I find the Holy Wars in the Middle East to be an extremely interesting and important piece of history. I thoroughly enjoy talks about the Crusades and, having visited the Holy Lands myself, have witnessed the lgacy that those who fought there left and what they were fighting for.
I am amazed by the sheer piety and tenacity of those involved (on both sides). C'mon, the Crusaders traveled across the entirey of the Mediterranean. The sheer logistics of such a feat at times astound me. Of course, there are many dark pieces of Crusade History. The sacking of Jerusalem (and Constantinople, but my knowledge of what happened there with the Venetians is a little hazy. ) Another sad story would the fate of those involved in the Childrens Crusades.
It is so interesting to me becuase, despite what men of ignorance might say, all sorts were involved. Men of legend like Sulladin and Richard the Lionheart come to mind. Some were truly pious and fighting for the pilgrims, grace and protecting thier own respective religeons. Others were involved for less than honourable reasons, merely fighting for the land or wealth that they could grab. But whatever the reason, it was no holiday for anyone involved.
Please, share your opinions about this most colourful piece of history, be it theological, historical or philosiphical.
EDIT: Any other Holy Wars, Jihads or Crusades (I know of a few) that you would like to bring up are also welcome.
True, if it somehow comes up. Like the Moors moving through Spain and up into France? I wasn't aware that this particular expansion was being reffered to as a Jihad.
(Perhaps I'll change the title to the Holy Wars? That should cover it, doncha think?)
The Crusades began as a response. Christianity and Byzantium had been attacked for centuries. Once the pilgrims started being harassed it was the final straw.
Well, that's not exactly a 'political' reason per se.
The Crusades (1080-1200's) were mostly about reclaiming the Holy Lands (namely Jerusalem) from the Muslims and ensuring that the Christians there didn't have a hard time of it. (Previously, Pilgrims to the Holy Lands had been attack insecanntly by bandits and other forces, as well as a deal of oppression from their Muslim rulers.) I believe the Knights Hospitallier were set of for the specific purpose of providing refuge for travellers on this dangerous road.
The sheer logistics of such a feat at times astound me.
Logistics were not a big issue for the crusaders after the first march down, since the enemy supplied them with ample food, water, and shelter, thanks to the miracle of cannibalism
You've never heard about the Massacre of Ma'arra during 1098.
After a lengthy siege the crusaders descend upon Ma'arra and kill 20,000 civilians, then due to starvation they decide to eat them.
They dispatch a letter to the Pope begging for forgiveness and supplies, but by the time the letter arrives word had spread about the massive army marching to the holy land, Burning, Raping, and Eating all that get in their way.
Needless to sat this scared the crap out of the inhabitants of the middle east. From then on neighboring kingdoms made sure the crusaders had enough supplies to keep them marching towards there destination.
@Clthomps:There were allegations of cannibalism, but that was never proven. Whats more there is no such record of the Pope receiving any letter in which they asked for forgiveness for cannibalism.
Emperors Faithful wrote:I find the Holy Wars in the Middle East to be an extremely interesting and important piece of history. I thoroughly enjoy talks about the Crusades and, having visited the Holy Lands myself, have witnessed the lgacy that those who fought there left and what they were fighting for.
Lucky you I've never been to Holy Land.
The sacking of Jerusalem (and Constantinople, but my knowledge of what happened there with the Venetians is a little hazy. )
This act had nothing to do with the intended Crusade in fact. That it why 'crusaders' were excommunicated by Pope, as far as I remember.
By the way, the taking (and then sacking) of Constantinople had deep roots in inter-Byzantium political struggle - a would-be-crusader-army was used only as muscle to return ex-emperor of Byzantium to his throne.
sad story would the fate of those involved in the Childrens Crusades.
As far as I understand they had no blessing of the Pope, so it was a kind of 'self-proclaimed crusade'. Just as 'crusades' in North-Eastern Europe.
In fact European and Christian lands were target of constant Muslim aggression up to 10 century (Arabian ships attacked even coasts of England), so Crusades became a reaction to this aggression.
I was watching a show on British Channel 4 the other day on the history of Christianity and from what I remember there was two groups of Christianity around before the Crusades, East & West. The West was based in Rome and the East was in Constantinople and in fact the East faction was split in half, with another base in Antioch? They had a difference of opinion on Jesus (the whole father, son & holy ghost thing).
The faction who where based in Antioch were the Christians who were overwhelmed when the Muslims expanded to the West. You also find that this faction's influence was found as far East as China.
I would imagine that the Crusades was part of the process of creating one great big Christian religion, and using the perceived "affront" to Christians from the Muslims to get it going.
@Kurt: It's quite place, seeing the Dome of the Rock, the Wall of Solomons Temple and many other holy places in the Old City. Truly magical. If one ignores the fact constant bomb checks and snipers.
Wolfstan wrote:I was watching a show on British Channel 4 the other day on the history of Christianity and from what I remember there was two groups of Christianity around before the Crusades, East & West. The West was based in Rome and the East was in Constantinople and in fact the East faction was split in half, with another base in Antioch? They had a difference of opinion on Jesus (the whole father, son & holy ghost thing).
That is incorrect. There were 5 major Holy Sees in the early Church: Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria. Antioch was aligned with the Eastern Orthodox Church. The EOC and the RCC had only split in 1045, aka the Great Schism. The issue of the Trinity had long since been settled at the Council of Nicaea in AD 325.
Wolfstan wrote:The faction who where based in Antioch were the Christians who were overwhelmed when the Muslims expanded to the West. You also find that this faction's influence was found as far East as China.
Again that is not true. Antioch was under the governance of the Byzantine Empire before its capture by the invading Mohammedans. It was in spiritual union with the EOC and political union with the Byzantines, where the Church and the State were intertwined. For someone to declare that it was a completely different denomination of Christianity is just wrong.
Wolfstan wrote:I would imagine that the Crusades was part of the process of creating one great big Christian religion, and using the perceived "affront" to Christians from the Muslims to get it going.
Your imagination runs wild into the realms of Historical Revisionism. As said before, the Church had split only a few years before the 1st Crusade, and there was no proclamations or efforts by the Crusaders to subdue the Eastern Orthodox Church into the fold of Rome. Pope Gregory VII had called for the "milites Christi" (Soldiers of Christ) to defend the Byzantines from the Muslim aggressors. Muslims did bring the Crusades on themselves by doing a number of things. 1) They willfully and knowingly invaded Christian lands, and forcibly converted people to Islam, and either executed or persecuted those who didn't convert. 2)They burned down, destroyed or converted to mosques many Christian churches and shrines 3)They harassed and murdered many Christian pilgrims and clerics. Actions such as these drove the Christians in Europe to the Crusades to prevent their own lands from being taken and to defend the Faith.
Have any of you seen Terry Jones' series on the Crusades (BBC I think?). Very amusing but informative as well. Well worth picking up on DVD if you are interested in this topic, although this may well be on the webz somewhere as well.
He walks allot of the route in the arms and armour of a typical crusader, not bad for an old Python!
p.s. I seem to rememeber some talk of cannabalism as well? They certainly ate allot of their horses, but what do you expect bloody french!
JEB_Stuart wrote:That is incorrect. There were 5 major Holy Sees in the early Church: Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria. Antioch was aligned with the Eastern Orthodox Church. The EOC and the RCC had only split in 1045, aka the Great Schism. The issue of the Trinity had long since been settled at the Council of Nicaea in AD 325.
According to this program, the Council of Nicaea didn't settle the matter. As I'm trying to fit this in at work I can't go into too much detail. I remember them using a glass of wine as an example for both factions. One refered to the "character of Jesus" being two. One was like oil and water, both in the same glass, but separate. The other faction refered to being like wine & water in one glass, both mixed intogether.
One faction got the upper hand as per usual ruled the other Bishop a heretic. I think he died in prison, but the factions beliefs lived on. There was also a part where they were talking to a Muslim professor about the fact that Islam had taken some of the worshipping practices of this faction of Christianity and added it to it's own religion. I believe the kneeling at prayer was one of them. This faction of Christianity expanded into the East and there is a community of it in Iraq and evidence of it in China.
I wil try and find the program name and post it.
Your imagination runs wild into the realms of Historical Revisionism. As said before, the Church had split only a few years before the 1st Crusade, and there was no proclamations or efforts by the Crusaders to subdue the Eastern Orthodox Church into the fold of Rome. Pope Gregory VII had called for the "milites Christi" (Soldiers of Christ) to defend the Byzantines from the Muslim aggressors. Muslims did bring the Crusades on themselves by doing a number of things. 1) They willfully and knowingly invaded Christian lands, and forcibly converted people to Islam, and either executed or persecuted those who didn't convert. 2)They burned down, destroyed or converted to mosques many Christian churches and shrines 3)They harassed and murdered many Christian pilgrims and clerics. Actions such as these drove the Christians in Europe to the Crusades to prevent their own lands from being taken and to defend the Faith.
!!??!! Bit touchy aren't you? You're spouting Christian history like it's set in stone. Any real historian knows that this isn't the case, it's too far back. So I didn't give you a whole thesis on the subject, backed up with loads of quoted references, I was just having a casual converstion and putting comments forward... get over yourself.
notprop wrote:Have any of you seen Terry Jones' series on the Crusades (BBC I think?). Very amusing but informative as well. Well worth picking up on DVD if you are interested in this topic, although this may well be on the webz somewhere as well.
He walks allot of the route in the arms and armour of a typical crusader, not bad for an old Python!
p.s. I seem to rememeber some talk of cannabalism as well? They certainly ate allot of their horses, but what do you expect bloody french!
I saw in Jr. High School. Loved it, love Monty Python and love history. Was a trifecta of awesome.
