The Crusades: When Christendom Pushed Back

  • Thread starter Thread starter NeelyAnn
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

NeelyAnn

Guest
thenewamerican.com/index.php/history/world/2876-when-christendom-pushed-back

**The Crusades: When Christendom Pushed Back **
Written by Selwyn Duke
Friday, 05 February 2010 00:00

The year is 732 A.D., and Europe is under assault. Islam, born a mere 110 years earlier, is already in its adolescence, and the Muslim Moors are on the march.

Growing in leaps and bounds, the Caliphate, as the Islamic realm is known, has thus far subdued much of Christendom, conquering the old Christian lands of the Mideast and North Africa in short order. Syria and Iraq fell in 636; Palestine in 638; and Egypt, which was not even an Arab land, fell in 642. North Africa, also not Arab, was under Muslim control by 709. Then came the year 711 and the Moors’ invasion of Europe, as they crossed the Strait of Gibraltar and entered Visigothic Iberia (now Spain and Portugal). And the new continent brought new successes to Islam. Conquering the Iberian Peninsula by 718, the Muslims crossed the Pyrenees Mountains into Gaul (now France) and worked their way northward. And now, in 732, they are approaching Tours, a mere 126 miles from Paris.

The Moorish leader, Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi, is supremely confident of success. He is in the vanguard of the first Muslim crusade, and his civilization has enjoyed rapidity and scope of conquest heretofore unseen in world history. He is at the head of an enormous army, replete with heavy cavalry, and views the Europeans as mere barbarians. In contrast, the barbarians facing him are all on foot, a tremendous disadvantage. The only thing the Frankish and Burgundian European forces have going for them is their leader, Charles of Herstal, grandfather of Charlemagne. He is a brilliant military tactician who, after losing his very first battle, is enjoying an unbroken 16-year streak of victories.

And this record will remain unblemished. Outnumbered by perhaps as much as 2 to 1 on a battlefield between the cities of Tours and Poitier, Charles routs the Moorish forces, stopping the Muslim advance into Europe cold. It becomes known as the Battle of Tours (or Poitier), and many historians consider it one of the great turning points in world history. By their lights, Charles is a man who saved Western Civilization, a hero who well deserves the moniker the battle earned him: Martellus. We thus now know him as Charles Martel, which translates into Charles the Hammer.

The Gathering Threat in the East

While the Hammer saved Gaul, the Muslims would not stop hammering Christendom — and it would be the better part of four centuries before Europe would again hammer back. This brings us to the late 11th century and perhaps the best-known events of medieval history: the Crusades.

Ah, the Crusades. Along with the Galileo affair and the Spanish Inquisition (both partially to largely misunderstood), they have become a metaphor for Christian “intolerance.” And this characterization figures prominently in the hate-the-West-first crowd’s repertoire and imbues everything, from movies such as 2005’s Kingdom of Heaven to school curricula to politicians’ pronouncements. In fact, it’s sometimes peddled so reflexively that the criticism descends into the ridiculous, such as when Bill Clinton gave a speech at Georgetown University and, writes Chair of the History Department at Saint Louis University Thomas Madden, “recounted (and embellished) a massacre of Jews after the Crusader conquest of Jerusalem in 1099 and informed his audience that the episode was still bitterly remembered in the Middle East. (Why Islamist terrorists should be upset about the killing of Jews was not explained.)” Why, indeed. Yet, it is the not-so-ridiculous, the fable accepted as fact, that does the most damage. Madden addresses this in his piece, “The Real History of the Crusades,” writing:

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.

Continue here: thenewamerican.com/index.php/history/world/2876-when-christendom-pushed-back
 
Christians don’t push back…WE turn the other cheek. God is on our side.
PEACE be with you.
 
Fascinating article, Ann. Thank you.

Sam, the Neon Orange Knight
 
Thanks for your post Ann.

With the increase in communication and ease of checking facts i think what you are saying is becoming more well known.

