U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-20-2010, 10:55 AM
 
1,308 posts, read 2,477,164 times
Reputation: 618

Advertisements

Quote:
But at the time of 1st Crusade the Christian and Moslem worlds were in a state of hostility and war.
Except of course they weren't generally and in particular where the Crusaders attacked If you go back and look at the timeline printed on a previous page its obvious that by 1092 Muslim attacks were rare. They had largely ended by 900 two centuries before. Where conflict was occuring, notably in Spain and Portugal, Christians were attacking Muslims not the other way around. The only major exception was in Turkey and the Crusaders (with one major disasterous exception) almost entirely ignored this conflict.

The areas they attacked were not attacking Western Europe. Its historically inaccurate, then and now, to speak of a united Muslim world. Muslims are divided into many sects and were (after the end of the last Caliph) splintered into many feuding states that were as likely to attack each other as neighboring christians. Indeed the reason for the success of the First Crusade was the lack of unity among even local Muslim emirs. Saladin was successful specifically because he briefly generated unity between them in Israel.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-20-2010, 12:26 PM
 
Location: San Antonio
10,207 posts, read 18,203,691 times
Reputation: 10026
Quote:
Originally Posted by noetsi View Post
The areas they attacked were not attacking Western Europe. Its historically inaccurate, then and now, to speak of a united Muslim world.

Regardless of whether or not the Moslems were unified they were considered a hostile culture and force by the Christians (and they were), that's what mattered. And the Turks had recently been hammering the Greeks in Asia Minor. And if the Moslems were in a state of disunity and confusion it was all the better time to take the initiative (attack).

It's easy enough to sit in our easy chairs today and look back and think there was no hostility, no doubt the viewpoint from 11th Century Europe was different.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2010, 12:29 PM
 
Location: Aloverton
6,564 posts, read 11,926,008 times
Reputation: 9959
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishtom29 View Post
"Moslem" and "Muslim" are adjectives as well as nouns.
Of course they are, but they can only fit people, not regions or nations. A Muslim means 'one who submits (to the will of Allah, is implied by context)'. Only a person can choose to submit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2010, 12:37 PM
 
Location: San Antonio
10,207 posts, read 18,203,691 times
Reputation: 10026
Muslim | Define Muslim at Dictionary.com

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/defi...LD&topic=islam
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2010, 01:18 PM
 
Location: Peterborough, England
472 posts, read 758,352 times
Reputation: 410
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishtom29 View Post
England and Spain have not been at war for over 200 years and the Armada was over 400 years ago. But at the time of 1st Crusade the Christian and Moslem worlds were in a state of hostility and war.
The whole of Europe was in a state of hostility and war, Christian v Christian, Moslem v Mislem and, yes, sometimes Christian v Moslem. War was the normal state of things in the Eleventh Century.

That is why the First Crusade was (from western Europe's pov) such a good idea. It exported thousands of potential disturbers of the peace across to the far end of the world, whence, with any luck at all, many of them would never come back, and where they could break heads to their hearts' content without hurting anyone except worthless infidels and heretical Christians.

The whole thing recalls the scene in Peter Pan, where Captain Hook's men send the children up against the crocodile. As one sailor said observed "If they kill it we're so much the better. If it kills them we're none the worse".

Quote:
There was constant warfare between Christians and Moslems in Spain, indeed the period just before the 1st Crusade was when the Cid was active.
Sure there was. Christian and Moslem states were next door to one another, so of course they sometimes fought - just as Christian states fought Christian neighbours, and Moslem ones fought Moslem neighbours.

I'm glad you mentioned El Cid. If you watch the movie (fictionalised of course, but truer to life than many such) you will see that he often allied with Moors against "black hats" on the Christian side, and they were willing to co-operate with him against their own Moslem enemies.

Quote:
The Byzantines were under pressure from the Turks and had suffered the disastrous defeat at Manzikert less than 30 years before the 1st Crusade.
They were also under pressure from Christian neighbours, notably the Normans of southern Italy. In the decade after Manzikert, Duke Robert Guiscard saw this supposed disaster for "Christendom" as a great opportunity to do some conquering of his own, and proceeded to march on Constantinople. He failed, but only because he was at that time allied to the Pope, who sought his help against the German Emperor Henry IV. His Holiness had no objection at all to the attack on Byzantium. A cenury later, the Fourth Crusade would succeed where Guiscard failed.

