Those infamous crusades...

[Ummon]

Modern Aftermath of the Crusades

Robert Spencer on the Battles Still Being Waged

WASHINGTON, D.C., MARCH 11, 2006 (Zenit.org).- The Crusades may be causing more devastation today than they ever did in the three centuries when most of them were fought, according to one expert.

Robert Spencer, author of "Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)" (Regnery), claims that the damage is not in terms of lives lost and property destroyed but is a more subtle destruction.

Spencer shared with ZENIT how false ideas about the Crusades are being used by extremists to foment hostility to the West today.

Q: The Crusades are often portrayed as a militarily offensive venture. Were they?

Spencer: No. Pope Urban II, who called for the First Crusade at the Council of Clermont in 1095, was calling for a defensive action -- one that was long overdue.

As he explained, he was calling the Crusade because without any defensive action, "the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked" by the Turks and other Muslim forces.

"For, as most of you have heard, the Turks and Arabs have attacked them and have conquered the territory of Romania [the Greek empire] as far west as the shore of the Mediterranean and the Hellespont, which is called the Arm of St. George," Pope Urban II said in his address. "They have occupied more and more of the lands of those Christians, and have overcome them in seven battles. They have killed and captured many, and have destroyed the churches and devastated the empire.

"If you permit them to continue thus for a while with impunity, the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked by them."

He was right. Jihad warfare had from the seventh century to the time of Pope Urban conquered and Islamized what had been over half of Christendom. There had been no response from the Christian world until the Crusades.

Q: What are some popular misconceptions about the Crusades?

Spencer: One of the most common is the idea that the Crusades were an unprovoked attack by Europe against the Islamic world.

In fact, the conquest of Jerusalem in 638 stood at the beginning of centuries of Muslim aggression, and Christians in the Holy Land faced an escalating spiral of persecution.

Early in the eighth century 60 Christian pilgrims from Amorium were crucified; around the same time the Muslim governor of Caesarea seized a group of pilgrims from Iconium and had them all executed as spies -- except for a small number who converted to Islam.

Muslims also demanded money from pilgrims, threatening to ransack the Church of the Resurrection if they didn't pay.

(...)

Continues here: http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=85818

[Ahiga]

It's an infamous mistake to try and make particular groups of the past into the clear cut good guys or bad guys.

I'd like to see a view which does not hold a bias against Islam (The author displays this in his book), if only to compare the two facts. I'm sure he didn't falsfiy his facts, but omitting particular ones can be a very important asset.

For example, he failed to note the slaughter of Muslim prisoners by Richard the Lionheart (Which, by all means, was a perfectly acceptable move)

There are also inconsistencies with the paper. One moment, he's trying to give leverage for the actions of the Crusaders in their slaughter of the citizens of Jerusalem, the next?

"In 1148, Muslim commander Nur ed-Din did not hesitate to order the killing of every Christian in Aleppo. In 1268, when the jihad forces of the Mamluk Sultan Baybars took Antioch from the Crusaders, Baybars was annoyed to find that the Crusader ruler had already left the city -- so he wrote to him bragging of his massacres of Christians."

Most notorious of all may be the jihadists' entry into Constantinople on May 29, 1453, when they, according to historian Steven Runciman, "slew everyone that they met in the streets, men, women and children without discrimination." - There is no sense of explaining why they did this, or mentioning that it may have been the result of a long and difficult siege which caused them to act in the same way the Crusaderd did to Jerusalem. The omission of that fact gives readers the view that the Muslims simply butchered everyone for the sake of butchering them.


I also am willing to believe that there are cases of Christians being cruel to Muslims in their rule (The inquisition?) just as he cites the examples of the Seljuk Turks being horrible to the Christians udner their dominion.

I'm not saying the Crusaders were any more violent or 'evil' than the other armies of the times (In fact, the only group I am inclined to grant a label of evil would be the Mongols, and perhaps the Seljuk Turks...I don't know enough about them), but trying to lionize them as he did was not really advisable.


Now, a point I do find interesting is this one:

Spencer: For centuries, when the Ottoman Empire was thriving, the Crusades were not a preoccupation of the Islamic world. They were, after all, failures from a Western standpoint.

However, with the decline of the military power and unity of the Islamic world, and the concomitant rise of the West, they have become a focal point of Muslim resentment of perceived Western encroachment and exploitation.

I have heard that it was the recent return of the Crusades lore and history to the Europeans in the 1800s which caused the Middle east to become inflamed by it, but I am not sure.

[Ummon]

It's an infamous mistake to try and make particular groups of the past into the clear cut good guys or bad guys.

I'd like to see a view which does not hold a bias against Islam (The author displays this in his book), if only to compare the two facts. I'm sure he didn't falsfiy his facts, but omitting particular ones can be a very important asset.

For example, he failed to note the slaughter of Muslim prisoners by Richard the Lionheart (Which, by all means, was a perfectly acceptable move)

Which though happens later on.

