Crusades myths (T.F .Madden)

Originally posted by Komnenos   Sure, that's certainly right and I have pointed that out above. But that still doesn't answer the  question exactly why then, at the end of the 121th century, and exactly where the Crusades set off to.   If the main motive was really to reconquer the formerly Christian lands that had been usurped by the Islamic states, why did the Near-Eastern Crusades concentrate, with very few exceptions, on Palestine. Surely, the loss of Egypt, Northern-Africa, parts of Asia Minor and Spain, had far greater implications for European society and eceonomy, than that of the relatively insignificant territory of Palestine. The answer to that is obvious, Palestine and especially Jerusalem, had an over-riding symbolic importance for the Christian faith and its adherents. It was the birthplace of the faith, and was now in the hand of infidels, heathens, or whatever you choose to call them. And that's of course the clue to the whole enterprise, the initial impetus to go East was not that of a political necessity to respond to a threat or to reconquer lands, but a highly symbolic gesture, initiating a "Holy War" to liberate the "Holy Land". That wasn't the only motive, both spiritual and worldly leaders in Christian Europe had their very own and very personal reasons to go East, but this "Holy War" was the umbrella under which everything else could hide.   The question "why then", again must be answered by looking at the changing role of the Christian Church and papal authority in the mid 11th century. Urban II was the second Pope, after Gregory VII, who not only succeeded to reform the internal structure of the Church, but also tried, like Gregory had done with some success, to establish the dominance of the Papal authority over that of the worldly rulers of Europe. And here is another clue, it wasn't that the Kings of Europe suddenly realised in the 1090s that they were now strong enough to counteract any past Islamic conquest or respond to present Islamic provocations. With Urban II, there came at the end of the 11th century a Pope, who firstly had the universally accepted spiritual and moral authority to call a "Holy War" and econdly, the political authority to unite (well,almost) the European rulers into the pursue of this "Holy War".

Originally posted by R_AK47     They did not concentrate exclussively on Palestine.  Antioch, Edessa, Nicea, and many other cities captured during the first Crusade are not located in Palestine.  Jerusalem, the ultimate final goal of most crusades, was in Palestine, but many other areas captured along the way were not.  Then there are other crusades as well, such as the reconquest, which was obviously nowhere near Palestine.  There were also crusader actions to recover Egypt as well.  The crusaders saved Europe from islam.  Christian lands had been under assault from islam for centuries.  Europe was all that remained.  Thanks to the heroic actions of the crusaders, who struck deep into islamic territory, the muslim advance was somewhat halted.

"... The crusaders saved Europe from islam."-Actually they didn't. They only slowed the islamic conquest of Asia Minor, but on the other hand they weakened Byzantine empire and stimulated the unification of the muslims against the christians.
I think the Crusades are the natural reaction of the christian world to the islamic expansion. The Byzantine empire was standing against the islam for centuries, but after the Manzikert 1071 her might began to diminish quickly-so it was no longer an impregnable barrier and a measures were taken... In 1063, Pope Alexander II had given papal blessing to Iberian Christians in their wars against the Muslims, granting both a papal standard (the vexillum sancti Petri) and an indulgence to those who were killed in battle. Pleas from the Byzantine Emperors, now threatened under by the Seljuks, first, in 1074, from Emperor Michael VII to Pope Gregory VII and, in 1095, from Emperor Alexius I Comnenus to Pope Urban II were taken in to account.
"... Europe was all that remained."-If we take a look at the religeous map in VIIth and XIIth centuries it's obvious that the christianity was in great danger due to military conquest of the Islamic states. It was not even the whole Europe christian-the Pirinean peninsula was under the Chalifates until late XV century.
    
    

Edited by Desperado - 22-Aug-2006 at 18:14

Originally posted by Sparten Crusades saved Europe from Islam? Ever heard of the Turks?

Turks were also been stoped by Crusades,but not the Crusades of whole Europe like in X,XI centuries but the Crusades of single states(Hungarians,Hapsburgs).Pope often called to Crusades but European states listened to him only in Lepanto battle.

The terrible truth about the Crusaders was there destruction to the Christian world, Jews and anybody else deemed "heretics".

