[spamkillerf]

C, now you are in a denial mode, denying that the Eastern Empire called for help in the first place as you seem to think the crusades were the concoction of the Pope that were actually opposed by the Eastern Empire.

[doogiehoussi]

Originally posted by Ned
C, now you are in a denial mode, denying that the Eastern Empire called for help in the first place as you seem to think the crusades were the concoction of the Pope that were actually opposed by the Eastern Empire. Of course the Byzantines called for help, but the idea of a Crusade did not originate with them. Even Charlemagne had considered an expedition to the Holy Land; Pope Gregory had seriously considered an organized expedition right after Manzikert, before the Byzantines ever asked for help. The request from the Emperor was convenient, but not the real reason for the crusades.

According to you, the Fats took Jerusalem only one year before the Knights arrived. But, did they take it before or after the call for aid by the Eastern Empire. The Byzantines called for help before the Fatimids retook Jerusalem, but the "help" the Byzantines wanted was not a crusade, nor an expedition against Jerusalem. Alexius wanted some Frankish mercenaries, and that's it. He never really wanted a full autonomous crusade that quickly started ignoring his desires; he certainly didn't want the Franks to go and attack Jerusalem, which he didn't care about. He wanted mercenaries to take back Anatolia from the Turks.

Seriously, pick up a book (Runciman is a good start) and read about how the Byzantines and Crusaders were at each other's throats from the very beginning. The Franks fought for their own reasons, not to protect the Empire or save the Comnemnids.

[Hpdovoxm]

I really can't take this argument much further. You just don't know that much about the Crusades, Ned. Your misconceptions about the Crusades generally are legion, and your analysis incredibly simplistic. I don't think you could find any writings like your own unless you went back to medieval times and read Christian commentators then. No modern scholar of the Crusades worth his salt would take your view seriously. You're simply wrong, and some research and good reading would educate you about the conflict better than I can.

Go for "A History of the Crusades," a Stephen Runicman classic. It's three volumes, but it's quite good and an interesting read. Then I'd recommend "The Crusades Through Arab Eyes" by Amin Maalouf, who looks at the Crusades using more arab and turkish sources. Together they're a good start to understanding the Crusades. You'll find that even those sources, written decades apart and using two very different viewpoints, acknowledge the same basic facts and interpretations that I've argued here.

[Kitdowstyhodo]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
The Franks fought for their own reasons, not to protect the Empire or save the Comnemnids.
But isnt that usually the case throughout history? Why should the Franks have cared about central anatolia? Enough to send a force large enough to make a difference? when small purely merc forces went out, in later times, they had a tendency to change sides.

I mean given the history of the land of Israel at that time, the motivations of individual crusaders for leaving their own lands, and the evolving religiosity of medieval europe, its not wild that the crusaders would go for Israel, rather than muck around in the vastness of Asia Minor. Im not agreeing with Ned, but questioning the apparent implication that the crusaders were any more nefarious than any of the other players involved.

[Byxtysaaqwuz]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
They went to Jerusalem, which had been Muslim controled for a few centuries before Pope Urban II's call.
.
Just under 300 years, IIUC. Glad we have a marker for the longest it takes for defacto control of Eretz Israel to convert to de jure right. Happy Chanukkah


Posting in 2006, 58 years since the rebirth of Jewish independence, 87 years since the establishment of the mandate for a Jewish National Homeland, 124 years since the establishment of Zionist settlements at Rishon Le Zion and elsewhere.

[lodsemelf]

BeBro, I smell a rat. I think Cy and Imran are contending that the crusades were undertaken without justification, consistent, it appears, with modern anti-Western revisionism. Well, to put it frankly, I strongly disagree with this view.

[riverakathy]

Imran,

Why did they all assemble at Constantinople? Was it because they thought they were welcome there?

Their first action was a siege of Nicea. The Turks held it. Nicea is close to Constantinople.

Later actions against the Turks were "unsuccessful." They turned South, through Armenia, due to necessity. Had they defeated the Turks, who knows what would have happened.

They next took Antioch. Who held that?