There are also inconsistencies with the paper. One moment, he's trying to give leverage for the actions of the Crusaders in their slaughter of the citizens of Jerusalem, the next?

"In 1148, Muslim commander Nur ed-Din did not hesitate to order the killing of every Christian in Aleppo. In 1268, when the jihad forces of the Mamluk Sultan Baybars took Antioch from the Crusaders, Baybars was annoyed to find that the Crusader ruler had already left the city -- so he wrote to him bragging of his massacres of Christians."

Most notorious of all may be the jihadists' entry into Constantinople on May 29, 1453, when they, according to historian Steven Runciman, "slew everyone that they met in the streets, men, women and children without discrimination." - There is no sense of explaining why they did this, or mentioning that it may have been the result of a long and difficult siege which caused them to act in the same way the Crusaderd did to Jerusalem. The omission of that fact gives readers the view that the Muslims simply butchered everyone for the sake of butchering them.

They slaughtered even those who took refuge inside Hagia Sophia, and were praying to God for their safety.

I also am willing to believe that there are cases of Christians being cruel to Muslims in their rule (The inquisition?) just as he cites the examples of the Seljuk Turks being horrible to the Christians udner their dominion.

The only case where inquisition was used against muslims was in Spain, far after the crusades, and somewhat after the reconquista.

I'm not saying the Crusaders were any more violent or 'evil' than the other armies of the times (In fact, the only group I am inclined to grant a label of evil would be the Mongols, and perhaps the Seljuk Turks...I don't know enough about them), but trying to lionize them as he did was not really advisable.

Islam has been spread througn ruthless campaigns of conquest. This is a fact.

Now, a point I do find interesting is this one:

Spencer: For centuries, when the Ottoman Empire was thriving, the Crusades were not a preoccupation of the Islamic world. They were, after all, failures from a Western standpoint.

However, with the decline of the military power and unity of the Islamic world, and the concomitant rise of the West, they have become a focal point of Muslim resentment of perceived Western encroachment and exploitation.

I have heard that it was the recent return of the Crusades lore and history to the Europeans in the 1800s which caused the Middle east to become inflamed by it, but I am not sure.

Today we are getting used only to see the mote in our eye, and not the wooden palace in that of our brothers. :wink:

[Ahiga]

Originally Posted by Ahiga

It's an infamous mistake to try and make particular groups of the past into the clear cut good guys or bad guys.

I'd like to see a view which does not hold a bias against Islam (The author displays this in his book), if only to compare the two facts. I'm sure he didn't falsfiy his facts, but omitting particular ones can be a very important asset.

For example, he failed to note the slaughter of Muslim prisoners by Richard the Lionheart (Which, by all means, was a perfectly acceptable move)

Which though happens later on.

- If it happens later on than the timeline covered by the Document, I am afraid i don't understand, since he does touch upon the Ottoman turks and the fall of Byzantium (At least, I think that's what he means by jihadists entering Constantinople)

They slaughtered even those wo took refuge inside Hagia Sophia, and were praying to God for their safety.

- Ironically, the bloodthirsty Alexander didn't kill those in the temple of Zeus..or Hercules, I forget which, after the fustrating siege of Tyre. That's offtopic, but could go to show that's the matter of how well the leader controls his soldiers and the personal moralities of the individual who is conquering. In the hands of Richard the Lionheart or some ideal Crusader, Jerusalem might have fallen a lot less bloodily when it did in the First crusades, just like another Muslim general might have been more pleasant to the conquered christians. It's a bad trait of the conqueror, not necessarily the force behind them, I think.

The only case where inquisition was used against muslims was in Spain, far after the crusades, and somewhat after the reconquista.

- I don't know if Muslims still feel sour about that, but if it was not about the crusades, it was to point out that both religions have had their black marks regarding how they treat the other.

Islam has been spread througn ruthless campaigns of conquest. This is a fact.

- As is the fact that much of the conversions in South and Latin America were through conquest and forced conversion (Though, I know there are lots of cases of Missions and semi-free conversion of the natives up in Northern Mexcio/Texas.), which is how they became Devout Catholics today.

Today we are getting used only to see the mote in our eye, and not the wooden palace in that of our brothers.

- Don't really understand that. can you elaborate?

I realize I veered off the topic of the crusades, but I feel that the author had as well, as he makes points towards Constantinople's fall and the Ottomans, so we can help bring in fact which persist to the way the two major religions have interacted with one another.

[AngryTitusPullo]

Islam has been spread througn ruthless campaigns of conquest. This is a fact.

A fact which no more, no less the same with the 'christianing' of the Philipines which historically (as of pre-1500) were a Malay / Muslim nation or the force conversion of the Portugeese in Malacca after 1511 or during the Dutch occupation of the Indos.

Maybe I'm not much of a history student, but I don't remember reading about a 'peaceful' new world colonization in the Americas.

Hmm.. maybe diferent issues, but I guess those theings are doneby 'europeans' , not christians I guess so it's a seperate issue right ?

