Political Crossfire Forums

[sherborne]

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.

Urban probably wanted to display to the 'ignorant' byzantines the rising power of the Latin church. Europe had been in the dark agaes dont forget and it was a shadow of its former self. The papacy remarkably became the leading power off the back of the 1st crusade so i guess you could say that his policy worked. Yet what came with it led to the detriment of thousands of people. Nevertheless, the power of the catholic church was unparallelled in western europe and this was something that was left unchallenged untill the reformation.

[Saracen]

sherborne wrote: 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.

Yes indeed. It's ironic, though, that we believe that we as Jews, Christians and Muslims are supposedly worshipping the same God of Abraham. Other than that, good post.

[bob.appleyard]

I didn't really see what you were getting at with the league table thing, so I'll just respond to this.

sherborne wrote: 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!

If you read Imperial Hubris you get an idea of OBL's self-image. He basically sees himself as a latter-day Saladin, the commander of a new Jihad, which is treated in exactly the same terms as when Coeur de Lion was marching around.

This could be considered an enormous retrograde step, when compared to the other political movements from that region during the last century.

[bob.appleyard]

Quote: Nevertheless, the power of the catholic church was unparallelled in western europe and this was something that was left unchallenged untill the reformation.

You're joking, right? People were challenging him all the time. I get what you mean though.

[sherborne]

Saracen wrote: sherborne wrote: 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.

Yes indeed. It's ironic, though, that we believe that we as Jews, Christians and Muslims are supposedly worshipping the same God of Abraham. Other than that, good post.

I would like to see schools in Europe, the middle east and Israel start teaching RE in school that deals with all 3 faiths in one topic. I got taught about Islam and Judaism at school. But its only through university and my own personal research that i have come to grasp what all 3 faiths are really about. I think this is something that could be done in schools so its not an us and them scenario. Essentially, all 3 faiths are the same as they all subscribe to the same belief system: Monotheism. Furthermore, Muslims accept christians and Jews and christians accept Jews. Unfortunatley political and historical issues (like the crusades) colour peoples interpretation of each others faith. Something that is the bane of us all!

[sherborne]

bob.appleyard wrote: Quote: Nevertheless, the power of the catholic church was unparallelled in western europe and this was something that was left unchallenged untill the reformation.

You're joking, right? People were challenging him all the time. I get what you mean though.

No. Im not talking about physical or material power. Im talking about Moral power. What other institution in europe could invoke entire nations to war on the power of words alone? Certainly not any of the secular kingdoms thats for sure.

[sherborne]

bob.appleyard wrote: I didn't really see what you were getting at with the league table thing, so I'll just respond to this.

sherborne wrote: 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!

If you read Imperial Hubris you get an idea of OBL's self-image. He basically sees himself as a latter-day Saladin, the commander of a new Jihad, which is treated in exactly the same terms as when Coeur de Lion was marching around.

This could be considered an enormous retrograde step, when compared to the other political movements from that region during the last century.

If you read Norman Housley: "the later crusades". His introduction gives you a breakdown of the league table issue. Its also related to the historiography aspect which i mentioned earlier. Jotischky's book is also good, again, mentioned earlier.

[Saracen]

sherborne wrote: 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.

I wish for the same. I think we can get around this taintinig issue by holding an official debate, and coming down to the conclusion that the Crusades were unholy and were just wars of aggression and strategic advantage, etc. That way, people will be able to tolerate other views more.

[bob.appleyard]

sherborne wrote: No. Im not talking about physical or material power. Im talking about Moral power. What other institution in europe could invoke entire nations to war on the power of words alone? Certainly not any of the secular kingdoms thats for sure.

He had more power than that, but it was hardly absolute. Kings promised to go crusading, but, you know, never got round to it.

The main power which the Church won was the crime of simony. But some people (like the Normans in the South) had workarounds (i.e. prelate status for the king).

It's not like he had the moral power to curb the interminable European squabbling. For much of the Middle Ages, the pope was either behind France, and England was excommunicate, or behind England, and France was excommunicate. The Germans were almost permanently excommunicated, as were the Sicilians. It didn't make a blind bit of difference.

The pope was a powerful individual, but he was nothing like as powerful as he thought he was (and how he is presented as being in most sources, for clear reasons).

[sherborne]

Saracen wrote: sherborne wrote: 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.

I wish for the same. I think we can get around this taintinig issue by holding an official debate, and coming down to the conclusion that the Crusades were unholy and were just wars of aggression and strategic advantage, etc. That way, people will be able to tolerate other views more.

Well John Paul II did apologise for the crusades. But I think a lot more is needed than just a re evaluation of the crusades. People in Britain respect Richard the Lion Heart for instance and Kurds hold Saladin up as an example of Kurdish Valour. Which i have always found perplexing. If Saladin is a hero of the Muslim world then why arent the kurds afforded more respect? Nevertheless, respecting historical figures is one thing but appreciating the subtleties in religion is another and i think that that is something that should be taught. I dont think there are many people in this country who could tell me the relationship between the three faiths. The problem tends to come on the christian/jewish side in my view.

