What’s your take on the First Crusade?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Salibi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Salibi said:
Europe was built on the backs of slaves.
Click to expand...
What a load of crap. Europe was not built from scratch beginning in the 16th century when European profiteers were first able and willing to purchase African slaves from African kings, who had already grown accustomed to selling their own people like shop merchandise thanks to their having done that already for centuries with their Muslim neighbours. I can’t think of too many notable landmarks in Europe that were built by African slaves: can you name any?

Furthermore -and this is amazing considering what was happening with the Reformation at the time- the Pope excommunicated the Spanish (and any other) slave traders; that is, inflicted on them the gravest penalty of the Church. Other Christian churches, over time, followed suit, thank God. Now considering that Spain in particular was literally the last bastion of stable Catholic power in Europe and the world (France was almost lost to the Reformation and the Italian city states were anything if not unstable) - for the Pope and the Church to excommunicate those involved in one of their most lucrative national trades, was as I said remarkable. I don’t think Islamic religious leaders or authorities would condemn slavery for some centuries to come.

Now need I remind you that while I agree completely that the resurgence of slavery in Europe, brought on by the sudden and massive demand for human labour that accompanied the discovery especially of the New World, was absolutely evil; yet there is this rather glaring difference, that the Christian religion was in the forefront of combating and trying to exterminate the practice of slavery; whereas, in the Islamic world, there was no equivalent religious reaction or opposition, certainly not to my knowledge, at least.

But this makes no difference whatsoever: You didn’t care in the slightest that your beloved Islamic Golden Age was brought on on the backs of Near-Eastern, African and European slaves for centuries without end or opposition. So maybe I guess Golden Ages fuelled by slavery are fine, so long as it’s not Christians or Europeans doing it?
 
I’m not a historian, but I have read some history. It is my understanding that the “golden age” of Arab civilization was already over with when the First Crusade occurred. The Seljuk Turks had taken over the Levant and were harsh on Christians and Arab Muslims alike. When the Crusaders displaced them, many of the Arab feudal lords welcomed them as better substitutes than the Seljuks. Most of the Arab world had become feudal just as Europe had, in the absence of an overarching empire structure. As usual, the peasants paid tribute to whomever was in the castle.

The First Crusade retook most of Asia Minor and simply handed it to the Byzantines, thus extending the life of that realm.

As I recall, during the Mongol invasion of the Middle EAst, the Crusaders offered to join with Arab armies to fight the Mongols. The Mamluk Turks who then ruled Egypt, having displaced the last ARab caliphate there, refused, preferring to attack the Crusader states instead. Some of the Arab feudal rulers fought on the side of the Crusaders, as they did not like the Mamluks. The Mamluks drove the Crusaders out of the Levant and oppressed the Arabs, but did defeat the Mongols. Ultimately, the Mamluks were defeated by the Ottoman Turks who defeated Tamerlane’s invasion. Ultimately the Ottomans then turned their attention to the remnants of the Byzantine Empire, the Balkans, part of Poland and Russia, being finally turned back at the gates of Vienna.

And so, throughout the Crusader period, it was not the Crusaders who did any harm to the Arab civilization, it was the repeated hammer blows of Turks from Central Asia, who reduced the Middle East to a poverty stricken wasteland. And but for oil and Israelis, every square inch of the Middle East would be just as devastated now as it was then.
 
Last edited:
I believe we have to look at the past and learn from it. The intentions were good, as Muslims who took over the Holy Land did not allow pilgrims from Europe in. However, mistakes were made and innocent people got killed for sure. From what I’ve read, what is most interesting is that there was this popular idea that being the 11th century, the 1000 years with Christ were ending and so taking over the Holy Land was part of the plan of the Second Coming. People really believed that.
 
As Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn wrote, in the human heart there is a fine line dividing it between good and evil.

We are all capable of choosing evil and anyone who thinks they’d be above supporting the Christian, Muslim, he Holocaust or Joseph Stalin’s evils, are deceiving themselves

Unless you’re able to stand for truth in today’s world, even when it’s not popular, you’ll be a participant in the evils which are sure to come.

Jim
 
I agree, but we already are caving in the face of evil. How many Catholics voted for Hillary Clinton despite (or perhaps because of) her promotion of abortion?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top