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 02-21-2010, 08:43 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
38,573 posts, read 17,926,505 times
Reputation: 17586

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent View Post
The Crusades were, for many of the people fighting them, first and foremost about finding a reason to do a land/money grab. War against the infidels was just a convent excuse. This was why one of the first major cities to fall in the Crusades was Christian Edessa. Behind almost every crusade you can find a king, prince, or noble looking to get themselves a piece of the pie. Whether it was the Crusaders in the Middle East looking to carve themselves a fief out of Asia minor and the Levant, the king of France looking to fill his coffers at the expense of the Cathars, or the King/Emperor of Sweden and the Holy Roman Empire respectively looking for a way to legitimize their land grabs in Finland and Prussia.
This was the genius of Pope Urban II. He offered these men a chance to do exactly that which they dedicated themselves to doing at home, but instead of being condemned for doing it against other Chrsitians, they were promised being elevated to a state of grace for doing it to Islamics and Jews. (And yes, they slaughtered other Christians as well, but that was not part of Urban's mandate, that was improvised.) Urban stemmed no bloodshed, but he did shift the geography and change the victims to outsiders.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-22-2010, 11:36 AM
 
248 posts, read 521,708 times
Reputation: 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent View Post
The Crusades were, for many of the people fighting them, first and foremost about finding a reason to do a land/money grab. War against the infidels was just a convent excuse. This was why one of the first major cities to fall in the Crusades was Christian Edessa. Behind almost every crusade you can find a king, prince, or noble looking to get themselves a piece of the pie. Whether it was the Crusaders in the Middle East looking to carve themselves a fief out of Asia minor and the Levant, the king of France looking to fill his coffers at the expense of the Cathars, or the King/Emperor of Sweden and the Holy Roman Empire respectively looking for a way to legitimize their land grabs in Finland and Prussia.
----

Yes, it was just plunder. Like the Crusade against Cathars a century after the First Crusade.

They could have invaded Muslim Spain, but they had the memories of Carolingian defeat at Roncesvalles 300 years before, or their problems with the ancient Marca Hispanica, by now a powerful kingdom contesting southern France. In fact, the crusade against the Cathars was also against the influence of those Spanish kingdoms.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2010, 10:50 PM
 
Location: SWUS
5,414 posts, read 7,745,827 times
Reputation: 5782
In my opinion, the Crusades probably weren't justified. Sure, the area that was invaded was far from saintly at the time (slave trade, constant slaughter, etc) but Europe wasn't exactly a great place to live either, at least not for the common man.

I personally believe that the Crusades and other wars with the Muslim empires have a lot of relevancy today, due to the fact that both sides still feel a great deal of animosity for each other. Many cultures in the Old World tend to have very, very long memories, and surely this plays a part in modern politics between Europe, the US, and the Arab countries of North Africa and the Middle East.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2010, 10:51 PM
 
Location: southern california
55,271 posts, read 73,386,099 times
Reputation: 47554
no more than the one we are doing today.
we dont change much, just the clothes and weapons.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2010, 12:17 AM
 
Location: Aloverton
6,564 posts, read 12,072,790 times
Reputation: 9973
The Christian Crusades were at least as justified as the Islamic Conquests (which is to say, not at all), and did a heck of a lot less damage to life and property. Modern Islam has a persecution complex the size of the Sahara, still bleating about the Crusades (which by my reckoning ended only about 700 years ago, and which is evidently not enough time to just Get Over It). Christians and Muslims really ought to understand one another and get along superbly today, considering that the more conservative branches of both seem to want special favors/recognition for themselves and if anyone else doesn't like it, well, since those people are of the wrong religion anyway (or worse yet, no religion or a non-Book religion), they don't matter. Both generally assert the basic justification, stripped of the rhetoric: "Well, because we happen to be right about the cosmos, of course we deserve special treatment." And any time either faith grouping doesn't get that special treatment, it goes bawling about how horribly persecuted it is. Therefore, by all rights, there ought to be excellent mutual understanding today.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2010, 04:03 AM
 
248 posts, read 521,708 times
Reputation: 161
The Islamic Conquest that started during the 7th Century was more of a mass conversion, not a proper conquest. In the case of Hispania, it was more of a mass conversion.

No way an army of 15.000 could conquer Hispania with more than 7.000.000 inhabitants in just 15 years.

Let's face it, for Visigoths and Hispano-Romans, Islam (the society, not the religion) was better, more tolerant and modern. Of course, you can't compare those times with present times.

Later, as Islam became intolerant, Christian living in Muslim territories swicthed sides, fled muslim territory and started settling "Christian Spain".

Crusaders, just as the one that participated at the battle of Navas de Tolosa in Spain, were discarded by Spanish Christians because they came just for plunder, and the "reconquest" was more of a civil war by then.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2010, 03:49 PM
 
Location: OB
2,404 posts, read 3,464,218 times
Reputation: 879
Quote:
Originally Posted by noetsi View Post
That time line shows essentially no agresive action against Western Europe (where the crusades came from) during the period of the crusades.
You missed the point. The time line emphasized and displayed Muslim attacks against Christendom. The first crusade was in part undertaken because of the previous 500-600 years of muslim violence and its attacks on various parts of the Christian World.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2010, 02:40 AM
 
Location: Peterborough, England
472 posts, read 770,191 times
Reputation: 410
Quote:
Originally Posted by mossomo View Post
You missed the point. The time line emphasized and displayed Muslim attacks against Christendom. The first crusade was in part undertaken because of the previous 500-600 years of muslim violence and its attacks on various parts of the Christian World.

Was Moslem violence noticeably greater than Christian?

From about 750 or so, when the Germanic and Arab Barbarians had finished their carve-up of the Roman Empire [1], and the borders betwen Christendom and Islam had settled down, violence (either way) between Christian and Moslem was little if any greater than between Christian and Christian or between Moslem and Moslem. There was of course plenty of all three. Violence was the norm in that era.

As of 1095, the only major boundary changes were at the extremities. The Moslems had lost northern and central Spain, and made up for it by the gain of Asia Minor. Over the next several centuries, they would lose the rest of Spain (and Portugal), making up for it (temporarily) by the gain of the Balkans. Otherwise, the dividing line remained pretty much where it had been from the start, and where indeed it remains to the present day - along the line of the Mediterranean.


[1] Well, nearly. The rump "Byzantine" Empire still remained to be polished off. The Crusaders got in first, in 1204, but failed to make their conquest stick, leaving their Turkish rivals to finish the job a couple of centuries later.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2010, 06:14 AM
 
248 posts, read 521,708 times
Reputation: 161
You missed the point. The time line emphasized and displayed Muslim attacks against Christendom. The first crusade was in part undertaken because of the previous 500-600 years of muslim violence and its attacks on various parts of the Christian World.
---

No, wrong.
The false excuse was that pilgrims were not safe in Holy Land.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2018, 05:44 PM
Status: "POTUS Trump promises - not hot air" (set 3 days ago)
 
Location: New York Area
14,237 posts, read 5,633,401 times
Reputation: 11336
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
The Crusades were about as justified as any hostile invasion of an otherwise peaceful land may be.
The Muslims fought their way to the gates of Vienna in the 1600's, only to be foiled by rain. And to Torres in France. And the "militants" to the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. Should they be allowed to regroup in peace?
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.

2005-2019, 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