Were the crusades justifiable?

[nemgod]

Well, Persians and Arabs also slaughtered Christians, and I did not know Charlemagne sent crusaders to help Byzantium.

He was too busy slaughtering non christians in his own land to care.

[Blaze86420]

Actually there was an Arab governor that was installed in Narbonne, thus making the Duchy of Aquitaine a vassal of Al-Andalus, so it was indeed an occupation force.

Pay attention Menelik, I didn't say that a successful raid would not have resulted in an occupation. The entire conquest of Hispania was originally a raid too, the newly converted Berbers wanted to intervene in a Visigothic civil war while getting loot at the same time. The battle of Potiers was not different, if you read my post, I specifically stated that had the Muslims won an Emirate would have been established. But that doesn't change the fact that the expeditionary force was simply there to plunder. No orders were received from the Caliph in Damascus to conquer France. No, it was simply a raid. Now can we move back to the topic of the Crusades?

Arabs armies used the ''we are just kidding'' Conquest strategy, claiming that these are unimportant raids when the operation fails but grand conquest in case of success.

Rofl, really? Is that why Arab historians glorify the sacking of Rome? The Christian capital of the Latin world? Oh wait, they did not, because it wasn't even a big deal at all the time. See, I'm not claiming that historians don't skew history to show their people in a more favorable light, but don't act like the Arabs take this a step beyond everyone else, it's pathetic.

You said that the Iberians '' supported the brunt of the invasion without help for centuries'', even though the first Christian effort to confront the Muslim threat in Iberia was the Frankish King efforts to establish a buffer zone and conquer Barcelona. So the Muslim invasion of Iberia did bother people.

Compare the effort put into holding on to Jerusalem with the effort put into liberating Iberia and tell me which one of the two really bothered the Christian world.

Actually one could argue that there was equal effort put into the Iberian component, since there was 20 000 Frankish troops at Hattin which almost equal to the crusader reinforcement present at Lisbon which was 17 000 men.

You're going to take one battle out of multiple campaigns in the near east and compare that with one battle in Iberia? At least try to fake honesty. For every soldier sent to Iberia how many where sent to Syria? And don't just pick one battle or one Crusade, get me the figure for all nine of them.

[Carpathian Wolf]

Who said the Arabs took a step beyond everyone else? Just seems like you're trying really hard to make them come out as whiter than snow.

[Menelik_I]

Pay attention Menelik, I didn't say that a successful raid would not have resulted in an occupation. The entire conquest of Hispania was originally a raid too, the newly converted Berbers wanted to intervene in a Visigothic civil war while getting loot at the same time. The battle of Potiers was not different, if you read my post, I specifically stated that had the Muslims won an Emirate would have been established. But that doesn't change the fact that the expeditionary force was simply there to plunder. No orders were received from the Caliph in Damascus to conquer France. No, it was simply a raid. Now can we move back to the topic of the Crusades?

I get your point, but could you at least acknowledge that the Franks did move into Iberia to secure a buffer zone and thus makes the whole reconquista possible ?

The Christian effort in Iberia started with the Franks.

Rofl, really? Is that why Arab historians glorify the sacking of Rome? The Christian capital of the Latin world? Oh wait, they did not, because it wasn't even a big deal at all the time. See, I'm not claiming that historians don't skew history to show their people in a more favorable light, but don't act like the Arabs take this a step beyond everyone else, it's pathetic.

ok

You're going to take one battle out of multiple campaigns in the near east and compare that with one battle in Iberia? At least try to fake honesty. For every soldier sent to Iberia how many where sent to Syria? And don't just pick one battle or one Crusade, get me the figure for all nine of them.

Most crusaders field armies where around 20 000 men max (Hattin, Arsuf, Jerusalem), which you could multiply by 1.5 for accounting for camp followers, and you get maybe 270 000 men over 300 years of warfare.

ETA:

I assumed ONE field army per crusade, for most major field battles crusader tactics where effective only if at least 20 000 men where present, except most exceptionally Montsigar (2000 crusaders vs 10000 Saladin forc), and sieges are a whole different affair.

[Blaze86420]

Who said the Arabs took a step beyond everyone else? Just seems like you're trying really hard to make them come out as whiter than snow.

I'm not, I already said that the Crusades are justified back when this thread first opened. I don't really care too much about the ethical side of the Crusades, we're talking about something that happened almost a thousand years ago, I'm just in it for the history.

[Kitsunegari]

Rofl, really? Is that why Arab historians glorify the sacking of Rome? The Christian capital of the Latin world? Oh wait, they did not, because it wasn't even a big deal at all the time. See, I'm not claiming that historians don't skew history to show their people in a more favorable light, but don't act like the Arabs take this a step beyond everyone else, it's pathetic.