Wolfstan wrote:According to this program, the Council of Nicaea didn't settle the matter. As I'm trying to fit this in at work I can't go into too much detail. I remember them using a glass of wine as an example for both factions. One referred to the "character of Jesus" being two. One was like oil and water, both in the same glass, but separate. The other faction referred to being like wine & water in one glass, both mixed in together.
You are referring to two separate things. One is called Arianism, and it was declared heresy by the vast majority of Bishops at the Council of Nicaea. The second that was created by an Antiochene monk, Nestorius, was aptly named Nestorianism. Both emphasized the duality of Christ in heretical expression. Neither was widely accepted, and both were declared heresy at the Councils of Nicaea and Ephesus respectively. The religious sect that you may be referring to though is the Assyrian Church of the East, which was not associated with the Eastern Orthodox Church, as it had split shortly before the Council of Ephesus, and was not based in Antioch, though it had ties to Nestorius.
Wolfstan wrote:Bit touchy aren't you? You're spouting Christian history like it's set in stone. Any real historian knows that this isn't the case, it's too far back. So I didn't give you a whole thesis on the subject, backed up with loads of quoted references, I was just having a casual converstion and putting comments forward... get over yourself.
I am a real historian, its what I went to university for, and its what I am going to get my PhD for. It isn't too far back. Christian history is fairly cemented, especially since we know who wrote what and when. We have plenty of textual evidence to support history of the early Church, especially after the rise of Constantine. I take discussions of history on Dakka very seriously, and anyone who reads my posts know that I post a researched and well thought out position on the matter.
Once you start to try and establish precedence of a religion in an area you can never stop.
The Christians were established in Palestine because the area had been conquered by the Roman Empire which later turned itself and all its members officially Christian, ignoring the prior claims of Jews, Zoroastrians, and pagans of various types.
Islam grew by overwhelming the prior established pagan religion of the region which is now Saudi Arabia, then spread from there to the rest of the Middle East.
Kilkrazy wrote:Once you start to try and establish precedence of a religion in an area you can never stop.
The Christians were established in Palestine because the area had been conquered by the Roman Empire which later turned itself and all its members officially Christian, ignoring the prior claims of Jews, Zoroastrians, and pagans of various types.
I find it fascinating too, although it is a very, very dark time and subject.
Whenever men go to war for something that cannot be defined or proven (ie: God) it is always filled with suffering and is possibly never the best thnig to do.
I'm not saying 'God doesn't exist', I'm saying 'thus far, it is impossible to prove he does or does not exist'. I would say that is fairly shaky ground to establish a war on (y'know a cause for something that might or might not exist, like Bush's assaulting Iraq for the WMD's, heyooooooh!)
Heres a question, Christians dont have to go on any sort of pilgrimage right? You know, they think they can go to "heaven" and get all the immortality and such without doing one, so i think its fair to ask...
Why the hell would ANYONE rather go to that fething horrible place instead of Las Vegas or Ibiza or something!?
I mean, i dunno, i thought maybe Muslims did because they HAD too.. but, if your Christian, why would you want to go to that place instead of you know.. going on a nice normal holiday?
mattyrm wrote:Heres a question, Christians dont have to go on any sort of pilgrimage right? You know, they think they can go to "heaven" and get all the immortality and such without doing one, so i think its fair to ask...
Why the hell would ANYONE rather go to that fething horrible place instead of Las Vegas or Ibiza or something!?
I mean, i dunno, i thought maybe Muslims did because they HAD too.. but, if your Christian, why would you want to go to that place instead of you know.. going on a nice normal holiday?
I can answer for myself. I would like to go to Jerusalem "some day". I don't think I would want to go there with the state of affairs it is in right now. I think it would be a very personal experiance to actually walk in Jesus' fottsteps on the via de larosa, or see the empty tomb. The only problem, I think, is that we aren't 100% sure that all of those shrines are the actual places they claim to be.
And to answer your first question, no there is no pilgramage requirement like there is in Islam where they are supposed to go to Meccha at least once in their lifetime.
GG, i guess if your really into Jesus you would want to go see it, i mean, its the same with a band right?
Although, i seem to have grown out of bands now as id rather watch the DVD than go see them live and deal with the crowds and the line at the bar and the gakky beer they serve. I prefer to get the DVD, fill the fridge with my favourite drink and get pissed in the comfort of my own home, you can see and hear better as well!
So get some DVDs about it and dont bother, you wont get blew up then.
Someone needs to mention that the holy lands are part of the most lucrative trade route in the known world at that time. Coincidence? They also peter out when a new source of wealth is discovered, the Americas.
Throughout the twentieth-century, a popular view of the Crusades began to develop along the lines of the Marxist critique of Imperialism. Namely, Christendom was attempting to extend itself into the Middle East for the purpose of pecuniary gain. According to this account, feudal nobles were happy to use religion as a pretext for acquiring new lands and wealth. This view is no longer taken seriously by scholars. Not only does it ignore the existence of the Byzantine Empire and the development of martial religious orders, but research has revealed that Crusaders spent a great deal of wealth on the attempt to get to the Holy Land. Some families even sold off land (in Europe, I mean) to finance a son or brother's taking the Cross.
It is wrong to attempt to understand the actions of people in the past from the moral perspective of the present.
Manchu wrote:Throughout the twentieth-century, a popular view of the Crusades began to develop along the lines of the Marxist critique of Imperialism. Namely, Christendom was attempting to extend itself into the Middle East for the purpose of pecuniary gain. According to this account, feudal nobles were happy to use religion as a pretext for acquiring new lands and wealth. This view is no longer taken seriously by scholars. Not only does it ignore the existence of the Byzantine Empire and the development of martial religious orders, but research has revealed that Crusaders spent a great deal of wealth on the attempt to get to the Holy Land. Some families even sold off land (in Europe, I mean) to finance a son or brother's taking the Cross.
It is wrong to attempt to understand the actions of people in the past from the moral perspective of the present.
Don't forget having all your sins wiped clean would of been a big incentive as well . Just think, all those nobles who'd been up to no good could get a clean slate by taking part in a punch up, which is what they were basically trained to do anyway
Yeah, but also don't forget that alot of people below the noble's weren't freemen... so if the boss decided to tramp off East to clear away his sins, they had to go with him. The rest of them would of been made of genuine true believers, which however if I remember correctly, turned in to a large rabble that gave Constantine major headaches (Jeb, am I recalling that correctly?)
Kilkrazy wrote:Once you start to try and establish precedence of a religion in an area you can never stop.
The Christians were established in Palestine because the area had been conquered by the Roman Empire which later turned itself and all its members officially Christian, ignoring the prior claims of Jews, Zoroastrians, and pagans of various types.
Er don't forget, Christianity started there.
Yes, and before Christianity there were other religions that started there.
Manchu wrote:Throughout the twentieth-century, a popular view of the Crusades began to develop along the lines of the Marxist critique of Imperialism. Namely, Christendom was attempting to extend itself into the Middle East for the purpose of pecuniary gain. According to this account, feudal nobles were happy to use religion as a pretext for acquiring new lands and wealth.
It doesn't have to be a pretext. The two goals (wealth and pious duty) are simply aligned. It's not revisionism to take into account that people make decisions for two (or more) equally valued (to themselves) reasons. I'm also prepared to allow for a variance in the value of each goal on an individual basis i.e. I'm prepared to accept that some nobles went for 100% pious reasons and that the opposite is also true.
It is indisputable that after 1500 (or so) interest in claiming the holy land decreased but claiming new lands and wealth did not. Could it be that Muslims extended as far as they did towards the end of the crusades because the land they were taking was not truly worth defending in the eyes of western European powers.
Manchu wrote:Throughout the twentieth-century, a popular view of the Crusades began to develop along the lines of the Marxist critique of Imperialism. Namely, Christendom was attempting to extend itself into the Middle East for the purpose of pecuniary gain. According to this account, feudal nobles were happy to use religion as a pretext for acquiring new lands and wealth.
It doesn't have to be a pretext. The two goals (wealth and pious duty) are simply aligned. It's not revisionism to take into account that people make decisions for two (or more) equally valued (to themselves) reasons. I'm also prepared to allow for a variance in the value of each goal on an individual basis i.e. I'm prepared to accept that some nobles went for 100% pious reasons and that the opposite is also true.
... ... .
The most modern histories confirm this viewpoint by reference to cases where knight practically bankrupted themselves to take part in the expedition.
Kilkrazy wrote:Once you start to try and establish precedence of a religion in an area you can never stop.
The Christians were established in Palestine because the area had been conquered by the Roman Empire which later turned itself and all its members officially Christian, ignoring the prior claims of Jews, Zoroastrians, and pagans of various types.
Er don't forget, Christianity started there.
Yes, and before Christianity there were other religions that started there.
Name one. Even judaism started in another location. Not sure what the relevance of this is.
Kilkrazy wrote:Once you start to try and establish precedence of a religion in an area you can never stop.
The Christians were established in Palestine because the area had been conquered by the Roman Empire which later turned itself and all its members officially Christian, ignoring the prior claims of Jews, Zoroastrians, and pagans of various types.
Er don't forget, Christianity started there.
Yes, and before Christianity there were other religions that started there.
Name one. Even judaism started in another location. Not sure what the relevance of this is.
Then why so keen to argue about it?
Canaanite religions.
The point is that where and when a religion started is not some kind of legal title which grants eternal rights and privileges which can be used to excuse violent repression of other religions.
One kind of religion often grows out of another. Christianity grew out of Judaism. Islam grew out of Judaism and Christianity.
