As Catholics, how are we to view the Crusades?

[c659smith]

The Crusades shouldn’t be viewed as anything; they were a very complex story involving heroes and villains on all three sides. Yes, there were three sides: Franks, Muslims, and Byzantines. If you want to get even more confusing, you can divide the Muslims into three groups (Abbasid loyalists, Turks, and Fatimids), toss in the Jews and Nestorians, divide the Catholics into Normans, French, English, and priests, and even add the Mongols for good measure.

They aren’t a good argument to use against the Church, but they aren’t something for Catholics to be proud of, either. Such a complex story is certain to be ambivalent; how does one weigh Raymond of Toulouse and Reynald de Chatillon, King Baldwin the Leper and Bohemund?

why would Catholics not want to be proud considering the times that they had occurred. If the Catholics did not fight all of Europe and probably here in America would all have prayer rugs.

 

[Lujack]

why would Catholics not want to be proud considering the times that they had occurred. If the Catholics did not fight all of Europe and probably here in America would all have prayer rugs.

Actually, I’ll argue the contrary-on the whole, the Crusades probably weakened Christianity in the East. Let’s say Urban’s call fails, and all you get is a collection of mercenaries drifting eastward. These mercenaries enlist in the ranks of the Byzantines, who slowly and steadily retake Anatolia, probably moving as far as Antioch.

Now the Byzantines are back in firm control of Anatolia. Better for the Byzantines, there’s no Fourth Crusade Better for the westerners, the would-be Crusaders drift to Spain, where they can much more easily be successful. Perhaps they even expand into North Africa.

So, if you take away the Crusades, Islam probably gains no foothold in Europe at all.

 

[c659smith]

Actually, I’ll argue the contrary-on the whole, the Crusades probably weakened Christianity in the East. Let’s say Urban’s call fails, and all you get is a collection of mercenaries drifting eastward. These mercenaries enlist in the ranks of the Byzantines, who slowly and steadily retake Anatolia, probably moving as far as Antioch.

Now the Byzantines are back in firm control of Anatolia. Better for the Byzantines, there’s no Fourth Crusade Better for the westerners, the would-be Crusaders drift to Spain, where they can much more easily be successful. Perhaps they even expand into North Africa.

So, if you take away the Crusades, Islam probably gains no foothold in Europe at all.

Urban Call was the Pope’s reaction to the defense of Europe and the East from the Moslem Mauraders. Without Urban Call Europe would have been over run. I do not get your reasoning. Do nothing and allow the Moslems to move west without any opposition?

In order to establish reasons for Urban’s call for a crusade in 1095, we need to look at many accounts of the time, and find out what was happening in the rest of the Christian world which influenced both what and when he said what he did to launch the first crusade. At the time, religion played a major role in almost everyone’s daily lives, and the belief system of the afterlife was extremely strong. It was true that every Christian had a very vivid sense of sin, and believed that if one committed an act of sin, their afterlife would be spent in hell. They all thought of this afterlife as a reality rather than an idea. It was this belief which would help Pope Urban II recruit more men.
The aristocracy of the period also led a very violent lifestyle: this crusade or ‘Holy War’ justified the use of violence as a means of abolishing the threat from Islam on the Christian World. Thirdly, the papacy was very keen on consolidating its political influence in Italy, France and Germany. The papacy wanted to keep the Christian parts of the world as large as possible and they also wanted to make sure that these areas would be completely Christian. Urban wished to expand the Church’s sphere of influence to those previously Christian parts of Europe and Northern Africa which had been overrun by the Islamic world…

In March of 1095, the Byzantine emperor Alexius I Comnenus appealed to the papacy for military aid to help against increasingly hostile neighbours. In 1095 the Seljuk Turks had come within one hundred miles of Byzantium or Constantinople, and they were thought to be threatening Eastern Christians. It was at this point that Alexius summoned the pope’s help to rid the area of the ‘pagans’. It was Alexius’ call for help which provided Urban with a stable reason for launching the crusade.

