Crusades

[Emperor Napolean Bonaparte IX]

do you think the crusades had a good reason or not?

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Well if one could immerse one's self in the trappings of that day I think their was. I believe some truly thought they were preforming god's will by intervening in the Levant. After all, the Levant was predominantly Christian prior the the Muslim influx....Yes there were also interlopers and Greed mongers that joined the crusades, but those elements are always present in this world.
.

[KaRoU23]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Well if one could immerse one's self in the trappings of that day I think their was. I believe some truly thought they were preforming god's will by intervening in the Levant. After all, the Levant was predominantly Christian prior the the Muslim influx....Yes there were also interlopers and Greed mongers that joined the crusades, but those elements are always present in this world.
.

Well the Order of St. Lazarus was the exception to the rule....I would also add that as a Greek i didn't like the fact that Constantinople fell in 1204...... well i guess that the search for new feuds was the main reason of the Crusades(at least the 3 or 4 major ones)

[Manco]

Doesn't the VV require somewhat more substance in an OP?
Especially since several examples of this exact debate can be found by using the search function.

[Poach]

Depends entirely on how you define the reason.

Do you mean the reason the Pope told the masses: liberation of the Holy Land, or the real reason: to give the Roman Empire military assistance in Anatolia?

As you may know, the Pope called for the First Crusade as a response to a request from the Roman Emperor to provide a contingent of Knights to aid him in holding Anatolia in the face of advancing Turkish armies. The subsequent arming of Europe's populace to effect a massive invasion of the Levant was entirely unpredicted.

That intoduction aside, I shall attempt your question, vague and unimpressive though it may be.

Yes, I think the Crusades had a good reason, and Romans had a fair reason to ask for aid and that was the pretext for launching the Crusade. As for the campaign that followed (read: the Crusade as we know it) was neither good nor bad. The Muslims had as little claim to the Holy Land as the Christians, neither side could claim to have a right to control it and thusly I do not believe the Crusades can be construed as an invasion or as an imperial venture.

Revisionists will commonly hark on at great length about how the Christians slaughtered thousands and were generally barbaric invaders, but they're revisionists and revisionists are rarely intelligent or even educated on the area of history they seek to rewrite (usually from their own (commonly liberal) standpoint which seems to believe that Human Rights existed at all points in history and that leaders up until quite recently weren't all in the habit of ruling harshly) and as such should be ignored or, if you must justify them with a response, laughed at.

[motiv-8]

That intoduction aside, I shall attempt your question, vague and unimpressive though it may be.

On what planet is a binary question, "Were there good reasons for X or not", "vague?" If you're going to criticize, you could at least try something correct: maybe something like, 'the primary job of the historian is to observe and reflect, not to pass judgment.'

I do not believe the Crusades can be construed as an invasion or as an imperial venture.

Ah, so invasions by bodies of soldiers to subjugate the local population and instituting a new state don't constitute invasions anymore? Well, looks like the Levant has NEVER been invaded before, ever! The Arab Conquest should more rightfully be considered the Arab Vacation, anybody who says otherwise is a dirty liberal revisionist. No idea what those people are so angry about.

Revisionists will commonly hark on at great length about how the Christians slaughtered thousands and were generally barbaric invaders,

And in doing so they would be reflecting what was written during the era. Strange, that; history writers reflecting on the attitudes, comments, and feelings of people they are writing about. Revisionism if I ever saw it.

Doubtlessly some of the tales are hyperbole, exaggerations, and the like, but what they clearly point out is that the invasion (maybe we could stop pretending that it wasn't) of Syria by Latin crusaders wasn't exactly a fun time, and just saying "er, but it was the Middle Ages!" doesn't exactly help explain anything, if even the people living at the time were horrified.

but they're revisionists and revisionists are rarely intelligent or even educated on the area of history they seek to rewrite (usually from their own (commonly liberal) standpoint which seems to believe that Human Rights existed at all points in history and that leaders up until quite recently weren't all in the habit of ruling harshly) and as such should be ignored or, if you must justify them with a response, laughed at.