People may convert voluntarily to a new religion, or abandon an older one. For instance, Indians almost completely abandoned Buddhism but it continues strongly in the Far East where it was an import.
Kilkrazy wrote: Islam grew out of Judaism and Christianity.
I'm not really buying that. I have read that Islam was more of a faith based on the tribal religions of the desert peoples with the addition of borrowing the books of the old testament from Judaism, and he believed Jesus to be a prophet. So I would say that it grew out of acient arabian religions and borrowed ideas from the JudeoChristian tradition.
This is why the kaaba stone exists becuase it was once a place where the idol's of the arabian god's where kept.
Here is my problem with the Crusades or any Holy War for that matter. Since when is making war holy? I mean.... I certainly understand the concept of a "just war". A just war, as I know it, would be classified as a war of defense, be that for yourself or your friends. For example, World war II is viewed by most people as a war of defense, even Vietnam was justified as a "defense against communism". But niether of them I would classify as a "holy" war.
I guess to be considered a Holy war it has to be one that God has ordained Himself. Such as the instances mentioned in the Bible where the Isrealites took Palestine as part of God's judgement against the Caananites.
I don't know I just find the idea very odd for God to call forth a Holy war since the new testament, and Jesus Himself talked about "eye for an eye" no longer applies and the new way of doing things revloves around loving your enemy and turning the other cheek.
I think even the word "jihad" can be interpreted as an "inner struggle". As in, I have this personal jihad to resist the temptation to make fun of Frazzs wiener dogs.
I think even the word "jihad" can be interpreted as an "inner struggle". As in, I have this personal jihad to resist the temptation to make fun of Frazzs wiener dogs.
Dark Lord Seanron wrote:Whenever men go to war for something that cannot be defined or proven (ie: God) it is always filled with suffering and is possibly never the best thing to do.
So war done for any other purpose is not filled with suffering? I think you need to go back and start reading my friend...
George Spiggott wrote:Someone needs to mention that the holy lands are part of the most lucrative trade route in the known world at that time. Coincidence? They also peter out when a new source of wealth is discovered, the Americas.
Well it would makes sense if it were true. The last Crusade was under Edward I of England in 1272, and that ended in failure. This was over 200 years before the discovery of the Americas. What ended the Crusades was the inability of the Europeans to compete with such a unified and powerful region as the Middle East, and the simple fact that it was an intense drain on resources.
Wolfstan wrote:Yeah, but also don't forget that a lot of people below the noble's weren't freemen... so if the boss decided to tramp off East to clear away his sins, they had to go with him. The rest of them would of been made of genuine true believers, which however if I remember correctly, turned in to a large rabble that gave Constantine major headaches (Jeb, am I recalling that correctly?)
Well that is an issue that is still debated. While it is true that many peasants were bound to their lord, there is never any indication that they were forced to go on crusade. Indeed, the Papacy strictly forbid forcing people to take up the Cross. But, that doesn't always mean that people followed the rules....
JEB_Stuart wrote:]Well it would makes sense if it were true. The last Crusade was under Edward I of England in 1272, and that ended in failure. This was over 200 years before the discovery of the Americas.
Pope Boniface declares a Crusade in 1394 which continues for at least two years and Christopher Columbus (and his backers) plan to use funds gained from sailing westward to India to fund a Crusade (sound like it was money up front as no crusade was called AFAIK). So 1272 is clearly not the end of crusades as an idea even if it is the end of crusades to the holy land as a viable military concept.
As well as the Americas there's also the Cape of Good Hope route (1497) to kill off the middle eastern spice monopoly.
JEB_Stuart wrote:@Clthomps:There were allegations of cannibalism, but that was never proven. Whats more there is no such record of the Pope receiving any letter in which they asked for forgiveness for cannibalism.
So the the letter to Pope Urban the II does not exist? " "A terrible famine racked the army in Ma'arra, and placed it in the cruel necessity of feeding itself upon the bodies of the Saracens..."
How about the other 5-10 written accounts of the event, from both Arabic and Europeans?
George Spiggott wrote:Pope Boniface declares a Crusade in 1394 which continues for at least two years and Christopher Columbus (and his backers) plan to use funds gained from sailing westward to India to fund a Crusade (sound like it was money up front as no crusade was called AFAIK). So 1272 is clearly not the end of crusades as an idea even if it is the end of crusades to the holy land as a viable military concept.
Which Pope Boniface? There were several. Boniface IX, who was enthroned at the time you suggest, never declared a Crusade, although he wanted to. Can you find a source that says that he did? After Edward's defeat in 1272, the Europeans no longer had the resources or wherewithal to launch another Crusade. They were to busy trying to hold back the Turks, and keep them in Asia, for them to even think of going on the offensive. It is widely agreed in scholarly circles that the 9th Crusade was indeed the last one to the Holy Land, and other then a few Popes, the vast majority of monarchs in Europe were done with them as well.
I don´t know right now if it was in it´s entirety but several of the Reconquista waves (ending in 1492)received Papal Bulls making those waves akin to the Crusades, so the traditional idea of the Holy Land Crusade might end with the 9th Crusade but Crusades were still going on at least well into the 16th century, Lepanto 1571.
Pope Boniface IX declared the crusade in 1394 and, in the following two years, King Sigismund, using his family connections, organized the campaign and made the necessary preparations.
It seems that later on the goal posts move (further into eastern Europe, Constantinople however is still on the spice route, just further up it) but they don't change, piety still goes hand in hand with financial gain.
Manchu wrote:KK, are you saying you think that the Levant was mostly Muslim by the First Crusade?
No, I know it was a mixture of many religions.
What I am saying is that all areas of the inhabited world have had a number of religions which mix or supplant and succeed each other. It therefore seems silly to suppose that one particular religion has a right to exclusive possession of any particular territory.
Automatically Appended Next Post: If I went on a pilgrimage I would go to Santiago di Compostela. I have heard it is a really good experience walking along the Spanish hills.
Miguelsan wrote:I don´t know right now if it was in it´s entirety but several of the Reconquista waves (ending in 1492)received Papal Bulls making those waves akin to the Crusades, so the traditional idea of the Holy Land Crusade might end with the 9th Crusade but Crusades were still going on at least well into the 16th century, Lepanto 1571.
That is a different type of Crusade entirely. We were referring to the Crusades to the Holy Land. Truly enough though, Crusades in Europe were completely different beasts, they just shared a similar title.
George Spiggott wrote:Pope Boniface IX declared the crusade in 1394 and, in the following two years, King Sigismund, using his family connections, organized the campaign and made the necessary preparations.
The Battle of Nicopolis hardly counts as a Crusade, and indeed is never listed as a Crusade against the Holy Land. It was a battle, one of many in the Ottoman Wars, of desperation. The Turks were rapidly moving through Europe, had all but eliminated the Byzantine Empire, and were threatening to topple Austria and Hungary. Keep in mind the authority of the Pope at this point was greatly diminished, indeed there were 2 popes at the time, so his declaration hardly counts for much. If your attempt was to tie this to resources, you are going to have a very, very hard time doing so. Europe was in no meaningful way united, kingdoms were fighting amongst themselves (the 100 Years War was occurring), and the Ottomans were the greatest power in the world, practically unstoppable. If anything, the word Crusade would have been a desperate ploy to unite Europe against a common enemy, not an attempt to gain more resources.
George Spiggott wrote:I saw a recreation of the Battle of Nicopolis at a local wargaming convention a few years ago, it's hardly secret history.
Agreed, but it really isn't that notable either. It was a small, failed battle which confirmed exactly what everyone already knew: the Ottoman Empire was the big dog in the World.
George Spiggott wrote:It seems that later on the goal posts move (further into eastern Europe, Constantinople however is still on the spice route, just further up it) but they don't change, piety still goes hand in hand with financial gain.
If you believe Marx, then yes you are correct. Putting it as nicely as possible though: Karl Marx was dead wrong.
JEB_Stuart wrote: If anything, the word Crusade would have been a desperate ploy to unite Europe against a common enemy, not an attempt to gain more resources.
Uniting against a common enemy is usually done to maintain possession of one's resources; especially in a period where resources were closely tied to fealty and authority. Of course, all three are extensions of the will to power, which is really what the 'hidden' crusade was about for Boniface IX.
George Spiggott wrote:If you believe Marx, then yes you are correct. Putting it as nicely as possible though: Karl Marx was dead wrong.
Its important to note that economics, as we understand it, did not exist when anything which can be possibly called a Crusade was called. When we think about things like 'finance' in the context of the pertinent era we're talking about a system of exchange that was little more an exchange of commodities (coinage still being treated more like a commodity, than a true currency).
The fundamental assumption of mercantilism, that wealth depended upon the accumulation of gold a silver, wouldn't exist until 200 years after the fact. As such, it doesn't make sense to suppose that piety and profit were linked in the sense that they were two, distinct motives conflated during the crusades, but that they were two motives that had yet to be separated from one another. Piety in cases of indulgence can be every bit as selfish as ordinary profit; especially in a time when the idea of earthly gains was poorly understood.
JEB_Stuart wrote:The Battle of Nicopolis hardly counts as a Crusade, and indeed is never listed as a Crusade against the Holy Land.
I don't see what scale and success have to do with it. Whenever it is referred to it is referred to as the last crusade. Just because the resources aren't there (because they're tied up in other conflicts at least in England up until the late 1400s) does not mean the desire has abated. The Portugal-Cape-India route directly makes the land not worth taking for non religious purposes and land in the new world is easier to claim.
How about the Crusade in Poland-Lithuania? I do believe that this crusade was declared because Poland-Lithuania was declared heretical. I believe that's what happened... my memory is hazy on this, but I know that the Teutonic Knights declared some sort of Crusade on Poland-Lithuania for some sort of reason.
