The Crusades: For nothing or for Christ?

[MontChevalier]

Blessings be upon you all from God almighty,

I am Montchevalier; which means Mountain Knight, and I’ve been coming here for quite some time. This website has been utterly helpful in my path into Catholicism, but some time ago, in January 26, 2011, a man by the username, Son of Abel, posted a thread called, “Defence of the Crusades by Modern Popes”.

The board was divided between Pro-Crusaders and Anti-Crusaders.

Both sides had given some well-sounded perspectives on the Crusades, and the thread had digressed to talking about the Templar Knights.

As a student, it’s my job to find out the truth about these things, and I believe I have found it. Through this book,'The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam(And the Crusades)", by Robert Spencer.

In the book, Robert says that,“The Crusades were defensive conflicts.” and that “The Orthodox Christians who were living in those places were living horrible lives under dhimmitudes.”

If anything, the Crusaders should be commended for their honorable duty to defending Christians whom, although they weren’t Catholics themselves, were well-protected by the Crusaders. Although to many people, the events in Jerusalem 1099, where the Crusaders sieged the city and killed so many people that the blood reached up to a horses hooves, is actually erroneous.

For one thing, in the Chronicle of Fulcher of Chartres it states:

One of our knights, Letholdus by name, climbed on to the wall
of the city. When he reached the top, all the defenders of the
city quickly fled along the walls and through the city. Our men
followed and pursued them, killing and hacking, as far as the
temple of Solomon, and there there was such a slaughter that
our men were up to their ankles in the enemy’s blood.

The emir who commanded the tower of David surrendered
to the Count[of St. Gilles] and opened the gate where pilgrims
used to pay tribute. Entering the city, our pilgrims pursued
and killed the Saracens up to the temple of Solomon. There
the Saracens assembled and resisted fiercely all day, so that
the whole temple flowed with their blood. At last the pagans
were overcome and our men seized many men and women in
the temple, killing them or keeping them alive as they saw fit.
On the roof of the temple there was a great crowd of pagans of
both sexes, to whom Tancred and Gaston de Beert gave their
banners [in those days, giving someone their banner was a sign
of offering protection, which the citizens accepted]. Then the crusaders
scattered throughout the city, seizing gold and silver, horses
and mules, and houses full of all sorts of goods. Afterwards
our men went rejoicing and weeping for joy to adore the
sepulchre of our Saviour Jesus and there discharged their debt
to Him.

This may all seem utterly jarring in our modern sensibilities to read a positive account of such wanton massacre; such is the difference between the attitudes and assumptions of those days and our own.

In the boldened area, I will begin by explaining how this part was a mere exaggeration on the writer, Fulcher de Chartres’, part. In the twelfth-century, Balderic, a bishop, reported that the Crusaders killed over 30,000 people, which is also an exaggeration. Muslims put it even higher, stating first at 70,000, then later on to 100,000 and more in later years. The fact remains that what indeed happened was nothing more than the death of some few hundred, perhaps thousands of, warriors in the city, male and female; since muslims have little shame in giving a woman a weapon (I’m using an archaic mentality when I refer to this sentence).

But for people to think that it was truly as bloody as “up to their ankles” is incorrect. For one, people don’t bleed that much, two, there weren’t that many people for it to have been like that, and three, the Christian warriors of those days were more honorable than we care to know.

In these aspects, and not just these, but also many others in the long march, we can begin to see how the Crusades were not as barbaric as many make them out to be, since, and this is well-known, when an army, in those days, fought in a siege for days, they would loot it, which includes food, money, horses and many other things.

All of this information can be found in the book,“The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam(And the Crusades)” by Robert Spencer, and more.

For many of us, we’ve been told that the Muslims came out of the Crusades looking like “good guys”, but this is also erroneous. You see, Muslims enforced sharia law on the Christians who lived there, and Sharia law dictates that…

Well, to make it simple, imagine the 1940s in a concentration camp. Like that. Graphic, huh? THAT’S what the Orthodox were going through.

And when most say “The Crusades was for nothing.” They obviously don’t take into account how many Muslims were joining the Spanish Jihad in Spain and in Anatolia. The Crusades had weakened the Muslims and brought them concentrating their forces in the Holy land. So what did the Crusades do? They bought time and eliminated the fascist-islamic resources that they had been relying on.

