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.

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.

M.

@JEB_Stuart:

The Crusade

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.

http://www.allempires.com/article/index.php?q=battle_nicopolis

I saw a recreation of the Battle of Nicopolis at a local wargaming convention a few years ago, it's hardly secret history.

The following link looks like good reading.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=JQP2F2q9xDkC&pg=PA75&lpg=PA75&dq=boniface+ix+1394+crusade&source=bl&ots=jbZs_xLBqW&sig=H_LaYdVrNlU_Xg-TmyXwI_kvZ24&hl=en&ei=pGhaS7DYNYX-0gS8mdn5BA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CBMQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=boniface%20ix%201394%20crusade&f=false

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.

I don't think walking to Canterbury would be fun.

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.

Teutonic knights?

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.

Hmm? More Jewish killing?

BTW, sebster is right in this respect. To say that Christianity was, on the whole, fighting the defensive battle, is a little skewed.

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.

JEB_Stuart wrote:If the reaction of the Crusades isn't seen as a defensive war, than I don't know what is.

There is no such thing as a defensive war. Wars can have attackers, and defenders but the war itself is never defensive.

@dogma: Your point does not apply. Christendom was the defender (at least) in the First Crusade.

JEB_Stuart wrote:

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.

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?

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.