GundamMerc wrote:How about the Crusade in Poland-Lithuania? I do believe that this crusade was declared because Poland-Lithuania was declared heretical. I believe that's what happened... my memory is hazy on this, but I know that the Teutonic Knights declared some sort of Crusade on Poland-Lithuania for some sort of reason.
The Teutonic Knights started crusading against the Lithuanians because they were still Pagan. I'm also a little hazy on the subject but I BELIEVE that Lithuania renounced paganism and possibly merged with Poland, at which point Teutonic attacks continued in an attempt to gain land/for sport/etc.
It was still a crusade and every european was free to join.
Poland and lithuania and the other "kingdoms" in this region were still pagans when this crusade started.
At the end it came to a grinding halt because the former pagans had joined christanity and whined at the pope to cut off the
support of the knights. In this, the order of knights was unable to fight the overwhelming masses of the east and ceased to exist.
The main objective, converting the pagans between the catholic middle europe and the orthodox russia was achieved.
dogma wrote:Uniting against a common enemy is usually done to maintain possession of one's resources; especially in a period where resources were closely tied to fealty and authority.
This is what I have been arguing the whole time. This wasn't a war to take more resources as a Marxist interpretation would suggest, this was at best the simple preservation of the their way of life and religion at worst the preservation of their resources.
dogma wrote:Of course, all three are extensions of the will to power, which is really what the 'hidden' crusade was about for Boniface IX.
Maybe. This is why this is not considered a true Crusade in the traditional sense of the term. All of the other major Crusades were either in an effort to retake the Iberian peninsula from Muslim usurpers or to travel to the Levant in order to retake what had been Christian lands for hundreds of years. And further, it isn't considered a true Crusade by most scholars because the Papacy was in shambles and authority was not vested in one person at the time. With two Popes in place, it was impossible for one to consider this having any authority considering the question of legitimacy. The end of the Western Schism wasn't brought about until the election of Pope Martin V in 1417.
dogma wrote:Its important to note that economics, as we understand it, did not exist when anything which can be possibly called a Crusade was called. When we think about things like 'finance' in the context of the pertinent era we're talking about a system of exchange that was little more an exchange of commodities (coinage still being treated more like a commodity, than a true currency).
And hence why the Marxist theory doesn't hold water. No respected academic source considers Marx's interpretation of the Crusades to be valid.
dogma wrote:The fundamental assumption of mercantilism, that wealth depended upon the accumulation of gold a silver, wouldn't exist until 200 years after the fact. As such, it doesn't make sense to suppose that piety and profit were linked in the sense that they were two, distinct motives conflated during the crusades, but that they were two motives that had yet to be separated from one another. Piety in cases of indulgence can be every bit as selfish as ordinary profit; especially in a time when the idea of earthly gains was poorly understood.
Agreed.
George Spiggott wrote:Whenever it is referred to it is referred to as the last crusade.
No it isn't, not only did check my sources today on the matter, I also e-mailed the chair of my university's History Department, who is a specialist in Medieval history. Here is part of his response (remember his words, not mine), "The idea that the "last" Crusade was the Battle of Necropolis is utterly laughable. It lacked several major components that were essential to the creation of a Crusade. 1)Papal authority, because, as you well know, there were two popes at the time. One in Avignon and one in Rome. 2)Near universal Christian support. As this involved only one semi-major player, small factions and only entailed one battle, this does not have the scale to be considered separate from the Ottoman Wars. Keep in mind this "crusade" involved no more then 23,000 men total. The Crusader armies in past wars had sometimes been in the hundreds of thousands by themselves. 3) This was not a war in to the Holy Land, this was a small part of a war in Christian lands that had been taken by the Ottoman Turks just years, or in some cases months, prior." He goes on, but is mostly stuff of a personal nature. Excuse his harshness please, if you think he is overly harsh, as he is a rather short-tempered, albeit knowledgeable, fellow.
George Spiggott wrote:Just because the resources aren't there (because they're tied up in other conflicts at least in England up until the late 1400s) does not mean the desire has abated. The Portugal-Cape-India route directly makes the land not worth taking for non religious purposes and land in the new world is easier to claim.
You can't claim that something like this can be taken into account. The Cape of Good Hope, much less the possibility of sailing around it, was not know for almost another 100 years, and the idea wouldn't even come close to crossing into the mind of the only noteworthy player in this battle, the Holy Roman Empire. Its a fact, this was a minor event inside of a major war, and it was their attempt to stop the seemingly invincible armies of the Ottomans.
JEB_Stuart wrote:This wasn't a war to take more resources as a Marxist interpretation would suggest, this was at best the simple preservation of the their way of life and religion at worst the preservation of their resources.
There's no need to differentiate between taking more resources, and taking back lost resources. Particularly in a time when religious sights could be treated as resources.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
And hence why the Marxist theory doesn't hold water. No respected academic source considers Marx's interpretation of the Crusades to be valid.
Well, I can't say that I care too much for issues of respect when it comes to academia. There's a definitive echo in most of the ivory tower.
The fact that economics did not exist when the crusades occurred is not a refutation of Marx's argument. On a fundamental level Marx claims that the relations of production exist to serve the development of the forces of production. What's forgotten about his analysis of the crusades is that it turns on a consideration of feudalism in which the relations of production are reciprocal. That is, the relations between a more important lord, and those lesser lords sworn to him is not social, but physical: in nearly the same sense as the ownership of the peasant class.
Its ponderous, and not particularly useful, but that's primarily because Marx was attempting to develop something like a predictive algorithm.
JEB_Stuart wrote:No it isn't, not only did check my sources today on the matter, I also e-mailed the chair of my university's History Department, who is a specialist in Medieval history.
Check this link, there are over four an a half thousand references to the" last crusade" and "Nicopolis" (references to Indiana Jones and Wiki removed to aid clarity) including numerous published works, yet neither of you have heard of this reference, it's "laughable"?
As for your 'email', points one and two are actually the same point. As there are two popes (pope and antipope) then by the very nature of this fact there cannot be near universal Christian support. However neither precludes bishop of Rome's (Boniface IX) proclamations from being legitimate. A crusade does not have to enter the holy land or have that goal as its primary aim to be a crusade. A crusade is a holy war against the enemies of Christendom authorised by the pope. We all know why Crusades stopped getting into the holy land but that didn't stop them trying.
JEB_Stuart wrote:You can't claim that something like this can be taken into account. The Cape of Good Hope, much less the possibility of sailing around it, was not know for almost another 100 years...
Yep, the Cape the of Good Hope route is discovered around 1500, the date I place crusades into the Muslim controlled spice route, Byzantium and the Holy land, ending.
@George Spiggott: I don't understand you're reasoning. I am fairly certain that the discovery of the Cape of Good Hope route did not have anything to do with the end of the crusades.
1) They ended earlier than 1500.
2) Even IF you include Boniface IX's crusade (which was still 100 years eariler), it was a very minor affair. And it was mostly reactionary to the advance of the Ottomans. At this point the Byzantine Empire was in it's death throes and the final blow would be delivered with the fall of Constaninople. (Am I right? Or am I thinking of something completely different?)
George Spiggott wrote:As there are two popes (pope and antipope) then by the very nature of this fact there cannot be near universal Christian support. However neither precludes bishop of Rome's (Boniface IX) proclamations from being legitimate.
It does limit its legitimacy because they both had claim to the same office. You do realize that they both claimed to be the Bishop of Rome right? That is what the pope is...
George Spiggott wrote:Yep, the Cape the of Good Hope route is discovered around 1500, the date I place crusades into the Muslim controlled spice route, Byzantium and the Holy land, ending.
You can place it whenever you want, but that certainly doesn't make it right. It is just bad history and bad logical reasoning. You are still assuming that Europe acted as a collective in search of resources, which is just plain wrong.
Emperors Faithful wrote:@George Spiggott: I don't understand you're reasoning. I am fairly certain that the discovery of the Cape of Good Hope route did not have anything to do with the end of the crusades.
1) They ended earlier than 1500.
2) Even IF you include Boniface IX's crusade (which was still 100 years earlier), it was a very minor affair. And it was mostly reactionary to the advance of the Ottomans. At this point the Byzantine Empire was in it's death throes and the final blow would be delivered with the fall of Constantinople. (Am I right? Or am I thinking of something completely different?)
You are right EF. This is what I have been saying all along, but he refuses to acknowledge that simple fact. It was an act of defense, as the very first Crusades were. This is an example of historical revisionism and poor historiography in the realm of modern history.
Ah, now it gets interesting. This Battle of Nicodenea (spelling?) may have been defensive, but it is only clearly so because at that point the Ottomans were obviously moving into European lands. It partly out of self-preservation, not an actual attempt to preserve the Byzantine Empire.
I hesistate to call the Holy Lands (in any way) European. It quite simply is not. While the Ottoman Empire started to stretch into Eastern European territory, the Holy Lands never were, and never have been, conidered European Lands.
Where one could say that this 'Last Crusade' was bout preserving one's territory, the same cannot be said about the initial crusades. If it can be considered a defence in any way, it would be from a cultural/idealogical viewpoint.
JEB_Stuart wrote:If you believe Marx, then yes you are correct. Putting it as nicely as possible though: Karl Marx was dead wrong.
While Marx was too didactic in his belief in material history, it's a dangerous thing to dismiss his ideas entirely. Wealth, class and economic relations have an important role to play in analysing history, and that started with Marx.
