RFC Europe historical feedback thread

There were a lot (Sicilian) Normans involved into the first crusade, but iirc not into the siege of Jerusalem itself.

I don't know if killing the population of a defiant city was considered an atrocity in the MA, from what I've read it seems more like the modus operandi on everyone who doesn't open their gates on first sight and/or possesses sufficient wealth.

It's the alleged methodical killing that's singular of the event (although we won't be able to discern how much of this is part of pro-crusader or pro-Fatimid propaganda, could've been used either way), and of course the religious dimension that let itself been easily interpreted into the event, even by contemporaries, that poisoned the Muslim perception of Christianity.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tancred,_Prince_of_Galilee

'Tancred gave his banner to a group of the citizens who had fled to the roof of the Temple of Solomon. This should have assured their safety, but they were massacred, along with many others, during the sack of the city. The author of the Gesta Francorum (Deeds of the Franks) records that, when Tancred realised this, he was "greatly angered".' quote from above

He came through as an important figure in the following
my 'info' comes from varying sources, the main part about the norman involvement in the first crusade was in a bbc docu about the normans, I just did a quick jump-trough it, they never did say that the normans were responsible but only the crusaders, but due to the nature of the topic (southern normans) it sounded like it was largely their doing. Its mostly about architecture/culture and when/where/why/how they expanded though. But I also don't believe that they just stood by and watched..(uninvolved)
And I also agree that imo things like that were quite common at the time (exterminating rebelling cities and such) but for some reason (probably hypocrisy) that specific action weighed heavy in 'reports' from the time, or it was simply good for 'propaganda' in whatever way you like to twist facts :)

I'd think it's safe to say that the Normans were involved (even if their role in Antiochia had a larger impact).
although in case of the Normans it would be much better to use the specific name of the Knight/leader and simply state him to be a Norman rather than talking of Normans as a whole (which they weren't so much)
And to my use of the word 'nations' I still can't think of a more suiting word to call these 'states' or whatever
i know that the idea of 'Nationalism' is somewhat new, but it does kinda fit anyway..

I've always concidered the BBC to be one of the more serious sources(certainly not completely unbiased, but try to minimize that imo)

about the number itself(the 60k)*edit: the docu stated 'several thousand killed', I simply grabbed the first site with a number that I googled(halfway serious looking site) but I'd tend to agree with Leoreth in a way since I'd be curious about how many people really lived there at the time. (hence not really caring about the accuracy since you won't get the real number in any case, and it's not like all of this is supposed to be a scientific study or whatever, that's something where you should choose your wording very very carefully)
 
So true... unfortunately this same thing tends to be true all over the USA as a whole as well.
I guess the fact that Judeo-Christian principles have formed Western Culture, that values life more than any other part of the world, is meaningless... it's clearly a bad thing that deserves to be attacked.
Sorry but I can't let that go uncommented for a couple of reasons.

a) You really dare to say this in these times where Muslims are put under general suspicion of being reactionary fanatics and evil terrorists, not only in the US, but in the whole Western world?
b) On Judeo-Christian influence on Western Culture - I guess Humanism and Enlightenment would like to have a word with you.
c) and probably most important: it doesn't matter what great things Christianity did achieve for us (and believe me, I agree with you there are many), that doesn't make the fact that Christian crusaders massacred Jerusalem's population any less true. Things need to be called what they were, simple as that.
d) It was you (and FakeShady) who jumped at the simple statement that crusaders massacred the population of Jerusalem and interpreted it as an direct attack on Christianity as a whole. Is it really so difficult to say the massacre was WRONG and still be a Christian, devout or otherwise?
 
But the crusades are often enough used to attack christianity as a whole. There are and there has always been people that used christianity to do evil things (or teach really, really stupid things like Creationism:))
Freedom and democracy have been used many times to justify wars, unnessecary wars that has costs thousands of lives, and keeping dictators in charge (Persia, Cuba, Nicaragua, Egypt:p and many more). But that doesn't make freedom and democracy bad things.
 
The Crusades were launched with noble intentions, but like with any war somethings go horribly wrong
 
Come on guys. When crusaders capture they kill everybody and when arabs capture they kill everybody. The Jews die whoever controlls it.
 
