1
   

Facts about the "crusades" piliging, land grabbing and murdering in the name of God.

 
 
STNGfan
 
Reply Tue 12 Jun, 2007 11:11 am
The First Crusade is the most documented of all the Crusades. Each Royal Court had its own historian, who told his Lord's story of conquest and adventure, emphasizing his Lord's actions and heroics.

After the initial preaching of the Crusades in 1095, the actual movements of the Royal Armies did not start till 1096. In 1095, an unofficial Crusade was led by a radical monk named Peter the Hermit. He preached the Crusades to the poor peasant fanatics, and collected a small army to pilgrimage to the Holy Lands ahead of the main army.

Peter the Hermit was venerated as a Saint by his followers, and historians reported him as being mystifying in his preaching, whipping up his listeners into a religious fury.

Needless to say, Peter's Quest was doomed. They behaved poorly along the route, thieving food and ransacking homes for supplies. The worst was the persecution of the Jews before even leaving Europe.

The Jewish peoples had lived in relative quiet amongst the Christians up to this point. Though not accepted in the Communities, they were tolerated and business was conducted in a relatively civilized manner.

The Jewish peoples had their own communities and though they were looked down upon, they were not opposed till now. Peter's army lacked funds. It was suggested that if the Crusaders could kill the enemies of God abroad, then what's to stop them at home. Let it be noted that the Church did not condone this. Bishops locally preached against this, and some were attacked for their preaching. The Bishop of Spier? saved many lives, but at Worms the Bishop was driven from his home and the Jews he sheltered were slaughtered. Same thing at the town of Mainz. The Bishops could not stop Peter's army. They continued their rage across Europe to Constantinople.

Arriving there, Alexis didn't know what to make of them. Not wanting them to stay to cause further trouble in his city, he made arrangements to have them shipped over the Bosphorus river to Anatolia. Five days after they arrived, in July 1096, they were moved to Turkey. Most never saw the Grand city of Constantinople much to Alexis' relief.

Once in Anatolia, Peter's followers felt it was time to start Crusading in earnest, torturing, pillaging and massacring indiscriminately. However, as it turned out, most of their victims were Byzantine Christians who lived in and around Nicaea.

They took up residence in a castle called Xerigordon. Kilij Arslan I (of the Seljuk Turks) realized what a danger to his lands this army of rag tag pilgrims were, and not wanting them to continue into his territory, he lay siege to the fortress for 8 days. With a show of strength on his part he felt it would stop the Crusades in their tracks. He cut off the fortress water supply and the people surrendered. After a series of offers and counter offers, Arslan ambushed the pilgrims as they were leaving the fortress, killing all.

So ended the Peoples Crusade.

The real army of the Crusades arrived in Constantinople in February/March 1097. The first to arrive was the army of Hugh Vermandois. Alexis, having already had Peter's army and knowing what damage a real army could inflict, wanted some assurance of fidelity from these visiting Lords. His answer was to ask for an oath of liege from Hugh and wine and dine him and send him on his way before the arrival of the next part of the army arrives. Hugh was all too happy to oblige. And Alexis escorted Hugh and his army to Anatolia to await the rest of the army.

Godfrey and his brother Baldwin arrived next. Godfrey had no intention of taking an oath to the prissy Byzantine King. And Godfrey knew that all he would have to do is wait till Bohemond and his army caught up to him. Alexis didn't want that and thought to starve him out. Godfrey responded with some selective pillaging, and Alexis restored supplies. With Bohemond rapidly approaching, Alexis tried again. This time, Godfrey responded with an attach on the city. Alexis sent out his army and by Easter Sunday it was over, with Godfrey taking the oath and Alexis shipping them over to Anatolia to wait with Hugh.

Three days later in April, Bohemond arrived. Bohemond had come from Sicily where his uncle had conquered the Arabs, who had been the previous rulers. For more information, "Google" " Normans in Sicily". The local Arabs had been utilized and there had existed a peace between Arabs and Christians which had melded a culture of Arab science, Byzantine Craftsmanship and Norman common sense.

