|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Galad Aglaron Vice Captain
|
 Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 7:56 pm
The Crusades were a series of military conflicts of a religious character waged by much of Christian Europe against external and internal threats. Crusades were fought against Muslims, pagan Slavs, Russian and Greek Orthodox Christians, Mongols, Cathars, Hussites, and political enemies of the popes. Crusaders took vows and were granted an indulgence for past sins.
The Crusades originally had the goal of recapturing Jerusalem and the Holy Land from Muslim rule and were originally launched in response to a call from the Eastern Orthodox Byzantine Empire for help against the expansion of the Muslim Seljuk Turks into Anatolia. The term is also used to describe contemporaneous and subsequent campaigns conducted through to the 16th century in territories outside the Levant, usually against pagans, heretics, and peoples under the ban of excommunication for a mixture of religious, economic, and political reasons. Rivalries among both Christian and Muslim powers led also to alliances between religious factions against their opponents, such as the Christian alliance with the Sultanate of Rum during the Fifth Crusade.
The Crusades had far-reaching political, economic, and social impacts, some of which have lasted into contemporary times. Because of internal conflicts among Christian kingdoms and political powers, some of the crusade expeditions were diverted from their original aim, such as the Fourth Crusade, which resulted in the sack of Christian Constantinople and the partition of the Byzantine Empire between Venice and the Crusaders.
DISCUSS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 8:07 pm
Yes; even the noblest of intent can be corrupted over time. It is always sad to see the crusaders villainized and the moslem curs made victim; hopefully new academics will see the errors of their predecessors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 6:36 am
Hmm... being the pessimistic old gal that I am, I have to make a snide remark about the actions of our present politicians. What's that old expression?... "History repeats itself." Maybe not an exact repeat, but disturbingly similar. Good intentions gone corrupt? Hmm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 6:58 am
The key difference is that the crusades were neither financial nor imperialistic wars (when originally invisaged) but protective campaigns; only if the moslems attacked Israil or the Balkans could a crusade of any sort be begun.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 3:06 pm
Let's not call MUSLIMS (Not moslems) curs. That's offensive...and ignorant.
And the Crusades, as violent and somewhat pointless as they were, were still a major part in world history.
Think about it. If you were the pope back then and were a fanatic believer in Christ, you'd do whatever you could to seize the city where your God preached.
Plus, if it wasn't for the Crusades, we'd be in the dark still. The things the Europeans learned from the Muslims they had conquered world technology as a whole would be much more...primitive. We wouldn't have computers for example.
But this is me talking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 7:18 pm
At the time, the Muslim world was experiencing its greatest period of enlightenment, and such cities as Damascus were centers of learning and high civilization.
Then, the Crusades happened.
In wave after horrific wave, blood and torture in the name of religious fanatacism had its effect on these people, altering the culture irrevocably. Before the Crusades, religious fanatacism was not exactly known in the Middle East. But, in face of such terrors as they faced, they didn't exactly have much recourse. It wasn't just their families and their homes that were threatened. Their entire society, their way of life and even their faith was under attack, and frankly, fewer atrocities have been worse than those committed in the name of religion. It's one of the ugliest of cycles and once begun, is nearly impossible to stop.
It all began when Constantinople got nervous about a tribe of Turks not far beyond their gates who were getting restless. The Byzantine emperor sought a few trained mercenaries to help take care of the situation, and sent a letter to the effect West. The Pope in Rome, however, saw a way he could expand the influence of the Church into the lives of everyday people. It went from saving Constantinople to nothing less than the "liberation" of a Jerusalem that had no idea it was even in "enemy" hands. In truth, they lived in relative peace with one another and the invasion, when it got that far, was far from welcome.
But, the Church organization was yet a novel one in Europe, and the Pope may not have fully understood the profound and electric effect his announcements would have on Europe. The meeting he called was so large, it could not be held in the cathedral that had been intended as a meeting place, and from there, the word spread like wildfire. What resulted was nothing less than a mass-migration, not just of soldiers, but also of civilians, all looking for that guaranteed ticket to heaven that was promised them if they joined the Crusades. Constantinople was inundated by waves of the great unwashed, all demanding to be let past to battle the Turks beyond. Shocked and horrified, there was little the Emperor could do but let them, as he feared that if he did not do so, his own city would be endangered. The first wave was slaughtered in the wastes beyond, but the soldiers who eventually arrived survived much longer, and wrought such terrors and crimes as the people they met had never seen before. And for some time, it wasn't even Muslims they were killing, but fellow Christians. Yet, to the Europeans, it didn't matter. They were different, and that was all they required.
