[8IhGpvH0]

Originally posted by BeBro
I get the impression that these are often presented as examples for an especially "evil" form of war/conquest. Why is that?

Not that I want to excuse anything done there, esp. during the first crusade which ended as we all know in a big massacre. However, it's not that these things were that uncommon throughout history. And certainly they were not limited to christians.....but usually nobody seems to care as much about the things done for example during ancient times.

For example the Romans had no problem to wipe out even bigger cities completely (Carthage, Corinth), not to mention the fate of smaller tribes, eg. in Gaul or Germania which often were nearly or completely rooted out, and not to mention lots of other little details (people fight to death for entertainment, slavery, torture etc.) which were no better than things happening during medieval times, esp. during the crusades.

Still ancient Rome (as said, only one example, I could also refer to other sides and periods) often seems to be viewed in a completely different light than the middle ages, where the cliché of the evil, dark times is much more common and persistent.

Discuss
I will make three points about the massacre in Jerusalem at the end of the first crusade. Muslims of course mention it often, and to some extent it makes sense for them to, cause muslim detractors are inclined to diss Islam based on stuff that was routine in pre-modern times, and why shouldnt they do the same back?

For Jews, its significant not only as one more massacre (after all there were plenty of others, and generally the others werent justified by the 'well this is what you do when you win a siege' rule) but because it, at least temporarily, virtually eliminated the Jewish presence in Jerusalem. Its important to the history of the Jewish community in the land of Israel.

But I guess the larger thing, is the contradiction to the holiness of Jerusalem, presumably the very thing the crusaders were nominally fighting for. OK, so the rule was still that a massacre after a siege was routine - but this was, you know, Jerusalem. Wouldnt it have made sense to, you, know, make an exception? I mean if youre going to just be ordinary fighters of the time, why not stay home and fight your local enemies (as many european knights did)?

Also cause these guys were Christians. Lots of folks have this huge problem with what Joshua et al did, despite not being too concerned with what early Iron age conquerors routinely did.

Of course it would be wrong to be negative towards anyone who has a special interest in the crusades, esp designers of Civ2 scenarios

[JakeBarkings]

I have no answer to the OP, but I have a question: as of when DO the crusades get a negative connotation? (apart from the Muslim/Jew point of view obviously)

[8Zgkdeee]

Originally posted by BeBro
Well, just to be clear, my point isn't that things done during the middle ages, esp. during the crusades couldn't be labeled "evil" from a certain POV, rather why it isn't done in the same way for other "evil" things done before or (to some extent) afterwards.

So basically, why the wider perception is so different (at least that's my impression).

I think you have some good points about Muslim/Jewish/Christian perception though.

But sometimes I also think it has to do with the general negative image of the middle ages, while for example ancient, esp. Greek-Roman times are often idealized for all the nice architecture, philosophy, literature etc. (which isn't wrong per se, but after all it's only part of the bigger pic like the cruel things are only part of the bigger pic in medieval times)
yup, its that whole renaissance, classical is good, dark ages bad thingie.

BTW, if you think the Romans get a free pass from the Jews for what they did in Jerusalem, or elsewhere, you'll be happy to know they dont, we have a whole holiday (Tisha b'av) that in part commemorates the fall of Jer to the Romans, and a long section of the Yom Kippur service that discusses the martyrdom of a group of rabbis by the Romans after the second revolt.

[incizarry]

I have a hunch it's a protestant thing.

Wasn't there a crusade after the one that sacked constantinople? At least there were plenty after the first one sacked Jerusalem, so that's clearly not the trigger.

[quottrethew]

The issue of the crusades that annoys me is the "westerners should apologize for it" thing

since no one asks muslims to apologize for conquering everything from the atlantic to india, or invading spain

[Arrocousa]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
The issue of the crusades that annoys me is the "westerners should apologize for it" thing

since no one asks muslims to apologize for conquering everything from the atlantic to india, or invading spain Are there such voices?
I haven´t heard of such a thing to date.
Only of the crusade being seen as something rather evil.


As for the OP:
I think there are three things which might have to do with it:

1. They are nearer in time than the evil things done by the romans/greeks

2. For the crusades you have eyewitness accounts describing the massacres in detail. This isn´t the case for the evil things the romans did. In the historical records for the romans you only learn about the fact that the city xy was razed to the ground, but no historican has written in detail about the atrocities roman legionaries did when they razed the city (after all history was written by the victor and the roman historians were uintelligent enough to know that it would not be wise to give any eyewitness acccounts about thése things).
If there were eyewitness accounts (for examples by the few people that survived the roman massacres) they haven´t survived till today (either lost in the mists of time, or destroyed by the romans themselves)

3. As mentioned in this thread this crusade was considered to be some holy task and it was ordered by the pope (therefore by the highest ranking catholicn christian). So it is measured by higher standards than any normal war.
It would have been different if the crusades had been ordered by any king or duke. Look for example at the 30 years war. Although it can be considered as a religious war, it was at the same time more of a political power struggle between the catholic and protestant fractions in germany and it wasn´t openly ordered by anyone of the high ranking clerics. So although this war depopulated whole regions in germany (with 25% of the population of the german states getting killed) and also had massacres, like for example Madgdeburg, it isn´t mentioned as often as the crusades.

