Important new article on the Crusades

[Risto Rautiainen]

I totally agree with Craig. I'm reading a book about the crusades edited by Dr. Madden (Crusades : The Illustrated History) and it really gives a less strong opinion than that tone of the article.

[Stacy Clifford]

I'm still thinking about what actually worked with this Crusades?

What they managed to accomplish?

From whatever I read it seems that Crusaders were good at attacking wrong
guys, murdering Jews and civilians, being manipulated, impoverished and
killed.

I hope that they actually did something right.

From what I can tell, if the Crusades did anything right it was to keep the fight out of their own front yard for the most part. Yes, they failed miserably to retake the Holy Land as was their original intent, but if the Muslims want to conquer Europe and you're keeping the fight outside of Europe (mostly), then the Muslims aren't really succeeding at their goals either. In the big picture the Europeans definitely got the worst of the fighting, but at the end of the day the tie still goes to the defender.

[Andrzej Rosa]

From what I can tell, if the Crusades did anything right it was to
keep the fight out of their own front yard for the most part. Yes, they
failed miserably to retake the Holy Land as was their original intent, but if
the Muslims want to conquer Europe and you're keeping the fight outside of
Europe (mostly), then the Muslims aren't really succeeding at their goals
either.

It seems to make sense, but I'm not sure you are right.

I understand, that knights in Europe might see all Islam as a unit, but it
was not true.

OK. I read something about III Crusade and maybe learned something too.
I do not expect to understand most of important things, but I'll write what
appears to me, and maybe someone with clarify obvious mistakes.

To me, it looks like Crusades actually weakened our position by indirectly
helping Turks.

Once Saladin unified the Arabs they became powerful enough, that Turks must
be cautious with them. Without Crusades there would be no power in the Near
East, beside Turks, which could balance him. But because of Crusades Turks
were safe to attack Byzantium.

Crusades and Christian Holy Land balanced Saladin, so they were safe to do
what they pleased in the West.

I expect to be wrong, but I'm still curious, so I'll post it.

Best regards.

[s_taillebois]

M. Rosa,
Good observation. One element that's oft forgotten is the Byzantine empire had held out against Islamic expansion well prior to the crusades. And anything which weakened it, was detrimental to the west. The west was fortunate, in some regards, the the Byzantine's held out as long as they did.
And that's one of the reasons the Byzantine's were in no hurry to encourage the crusaders overmuch...they could deal with the Arabic Moslims, via strongpoints, diplomacy, or well placed tributes.(at least until Baghdad itself fell to the Turks) But having such as Alp Arslan (who actually captured the Byzantine emperor-and was probably the Turkish leader closest to Saladin's attitudes), and the various much more aggressive and later Ghazi's like Tugrul (who finally ended the Persian empire) encrouching on Byzantine borders was what the Byzantine's viewed as the greater threat. And repeatedly tried to warn the Outremer kingdoms of that condition. And they were right, eventually the fall of Outremer, and the Empire itself, was a success of the Turks. (The Turks, military and expansions were quite remarkable in themselves)
But often the Byzantine's aren't thought of as a factor. Ironic insofar as they were essentially 'Rome verse 2' and lasted into the beginning of the modern era.
A tactical lesson it seems, sometimes one's not always best served by attacking the closest enemy, when it blinds to the more dangerous one. The Byzantine's earlier on, had been so obsessed with Persia, they under estimated Islam, especially the Turks. And the Crusaders, too fixated on Syria, Byzantium, and Egypt to fully appreciate the potential of the Turks...

[philippewillaume]

Hello
I think trying to link crusade as a reply to an Islamic surge is putting a modern spin on the whole affair.

Europe did not exist as we understand it, nor did and hegemonic Islam and nor a Christian world.
The different caliphates were as bitter enemies within themselves that the European kingdoms were between themselves.

Yeap the arabs invasion were stopped at Poiter/tours 732 and by the same occasion Aquitane (the region around Bodeaux ) was integrated to the French kingdom as the count Eudes asked for help to merovingian king (or his chanbellan Charles Martel)
So far they never encountered any opponent of that size in heir Spanish campaign.
In fact charles had offered to help Eudes before but the later declined to keep in independence. Nothing better than an a bit of foreign invasion to keep vassal at their place.