I would just add that at the time of the first crusade Muslim pirates were attacking Christian coastal villages on the Meditteranean, including Italy, killing villagers and taking slaves etc and they had only 20 years previously conquered a large part of the Byzantine Christian kingdom which resulted in refugees, theft or property and the selling of more Christian slaves throughout the Islamic lands.

Add to all this the Vikings doing much the same thing in the north of Europe and the Norman Vikings conquering Britain 30 years before the First Crusade and any attempt to promote the Crusades as Pope led Christian expansionism is extremely hard to justify, and obviously so IMHO.
 
The only fact is that is there is no misunderstanding.

As the crusaders swept through Europe on their way to Jerusalem they massacred tens of thousand of Jews.

The beginning of the Spanish Inquisition is with Catholic pogroms against Jews led by Archdeacon Martinez on March 15th 1391. As Catholic mobs spread from city to city, thousands of Jews are murdered. At the end of the Inquisition, ever single Jew on the Iberian peninsula, some three hundred thousand, will have been murdered, converted or expelled. The thousand year old Jewish community destroyed by religious jealously and hate.

Now these are historical facts not myths or propaganda.
 
The only fact is that is there is no misunderstanding.

As the crusaders swept through Europe on their way to Jerusalem they massacred tens of thousand of Jews.

The beginning of the Spanish Inquisition is with Catholic pogroms against Jews led by Archdeacon Martinez on March 15th 1391. As Catholic mobs spread from city to city, thousands of Jews are murdered. At the end of the Inquisition, ever single Jew on the Iberian peninsula, some three hundred thousand, will have been murdered, converted or expelled. The thousand year old Jewish community destroyed by religious jealously and hate.

Now these are historical facts not myths or propaganda.
This is a discussion on Catholicism from the Traditional Catholic perspective, not the non-Catholic perspective. You have an agenda, that is clear. You like to hijack every thread that has to with the history of Catholicism with your anti-Catholic version of Catholic history. However, this is not the place to do it. The non-Catholic forum would be a much better place to share your anti-Catholic views. Please start your own thread there instead of turning this thread into another Jewish People versus the Catholic Church thread.
 
I’d also recommend reading Hillaire Belloc’s “The Crusades”.
 
This is a discussion on Catholicism from the Traditional Catholic perspective, not the non-Catholic perspective. You have an agenda, that is clear. You like to hijack every thread that has to with the history of Catholicism with your anti-Catholic version of Catholic history. However, this is not the place to do it. The non-Catholic forum would be a much better place to share your anti-Catholic views. Please start your own thread there instead of turning this thread into another Jewish People versus the Catholic Church thread.
You presented an article that purports to support that claims made about the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition are untrue and essentially anti-Catholic propaganda. When in reply I point out that the article is historically incorrect, I am labelled by you, because of my religion, as “anti-Catholic”, while you make no attempt to deal with the subject of the post. I did not start this thread, I have not commented on Catholic reasoning or justification of the Crusades (or the Inquisition) and I have certainly have not attached the acts in the article to today’s Catholics. The Crusades and the Inquisition were not “good”, and that I hope is the opinion of all good moral people, no matter what their religion.
 
The only fact is that is there is no misunderstanding.

As the crusaders swept through Europe on their way to Jerusalem they massacred tens of thousand of Jews.
Yes, and one has to keep in mind that the bulk of the Crusaders were less than educated, (often convicted criminals who joined solely for their freedom) and further (and more importantly) that they often acted in disregard of orders from their superiors. This became more pronounced as time went on. Ultimately the Crusaders sacked Constantinople (which had not yet fallen) too.

The point of the thread is, I believe, the principle behind the Crusades, not the actions of the Crusaders.
The beginning of the Spanish Inquisition is with Catholic pogroms against Jews led by Archdeacon Martinez on March 15th 1391. As Catholic mobs spread from city to city, thousands of Jews are murdered. At the end of the Inquisition, ever single Jew on the Iberian peninsula, some three hundred thousand, will have been murdered, converted or expelled. The thousand year old Jewish community destroyed by religious jealously and hate.
The Inquisition has no part in this thread.
 
