Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Medieval and Byzantine History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Medieval and Byzantine History Medieval and Byzantine History Forum - Period of History between classical antiquity and modern times, roughly the 5th through 16th Centuries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 14th, 2012, 11:10 AM   #221

Ayazid's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,552

Quote:
Originally Posted by Al-Tabari View Post
I stopped posting on this thread a while ago as the discussion was going nowhere and I am not one to crave the "last word".

However, I have stumbled across this thread just now and seeing this post of yours, I have no choice but to reply. I can accept being disagreed with but being accused of spouting hypocrisy is an entirely different matter. There is nothing hypocritical about my statement and claiming there is shows that you fail to see the clear difference between highly civilianized societies and militaristic tribal societies. Dealing with these vastly different societies requires different approaches. It is far easier to subjugate demilitarized urban societies than it is militaristic tribal societies. The peoples that suffered the most from the Crusaders were urban peoples who largely relied on rougher less sedentary peoples for protection. These people were butchered ruthlessly by the Franks even though subjugating them would hardly have required such savagery.

The Arabs on the other hand, when conquering the highly civilianized peoples of the fertile crescent were far more merciful and there were very few instances if any of wholesale massacre. It was only in the more tribal and militarized regions of Persia that more bloody measures were taken. But even then, I highly doubt that any women or children were massacred. It was mostly the adult male population that suffered from Arab retribution. But in instances in which women and children may have been killed, then I hardly justify such actions.

But in the grand scheme of Arab conquests, such actions were the exception rather than the rule. The same cannot be said of the Crusades. And yes I am obviously going to focus on the first Crusade since that is when most of the conquests occurred.
Even if the behaviour of the Crusaders during the first expedition was more merciless than the Arab conquests usually were, it wasn't true the case for the later Crusades and we are also comparing one expedition which took place during some 2 years with almost a century, which brought much more destruction and suffering.

Besides, what I find most appaling is the fact that those so called "openings" of other countries by Muslims are still being glorified in the Muslim world (except maybe a handful of secular thinkers and Christians), whereas the same thing is not the case with the Crusades in the West anymore. To criticize the actions of the Sahaba and such figures as Tariq ibn Ziyad etc. is a big no-no there and I think that if you are an Arab or speak Arabic you know that.
Ayazid is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 14th, 2012, 11:35 AM   #222

Yōḥānān's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2012
From: Portugal
Posts: 2,686

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gmann101 View Post

I suppose the real winners were the Spanish and Portuguese, because all that Crusading fervour in Western Europe meant that loads of Frenchmen went to help the Spanish in the reconquest of Iberia against the Moors, and the reconquest of Lisbon was an actual act of one of the Crusades.
Yep and one of these French nobles who came to aid in the reconquista was Henry, Count of Portugal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia from Burgundy who was the father of the first king of Portugal and this last conquered Lisbon with the aid of the Crusaders.
Yōḥānān is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 01:16 PM   #223
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 514

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ayazid View Post
Besides, what I find most appaling is the fact that those so called "openings" of other countries by Muslims are still being glorified in the Muslim world (except maybe a handful of secular thinkers and Christians), whereas the same thing is not the case with the Crusades in the West anymore. To criticize the actions of the Sahaba and such figures as Tariq ibn Ziyad etc. is a big no-no there and I think that if you are an Arab or speak Arabic you know that.
Right well they have to glorify it and deny any wrong-doing or their whole religion will fall apart.

It easy for Christians to criticize the Conquistadors and the Crusaders because they were not companions of Jesus, they can just be labelled as "misguided Christians". But the Sahaba and the Rashidun Caliphs, once you criticize them, you are pretty much criticizing the religion of Islam itself. These are guys that were supposedly the closest companions of Mo, they heard him preach the religion of Islam for over a decade, and then they went out and conquered the world. So of course Muslims need to paint those conquests as very good things. Once you criticize that it is all over for Islam.
Gmann101 is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 03:13 PM   #224

DreamWeaver's Avatar
Misanthropologist
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Wales
Posts: 10,323
Blog Entries: 6

In Military terms the Crusades in the Latin East were lost.

Yet if one moves away from a military paradigm then while not victorious the crusades certainly achieved something as a result of their existence for the Latin West. Yet moving into more abstract areas notions such as win and lose have no real meaning or are less pertinent.
DreamWeaver is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 03:31 PM   #225
Academician
 
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 59

Quote:
Originally Posted by DreamWeaver View Post
literary analysis of al-Tabir et al?

So you can provide source material then?
Asking for primary source material on a subject this extensive requires sifting through hundreds of pages of annals. I hardly have the time to do that and I would be a complete fool to waste my time trying to proving something that is almost universally acknowledged by historians of the early Muslim conquests.

If you are truly attempting to challenge this largely accepted historical fact, then perhaps it is for you to provide the citations.
Al-Tabari is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 03:33 PM   #226
Academician
 
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 59

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ayazid View Post
Even if the behaviour of the Crusaders during the first expedition was more merciless than the Arab conquests usually were, it wasn't true the case for the later Crusades and we are also comparing one expedition which took place during some 2 years with almost a century, which brought much more destruction and suffering.

