This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
SW-User
First off, "radical Islam" is a modern term and doesn't have much relevance to describing Islam of the Middle Ages, unless you also view Christianity at the time as "radical" in that it was even willing to be so intimately tied to a conquest. Much about religion, culture, and politics of the Middle Ages seems radical by today's standards.
The Crusades had numerous justifications: the initial justification was Alexios Komnenos' request for aid to his besieged and dwindling Byzantine Empire. The Seljuk Turks were attacking Komnenos' realm and he wished for Western Christians to aid him in fending them off. This justification was bolstered by reports of the Seljuks' attacks on Christian pilgrims in the Holy Land (though news traveled slowly in the Middle Ages and fortunes changed so quickly that by the time the Crusaders arrived in Palestine, the Seljuks were no longer in control of it and the attacks on Pilgrims had largely ceased). Pope Urban II seized on the news of attacks on Pilgrims to turn what was originally primarily a political request for aid into a holy war. At this time the Christian world was fraught with in-fighting: Christians killing Christians. Urban wanted this to end and wanted Christendom to unite and kill infidels (the Muslims). In addition, Urban and other religious leaders promised that sins would be immediately forgiven to any Christian who took up the Crusader cause! Something of course they had no business promising, but this kind of thing was normal in the Middle Ages. And let us not forget the financial motives for the Crusades; immense amounts of riches were brought back from the Holy Land.
So no, to say the Crusades were "saving the world from radical Islam" is projecting a contemporary concern onto a very different historical and geopolitical situation. (What does "the world" even refer to here?) And before anyone praises the Crusaders as freedom fighters, keep in mind they were extremely brutal (the Muslims were too, to be fair; both regularly killed women and children) and extremely anti-Semitic. Jews were slaughtered in Europe and in Palestine during the Crusades.
The Crusades were successful in temporarily taking parts of the Levant for Christendom and preserving the Byzantine Empire for a bit longer (in an extremely weakened state, albeit), but it was all eventually ceded to the Mamluks and the Turks. It could also be argued to have started the fight against Arabs in Spain, but should add that they were the real Muslim threat to Christians and they were largely left alone until the 15th century! If the Crusades were really about stopping Muslim aggression, they would've focused more effort on Spain. Instead they often overplayed their hand and sent foolish attacks into Egypt and other places that were so thoroughly Muslim there was little to no chance of success. The Crusades were more successful for Europe's morale and helping to end the Dark Ages.
The Crusades had numerous justifications: the initial justification was Alexios Komnenos' request for aid to his besieged and dwindling Byzantine Empire. The Seljuk Turks were attacking Komnenos' realm and he wished for Western Christians to aid him in fending them off. This justification was bolstered by reports of the Seljuks' attacks on Christian pilgrims in the Holy Land (though news traveled slowly in the Middle Ages and fortunes changed so quickly that by the time the Crusaders arrived in Palestine, the Seljuks were no longer in control of it and the attacks on Pilgrims had largely ceased). Pope Urban II seized on the news of attacks on Pilgrims to turn what was originally primarily a political request for aid into a holy war. At this time the Christian world was fraught with in-fighting: Christians killing Christians. Urban wanted this to end and wanted Christendom to unite and kill infidels (the Muslims). In addition, Urban and other religious leaders promised that sins would be immediately forgiven to any Christian who took up the Crusader cause! Something of course they had no business promising, but this kind of thing was normal in the Middle Ages. And let us not forget the financial motives for the Crusades; immense amounts of riches were brought back from the Holy Land.
So no, to say the Crusades were "saving the world from radical Islam" is projecting a contemporary concern onto a very different historical and geopolitical situation. (What does "the world" even refer to here?) And before anyone praises the Crusaders as freedom fighters, keep in mind they were extremely brutal (the Muslims were too, to be fair; both regularly killed women and children) and extremely anti-Semitic. Jews were slaughtered in Europe and in Palestine during the Crusades.
The Crusades were successful in temporarily taking parts of the Levant for Christendom and preserving the Byzantine Empire for a bit longer (in an extremely weakened state, albeit), but it was all eventually ceded to the Mamluks and the Turks. It could also be argued to have started the fight against Arabs in Spain, but should add that they were the real Muslim threat to Christians and they were largely left alone until the 15th century! If the Crusades were really about stopping Muslim aggression, they would've focused more effort on Spain. Instead they often overplayed their hand and sent foolish attacks into Egypt and other places that were so thoroughly Muslim there was little to no chance of success. The Crusades were more successful for Europe's morale and helping to end the Dark Ages.
SteelHands · 61-69, M
Parsing the subject into one tiny fragment of the history that led up to those Crusades is a common strategy.
If the invaders won't bear the objections of its own people, it will be deaf to the objections of the foreigner.
If the invaders won't bear the objections of its own people, it will be deaf to the objections of the foreigner.
SW-User
@SteelHands Projecting modern concerns about Islam and Islamic expansion through immigration onto the past as a form of revisionist history is also a common strategy. Unfortunately it doesn’t hold up when stood against the facts.
SteelHands · 61-69, M
@SW-User I'm not blind to recent global facts so you shouldn't be either.
Facts? Facts like Christian purges, hacking off heads, suicide bombings, use of children as human shields, hijacking neighborhoods, mass rapes burning churches, killing their own non violent clerics, rule by religion?
Yeah facts. That's something I should consider except that nobody tells me about it on the criminal news network so I'm too ignorant for that.
Facts? Facts like Christian purges, hacking off heads, suicide bombings, use of children as human shields, hijacking neighborhoods, mass rapes burning churches, killing their own non violent clerics, rule by religion?
Yeah facts. That's something I should consider except that nobody tells me about it on the criminal news network so I'm too ignorant for that.
SW-User
@Abrienda I was just using the language of war. Muslims took it from the Byzantines in the 7th century. Christians took [part of] it back in the 11th century. It was not meant to imply that the land had never previously been in Christian hands. I know that it was.