Unless you're talking about Marx purely in relation to the crusades, in which case fair enough. He was looking at issues well beyond the Crusades and in while his writings on the issuey have value in other conversations, in terms of a straight view of the Crusades alone they're pretty useless.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JEB_Stuart wrote:This is what I have been arguing the whole time. This wasn't a war to take more resources as a Marxist interpretation would suggest, this was at best the simple preservation of the their way of life and religion at worst the preservation of their resources.
While it is a fair and valid point that the popularly held view that passive Islam was invaded by a series of Christian crusades is, well, bizarrely wrong, you appear to be taking it to the opposite extreme. The Christians were not simply on the defensive, both groups sought to dominate the other and neither were successful.
The defining issue of the Crusades, to me, is the pogroms against the Jews. No-one can claim to be defending their way of life when they keep going out of their way to slaughter Jewish communities.
Emperors Faithful wrote:Ah, now it gets interesting. This Battle of Nicodenea (spelling?) may have been defensive, but it is only clearly so because at that point the Ottomans were obviously moving into European lands. It partly out of self-preservation, not an actual attempt to preserve the Byzantine Empire.
So calls from various Pope's for the "milites Christi" to defend the Byzantines wasn't an effort to defend the Eastern Roman Empire?
Emperors Faithful wrote:I hesitate to call the Holy Lands (in any way) European. It quite simply is not. While the Ottoman Empire started to stretch into Eastern European territory, the Holy Lands never were, and never have been, conidered European Lands. Where one could say that this 'Last Crusade' was bout preserving one's territory, the same cannot be said about the initial crusades. If it can be considered a defence in any way, it would be from a cultural/idealogical viewpoint.
I never called them European lands. They were Christian lands that were conquered and forcibly converted by invading Muslims. If the reaction of the Crusades isn't seen as a defensive war, than I don't know what is. You have to realize that at the time their professed religion meant more to them than their nationality or ethnic grouping. So the term Christian lands meant much, much more then it does, if it means anything, today.
sebster wrote:While Marx was too didactic in his belief in material history, it's a dangerous thing to dismiss his ideas entirely. Wealth, class and economic relations have an important role to play in analyzing history, and that started with Marx. Unless you're talking about Marx purely in relation to the crusades, in which case fair enough. He was looking at issues well beyond the Crusades and in while his writings on the issue have value in other conversations, in terms of a straight view of the Crusades alone they're pretty useless.
Sorry, I should have clarified. I was referring to his outlook on the Crusades. Unfortunately his point of view is the dominant view held by Western society.
sebster wrote:While it is a fair and valid point that the popularly held view that passive Islam was invaded by a series of Christian crusades is, well, bizarrely wrong, you appear to be taking it to the opposite extreme. The Christians were not simply on the defensive, both groups sought to dominate the other and neither were successful.
Allow me to clarify. The most important Crusades, ie the ones that will most likely be known by the average person, were definitely wars of defense. The 1st Crusade is easy enough to explain, as it was a direct attempt by European Christians to not only defend their Christian brethren, but also to defend and retake what they could in the Holy Land. The 2nd and 3rd Crusades were both launched in reaction to the conquest of Christian lands by the Muslims.
sebster wrote:The defining issue of the Crusades, to me, is the pogroms against the Jews. No-one can claim to be defending their way of life when they keep going out of their way to slaughter Jewish communities.
While I don't think it is the defining issue, it is certainly an atrocity and tragedy of the Crusades. Europe has had a long association with antisemitism that far predates the prevalence of Christianity in Europe. While I don't think that we can really criticize the motives for some of the Crusades, as they seemed to be noble and pious reasoning, we can most certainly criticize their conduct during their campaigns.
JEB_Stuart wrote:Allow me to clarify. The most important Crusades, ie the ones that will most likely be known by the average person, were definitely wars of defense. The 1st Crusade is easy enough to explain, as it was a direct attempt by European Christians to not only defend their Christian brethren, but also to defend and retake what they could in the Holy Land. The 2nd and 3rd Crusades were both launched in reaction to the conquest of Christian lands by the Muslims.
There were certainly some high ideals, and most of them were genuine and that applies to both sides. But ultimately what matters is what actually happened, though, and that is not kind to many on both sides.
While I don't think it is the defining issue, it is certainly an atrocity and tragedy of the Crusades. Europe has had a long association with antisemitism that far predates the prevalence of Christianity in Europe. While I don't think that we can really criticize the motives for some of the Crusades, as they seemed to be noble and pious reasoning, we can most certainly criticize their conduct during their campaigns.
Probably my turn to clarify I didn't mean the slaughter of Jews was most significant thing, I meant it was the thing which, to me, sums up what it was all about. Jackholes being violent.
Emperors Faithful wrote:Ah, now it gets interesting. This Battle of Nicodenea (spelling?) may have been defensive, but it is only clearly so because at that point the Ottomans were obviously moving into European lands. It partly out of self-preservation, not an actual attempt to preserve the Byzantine Empire.
So calls from various Pope's for the "milites Christi" to defend the Byzantines wasn't an effort to defend the Eastern Roman Empire?
My point is that the Byzantine Empire was clearly a non-issue by that point. At the time of the 1st Crusade, Byzantine still wielded a respectable amount of power. This is when they are actually aiding the Byzantine Empire for the sake of both providing aid and protecting the Holy Lands. By the time of the Last Crusade, it was clear that the Holy Lands weren't up for grabs. Now they truly were on the defensive as they tried to save what remained of the Byzantine realm and prevent the Ottomans from further enroaching into Christian lands. (Hungary, perhaps?)
Whatever it's motives, the 1st Crusade was most definitely an aggressive act. Call it a pre-emptive strike if you will, but the act itself was very hostile. The Battel of Nicodenea was more of a last ditch effort to halt the Ottoman advance, here the Crusaders were on the back foot.
Emperors Faithful wrote:I hesitate to call the Holy Lands (in any way) European. It quite simply is not. While the Ottoman Empire started to stretch into Eastern European territory, the Holy Lands never were, and never have been, conidered European Lands. Where one could say that this 'Last Crusade' was bout preserving one's territory, the same cannot be said about the initial crusades. If it can be considered a defence in any way, it would be from a cultural/idealogical viewpoint.
I never called them European lands. They were Christian lands that were conquered and forcibly converted by invading Muslims. If the reaction of the Crusades isn't seen as a defensive war, than I don't know what is. You have to realize that at the time their professed religion meant more to them than their nationality or ethnic grouping. So the term Christian lands meant much, much more then it does, if it means anything, today.
I see your point and concede. However, it still debatable whether the Holy Lands could be considered a truly 'Christian' land. There was certianly a very heavy cultural mixing pot that was not comparable to most conventional 'Christian' kingdoms. (Apart from maybe Sicily, but they had problems of thier own)
Automatically Appended Next Post: @Manchu: So the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was a defensive war?
Regardless of the reasons, the Islam world was very clearly on the backfoot with the outbreak of the 1st Crusade.
As far as I know, Eygpt or the Ottoman Empire was not entertaining any notions of attacking mainland Europe. If Australia were to Invade Canada, and America then invaded Australia, America could in no way claim to be fighting a defensive war. (bad example, but meh)
The Holy Lands were Christian lands in the sense that they were part of (and origin of) Christendom, the Christian world. The presence of (to Christian eyes) heretics or pagans in a certain part of Christendom did not affect whether or not it was a part of Christendom.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @EF: I don't know what you're trying to prove with your comparison to Afghanistan. Roll your eyes all you want but show me the courtesy of offering a clear point.
That is some very stange logic there Manchu. The same could be said for England then I guess. Somewhere in England there were probably some followers of Islam. Therefore, England was obviously (in the eyes of the Islamic world) an Islamic nation cruelly occupied by a Catholic soveriegn.
As far as a know, Christendom was at no point united or a coherent territory. It didn't have any real boundries and was therefore impossible to invade.
The Byzantine Empire on the other hand (which I think was initially in control of Jerusalem) was a coherent (sort of ) Empire and DID have boundries and could (and was) invaded.
This was an attack against a Byzantine territory. Not Christendom territory.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @Manchu: Like I said, that was a bad example. And I honestly don't know enough about that particular area of history to start mouthing off about it. (I didn't mean to roll my eyes. I thought that moticon was a sign of confusion.)
Actually, Muslims do have a concept similar to Christendom and it is not premised on whether Muslims have ever lived in a place.
Christendom did certainly have boundaries. I don't think yo understand the concept and are confusing it with something approximating modern nation states.
Emperors Faithful wrote:I see your point and concede. However, it still debatable whether the Holy Lands could be considered a truly 'Christian' land. There was certainly a very heavy cultural mixing pot that was not comparable to most conventional 'Christian' kingdoms. (Apart from maybe Sicily, but they had problems of their own)
Christianity isn't a culture, so a mix of cultures doesn't matter. The Holy Lands were heavily Christian, indeed it held two of the three Holy Sees, Acre and Jerusalem.
Emperors Faithful wrote:As far as I know, Egypt or the Ottoman Empire was not entertaining any notions of attacking mainland Europe.
Uh, so Vienna isn't mainland Europe? If the Ottoman's hadn't been stopped at the Siege of Vienna, I doubt they would have just stopped there...
One of my favorite stories is of Mehmed II retreating to Constantinople after being sickened by the sight of tens of thousands of impaled corpses in Wallachia. Gruesome and probably aprocryphal, but Vald Tepes knew how to hate some Muslims.
Manchu wrote:Actually, Muslims do have a concept similar to Christendom and it is not premised on whether Muslims have ever lived in a place.
Christendom did certainly have boundaries. I don't think yo understand the concept and are confusing it with something approximating modern nation states.
Funny. I was about to say the exact same thing. I was thinking that you're confusing Christendom with something like the Roman Empire.
