The Crusades: When Christendom Pushed Back

The New American ^ | 2/5/10 | Selwyn Duke

[Paladins Prayer]

The year is 732 A.D., and Europe is under assault. Islam, born a mere 110 years earlier, is already in its adolescence, and the Muslim Moors are on the march.

Growing in leaps and bounds, the Caliphate, as the Islamic realm is known, has thus far subdued much of Christendom, conquering the old Christian lands of the Mideast and North Africa in short order. Syria and Iraq fell in 636; Palestine in 638; and Egypt, which was not even an Arab land, fell in 642. North Africa, also not Arab, was under Muslim control by 709. Then came the year 711 and the Moors’ invasion of Europe, as they crossed the Strait of Gibraltar and entered Visigothic Iberia (now Spain and Portugal). And the new continent brought new successes to Islam. Conquering the Iberian Peninsula by 718, the Muslims crossed the Pyrenees Mountains into Gaul (now France) and worked their way northward. And now, in 732, they are approaching Tours, a mere 126 miles from Paris.

The Moorish leader, Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi, is supremely confident of success. He is in the vanguard of the first Muslim crusade, and his civilization has enjoyed rapidity and scope of conquest heretofore unseen in world history. He is at the head of an enormous army, replete with heavy cavalry, and views the Europeans as mere barbarians. In contrast, the barbarians facing him are all on foot, a tremendous disadvantage. The only thing the Frankish and Burgundian European forces have going for them is their leader, Charles of Herstal, grandfather of Charlemagne. He is a brilliant military tactician who, after losing his very first battle, is enjoying an unbroken 16-year streak of victories.

[muawiyah]

What you have to do is READ about 700 years of history. Jews were not on top in Spain ~ NOT EVER.

That didn't mean there weren't periods where they were left in peace to prosper.

If that hadn't been the case Spain would have been just another Dark Ages sump like most the rest of Europe and vast stretches of the Middle East and North Africa.

[Woebama]

The Jews allied themselves with Muslims for the very logical reason that Muslims of the time treated them much better than Christians did.
__________________________________________________________
In what time and place? The muslim / christian conflict started in 600 ad and lasted well into 1600 ad. A very amorphous statement -- basically meaningless. Are you saying the Jews in that 1,000 years were always noble and rational and right?!
____________________________________________________
Crusaders slaughtered Jews in Europe and the Middle East for equally logical reasons. While the Pope and kings may have had the geopolitical motives discussed by the author, most of the Crusaders intended to just kill the enemies of God. Why travel all the way to Palestine to kill Muslims when Jews, equally the enemies of God, are right here in Germany?
________________________________________________________
One time and place, one event, which within the article is said to have been condemned by two Popes of the time. Do you really know the motivations of the people involved? My point is that this was a 1,000 year long conflict and people take one day, one moment and extrapolate some theory or viewpoint based on that, and without much knowledge even about the event or the time -- which is nonsense. I'm not very knowledgeable about the that millenium of conflict -- but at least I know that I don't know! The article points out that the history of the Crusades was sort of twisted or corrupted by the British to support their imperial worldview in the 1800's. The crusades are an intersection of politics and religion . . . so the reality of the times are going to get twisted by propagandists even more than usual.

[skeeter]

The article provides context

But there are many Crusade myths. For example, some would characterize the campaigns as anti-Semitic. Yet, while there were two notable massacres of Jews during the Crusades, there is more to the story — as Madden also explained in the Zenit interview:

No pope ever called a Crusade against Jews. During the First Crusade a large band of riffraff, not associated with the main army [the aforementioned “People’s Crusade”], descended on the towns of the Rhineland and decided to rob and kill the Jews they found there.... Pope Urban II and subsequent popes strongly condemned these attacks on Jews. Local bishops and other clergy and laity attempted to defend the Jews, although with limited success. Similarly, during the opening phase of the Second Crusade a group of renegades killed many Jews in Germany before St. Bernard was able to catch up to them and put a stop to it.

[muawiyah]

The Crusades began just as the European Warm Period toked up. There's a close relationship between having enough to eat and mounting an army (back in the old days).

BTW, the Crusades were not sent out with the intention of retaking formerly Christian lands such as modern Syria, Iraq, Turkey, Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria, etc.

That task was left for WWI. The Brits botched the job.

[Woebama]

So from 600 to 1600 Europe other than Spain was a “dark ages sump” and it was because Jews were left in peace to prosper by Muslims that Spain wasn’t a dark ages sump? I think you are either completely not worth talking to or are seriously off your “game” right now.

