Author Topic: Misconceptions about the Crusades  (Read 391 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

rangerrebew

  • Guest
Misconceptions about the Crusades
« on: August 31, 2014, 01:16:29 pm »
Misconceptions about the Crusades

Posted on August 31, 2014 by creeping


via The Real History of the Crusades | Shoebat.com.

Misconceptions about the Crusades are all too common. The Crusades are generally portrayed as a series of holy wars against Islam led by power-mad popes and fought by religious fanatics. They are supposed to have been the epitome of self-righteousness and intolerance, a black stain on the history of the Catholic Church in particular and Western civilization in general. A breed of proto-imperialists, the Crusaders introduced Western aggression to the peaceful Middle East and then deformed the enlightened Muslim culture, leaving it in ruins. For variations on this theme, one need not look far. See, for example, Steven Runciman’s famous three-volume epic, History of the Crusades, or the BBC/A&E documentary, The Crusades, hosted by Terry Jones. Both are terrible history yet wonderfully entertaining.

So what is the truth about the Crusades? Scholars are still working some of that out. But much can already be said with certainty. For starters, the Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression—an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands.

Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them. While Muslims can be peaceful, Islam was born in war and grew the same way. From the time of Mohammed, the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword. Muslim thought divides the world into two spheres, the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War. Christianity—and for that matter any other non-Muslim religion—has no abode. Christians and Jews can be tolerated within a Muslim state under Muslim rule. But, in traditional Islam, Christian and Jewish states must be destroyed and their lands conquered. When Mohammed was waging war against Mecca in the seventh century, Christianity was the dominant religion of power and wealth. As the faith of the Roman Empire, it spanned the entire Mediterranean, including the Middle East, where it was born. The Christian world, therefore, was a prime target for the earliest caliphs, and it would remain so for Muslim leaders for the next thousand years.

With enormous energy, the warriors of Islam struck out against the Christians shortly after Mohammed’s death. They were extremely successful. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt—once the most heavily Christian areas in the world—quickly succumbed. By the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece. In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of western Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East.

Understand the crusaders
 That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense.

Pope Urban II called upon the knights of Christendom to push back the conquests of Islam at the Council of Clermont in 1095. The response was tremendous. Many thousands of warriors took the vow of the cross and prepared for war. Why did they do it? The answer to that question has been badly misunderstood. In the wake of the Enlightenment, it was usually asserted that Crusaders were merely lacklands and ne’er-do-wells who took advantage of an opportunity to rob and pillage in a faraway land. The Crusaders’ expressed sentiments of piety, self-sacrifice, and love for God were obviously not to be taken seriously. They were only a front for darker designs.

During the past two decades, computer-assisted charter studies have demolished that contrivance. Scholars have discovered that crusading knights were generally wealthy men with plenty of their own land in Europe. Nevertheless, they willingly gave up everything to undertake the holy mission. Crusading was not cheap. Even wealthy lords could easily impoverish themselves and their families by joining a Crusade. They did so not because they expected material wealth (which many of them had already) but because they hoped to store up treasure where rust and moth could not corrupt. They were keenly aware of their sinfulness and eager to undertake the hardships of the Crusade as a penitential act of charity and love. Europe is littered with thousands of medieval charters attesting to these sentiments, charters in which these men still speak to us today if we will listen. Of course, they were not opposed to capturing booty if it could be had. But the truth is that the Crusades were notoriously bad for plunder. A few people got rich, but the vast majority returned with nothing.

What really happened?
 Urban II gave the Crusaders two goals, both of which would remain central to the eastern Crusades for centuries. The first was to rescue the Christians of the East. As his successor, Pope Innocent III, later wrote:


 How does a man love according to divine precept his neighbor as himself when, knowing that his Christian brothers in faith and in name are held by the perfidious Muslims in strict confinement and weighed down by the yoke of heaviest servitude, he does not devote himself to the task of freeing them? … Is it by chance that you do not know that many thousands of Christians are bound in slavery and imprisoned by the Muslims, tortured with innumerable torments?

“Crusading,” Professor Jonathan Riley-Smith has rightly argued, was understood as an “an act of love”—in this case, the love of one’s neighbor. The Crusade was seen as an errand of mercy to right a terrible wrong. As Pope Innocent III wrote to the Knights Templar, “You carry out in deeds the words of the Gospel, ‘Greater love than this hath no man, that he lay down his life for his friends.’” Continue reading →

http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/
« Last Edit: August 31, 2014, 01:17:19 pm by rangerrebew »

Offline alicewonders

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,021
  • Gender: Female
  • Live life-it's too short to butt heads w buttheads
Re: Misconceptions about the Crusades
« Reply #1 on: August 31, 2014, 01:41:30 pm »
That was interesting.  I'm going to have to re-read some history, particularly from that time period.  I think our survival, our very way of life, is being threatened right now in ways similar to the Crusades period.  We have to fight to be able to hold on to what we have or we'll lose it.  No one wants to have to take that step - but we're forced to - by slithering armies of pure evil that will destroy all freedom if they're not stopped. 
Don't tread on me.   8888madkitty

We told you Trump would win - bigly!

Offline PzLdr

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,421
  • Gender: Male
Re: Misconceptions about the Crusades
« Reply #2 on: August 31, 2014, 04:46:57 pm »
The stupidest thing the Crusaders did was refuse to ally with the 'pagan' Mongols against the Mamelukes, and adopt a tolerant and beneficial neutrality toward the monotheist Muslims. If they had allied with Hulegu Quan, they could have put paid to the followers of the Pederast once and for all.
Hillary's Self-announced Qualifications: She Stood Up To Putin...She Sits to Pee

Online kevindavis007

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,487
  • Gender: Male
Re: Misconceptions about the Crusades
« Reply #3 on: August 31, 2014, 05:58:10 pm »
The stupidest thing the Crusaders did was refuse to ally with the 'pagan' Mongols against the Mamelukes, and adopt a tolerant and beneficial neutrality toward the monotheist Muslims. If they had allied with Hulegu Quan, they could have put paid to the followers of the Pederast once and for all.


Another mistake was also made on the 4th Crusade by attacking the Byzantine Empire..
Join The Reagan Caucus: https://reagancaucus.org/ and the Eisenhower Caucus: https://EisenhowerCaucus.org

Ronald Reagan: “Rather than...talking about putting up a fence, why don’t we work out some recognition of our mutual problems and make it possible for them to come here legally with a work permit…earning here they pay taxes here.”