[bob.appleyard]

Quote: I wish for the same. I think we can get around this taintinig issue by holding an official debate, and coming down to the conclusion that the Crusades were unholy and were just wars of aggression and strategic advantage, etc. That way, people will be able to tolerate other views more.

Hmm, well I don't think a full debate would necessarily come to that conclusion. After all, that analysis leaves a lot unexplained.

This question is partly the point of my making the thread: what role does religion play in "wars of religion"? (as well as ranting about popular entertainment)

I do think something of that order should be organised (maybe it already has been, who knows), be able to have an honest interfaith discussion of the meaning and impact of these wars.

[Saracen]

bob.appleyard wrote: what role does religion play in "wars of religion"?

Probably people use it to meet their ends, perhaps? I mean, notice how, as you said, Pope Urban twisted the rules to meet the ends of the Crusaders: "Thou shalt kill (the heathen infidels)!". Then again, you have the Muslims calling for a Jihad against the Crusaders because the Crusaders took Jerusalem from them. We can start from there and find the real role of religion in war in the end.

sherborne wrote: Well John Paul II did apologise for the crusades. But I think a lot more is needed than just a re evaluation of the crusades. People in Britain respect Richard the Lion Heart for instance and Kurds hold Saladin up as an example of Kurdish Valour. Which i have always found perplexing. If Saladin is a hero of the Muslim world then why arent the kurds afforded more respect? Nevertheless, respecting historical figures is one thing but appreciating the subtleties in religion is another and i think that that is something that should be taught. I dont think there are many people in this country who could tell me the relationship between the three faiths. The problem tends to come on the christian/jewish side in my view.

Sadly, the Kurds have political enemies now. They are clashing with Turkish and Syrian authorities, and are now fighting in the Iraq war, despite that they hold certain positions of power in the government. However, the Kurds were never this ostracized from Arab society, even though you will find that many Arabs have Kurdish ancestors. On the other hand, Saladin spoke Arabic, and was a Muslim hero as you mentioned, so the "Muslim" aspect was more than the "Kurdish" aspect.

...but then again, I could be wrong.

[sherborne]

Saracen wrote: bob.appleyard wrote: what role does religion play in "wars of religion"?

Probably people use it to meet their ends, perhaps? I mean, notice how, as you said, Pope Urban twisted the rules to meet the ends of the Crusaders: "Thou shalt kill (the heathen infidels)!". Then again, you have the Muslims calling for a Jihad against the Crusaders because the Crusaders took Jerusalem from them. We can start from there and find the real role of religion in war in the end.

sherborne wrote: Well John Paul II did apologise for the crusades. But I think a lot more is needed than just a re evaluation of the crusades. People in Britain respect Richard the Lion Heart for instance and Kurds hold Saladin up as an example of Kurdish Valour. Which i have always found perplexing. If Saladin is a hero of the Muslim world then why arent the kurds afforded more respect? Nevertheless, respecting historical figures is one thing but appreciating the subtleties in religion is another and i think that that is something that should be taught. I dont think there are many people in this country who could tell me the relationship between the three faiths. The problem tends to come on the christian/jewish side in my view.

Sadly, the Kurds have political enemies now. They are clashing with Turkish and Syrian authorities, and are now fighting in the Iraq war, despite that they hold certain positions of power in the government. However, the Kurds were never this ostracized from Arab society, even though you will find that many Arabs have Kurdish ancestors. On the other hand, Saladin spoke Arabic, and was a Muslim hero as you mentioned, so the "Muslim" aspect was more than the "Kurdish" aspect.

...but then again, I could be wrong.

But Saladin was a Kurd. He has only had a renaissance in the Muslim world recently. Before him i think you will find that Nur al Din recieved more praise. I think the reason for Saladins renaissance has been largely down to the wests glorification of him - hence- he is a hero! Zenghi is another interesting charcter: The Genghis Kahn of the Muslims!

[sherborne]

bob.appleyard wrote: sherborne wrote: No. Im not talking about physical or material power. Im talking about Moral power. What other institution in europe could invoke entire nations to war on the power of words alone? Certainly not any of the secular kingdoms thats for sure.

He had more power than that, but it was hardly absolute. Kings promised to go crusading, but, you know, never got round to it.

The main power which the Church won was the crime of simony. But some people (like the Normans in the South) had workarounds (i.e. prelate status for the king).

It's not like he had the moral power to curb the interminable European squabbling. For much of the Middle Ages, the pope was either behind France, and England was excommunicate, or behind England, and France was excommunicate. The Germans were almost permanently excommunicated, as were the Sicilians. It didn't make a blind bit of difference.