[Cacique]

btt

[SunkenCiv]

· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic · subscribe ·
	Gods Graves Glyphs	Thanks Paladins Prayer. Crusades: A defensive operation The Battle over the Crusades War has its Roots in the Crusades The Real History of the Crusades The Crusades in the Checkout Aisle The Real History of the Crusades "politically incorrect" facts about The Crusades To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother, and Ernest_at_the_Beach
·Dogpile · Archaeologica · LiveScience · Archaeology · Biblical Archaeology Society · · Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google · · The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists ·

[muawiyah]

Outside of Venice, which used the Adriatic to rotate the sewage in and out, Europe was pretty nasty from about 535 AD to probably the 1200s ~ when one of my ancestors figured out the best place to build his castle was ON TOP OF THE RIVER so he could have "flushing toilets" in every room.

Like, if all we do is look to the way human wastes were handled, and made our judgment on that, Spain was pretty decent, Venice less so, and most the rest of the territory really bad.

China took 300 years to begin its recovery from the climate catastrophe of 535AD ~ so it was nasty there for a long time too.

BTW, the Moslems and Christians in Spain did not always leave the Jews alone to prosper. Like Democrats they regularly inflicted a severe Depression on "the rich Jews".

If you want to believe Europe was a shining city on a hill during the Early Middle Ages go ahead ~ dream on. It was a dreadful place. They'd even stopped using gold and silver

[bobjam]

The First Crusade was a great military feat- an army commanded by three different nationalities (Franks, Greeks and Norse)marched 1500 miles, engaged a numerically and technologically superior enemy on their home turf and beat them.

[Sherman Logan]

Are you saying the Jews in that 1,000 years were always noble and rational and right?!

Nope. And I'm not sure how you can get that from my post.

I was referring mainly to the primary episodes of Muslim conquest of Christian territories prior to 1000.

These were the conquest of Syria, Egypt, North Africa and Spain. In all these areas the Jews had been undergoing intensifying persecution for decades or centuries. When the Muslims showed up, the enemy of my enemy meme kicked in. It was very logical.

BTW, the conquest of these regions was probably facilitated to an even greater extent by Catholic persecution of other Christians: Arians, Donatists, Monophysites, among others.

What goes around comes around and all that. The Muslims were initially greatly outnumbered by their opponents and very poorly equipped for combat against them. These conquests were probably about as much revolts of the oppressed as they wer conquests by foreign armies. At the very least it is obvious the natives had little interest in resisting conquest, leaving defense up to the imperial armies only.

Which brings up the question of why there was so little loyalty to the Empire.

It is also a fact that when Spain, Portugal, England and other "Christian" countries were expelling Jews, Muslim countries were happy to take them in and give them a place in society where they could prosper. It was admittedly a subservient place, but there was no place for Jews at all in these "Christian" countries.

[HighlyOpinionated]

Syria and Iraq fell in 636; Palestine in 638; and Egypt, which was not even an Arab land, fell in 642. North Africa, also not Arab, was under Muslim control by 709. Then came the year 711 and the Moors’ invasion of Europe, as they crossed the Strait of Gibraltar and entered Visigothic Iberia (now Spain and Portugal). And the new continent brought new successes to Islam. Conquering the Iberian Peninsula by 718, the Muslims crossed the Pyrenees Mountains into Gaul (now France) and worked their way northward. And now, in 732, they are approaching Tours, a mere 126 miles from Paris.

We the People must advertise this history far and wide. Every blog you have access to, every Facebook site, MySpace site, NING site, even to the point of writing letters to the editors of Newspapers and Magazines.

WHY? To show Izlam for what it is! Izlam is not the "original" religion of the Middle East. And I am sure that there ARE people living in the so-called Muzlem countries who still recall the "old ways" of their grandfathers. It only takes a spark of truth to get a fire of revolution burning.


Recall the Battle of Lepanto in 1571.

Battle of Lepanto

On October 7, 1571, a great victory over the mighty Turkish fleet was won by Catholic naval forces primarily from Spain, Venice, and Genoa under the command of Don Juan of Austria. It was the last battle at sea between "oared" ships, which featured the most powerful navy in the world, a Moslem force with between 12,000 to 15,000 Christian slaves as rowers. The patchwork team of Catholic ships was powered by the Holy Rosary of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Knowing that the Christian forces were at a distinct material disadvantage, the holy pontiff, St. Pope Pius V called for all of Europe to pray the Rosary for victory. We know today that the victory was decisive, prevented the Islamic invasion of Europe, and evidenced the Hand of God working through Our Lady. At the hour of victory, St. Pope Pius V, who was hundreds of miles away at the Vatican, is said to have gotten up from a meeting, went over to a window, and exclaimed with supernatural radiance: "The Christian fleet is victorious!" and shed tears of thanksgiving to God.

