Crusades:The Cresent & The Cross.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

THE history channel is showing Crusades tonite. Some of you undoubtedly have seen it already and, or are watching it right now. I hope its a good and, informative documentary. What Ive noticed is that new History Channel docs usually coincide with a book release on the same topic.
It is being shown at 8 pm EST/PST. and updates as the show progresses.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

It looks nicely done so far. the presentation has that Dark medieval gothic feel to it with monastic chants and, so far informative narratives keeping the ''issues'' in the middle ages and, not trying to interpret their ways of thought with ours.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Yeesh! this version of the crusades is different from the one I was taught in Sunday school.

[st.cronin]

The most typical contemporary presentation of the Crusades is that it was a Pope-inspired massacre. Hopefully, they're being a little bit more objective, and presenting it as a clash of Empires?

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

The most typical contemporary presentation of the Crusades is that it was a Pope-inspired massacre. Hopefully, they're being a little bit more objective, and presenting it as a clash of Empires?

From my perspective that part was portrayed as a political and racist edict by the pope advocating the murder of all ''non christians (non-believers).''
So far the pope and, emperor of Constantinople are portrayed as cunning politicians out for political and, monetary gains willing to sacrifice the lives of thousands. The Saracens are so far portrayed as ''defenders of their land/religion.'' keep in mind its just the first 45 minutes and, Im a pretty cynnical person.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

bump: Part 2 has just started, still the same type of anti crusader spin.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by CHEMICAL SOLDIER

bump: Part 2 has just started, still the same type of anti crusader spin.

I don't expect it'll change much. Earlier tonight I happened to notice an inside back cover ad for the program in US News & World Report, the text header on the ad? "Can a President finish what a King, a Sultan, and a Pope began?"

Gee, y'think they might have let just a tiny bit of agenda show there?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by CHEMICAL SOLDIER

bump: Part 2 has just started, still the same type of anti crusader spin.

Well the Crusaders weren't exactly angels, especially in the 1st Crusade when they slaughtered everyone they saw in Jerusalem .

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Saladin's story on the other hand I feel is well done. Seems he has lived an adventurous and, charmed life.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

The last half of the documentary chronicles the fight between two generals. Richard I and, Salasin.

[Neon_Chaos]

oooh. i think i'll fire up CK. maybe a... a... dynasty!?

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by CHEMICAL SOLDIER

bump: Part 2 has just started, still the same type of anti crusader spin.

"anti-crusader spin"? you say that as if you assume the Crusades were *wholly* intended to be this virtuous undertaking for salvation. that's how it was billed to get people on board. but all the real players (those with money, those who had something to gain other than spirituality) had worldly intentions for going. even in later Crusades they were sanctioned for money or strategic reasons, the real meaning of having a Crusade was lost. i think the only well-intentioned Crusaders were the normal folk who went. not everyone who participated in the Crusades was a knight.

what i find extemely interesting was how similar the Crusades were to modern day Islamic extremists. back then during the Crusades if you participated you had your ticket stamped for Heaven automatically. nowadays if you kill an infidel you go to Allah and have 70 virgins waiting for you in the afterlife. then, as much as now, innocents were killed. just funny how we look back on the Crusades as this glorious thing, but when the other side does it they're insurgents/terrorists. i don't condone these Islamic extremists, just pointing out the similarities.

religion is the worst.

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

just funny how we look back on the Crusades as this glorious thing, but when the other side does it they're insurgents/terrorists. i don't condone these Islamic extremists, just pointing out the similarities.

I was kinda following you until this point.

[Eilim]

Originally Posted by sachmo71

I was kinda following you until this point.

Same here. Had 2 nuns and 3 priests in my family (One actually was the dean of a seminary college.) and the crusades were never looked at as glorious or virtous. They were mostly talked about in the same vain as the inquisitions, a sad and misguided part of the church's history.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by sachmo71

I was kinda following you until this point.

actually, it's true. both instances involved warping the translation of biblical texts to justify murder and killing. kill a non-Christian/infidel, and you will be rewarded in the afterlife.

anyway, i was just taken aback by the "anti-Crusaders" comment that was made. i thought the first part from Sunday was done rather well, a good mixture of analysis and action sequences. gonna watch the 2nd part tonite.

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

actually, it's true. both instances involved warping the translation of biblical texts to justify murder and killing. kill a non-Christian/infidel, and you will be rewarded in the afterlife.

anyway, i was just taken aback by the "anti-Crusaders" comment that was made. i thought the first part from Sunday was done rather well, a good mixture of analysis and action sequences. gonna watch the 2nd part tonite.

I have yet to watch it. Where I was lost was in the comparison of crusaders to modern terrorists. Now, if you wanted to make an argument that both groups are zealots, I would be right there with you, but otherwise I don't really see the correlation.

[Anthony]

how is it that a large groups of foreigners who slaughtered people who weren't like them (which is what the Crusaders essentially were) not considered terrorists?

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

how is it that a large groups of foreigners who slaughtered people who weren't like them (which is what the Crusaders essentially were) not considered terrorists?

I guess because I consider the crusaders (rabble that they were) not to be forces organized into small cells that hid amongst the indiginous people of the region and struck at high profile targets hoping to win a political victory over the enemy.

Although many of the people who went to take the holy land back from the heathens were coerced by religious officials, I don't think that makes them terrorists. Holy warriors, perhaps, zealots for sure, but not terrorists.

[Neon_Chaos]

I'd compare the Crusades to Hitler's Final Solution than modern terrorism. It was mass-murder, driven by a highly idyllic ideological value that captured the hearts, minds and support of the masses, and led by leaders who obviously had their own agendas other than the said ideological value.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by sachmo71

I guess because I consider the crusaders (rabble that they were) not to be forces organized into small cells that hid amongst the indiginous people of the region and struck at high profile targets hoping to win a political victory over the enemy.

Although many of the people who went to take the holy land back from the heathens were coerced by religious officials, I don't think that makes them terrorists. Holy warriors, perhaps, zealots for sure, but not terrorists.

you can only be a "Holy Warrior" if your intentions were, in fact, holy. going to take land for yourself and plundering foreign cities for their riches under the guise of Holy orders does not make you a Holy Warrior.

terrorism is a matter of which side you're standing on. i don't condone modern day terrorists, i think they're cowards who don't adhere to common, traditional methods of fighting which has allowed them to still be around. but on their side they can justify a lot of their actions because it's for what they perceive to be the "greater good", serving Allah i suppose. no different than the Crusaders. the program on the History channel made it a point to show how wanton their slaughtering was. they killed Christians as well as Muslims. they took over cities where Christians were allowed to practice their religion peacefully.

[st.cronin]

The Crusades were a clash of Empires, more like the Punic Wars than anything in modern times. Believe what you want, though.

[Neon_Chaos]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

The Crusades were a clash of Empires, more like the Punic Wars than anything in modern times. Believe what you want, though.

More like a failed English/Christian invasion of Muslim lands.

Of course that would be nice if the Moors even bothered to actually go all the way to England and kick ass there. Unfortunately, they were just pleased to get rid of the English invaders off of their own soil and fart in their general direction.

[Bea-Arthurs Hip]

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

More like a failed English/Christian invasion of Muslim lands.

Of course that would be nice if the Moors even bothered to actually go all the way to England and kick ass there. Unfortunately, they were just pleased to get rid of the English invaders off of their own soil and fart in their general direction.

Was the Muslim faith around before Mohammed died? I think you may have your facts wrong Neo, in the early Seventh Century, the Persian Empire overtook the Holy Land, sacked Jerusalem and slaughtered the Christian inhabitants. While the Eastern Empire was eventually able to recapture it, in 638 Jerusalem was taken by invading Arabian forces under the sword of the new Islam only six years after the death of the prophet Mohammed. Egypt was lost to the Moslem forces and by 700 AD Roman Africa was conquered. In 711 Spain was occupied and it was not until the victory of Charles Martel at Tours and Potier in 732 that the Moslem advance in the West ended. Constantinople was able to hold off an invasion and the remnant Eastern Roman Empire, stripped of Syria, Palestine and North Africa, continued to exist. Over the next three centuries, the Empire would recover somewhat, though never able to reclaim the entire Holy Land itself.

[Neon_Chaos]

Originally Posted by Bea-Arthurs Hip

Was the Muslim faith around before Mohammed died? I think you may have your facts wrong Neo, in the early Seventh Century, the Persian Empire overtook the Holy Land, sacked Jerusalem and slaughtered the Christian inhabitants. While the Eastern Empire was eventually able to recapture it, in 638 Jerusalem was taken by invading Arabian forces under the sword of the new Islam only six years after the death of the prophet Mohammed. Egypt was lost to the Moslem forces and by 700 AD Roman Africa was conquered. In 711 Spain was occupied and it was not until the victory of Charles Martel at Tours and Potier in 732 that the Moslem advance in the West ended. Constantinople was able to hold off an invasion and the remnant Eastern Roman Empire, stripped of Syria, Palestine and North Africa, continued to exist. Over the next three centuries, the Empire would recover somewhat, though never able to reclaim the entire Holy Land itself.

Wrong choice of words. Substitute Muslim with Moor.

[Bea-Arthurs Hip]

More like a failed English/Christian invasion of Muslim lands

I know who the Moors are, you statement above was that Christians invaded Muslim lands. You make it seem as if the Muslims were these peacful no-mads who somehow stumbled upon lands and over took them with whiskey and ciggerettes...

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Regarding the documentary. I was striken at the comparisons:
example:
Crusaders executing moslems were called akin to terrorists while Moslems slaying Crusaders=''Shock and Awe.'' The documentary focused on Crusader attrocities but fail to mention Moors/Moslem crimes and torture of Christian Pilgrims and, fail to mention the other ''crusades.''

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by CHEMICAL SOLDIER

Regarding the documentary. I was striken at the comparisons:
example:
Crusaders executing moslems were called akin to terrorists while Moslems slaying Crusaders=''Shock and Awe.'' The documentary focused on Crusader attrocities but fail to mention Moors/Moslem crimes and torture of Christian Pilgrims and, fail to mention the other ''crusades.''

typical crap

[Anthony]

i think it was necessary, in the minds of many the Crusades were a pure, noble cause. and i'm sure for the ignorant, but good intentioned, masses - yes, it was pure. but wealthy people in search of more wealth, young warriors in search of adventure and sanctioned murder - the Crusades were a different calling. but many hold the Crusades in different regards, and i think the documentary did a good job disspelling a lot of preconceived notions.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

i think it was necessary, in the minds of many the Crusades were a pure, noble cause. and i'm sure for the ignorant, but good intentioned, masses - yes, it was pure. but wealthy people in search of more wealth, young warriors in search of adventure and sanctioned murder - the Crusades were a different calling. but many hold the Crusades in different regards, and i think the documentary did a good job disspelling a lot of preconceived notions.

Actually, the Crusades are usually lumped in with the Holocaust, the Inquisition, and the settling of the New World as examples of Bad White Men doing Wicked Things. You have to look at real research to figure out what actually happened.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

I've noticed a trend in the History Channel's portrayal of Christianity or anything related to the last few years. It seems that Whoever is in charge / main editors let the producers smear feces on the Christian faith and, history whenever they get the chance. I guess gone are the days of an unbiased documentary on all of history and, long live the Michael Moore , Oliver Stone twists on history (not just christianity but, all of history).

[Anthony]

i'm a modest history buff, and from what i've read the Christian church were not good people. i don't bat an eyelash when i hear of some of the shady things the Church has done when they pretty much ruled the Western world.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

i'm a modest history buff, and from what i've read the Christian church were not good people. i don't bat an eyelash when i hear of some of the shady things the Church has done when they pretty much ruled the Western world.

Keep in mind that after Mohammed wrote the Koran, the next thing he did was raise an army and massacre an entire city. He also invented race-based slavery. But, believe what you want to believe.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Keep in mind that after Mohammed wrote the Koran, the next thing he did was raise an army and massacre an entire city. He also invented race-based slavery. But, believe what you want to believe.

typical crap

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Keep in mind that after Mohammed wrote the Koran, the next thing he did was raise an army and massacre an entire city. He also invented race-based slavery. But, believe what you want to believe.

hey, i'm not saying the Muslims were boyscouts, but the documentary wasn't a dissertation on Islam - it was about the Crusades - and in that regard it revealed some things about the participants and their true motivations (well, it didn't reveal a whole lot for people who had prior knowledge on the subject, but i did learn quite a few things). the subject is the Crusaders. i'm sure a documentary focusing on Muslims and their rise to power will show some pretty disturbing things as well. hey, I'm Catholic myself, but i'm able to view it without bias and call a spade a spade. the Church was widely corrupt in those times, it forceably rammed it's religion down the throats of others and when it couldn't do that it adopted local customs and made them their own.

i think we're gonna wind up going in circles here, so i'll move on in the discussion. but i just wanted to point out it's not about me believing what i want to believe - it's about being able to accept things you don't want to necessarily accept.