I could go on, but there are documentaries and books that have covered the matter better than I could here. None are for the faint of heart. In truth, the one person whose valor and honor I admire in any of the Crusades is that of Salahadin. He was an educated man of art, science and poetry, who consistently acquitted himself with honor, grace and gentility, but also had a firm and unwavering hand. In battle, he was nearly impossible to best, and in correspondence, he was eloquent and learned.
Europe came out of it having experienced the science, music and learning of an educated people and were made somewhat better for it, eventually enabling Europe to rediscover their older, more civilized past through classical literature and learning that had been preserved in Arabic. But, the Middle East is still scarred to this day. We are the world we are because of the Crusades and we are all not only still reaping such rewards as we have, but we are also still paying the price, and that price is a heavy one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 7:18 am
Lhuv-Kerapht We are the world we are because of the Crusades and we are all not only still reaping such rewards as we have, but we are also still paying the price, and that price is a heavy one. I have read dry facts about the Crusades, but your outline was the most enlightening I've read yet, Lhuv. Thank you. 3nodding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:32 pm
Nasuko-San Let's not call MUSLIMS (Not moslems) curs. That's offensive...and ignorant. And the Crusades, as violent and somewhat pointless as they were, were still a major part in world history. Think about it. If you were the pope back then and were a fanatic believer in Christ, you'd do whatever you could to seize the city where your God preached. Plus, if it wasn't for the Crusades, we'd be in the dark still. The things the Europeans learned from the Muslims they had conquered world technology as a whole would be much more...primitive. We wouldn't have computers for example. But this is me talking. What's offensive about it? They're far too long dead to be offended. The Crusades were to prevent the fall of Byzantium to the Moslems, this they achieved although only temporarily. Bare in mind that the Crusades were called before the fall of Constanople by a Pope who was more than reluctant (due to poor relations with the orthodox church and the dangers of external war on feudal society) and you'll see that it was not the work of some crazed fanatic. Indeed the works of the ancients were retreived and valuable but that's not to say that the Moslems would not have been able to innovate based upon them is it? Of course it is not, however for all the joys of the Socratic dialogues the Rennaissance did not start on account of these texts, which would surely have been imported through Cyprus at the behest of Florence would they not by the comming of the new age.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 4:00 pm
Lhuv-Kerapht At the time, the Muslim world was experiencing its greatest period of enlightenment, and such cities as Damascus were centers of learning and high civilization. The Mamaluks were long decadent by 1200, there kin not far behind. Lhuv-Kerapht Then, the Crusades happened. In wave after horrific wave, blood and torture in the name of religious fanatacism had its effect on these people, altering the culture irrevocably. Before the Crusades, religious fanatacism was not exactly known in the Middle East. But, in face of such terrors as they faced, they didn't exactly have much recourse. It wasn't just their families and their homes that were threatened. Their entire society, their way of life and even their faith was under attack, and frankly, fewer atrocities have been worse than those committed in the name of religion. It's one of the ugliest of cycles and once begun, is nearly impossible to stop. Fanaticism was well known, as well in the east as the west. A religion founded and venerating a warlord seeks to do as he did, their vast conquests the work of fanaticism, once halted turned to decadence as seen in the Mamaluks and Moors; by no means pious, by no means turk. Lhuv-Kerapht It all began when Constantinople got nervous about a tribe of Turks not far beyond their gates who were getting restless. The Byzantine emperor sought a few trained mercenaries to help take care of the situation, and sent a letter to the effect West. The Pope in Rome, however, saw a way he could expand the influence of the Church into the lives of everyday people. It went from saving Constantinople to nothing less than the "liberation" of a Jerusalem that had no idea it was even in "enemy" hands. In truth, they lived in relative peace with one another and the invasion, when it got that far, was far from welcome. The Byzantines became particularly scared when they were invaded and their cities began to fall, this was somewhat more than a few turks hanging around smoking opium in all fairness. If a few well trained mercenaries were sought then the Byzantines would have hired a few well trained mercenaries, if the empire were crumbling before a Moslem horde then the Allfather