Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Middle Eastern and African History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Middle Eastern and African History Middle Eastern and African History Forum - Egypt, Syria, Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and all nations of Africa and the Arabian Peninsula


View Poll Results: Which side during the Crusades were the relative "good guys"?
The Crusaders 68 47.89%
The Muslims 74 52.11%
Voters: 142. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old May 29th, 2015, 01:21 AM   #21

Kevinmeath's Avatar
Acting Corporal
 
Joined: May 2011
From: Navan, Ireland
Posts: 12,658

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmperorTigerstar View Post
That wasn't a part of the CRUSADES though, which this question supposes. We're talking about a 500 year difference here.
Sorry how can part of history be delimited from what came before or after?
Kevinmeath is online now  
Remove Ads
Old May 29th, 2015, 04:21 AM   #22
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,556

Easily if it is separated by hundreds of years. And it's not like the crusaders were doing anything for the local Christians. They happily massacred them or relegated them down the social scale. And yes the Byzantine Empire had working relations were Islamic states. I do not agree with labels of good guys and bad guys. The Crusaders were of the brutal side more than the Arabs, the massacres committed in Europe before they even left.
pugsville is offline  
Old May 29th, 2015, 04:27 AM   #23

Kevinmeath's Avatar
Acting Corporal
 
Joined: May 2011
From: Navan, Ireland
Posts: 12,658

Quote:
Originally Posted by pugsville View Post
Easily if it is separated by hundreds of years. And it's not like the crusaders were doing anything for the local Christians. They happily massacred them or relegated them down the social scale. And yes the Byzantine Empire had working relations were Islamic states. I do not agree with labels of good guys and bad guys. The Crusaders were of the brutal side more than the Arabs, the massacres committed in Europe before they even left.
Such a working relationship that the Emperor called for military help from the West.
Kevinmeath is online now  
Old May 29th, 2015, 05:34 AM   #24
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,556

Relationship with some but not all. Happy enough to deal with the Fatimids wanted help to deal with Anatolian Turks. But the request was for mercenaries under Byzantine control not Independent Armies bent on conquest. The Crusaders were always pretty ready to interpret Byzantine and Eastern Christians actions in a pretty harsh way, the fourth Crusade was hardly a surprise, the elements were always there.

A Crusader conquest of Alexandra was highly probable to end in masscare of all of the population (Antioch, Jerusalem) and not result in a return to the Byzantine Empire of Alexandra but simply a replacement of one group of overlords with another.

The interests of the Local Christians were not high of the Crusader agenda.
pugsville is offline  
Old May 29th, 2015, 11:45 AM   #25

Salah's Avatar
Baltimorean
Blog of the Year
 
Joined: Oct 2009
From: Maryland
Posts: 23,286
Blog Entries: 182

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevinmeath View Post
So the Christian Byzantine Empire and the Muslim realms were living in peace before the crusaders arrived?

Constantinople is today called? let me think.

The good citizens of Baltimore moved to North Africa on a peaceful migration.
Rhetoric aside, the Crusaders hardly acted out of brotherly love for their Roman coreligionists, and that was evident from the very first crusade. The schism between the eastern and western churches made the so-called Byzantines hardly less foreign or heathenish in the eyes of western Europeans than the Muslim community. Not to mention, all the crusader states of Outremer were created within territory than the Roman Empire still nominally claimed a right to.

If the crusaders were acting on behalf of Constantinople, they would have been fighting as mercenaries against the emirates of what is now eastern Turkey, not forging their own Catholic, French-speaking mini-countries in what is now Israel and Syria.