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

It's an infamous mistake to try and make particular groups of the past into the clear cut good guys or bad guys.

Very true. Which is why it irks me when the Crusades are routinely trotted out as being 'bad' by Twenty-First Century standards. Where is the sense in judging Eleventh and Twelfth Century people (Christian or Muslim) by our current standards?

I'd like to see a view which does not hold a bias against Islam (The author displays this in his book), if only to compare the two facts. I'm sure he didn't falsfiy his facts, but omitting particular ones can be a very important asset.

I definitely have no bias against Islam (as Ummon can attest ) but I found nothing in the article that was unfair or incorrect.

There were a couple of myths and misconceptions about the Crusades that he left out - eg the idea that they were fought by second sons in search of land (they weren't) and that they were actually all about plunder and money (they routinely bankrupted their participants and were known to be vastly expensive by all who, despite this, still embarked on them).

I also am willing to believe that there are cases of Christians being cruel to Muslims in their rule (The inquisition?) just as he cites the examples of the Seljuk Turks being horrible to the Christians udner their dominion.

The Inquistion played no role in the Crusades. In fact, it was only formally instituted as a process in 1215 - ie towards the end of the Crusading period proper. Evidence from Muslim sources indicates that the local subjects of the Crusader Kingdoms actually preferred their Christian rulers to their former Muslim ones. The Europeans granted them similar rights and protections given to peasants in Europe, which compared favourably to their former situation.

I have heard that it was the recent return of the Crusades lore and history to the Europeans in the 1800s which caused the Middle east to become inflamed by it, but I am not sure.

That is very true. The preoccupation of some modern Muslims with the Crusades is actually based squarely on a Nineteenth Century European perception of those wars - one which saw the Crusaders as 'civilizing' Nineteenth Century colonialists bring goodness, order, hot tea and cucumber sandwiches to the benighted fuzzy-wuzzies of the Levant. That was a (largely British and French) view of the Crusades the Arab world picked up very recently.

The idea that the Crusades 'started' the current conflict between the Arabic and Islamic worlds and the West is wrong on two counts. Firstly, as the article makes clear, the Crusades weren't the 'start' of anything - they were a continuation and a reaction. Secondly, the Crusades were a non-issue in the Arab/Islamic world until extremely recent times.

[Ahiga]

I hate how this quoting system has me see your replies but not what you reply to.

Very true. Which is why it irks me when the Crusades are routinely trotted out as being 'bad' by Twenty-First Century standards. Where is the sense in judging Eleventh and Twelfth Century people (Christian or Muslim) by our current standards?

- This is sadly a trait of all history, where we can only consider (And this is a stretch) judging the very recent years of a global community by our standards of today. I'd draw the line at 1800. You can certainly criticise the actions of the past, but constantly holding them to standards which were nonexistant in the time period is really irritating.

The crusaders and muslims did great and evil things. There were heros and villians on either side, and both seemed to have a noble purpose at heart, though there were obviously discrepencies, with some wanting loot, power, wealth, glory, ectera. Thats why I primarily disagree with the paper. It gives too much credit to the Crusaders and tries to balance out the view of the Crusades, but ends up tipping it away from the PC view that the Muslims were victims, and instead makes it out to be too much a fantasy black and white affair.

I definitely have no bias against Islam (as Ummon can attest ) but I found nothing in the article that was unfair or incorrect.

- Like I said, I dont think the author would have actually falsfied facts, but he did seem to omit certain ones which changed the flavor of the paper. Such as giving a reasoning behind the Crusaders butchering of Jerusalem, yet lacking even a mentioning of the same situation for the Muslim Slaughtering in Constantinople (did that even occur? Did they do a massive slaughter of Constantinoples citizens once it was conquered?), or at Aleppo. He goes at a great length to give some reasoning behind the Crusaders actions (Though saying it does not excuse it), but fails to give that to the Islamic comparisons he drew. The christians were doing what everyone did back then, the Muslims were just savages who liked to kill people. That's the point I drew him making in that section of the paper (From the Crusaders taking jersualem to Ottomans conquering Constantinople)

There were a couple of myths and misconceptions about the Crusades that he left out - eg the idea that they were fought by second sons in search of land (they weren't) and that they were actually all about plunder and money (they routinely bankrupted their participants and were known to be vastly expensive by all who, despite this, still embarked on them).

- Probably the group that sticks out in my mind as being more financially driven are the merchants (Venice, at least, seemed to seek to always keep trade open no matter what) and maybe the Greek Emperors...but the reading I had was incredibly biased towards the Crusaders, and against the Greeks and Saracens.

The Inquistion played no role in the Crusades. In fact, it was only formally instituted as a process in 1215 - ie towards the end of the Crusading period proper. Evidence from Muslim sources indicates that the local subjects of the Crusader Kingdoms actually preferred their Christian rulers to their former Muslim ones. The Europeans granted them similar rights and protections given to peasants in Europe, which compared favourably to their former situation.