I understand what you're trying to say though. If a Christian land in the East is attacked, then Christians in the West feel affronted. However, I'm very sure that invading one nation (the Byzantines) is not considered declaring war on Christendom. The Crusades were clearly an agressive (albeit in some regards retalitory) strike.
With the situation on the Iberian Peninsula (blatant Christian aggresion, reacting to enroachment of Moors), did Egypt declare a Jihad against the kingdom of Spain. As far as I am aware, no.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:I see your point and concede. However, it still debatable whether the Holy Lands could be considered a truly 'Christian' land. There was certainly a very heavy cultural mixing pot that was not comparable to most conventional 'Christian' kingdoms. (Apart from maybe Sicily, but they had problems of their own)
Christianity isn't a culture, so a mix of cultures doesn't matter. The Holy Lands were heavily Christian, indeed it held two of the three Holy Sees, Acre and Jerusalem.
It's also heavily Muslim. And Jewish. Your point? (Also does Religeon = Culture )
Emperors Faithful wrote:As far as I know, Egypt or the Ottoman Empire was not entertaining any notions of attacking mainland Europe.
Uh, so Vienna isn't mainland Europe? If the Ottoman's hadn't been stopped at the Siege of Vienna, I doubt they would have just stopped there...
I meant at the point of 1080 A.D. I think you and I can both agree that the Ottoman Empire was a rolling stone that would have happened regardless of any Crusades.
sebster wrote:Is it reasonable to say that as the Byzantine Empire collapsed a power vacuum was left, and that multiple factions rushed to fill that vacuum?
Sounds plausible except that the collapse was precipitated by one of the factions that rushed to "fill the gap."
sebster wrote:Is it reasonable to say that as the Byzantine Empire collapsed a power vacuum was left, and that multiple factions rushed to fill that vacuum?
That is exactly what I feel the situation was akin to.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote:
sebster wrote:Is it reasonable to say that as the Byzantine Empire collapsed a power vacuum was left, and that multiple factions rushed to fill that vacuum?
Sounds plausible except that the collapse was precipitated by one of the factions that rushed to "fill the gap."
Not in the Holy Lands area though, I think. That was the Ottomans further North, yes yes?
Do you understand that space between numbers eleven and twelve involved an attack on the Byzantine Empire?
It was not Christendom which was attacked. It was the Byzantine Empire. (Which was more of a collapse). It was the rest of the Christian Kingdoms which reacted and rushed to the aid of their 'cousin'.
Emperors Faithful wrote:It was not Christendom which was attacked. It was the Byzantine Empire. (Which was more of a collapse). It was the rest of the Christian Kingdoms which reacted and rushed to the aid of their 'cousin'.
Incorrect in part. It was Christendom that was attacked. By attacking the holdings of the Byzantine Empire, the Muslims attacked all Christian peoples. Why you refuse to accept this is puzzling. Again, it seems you think that words like "France" and "England" meant the same thing in AD 1096 as they do today. Additionally, the Byzantine Empire did not simply collapse. It was destroyed by Muslim and (eventually) Christian armies.
Emperors Faithful wrote:It was not Christendom which was attacked. It was the Byzantine Empire. (Which was more of a collapse). It was the rest of the Christian Kingdoms which reacted and rushed to the aid of their 'cousin'.
Incorrect in part. It was Christendom that was attacked. By attacking the holdings of the Byzantine Empire, the Muslims attacked all Christian peoples. Why you refuse to accept this is puzzling. Again, it seems you think that words like "France" and "England" meant the same thing in AD 1096 as they do today.
Again, you seem to think that Christendom was a coherent, unified kingdom. It was not. Not by any standard. They shared the same religeon, and owed deference to a single figure in Rome. In most cases, Europe was fair from the pleasant unified Christendom you paint it as.
Additionally, the Byzantine Empire did not simply collapse. It was destroyed by Muslim armies.
The Byzantine Empire was not broken or defeated in the Holy Lands. This occured in a different place. When the Byzantine Empire collapsed, the ensuing power vacuum left the Holy Lands wide open. Free Range. Why is it that Christendom acted THEN rather than when the Byzantines were actually being attacked? Obviously becuase they viewed the Holy Lands as Christendom, but not the entirety of the Byzantine Empire. As far as I recall, no such Crusade was called when the Moors advanced through Spain and even reached up into France. Just becuase one is a 'Christian Kingdom' does not necessarily make it part of Christendom.
Look at it this way. Even if the loss of the Holy Lands (and subsequent oppresion) can be considered an attack on the entirety of Christendom, you cannot view the Crusades as a defensive act. It was not. Not in any sense, really. It was a retalitory strike at best, an attempt at reclamation over a shaky claim in the first place. I think the word "Counter-Offensive" suits the First Crusade well enough.
Manchu wrote:@dogma: Your point does not apply. Christendom was the defender (at least) in the First Crusade.
To the extent that the First Crusade is distinct from the Byzantine-Seljuk wars this is not so. The Byzantine Empire was the defender, and the whole of Christendom became an accomplice to the violence after the fact. The same is true in reverse, where the Seljuk dynasty served as the initial attacker (for nearly 100 years) only to be joined by more varied Muslims populations as the Crusaders advanced towards the Holy Land.
The Crusades were the direct result of a conflict between two independent empires. To claim that Christendom was the defending party is overly simplistic, as it ignores the fact that the larger Islamic World did not become involved until far later in the campaign. This is why it becomes difficult to characterize this as a war between Christian and Muslims in which Muslims were the aggressors. The matter simply wasn't one of religion until Christendom, as a whole, became involved.
Emperors Faithful wrote:Again, you seem to think that Christendom was a coherent, unified kingdom.
No, this is what you have read into the term Christendom. It was by no means a unified political unit. The term reflects the way that Christians, both Western and Eastern, looked at the world. To wit, Christendom was all the world that practiced Christianity in recognition the authority of the universal Church (which is not as simple as recognizing the authority of the Bishop of Rome). The Holy Land was most definitely a part of Christendom. In fact, many Christian maps of the world place Jerusalem in the center.
Emperors Faithful wrote:When the Byzantine Empire collapsed, the ensuing power vacuum left the Holy Lands wide open. Free Range. Why is it that Christendom acted THEN rather than when the Byzantines were actually being attacked? Obviously becuase they viewed the Holy Lands as Christendom, but not the entirety of the Byzantine Empire. As far as I recall, no such Crusade was called when the Moors advanced through Spain and even reached up into France.
Sigh, so many erroneous assumptions. The Byzantine Empire did not collapse before or during the First Crusade. As for Spain, have you ever heard of the Reconquista?
Emperors Faithful wrote:Look at it this way. Even if the loss of the Holy Lands (and subsequent oppresion) can be considered an attack on the entirety of Christendom, you cannot view the Crusades as a defensive act.
Why not? Christian lands were taken and Christians came to take them back. This is certainly what the Crusaders themselves thought about the matter.
Emperors Faithful wrote:It was a retalitory strike at best, an attempt at reclamation over a shaky claim in the first place.
Perhaps it could be called a retaliatory strike if the Crusaders marched into the Arabian Peninsula but that did not happen. I also fail to see what is shaky about the claim that the Holy Land was part of Christendom.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:To claim that Christendom was the defending party is overly simplistic, as it ignores the fact that the larger Islamic World did not become involved until far later in the campaign.
The involvement of the larger Islamic world has nothing to do with whether Christendom was the defending party.
dogma wrote:This is why it becomes difficult to characterize this as a war between Christian and Muslims in which Muslims were the aggressors. The matter simply wasn't one of religion until Christendom, as a whole, became involved.
There was no Crusade until Western Christians became involved.
Automatically Appended Next Post: BTW, that's exactly what I've been trying to say. You just said it better and more coherently.
More like progenitors.
The Seljuk's were the ancestors of a Turkic tribe which integrated into the Ghaznavid Empire (located in Persia, and also Turkic), and eventually usurped it. They brought the hybrid Persian/Turk culture to Anatolia (Turkey).
Emperors Faithful wrote:
With the situation on the Iberian Peninsula (blatant Christian aggresion, reacting to enroachment of Moors), did Egypt declare a Jihad against the kingdom of Spain. As far as I am aware, no.
Two points there: The Kingdoms of Spain, (mainly Castille, Navarra, Aragon) as Spain is not unified until the death of the Reyes Catolicos on the person of their grandson Charles.
Second, being that the Al-Andalus rulers were a splinter group from the Egypt Caliphate descending from the last Umayyads they did not have any wishes to submit to another power. Also by the time of the Crusades to the Holy Land they had splintered again in the Taifa Kingdoms that hated each other as much as they hated the Christian kingdoms.
But they did call allies from the North Africa muslims, the Almoravids that entered the peninsula 3 times to defeat the Christian Kingdoms (1086, 1088, 1093) and try to unify the Taifas, until they were stopped at the Kingdom of Valencia by the Cid in 1094. Then again in the 13th century the Almohads crossed again the Strait to consolidate Al-Andalus under their power before being beaten at the Navas de Tolosa (1212) battle by a coalition army.
So if we take the term Jihad as a common effort for the faith as some muslim scholars like to say. There was a Jihad going full on in the Iberian Peninsula.
Emperors Faithful wrote:Again, you seem to think that Christendom was a coherent, unified kingdom.
No, this is what you have read into the term Christendom. It was by no means a unified political unit. The term reflects the way that Christians, both Western and Eastern, looked at the world. To wit, Christendom was all the world that practiced Christianity in recognition the authority of the universal Church (which is not as simple as recognizing the authority of the Bishop of Rome). The Holy Land was most definitely a part of Christendom. In fact, many Christian maps of the world place Jerusalem in the center.