[beethyday]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
The issue of the crusades that annoys me is the "westerners should apologize for it" thing

since no one asks muslims to apologize for conquering everything from the atlantic to india, or invading spain
It's mostly a political correctness thing, it's acceptable to bash the West while bashing other civilizations is a nono in some circles.

[Siffidiolla]

We also know quite well what happened in other cases. The "history is written by the victor" bit is way too overestimated IMO. It's certainly true in some cases, but not generally.

We should also bear in mind that in many cases (certainly in ancient times) atrocities were often not considered crimes in the same way they are today, and often they were done with the intent to spread fear amongst other enemies, and so the perpetrating side did make no efforts at all to hide them, rather the opposite.

So when Persians destroyed Eretria in 490BC because of its help for the Ionian revolt they did it not only to punish the city itself, or to take it out as an enemy, but also to make an example of it for other cities under their rule.

[downtowndude]

The funny think is muslims won the crusades, and continued advancing, destroying the byzantines and conquering everything up to hungary, attacking vienna twice, but by listening to them, you may think that they lost the crusades

[Tusanoc]

Originally posted by Zkribbler

There was also a later "Children's Crusade," where many of the children of Europe took up the cross and marched on the Holy Lands. Like the 4th Crusade, they entered into contracts to go by sea. However, they were taken instead to North Africa and sold into slavery. Actually, the children's crusade isn't well researched, mainly due to lack of sources. What's known as the children's crusade is merged from several events happened mainly in the first half of the 13th century. There are a number of unsolved problems, for example the number of participants, if they (or the majority) were really children, and if they really planned to go to the Holy Land in something like a "crusade". There are some nice theories though for example that the (in Germany well-known) folk tale of the "Pied Piper of Hamelin" points to the children's crusade.

[PymnImmen]

Originally posted by BeBro


Actually, the children's crusade isn't well researched, mainly due to lack of sources. What's known as the children's crusade is merged from several events happened mainly in the first half of the 13th century. There are a number of unsolved problems, for example the number of participants, if they (or the majority) were really children, and if they really planned to go to the Holy Land in something like a "crusade". There are some nice theories though for example that the (in Germany well-known) folk tale of the "Pied Piper of Hamelin" points to the children's crusade. I recall reading somewhere that the "Children's Crusade" never made it out of Europe. The kids were beset by raiders along their march. There were abductions and rape/murders. By the time they approached a port there weren't enough left.

[amannddo]

Originally posted by BeBro
I get the impression that these are often presented as examples for an especially "evil" form of war/conquest. Why is that? I think it was Stephen Runciman who called the Crusades "one long act of intolerance in the name of God" (I'm paraphrasing here). Maybe they're not considered evil because of the actual slaughter - which was not atypical for the time period - but because the Crusades are perceived as wars of intolerance, and so they strike people as particularly wasteful and unnecessary.

[chinesemedicine]

Originally posted by Ned
It is PC to bash Christianity . . . It is NOT p.c. to bash Christianity. It is P.C. to bash Chrisitians when they attempt to have the government spend money and effort to spread belief in Christ, e.g. having Nativity scenes set up on government property at Christmas time.

[Wezfyowk]

[q=Cyclotron]It's not "PC," and your attempt to declare it as such points more to your bizarre Western/Christian inferiority complex than anything else.[/q]

Yep, that hits it right on the head. The Crusades are criticized because Christianity was totally twisted by those in power of the Church at the time in order to justify a war.

[feqlmwtuqx]

I'm assuming you beg to differ because you've seen instances of this. I myself haven't noticed any.

But I tell you what I'm going to do. I'll be more sensative to anyone bashing Christianity. If they do it in my presence, I'll call them on it.

(This does not mean I'll necessary confront someone who is analytically questioning the validity of religion in general or Christianity in particular. But if they're making unfounded hostile generalizations or in other ways "bashing" the religion, they'll hear from me.)

[RarensussyRen]

Originally posted by Cyclotron


And as far as not bashing Islam, it's hard to find Islam responsible for an invasion of their territory by the Franks. It's not as if the Franks were attacked first. What is "their territory"?

Much of it had been conquered by turks from the byzantines very very recently just 3 years ago, and still had the intact christian populations, and back then the "syrian coast" still had christian majorities, as late as the XX century, christians were the majority in lebanon, one third of syrians, and the majority in Galilee, without mentioning the millions of greek and armenian christians in anatolia.