Besides, what I find most appaling is the fact that those so called "openings" of other countries by Muslims are still being glorified in the Muslim world (except maybe a handful of secular thinkers and Christians), whereas the same thing is not the case with the Crusades in the West anymore. To criticize the actions of the Sahaba and such figures as Tariq ibn Ziyad etc. is a big no-no there and I think that if you are an Arab or speak Arabic you know that.
But how does the modern day glorification of these conquests have any bearing on the discussion? All people celebrate the glories of their ancestors. Do the Greeks not celebrate Alexander? Do the Persians not celebrate Cyrus' conquests?
Al-Tabari is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 03:41 PM   #227

Belgarion's Avatar
Cynical Optimist
 
Joined: Jul 2011
From: Australia
Posts: 3,182

The Crusades were a strategic victory for Europe in that they held back Islamic expansionism long enough for Europe to become strong enough to resist the later Islamic incursions that may well have swept across all of Europe, instead of being halted in the east.
Belgarion is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 04:35 PM   #228

Bamboozle's Avatar
Academician
 
Joined: Apr 2012
From: Oregon
Posts: 88

Quote:
Originally Posted by Belgarion View Post
The Crusades were a strategic victory for Europe in that they held back Islamic expansionism long enough for Europe to become strong enough to resist the later Islamic incursions that may well have swept across all of Europe, instead of being halted in the east.
There wasn't much of an Islamic threat to Europe c. 1095, apart from the Turks - but I doubt they have been able to conquer Constantinople. Spain (Al-Andalus) was on the decline and was not a threat.

Firstly, everything south of the Danube was still controlled by Byzantium. I do not see a practical reason why the Seljuks would have invaded the European half of Byzantium, nor can I see such an invasion happening successfully. The Crusades did help clear the path for the Komnenian Restoration by reconquering parts of Anatolia for Byzantium, but in the long run I believe they did more harm to Europe than good. There really was no "threat" to Europe beforehand, but the Crusaders made quite a few of them.

With the Fourth Crusade the idea of a reliable buffer state against Islam died as Anatolia fractured into a mix of warring kingdoms and empires. The Ottomans had been able to grow unhindered, and by 1300 they conquered practically all of Anatolia and a good chunk of the Balkans while Byzantium was too weak to stop them.

The Latin Empire of Constantinople (existed 1204-1261 when the Byzantines retook Constantinople) also diverted men and resources from Europe, instead of those men and resources going to the Crusader States in the east. The more territory the Crusaders took, more money and soldiers would be needed to rebuild and defend that territory.
Bamboozle is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 05:44 PM   #229
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gmann101 View Post
Obviously you cannot argue that the Crusaders won. They lost in the long run as they were driven out of the Levant.

But then again, did anybody really win?
Yes, the Muslims in general add the Mamlouks and other groups in particular; obviously one cannot argue against that either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gmann101 View Post
The Byznatines faired badly in the long run. Though who knows, maybe they would have done even worse if the Crusades never happened.
You must be kidding.

The IV Crusade was objectively the worst disgrace that ever happened to the Roman empire.

Even so, the so-called Latin Empire was duly crushed by the Romans in a matter of decades.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gmann101 View Post
The Muslims lost their center of learning at Baghdad to the Mongols, which was part of the same conflict and may not have happened if it wasn't for the Crusades. But then again the Age of Reason in the Islamic World had already been crushed from within by Quranic Literalists.
You are plainly comparing oranges with apples.

The Mongols were not Crusaders, and the later weren't responsible for the former.

And the Crusaders weren't responsible for the Quranic literalists either, or for the climatic change for that matter.

In fact, had the Mongols ultimately won there's hardly any doubt that the Crusaders would have been duly crushed too.

And of course, for the Mamlouks and other Muslim nations that so soundly defeated the Crusaders (because the Muslims were not a single nation) it was barely the beginning of their best period.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gmann101 View Post
I suppose the real winners were the Spanish and Portuguese, because all that Crusading fervour in Western Europe meant that loads of Frenchmen went to help the Spanish in the reconquest of Iberia against the Moors, and the reconquest of Lisbon was an actual act of one of the Crusades.
That's ostensibly giving too much relevance to a couple of isolated expeditions in the middle of the eight centuries long Reconquista; if the Muslims were eventuslly expelled from the Peninsula centuries later, that was entrely due to the efforts of the local Christians.

Last edited by sylla1; November 14th, 2012 at 05:51 PM.
sylla1 is offline  
Old November 15th, 2012, 02:49 AM   #230

Essa's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2012
From: Bahrain
Posts: 1,783

Quote:
Originally Posted by Belgarion View Post
The Crusades were a strategic victory for Europe in that they held back Islamic expansionism long enough for Europe to become strong enough to resist the later Islamic incursions that may well have swept across all of Europe, instead of being halted in the east.
If you put things at its "True" perspective then you'd see the true winner and loser....

Simply put, the Crusades were "Offensive" efforts to capture holy lands...i.e. Crusaders were attacking Muslim land, its not a defense of an Islamic expansion like you're suggesting.....Since the holy lands remained in Muslim hands, then it easy to conclude that the Crusades failed it cause..
Essa is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Medieval and Byzantine History

Tags
crusades, victor


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Crusades SPERRO Medieval and Byzantine History 66 September 29th, 2011 01:34 AM
Different Victor at the second Battle of Philipi Isoroku295 Speculative History 2 March 8th, 2010 04:44 PM
GIAP: The Victor in Vietnam bigscreeninkster History Book Reviews 1 December 29th, 2009 02:15 AM
Victor Davis Hanson Pantagruel History Book Reviews 12 July 22nd, 2009 06:24 AM
Victor Hugo Commander History Book Reviews 8 June 11th, 2008 07:11 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.