Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

If discussed it might be better to also include the Jihads preceding and after the Crusades into Spain/France and Central Europe.

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?)

Its kind of the same thing, and you have to put the Crusades into context of what was occurring.

I'm sorry I don't follow you.

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, yes that's exactly the kind of thing I would like to discuss. Not just the Crusades, but the entire history behind them and the aftermaths.

A note of interest, who actually held Jerusalem before the Muslims captured it in 1078?

Emperors Faithful wrote:A note of interest, who actually held Jerusalem before the Muslims captured it in 1078?

The Byzantines, and Jerusalem was captured by the Muslims long before that.

Emperors Faithful wrote:
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.

Any other? Throw in the inner european holy wars. North/east europe maybe?

IMHO, the "holy" wars show why politics and religion should never be merged.

I'm pretty sure you can have a Holy War without any political undercurrent. In theory. IRL I guess it's different.

@JEB: Thanks, mate. So Jerusalem had been switching hands for a while?

Emperors Faithful wrote:I'm pretty sure you can have a Holy War without any political undercurrent. In theory. IRL I guess it's different.

Now I am interested in your theory to start a "holy" war free of politics.

I don't know. Ask someone who's an expert on Theology. (Which should pop up sooner or later on this thread)

Can I have my own crusade then?



Isn't it the whole point of a Holy war to conquer and "reeducate" those deemed not enlightened yet?

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.

I love the story about how Richard came to power.

I'll post i if it's not too off topic.

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

@Shadowbrand: Go ahead.

@Clthomps: Seriously? I doubt it. I never heard of either armies resorting to 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.

2Wolfstan,
Actually there was and is one great big Christian religion.

It's the Christian _confessions_ that are many.

Nothing proves your idea that Crusades were began as a tool to force eastern christians to submit to Rome.

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.

A pertinent excerpt I just googled:

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.

Fair comment. I do generalise, sorry about that, I remember reading & seeing stuff but not great in repeating it back.

My distrust of Christian history is based on the fact that it appear it was standardised around the 400's AD (again I'm generalisng)

Of course, Christian and Muslim scholars are both going to claim to be offended party in thier respective stances.