It wasn't a big deal to them (neither were the Crusades), but it certainly was for the West, this led to the Papacy beginning to organize what later turned into Crusades and taking a more active role in promoting Christian unity in general. Benedict VIII in particular set a trend by refusing tribute. The Muslim chroniclers generally despised the Franks even compared to other non-Muslims like the Romans (Byzantines), although there were some favorable descriptions of the Crusader states. This may partly stem from what they regarded as "filthy" Frankish practices like raising swine. Some of their descriptions of the Romans seem almost overflowing with admiration. Kind of funny story about Benedict and the Saracen ruler "Mogehid" or "Mugetto" (Mujahid al-Amiri) who ruled a taifa including the Balearics and wanted to expand his power due to the vacuum after Almanzor/Al-Mansur's death:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

At first the Saracen chief was haughtily indignant that the Pope should dare to think of facing him. But when the papal fleet began to show itself, his courage failed him. Afraid of being cut off, he abandoned his wife and his people, and just managed to effect his escape to Sardinia. With the courage of despair the Saracens kept the Pope at bay for three days; but at length the Christians were victorious. Every single Moslem was put to the edge of the sword. Even the wife of their chief, who had been seized, shared the general doom, to atone for the misdeeds of her husband. Her rich diadem was sent to the emperor by the victorious pontiff.
Furious at the misfortune which had overtaken him, the Moslem king, so we are told, sent the Pope a bag of chestnuts with a message that he might expect him in the following summer with as many soldiers as there were nuts in the bag. Threats were not calculated to alarm Benedict. He accepted the chestnuts, and sent back the bag full of rice.
-"If your master" said he to the astonished messenger, "is not satisfied with the damage he has already done to the dowry of the Apostle, let him come again, and for every grain of rice he will find an armed warrior waiting to receive him"
Apparently, however, the Pope did not wait to be attacked; he stirred up the Pisans and Genoese, who seem to have co-operated with him at Luna, to carry the war into the enemies' country. His legate, the bishop of Ostia, went both to Pisa and to Genoa to exhort them to attack the Saracen in his home. The combined fleets of both cities sailed for Sardinia (1017); and none too soon; for Mogehid, or Mugetto as he is called by the chronicles of Pisa, who supplemented his want of courage by atrocious cruelty, was engaged in crucifying the Christians of the island. As before, he saved himself by flight, and betook himself to Africa. Unfortunately, no sooner had the Pisans and Genoese obtained possession of the island than they quarrelled for it among themselves. The Pope, it seems, had promised Sardinia to the Pisans, should Mugetto be expelled. The Genoese, however, wanted the island, and war broke out between the two cities. Partly by superior prowess, and partly by allowing their allies and rivals all Mugetto's treasure which on one occasion fell into their hands, the Pisans retained the island and the much-needed help of the Genoese. The defeated renegade did not cease making efforts to recover Sardinia till as late as the year 1050, when he was at length captured by the successful Pisans, and when the island was again made over to them by the Pope.

Wikipedia actually has a pretty good article on the battle for Sardinia.

[ivan_the_terrible]

IDK, from what i've read Dandolo took a very active role in trying to divert the crusade early on, i'm sure there are various accounts though.

He took an active role in diverting it to Zara, yes. But again, this was the result of the Franks not being able to pay and the Venetians having to look for alternative ways to recoup an investment that could've bankrupted them and doomed their city to ruin at the hands of the Pisan and Genoese competitors in the future.

The diversion to Constantinople, on the other hand was the result of machinations by Boniface and Alxius the Younger. BUT you have to remember the diversion itself was not equal to a sack - they were supposed to install Alexius on the throne and he would in return pay off the Franks' debt (and supply more men and funding to the expedition). The sack only happened when Alexius snubbed the crusaders and reneged on his promises. Even then it didn't happen immediately, but only after a long period of snubbing by Alexius and a deterioration in relations.

If anyone must be blamed for the sack it is Boniface and Alexius the Younger. But really the sack was ultimately a very unlucky result of Byzantine internal squabbling and Imperial machinations backfiring.

When the Venetians were contracted though, the objective was definitely Egypt. There is a great article that looks at the construction of the ships: they were designed to disembark horses and men onto a gentle, flat shore. Like in Egypt, and definitely unlike the Balkans. It's only if you read history backwards do you start to see the expedition as some sinister, premeditated Western (whether Frankish or Venetian) strike at Byzantium.

[hekk]

I find it kind of weird that somehow the Crusaders are especially more "evil" than the Saracens for trying to conquer the Levant, when the Arab Caliphate conquered so many originally non-Muslims countries.

