Posted: Aug 02, 2010 11:01 am
TimONeill wrote:U-96 wrote:TimONeill wrote:U-96 wrote:Yes and that's what I'm refering to, the crusades as a purely defensive war, the defense of Christendom.
It was a defence of the holy places in the east, not of "Christendom". They went to retake and hold the sacred sites of Christianity - Jerusalem, Nazareth, Bethlehem etc, not to defend Europe against Muslim encroachment, as Stark tries to claim.
From current studies on the subject there is no doubt that it was regarded as no more than the defense of Christendom...
(In talking about the first period of the crusades 1095 to the end of the sixteenth century)"There is some overlap between the periods, but broadly speaking, during the first, the Muslims were a continuing threat to Western Europe and the defense of Christendom was seen as a pressing concern."
The Historiography of the Crusades - Giles Constable
Protecting the holy sites of Christendom, yes. But protecting "western Europe"? Ummm, no.
Yes protecting from "a continuing threat to Western Europe and the defense of Christendom", a defensive action. From studies of what people thought at the time we know what they thought and why they acted, they acted, as in their minds, they were protecting Western Europe from a very real threat.