"At this council [Piacenza] Urban was able to broach the subject of the Crusades. The Eastern Emperor, Alexius I, had sent an embassy to the pope asking for help against the Seljuk Turks who were a serious menace to the Empire of Constantinople. Urban succeeded in inducing many of those present to promist to help Alexius, but no definite step was taken by Urban till a few months later, when he summoned the most famous of his councils, that at Clermont in Auvergne. The council met in November, 1095; thirteen archbishops, two hundred and twenty-five bishops, and over ninety abbots answered the pope's summons. The synod met in the Church of Notre-Dame du Port and began by reiterating the Gregorian Decrees against simony, investiture, and clerical marriage. The sentence, which for some months had been threatening Philip of France, was now launched against him, and he was excommunicated for adultery. Then the burning question of the East was discussed. Urban's reception in France had been most enthusiastic, and enthusiasm for the Crusade had spread as the pope journeyed on from Italy. Thousands of nobles and knights had met together for the council. It was decided that an army of horse and foot should march to rescue Jerusalem and the Churches of Asia from the Saracens. A plenary indulgence was granted to all who should undertake the journey pro sola devotione, and further to help the movement, the Truce of God was extended, and the property of those who had taken the cross was to be looked upon as sacred. "

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15210a.htm

[casinobonyanes]

Originally posted by BeBro
I agree with most what you posted, but afaik pilgrimage was very common in christiantiy (to several destinations, Jerusalem being one of them, others were for example Rome and Santiago de Compostela in Spain), and that from early on. Pilgrimages to the holy land were done from the 4th century AD. And often they were done in bigger groups, not only by individuals. Sometimes even kings with their entourage went on the pilgrimage, like the King of Norway in 1003 (to Jerusalem). Pilgrimage, yes, but not specifically pilgrimage to Jerusalem. That was relatively uncommon until the increasing prosperity of Europe around the beginning of the 11th century allowed it. There's a reason the king of Norway went in 1003, and Charlemagne considered such a project - they were Kings, and could do that. For the average person or even lower-station church official, pilgrimage to Jerusalem only became a popular idea less than 100 years before the Crusades.

Next, LotM:

Obligatory reminder of how small Israel is - Ascalon/Ashkelon isnt that far from Jerusalem. Of course, but my example illustrates that clearly the attack on Fatimid territory was not an accident, but a concerted invasion of the Byzantines' allies for purposes of carving out a permanent kingdom, invalidating the claim that the Crusaders were only acting on the interests of the Byzantines.

Im not agreeing with Ned, but questioning the apparent implication that the crusaders were any more nefarious than any of the other players involved. They weren't any more nefarious. Ned seems to believe they were fighting a "defensive" war, and I am pointing out that they were violent freebooters who saw a chance for glory, plunder, and possible salvation, and took it. I don't think that makes them any different from a lot of other violent freebooters throughout history and religious tradition. Certainly the Venetians, the Papacy, certain Muslim Lords (esp. in Homs and Aleppo, IIRC), occasionally the Byzantines, the Armenians, the Kwarazmians later on - these folks are also nefarious when they get their chance. This is, however, irrelevant to the perception of the Crusaders, because the Crusaders are known far better than any of those other groups.

And Ned, well...

modern anti-Western revisionism Oh dear Lord. Okay, I'm going out to lunch and then I'll address this travesty.

[lymnCymment]

Let's begin.

modern anti-Western revisionism

You can call me names all you want, but if I'm a anti-Western revisionist, you're a Euro-centric apologist. So let's just leave it, shall we?

First of all,

I think Cy and Imran are contending that the crusades were undertaken without justification

Nobody undertakes anything without justification. That is not what I'm saying. Justifications are always complicated; we have in the Crusades a distinct difference between what people said, and the real reason people did things. These are not terribly difficult to disentangle provided you don't just take everything on its face value.

Here is your assertion (emphasis mine):

The crusades were in the nature of rescue mission. They did not flow from nothing. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression.

I assume the Muslim aggression you are referring to was the Turkish invasion of Anatolia. If so, the Crusades were hardly a response - the Crusaders were interested in Anatolia only insofar as it was the best way to get from Europe to the Levant. The Crusaders were not interested in "defeating" the Turks as a viable force; such a project would have been impossible for them anyway, and it wouldn't have gotten them any closer to the Levant and Jerusalem, their actual objective. Because the assistance of the Empire was neccessary at the beginning of the expedition, they initially aided the Byzantines, but did everything with the utmost reluctance, chafing at the Byzantine minders and countermanding the Emperor's orders. Bohemond, one of the most important of the initial crusaders, had invaded the Empire with his Norman family before the Crusades began. The Crusaders thought the Greeks were decadent fools and heretics to boot; they cooperated only as far as was neccessary. Antioch, which the Emperor had specifically claimed, was claimed by the Crusaders and wasn't given back to the Byzantines until the Byzantines forced them.

The Crusaders immediately went to Jerusalem and took Jerusalem from a Byzantine ally, profoundly damaging Byzantine foreign relations and demonstrating the total disregard the Crusaders had for Byzantine goals. The Emperor wanted a force of mercenaries; he got an army of unruly warriors that rejected his authority and broke his agreements as soon as they felt strong enough to do so.

