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 77 47.53%
The Muslims 85 52.47%
Voters: 162. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old May 29th, 2015, 02:20 PM   #31

El Cid's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: Escandinavia y Mesopotamia
Posts: 1,242

Quote:
Originally Posted by pugsville View Post
A Crusader conquest of Alexandra was highly probable to end in masscare of all of the population (Antioch, Jerusalem)...
I have already explained before why there was logic reasoning behind the Crusaders’ massacre in Jerusalem and why there are also a logic reasoning behind the lack of massacre by the Muslims in Jerusalem, and I am doing this again:

When the Muslims intended to take Jerusalem in the first place shortly after the time of hijra the Christians in Jerusalem did actually GIVE UP at the quite right moment which enables the population’s life to be spared from violations. If the Rashidun forces had decided to plunder the city despite of the city did surrender then they would get worse conditions onwards in term of persuading other cities to give up as their actions previously would encourages the other cities to fight harder as they will risk their life.

When the Crusaders took Jerusalem the inhabitants did decide NOT to surrender… and eventually lost at the end. If the Crusaders had decided to spare the populations life despite their resistance, then the Crusader forces would get worse conditions onwards of persuading other to give up as their opponents most likely will resists even more as they have nothing to lose even if the crusaders managed to conquer.

When Muslims under Saladin managed to take Jerusalem without bloodshed, then the reason is simply because the populations in Jerusalem managed to defend in a long time to get a better deal with Saladin when they did surrender. – If Saladin’s forces was managed to conquer Jerusalem before the agreement was reached a massacres would be inevitable under Saladin.

Anyways: before the Crusaders managed to take Jerusalem, the Arabs or Turks also did in fact shed bloods in Jerusalem when conquering it. I don’t exactly remember exact when it was but I am definitely sure the Muslims themselves did also have cases of expelling and/or massacred the Christians populations in Jerusalem prior to the first crusade in Jerusalem. -Also Frederic 2 managed to receive Jerusalem without any stench of bloods due to a fantastic and stunning agreement with Sultan Kamil.

So your conviction that the Crusaders did shed bloods while the Muslims had a higher standard when conquering other cities is utterly false.

Last edited by El Cid; May 29th, 2015 at 02:27 PM.
El Cid is offline  
Remove Ads
Old May 29th, 2015, 04:57 PM   #32

Yaroslav the Wise's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Apr 2015
From: Canada
Posts: 319

Here's a video I found on Youtube about a comparison between the Jihads and the Crusades. It's an amateur video, but the maps and information is all correct.



Although I am not saying that the Crusades were entirely right (they were not), in comparison to the Jihads, the Crusades were less wrong.

Last edited by Yaroslav the Wise; May 29th, 2015 at 05:27 PM.
Yaroslav the Wise is offline  
Old May 29th, 2015, 05:23 PM   #33
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,238

the video is hate propaganda not history.
pugsville is online now  
Old May 29th, 2015, 05:25 PM   #34

Yaroslav the Wise's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Apr 2015
From: Canada
Posts: 319

Quote:
Originally Posted by pugsville View Post
the video is hate propaganda not history.
I apologize if I offended anyone, but the maps were historically accurate in how it depicted the expansion of the Muslim Empires, as well as the Crusades.
Yaroslav the Wise is offline  
Old May 29th, 2015, 10:12 PM   #35

SSDD's Avatar
Aryaputra
 
Joined: Aug 2014
From: India
Posts: 3,838

Quote:
Originally Posted by El Cid View Post
The Muslims did actually make it harder and puts obstacles to the Christians pilgrims which also fueled the first crusade.
Yes.

Quote:
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.
Muslim clashes because of schism were not part of Crusade, the context of the thread.

Quote:
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.
Again how Muslims treated Pagan is not context of this thread. 2 wrongs dont make a right. But Muslim's tolerance was better. You could find Zoroastrian temples in Baghdad even after fall of Sassanid Persia. When expecting a Pagan temple in Rome is completely unrealistic.
SSDD is offline  
Old May 30th, 2015, 01:38 PM   #36

El Cid's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: Escandinavia y Mesopotamia
Posts: 1,242

Quote:
Originally Posted by SSDD View Post
Muslim clashes because of schism were not part of Crusade, the context of the thread.
I am not sure if I understand your argument.

In order to have a clash you have to have a schism prior to distinguish an “us” and “them” in term of heresy. - The Muslims themselves throughout their history do in fact have clashes within their own hemisphere regarding “correct” and “heretic” teaching in Islam.

It took only a very short time after the death of Muhammad before the Sunni-Shia conflict arose very easily. A certain Shia ruler in Iran decided to force converted his sunni subjects into Shia Islam and that is the reason why Iran is Shia today. Ottoman Empire regularly persecuted Shias and as well Alevis, especially under Selim 3.

