The Temple of Dagon

The Crusades were a cold blooded atrocity, perpetrated by the Church, in hopes of ending the great schism and unifying the Papacy-Islam never quite recovered from the shock.
But as to the subjugation of the Native Americans, that's a very complex matter.
There are no simple answers.

krakenten wrote:The Crusades were a cold blooded atrocity, perpetrated by the Church, in hopes of ending the great schism and unifying the Papacy-Islam never quite recovered from the shock.
But as to the subjugation of the Native Americans, that's a very complex matter.
There are no simple answers.

The Crusades were in part a response to repeated and long-enduring Muslim aggression. Islamic conquerors were attacking the eastern empire. Twice during the long history of Muslim attacks on the West, Islamic armies advanced as far as Vienna, Austria.

All of which is only as much to say that there's far more to the events than you have described.

JJ Burke wrote:christian persecution of the middle east.....

Do you mean Christian persecution in the middle-east? If not, I wished you put the words "christian" and "persecution" into google and read a few of the stories that are likely to come up. When the Danish newspaper ran the caricature of Muhammed, the eastern Christians were the first to pay.

Here is a quote concerning the Crusades, followed by some links.

The rise of the Seljukian Turks, however, compromised the safety of pilgrims and even threatened the independence of the Byzantine Empire and of all Christendom. In 1070 Jerusalem was taken, and in 1071 Diogenes, the Greek emperor, was defeated and made captive at Mantzikert. Asia Minor and all of Syria became the prey of the Turks. Antioch succumbed in 1084, and by 1092 not one of the great metropolitan sees of Asia remained in the possession of the Christians. Although separated from the communion of Rome since the schism of Michael Cærularius (1054), the emperors of Constantinople implored the assistance of the popes; in 1073 letters were exchanged on the subject between Michael VII and Gregory VII. The pope seriously contemplated leading a force of 50,000 men to the East in order to re-establish Christian unity, repulse the Turks, and rescue the Holy Sepulchre. But the idea of the crusade constituted only a part of this magnificent plan. (The letters of Gregory VII are in P.L., CXLVIII, 300, 325, 329, 386; cf. Riant's critical discussion in Archives de l'Orient Latin, I, 56.) The conflict over the Investitures in 1076 compelled the pope to abandon his projects; the Emperors Nicephorus Botaniates and Alexius Comnenus were unfavourable to a religious union with Rome; finally war broke out between the Byzantine Empire and the Normans of the Two Sicilies.

It was Pope Urban II who took up the plans of Gregory VII and gave them more definite shape. A letter from Alexius Comnenus to Robert, Count of Flanders, recorded by the chroniclers, Guibert de Nogent ("Historiens Occidentaux des Croisades", ed. by the Académie des Inscriptions, IV, 13l) and Hugues de Fleury (in "Mon. Germ. Hist.: Script.", IX, 392), seems to imply that the crusade was instigated by the Byzantine emperor, but this has been proved false (Chalandon, Essai sur le règne d'Alexis Comnène, appendix), Alexius having merely sought to enroll five hundred Flemish knights in the imperial army (Anna Comnena, Alexiad., VII, iv). The honour of initiating the crusade has also been attributed to Peter the Hermit, a recluse of Picardy, who, after a pilgrimage to Jerusalem and a vision in the church of the Holy Sepulchre, went to Urban II and was commissioned by him to preach the crusade. However, though eyewitnesses of the crusade mention his preaching, they do not ascribe to him the all-important rôle assigned him later by various chroniclers, e.g. Albert of Aix and especially William of Tyre. (See Hagenmeyer, Peter der Eremite Leipzig, 1879.) The idea of the crusade is chiefly attributed to Pope Urban II (1095), and the motives that actuated him are clearly set forth by his contemporaries: "On beholding the enormous injury that all, clergy or people, brought upon the Christian Faith . . . at the news that the Rumanian provinces had been taken from the Christians by the Turks, moved with compassion and impelled by the love of God, he crossed the mountains and descended into Gaul" (Foucher de Chartres, I, in "Histoire des Crois.", III, 321). Of course it is possible that in order to swell his forces, Alexius Comnenus solicited assistance in the West; however, it was not he but the pope who agitated the great movement which filled the Greeks with anxiety and terror.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04543c.htm#I

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusade
http://www.medievalcrusades.com/
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sbook1k.html
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04543c.htm
http://www.mrdowling.com/606islam.html

The Byzantines asked the Pope for some soldiers.
That set the whole thing off-and everybody suffered.
However, as it did contribute to a general opening of Europe to new ideas, and the influx of Byzantine refugees from the fall of Constantinople was a seminal event in the Renissance, perhaps it was all worth it.
The Crusades were one of the most important events in history, and really bear some careful study.
Had it not been for the Crusades, the Necronomicon would never have been translated into Greek, and it would have been forever lost....oh, wait, is that a good thing?