Thus, if the Muslim aggression was the Turkish invasion of Anatolia, the assertion that the Crusades were a response to this is utterly false. While the Pope may have found the Emperor's request for mercenaries opportune, it was not that request which provided the main impetus for the Crusades, and the Crusaders themselves certainly never acted like allies of Byzantium or a "rescue force." The Fourth Crusade was not a wierd anomaly; it was the logical result of a weakening Empire and a Venice at the zenith of its power combined with the already fierce hatred and distrust of the Byzantines on the part of the Franks.

So we have an attack by the Crusaders on a Byzantine ally unaffiliated with the original grievance of Anatolian territory. I am not saying that there was no justification for the Crusades. In fact, there were many reasons - the Crusaders wanted money, power, and land, and many also had sincere beliefs that Jerusalem should be returned to Christian hands. The Pope was also religiously motivated, but he realized as well that this was an opportunity to redirect violence within Christendom to a target outside of Christendom, and he furthermore hoped that the Crusades would bolster his power against the Eastern church and the Empire. The Emperor at first thought that Western mercenaries would be valuable in retaking Anatolia; he realized very quickly he had made a grave mistake, but at first he too had his motivations for supporting the Crusades.

But it is also true that the Turks began conquering Europe proper in 1088 by defeating the Romanians and occuppying the Danube near the Black Sea. That caused alarm in Europe. That's preposterous. The Muslims had been raiding into Italy, the Alps, and France for hundreds of years before that. The Muslims were busily fighting the Christian Kingdoms in Spain, far closer to the Franks than Romania and the Black Sea. The idea that Muslim inroads in the Black Sea area would be more "alarming" than Muslim rule in nearby Spain and the Medditerranean is sheer lunacy.

I hope I have adequately addressed your arguments. You are quite simply mistaken about the Crusades; if you insist on ignoring what I'm telling you and calling me a "revisionist," well, you're beyond hope.

[accotMask17]

That's really interesting, I would have suspected there to be more records than that; I suppose we take the speed of knowledge and information for granted these days.

[secondmortgages]

I hate double posts!

[roundman]

C, you do conflate what happened with what the pope and the Eastern Empired intended to happen. You also ignore the fact that the crusaders all initially went to Constantinople, did attack the Turks, and did take Antioch rather than go directly to Jerusalem by sea which would have avoided the Turks entirely.

You also refuse to address the fact that the Eastern Emperor's ambassadors were at the Council. Did they protest the pope's plan? Clearly all left the conference thinking the pope's plan was approved by the East, as they all journeyed to Constantinople directly, something they would not have do had they believed that Constantinople was hostile.

Now, as to offensive and defensive wars, there is the question of how long an enemy must hold territory before it is no longer just to mount a counter-campaign. But, regardless of other circumstances, if the enemy is assaulting, resting, assaulting, resting in a pattern of campaigns, as were the Turks, any action against them was defensive.

The fact that the Arabs of Egypt currently controlled Jerusalem means little. The city had changed hands frequently. Further, these very same Arabs had destroyed the Holy Sepulcher in the recent past and could no longer be trusted. They were the enemy of the West, even if they were friends of the East.

[RemiVedia]

Originally posted by Ned
C, you do conflate what happened with what the pope and the Eastern Empired intended to happen. You also ignore the fact that the crusaders all initially went to Constantinople, did attack the Turks, and did take Antioch rather than go directly to Jerusalem by sea which would have avoided the Turks entirely. Going to sea was not a viable option for such a large force, and the Crusaders desperately needed supplies and provisions. Their only choice was to go through Byzantine land, and the only way the Emperor would let them through and give them the needed supplies was if they helped him capture a few fortresses from the Turks. As soon as this was done they departed. They attacked the Turks only because it was a condition of Byzantine help that they badly needed. Going "by sea" was not possible for them; the Fourth Crusade was able to do so only by becoming so heavily indebted that they had to do whatever the Doge wanted.

You also refuse to address the fact that the Eastern Emperor's ambassadors were at the Council. Did they protest the pope's plan? Clearly all left the conference thinking the pope's plan was approved by the East, as they all journeyed to Constantinople directly, something they would not have do had they believed that Constantinople was hostile. The Pope's "plan" was to get warriors to go to the East. That is, by anyone's measure, not much of a plan. Of course the Emperor approved it; he wanted some Western mercenaries to help him out. Constantinople only became hostile when they realized very quickly after the arrival of the Crusaders that the Franks had no intention of being good allies, but instead defied the Byzantines every chance they got and kept territory that they had sworn to hand over the the Emperor.

