The Gunrunner
Elder Member
No introductions, I'll get right to it.
The crusades are a topic that I consider to be extremely misunderstood; they're an event that everyone knows about as far as the factions involved and a vague gist of it ("Christians banded together to fight the muslims in the east.") Great, but there's a pervasive falsity that is constantly repeated.
I feel this video sums is up nicely.
When you've heard Cenk's position repeated to often, from Bill Maher to Buzzfeed, would it surprise you that Santorum is actually correct?
Cenk's position, like many others, is that the crusades were an unprovoked war started by the christians to A) Take muslims land, B) Take muslim wealth, or C) Convert muslims to christianity. The last one is just plain false, but A has some small truth to it. However, it's ruined by the belief that this war was "Unprovoked," or arguably even that the christians started it. Though, worse, the crusades are rarely the primary topic. It's often a topic centering on religion, or used as an example of terrible christian intolerance. By it not being the topic, a full explanation can't be given without being a distraction.
So I made a thread. Yay!
The byzantines and the muslim nations of the east were at war for four hundred years. The fighting wasn't only here (There was the invasion of Gaul, conquest of hispania, and the raiding of rome,) but this area is where the really important crusade-related stuff happens. During these four hundred years, the Byzantine border was enduring constant raids which made it very unstable. Late into the wars (the last 100 years,) they pushed through the muslim defense and fortified their position. The raiding continued, but it was not nearly as devestating. The border was stabilized, but then the Seljuk Turks came from further east.
Though this new nation would be both cause the crusades and cripple the byzantine empire, they didn't really care about Christendom. The Seljuks planned to go south to subjugate Egypt, so they sent a non-aggression pact to the empire to not get stabbed in the back. Of course, this pact wasn't sent until after taking Byzantine holds for themselves. The agreement was renewed and sent back for confirmation, but with no intention of an actual agreement; the byzantines mobilized their forces to retake their holds. The campaign itself itself largely isn't important until the battle of Manzikert. There, the Byzantine empire's rapid decline was guaranteed and the catalyst of the crusades was created.
On the battle of Manzikert, the full army of the Byzantine empire (led by the emperor himself,) and the full army of the Seljuk Turks (led by Alp Arslan.) The battle progressed until the Turkish forces curved around the right flank of the army. The reserves designated to protect that flank were under the command of a political rival, and they were all pulled back. The result? The rest of the army retreats. According to what I've read, they weren't actually slaughtered as some believe, but the Byzantine emperor was taken as a prisoner of war. This descends the Byzantines into political turmoil, and the muslims continue their push until they've taken almost all of Anatolia.
Why would this catalyst the crusades? Because taking Anatolia crippled the empire. How?
Anatolia was the bread-basket of the empire, providing every essential it needed; it produced the majority of the country's food, it was a prime recruiting ground, and it had land-routes to its major commercial centers. The Seljuks hit the empire's food production, army, and economy in, some say, a single day. Absolutely horrifying.
The Byzantines send a request for help to Christendom. More specifically, to Pope Urban II who has his own problems
Christendom has fallen into interwarring between its nations, splitting the region apart. Pope Urban II's end-goal, most say, was to unite christendom. It's possible he may have even wanted to unite the eastern and western religions... or just create catholic control in eastern-christian europe.
Anyway, additionally the Pope had actually been kicked out of Rome by the Holy Roman Empire (germany,) and replaced with an unelected anti-pope.
Though most importantly, the Byzantine Empire was a front-line against the muslim nations. As long as they were there, the east could not attack Christendom as they had Byzantinium. As long as they were there, Christendom was relatively safe (though not entirely, as 711 - 788 and 846 show.) They had exposure to the muslims before, but even if they hadn't merely hearing from the Byzantines would be enough; the christian west was objectively inferior to the eastern military. Their armour designs (stapled plates and norman helms,) their tactics (a focus on infantry, a relic of the late western roman empire,) and their castle designs (switching back to wooden pallisades) were nothing; the east had full-body chainmail, cavalry-focus, and sturdy stone castles. This was not a force you wanted on your door-step, and it does not help the fear to learn that your defense was just annihilated by a Seljuk army.
All of this is why the crusades happened. It was to fortify the defense, push back the Seljuk Turks, unify christendom, and secure the pope's power. The Muslims were at war for 400 years and had pushed into christendom before.
It was not unprovoked.
