In defence of the Crusaders

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Wednesday, June 15. 2011

In defence of the Crusaders

Four Myths about the Crusades. A quote:

The verdict seems unanimous. From presidential speeches to role-playing games, the crusades are depicted as a deplorably violent episode in which thuggish Westerners trundled off, unprovoked, to murder and pillage peace-loving, sophisticated Muslims, laying down patterns of outrageous oppression that would be repeated throughout subsequent history. In many corners of the Western world today, this view is too commonplace and apparently obvious even to be challenged.

But unanimity is not a guarantee of accuracy. What everyone “knows” about the crusades may not, in fact, be true. From the many popular notions about the crusades, let us pick four and see if they bear close examination.

Posted by The Barrister in History, Our Essays at 16:22 | Comments (19) | Trackbacks (2)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

PingBack

Weblog: coalitionoftheswilling.net
Tracked: Jun 16, 07:19

A Little History
Via the good folks at Maggie’s Farm here’s a needed reminder in today’s world of “narrative” of that most un-PC thing: actual history....

Weblog: The Coalition Of The Swilling
Tracked: Jun 16, 07:19

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Thank you for this article. I have found it incredibly frustrating to discuss this with the average American. The liberal revised history is now orthodoxy. Watch the Four Feathers and then the Kingdom of Heaven. Both go out of their way to present devout Muslims in a positive light. I really enjoyed the Four Feathers but the point remains. Then watch a film focusing on the same era in regards to the faithful Christian.

Diversity demands a counterbalance to Christianity and Islam is just the ticket.

#1 brian in Idaho on 2011-06-15 17:02 (Reply)

I have made my own crude version of these arguments numerous times to moonbats and otherwise sensible people over the years.

When Isabella was sending Columbus off to sail the ocean blue in '92, it was with the wealth and optimism her kingdom had gained from FINALLY driving out the (Muslim) Moors who'd invaded what we know as Spain SEVEN FREAKIN CENTURIES before.

My favorite (figuratively speaking) example of this was a conversation I had not long after 9/11 and the launch of US attacks into Afghanistan. The Swede with whom I was conversing was making the argument, mentioned in the article as one of the myths (#4 IIRC) that Muslims hate westerners, particularly Christians, because of the Crusades.

I responded with my own crude version of the take down of Myth #1 and while doing so I started to become oddly aware that he was under some weird impression that Islam preceded Christianity. He is not an uneducated person. When I demonstrated through history books and googling that Christianity long predated Islam and that Muslims had been attacking the Christian (Western) world for CENTURIES prior to any freaking crusades, he just sputtered and gurgled and exited the discussion.

#2 Knucklehead (Link) on 2011-06-15 17:55 (Reply)

Who cares about facts? It's the narrative that counts.

#2.1 BD on 2011-06-15 18:40 (Reply)

Nice summary. Some of this seems obvious from even an elementary knowledge of history...but that just proves another point.

#3 DrTorch on 2011-06-15 19:31 (Reply)

I thought everyone understood this already. Maybe it's because I zoned out in school when the subject came up. I guess there is something good to say about having done that after all.

#4 Big___Al on 2011-06-15 21:23 (Reply)

...and forgot to say, as others have: Very good article/summation.

#5 Big___Al on 2011-06-15 21:24 (Reply)

It is no coincidence that the period of rapid Islamic expansion is called the “Dark Ages” in Christian Europe. The first Crusade – as Crawford points out – was really the first Christian counter-attack to the Muslim onslaught. Also no coincidence that the First Crusade coincides with the end of the Dark Ages and the beginning of the High Middle Ages.

Once the Western civilization was able to resist the pressure from the Muslims, prosperity then the Renaissance followed.

#6 NJSoldier on 2011-06-15 22:30 (Reply)

Hey, if it worked once.....

#6.1 John on 2011-06-16 00:41 (Reply)

There were no "Dark Ages" except that the imperialist and oppressive states were lifted from much of the continent.

And in those places, people thrived.

It was that prosperity which led to the "Renaissance" where Petrarch rediscovered Cicero and became an official whiney academic, criticizing everyone who couldn't read latin.

#6.2 DrTorch on 2011-06-16 09:31 (Reply)

Huh? No Dark Ages? When Rome collapsed, Islam knocked the legs out of the Eastern Empire and the floodgates opened to hordes from the north and east. Five centuries of tribalism, illiteracy, disease, war, poverty, and stagnation.

#6.2.1 NJSoldier on 2011-06-16 15:11 (Reply)

G.K. Chesterton on the Crusades:

QUOTE:

“When people talk as if the Crusades were nothing more than an aggressive raid against Islam, they seem to forget in the strangest way that Islam itself was only an aggressive raid against the old and ordered civilization in these parts. I do not say it in mere hostility to the religion of Mahomet; I am fully conscious of many values and virtues in it; but certainly it was Islam that was the invasion and Christendom that was the thing invaded.” ... “The effort of the Crusades was sufficient to stop the advance of Islam, but not sufficient to exhaust it. A few centuries after, the Moslem attacked once more, with modern weapons and in a more indifferent age; and, amid the disputes of diplomatists and the dying debates of the Reformation, he succeeded in sailing up the Danube and nearly becoming a central European Power like Poland or Austria. From this position, after prodigious efforts, he was slowly and painfully dislodged. But Austria, though rescued, was exhausted and reluctant to pursue, and the Turk was left in possession of the countries he had devoured in his advance.”