- I did not say they were connected, but probably left the insinuation that I meant that. What I was trying to do is to point out that both religions have had a bad track record in affairs with one another. Just as the Seljuk Turks had some really heineous actions towards the christians in the Near east, the Christians had some heineous acts towards the jews and muslims in Spain. Trying to defeat the ideal that either group was correct or incorrect, or good or evil, which is what I feel the paper seems to do. It gives Crusaders the benefit of the doubt, and does not to Muslims (even though both groups were seemingly fighting for their holy land)

And quite frankly, we've witnessed the locals frequently be happy under their newfound rulers. First the Christians of the East were happier under the Muslims than the greeks. Then they were happier under the Christians than the Muslims, and you had greeks who preferred to be under the Crusaders, or who preferred to be under the greeks, or who preferred to be under the muslims.

It's too unreliable for me to put a lot of trust into it.

That is very true. The preoccupation of some modern Muslims with the Crusades is actually based squarely on a Nineteenth Century European perception of those wars - one which saw the Crusaders as 'civilizing' Nineteenth Century colonialists bring goodness, order, hot tea and cucumber sandwiches to the benighted fuzzy-wuzzies of the Levant. That was a (largely British and French) view of the Crusades the Arab world picked up very recently.

Silly British-French.

The idea that the Crusades 'started' the current conflict between the Arabic and Islamic worlds and the West is wrong on two counts. Firstly, as the article makes clear, the Crusades weren't the 'start' of anything - they were a continuation and a reaction. Secondly, the Crusades were a non-issue in the Arab/Islamic world until extremely recent times.

Seems like I can agree with that. It's used by the Muslims in a modern context, but it's just like the romans saying they were founded by Aeneas of troy, and were striking poetic vengeance upon the greeks, or the persians having a hatred of the greeks for what Alexander did. In short, just not valid.

[Ummon]

- Like I said, I dont think the author would have actually falsfied facts, but he did seem to omit certain ones which changed the flavor of the paper. Such as giving a reasoning behind the Crusaders butchering of Jerusalem, yet lacking even a mentioning of the same situation for the Muslim Slaughtering in Constantinople (did that even occur? Did they do a massive slaughter of Constantinoples citizens once it was conquered?), or at Aleppo. He goes at a great length to give some reasoning behind the Crusaders actions (Though saying it does not excuse it), but fails to give that to the Islamic comparisons he drew. The christians were doing what everyone did back then, the Muslims were just savages who liked to kill people. That's the point I drew him making in that section of the paper (From the Crusaders taking jersualem to Ottomans conquering Constantinople)

There was no defensive reason for the first long Jihad which conquered Northern Africa, Asia Minor, and Spain. It was an offensive war.

- Probably the group that sticks out in my mind as being more financially driven are the merchants (Venice, at least, seemed to seek to always keep trade open no matter what) and maybe the Greek Emperors...but the reading I had was incredibly biased towards the Crusaders, and against the Greeks and Saracens.

False until later on.

- I did not say they were connected, but probably left the insinuation that I meant that. What I was trying to do is to point out that both religions have had a bad track record in affairs with one another. Just as the Seljuk Turks had some really heineous actions towards the christians in the Near east, the Christians had some heineous acts towards the jews and muslims in Spain. Trying to defeat the ideal that either group was correct or incorrect, or good or evil, which is what I feel the paper seems to do. It gives Crusaders the benefit of the doubt, and does not to Muslims (even though both groups were seemingly fighting for their holy land)

I have to say, this comment is very biased in favour of Islam. Equiparating one millennium of continuous pressure of muslims to conquer Europe, a millennium which started immediately with the history of Islam, with a counterattack based on countless offenses, is biased just as you are trying to avoid.

And quite frankly, we've witnessed the locals frequently be happy under their newfound rulers. First the Christians of the East were happier under the Muslims than the greeks. Then they were happier under the Christians than the Muslims, and you had greeks who preferred to be under the Crusaders, or who preferred to be under the greeks, or who preferred to be under the muslims.

It's too unreliable for me to put a lot of trust into it.

So happier than none of them remains, except in Lebanon and Egypt. They all converted because of the greatness of Islam, of course.

- Don't really understand that. can you elaborate?

I realize I veered off the topic of the crusades, but I feel that the author had as well, as he makes points towards Constantinople's fall and the Ottomans, so we can help bring in fact which persist to the way the two major religions have interacted with one another.

It is merely a tendency of today's westerners to underestimate the faults of their enemies/opponents, and overestimate theirs.

[Ummon]

New world colonization hasn't obliterated the natives, at least, in many cases. And it hasn't obliterated them to the extent, that they now are retaking their countries from the european minorities most of the times.

The destruction of many populations in South America was in great part due to European infections, which at the time, weren't intentinally spread amongst the natives (as happened with North American colonization later on).

The "lay" African colonization, interesting to say, proved much worse in much less time, then the "christian" colonization of America.