The Albegensian Crusade eliminated competition.
And it worked quite well, the Cathars were almost entirely eradicated, to the point where many of their doctrines and beliefs are now unknown.
Similarly, the Spanish Inquisition destroyed a potential fifth column threat to the Gothic Reconquista of Spain.
That worked very well, and secured Spain for the Church, later, Latin America was similarly scoured of native beliefs.

Hodgson wrote:Do you mean Christian persecution in the middle-east? If not, I wished you put the words "christian" and "persecution" into google and read a few of the stories that are likely to come up. When the Danish newspaper ran the caricature of Muhammed, the eastern Christians were the first to pay.

no, what i said was a reference to the time of the crusades, talking about the kind of persecution that is mutually exchanged in long, drawn out wars between expansionist religious cultures.

from my oxford american dictionary widget:
persecute v. subject (someone) to hostility or ill-treatment, esp. because of their race or political or religious beliefs.
• harrass or annoy persistently

anyway, this is clearly a hot topic for you, and i'm not exactly passionate about making a point in a debate. i was only curious about what kind of channel jp is plugged into where he's seeing so much of that old-fashioned cultural insensitivity.. it's rare to see these days, at least on regular american corporate network media.

sorry if you were offended by my choice of word, hodgson

JJ Burke wrote:

Hodgson wrote:Do you mean Christian persecution in the middle-east? If not, I wished you put the words "christian" and "persecution" into google and read a few of the stories that are likely to come up. When the Danish newspaper ran the caricature of Muhammed, the eastern Christians were the first to pay.

no, what i said was a reference to the time of the crusades, talking about the kind of persecution that is mutually exchanged in long, drawn out wars between expansionist religious cultures.

from my oxford american dictionary widget:
persecute v. subject (someone) to hostility or ill-treatment, esp. because of their race or political or religious beliefs.
• harrass or annoy persistently

anyway, this is clearly a hot topic for you, and i'm not exactly passionate about making a point in a debate. i was only curious about what kind of channel jp is plugged into where he's seeing so much of that old-fashioned cultural insensitivity.. it's rare to see these days, at least on regular american corporate network media.

sorry if you were offended by my choice of word, hodgson

I misunderstood. I thought you were talking about the present. I actually missed JP's comment entirely. My main concern was just the idea that because of what someone may think of western Christians or their churches that those in the east get mistreated or ignored. I don't think it's you, but there are some people who seem to want to gloss over what happens to them because of a dislike of their religious counterparts in America.

As a recent doumentary pointed out the Crusaders even practiced cannibalism.
They were barbarians, but the contact with the Greek and Islamic cultures changed them, a bit for the better.
It changed them a bit for the worse.
History is unchangeable-but we can make the future better, if we try.
Unless the Great Old Ones return, then, we're diddled!!

krakenten wrote:As a recent doumentary pointed out the Crusaders even practiced cannibalism.

Is that a fact? Provide us with a link. Tell us the evidence. Tell us that it happened among Christians and never among Muslims. Then detail from your wealth of knowledge what traits made the Crusaders barbarians and the Muslim invaders otherwise.

The details of the massacre and cannibalism comes from the Crusader's own chronicles-see Michael Palin's 'Crusades'
Muslim invaders?
The Moors invaded and occupied much of Spain, the Turks besieged Vienna, but the incident in question occured in what the Europeans called Outremer, Palestine and it's environs, as I recall, the location is in present day Syria.
The Europeans of the day were one step above wildmen, brutal, vainglorious and crude, greedy, cruel and crass.
Much of our difficulties with the Islamic world stem from the horrible shock that the Crusader armies caused by invading their territory, for no reason that the Muslims could ascertain(the accusations of abuse against pilgrims were false, fabricated by Pope Urban for political purposes.).
After generations of trying to reason with the Franks, Islam produced a warrior, Sultan Beybars, the founder of the Mamluk dynasty, who was just as savage as the Europeans.
Beybars took the step of artificially desertifying areas of the North African coast to deprive the Frankish armies of food and fodder.
This kept the Crusaders away.
As to the link, and the proof, add to your store of knowledge by actually examining the sources, much is learned in the process of discovery.
Start with Palin's excellent mini series, available on video, it's a masterpiece.