Even if we only focus in the context of the time around the crusade you will still observe clashes among the Muslims: as mentioned before the Shia Fatimids and Sunni Seljuk clashed and as well massacred each others that the Shia Fatimids actually find it worth to ask helps from Crusaders against Sunni Seljuk. Sunni Saladin managed to overthrow the Shia Fatimid Caliphate and installed the Sunni Ayyubid one. - So your notion that Muslims did not have any clashes within their own hemisphere during or around the time of the Crusade, while the Christians had, is just not true.

Quote:
Again how Muslims treated Pagan is not context of this thread. 2 wrongs dont make a right. But Muslim's tolerance was better.
You used the Crusaders’ persecuting of the Pagans as example of why the Muslims should have been better. I pointed out that the Muslims themselves actually also were masters in term of persecuting the Pagans. – So accusing the Crusades of attacking the Pagans and ignoring the Muslims’ one towards the Pagans and deducing that Muslims were good guys is not a good procedure.

In the scholarship of the crusade they normally have two branches of how to define the crusading, the “Exclusivists” who think crusading is only a matter of Jerusalem and the “Inclusivists” who view the crusaders in a lager contexts where Iberia and Baltic areas also are part of it. – The majority of the scholars of the crusades are “exclusivists” today. I am also an “exclusivist” supporter where I see a broader context than solely Levant.

As I already have expressed it earlier: Through my time in the libraries, college and University as student of history I have not seen any persuasive examples of why the Muslims were more tolerance during the medieval ages as the historians and especially the medievalists completely reject the idea that Europe went through a “dark ages” during 500s-1500s, and as that popular misconception has its’ origins from an era where humanistic studies were not what they are today.

As I already have explained to another user, the Christians and Muslims pretty much treated each other in the same ways. Siete Partida and pact of Omar resemble each others, and also we have that Muslim traveler from Spain who indirectly stated that Muslims have better of being ruled by Crusaders as showing in yellow letters from my post number 30 before:

”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.”


Quote:
You could find Zoroastrian temples in Baghdad even after fall of Sassanid Persia. When expecting a Pagan temple in Rome is completely unrealistic.
You are complete wrong and are showing a huge amount of ignorance regarding your knowledge of the Christians’ relationship to the Pagans.

In Denmark we have archeological evidences of graveyards where Christian and Pagans scripture was used sides by sides at same time at the graveyards stones.

Tribonian, the most important jurist who played the largest role under the works of completing Corpus Juris Civililis, was heathen appointed by Emperor Justinian.

In the late 500’s the King of Sasanian Empire, Hormizd 4, was overthrown. The Byzantine Emperor, Maurius Tiberius, instead of killing him decided to help him gaining his throne back with success with that result that Zarathusrian Hormizd 4 married the Christian daughter of Emperor Maurius. So we have actually an example where the King of the Kings became a son-in-law for a Christian Emperor, and where the Christian emperor of Byzantine became father-in-Law for a Zarathusrian King with mutual respect.

So your conviction that the Muslims have treated the pagans well or better while the Christians could not figure out of it and only killed is obvious false.

Last edited by El Cid; May 30th, 2015 at 01:48 PM.
El Cid is offline  
Old May 30th, 2015, 02:15 PM   #37

Salah's Avatar
Baltimorean
¤ Blog of the Year ¤
 
Joined: Oct 2009
From: Maryland
Posts: 23,284
Blog Entries: 182

Quote:
Originally Posted by El Cid View Post
Tribonian, the most important jurist who played the largest role under the works of completing Corpus Juris Civililis, was heathen appointed by Emperor Justinian.

In the late 500’s the King of Sasanian Empire, Hormizd 4, was overthrown. The Byzantine Emperor, Maurius Tiberius, instead of killing him decided to help him gaining his throne back with success with that result that Zarathusrian Hormizd 4 married the Christian daughter of Emperor Maurius. So we have actually an example where the King of the Kings became a son-in-law for a Christian Emperor, and where the Christian emperor of Byzantine became father-in-Law for a Zarathusrian King with mutual respect.

So your conviction that the Muslims have treated the pagans well or better while the Christians could not figure out of it and only killed is obvious false.
The examples you offer come from a superficially Christianized Roman Empire. Do you think similar activities would have been condoned, say, in 13th Century France? Which is of course a time and place much closer to the actual context of this thread.

Its also worth noting that the politics of kings and emperors are hardly an accurate reflection on what the other 99% of the population would have tolerated in their day-to-day lives.
Salah is offline  
Old May 31st, 2015, 12:07 PM   #38

El Cid's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: Escandinavia y Mesopotamia
Posts: 1,242

Quote:
Originally Posted by Salah View Post
The examples you offer come from a superficially Christianized Roman Empire. Do you think similar activities would have been condoned, say, in 13th Century France? Which is of course a time and place much closer to the actual context of this thread.

Its also worth noting that the politics of kings and emperors are hardly an accurate reflection on what the other 99% of the population would have tolerated in their day-to-day lives.
Constantine the Great died in 337AD, and around 400’s Theodosius launched an edict that stated that all inhabitants in Byzantium, except perhaps Jews, should be Christians. In the middle of 500’s Justinian was very serious about some chelcedonian councils as he also had theological education and even shut down an academy he may think was heathen. After Justinian, his nephew Justin took his place and launched persecutions towards monophysitians. Maurius Tiberius’s reign lasted during the end of the 6. centuries and at this time I would certainly in no way label Byzantium as “superficially” Christian as many events prior point to that they were strictly rather than superficial Christians.