Indeed, anybody who suggests that bad people did bad things in history rather than glorify what they did and gloss over all the bad stuff should be ignored. That's definitely the way to conduct historical discourse. Wait, are we writing history or Scripture? Your rabidness makes me wonder.

I mean, God forbid someone try to explain history in more than a one-dimensional good/bad manner and incorporate all aspects of the human condition into events.

[Poach]

The question is vague because it has no defined boundaries. Did he mean the Crusade against the Cathars, for example? Or the Baltic Crusades? I assumed he meant the Middle Eastern ones, and that was what I explained. I also assumed he meant the First One, he didn't specify which Crusade(s) we were to discuss, as many had reasons beyond "Let's take Jerusalem!".

As for the invasion idea, I didn't quite explain my position correctly, for that I appologise. I meant (as it is commonly portrayed today) as an offensive, islamophobic invasion which it was not. While it was an invasion in the sense that foreign soldiers displaced the current governing body in the region, the current government had as little claim to be there as the foreign soldiers and, as a result, I feel the opinion of many that the Crusaders were forcibly taking Islamic land is incorrect.

As for your stance on revisionism, you're assuming I mean normal history as opposed to actual revisionism, you know the kind that people who claim that Agincourt constitutes a massive war crime on England's part? We're aware that the Crusades were brutal, I'm berating the revisionists who attempt to paint the Christians as unusually barbaric whilst casually ignoring the fact that largely all wars were brutal in that way. Rape and pillage upon a victorious siege was commonplace up until a few hundred years ago at best, it wasn't something unique to the Crusaders in the Levant.

[conon394]

Ah, so invasions by bodies of soldiers to subjugate the local population and instituting a new state don't constitute invasions anymore? Well, looks like the Levant has NEVER been invaded before, ever! The Arab Conquest should more rightfully be considered the Arab Vacation, anybody who says otherwise is a dirty liberal revisionist. No idea what those people are so angry about.

motiv - I appreciate your point in responce to Poach, but even you have sort of agreed with something I do find troubling in 'modern' political rhetoric. The Ideal that the West's Crusade is a bad thing (in theory not just execution) seems a given now days. Yet Poach makes a valid point the bulk of the middle east or say the Levant did not become Islamic due to peaceful missonary work by by the sword.

[motiv-8]

I assumed he meant the Middle Eastern ones

As most people would when being asked about the Crusades.

I also assumed he meant the First One, he didn't specify which Crusade(s) we were to discuss, as many had reasons beyond "Let's take Jerusalem!".

Typically when one says "Crusade" colloquially they are referring to the Levantine variety, specifically the first three (and largest).

But I agree, we both worked based on assumptions. Apologies.

I meant (as it is commonly portrayed today) as an offensive, islamophobic invasion which it was not.

Islamaphobic, perhaps not (although the rhetoric employed at places like Clermont sure isn't fuzzy, as would be typical of the time period), but offensive it absolutely was. The vast majority of the people there were off to make a pilgrimage to Jersusalem, while armed to protect the body of Christ from the pagan infidel. Then they went home. The smaller minority was there to capitalize politically or economically from the situation. Neither groups gave a damn about fighting in the defense of the Byzantines, so arguing that it was something other than offensive isn't proper.

the current government had as little claim to be there as the foreign soldiers

I'm not quite sure how one qualifies statements such as these backwards in time to the 11th Century. The land was clearly in dispute between two powers, but Christians from Francia were not one of them.

As for your stance on revisionism, you're assuming I mean normal history as opposed to actual revisionism, you know the kind that people who claim that Agincourt constitutes a massive war crime on England's part?

Believe me, I'm well aware of what revisionism entails, and I'm not someone who subscribes to revisionism lightly or recklessly. The fact remains that it's not absurd revisionism to note that the crusades had destructive elements and profound negative effects upon those on the receiving end.

I'm berating the revisionists who attempt to paint the Christians as unusually barbaric

Firstly, I'm not aware of any respected historians of the Crusades who do such a thing unduly; secondly, anyone who would do so would be in part reflecting the historical record -- the crusaders were seen as barbaric by just about all other parties, such as the Byzantines and the Arabs. Now, does that automatically mean it's true? Of course not, one must take into account perspective -- I doubt the crusaders themselves saw themselves as barbaric, just the opposite in fact. But it does mean that one should take a little more care in wildly dismissing such notions as "revisionist" and thus subject to being ignored or ridiculed.

