Having read up a lot on the crusades when I was in (Catholic) High School, I've always been pissed at the view commonly held as to these campaigns.  

Granted, they were brutal and bloody, but in essence, they were defensive wars, just like our more recent military campaigns.

Here's a good article discussing what historians that have actually studied this stuff have to say.

Notice that the Muslims have been expanding by way of the sword for a LONG time.  

http://www.crisismagazine.com/april2002/cover.htm

is it happening again?   mcole

Quoted: is it happening again?   mcole

No, but the effect will be the same (I hope).

CW

The real tragedy of the Crusades was NOT what the Christians did to the Muslims. It was what the Christians eventually did to OTHER Christians- sacking Constantinople in 1204 and furthering the destruction of the Christian Roman Empire that the Crusades had supposedly been started to save.

Not to mention other highlights like the so-called Childrens Crusade that ended in Italy with all the children sold into slavery by the local merchants. I've done some reading up on the Crusades as well and let me say this, nobodies hands are clean. Both sides did horrific things. That was the the way things were back then.

Quoted: The Crusades were a very natural reaction by Christendom to the onslaught of the Moslems against their nations that, from 630 AD until 1095 AD, Christendom had shrunk by almost 70% of its former size! What other religion/people/nation would not have fought back after losing 70% of their country to an invading army? The Crusades may have been misguided, but they were not unprovoked!

Not ALL the Crusades were against the Muslims.

In 1208, Pope Innocent III launched a Crusade against the Cathars, who were Christians, but were regarded by Rome as "heretics" - but they certainly were not Muslims, nor were they really threatening the Catholic church in any territorial sense.  (This Crusade is sometimes also called the Albigensian Crusade.)

I know I'm just being anal

Quoted: is it happening again?   mcole

Odd you say this. Have a Lebanese aquaintence, tho not Muslim, indictate to me the oddest evidentiary chain. Bush is a member of Skull & Bones, a Masonic order. The Masons are Templars, Templars are Crusaders and this is direct continuation of the Crusader Wars. Bush is fulfilling the objectives of a plan, which initiated with the establishment of Israel.

I started to explain to him why I thought this was unlikely (read: BS), but he cut in. "No, this is all shit, you see. Utter shit. But it does not matter what you and I beleive, there are a great many that think this." He went on to relate his recent dealings in the middle east, and how common a belief something along this line of reasoning is, even amongst fairly cosmopolitan people. How pathetic, I thought, Arabs must be awful myoptic. Then we discussed all the dumb shit Americans swallow.

But people want to find simplified reasons for historical events. Rarely does man-on-the-street mainstream history take into account much breadth of causation. There were many causes for the Crusader Wars, like all wars it didnt happen in a vaccum. IM sure having thier asses kicked for a couple hundred years didnt endear the Moors to the Franks, but it wasnt just about vengeful response - just mostly so. But they couldnt keep their anger focused. Half the time the Crusaders were busy futzing themselves, like sacking Constantinople - as were the Muslims,Abbasid and Buwayhids, and a couple of other ids Ive gotten out of my mind. Luckily the Mongols came along and got them both back on track.

The Crusaders emerged at just the right time to take advantage of the weakness in the Holy Land. Just so happens this coincided with the need of the church to get some focus elsewhere (the Popes must have had some bad polling numbers) and battle down some heretical movements. Eventually the reformers in the Church won out, but like most winners, it was disappointing once you got the trophy.

But it wasnt just about smoke and mirrors. Outremer was a great place to ship off all those 2nd, 3rd and 4th noble sons. There were serious economic and other societal pressures as well. There was lots of bling-bling available in China, but the wholesale deals were to be had further East. Kinda surprised everyone how far east it was.

Interested in what view was propogated in your Catholic classes as most of the history I was taught gave it pretty good to both sides. Then again I was taught by Jesuits - they have contempt for everyone.

This conquering thing - thats how it was done back then, and, to a certain extent today. If you could ride roughshod over someone, you did. Didnt take much provocation as it was nearly the sole avenue for economic enhancement.

If you're ticked the Crusaders got a bad rap as merely unprovoked conquerers, I think you're right and wrong. They went to the Holy Land to kill people and break things. To subjegate peoples opposed to them and free the Christian population as well. But mostly it was loot. If you doubt that, review the fate of a number of Christian kingdoms who were cashiered for two reasons: Apparent weakness and within the path of a Crusader Army. At least all this brought advancements in technology to Europe, so that by the mid 15th cent, Christian Balkan engineers, under Turkish pay, could end the Byzantine empire. What you get for fixating on the wrong enemies.

