[url]http://www.crisismagazine.com/april2002/cover.htm[/url]

"...the Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression—an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands."

"Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them. While Muslims can be peaceful, Islam was born in war and grew the same way."


"By any reckoning, the First Crusade was a long shot. There was no leader, no chain of command, no supply lines, no detailed strategy. It was simply thousands of warriors marching deep into enemy territory, committed to a common cause."

Sounds a lot like a guerilla war.

And my favorite:

"From the safe distance of many centuries, it is easy enough to scowl in disgust at the Crusades. Religion, after all, is nothing to fight wars over. But we should be mindful that our medieval ancestors would have been equally disgusted by our infinitely more destructive wars fought in the name of political ideologies. And yet, both the medieval and the modern soldier fight ultimately for their own world and all that makes it up. Both are willing to suffer enormous sacrifice, provided that it is in the service of something they hold dear, something greater than themselves."

Fighting for the Constitution or the state some vague notion of "freedom" has clearly replaced the religious wedge that was used in past times. It is just as despicable.  The west probably is fighting for its very existence, but desperately needs new tactics. Notice what broke the back of the Islamic invasion was not a grand army but trade and entrepreneurialism.  "The Muslim threat was neutralized economically."  Yeah--comfortable and happy people don't have a lot to fight over, do they?

I've always found Professor Madden to be one of the best historians on the period of the Crusades.

Back last October, I started a thread on the misinformed view that most people had about this defensive action taken by Christendom!

See:[url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?id=66952[/url]

I guess the Turks at the Gates of Vienna was simply a defensive move on their part, huh?

I mean the Turks were there three times in two centuries!

C'mon people, get a clue! Islam the Religion of Peace?

Eric The(Don'tMakeMeLaugh!)Hun[>]:)]

I dunno, [b]raf[/b], this War against the United States by OBL and crew does appear to lack a financial motive!

While there may have been some financial motives behind both the Crusades and the counter-Crusades, you're not going to be able to raise much of an army based upon promised financial gain to the foot soldiers.

Give them a Heaven or a Paradise to fight for and they will do all right!

Eric The(Realistic)Hun[>]:)]

One has to understand, that in the age of the Crusades, all Realpolitic was wrapped in Religion. The very idea of conducting even a war of national survival without embellishing it with religious significants or symbolism would have been totaly alien to the Europeans of that time.

oh, not to say, that many of the men of that day, were not every bit as cynical as to matters of religion or to the existance of god, as are men today, But they all understood that paying lip service to the religious underpinnings of the war, was just the way things were done.

The Crusades were about stopping the spread of Islam, in order to ensure Christian/White dominance in Europe.

And no, I am not a racist for including the word White in those Crusaders motivations. Those Crusaders had none of the benifits of education and fine high mindedness that we enjoy today. All they knew, was that the Brown tribes to the south with their Islam, wanted to kill them, Destroy their culture and enslave their children. The men of that era had never heard of the word Genocide, Because Genocide was the natural state of affairs of the day. On both the Christain and the Muslim side of the fence.

Wars were won in that day and age, by killing enough of the people that you had a problem with,  that there were no longer enough of them to oppose you left, you either dictated terms to the survivors or put them to the sword according to the victors conveniance.

Religion just adds a cloak of civility to the fact that, the brown people decided to form a imperialist religion to try to take over Europe to the north, from the white people who also had a slightly older imperialistic religion.

The Crusades were about who's children would walk forth into the future, to found a great culture, and who's would devolve into the third world.

An interesting link.  Thank you for posting it. Watch-Six

Gee, [b]raf[/b], we just lost more civilians than ever, but if you can define the terms the way you wish, none of us will ever lose an argument again![:D]

So what was America's financial motives in WWII?

Oh, it was purely defensive, so no financial considerations need be made?

Gee, my Dad went to the South Pacific for four years and all he got were some campaign ribbons and recurring bouts of malaria!

Gen. MacArthur didn't give him a piece of the action, at all!

Eric The(Cheapskate!)Hun[>]:)]

Econimics....what a crock!!!

The leaders of that day Had no understanding of real money and economics beyond rudimentery trade for needed goods. the birth of Adam Smith was still a few hundred years down the road.

Leadership in those days consisted of naked ambition, keeping your powerbase, paying lip service to the priests because they could be usefull, and ruthlessly destroying all who opposed you.

You have to understand that we have a handfull of Saddam Hussien's today. In the days of the Crusades, EVERY LEADER ON BOTH SIDES, WAS SADDAM HUSSIEN!!!

If you failed, in either War, Trade, or Religion in those days, there were always plenty of people out there, in your own camp, who sharpened their swords each morning, just in case a chance to sieze power from the king or Salidin, came along before night fall.

They only understood economics in a have or have not sense. In the same way that a child understands, that anouther child has a ice cream cone and it wishes to take the ice cream for itself, from the other child,

Maybe you would be more on the mark, saying that all wars are based on Larceny, Raf.

Lord, [b]raf[/b], but you do take these posts much too seriously! [:D]

Where do I begin?

Oh yes, from the beginning!

Hmmm, maybe if I tried to 'size=5' the Happy Face, you'd get my point a tad better, but I don't think that works.

One could attempt to make that case, but he or she would be dead wrong, wouldn't they? The US was pledged to Philippine Independence by 1945.
Why give up your major possession in the Pacific if you thought you were going to be in a ruinous economic war with Japan?  

Competition? We were worried about Japanese competition in China? In Southeast Asia?

Are those your thoughts or the thoughts of the hypothetical proponents of the position that WWII was an economic war for the US?

Once again, your views, or the hypothetical proponents of such a view?

Now if that don't beat all! I surely hope that you're talking about the purely hypothetical proponents of such a silly view and that you don't partake of their ludicrous notions yourself!

We went to War simply because we were attacked!
Plain and simple!

Even Democrats understand that![:D]

Or should I say 'understood that'?

Thanks, but I genuinely feel that the flippant remarks would be those of the hypothetical proponents of the view that the War in the Pacific was fought by the United States for economic reasons!

That sort of view does more to mar the memory of a great deal of heroic men who thought they were fighting for reasons other than financial!

Eric The(ScrewEconomicsForAMinute!)Hun[>]:)]

Got us out of the depression.....

Well, [b]liberty86[/b], the effect of WWII was to get America out of the Depression.

But that certainly wasn't our motive for fighting the war.

Eric The(Right?)Hun[>]:)]

Was Germany's economic motive in the mid-1930's to both throw off the economic slavery of the Treaty of Versailles and concomitantly the effects of the world-wide depression?? [:\]

BTW concerning the Crusades thing...AD 1492 was a big year for Isabella and Ferdinand in more ways than Columbus' regatta.  That was also the year Spain fought and beat the Muslims in the south of Spain and removed their influence from Europe for centuries.

I believe the OBL's of the world, the radical, fundamentalist Muslims see Globalization (shepherded by the US, they believe) as a threat to Muslim Nationalism, not yet a reality but getting roots in places like Iran.  There is little chance of co-existence between Sharia law and laws that will support capitalism in the same countries.

It was certainly one of 'em. Having said that, We would have had to have taken on those assholes sometime anyhow. Once Germany and Japan got their areas nailed down, we would have been next anyway. It's probably a good thing we got in when we did, but that doesn't mean America knew the truth about their entry into WWII........

Back to the topic of the Crusades, ahem.

I recommend Dungeon, Fire and Sword by John J. Robinson. Very well written book. Easy to read and really keeps you interested. Gave me a new respect for my ancestors. "Let's roll" isn't a new concept. Ask any crusader.

Got my copy off Amazon.