The Crusades

[Bluesky]

Sometimes the only way I learn or am forced to study something a little more closely is by arguing a certain position.

I want to learn about the Crusades.. i.e. get to the bottom of this quesiton so that I can answer the typical objection.. if there is an answer, that is..

So, those who remember your education, fill me in.

What was the occasion of the Crusades? How many Crusades were there? Were they justified? How many were really killed?

Please provide links to resources when you make assertions. Movies are not sources..

[cleo6223]

I will see what I can find for you I can think of a few but want to verifie what I know before I send anything to you

[NewCasa]

Maybe this will help:

http://www.crusades-encyclopedia.com...fchartres.html

http://www.deremilitari.org/biblio/firstcrusade.htm

[KDawg]

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

The popes alone had maintained a just estimate of Christian unity; they realized to what extent the interests of Europe were threatened by the Byzantine Empire and the Mohammedan tribes, and they alone had a foreign policy whose traditions were formed under Leo IX and Gregory VII. The reform effected in the Church and the papacy through the influence of the monks of Cluny had increased the prestige of the Roman pontiff in the eyes of all Christian nations; hence none but the pope could inaugurate the international movement that culminated in the Crusades.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04543c.htm#I

If nothing else, the Crusades were political and military campaigns (waged by the Roman Catholic church, NOT Christianity), ostensibly to recapture Jerusalem from the Muslims (at first), then to flush out "heretics."

[Anapeg]

The wars where waged by Catholics who are a large part of the Christians, ipso facto the Christians did in fact wage the war. Should and insurrection be waged in some far off land by the army of some dictatorship you would say it was a military coup and not make the distinction of it being non military as the navy and air force did not participate. Did the other Christian organizations attempt to stop the Crusade? If not then tacit approval was implied.

[NewCasa]

The wars where waged by Catholics who are a large part of the Christians, ipso facto the Christians did in fact wage the war. Should and insurrection be waged in some far off land by the army of some dictatorship you would say it was a military coup and not make the distinction of it being non military as the navy and air force did not participate. Did the other Christian organizations attempt to stop the Crusade? If not then tacit approval was implied.

I think the point you're missing Anapeg is that Christianity was much different back then. Ie. if you weren't a Christian, you were treated quite harshly. Essentially, the church ruled in conjunction with the political leader. And yes, of course it was Catholic - the Protest hadn't yet begun at the time of the Crusades. So yes, ipso facto - the Church waged the Crusades - the Church was everyone.

[Bluesky]

What needs to be understood clearly: there was no separation at all of Church and state. State and church was one. So ANY war that was political was also religious and vice versa.

[Anapeg]

There in lies my point. KDawg was splitting hairs and I felt the need to make the point. Clarification only.

[NewCasa]

I think the point that Christianity needs to be ashamed over is that there were many, many attrocities committed during the Crusades and the Church did very little to stop them, even though it really did have responsibility for instigating the wars, offering free trips to heaven and so forth for anyone who participated / died. These are facts, not opinion and they are well documented by those who witnessed the events in person or were told by direct witnesses. Fulcher de Chartres (see the link above) is a very good example of these.

[Bluesky]

Yes, many Christians are indeed ashamed of those atrocities. Although I am not sure that I can do more than be humbled by the realization that I am made of the same stuff that they were.. and am capable of doing the same. As are all of us.

Very often, Christians have been no better than the rest of the world at representing what they believe with integrity. That is sobering. I hope that that will not be the main theme of this thread. I suspect there has also been a great deal of misrepresentation of historical facts with respect to the crusades, because it has become fashionable to blame the Christians for so much, since it is politically incorrect to lay any blame at the islamic door. (No, NewCasa, I am not accusing you of being politically correct or incorrect.. I'm just saying..)

[NewCasa]

Yes, many Christians are indeed ashamed of those atrocities. Although I am not sure that I can do more than be humbled by the realization that I am made of the same stuff that they were.. and am capable of doing the same. As are all of us.

Very often, Christians have been no better than the rest of the world at representing what they believe with integrity. That is sobering. I hope that that will not be the main theme of this thread. I suspect there has also been a great deal of misrepresentation of historical facts with respect to the crusades, because it has become fashionable to blame the Christians for so much, since it is politically incorrect to lay any blame at the islamic door. (No, NewCasa, I am not accusing you of being politically correct or incorrect.. I'm just saying..)