Urban’s public call to launch the crusade was made…

 

[Lujack]

Urban Call was the Pope’s reaction to the defense of Europe and the East from the Moslem Mauraders. Without Urban Call Europe would have been over run. I do not get your reasoning. Do nothing and allow the Moslems to move west without any opposition?

The Byzantine Emperor, Alexius Commenus, didn’t want an army of crusaders, he wanted some mercenaries to refill his ranks. The Crusaders proved unruly, and other than Nicaea, refused to hand over any land back to the Byzantines. Without the Crusaders, Alexius’s’ reconquest of Anatolia would probably have gone slower, but been more successful.

The Byzantines weren’t in any immediate danger anymore; they’d been knocked flat at Manzikert, but they were already stabilized and recovering. The danger of Turks sweeping into Europe had passed for the time.

In order to establish reasons for Urban’s call for a crusade in 1095, we need to look at many accounts of the time, and find out what was happening in the rest of the Christian world which influenced both what and when he said what he did to launch the first crusade. At the time, religion played a major role in almost everyone’s daily lives, and the belief system of the afterlife was extremely strong. It was true that every Christian had a very vivid sense of sin, and believed that if one committed an act of sin, their afterlife would be spent in hell. They all thought of this afterlife as a reality rather than an idea. It was this belief which would help Pope Urban II recruit more men.
The aristocracy of the period also led a very violent lifestyle: this crusade or ‘Holy War’ justified the use of violence as a means of abolishing the threat from Islam on the Christian World. Thirdly, the papacy was very keen on consolidating its political influence in Italy, France and Germany. The papacy wanted to keep the Christian parts of the world as large as possible and they also wanted to make sure that these areas would be completely Christian. Urban wished to expand the Church’s sphere of influence to those previously Christian parts of Europe and Northern Africa which had been overrun by the Islamic world.

That accounts for the success of Urban’s call, not what would have happened if there were no Crusades.

In March of 1095, the Byzantine emperor Alexius I Comnenus appealed to the papacy for military aid to help against increasingly hostile neighbours. In 1095 the Seljuk Turks had come within one hundred miles of Byzantium or Constantinople, and they were thought to be threatening Eastern Christians. It was at this point that Alexius summoned the pope’s help to rid the area of the ‘pagans’. It was Alexius’ call for help which provided Urban with a stable reason for launching the crusade.

Urban’s public call to launch the crusade was made…

This is true, but Alexius didn’t want Crusaders (especially not Norman ones), he wanted mercenaries. If you give him mercenaries instead of Crusaders, he’ll probably never get to Jerusalem, but he will get to Antioch. That would mean that Anatolia is back in solidly Byzantine hands, with no Fourth Crusade to sack the city and shatter the empire. No Fourth Crusade, and the Ottoman Turks take much longer (if at all) to take Constantinople.

 

[c659smith]

The Byzantine Emperor, Alexius Commenus, didn’t want an army of crusaders, he wanted some mercenaries to refill his ranks. The Crusaders proved unruly, and other than Nicaea, refused to hand over any land back to the Byzantines. Without the Crusaders, Alexius’s’ reconquest of Anatolia would probably have gone slower, but been more successful.

The Byzantines weren’t in any immediate danger anymore; they’d been knocked flat at Manzikert, but they were already stabilized and recovering. The danger of Turks sweeping into Europe had passed for the time.

That accounts for the success of Urban’s call, not what would have happened if there were no Crusades.

This is true, but Alexius didn’t want Crusaders (especially not Norman ones), he wanted mercenaries. If you give him mercenaries instead of Crusaders, he’ll probably never get to Jerusalem, but he will get to Antioch. That would mean that Anatolia is back in solidly Byzantine hands, with no Fourth Crusade to sack the city and shatter the empire. No Fourth Crusade, and the Ottoman Turks take much longer (if at all) to take Constantinople.