During the reign of Charlemagne 800 (carolus magnus) who imposed Irish Christianity used to happily go and pillage/protection money spain catholic or Muslim (he was an equal opportunity bully) (hence Roland and Ronceveaux who was on the rear guard because he was punished for devastating a Muslim town ).
He had a Great vision one language, one currency, one faith anything that did not fit the model was promptly removed (ask the Saxons of lower Germany for more details)

So when Charles died, the roman catholic church which was a little annoyed with the Irish vision of Catholicism was quite happy to let Charles sons bicker amongst themselves instead of going an free Spain.
Besides, even though having taxes on non-islamist, practicing one own faith was permitted as was going to St Jacques de Compostelle, one of the 3 recognized pilgrimage site. (It is quite clear as well that the European Jews flew to spain on a regular basis).

And it stayed that way, until a more integrist wave came to conquer abbasanid spain, the almohravides, almohades and later Merinid. The contention between almohravid and Christian kingdoms was really how much of the dying abbasanid kingdom/city states (Taifa)each of them could grab before the other.
In fact the Christian kingdom and successive Saracens waves fought as almost more between themselves than against each other.
By 1250 the Nazhari kingdom of Granada (Granada, almeria, Malaga) a muslim kingdom was de facto vassal to the Spanish king and that until the fall of Granada in 1492.

And all that has really nothing to do Jerusalem or the crusade (other than instead of fighting to the east the Spaniard could fight home instead and were granted the same indulgences). The only real benefit of crusade in Spain was during the second crusade with the retaking of Lisbon (which te crusader plundered before giving it back) by alphonso VII and and contingent of crusader. (and then they continued east).

There was place in Europe where Muslim and Jew were as well treated Hungarian and Byzantine Empire fro example. However in all big Roman Catholic powerhouses you just could not be Muslim full stop and being Jew was not especially safe.

Being a dhimmi in abbasanid spain and to and in the Cordoba kingdom state was much better than bein a non roman catholic in France Germany or Spain.
Or for that matter it was much better that being a Dhimmi under seldjouk rule (especially a christian Dhimmi).
On that point it is not because being a Dhimmi was better than the ususal standard of the time, that it does not make it the pinacle of releigious fredom and integration. It is nothing more than an discriminative system and has no place in todays world, but it is now and not 500 years ago.

The 1080 crusade was really against the seldjukids trucks, which prevented pilgrimage to Jerusalem.
Most of the exaction where committed in Europe by the forenuners (Etienne Marcel) and the knight that went with him, the posh knight army (Godfroy, Tancred Bohemond and the clique) behaving relatively well through Europe and Byzantine empire (if we acknowledge that there was an intense political game between the Basileus an the crusader and the reluctance to swear fealty to Commen and the fact that they kept Antioch) instead of giving it back as was originally agreed), the even behave absolutely pristinely in lower Armenia , and Fatimid country (which strangely enough was not on speaking terms with the Seldjukid at the time).
On the whole every body behaved according to the standard of the time.

[Stacy Clifford]

That is a good observation on the Crusades giving the Turks an opportunity by focusing too much on the other enemy, the Arabs. The Turks clearly tried to take advantage of the opportunity by taking Constantinople and reaching all the way to Vienna. If not for a few lucky rainstorms, according to the article, they almost had it. However, going back to my "tie goes to the defender" theory, all the previous fighting that happened further south and east amounted to stalling for time. If the Turks had been able to take advantage of their window of opportunity, sure, none of it would have mattered and we might be living in a very different world today, but it seems to me that the timing of that window was at the very end of the period where the Muslims would still be capable of defeating western forces. Vienna happened in 1529. By that time, as Madden states, the Renaissance and all its innovations were really starting to kick into high gear, and the discoveries in the New World were flooding Western Europe with wealth. By 1571 and Lepanto, the tide of power was seriously turning in Europe's favor. The known world had doubled in size and Europe seized the opportunity to become its master, leaving the Middle East in the dust. "The Muslim threat was neutralized economically. As Europe grew in wealth and power, the once awesome and sophisticated Turks began to seem backward and pathetic—no longer worth a Crusade." Madden makes a lot of sense here to me.