Luck
Alac

Too bad the Crusaders didn't have nukes back then. We wouldn't have the trouble we do today.

"Now Bobby, that used to be a city called Mecca. But the Crusaders took it out in 1099 and ended this thing they called ... let me think for a moment ... Oh yeah, Islam."

Quoted: Too bad the Crusaders didn't have nukes back then. We wouldn't have the trouble we do today. "Now Bobby, that used to be a city called Mecca. But the Crusaders took it out in 1099 and ended this thing they called ... let me think for a moment ... Oh yeah, Islam."

"And this smoking radioactive crater used to be a German town called Wittenberg in the 16th century, Bobby"  



I think, in the balance, I prefer history the way it unfolded.

Quoted: Quoted: Too bad the Crusaders didn't have nukes back then. We wouldn't have the trouble we do today. "Now Bobby, that used to be a city called Mecca. But the Crusaders took it out in 1099 and ended this thing they called ... let me think for a moment ... Oh yeah, Islam." "And this smoking radioactive crater used to be a German town called Wittenberg in the 16th century, Bobby"   I think, in the balance, I prefer history the way it unfolded.

I'll second that. Though just as likely some pretender would off Rome and move the Papacy elsewhere. Not much restraint in the first two millenia. Too bad I wont see how the 3rd will shake out.

I cant believe someone (you) mentioned the Cathars by name - you musta been taught by Jesuits too. Or really mean Franciscans.

Luck
Alac

I can't exactly post it here per racism rules...but I must at this point refer to ILL's sig picture on Pre-Ban.com....



Here's a PC'd up version:



Hope you don't mind about the edit 'legs!

Alac,

Your long, excellent, post above actually captures a lot more of my actual sentiment on these things than did my own hasty first post in this thread.

My point is that the media (and recently, Clinton) keep suggesting that the Crusades were single dimensional in which only one side was an agressor and the other side a victim.  

As you rightly point out, there's a lot more going on.

P.S.  -- I was also taught by jesuits.  Your little quip above caused me to laugh out loud.  Interesting threads of experience some of us have in common.

Best regards, Gonz.

My thanks for your compliment. I am glad I am entertaining someone. I wholeheartedly agree with you, except this is one of my shorter posts. Cant seem to do less. Luckily I type fast. Even then, as you can see from DK-Prof and Armd-liberal, by the time I get composed, they've already sucked up the choice historical references. Im no longer surprised at the experiential sets many of us share - if your here you HAD to have had similar paths.

I hadnt realized Bill had heard of the Crusades - few skirts and no political upside.

Its a common problem popular culture has been embracing - soundbite simplification. Im no intellectual, so when I bemoan the state of American discourse, its an issue.

BTW Interesting handle Gonzo, wouldnt have noticed it but theres a guy in Col used to piss John Denver off by firing his .50 cal at all hours. Reference to him? Or that bird thing on the muppets.

Luck
Alac

There is also another crusade people forget about. It was called the "Reconquista". The muslims had invaded spain and actually had gone into France only to be beaten back at Tours. so while the muslims invaded France could the muslims say that christians invaded some country in the middle east at that time? nope.
Prior to the start of the first crusade in 1095 muslims had taken over Spain, parts of anatolia christian eqypt and the near east.Spain had to endure 700 years of occupation by the muslims. And it took a concerted effort to finally drive them back. The system was a form of Apartheid with muslims on top and christians on the bottom. Only through conversion could one hope to achieve any wealth or station. Thus, Slowly the number of christians who converted increased. So over time the entire nation would become muslim! this is how it was in any country taken over by Muslim Lords like Syria, Turkey, north africa etc. but because of help from France and the pope,armies were sent to help spain eventually become christian ruled again, with their motto "Sangre pura" pure blood they expelled all who were muslim or refused to convert back! AMEN! And thus when the last muslims were driven out of Spain in 1492 guess what? They sent out a ship to find a new way to the Orient....................................................................................................................................................................................................................land ho!

Quoted: Here is one fron the Crusades.. "Kill them all for God will know his own" Wish I could have put it in latin...

"Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet."
--Amal Ulric at the seige of Beziers, during the Albigensian crusade.

hey RBAD "ha-joe"  spent some time in armenia a few years ago. cound not understand the utter hatred and contempt for turkey and Islam in general, then I spent some time in turkey and the middle east, now I understand. That "islam is a religion of peace" thing cracks me up aint nothin peaceful about the arab practioners of Islam. As far as the crusades go its okay to begin a new one as long as we dont call it a crusade, lets call it a reformation. By the way there are some good Muslims that believe in education honor and keeping their word, even to their enemies or unbelivers we should use these people to help the rest of the Islamic world away from its backward focus.