Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

"politically incorrect" facts about The Crusades
http://64.4.36.250/cgi-bin/linkrd?_lang=EN&lah=11299b3e3fe9b0332bc8082b48bf2f14&lat=1094719214&hm___action=http%3a%2f%2fc1%2exsi1%2ecom%2fct2%2ecgi%3furl%3daHR0cDovL3d3dy5oZWJvb2tzZXJ2aWNlLmNvbS9ib29rcGFnZS5hc3A%2fcHJvZF9jZD1DNjQyNCZzb3VyX2NkPUhBRTAzMDgwM ^ | 9/8 | Thomas F. Madden

Posted on 09/09/2004 1:45:13 AM PDT by NotchJohnson

• Islam was born in war and grew the same way. From the time of Mohammed, the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword.

• With enormous energy, the warriors of Islam struck out against the Christians shortly after Mohammed's death. 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 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.

• The end of the medieval Crusades did not bring an end to Muslim jihad -- Islamic states like Mamluk Egypt continued to expand in size and power, and the Ottoman Turks built the largest and most awesome state in Muslim history.

• Under Suleiman the Magnificent the Turks came within a hair's breadth of capturing Vienna, which would have left all of Germany at their mercy. At that point Crusades were no longer waged to rescue Jerusalem, but Europe itself.

• It is often asserted that Crusaders were merely lacklands and ne'er-do-wells who took advantage of an opportunity to rob and pillage in a faraway land. Recent scholarship has demolished that contrivance. The truth is that the Crusades were notoriously bad for plunder. A few people got rich, but the vast majority returned with nothing.

• The Ottoman Turks conquered not only their fellow Muslims, thus further unifying Islam, but also continued to press westward, capturing Constantinople and plunging deep into Europe itself. By the 15th century, the Crusades were no longer errands of mercy for a distant people but desperate attempts of one of the last remnants of Christendom to survive. Europeans began to ponder the real possibility that Islam would finally achieve its aim of conquering the entire Christian world.

• In 1529, Suleiman the Magnificent laid siege to Vienna. If not for a run of freak rainstorms that delayed his progress and forced him to leave behind much of his artillery, it is virtually certain that the Turks would have taken the city.

• Whether we admire the Crusaders or not, it is a fact that the world we know today would not exist without their efforts. Without the Crusades, Christianity might well have followed Zoroastrianism, another of Islam's rivals, into extinction.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Unclassified
KEYWORDS: anitchristian; antichristian; christianity; christians; churchhistory; crusades; dhimmi; holyway; islam; islammeanspeace; islamofascists; islamonazism; jihad; religion; religionofpeace; religionofpeacetm; religiousintolerance; thecrusades; thomasfmadden; thomasmadden
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-48 next last
To: Knute

Exciting! I love it! Thanks for the report.


21 posted on 09/09/2004 3:56:55 AM PDT by ThirstyMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: NotchJohnson
The only thing that stopped the Ottoman empire from overtaking Europe was the perfection of the machine gun in the early twentieth century.

Otherwise we would have an Islamic Hitler across the pond.


BUMP

22 posted on 09/09/2004 4:07:16 AM PDT by tm22721 (In fac they)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NotchJohnson

1) If the Crusades were simply a war to force Christianity upon Muslims, then why did the Crusaders (most of whom were from France and Germany) go all the way to the Holy Land? The Muslims in Spain were much closer and a more serious threat.

2) If all the Crusaders wanted to do was run the Muslims out of the Holy Land, then why did they wait until 1096- 400 years after the Muslims took the area over? Surely they would have been in a much better position to do so in the days of Charlemagne.

The answer is simple. In the late 11th Century, the Islamic world was hijacked by radicals bent on spreading their version of Islam. These radicals took control of the Holy Land and began a terror campaign against Christian residents and pilgrims (who were tolerated and even welcomed by the Caliphs until this time). The Byzantines, Franks and Normans launched the First Crusade and retook the Holy Land from the islamofascists. Subsequent Crusades were launched until the threat of islamofascism subsided.


23 posted on 09/09/2004 4:25:24 AM PDT by bobjam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ZULU
We need a new Crusade. Its time to liberate the Holy Land from continual threat by Islamic invaders.

I agree but this time with a more powerful army. Rom. 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the POWER OF GOD unto salvation...

24 posted on 09/09/2004 5:39:21 AM PDT by aardvark1 (Something was seared in my memory but I forgot what it was.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: homeschool_dad

You missed the point. The crusades were less about liberating, than about counter attacks to prevent Europe from falling. In my mind, the crusaders were heroes and should be honoured.