What you are doing is speculating and not quoting history and what had occurred.
The moslems were on the march during the time period you state. They may have been slowed down from time to time to re-group, weather, etc… but make no mistake their agenda to conquer the western world was, has, and still continues to be their main goal.
As far as your suggestion that a few mercenaries were all that was needed you are totally out of step with the size of the moslem armies

 

[Lujack]

What you are doing is speculating and not quoting history and what had occurred.
The moslems were on the march during the time period you state. They may have been slowed down from time to time to re-group, weather, etc… but make no mistake their agenda to conquer the western world was, has, and still continues to be their main goal.
As far as your suggestion that a few mercenaries were all that was needed you are totally out of step with the size of the moslem armies

The Muslims were on the march?

The Battle of Manzikert was fought in the summer of 1071. Turkish expansion peaked in 1084 with the capture of Nicaea, and the Turkish wave crested with the complete and total defeat of their siege of Constantinople in 1091. When Alexius asked for aid from the west, it was not because he needed help to prevent Constantinople from falling. In fact, he had defeated the Turks and their Pecheneg allies at the same he was fighting the Normans, so he obviously didn’t need the help of the Normans to defend the city.

The reason Alexius wanted mercenaries was because he wanted to go over to the offensive. Most reliable historians will state that Alexius wanted a new version of the Varangian Guard, not a crusading army that was going to take land for itself.

Far from being on the march, too, the Muslims were in a state of chaos and civil war. The Fatimids were fighting the Abbasids who were fighting the Seljuks, and the Seljuks themselves were feuding, with the Seljuks of Rum fighting the Great Seljuks, and the Great Seljuks were also fighting amongst themselves (the two sons of the emir against their father [and these two emirs were fighting each other, too]). If the Muslims were united and on the march, it would not have been possible for the Crusaders to virtually walk through hostile territory into Jerusalem.

 

[c659smith]

The Muslims were on the march?

The Battle of Manzikert was fought in the summer of 1071. Turkish expansion peaked in 1084 with the capture of Nicaea, and the Turkish wave crested with the complete and total defeat of their siege of Constantinople in 1091. When Alexius asked for aid from the west, it was not because he needed help to prevent Constantinople from falling. In fact, he had defeated the Turks and their Pecheneg allies at the same he was fighting the Normans, so he obviously didn’t need the help of the Normans to defend the city.

The reason Alexius wanted mercenaries was because he wanted to go over to the offensive. Most reliable historians will state that Alexius wanted a new version of the Varangian Guard, not a crusading army that was going to take land for itself.

Far from being on the march, too, the Muslims were in a state of chaos and civil war. The Fatimids were fighting the Abbasids who were fighting the Seljuks, and the Seljuks themselves were feuding, with the Seljuks of Rum fighting the Great Seljuks, and the Great Seljuks were also fighting amongst themselves (the two sons of the emir against their father [and these two emirs were fighting each other, too]). If the Muslims were united and on the march, it would not have been possible for the Crusaders to virtually walk through hostile territory into Jerusalem.

Again this is what history states so I still believe yours is speculation.

By 1097, nearly 10,000 people had gathered at Constantinople ready for the journey to the Holy Land. There was no one person in charge of the First Crusade. Urban II had made Bishop Adbenar the leader but he preferred to let others do the work and make decisions. They were four separate proper Crusader armies in the First Crusade but also a large number of smaller armies. However, there was no proper command structure and with the problems of communications at that time, it is possible that a command structure with one person in charge was an impossibility.

The first target of the Crusaders was the important fortress city of Nicea. This city was taken by the Crusaders without too much trouble as the man in charge of it was away fighting!

The next target for the Crusaders was Antioch - a strongly protected Turkish city. It took a seven month siege before the city fell. The next target was Jerusalem.