The Crusaders (and no doubt their equivalents on the Moslem side) were land-hungry barons out to conquer territory for themselves. Dressing it up as a fight about religion enabled them to claim haloes as well as fiefs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2010, 01:41 PM
 
Location: The Woods
16,464 posts, read 21,546,376 times
Reputation: 8440
Quote:
Originally Posted by noetsi View Post
Except of course they weren't generally and in particular where the Crusaders attacked If you go back and look at the timeline printed on a previous page its obvious that by 1092 Muslim attacks were rare. They had largely ended by 900 two centuries before. Where conflict was occuring, notably in Spain and Portugal, Christians were attacking Muslims not the other way around. The only major exception was in Turkey and the Crusaders (with one major disasterous exception) almost entirely ignored this conflict.

The areas they attacked were not attacking Western Europe. Its historically inaccurate, then and now, to speak of a united Muslim world. Muslims are divided into many sects and were (after the end of the last Caliph) splintered into many feuding states that were as likely to attack each other as neighboring christians. Indeed the reason for the success of the First Crusade was the lack of unity among even local Muslim emirs. Saladin was successful specifically because he briefly generated unity between them in Israel.
The muslims were not driven out of what is today Spain and Portugal, which they occupied, until the 15th century. There is no case for claiming there was no reason for the crusades. So by your argument the muslims should have been allowed to continue occupying lands they attacked and stole?

The crusades were quite complex. There were issues with pilgrims to the Holy Land being turned back or worse at times which started wars. The fact the muslims had attacked and stole the land to begin with...I wouldn't mind a modern crusade to kick this cancer on humanity (islam) out of every land they stole. Let them keep Arabia and nothing else. The fact is the original Crusades, were against an enemy that had stolen land and forced conversions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2010, 03:38 PM
 
Location: Peterborough, England
472 posts, read 758,352 times
Reputation: 410
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader View Post
The muslims were not driven out of what is today Spain and Portugal, which they occupied, until the 15th century. There is no case for claiming there was no reason for the crusades. So by your argument the muslims should have been allowed to continue occupying lands they attacked and stole?

Why not?

They had stolen it four centuries ago from the Visigoths, who a couple of centuriies earlier still had stolen it from the Romans, who about six centuries earlier had stolen it from the Carthaginians who about three centuries earlier had stolen it from I forget exactly who. There would seem no particular reason to worry about that latest "theft" any more than the rest.

In any case, even if the overthrow of Moslem Spain were considered desirable (Not at all clear. Christian kings like Philip II would cause Europe bigger headaches than the Caliph of Cordoba ever had) how exactly did the Crusades do anything to promote it? All they did was send off into the back of beyond a lot of military manpower which might otherwise have gone to Spain - something, incidentally, which would surely not have been done had Western Europe itself been in any danger from Islam, in which case those forces would have been needed at home.

Still, as the Holy Land was a lot further away than Spain, it was probably a good objective to choose as it took those armoured hooligans that much further from Europe.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2010, 04:25 PM
 
1,308 posts, read 2,477,164 times
Reputation: 618
Quote:
That is why the First Crusade was (from western Europe's pov) such a good idea. It exported thousands of potential disturbers of the peace across to the far end of the world, whence, with any luck at all, many of them would never come back, and where they could break heads to their hearts' content without hurting anyone except worthless infidels and heretical Christians.
Absolutely. I have never seen, incidently, any evidence that any of the crusaders felt that if they did not attack the Holy Land, they were going to be attacked by Muslims. It would have about as logical as fearing a Viking raid, which had actually occured far latter than Muslims had attacked W Europe. The pope did not argue that if Christians did not attack Muslims, they would be attacked by Muslims. He preaced an offensive war to regain territory lost in the past.

In Spain the christians were attacking the Muslims not the other way around.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2010, 06:30 PM
 
Location: The Woods
16,464 posts, read 21,546,376 times
Reputation: 8440
Quote:
In Spain the christians were attacking the Muslims not the other way around.
They couldn't have come to occupy the place without attacking Christians...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2010, 01:49 AM
 
Location: Peterborough, England
472 posts, read 758,352 times
Reputation: 410
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader View Post
They couldn't have come to occupy the place without attacking Christians...
They came about four centuries before the First Crusade, and by 1095 had ruled Spain for about the same length of time that it's white settler population has ruled what is now the United States.

Do I take it that, should the rest of the world form an alliance to expel the white settlers (by military force if necessary) and give America back to the Indians, you would support such an enterprise and consider it morally justified?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top