Political Crossfire Forums

[sherborne]

bob.appleyard wrote: sherborne wrote: A good case could be made to suggest that westerners were primitive to byzantium. Their theory on war was much less barbarous than western interpretation. There was an active willingness i the west for christian martyrdom. There was no such feeling in Byzantium. Thats why the Byzantines would pay soldiers who were not part of the Greek Orthodox church, because killing was below most Byzantines. That was something primitive westerners got involved in.

I see you're a Whig then?

Whats a whig? I havnt come across that term before.

[Saracen]

sherborne wrote: Medieval logic would be what a christian bishop said in the sacking of a French city in the Languedoc during the Albigensian crusade:

"kill them all! God will know his own!"

It was common for conquerers to kill a lot of people in a city that they capture. Some groups were worse than others. The Mongols for instance were so 'successful' because they butchered everyone in the cities that they conquered. What the crusaders did at Jerusalem was no different to what the Jews did to the Cananites in the bible. The old testament is very violent and many crusaders probably took their influence from that. Its a shame they didnt absorb more of the new testament really. But that didnt really correspond with their way of life.

How tragic. It seems that even the best conquerors can be the most bloody of people. However, I see your point, and thanks for explaining it to me.

[sherborne]

Saracen wrote: sherborne wrote: Medieval logic would be what a christian bishop said in the sacking of a French city in the Languedoc during the Albigensian crusade:

"kill them all! God will know his own!"

It was common for conquerers to kill a lot of people in a city that they capture. Some groups were worse than others. The Mongols for instance were so 'successful' because they butchered everyone in the cities that they conquered. What the crusaders did at Jerusalem was no different to what the Jews did to the Cananites in the bible. The old testament is very violent and many crusaders probably took their influence from that. Its a shame they didnt absorb more of the new testament really. But that didnt really correspond with their way of life.

How tragic. It seems that even the best conquerors can be the most bloody of people. However, I see your point, and thanks for explaining it to me.

Perhaps 'best' is the wrong term to use. Maybe 'efficient' is a better one. Like the Romans: No prisoners, no trouble!

[Saracen]

sherborne wrote: Perhaps 'best' is the wrong term to use. Maybe 'efficient' is a better one. Like the Romans: No prisoners, no trouble!

Even better...

[bob.appleyard]

Saracen wrote: This is quite enlightening, bob. I appreciate the courtesy in coming out and speaking your mind about such perceptions regarding the crusades.
The bolded parts were the ones that most impressed me, though.
Now I have a little question: what exactly motivated the Christians of the North to slaughter all of Jerusalem's inhabitants, regardless of religion, when they took over?

The answer was in my top post: the army included some of the worst scumbags of Europe.

There was also the tendency to sack a place, which often required killing everyone, because they were kind of fond of their livelihoods. Well, not eactly required. But it was easier.

[bob.appleyard]

sherborne wrote: bob.appleyard wrote: sherborne wrote: A good case could be made to suggest that westerners were primitive to byzantium. Their theory on war was much less barbarous than western interpretation. There was an active willingness i the west for christian martyrdom. There was no such feeling in Byzantium. Thats why the Byzantines would pay soldiers who were not part of the Greek Orthodox church, because killing was below most Byzantines. That was something primitive westerners got involved in.

I see you're a Whig then?

Whats a whig? I havnt come across that term before.

Sorry, it was jokey abuse. Whig historians had a concept of history in which every society was moving along a line (um, what's the word? teleology), the end point being something akin to Britain in the middle of the Nineteenth Century.

They are the only professional historians whose work I have read that have discussed whether one kind of society was primitive or advanced, compared to another.

[Saracen]

bob.appleyard wrote: Saracen wrote: This is quite enlightening, bob. I appreciate the courtesy in coming out and speaking your mind about such perceptions regarding the crusades.
The bolded parts were the ones that most impressed me, though.
Now I have a little question: what exactly motivated the Christians of the North to slaughter all of Jerusalem's inhabitants, regardless of religion, when they took over?

The answer was in my top post: the army included some of the worst scumbags of Europe.

There was also the tendency to sack a place, which often required killing everyone, because they were kind of fond of their livelihoods. Well, not eactly required. But it was easier.

I must say, though, that I'm starting to believe less in the "Holy" aspect of the Crusades... on both sides.

[Jehan]

One of the reasons why Crusaders were so ruthless is because the Pope at the time basically rescinded the Commandment, "Thou shalt not kill," when referring to heathen infidels, which meant anyone who was living in the city the Crusaders conquered at the time. The result is the widespread violence of the times.

[Saracen]

Jehan wrote: One of the reasons why Crusaders were so ruthless is because the Pope at the time basically rescinded the Commandment, "Thou shalt not kill," when referring to heathen infidels, which meant anyone who was living in the city the Crusaders conquered at the time. The result is the widespread violence of the times.