In the topic of “Defense of the Crusades by Modern Popes”, it can be believed that Pope John Paul II had apologized for the Crusades. But that’s incorrect.

Either way, I would like to continue that thread and do so in proper form.

Discuss, please.

 

[Lieutenant_Kije]

I haven’t read the book you are referencing and so cannot comment on it specifically but I am always down for some historical discussion. I’m not particularly religious but I nonetheless sometimes find myself with strange historical bedfellows.

The Crusades often exist in the popular imagination as sort of this monolithic pseudo-genocide. People of course disagree on which side is the genocidal one. Historically it is far more complicated than that and I think the best approach when discussing the issue is not treat it in terms of “Christians” and “Muslims” but instead to consider the individual agency of the various European, Byzantine, and Saracen leaders and armies involved in the conflicts. One gets a very different feel for things if one is speaking about the actions of the French in the First Crusade then if one is speaking about the Venetians in the Fourth Crusade, for example. Rather than lumping it all together I think one should look more closely at individual agency/moral culpability–that always seemed more intellectually responsible to me than painting Christians or Muslims with such a broad brush.

 

[James_Trevor]

One wonders how much history is skewed from reality depending on whom wins the war and how much time has passed. How will the world view contemporary wars a thousand years from now? On the subject of the crusades and Catholicism it is QUITE common for history books to paint the Church in an unflattering color. I would agree that the crusades have been exaggerated to a monstrous event which is very likely far from the truth and I would also agree that culpability should fall on individual countries and the men that led their armies rather than blaming the Pope.
Dr. Thomas Woods’ works might be interesting for you to read MontChevalier.

 

[Warrenton]

Deus vult!!

 

[Barbkw]

So what did the Crusades do? They bought time and eliminated the fascist-islamic resources that they had been relying on.

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=4461

 

[MontChevalier]

I haven’t read the book you are referencing and so cannot comment on it specifically but I am always down for some historical discussion. I’m not particularly religious but I nonetheless sometimes find myself with strange historical bedfellows.

The Crusades often exist in the popular imagination as sort of this monolithic pseudo-genocide. People of course disagree on which side is the genocidal one. Historically it is far more complicated than that and I think the best approach when discussing the issue is not treat it in terms of “Christians” and “Muslims” but instead to consider the individual agency of the various European, Byzantine, and Saracen leaders and armies involved in the conflicts. One gets a very different feel for things if one is speaking about the actions of the French in the First Crusade then if one is speaking about the Venetians in the Fourth Crusade, for example. Rather than lumping it all together I think one should look more closely at individual agency/moral culpability–that always seemed more intellectually responsible to me than painting Christians or Muslims with such a broad brush.

I highly recommend you read the book. The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam(And the Crusades) by Robert Spencer is the sort of book we need these days to take a right step in the right direction.

The issue with the Crusades is that the history; and this I’ve managed to p(name removed by moderator)oint and divide between two types of historians, (The left-wing; who believe the Crusades was for nothing, and the right-wing; who believe the Crusades was a justified call), is controlled by groups who wish to further political, rather than truthful annotations about these events.

It’s our job to bring to light the truth, even if it is nasty.

I have in my possession several old chronicles of the Crusades and I’m astonished at how untruthful the media has been and how harsh they’ve been to the Catholic church in recent years. It is also a fact that the Media has also hidden the fact that the culture which we deem as “islamic” is actually Byzantine Orthodox Greek Christian. It’s all here in the book, and I’ve been suggesting this book to people like crazy.

In truth, I’m a huge Crusader fan. And it just fascinates me to find that my favorite time period is getting its due, and it’s well-earned respect.

I’m aware, mostly, of the major players in the Crusades and even the political backgrounds involving the kingdoms at the time.

You may ask yourself, did Jews have it better in Islamic lands, than they did in Christian? In the book, Robert actually addresses this issue, which has, from time and time again, referred to Crusaders as “anti-semetic”, which is also a fallacy. The answer is no. Jews were dhimmi(“protected people”; the word in Islamic truly means “subdued people” cause they’re, in a sense, subdued and ill-treated and many other things so they can convert to Islam) and were treated far worst; which is sad.