You need to stop focusing on people like the Pope and on what the Crusaders actually did and what their purposes actually were as revealed by their actions. Of course the Pope is going to talk about "helping out the East" and being buddies with the Emperor - what else do you think he would say? But his flowery words had very little to do with the actual reasons that he wanted the Crusade and the actual reasons that the Crusaders went.


Now, as to offensive and defensive wars, there is the question of how long an enemy must hold territory before it is no longer just to mount a counter-campaign. Is 461 years long enough for you?

But, regardless of other circumstances, if the enemy is assaulting, resting, assaulting, resting in a pattern of campaigns, as were the Turks, any action against them was defensive. They resisted because they perceived the Crusaders as being in cahoots with their enemies, the Byzantines, which they were initially. I think you can argue that the actions of the Crusaders in Anatolia were defensive, because the Crusaders were helping their supposed ally, even if it was only because they had no choice. That, however, has nothing to do with Jerusalem, nor the carving out of the Kingdom of Jerusalem from a great deal of territory that was decidedly not Turkish. The Crusades were about the taking and holding of Jerusalem, not about Anatolia, which was at best a minor chapter in the history of the Crusades. The whole venture is not made defensive just because a few inital battles against the Turks may have been.

The fact that the Arabs of Egypt currently controlled Jerusalem means little. The city had changed hands frequently. Further, these very same Arabs had destroyed the Holy Sepulcher in the recent past and could no longer be trusted. They were the enemy of the West, even if they were friends of the East. See, here you go again: "all Muslims are pretty much the same." The Turks and Fatimids were at war, and the Fatimids were allies of the Byzantines. It actually means a great deal. The Crusaders attacked a country not at all involved in the "defensive war" in Anatolia - actually, they were involved, on the side of the Byzantines. Your assertion that the city "changed hands frequently" is totally irrelevant and a poor justification for anything.

You forget that the Caliph who had destroyed the Holy Sephulchre was replaced by a Caliph who prompty rebuilt it with the help of the Byzantines. One insane Caliph and suddenly no Arab can be trusted? You are apparently very, very paranoid. The Fatimids had excellent relations with Christendom at the time, especially the Byzantines. Jerusalem was far safer in their hands than it was under the Crusaders, who took great glee in a general slaughter of the population - I would say that was a far greater reason for mistrust than the simple destruction of a Christian holy building.

The problem is that you come to this discussion with a preconceived notion of Islam and Muslims generally as an "enemy of the West," and don't require any proof to justify that belief. The very fact of Fatimid control of Jerusalem is casus belli enough for you, because as vague "enemies of the West" they are worthy only of destruction, and any violence done against them is purely "defensive" in nature even when it is quite obvious that there was nothing defensive about it. I really can't draw anything out of this discussion but that you are an unapologetic bigot for whom violence is justified so long as it against Muslims, who are for you a prima facie enemy regardless of what their actions actually are. You can't just end your argument with "well, regardless of the facts, it was justified because they were 'enemies of the west'" and expect me to take you seriously. You are accusing me of some kind of anti-West bias, but it seems clear to me that you are the one arguing for biased revisionism. My conclusions are not my own; you can find the same conclusions in any contemporary history book that doesn't have a Euro-Christian inferiority complex axe to grind.

To address the original question of this thread, which seems to be rapidly vanishing in the rear-view mirror of this argument, people perceive the Crusades as "evil" in particular not because they were so much worse than other atriocities of the day, but because 1) we know more about them than we do about conflicts not involving Europeans and 2) They were incredibly wasteful, bloody, and largely unprovoked, even by medieval standards. There is no vast conspiracy to discredit the history of Europe or the actions of Christendom; there is sincere and honest scholarship attempting to examine the Crusades without the distorting lens of jingoism applied by both Christian and Muslim contemporaries. In that sense, I am being a revisionist in the academic sense of the term - a critical analyst of historical fact.

I would advise you to look at things critically as well, and drop this frankly quite stupid assumption of some monolithic Muslim front of aggression and evil that has been eroding at God's great Christian people for centuries. It is not heresy to say that the Crusaders included a lot of venal and cruel people among their ranks, and that the Crusaders generally used the Eastern Empire for their own benefit and were not good allies in any sense of the term. The world will not end if you acknowledge that indeed, the Crusades were an example of Christian aggression, which they most assuredly were. We can acknowledge that people on both sides did things that modern Christians and Muslims alike can be ashamed of, and move on from there. That is far more constructive - and historically accurate - than painting "the enemy" with the broad brush of bigotry and ignorance.

[mrllxp]

Originally posted by Ned
1) They sieged Nicea and it was returned to the EE. Because they were forced into doing so by Alexius, whose help they needed.