On the other hand, wherever Islam has gone in Africa and great part of Asia, the natives have essentially become Arabs, with two borders: Persia and Morocco.

[Ahiga]

New world colonization hasn't obliterated the natives, at least, in many cases. And it hasn't obliterated them to the extent, that they now are retaking their countries from the european minorities most of the times.

The destruction of many populations in South America was in great part due to European infections, which at the time, weren't intentinally spread amongst the natives (as happened with North American colonization later on).

The "lay" African colonization, interesting to say, proved much worse in much less time, then the "christian" colonization of America.

On the other hand, wherever Islam has gone in Africa and great part of Asia, the natives have essentially become Arabs, with two borders: Persia and Morocco.

Actually, I think this is an incorrect point of view of the west. We consider any Muslim Arab. I do not think that a North African in Tunusia, a Moroccan or turk considers themselves arab. It's us who grant that term to the whole of the middle east, which would be like them insinuating that all of europe was italian (Because they effectively 'spread' Christianity).

I have to say, this comment is very biased in favour of Islam. Equiparating one millennium of continuous pressure of muslims to conquer Europe, a millennium which started immediately with the history of Islam, with a counterattack based on countless offenses, is biased just as you are trying to avoid.

Ummon, that was not Islam so much as Kings and Sultans and Emperors, wanting to do what the Normans did to the Anglo-Saxons, or Chalemange wished to do with his neighbors. Conquer. Gain power. Gain Territory. Islam was not conquering the way you claim it to, which is effectively ANY conquest by Muslims meaning it was a Religious conquest. This is the bias I mean to be trying to combat - You are giving us the view that all the crusades were a 'defensive' war (Only the byzantines could truly have some level of credit to that statement. The reconquista, now that was a defensive war for the christians.), the christians never having had done just about anything wrong, and disregarding their own actions of forced conversion. While you do this, you give us the view that any conquest of Islam in history, whether it was by the Caliph successors to Muhammad, or the Seljuk Turks who had no such link to Muhammad, as being something the collective religion is at fault for, and being an invasion or conquest which sought to spread Islam. There was no central figurehead in the Muslim world who would have orchestrated his faith the way the Pope could have/had done. You need to get it through your head that a Muslim Ruler could invade, and not have it be propelled by his religion. All manner of Empire and faith have conquered and done so for political, military, or economic reasons - Not religious. I've made points towards the Christian conversion of the New world, but you notice I don't (I hope) say it was a Christian Crusade of the New world. It was the nations of Europe seeking to gain more material and political wealth, bringing along the religion which was so fundemental to them. What are the differences between the Caliph (NOT ISLAMIC) conquests of the Middle east and North Africa, and the European (Not christian!) conquests of the new world? In what I know, the Europeans forced christianity on at least the Aztecs. Did the Muslims do this to anyone, when they first conquered all that land? I have heard that they were tolerant of anyones faith, so long as they were not atheist, or of a non-Levant (Jew, Christian, muslim) religion. So while they were not the tolerance of the West Today, it may have been far more tolerant than the Spanish conquistadors of the Aztecs.

If you believe me to be biased, then you sir are just as much. I'm trying to look at this with a tolerance towards Islam, and your trying to look at this with a tolerance for Christianity.

So happier than none of them remains, except in Lebanon and Egypt. They all converted because of the greatness of Islam, of course.

Kinda like how all those natives were converted for the 'greatness' of christianity? :wink: Don't dare tell me they were wholly willing in their conversion. That's actually something Muslim's did not do in the heyday of their spread - Force people to convert. Did the Christians do that in the New world?

It is merely a tendency of today's westerners to underestimate the faults of their enemies/opponents, and overestimate theirs

- A fault of Political correctness. But look at it this way - There seems to be only two schools of thought in this - Underestimate their own people's sins and overestimate their enemies on a vast level, or do it vice versa. I wish we could reach a balance of them, but you seem to be doing nothing but providing a polar opposite of that, giving all the good to your own people and giving all the blame to another.

[Ummon]

Actually, I think this is an incorrect point of view of the west. We consider any Muslim Arab. I do not think that a North African in Tunusia, a Moroccan or turk considers themselves arab. It's us who grant that term to the whole of the middle east, which would be like them insinuating that all of europe was italian (Because they effectively 'spread' Christianity).

Now, this is a huge misconception. Tunisians and Moroccans are Arabs. With a Berber minority. Before Berbers were the majority, but they were exterminated because they resisted invasion.

