The Real History of the Crusades

[Tony]

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/118/52.0.html ...full article

With the possible exception of Umberto Eco, medieval scholars are not used to getting much media attention. We tend to be a quiet lot (except during the annual bacchanalia we call the International Congress on Medieval Studies in Kalamazoo, Michigan, of all places), poring over musty chronicles and writing dull yet meticulous studies that few will read. Imagine, then, my surprise when within days of the September 11 attacks, the Middle Ages suddenly became relevant.

As a Crusade historian, I found the tranquil solitude of the ivory tower shattered by journalists, editors, and talk-show hosts on tight deadlines eager to get the real scoop. What were the Crusades?, they asked. When were they? Just how insensitive was President George W. Bush for using the word crusade in his remarks? With a few of my callers I had the distinct impression that they already knew the answers to their questions, or at least thought they did. What they really wanted was an expert to say it all back to them. For example, I was frequently asked to comment on the fact that the Islamic world has a just grievance against the West. Doesn't the present violence, they persisted, have its roots in the Crusades' brutal and unprovoked attacks against a sophisticated and tolerant Muslim world? In other words, aren't the Crusades really to blame?




Is this guy being dishonest? I'm familiar with the debate over the cause of the crusades, but don't have enough knowledge of the subject to form an opinion. I think this guy makes a lot of good points, but I'd like to hear from someone who knows more about the subject.

[crimresearch]

Dishonest about what? That there were no 'good guys' in the Crusades?

[El Greco]

"The present violence has its roots in Crusades" ?

By applying the same logic in about 500 years the South American Indians will be the future terrorists. After all the Incas suffered much more than the Saracens.

[TragicMonkey]

Playing the "who started what first" game doesn't really work in history. Yeah, the Christians weren't very nice to the Muslims during the Crusades. The Muslims, however, hadn't been so nice to the Christians before that, having conquered most of Spain three centuries before the First Crusade, which was actually called to repel the Muslim invasion of another Christian kingdom. Which is what makes it funny when Osama and his ideological pals talk about "Crusaders" and neglect to mention all the previous slaughter. I suppose all the Muslim invasions of Europe preceding, coinciding with, and following the various individual Crusades were all in good fun?

History is the great leveller. Nobody comes out smelling like roses.

[TragicMonkey]

More historical background:

632, death of Muhammed. At this point, most of the Arabian Peninsula was Muslim.

Conquests of Christian territories and states:

633-641 Syria
639 Jerusalem
639-642 Egypt, Cyprus, Rhodes. Attacks on Italy, Sicily.
644 Armenia, Georgia
698 Carthage, rest of North Africa
711 Spain
725 Attack on France.


First Crusade: 1095.

Not that I'm defending the Crusades, which were pretty awful (although the majority of the nastiness was Christian versus Christian), just pointing out that they didn't really start the whole Christian versus Muslim thing.

[kookbreaker]

What's so amusing is how little the Crusades actually were as far as history was concerned. If Europe wasn't the first to hit the industrial revolution they'd hardly be more than a footnote. They were little more than "northern barbarian" incursions that had modest success. But a few romantic historical tales get spun into novels and we've got The Crusades(TM).

Want to look at what did effect the Arab nations in the middle ages? Ask about the Mongols. But its hard to get riled up at a people who have pretty much gone back to their homeland and aren't much influence in the world.

[crimresearch]

And we all know what started the Industrial revolution, don't we?



http://www.beautiful-scotland.co.uk/02-june-05/scotch-whiskies.jpg

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by crimresearch
And we all know what started the Industrial revolution, don't we?
[/IMG]

Coal Tar!

Well, that's what James Burke said...

[LW]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Not that I'm defending the Crusades, which were pretty awful (although the majority of the nastiness was Christian versus Christian), just pointing out that they didn't really start the whole Christian versus Muslim thing.

The 7th century Muslim expansion and the 11th century Chrisitan Crusades were quite dissimilar and so they are difficult to compare.

In contrast to popular belief, the first Muslims weren't particularly keen on conversion by sword. In fact, many of the small Christian sects welcomed the Muslims as liberators: the Byzantine emperors had little tolerance for heretics while the Muslims were not a bit interested in internal Christian conflicts. A couple of the early caliphs went as far as they discouraged conversion to Islam because only non-Muslims were taxed. Every new conversion lessened their income.

But one shouldn't believe that the early Muslims supported complete freedom of religion. Far from it, being Muslim was an essential precondition for receiving any official position and the rights of non-Muslims were restricted also in other ways. There was also the law that decreed death penalty for anyone who tried to convert a Muslim away from Islam (a law that is still standing in some Muslim countries).

It took several centuries until the majority of caliph's subjects were Muslims.

[Charlie Monoxide]

A few years back I got an interest in the Crusades and read a couple of books about them. It was a nasty period of history.

