Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

From the safe distance of many centuries, it is easy enough to scowl in disgust at the Crusades. Religion, after all, is nothing to fight wars over. But we should be mindful that our medieval ancestors would have been equally disgusted by our infinitely more destructive wars fought in the name of political ideologies. And yet, both the medieval and the modern soldier fight ultimately for their own world and all that makes it up. Both are willing to suffer enormous sacrifice, provided that it is in the service of something they hold dear, something greater than themselves. Whether we admire the Crusaders or not, it is a fact that the world we know today would not exist without their efforts. The ancient faith of Christianity, with its respect for women and antipathy toward slavery, not only survived but flourished. Without the Crusades, it might well have followed Zoroastrianism, another of Islam's rivals, into extinction.

Thomas F. Madden is associate professor and chair of the Department of History at Saint Louis University. He is the author of numerous works, including The New Concise History of the Crusades, and co-author, with Donald Queller, of The Fourth Crusade: The Conquest of Constantinople. This special version for the ARMA was reprinted by permission of Crisis Magazine, www.crisismagazine.com.

Are you presenting this for serious historical debate or as part of an argument about the wrongs of religion? If the latter, or if it strays to the latter, it goes in the Religion area.

Either way, please bring your own commentary to topics rather than just block-posting someone else's work and wanting it to stand alone; a link would suffice.

It was all power politics. The Christian kingdoms would have been all too happy to annihilate the Muslim ones but lacked the strength; the Crusades were an opportunity to find that strength. The idea of the Crusades as defensive is undermined by a. none of the re-conquered land being retuned to its owners and b. the occupation of Jerusalem, which cannot in any way be seen as a defensive measure as it had been thoroughly Islamic for centuries. This was offensive conquest and it ultimately failed as it did not engage with the locals; it ultimately was only interested in subdual.

This is not anti-Christian; it's a recognition (not in any way controversial as historical opinion) that religion played into power politics amongst all parts of the medieval period in Europe and the Middle East.

No more religion arguing for me. II just thought it was interesting.

You need to elaborate on this because they didn't lack the strength themselves, they did not have the financial backing to create and maintain armies in the Levant for a long period of time. They certainly had the strength of arms by the 3rd Crusade.

Long Pig is quoting pretty much word for word from an article I posted in a link recently in GDF.

LOL Ush. Your opinion that Christians would've tried wiping out muslims even if MUslims never attacked Christians is nothing but exactly that, your opinion and nothing else since you have nothing to back it up with. You're speculating just like FA did recently in religion forum concerning Christians behavior. I know atheists like you are desperate to prove that Christians are just as bad as muslims but you won't ever convince any of us who know better.

It is speculation but it's reasonable to assume that the leaders at least would have tried. The Crusades weren't meant to wipe out Islam, they were meant to capture the holy land. Possible extermination would have been a side effect.

Originally posted by psmith81992
You need to elaborate on this because they didn't lack the strength themselves, they did not have the financial backing to create and maintain armies in the Levant for a long period of time. They certainly had the strength of arms by the 3rd Crusade.

You think they ever had the force of arms to push into Muslim lands? All the 3rd crusade did was reconquer some tiny scraps in the Holy Land, and they struggled even to hold those. Aside from anything else, they were just too far away; the story really is the decline of the Eastern Roman Empire which was the only power in a geographical position to resist. Where the Muslims where similarly over-extended they also lost, hence the Reconquista.

Both sides would have trashed the other entirely if they could. The glory of the Catholic church was intended as going as far as could be imagined.

Star, that was an entirely empty post- you should avoid making those. If you want to contend what you see as opinion, post away with your take on it, but this is a discussion forum. People exchanging opinions is rather the point. You cannot even pretend that there is some mass of evidence on the other side

Originally posted by psmith81992
It is speculation but it's reasonable to assume that the leaders at least would have tried. The Crusades weren't meant to wipe out Islam, they were meant to capture the holy land. Possible extermination would have been a side effect.




Yes, but that's not why Crusades first started. Their objective changed from what it originally was. They were first started in self defense because severe Muslim aggression towards Christians was threatening to wipe them out.

Yup, eventually they did. What they didn't have was the ability to sustain it.

This is entire Crusade in a nutshell. They failed because they were too far away to throw in any meaningful resources to capture and hold.


Well, to be fair the Eastern Roman Empire was already in decline by the first Crusade. They were also one of the main reasons the Crusaders failed in that they had at least some ability to provide long term resources to the Levant.

Well I pretty much agree with all that.