Ironically, the Fourth Crusade pretty much castrated the Roman Empire, thus enabling Constantinople to become Istanbul two centuries later. The crusaders damaged the Christians of the eastern Mediterranean far more than they damaged any Muslim states.
Salah is offline  
Old May 29th, 2015, 11:48 AM   #26

Salah's Avatar
Baltimorean
Blog of the Year
 
Joined: Oct 2009
From: Maryland
Posts: 23,286
Blog Entries: 182

Its also worth pointing out that, by the 11th Century, the Dar al-Islam was just as fragmented as Christendom. The various sultanates, emirates, and cultures being referred to as "the Muslims" in this thread were never even close to being united against the crusaders, and were very prone to competition with each other. The situation in the Middle East, as of about 1096 or 1204, was hardly different than that in Europe, in that regards.

Zangi, Nur ad-Din, and Salah ad-Din were the only Muslim leaders who even came remotely close to uniting their coreligionists against the 'Franj' - and their coalitions (with the partial exception of Salah ad-Din's) barely outlived them.

So, easy on the generalizing, people.
Salah is offline  
Old May 29th, 2015, 12:01 PM   #27

Psellos's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: the Polis
Posts: 2,666

Quote:
Originally Posted by Futurist View Post
As for me, based on what I know right now, I am tempted to say the Muslims due to the fact that they appear to have been more restrained; to elaborate on this, whereas the Crusaders killed most or all of the residents of Antioch and Jerusalem after they captured those two cities, the Muslims appear to have done no such thing after they recaptured cities from the Crusaders (in spite of previous Crusader brutality against non-Christians and even against Eastern Orthodox Christians).

Thoughts on this?
Byzantine Greeks were not the "good guys"...since I can't understand the meaning of it while talking about nations and groups of people... But were the ones that were in reality targeted most of all, of course by the traditional enemy of the East(being them Arabs or Seljuks) and above all by the fellow christians "Frankoi"...as a Byz.Greek would say...

The disaster brought in Greek lands in the days of Crusades is unparalleled, and above all the devastation of Polis by its precious heritage and monuments is in my opinion the greatest crime of the West...till Adolf came of course.... Alexis Stratigopoulos and his recapture of the City was not any more enough to repair the damage that caused its political and military decline there after.

(I note political and military decline because culturally the period after the liberation of the City by Stratigopoulos for Michail Palaiologos, is the most productive of the byzantine period of Greek litarature.)
Psellos is offline  
Old May 29th, 2015, 12:35 PM   #28
Citizen
 
Joined: May 2014
From: Iceland
Posts: 22

Both parties are guilty of atrocities during this tragic period however i want to remind everyone here that main reasons why the crusaders arrived in the middle east was because decades of Muslim aggression. Crusades were response to this aggression.
Wasent the Church of the Holy Sepulchre destroyed by Fatimid caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah in 1009AD and was part of a more general campaign against Christian places of worship in Palestine and Egypt?. So there was atrocities and persecutions committed by Muslims against local Christians and this news filtered to Europe gradually.
However main reason for the start of the Crusades was plea of help by Byzantine Emperor Alexius to Pope. New enemy had arrived from the East. The Muslim Seljuk Turks defected the Byzantine at battle of Manzikert and conquered pretty much entire Anatolia peninsula and subjugating the Christian people living there. All hell broke loose after that.
Just look at map and see the size of Christian territory conquered by the Seljuk Turks in Anatolia from 1070-90 and compare it to the tiny Crusader States around 1100.

Last edited by Ioannes Katakalon; May 29th, 2015 at 12:37 PM.
Ioannes Katakalon is offline  
Old May 29th, 2015, 02:46 PM   #29
Suspended until March 19th, 2018
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: Escandinavia y Mesopotamia
Posts: 1,180

Quote:
Originally Posted by SSDD View Post
Muslims. They AFAIK allowed Christians to visit their holy sites for pilgrimage.
The Muslims did actually make it harder and puts obstacles to the Christians pilgrims which also fueled the first crusade.

Quote:
Also Crusades were not just the conflict over control of Holy lands but also crusades against Orthodox Church
It is called heresy. - Even Frederic 2 for instance persecuted Christian heresy despite he was a “good guy”.

The Muslims themselves also clashed with each other as they also persecuted other Muslims with other teaching. Shortly after the death of Muhammad the Sunni-Shia schism occurred very easily. – Shia Fatimids asked help from Crusaders against their Sunni Seljuks.

