Were the Christians the Bad Guys During the Crusades?

[Sadreddine]

For those of you complaining about Muslim "Jihad" at present, and claiming that Christianity has become sensible whilst Islam is still stuck in the 11th century, I would point out - America.
You can't call their evangelical preachers "sensible". Pat Robertson declared that Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans because openly lesbian comedienne Ellen DeGeneres lived there. She was out of town when the stormfront hit. If he's right, his God might want to aim better in future.
Moving on to Palestine,
The Qu'ran forbids the killing of women and children as part of a military campaign. It also forbids suicide. Utterly. The is no get-out clause like in Christianity for "martyrs" like Samson. The oft-quoted paradisical rewards for those who die in the faith is for the pious, not the martyred
The Islam of the suicide bombers is not Islam. Shi'ah and Wahabi Islam has been declared Kufir (pagan/heretical) by the learned law schools of Islam. The Islam of the suicide bombers comes from extrinsic readings of the Qu'ran by lay members, with no conception of the background behind the words. The sayings and doings of the Prophet (pbuh) must be taken into account when reading the Qu'ran. Come to that, whole verses and Suras must be taken into account, not single lines. (Yes, I do know that some verses in the later Suras are only a line long).
All those of you living in knowledgeable ignorance (choosing not to know when one can easily know, rather relying solely on the hearsay of others) should perhaps research more thoroughly. Note however, that I am not Muslim, nor am I condoning the actions of suicide bombers. I am not saying that Christianity was entirely in the wrong, nor that the Muslims were blameless. Just pointing out that true Islam is a far more enlightened religion and method of state than any found in the West until the 20th Century. True Islam, mark you, not the offshoots that get Muslims so much bad press in the Western media

Elohim

Sorry if I sound preachy. I'm often having to take to the soapbox on campus over various matters - seems to have insinuated itself a bit more than is healthy.

I see much wisdom and careful reasoning here. Congratulations.

I also agree with the stated above by previous posters that Christians were undoubtely the "bad guys" if only by the methods. Anyone who is reasonabily learned -and with an objective and not tainted view- nowadays about the Crusades agrees on this conclusion.

[Atterdag]

No,but I saw a book recently about Swedes crusading to Finland and later ...you understand.PS I'd recomend to check on game Crusader Kings you can see all counties in Northen Europe unfortunately you can not play on pagans I wonder if it possible to mod this feature

Both the Danes, Norwegians and Swedes went on crusade. To the Baltic and to the Holy Land.

[edmont]

I regret my former joking the North European pagans were really good guys .I mean it.Better then those freaky maniacs(inkuisitors) who tortured and burned 10 millions people to death for great reasons like being alone women with husbands lost in wars and getting themselves a cat or dog as substitute for love-because Christian society would not have place and love for them.Naturaly it was just a way to instill fear in people to ensure their tax-paying.Think that Christian religion which begun as religion of Humanism got so corrupted...Thank God for Luther!

[edmont]

All Norse could crusade with so many attractive lands on Baltic...

[Freddie]

Were the Christians and bad guys and the Muslims the good guys during the Crusades? The reason why I am asking this is the way that the Crusaders were protrayed in movies about the Crusades, such as the Kingdom of Heaven.

Bah Hollywood, the people that live their live on different planet to everybody else.

I wouldn't pay much attention to how Hollywood portrays the crusades; in most historically epics the facts of what actually happened are seen as guidance notes and not script material.

For those of you complaining about Muslim "Jihad" at present, and claiming that Christianity has become sensible whilst Islam is still stuck in the 11th century, I would point out - America.

Where has anybody here in this thread said that Islam is stuck in the 11th century? Or has it been implied? If so where has been implied. I don’t mind you making the comment but I only ask you to qualify it because I’ve read this hold thread and can’t see any post that has implied such a thing.

[edmont]

They should all die instead of surrender(but I guess it more 'bout movie)

[Atterdag]

All Norse could crusade with so many attractive lands on Baltic...

Or because the Balts raided their homelands.

[edmont]

Or because the Balts raided their homelands.

Hardly...You made me laugh.

[Atterdag]

The reason the first Danish crusades were targeted at Rügen was because the Vendic people there had raided the Danish lands.
They got subdued after Rügen had been conqoured a couple of times and then got baptised.

[edmont]

I see your point now,but I wrote from Stockholmare point of view

[Your Lame Sister]

The crusades had two purposes:
1) to defend byzantium from the turks.
2) to conquer the holy land.

The first objective was justified, because they were simply defending an ally against an agressor.the attack on the holy land was not, because the arabs did nothing to the french and german people, and the crusaders attacked them for immoral reasons, such as religion, money, racism and more.

[hellheaven1987]

the attack on the holy land was not, because the arabs did nothing to the french and german people

Well, I must say French and German did have some bad impression about Muslim before Crusade... Just think about who was the one stop the Great Islam Conquer in West Europe?

[Watchman]

I see your point now,but I wrote from Stockholmare point of view

Well, the Swedes conquered Finland partly to get the blasted pagans stop raiding their shipping and coasts. To the east the Novgorodians took over the Karelian ishtmus for much the same reason. And of course there were then troublesome pagans behind their new borders that had to be dealt with, and behind them... until the Swedes and Novgorodians eventually found themselves facing each other.

The crusade led by Frederick Barbarossa II I believed conquered the Holy Land without bloodshed which was done without consent with the pope.

Well, conquered and conquered. He just plain rented it (Jerusalem and some other holy places, that is). No military operations of any sort involved. And he was under excommunication at the time to boot.

