the crusades

[Al_Masetti]

Prior to their invasion of Greek Asia Minor, the Turks were an asiatic nomadic tribe.

They invaded what was part of Greece (Asia Minor) and the lawful ruler of that land ( The Byzantine Emperor, Alexius I) asked for Western assistance in repelling the invader. This was no more immoral that France asking for help in repelling the Nazi invaders.

In addition, all of North Africa was Christian, Egypt was populated by Christian Copts. Arabs from the Arabian pennisula invaded and the Western armies assisted the Copts with repelling the invaders.

And then, of course, there was the Reconquista in Spain, repelling Moorish invaders. The only reason that isn’t included in the Crusades is that Spain won.

Basically correct.

The Muslims had made tremendous military strides and under their rules, non-believers were severely prosecuted. Conversion, or a heavy tax or death.

The Moors invaded Spain in AD 711. The Moorish occupation of Spain lasted until 1492 … which was a very long conflict. In fact, the Moors went all the way up into France … [Charles Martel and the Battle of Tours and all that … around … 782 or so, from memory].

The first Crusade was around 900 or 1000 AD.

The Crusades were “mixed” in outcome; there were ten or so. One effect was that they forced the Muslims to strategize defensively for the first time. So, the spread of Islam was arrested by the Crusades. Handled clumsily by modern criteria, although that can be disputed. Some modern military campaigns have been pretty messy.

Keep in mind that there were two landmark battles with the Muslims after the Crusades ended. One was the naval battle at Lepanto in 1571 and the other was the Polish-Turkish battle at Vienna around 1680 or so.

Two points I don’t have precise information about which are worth pursuing. A poster a year ago or so said that in their advancement of Islam, the Muslims killed 30 million Christians around the Med. Seems a little high; I have never seen any numbers attributed to the Islamic conquests.

The other bit of unconfirmed information is that there were indeed two sets of Crusades. One set to the Holy Land and the other set was to Spain. The Holy Father gave all sorts of indulgences to folks who travelled to both “theatres” of Crusade operations.

It would be useful to find some formal backup.

In any case, there are many positive aspects to the Crusades as well as to the Inquisition and to the role of Pope Pius XII and the rescue of Jews in World War II.

But, what are obviously anti-Catholic “historians” have had their perspective of events dominate “pro-Catholic” perspectives.

 

[Chancellare]

I didn’t answer your question because it has nothing to do with the crusades.But if you want, I’ll use the same metaphor and ask you, if your lawyer wins a big case, should you get the credit?

Ha ha ha!
You didn’t answer my question because you said it has nothing to do with the crusades. Now you copy my metaphor and now you expect me to answer because now suddenly it has something to do with the crusades?

 

[Valke2]

Ha ha ha!
You didn’t answer my question because you said it has nothing to do with the crusades. Now you copy my metaphor and now you expect me to answer because now suddenly it has something to do with the crusades?

Yes. To make you happy, i went back to your metaphor.

 

[Chancellare]

Yes. To make you happy, i went back to your metaphor.

He he he!
Nice logic. Keep it up!

 

[SPH1]

Except here we are discussing the murdering of Jews, which were not the enemy of the crusaders. And in fact, did not have their own country or their own army. Nor were they armed. Nor was their a military goal that required the murder of the jews…

IF the goal was to wrest jerusalem from muslims, how does burning a synagouge full of jews, after taking the city, fit into the plan?

I wasn’t there, nor were you. I don’t know if the Jews were resisting or not. I don’t know how easily it was to distinguish friend or foe…if there were any “friends.” But once the city walls were breached - undoubtedly after cost to the Crusaders - there would likely have been a price. We don’t know what would have happened if the city simply surrendered without a fight.

But even leaving aside the atrocities commited in Jerusalem, there is still the fact that between 35 and 50% of European Jewry was murdered during the crusades. None of them were holed up in a fortress that refused to yeild.

Sure, this is bad and I wasn’t there so do not know what was going through their minds, why they saw Jews at such a threat.* But it is still a red herring.

The issue is whether or not Islam needed to be confronted with military force at some point during the period. Or today.

---

• You’re throwing out lots of alleged “facts”, and comingling certain incidents over the course of several centuries as if every Crusading army spent their time slaughtering Jews.

 

[Valke2]

He he he!
Nice logic. Keep it up!

we’re concerned about logic now? When did you adopt this shift in your debating strategy?

 

[Valke2]

I wasn’t there, nor were you. I don’t know if the Jews were resisting or not. I don’t know how easily it was to distinguish friend or foe…if there were any “friends.” But once the city walls were breached - undoubtedly after cost to the Crusaders - there would likely have been a price. We don’t know what would have happened if the city simply surrendered without a fight.

Sure, this is bad and I wasn’t there so do not know what was going through their minds, why they saw Jews at such a threat.* But it is still a red herring.

The issue is whether or not Islam needed to be confronted with military force at some point during the period. Or today.