What you may not know is that one of three admirals commanding the Catholic forces at Lepanto was Andrea Doria. He carried a small copy of Mexico's Our Lady of Guadalupe into battle. This image is now enshrined in the Church of San Stefano in Aveto, Italy. Not many know that at the Monastery of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Spain, one can view a huge warship lantern that was captured from the Moslems in the Battle of Lepanto. In Rome, look up to the ceiling of S. Maria in Aracoeli and behold decorations in gold taken from the Turkish galleys. In the Doges' Palace in Venice, Italy, one can witness a giant Islamic flag that is now a trophy from a vanquished Turkish ship from the Victory. At Saint Mary Major Basilica in Rome, close to the tomb of the great St. Pope Pius V, one was once able to view yet another Islamic flag from the Battle, until 1965, when it was returned to Istanbul in an intended friendly token of concord. OUR LADY AND ISLAM: HEAVEN’S PEACE PLAN

Remember Lepanto!


One of the Admirals on the winning side was none other than Andrea Doria!

[Sherman Logan]

The article points out that the history of the Crusades was sort of twisted or corrupted by the British to support their imperial worldview in the 1800's.

I'm not sure this is accurate. The only Arab country the British (sort of) controlled during part of the 1800s was Egypt, with occasional trading posts and forts elswhere.

The heartland of the Arab world didn't come under European rule till after WWI, and ended shortly after WWII.

There is this idea out there that centuries of foreign domination warped Arab society, when in fact European control didn't last much over 25 years.

I also fail to see how dragging in the history of the Crusades would be helpful to British rule. I'm curious if anybody has a reference for the Brits using it in this way.

[Professional Engineer]

ping

[Antoninus]

And yes, European Jews were slaughtered, along with Christians who would not bend a knee to Rome, and would not submit to Rome’s creed... For 1200+ years...

Please. If not for "Rome's creed", Europeans would have been speaking Arabic. Catholics saved Europe from Islam. Not the Jews. Not the Albigensians. And not the Protestants.


Angels in Iron

[Antoninus]

I doubt he was the only one who tried to proselytize.

He wasn't. Most met with a less warm welcome than St. Francis got.

St. Daniel and Companions

[powderfan]

For various periods of time especially in Andalucia southern Spain it was conquered and reconquered by the Almohed and Nasrid and Almoravid and other dynasties. Some of the emirs and kings were radical Muslims; some were not. Some allowed Christians and Jews to study and prosper in universities in places like Cordoba and Granada. Just like some medieval kings of Europe were better than others. However in the 800’s to 1200’s for the most part southern Spain was known as a place of learning and new ideas some that even challenged Muslim thought at the time. Moorish craftsman even built elaborate synagogues that still exist. On the east side of the Mediterranean it was a different story however.

[Antoninus]

I'm not sure this is accurate.

Actually, the British have been promulgating the myth of the "Black Legend" and the wickedness of Catholicism since Henry VIII. Catholic hatred runs deep in the British soul. If you read British academics of the 19th century and before, the bias is blatant and unmistakable.

[Paladins Prayer]

Well, that’s not exactly what the author said though. He said that the incorrect history was taught in the 19th century by FRENCH and British colonial schools. it was the French more than the British in fact.

[eleni121]

Absolutely. This happened on a far vaster scale in the aftermath of Fall of the Byzantine Empire.

An example; When Jews resettled in Thessaloniki after its capture by Moslem Turks they were given and they took the properties of Christians who were then sold into servitude by Muslims. They cooperated closely with the Muslims there to maintain the misery suffered by Christians.

[roamer_1]

Please. If not for "Rome's creed", Europeans would have been speaking Arabic.

At least a good share more would be alive to speak it.

Catholics saved Europe from Islam. Not the Jews. Not the Albigensians. And not the Protestants.

Exactly. NO ONE saved the Jews, Cathars, Poor Men, Waldenses... etcetera, etcetera, etcetera, ad-infinitum and particularly, ad-nauseum...

ONE-THOUSAND, TWO-HUNDRED, and SIXTY YEARS of it. That's far more than enough to cancel out any "good" performed in "saving" Europe.