Although if I recall correctly that particular Frederick was of the Sicilian fame. Sicily, having been under considerable Byzantine and Muslim influence for a long time, was rather aberrantly tolerant and open-minded as far as European kingdoms went.

[wilpuri]

I see your point now,but I wrote from Stockholmare point of view

Are you kidding? I thought one of the reasons for Stockholm's foundation was the sacking of Sigtuna by Baltic and Balto-Finnic pirates (Karelians, Estonians, may be Curonians).

[edmont]

Are you kidding? I thought one of the reasons for Stockholm's foundation was the sacking of Sigtuna by Baltic and Balto-Finnic pirates (Karelians, Estonians, may be Curonians).

Stockholm was founded by German merchants-get permisssion to build trading village(part of Hansa trade rout),Birka was destroyed by other Vikings...(I think but on forums some people have sometimes better information)

[wilpuri]

Stockholm was founded by German merchants-get permisssion to build trading village(part of Hansa trade rout),Birka was destroyed by other Vikings...(I think but on forums some people have sometimes better information)

My sources state thus:

The earliest mention of Stockholm in writing dates from 1252, when the mines in Bergslagen made it an important site in the iron trade. The first part of the name (stock) means log, while the second (holm) means islet, and refers to the islet Stadsholmen in central Stockholm which for centuries constituted the main part of Stockholm.

The city is said to have been founded by Birger Jarl in order to protect Sweden from a sea invasion by foreign navies, and to stop the pillage of towns such as Sigtuna on Lake Mälaren. It is also said that the name derives from the spot where a log (stock) pushed into the waters, and following its currents, drifted upon an islet (holm). This location would thus constitute the best location for a harbour for returning ships.

Sigtuna was founded on what was then the shore of Lake Mälaren about 1,000 years ago. It took its name from an ancient royal estate (see Uppsala öd) several kilometers to the west (see Fornsigtuna). Various sources claim King Eric the Victorious as founder while others claim King Olof Skötkonung.

It operated as a royal and commercial centre for some 250 years, and was one of the most important cities of Sweden.

...

In 1187 Sigtuna was attacked by Baltic-Finnish raiders from Karelia, Couronia or Estonia. Among the casualties of this raid was the Swedish archbishop Johannes. It remained occupied for some time. This contributed to the diminishing of its commercial importance in the 13th century, in favor of Uppsala, Visby, Kalmar and Stockholm.

(emphasis mine)

Raiding across the Baltic was two-way traffic.

[Rhone]

The crusades had no intention of protecting byzantium from the turks. While many of the crusading leaders were indeed pious christians, their main objective was to establish their own principalities in the east, and they used religious zeal as a means to an ends.

Most western christians were suspicious of the byzantines, and many hated them as much as they hated the islamic nations.

[hellheaven1987]

The crusades had no intention of protecting byzantium from the turks. While many of the crusading leaders were indeed pious christians, their main objective was to establish their own principalities in the east, and they used religious zeal as a means to an ends.

Most western christians were suspicious of the byzantines, and many hated them as much as they hated the islamic nations.

Yap, and I do not see why Catholic nations would help Byzantium without their own motive - even Catholic and Catholic nations would not stop against eachothers, why should they help other religion?

Hence, I must say Byzantium Emperors were not so clever - they should not ask Pope as surely Pope won't and couldn't ask mercenaries going to Byzantium - Christanity is not allowed to kill in any form.

[ren0312]

Yap, and I do not see why Catholic nations would help Byzantium without their own motive - even Catholic and Catholic nations would not stop against eachothers, why should they help other religion?

Hence, I must say Byzantium Emperors were not so clever - they should not ask Pope as surely Pope won't and couldn't ask mercenaries going to Byzantium - Christanity is not allowed to kill in any form.

Well I really do not see them having any other choice, since the Eastern Romans did not have enough men to fight the Muslims after the defeat in Manzikert, another related question is did the Eastern Romans have any chance of recovering Anatolia after their defeat in Manzikert, or was it basically a pipe dream, so the Eastern Romans should have been glad that they even got as far as the Battle of Myrocephalion, one thing that I am wondering was why the Eatern Romans were not able to conquer back the territories they lost to the Islamic invasion in the 7th century, the furthest that they got was with Basil II, and then they still were not able to recover the Levant, Egypt, and the North African caostline by the time he died, while the various Spanish kingdoms succeeded in their Reconquista effort.

[hellheaven1987]

Well I really do not see them having any other choice, since the Eastern Romans did not have enough men to fight the Muslims after the defeat in Manzikert, another related question is did the Eastern Romans have any chance of recovering Anatolia after their defeat in Manzikert, or was it basically a pipe dream, so the Eastern Romans should have been glad that they even got as far as the Battle of Myrocephalion, one thing that I am wondering was why the Eatern Romans were not able to conquer back the territories they lost to the Islamic invasion in the 7th century, the furthest that they got was with Basil II, and then they still were not able to recover the Levant, Egypt, and the North African caostline by the time he died, while the various Spanish kingdoms succeeded in their Reconquista effort.

Well, they did try to reconquer lost lands from Muslim after the Arab conquer, although they could never reach Middle East again. The critize started after Turks appeared, and I see no reason why Byzantium could not reconquer its lands back again slowly. I must say, the relation between Byzantium and Catholic West was not good at that time, it was totally strange when you ask help from a hostile old friend of yours, especially when you have the strength to get back what you lost.

Another thing that Byzantium did wrongly was they abandoned First Crusader immediately after they entered Middle East. Although the reason is fully understand, but Byzantium should not abandon Crusader when they were in most dangerous time. That event gave a worst impression of Byzantium to the West - and I could only say the chaos of Middle East during Crusader period was further enlarge by the lack of Byzantium involving.