The Crusades And The Ordo Militant

[Galloglasses]

I love my medieval and Dark age/classical history. Love it to bits. My favourite is the Crusades and related history. Especially the knights.

I've started this topic in the hopes of creating debates about the crusades. Their morality, the events that happened, (or more accurately, YOUR interpretation fo the events that has happened, seriously, during the Age of 'Enlightenment' and the Age of 'Revolution', Revisionists have twisted and turned Crusader history so many which ways its not even funny anymore), the morality of warrior monks. Good/bad points. And anything else about the period. I'm just interested in various people's responses as I have never heard too many responses to this topic from Catholics.

This is an open topic, designed to debate about the events in the revelent time period. DO NOT bring modern day events into this, however revelent, I do not want a topic to degenerate into slander as so many others before it.

Please, bring your questions here though, someone is bound to have an appropriate answer.

Edited July 13, 2008 by Galloglasses

[Hassan]

[quote name='Galloglasses' post='1599323' date='Jul 13 2008, 04:31 PM']I love my medieval and Dark age/classical history. Love it to bits. My favourite is the Crusades and related history. Especially the knights.

I've started this topic in the hopes of creating debates about the crusades. Their morality, the events that happened, (or more accurately, YOUR interpretation fo the events that has happened, seriously, during the Age of 'Enlightenment' and the Age of 'Revolution', Revisionists have twisted and turned Crusader history so many which ways its not even funny anymore), the morality of warrior monks. Good/bad points. And anything else about the period. I'm just interested in various people's responses as I have never heard too many responses to this topic from Catholics.

This is an open topic, designed to debate about the events in the revelent time period. DO NOT bring modern day events into this, however revelent, I do not want a topic to degenerate into slander as so many others before it.

Please, bring your questions here though, someone is bound to have an appropriate answer.[/quote]
The First Crusade was theoretically justified. The rabid persecution of Jews by the Christian armies/mobs, the horrific slaughter that the Crusaders inflicted in the "Holy" lands, and Urban II's raciest speech were not.

[Galloglasses]

You do realise that the persecution of the Jews by the Christian mobs was condemned by the Church, don't you? Heck, thats one of the reason why the Venitian Lead crusader army, (I can't remember wether or not it was the 4th or 3rd one), was excommunicated for sacking a city in Eastern Europe.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Galloglasses' post='1599332' date='Jul 13 2008, 04:37 PM']You do realise that the persecution of the Jews by the Christian mobs was condemned by the Church, don't you?[/quote]

yes. Which would be why I said armies/mobs rather than "Bishops" or "Popes"

[quote]Heck, thats one of the reason why the Venitian Lead crusader army, (I can't remember wether or not it was the 4th or 3rd one), was excommunicated for sacking a city in Eastern Europe.[/quote]

alright.

[CatherineM]

I had almost a dozen direct ancestors serve in the Crusades, two that died there. I would like to think that at the time, they took part for what they believed was a noble cause, a righteous one. I am not inclined to double guess them in hindsight anymore than I would judge what my father did in WWII.

I also find that part of history fascinating due in large part to family genealogy. I do wonder how I would have fared in their time.

[Galloglasses]

You would've probably have gone with them. Crusaders broughts their families. (In fact, alot of them where berated by their wives and shamed into joining the crusades if they had second doubts XD)

[rkwright]

I think history plays a funny game with victors and wars. War is brutal on all sides, and I'm sure there are acts on all sides which are wrong. It just seems that the loser gets noticed a lot more.

Personally I think the Crusades as an order were a good thing. I think some of the acts that took place were a bad thing. I think that militarily, other than the 1st Crusade, the others were failures. Given that they failed, people tend to only focus on the bad things that occurred. Had say the 2nd or 3rd Crusade been successful, we might have a different view of the crusades as a whole.

[Galloglasses]

Good Point. Everyone loves the underdog..... oddly enough that means the Muslim defenders in this case, and not the Crusaders who were the losers.

[Niccolò]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1599329' date='Jul 13 2008, 05:35 PM']The First Crusade was theoretically justified. The rabid persecution of Jews by the Christian armies/mobs, the horrific slaughter that the Crusaders inflicted in the "Holy" lands, and Urban II's raciest speech were not.[/quote]

[url="http://crusades-medieval.blogspot.com/2008/01/speech-of-pope-urban-ii-at-clermont.html"]This[/url] speech?

I don't really see how it's "racist." I think the word "race" really had different connotations back then than today.

[Galloglasses]

Fun fact, there was next to no Racism in the Middle Ages. Religion was veiwed as transcending race and differences, hence, more important. If Hassan had of called the Speech "Sectarian" he'd probably be closer to a more accurate in derogatory terminology.

[BG45]

There are a number of small things that could be said against the Crusades...and they get repeated over and over. But to look outside the standard box; Europe was opened up to the rest of the world. Instead of staying in isolationism, new trade and knowledge was brought from those returning home...planting quite possibly, the desire to explore that brought the world as we know it into being.

[CatherineM]

You're probably right about that. The Moors certainly were ahead of the West in medicine and the sciences during the Crusade years.

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1600836' date='Jul 15 2008, 10:34 PM']You're probably right about that. The Moors certainly were ahead of the West in medicine and the sciences during the Crusade years.[/quote]

How so? Inquiring minds want to know.

Edited July 16, 2008 by Madame Vengier

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='Galloglasses' post='1599418' date='Jul 13 2008, 06:28 PM']You would've probably have gone with them. Crusaders broughts their families.[/quote]

It sounds fun, like going for a family picnic.

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='Galloglasses' post='1599774' date='Jul 14 2008, 04:41 AM']Good Point. Everyone loves the underdog..... oddly enough that means the Muslim defenders in this case, and not the Crusaders who were the losers.[/quote]


Yeah, see that's the problem I have with the Crusaders. They didn't get the job done.

[Galloglasses]

Now don't be Harse Madam, their job was to reclaim afterall. The first Crusade succeeded. Pity Emperor Barbarossa Drowned before he could land his Huge Holy Roman Empire Crusader force in the Holy Lands, Saladin was really afraid of him, (With good reason, The HRE was the Superpower in Europe at that time, if he could get his army to have free passage through other Christians lands he could conquer anyone), he kind of lucked out.

[CatherineM]

Madame-The Moors had access to and maintained the knowledge of the Greeks and Egyptians that was pretty well unknown to the average dark age European. The Early Muslims were much more open to outside knowledge than they are today, obviously. I remember reading once that when we retook Toledo from the Moors, that the Archbishop had Jewish scholars translate the medical and science texts they left behind.

[Galloglasses]

That reminds me, Irish Monks in the dark ages preserved alot of Greek and hellenic thought and philosophies in their monastries while the Roman Empire was falling apart. Apparently this knowledge was traded with the Byzantine Empire for resources, (Altough how Irish merchants got that far is beyond me.)

[Hassan]

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1601116' date='Jul 16 2008, 12:09 PM']Yeah, see that's the problem I have with the Crusaders. They didn't get the job done.[/quote]


What "job"?

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1601271' date='Jul 16 2008, 03:28 PM']Madame-The Moors had access to and maintained the knowledge of the Greeks and Egyptians that was pretty well unknown to the average dark age European. The Early Muslims were much more open to outside knowledge than they are today, obviously. I remember reading once that when we retook Toledo from the Moors, that the Archbishop had Jewish scholars translate the medical and science texts they left behind.[/quote]


They also left behind some good poetry and philosophy. In college, when we studied the philosophical thought of the three monotheistic religions, there was a Muslim philosopher (whose name I'm blanking on right now) we read that was very good.

What I was curious about when I asked you that was regarding what original scientific contributions they left behind. You said they preserved the knowledge of the Greeks and Egyptians--I was interested to know of their original contributions. For example, I really love middle eastern music and I was recently in another forum trying to defend the great music that has come from the Muslim world and I was being told that I was wrong, that there was no original musical art form from the Muslim world, just whatever they absorbed from previous cultures they were inhabiting.