Opinions on the First Crusade

[RNolan]

I have been reading Steven Runcimans seminal A History of the Crusades and its been very interesting. Actually I was a little suprised at how balanced it was since I heard that it was considered very damning on the Crusaders, but in fact they emerge from it as very human and flawed but not fundamentally evil. Runciman also wasn't slow to list Muslim atrocities too like the slaughter of the inhabitants of Edessa. Good books.

What does everyone here think of the Crusades?

Yours

Ross

 

[Zarn]

Both sides were at fault.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

It was a justified military campaign, against a foe that was not all sweetness and light as the modern PC/communist pseudo-historians paint them. It should be considered in the context of its time.

 

[Evie]

Justified?

I don't really see the "holy ground" claim as a valid justification personally.

Not to say the Arabs were all sweetness and light - they were more advanced in term of science and such, but they were far from perfect - but frankly, I disagree with the notion that it was a justified idea (except of course in the mind of crusaders - but then again, most of the time those who go to war of their own choice usually think they are justified - including the Palestinians and Al-Qaida people).

 

[Octavian X]

None of the cursader's attacks were justified. However, the eventually impact of these wars is innumerous. The Renissance and the 'Age of Discovery,' it could be argued, all occured because of these events.

 

[omichyron]

The Arabs were not exactly a "peaceful civilization," and the Crusaders were not exactly "Barbarians." That description comes closer to any of the other choices to describing the conflict, though. Regardless of the justification for war (which wasn't that reasonable, anyway) the way in which the operation was mobilized is clearly an example of the pope misusing his power. It is probable that significant trade between Europe and the Middle East would have happened at some point even without the crusades. It might have taken a little while for the demand to arise, but it likely would have anyway.

 

[Ozz]

Originally posted by Octavian X
None of the cursader's attacks were justified. However, the eventually impact of these wars is innumerous. The Renissance and the 'Age of Discovery,' it could be argued, all occured because of these events.

The Crusades were justified, they were only a part of a war
that began with the Muslims taking North Africa,Spain and
the Balkans. The war wouldn't really end until the conquest
of Spain and the end of fighting in NW Africa.

The Crusades were an military operation against the centre
of Islam, dressed as all wars at the time (Jihah) as a "holy"
war.

 

[insurgent]

Of course the crusades were justified, they were not a war in itself. The holy ground argument is, to me, only one of the means of justification. It was a part of a major clash of the civilisations, it was an attempt to stop the Arab tides, while the floodgates were creaking.

I would say it saved much of christianity. Islam was in an era of expansion, moving to all sides trying to convert the 'infidels', and Europe would have been next. The fact that we showed our resolve and intention to stand up was very important.

Though the crusades, for the most part, failed, I would say they are a long-term success. The Holy Land wasn't under Christian control for long, but the Muslims were finally stopped in their tracks, and finally defeated in the Balkans centuries later. Who knows what would have happened if we hadn't struck back?

Then again, much hostility against the West is attributed to the crusades, though I think they would find something else to scream about if it wasn't for the crusades...

 

[Rodgers]

Nah, your way out Insurgent. The Crusade wasn't about a clash of cultures or fending off Islam or any kind of Europe v Arabs war.

The majority of the Crusading knights were French and their sole purpose in life (for years before the Crusade started) was self-glorification and enrichment - the Crusades were a jolly good wheeze for them to get involved in as it would allow all of these desires to be satisfied. The pope knew when he announced the Crusade that he could use this desire to his own ends, especially as the whole enterprise could be dressed up as serving God.

A good indication of how selfish the Crusaders were generally (and therefore could not be classed as some sort of "saviour" of the West) was the 3rd (I think) Crusade which ended up taking Constantinople instead of doing any harm at all to the Islamic states in the area. In doing so they put the last nail in the coffin of the only major power in the area - Byzantine Empire - which could have successfully resisited Islamic incursions into Europe.

Following the collapse of the last Crusader states in the middle east at the end of the 13th century the Islamic forces (various states, tribes and princes initially but ultimately in the shape of the Ottoman Turks) began to expand again (having been only temporarily halted) over the next 300 years. This was done at the expense of the Byzantine Empire (which fell in 1453) and the Balkan states (including Hungary). Eventually the Med was rife with Barbary pirates (raiding Italian coastline, Rome and disrupting a lot of valuable European trade) and even Vienna was placed under seige as late as the 17th century.

If anything the Crusaders damaged Europes ability to defend itself against Islam by screwing up the Byzantines instead of supporting it. Incidentally, the Crusaders physical attacks and religious fanaticism also prevented any kind of alliance of common interest being forged between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches to help defend the Holy Land - something which may have lead to a more effective defence of that area in the long run.

 

[Ozz]

Constantinople was ripe for the plucking.

1. The Holy lands had been effectively looted.
and improvished compared to Constantinople
the greatest prize in the world.
2. The Byzantine Empire was rich and weak.
A deadly combination.
3. Many of the Crusander's leaders were of Viking
descent, and had not lost their predatory instincts.
4. Byzantines screwed up relations in the first two
crusades with the West. The crusaders hated them.

 

[Evie]

Of course, the Crusades were part of a war with the Arabs attacking on every side.

