Were the Crusades the first World War?

jarvis said:

Very interesting article ! Please all read it (at least from The threat of Islam). It explains well that the crusades were not free acts of aggression and imperialism, nor the epitome of self-righteousness and intolerance as so many think. The prime culprit was Islam. Islam was born out of war and expanded from a tiny part of Saudi Arabia to conquer by the sword 2/3 of the Christian world at the time. Islam had taken most of Spain and Turkey and was thus ready to take over Europe. Something had to be done, and the response of the Europeans were the crusades. In other words, the crusaders prevented Islam from destroying Christianity and sacking Europe. And the Muslims only got what they asked for.

The crusaders had to sacrifice most of their possessions (land, wealth, families... and even their lives) to save Europe. They were not the selfish war-mongers often depicted; they were heroes.
 
Last edited:
When I study the crusades I am amazed to be reminded in some ways by present day multi-national operations. Of cause nothing is the same, but this intermeddling of various war trained groups with different national backgrounds going "for something" abroad can represent a similarity. But this is not a world war. I understand some of the crusades as a big adventoure journey for thousands of europeans having time and desire to look for new borders abroad of their small getting worlds back home. To have the feeling to do a good thing and have fun and maybe return with a bit more money or at least prestige was sure also a component of the motivation. Clean your soul, kill some infidels, and not get bored like back home in the castle or village.. enough to bring volunteers together and make them forget that they are now living in camps not far from the other crusaders who recently were still looting their properties back home... Worldwar? Not realy but the old world raising towards a gaol which is located in Palestine and not too much more. I wouldn't consider the opponents than of the christian crusader armies to be "a world" involved. It seems the actions are much more located to the far east than a "world".
 
The crusaders had to sacrifice most of their possessions (land, wealth, families... and even their lives) to save Europe. They were not the selfish war-mongers often depicted; they were heroes.
(y)
 
Hmm..

The Crusades were not a world war.

The history books lack a lot of real background for the crusades.

When the Frank emperor Charles governed Europe, the first Vikings entered the coasts of the Western European mainland. When the Frankish Empire was split in three parts, Europe became weaker, and more vulnerable for viking raids.

So, Europe started to train more soldiers. Knights were getting more influence.
The viking raids slowed down because of the militarization of Western Europe.
In the coast lines of The Netherlands, Belgium and Northern France the vikings or Norsemen even got parts of the land, and established as settlers.
Remember the French Normandie. Land of the Normans.

In 1066 a viking leader William conquered England.

So, to get to the point..
In later ages the military was not necessary anymore because of the lack of war. So the military became to be annoying Western Europe.

And that's the reason the church wanted to get rid of those gung-ho rascals.

The message was.. If you want to fight, go elsewhere, not here.

The crusades were a method to dump the most aggressive part of the European population in far away lands.
And as we know today, it was a disaster.

A holocaust against other Christians, and against Muslims and Jews.

But that's history as we see it today.

There is another point in history that shows how to do away with a lot of unwanted men. Paris after the defeat of Napoleon knew a lot of revolutionary men from all over Europe. In the years that followed those men were a threat to public safety, so the French government invented the "Foreign Legion".
An easy way to dump the unwanted aliens into some North African desert.
:innocent:
 
The crusades were only a response of the cruel behaviour of the is lam murder troops. Most people welcomed the holy crusade army for bringing freedom and wealth
 
The crusades were only a response of the cruel behaviour of the is lam murder troops. Most people welcomed the holy crusade army for bringing freedom and wealth

Not true.

The crusaders were the rascals.
Read some history before you start to tell funny things. :useless:
 
Hmm..

So, Europe started to train more soldiers. Knights were getting more influence.
The viking raids slowed down because of the militarization of Western Europe.
In the coast lines of The Netherlands, Belgium and Northern France the vikings or Norsemen even got parts of the land, and established as settlers.
Remember the French Normandie. Land of the Normans.

In 1066 a viking leader William conquered England.

So, to get to the point..
In later ages the military was not necessary anymore because of the lack of war. So the military became to be annoying Western Europe.

And that's the reason the church wanted to get rid of those gung-ho rascals.

The message was.. If you want to fight, go elsewhere, not here.

The crusades were a method to dump the most aggressive part of the European population in far away lands.
And as we know today, it was a disaster.

A holocaust against other Christians, and against Muslims and Jews.

But that's history as we see it today.

:innocent:

I see a pattern here.... Take some insightful facts and wind up with a completely false conclusion.

The crusades were no disaster for Europe or anywhere else.
Isolated albeit horrific slaughters of Jews in Europe do not count for a Holocaust. They were not near the norm for that period.