[Neon_Chaos]

Originally Posted by Bea-Arthurs Hip

I know who the Moors are, you statement above was that Christians invaded Muslim lands. You make it seem as if the Muslims were these peacful no-mads who somehow stumbled upon lands and over took them with whiskey and ciggerettes...

I believe it was Marlboro lights and Rum.

[Neon_Chaos]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

hey, i'm not saying the Muslims were boyscouts, but the documentary wasn't a dissertation on Islam - it was about the Crusades - and in that regard it revealed some things about the participants and their true motivations (well, it didn't reveal a whole lot for people who had prior knowledge on the subject, but i did learn quite a few things). the subject is the Crusaders. i'm sure a documentary focusing on Muslims and their rise to power will show some pretty disturbing things as well. hey, I'm Catholic myself, but i'm able to view it without bias and call a spade a spade. the Church was widely corrupt in those times, it forceably rammed it's religion down the throats of others and when it couldn't do that it adopted local customs and made them their own.

i think we're gonna wind up going in circles here, so i'll move on in the discussion. but i just wanted to point out it's not about me believing what i want to believe - it's about being able to accept things you don't want to necessarily accept.

Exactly. The topic was the Crusades, and the Crusades were a failed invasion of foreign lands. I don't get why people are painting it like we're showing the Muslims out to be, as you called them, 'boyscouts'. I don't remember posting anything about the Moors not having shed blood for their own part as well, but the Crusades were basically just a teritorial fight in which the Moors were the current owners of said territory and the Christians were the failed invaders.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

the Crusades were basically just a teritorial fight in which the Moors were the current owners of said territory and the Christians were the failed invaders.

i would agree with this, i think it's a very good "in a nutshell" type of statement.

[ISiddiqui]

a difference being BOTH sides played on the religious ferver of their subjects (in the Crusades as a whole). Not saying that some commanders that did not have religious ferver, but there were plenty who didn't and wanted some glory or money.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

a difference being BOTH sides played on the religious ferver of their subjects (in the Crusades as a whole). Not saying that some commanders that did not have religious ferver, but there were plenty who didn't and wanted some glory or money.

exactly

also both sides committed unspeakable atrocities

I didn't watch the show; I was just basing my comments on ChemSoldier's description. Also HA's comments raised my hackles, since my experience is people overwhelmingly view the Crusades the exact opposite of what he posited.

[ISiddiqui]

::shrug:: From others (at other forums), they didn't agree with Chem's assessment of the thing.

Though the Crusades were (orginally) called for by Urban II, who really didn't care about the religion of the thing, IMO. The 1st Crusade seemed totally political by the Pope. And it seems that there was a focus on the 1st and 3rd Crusades (the original and Saladin's)

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

exactly

also both sides committed unspeakable atrocities

I didn't watch the show; I was just basing my comments on ChemSoldier's description. Also HA's comments raised my hackles, since my experience is people overwhelmingly view the Crusades the exact opposite of what he posited.

i would say most people's familiarity about the Crusades ends after a class or two on the subject in high school. a lot gets glossed over, it gets painted in a much more positive light. i went to a private Catholic high school (as well as elementary school, and i graduated from St. John's University) - i can assure you there was no alluding to the attrocities commited by the Crusaders at the private schools i went to. no talk of slaughtering innocents or warriors with other motives for going. nope, it was all about how heroic these people were and how galant their mission. separate research on the subject and from separate research on the Knights Templar - who were started during the days of the Crusades and from those texts a much clearer picture was painted on how the Church operated in that time. a book you might like, if you're into that time period and into Templar history, is Born In Blood.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

I must admit that my knowledge of the crusades is a 2 week section in HIST 467 Europe and, The Middle Ages a few years ago before going off into the GWOT (Some say Global Crusade on Terror), I am by no means an ''expert'' on the Crusades I have studied some of it. What I got out of the 2 week section on the crusades is that (this is my own thesis after going through old notes that I dug out of my footlocker): The Crusades were political and, a defensive war against Moslem aggression to protect conquest of Christian lands.