This can also be contributed to the Polish laws implemented by Boleslaw I the brave, the great Polish king. Jews would often refer to Poland as “Our jewish paradise”. The jews had stayed in Poland for a millenia and thrived like a fat kid at a buffet. Poland was one of the few kingdoms at the time to be a tolerant society; although all the kingdoms were generally tolerant, the Polish enforced and encouraged tolerance. (This is one of the reasons they are one of my favorite kingdoms).

If anything, you know that I’m a well-learned scholar on medieval history, warfare, ideology and daily life. I’m even considering learning Old French. Old English is easy enough anyway.

 

[MontChevalier]

One wonders how much history is skewed from reality depending on whom wins the war and how much time has passed. How will the world view contemporary wars a thousand years from now? On the subject of the crusades and Catholicism it is QUITE common for history books to paint the Church in an unflattering color. I would agree that the crusades have been exaggerated to a monstrous event which is very likely far from the truth and I would also agree that culpability should fall on individual countries and the men that led their armies rather than blaming the Pope.
Dr. Thomas Woods’ works might be interesting for you to read MontChevalier.

I’m up on Google.com and there happen to be two Thomas Woods. There’s a Bishop and there’s a Historian. Throw me a bone here.

 

[James_Trevor]

I’m up on Google.com and there happen to be two Thomas Woods. There’s a Bishop and there’s a Historian. Throw me a bone here.

Historian, he wrote the book “How The Catholic Church Founded Western Civilization”.

 

[abucs]

I think its important to keep in perspective that 2/3rds of the Christian world was conquered before the first crusade was called.

 

[MontChevalier]

I want to know, however, how many Catholics believe the Crusades was a good or bad thing.

Here’s an interesting question:

If the Pope called for a Crusade today, would you go?

 

[laszlo]

I want to know, however, how many Catholics believe the Crusades was a good or bad thing.

Here’s an interesting question:

If the Pope called for a Crusade today, would you go?

Several million Americans went to Vietnam, Iraqi, Afghanistan for the values of our Government and friends in our time. Your question only represents the political power of the pope.

The result of the crusades was the reinvention of the classical Greek culture in the Western world. This was positive result.

As for the problems - if some speaker pointed out - it can be view in the context that there were blooming Christian cultures in North Africa, and that was completely extincted in the name of Allah. That was the way of the life.

The Crusades were lost mostly for the greed of those who provided the logistic, the supply and transportation. It was too late while the Western Word recognized this and get rid of them. We are fragile humans, and apparently do not learn.

 

[Warrenton]

I want to know, however, how many Catholics believe the Crusades was a good or bad thing.

Here’s an interesting question:

If the Pope called for a Crusade today, would you go?

Yes, but as a hospitaller!

 

[CatholicFireman]

Here is an interesting presentation that I posted on another thread (Crusades). Don’t know if it help, but I liked it:

youtube.com/watch?v=zvLlvfg5K6k&feature=related

 

[CatholicFireman]

I want to know, however, how many Catholics believe the Crusades was a good or bad thing.

Here’s an interesting question:

If the Pope called for a Crusade today, would you go?

I kind of feel like I’m on a “passive” Crusade already. We’re in a war on terrorism but not outwardly in an army for the Pope. If fact, I watch the news and all I see is Christians in the Middle East fighting for and dying because of their faith.

 

[TMC]

Blessings be upon you all from God almighty,

I am Montchevalier; which means Mountain Knight, and I’ve been coming here for quite some time. This website has been utterly helpful in my path into Catholicism, but some time ago, in January 26, 2011, a man by the username, Son of Abel, posted a thread called, “Defence of the Crusades by Modern Popes”.

The board was divided between Pro-Crusaders and Anti-Crusaders.

Both sides had given some well-sounded perspectives on the Crusades, and the thread had digressed to talking about the Templar Knights.

As a student, it’s my job to find out the truth about these things, and I believe I have found it. Through this book,'The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam(And the Crusades)", by Robert Spencer.

In the book, Robert says that,“The Crusades were defensive conflicts.” and that “The Orthodox Christians who were living in those places were living horrible lives under dhimmitudes.”

If anything, the Crusaders should be commended for their honorable duty to defending Christians whom, although they weren’t Catholics themselves, were well-protected by the Crusaders. Although to many people, the events in Jerusalem 1099, where the Crusaders sieged the city and killed so many people that the blood reached up to a horses hooves, is actually erroneous.