The pope was a powerful individual, but he was nothing like as powerful as he thought he was (and how he is presented as being in most sources, for clear reasons).

I agree and disagree! I agree with your argument, but i think it took a long time for medieval persons to realise your logic. In the mean time, they were confounded by the dogmatism of the catholic church. Who happened to have a massive sway over their policies. Lets not forget that the policy of excommunication was a huge infringement on ones own life: No marriage, No funeral, no baptism, but most importantly, no real contact with every cristian, which was a powerful motive indeed. In the reformation the pope deemed it "holy" and "gods work" if one was to kill Elizabeth. The Spanish launched a campaign to bring the English back to the true faith. I personally thank god that they didnt succeed!

[Saracen]

sherborne wrote: But Saladin was a Kurd. He has only had a renaissance in the Muslim world recently. Before him i think you will find that Nur al Din recieved more praise. I think the reason for Saladins renaissance has been largely down to the wests glorification of him - hence- he is a hero! Zenghi is another interesting charcter: The Genghis Kahn of the Muslims!

I know of Nur al Din. He was quite a leader, but didn't receive as much acclaim as did Saladin, or as we name him in Arabic "Salah el Din".

[Jehan]

bob.appleyard wrote: Quote: Nevertheless, the power of the catholic church was unparallelled in western europe and this was something that was left unchallenged untill the reformation.

You're joking, right? People were challenging him all the time. I get what you mean though.

Yes, people challenged the Pope all the time. However, they had a nasty tendency to mysteriously vanish.

[Jehan]

Saracen wrote: I know of Nur al Din. He was quite a leader, but didn't receive as much acclaim as did Saladin, or as we name him in Arabic "Salah el Din".

Saladin has been praised both then and now by Muslims who see him as a hero to their people for knocking the Crusaders flat on their ass and driving them into the sea.

The legacy of the Crusades still lives on. You can find people in that region still telling stories about it (Saracen may know what I'm talking about.)

[bob.appleyard]

sherborne wrote: I agree and disagree! I agree with your argument, but i think it took a long time for medieval persons to realise your logic. In the mean time, they were confounded by the dogmatism of the catholic church. Who happened to have a massive sway over their policies. Lets not forget that the policy of excommunication was a huge infringement on ones own life: No marriage, No funeral, no baptism, but most importantly, no real contact with every cristian, which was a powerful motive indeed. In the reformation the pope deemed it "holy" and "gods work" if one was to kill Elizabeth. The Spanish launched a campaign to bring the English back to the true faith. I personally thank god that they didnt succeed!

Well, I think some people got it: there are rumours, for instance, of King John considering turning England Muslim, just to spite the Pope! Excommunication's effects depended on your position: if a king, or a prince, or a senescal was excommunicated, it just meant the enemies he already had had another pretext for whatever they were going to do anyway. It very rarely had any effect on relations with his subjects (they would have been excommunicated too, remember).

You are correct in that the Church exerted enormous influence. They couldn't verbally attack the Pope, or raise an army against him (well, not very often, anyway). In fact, they were often obliged to praise him publicly. However, the power of the Church could be used to administer regional policies (hence the battle over simony). Even within the hierarchy, at the height of papal power, the networks of influence were fairly loose and easily accessible to secular rulers with a bit of nouse. This could be compared to the UN today in this respect, in that all the member states officially praise the institution, while many of them are attempting to subvert its operation, very often to their own ends.

[bob.appleyard]

Jehan wrote: bob.appleyard wrote: Quote: Nevertheless, the power of the catholic church was unparallelled in western europe and this was something that was left unchallenged untill the reformation.

You're joking, right? People were challenging him all the time. I get what you mean though.

Yes, people challenged the Pope all the time. However, they had a nasty tendency to mysteriously vanish.

Again, it depends. Heretical sects were often challenges to kings and lords, as well as to the pope. They often didn't put up much of a fight, either.

However, powerful secular leaders weren't all that scared of the pope. They usually had to be made to be, and that was far from straightforward.

[Saracen]

Jehan wrote: Saracen wrote: I know of Nur al Din. He was quite a leader, but didn't receive as much acclaim as did Saladin, or as we name him in Arabic "Salah el Din".

Saladin has been praised both then and now by Muslims who see him as a hero to their people for knocking the Crusaders flat on their ass and driving them into the sea.

I don't know about the Muslims driving the Crusaders "into the sea", but I do know about them driving them away from Jerusalem. ;)

But yeah, he's a hero indeed.

Jehan wrote: The legacy of the Crusades still lives on. You can find people in that region still telling stories about it (Saracen may know what I'm talking about.)

Yes, I sure do. The other day, my mom was telling me how great Saladin was, and why we need another man like him to drive out the U.S. imperialists from Iraq. Of course, she could be wrong, but she does have a point: the state of the Muslims was much better and stronger than how they are in today's fragile world.