might have been roused to beg of the Pope for aid. The Pope of course say to delay his conveyance of the message for fear that an external war might destabilise feudal Europe but finally sent out a call to the yeomanry to aid their brothers in the east; not the peasants who specifically were needed to stay put. Lhuv-Kerapht But, the Church organization was yet a novel one in Europe, and the Pope may not have fully understood the profound and electric effect his announcements would have on Europe. The meeting he called was so large, it could not be held in the cathedral that had been intended as a meeting place, and from there, the word spread like wildfire. What resulted was nothing less than a mass-migration, not just of soldiers, but also of civilians, all looking for that guaranteed ticket to heaven that was promised them if they joined the Crusades. Constantinople was inundated by waves of the great unwashed, all demanding to be let past to battle the Turks beyond. Shocked and horrified, there was little the Emperor could do but let them, as he feared that if he did not do so, his own city would be endangered. The first wave was slaughtered in the wastes beyond, but the soldiers who eventually arrived survived much longer, and wrought such terrors and crimes as the people they met had never seen before. And for some time, it wasn't even Muslims they were killing, but fellow Christians. Yet, to the Europeans, it didn't matter. They were different, and that was all they required. Far more heeded the call to arms than intended; the peasantry were roused and families bankrupted to march to the aid of the holy land, indeed a rabble moved on the east and as a rabble they pillaged, not the intention of the church nor the soldiers but unavoidable given the situation. Lhuv-Kerapht I could go on, but there are documentaries and books that have covered the matter better than I could here. None are for the faint of heart. Certainly they are, certainly they do. Lhuv-Kerapht In truth, the one person whose valor and honor I admire in any of the Crusades is that of Salahadin. He was an educated man of art, science and poetry, who consistently acquitted himself with honor, grace and gentility, but also had a firm and unwavering hand. In battle, he was nearly impossible to best, and in correspondence, he was eloquent and learned. He was a noble man who did not take defeat well, noble none the less. Lhuv-Kerapht Europe came out of it having experienced the science, music and learning of an educated people and were made somewhat better for it, eventually enabling Europe to rediscover their older, more civilized past through classical literature and learning that had been preserved in Arabic. But, the Middle East is still scarred to this day. We are the world we are because of the Crusades and we are all not only still reaping such rewards as we have, but we are also still paying the price, and that price is a heavy one. The Moslems are not suffering, the Byzantines and Nestorians suffer. Were it not for these wars the Moslems would not have seen the fall of thir stagnant civilisations in Africa, although the Ottomans did stagnate. Were they not to war with Byzantium they would not have the Turkish state; by far one of their most civilised nations. Their warlordry served them well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 6:52 pm
CH1Y0 What's offensive about it? They're far too long dead to be offended. You're kidding me, right? The Muslims are one of the worlds MAJOR FRIGGIN RELIGIONS. You're just an ignorant American, aren't you? CH1Y0 The Crusades were to prevent the fall of Byzantium to the Moslems, this they achieved although only temporarily. No...I'm pretty sure they achieved it because Turkey isn't heavily Arabic. CH1Y0 Bare in mind that the Crusades were called before the fall of Constanople by a Pope who was more than reluctant (due to poor relations with the orthodox church and the dangers of external war on feudal society) and you'll see that it was not the work of some crazed fanatic. I never used the term "crazed fanatic". I said "fanatical believer in Christ." Plus, they didn' thave ANY relations. Two separate churches who hated each other. The only reason that pope responded was because they worship the same God, whereas the Muslims didn't, and that was the basis of the conflict. CH1Y0 Indeed the works of the ancients were retreived and valuable but that's not to say that the Moslems would not have been able to innovate based upon them is it? Of course it is not, however for all the joys of the Socratic dialogues the Rennaissance did not start on account of these texts, which would surely have been imported through Cyprus at the behest of Florence would they not by the comming of the new age. This I don't get. I really don't. You're saying that if the Europeans didn't go to Jerusalem and take things, the Renaissance never would have happened? No...Europeans got things like Algebra and basically every other type of math from them. Without said math, we'd be in deep trouble. And I doubt the Muslim leaders would wake up one day and say "hey! I've got a great idea! Let's give the Europeans whatever the hell they want and let them better us in every technology!" Your argument is now officially fail.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 4:32 am