So basically, the Crusades as a plan to take back the Holy Land failed miserably. The Crusades as a defense against the invasion of Europe almost failed, but stalled things long enough for European culture to ultimately catch and surpass Middle Eastern culture in its abilities as an expansionist power. Obviously nobody planned it that way, but it worked anyway. Based on number of victories and stated goals by each side, the Muslims look like the clear winners, but by the time it was over, it was irrelevant. That's the ultimate success of the Crusades; they protected the egg until it hatched, and the snake was left watching as the bird flew away.

[Mike Cartier]

well the real tragedy of the crusades was how the Eurpeans gave birth to the concept of the extreme religious holy warriors. The holy warriors of later centuries from Islam were merely imitations of the crazies we exported over there, a direct response to what we did.
If you ever get a chance check out the History of the Crusades hosted by terry jones of monty python. Hilarious and excellent documentary series.

In the end moralising stuff about wars centuries ago through the modern lense of the modern PC centric european is exasperating. War is hell. But back then thats what you did, yes we were bastards, yes they were bastards. Can we just agree that most people engaged in warfare acted like bastards.

[Andrzej Rosa]

Vienna happened in 1529.

Firs one. Second happened one and a half century later.

By that time, as Madden states, the Renaissance and all its
innovations were really starting to kick into high gear, and the discoveries
in the New World were flooding Western Europe with wealth. By 1571 and
Lepanto, the tide of power was seriously turning in Europe's favor. The known
world had doubled in size and Europe seized the opportunity to become its
master, leaving the Middle East in the dust. "The Muslim threat was
neutralized economically. As Europe grew in wealth and power, the once
awesome and sophisticated Turks began to seem backward and pathetic-no longer
worth a Crusade." Madden makes a lot of sense here to me.

Not to me, I'm afraid.
Turks might end up backward, but not by the time Madden calls them pathetic
and "no longer worthy" of a Crusade. Poles fought series of wars with Turks,
luckily mostly victorious, and they were formidable opponent. How come those
"pathetic" Turks managed to besiege Vienna for two months in 1683, and how
come Austria and part of Germany were not enough to fight them?

If you are not familiar with this period and/or location, Poles came with
help this time because of treaty which was agreed between Polish king and
Austrian Emperor.

So basically, the Crusades as a plan to take back the Holy Land failed
miserably. The Crusades as a defense against the invasion of Europe almost
failed, but stalled things long enough for European culture to ultimately
catch and surpass Middle Eastern culture in its abilities as an expansionist
power.

I do not see how they stalled anything. Our mightiest Islamic opponent,
namely Turks, were mostly untouched by Crusading, and managed to conquer huge
areas in south-eastern Europe during Renaissance.

Then suddenly stopped "being worthy", but this we already know.

Best regards.

[s_taillebois]

Incidentally, the Italian Renn. was a partial product of learned Byzantine refugees.
But, their presence seems to have had little direct affect on the martial aspects of the Italians, beyond a certain affectation for wearing uniforms based on Roman styles.
Indirect effect, they made the printing of books cheaper, which in turn fostered the growth of printed fight/fence books (whatever these were called in Italian). Aldous. Munitas, and others hired the Byzantines as interpreters of foriegn and classic works, as they had the knowledge and had to work cheap given their circumstance. So the information needed for the new printed books became cheaper, which made it possible to print more books.-including fairly affordable fence manuals.
The Turks, one factor was the trade ties with the Italians. Poor business to go off and crusade around, as it disrupted the trade networks. Granted the some Venetian's were there, and fighting when Constantanople finally went down in 1453. But, other Italian powers weren't too upset about the loss. And other European powers were quite happy to be selling the Turks anything...after all it was Urban of Hungary's artillary which Mehmet 2nd used, and Venetians in his army likely suggested hauling the ships overland (they had done it in at the river Po and lake Garda). So it wasn't necessarily that the Turks were a non-factor. More a matter that they were far enough away, and profitable enough to leave alone.