Emperors Faithful wrote:When the Byzantine Empire collapsed, the ensuing power vacuum left the Holy Lands wide open. Free Range. Why is it that Christendom acted THEN rather than when the Byzantines were actually being attacked? Obviously becuase they viewed the Holy Lands as Christendom, but not the entirety of the Byzantine Empire. As far as I recall, no such Crusade was called when the Moors advanced through Spain and even reached up into France.
Sigh, so many erroneous assumptions. The Byzantine Empire did not collapse before or during the First Crusade. As for Spain, have you ever heard of the Reconquista?
@Manchu: I was under the Impression that the Reconquista was mostly the Spanish fighting back, rather than a Pope actually calling upon other nations to fight on Spain/Portugals behalf. BTW, I should probably have said that the Byzantine Empire was falling apart, not that it had actually already collasped. It was definitely 'The Sick Man of the Mediterrainean'.
Emperors Faithful wrote:Look at it this way. Even if the loss of the Holy Lands (and subsequent oppresion) can be considered an attack on the entirety of Christendom, you cannot view the Crusades as a defensive act.
Why not? Christian lands were taken and Christians came to take them back. This is certainly what the Crusaders themselves thought about the matter.
Byzantine Lands were taken and Christians came to take them back. What the Crusaders themselves thought of this really doesn't matter a great deal when looking the bigger picture.
1) Byzantine lands were taken.
2) Byzantines call for help.
3) Christendom responds.
4) Christendom launches Crusades (Counter-Invasion)
Emperors Faithful wrote:It was a retalitory strike at best, an attempt at reclamation over a shaky claim in the first place.
Perhaps it could be called a retaliatory strike if the Crusaders marched into the Arabian Peninsula but that did not happen. I also fail to see what is shaky about the claim that the Holy Land was part of Christendom.
When did I ever propose an Attack on the Arabian Peninsula? Again, you seem to be compelety ignoring the fact that, while Christians no doubt valued the Holy Lands, it was not exclusively Christian, and thiers was not the only legitimate claim.
@Miguelsan: I was aware that Spain was in no way united. But I have to disagree with you on your definition of a Jihad. Here it does not seems faith was an issue (at least not the main goal). It was mainly a fight over territories and resources. That both sides respective allies were of the same religeon does not in itself constitute a Jihad or a Crusade. Some sort of specific mandate or common call throughout the Islamic or Christian world is required no? (at least to some extent)
The Reconquista began almost as soon as the Muslims arrived on the peninsula and continued until the Muslims were gone. There was no need for the Pope to call a crusade that was ongoing.
The Byzantine Empire was Christian. Its land were part of Christendom. When its lands were attacked, Christendom was itself under attack. Very simple. Dogma would say "oversimple" but that is an ahistorical statement that does not reflect the minds and motives of the Crusaders themselves.
Emperors Faithful wrote:What the Crusaders themselves thought of this really doesn't matter a great deal when looking the bigger picture.
What exactly is the "bigger picture"? Christendom, nations, empires, religions--none of these things exists outside of the human mind except as made manifest in human actions, which leads us back to the human mind. What the Crusaders thought about what they were doing is the only actual historical question.
Emperors Faithful wrote:Again, you seem to be compelety ignoring the fact that, while Christians no doubt valued the Holy Lands, it was not exclusively Christian, and thiers was not the only legitimate claim.
I do not understand why "exclusivity" is important to the definition of Christendom. I also do not understand what you mean by "legitimate" claims.
Manchu wrote:The involvement of the larger Islamic world has nothing to do with whether Christendom was the defending party.
Unless you're going to claim that Christendom represented a form of empire, that cannot be the case.
Manchu wrote:
There was no Crusade until Western Christians became involved.
Marking it as an aggressive action. Again, you seem be claiming that Christendom was a sort of empire.
Manchu wrote:
Perhaps it could be called a retaliatory strike if the Crusaders marched into the Arabian Peninsula but that did not happen.
The Seljuk's were not Arabian, it was a retaliatory strike as soon as the army entered Seljuk territory. And it was an aggressive action as soon as they entered Fatimid territory (Jerusalem).
Emperors Faithful wrote:What the Crusaders themselves thought of this really doesn't matter a great deal when looking the bigger picture.
What exactly is the "bigger picture"? Christendom, nations, empires, religions--none of these things exists outside of the human mind except as made manifest in human actions, which leads us back to the human mind. What the Crusaders thought about what they were doing is the only actual historical question.
True enough. But the same could be said for the opposite sides. As historians, we need to be impartial.
Emperors Faithful wrote:Again, you seem to be compelety ignoring the fact that, while Christians no doubt valued the Holy Lands, it was not exclusively Christian, and thiers was not the only legitimate claim.
I do not understand why "exclusivity" is important to the definition of Christendom. I also do not understand what you mean by "legitimate" claims.
Forgive me, Manchu. Just a young fool who naively believes that one needs an actual reason to wage war against others.
@dogma: Christendom cannot be shoehorned into a political unit. I am not claiming that it is such. Rather, I see you making assumptions that conclude with talking about it in this way or not at all. Additionally, the religious claims of the Muslims on the city of Jerusalem would have meant nothing to Christians as they saw Islam as at best a Christian heresy. The concept was simple: the Crusades were a defense of the Holy Land, center of Christendom.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Emperors Faithful wrote:True enough. But the same could be said for the opposite sides. As historians, we need to be impartial.
The problem is that you don't have a well-defined question. Here is the question I am addressing: were the Crusades a defensive war from the point of view of the Crusaders? Here is my answer: yes.
Emperors Faithful wrote:Just a young fool who naively believes that one needs an actual reason to wage war against others.
There was an actual reason. Whether it makes sense to you or fits your ideas about politics or morality is beside the point.
Emperors Faithful wrote:True enough. But the same could be said for the opposite sides. As historians, we need to be impartial.
The problem is that you don't have a well-defined question. Here is the question I am addressing: were the Crusades a defensive war from the point of view of the Crusaders? Here is my answer: yes.
I would agree with you. But then we have to ascertain (from an historical viewpoint) whether or not they were correct. Christian scholars are going to say on thing, Muslim scholars are going to say another.
Emperors Faithful wrote:Just a young fool who naively believes that one needs an actual reason to wage war against others.
There was an actual reason. Whether it makes sense to you or fits your ideas about politics or morality is beside the point.
Indeed. But I was niave to think that anyone could ever agree about the legitimacy about a war. The very notion of it is laughable.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @Manchu: I do see your point. But I honestly think that most Crusaders couldn't give a damn about any particular Christian Kingdom (such as the Byzantines) other than thier own.
You can't argue that the Holy Lands wasn't a special case. Tt was the Holy Lands that cuased the struggle, not the fact that the Byzantine Empire had been attacked.
Manchu wrote:@dogma: Christendom cannot be shoehorned into a political unit. I am not claiming that it is such. Rather, I see you making assumptions that conclude with talking about it in this way or not at all.
If all you're arguing is that the Crusaders felt as though they were under attack, then you are correct to say that the Crusaders would have felt they were on the defensive. However, from what I've seen, that isn't what you're claiming. It seems you want to claim that they were somehow on the defensive in an objective sense, which does not align with the Muslim understanding of events, and thus is unlikely to be true.
Manchu wrote:
Additionally, the religious claims of the Muslims on the city of Jerusalem would have meant nothing to Christians as they saw Islam as at best a Christian heresy. The concept was simple: the Crusades were a defense of the Holy Land, center of Christendom.
If we're going to discuss matters of historical perspective, then it should be noted that the Seljuks, Fatimids, Abbasids, and Danishmends all would have felt as though they were being attacked.
dogma wrote:If all you're arguing is that the Crusaders felt as though they were under attack, then you are correct to say that the Crusaders would have felt they were on the defensive. However, from what I've seen, that isn't what you're claiming. It seems you want to claim that they were somehow on the defensive in an objective sense, which does not align with the Muslim understanding of events, and thus is unlikely to be true.
see
Manchu wrote:The problem is that you don't have a well-defined question. Here is the question I am addressing: were the Crusades a defensive war from the point of view of the Crusaders? Here is my answer: yes.
Emperors Faithful wrote:What about you, dogma? Any thoughts from a moral point of view?
At the time both sides would have believed they were morally justified. Even using today's morality it would be easy to justify either combatant. Personally, I find it easier to empathize with the Seljuk Empire as their wars of conquest produced significant material gain.
Emperors Faithful wrote:
@Miguelsan: I was aware that Spain was in no way united. But I have to disagree with you on your definition of a Jihad. Here it does not seems faith was an issue (at least not the main goal). It was mainly a fight over territories and resources. That both sides respective allies were of the same religeon does not in itself constitute a Jihad or a Crusade. Some sort of specific mandate or common call throughout the Islamic or Christian world is required no? (at least to some extent)
Not my definition but anyway that was my point.
If we limit Islam to a single entity (that it´s not) and erroniously require that to have a Jihad we need to have the ruling religious figure declare it, the Islamic effort in the peninsula was not a Jihad. But as I already said for some the Jihad is not akin to a Islamic Crusade but an effort in the name of faith. And in that case the Almohads and the Almoravids (specially this ones) were crusading for a stricter interpretation of Islam in Al-Andalus.
sebster wrote:Is it reasonable to say that as the Byzantine Empire collapsed a power vacuum was left, and that multiple factions rushed to fill that vacuum?
The Byzantine Empire was helped to collapse (over a period of centuries) by the encroachment of Muslims, Mongols and Franks.
It didn't just suddenly collapse leaving a power vacuum.