Nasuko-San CH1Y0 What's offensive about it? They're far too long dead to be offended. You're kidding me, right? The Muslims are one of the worlds MAJOR FRIGGIN RELIGIONS. You're just an ignorant American, aren't you? None of the above I'm afraid. The Moslems who were involved in the crusades are dead; who are they to be offended? Those who are alive were not involved in the crusades and I have not refered to them previously and hence have no right to be offended. Just to prevent missunderstandings, the moslems are not a religion they follow Islam which is. Nasuko-San CH1Y0 The Crusades were to prevent the fall of Byzantium to the Moslems, this they achieved although only temporarily. No...I'm pretty sure they achieved it because Turkey isn't heavily Arabic. Mustafa Kemal Ataturk made a seccular state of Turkey, somewhat after the rise and fall of the Ottomans, somewhat after the crusades. Unless you are denying that the Turks are Moslem you have no arguement here. Nasuko-San CH1Y0 Bare in mind that the Crusades were called before the fall of Constanople by a Pope who was more than reluctant (due to poor relations with the orthodox church and the dangers of external war on feudal society) and you'll see that it was not the work of some crazed fanatic. Plus, they didn' thave ANY relations. Two separate churches who hated each other. The only reason that pope responded was because they worship the same God, whereas the Muslims didn't, and that was the basis of the conflict. If they had no relation they had no contact; that clearly wasn't the case. Nasuko-San CH1Y0 Indeed the works of the ancients were retreived and valuable but that's not to say that the Moslems would not have been able to innovate based upon them is it? Of course it is not, however for all the joys of the Socratic dialogues the Rennaissance did not start on account of these texts, which would surely have been imported through Cyprus at the behest of Florence would they not by the comming of the new age. This I don't get. I really don't. You're saying that if the Europeans didn't go to Jerusalem and take things, the Renaissance never would have happened? No...Europeans got things like Algebra and basically every other type of math from them. Without said math, we'd be in deep trouble. I'm saying that the renaissance was inevitable and whilst the classics may well have sped up it's coming the mercantile classes of the Italian states were surely there to begin this new age eventually. Nasuko-San And I doubt the Muslim leaders would wake up one day and say "hey! I've got a great idea! Let's give the Europeans whatever the hell they want and let them better us in every technology!" They would hovever sell the works of the classics once the Venetians saw the market; there is a reason that Cyprus was rich. European techknowlogical dominance was inevitable, the Moslems are seemingly poor innovators. Nasuko-San Your argument is now officially fail. Not at all good sir; although you, sir, don't seem to have much of an argument at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 8:55 am
I'm totally exposing my ditziness with this remark, but, I have to admit, although I love history, I'm not good at it. Consequently, I'm enjoying the heated debate, on this thread, and the mounds of knowledge therein. This is great smile
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 5:11 pm
CH1Y0 None of the above I'm afraid. The Moslems who were involved in the crusades are dead; who are they to be offended? Those who are alive were not involved in the crusades and I have not refered to them previously and hence have no right to be offended. Just to prevent missunderstandings, the moslems are not a religion they follow Islam which is. ... Muslims...are generally known for following Islam...many books reference Muslims as followers of Islam. CH1Y0 Mustafa Kemal Ataturk made a seccular state of Turkey, somewhat after the rise and fall of the Ottomans, somewhat after the crusades. Unless you are denying that the Turks are Moslem you have no arguement here. Okay...you got me on that. They have MUSLIM (Not Moslem; learn to spell it) influences. But I don't see the entire country following that trend, because it's half European influenced. CH1Y0 If they had no relation they had no contact; that clearly wasn't the case. ... ... ... You've got to be shitting me. Let's use an example: You're sitting in a classroom. You see someone who lis friendly/hostile towards you. Generally, humans will reach out to be friendly/hostile to them, too. But gee-freakin-whiz, I guess that was hard to figure out. Humans naturally explore. The conflict would've happened regardless. CH1Y0 I'm saying that the renaissance was inevitable and whilst the classics may well have sped up it's coming the mercantile classes of the Italian states were surely there to begin this new age eventually. When's eventually? Two-hundred years? Three-hundred? One-thousand? Regardless of whether it was inevitable, humanity