[Kyro_Lantsberger]

In reply to:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quite the contrary: Popes, bishops, and preachers made it clear that the Jews of Europe were to be left unmolested. In a modern war, we call tragic deaths like these "collateral damage."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Pogroms are collateral damage?!!!


I dont post much, mostly hear to read and take away things, but you are clearly misunderstanding the point of the text. You are equating "collateral damage" with pogroms, when the author's intent was that at the LEVEL OF LEADERSHIP/ORGANIZERS there were precautions made for the safety of the Jewish people. Obviously, and without dispute, this was ignored at the operational level. The reference to "collateral damage" is a barb against our modern means of warfare, which admits that civilians will be killed here and there.

[Kyro_Lantsberger]

Im very familiar with this particular article from some other places where it has been published. Im very intrigued how Mr. Clements came across it. I have also read to a certain depth in sources friendly to the prof's opinion. Despite the "abysmal failure" of the Crusades as a whole, there are some amazing facts to be discovered about Outremer, and the appx. 100 years of European rule after the First Crusade. However, the whole issue of the Crusades is difficult for several reasons.

- Rohrshak (sp) test
Ones outlook towards certain things will color one's opinion, this is one area where there are only biased people and liars. One's attitude towards Christianity, Catholicism, Church-State will drastically alter one's outlook on this whole affair. We seek to villify people of the past according to our standards of the present. I am not a relativist(though I am a hypocrite) I am not trying to make a "standard of the times" arguement, but some of the exchanges among these "zealots" would be unthinkable today..ie....St. Thomas Aquinas taking Aristotellian thought from Averroes(Muslim Philosopher) as a keystone of his work......could you imagine a jurist of today trying to use Iranian sources to justify the state's role in providing for public morals? How's that for "tolerance?" These things are literally a "seek and you shall find" type of scenario.........you will always find data to support any position you take

- Incomplete facts -
As the article states, there are a great many points of fact that have not been included in the discussion. I have not yet seen the Schism of 1054 mentioned on this thread, and the relationship between Pope and Patriarch is of immense importance to understanding this issue. We are also so used to thinking of the Middle East as an Arab/Muslim state that we forget that Egypt and North Africa(Syria as well) were the bastions of early Christianity --monasticism, bishops, and many scholars. Even look at the cities named in the New Testament - Ephesus, Antioch, Smyrna, etc......all in Asia Minor.........obviously the "demographic shift" from Christianity to Islam in these areas had to happen SOMEHOW.......

- Cheat to the end
This is the term I use for being judgemental of people in history....weve read the end of the novel, and know how the story ends. We dont feel the same fears and uncertainties of those in the exact situations which occured. Again, I do not mean this as a case for relativism, I believe that we can "get into their heads," so to speak, but to do so takes effort, seeing the political map of the time, and realizing the facts behind the decisions made.

--Some stuff is bad
People did do bad things, that has been well developed on this thread. I am a veteran of Bosnia and Iraq, and I totally agree. You arent in your normal mindset in those places. Physical and emotional fatigue really alter your judgements and perceptions. This goes back to my first point of villifying the past by present politics. When you take every action by every general and every soldier over a course of 400years, you are going to find ghastly events but, on the same token.....The credit card debt that we hold would be abhorrant to medievals. Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, and our generation's nutjobs of various ideologies have committed atrocities of astonishing scale.

Sorry to ramble, but this is something Ive been studying for a while. Im a vet of Bosnia and Iraq. Have a degree in PoliSci, and also do some freelance writing, mostly for Catholic Publications, which is where I first found this article. Im also a lifelong martial artist looking to cross swords with ANYBODY here in the near future.

Cheers

[Andrzej Rosa]

Incidentally, the Italian Renn. was a partial product of learned
Byzantine refugees.