By your reasoning, since you weren’tthere you should not have an opinion at all. And I was not addressing Islam in my posts. I was responding to a post that accused everyone of misstating what teh crusades were about.

---

• You’re throwing out lots of alleged “facts”, and comingling certain incidents over the course of several centuries as if every Crusading army spent their time slaughtering Jews.

 

[SPH1]

The issue is whether or not Islam needed to be confronted with military force at some point during the period. Or today.

By your reasoning, since you weren’tthere you should not have an opinion at all. And I was not addressing Islam in my posts. I was responding to a post that accused everyone of misstating what teh crusades were about.

And I’m addressing your red herring(s).

 

[Valke2]

And I’m addressing your red herring(s).

How is the murder of 35-50% of Eurpoean Jewry by the crusades a red herring when the topic is “the crusades”?

 

[Axion]

Except here we are discussing the murdering of Jews, which were not the enemy of the crusaders. And in fact, did not have their own country or their own army. Nor were they armed. Nor was their a military goal that required the murder of the jews.

IF the goal was to wrest jerusalem from muslims, how does burning a synagouge full of jews, after taking the city, fit into the plan? But even leaving aside the atrocities commited in Jerusalem, there is still the fact that between 35 and 50% of European Jewry was murdered during the crusades. None of them were holed up in a fortress that refused to yeild.

You have been reading a lot of nonsense somewhere. The killings of Jews that took place, largely in the European Rhineland, were

A: Of a few thousands at most - not “35- 50% of European jewry” as you ridiculously try to claim.

B: Were not the responsibility of “the Crusaders”, They took place before the 1st crusade had even set off. They were mob risings organised by local agitators, many of whom owed money to the jews.

C> The jews were protected as much as they could by the Catholic Bishops, but in many places the mob still took them in the end, since the bishops had no armies.

D: The killings were condemned at the time by the Church. Many of the perpetrators were later killed when they moved on with their rioting.

So let’s have the truth, not anti-christian legend.

 

[Valke2]

An excellent, fair historical analysis of the First Crusade is by Thomas Asbridge “The First Crusade”. He is not on the mission to villify or praise the Church, but gives a very fair and accurate account on both sides.

I’ll check it out, thanks.

 

[Valke2]

You have been reading a lot of nonsense somewhere. The killings of Jews that took place, largely in the European Rhineland, were

A: Of a few thousands at most - not “35- 50% of European jewry” as you ridiculously try to claim.

B: Were not the responsibility of “the Crusaders”, They took place before the 1st crusade had even set off. They were mob risings organised by local agitators, many of whom owed money to the jews.

C> The jews were protected as much as they could by the Catholic Bishops, but in many places the mob still took them in the end, since the bishops had no armies.

D: The killings were condemned at the time by the Church. Many of the perpetrators were later killed when they moved on with their rioting.

So let’s have the truth, not anti-christian legend.

Nothing I posted was false.

 

[Valke2]

The atrocities were opposed by the local bishops and widely condemned at the time as a violation of the Crusades’ aim, which was not directed against the Jews. I agree and have not said otherwise. But for you to imply that the perpetrators were punished, is misleading. THe majority, i.e., almost all of them, escaped punishment. Additinally, the social position of the Jews worsened and legal restrictions increased during and after the Crusades. Not exactly evidence supporting the “few bad apples” theory. Do you think the crusades had nothing to do with the subsequent anti-Jewish legislation of Pope Innocent III? They were the battle cry for the many attrocities that the jews of Europe suffered from the crusdaes through the holocaust.

It is likely that at least 10,000 jews were slaughtered by crusaders. This number would, I believe, account for at least 35% of the european jewish population at the time.

 

[SPH1]

How is the murder of 35-50% of Eurpoean Jewry by the crusades a red herring when the topic is “the crusades”?

Because the issue is whether or not Islam needed confrontation with military force…then or now. I do not see that you have addressed that.

The atrocities were opposed by the local bishops and widely condemned at the time as a violation of the Crusades’ aim, which was not directed against the Jews. I agree and have not said otherwise.

Just noting that the Bishops apparently did not condemn the Crusades themselves, just atrocities. See my point above.

It is likely that at least 10,000 jews were slaughtered by crusaders. This number would, I believe, account for at least 35% of the european jewish population at the time.

That’s truly sad. But is that over the course of centuries? Anyway, more people than that died probably in an hour at Dresden & Tokyo. Many, many more in seconds at Hiroshima & Nagasaki.

I know that you are focusing on the sad plight of the Jews during the period, as a red herring to avoid the real issue: Did Islam need military confrontation from the West, either then…or today. My answer is “yes” to both.

But let’s get realistic. Nobody, no group, has clean-hands over the course of history. I’m sure one could come up with Jewish “atrocities” in the O.T. and we are well aware of Jewish persecution and killing of Christians in the N.T. St. Paul himself participated for awhile. And some would today say that Israel is fully capable of treating those such as Palestinians with a heavy hand.