I don't know if it had to do with such a rescinsion. The Crusaders were at a state of war and they felt that they were doing the right thing in "emancipating" the Christians of the Holy lands from the control of the Muslims, which was virtually non-existent. Granted, the Muslims and Crusaders did horrible things, from Jerusalem to Edessa. But I think it was more in dehumanizing and demonizing the enemy. With that, you're able to kill off your opponent easily and without any hesitation or regret.

[Jehan]

Saracen wrote: I don't know if it had to do with such a rescinsion. The Crusaders were at a state of war and they felt that they were doing the right thing in "emancipating" the Christians of the Holy lands from the control of the Muslims, which was virtually non-existent. Granted, the Muslims and Crusaders did horrible things, from Jerusalem to Edessa. But I think it was more in dehumanizing and demonizing the enemy. With that, you're able to kill off your opponent easily and without any hesitation or regret.

The irony of the bolded text is that Eastern Christians were slaughtered along with the Jews and Muslims.

[bob.appleyard]

Saracen wrote: I must say, though, that I'm starting to believe less in the "Holy" aspect of the Crusades... on both sides.

They were built into the doctrinal system of the dominant faith... I would never catergorise the Crusades as "Holy", though.

[bob.appleyard]

sherborne wrote: Medieval logic would be what a christian bishop said in the sacking of a French city in the Languedoc during the Albigensian crusade:

"kill them all! God will know his own!"

It was common for conquerers to kill a lot of people in a city that they capture. Some groups were worse than others. The Mongols for instance were so 'successful' because they butchered everyone in the cities that they conquered. What the crusaders did at Jerusalem was no different to what the Jews did to the Cananites in the bible. The old testament is very violent and many crusaders probably took their influence from that. Its a shame they didnt absorb more of the new testament really. But that didnt really correspond with their way of life.

The Albigensian Crusade was unusually bloody, even by the standards of the day. That said, this is an accurate reflection of a very common attitude to warfare.

[Jehan]

Saracen wrote: I must say, though, that I'm starting to believe less in the "Holy" aspect of the Crusades... on both sides.

Certainly. There were many reasons why Urban II launched the Crusades. Y'see, he wanted some big event to put the papacy back on the political map, as years of European strife had sidelined the pontiff. Also, opening up trade routes which ran through the Holy Land to the Christians would have its bonuses. It is logical to say that one of the motivations behind the Muslim retaliation was to regain control of these trade centers like Edessa, Antioch, Jerusalem, Acre, etc. etc.

[bob.appleyard]

Jehan wrote: One of the reasons why Crusaders were so ruthless is because the Pope at the time basically rescinded the Commandment, "Thou shalt not kill," when referring to heathen infidels, which meant anyone who was living in the city the Crusaders conquered at the time. The result is the widespread violence of the times.

It was even more bizarre than that... by killing "heathens", you actually paid your penance for other sins (probably violent). It was more "Thou shalt kill!"

[bob.appleyard]

Jehan wrote: Saracen wrote: I must say, though, that I'm starting to believe less in the "Holy" aspect of the Crusades... on both sides.

Certainly. There were many reasons why Urban II launched the Crusades. Y'see, he wanted some big event to put the papacy back on the political map, as years of European strife had sidelined the pontiff. Also, opening up trade routes which ran through the Holy Land to the Christians would have its bonuses. It is logical to say that one of the motivations behind the Muslim retaliation was to regain control of these trade centers like Edessa, Antioch, Jerusalem, Acre, etc. etc.

Many of the Crusades were supported and partly directed by trading oligarchies from the Italian cities.So you could certainly argue that position.

[Jehan]

bob.appleyard wrote: Jehan wrote: One of the reasons why Crusaders were so ruthless is because the Pope at the time basically rescinded the Commandment, "Thou shalt not kill," when referring to heathen infidels, which meant anyone who was living in the city the Crusaders conquered at the time. The result is the widespread violence of the times.

It was even more bizarre than that... by killing "heathens", you actually paid your penance for other sins (probably violent). It was more "Thou shalt kill!"

Indeed. If you have read about the atrocities in places like Ma'arrat al-Numan, you know just how brutal they could be.

[Saracen]

Jehan wrote: The irony of the bolded text is that Eastern Christians were slaughtered along with the Jews and Muslims.

Yep, but these Eastern Christians were Orthodox. The Crusaders wanted to free them, but at the same time, these Christians did not adhere to the Catholic Church, so I suppose that because these dark-skinned Christians were heathen, that made it legal for them to get killed, eh?

bob.appleyard wrote: They were built into the doctrinal system of the dominant faith... I would never catergorise the Crusades as "Holy", though.

Yep, same here.