Aside for, again isolated slaughters of Armenian Christians and Muslims, although equally horrific, were also not the norm.

The vast majority of this period saw the Franks (all were Franji to their opponents) probably exercising at least as much restraint if not more than their peers did back home. As you wrote, they came from a rough period; consequently they were rough men. (And a lot of them) True, they were enough of a problem that finding a way to redirect their surplus people and energies was a contributing factor. But they must be judged not in light of our ways. They must be looked at in the greater picture of their time and their opponents. If you plan on painting some type of rosy revisionist picture of the Moslem rulers of that region, then start a new post. More than one Moslem writer lamented the fact that Muslim farmers living in Frankish-ruled areas on the Levant were happier with their Christian rulers than with their former Muslim rulers, who levied substantially higher taxes on them. I really hope that you don't ride on the -"It's OK for Muslims to conquer, but not for Christians to take back" -train.

I certainly hope that the Albigensians are not going to be your victim of the hour either; a brief or detailed research about them would reveal that we all are better off having a Europe built with the influence of the Churches that we know today. I find it highly unlikely that you would have wanted to live in a Europe influenced my medieval cult-type sects.

We can't turn this thread into a disaster area, so please stick with the topic. Your position is that the crusades were not a world war and that surplus fighters needed to be redirected. You know what - on that end I can even agree in principle. Don't start spinning your wild conclusions into it. Reinaert, you are among peers here. You can’t dictate your twisted versions of what happened onto others who may very well have read substantially more than you did on the topic, accounts that support “their side”, those that take the opposite, and neutral accounts
 
I see a pattern here.... Take some insightful facts and wind up with a completely false conclusion.

The crusades were no disaster for Europe or anywhere else.
Isolated albeit horrific slaughters of Jews in Europe do not count for a Holocaust. They were not near the norm for that period.

Aside for, again isolated slaughters of Armenian Christians and Muslims, although equally horrific, were also not the norm.

The vast majority of this period saw the Franks (all were Franji to their opponents) probably exercising at least as much restraint if not more than their peers did back home. As you wrote, they came from a rough period; consequently they were rough men. (And a lot of them) True, they were enough of a problem that finding a way to redirect their surplus people and energies was a contributing factor. But they must be judged not in light of our ways. They must be looked at in the greater picture of their time and their opponents. If you plan on painting some type of rosy revisionist picture of the Moslem rulers of that region, then start a new post. More than one Moslem writer lamented the fact that Muslim farmers living in Frankish-ruled areas on the Levant were happier with their Christian rulers than with their former Muslim rulers, who levied substantially higher taxes on them. I really hope that you don't ride on the -"It's OK for Muslims to conquer, but not for Christians to take back" -train.

I certainly hope that the Albigensians are not going to be your victim of the hour either; a brief or detailed research about them would reveal that we all are better off having a Europe built with the influence of the Churches that we know today. I find it highly unlikely that you would have wanted to live in a Europe influenced my medieval cult-type sects.

We can't turn this thread into a disaster area, so please stick with the topic. Your position is that the crusades were not a world war and that surplus fighters needed to be redirected. You know what - on that end I can even agree in principle. Don't start spinning your wild conclusions into it. Reinaert, you are among peers here. You can’t dictate your twisted versions of what happened onto others who may very well have read substantially more than you did on the topic, accounts that support “their side”, those that take the opposite, and neutral accounts

You advocate the wrong vision.
I am not twisted at all.
You are.

I am not saying Christians were wrong, just saying the Europeans had an overload of gung ho types that ravaged the countryside. European marauders first started looting the east, and then the west (America). Nothing new.

And don't call the Franks kind of Santaclaus types. They were very brutal.

Regulus.. You seem to be American.. And don't understand much about Europe.

Haha.. I see a pattern here... Yes.. CIA FBI CNN
 
Having read your response, I will only reinterate that you should take your conclusions to start a new thread. Some of what you wrote was indicative of real insightful thought. I can't think that our (the West) result was worse than the results in the area ruled by the crusaders opponents in the Levant.
 
Last edited:
i recently saw a programme on TV about Venice. It seem that the 4th crusade ended up as a revenge attack against Constantinople by the Venetian Doge. Apparently he was held hostage there before he managed to get back to Venice. When the 4th crusade was formed they turned to Venice to supply them with ships. The Doge did. they were meant to supply at Constantinople before continuing to the Holy Land and Jerusalem. Instead they sacked the city, killed virtually everyone, looted the city and went back home. After reading more about the Crusades, it strikes me most of them were acts of revenge, personal glory and power struggles than what they were really meant for.

