The Crusades

Come on man, love your guilt! It is the Christian thing to do. That and participate in unsolicited invasions either by armies or more annoyingly, missionaries.

I know this may surprise some people on this site but i have several friends who go on missionary trips, fortunately they aren't the kind that tell Africans to not use contraceptives. :thumbup:

They go to build houses for the homeless which is applaudable.

Well then, I shall have to be more precise in my diction: those who, as a profession or an excursion, pursue with zeal proselytizing.

Make no note of it, I wasn't saying anything against you, merely blathering to myself again.

When you start in the middle, you only get one side of the story.

There were seven Christian Crusades.

The Islamic crusades began when Muhammad was ridiculed by his family and fellow residents of Mecca. In 622 AD he fled to Medina where a band of tribal warriors accepted him and his ideas and pledged their loyalty. Once he had a following, he preyed on nearby towns and travelers until his band was strong enough to impose their will on those towns and force their conversion to Islam.

Those who his band encountered or sought out had three options (the same they have in Islamic countries today): convert to Islam, become total slaves (dhimmi) with payment of the head tax, or be beheaded/killed. If you convert from Islam to another religion, you are under a death sentence. Any muslim can kill you under Islamic law. At that time, much of the Middle East population was Christian, Jewish or Zoroastrian. Between 622 and 1095 town after town and region after region fell to the waves of bloody Islamic imperialistic onslaught. The empire built on this pattern eventually spanned from the Atlantic ocean to India. The Christian Crusades were an act of defense. If they hadn't happend you'd be on your knees five times a day facing Mecca.

How many millions of non-islamic people were raped, slaughtered, and dispossessed to make this happen? Why did it take so long for the Christians in Europe to awaken and fight back?

As shown by the Islamic authorities in many countries, building houses for the poor may be considered proselytizing, especially when Christians are known to be charged to let people know who they are by the way the live their lives and treat others.

wrong.

The First Crusade thus ended in victory. It was the only crusade that achieved more than ephemeral results. Until the ultimate fall (1291) of the Latin Kingdom, the brunt of the fighting in the Holy Land fell on the Latin princes and their followers and on the great military orders, the Knights Hospitalers and the Knights Templars, that arose out of the Crusades.

Second Crusade

The Second Crusade, 1147?49, was preached by St. Bernard of Clairvaux after the fall (1144) of Edessa to the Turks. It was led by Holy Roman Emperor Conrad III, whose army set out first, and by King Louis VII of France. Both armies passed through the Balkans and pillaged the territory of the Byzantine emperor, Manuel I, who provided them with transportation to Asia Minor in order to be rid of them. The German contingent, already decimated by the Turks, merged (1148) with the French, who had fared only slightly better, at Acre (Akko). A joint attack on Damascus failed because of jealousy and, possibly, treachery among the Latin princes of the Holy Land. Conrad returned home in 1148 and was followed (1149) by Louis. The Second Crusade thus ended in dismal failure.

Third Crusade

The Third Crusade, 1189?92, followed on the capture (1187) of Jerusalem by Saladin and the defeat of Guy of Lusignan, Reginald of Ch?tillon, and Raymond of Tripoli at Hattin. The crusade was preached by Pope Gregory VIII but was directed by its leaders?Richard I of England, Philip II of France, and Holy Roman Emperor Frederick I. Frederick set out first, but was hindered by the Byzantine emperor, Isaac II, who had formed an alliance with Saladin. Frederick forced his way to the Bosporus, sacked Adrianople (Edirne), and compelled the Greeks to furnish transportation to Asia Minor. However, he died (1190) in Cilicia, and only part of his forces went on to the Holy Land. Richard and Philip, uneasy allies, arrived at Acre in 1191. The city had been besieged since 1189, but the siege had been prolonged by dissensions between the two chief Christian leaders, Guy of Lusignan and Conrad, marquis of Montferrat, both of whom claimed the kingship of Jerusalem.

The city was nevertheless starved out by July, 1191; shortly afterward Philip went home. Richard removed his base to Jaffa, which he fortified, and rebuilt Ascalon (Ashqelon), which the Muslims had burned down. In 1192 he made a three-year truce with Saladin; the Christians retained Jaffa with a narrow strip of coast (all that remained of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem) and the right of free access to the Holy Sepulcher. Antioch and Tripoli were still in Christian hands; Cyprus, which Richard I had wrested (1191) from the Byzantines while on his way to the Holy Land, was given to Guy of Lusignan. In Oct., 1192, Richard left the Holy Land, thus ending the crusade.