The collapse doesn't need to be immediate to leave a power vacuum, just fast enough that if someone moves in and claims territory part of said empire, there won't be anyone there to dispute their claim from said empire (although a smaller nation may have popped up in the meantime, much weaker than original empire).
Basically, any nations in the area would rush in like vultures to a dead body, and grab land whenever said empire was forced to move back its borders, or maybe before then.
Also realize that just because it says they control an area on a map doesn't mean they have actual control over it. Take modern Pakistan. If you look at most political maps, the Northwestern provinces will be a part of the country. Do they have any control over said region? No, not at all.
Manchu wrote:You could easily find this in any history book about the subject, Grog. But here is a more colorful example--and yes, it's even a primary source!
I'm sorry but quoting Dante's inferno doesn't really back up your claim of "Christian heresy". In fact, what I saw was a reference to "ali" and his followers being in hell. (at least that's what it appeared to me, from the reading.
Most likely you and I have different viewpoints on what Christian heresy is and how that applies to Islam, and other religions.
I shouldn't have presumed that Dante would be obvious to you. Dante portrays Mohammed along with Ali in the Eighth Circle of Hell, reserved for "Sowers of Discord"--the theological term is "schismatics." Schismatics are people who cause a division in a community (in this case, the Body of Christ) by preaching heretical ideas. The punishment, as Dante wrote, was that schismatics would have their own bodies split again and again in Hell. The Dante expert Otfried Liberknecht explained it this way in a 1997 lecture at the University of Minnesota:
It has caused some consternation that Dante places Mohammed at this specific place of Hell, together with historically less important sowers of political and familial discord, and not in the sixth circle with the heretics and heresiarchs in their red-hot glowing tombs. For Asín this was a sign that Dante did not see Mohammed as a heretic, but that he condemned him only for the political and military conflicts which he had caused in the world. Asín even regarded this as an indulgence on the part of Dante, as "significant of Dante's sympathies for Arabic culture". But other commentators have justly pointed out that the punishment in a place deeper in hell implies, quite to the contrary, a more severe condemnation. And this more severe condemnation does not imply an exculpation from the less grave sin of heresy, because according to the general rule each soul is punished at the place of his (or her) gravest sin, by a punishment comprising also all his (or her) minor sins. It was commonly held by medieval Christian writers that Mohammed was a heretic, and his religion a heresy like Arianism or Nestorianism, but even worse than them, yet not a heresy because Mohammed himself had been a Christian, as the popular legend portrayed him, but because he adopted and changed elements of Christian and biblical doctrine, and also because he did so under the influence of heretic Christian and Jewish teachers. There is nothing to indicate that Dante did not share this view. Quite to the contrary, as we shall see.
So not even the part where this leading scholar says medieval Christians thought of Mohammed as a heretic clears up for you the idea that medieval Christians saw Mohammed as a heretic?
What we have here is a lack of communication. (My fault I'm sure)
You have made comments in the past about Islam being some sort of "offshoot of Christianity". (forgive my paraphrase)
Then most recently you said that you believed that Christians at the time of the crusades, at best thought of Muslims as "Christian" heretics, not just plain old heretics. You made a broad generalization there, and I was just looking for some documented sources. You provided Dante' and an author that wrote about Dante'. all i was refering to was those little snipppets you presented didn't do enough to prove the broad generalization you made, and that I would be interested in study it further on my own.
I guess this is where I am having the problem. Islam isn't Christian heresy, like say gnostisim or classic arianism. Islam is a completely different religion.
Anyway, I'm sorry for taking the thread OT, as I have thoroughly enjoyed the topic so far. I'll give Manchu the last word.
generalgrog wrote:Islam isn't Christian heresy, like say gnostisim or classic arianism. Islam is a completely different religion.
Yes. But that is not how medieval Christians thought of Islam. You asked for documented sources about this and I offered two. I'm not sure what more I can do to convince you. I don't need the last word. I'm simply responding to your request for further information and am admittedly baffled by your talk of "snippets" and "broad generalizations."
Emperors Faithful wrote:I would agree with you. But then we have to ascertain (from an historical viewpoint) whether or not they were correct.
No we don't. Any engagement in historical discourse will be to determine whether or not the standard method of historiography in place is accurate. Decisions on whether or not anyone was correct is irrelevant, and it detracts from the soundness of any historical discussion. The goal of any historian should be objective discussion and reasoning, not subjective moralizing.
Emperors Faithful wrote:But I honestly think that most Crusaders couldn't give a damn about any particular Christian Kingdom (such as the Byzantines) other than their own.
Maybe true of an Englishman in regards to his relationship to a Frenchmen, but almost all of the Christian kingdoms of Europe felt some sort of tie to the Byzantines. This is related to the European fascination with Rome, and its role as the creator of legitimacy. Any legitimate power in Europe would have tried to somehow tie his authority back to Rome, and more specifically to Constantine, Trajan, Augustus and Caesar himself. The Byzantines provided a very real anchor for their legitimacy considering the fact that they were in fact the Roman Empire alive and well.
Emperors Faithful wrote:You can't argue that the Holy Lands wasn't a special case. It was the Holy Lands that caused the struggle, not the fact that the Byzantine Empire had been attacked.
The Holy Lands added urgency and despair to the Europeans. Rome was not the center of their universe, Jerusalem was. To see the Roman Empire, as they thought of it, failing and the loss of the Levant in such a short amount of time would have been nothing short of traumatic. You must understand that with the muslim conquests of the Eastern Mediterranean 3 of the 5 Holy Sees of Christendom just vanished: Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria.
dogma wrote:If all you're arguing is that the Crusaders felt as though they were under attack, then you are correct to say that the Crusaders would have felt they were on the defensive. However, from what I've seen, that isn't what you're claiming. It seems you want to claim that they were somehow on the defensive in an objective sense, which does not align with the Muslim understanding of events, and thus is unlikely to be true.
Of course it won't align with muslim understandings, its a different point of view, that doesn't necessarily negate the truth in the histories of the Crusaders. Unless of course you assume that the muslims were better historians, which after reading several of them, I would say they are not.
dogma wrote:If we're going to discuss matters of historical perspective, then it should be noted that the Seljuks, Fatimids, Abbasids, and Danishmends all would have felt as though they were being attacked.
Of course they would, they felt that the lands they had just conquered were theirs to begin with. So any attempts to retake Christian lands would have been seen as an attack on their lands.
Emperors Faithful wrote:
@Miguelsan: I was aware that Spain was in no way united. But I have to disagree with you on your definition of a Jihad. Here it does not seems faith was an issue (at least not the main goal). It was mainly a fight over territories and resources. That both sides respective allies were of the same religeon does not in itself constitute a Jihad or a Crusade. Some sort of specific mandate or common call throughout the Islamic or Christian world is required no? (at least to some extent)
Not my definition but anyway that was my point.
If we limit Islam to a single entity (that it´s not) and erroniously require that to have a Jihad we need to have the ruling religious figure declare it, the Islamic effort in the peninsula was not a Jihad. But as I already said for some the Jihad is not akin to a Islamic Crusade but an effort in the name of faith. And in that case the Almohads and the Almoravids (specially this ones) were crusading for a stricter interpretation of Islam in Al-Andalus.
M.
The wars on the Iberian Peninsula were hardly a Holy War to any extent. They were about territorial control and expansion. True, the opposing sides were of a different religeon, and it probably helped escalate the situation, it was not a primary war between faiths such as what was clearly the case in the Holy Lands.
Emperors Faithful wrote:The wars on the Iberian Peninsula were hardly a Holy War to any extent. They were about territorial control and expansion. True, the opposing sides were of a different religeon, and it probably helped escalate the situation, it was not a primary war between faiths such as what was clearly the case in the Holy Lands.
Really? (Like I said, I don't know much on the History of the Iberian Peninsula)
In my mind, it was always more of a war between Christian Kingdoms and Islamic (Kingdoms?). While the Holy Wars was on a much grander scale, with Christendom as a whole pitted against the Empire of Islam as a whole.
The Reconquista was a faith issue. It started as a war to recover the lost Visigoth Kingdom but later, near the 11th century morphed in a war of religion where the Christian Kingdoms seek to expel the invaders (after 3 centuries the Muslims hardly were invaders but...) And Urban II promised the same papal indulgence to the christian knights fighting in the Reconquista than the crusaders.
Even when Granada was a subject kingdom of Castille paying the Parias tribute the Reyes Catolicos finally conquered it (over the objection of Ferdinard of Aragon who was quite happy with the money) on a faith issue as no heathen presence was to be allowed on Iberian soil.
Miguelsan wrote:The Reconquista was a faith issue. It started as a war to recover the lost Visigoth Kingdom but later, near the 11th century morphed in a war of religion where the Christian Kingdoms seek to expel the invaders (after 3 centuries the Muslims hardly were invaders but...) And Urban II promised the same papal indulgence to the christian knights fighting in the Reconquista than the crusaders.
Even when Granada was a subject kingdom of Castille paying the Parias tribute the Reyes Catolicos finally conquered it (over the objection of Ferdinard of Aragon who was quite happy with the money) on a faith issue as no heathen presence was to be allowed on Iberian soil.
M.
Ah, that settles it then. There was definitely a faith aspect going on there. (Though obviously not entirely, as Ferdinard objected). The underlined bit definitely highlights the striking similarity between the Reconquista and the Crusades. Thanks for correcting me.
Would the Holy Lands have been the first 'Colony' as such? I know that Ireland was one of Englands first colonies, could the same be said of the Holy Lands? After all, they were not handed back to the Byzantines, were they?
) Another sad story would the fate of those involved in the Childrens Crusades. 
Now I am interested in your theory to start a "holy" war free of politics.
: