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.

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.

Er don't forget, Christianity started there.

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

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.

mattyrm wrote:GG, i guess if your really into Jesus you would want to go see it, i mean, its the same with a band right?

No.
NOT
AT
ALL

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.

If true, that is very interesting.

GG

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

Thats the nobles though, not everyone else.

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?)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_the_Lionhearted

@EF and anyone who cares.

Scroll down to "revolt against Henry II"

Frazzled wrote:

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.

George Spiggott wrote:

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:

Frazzled wrote:

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.

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

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.

I don't agree with forcible conversion.

KK, are you saying you think that the Levant was mostly Muslim by the First Crusade?

The oruiginal crusade was to reopen the holy land to Christians because it had been closed.

Frazzled wrote:The oruiginal crusade was to reopen the holy land to Christians because it had been closed.

I thought it was because of this event:

Forgot about that. Yes, well they had to go somewhere and they kept eating the cookies.

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.

GG

Believe it or not, it's true. Although it's also true that the Arabs were polytheists before Mohammed.

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.

GG

generalgrog wrote:

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.

GG

Que?

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?



http://www.search.com/reference/Ma'arrat_al-Numan