wouldn't be where at it's at today if it wasn't for these conflicts. CH1Y0 They would hovever sell the works of the classics once the Venetians saw the market; there is a reason that Cyprus was rich. European techknowlogical dominance was inevitable, the Moslems are seemingly poor innovators. ... No. You just killed yourself. THE MUSLIMS WOULDN'T GIVE THE EUROPEANS JACK s**t! No matter how much shiny gold they had, the Muslims weren't going to sell, which is exactly why the Europeans left with the knowledge. They took it by force. And there we go again with the offensive stuff. They aren't "poor innovators". They invented things that the Europeans used to get to the New World. Various cures for diseases and other types of scienece, math, and the like were found. So maybe you could look into the culture before calling them "poor innovators".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 7:16 pm
Quote: None of the above I'm afraid. The Moslems who were involved in the crusades are dead; who are they to be offended? Those who are alive were not involved in the crusades and I have not refered to them previously and hence have no right to be offended. Just to prevent missunderstandings, the moslems are not a religion they follow Islam which is. You Madame are mistaken, Muslim cultures are generally known to be proud cultures so never the less they would be offended because it were their ancestors during these times, as I am offended with certain things regarding the Irish and Scottish. and as another thing, you offend them by not correcting Moslom to Muslim Im sure the jihadist's around the world would be pleased to see that. they would be offended so yea. (I am only posting this as a way, to show that it is offensive, to the Arab world)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 1:26 am
Nasuko-San CH1Y0 None of the above I'm afraid. The Moslems who were involved in the crusades are dead; who are they to be offended? Those who are alive were not involved in the crusades and I have not refered to them previously and hence have no right to be offended. Just to prevent missunderstandings, the moslems are not a religion they follow Islam which is. ... Muslims...are generally known for following Islam...many books reference Muslims as followers of Islam. Moslems are defined in following Islam, one cannot be Moslem without folowing Islam and one cannot follow Islam without being Moslem. Nasuko-San CH1Y0 Mustafa Kemal Ataturk made a seccular state of Turkey, somewhat after the rise and fall of the Ottomans, somewhat after the crusades. Unless you are denying that the Turks are Moslem you have no arguement here. Okay...you got me on that. They have MUSLIM (Not Moslem; learn to spell it) influences. But I don't see the entire country following that trend, because it's half European influenced. They are adherents to the creed of Islam, generally speaking. Even now as they seek admission to the European Union they are becoming less secular and less of a European state. Nasuko-San CH1Y0 If they had no relation they had no contact; that clearly wasn't the case. ... ... ... You've got to be shitting me. Let's use an example: You're sitting in a classroom. You see someone who lis friendly/hostile towards you. Generally, humans will reach out to be friendly/hostile to them, too. But gee-freakin-whiz, I guess that was hard to figure out. Humans naturally explore. The conflict would've happened regardless. In the interests of clarifying I made clear the point; such things should be explicit. Nasuko-San CH1Y0 I'm saying that the renaissance was inevitable and whilst the classics may well have sped up it's coming the mercantile classes of the Italian states were surely there to begin this new age eventually. When's eventually? Two-hundred years? Three-hundred? One-thousand? Regardless of whether it was inevitable, humanity wouldn't be where at it's at today if it wasn't for these conflicts. It cannot be said, however, where it would be. Nasuko-San CH1Y0 They would hovever sell the works of the classics once the Venetians saw the market; there is a reason that Cyprus was rich. European techknowlogical dominance was inevitable, the Moslems are seemingly poor innovators. ... No. You just killed yourself. THE MUSLIMS WOULDN'T GIVE THE EUROPEANS JACK s**t! No matter how much shiny gold they had, the Muslims weren't going to sell, which is exactly why the Europeans left with the knowledge. They took it by force. If the Moslems were unwilling to sell then please explain the wealth of Cyprus. The purpose of the (first) crusades was not booty. Nasuko-San And there we go again with the offensive stuff. They aren't "poor innovators". They invented things that the Europeans used to get to the New World. Various cures for diseases and other types of scienece, math, and the like were found. So maybe you could look into the culture before calling them "poor innovators". They hung on to the works of the Greeks, comparitively they must be poor innovators as with the same knowlege base and greater time they have innovated somewhat les than the Europeans have they not?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