For one thing, in the Chronicle of Fulcher of Chartres it states:

This may all seem utterly jarring in our modern sensibilities to read a positive account of such wanton massacre; such is the difference between the attitudes and assumptions of those days and our own.

In the boldened area, I will begin by explaining how this part was a mere exaggeration on the writer, Fulcher de Chartres’, part. In the twelfth-century, Balderic, a bishop, reported that the Crusaders killed over 30,000 people, which is also an exaggeration. Muslims put it even higher, stating first at 70,000, then later on to 100,000 and more in later years. The fact remains that what indeed happened was nothing more than the death of some few hundred, perhaps thousands of, warriors in the city, male and female; since muslims have little shame in giving a woman a weapon (I’m using an archaic mentality when I refer to this sentence).

But for people to think that it was truly as bloody as “up to their ankles” is incorrect. For one, people don’t bleed that much, two, there weren’t that many people for it to have been like that, and three, the Christian warriors of those days were more honorable than we care to know.

In these aspects, and not just these, but also many others in the long march, we can begin to see how the Crusades were not as barbaric as many make them out to be, since, and this is well-known, when an army, in those days, fought in a siege for days, they would loot it, which includes food, money, horses and many other things.

All of this information can be found in the book,“The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam(And the Crusades)” by Robert Spencer, and more.

For many of us, we’ve been told that the Muslims came out of the Crusades looking like “good guys”, but this is also erroneous. You see, Muslims enforced sharia law on the Christians who lived there, and Sharia law dictates that…

Well, to make it simple, imagine the 1940s in a concentration camp. Like that. Graphic, huh? THAT’S what the Orthodox were going through.

And when most say “The Crusades was for nothing.” They obviously don’t take into account how many Muslims were joining the Spanish Jihad in Spain and in Anatolia. The Crusades had weakened the Muslims and brought them concentrating their forces in the Holy land. So what did the Crusades do? They bought time and eliminated the fascist-islamic resources that they had been relying on.

In the topic of “Defense of the Crusades by Modern Popes”, it can be believed that Pope John Paul II had apologized for the Crusades. But that’s incorrect.

Either way, I would like to continue that thread and do so in proper form.

Discuss, please.

I would be careful relying on Robert Spencer for information about the Crusades. He is a well-known critic of Muslims and Islam - he writes not as an objective historian but as someone with a cultural and political agenda. I am not saying his writings are worthless (I don’t know, as I haven’t read them), but I would also look to objective historians for some balance. As for the Church’s viewpoint, the Church does not attempt to justify or defend the Crusades. You are correct that the Pope did not explicitly apologize for the Crusades, but he did apologize for some of the atrocitities committed during the Crusades.

 

[Planty_Pall]

I want to know, however, how many Catholics believe the Crusades was a good or bad thing.

Here’s an interesting question:

If the Pope called for a Crusade today, would you go?

Some of the Crusades were imprudent, but how can a Catholic condemn all of them as immoral when holy men like King St. Louis IX and St. Francis of Assisi were participants in their times? This is one of those historical questions that are so politically charged that it is still difficult to find objective history.

Non-Catholics, both secular and religious have made major intellectual investment in the idea of Catholics abusing their power so egregiously that the Catholic Church cannot be true and Her brightest hours need to be labelled “Dark Ages”. It is a false assumption that has been made in order to arrive at the Americanist/Jacobin model of separation of church and state. After all, we can’t have a Catholic President Kennedy listen to his Church regarding any question of national importance, and especially in regards to the question of just war.

I could theoretically support, if it seemed prudent, a Crusade against an immoral nation that spends tax dollars on state funded public education that attempts to belittle the true faith, while passing laws that legalize pornography, and murder of the unborn.

If it seemed right to overthrow King George because of stamp taxes without representation, what about the modern democratic regimes? Have they not with “the blessing” of universal suffrage and government of the people, by the people, and for the people yet reached a level of intolerable immorality equal with “the horror” of taxes on stamps and tea?

 

[Warrenton]

I could theoretically support, if it seemed prudent, a Crusade against an immoral nation that spends tax dollars on state funded public education that attempts to belittle the true faith, while passing laws that legalize pornography, and murder of the unborn.