Ummon, that was not Islam so much as Kings and Sultans and Emperors, wanting to do what the Normans did to the Anglo-Saxons, or Chalemange wished to do with his neighbors. Conquer. Gain power. Gain Territory. Islam was not conquering the way you claim it to, which is effectively ANY conquest by Muslims meaning it was a Religious conquest. This is the bias I mean to be trying to combat - You are giving us the view that all the crusades were a 'defensive' war (Only the byzantines could truly have some level of credit to that statement. The reconquista, now that was a defensive war for the christians.), the christians never having had done just about anything wrong, and disregarding their own actions of forced conversion. While you do this, you give us the view that any conquest of Islam in history, whether it was by the Caliph successors to Muhammad, or the Seljuk Turks who had no such link to Muhammad, as being something the collective religion is at fault for, and being an invasion or conquest which sought to spread Islam. There was no central figurehead in the Muslim world who would have orchestrated his faith the way the Pope could have/had done. You need to get it through your head that a Muslim Ruler could invade, and not have it be propelled by his religion. All manner of Empire and faith have conquered and done so for political, military, or economic reasons - Not religious. I've made points towards the Christian conversion of the New world, but you notice I don't (I hope) say it was a Christian Crusade of the New world. It was the nations of Europe seeking to gain more material and political wealth, bringing along the religion which was so fundemental to them. What are the differences between the Caliph (NOT ISLAMIC) conquests of the Middle east and North Africa, and the European (Not christian!) conquests of the new world? In what I know, the Europeans forced christianity on at least the Aztecs. Did the Muslims do this to anyone, when they first conquered all that land? I have heard that they were tolerant of anyones faith, so long as they were not atheist, or of a non-Levant (Jew, Christian, muslim) religion. So while they were not the tolerance of the West Today, it may have been far more tolerant than the Spanish conquistadors of the Aztecs.

Bad, bad boy. Caliphs are religious authorities as well. Besides, any political authority in Islam, is infact heavily intermingled with religion. Right itself in Islam, is religious. Overall, I fear, a long series of convoluted misconceptions. You don't say Christian crusade in the new world, because it wasn't a crusade, while the conquests of Islam were Jihad, called by religious authorities with political goals.

If you believe me to be biased, then you sir are just as much. I'm trying to look at this with a tolerance towards Islam, and your trying to look at this with a tolerance for Christianity.

Yes, after this post, I can say that you are most clearly biased.

Kinda like how all those natives were converted for the 'greatness' of christianity? :wink: Don't dare tell me they were wholly willing in their conversion. That's actually something Muslim's did not do in the heyday of their spread - Force people to convert. Did the Christians do that in the New world?

Christians did that in the new world, but as I was saying did not obliterate the cultural/ethic identity if the natives. Infact, the Virgin of Guadalupe, is a native woman. Natives retain many of their ceremonies and customs. This isn't true for Islamic conquests, all imperniated whenever possible on a relevant amount of Arab chauvinism and racism. It suffices that you consider Malcolm X's witness of his pilgrimage to Mecca. He was a black muslim, and this meant that he wasn't treated well by his co-religionaries.

- A fault of Political correctness. But look at it this way - There seems to be only two schools of thought in this - Underestimate their own people's sins and overestimate their enemies on a vast level, or do it vice versa. I wish we could reach a balance of them, but you seem to be doing nothing but providing a polar opposite of that, giving all the good to your own people and giving all the blame to another.

Balance when reached will surely be based on data of somewhat greater precision than the ones you provided.

[Ahiga]

Now, this is a huge misconception. Tunisians and Moroccans are Arabs. With a Berber minority. Before Berbers were the majority, but they were exterminated because they resisted invasion.

I'm afraid I'm going to be unwilling to take your word on it until I see some facts to back it up. I've never heard of that (even reading pro-crusader/christian literature), and find it doubtful at best. They would have been Christians under the Roman empire, and been given the same tolerance that other "Book" peoples were. Literature, especially western ones, would have made it a point to make the fact that they were so exterminated by the invaders.

Also, a large percentage of the invading Muslims to Spain were evidently made up of Moors, Berbers, and the natives of North Africa, I believe.

Bad, bad boy. Caliphs are religious authorities as well. Besides, any political authority in Islam, is infact heavily intermingled with religion. Right itself in Islam, is religious. Overall, I fear, a long series of convoluted misconceptions. You don't say Christian crusade in the new world, because it wasn't a crusade, while the conquests of Islam were Jihad, called by religious authorities with political goals.

Which means that so long as we are talking about the Abbassid and Umayyad caliphates and kingdoms. That discludes the Seljuk turks, the Ottoman turks, and others who were not the religious as well as political successors of Muhammad. The points of the Author regarding the jihadist's enterance to Constantinople is thusly invalid, as is the action against Christians by the Seljuks (Which I am told was the chief aggressor. What I had heard was that the original inhabitants of the Middle East were the more favorable rulers, and it was in the arrival of the warlike Seljuks which caused a spark in the region). That might encompass the conquests following Muhammads death.

Jihad seems to have a wide variation of the term. I do admit that having read in a search online thus far, it does seem to primarily carry the meaning of conquest. But I would prefer to see its context of having been used by the first and largest conquests of the caliphs following Muhammads death - Whether they had the term Jihad attached to them by the Caliphs, or whether it was just the desire to go out and rule, as the Persians, Greeks, Spanish, ect. did.

Yes, after this post, I can say that you are most clearly biased.

