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 11-16-2018, 06:07 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
37,426 posts, read 17,614,436 times
Reputation: 17101

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa View Post
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?
Everyone who goes to war believes that they are justified in doing so. Property divisions have never been based on morality, they have been based on might.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-16-2018, 08:34 PM
 
607 posts, read 174,821 times
Reputation: 971
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Walmsley View Post
From our vantage point of time, was there any justification for the crusades?
No. For Christians to wage war for "religious" reasons? Absolutely not.

Moderator cut: Political comment removed.

And for people saying that Muslims deserve(d) it: I was in Manhattan on 9/11 and my response is to try to forgive the perpetrators and try to love all Muslims.

Last edited by mensaguy; 11-17-2018 at 05:50 AM.. Reason: Leave Obama out of the Hostiry forum.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2018, 11:54 PM
 
66 posts, read 28,813 times
Reputation: 288
For what is essentially a very serious historical topic, I will start off by stating that without the Crusades, the World would not have been blessed with Monthy Python and the Holy Grail which would have been a shame.

Now, in the current political and cultural climate of the Western World that we live in, where there is social pressure to accept all non-Western religious and cultural perspectives as equal in import and value to traditional Western practices, many people simply abide rather than enter a controversial minefield. For most people, it’s safest and best to keep one’s head down and chug along through life as not to invite conflicts.

The founder of Islam, Muhammad, certainly lived one of the great adventurous lives in human history. His life was like an amalgam of the stories The Man in the Iron Mask, Papillon, Attila the Hun, The Buddha and Woody Allen all rolled into one.

He founded a religion borne of his own life’s experiences which revolved around revenge and vengeance. On his death bed after conquering Mecca, Muhammad’s last words to his followers were that the fight against the infidels - any person who does not accept Islam’s teachings - was to go on until none were left.

The Koran literally states: “Fight the infidel until all Resistance is destroyed.” Another passage states: “Slay the idolatrous wherever you shall find them. Capture them, besiege them, seek them out in all places. But if they convert, let them go in peace.” Muhammad had opinions about Life and was not a person who felt it best to keep one’s head down and simply chug along through it - and he definitely believed that it was best to proselytize his beliefs by force.

Having said all that, my opinion is that the Crusades had less to do with combatting Islam than it did about a fight for internal power in Europe AND a culture shift that was also occurring during that time.

Europe has long had two societies that co-existed: 1) A secular population ruled by Kings and confined by borders, and 2) a Christian population ruled by the Pope. There was an obvious overlapping of these populations in the Venn diagram which has led to an underlying fight between both Heads of State through the centuries. Kings tried to poach the Popes’ power, and Popes’ tried to poach the power of Kings - it’s a grand historical power struggle that common people, to this day, care not to notice because their lives were about the same under either regime.

Pope Urban II had to not only struggle with Kings during his day, but also an antipope named Guibert who liked his followers to call him Clement III as his papal nomenclature - Guibert was not officially proclaimed as Pope but he was a powerful Bishop who controlled Rome at the time so it would be akin to Trump being Prez but staying in NYC, which allowed Clinton to stay in DC and to move into the White House to make things interesting.

While all this fun Game of Thrones stuff was going on in the Seats of Power, the European society was transforming from a savage and uncouth society into one that decided that civility and honor was kind of cool. This was the romantic age of Knights, fair maidens, dragons and chivalry.

Knights were the pivotal piece during this era. Anyone who owned a horse and would fight in battle was called a knight, but a court Knight who was connected to a Prince or other noble lived under a strict code of honor which centered around being chivalrous, treating women decently, and to honorably fight for Christendom. A King or Pope who would rule Europe during that time first needed the support of the court Knights.

Anyway, Pope Urban threw back the powerful German Kings of his day which made him the Big Boss. Conveniently, the Arabs were also hootin’ and a hollerin’ at the same time down in the Middle East and had taken control of Jerusalem and the Palestine.

In order to consolidate his control of Europe, Pope Urban came up with the grand idea of amassing all the Knights of Europe - which would bring with them the associated foot soldiers, squires, fiefs and slaves - to act upon their duty to fight for “God’s will” and to reclaim the home of Christ which had been overtaken by savages from the desert. Many of these Knights had been fighting the Moors in Spain and France but Pope Urban - who was initially viewed as a puppet for the Kings - was a fairly smart and conniving guy. Giving southern Spain to the Moors was a good trade in exchange for power in the rest of Europe.

The First Crusades were a brilliant strategic political move for Pope Urban: 1) The consolidation of arms kept the German Kings at bay. 2) The Knights removed Guibert’s power in Rome which was a problem for Pope Urban. 3) The Crusades gave meaning to the life of honor that the Knight system needed...and also cool uniforms with a red Cross on it. 4) It limited the reach of the burgeoning Islamic territories.