2) They took Antioch and would have returned it to the EE had Alexius's envoy not left prematurely and had they been supplied and supported by the EE as promised. Bullsh*t. Bohemond never had any intention to make Antioch anything other than his personal fief. The Byzantines helped them tremendously before and Bohemond was just looking for the slightest excuse to throw off his sworn obligations to the Byzantines.

It scarcely matters even if Alexius didn't support them all the way - the Crusaders, including Bohemond, had sworn an oath to give all territory conquered from the Turks back to the Emperor. A complaint that the Byzantines were less than helpful is not a substantive reason to break that oath.

3) They took Jeruslam, because that was the main objective of the campaign. Well, at least we agree on something.

Now, you focus on 3 to denigrate the whole campaign because, at the time, Jerusalem was under control of the Egyptian Arabs, allies of the EE. You yourself just said it was the main objective of the campaign. It is not unfair to focus on Jerusalem, because it was the main objective of the campaign. The story of the Crusades is the story of taking and holding Jerusalem; that is the point. It is entirely proper that I focus on that, since it is far and away the most important issue.

You call me a bigot. But, what is true is that the crusaders viewed all Muslims as enemies, primarily on religious grounds. The whole point of the expedition was to restore Jerusalem and the other cities of Anatolia and Syria to Christianity. That is totally incorrect. The Crusaders made alliances many times with local Muslim powers against others; sometimes they allied with Muslim rulers against other Crusaders! The Crusaders had a long relationship with the Ismailis that was often quite friendly. It is patently obvious that the Crusaders did not view all Muslims as automatically enemies - in fact, one of the main problems of Outremer was that, though the "old school" Christian nobles understood that the Muslims could be worked with and allied with, new arrivals from Europe fresh off the boat and filled with zealotry would always ignore the advice of the veteran Crusaders.

You give the Crusaders far too little credit if you think they couldn't understand the difference between these groups. They had some leaders as politically savvy as any Byzantine Emperor, and they knew very well the divisions within the Muslim world and how allies could be found within it.

But I think we agree, do we not, that the crusader campaigns in Anatolia and Syria were justified even if the subsequent taking of Jerusalem was not. I go by Alexius' agreement: all lands taken by the Turks shall be returned to the Byzantine crown. So long as this was done, I believe you could argue that the war was in some sense "defensive." Antioch does not qualify, because it was not returned; Jerusalem does not, because not only was it not returned, but it wasn't even held by the Turks at the time.

One more point. Urban II called for another crusade in 1100. This crusade attacked the Turks in Anatolia and was defeated. I think this shows that the pope's intention was to aid the EE as best he could in addition to restoring Jerusalem to Christian rule. The purpose of the 1100 crusade was to reinforce the Kingdom of Jerusalem now that it had been established, not to push back the Turks. The Crusaders only fought the Turks because they were in the way of getting to Jerusalem. The Crusaders were interested in the Turks only insofar as they were interested in keeping the overland routes to the Kingdom open. It does not in any way demonstrate the willingness of anybody to aid the Byzantines; that crusade of 1100 in fact pillaged quite a bit of Byzantine territory and almost came to blows with the Emperor's forces. Any benefit to the Byzantines was incidental to the Crusaders' own aims.

[LeaderBiz]

nah, horse archers were used by seldjuks, but I think the strenght of ottoman army were janissaries.

[bppstorr]

Originally posted by Ned
I just ordered Medieval II: Total War. I think it will allow me to actually play some of these battles rather than just read about them. I was wondering just how the Turks were so powerful compared to everyone else. I think it had to do with their horse archers, my favorite unit from Rome Total War. HAs in RTW were certainly the best unit type (Parthians FTW). As far as the Turks in real life, I think that their mobility generally served them well; horse archers were a part of that, but their infantry was also comparatively lighter. The Crusaders had a lot of heavy armor going for them; there are a lot of Muslim writers who said that even the low class pauper footmen among the Crusaders would walk around with multiple arrows sticking out of their gambesons - even they had surprisingly thick armor. That turned out to be a mixed blessing, however, in the hotter climates of the Levant (demonstrated at Hattin and elsewhere).

C, Thanks for the discussion. I get a little heated sometimes... but thanks for being a sport. I really do recommend the books I cited earlier, I think you'd find them really interesting. I also can't stress enough that you should be more critical about the view that Muslims generally were or are a monolithic enemy; even their contemporaries in the Crusades rarely saw them that way when they actually met Muslims in Outremer. I think a lesson worth learning is that anybody can be the aggressor, even when they say they have the best of intentions.