Bohemond presented himself as quite the character, as Alexius's daughter recalls:

"I will describe in detail the Barbarian's characteristics. His stature was such that he towered almost a full cubit over the tallest men. He was slender of waist and flanks, with broad shoulders and chest, strong in the arms; in general he was neither skinny nor heavily built and fleshy, but perfectly proportioned."

"There was a certain charm about him, but it was somewhat dimmed by the alarm his person as a whole inspired; there was a hard savage quality to his whole aspect, due, I suppose, to his great stature and his eyes; even his laugh sounded like a threat to others."

Bohemond took the oath, both men knowing full well it was for looks only, and by the end of April, Bohemond and his troops were across Bosphorus. His cousin Tancred, who had stayed with the main part of Bohemond's army, slipped through the city, never taking the oath.

Across Turkey the armies would march. The first objective was Nicaea, where Peter and his army had ended their crusade. Kilij Arslan I was in the East, leaving his wife and children in the city with a small army. Arslan felt after what had happened to Peter, the Crusaders wouldn't dare come through. Godfrey arrived reinforced by Bohemond's army. Raymond arrived soon after, followed by Robert of Normandy. Arslan's army could never arrived in time to reinforce the city. However, the Crusaders never had a chance to assault the city. The Emperor Alexius negotiated a surrender with the Turks and never informed the Crusaders. They felt they were cheated of a victory. The Emperor gave the leaders a portion of the city spoils for their part. Alexius then demanded the Oath be taken by the lesser Lords and those who had not taken the Oath. The focus was on Bohemond's nephew Tancred, who ended up taking the oath.

What surprised the Crusaders was Alexius' treatment of his prisoners. The Crusaders had hoped to hold the family of Arslan for ransom. Alexius released them without ransom, as a courtesy. The Crusaders saw this as being disloyal to the cause, which fueled their already strong dislike of the Byzantine Emperor.

From Nicaea, they proceeded to Antioch. It was decided to split the forces. One army was to be lead by the Normans with the troops of the Counts of Flanders, Blois and Byzantines. The second was the Southern French and Lorrainers and the Counts of Vermardois. Bohemond was regarded as the leader of the first army and Raymond of Toulouse the leader of the second group.

At this point, the stories of the Crusaders groups split. I have separated the City States so as to tell their individual histories more fully.

____________________________________
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,345 • Replies: 13
No top replies

 
STNGfan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jun, 2007 11:16 am
@STNGfan,
FIRST CRUSADE (1095-9): Proclaimed by Pope Urban II, motivated by the Turkish occupation of Anatolia and Jerusalem about 50 years earlier, which was interfering with Christian pilgrimages, and had spawned tales of heathens brutalizing and massacring Christian subjects in the East. The Crusaders captured Jerusalem and established several Latin kingdoms. Despite several missteps (like killing communities of Christians by accident, and the Peasants' Crusade, which didn't know where it was going and tended to kill everything in its path), this was the most successful Crusade.
SECOND CRUSADE (1147-9): Led by Louis 7th of France and the Holy Roman Emperor, this Crusade was a disaster.

THIRD CRUSADE (1189-92): Mounted to recapture Jerusalem, which had been retaken in 1187 by Saladin, who would become known as the Islamic forces' greatest general. A personal rivalry between the leaders, Phillip II of France and Richard I of England, undermined this one.

FOURTH CRUSADE (1202-4): This Crusade was initially launched against Egypt, which was in Islamic hands, but it was diverted by the Venetian merchants (who owned the ships the Crusaders were traveling on) to attack Christian Constantinople, a commercial rival of theirs. The Crusaders sacked the city and killed untold of its citizens. This attack permanently weakened the Byzantine Empire, even though the Byzantines retook their capital after 50 years of a weak Latin-backed puppet state.

CHILDREN'S CRUSADE: The Peasants' Crusade would probably have been the worst idea of the whole period except for this one: thousands of children were sent off by themselves across Europe, unarmed, on a divinely inspired mission — it was believed only innocents could retake the Holy Land. The ones that didn't die of disease or hunger along the way were sold into slavery by the flabbergasted Muslims when they got there.

