The Crusades

[2006144]

What were the crusades a fight about in relation to religious beliefs?

 

[RLT]

Short & simplified;

The Crusades were a series of defensive wars against Islamic aggression in the Middle Ages and attempts to recapture the Holy Land from Muslim conquerors in order to allow safe pilgrimage and to protect and maintain the Christian presence there. Jerusalem had been Christian for hundreds of years when Caliph Omar seized it, and following that victory, Muslims warred their way into Egypt, other parts of Africa, Spain, Sicily, and Greece, leaving Christians dead and churches in ruins. They stole lands in the area now known as Turkey, destroying Catholic communities founded by St. Paul himself. They siezed Constantinople – the “second Rome” – and threatened the Balkans. They warred their way as far north as Vienna, Austria and Tours, France.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Short & simplified;

A pretty spot on paragraph. 2006144, don’t let those liberals fool you. The Crusades as a whole were a good thing, and you should be proud of the Catholics that were willing to die for what they believed in.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

What were the crusades a fight about in relation to religious beliefs?

In the Middle Ages there was no refrigeration, pasteurisation, or other technology for keeping water clean. So the average peasant would drink 8 pints of ale a day.

You needed a decent curry after that lot.

When the Muslims took over the Middle East, the supply lines of curry to the West were cut off. (Eventually Columbus would try to solve the problem by sailing West to India, but although it was well known that the world was round, sailing ships weren’t up to such a voyage in our period). Hence we needed to go to war.

There were other reasons, such as the excessive entry charges levied for the Holy Places. But curry powder was an important incentive.

 

[SemperFidelis]

In the Middle Ages there was no refrigeration, pasteurisation, or other technology for keeping water clean. So the average peasant would drink 8 pints of ale a day.

You needed a decent curry after that lot.

When the Muslims took over the Middle East, the supply lines of curry to the West were cut off. (Eventually Columbus would try to solve the problem by sailing West to India, but although it was well known that the world was round, sailing ships weren’t up to such a voyage in our period). Hence we needed to go to war.

There were other reasons, such as the excessive entry charges levied for the Holy Places. But curry powder was an important incentive.

Oh come on, is it that hard to believe that the Church just wanted the Holy Land back?

 

[Sure]

In the Middle Ages there was no refrigeration, pasteurisation, or other technology for keeping water clean. So the average peasant would drink 8 pints of ale a day.

You needed a decent curry after that lot.

When the Muslims took over the Middle East, the supply lines of curry to the West were cut off. (Eventually Columbus would try to solve the problem by sailing West to India, but although it was well known that the world was round, sailing ships weren’t up to such a voyage in our period). Hence we needed to go to war.

There were other reasons, such as the excessive entry charges levied for the Holy Places. But curry powder was an important incentive.

The curry powder helped to disguise the flavor of the meat that was halfway to rotten.

 

[Rolltide]

The Crusades were a series of defensive wars against Islamic aggression in the Middle Ages and attempts to recapture the Holy Land from Muslim conquerors in order to allow safe pilgrimage and to protect and maintain the Christian presence there. Jerusalem had been Christian for hundreds of years when Caliph Omar seized it, and following that victory, Muslims warred their way into Egypt, other parts of Africa, Spain, Sicily,

Ok, your information is good to this point. All of this happened prior to the Crusades and provoked it…

and Greece, leaving Christians dead and churches in ruins. They stole lands in the area now known as Turkey, destroying Catholic communities founded by St. Paul himself. They siezed Constantinople – the “second Rome” – and threatened the Balkans. They warred their way as far north as Vienna, Austria and Tours, France.

Here’s where I have the problem. Greece was only taken over after Muslims conquered Constantinople in 1453. This was well after the era of the Crusades was over. It was indeed incursions into the eastern areas of the Byzantine empire that prompted the Crusades, but they never reached these other areas until later. Then, your statement lists a huge factual error. The final Muslim incursion into Europe was an attempt to capture Vienna, Austria by the Ottoman Empire in 1683. This is almost 400 years AFTER the end of the Crusades! The Battle of Tours, France, was likewise important, as it saw Charles “The Hammer” Martel defeat Muslim forces which had just captured Iberia and were bent on capturing the Kingdom of the Franks. However, this battle took place in 732, almost 400 years BEFORE the Crusades. You cannot put these two battles together and say they are the same things, regarding the Crusades. They do, however, both represent the ultimate limits of Muslim incursions into Europe, I admit that.

 

[RLT]

War Eagle!
.
.
.
.
.Just kidding.

Objections noted.

Ok, your information is good to this point. All of this happened prior to the Crusades and provoked it…

Hey, I said short and simplified.
Yes much of the first part you quoted happened before the Crusades, but it’s a reason why the were iniciated

They do, however, both represent the ultimate limits of Muslim incursions into Europe, I admit that.

That’s why it’s included in the quote. They are not the same regarding the Crusades but they show that the conflict between Europe and the Middle East were not a manifestation of the greedy, plundering Christian bent on thievery using religion as an escuse, but the agressive nature of Islamic conquest since it’s inception, and that even after the Christians were ultimately booted out of the Holy Land the Muslims continued their agression well after the “Crusade era”.

Some consider the Duke of Burgundy expedition into Candia a crusade, this took place in 1669.
I’m not attacking you scholarship btw, just pointing out that the dates for the crusades differ among folks, some considering any conflict seven after the 13th century part of the crusades.