25 posted on 09/09/2004 5:55:00 AM PDT by FreeAtlanta (never surrender, this is for the kids)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: ThirstyMan

I think you have to insist that these Muslim countries allow for freedom of religion or at least tolerance in order for Christianity to spread. Christians have been persecuted in Turkey for hundreds of years -- when it wasn't by the state, it was done by Muslim clerics and mobs.


26 posted on 09/09/2004 5:59:12 AM PDT by WashingtonSource (Freedom is not free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: NotchJohnson

bfl


27 posted on 09/09/2004 6:00:31 AM PDT by oyez (¡Qué viva la revolución de Reagan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ZULU

What's wrong with a new Crusade.........Since these perverted a$$holes are always demanding a "holy war"..lets have one.


28 posted on 09/09/2004 6:27:00 AM PDT by newcthem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: NotchJohnson

Interesting perspective...


29 posted on 09/09/2004 7:02:27 AM PDT by sargon (How could anyone vote for the socialist, weak-on-defense fraud named John Kerry?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NotchJohnson
I've argued with muslims in the middle east about the Crusades....they always forget the first four points of your post.....

When I call them on it, the argument usually ends pretty quickly since they can't justify their position anymore. I'm no expert but they find out pretty fast that I'm not stupid either...once that is established they know not to talk middle east current events with me around, else they get pounded by me with a big stick called historic fact!

30 posted on 09/09/2004 7:11:03 AM PDT by thingumbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bobjam
Yep, seems like someone keeps pushing the rewind button over there doesn't it, accept now we're King Ferdinand and it's our turn to wipe these butt-heads off the face of the earth.

Note to Terrorist:You poked the wrong tiger in the eye, again!

31 posted on 09/09/2004 7:18:51 AM PDT by thingumbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: WashingtonSource

Anywhere Islam exists and is practiced, the followers of
Mad Mo get real pushy....why do you think that the french
have that head scarf ban? How pleasent are the wailings
of call to prayer over that poor town in Michigan?

If muslimes would just allow the rest of us to live in
peace, we wouldn't be where we are. That just can't
happen when they follow their 'religion'. The nature
of Islam simply won't allow for freedom of religion,
freedom of government, freedom of anything. Why, they
even kill other muslimes who don't toe the line.


32 posted on 09/09/2004 7:23:10 AM PDT by jusduat (I am a strange anomaly)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: tm22721

The decline of the Ottoman Empire long predated the machine gun. They started collapsing in the Napoleonic era.


33 posted on 09/09/2004 8:52:00 AM PDT by Poohbah (If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much room.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: NotchJohnson

There is probably no area of Western history subject to more misunderstanding, ignorance and direct distortion as the history of the Crusades.
One heroic scholarly effort to sift the truth is being made by Thomas F. Madden, associate professor and chair of the Department of History at Saint Louis University.
Professor Madden is the author of numerous works, including
A Concise History of the Crusades. Here is another point made by the man:


"...the Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression – an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands..."


34 posted on 09/09/2004 3:45:45 PM PDT by Pagey ("How did Hillary Clinton become a Senator"? Have you ever asked yourself that question?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pagey

BUMP!


35 posted on 10/04/2004 2:20:38 PM PDT by Publius6961 (I, also, don't do diplomacy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Pagey

bttt


36 posted on 10/04/2004 4:36:45 PM PDT by Pagey ("How did Hillary Clinton become a Senator"? Have you ever asked yourself that question?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Pagey

Bump for anyone who wants to remove their blinders.


37 posted on 10/06/2004 12:44:24 PM PDT by Pagey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: ninonitti
It's also worth noting that the First Crusade was sparked by Muslim refusal to allow Christian pilgrims to travel to Jerusalem in observance of holy days such as Easter.
Muslim armies were forced to postpone conquest of Europe when the Mongols appeared to their north and east.
The slave trade in the Middle East trafficked in European slaves as well as African slaves. Europeans were not viewed as worth much, except as slaves.

Bernard Lewis has a couple of great books worth reading for anyone interested in the religion of peace:
What Went Wrong?
and The Crisis of Islam
38 posted on 10/06/2004 1:06:07 PM PDT by trentk (trentk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: homeschool_dad

The Crusades were a result of a number of factors. The Muslims had already conquered Spain and Sicily prior to the First Crusade. I believe primogeniture played a larger role than corruption. Primogeniture left a number of knights with no land and plenty of time on their hands.


39 posted on 10/06/2004 1:16:52 PM PDT by DOGEY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: NotchJohnson

BTTT


40 posted on 10/29/2004 4:08:08 PM PDT by lectricpup (Verry Backwards)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-48 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson