The Truth about the Crusades

W

Wallew

Moderator
Darn, another book I am apparently going to have to buy and read.

http://www.conservativebookservice.com/bookpage.asp?prod_cd=C6424&sour_cd=CLB000101

What is the truth about the Crusades?

Misconceptions about the Crusades are all too common. Generally portrayed as a series of unprovoked holy wars against Islam, they are supposed to have been the epitome of self-righteousness and intolerance -- a black stain on the history of the Catholic Church in particular and Western, Christian civilization in general. Since September 11, variations of this theme have been used to explain -- even justify -- Muslim terror against the West. Former president Bill Clinton himself, in a speech at Georgetown University, fingered Muslim anger at the Crusades as the "root cause" of the present conflict.

But the truth is that the Crusades had nothing to do with colonialism or unprovoked aggression -- and in A Concise History of the Crusades, renowned medieval historian Thomas F. Madden sets the record straight. The Crusades, he shows, were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense. Their entire subsequent history is one of Western reaction to Muslim advances -- they were no more offensive than was the American invasion of Normandy.

---

Just printed the first two paragraphs as a tickle. The GOOD stuff is after these two paragraphs...
 
I read the Thomas F. Madden article when it came out. "Crusade Propaganda" it is called. It's full of factual information.

These articles tend to pop up on sites like worldnetdaily and newsmax every few months.
"The West can save Islam"
"Why Islam Really Hates the West"
"Crusade Propaganda"
"Against the West: Islamic Radicals Hate Us for Who We Are, Not What We Do"
"How The Islamic World Lost Its Edge"
ect. It's nothing but propaganda to try and justify the neo-cons insane Trotskyite foreign policy and Machiavellian world view.

It's propaganda designed for people who are slightly more informed than the average "leftist", that's why they came out with Fox News and "right wing" AM talk radio. Then you have the higher levels of propaganda like the various Science publications and the Wall Street Journal for the people who are even more informed. It's brainwashing for the masses.
 
Psycho-
First you say the article by Madden was "full of factual information". In the next breath, you call it "neo-con propaganda". Which is it?

that's why they came out with Fox News and "right wing" AM talk radio. Then you have the higher levels of propaganda like the various Science publications and the Wall Street Journal for the people who are even more informed. It's brainwashing for the masses.
Click to expand...
Is there a central headquarters to this conspiracy? One that formed and operates all these "Science" publications, the WSJ and AM Talk Radio? Do tell.
Rich
 
Pretty much anytime somebody proports to provide the "truth" on such matters, there is a good chance that it is going to be a lot of biased and revisionist writing.

This one is a classic. In a very sad PC victim perspective, it is saying that we were just poor victims.

Contrary to the claims about the book, the author is not setting the record straight, but just voicing an opinion on what he thinks went on hundreds of years before he was born.
 
Mistrust anyone who claims that they can tell you the truth about the causes of a war in a five paragraph article. Tuchman can generally manage a fairly comprehensive summary in five hundred pages, and she thankfully appends a bibliography for those who want depth. ;)
 
First you say the article by Madden was "full of factual information". In the next breath, you call it "neo-con propaganda". Which is it?
Click to expand...

It's both. Propaganda doesn't have to be made of lies. In fact the best propaganda isn't.

Is there a central headquarters to this conspiracy? One that formed and operates all these "Science" publications, the WSJ and AM Talk Radio? Do tell.
Click to expand...

The central banks.
 
Propaganda doesn't have to be made of lies. In fact the best propaganda isn't.
Click to expand...
Agreed. But one man's "propaganda" is another man's "useful information". What separates "facts" from "propaganda" is the intent to sway opinions....something that each of us does in the course of our daily lives.

Certainly, use of facts in swaying opinion is preferable to lack of fact. Shortage of facts, often amounts to nothing more than poorly constructed Conspiracy Theory. You know....stuff like the central bank system being the headquarters of a conspiracy which controls Talk Radio, the Wall Street Journal and many Scientific publications.

Dunno. I'd much prefer that people try to convince me with facts. YMMV.
Rich
 
IIRC, there were something like eight different Crusades. Some of them never left Europe, but ended up putting down "heretics" in France or raiding the Balkans and Greece.

The first two Crusades were a disaster. That was the Children's Crusade and the Peasant's Crusade. The Third Crusade is the one I believe liberated Palestine and Jerusalem. More followed later with either disasterous or indifferent results. Overall, many died or were killed in the many thousands, or were enslaved. Probably most of victims were Christians.