Were the Crusades justifiable? The question is far too simple for a most complex period of European and World history...one might as well ask if Muhammad was justified in taking over Mecca after he had comfortably established a life for himself in Medina.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2018, 03:42 PM
 
82 posts, read 17,028 times
Reputation: 296
Trying to superimpose modern concepts of morality on the 11th century (and beyond) shows a profound misunderstanding of humany history. Or, perhaps, just a need to politicize everything (exemplified by the feeble dragging of 9/11 into this discussion).

Neither the Muslim expansion nor the Crusades which to some extent rolled it back were based on any real sense of justification. It was all about power. In medieval Europe, war was a near constant feature of life. If one king wasn't warring with another, one of his dukes was attacking another of the king's dukes, or some duke's baron was pillaging his neighboring baron. Justifications were only served up when politically necessary. The Romans didn't need a justification to invade Britain any more than did the Anglos/Saxons/Frisians/Jutes/etc. when Roman administration collapsed. The Danes needed no justification to invade England, nor did William the Conquerer. Longshanks needed no justification to conquer Wales, nor to expel the Jews from England. The British needed no justification (nor the French or Spanish or Portuguese or Dutch or Swedish or Russians) to grab whatever parts of North America they could beyond the fact that it was profitable.

I see that the usual superficial understanding of the Crusades imagines them as a Christian-v-Muslims affair. They were, to a large extent, but by no means exclusively. Take Haifa, beseiged in 1100. It was defended by Muslims... and Jews, for the city had a majority Jewish population. The Christians offered those in Haifa the opportunity to not be slaughtered. All they had to do was convert to Christianity. Muslim and Jew alike declined. Once the Christian broke into the city, every last inhabitant who was unable to slip away in the chaos was put to the sword. For this reason, all the direct historical accounts of the battle are Christian: no Muslims or Jews survived to recount their tales. Jews also defended Jerusalem, and also died en masse when it fell.

The Crusades were largely a disaster for Jews. Jews - and Christians - generally lived peaceably enough in Muslims lands, albeit as second-class citizens who were specifically taxed for not being Muslim. This was highly practical for the early conquering Muslims, for those who are spared are likely to surrender, making them easier to conquer. And if you can extract a tax from them? All the better. After the initial slaughters by Crusaders, they eventually learned this lesson and decimated Muslim and Jewish communities in the Crusader kingdoms gradually began reconstituting themselves. Jews were also killed in great numbers in Europe by Crusading armies travelling to the Holy Land that just couldn't wait to start killing heretics.

There were also Crusades specifically against those other than Muslims. The Northern Crusades targeted pagans in Scandinavia and the Baltic region. There were various Crusades that targeted the wrong kind of Christians - ie, ones that didn't recognize the Pope, his supremacy, or his particular version of Christianity - in France and the Balkans. And the Reconquista didn't just eradicate Muslims from Iberia but Jews as well.

I point this out because those who usually express such enthusiasm for the Crusades usually do so from the Some Muslims Wronged Some Christians In The Past, So It Was Totally Right That Future Christians Then Killed Some Future Muslims point of view. Such people are usually less enthusiastic about the miscellaneous Crusading carnage against non-Muslims (when informed about it, anyway). Do these people perceive the execution of Jews in Haifa as 'justified'? How about the ravaging of pagans in Livonia, or of non-Catholic Christians in Bosnia? And by what logic does some Muslim laborer in Jerusalem in the 12th century have to account for what some other Muslims did centuries earlier, or were currently doing a thousand miles away in Cordoba? By the silly logic, a Lakota could come off a reservation in South Dakota and kill a few white Americans and it would be 'justified' by what transpired in the 19th century. Does anyone really believe that to be so?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2018, 07:24 PM
Status: "People and tear gas - either it's a border or it isn't." (set 1 day ago)
 
Location: New York Area
13,612 posts, read 5,351,670 times
Reputation: 10890
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2x3x29x41 View Post
Trying to superimpose modern concepts of morality on the 11th century (and beyond) shows a profound misunderstanding of humany history. Or, perhaps, just a need to politicize everything (exemplified by the feeble dragging of 9/11 into this discussion).
I didn't want to quote the whole post. Clearly you're trying to say something. Talk to me. I don't understand it.

And as far as the 9/11 reference I take it that was mine. My point is that organized Islam will frequently take an extreme action, and then not anticipate any response.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-25-2018, 03:57 PM
 
82 posts, read 17,028 times
Reputation: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa View Post
I didn't want to quote the whole post. Clearly you're trying to say something. Talk to me. I don't understand it.
Oh well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa View Post
And as far as the 9/11 reference I take it that was mine. My point is that organized Islam will frequently take an extreme action, and then not anticipate any response.
I hardly know where to begin with this absurdity.

