Crusades or Moslem Conquests: Which was Worse

[MadScotsMan]

I never was able to state about the genocide being driven by nationlisim because I am lazy I knew that, but I didnt put it for some reason, and I think I have 15 million people because I saw 1-5 in my history book, screwry eyes arnt that good at reading small text. But yeah thanks for the enlightment about the Zoroastrians, but I think it may be a bit different now

 

[Orthodox Warior]

Byzantines had lost Jerusalem almost 500 years before 1st crusade started, Islam did not even exist at the time. I must have read about other crusades than you. It would be nice to point out what you're referring to.

You are wrong. Mohammad lived in 7th century, and Jerusalem was taken in the early 8th century during the Umayadd dynasty rule along with entire north Africa. I can tell you exact year, I left my book "History of crusades" by dr Zeljko Fajfric at work. Excellent book.

Pope Urban II call on first crusade in 1096. So the Arabs took Jerusalem from Christians first.

 

[MadScotsMan]

I read that jerusalam was taken about four years after Mohammad died, not in the eigth century...damn you wikipedia!

 

[Tee Kay]

You are wrong. Mohammad lived in 7th century, and Jerusalem was taken in the early 8th century during the Umayadd dynasty rule along with entire north Africa. I can tell you exact year, I left my book "History of crusades" by dr Zeljko Fajfric at work. Excellent book.

Pope Urban II call on first crusade in 1096. So the Arabs took Jerusalem from Christians first.

But remember Jerusalem was also sacred to Muslims. In fact before Mecca was established as seat of power all Muslims prayed towards Jerusalem.

And the Muslims took Jerusalem but did not sack it in the way Christians did in the First Crusade. (Sassanid Persians did sack Jerusalem in AD614).

 

[innonimatu]

I read that jerusalam was taken about four years after Mohammad died, not in the eigth century...damn you wikipedia!

Jerusalem did fell in the 7th century.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

As a side note, Jews were banned from Jerusalem since Rome crushed the jew rebelion. It continued this way under Byzantine control until Arab conquest in the 7th century, then the muslims opened the city to all religions of the book. The first episode of muslim intolerance in the city was "only" 400 years later when a Fatimi Caliph ordered the destruction of all Christian churches (and synagoges), This incident managed to the first crusade.

This passage from wikipedia also results very On-topic:

Christian soldiers took Jerusalem after a difficult one month siege. The Jews were among the most vigorous defenders of Jerusalem against the Crusaders. When the city fell, the Crusaders gathered the Jews in a synagogue and burned them. The crusaders slaughtered most of the city's Muslim and Jewish inhabitants. Raymond d'Aguiliers, chaplain to Raymond de Saint-Gilles, Count of Toulouse, wrote:

Piles of heads, hands, and feet were to be seen in the streets of the city. It was necessary to pick one's way over the bodies of men and horses. But these were small matters compared to what happened at the Temple of Solomon, a place where religious ceremonies were ordinarily chanted. What happened there? If I tell the truth, it will exceed your powers of belief. So let it suffice to say this much, at least, that in the Temple and porch of Solomon, men rode in blood up to their knees and bridle-reins. Indeed, it was a just and splendid judgment of God that this place should be filled with the blood of unbelievers, since it had suffered so long from their blasphemies. The city was filled with corpses and blood.

 

[Julian Delphiki]

You are wrong. Mohammad lived in 7th century, and Jerusalem was taken in the early 8th century during the Umayadd dynasty rule along with entire north Africa. I can tell you exact year, I left my book "History of crusades" by dr Zeljko Fajfric at work. Excellent book.

Pope Urban II call on first crusade in 1096. So the Arabs took Jerusalem from Christians first.

As said by Taillesskangaru, Jerusalem did fall 614 AD to Sassanids, then (not sure about this year) Byzantium got it back for a while (this was missing from my ealier post) and it was then conquered 638 AD by arab muslims. So muslims did hold Jerusalem "only" for 461 years before crusaders raped it 1099 AD.

Btw, what are other Christian holy cities? Bethlehem?

 

[Orthodox Warior]

I forgot my book in the office. So I can't be sure of the year thing. But, when I think of it now, maybe you are right about year of taking Jerusalem. After all, Muslim legend says that Mohammad on the winged horse Burak ascended into heavens in Jerusalem.

It is not logical for me because he died, and Jerusalem has taken later. Fact remains that Jerusalem was taken from Byzantines - Christians.

But, I don't agree when people says Christian atrocities. You can hardly say that Frankish armies from first crusade represent Christianity. They slaughtered jewish population in todays Germany with no reason. They committed atrocities all their way to Carigrad (Constantinople). After landed in Asia minor in byzantine ships they decimated population of cities that are first on their impact even if that were Christian cities. Crusaders noticed that after the slaughter.

I think both crusaders and muslim armies were the same. Even if I support idea that holy land should be in Christian hands, orthodox Christians believe that God will punish those who terrorize prisoners and helpless people. It is a terrible sin.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

As said by Taillesskangaru, Jerusalem did fall 614 AD to Sassanids, then (not sure about this year) Byzantium got it back for a while (this was missing from my ealier post) and it was then conquered 638 AD by arab muslims. So muslims did hold Jerusalem "only" for 461 years before crusaders raped it 1099 AD.

Btw, what are other Christian holy cities? Bethlehem?

Rome and Santiago.

 

[Mirc]

I forgot my book in the office. So I can't be sure of the year thing. But, when I think of it now, maybe you are right about year of taking Jerusalem. After all, Muslim legend says that Mohammad on the winged horse Burak ascended into heavens in Jerusalem.