I think I can say you are biased as well. You seem to be willing to give little to no ground in the arguement, unwilling to have any consessions made. That's not being 'right', that's just being stubborn on your point. In arguements like this, its near impossible for one side to be right and the other to be wrong unless its dealing with the most absolute of facts which can be disproven or proven at ease. A lot of this is interptiation and opinion, something you are unwilling to sway from your own on at all. Clearly, you would be calling me even more biased if I was acting the way you have, yet you will do your best to dismiss my claims that you are indeed biased too.

Christians did that in the new world, but as I was saying did not obliterate the cultural/ethic identity if the natives. Infact, the Virgin of Guadalupe, is a native woman. Natives retain many of their ceremonies and customs. This isn't true for Islamic conquests, all imperniated whenever possible on a relevant amount of Arab chauvinism and racism. It suffices that you consider Malcolm X's witness of his pilgrimage to Mecca. He was a black muslim, and this meant that he wasn't treated well by his co-religionaries.

Is that so? I had heard in the topic here, that he was shocked to see the teachings of his Radical group be wrong, and that all muslims were allowed to pray. It may very well have to do with the fact that he belonged to a group who preached a completely perverse view of Islam *Or that he was American* (As was pointed out in the topic regarding Malcom X), rather than something as trivial as skin color. Are we going to try and give them the sin of racism, as well as the sin of religious intolerance? Can you post a Witness of what happened in Mecca which makes it seem as though he was mistreated because of his skin color?

Balance when reached will surely be based on data of somewhat greater precision than the ones you provided.

BAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! :laughing:

Oh good lord. If I am incorrect in my Data, what the hell makes you so correct? When people post accurate sources and actual substance in their arguements, I'm willing to back down. What are you doing, except stating facts and opinions you developed on your own? What makes your proof all the more honest and mine all the more wrong, when neither of us are providing substance to support our arguements and claims? Please don't be arrogant and say "The data I provided was more percise than yours because I stated it, and I know it's true." That's what would goad me more than anything. I'm willing to bend my stance on things, but you seem as immobile as steel.

Until both of us start tossing up reliable sources, this is an arguement of opinions with truthful revelance, but not assured truth. I am not the greatest of experts in this subject, so if you have the jaws to back up the bark you've bellowed, you're a shoe in for victory.

Either the information you provide is going to shut me up, or the absence of it will emphasis that neither of us can really provide the materials or the statements to make the other join our side. Kind of a stalemate.

[Rosacrux redux]

It is a good thing to try and get rid of common misconceptions, but it is an even worst thing to replace those with other, even more deceptive, misconceptions. It would be nice to find a common ground and not drive this to the extremes.

A poster before has presented the revisionist opinion of such historians as J. R. Smith, J. Bull and others who are bringing 21st century historiography back to the 18th century over-romanticized fairy tales about "noble knights" and "pious christians" and the rest of the unhistorical drivel that has put much stress upon serious historical research. In the past two centuries the trend has been reversed and critical interpretation of history departed from the naive, black-vs-white, romantic views and has entered a more serious approach, which takes great pains to show the relevance of the material base of the historical procedures.

Under that light, great historians, such as S. Runciman, have produced a definite history of certain time periods - in our case the crusades. Runciman's history is the culmination of 2 centuries of transformation of the historical analysis and has brought critical interpretation to a new level.

What we have now, though, is a new "school of thought" pertaining the crusades. Mr. Riley Smith and his followers are totaly completely and utterly neglecting the material base of the crusades, are claiming unfounded opinions to be gospel and render the history of the crusades - once more - into an over-romanticized drama, with religious and psychological factors overshadowing everything else.

Recently I have started research into the Crusades (I am writing a couple monographs, the one about the Templars and the other about the first crusade) and I begun reading several booiks. Some of those:
- Steven Runciman, A history of the Crusades, vol. I-III, Cambridge 1987.
- John France, Victory in the East: A Military History of the First Crusade, Cambridge University Press, 1994
- Jonathan Riley-Smith (editor) The Oxford History of the Crusades, Oxford 2002
- Jonathan Riley-Smith, The First Crusaders 1095-1131, Cambridge 1998

I had already read Runciman's work, but I done a quick rerun on the points I considered of value for my research, but focused mostly on J. R-S, the one considered the new "star" in medieval historiography. Boy was I in for some dissapointment...

In the oxford history of the crusades, particularly, there is not the slightest reference to social pressure, living conditions, financial hardships, overextension of the fief-less milites class and all the other factors that have contributed greatly to the "crusading spirit" of those 150-200.000 people taking part in the first crusade (both "people's" and "princes'" crusades). The chapter on origins (by a certain mr. Bull, fully complying to mr. Smith's way o thinking) has only religious references!!! It does not even touch the subject of land grab and creation of new establishments (which was the sole motive behind for instance the Buillogn bros or, even more obvious, Bohemund and Tancred) and focuses solely on the religious and psychological motivation!!! It just considers that a handfull of well-established lords (like Raymond, Baldwin, Godefrid, the french and english king's brothers, Stephen of Blois and a few others) suffice to justify their outrageous claim that the bulk of the crusaders were not relatively poor, fief-less secondborn childs of feudal lords, but well-established and rich lords who endeavoured for the love of god, piety and the destruction of infidels... Despite the fact that those people were precisely those who managed to set up the outremer kingdoms (so their motivation should be clear to all but the blinded), they were only a dozen among numerous thousands! What about the rest of the 7.000 milites that took part in the crusade? were they all well-established, rich guys who spend their fortune on crusading? or is this just utter bull?

