Salah

My title question is basically self-explanatory. All responses are welcome, but I'd be especially interested to see what our Middle Eastern members have to say.

How are the Crusades of the 11th-13th Centuries viewed in the Middle East? How much significance do they have in the region's views of history, or modern relationships with western countries?

Ibn Aby Ahmed

I don't think that the Crusades have any affect on modern relations.

gaius valerius

Imperial/neocolonial heritage is in that sense a much more pressing matter methinks. However, the crusades are generally thrown in from time to time to remind everyone of how long they've been at it, if a retard like Bush then starts to go on a crusade against terrorism... well, does one wants to present propaganda on a platter to the other side?

Zeno

And then there is Israel, being painted as a modern Crusader state, or their American overlords, painted as crusading-by-proxy. Then there are the references by W. Bush, about going on a crusade in Iraq....

gaius valerius

It's in such a situation really easy to pick up lines as they're at it again just like with the crusades.

jehosafats

I would say the Crusades began in 11th century Spain. Or perhaps with the Christian martyrs, who in 10th-11th century Cordoba caused a stir because they took their own lives rather than concede to Muslim authority. The conflict in these times could be characterized as civil war between Christian and Muslim Iberians. The Taifa principalities were more or less geographically defined after the fall of the caliphate. When the emir of Seville invited in the Almoravids to protect them from the Christians in the north, the character of this conflict changed considerably. No longer was it civil war. It was inviting a foreign military into the conflict. At this point the Spanish Christians, Franks and Italians, whom were once bitter rivals, had no choice but to amend their differences and confront the foreign enemy. While they were largely unsuccessful at first, the wars with the Almoravids and later Almohads hardened the Christian Crusaders. After the Battle of Las Novas de Tolosa, where they defeated the Almohads, they then looked to the east.

Had al-Mutamid of Seville not invited the Almoravids into Spain to check the Reconquista, I highly doubt there would have been a crusade to take the east.

What I find interesting is the Latin conquest of Constantinople. I remember reading the Latin crusaders seated a 'prostitute' on the papal throne.

What effect these conflicts have on the middle east today, I can't say. But since the conquest was unsuccessful, I doubt it can be elevated to living memory. More poignant, perhaps, is the more recent colonial period.

gaius valerius

A bit off topic but partly untrue. The "crusades" which as a technical term didn't even exist have little origin in Iberia alone. Don't forget that Holy War is not crusading nor was Holy War non existant before the events we label the Crusades. The events in the Iberian peninsula played a role but weren't the only nor perhaps the most important one.

Mohammed the Persian

In my opinion, the Crusades helped prove that the Europeans were being aggressive as they themselves rallied against the Muslims and captured Jerusalem. Basically speaking, the Crusaders were very cruel (As I remember from reading a history book about how the Crusaders took Jerusalem, "by slaughtering every Muslim and Every Jew and Every inhabitant of the city"). This caused the general notion that Christians are barbaric and warmongering.

However, this type of attitude has died down over the years. However, as Bush put it, the Americans launched a Crusade against Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan, Simply signifying that it was a Holy war against the Muslims in the same manner as the one in South France (I forgot the name ).

But also, as Ibn Aby Ahmed said it earlier, the Original crusades didn't have any effect. History is History. But rather, it also showed that the Jews and Muslims were united (once) against the Christians during the Siege of Jerusalem.

That is what I view of the situation.

jehosafats

Well that's true. There were other factors. Though I would say Muslim occupation of southern Spain had a considerable influence on uniting the Christians.

Krystian

But can you hear someone in the middle east ever point out that it was the musslims who first took Jerusalem by force and attacked the christian world? Is someone ever mentioning the crusaders viewed their act as reconquest rather than aggression or are everyone only viewing the christians as warmongers and muslims as defenders, although the latter expanded even up to France in the west and Constantinople - Vienna in the East?