It is not logical for me because he died, and Jerusalem has taken later. Fact remains that Jerusalem was taken from Byzantines - Christians.

But, I don't agree when people says Christian atrocities. You can hardly say that Frankish armies from first crusade represent Christianity. They slaughtered jewish population in todays Germany with no reason. They committed atrocities all their way to Carigrad (Constantinople). After landed in Asia minor in byzantine ships they decimated population of cities that are first on their impact even if that were Christian cities. Crusaders noticed that after the slaughter.

I think both crusaders and muslim armies were the same. Even if I support idea that holy land should be in Christian hands, orthodox Christians believe that God will punish those who terrorize prisoners and helpless people. It is a terrible sin.

Exactly. Being an Orthodox too, I can confirm that. War in the name of religion or killing in the name of religion are amongst the biggest sins ever. This church's policy was always "live and let live".

However, the Muslim conquests were still much worse. The Catholics had a reason! And the Muslims were the first to start the conflict anyway, conquering Jerusalem.

 

[innonimatu]

always? The Byzantine empire had a lot of civil wars over religious disputes... hardly a mark of religious tolerance!

 

[Mirc]

always? The Byzantine empire had a lot of civil wars over religious disputes... hardly a mark of religious tolerance!

In most cases, those were pretexts. However, when this was really because of religious disputes, it never resulted in mass killings and usually a "sinod" council solved things pretty soon.

 

[MadScotsMan]

Nazarath, Antioch, Jabala, Bethelam, just to name some. Anwhere the twelve disciples or Jesus visited

 

[Orthodox Warior]

always? The Byzantine empire had a lot of civil wars over religious disputes... hardly a mark of religious tolerance!

I wrote one postulate of orthodoxy, but unfortunately people doesn't always do what is right. If they do, world would be a lot better place to live.

Civil war in Byzantine I know is ikonoborstvo (fighting against icons) by Emperor Lav Jermenin (Leo Armenian) when thousands monks and believers were persecuted for having icons. He even forbid cult of saints and Bogorodice (mother of God). He offered monks option or to leave monasteries and have a wives or to be blinded and exiled.

 

[Plotinus]

I don't think the Byzantine empire ever had civil wars over religion. There were certainly many persecutions and atrocities, such as the iconoclastic controversy mentioned, but these weren't civil wars. Although I must point out that Leo III didn't really persecute many people - no-one died in the cause of icons during his reign. The real persecution came from his son, Constantine V.

 

[1889]

Even aside from religious issues there were many cultural reasons for the two invasions to behave differently. Europe, at the time of the first crusade at least, still didn't have a satisfactory coinage. Agriculture was the basis of the economy and the political system was still feudal. To control the new lands they would have wanted to kill all the land owners and probably didn't see much need for merchants or shopkeepers. The crusaders came for the land.

I don't know much about the Islamic world's economy at that time but I think they would have been more able to replace just the top few guys in order to make sure the taxes went to the new address. Not sure how much of the Arab armies had a Berber or nomadic element in the 7-8th century, but many of them were seasonal soldiers who returned home at some point by the time of the 3rd crusade, which caused some problems for Saladin.

 

[Squonk]

Abbasids weren't persian. They were Arabs, and relatives of Muhammad as well. The revolt that brought their rule was started in Chorasan, and their rule featured shift from byzantine to persian influences, that remained dominant esp. in muslim architecture, but they weren't persian at all.

 

[aronnax]

Both of them are equally horrifying. Muslim takes Jerusalem, let religious tolerance, then one king was stupid and did the whole banning pilgrims thing, then the abssaid turks were killing byzantium othrodox christian so the emperor asked rome for help and then the rapping of jerusalem begin and they begin to murder the muslims. In fact up until maybe 1750, i have never heard of a christian nations showing tolerance to jews or muslims but i have seen several muslim empires who did. Ottomans never forced conversion on the Balkans, I dont see the Muslim in Arab stopping you from going to jerusalem except for those few years. I dont remenber any mass murders in Islamic spain

 

[Orthodox Warior]

Ottomans never forced conversion on the Balkans, I dont see the Muslim in Arab stopping you from going to jerusalem except for those few years. I dont remenber any mass murders in Islamic spain

I can't believe what i just read. Ottomans DID forced conversion in Balkans. There was institution called tax in blood. Young boys aged up to 7-8 were taken from they parents in Serbia, Bosnia, Montenegro, Greece, Bulgaria...

They were trained like a muslim warriors and forced to forgot they origin. They were totally brainwashed. They name was Janissaries. However I know about one example that one of them remembered his origin. Great vesir Mehmed pasha Sokolovich remembered his birthplace and build magnificent bridge in Vishegrad on the Drina river.

Ottomans burned christian temples, persecuting priests, terrorizing people. In order to survive some people accepted islam. These are todays muslims in Bosnia.

 

[Mirc]

Ottomans never forced conversion on the Balkans,

What?????? The HEAVILY forced Islam on ALL the Balkanic nations they controlled, and succeeded in places like Bosnia (which was and I think still is majoritary Muslim to this day). They also tried in Romania and Crimea, but didn't succeed there. If Ottoman dominance would have lasted a bit longer, countries like Serbia or Bulgaria would have been Muslim to this day!

Vlad Tepes learned the impaling technique while he was in the Ottoman Empire, since he was one of these boys that were taken from all non-Muslim places.

The ruler of Wallachia Constantin Brancoveanu had ALL his kids beheaded in front of him because he did not agree to convert. And in the end, he was beheaded too. No, of course they didn't force Islam!