I have to say I find their work of minimal historical value and once more I should point out that revisionism for the sake of revisionism is a really silly conduct.

[Ummon]

Runciman may be the stupidest historian on earth, but was the fact Spencer refers to false? Because indeed, this is the only item relevant to the discussion at hand.

[Rosacrux redux]

Ah, and a couple of points about the article: It's totaly, completely and utterly biased in favor of the christians. such articles can surface nowadays only because of the renewed crusader spirit set forth by the morons-in-charge residing in Washington DC (the famous chickenhawks gang) and have nothing to do with recent problematic.

The crusades were not "a reaction", they were proactive expeditions, and evolved over time into an early imperialism of sorts. The Greek Byzantium was definitely not a part of "the West" at this point of time (and wouldn't be for another 10 centuries) so it's rather naive to attribute the crusading spirit to some sorts of wish to "aid the christian brothers of the east". The Greeks were considered schismatic heretics, only a tad above the real "infidels" and even Urban understood that. It's rather obvious, because in Urban's speech in Clermont (depending on which version we choose as "valid") the references to the Byzantines are plenty, while the subsequent preachings throughout the western christiendom, those references have completely dissapeared and replaced with plentifull stuff about the "honey and milk" that "poors in the promised land", about "beggars and villains becoming knights" in the holy land and similar more concrete motivation than nebulous calls for aid to some "Greeks". The Jihad did not aim at "the West" at any point of time, the only time Muslims entered french soil was in the 8th century when Charles Martel repelled a large raiding party. And a bit after that, the ongoing reconquista didn't allow for any threat (real or perceived) to reach the west, while the Greeks in the east guarded the eastern entrance to europe. So, how were the crusades a "reaction"? I mean, the "West" has destroyed Byzantium a tad later (ironically: by a "crusade" too, and a quite promising one, maybe the strongest after the first crusade) how does that coincide with "a West" that is trying to protect Byzantium from the Turks?

Another thing the author does certainly not take into account - and by this is trying to mislead the readers - is the impact of the crusades to the muslim world. Truth is that the numerous slaughters (only the first crusade massacred the population of Antioch - mostly the muslims - several towns and villages and Jerusalem - everybody, Muslim, Jew or Christian) have had a tremendous impact on the way of thinking of the muslims and the crusades, along with the Mongol threat from the East, contributed a great deal in the rendering of Islam from a worldly, progressive, open society, it was until that point, to the secretive, introvert, closed and backwards social establishment we know and (not quite) love.

Runciman may be the stupidest historian on earth, but was the fact Spencer refers to false? Because indeed, this is the only item relevant to the discussion at hand.

I consider my whole post "relevant to the discussion", because it shows the "new crusading spirit" evolving in the west and the "new" (in reality: just the 17th century historiography rehashed) historiography that supports that view. And I am not even the first to bring up those points, Thiu (of course from the opposite angle) did so a couple posts upwards.

[Ummon]

I was again, under the impression that reference was made towards those incidents with Pilgrims and Catholic communities in the "Holy Land" and not mainly the Byzanthines.

The part about the impact on the Muslim world surely is deserving of attention. But I have this impression that in truth, this is unrelated and somewhat biased.

Infact, muslim society was cosmopolitan for the time, comparatively, and in some fashion advanced, but not any marvel of peace and prosperity. Quite the opposite, an aggressive conquering empire.

I seem to recollect as well, that the first clashes with the Mongols, were caused by the arrogance and violence of muslims, in particular one Sultan (of Samarkhand?) who managed to kill Gengis Khan's ambassadors twice, unprovoked. Not a healthy habit, that proved to be.

[Richard the Lionheart]

I seem to recollect as well, that the first clashes with the Mongols, were caused by the arrogance and violence of muslims, in particular one Sultan (of Samarkhand?) who managed to kill Gengis Khan's ambassadors twice, unprovoked. Not a healthy habit, that proved to be.

Yeah, but Genghis Khan was far worse.

[Ummon]

Indeed he was, but not to that particular Sultan, before his ambassadors were killed.

[Rosacrux redux]

I did not state that Islam was "peaceful" or whatever, I stated that it was "worldly, progressive and open". The one does not rule out the other. One ad hominem and one strawman (neglecting the second about the Mongols) in a single post...

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

play nicely please - lotsa posts removed as spam and some remaining posts edited. Tac