FIFTH CRUSADE (1218-21): Took, then lost, Egypt.

SIXTH CRUSADE (1228-9): Led by the Holy Roman Emperor, Frederick II (R. 121-1250). It recovered Jerusalem through negotiations with the sultan of Egypt. The city was lost again in 1244.

SEVENTH CRUSADE (1249-54) and EIGHT CRUSADE (1270-91): Both were led by Louis 9th of France (R. 1226-70) who was inspired by religious visions. Both were disasters, but Louis was later canonized.


EFFECTS OF THE CRUSADES
The overall effects of the Crusades were mixed: they never permanently took Jerusalem, and the results of the Fourth Crusade actually strengthened the Islamic forces by weakening the Byzantine Empire, which had up till this point been able to hold them at bay. While the Byzantines regained their capital 50 years later, the Byzantine Empire after the Fourth Crusade was only a shadow of its former self.

More positive effects of the Crusades were felt by the Western Europeans: the extensive travel of the Crusades, which for most was their first time they had gone outside their own homelands, opened the eyes of Western Europeans to the broader world. Exotic goods like Eastern spices that the Crusaders had become exposed to (sometimes through pillaging) created new desires in the West, and encouraged the growth of long-distance trade. The Crusades also helped reintroduce the West to their own literary heritage from Classical Greece and Rome, which had been far more extensively preserved by the Byzantines and even by the Muslims (books were also pillaged, and later translated). The Crusades in the long run helped lead to the revival of classical learning in the Renaissance.

On the more negative scale, the Crusades helped bring in a more militantly aggressive ethos into Christianity, and the pogroms against the Jews which were begun in the Crusades continued throughout the High Middle Ages and into the modern period. The attitudes which the Crusaders had shown toward Jews and Muslims in the Crusades would be repeated in the Christian reconquest of Spain in the 1400s.

[illustration: Medieval illustration of Peter the Hermit leading Peasants' Crusade]
0 Replies
 
STNGfan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jun, 2007 11:23 am
@STNGfan,
The childrens crusade..

a religious movement in Europe during the summer of 1212 in which thousands of children set out to conquer the Holy Land from the Muslims by love instead of by force. The movement ended in disaster, but the religious fervour it excited helped to initiate the Fifth Crusade (1218).

The first group of children was led by a French shepherd boy named Stephen, from Cloyes-sur-le-Loir, a…


Children's Crusade --? Encyclopaedia Britannica
0 Replies
 
Pinochet73
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jun, 2007 12:09 pm
@STNGfan,
There were two problems associated with our glorious Crusades:

1. We killed Eastern Orthodox Christians, which was wrong, big time.
2. We quit, and gave up the grand fight for the Holy Land.
0 Replies
 
Silverchild79
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jun, 2007 12:13 pm
@STNGfan,
howabout

3. we were killing people in the name of god

?
0 Replies
 
STNGfan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jun, 2007 02:45 pm
@STNGfan,
yes I guess they should have wiped out those pesky muslims. They are such a pain now in westernizing instead of christianizing the whole world. What is it about humans that we got to make everyone just like us?
0 Replies
 
Reagaknight
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2007 07:15 am
@STNGfan,
Quote:
Across Turkey the armies would march. The first objective was Nicaea, where Peter and his army had ended their crusade. Kilij Arslan I was in the East, leaving his wife and children in the city with a small army. Arslan felt after what had happened to Peter, the Crusaders wouldn't dare come through. Godfrey arrived reinforced by Bohemond's army. Raymond arrived soon after, followed by Robert of Normandy. Arslan's army could never arrived in time to reinforce the city. However, the Crusaders never had a chance to assault the city. The Emperor Alexius negotiated a surrender with the Turks and never informed the Crusaders. They felt they were cheated of a victory. The Emperor gave the leaders a portion of the city spoils for their part. Alexius then demanded the Oath be taken by the lesser Lords and those who had not taken the Oath. The focus was on Bohemond's nephew Tancred, who ended up taking the oath.