When people talk about Muslim aggression that resulted in the First Crusade- I broadly agree on the specific detail there, but trying to spin that into a giant story of aggressive Muslims and purely defensive Christians is just blind to wider history. It's all just standard power politics. The ERE was constantly being threatened or invaded by whoever was on its eastern side. For centuries it was the Persians, then the Sassannids, and they were not Muslim. Then it was the Umayyads, who were, and the one that finally caused Anatolia to fall, sparking the Crusade, was the Seljuks, who also were, but it could have been anyone who made that breakthrough; someone was going to get through eventually.

But at the same time, they were constantly fighting off invasions from the WEST as well- the Bulgarians, the Normans, the Lombards, all of whom were Christian. It's just all part of the endless tapestry in the medieval period of people trying to expand their borders aggressively, and the ERE was a major target (and, when on the ascent, a major contributor as well).

There is no special sort of aggression that was purely Muslim. The Crusades were an opportunity to vent the aggression back eastwards.

Well no I disagree with that. The Seljuk aggression was purely Muslim although on a minimal level and the Mamluk onslaught was full on Muslim aggression. With that said, they were responsible for the Middle East not being entirely Mongolian so that's a plus.

In which respect, incidentally, the Mamluks and Crusaders came to an accord, which sinks the idea that the Muslims were fanatical and inhuman. They were just another poilitical faction and for all the talk of the irrecoverable difference between Christian and Muslim, they sure as heck worked together quickly when the Mongols turned up.

Brutally practical politics drives it all. You conquer when you can, you work together if you have to. Muslim and Christian worked the same.

Another aspect of the 'defensive' position here is seeing all of Islam as one giant unified whole. It wasn't 'Islam' that threatened the ERE, it was the Seljuks- but most of their conquests had been of other Muslim powers, and by the later crusades the political situation had changed again (and of course, one of the few unifying events among the warring Muslim nations was the Crusades themselves). It's just people fighting people- dynasties fighting dynasties, out west, out east, Muslim, Christian, everywhere, over and over.

Hold on a second, the Mamluks were slaughtering innocents by the thousands until the Mongols came along. Furthermore, the Christians sought an alliance with the Mongols first and foremost. It did not happen so they had no choice but to briefly ally themselves with the Mamluks and allow them safe passage through their lands and onto Ayn Jalut. After the Mongols were permanently pushed back, the alliance broke and the Mamluks and Christians continued fighting. Not to mention, Baybars was notoriously known to offer to spare lives in exchange for surrender, and then massacre the entire population. The Mamluks were most certainly the fanatical counterparts of the Crusaders.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Hold on a second, the Mamluks were slaughtering innocents by the thousands until the Mongols came along. Furthermore, the Christians sought an alliance with the Mongols first and foremost. It did not happen so they had no choice but to briefly ally themselves with the Mamluks and allow them safe passage through their lands and onto Ayn Jalut. After the Mongols were permanently pushed back, the alliance broke and the Mamluks and Christians continued fighting. Not to mention, Baybars was notoriously known to offer to spare lives in exchange for surrender, and then massacre the entire population. The Mamluks were most certainly the fanatical counterparts of the Crusaders.

The Christians never had a serious intent of Mongol co-operation since the Mongols had sacked some of their cities- it was the Mongols who made the offer to them, it it was doomed. And of course the alliance broke as soon as the battle was done; that is what such brutal, practical politics is about.

Don't confuse 'Mamluks' the individual slave-solider archetype with the entire make-up of the Mamluk-dominated political area. Individual Mamluk solidiers were famously brutal, but the Mamluk sultanate was a varied political body much as any western nation

Right but they preferred a Christian Mongol alliance to one with the Muslims.


I didn't say Baybars or rulers after him weren't a varied political body. They actually vastly improved their kingdoms. However, as far as fighting Christians were concerned, they were as savage as the Crusaders.

I don't think there was any love lost between Christian and Mongol on religious matters. As soon as the Mongols were actually near, there was no real chance of an alliance.

Savagery was not uncommon. Edward I wiped out the Scots with similar tactics. One Sultan might be brutal, another less so.

But in any case, when I say 'fanatic', I mean this idea that Muslims were hell-bent on nothing but Christian destruction at all costs as opposed to a different way that western nations worked, whereas they were all just political entities behaving in broadly similar ways.

I'm not sure I agree, at least as far as Mamluk determination to expel Christian forces from the Levant.

Well, fair enough; I feel there is room for debate there but I am not a deep cultural expert on the period. Good discussion though.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well, fair enough; I feel there is room for debate there but I am not a deep cultural expert on the period. Good discussion though.