The Muslims did also have schism and clash where they persecuted or killed each other.

Quote:
Europe's remaining Pagans who were completely irrelevant yet were attacked by crusaders.
The Muslims did not show extra tolerance towards the pagans compared to Christians one towards the pagans. Tribonian, who was the most important jurist under the works of Corpus Juris Civilis under Justinian’s reign, was “heathen” although that was extremely exception rather than the rule. When the Muslims encountered with the Pagans they were typically also forced converted or taking as slaves rather than respected.

Everything I have read at my college, library or University as student of history says so. Nothing I have read has suggested that the Pagans were treated better by Muslims.
El Cid is offline  
Old May 29th, 2015, 02:59 PM   #30
Suspended until March 19th, 2018
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: Escandinavia y Mesopotamia
Posts: 1,180

Quote:
Originally Posted by Caesarmagnus View Post
The Muslims were clearly morally superior. How things have changed since then.
They were not.

It is a misconception that the Muslims during the Middle Ages should had been extraordinary tolerance compared to Christians as nothing suggests such things except perhaps old academic teachings from before ww2 .

When the Arab Muslims ruled over Christians, the Christians were accepted to live as underclass citizens with fewer rights and a higher taxation. – The exact conditions vary depending the rulers or current empire.

When the Christians ruled over the Muslims, the Muslims were also treated just in the same way where Muslims were accepted to live as underclass citizens with fewer rights and higher taxation.

Like for instance there are many similarities between “Siete Partidas” and “Pact of Omar ” a Spanish Christian and a Arabic Muslims law code that explains how the discriminatory status of Muslims and Christians are.

The expulsion from Isabella and Ferdinand is something everybody knows from fingertip knowledge, but the truth is that the expulsion actually was something that occurred in the last phase as it was not always in that way, like for instance for around 300 years prior the picture was reversed as the Almohads Muslims persecuted while Alfonso 10 or El Cid were tolerance.

In the Outremer Ibn Jubayr, a Muslim traveler from Muslim Spain, indirectly stated that the Muslims had better of being ruled by Christian crusaders rather than by Muslims:

”We moved from Tibnin - may God destroy it - at daybreak on Monday. Our way lay through continuous farms and ordered settlements, whose inhabitants were all Muslims, living comfortably within the Franks... They surrender half their crops to the Franks at harvest time, and pay as well a poll-tax of one dinar and five qirat for each person. Other than that they are not interfered with, save for a light tax on the fruit of their trees. The houses and all their effects are left to their full possession. All the coastal cities occupied by the Franks are managed in this fashion, their rural districts, the villages and farms, belong to the Muslims. But their hearts have been seduced, for they observe how unlike them in ease and comfort are their brethren in the Muslim regions under their (Muslim) governors. This is one of the misfortunes afflicting the Muslims. The Muslim community bewails the injustice of the landlord of its own faith, and applauds the conduct of its opponent and enemy, the Frankish landlord, and is accustomed to justice from him.”


The notion that Christians were intolerance while the Muslims were tolerance during te Middle Ages, but that Christians suddenly woke up and became tolerance in the renaissance while the Muslims took Christians’ place is a pure legend without academic foundation.

Last edited by El Cid; May 29th, 2015 at 03:04 PM.
El Cid is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Middle Eastern and African History

Tags
crusades, good guys, relative



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"Good" and "Evil" in the Middle Ages oshron Medieval and Byzantine History 20 October 15th, 2013 07:12 AM
Ancient Maya: Oh, those "end of the world" guys? JoanOfArc American History 9 June 15th, 2013 08:53 AM
"The First Holocaust" - Persecution of European Jews during the Crusades Salah Medieval and Byzantine History 46 November 8th, 2011 10:43 AM
Define this "history" thing that you guys seem to talk about, eh? EpicHistory360 General History 6 November 6th, 2011 09:31 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.