Baldwin IV - a little-known hero

 The crusades I think get far to much bad press IMO, mainly because, was the medieval period a time of peace and stability?

 Not one bit, people were going to war with each other for the scantest of reasons, burning villages in raids, sacking cities, pillaging the land etc what makes this invasion any different from the countless others?

 Had there not been wars between the muslims and the christians for centuries already? you have a very strong case for attacking how justifiable the crusades were (or lack of justification) but then did not those same muslim kindgoms centuries earlier invade land they had no claim to whatsoever? Spain anyone? Sicily? Asia Minor? etc.

 They may not have done it in an orgy of cruelty like the crusaders did, but one of the main criticisms of the crusades (aside from the cruelty) is its lack of justification (what did Jerusalem have to do with anything), yet nobody seems to point out the people the crusades were aimed at took that land with just as little justification.

 The crusaders could be cruel and intolerant yes of course they could but it was a cruel age, a total clash of cultures and values and styles of warfare took place during the crusades. Dont think for a second though that im the crusaders biggest fan I mean you should all know by now how I feel about the 4th crusade for example.

 Anyway back to Baldwin, he was incredibly devoted to his kingdom and despite his obvious disadvantages he put everything he had into it and was extreemly brave in attempting to meet the challenges of a deteriorating state. Deserved better than he got really.

 You cant judge 11th century europe by 21st century standards.

 To us the very thought of entering a city and slaughtering its population is pure wrong, back then it was practically a rule if a city resists then it can lawfully be sacked for 3 days. Totally different values and standards.

 What do you call the early Arab conquests? they had no more legitimate right to invade the territories they did, as the crusaders did palestine. 

 This invasion is no different than a million others that went on. What makes the crusader invasions of Syria and Palestine any worse than the Arab invasions of Christian europe? both are equally illegitimate, yet the crusades has been slated as some ultimate evil. You can say well the crusaders slaughtered people at will, do people think the muslim conquests were all bloodless?

 I think the muslim world has played the victim in terms of the crusades abit to long, lest we forget those same muslim states had conquered the territory of others for just pure conquest and caused just as much damage.

 True, but still it seems generally people see the muslim conquest of north africa, spain, sicily etc etc as fine, yet the christians (rightly or wrongly) hit back and its the worst thing ever

 Its double standards it seems to me anytime the muslim tide of conquest was stopped, its evil, yet if they carry on conquering its glorious and just

 Boo hoo for the crusades, if they can go around conquering whoever they want but cant take it back then thats just to bad.

 The west was invited to intervene in the east by Byzantium, any extention of the original idea of simply helping the eastern christians is just the same as getting involved in the situation in Spain and then bringing it into your own domain.

 Theres little real difference, the Byzantines may not have said reconquer the holyland for us, the crusaders just took advantage of a favourable situation. Christians and Muslims had been fighting for centuries anyway, the crusades are just an extention of that, just another series of invasions. As far as the crusaders were concerned since the holyland was of great religious significance and had been in christian hands before they had every justification.

 The crusaders are often referred to as barbarians, but look at western europe at the time, it was only just starting to recover from the dark ages where civilisation had ceased to exist for centuries. They played by different rules, they were savage and warlike because Europe was savage and warlike. They were men of their time as far as I can see.

 They sacked a cities and slaughtered thousands of people, but tell me in medieval europe and the middle east who the hell didnt?

 There were worse military campaigns before and after the crusades, but still the crusades is singled out. War is morally hollow, so it stands to reason its campaigns will be to, sure as hell doesnt stop people finding them fascinating and interesting.

 Its impossible to study history and not come across war, picking and choosing which ones are ok and which ones arent is foolish because in all wars people die. Byzantium went on many wars that doesnt stop you having a soft spot for Byzantium does it? how many hundreds of thousands if not millions were killed because of them over the centuries?

 First of all sorry for kind of hijacking your topic Constantine heh.

 Anyway, let me put something straight first, I havent tried to paint the crusaders as misunderstood heroes or as being good and decent. Infact ive already called them warlike and savage etc.

 The crusades are hypocritical, I havent tried to say otherwise, remember I havent tried justifying the crusades, im just comparing them to other acts that get less attention, there have been other wars and other conflicts that have caused as much damage and been as pointless.

 Constantine XI "The Emperor, true to his word, did not allow any killing, raping, pillaging or destruction of any kind. The people of Nicaea were saved by the restraint of the Byzantines, but the Crusaders could only consider such acts of gentleness as treachery and effeminate weakness."

 There was no reason for Alexius to break his word, why sack a greek city? and kill your own people? total suicide if your on a campaign of reconquest. In the eyes of the Crusaders anyone other than them (or basically anyone who got in the way) wasnt worth caring about. I havent tried to say the Crusaders were sophisticated in their designs for warfare of governance over conquered territory and its people. So im accepting that the Crusaders wernt advanced or smart enough to conduct such a campaign as their only response was the sword.

 The Byzantines were vastly more sophisticated and civilised, but western europe wasnt. Its hard to have civilised people from an uncivilised part of the world. I wouldnt bother studying Byzantuim if they were anything other than a unique civilisation in a generally uncivilised world.

 My original point was though, that in thousands of years of mayhem and slaughter the Crusades is no more remarkable than any other countless number of wars and invasions that were seen as justifiable or otherwise.  

 All sides at some point did something that today and even maybe back then would be seen as barbaric. You have to remember though that it was a barbaric world. Unfortunately for the Crusaders they came from a part of the world were you either fought in or you died in, because if your not willing to fight you can be sure someone else will take advantage of that. Living in an underdeveloped, generally backward part of europe that was still recovering from the dark ages is bound to be populated by savage often merciless peoples and they are bound to be pious because they were extremely superstitous (sp?) and god fearing people.