Rape and pillage upon a victorious siege was commonplace up until a few hundred years ago at best, it wasn't something unique to the Crusaders in the Levant.

Perhaps, or perhaps it was so uncommon in that part of the world that it was an unthinkable atrocity to chroniclers just a few decades after the fact. I'll admit, my history of warfare in medieval Europe isn't exactly up to snuff, but I can't recall such massacres as were reported at places like Ma'ara and Jerusalem as being commonplace, (I did just read about the forced desolation of Rome by the Lombards however) and the rumors of cannibalism and other horrors that dot the literature point to events that were unusual, even if not completely factually innacurate.

Yet Poach makes a valid point the bulk of the middle east or say the Levant did not become Islamic due to peaceful missonary work by by the sword.

Demographic trends in the Levant from the 7th to 11th Centuries point to a growth of Islam that was gradual and not particularly violent. One must take into account the fact that Islam as a religion was itself growing and crystallizing even after the Arabs arrived in the Levant. Doubtlessly the conquest of these regions was not a fun time, particularly for those who made up the elite class and who suddenly found themselves submissive to a new elite, but it seems pretty clear that it was not as chaotic or destructive as what went on in the 1090s and beyond.

Anyway, I'm not here to white-wash one event or another, but to represent an accurate picture. I should think you realize that.

[Poach]

Islamaphobic, perhaps not (although the rhetoric employed at places like Clermont sure isn't fuzzy, as would be typical of the time period), but offensive it absolutely was. The vast majority of the people there were off to make a pilgrimage to Jersusalem, while armed to protect the body of Christ from the pagan infidel. Then they went home. The smaller minority was there to capitalize politically or economically from the situation. Neither groups gave a damn about fighting in the defense of the Byzantines, so arguing that it was something other than offensive isn't proper.

The Pope did ofcourse use rabble-rousing words to inspire Europeans, who had no loyalties to the Romans and no care for the larger political manoeuverings that the Pope was engaging in with the Romans.

I'm not quite sure how one qualifies statements such as these backwards in time to the 11th Century. The land was clearly in dispute between two powers, but Christians from Francia were not one of them.

It is certainly true that the Franks had no claim either, but one must remember that they were supposed to be there to restore land the Romans lost to the Turks. Going by their terms of agreement the Kingdom of Jerusalem should never have been founded, but they did so anyway and the Empire did not possess the strength to forcibly stop them, plus they'd already gained hugely from the Crusaders anyway.

Believe me, I'm well aware of what revisionism entails, and I'm not someone who subscribes to revisionism lightly or recklessly. The fact remains that it's not absurd revisionism to note that the crusades had destructive elements and profound negative effects upon those on the receiving end.

Firstly, I'm not aware of any respected historians of the Crusades who do such a thing unduly; secondly, anyone who would do so would be in part reflecting the historical record -- the crusaders were seen as barbaric by just about all other parties, such as the Byzantines and the Arabs. Now, does that automatically mean it's true? Of course not, one must take into account perspective -- I doubt the crusaders themselves saw themselves as barbaric, just the opposite in fact. But it does mean that one should take a little more care in wildly dismissing such notions as "revisionist" and thus subject to being ignored or ridiculed.

Most revisionism is performed by ametuers who are largely unobjective and tend to be biased along their own lines (eg, the conference that conluded that Agincourt was a war crime was attended entirely by French historians, none of them particularly distinguished).

Perhaps, or perhaps it was so uncommon in that part of the world that it was an unthinkable atrocity to chroniclers just a few decades after the fact. I'll admit, my history of warfare in medieval Europe isn't exactly up to snuff, but I can't recall such massacres as were reported at places like Ma'ara and Jerusalem as being commonplace, (I did just read about the forced desolation of Rome by the Lombards however) and the rumors of cannibalism and other horrors that dot the literature point to events that were unusual, even if not completely factually innacurate.

Ma'arra and Jerusalem were fairly commonplace, the Crusaders did this to most places they captured. Medieval European warfare is literally swimming in accounts of brutal massacre, both upon capture of a settlement and in the aftermath of battle. It was rather common in that time period...

