Thomas Eshuis wrote:

DarthHelmet86 wrote:Well when you rewrite reality so that evolution never happened and the Earth was flooded all over rewriting the history of your religions violent wars against another religion over holy land is easy peasy.

Getting so fed up with Christians and even some none-Christians claiming the Crusades were a defensive war against Islam/Arabs.

The Crusades are actually not clearly cut an act of violent aggression either. Many Christian pilgrims to Jerusalem, controlled by the Muslim empire, came back to the Latin world with horror stories of higher taxes to pay tribute to holy places, and a more harsh treatment of Christian and Jew alike. This is true as the Turks ravaged control of the Muslim empire and were a far more militant lot than before, repeatedly attacking Byzantium, and into the Peloponnese peninsula. So the Emperor, Alexios I, appealed to the west to come aid Byzantium thus triggering the Crusades to cease and desist the Turkish maraud. So by that logic, it was not an aggressive, or defensive war. It was just a war.

Now later crusades became politically motivated, the thought of riches and glory for Kings became preeminent and some major atrocities and bloodshed occurred. But do not think for a second, the Turkish Muslims were innocent, more civilized people. The Muslim empire was facing violent shifts in its leadership and thus many radical changes, especially towards non-Muslims were taking place.

Which, of course, testifies to the elementary fact that asking foreign powers to sort out your shit militarily, merely leads to yet more shit to sort out. A lesson that Bush the Zeroth* was apparently unaware of, despite large bodies of supporting evidence.

Spot the H2G2 reference?

They taxed us so we marched thousands of miles and killed them and took their cities.

Sounds like a legit defensive action to me.

Thommo wrote:They taxed us so we marched thousands of miles and killed them and took their cities.

Sounds like a legit defensive action to me.

You did actually read the rest of what I wrote, yes? How the Turks also were attacking Byzantium repeatedly, and how they almost collapsed the entire empire if it were not for the first crusade? But oh yes it was solely about being angry of taxes, because I most certainly said that.

Calilasseia wrote:. . . asking foreign powers to sort out your shit militarily, merely leads to yet more shit to sort out.

4th Crusade FTW!

ETA: It's only by viewing the history of the Crusades from a firmly religious ideological perspective that one could say they were "defensive" actions.

From "Christopher Tyerman Discusses His Book on the Crusades" | NPR:

There was no strategic reason for Western knights and soldiers to be laboring about in the Judean hills in the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries. They were there for essentially ideological religious reasons. The Holy Land and Jerusalem were regarded as part of Christendom, as a relic, and the Crusaders went there, in a sense, to establish a protective garrison to restore, as they saw it, their holy city to Christian control.

They went to Jerusalem and "defended" it by killing most of its inhabitants.

willhud9 wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

DarthHelmet86 wrote:Well when you rewrite reality so that evolution never happened and the Earth was flooded all over rewriting the history of your religions violent wars against another religion over holy land is easy peasy.

Getting so fed up with Christians and even some none-Christians claiming the Crusades were a defensive war against Islam/Arabs.

The Crusades are actually not clearly cut an act of violent aggression either.

Never said they were, merely that it wasn't a defensive war of West vs East.

willhud9 wrote:Many Christian pilgrims to Jerusalem, controlled by the Muslim empire, came back to the Latin world with horror stories of higher taxes to pay tribute to holy places, and a more harsh treatment of Christian and Jew alike. This is true as the Turks ravaged control of the Muslim empire and were a far more militant lot than before, repeatedly attacking Byzantium, and into the Peloponnese peninsula.

This isn't all that different from European wars at the time though.

willhud9 wrote:So the Emperor, Alexios I, appealed to the west to come aid Byzantium thus triggering the Crusades to cease and desist the Turkish maraud. So by that logic, it was not an aggressive, or defensive war. It was just a war.

It wasn't the Emperor though, but the Pope who actually blessed and promoted the Crusades, so in that regard it was an agressive war.

willhud9 wrote:Now later crusades became politically motivated, the thought of riches and glory for Kings became preeminent and some major atrocities and bloodshed occurred.

You think the first crusade wasn't politically motivated? That all those barons et al left their estates and properties purely for the Christian or Byzantian cause?

willhud9 wrote:But do not think for a second, the Turkish Muslims were innocent, more civilized people.

Never said they were, but you got to keep in mind the crusades were not just against the Turks, also against Egypt for example.

willhud9 wrote:The Muslim empire was facing violent shifts in its leadership and thus many radical changes, especially towards non-Muslims were taking place.

This situation was in constant flux, sometimes Christians and other non-muslims were allowed openly and freely into Jerusalem and other cities, in other instances, during a Crusade for example, they were mistrusted and were strictly curtailed or even persecuted.
Either way the idea that Turks were savages is a rather simplistic and black and white view.

willhud9 wrote:

Thommo wrote:They taxed us so we marched thousands of miles and killed them and took their cities.

Sounds like a legit defensive action to me.

You did actually read the rest of what I wrote, yes? How the Turks also were attacking Byzantium repeatedly, and how they almost collapsed the entire empire if it were not for the first crusade?

And? The other kingdoms of Europe had no obligation to the Byzantines.

What would be the reaction to the same audience discovering that her motivation was her socialist beliefs? I'd imagine they'd want her burned at the stake & her ashes deported.

chairman bill wrote:What would be the reaction to the same audience discovering that her motivation was her socialist beliefs? I'd imagine they'd want her burned at the stake & her ashes deported.

Yes, surprising the right wingers here haven't made more of this angle in their quest to fight education for women.

proudfootz wrote:

chairman bill wrote:What would be the reaction to the same audience discovering that her motivation was her socialist beliefs? I'd imagine they'd want her burned at the stake & her ashes deported.

Yes, surprising the right wingers here haven't made more of this angle in their quest to fight education for women.

I guess they're not all as tone deaf as "Vox Day."

Vox Day and his site gets a lot of comments placed on FSTDT, he is 100% grade A sexist asshole.