The most barbaric treatment of Constantinople was sadly by the Crusaders who sacked, plundered and irreperably weakened the Byzantines who were the real protectors of the West from Muslims.


Crusades saved Europe from Islam? Ever heard of the Turks?
Turks were also been stoped by Crusades

Man, Baybars gave the Crusaders such a beating that they'd never return then the Turks took not only Constantinople but all the Balkans and spread Islam right into Europe.

Crusaders were not successfull, they were dis-organised, undisciplined and hurt their own people the most.

Edited by Bulldog - 17-Sep-2006 at 14:28

The only threat by Muslims at the time was exercised by the Seljuks against the Byzantine Empire. Alexius' call for western support was the catalyst; the causes were:
a) economic recovery of Europe
b) abolition of the raids (tied to a) above)
c) the predominant religious sentiment of the time fixated on the Holy Lands.
d) the "peace of god", Church's effort to curb the fractious infighting    
between  European aristocracy. What better than send all these raucus nobles abroad to fight the infidel? Our Jesuit proffessor might not be too perceptive to this latter one

What shielded Europe from Arab expansion was clearly the Byzantine Empire. True, the Arabs were defeated by Charles Martel but on the other, Eastern end there was no power to block Arab expansion had the Arabs managed to take Constantinople in the great siege of...shoot, don't have the date handy; it was during Heraclius' reigh and it lasted 5 years. This, in my oppinion, is a key occurence in W. European history because Islam could've gotten to Vienna a lot earlier than the Ottomans in the 1500's.

Originally posted by Jedothek Some say that the crusades were justified as defensive because the land taken in the first crusade had been Christian lands conquered by Islamic armies . This is simplistic. Let us look at two scenarios, the first real, the second imaginary. 1. British and American troops land in Normandy in 1944, killing German soldiers.                           2. A war party of Lakota captures a small town in south Dakota in 2017, with loss of life, claiming that the land had belonged to their tribe over 100 years ago.                                           We think that scenario 1 is justified, given that France was taken by the Germans a few years before. Is scenario 2 justified? It would be hard to think so if one knew someone who died in that attack. Given these considerations , how relevant is it that the lands conquered (briefly) by the crusaders had once been Christian? Is it a mere matter of how much time has elapsed? What is the principle here? John Harvey

**********

Reference 1.

The action was legal, as defined, based on the extant understanding and acceptance by parties, of the concept of sovereign action/s in defense... usually through treaty, by the aforementioned parties. Most recently through majority accepted concepts dealing with International law and the rules governing warfare.

This primarily found when dealing with opposing aggressor nations who have either never accepted the concept, as understood by their opponents, or who have. And then abrogated the same and redefined it for perceived, differing national interest.

Reference 2.

The action is not legal because of the recognition of extant statute and original law binding on the parties at the time. Which all parties have agreed and continue to agree to accept, as demonstrated by their respective governing authorities. Regardless of the prior history of ownership. To be inclusive of conceptual differences in definition of prior historical ownership.



The principal/s or answer/s lies in the 'context and era' in which the event occurred. Ie. An 11th century concept of sovereign action/right based on cultural, religious, social and traditional mores. Is best reviewed and understood through the examination of that 'era'. And how the mores, customs etc...had been developed to that point.

To presume that the aforementioned did not change and or adapt to later social pressure, conventions and dynamics. And then attempt to compare and contrast a later era to an earlier; without an understanding of the historical dynamics involved. Is insufficient and fragmentary at best and defective historical analysis at worst.

As history is as dynamic as the social forces it reports.


Interpretations may vary.


Rationalizations and revisions may occur.


But in the end, it is what is socially and legally acceptable, by a people or nation state, at a given time, even if based on earlier practice and subsequent developmental change, and accepted as such by the majority of the body politic.


Even if forced, that governs conduct.

For a nation state or an individual.

Whether or not that conduct might or might not be viewed as 'ethical'; also remains a matter for contextual and era analysis. It is far to easy to say it wasn't...later...without a thorough examination of ' why' it became or was a norm at that earlier time.

History has most often showed that time of possession is at best a minor factor....and that, whether 'ethical' or other, FORCE becomes the deciding factor.


Edited by Centrix Vigilis - 12-Feb-2016 at 15:13