 

[rwoehmke]

It took literally centuries to drive the Moors out of Spain. It is a common mistake to think that the defensive fight against the Muslims ended with the last official crusade called for by the Church. Until post World War I they still held the lands of North Africa, the Near and Middle East. It was called the Ottoman Empire some of which passed largely into British hands after the War.

 

[bpbasilphx]

<<There were other reasons, such as the excessive entry charges levied for the Holy Places. But curry powder was an important incentive.
The curry powder helped to disguise the flavor of the meat that was halfway to rotten.
Reply With Quote>>

Curry powder i s not the ground root or seed of the totally imaginary curry plant. It is rather a list of spices that vary from dish to dish.

 

[2006144]

thanks for all the feed back, also wondering how the crusades effected, challenged or changed Christian beliefs?

 

[Timothy17]

thanks for all the feed back, also wondering how the crusades effected, challenged or changed Christian beliefs?

It had no effect on Catholic doctrine, but undoubtedly it had a profound effect on the minds of Christians engaged in or affected by the wars.

The Church had her reasons for reclaiming and defending the Holy Lands. It was a defensive action prompted after a long series of aggressive actions. Princes may have shared the Church’s reasons, and also had a combination of economic or political reasons, but this is speculation and known only to them. We know that Venice, a merchant city, was in intense competition with Constantinople, and her merchants desired control as merchants always do. But this had always been the case and never resulted in a Holy War, though it definitely influenced it in practice. To claim the Church wanted spices and curry and hence declared war is laughable, as the Church would thus declare Holy War everytime it wanted, say, oil, sugar or a new outfit made in China. The Church manifestly does not do this, so other factors - at least above and beyond those mentioned by some persons here - must have been pressing during the Crusades, assuming even the alleged economical ones were actual factors or reasons for Her calling it, which personally I believe is speculation and borderline slander.

Pax,
Tim

 

[laszlo]

The Muslims (Arabs) conquered the Holy land in the 7th Century. They were tolerant against other religion, so kept the holy sites intact, and the Byzantine Empire, also the pilgrims from the West had free access to that area.

During the 11th Century the Seljuk Turks (from Asia) converted to the Islam in order to stabilize their power. They were intolerant against anything Western, the Byzantine Empire lost her influence, and the pilgrimage became impossible.

The first Crusade (1095-1099) was organized by Pope Orban II for the request of the Byzantine Emperor to free the Holy Land. They set up the Kingdom of Jerusalem, but as any long distance war, in long term it failed.

 

[GloriousOrder]

The Crusades lasted properly and technically from 1097-1291. Though the famous sermon in Clermont was in 1095, the actual entry of the various armies into Anatolia was not until 1097. All the brave souls who took up loyal arms under their princes (primarily from Franconia, Westphalia, and Alsace-Lorraine; i.e. the western reaches of the Rhine) were quite dedicated to get a plenary indulgence, as well as to grow in simple holiness.

The first impetus for the Crusades was entirely based on Byzantine, Venetian, and Genoese reports of atrocities committed by Seljuk Turks on the way to the Levant. On the pilgrims’ route through Anatolia (starting in Constantinople, moving through Nicaea, down the Zagros mountains, through Antioch, and down to Jerusalem), many barbaric Turkish raiders were chasing down old men and women after pointing them to fake wells; really, it was like a sport. To understand the second impetus for the Crusades, you must remember that the Byzantine Empire was drastically struggling after the Battle of Manzikert in 1071! In 1095, the Byzantine Empire was shaped like a horse-shoe, a gigantic U-shape with the base of the U at Constantinople, extending out like two arms into north and south Anatolia. The Komnenos dynasty simply wanted 200-400 elite knights from the Western Church to come to their aid, to reconquer the eastern Turkish plains, and fill up the lost Byzantine territories from a U-shape into more of a closed D-shape.

Both the harassment of civilian pilgrims and the movement of Turks in the north of the Orient combined to make the situation intolerable for Christians. Ironically, the actual battleground upon which 90% of the Crusades were fought was the Southern Orient: the Levant. The original attacks against pilgrims, and the original call for help from Constantinople, were centered on action in Turkey. It was only after they had gotten to Constantinople that Godfrey of Bouillon and his commanders realised that a stab at Jerusalem was possible. Beginning in 1098, they took Antioch (far from what the Orthodox had asked for), and struck down to Jerusalem, which they took a few days before Urban II died, in 1099.

Many horribly evil and despicable massacres took place as a result of the Crusades, but those were not the purpose of it. Use simple Thomistic logic: the object of the Crusades was Jerusalem, not “killing as many Moslems as possible”. The action undertaken in pursuit of the object was reprehensible in many places, but the Moslems were often equally brutal in storming and murdering thousands of Christians. There are no excuses, either way, but the Crusades were not proto-Imperialism or evil theocratic aggression… they were part of a much, much larger war spanning A.D. 732-1683. The Crusades were simply another front on the Islamic War of Destruction that lasted for nearly 1000 years. Mohammad started it, Suleiman the Magnificent brought it to a climax, and the shattering of the Ottomans at Vienna in 1683 brought it to a conclusion. It is part of the arc, not a singular war in of itself - see it in that light, and you will not be so anxious!