You presented an article that purports to support that claims made about the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition are untrue and essentially anti-Catholic propaganda. When in reply I point out that the article is historically incorrect, I am labelled by you, because of my religion, as “anti-Catholic”, while you make no attempt to deal with the subject of the post. I did not start this thread, I have not commented on Catholic reasoning or justification of the Crusades (or the Inquisition) and I have certainly have not attached the acts in the article to today’s Catholics. The Crusades and the Inquisition were not “good”, and that I hope is the opinion of all good moral people, no matter what their religion.
You are not labled because of your religion, you are labeled because of the posts you typically make on this forum. Attacking the Church, even in it’s history, is still attacking the Church.

From your non-Catholic persepctive, you believe the article wrong and you stated that it was fact that it was wrong. This article was not to discuss if non-Catholics disagree, we are aware you do. The Crusades and Inquistion are greatly maligned by non-Catholics and modernist Catholics regularly. However, many Catholics understand the Crusades and Inquistion as they should be understood and know that there was nothing morally wrong with the them.

THE CRUSADES: CHRISTIAN SELF-DEFENSE AGAINST BARBARISM

youtube.com/watch?v=imTY5izhTDo


“This video discusses the Islamic violence against Eastern Christians in the Syrian region during the Middle Ages, and how it provoked the Crusades as a defensive response. The idea that the Crusades were an unprovoked act of violence against Islamic civilization is simply nonsense and not historical. This video makes use of several important medieval primary sources from the Middle East, including Aristakes’ 11th Century Armenian History, and the Chronicle of Michael the Syrian.”

Some important sources:

The full text of Aristakes’ History:
rbedrosian.com/a1.htm

Info on Michael the Syrian:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_the_Syrian

An article by leading Crusades historian Tom Madden:
ignatiusinsight.net/features2005/print2005/tmadden_crusades_print.html

An excellent book by an Egyptian scholar entitled “The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam”:
books.google.com/books?id=C2GgHl9Rls0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=decline+eastern+christianity+islam&ei=ZbOlSPb7MKe6jgHMhsD7BA&sig=ACfU3U1O8vrDhOLnt33Td0Yqsg2yP8JMRQ#v=onepage&q=&f=false
 
Muslim complaints about the Crusades remind me of the little boy who explained that the fight started " when he hit me back." :rolleyes:
 
Muslim complaints about the Crusades remind me of the little boy who explained that the fight started " when he hit me back." :rolleyes:
I’d think that a Muslim whose family had been living in Jerusalem for about four hundred years would be rather confused when he was informed that he was responsible for aggression against the Byzantine Empire, and that therefore Normans were conquering the city.

Consider that it was the Seljuk Turks who were threatening the Byzantines, and that it was primarily Arabs who were living in the area of Jerusalem at the time of the Crusades. Regardless of anything else, Arabs who had been living in that city for a long time had reasons to be rather confused and upset that they were suddenly being ejected.

Not that this is unusual by the standards of anywhere in the world at the time, but it isn’t particularly holy, either.
 
I’d think that a Muslim whose family had been living in Jerusalem for about four hundred years would be rather confused when he was informed that he was responsible for aggression against the Byzantine Empire, and that therefore Normans were conquering the city.

Consider that it was the Seljuk Turks who were threatening the Byzantines, and that it was primarily Arabs who were living in the area of Jerusalem at the time of the Crusades. Regardless of anything else, Arabs who had been living in that city for a long time had reasons to be rather confused and upset that they were suddenly being ejected.

Not that this is unusual by the standards of anywhere in the world at the time, but it isn’t particularly holy, either.
What is the Statute of Limitations on stolen property?
 
I’d think that a Muslim whose family had been living in Jerusalem for about four hundred years would be rather confused when he was informed that he was responsible for aggression against the Byzantine Empire, and that therefore Normans were conquering the city.
“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.
 
