20:46
|
Does a change in the present political climate negate or prove what has happened in history? Can present day motives be attributed to people in the past?
these are my questions from an earlier post. The second question seems especially important given the rhetoric in this forum.
Anyone care to answer with regard to the crusades.?
|
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2006 at 20:55
When examining something as far off as the medieval period, we must always take into account that they lived in a different reality to our own. When evaluating the situation, we are also subject to framing our conclusions in such a way that is consistent with our own world view. With every generation of historians, the cold facts and primary sources remain, it is the interpretations of those which differ. ------------- |
Posted By: R_AK47
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2006 at 23:35
I actually wasn't trying to shift all the blame to the Byzantines. The 4th Crusade was a disaster and even I have stated so in other crusade threads. I simply thought that the Crusaders were not the only ones to blame for this event and that the Byzantine prince (Alexius Angelas IV) should have to share part of the blame as well. Afterall, the crusaders would never have gone to Constantinople in the first place if not for him. I agree that the plunder that took place in Constantinople was wrong. While I do defend the other Crusades (1st, 3rd, ect.) I don't defend the 4th.
|
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 25-Aug-2006 at 06:03
|
Defend you do the Third Crusade? Innocent murdering of Muslim citizens and civilians by Lionheart?
I am not trying to be against the Crusades here, I think that all Crusades (except the Fourth and to some extent the Baltic) were useful to everyone.
The blame for the Fourth Crusade heading to Constantinople should be on the Venetians to a large extent. ------------- |
Posted By: annechka
Date Posted: 25-Aug-2006 at 10:41
|
With every generation of historians, the cold facts and primary sources remain, it is the interpretations of those which differ.
I realize this but my question for discussion was, should the facts(?) and /or primary sources be reinterpreted through our belief systems?
Or are we advanced enough to realize that the crusades were of that time and should be treated like that. We do have sources that record both negative and positive aspects.
|
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 25-Aug-2006 at 11:02
|
That sounds like a pretty good question annechka. Facts about any bit of history will be questionable from the onset due to a political agenda or bias from the author. Once those 'facts' become record (wish there were video cameras with multiple angles providing unadulterated footage of the time) then the information becomes processd by the reader. Who, most likely, has a whole new set of biases when reading the 'facts'. So even if we try to stay non judgemental, something will trigger an emotional response when we read history.
Negative or positive descriptions tend to make history personal. All depends on which side of the fence we're at. So the next best thing towards understnding history is to read multiple sources, from all sides when possible. Then we need to tame our own wishful thinking and swallow our pride. Those who do will understand history with new insights. ------------- |
Posted By: Orderic Vitalis
Date Posted: 25-Aug-2006 at 14:28
|
Going back to the original question, the crusades had an important impact on both Europe and the Middle East, both economically and culturally.
Economically: 1. Greatly increased trade between Europe and Asia, first coming through Crusader ports like Acre and Tyre. 2. Development of maritime empires like Venice, Genoa and Aragon 3. Increased centralization of governments throughout Europe, namely because of taxation collection and spending for crusading expeditions. 4. The increased importance and power of the Papacy 5. Improved land management as large amounts of property fell under the control of military orders like the Hospitallers and Templars Cultural 1. Increased cultural ties between European nations, since they were often working together in the crusades 2. Gradual adoption of new military ethics, often influenced by Islamic concepts of Jihad, for crusading 3. The Catholic West became more aware of other views of Christianity, including Nestorian and Greek Orthodox, and increased dialogue between these communities. 4. Gradually increasing discrimination and hostility towards Jewish and Muslim minorities living in Europe 5. Crusading became an important subject in literature and courtly culture 6. Adoption of Middle Eastern military tactics, in particular fortifications How did the Crusades effect the Middle East 1. The ideas of jihad, or holy war, were reinvigorated in the ME. 2. Outside groups gained prominence in the military and ruling elite in places like Egypt and Syria. Groups like the Turks, Kurds (Ayyubids) and later the Mamluks took control of the government. 3. Gradually increasing discrimination and hostility towards minority Christian and Jewish populations It should be noted that other factors had a bigger impact on the Middle East apart from the Crusades, in particular the Mongol invasion of Iran, Iraq and Syria in the 1250s I can expand on any of these points if you like (I actually wrote a bigger piece, but then I accidentally deleted it) Some articles that might be valuable to read for this thread can be found on the De Re Militari website: http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/crusades.htm Chevedden, Paul, The Invention of the Counterweight Trebuchet: A Study in Cultural Diffusion - from Dumbarton Oaks Papers v.54 (2000) Laiou, Angeliki E., Byzantine Trade with Christians and Muslims and the Crusades - from The Crusades from the Perspective of Byzantium and the Muslim World (2001) Schein, Sylvia, From 'Milites Christi' to 'Mali Christiani': The Italian Communes in Western Historical Literature - I Comuni Italiani nel Regno Crociato di Gerusalemme (1986) Schein, Sylvia, Between East and West: the Jews in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem 1099-1291 - from East and West in the crusader states : context, contacts, confrontations v.1 (1996) ------------- Visit our site www.medievalists.net for articles, videos and more about the Middle Ages |