The Crusades were a Defensive War - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-25-2003, 12:17 AM   #16
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 05:25 PM
it was all gw's fault
__________________

__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 11-25-2003, 12:19 AM   #17
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 12:25 AM
I wonder why people here focus on the crusades rather than the most important reason they started, Muslim invasion and occupation of Christian area's. Without Muslim invasion and occupation of Christian lands, there would be no Crusades.

What right did Muslims have to leave Arabia and invade and occupy the Holy Land and other area's that had never at any time been under their control?

There are plenty of area's where Christianity was spread without the use of any military force, comparitively how many area's was Islam spread to without any sort of military force?



SHERRY,

" LOL--unlawful based on what? Whose laws?"


I think most people can understand that unprovoked Muslim invasions of area's beyond Arabia were unlawful. It is this invasion, occupation and annexation of lands that had long been owned by others and had never belonged to those that lived in Arabia, that led to the Crusades.

But if you think this was somehow
lawful for Muslims living in Arabia to do, I'd like to hear more. If there was a justifiiable security reason rather than just a land grab for power and the opportunity to spread ones religion and influence, then that would be very interesting to look into and debate.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 11-25-2003, 12:35 AM   #18
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 04:25 PM
The first crusades were born, in part, out of the perceived need to protect Christian pilgrims visiting the Holy Lands. Subsequently, the power in a religious leader's ability to muster a fighting force drove the "crusades" into something far more destructive.

Thanks for posting the article Dread. It seems that in this day and age the crusaders are only used to denigrate Christianity.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 11-25-2003, 06:38 AM   #19
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 12:25 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
He doesn't mention that these desperate attempts included rape and pillage of peoples who were just as Christian as the Crusaders themselves. It wasn't as simple as he makes it out to be.
I agree. This stuff is incredibly complex, and I can get really confused by all of this stuff. Yes, the early Christians had these lands because they'd been part of the Roman Empire, which turned into the Byzantine Empire when the Western Empire collapsed. Well, all Empires eventually collapse. Stronger powers become the new Empires when the old imperial powers can no longer run the show. There was a vacuum of leadership in some of these places, and first the Persians grabbed them and then the Arabs grabbed the Persian Empire and then the Turks came along. It was "survival of the fittest" in politics, both in Europe and the Middle East. People in Syria and the surrounding areas were Arabic ethnically and culturally. Anytime you've got religion involved you're going to get hot emotions, and all sorts of things, including atrocities like the sacking of the Greek Christian city Constantinople. That's really what drove the wedge between Eastern and Western Christianity. The Western crusaders became a pain in the ass in Byzantium. That's why they eventually lost to the Turks; the Franks became more of a pain than the Turks were to the Greeks. The sacking fatally weakened the resistance of the Greeks. They came to prefer Turkish over Frankish rulers, then they preferred the Turks over feuding Greek rulers who didn't really care about the people, only their power or in some cases $$. There really must have been a war a minute! So there were all sorts of tensions and hatreds, some of which persist to this day. Then the Eastern Orthodox wanted a Crusade led by Rome about like they wanted a hole in their heads. The early Crusaders honestly believed they were following a just cause, and it was OK if they wanted to make the Holy Land safe for pilgrims. But some pretty ugly politics came into the picture and wouldn't get out.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 11-25-2003, 06:45 AM   #20
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader

Thanks for posting the article Dread. It seems that in this day and age the crusaders are only used to denigrate Christianity.
My point and the author's point as well!
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 11-25-2003, 06:59 AM   #21
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 12:25 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Thanks for posting the article Dread. It seems that in this day and age the crusaders are only used to denigrate Christianity.
Oh, in some cases this is true. It was OK for them to want the Holy Land to be safe for the Christian pilgrims. We still make pilgrimages to the Holy Land and prefer to be safe. The problems and tensions came with the acquisition instinct and the competition inherent in monarchical/imperial politics. Remember, we're not talking about democracy here. The Europeans didn't believe in democracy either. They believed people are there to be ruled, and various and sundry rulers thought that it should be them. Ever heard of two kings in one kingdom? I don't think so. If so one of them wasn't king very long.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 11-25-2003, 07:33 AM   #22
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:25 PM
Verte...I am so glad I posted the article.....It is so good to see you in your element!
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 11-25-2003, 08:42 AM   #23
New Yorker
 
Sherry Darling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,857
Local Time: 08:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
I SHERRY,

" LOL--unlawful based on what? Whose laws?"


I think most people can understand that unprovoked Muslim invasions of area's beyond Arabia were unlawful. It is this invasion, occupation and annexation of lands that had long been owned by others and had never belonged to those that lived in Arabia, that led to the Crusades.

But if you think this was somehow
lawful for Muslims living in Arabia to do, I'd like to hear more. If there was a justifiiable security reason rather than just a land grab for power and the opportunity to spread ones religion and influence, then that would be very interesting to look into and debate.
Yes, it sure would. I adore history. My students always told me I taught "hinglish" instead of English. LOL.

Anyway, IF it was a power/land grab, like so many wars were then and are now, it was in no way just. I wouldn't be okay with it. My point is that 1. he doesn't present any actual evidence for this theory 2. I was amused that he called it "illegal" as if there were offical laws that government that at the time (or hell, as if there really are now). Immoral? Unethical? Okay. Illegal just didn't seem accurate to me. Just being semantically correct.

Dread Glad you're doing a bit better.