Okay, everything before this was just people being assholes and not actual Church approved Crusaders, but why, again, do you take issue with the Crusaders being angry with the Byzantines because of this? This whole thing is looking pretty biased.

Okay, so I didn't see alot other than minor pillaging, basically done by every army at the time, I suppose you expect the reader to come to the conclusion that the Crusades were not okay simply because of their ideal to protect pilgrims and stop the Muslim jihad. Oh, there was also some anti-Semetism, which was not the point of the Crusades and just an unfortunate feature of them, not approved of by the Church, as you admit.

So what's the point, again?
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2007 07:42 am
@Reagaknight,
Quote:
Reagaknight;20923 wrote:
Okay, everything before this was just people being assholes and not actual Church approved Crusaders, but why, again, do you take issue with the Crusaders being angry with the Byzantines because of this? This whole thing is looking pretty biased.

Okay, so I didn't see alot other than minor pillaging, basically done by every army at the time, I suppose you expect the reader to come to the conclusion that the Crusades were not okay simply because of their ideal to protect pilgrims and stop the Muslim jihad. Oh, there was also some anti-Semetism, which was not the point of the Crusades and just an unfortunate feature of them, not approved of by the Church, as you admit.

So what's the point, again?
Quote:
So what's the point, again?
Christian bad, Muslim good, LOL.
0 Replies
 
STNGfan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2007 10:16 am
@STNGfan,
The point is Christianity has innocent blood on their hands just as any other religion.
Christianity is certianily not better than other religions.
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jun, 2007 08:45 am
@STNGfan,
And this is coming from and atheist? What innocent blood does your religion have on it's hands?
0 Replies
 
Reagaknight
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jun, 2007 08:57 am
@STNGfan,
STNGfan;20959 wrote:
The point is Christianity has innocent blood on their hands just as any other religion.
Christianity is certianily not better than other religions.


Okay, sorry, but those are not Christian teachings. Didn't the Church condemn the killing of Jews? Unless you wish to cast into doubt the whole validity of the Crusades? Actually, a Muslim writer wrote about how Muslims lived better under the Crusaders than their own people! Imagine that. Pillaging was the way wars were fought at the time, sorry. Land grabbing? Might want to tell that to the Muslims. If not for 'land grabbing,' the only place they would be in is Medina. And one of the things that comes from wars is killing people. The Crusaders were often more merciful than the Muslims, and really it seems the only or at least only outstanding example of Crusader violence is Jerusalem. And of course, merciful Saladin decided to change his original plans of slaughter of the Christians when the Christian ruler of the city threatened to set the city on fire.
0 Replies
 
mako cv
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Aug, 2007 03:26 pm
@STNGfan,
Quote:
Actually, a Muslim writer wrote about how Muslims lived better under the Crusaders than their own people!

While this might be true, the large majority of the Muslims remember the Crusades as a time of horror and death at the hands of Christians. This is one of the reasons that the Muslim world reacted so strongly to President Bush's comment on the Iraqi war being a "crusade". :patriot:
westernmom
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Aug, 2007 04:11 pm
@STNGfan,
When people are greedy and evil they need to have something to justify their actions. "In the name of God" was their justification.

Don't we experience that today? Look at the handful of soldiers that commit atrocities all in the name of battle.

Look at the violence and riots after court decisions, etc. "We've been discriminated against so we can run out and burn and pillage."

Just because it has been done and supposedly justified doesn't make it right.
Nor does it make us all guilty by association.
0 Replies
 
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Aug, 2007 05:08 pm
@mako cv,
mako;32077 wrote:
While this might be true, the large majority of the Muslims remember the Crusades as a time of horror and death at the hands of Christians. This is one of the reasons that the Muslim world reacted so strongly to President Bush's comment on the Iraqi war being a "crusade". :patriot:

Can i compare this to the prisoners at Gitmo? On average they gain ten to fifteen pounds when they are under our custody?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Facts about the "crusades" piliging, land grabbing and murdering in the name of God.
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 03/08/2026 at 01:37:02