Aside from the American Mafia, it happens to be my favorite historical subject and great to debate in terms of various religious aspects. Considering the span of the Crusades and the time period, it was a phenomenon.

Its a favorite of mine too. Its far more complex than you'd think. It certainly isn't the way we were taught growing up.

This is why I like KMC. It's the perfect balance of politics, history, movies and dick jokes.

I wonder if this academic also believes the Northern Crusades against the Baltic Pagans were "defensive" as well.

Anyway, as to this topic: if the Crusades were defensive, they were a massive, idiotic failure as they hastened the end of the Byzantine Empire which was the only real buffer between Christian Europe and the Muslim Empires.

Originally posted by jaden101
This is why I like KMC. It's the perfect balance of politics, history, movies and dick jokes.
Dick pic sent.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I wonder if this academic also believes the Northern Crusades against the Baltic Pagans were "defensive" as well.

Anyway, as to this topic: if the Crusades were defensive, they were a massive, idiotic failure as they hastened the end of the Byzantine Empire which was the only real buffer between Christian Europe and the Muslim Empires.
Yeah, the Fourth Crusade was arguably the most epic cluster**** in history.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I wonder if this academic also believes the Northern Crusades against the Baltic Pagans were "defensive" as well.

Anyway, as to this topic: if the Crusades were defensive, they were a massive, idiotic failure as they hastened the end of the Byzantine Empire which was the only real buffer between Christian Europe and the Muslim Empires.
It was defensive. Very badly managed. It was a failure. They never got their land back that was stolen.

But at least we can stop hearing about how "Christians did the same thing in the crusades!!" when current events are discussed.

I think it's probably true that lots of the Crusaders believed that the Crusades were a "best defense is a good offense" situation, but what they believed they were doing and what they were actually doing are two different things, and beyond that you can't point at the operations involved and say they were in the interest of defending Europe. Sacking Constantinople for instance.

I've also seen theories that the crusades were a scheme by the Papacy to ensure relative peace in Europe. After all if all the big kings and their armies were away fighting Muslims they couldn't very well start wars in Europe.

There are examples of defensive crusades though, as when the Mongols invaded Central Europe. But those are very specific examples, and were literally in response to a current invasion--nothing like the invasions of the Middle East that the Crusaders launched.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I think it's probably true that lots of the Crusaders believed that the Crusades were a "best defense is a good offense" situation, but what they believed they were doing and what they were actually doing are two different things, and beyond that you can't point at the operations involved and say they were in the interest of defending Europe. Sacking Constantinople for instance.

I've also seen theories that the crusades were a scheme by the Papacy to ensure relative peace in Europe. After all if all the big kings and their armies were away fighting Muslims they couldn't very well start wars in Europe.

There are examples of defensive crusades though, as when the Mongols invaded Central Europe. But those are very specific examples, and were literally in response to a current invasion--nothing like the invasions of the Middle East that the Crusaders launched.

Actually they wanted more land, and they justified it with a religious crusade. It really was that simple.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Actually they wanted more land, and they justified it with a religious crusade. It really was that simple.
No.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Actually they wanted more land, and they justified it with a religious crusade. It really was that simple.
That too. But I think reducing it to any one cause, be it "defense" or a landgrab, is overly simplistic for something as complicated as the crusades.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
That too. But I think reducing it to any one cause, be it "defense" or a landgrab, is overly simplistic for something as complicated as the crusades.

Eh it was the initial cause. Then guys like the Lionheart wanted the prestige of winning back Jerusalem and Louis IX was a genuinely religious man who wanted Jerusalem back for religious purposes ,etc.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Eh it was the initial cause. Then guys like the Lionheart wanted the prestige of winning back Jerusalem and Louis IX was a genuinely religious man who wanted Jerusalem back for religious purposes ,etc.
And they roped Barbarossa along because neither of them trusted him alone in Europe while they were gone.

Taking back land is different than "wanting more land". Muslims should have never stolen it.

That's a can of worms. Europeans never had claim to the Levant, unless you count the Roman claims, and no one in Europe was in a position to assert those.

Indeed- there is no realistic sense in which the Crusades were 'taking back' Jerusalem. It had never belonged to any Catholic state and was part of a centuries old ethnically Muslim area. This was pure offence.

Ad as mentioned, any land they did 'take back' they kept for themselves rather than giving it to the original owners. Again, this is about power.

Yea but the very thought of Barbarossa made the Muslims wet their pants.