The Crusades (split off)

[Yui108]

What I'm saying is that the reason a much, much larger focus of manpower and effort of the crusader armies was brought on the middle east not because of "muslim attacks on christian pilgrims" as civking put it, or any kind of moral stance regarding the defense of christian sovereignty (which if that were the case, a much larger commitment of foreign involvement in the reconquista would have occured, I think) but because the crusading armies had more to gain from subjugating a relatively prosperous region like the Middle East, rather than Iberia, despite the moral justification of reconquest.

OBVIOUSLY, it has nothing to do with relative " holiness" of Jerusalem herself as compared to southern Iberia. Not to mention large Crusades to the Levant had more or less petered out by the 13th century. And better yet there was a greater deal of internationally concerted effort directed towards the Baltics, far poorer than Iberia.

 

[Skwink]

This is not a thread about the crusades.

I think it's sad that it is necessary for these untrained civilians put their lives (theoretically) in danger to distance themselves from something they have NOTHING at all to do with simply to try to stem the rising tide of hate they face for their beliefs.

That said, kudos to them for trying to make a difference, if only symbolic.

Thank you. We dropped the crusades posts ago.

 

[Dachs]

What I'm saying is that the reason a much, much larger focus of manpower and effort of the crusader armies was brought on the middle east not because of "muslim attacks on christian pilgrims" as civking put it, or any kind of moral stance regarding the defense of christian sovereignty (which if that were the case, a much larger commitment of foreign involvement in the reconquista would have occured, I think) but because the crusading armies had more to gain from subjugating a relatively prosperous region like the Middle East, rather than Iberia, despite the moral justification of reconquest.

That would make sense if Outremer were in fact enriching its conquerors. That is not the case; see the famous works by Tyerman in the last two decades which have fairly conclusively demonstrated that the people who went on Crusade impoverished themselves to do it and to stay in Outremer as often as they struck it rich, if not more so. Plunder motive is sadly insufficient for describing why the Crusaders went to the East. It might explain certain individual motivations such as those of, say, Bohemund (lots of argument about that among his biographers), but certainly not for the vast majority of pilgrims.

Plus, if plunder were the chief motivating factor, one would imagine that the wealth of post-Taifa al-Andalus would have been just as much of a lure as was that of backwater Palestine and Syria.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

i Would makeanoither thread about the Cruisaids.

 

[Ajidica]

No real need. Anyone who seriously asserts the Crusades were some grand 'clash of civilization' nonsense doesn't need another thread to express their views.

 

[Elta]

Threads like this are the living embodiment of threads here on OT.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

Forget that was post about crusade, but the post I was responding to was really badly done in the first place.

As regards the topic, good on them. Pity more people don't act in such a selfless manner, and also pity that when they do (especially if they're Muslem) we don't hear about it often enough.

 

[Dachs]

It could also have been about people going off to kill other people who don't read the thread.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

It could also have been about people going off to kill other people who don't read the thread.

Nah you'd never kill me, then you wouldn't have me around wading in like a bull in a China shop to brighten up your day!

 

[Dachs]

Doesn't matter anymore, the thread's a headless chicken now that it's been split.

 

[Mad Man]

Why dont Christians ever condemn the Crusades and the willing spread of STDs

I'm a christian who thinks the crusades were evil, does that count?

 

[Racsoviale]

sigh..

I am well aware of the crusades and explained myself previously. And as Dachs pointed out to me I walked into a trap, a rather obvious one in hindsight

 

[aronnax]

As the wise and beautiful Eddie Izzard once said:

"Christian - We kill you in the name of Jesus!
Muslim - No, we kill YOU in the name of Jesus for he was a prophet in our religion!
Christian - Oh really? You sure?... well then... We kill you for your dark skin for Jesus was a white man from Oxford!
Muslim - No he wasn't! He was dark-skinned such as us for he was born in Bethlehem!
Christian - <Silence> ...look we come all this way... Can't you just let us kill you?"

 

[Dachs]

Getting your history from Eddie Izzard is about as good an idea as getting it from Rowan Atkinson or Stephen Fry; funny, good for a little diversion, but

Link to video.

 

[LightSpectra]

The most glaring error in that (not that there's only one, but let's try to do this orderly) was that there was little to no racism in the middle ages.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Getting your history from Eddie Izzard is about as good an idea as getting it from Rowan Atkinson or Stephen Fry; funny, good for a little diversion, but

You mean we still have not discovered pure green?

 

[Squonk]

What I'm saying is that the reason a much, much larger focus of manpower and effort of the crusader armies was brought on the middle east not because of "muslim attacks on christian pilgrims" as civking put it, or any kind of moral stance regarding the defense of christian sovereignty (which if that were the case, a much larger commitment of foreign involvement in the reconquista would have occured, I think) but because the crusading armies had more to gain from subjugating a relatively prosperous region like the Middle East, rather than Iberia, despite the moral justification of reconquest.

I think this is erroneous in the way it disregards the difference of people's attitudes in different epochs. People weren't THAT materialistic as they are today, and religion was much more important. Palestine was never a very rich land. Perhaps Syria, but crusaders actually passed much more prosperous lands in Anatolia and Syria to get to Palestine.

Also, "clash of civs" isn't pure nonsense when it comes to XI-XII century.

 

[Yui108]

Also, "clash of civs" isn't pure nonsense when it comes to XI-XII century.

Yes it still is.

 

[Squonk]

why do you think so?

 

[civ_king]

The most glaring error in that (not that there's only one, but let's try to do this orderly) was that there was little to no racism in the middle ages.

Mostly because the concept of race didn't really exist (ethnicity yes, race no)? Or am I misunderstanding it?

Wasn't race invented in the "Enlightenment"?