“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.
The Crusades would have been justified if the Crusaders had done what Alexius Comnenus wanted. In other words, if the Crusaders had helped the Byzantines roll back the Turkish conquests into Anatolia. Racing ahead to Jerusalem and attacking Arabs and Fatimids who weren’t doing much of anything and didn’t like the Seljuks themselves was rather irrelevant to the immediate threat to Byzantium. And ultimately, the whole Crusading process broke the Byzantines with the Fourth Crusade.
 
What is the Statute of Limitations on stolen property?
Ready to move back to Europe, then? If that’s going to be your argument, then its time to hand New York City over to the Native Americans and for me to head on back to Italy.
 
The Crusades would have been justified if the Crusaders had done what Alexius Comnenus wanted. In other words, if the Crusaders had helped the Byzantines roll back the Turkish conquests into Anatolia. Racing ahead to Jerusalem and attacking Arabs and Fatimids who weren’t doing much of anything and didn’t like the Seljuks themselves was rather irrelevant to the immediate threat to Byzantium. And ultimately, the whole Crusading process broke the Byzantines with the Fourth Crusade.
Hi Lujack,

i think you are right to point out the complexities of war and the innocents that suffer in those wars.

Of course a series of different wars that lasted several centuries across multiple countries will not have any side (as defined by different people) always acting in the way they should.

I think the point of the thread was to address the blanket condemnation of the Crusade as expansionary Christianity plotted by the Roman Pontiff which of course, on balance is completely skewered and untenable.

At the time of the first crusade the Byzantine Christians were overun in the eastern part of their territory, the Christians were fighting occupation in Spain, Pilgrams to Jerusalem were being attacked, Muslim Sicily was attacking Calabria and the maritime states of Pisa, Genoa and Catalonia were fighting Muslim pirates in the Mediterranean who were forcibly abducting (at least) hundreds of thousands of European Christian slaves to be used throughout all the muslim lands.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_corsairs

Yes, a hundred years later, when the clash of civilisations was in full swing the 4th Crusade sided with exiled Byzantines and attacked Constantinople against the express command from the Pope who excomminicated them all before they got to the city.

This did further weaken the Byzantine Empire and caused in fighting between the ex-communicated Catholics and the Orthodox Bulgarians, Greeks etc.

But the armies of the Muslims at their zenith got to plains of central France and the gates of Vienna as well as sacking Rome as early as the 9th century. If not for the reaction to provocation from the Muslim world which came from Spain to Anatolia and took the (justified) form of the Crusades the numbers of Christians enslaved to the Islamic world would have been drastically worse and rivalled the Islamic black African slave trade which followed it and to Christian shame many of them were bought by Europeans kingdoms from Islam to take to the Americas.

I would say that you can always look at this or that event and say that’s wrong, and i think you are 100% right to do so.

I think though the thread is addressing the establishment of the Crusades and general and the validity of them.

ignatiusinsight.net/features2005/print2005/tmadden_crusades_print.html

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_and_Truce_of_God

I agree with you though that we can’t be all one sided but speak the truth from different sides.
 
Of course there are no excuses for the ex-communicated Catholics to act the way they did in the 4th Crusade.

In the interests of fairness (but definately not mitigation) there was of course the massacre and enslavement of the Latins by the Byzantines a few years earlier.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Latins

I’m quite proud that the Pope disowned them before they attacked the city after his initial attempts to command them not to attack Constantinople failed.

I’m also proud that the Church has recently apologised to the Orthodox Churches for their clearly aggressive, unjustified and opportunistic bloody campaign.
 
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.
 
I’d think that a Muslim whose family had been living in Jerusalem for about four hundred years would be rather confused when he was informed that he was responsible for aggression against the Byzantine Empire, and that therefore Normans were conquering the city.

Consider that it was the Seljuk Turks who were threatening the Byzantines, and that it was primarily Arabs who were living in the area of Jerusalem at the time of the Crusades. Regardless of anything else, Arabs who had been living in that city for a long time had reasons to be rather confused and upset that they were suddenly being ejected.
I have to admit that you have a very good grasp of the historical facts around the first Crusade.

That is rare to see, in these discussion forums.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top