Just to be clear - I stand behind my earlier comment on another thread and I will clarify it here:

It is my belief that were one to follow the basic teachings of Jesus Christ, with no embellishments, no ad libs, no 'interpretation' one would live a good life full of kind acts and honour. What fully disgusts me is hearing people say that 'God wills' something or other. To me it is pure manipulation and hubris. Who would we be to presume to know the will of a being so high above us that it was responsible for all of creation?

This, to my mind is how the Crusades happened - the Church (as opposed to the simple Christians) chose to 'interpret' Jesus' teachings in such a way as to make others believe that a war with the infidels was 'Gods' will'. Sound familiar? To me, an almost objective observer, the Crusades could be almost exactly described as a Christian jihad.

My point is this: Jihads, Crusades, car bombs, etc. are not the fault of the Prophets or the religions themselves, they are the fault of greedy, little people who take the holy robes and such as a way of gaining power.

Ok, back to the Crusades. Just wanted to clarify the point, lest I be taken as being politcally incorrect

[Anapeg]

Has/does Islam initiate these attacks or were/are they unwarranted? It seem to me through an article read a couple of years back should we pull out of their land the outward attacks against us would cease. It has to do with cleansing their land due to it being defiled by we infidels being on it without permission. Theirs seems to be a war of retaliation not instigation. The Crusades, it seems where under similar circumstances. I know, I over simplify but I just saying'.

[Bluesky]

I am frustrated. had a book by historian, Rodney Stark on the Crusades.. I skimmed it once.. now that I want to read it, I cannot find it. Rats.

[NewCasa]

Well, here's a review of his writings...

http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2009/...-rodney-stark/

[Bluesky]

That's the one. Now my appetite has been whetted! Still cannot find the book.

Christians today can well argue whether the Crusades were in fact warranted. But any such discussion about the pros and cons of the matter must be made under a clear understanding of what exactly transpired and why. This book admirably serves that purpose, and must be the starting point for any future debates over the topic.
[990 words]

[SSMP]

A review of Stark's book done by a historian

http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2...usades-by.html

[Bluesky]

I found the book! Right where it was supposed to be in it's Dewey Decimaled place.

SO I will post summaries of each chapter as I go. If I post anything that is not factual, let me know.

The prevailing wisdom today (propagated by textbooks being used in the schools across our continent) claims that during the Crusades, an expansionist imperialistic Christendom brutalized, looted and colonised a tolerant and peaceful Islam. This view began in the days of the Enlightenment when bias against the Catholic Church in particular was strong. I can give you a lengthy string of bibliographic evidence for this.

The truth is different, says Stark.

The Crusades were precipitated by Islamic provocation; i.e. centuries of bloody attempts to colonize the West, and by sudden new attacks on Christian pilgrims and holy places. Although the Crusades were initiated by a plea from the pope, it had nothing to do with a desire to convert the Muslim. Nor were the Crusades organized and led by surplus sons, but by the heads of families who were fully aware that the costs of crusading would far exceed the modest material rewards that could be expected; most went at immense personal cost, some knowingly bankrupting themselves to go. Moreover, the crusader kingdoms that they established in the Holy Land and that stood for nearly 2 centuries were not colonies sustained by local exactions; rather they required immense subsidies from Europe. (p. 8)

[NewCasa]

So far, I'd say any reading of my own agrees with the Stark version. It is interesting though, what he does not say. For example, so far he has made no mention of the sack of Jerusalem, which was particularly bloody.

[Bluesky]

As I get into the book, I will keep you abreast.. I am sure he talks a great deal about that sack.

[Dixie_Normous]

For example, so far he has made no mention of the sack of Jerusalem, which was particularly bloody.

When the Christians sacked Jerusalem they killed everything in sight, women, children, it didn't matter. (Great religion to be part of eh?)

When Saladin (Sultan/Military leader) successfully raided Jerusalem and took it back (Christians surrendered the city), Saladin allowed all Christians who surrendered to leave peacefully.

That is honour, the Christians back in that day were disgraceful.

Err .. wait a sec, has anything changed?