Fourth, Children's, and Fifth Crusades

Pope Innocent III launched the Fourth Crusade, 1202?1204, which was totally diverted from its original course. The Crusaders, led mostly by French and Flemish nobles and spurred on by Fulk of Neuilly, assembled (1202) near Venice. To pay some of their passage to Palestine they aided Doge Enrico Dandolo (see under Dandolo, family) and his Venetian forces in recovering the Christian city of Zara (Zadar) on the Dalmatian coast from the Hungarians. The sack of Zara (1202), for which Innocent III excommunicated the crusaders, prefaced more serious political schemes. Alexius (later Alexius IV), son of the deposed Byzantine emperor Isaac II and brother-in-law of Philip of Swabia, a sponsor of the crusade, joined the army at Zara and persuaded the leaders to help him depose his uncle, Alexius III. In exchange, he promised large sums of money, aid to the Crusaders in conquering Egypt, and the union of Roman and Eastern Christianity under the control of the Roman church. The actual decision to turn on Constantinople was largely brought about by Venetian pressure. The fleet arrived at the Bosporus in 1203; Alexius III fled, and Isaac II and Alexius IV were installed as joint emperors while the fleet remained outside the harbor. In 1204, Alexius V overthrew the emperors. As a result the Crusaders stormed the city, sacked it amid horrendous rape and murder, divided the rich spoils with the Venetians (who brought much of it back to Venice) according to a prearranged plan, and set up the Latin Empire of Constantinople (see Constantinople, Latin Empire of). The Crusader Baldwin I of Flanders was elected first Latin Emperor of Constantinople, but within a year he was captured and killed by the Bulgarians and succeeded by his brother Henry.

There followed the pathetic interlude of the Children's Crusade, 1212. Led by a visionary French peasant boy, Stephen of Cloyes, children embarked at Marseilles, hoping that they would succeed in the cause that their elders had betrayed. According to later sources, they were sold into slavery by unscrupulous skippers. Another group, made up of German children, went to Italy; most of them perished of hunger and disease.

Soon afterward Innocent III and his successor, Honorius III, began to preach the Fifth Crusade, 1217?21. King Andrew II of Hungary, Duke Leopold VI of Austria, John of Brienne, and the papal legate Pelasius were among the leaders of the expedition, which was aimed at Egypt, the center of Muslim strength. Damietta (Dumyat) was taken in 1219 but had to be evacuated again after the defeat (1221) of an expedition against Cairo.

Sixth Crusade

The Sixth Crusade, 1228?29, undertaken by Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II, was simply a peaceful visit, in the course of which the emperor made a truce with the Muslims, securing the partial surrender of Jerusalem and other holy places. Frederick crowned himself king of Jerusalem, but, occupied with Western affairs, he did nothing when the Muslims later reoccupied the city. Thibaut IV of Navarre and Champagne, however, reopened (1239) the wars, which were continued by Richard, earl of Cornwall. They were unable to compose the quarrels between the Knights Hospitalers and Knights Templars. In 1244 the Templars, who advocated an alliance with the sultan of Damascus rather than with Egypt, prevailed.

Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Crusades

A treaty (1244) with Damascus restored Palestine to the Christians, but in the same year the Egyptian Muslims and their Turkish allies took Jerusalem and utterly routed the Christians at Gaza. This event led to the Seventh Crusade, 1248?54, due solely to the idealistic enterprise of Louis IX of France. Egypt again was the object of attack. Damietta fell again (1249); and an expedition to Cairo miscarried (1250), Louis himself being captured. After his release from captivity, he spent four years improving the fortifications left to the Christians in the Holy Land.

The fall (1268) of Jaffa and Antioch to the Muslims caused Louis IX to undertake the Eighth Crusade, 1270, which was cut short by his death in Tunisia. The Ninth Crusade, 1271?72, was led by Prince Edward (later Edward I of England). He landed at Acre but retired after concluding a truce. In 1289 Tripoli fell to the Muslims, and in 1291 Acre, the last Christian stronghold, followed.

As you said in another thread. It's all a matter of perception.

Math is not up for debate.

Oh come on, using calculus you can make anything equal anything else.

The longer you hold off that you were wrong the less credibility you will have, so continue this little tirade of denial. Just shows you can't accept it when you're wrong.

I don't have time to do the research to arrive at a definitive answer that might of might not match yours. Since I've made that choice, I'll accept your count. However, the fact is the Crusades were defensive and were of a lesser geographic and coersive extent than the slaughter that preceded them coming from the Islamic world.

I can accept when I'm wrong and I take responsibility for my choice and action. Do you?

There is still hope for you yet.

And yes I do take responsibility for my choices and actions, I do admit when I am wrong but not as often as I should.


But I will say this, 2 wrongs don't make a right.

Now who's quoting aphorisms?

Is self-defense wrong?

huh?



No, self-preservation is not immoral, it is intended.

Then why do you say two wrongs don't make a right? By making this parallel you are saying that self defense in the form of the military action by western civilization was wrong.

Self-defense is neither wrong nor right. Nor was the crusade "self-defense", in what way is raping and killing civilian populations considered "self-defense"? In what way is the conquest of desired lands considered "self-defense"?

Retaliation is not self-defense.

Stop being a hypocrite. The lands Islam had were torn from the Christian world.

It always amazes me when someone who says there are no rules, quotes rules, or is surprised when someone who believes in a set of rules decides to revert to an older set of rules like an eye for an eye. Response to aggression is not retaliation it is defense.