For additional prescient thoughts on what is wrong with the world, try The American Chesterton Society.

#7 Pajak on 2011-06-15 22:35 (Reply)

In all seriousness, the invasion of Islam was the deathblow to the Greek influence around the Mediterranean. The modern country of Turkey is built on the graves of thousands of Greek cities, towns and villages. Even in the early twentieth century there was a large Greek population. While the European powers were busy killing each other during WW1, the Mohammedans finished the job.
I see no reason to have any respect for this death cult.

#7.1 John on 2011-06-16 00:49 (Reply)

I fully respect their capability to assimilate, destroy, and subvert anything it touches.
The trouble with western culture in general is that they underestimate Islam's capabilities in those areas, don't respect them, and therefore are unprepared for them.

I don't respect them because I like what it does, but because it's so effective and therefore needs to be treated with respect and dealt with vigorously rather than brushing it off as a non-issue or even denying it exists at all, because if you do that (and it's exactly what we're all doing in Europe as well as north America) you're digging your own grave. Culturally, religiously, and literally.

#7.1.1 J.T. Wenting on 2011-06-16 23:55 (Reply)

The Crusaders were cool, til they sacked Constantinople.

Lesson learned: Whether Muslims are to be conquered or civilized, let's not sack each other.

#8 Commander Clopfelter on 2011-06-16 02:14 (Reply)

Add #5. The Muslims had been sailing up the Western Coast of Europe and even to the British isles for centuries attacking costal towns and taking away slaves. The women for concubines and the men to build those beautiful mosques that we all admire. The slaves of both genders were treated inhumanely. It is a fact that more white slaves were taken to (Northern) Africa then black slaves were taken from Africa to the new world. Ironically the Muslims were the leaders in the trade of black African slaves into the new world.

#9 GoneWithTheWind on 2011-06-16 11:55 (Reply)

Oh, that holds no sway with the lib mentality - both items are their bedrock, and will set them into the 'RACIST!' meme. Believe me, I've tried.

But, its intellectually honest, to say the least, that Islam isn't friendly, isn't tolerant, or even means 'peace' - it means 'submission', body and soul, to a violent, misogynistic, and myopic midset.

#9.1 Fred Zeppelin on 2011-06-16 14:59 (Reply)

Or they just bought them from Vikings - in the process financing their assault on the fringes of Christian Europe.

#9.2 NJSoldier on 2011-06-16 15:03 (Reply)

I wrote about this briefly in 2006, combining it with our misunderstandings of the witch trial and the Inquisition. http://assistantvillageidiot.blogspot.com/2006/01/big-bad-three.html

You might ask your Romanian, Bulgarian, and Hungarian friends about the Crusades. They might tell you there were nowhere near enough of them, leaving the poor citizens of the Balkans to always absorb the heaviest blows.

The events of the Crusades were three-sided, as the Eastern Church had not asked for that type of help, and had worked out alliances with some Muslim groups. Also, there were competitions within the Muslim world that drove much of the aggression. The recently converted Muslim Seljuks had come down out of Central Asia and started conquering and invading on several fronts.

The Crusaders do deserve blame for many cruelties and stupidities, but they were never worse, and usually better, than the other parties involved. Their goals were limited - to allow Christian pilgrimage to the Holy Land and support Christian culture by conquering strategic cities nearby. They did not set out to invade Egypt or Persia or Morocco with ideas of conquest. That in itself was very different from the behavior of other peoples, to this day.

BTW, Muslims did not particularly remember the Crusades until they started sending their sons to study in England in the 1800's and learning what a big deal it was to us. Prior to that, it was just one set of conflicts and messy alliances among many over the previous thousand years. Specific events were remembered (they always are in the Middle East), but not the whole picture. The slaughter in Jerusalem is now known to have been exaggerated by both sides for different reason. It was about one-third as insane and horrible as reported.

I think there is a very primitive and simplistic idea in the back of the minds of Western peoples since about 1800 (perhaps earlier). We see Europe as "ours" and the lands beyond Greece as "Arab" for no clear reason except we are used to that. It's just vaguely "theirs," and we shouldn't go there. This has the virtue of simplicity, but otherwise obscures much more history than it reveals. The definition of who "they" are, once you sit down and try to figure out who owns what, who has some historical claim, and who has done what to whom, breaks down almost completely.

#10 Assistant VIllage Idiot (Link) on 2011-06-16 17:02 (Reply)

Excellent article. If the crusaders were solely motivated by greed why not war on their neighbors rather than suffer the hardships and dangers of travelling tothe ends of the earth to do so.

Its also interesting to note that Muslim slaving raids against the British isles didn't end till the `17th century.

#11 Thomas Jackson on 2011-06-17 02:15 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Wednesday, June 15. 2011

In defence of the Crusaders