The attack and capture of Jerusalem started in the summer of 1099. Jerusalem was well defended with high walls around it. The first attacks on the city were not successful as the Crusaders were short of materials for building siege machines. Once logs had arrived, two siege machines were built.

A monk called Fulcher was on the First Crusade. He wrote about the attack on the Holy City and he can be treated as an eye-witness as to what took place.

Fulcher claimed that once the Crusaders had managed to get over the walls of Jerusalem, the Muslim defenders there ran away. Fulcher claimed that the Crusaders cut down anybody they could and that the streets of Jerusalem were ankle deep in blood. The rest of the Crusaders got into the city when the gates were opened. The slaughter continued and the Crusaders “killed whoever they wished”. Those Muslims who had their lives spared, had to go round and collect the bodies before dumping them outside of the city because they stank so much. The Muslims claimed afterwards that 70,000 people were killed and that the Crusaders took whatever treasure they could from the Dome of the Rock.

 

[Lujack]

Again this is what history states so I still believe yours is speculation.

How is mine speculation? The history books are quite clear that Alexius was more than a little dismayed at the idea of independent Frankish settlers taking territory that he regarded as Byzantine. The history books are quite clear that Alexius had stopped the Muslim advantage, and was getting ready to take the offensive. The history books are quite clear that Alexius and the Crusaders actually clashed on occasion after the First Crusade, mainly because the Crusaders had taken territory that rightly belonged to Constantinople.

By 1097, nearly 10,000 people had gathered at Constantinople ready for the journey to the Holy Land. There was no one person in charge of the First Crusade. Urban II had made Bishop Adbenar the leader but he preferred to let others do the work and make decisions. They were four separate proper Crusader armies in the First Crusade but also a large number of smaller armies. However, there was no proper command structure and with the problems of communications at that time, it is possible that a command structure with one person in charge was an impossibility.

I know this; it has nothing to do with our argument.

The first target of the Crusaders was the important fortress city of Nicea. This city was taken by the Crusaders without too much trouble as the man in charge of it was away fighting!

First of all, what does this tell you about the weakness of the Turkish armies, and the state of civil war that they were in?

Secondly, this neglects to mention the important role Byzantine troops and siege engines played in this battle. The city did not belong to the Crusaders, and was quickly returned to the Byzantines.

The next target for the Crusaders was Antioch - a strongly protected Turkish city. It took a seven month siege before the city fell. The next target was Jerusalem.

This is true, but irrelevant.

The attack and capture of Jerusalem started in the summer of 1099. Jerusalem was well defended with high walls around it. The first attacks on the city were not successful as the Crusaders were short of materials for building siege machines. Once logs had arrived, two siege machines were built.

A monk called Fulcher was on the First Crusade. He wrote about the attack on the Holy City and he can be treated as an eye-witness as to what took place.

Fulcher claimed that once the Crusaders had managed to get over the walls of Jerusalem, the Muslim defenders there ran away. Fulcher claimed that the Crusaders cut down anybody they could and that the streets of Jerusalem were ankle deep in blood. The rest of the Crusaders got into the city when the gates were opened. The slaughter continued and the Crusaders “killed whoever they wished”. Those Muslims who had their lives spared, had to go round and collect the bodies before dumping them outside of the city because they stank so much. The Muslims claimed afterwards that 70,000 people were killed and that the Crusaders took whatever treasure they could from the Dome of the Rock.

This is also true, but also irrelevant. It has nothing to with our debate.

 

[c659smith]

How is mine speculation? The history books are quite clear that Alexius was more than a little dismayed at the idea of independent Frankish settlers taking territory that he regarded as Byzantine. The history books are quite clear that Alexius had stopped the Muslim advantage, and was getting ready to take the offensive. The history books are quite clear that Alexius and the Crusaders actually clashed on occasion after the First Crusade, mainly because the Crusaders had taken territory that rightly belonged to Constantinople.

I know this; it has nothing to do with our argument.

First of all, what does this tell you about the weakness of the Turkish armies, and the state of civil war that they were in?