Incidentally, it was a product of Moors. If they did not have all those
classic Greek books in Cordova, I see it badly for our culture. Renaissance,
you see, would be kinda hard without knowledge that we previously had
wonderful civilisation which can be born again.

And, what is even more influenciall, Moorish books gave job for Byzantine
translators!

Granted the some Venetian's were there, and fighting when
Constantanople finally went down in 1453.

I read that there were some ships from Genoa, iirc.

More a matter that they were far enough away, and profitable enough to
leave alone.

Contrary to Arabs and Egyptians during Crusades, who were just around a corner.

But nice that you do not consider Ottoman Empire at their best time especially
pathetic and "not worthy".

Best regards.

[Stacy Clifford]

I do admit I'm not as familiar with this part of history as I'd like to be, and I probably made it sound like the balance of power shifted faster than it really did. I know the Turks were formidable opponents for a considerable period of time, up until the early 1700s at least. However, your comment about conquests does point out one fact. The wealth from the New World I mentioned was mostly flowing into western Europe, where they were farthest from the threat and closest to the open ocean. After Spain got filthy stinking rich in the 1500s, they had more problems with the French and the English than they ever had with Moors. Germany and Italy didn't have the colonies, but they were still economic powerhouses good at making money. Eastern Europe was too close to the Turks and too far from the Atlantic to reap the same benefits everybody else was getting, and I think in some ways maybe western Europe sacrificed them to the Turks. I'm sure there were ups and downs on both sides during those centuries that allowed the Turks to surge again the 1680s while central Europe sagged, but I don't know the details so I'll stop my speculation there. To amend my earlier statement though, it was specifically western Europe that took off and left the Muslims in the dust during the Renaissance, which took a couple hundred years to fully realize. Eastern Europe, under constant attack, never got the same chances and ultimately got screwed. I don't expect to be fully right on this, but my history professors liked to emphasize the big picture over the details, so that's how I see things. Does that sound a little more accurate?

[Stacy Clifford]

Good posts, Kyro. On the term "collateral damage" though, my view is that the term doesn't fit ancient warfare. Before explosives and long-distance projectile weapons came about, anybody who was killed was pretty much killed by somebody, on purpose. To me, "collateral damage" means accidental death of unintended targets, mostly by bad aim and area-effect explosives. Killing somebody with a sword is an act you can consciously refrain from or control to some extent because you can see your target, as opposed to shooting through a window or a wall or firing a cruise missile from a ship. The chaos of war back then made knowing who to kill difficult sometimes, just as it does now I'm sure, so maybe that's the overlap, but I mostly see "collateral damage" as being more applicable to modern warfare.

[Andrzej Rosa]

To amend my earlier statement though, it was specifically western
Europe that took off and left the Muslims in the dust during the Renaissance,
which took a couple hundred years to fully realize. Eastern Europe, under
constant attack, never got the same chances and ultimately got
screwed.

I do not think you understand my point.

1. I do not care if Western Europe "sacrificed" Eastern. I even do not think
it is true. We, for example, could do just fine by ourselves.

2. I do not think that we got screwed up by anyone. We could do just fine by
ourselves in this case too.

3. Maybe most important. I try to not regard politics and history as an
exercise in ethics. It has nothing to do with ethics and morals, just often
conflicting goals.

So these are things I tried to not say.

Back to what I was actually trying to say, namely to discuss some important
ideas of the article.

1. Crusading was a way to fight Islam, and protect Europe from it.
If so, it was done badly and did not succeed.

2. Crusading stopped making sense later, because Turks were weak anyway.
They were not weak. They were still a threat to Christendom.

Nobody was crusading, because it went out of fashion. Not because the
Turks were weak.

My main point - People changed, not strategic "reasons".

For later folks fighting for Holy Land was not so "attractive" way of
spending their time and resources as it was during Middle Ages.

Madden, on the other hand, tries to show that Crusades made a lot of sense
and actually helped us i saving our culture from Islam. I still hope
somebody will actually be able to point anything of importance where
Crusading actually worked.

Best regards.