You are too steeped in the androgynous teachings of politically correct societal groups to be objective if you believe response to aggression is retaliation. When someone attacks you, the only choices you have are to respond or accept their will. Accepting their will usually means you become slaves to their society or their sovereign.

The law of war had not been established in the era of Islamic expansion. The only restraint imposed on the participants in war during that time was that of their own moral fiber or their religion. In fact, that is the only restraint that can be imposed on man in any era.

As you know, religion can only govern a man?s actions until the action required becomes unacceptable to the man in question. In the case of Christianity turning the other cheek can only stand for as long as there are stout men and women who are willing to continue turning the other cheek. At some point, human nature says enough is enough. There is also the reality that those who continue to turn the other cheek regardless of the provocation, don?t live long. Those who are left alive then either learn another behavior or they don?t live long. In the case of Islam, the objective of the religion is to subdue or kill everyone who is unwilling to accept the dictates of the leaders of the Islamic religion.

War is/was not some nice game played by a simple set of rules. In every war there are "crimes" committed by every side. In your world this should not be an issue since you believe every moral judgment is relative.

As with values, the society of nations in which one finds oneself or one?s nation dictates the methods and mores used in war between those nations. Regardless of the mores one enters a conflict with, those employed by your enemy become the norm over time. This is human nature that cannot be overcome by wishes.

Battles are not war. The nation?s objective in a war must be to break the will and capability of their enemy to continue fighting. Otherwise, the war will have been for nothing and it will have to be fought again.

Each time war is fought it destroys portions of the antagonists? manpower and instruments of national power/national strength. Instruments of national power include a nation?s diplomatic, economic, law enforcement, financial, information, intelligence, and military capabilities. The Bible Party recognizes two additional foundational instruments of national power, our nation?s moral character and the educational system that assists parents in imparting that moral character.

These instruments must be rebuilt after each period of warfare. This is why you see the successive waves of warfare between different cultures.

Sun Ztu?s The Art of War written more than two thousand years ago begins: ?The art of war is of vital importance to the state. It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin?.?

It also states: ?There are three ways in which a sovereign can bring misfortune upon his army: By commanding the army to advance or to retreat, being ignorant of the fact that it cannot obey. This is called hobbling an army. By attempting to govern an army in the same way as he administers a kingdom, being ignorant of the conditions that obtain in an army. This causes restlessness in the soldiers? minds. Humanity and justice are the principles on which to govern a state, but not an army; opportunism and flexibility, on the other hand, are military rather than civic virtues. ??

President Obama should read Sun Tzu.

I don?t use this quote to excuse crimes in war, only to partially explain how/why actions in war happen regardless of the values and mores of the society sponsoring the warfare whether in attack or response.

war - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
Main Entry: 1war
Pronunciation: \ˈwȯr\
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English werre, from Anglo-French werre, guerre, of Germanic origin; akin to Old High German werra strife; akin to Old High German werran to confuse
Date: 12th century
1 a (1): a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2): a period of such armed conflict (3): state of war b: the art or science of warfare c (1)obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2)archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war
2 a: a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b: a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end <a class war> <a war against disease> c: variance , odds 3

retaliation - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
Main Entry: re?tal?i?ate Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): re?tal?i?at?ed; re?tal?i?at?ing
Etymology: Late Latin retaliatus, past participle of retaliare, from Latin re- + talio legal retaliation
Date: 1611
transitive verb
: to repay (as an injury) in kind
intransitive verb
: to return like for like ; especially : to get revenge
synonyms see reciprocate
? re?tal?i?a?tion \ri-ˌta-lē-ˈā-shən, ˌrē-\ noun
? re?tal?i?a?tive \ri-ˈta-lē-ˌā-tiv\ adjective
? re?tal?ia?to?ry \-ˈtal-yə-ˌtȯr-ē, -ˈta-lē-ə-\ adjective

defense - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary[1]
1de?fense
Pronunciation: \di-ˈfen(t)s; as antonym of ?offense,? often ˈdē-ˌ\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin defensa vengeance, from Latin, feminine of defensus, past participle of defendere
Date: 14th century
1 a: the act or action of defending <the defense of our country> <speak out in defense of justice> b: a defendant's denial, answer, or plea
2 a: capability of resisting attack b: defensive play or ability <a player known for good defense>
3 a: means or method of defending or protecting oneself, one's team, or another ; also : a defensive structure b: an argument in support or justification c: the collected facts and method adopted by a defendant to protect and defend against a plaintiff's action d: a sequence of moves available in chess to the second player in the opening.

Whether it's justified is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Justified retaliation is still retaliation.



A retaliation is a response to aggression as well.

When one leaves their own borders, it is no longer "self-defense".







Never heard that one before. :eek:




Again, leaving your borders after the fact, to invade another nation is not self-defense, no matter how you try to justify it.












So after reading those definitions have you been forced to conclude they aren't the same thing?

Bull.