Secondly, this neglects to mention the important role Byzantine troops and siege engines played in this battle. The city did not belong to the Crusaders, and was quickly returned to the Byzantines.

This is true, but irrelevant.

This is also true, but also irrelevant. It has nothing to with our debate.

The facts remain it was Alexius asked for the help. It was he who
called the Pope not the other way around and this is what is written in history concerning why he wanted the help and not mercenaries
In March of 1095, the Byzantine emperor Alexius I Comnenus appealed to the papacy for military aid to help against increasingly hostile neighbours. In 1095 the Seljuk Turks had come within one hundred miles of Byzantium or Constantinople, and they were thought to be threatening Eastern Christians. It was at this point that Alexius summoned the pope’s help to rid the area of the ‘pagans’. It was Alexius’ call for help which provided Urban with a stable reason for launching the crusade.

For some reason you deny Alexius call for help. It was not a walk in the park to take back Jeruselum and it was not a walk in the park to take back Antioch. These well heavily armed and forified cities.

Look at a map and see where Alexius Empire stood in relation to what the Moslem’s controlled. A few Mercenaries would have done nothing to turn back future attacks

 

[c659smith]

How is mine speculation? The history books are quite clear that Alexius was more than a little dismayed at the idea of independent Frankish settlers taking territory that he regarded as Byzantine. The history books are quite clear that Alexius had stopped the Muslim advantage, and was getting ready to take the offensive. The history books are quite clear that Alexius and the Crusaders actually clashed on occasion after the First Crusade, mainly because the Crusaders had taken territory that rightly belonged to Constantinople.

True but it was with the Crusaders blood that the Moslems were in retreat after the first crusade. Alexius did not want to pay for the help he had received and the land was seized. You need to remember the times and the people who fought the crusades were peasants.

Alexius had held his ground but at the time he was running out of supplies and men. The fight could not be sustained. He won the battle but was close to losing the war.

 

[Lujack]

The facts remain it was Alexius asked for the help. It was he who
called the Pope not the other way around and this is what is written in history concerning why he wanted the help and not mercenaries

He wanted help in the form of mercenaries that he could hire for his army. He didn’t want four independent armies. If he did, he would have been prepared to supply them.

In March of 1095, the Byzantine emperor Alexius I Comnenus appealed to the papacy for military aid to help against increasingly hostile neighbours. In 1095 the Seljuk Turks had come within one hundred miles of Byzantium or Constantinople, and they were thought to be threatening Eastern Christians. It was at this point that Alexius summoned the pope’s help to rid the area of the ‘pagans’. It was Alexius’ call for help which provided Urban with a stable reason for launching the crusade.

That’s correct.

For some reason you deny Alexius call for help. It was not a walk in the park to take back Jeruselum and it was not a walk in the park to take back Antioch. These well heavily armed and forified cities.

I don’t deny Alexius’s call for help. I deny that the Crusades were what he needed or wanted. Alexius had mercenaries in mind, not an independent force that intended to take territory for itself.

Taking Jerusalem was not a walk in the park, but it wasn’t what Alexius had in mind. The city was not that important to him. Alexius want Anatolia back, first and foremost. To head for Jerusalem at that time would have a remarkable overstretch.

Look at a map and see where Alexius Empire stood in relation to what the Moslem’s controlled. A few Mercenaries would have done nothing to turn back future attacks

Looking at a map is somewhat misleading, because it doesn’t account for how tenuous Turkish control of Anatolia was. They still hadn’t actually settled down, and were busy fighting each other. Even though a map will draw all of Anatolia under Turkish control at this time, the Turks controlled it only by default. Once the Byzantines got off their back foot in the early 1090’s, the Turkish tide started to recede.

 

[Lujack]

True but it was with the Crusaders blood that the Moslems were in retreat after the first crusade. Alexius did not want to pay for the help he had received and the land was seized. You need to remember the times and the people who fought the crusades were peasants.