I guess, no one cares anymore because those countries are mostly all Muslims countries now (except for Spain).

[Shams al-Ma'rifa]

I find it kind of weird that somehow the Crusaders are especially more "evil" than the Saracens for trying to conquer the Levant, when the Arab Caliphate conquered so many originally non-Muslims countries.

I guess, no one cares anymore because those countries are mostly all Muslims countries now (except for Spain).

That's because the Crusaders burnt Jerusalem and started slaughtering everyone indiscriminately.. Muslims or Jews for that matter.

But was it justified? I guess in the grand scheme of things, it increased the flow of cultural exchange between the East and the West, sparking the renaissance in Europe, and creating the modern world in general.

[Gnostiko]

The diversion to Constantinople, on the other hand was the result of machinations by Boniface and Alexius the Younger

Dandolo and the Venetians were equally complicit; Alexius had previously attempted to persuade the Venetians to back his attempt for the throne. He was rebuffed, IIRC, Dandolo even referred to him as a "wretched boy". For Dandolo to then aboutface and agree to divert to Constantinople shows he had his eye on some Roman bling.

[Carpathian Wolf]

That's because the Crusaders burnt Jerusalem and started slaughtering everyone indiscriminately.. Muslims or Jews for that matter.

But was it justified? I guess in the grand scheme of things, it increased the flow of cultural exchange between the East and the West, sparking the renaissance in Europe, and creating the modern world in general.

No it didn't. The crusades happened hundreds of years before the Renaissance. The fall of Constantinople and the fleeing of the east Romans to the west is what sparked that.

[Macunaíma]

But it did increase the cultural/economic flow between East and West...

Still a pointless bloodshed .

[Kitsunegari]

Still a pointless bloodshed .

Not by any stretch of the imagination, some events were, but as a whole, no. You can take things out of context and view them in a 21st century prism, but fortunately few reasonable adults will take it seriously

[Sphere]

God thinks you're all flipping nuts, he's not favouring anyone.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Menelik_I]

God thinks you're all flipping nuts, he's not favouring anyone.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

and yet of all the places in the Middle East, Moses was told to go to the one piece of desert without any oil.

But in seriousness, I find the idea of divine micromanagement to the point of allocating natural resources to be funny.

[basics]

I notice that the one thing that is lost in all this is that Jerusalem is no longer a Holy City. It never was from the moment that the Jews rejected Christ. Read the Scriptures and see for yourselves if that is not the case. Therefore in Spiritual terms the place had no value anymore other than the promise that God made to the Israelites that it would be their land forever, forever that is until Jesus returns for the judgement.

There is nothing more ridiculous as to see in our times priests or monks of one faction literally fighting with priests or monks of another faction as to who holds what they think are Holy places. Yes, that happens regularly in Jerusalem between the Orthodox and others. Isn't it great what man's imagination can conjure up when Scripture is ignored? But then how can Revelation be clear to them when other points of Scripture are not? Why the participants have always failed in the end is because that land was given solely to the Jews. They have it back and could have it all were they not restrained by others.

[Menelik_I]

I notice that the one thing that is lost in all this is that Jerusalem is no longer a Holy City. It never was from the moment that the Jews rejected Christ. Read the Scriptures and see for yourselves if that is not the case. Therefore in Spiritual terms the place had no value anymore other than the promise that God made to the Israelites that it would be their land forever, forever that is until Jesus returns for the judgement.

There is nothing more ridiculous as to see in our times priests or monks of one faction literally fighting with priests or monks of another faction as to who holds what they think are Holy places. Yes, that happens regularly in Jerusalem between the Orthodox and others. Isn't it great what man's imagination can conjure up when Scripture is ignored? But then how can Revelation be clear to them when other points of Scripture are not? Why the participants have always failed in the end is because that land was given solely to the Jews. They have it back and could have it all were they not restrained by others.

You are indeed right that none of the teaching of Christ, besides chasing the vendors in the temple, ever touched the Temple in Jerusalem, and that the Resurrection was marked by the temple ceremonial curtains getting torn apart as to symbolize (words fail me at this moment).

[aqd]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

for the poor ones who cannot live otherwise. It's merely a compensation.

[Sher Khan]

No it didn't. The crusades happened hundreds of years before the Renaissance. The fall of Constantinople and the fleeing of the east Romans to the west is what sparked that.

But the fall and conquest of Constantinople happened almost a hundred years after Petrarch

[Macunaíma]

Not by any stretch of the imagination, some events were, but as a whole, no. You can take things out of context and view them in a 21st century prism, but fortunately few reasonable adults will take it seriously

That's the way to see things. It's like saying that it is okay for a retarded guy to kill someone because he didn't know what he was doing.