IIRC the Crusades were woefully underfunded. The various royal sponsors allowed crusaders to raid Jewish businesses for money and supplies.

Also, the Childrens Crusade (one of the last), ran out of money at Italy and couldn't get passage to the "Holy Lands". The kids were then sold off as slaves.

Ain't Christianity great!

Charlie (history - better than reality TV) Monoxide

[Tony]

Originally posted by LW
The 7th century Muslim expansion and the 11th century Chrisitan Crusades were quite dissimilar and so they are difficult to compare.

In contrast to popular belief, the first Muslims weren't particularly keen on conversion by sword. In fact, many of the small Christian sects welcomed the Muslims as liberators: the Byzantine emperors had little tolerance for heretics while the Muslims were not a bit interested in internal Christian conflicts. A couple of the early caliphs went as far as they discouraged conversion to Islam because only non-Muslims were taxed. Every new conversion lessened their income.

But one shouldn't believe that the early Muslims supported complete freedom of religion. Far from it, being Muslim was an essential precondition for receiving any official position and the rights of non-Muslims were restricted also in other ways. There was also the law that decreed death penalty for anyone who tried to convert a Muslim away from Islam (a law that is still standing in some Muslim countries).

It took several centuries until the majority of caliph's subjects were Muslims.

Can you offer a source on this? I'd like to read more about it.

[seayakin]

Originally posted by Tony
Can you offer a source on this? I'd like to read more about it.

Two excellent authors are Phillip Hitti and Bernard Lewis. Each have written a number of general histories on the Muslim world and Islam.

Originally posted by kookbreaker
What's so amusing is how little the Crusades actually were as far as history was concerned.

I have to strongly disagree. The crusades were never much of a success as a military endeavor but they had a significant impact on European history and probably led to the Renaissance. The crusades opened up trade routes to Asia as well as new ideas (and diseases including the Plague). There is a reason much of the early Renaissance began in Italy, it was one of the last stops before the Holy Land on the Crusaders routes.

[Moliere]

Originally posted by seayakin
I have to strongly disagree. The crusades were never much of a success as a military endeavor but they had a significant impact on European history and probably led to the Renaissance. The crusades opened up trade routes to Asia as well as new ideas (and diseases including the Plague). There is a reason much of the early Renaissance began in Italy, it was one of the last stops before the Holy Land on the Crusaders routes.

Let's give the Mongol empire some credit here. The Mongols were the ones who opened up trade routes between Asia, the Middle East and Europe. It was through these trade routes that the plague traveled from China to Europe. The Christians were not very good at defeating the Muslims and didn't get very far in their conquests. Where the Christians failed for 200 years the Mongols accomplished in 2 years.

[seayakin]

Originally posted by Moliere
Let's give the Mongol empire some credit here. The Mongols were the ones who opened up trade routes between Asia, the Middle East and Europe. It was through these trade routes that the plague traveled from China to Europe. The Christians were not very good at defeating the Muslims and didn't get very far in their conquests. Where the Christians failed for 200 years the Mongols accomplished in 2 years.

I don't disagree with this but the Crusades led to the Europeans even going outside their borders and opening trade routes between places like Florence and Constantinople. However, I completely agree that they did not forge the routes to India and China. As far as the plague, from what I have read, there were a number of different vectors for this epidemic.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by seayakin
I have to strongly disagree. The crusades were never much of a success as a military endeavor but they had a significant impact on European history and probably led to the Renaissance. The crusades opened up trade routes to Asia as well as new ideas (and diseases including the Plague). There is a reason much of the early Renaissance began in Italy, it was one of the last stops before the Holy Land on the Crusaders routes.

Granted, but the reaction from Islam to the conquests of the Crusades was one of "What the! What flipping barbarians just snagged our Palestine backwater?! Hang on, I'll deal with it. There, they're gone."

To hear many Muslims today one would think that the Crusades were what utterly destroyed their culture and reduced them to their modern powerlessness. Not so.

[Garrette]

Have to agree with Kookbreaker on this.

The Crusades were far more influential on Europe than they were on Islam and what became the Middle East.

Saladin is, to the West, the great, Noble Foe, foil to Richard Lionheart.

To Islam, Saladin was a sidenote.

Tamerlane, however...

[seayakin]

Originally posted by Garrette
Have to agree with Kookbreaker on this.

The Crusades were far more influential on Europe than they were on Islam and what became the Middle East.

Saladin is, to the West, the great, Noble Foe, foil to Richard Lionheart.

To Islam, Saladin was a sidenote.

Tamerlane, however...

I was not arguing that they had the same impact on Islam. I am just arguing that there influence on Europe's cultural and scientific development was significant. These developments gave Europe the ability at a later date to dominate the world militarily and politically. However, I do agree that the significance at the time of the crusades was largely European.