The Muslims were not in retreat after the First Crusade. The tide was starting to recede when the Crusaders arrived. Alexius was already restoring Byzantine control over Anatolia.

Alexius, meanwhile, was perfectly willing to pay for the help…with money and supplies. Every crusade leader took an oath in Constantinople to return all Byzantine land to the Byzantines. That oath was badly broken.

Alexius had held his ground but at the time he was running out of supplies and men. The fight could not be sustained. He won the battle but was close to losing the war.

That’s not true. The Turks had reached the gates of Constantinople but had lost decisively in 1091. The Empire was still very powerful, and it wouldn’t be easy to take. Even if the Turkish tide wasn’t receding, how were they going to take Constantinople?

It was done twice: once in the Fourth Crusade, when the Venetians betrayed the Byzantines, and once when the Ottomans took it. The Ottomans had gunpowder and it still took nearly a year to do so (they needed a traitors help to get in the city, too). The Seljuks had no chance of taking Constantinople; even with the Byzantines still in the midst of a civil war and fighting the Normans in Greece, the Turks lost and lost badly.

 

[c659smith]

The Muslims were not in retreat after the First Crusade. The tide was starting to recede when the Crusaders arrived. Alexius was already restoring Byzantine control over Anatolia.

Alexius, meanwhile, was perfectly willing to pay for the help…with money and supplies. Every crusade leader took an oath in Constantinople to return all Byzantine land to the Byzantines. That oath was badly broken.

That’s not true. The Turks had reached the gates of Constantinople but had lost decisively in 1091. The Empire was still very powerful, and it wouldn’t be easy to take. Even if the Turkish tide wasn’t receding, how were they going to take Constantinople?

It was done twice: once in the Fourth Crusade, when the Venetians betrayed the Byzantines, and once when the Ottomans took it. The Ottomans had gunpowder and it still took nearly a year to do so (they needed a traitors help to get in the city, too). The Seljuks had no chance of taking Constantinople; even with the Byzantines still in the midst of a civil war and fighting the Normans in Greece, the Turks lost and lost badly.

You are right in the year 1091 but the year Alexius asked for help was 1095

If after 4 years of beating back the Moslems and the Moslems unable to attack why would Alexius call for help? It does not make sense
In 1095 the Seljuk Turks had come within one hundred miles of Byzantium or Constantinople, and they were thought to be threatening Eastern Christians.

That is why the call went out for help

As far as the Crusaders takiing land once again esspecially in the first crusade there was no leaders and the Pope had little control over the peasants that decided to relocate

 

[Lujack]

You are right in the year 1091 but the year Alexius asked for help was 1095

If after 4 years of beating back the Moslems and the Moslems unable to attack why would Alexius call for help? It does not make sense
In 1095 the Seljuk Turks had come within one hundred miles of Byzantium or Constantinople, and they were thought to be threatening Eastern Christians.

That is why the call went out for help

As far as the Crusaders takiing land once again esspecially in the first crusade there was no leaders and the Pope had little control over the peasants that decided to relocate

I think you’re misunderstanding me. I’m not calling Pope Urban an evil man, or the Crusaders evil people (there were some very unsavory crusaders, and there were some noble ones). I’m simply saying that Christendom would probably have been better off if Alexius got a flood of mercenaries, instead of four crusading armies, because the knock-on effects of the Crusades ultimately proved to be negative for the Byzantine Empire, the bulwark of Christendom (particularly the Fourth Crusade).

From what I’ve read at the college library, Alexius’s call for help came in 1095 because he was finally at peace with the Normans, the Byzantine finances were in order (important when one wants mercenaries), and he was ready to take the offensive at last. That would explain the delay, especially the second factor. It would be quite silly to call for mercenaries when you can’t pay them.

 

[c659smith]

I think you’re misunderstanding me. I’m not calling Pope Urban an evil man, or the Crusaders evil people (there were some very unsavory crusaders, and there were some noble ones). I’m simply saying that Christendom would probably have been better off if Alexius got a flood of mercenaries, instead of four crusading armies, because the knock-on effects of the Crusades ultimately proved to be negative for the Byzantine Empire, the bulwark of Christendom (particularly the Fourth Crusade).

From what I’ve read at the college library, Alexius’s call for help came in 1095 because he was finally at peace with the Normans, the Byzantine finances were in order (important when one wants mercenaries), and he was ready to take the offensive at last. That would explain the delay, especially the second factor. It would be quite silly to call for mercenaries when you can’t pay them.

Yes you are right there about it being unfortunate for the Byzantine Empire but the big picture is that by the time the last crusade hit the Crusaders were well organized and had leaders. This ultimately stopped the moslem agression and their desires on Europe.

In other words some battles were lost but the war was won. Agreed they had to withdraw from the middle East but had safe thoroughfare to the Religious areas.
The agression and hostilities were ceased as far as the Moslem advance.

Plus lets include the Rosary and what that had done ultimately to sink the Moslem Arnada.

Throughout the sixteenth century, naval clashes with the Turkish fleet had been increasing. Having taken Constantinople in 1453, the Ottoman Turks were building a fleet (in the modern Gulf of Corinth and the Gulf of Lepanto

Ionian Sea - an arm of the Mediterranean Sea between western Greece and southern Italy with the intention of conquering all of Europe, first by sea, then by land.

The Turkish fleet was seemingly invincible–well appointed, superbly led and unflinchingly aggressive. They captured Cyprus in 1570 (they skinned the Christian commander while he was still alive), Rhodes (1522) and had only been narrowly repelled at Malta.

Pope St. Pius V hoped to stave off the next inevitable attack before it happened and managed to bring together the fleets of Spain and of the republics of Venice and Genoa, as well as the papal fleet, to stop the Turkish fleet from leaving its own waters. This remarkable alliance was comprised of many traditional enemies who succeeded in putting aside their differences to aid their common cause. Two hundred ships set sail to engage the 220 ships of the Turkish fleet.

Pius V, besides his personal penances, enjoined the entire Catholic world to pray the rosary and organized processions throughout Rome for the Marian prayer. On October 7, 1571, while working with his cardinals, Pius V looked up and said, “A truce to business; our great task at present is to thank God for the victory which he has just given the Christian army.”

Indeed, in a few short hours Don Juan Don Juan (dŏn wän, j`ən, Span. dōn hwän), legendary profligate. of Austria, commander of the Holy Alliance, had won the day, not only defeating the Turkish fleet but also freeing over 12,000 Christian galley slaves from the Turkish ships.

Thus began the feast of Our Lady of Victory, later changed by Pope Gregory XIII Pope Gregory XIII (January 7, 1502 – April 10, 1585), born Ugo Boncompagni, was Pope from 1572 to 1585. Early biography
Youth
He was born in Bologna, where he studied law and graduated in 1530. to the feast of Our Lady of the RosaryThe Feast of Our Lady of the Rosary is celebrated on October 7 on the Roman Catholic calendar of saints. Technically this day has the liturgical rank of Memorial. Originally observed as the Feast of Our Lady of Victory, its date was chosen to commemorate the European victory.

From the outset the Crusades were defensive wars and checked the advance of the Mohammedans who, for two centuries, concentrated their forces in a struggle against the Christian settlements in Syria; hence Europe is largely indebted to the Crusades for the maintenance of its independence. Besides, the Crusades brought about results of which the popes had never dreamed, and which were perhaps the most, important of all. They re-established traffic between the East and West,

 

[Lujack]

Yes you are right there about it being unfortunate for the Byzantine Empire but the big picture is that by the time the last crusade hit the Crusaders were well organized and had leaders. This ultimately stopped the moslem agression and their desires on Europe.

