It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
One of the idiocies passed off for decades among Western historians is bemoaning the Crusades as evil. But the most superficial reading of Western history should put that canard to rest.
Shortly before he died in June 632 AD, Mohammed ordered Muslims to prepare to wage war against the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire.
Upon his death, Mohammed's successor, Abu Bakr, planned to fulfill those instructions. Plans were also made to conquer Zoroastrian Sassanid Persia.
Persia and Byzantine Rome had just come out of a savagely vicious war which ended in 628 AD. Emperor Heraclius had finally imposed the total defeat over Persia that had eluded the earlier Roman Republic and the Caesars -- but Byzantine Rome, though victorious, was severely mauled. Persia was reduced to a state of anarchy; and forced to pay indemnities to Constantinople.
Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by benrl
Dear benrl,
Of course you are right and I agree with you. But I thought the Crusades and the growth of the Muslim Empire, being the great thing in the world for hundreds of years, would have received a little better analysis by the schools, politicians and the press. The spread of ignorance is depressing.
With respect,
Charles1952
Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by benrl
Dear benrl,
Of course you are right and I agree with you. But I thought the Crusades and the growth of the Muslim Empire, being the great thing in the world for hundreds of years, would have received a little better analysis by the schools, politicians and the press. The spread of ignorance is depressing.
With respect,
Charles1952
Originally posted by charles1952
We have been lied to about who we are as a nation and a civilization. We have had values and dreams stolen from us when we weren't looking. We can't move forward if we don't know where we've been and where we are.
Originally posted by Gazrok
Like any war, the Crusades were fought for the control of resources (specifically trade routes). Using religion is simply to provide justification, new soldiers, and support at home. No different than the weapons of mass destruction window dressing we used to protect the sanctity of the US dollar in Iraq.
Every war comes down to economic gain as the reason for war, no matter how you try and dress it up...or how primitive the participants. Any other reason is a lie told to garner support for it.
This confuses me. This aggression began with the Muslim armies. Are you saying that the spread of Islam was for economic gain? Perhaps you're right.
Every war comes down to economic gain as the reason for war, no matter how you try and dress it up...or how primitive the participants. Any other reason is a lie told to garner support for it.
But if the crusades, just-like-any-war (lol), was about resources,
why did they continue for 13 crusades,
when it was perfectly clear by the end of the 2nd crusade that
there were no resources to be had.
Without going so far as to claim them as noble,
Are you saying that the spread of Islam was for economic gain?
Or are you saying that the Christian response to the attacks was for economic gain? If that is the case, I would ask for more support for that position. It certainly appears that the response to the aggression was defensive in nature.
As you explain it, land, people, free travel, are all "assets." So, why repel invaders? According to your analysis, it's for economic gain.
And why defend anything? Because it is an asset that belongs to you. Defending an asset is certainly for economic gain. You aren't going to just take the loss and create carte blanche for others to do likewise.....
I'm willing to say neither party is completely innocent, but I think it's a failing of moral responsibilty to say that both sides are equally guilty. Making moral distinctions is an essential human responsibility which we shouldn't try to shrug off.
War isn't about "good guys" vs. "bad guys"...that's simply a function of which side YOU are on. BOTH sides commit atrocities and kill innocents, etc., etc. One side may do MORE of it than another, but neither party is innocent.
I'm willing to say neither party is completely innocent, but I think it's a failing of moral responsibilty to say that both sides are equally guilty. Making moral distinctions is an essential human responsibility which we shouldn't try to shrug off.
that the Crusades were a terrible stain on Christianity, a nearly unprovoked war of aggression on a few relatively peaceful religious folk
Only to the extent that both can be threatened and fear for their survival. But, as I'm sure you know, at the time we're discussing, the government was an individual, whether Pope or King or Muslim chief. As late as the 1700's, Louis XIV was issuing his famous proclamation: "L'etat, c'est moi."
You're comparing a person to a government.
Agreed. And if that person can send armies marching with a wave of his hand, might that also lead to irrartional wars? Perhaps the Children's Crusade is an example. I certainly don't understand why, economically, we are maintaining the embargo against Cuba. While it is not, granted, a war, I think we can call it a military action which is gaining absolutely nothing for us. Did we get into South Korea for economic gain?
A PERSON fights for many reasons, love, hate, revenge, boredom, etc. (and yes, money). A person can be irrational.
But, as I'm sure you know, at the time we're discussing, the government was an individual, whether Pope or King or Muslim chief
Originally posted by Gazrok
The Muslims expanded for economic gain,
....
, [color=gold] it always comes down to money.
Originally posted by Gazrok
Remember [color=gold] I said "control of resources" is the motivator, not necessarily the resources themselves.
...
Only when the Church recognized the financial threat the Templars posed, did they stop it.
Originally posted by Gazrok
Neither side was "noble" or "evil" (well, it's all a matter of perspective, isn't it?.....I mean, to a Muslim, they are righteous and the evil infidels were coming!) Each side was simply looking to further their own economic situation...same as any war. Even Nazi Germany only gets the "evil" moniker due to the Holocaust (and rightfully so, genocide is pretty nasty business), but the German people saw him much differently. [color=gold] Had Germany won, we'd all be decrying the evil Allies (and doing so in German no doubt)....
Originally posted by Gazrok
Are you saying that the spread of Islam was for economic gain?
Absolutely.
Ethnocentrism is judging another culture solely by the values and standards of one's own culture.
wikipedia / ethnocentrism
Moral relativism may be any of several philosophical positions concerned with the differences in moral judgments across different people and cultures.
wikipedia.com / Moral Relativism
The best of them won't come for money.
- Lawrence of Arabia