It is interesting the 10,000 Christian Vikings made the Crusades. They were pretty successful in taking some of the Muslim's last strongholds.

IIRC, the Crusades began because the warlike Seljuk Turks took over the Holy Land from the more moderate Arabs and were terrorizing and killiing Christian pilgrims, going as far as to slit open their intestines looking for valuable coins and jewels.


IIRC, there was Church politics involved too in igniting the Crusades.

A good read on the Crusades is Harold Lamb's two books, "Iron Men and Saints" and "The Flame Of Islam". I bought both many years ago. They were actually printed as one book in softcover.

I am writing all of the above strictly from memory, so there may be some errors.
 
DNS,
Contrary to the claims about the book, the author is not setting the record straight, but just voicing an opinion on what he thinks went on hundreds of years before he was born.
Click to expand...

Isn't that what you just did? NO OFFENSE, just curious.

Is his opinion any less valid than anyone ELSE'S? Unless I'm MISTAKEN there are no longer any eyewitnesses to what occured in the Crusades.
 
Madden isn't at all a radical and his viewpoints are pretty generally well thought out.

On the other hand I tend to suspect the intentions of anyone who throws out the word Trotskyite to describe anyone outside the realm of mid 20th century Communist power struggles.
 
From my understanding of the Crusades (I better understand it somewhat, just had an Exam over that period), it was a war to take back land that the Arab invaders had taken.

The other thing I learned is that when the Christians marched into a town, the Muslims and the minority Christians (non-Catholic/Orthodox), picked up and left with them. Supposedly in those times, Muslims were much more tolerant to other religions than Christians were.
 
Isn't that what you just did? NO OFFENSE, just curious.

Is his opinion any less valid than anyone ELSE'S? Unless I'm MISTAKEN there are no longer any eyewitnesses to what occured in the Crusades.
Click to expand...

Oh, how I do enjoy people who think!! Very good, indeed!

There is one significant difference, however. He is writing about something happening centuries ago and giving his findings, supposedly setting the record straight for which he can only use limited recorded information from a time when there were only limited numbers of people who were literate (many accounts by transcribed recollections by those returning from the crusades, hence suffering the problems of transcription and recollection accuracy) and from a time where only a limited number of documents still exist. On top of that, given the numbers of languages in which the crusades have been described, my guess is that the author depending on translations provided by others and so he could not vouch for the accuracy of the translations and probably simply trusted the translations as accurate. I may be wrong, but few people are alive today with such extensive language/translation skills for centuries old versions of several languages.

I, however, am dealing with something current, his work, and the logic of the argument as to whether or not he can be setting the record straight. In 'truth,' the record can't be set straight in a manner that can be verified hundreds of years after the fact. Since the information and interpretation cannot be verified, the record can't actually be set straight. So the author can only offer an additional opinion on the matter.

Of course, "setting the record straight" is likely the publisher's take on the work. I have not seen this particular book and I don't know if the author is claiming to set the record straight. Given as much as he has published, my guess is that he doesn't make such an outrageous claim in the volume and instead simply presents his arguments and evidence as he believes is correct, which is reasonable to do.
 
Yes, the Pope was using violence to suppress any group of Christians that did not stick to Church doctrine. Even the idea of printing the bible in local languages like English, French, or German would get you executed.
Depending on time and place Muslims were more tolerant of Jews too. Ironic in a way.
 
There are no longer eyewitnesses to the Crusades, but there are still eyewitness accounts, including diaries and letters from those who planned the Crusades and those who recruited.
 
Double Naught-
You get the TFL Class Act award for February 2005. (We haven't given one of these out in years!)

Seriously, though. Wallew's challenge was absolutely bona fide, IMHO. You could have taken it personally. Instead, you chose to take it objectively and responded in kind. Class Act, whether you win the point, loose it or simply provide clarification.

I actually know little of the history of the Crusades and would need more than this Forum to take a position. But the question and the answer both raise the bar. Looking forward to hearing more.

Thanks much
Rich
 
The other thing I learned is that when the Christians marched into a town, the Muslims and the minority Christians (non-Catholic/Orthodox), picked up and left with them. Supposedly in those times, Muslims were much more tolerant to other religions than Christians were.
Click to expand...

Something must have changed then. Orthodox Christains got pretty roundly clobbered in the late 1800-early 1900s but many, including the Muslims. I could be wrong but it sounds like the tolerance evaporated.