If it seemed right to overthrow King George because of stamp taxes without representation, what about the modern democratic regimes? Have they not with “the blessing” of universal suffrage and government of the people, by the people, and for the people yet reached a level of intolerable immorality equal with “the horror” of taxes on stamps and tea?

I like this post!

 

[dusty_david]

Some of the Crusades were imprudent, but how can a Catholic condemn all of them as immoral when holy men like King St. Louis IX and St. Francis of Assisi were participants in their times? This is one of those historical questions that are so politically charged that it is still difficult to find objective history.

Non-Catholics, both secular and religious have made major intellectual investment in the idea of Catholics abusing their power so egregiously that the Catholic Church cannot be true and Her brightest hours need to be labelled “Dark Ages”. It is a false assumption that has been made in order to arrive at the Americanist/Jacobin model of separation of church and state. After all, we can’t have a Catholic President Kennedy listen to his Church regarding any question of national importance, and especially in regards to the question of just war.

I could theoretically support, if it seemed prudent, a Crusade against an immoral nation that spends tax dollars on state funded public education that attempts to belittle the true faith, while passing laws that legalize pornography, and murder of the unborn.

If it seemed right to overthrow King George because of stamp taxes without representation, what about the modern democratic regimes? Have they not with “the blessing” of universal suffrage and government of the people, by the people, and for the people yet reached a level of intolerable immorality equal with “the horror” of taxes on stamps and tea?

What’s an acceptable body count of dead Americans for your Crusade? 100,000? 250,000? 650,000? (estimated dead from the Civil War). How about a million? How much blood does your Crusade need to spill to make the US a decent god-fearing and Catholic nation?

Sorry, but when you are thinking about a war, you need decide on an acceptable level of casualties. At least for your fellow Crusaders if not for us Americans

 

[Planty_Pall]

What’s an acceptable body count of dead Americans for your Crusade? 100,000? 250,000? 650,000? (estimated dead from the Civil War). How about a million? How much blood does your Crusade need to spill to make the US a decent god-fearing and Catholic nation?

Sorry, but when you are thinking about a war, you need decide on an acceptable level of casualties. At least for your fellow Crusaders if not for us Americans

Hi Dusty David. Thanks for your reply. I appreciate your concerns and would like to ask you to consider some clarifying comments. You seem to me to have jumped to some conclusions that do not necessarily apply.

I was more careful in the wording of my statement than you give me credit for.

I am pretty sure I said that I “could theoretically support”, to the question asked as to whether I could support a modern crusade. I also said it would need to be prudent, which would take into consideration the questions you raise regarding estimated casualties. There are other very serious qualifications that would need to be in place, none of which can be immediately envisioned.

I never named the United States as the object of a crusade. I described the United States, and deliberately alluded to events in American history because a significant majority of Catholic Answers participants seem to be from America. But I also described Canada, Great Britain, and the rest of the European continent so far as I know.

I thought perhaps upon reflection, some Catholics here might see how one could reasonably see why a Catholic politician ought to be able to consult his faith as a moral guide in how he would try to use his influence. I also thought that maybe they might agree that the moral guilt and trespasses of a British king and Parliament that in most American eyes justified war, could seem to pale against the moral guilt and trespasses of the American Presidents, Congress, and judiciary that has replaced them in 2011. I am not saying that stamp and tea taxes justify war. I am saying that IF they justify war, what about abortion, pornography, and organized propaganda against the true faith and morals taught in public schools and universities? To me, the latter is worse. I do not know that it is enough to justify a Crusade or not. I am a peaceful guy. I could not have fought against King George. But many Americans are sure it was a just war against a tyrant. It is to the Catholics among them that I appeal as to the reasonableness of my possible theoretical support for a Crusade today.

But that is not all. The difference between a Crusade and the American Revolution is that the Vicar of Christ approves of a crusade. You referred to what I described saying, “How much blood does your Crusade need to spill to make the US a decent god-fearing and Catholic nation?” Dusty David, that isn’t fair at all. It could not be my crusade, but God’s. Before I “could theoretically support it”, the Catholic Church, with its pope and bishops, would need to present a well-reasoned call for a crusade against an enemy of God that would have a chance to succeed without assuming upon divine intervention. That probably means that in whatever country it might take place, there would exist at least a sizable number of Christians who would also fight, after being unjustly crushed under the weight of religious infidels, or secular humanists.