Jehan wrote: Certainly. There were many reasons why Urban II launched the Crusades. Y'see, he wanted some big event to put the papacy back on the political map, as years of European strife had sidelined the pontiff. Also, opening up trade routes which ran through the Holy Land to the Christians would have its bonuses. It is logical to say that one of the motivations behind the Muslim retaliation was to regain control of these trade centers like Edessa, Antioch, Jerusalem, Acre, etc. etc.

Ditto that. I think it was just because the Northerners were Christians and the Easterners were mainly Muslim. The whole conflict was about trade routes and the such. But hey, they sure did live in interesting times, as one Chinese person put it.

[sherborne]

bob.appleyard wrote: sherborne wrote: bob.appleyard wrote: sherborne wrote: A good case could be made to suggest that westerners were primitive to byzantium. Their theory on war was much less barbarous than western interpretation. There was an active willingness i the west for christian martyrdom. There was no such feeling in Byzantium. Thats why the Byzantines would pay soldiers who were not part of the Greek Orthodox church, because killing was below most Byzantines. That was something primitive westerners got involved in.

I see you're a Whig then?

Whats a whig? I havnt come across that term before.

Sorry, it was jokey abuse. Whig historians had a concept of history in which every society was moving along a line (um, what's the word? teleology), the end point being something akin to Britain in the middle of the Nineteenth Century.

They are the only professional historians whose work I have read that have discussed whether one kind of society was primitive or advanced, compared to another.

There is something similar in German called the Sonderwehg therory. Roughly translated means 'special path'. The theory goes that Germany somehow took a special path to modernisation (i.e. not how Britain advanced). Thats apparently why the nazis came to power. Yet surely every country has its own special path?

Im not a whig historian then. Im not sure why it actually applies to what i said. I think westerners were barbarians and the byzantines were cultured. That doesnt make me a whig surely?

[sherborne]

bob.appleyard wrote: sherborne wrote: Medieval logic would be what a christian bishop said in the sacking of a French city in the Languedoc during the Albigensian crusade:

"kill them all! God will know his own!"

It was common for conquerers to kill a lot of people in a city that they capture. Some groups were worse than others. The Mongols for instance were so 'successful' because they butchered everyone in the cities that they conquered. What the crusaders did at Jerusalem was no different to what the Jews did to the Cananites in the bible. The old testament is very violent and many crusaders probably took their influence from that. Its a shame they didnt absorb more of the new testament really. But that didnt really correspond with their way of life.

The Albigensian Crusade was unusually bloody, even by the standards of the day. That said, this is an accurate reflection of a very common attitude to warfare.

Do you think you can set up a league table of crusades? So that certain targets were more popular or 'just' if i could use the word. Heres how my list would go:

Muslims/pagans probably on an equal footing
Heretics
Christians, but ones who were not under the see of rome i.e. Greek orthodox
Political opponents of the pope
Jews

Its deplorable that there could even be a pecking order but the popularity of certain crusades would seem to suggest this. You can even draw an analogy today with Islamic fndamentalists. Certain targets are considered more just than others, its just that the list is ofcourse slightly different:

Jews
American Jews
Americans
American/Jewish sympathisers who are of arabic/middle eastern descent

The biggest difference in Islamic holy war and christian holy war in my view is that there isnt a holy institution as such that is directing Islamic holy war. This is a good and bad thing. Because the effect is not as concerted, but its perhaps more difficult to keep under control.

Theologically speaking the two concepts are not that different, even though they are seperated by about 1000 years. It makes me sad that some people havnt moved on a bit from then. Having said that, George Bush isnt much better with his rhetoric about how the war on terror is his holy crusade to rid the world of sin!

[sherborne]

Saracen wrote: bob.appleyard wrote: Saracen wrote: This is quite enlightening, bob. I appreciate the courtesy in coming out and speaking your mind about such perceptions regarding the crusades.
The bolded parts were the ones that most impressed me, though.
Now I have a little question: what exactly motivated the Christians of the North to slaughter all of Jerusalem's inhabitants, regardless of religion, when they took over?

The answer was in my top post: the army included some of the worst scumbags of Europe.

There was also the tendency to sack a place, which often required killing everyone, because they were kind of fond of their livelihoods. Well, not eactly required. But it was easier.

I must say, though, that I'm starting to believe less in the "Holy" aspect of the Crusades... on both sides.

The crusades were not holy. Its a common misconception in my view that many in eastern and western cultures view them as such. They were justified through religious means. But that does NOT make them holy. Id even go as far to say that Moses wasnt holy. He justified what he did as being holy but slaughtering thousands of Persians in Israel is hardly a holy act of a benevolent god in my view. I suppose the counter balance is that Moses was supposed to have introduced us to the enlightened way of monotheism, yet that has only brought conflict in the 3 world faiths that are directly linked to each other and should therefore have something in common with each other.