Fixed for you ;)
Um no..
As early as the eighth century Anglo-Saxons underwent the greatest hardships to visit Jerusalem. The journey of St. Willibald, Bishop of Eichstädt, took seven years (722-29) and furnishes an idea of the varied and severe trials to which pilgrims were subject (Itiner. Latina, 1, 241-283). After their conquest of the West, the Carolingians endeavoured to improve the condition of the Latins settled in the East; in 762 Pepin the Short entered into negotiations with the Caliph of Bagdad. In Rome, on 30 November, 800, the very day on which Leo III invoked the arbitration of Charlemagne, ambassadors from Haroun al-Raschid delivered to the King of the Franks the keys of the Holy Sepulchre, the banner of Jersualem, and some precious relics (Einhard, "Annales", ad an. 800, in "Mon. Germ. Hist.: Script.", I, 187); this was an acknowledgment of the Frankish protectorate over the Christians of Jerusalem. That churches and monasteries were built at Charlemagne's expense is attested by a sort of a census of the monasteries of Jerusalem dated 808 ("Commemoratio de Casis Dei" in "Itiner. Hieros.", I, 209). In 870, at the time of the pilgrimage of Bernard the Monk (Itiner. Hierosol., I, 314), these institutions were still very prosperous, and it has been abundantly proved that alms were sent regularly from the West to the Holy Land. In the tenth century, just when the political and social order of Europe was most troubled, knights, bishops, and abbots, actuated by devotion and a taste for adventure, were wont to visit Jerusalem and pray at the Holy Sepulchre without being molested by the Mohammedans. Suddenly, in 1009, Hakem, the Fatimite Caliph of Egypt, in a fit of madness ordered the destruction of the Holy Sepulchre and all the Christian establishments in Jerusalem. For years thereafter Christians were cruelly persecuted. (See the recital of an eyewitness, Iahja of Antioch, in Schlumberger's "Epopée byzantine", II, 442.) In 1027 the Frankish protectorate was overthrown and replaced by that of the Byzantine emperors, to whose diplomacy was due the reconstruction of the Holy Sepulchre. The Christian quarter was even surrounded by a wall, and some Amalfi merchants, vassals of the Greek emperors, built hospices in Jerusalem for pilgrims, e.g. the Hospital of St. John, cradle of the Order of Hospitallers.

Instead of diminishing, the enthusiasm of Western Christians for the pilgrimage to Jerusalem seemed rather to increase during the eleventh century. Not only princes, bishops, and knights, but even men and women of the humbler classes undertook the holy journey (Radulphus Glaber, IV, vi). Whole armies of pilgrims traversed Europe, and in the valley of the Danube hospices were established where they could replenish their provisions. In 1026 Richard, Abbot of Saint-Vannes, led 700 pilgrims into Palestine at the expense of Richard II, Duke of Normandy. In 1065 over 12,000 Germans who had crossed Europe under the command of Günther, Bishop of Bamberg, while on their way through Palestine had to seek shelter in a ruined fortress, where they defended themselves against a troop of Bedouins (Lambert of Hersfeld, in "Mon. Germ. Hist.: Script.", V, 168). Thus it is evident that at the close of the eleventh century the route to Palestine was familiar enough to Western Christians who looked upon the Holy Sepulchre as the most venerable of relics and were ready to brave any peril in order to visit it. The memory of Charlemagne's protectorate still lived, and a trace of it is to be found in the medieval legend of this emperor's journey to Palestine (Gaston Paris in "Romania", 1880, p. 23).

The rise of the Seljukian Turks, however, compromised the safety of pilgrims and even threatened the independence of the Byzantine Empire and of all Christendom. In 1070 Jerusalem was taken, and in 1071 Diogenes, the Greek emperor, was defeated and made captive at Mantzikert. Asia Minor and all of Syria became the prey of the Turks. Antioch succumbed in 1084, and by 1092 not one of the great metropolitan sees of Asia remained in the possession of the Christians. Although separated from the communion of Rome since the schism of Michael Cærularius (1054), the emperors of Constantinople implored the assistance of the popes; in 1073 letters were exchanged on the subject between Michael VII and Gregory VII. The pope seriously contemplated leading a force of 50,000 men to the East in order to re-establish Christian unity, repulse the Turks, and rescue the Holy Sepulchre. But the idea of the crusade constituted only a part of this magnificent plan. (The letters of Gregory VII are in P.L., CXLVIII, 300, 325, 329, 386; cf. Riant's critical discussion in Archives de l'Orient Latin, I, 56.) The conflict over the Investitures in 1076 compelled the pope to abandon his projects; the Emperors Nicephorus Botaniates and Alexius Comnenus were unfavourable to a religious union with Rome; finally war broke out between the Byzantine Empire and the Normans of the Two Sicilies.
 