S-
 
DNS,

I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO COMMEND YOU. You took my comments EXACTLY how I meant them. Not against you AT ALL.

BTW, I basically believe nothing of what I read (my library is fairly large and diverse). Only about half what I see with my own eyes. I guess I'm just a skeptic who likes to 'keep up' on both sides of an issue.

My post was NOT meant to be hostile OR threatening to anyone OR their religion, just putting "it" out there. The "it" is someone elses opinion.

Of course, "setting the record straight" is likely the publisher's take on the work. I have not seen this particular book and I don't know if the author is claiming to set the record straight. Given as much as he has published, my guess is that he doesn't make such an outrageous claim in the volume and instead simply presents his arguments and evidence as he believes is correct, which is reasonable to do.
Click to expand...

KUDOS, Double Naught Spy. Sir, I salute you.
 
"The other thing I learned is that when the Christians marched into a town, the Muslims and the minority Christians (non-Catholic/Orthodox), picked up and left with them. Supposedly in those times, Muslims were much more tolerant to other religions than Christians were".

The tolerism did evaporate I guess. I used to have a copy of the Koran, just for study. It actually says Muslims are to tolerate other religions, ESPECIALLY Judaism and Christianity, because they are people of the same God. It also says Muslims are to leave other people alone unless they are attacked first.
So something went awry along the way.
 
Oh well, the whole period was haplessly weird.
Roger of Sicilly, supposedly a 'defender of the faith' , was quite happy to keep an Imam or two, in his palace, and debate religion on an equal basis. Irritated the pope no end.
The whole period, a strange mix of warfare, trading, intermarriages and shifting alliances. The Byzantine's use of both Moslim and Western Christian is enough to make that very, clear.
And despite the atrocities, at times both sides could adhere to the warriors codes which they both espoused. Events like when Reynauld of Chatillon attacked and took prisoner a hajj caravan (one of whom was Saladin's sister). King Baldwin 4th in Jerusalem commanded she be released, as did Saladin. He didn't and so, although many of the other eventually captured crusader leaders were ransomed...Reynauld was the only crusader leader Saladin personally executed. Baldwin probably would have done the same, for Reynauld's dishonoring fuedal obligations.
But lingering symbols are still problematic, although they may have little to do with the actual thinking of the period. When Bush brought up the crusades inevietably the Horns of Hattin were recalled as a counter symbol. Being ivy league educated-it seems he would have known better than to use that particular analogy.
And yes, usually the Syrian Christians would pack up and leave when crusader armies turned up, they tended to get killed along with the 'heretics/heathens'. Some even fought with the Moslims to keep the Latins out. The Byzantines, once directed a crusader army/mob, to go anywhere but Constantanople...and promptly advised the Moslim leaders that the mob was coming. Beybers, after a hard fight, (and some trickery involving a pigeon) let the defenders of Krak des Chevaliers, leave when he took the citidel. In that case, maybe because the last defenders of Krak were Hospitallers...who had been fairly welll regarded in the Mid East. (Some of that respect lingered even after the Templars forced them to become a more military organization) At least some captured enemies were treated well, poor soldiers tended to come off very poorly during this period.
And the crusader armies, on the move, were a weird mix of professional fighters (ie the Frankish knights, Architects and siege engineers) and the mobs which managed to tag along. At times the hangers on were so desperate, that cannibalism did occur. (Standard practice at the time, in sieges the non-nobility or non-combatants, were often left outside to fend for themselves). Much of the 'bad reputation' attached to the crusading armies, was the result of these weird mobs that were often attached to them (such as the followers of Peter the Hermit)...and the manner in which they behaved. At times the Crusader military leaders actually ditched these people,as they were amongst other things a diplomatic and military liability.
In a period as weird as that one was, varied interpretations are inevietable. And a good thing, it counterbalances as agenda's shift the perceptions of events.
On the whole, tragic that 'people of the book' spent so much time killing each other. And seemingly still want to do so.
 
Last edited:
Something must have changed then. Orthodox Christains got pretty roundly clobbered in the late 1800-early 1900s but many, including the Muslims. I could be wrong but it sounds like the tolerance evaporated.
Click to expand...
The change was the Turks invading and moving in.
Also, the Mongols destroyed many of their centers of learning and devestated the land. Made Sherman's march to the sea look like a Boyscout camping trip.

Christians have changed radically since the Crusades too, so this is not very surprising. Few truisms about a group remain the same after centuries.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top