The truth about the Crusades.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Actually they wanted more land, and they justified it with a religious crusade. It really was that simple.

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.

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.

And they roped Barbarossa along because neither of them trusted him alone in Europe while they were gone.

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.