This "source" is ridiculous (nice to tell me where it's from, by the way). A few precious gems:
Suddenly, in 1009, Hakem, the Fatimite Caliph of Egypt, in a fit of madness ordered the destruction of the Holy Sepulchre and all the Christian establishments in Jerusalem.
The rise of the Seljukian Turks, however, compromised the safety of pilgrims and even threatened the independence of the Byzantine Empire and of all Christendom.

The Catholic world didn't give a damn about what happened to the Byzantines, or else they would've provided support to their calls for aid when the Seljuks started to move westwards after 1060. And "christendom" was definitely never in real danger, a completely alien concept to most of the worldly rulers anyway.

And what I was talking about were the motivations of the nobles to join the crusade. There the oppression of Christianity in Jerusalem was often merely a pretext for either improving their lot overseas (wondering why so many landless knights joined the crusade?) or gaining absolution for their sins, deliberately or accidently misunderstanding what Urban said about the issue.
 
The only people in Europe that could afford a pilgrimage to Jerusalem were rich nobleman, merchants or clergy (at the expense of taxes taken from the peasants). IMO Europe could have gotten with less pilgrimage and more investments in the home economy.

The concept of Crusade most likely originates in Iberia, where the Catholic priests were offering indulgences for killing Muslims. Indulgence for money is a completely immoral concept, indulgence for murder is by modern standards "crime against humanity".

Crusaders did not care about Byzantium either. Even before the fourth Crusade, they were doing a lot of damage to the Empire. At he end Crusaders went after Jerusalem and Egypt and not Anatolia where the Seljuk were. Then you have the fourth Crusade, the original idea was not to travel through Byzantine land (and cause trouble), but go directly for Jerusalem with ships. Of course, only the Venetians had a sufficient navy at the time and Venetians cared only about removing their trade competitors ....

Basically, in the Crusades, you have a bunch of self-righteous idiots that have abandoned even basic human morality, fighting a bunch of other self-righteous idiots that have abandoned even basic human morality. Then whole thing was orchestrated by a bunch of Popes/Emperors/Doges/(insert additional titles here), who only cared about money and power. As it always happens, the ones that suffered the most were the thousands Muslims, Christians and Jews peasants/commoners that were caught in the "crossfire".
 
Well, I wouldn't go so far to say that. For instance, the concept of crusade indulgences was either misunderstood or deliberately miscommunicated; they generally referred to absolution for sins committed while fighting Muslims (the obvious sin of killing is difficult to avoid under these circumstances), while many participants of the crusades interpreted them as absolution from all sins, even those committed before. How much the church deliberately catered to that notion I cannot discern.

"Home investion over pilgrimage" is also a modern juxtaposition over medieval mentality. Several nobles were genuinely in to the crusades for religious reasons, Godefroy of Bouillon seems very credible in that from what I know of him for example. I'm just saying that a complex historical event like the First Crusade has a conglomerate of different reasons in different social classes, and the often cited "defense of religious freedom from insane Muslim fanatics" was only a minor motivation among others for most participants.

By the way, that whole concept is not only quite hypocritical to begin with, but also not very credible if you look at Frederick II's regain of Jerusalem from the Ayyubids in 1226, who was scorned at by his comtemporaries for negotiating with Muslims, although he achieved the same thing the First Crusade claimed to desire.
 
This "source" is ridiculous (nice to tell me where it's from, by the way). A few precious gems:



The Catholic world didn't give a damn about what happened to the Byzantines, or else they would've provided support to their calls for aid when the Seljuks started to move westwards after 1060. And "christendom" was definitely never in real danger, a completely alien concept to most of the worldly rulers anyway.