But if the Byzantine Empire doesn’t fall, then the Turks don’t even get across the Bosporus. The Crusades were never well organized, really. Even in the legendary Third Crusade, the French got tired and just went home. Because of the Crusades, the Turks got further into Europe than they would have otherwise. Land that would have been Byzantine became Ottoman.

In other words some battles were lost but the war was won. Agreed they had to withdraw from the middle East but had safe thoroughfare to the Religious areas.
The agression and hostilities were ceased as far as the Moslem advance.

A strong Byzantine Empire would also have been able to secure safe passage, and in fact was in the process of doing so in the time that the Crusades began.

Plus lets include the Rosary and what that had done ultimately to sink the Moslem Arnada.

Lepanto is something entirely different. That’s not a part of the Crusading Era.

 

[c659smith]

But if the Byzantine Empire doesn’t fall, then the Turks don’t even get across the Bosporus. The Crusades were never well organized, really. Even in the legendary Third Crusade, the French got tired and just went home. Because of the Crusades, the Turks got further into Europe than they would have otherwise. Land that would have been Byzantine became Ottoman.

A strong Byzantine Empire would also have been able to secure safe passage, and in fact was in the process of doing so in the time that the Crusades began.

Lepanto is something entirely different. That’s not a part of the Crusading Era.

In 1095 when the call went out for help the Moslems were within a 100 mile of the Empire and were getting ready to march. Why is that hard to believe.

Look hundreds of thousands of crusaders marched into war, The Byzantines just did not have enough people to withstand the constant battles.

Well I beg to differ the crusades were fairly constant till then.

 

[Lujack]

In 1095 when the call went out for help the Moslems were within a 100 mile of the Empire and were getting ready to march. Why is that hard to believe.

The Turks were within 100 miles of Constantinople because Anatolia was a no-man’s land. The maps are misleading because there was no government over most of Anatolia. The Turks were ranging at will, but they didn’t have the troops to take Constantinople.

Look hundreds of thousands of crusaders marched into war, The Byzantines just did not have enough people to withstand the constant battles.

Yes, they did. They were in a much better spot in 1095 than they were in the 1080’s, when they were fighting the Normans, the Turks, and the Pechenegs all at the same time. They won, decisively.

Well I beg to differ the crusades were fairly constant till then.

The Battle of Lepanto was in 1571. The 9th Crusade was in 1271. That’s 300 years apart.

 

[c659smith]

The Turks were within 100 miles of Constantinople because Anatolia was a no-man’s land. The maps are misleading because there was no government over most of Anatolia. The Turks were ranging at will, but they didn’t have the troops to take Constantinople.

Yes, they did. They were in a much better spot in 1095 than they were in the 1080’s, when they were fighting the Normans, the Turks, and the Pechenegs all at the same time. They won, decisively.

The Battle of Lepanto was in 1571. The 9th Crusade was in 1271. That’s 300 years apart.

yes the 9th crusade was in 1271 but the fighting did not cease till there was a clear passage to the Holy Land and the Moslem,s halted their encrochment into Europe and began it’s withdrawal.

I agree with you that technically the crusades stopped then but you must agree that was by name only.

 

[Lujack]

yes the 9th crusade was in 1271 but the fighting did not cease till there was a clear passage to the Holy Land and the Moslem,s halted their encrochment into Europe and began it’s withdrawal.

The wars with the Ottomans in the later centuries and the fighting in the Crusades were different wars with different motivations. There was a time span of about 150 years between the 9th Crusade and the fall of Constantinople, so even if every war between the Western Catholics and Ottoman Turks counts as a crusade, that’s still a lapse of several generations.

I agree with you that technically the crusades stopped then but you must agree that was by name only.

If you are going to define every war between a Christian faction and a Muslim faction as a Crusade, than the Crusading era began when the Byzantine army fought the Arab army in the 7th century. Under that definition, though, the term dilutes to meaninglessness.