When there had been an edict of Christianization, theological councils to decide a nature of Jesus, persecution of “heretics” Christians, shutting down of heathen academy, then it is a gross understatement of labeling its' religion as “superficially”.



Anyways, let just pretend that I agree with your premise above so I can answer your main question regarding whether a France in the high Middle Ages would had done such things as Maurius did:

No it would not as paganism was not tolerated. – The Muslims by the time did neither tolerated it as Muhammad himself directly from day one have fought with them and destroyed their temples so even the Caliphates or Sultanates in Egypt and Levant would not tolerated paganism during the time of crusading. - And if we move the focus from the 1200’s France, as you used as an example, and took a look at the Almohad Spain during the 1200’s it would be totally irrelevance to ask whether they would had accepted paganism because they even did not tolerated Christians and Jews as underclass citizens in the first place to start with.

So unless you are of that belief that the law of gravity doesn’t take effects towards the Muslims during the Middle Ages you have basically no reasons to make assumptions that the Muslims had a higher toleration against the Pagans.

Last edited by El Cid; May 31st, 2015 at 12:13 PM.
El Cid is offline  
Old May 31st, 2015, 08:09 PM   #39

Rumi's Avatar
Citizen
 
Joined: Apr 2015
From: USA
Posts: 40

Quote:
Originally Posted by El Cid View Post
I have already explained before why there was logic reasoning behind the Crusaders’ massacre in Jerusalem and why there are also a logic reasoning behind the lack of massacre by the Muslims in Jerusalem, and I am doing this again:

When the Muslims intended to take Jerusalem in the first place shortly after the time of hijra the Christians in Jerusalem did actually GIVE UP at the quite right moment which enables the population’s life to be spared from violations. If the Rashidun forces had decided to plunder the city despite of the city did surrender then they would get worse conditions onwards in term of persuading other cities to give up as their actions previously would encourages the other cities to fight harder as they will risk their life.

When the Crusaders took Jerusalem the inhabitants did decide NOT to surrender… and eventually lost at the end. If the Crusaders had decided to spare the populations life despite their resistance, then the Crusader forces would get worse conditions onwards of persuading other to give up as their opponents most likely will resists even more as they have nothing to lose even if the crusaders managed to conquer.

When Muslims under Saladin managed to take Jerusalem without bloodshed, then the reason is simply because the populations in Jerusalem managed to defend in a long time to get a better deal with Saladin when they did surrender. – If Saladin’s forces was managed to conquer Jerusalem before the agreement was reached a massacres would be inevitable under Saladin.

Anyways: before the Crusaders managed to take Jerusalem, the Arabs or Turks also did in fact shed bloods in Jerusalem when conquering it. I don’t exactly remember exact when it was but I am definitely sure the Muslims themselves did also have cases of expelling and/or massacred the Christians populations in Jerusalem prior to the first crusade in Jerusalem. -Also Frederic 2 managed to receive Jerusalem without any stench of bloods due to a fantastic and stunning agreement with Sultan Kamil.

So your conviction that the Crusaders did shed bloods while the Muslims had a higher standard when conquering other cities is utterly false.

How is it that you try to find logic behind the massacres that the Crusaders committed but are so adamant on another thread about the Ottomans being totally wrong on massacre/genocide. I am not saying the Ottomans were right, but if you can find logic behind the Crusaders committing atrocious acts, then you should follow the same logic and find logic behind the Ottoman actions against the Armenians. Makes no sense. There is no logic behind massacres. And you trying to find a logic behind Christians committing massacres but totally condemning Muslims committing massacres makes anything you say sound like sh*t. It just smells like a one sided prejudicial argument on both fronts. No you make no sense.
Rumi is offline  
Old June 1st, 2015, 03:07 AM   #40

johnincornwall's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: Cornwall
Posts: 6,627

El Cid - you are defying conventional wisdom there really. You dont resist longer and 'get a better deal' - you resist longer and cost the attackers more lives, more trouble and generally get massacred/enslaved as a result - as per the constant tactics of King Ferdinand. Sometimes this is just uncontrolled due to the rage of the troops - of which there must be dozens of examples.

Generally you put up a token resistance, surrender and get treated better. Especially when it is your own families you are defending, not some rock.

Plus there's also the fact that the victor has total control of whether to stick by the terms, the vanquished has none.
johnincornwall is online now  
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 06:12 AM
Ancient Maya: Oh, those "end of the world" guys? JoanOfArc American History 9 June 15th, 2013 07:53 AM
"The First Holocaust" - Persecution of European Jews during the Crusades Salah Medieval and Byzantine History 46 November 8th, 2011 09:43 AM
Define this "history" thing that you guys seem to talk about, eh? EpicHistory360 General History 6 November 6th, 2011 08:31 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.