Tragically true as far as I know.
The story goes that, for reasons I can't remember exactly (I think some accusation or type of court intrigue) Enrico Dandolo, who was a hostage in the court and future Doge, was blinded by having sunlight concentrated by mirrors directed at his forcibly-opened eyes.

For revenge for that act, plus the obvious financial advantages that Venice would get from such an action, the leadership of the city required that the troops pay for their transport by taking ports on the coast from the Byzantines. This continued until Constantinople was terribly sacked.
 
Last edited:
Regulus, you look for sense in Reinaert posts? Good luck. He's ongoing misconception is that the winning party in conflicts has to be the cruelest, more vicious, savage, greedy, overall the worst kind of human beings. The conquered, the poor, the victims are the true good people. Right?

Going back to the subject. I think many are missing the fact that 9,10,11,12 centuries were quite prosperous for the Europe overall. The climate was warmer which increased food production and population. This great progress, wealth, and population number produced surplus of military might that was sent to fight overseas.
 
You're right, LeBrok. I don't know why I have not, like my Irish ancestors; enlist "Captain Boycott" in dealing with him.

I refer to the Franks as rough men, and he says that I call them Santa Claus types. CNN is extremely liberal, almost to the point of dancing with the Left, and he lumps them in with the CIA and FBI. If was at least consistent, he would have cited the FOX network. That way his rants would at least look like he sort of knows what he is talking about.
 
Last edited:
Well.. You two are doing it again.

CNN is part of the American establishment, and not left sided.
In fact the political left doesn't exist in the USA.

As least in European view.

It must be hard for you to accept anything else than what you learned at school. Which is a lot of old outdated blabla.

And it's like I said. The Christian Crusaders drew first blood.

Accept that. It's the true history.

It's very simple.
I repeat.
After the vikings started their assaults on the European coasts, Western Europe started to militarize slowly. At a point in time all those soldiers began to be annoying. They were often looting and harassing civilians.

So the Catholic Church had a bright idea to send them into a far away war.
And one of the main reasons they went was, that all their sins would be forgiven, and that all loot they got was for themselves.
That was a custom in those days. :innocent:

Don't try to make me angry about your arrogant way of writing.
 
We can't turn this thread into a disaster area, so please stick with the topic. Your position is that the crusades were not a world war and that surplus fighters needed to be redirected. You know what - on that end I can even agree in principle. Don't start spinning your wild conclusions into it. Reinaert, you are among peers here. You can’t dictate your twisted versions of what happened onto others who may very well have read substantially more than you did on the topic, accounts that support “their side”, those that take the opposite, and neutral accounts

Well, you can say that others may also have many books about the subject, but the only point is they have read the wrong books.
Americans write books about the history of Europe, but they simply copy what is written in older versions.
I know it's hard to find books that give a complete story with the latest knowledge combined.

History is far more complex than what an easy reader may think.

The idea of war is like today. America has an army, and interests in producing weapons. Also unemployment, and a need to get rid of aggressive types.
So they go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Just like the medieval Europeans sent their most aggressive men to the middle east. But it isn't a world war.
 
CNN is part of the American establishment, and not left sided.
In fact the political left doesn't exist in the USA.

.

... thus with a single sentence does a man prove a complete lack of credibility.
 
... thus with a single sentence does a man prove a complete lack of credibility.

As if Americans would be credible at all, in fact they suffer from a moral, intellectual and financial bankruptcy. :grin:
Your posting is very cheap. And not contributing to this discussion.
Proof you aren't able to imagine Europeans see the world totally different than Americans.
Nice to learn such a thing from this forum..
But I, as a European, don't like to be dictated by Americans how to think.
Your propaganda is false. Wikileaks proves the USA is abusing the world in a gross way.
We knew it all.. Years and years, but all the abuses weren't easy to prove.
Today I saw another American television program about the Cuba crises.
And it's been proven a lie. Kennedy wasn't the great diplomat.
The USA had nuclear missiles in Turkey, on the doorstep of the Soviet Union.
So the nuclear aggression was from the Americans.
The Soviets wanted the missiles out of Turkey, so they started a campaign to put nuclear missiles into Cuba. And it worked. Kennedy got the nuclear missiles out of Turkey to begin with.
And the Ruskies were asked not to talk about it...
Why should they? Their problem was solved. ;)

Don't play the bogey, son.
It isn't going to work.
We know a lot more than you can ever imagine.
 
I don't know what the "bogey" means in your usage.

Don't blame me, you dug this hole yourself. With your CNN quip, you have effectively canceled yourself out of any chance of being considered seriously. Many people disagree with me on points or positions, but at least I don't make wild, obviously false statements. I would rather have credibility than try to stomp people and fail.
 

This thread has been viewed 46113 times.

Back
Top