Regarding those killed in the taking of Jerusalem during the Crusade. Look at it realistically. Many may have supported their Muslim overlords. Many may have served in the military, participated in their own sacking of cities. Or, if not in the military, still supported and profited from the sacking of cities

We’ve gone about as far as we can with the red herring aspect involving alleged atrocities.

So, did Islam need military confrontation, then or today? Should our very restrictive Rules of Military Engagement our troops are saddled with today be applied to judge the past? Are our today’s rules of engagement ridiculous?

Did the Crusades have as much “justification” going for them as our incursion into Afghanistan and Iraq today?

Should we gear-up and steel ourselves for a wider war against a Jihadist, fanatical and probably nuclear Islamic Iran? Should we do a pre-emptive strike and would it have as much “justification” as the Crusades?

 

[Chancellare]

we’re concerned about logic now? When did you adopt this shift in your debating strategy?

You can’t deal with my metaphor squarely and could not disprove it in a logical manner. Accept it and let’s move on.

 

[Valke2]

You can’t deal with my metaphor squarely and could not disprove it in a logical manner. Accept it and let’s move on.

Ok. I accept that you out manuvered me with what is perhaps the most clever metaphor of all time.

 

[Valke2]

Because the issue is whether or not Islam needed confrontation with military force…then or now. I do not see that you have addressed that.

That’s your issue. The OP doesn’t make that the issue. The title of the thread doesn’t make that the issue. My posts don’t make that the issue.

 

[chosen_people]

The good catholics off on their crusade at the Pope’s request massacred thousands upon thousands of Jews because their religion, church leaders and scriptures taught them that the Jews were responsible for deicide, were eternally cursed and therefore did not have the right to live (apparently the commandment not to commit murder didn’t apply if the victims were Jews). Today’s Catholics do not bear personal responsibiliy for the actions of other Catholics commited centuries ago. However, trying to seperate the actions of the catholic crusaders from their belief about the Jews taught to them by their religion and church leaders is a specious argument at best.

 

[Chancellare]

The good catholics off on their crusade at the Pope’s request massacred thousands upon thousands of Jews because their religion, church leaders and scriptures taught them that the Jews were responsible for deicide, were eternally cursed and therefore did not have the right to live (apparently the commandment not to commit murder didn’t apply if the victims were Jews). Today’s Catholics do not bear personal responsibiliy for the actions of other Catholics commited centuries ago. However, trying to seperate the actions of the catholic crusaders from their belief about the Jews taught to them by their religion and church leaders is a specious argument at best.

To dwell on repeated accusations of atrocities which have already been explained, accepted and dis-enfranchised by the Church does not add any further value in today’s economy of ideas.

To re-glue again the separation of fanatical crusaders from the true teachings of the Church concerning the dignity of Jews as a people of God, smells inflammatory which runs counter to accepted Judeo-Christian morals.

This is not a good attitude lest someone in this thread finds another filthy historical atrocity committed by Jews towards early Christians. This spiral of accusations must be ended in one way or the other.

 

[chosen_people]

To dwell on repeated accusations of atrocities which have already been explained, accepted and dis-enfranchised by the Church does not add any further value in today’s economy of ideas.

To re-glue again the separation of fanatical crusaders from the true teachings of the Church concerning the dignity of Jews as a people of God, smells inflammatory which runs counter to accepted Judeo-Christian morals.

This is not a good attitude lest someone in this thread finds another filthy historical atrocity committed by Jews towards early Christians. This spiral of accusations must be ended in one way or the other.

The Crusades were not an isolated incident but merely another chapter in two thousand years of systematic Church persecution of the Jews. Hitler, a Catholic, quoted from Christian scriptures about Yehoshua bar Yosef driving the “money lenders” (read:Jews) from the temple. His edicts of expulsions, forcing the Jews to live in ghettoes and stripping them of all civil and legal rights were nothing more than the use of traditional Catholic Church edicts against the Jews see for instance Pope (soon to be “St”?) Pius ix and the Jews of Rome). The roots of Catholic antisemitism lie in their scriptures and teachings over the centuries that the Jews are murderers guilty of deicide, eternally cursed and invariably damned for their rejection of the Catholic faith. Your reference to “early persecution of Christians by Jews” is clearly significant. Does this come to justify the mass murder of Jews by Catholic crusaders a millenium later? Did the Jews bring it on themselves? Is it okay to murder if its a Jew?

Modern Catholic antisemitism is alive and well. “The Jew” is the force undermining all good things Catholic. According to this way of thinking the Jews are responsible for abortions (Nathanson) Sex and sexual promiscuity (Freud), Liberalism, Communism (Marx), Free Masonry, Conflicts and Wars and are even out to destroy Christmas. A Catholic priest even wrote about the Jews undermining Catholic values through architechture ( I’m limiting the list since you already know we control all the money and all the world media).

Don’t take my word for it. This website forum is one of the best for researching modern Catholic antisemitic attitudes. Just type in the word “jew”.