Okay, guys, I'm off to write one of the FIVE freaking papers I have due between now and the end of the semester. *sigh*



SD
__________________
Sherry Darling is offline  
Old 11-25-2003, 10:47 AM   #24
Acrobat
 
Blacksword's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 389
Local Time: 12:25 AM
Sting you're forcefully introducing concepts like internationla law into an era where no such thing existed. Kindgoms and empires fought, they had their place in teh sun and then they died. North Africa, Egypt, Syria-Palestine, and Asia Minor were all conquered by the Romans replaced Carthage, the Ptolomaic kingdom in Egypt, the Selucid kingdom in Syria and various small kingdoms in Asia Minor. And all of those took over from... well you get my point. No one has rights to land Palestine has seen so may rulers, most of whom are not idigenous, that to say such and such had a right to rule there is a mute point. Christianity spread thought the Roman Empire and eventually became central to the Roman state, but take religionout of it and the Arab Calipate (term for the early Islamic Imperialist phase) was just one Empire repalcing two old decrepit ones, the Roman (Byzantine) and the Sassanid (Persian). For Much of the early part of teh Caliphate's history under its Umayyad and Abassid rulers a sizable protion of the population remained CHristian. They weren't killed or run off they stayed right there under new Muslim overlords. Gradually the population converted (as being Muslim brought a number of advantages - in Constantine and his successors' time many pagans converted to Christianity for the same reason) until by the end of teh Abbasid Period (middle of the 10th Century) the majority were Muslim. Things only went really sour after the Turks took over as they were much more hard nosed than the Arabs had been and it was the Turks who closed off access to the Holy Land. Ironically to the various Islamic states the Crusades were a minor annoyance at best as they had much bigger things to worry about, like the Mongols.
__________________
Blacksword is offline  
Old 11-25-2003, 10:48 AM   #25
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Rono's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: the Netherlands
Posts: 6,163
Local Time: 01:25 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
The general premise of the article is correct though, the crusades main purpose were to retake lands unlawfully taken by Muslim forces. It is an interesting fact that Muslims achieved their empire almost entirely through military conquest. Christianity before the Muslim invasions was not spread through the use of military force. That is a huge difference.
So, move out of America and give it back to the Native indians,...talking about military conquest.
__________________
Rono is offline  
Old 11-25-2003, 10:54 AM   #26
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 12:25 AM
Good points Blacksword. I was trying to think of a period when these people were *not* under someone else's rule. They were under someone else's rule when the Moslems came. The Greeks and the Romans both forced "Hellenistic" culture on the Jews and kicked them out of their native land when they resisted. That wasn't very nice was it? Thanks for the post Dreadsox. I love this stuff!
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 11-25-2003, 11:01 AM   #27
New Yorker
 
Sherry Darling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,857
Local Time: 08:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Blacksword
Sting you're forcefully introducing concepts like internationla law into an era where no such thing existed. Kindgoms and empires fought, they had their place in teh sun and then they died.
Precisely my point, only much more clearly articulated. Thanks Blacksword!

SD
__________________
Sherry Darling is offline  
Old 11-25-2003, 05:28 PM   #28
War Child
 
iacrobat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 585
Local Time: 01:25 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Thanks for posting the article Dread.
Let me dido that, thanks Dreadsox.

Quote:
It seems that in this day and age the crusaders are only used to denigrate Christianity.
I suppose it is just your (sub)standard human behaviour that has been happening everywhere on the planet for the better part of history.
__________________
iacrobat is offline  
Old 11-25-2003, 06:44 PM   #29
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 12:25 AM
RONO,

When my ancestors came from England in the 1630s and 1640s to Massachusetts they didn't steal anyones land or take anything by force. Their childern and Grandchildern however did experience King Phillips War at the end of the 1600s during which 10% of the non-Indian male population was wiped out by the Indians.

Blacksword,

Looking at my timeline again, I would agree that it would be unacceptable to launch an invasion of Arab lands in 1095 because back in 632 they were Christian lands. The Crusades in 1095 were justified only by the threats to security and violations of that time + or - several decades. People who have lived peacefully and lawfully for 5 or 10 generations should not have to suffer for acts committed by their ancestors.

When looking at the past its easy to engage in time compression where 100 years is looked on more like 10 years. But then again, people back then were more likely to hold on to old political ideas. Looking back at the world in 1900 seems like a totally different place today. But for those living in 1195, 1095 did not seem as distant I suspect.

The chief justification for the Crusades seems to be the prevention of Pilgrims visiting the Holy Land. The only other things would be the threat of Muslim invasion or take over of more of Europe at that time, not what had happened to the Holyland 400 years earlier.


Yes, I understand many of these lands had passed under the rule of one Empire to another, but I feel the actions of any aggression can be judged and found to be unlawful depending on the circumstances. Just because this is a time period of Empires does not justify invading someones land and taking it for power and wealth, and for no vital security need or threat to ones country, state, Empire.

I feel that after living on certain land for several generations and claiming that land as ones own, peoples who's ancestors may have lived there 100 or 200 years ago no longer have a legitimate claim to that land, unless it is given to them by those there, or sold or some other present event or transaction makes the claim legitimate.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 11-25-2003, 07:54 PM   #30
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 12:25 AM
Blacksword, you know much more about early Islamic history than I do. I've just read some pretty sketchy stuff. Any book recommendations?
__________________

__________________
verte76 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com