Demographic trends in the Levant from the 7th to 11th Centuries point to a growth of Islam that was gradual and not particularly violent. One must take into account the fact that Islam as a religion was itself growing and crystallizing even after the Arabs arrived in the Levant. Doubtlessly the conquest of these regions was not a fun time, particularly for those who made up the elite class and who suddenly found themselves submissive to a new elite, but it seems pretty clear that it was not as chaotic or destructive as what went on in the 1090s and beyond.

Anyway, I'm not here to white-wash one event or another, but to represent an accurate picture. I should think you realize that.

The Muslims conquered the Levant which was previously controlled by the Romans, and they were in turn forced out by the Franks. You're correct in that the beginning of the Christian vs Muslim phase was far more brutal and bitter than the previous expansions against the Romans, but the Levant wasn't a majority Muslim area, it was a hodge-podge of various Christian and Muslim sects with a large number of Jews present as well.

[hellheaven1987]

Na, First Crusaders had no problems to make alliance with Fatimid Egypt during First Crusade, and even recieved a Fatimid embassy warmly during Siege of Antioch. There is no evidence to suggest Crusader and Egyptian had a joint military campaign, but during the Siege of Antioch Fatimid pushed into Palestine area - perhaps it was a military agreement between two factions. Later on, Crusaders would ask Fatimid to leave Jerusalm for them and Fatimid could keep the rest, but Fatimid Caliphate simply refused it.

[motiv-8]

Well, if there was any fizziness between the Fatimids and Latins then it quickly ended, given they were battling outside Ascalon within a month of Jerusalem's fall. Nay, the real alliance seems to have been between Egypt and Byzantium, wherein the latter kept the former up to speed on the crusaders' progress, etc.

The reason the Fatimids were in the area of Jerusalem during the crusade wasn't because of any deal with the Christians but because of the war with the Seljuqs, a pre-existing enmity.

[hellheaven1987]

The reason the Fatimids were in the area of Jerusalem during the crusade wasn't because of any deal with the Christians but because of the war with the Seljuqs, a pre-existing enmity.

That depends - "An enemy's enemy is my friend" was working for this case, and Byzantium did advise Crusaders that the best way was to ally with Fatimid.

[motiv-8]

No really -- the war between the Seljuqs and Fatimids predated the arrival of the crusaders for decades, with the campaigns of Malik Shah. The Christians largely haplessly benefited from the chaos.

[Emperor Charlemagne XII]

well theres still a war in that exact spot so i think the crusades were destined to happen

[The Noble Lord]

do you think the crusades had a good reason or not?

Well, religious enthusiasm was at its peak, desire for riches, lands, conquest, plunder, desire to be absolved from all the sins, desire to make a name for yourself, etc. Yeah, I would say that they had a pretty good reasons to do what they did. In those days that's how you made your fortune. The problem is of course that the whole process of the Crusades was terribly bloody and involved scenes of hideous carnage.

[motiv-8]

Actually "in those days" you typically made your fortune by inheriting it. Which is why the very few men who actually did display a "desire for riches, lands, conquest plunder" and all that nonsense were sons removed from succession and not in line to have access to great fortune and power in the traditional manner.

[The Noble Lord]

Which is why the very few men

Very few men you said, well starting from the unsuccessful people's Crusade that was led by Peter the Hermit in 1096 consisted of 40.000 people which in those days was huge number, to all the way to the so-called last Crusade which was the battle of Nicopolis in 1396 where approximately 18.000 Crusaders took part, overall it is actually large number of people that participated in the Crusades. Nobles, knights, serfs, peasants, women and children, clergymen, wanderers and wagabonds, etc. Not only the sons of nobility who could not inherit anything like you said!

[Stavroforos]

If we're talking about the first Crusade, then yes, it had a good reason: the restoration of the Roman Empire in the Levant. However, the Crusaders ed it up, so I stop supporting them after Bohemond went back to his usual Norman tricks.

[Moorish guy]

Didn't the crusades bring the knowledge of the arabs or scarecens back to europe and help fuel the renaissance?