I do not believe that by going to war against the enemies of God and His Church, the enemies would convert. One presupposes that the Pope would send emissaries to our enemies, reasoning with them about why they should turn from evil and embrace the Cross. It seems likely that he might warn them of their impending destruction in the event that they failed to take heed. A fear of imminent death can help some souls to reevaluate their professed beliefs. It might even persuade them to relax policies that the Holy See finds so abhorrent without converting. That would be enough to my mind to suspend the threatened attack.

The Church has never proposed that a just war is a way of making infidels turn to Christ. Instead, you just overthrow unjust tyranny and laws abhorrent to the faith. Assuredly, such a climate, wherein Christian morality and history are upheld by the body politic, would result in the possibility that future generations who would otherwise have lived and died in secular darkness might see the beauty, goodness, and truth of the Catholic faith. We must love our enemies enough to give them every opportunity to repent though, before a Crusade, which would be only the last resort.

Plantagenet

 

[MontChevalier]

I would be careful relying on Robert Spencer for information about the Crusades. He is a well-known critic of Muslims and Islam - he writes not as an objective historian but as someone with a cultural and political agenda. I am not saying his writings are worthless (I don’t know, as I haven’t read them), but I would also look to objective historians for some balance. As for the Church’s viewpoint, the Church does not attempt to justify or defend the Crusades. You are correct that the Pope did not explicitly apologize for the Crusades, but he did apologize for some of the atrocitities committed during the Crusades.

You are indeed correct. And it’s a good thing I thought ahead and went out searching for historians proper historians, and what do you know? I found them!

There’s Rodney Stark’s God’s Battalions, and Chris Tyerman’s God’s War: A New History of the Crusades. The latter one is over a thousand pages long, so you know it’s good.

Some of the Crusades were imprudent, but how can a Catholic condemn all of them as immoral when holy men like King St. Louis IX and St. Francis of Assisi were participants in their times? This is one of those historical questions that are so politically charged that it is still difficult to find objective history.

Non-Catholics, both secular and religious have made major intellectual investment in the idea of Catholics abusing their power so egregiously that the Catholic Church cannot be true and Her brightest hours need to be labelled “Dark Ages”. It is a false assumption that has been made in order to arrive at the Americanist/Jacobin model of separation of church and state. After all, we can’t have a Catholic President Kennedy listen to his Church regarding any question of national importance, and especially in regards to the question of just war.

I could theoretically support, if it seemed prudent, a Crusade against an immoral nation that spends tax dollars on state funded public education that attempts to belittle the true faith, while passing laws that legalize pornography, and murder of the unborn.

If it seemed right to overthrow King George because of stamp taxes without representation, what about the modern democratic regimes? Have they not with “the blessing” of universal suffrage and government of the people, by the people, and for the people yet reached a level of intolerable immorality equal with “the horror” of taxes on stamps and tea?

While I agree with you Planty Pall; and you are indeed correct, a Crusade against pornography, anathema and abortion would indeed be things to stand opposed to, but what about a Crusade, modeled after the same kind of a thousand years ago? Say against an ever-increasing Islamic or Pagan threat?

Remember what I said about dhimmitude?

Wouldn’t that be worth something to fight against?

There are reports, although I don’t have sources for it, that many armenian orthodox christians are being persecuted in Turkey, and in several other places all over the middle east, and the far-east, like in China.

I know they’re not Catholic, but they’re still our brothers. I mean, perhaps we might have different ideas of who is our brother and who is not, but I believe that whoever acknowledges Jesus, acknowledges God, and through this, he or she is my brother or sister. Maybe some don’t agree.

What’s an acceptable body count of dead Americans for your Crusade? 100,000? 250,000? 650,000? (estimated dead from the Civil War). How about a million? How much blood does your Crusade need to spill to make the US a decent god-fearing and Catholic nation?

Sorry, but when you are thinking about a war, you need decide on an acceptable level of casualties. At least for your fellow Crusaders if not for us Americans

The Pope would NEVER call a Crusade against fellow Christians. It stands against what the Crusades truly are, pilgrimages.

Much rather, I would rather keep the body count down to zero, but if it’s war, then death toll’s will always happen. It can’t be helped. Even you should know that.