The Crusades: When Christendom Pushed Back

[manualman]

The Crusades were just the invasion to capture land that was not theirs from a previous group whom had invaded and captured a land that also did not belong to them. It was followed by additional cycles of invaders. This cycle has finally been broken forever as the land has returned to its rightful owners in accordance with God’s promise. As the promise was eternal this should have been understood from the beginning to have been inevitable.

cp, I wonder if you are even aware of how selective and self serving your posts sound. Ancient history is chock full of atrocity and horror. Actually recent history is too. Humans have this pesky problem of sin that afflicts both the best and worst of us.

If I wanted to, I could pick and choose historical facts to construct an argument that the US and British forces in World War II were barbaric and committed untold atrocities and unnecessary violence against innocents. War is not something that can be controlled well, even in today’s era of satellite communications, massive regulatory systems and resources devoted to arms. This is why innocent Palestinian civilians suffer as much as Hezbollah killers today and why innocent Jews suffered as much as Moorish invaders in Spanish history: once you unleash the killing machine of war it is VERY hard to control it, even if you try. There will NEVER be such a thing as a “surgical war.”

I find it ironic that you use the exact same rhetorical criticism tactics against the catholic church of history that Hamas/Hezbollah use against Israel today.

Muslims, of course, think Allah granted the whole of the dar al Islam to THEM and feel divinely justified in fighting to the death to restore it. Perhaps its true that that war will never be over while one side still has people left alive.

Perhaps everybody ought to give up the idea of power/conquest and live according to mutually agreed upon laws and rights instead? Hard to do after centuries of killing…

 

[Hesychios]

“Wars are always waged by young boys, for old men.”

Lives are lost and ruined by war, but nevertheless, somebody has to fight back against aggression. The Crusades were justified, for the same reason that anti-colonial revolutions were justified.

I found this quote interesting.

Jerusalem (belonging to the Byzantine Empire) falls to the Muslims in 638AD.

The First Crusade is launched by Pope Urban in 1095AD, and composed of Non-Byzantine people.

That is 457 years as close as I can figure. Every century contains four to five human generations so that can be twenty or twenty one generations, depending upon the birth rate!

How is this an example of “… fight back against aggression” ? I do not believe that this was one of the stated goals when the Crusade was launched.

 

[Hesychios]

At the time of the first crusade …
Muslim Sicily was attacking Calabria

I just wanted to make a minor correction.

At the time of the First Crusade (1095 - 1099 AD) Sicily was controled by the Normans, Roger I seems to have been in power there and in Calabria at the time. The period of Muslim domination had ended.

I agree that it was a terrible situation when Muslim raiders were able to cross the Mediterranean. They attacked Rome as well as other places.

 

[malphono]

I found this quote interesting.

Jerusalem (belonging to the Byzantine Empire) falls to the Muslims in 638AD.

The First Crusade is launched by Pope Urban in 1095AD, and composed of Non-Byzantine people.

That is 457 years as close as I can figure. Every century contains four to five human generations so that can be twenty or twenty one generations, depending upon the birth rate!

How is this an example of “… fight back against aggression” ? I do not believe that this was one of the stated goals when the Crusade was launched.

IMO, one has to look at the situation on the ground, plus the Caliphates, in order to get a better picture.

The early days of the invasion were marked by military conquest, but repression was still minimal (take, e.g., St John of Damascus debating theological points with the invaders). But of course that soon changed: first with the Ommiyads, and then the repression became progressively worse with the Abbasids. By the 10th century, the Eastern Mediterranean was under the yoke of the Fatamids and the repression was in full swing. Looking at the time line, that last coincides with the start of the Crusades. Just something to keep in mind.

 

[Seamus_L]

As Catholic historian Hillaire Belloc put it so well, "Had the Crusaders captured Damascus, the Islamic World would have been cut in two and “bled to death of the wound” — which would have been a highly desirable and positive outcome.

 

[malphono]

As Catholic historian Hillaire Belloc put it so well, "Had the Crusaders captured Damascus, the Islamic World would have been cut in two and “bled to death of the wound” — which would have been a highly desirable and positive outcome.

The outcome would have been positive, yes, but I don’t think that one action would have made much difference. Had Cairo (the Fatamid capital) fallen, maybe. Else, the Crusaders would have had to have taken all of present-day Syria and Jordan, plus a good swath of Arabian desert to the south in order to cause a “wound” of that magnitude.

Just my :twocents:

 

[Hesychios]

As Catholic historian Hillaire Belloc put it so well, "Had the Crusaders captured Damascus, the Islamic World would have been cut in two and “bled to death of the wound” — which would have been a highly desirable and positive outcome.

That sounds like poetic license to me.

Attacking Damascus was a patently foolish idea.