YEAH, RIGHT.

The Arabs had two major expansionist periods. The first, which involved the conquest of Spain, was in the 8th and 9th century - long over by the time of the first crusade. The second, after that, was in part triggered by the Crusade but really didn't take flight until the fall of Constantinople in the 15th century. Sure there were battles fought in-between (Mazinkert, for one) but there was no "massive threat bearing down upon Europe" - at least not from the Arabs and Turks.

At the time of the Crusade, while there may be some skirmishes and the like, there was no general immediately threatening (or threatening, period) arab offensive against Europe for the Crusades to stop.

The last one had been stopped in the 8th century or so at Poitiers by Charles Martel, and the next one would not be stopped on sea until Lepanto well in the 16th century and Vienna, in roughly the same era (16-17th, AFAIK).

 

[Ozz]

Originally posted by Oda Nobunaga
Of course, the Crusades were part of a war with the Arabs attacking on every side. YEAH, RIGHT.

Remember the times, 100 years war etc. Wars back then
would last hundreds of years because of the culture of the
people involved.

You can still see this in the ME, westerners are Franks (like from
900 years ago, Israel is the Jewish homeland (like from 1800 years ago). Cultures have rites to remind and rekindle the
hatred to repay old scores from thousands of years ago.

Don't make the mistake that everyone thinks like a modern westerner.

 

[Homie]

23% has voted "A barbarian assault on a peaceful civilisation" which is how the common modern westerner with no clue on what actually happened views the crusades.

 

[Ozz]

Originally posted by Homie
23% has voted "A barbarian assault on a peaceful civilisation" which is how the common modern westerner with no clue on what actually happened views the crusades.

How many wars/conquests by europeans don't fit that option
in today's politically correct times? 100 years ago it would have
been "bringing civilization to ?????". 50 years ago it would have
been "pioneering the ??????".

Your right that they're wrong, but it's a good guess for a
multiple choice test these days.

 

[insurgent]

Ignorance...

 

[Evie]

Problem is, if we don't judge it by our modern western standards (and even those vary), by whose standards should we judge it?

By the standards of the crusader? Then why do we judge Al Qaida by our standards? By theirs, they are every inch as justified in what they do as the Crusaders were...

My point is, while it may have been acceptable at the time, we MUST treat everyone in the same way - either judge them by OUR standards (modern ones) or theirs (which makes now sense ; they will ALWAYS be justified by their own standards), or not judge them at all.

We were asked to judge here, so #3 is not an option. #2 will get us nowhere (when it get to serious stuff, few people ever engage willingly in something they feel is unjustified), therefore we must judge by our modern standards.

And by those standards, out of all options presented, the "Barbarian assault" one is the one that's CLOSEST to how things seems. Does it absolutely mirror reality? No. The arabs were not the "utterly peaceful civilization" and the crusaders were not the "utter barbarians".

Are the other options a better representation, though?

" A shining example of Christian unity in twarting a common foe? "

Errr, yeah. Next.

"A barbarian assault on a peaceful civilisation?"

Covered above.

" A war in which both sides must be apportioned some of the blame? "

What blame is there to put on the Muslims? That they occupied Jerusalem? Be serious. This one implies both sides are roughly equally at fault, which not many here seems to believe is the case, and which history does not seem to support very well.

"Just another 11th century war? "

Which it was not, given the whole "culture shock" effect. Perhaps this answer is a more valid one, but...

Perhaps the whole matter of people picking "barbarian assault" is more of a matter of lack of choice rather than lack of knowledge.

 

[Ozz]

Originally posted by Oda Nobunaga

Perhaps the whole matter of people picking "barbarian assault" is more of a matter of lack of choice rather than lack of knowledge.

Also a matter of political correct thinking, regardless of the facts.
I was just pointing out on a multiple choice test, it would be
a good guess today, 20 years ago a bad one. Same question,
same historic facts and accounts.

Differient answers.

 

[RNolan]

Actually I would contest that the Muslims are (partially) to blame. Whatever about Jerusalem, though to be honest I do regard that has sufficent justification for a war, though not how it may be conducted, the Turks were pursuing a savage and brutal attack upon the Byzantines and had taken to persecuting pilgrims. There was a definite crisis in the region and it is difficult to imagine what other action could have been taken.

At any rate it is wrong to equate judging the Crusades by non-21st century standards as judging Al Qaida by their standards. A better analogy would be to judge the Crusade by the standards of the 11th century world in general in which case they do not in fact come off as being especially brutal or vicous. Now compare Sept.11 with the 21st century world in general and see the difference...

It is not as simple as "my standards or none at all".

Yours

Ross

 

[omichyron]

I voted for the "Barbaric Assault" option. This is because there is really no good choice between this and simply stating that both sides must share most of the blame, which is misleading, as the muslims share only a small portion of the blame. I voted the way I did because there was simply no good choice. You can read my previous post for more specific reasons, but there was really a lack of good voting options.

 

[insurgent]

They should be judged from the standard, not of the Western world, but from the time of it. If you judge it by our standards, no historic war would be justified. Think about it. The wars of the "not-so-modern" period were all barbaric, so that's not a good reason to condemn this campaign.