I never said it was right.
Remember, the past is irrecoverable, and subjecting history to current standards is futile.
In the Middle Ages, Church and State were busy hogging power and money(money is power, money is money and power is mo' money, mo' money, mo' money!!!) in a race that the State finally won.
Remember, the moving finger writes, and having writ moves on, nor all your piety and wit can call it back to cancel half a line, nor all your tears wash out one jot of it.
Deal with it!

krakenten wrote:The details of the massacre and cannibalism comes from the Crusader's own chronicles-see Michael Palin's 'Crusades'

You still haven't said a thing about how many or whether it happened among the Muslims. You don't seem to want to think about it. I'll look into Michael Palin's documentary. It'll be more than you can say about the general facts of Muslim aggression.

Muslim invaders?
The Moors invaded and occupied much of Spain, the Turks besieged Vienna, but the incident in question occured in what the Europeans called Outremer, Palestine and it's environs, as I recall, the location is in present day Syria.

No. The Muslims also invaded and occupied present-day Turkey. Hagia Sophia, presently a Turkish museum, was built by Christians. They also invaded Cyprus. And they massacred Armenians and Greeks. And the Spanish. And everyone else they could reach, so long as they resisted Muslim dominion. And no, to add to your store of knowledge, these things didn't occur in present-day Syria. Check your facts.

The Europeans of the day were one step above wildmen, brutal, vainglorious and crude, greedy, cruel and crass.

And you say this based on what? They built the beautiful church that the Turks have chosen to preserve rather than knock down. At least they weren't so crass that they made an unprovoked invasion into Christian lands and spent the next millennium-and-a-half or so justifying it--as well as denying their genocidal actions. But evidently an ages-long pattern of lying and murdering doesn't qualify as wild, brutal, vainglorious, crude, greedy, cruel or crass in your book. Which would make you just as much a hypocrite as they are.

Much of our difficulties with the Islamic world stem from the horrible shock that the Crusader armies caused by invading their territory, for no reason that the Muslims could ascertain(the accusations of abuse against pilgrims were false, fabricated by Pope Urban for political purposes.).

I'm eager to learn how the Islamic world can be shocked by hostilities it initiates. Pray tell, when they entered Constantinople, did they not think ahead to the days when there would be reprisals? If they were really so short-sighted, then they might well have been shocked, but it would have been their stupidity and arrogance that led to it. And who's fault is that?

After generations of trying to reason with the Franks, Islam produced a warrior, Sultan Beybars, the founder of the Mamluk dynasty, who was just as savage as the Europeans.
Beybars took the step of artificially desertifying areas of the North African coast to deprive the Frankish armies of food and fodder.
This kept the Crusaders away.

This reasoning with the Franks, was it before or after the Muslim invasion of Christian lands? But I'll admit that it was a fair precaution. It's always important to remember how to reason with your enemy when he pursues you.

As to the link, and the proof, add to your store of knowledge by actually examining the sources, much is learned in the process of discovery.
Start with Palin's excellent mini series, available on video, it's a masterpiece.

I'm willing to believe that Palin, the eminent ex-comedian, may have produced a masterpiece. And I'm always interested in examining sources. But perhaps--although God knows it's a long shot--you also might be interested in examining one. Even the words of an actual historian:

The Real History of the Crusades
By Thomas F. Madden
http://www.crisismagazine.com/april2002/cover.htm

Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them. While Muslims can be peaceful, Islam was born in war and grew the same way. From the time of Mohammed, the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword. Muslim thought divides the world into two spheres, the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War. Christianity—and for that matter any other non-Muslim religion—has no abode. Christians and Jews can be tolerated within a Muslim state under Muslim rule. But, in traditional Islam, Christian and Jewish states must be destroyed and their lands conquered. When Mohammed was waging war against Mecca in the seventh century, Christianity was the dominant religion of power and wealth. As the faith of the Roman Empire, it spanned the entire Mediterranean, including the Middle East, where it was born. The Christian world, therefore, was a prime target for the earliest caliphs, and it would remain so for Muslim leaders for the next thousand years.

With enormous energy, the warriors of Islam struck out against the Christians shortly after Mohammed’s death. They were extremely successful. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt—once the most heavily Christian areas in the world—quickly succumbed. By the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece. In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of western Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East.

That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense.

Oh, I almost forgot to add: you're an idiot. I'm done with you. Goodbye.

Thank God for that!