First of all, Islam is remarkably disorganized. For all of Christianity's sects and splinter groups, Islam is even less amenable to organized hierarchies. This should be blatantly obvious to those who have ever observed that there is no Islamic equivalent to the Vatican, or simply informed themselves even moderately about Islam. Second, 9/11 - which you insisted on dragging into this discussion for no good reason - was the action of a group highly alienated from mainstream Islam. Imagine how absurd and inane it would be to associate David Koresh with common Christianity. That's the level of absurdity you've reached here. Third, and it should be hard to believe that any American 17 years post-9/11 is still ignorant of this well-established fact, Osama bin Laden very specifically carried out the attacks with the full intention of provoking a response. Quite contrary to your ill-informed notion that 'organized Islam' thought the West would not respond, Bin Laden intended to provoke a Western (primarily American) overreaction that would be both detrimental to the United States and would turn the Middle East against the West in general and the U.S. in particular. Further, he hoped to inspire a Pan-Islamist movement. The former mostly failed, though the Bush administration gave it a go with the nonsensical war in Iraq, justified by among other things a baseless conflation of Saddam Hussein with Islamists. Fortunately, while horrific to tens of thousands of American soldiers and their families, this was only moderately damaging to American standing in the world. The latter was a success, insofar as the Islamic State was an indirect result both of the attacks and the subsequent destabilizing of the Middle East that the war in Iraq affected. Fortunately, ISIS has not proven durable.

At any rate, the attempt to link modern Islam with that of Islam during the Expansion is as utterly ridiculous as those who would attempt to equate modern Christianity with the Inquisition. It just boggles the mind that people wallow in such silliness. And yet sadly, it's really not surprising.

Now, I'm done with your derailing of this topic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-25-2018, 06:40 PM
 
Location: WV and Eastport, ME
10,431 posts, read 10,473,742 times
Reputation: 7013
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2x3x29x41 View Post
Oh well.



I hardly know where to begin with this absurdity.

First of all, Islam is remarkably disorganized. For all of Christianity's sects and splinter groups, Islam is even less amenable to organized hierarchies. This should be blatantly obvious to those who have ever observed that there is no Islamic equivalent to the Vatican, or simply informed themselves even moderately about Islam. Second, 9/11 - which you insisted on dragging into this discussion for no good reason - was the action of a group highly alienated from mainstream Islam. Imagine how absurd and inane it would be to associate David Koresh with common Christianity. That's the level of absurdity you've reached here. Third, and it should be hard to believe that any American 17 years post-9/11 is still ignorant of this well-established fact, Osama bin Laden very specifically carried out the attacks with the full intention of provoking a response. Quite contrary to your ill-informed notion that 'organized Islam' thought the West would not respond, Bin Laden intended to provoke a Western (primarily American) overreaction that would be both detrimental to the United States and would turn the Middle East against the West in general and the U.S. in particular. Further, he hoped to inspire a Pan-Islamist movement. The former mostly failed, though the Bush administration gave it a go with the nonsensical war in Iraq, justified by among other things a baseless conflation of Saddam Hussein with Islamists. Fortunately, while horrific to tens of thousands of American soldiers and their families, this was only moderately damaging to American standing in the world. The latter was a success, insofar as the Islamic State was an indirect result both of the attacks and the subsequent destabilizing of the Middle East that the war in Iraq affected. Fortunately, ISIS has not proven durable.

At any rate, the attempt to link modern Islam with that of Islam during the Expansion is as utterly ridiculous as those who would attempt to equate modern Christianity with the Inquisition. It just boggles the mind that people wallow in such silliness. And yet sadly, it's really not surprising.

Now, I'm done with your derailing of this topic.
One thing of which I am absolutely certain: The events of September 11, 2001, had absolutely nothing to do with The Crusades, or the justification for The Crusades.

Let's keep 9/11 out of this discussion.
__________________
Moderator posts are in RED.
City-Data Terms of Service: http://www.city-data.com/terms.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2018, 10:29 PM
 
3,766 posts, read 2,092,201 times
Reputation: 6609
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensaguy View Post
One thing of which I am absolutely certain: The events of September 11, 2001, had absolutely nothing to do with The Crusades, or the justification for The Crusades.

Let's keep 9/11 out of this discussion.

People make my head hurt so.. the fact that you even had to say this proves the de-evolution of humankind.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 10:27 AM
 
196 posts, read 37,956 times
Reputation: 71
The east, holy land and eastern Roman Empire, had a reputation of being rich, that explains why the first pillage was Byzantium. People were poor and nobility and priesthood needed to light their burden...and we can't judge half-crazed hungry and ignorant people by modern standards, Deus lo vult.

Were they justified.as an act of aggression.
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