Sure people went for all reasons (including greed and, land and, power et.ala), but like in all wars many went to defend their homes, family and, convictions against what they perceived was a threat to the core of Western Civ. and, their way of life.

I'm not an anti-muslim right wing wacko, Im just a man who wants a consice and, a fair portrayal of both sides.
Edit remember at this point Europe was on the verge of being overtaken ( 2/3 of Old Europe was conquered at the time) and, constantinople was in danger of going under hence Pope Urban II calls The Council of Clairmont 1095 to call Knights of Christendom to push back Islam and, take back Jerusalem.

Major Impact of the crusades would be: Returning crusaders whom before thought of an areal (local) existence were exposed to new ideas and, knowledge regarding the outside world. They saw goods from all over and, undoubtedly brought stories back to Europe of Riches and, etc that the world has to offer. Silk from Cathay, gems from Africa, and other luxury goods. Which inspired others to go forth and, explore and, trade....but that's another story.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by CHEMICAL SOLDIER

Im just a man who wants a consice and, a fair portrayal of both sides.

And you thought you might get that on television?
{giggle} {snort} {guffaw}
Stop CS, you're killin' me over here.

[MikeVic]

Not getting involved, just posting this..

hxxp://cgi.ebay.com/Miracle-Sandwich-Flying-Spaghetti-Monster_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQcategoryZ16710QQitemZ5611000686QQrdZ1

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by CHEMICAL SOLDIER

What I got out of the 2 week section on the crusades is that (this is my own thesis after going through old notes that I dug out of my footlocker): The Crusades were political and, a defensive war against Moslem aggression to protect conquest of Christian lands.

Sure people went for all reasons (including greed and, land and, power et.ala), but like in all wars many went to defend their homes, family and, convictions against what they perceived was a threat to the core of Western Civ. and, their way of life.

I believe this is interesting to both Hell Atlantic and St. Cronin in their argument over what most people believe about the Crusades. It does seem that Hell Atlantic's view of what people believe is winning out at least on this account, at least more so than st. cronin's.

Though I do have to ask if it was a 'defensive war' why go for an region that was taken over 300 years (or so) before the Crusades were called by Pope Urban II? Why not go to the front lines, whereever they may be?

[Neon_Chaos]

It was not a defensive war. It was an invasion to retake lands that were previously lost hundreds of years before.

If it was a defensive war, then we would have seen the Moors try sail all the way to Italy and England to sack Rome and the English Crown.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

It was not a defensive war. It was an invasion to retake lands that were previously lost hundreds of years before.

If it was a defensive war, then we would have seen the Moors try sail all the way to Italy and England to sack Rome and the English Crown.

again, i would agree with this. very well-put distinction there.

[Sadalia]

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

More like a failed English/Christian invasion of Muslim lands.

Of course that would be nice if the Moors even bothered to actually go all the way to England and kick ass there. Unfortunately, they were just pleased to get rid of the English invaders off of their own soil and fart in their general direction.

Really not sure why you're picking out England here; English kings took leading roles in the third and ninth crusades, but to portray the crusades in general as a mainly English effort is seriously inaccurate.

[Warhammer]

First, the majority of Crusaders were French. Second, part of Pope Urban II's motivation was to bring the Eastern Empire back into the church. Many of the Popes tried to do this up until one of the Emperor's did convert in 1430 or so. However, the backlash in Constantinople was incredible as many preferred Islam to the Roman Catholic Church.

Anyhow, what the Crusades were was an effort by the Pope to help out the Eastern Empire. He promised land and wealth to the nobles and he offered heaven to the peasants. He also realized from a Grand Strategic point of view, that it was imperative to prop up Constantinople to keep the Muslims confined to the East.

[Anthony]

indeed, the French were major players in the Crusades. they were the reason for the Templar's demise - they needed the Templar's vast wealth to fund the French war against the English and coerced the Pope to declare the Templars - warrior monks protecting Christian pilgrims on the road to the Holy Land - excommunicated and tortured them via Inquisition to try to force them to admit to false crimes against the Church. crazy days back then.