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.

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?

EF, just to clarify, who do you think controlled the Holy Lands before there was a such thing as Islam?

Before before Islam? Or just before Islam?

Just to cover all bases.

1) Caananites.
2) Eygyptians?
3) Israelites
4) Various angry people, including Philistines, Egypt and Assryia
5) Israelites again
6) Babylon
7) Persia
8) Alexander the Great? Hazy memory.
9) Israelites. Again.
10) Romans.
11) Eastern Romans.
11) Eastern Romans become the Byzantine Empire (Or always were)
12) ...then Islam?

And then we reach the 1st crusade.

7)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
BTW, when I say Israelites, I mean the tribes of Israel ect.

Emperors Faithful wrote:11) Eastern Romans become the Byzantine Empire (Or always were)
12) ...then Islam?

And then we reach the 1st crusade

Do you understand that the space between numbers eleven and twelve involve an attack on Christendom?

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.

Manchu wrote:

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.

EDIT: Forgive my spelling.

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.

Seljuk = Ottoman? (or thier precursor?)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
BTW, that's exactly what I've been trying to say. You just said it better and more coherently.

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.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Seljuk = Ottoman? (or thier precursor?)


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.

M.

Manchu wrote:

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.

What about Ottomans attacking Balkan region.They advanced quite well,even laid siege to Vienna,but they were repulsed by Polish who arrived.

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.

That would be quite a while after the Crusade though, me thinks.


@Manchu: Why was it never officialy recognised as such then?

I understand what you're saying. I do. That's exactly what it would have seemed to be to most Crusaders. The reality though, IS slightly different.

BTW, what was the official religeon of the Byzantine Empire? Greek Orthodox?

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).

Manchu wrote:

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.

To the Christians.

To pretty much everyone else it's a different story. That's what the wonderful gift of hindsight is for.

You're not engaging in history. You're engaging in some sort of moralization.

Manchu wrote:

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.

Emperors Faithful wrote:But I was niave to think that anyone could ever agree about the legitimacy about a war.

I am quoting this to emphasize its truth.

Well, that discussion was refreshing. (And very informing to.)

What about from a Moral point of view, Manchu?

As you yourself are a Catholic, is there any stance that the Church has towards the Crusades? Do they support it? Renounce it? Ignore it?

Is there any division?

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.

What about you, dogma? Any thoughts from a moral point of view?

@Manchu: Well that explains the confusion.

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.