And what I was talking about were the motivations of the nobles to join the crusade. There the oppression of Christianity in Jerusalem was often merely a pretext for either improving their lot overseas (wondering why so many landless knights joined the crusade?) or gaining absolution for their sins, deliberately or accidently misunderstanding what Urban said about the issue.
But I like using Century old (literally) sources that are clearly biased :lol:

In 1060 the events of 1054 were still in mind
IIRC many knights sold property to be able to get to Outremer
The only people in Europe that could afford a pilgrimage to Jerusalem were rich nobleman, merchants or clergy (at the expense of taxes taken from the peasants). IMO Europe could have gotten with less pilgrimage and more investments in the home economy.

The concept of Crusade most likely originates in Iberia, where the Catholic priests were offering indulgences for killing Muslims. Indulgence for money is a completely immoral concept, indulgence for murder is by modern standards "crime against humanity".

Crusaders did not care about Byzantium either. Even before the fourth Crusade, they were doing a lot of damage to the Empire. At he end Crusaders went after Jerusalem and Egypt and not Anatolia where the Seljuk were. Then you have the fourth Crusade, the original idea was not to travel through Byzantine land (and cause trouble), but go directly for Jerusalem with ships. Of course, only the Venetians had a sufficient navy at the time and Venetians cared only about removing their trade competitors ....

Basically, in the Crusades, you have a bunch of self-righteous idiots that have abandoned even basic human morality, fighting a bunch of other self-righteous idiots that have abandoned even basic human morality. Then whole thing was orchestrated by a bunch of Popes/Emperors/Doges/(insert additional titles here), who only cared about money and power. As it always happens, the ones that suffered the most were the thousands Muslims, Christians and Jews peasants/commoners that were caught in the "crossfire".

You both should read New Concise History of the Crusades by Thomas Madden, it is quite good
 
But I like using Century old (literally) sources that are clearly biased :lol:
At least I cite primary sources, a direct witness as well. And are really trying to make the argument that a crusader historian was biased against the crusaders?

In 1060 the events of 1054 were still in mind
What are you trying to tell us here?

IIRC many knights sold property to be able to get to Outremer
These cases existed of course, especially in the higher nobility. I remember the duke of Normandy lending his entire duchy to his brother before a crusade, don't know if it was for the first though.

All that still doesn't deny the fact that political agenda played a role in the whole undertaking, and throwing around the names of historians doesn't change that.
 
Politics and scheming has always been a focal point when it comes to "documenting" history. The Gesta Francorum smells suspiciously like it was commissioned by Tancred to not only exaggerate his deeds but act as the soap for when the hand washing begins as it inevitable does after any war.

The whole "history is written by the victors" is just a subtle way of saying that all history is by and large revisionist from the get go. The challenge when studying history is to find as many sources as humanly possible and scrutinize the differences.
 
At least I cite primary sources, a direct witness as well. And are really trying to make the argument that a crusader historian was biased against the crusaders?


What are you trying to tell us here?


These cases existed of course, especially in the higher nobility. I remember the duke of Normandy lending his entire duchy to his brother before a crusade, don't know if it was for the first though.

All that still doesn't deny the fact that political agenda played a role in the whole undertaking, and throwing around the names of historians doesn't change that.
Seriously, read the New Concise History of the Crusades by Thomas Madden. The man uses sources from both the Arabs and Crusaders.

Well, the Schism was still in recent memory so they weren't exactly on friendly terms.

Actually Madden goes into great deal on the "political agendas" so reading him would be a good idea
 
It was you (and FakeShady) who jumped at the simple statement that crusaders massacred the population of Jerusalem and interpreted it as an direct attack on Christianity as a whole. Is it really so difficult to say the massacre was WRONG and still be a Christian, devout or otherwise?

Oh hello, im new to this thread :crazyeye:

I cant let that go without commenting too im afraid. Massacre is WRONG, and im still a christian thank you very much

Im okay with you attacking the crusaders all you want, i really dont care. All i said was:

"Replace the word "Christian" with any other word and you'll get a moderator warning"

And i have a point. Allow me to show it.

This was what Daffy said:

"The christians entered Jerusalem and murdered 60.000 people(very christian-like)"

No one cared.

okay now replace the word "Christian" with... i dunno. Buddhist.