The first crusade was called after the byzantine emperor asked the Pope for help due to the byzantine defeat in Manzikert, I tend to see the crusades as the delated response to the arab conquests of Christian lands.

Anyway, the crusades were a failure, unless you count the spanish reconquista as crusades.
If I recall correctly some english crusaders helped Portugal conquer Lisbon from the muslims, and their 1000 years alliance goes back to that time, when Castille tried to conquer Portugal, they were defeated in Aljubarrota by the portuguese with help of english longbow archers.

[Dwerfsd]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
What is "their territory"? The territory they had ruled for several hundred years. Nobody has ever ruled an area forever. The Levant was long lost to the Byzantines, who had aboslutely no illusions during the Crusades that they would be retaking it. The Crusaders went to retake the Holy Land, not Anatolia (which is what you were referring to).

The first crusade was called after the byzantine emperor asked the Pope for help due to the byzantine defeat in Manzikert, I tend to see the crusades as the delated response to the arab conquests of Christian lands. But the Crusade wasn't to reconquer Anatolia, was it? It was to reconquer Jerusalem - which wasn't even in the hands of the Turks at the time, and which had been in the hands of the Fatimids - Byzantine allies at the time - and in the hands of Muslims for hundreds of years. Oops!

[Anteneprorid]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
The difference is islam was born conquering, while christianity, before becoming legal, and later official, actually spent a few centuries spreading peacefully till becoming a religion with a significant number of followers in the empire (and often enduring persecutions)
Jesus, Paul, and Peter did not command any army, in comparison to Mohammed, Umar etc How is this relevant to how aggressive the religion is overall, or anyone's ability to make such an assertion? Does the peacefulness of Jesus somehow negate the hundreds of years of oppression, warfare, and murder that is the shared tradition of both Christianity and Islam? "Aggressiveness" should be judged on deeds if you are to do it at all, not on the intentions of one man who was really a pretty nice guy. The only reason Christianity was "peaceful" for that long was because it was a minority scattered throughout the empire; as soon as it became the majority, in comes the brutality. The only difference with Islam is that Islam never had a period of being a weak, persecuted diaspora, and thus could be violent and conquering from the get-go.

[Oxzzlvpg]

Originally posted by Ned
C, according to this site, the Turks controlled Jerusalem at the time of the crusades. Your site is full of crap. I'm sorry, but book after book that I've read says the same thing: the Fatimids reconquered Jerusalem from the Turks about a year before the Crusaders got there. The Fatimids tried to get the Byzantines to stop their Frankish "allies," but the Franks wouldn't listen to the Byzantines, who they already distrusted and despised.

Admittedly, the crusades began a general assault on the non Christians surrounding Europe. But that does not make the Muslims into good guys. I have not argued this, and neither has anyone else in this thread.

I beg to differ on post-Columbian expansion of Europe. It mainly was for empire and gold, not to spread religion per se. You know what? You're absolutely right. But you've also opened a whole can of worms with that. Do you really think the Crusades were all about religion? What about all the younger sons of nobility who were shut out of estates in Europe, who suddenly saw a chance for becoming a landed noble out in Outremer? What about the Pope, who knew very well that Europe was plagued by inner turmoil that would be better spent elsewhere? Or the profiteering Venetians, not to mention the 4th Crusade? Or Bohemond of Antioch and his ilk who clearly wanted no part of the whole "religious" part of the crusade so long as there was land and plunder to be had?

Oh, it doesn't stop there, either. The expansion of the Ottomans certainly wasn't a solely religious expedition; it was the deliberate expansion of an empire, no different in theory or practice from the Romans, Persians, or Byzantines. The very initial conquests of the Arabs were certainly religious in nature, but were the conquests of the Umayyads and Abbasids any more religiously based than the Germans of the drang nach osten or the Spanish of Pizarro and Cortez? I don't think that's easily proven.

Virtually all the conflicts we've discussed have been about gold and power as much as religion. You are absolutely right on your appraisal of "post-Columbian expansion" - but again, it's totally irrelevant. Everyone is interested in gold and empire, and these factors applied as much to the Crusaders and the Ottomans as they did to Cortez and Pizarro.

[NodePark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It is interesting to assert the Crusades being in response to Turkish aggression.. especially since any Turkish aggression was against the Byzantine Empire, in Anatolia. But the Crusaders didn't go there. They went to Jerusalem, which had been Muslim controled for a few centuries before Pope Urban II's call.

Not even mentioning the fact the Turks didn't hold the land anymore, of course.

It was a call to retake the Holy Land, not to stop Turkish aggression. Imran, how else could the pope get Euro-knights to march?

But, you do have to remember that the Muslims had been destroying churches and shrines for some time, and the Turks had cut of Christian access to Jerusalem.

So the West has cause of its own to proceed. But the could not proceed, realisticallly, without the consent and cooperation of the Eastern Empire. That is why the Eastern Empires call for help was the critical factor in opening the floodgates to Western armies.