"The Buddhists entered Jerusalem and murdered 60.000 people(very buddhist-like)

right away... DISCRIMINATION!!!!! REPORT THAT POST!!! *you have received a moderator warning*

next scenario:

"The Muslims entered Jerusalem and murdered 60.000 people (very muslim-like)

ISLAMOPHOBIC!!! Report post as unappropriate, you have received a moderator warning, a lecture on why you should respect others, and maybe even some legal action :lol:

Moderator Action: It's not your job to tell anyone what's acceptable here or not. Additionally this post is completely wrong.

Note: Do not respond to this moderator action in public. If you have a problem with it, then send me or one of the assigned super moderators a PM. The_J
 
IIRC the greatest massacre of the Crusades was actually done by Muslims
 
It would've been much easier to simply point out where the problem was, that way this whole thing could've been avoided.
I never intended to attack anyone.
The way I picked up the response was that the whole thing supposedly never happened.
Not that people had a problem with my wording until fakeshady mentioned something which I didn't understand why I was supposed to have discriminated someone(or a religious group)
and imo discrimination doesn't fit anyway.
i.e.
If I would prevent a christian from posting in this forum simply because that person is a christian. (discrimination)
If I would not hire a certain person for a job because he/she is christian (discrimination)
If I would not allow a christian to shop in my store.(discrimination)
Not allow christian children to go to the same shools as everyone else. (discrimination)

the only 'discrimination' I may have done is to point out that the decribed actions did not correspond with how a christian should behave. (but I shouldn't use irony in text.. it's hard to notce when it's being used unless it is pointed out directly)

one meaning of discrimination is to see differences between things
but that can't be focused against another person, it's objective the way I understand it(although somone might be offended in any case)

the 'meaning' in the statement of 'very christianlike' was 'ironic'(now I have it..)
it was supposed to simply point out that something like the decribed action is in complete paradox with anything I was taught about the religion.
At least I can't recall any exceptions to the 'do not kill' commandment
or to say it correctly..
imo the decribed action in jerusalem goes against pretty much everything the religion stands for(or is supposed to or whatever..)


any better now?

If I'm still mistaken please point out exactly where/why our communication seems to conflict.
If I discrimnated someone how exactly?
This is currently the best I can do with thinking around the corner about how other people might understand what i write.

edit:
i think I now get it..
The statment could have been picked up as a 'prejudicial statement' that the decribed action was something typical for christians.
if that's the case I'm once again sorry for my bad choice of words.
 
It would've been much easier to simply point out where the problem was, that way this whole thing could've been avoided.
I never intended to attack anyone.
The way I picked up the response was that the whole thing supposedly never happened.
Not that people had a problem with my wording until fakeshady mentioned something which I didn't understand why I was supposed to have discriminated someone(or a religious group)
and imo discrimination doesn't fit anyway.
i.e.
If I would prevent a christian from posting in this forum simply because that person is a christian. (discrimination)
If I would not hire a certain person for a job because he/she is christian (discrimination)
If I would not allow a christian to shop in my store.(discrimination)
Not allow christian children to go to the same shools as everyone else. (discrimination)

the only 'discrimination' I may have done is to point out that the decribed actions did not correspond with how a christian should behave. (but I shouldn't use irony in text.. it's hard to notce when it's being used unless it is pointed out directly)

one meaning of discrimination is to see differences between things
but that can't be focused against another person, it's objective the way I understand it(although somone might be offended in any case)

the 'meaning' in the statement of 'very christianlike' was 'ironic'(now I have it..)
it was supposed to simply point out that something like the decribed action is in complete paradox with anything I was taught about the religion.
At least I can't recall any exceptions to the 'do not kill' commandment
or to say it correctly..
imo the decribed action in jerusalem goes against pretty much everything the religion stands for(or is supposed to or whatever..)


any better now?

If I'm still mistaken please point out exactly where/why our communication seems to conflict.
If I discrimnated someone how exactly?
This is currently the best I can do with thinking around the corner about how other people might understand what i write.

edit:
i think I now get it..
The statment could have been picked up as a 'prejudicial statement' that the decribed action was something typical for christians.
if that's the case I'm once again sorry for my bad choice of words.

Dude, dont beat yourself up :D the discrimination isnt from you!

Like i said, its more of a problem with the general 21st century society. Most people talk bad about christians as a habit, but find it taboo to talk bad about other religions. Heck, i even got a post deleted for defending my position!

anyways, chill, you're a nice guy :)
 
Back
Top Bottom