So this is why they happened, but there's one more thing I want to touch on with what Cenk said:
"... the christians marched down to Jerusalem to attack the Muslims, and by the way on their way the crusaders killed endless christians. Because, why? They were hungry, they wanted that town, they wanted the spoils of war... and, oh, by the way Jews?"
It's amazing to me that he's learned about this yet knows so little about this event.
This was not from the crusaders - That being the force Pope Urban II promised to the byzantines and ordered to ready up for the coming fall harvest (knights, lords, and proper soldiers) - this was from the people's crusade. This is lobbing in an independent radical force of pumped-up raiders with professional soldiers.
"On the way the crusaders killed endless christians"
Yes. Why? A mix of things - From raids for food, to riots, to actual offensives... It's hard to know where to start.
The people's crusade were hungry because they didn't know how much food was actually necessary for that long trek. Before the first crusade, Jerusalem was more of a mythical place than a location travelers and pilgrims frequently went to (as it became.) The common peasant had no idea how much food was needed. Though, even if they did it wouldn't matter; the actual crusade was on hold until the fall harvest because that's when the majority of food grew and was ready. Before then, there wouldn't be enough food to supply an army on the move, who supplied on the way to their destination. When Cenk, or anyone else, tells you they were "hungry," that's an understatement. They were starving to death.
The massacre of the Jews was, believe it or not, completely condemned by the church. Count Emico is one of the popular antagonizers in this, and he was someone who was halted again and again. Some towns bribed him to leave, only to be assaulted anyway. He fought town garrisons trying to halt his genocide, some personal garrisons of the priests. His force was slaughtered when he and his men pillaged christian Hungary and attracted their actual soldiers.
... Just as a little addition, it's important to know the People's crusade is one of the biggest jokes in history. When Peter the Hermit (the biggest cause of the People's crusade, but also someone who really spread around word of the real crusade) got his army across the bosphorus, they immediately had leadership issues stemming from nationalities. Peter lost control and went back to Byzantinium, leaving his army to themselves. They split in half to different areas. One half lost against a muslim army and was captured. The other half received a message that their buddies found dope-ass gold and they took the bait to also get captured. They were warned from members within their group, but... dumb dirty peasants, I guess.
Anyway, they lost. Those who could be converted were enslaved, and those who weren't were executed.
Back on track, they did nothing but further tear Christendom apart. The church did not support them, and they were not the force Pope Urban II was rallying. The People's crusade and the forces of the First Crusade are entirely different.
I think that's about everything. I hope this was educational. Look further into this, learn about the crusades, and be vocal when someone gets the details wrong. The sooner this misconception is executed, the better.
The crusades are a topic that I consider to be extremely misunderstood; they're an event that everyone knows about as far as the factions involved and a vague gist of it ("Christians banded together to fight the muslims in the east.") Great, but there's a pervasive falsity that is constantly repeated.
I feel this video sums is up nicely.
When you've heard Cenk's position repeated to often, from Bill Maher to Buzzfeed, would it surprise you that Santorum is actually correct?
Cenk's position, like many others, is that the crusades were an unprovoked war started by the christians to A) Take muslims land, B) Take muslim wealth, or C) Convert muslims to christianity. The last one is just plain false, but A has some small truth to it. However, it's ruined by the belief that this war was "Unprovoked," or arguably even that the christians started it. Though, worse, the crusades are rarely the primary topic. It's often a topic centering on religion, or used as an example of terrible christian intolerance. By it not being the topic, a full explanation can't be given without being a distraction.
So I made a thread. Yay!
The byzantines and the muslim nations of the east were at war for four hundred years. The fighting wasn't only here (There was the invasion of Gaul, conquest of hispania, and the raiding of rome,) but this area is where the really important crusade-related stuff happens. During these four hundred years, the Byzantine border was enduring constant raids which made it very unstable. Late into the wars (the last 100 years,) they pushed through the muslim defense and fortified their position. The raiding continued, but it was not nearly as devestating. The border was stabilized, but then the Seljuk Turks came from further east.
Though this new nation would be both cause the crusades and cripple the byzantine empire, they didn't really care about Christendom. The Seljuks planned to go south to subjugate Egypt, so they sent a non-aggression pact to the empire to not get stabbed in the back. Of course, this pact wasn't sent until after taking Byzantine holds for themselves. The agreement was renewed and sent back for confirmation, but with no intention of an actual agreement; the byzantines mobilized their forces to retake their holds. The campaign itself itself largely isn't important until the battle of Manzikert. There, the Byzantine empire's rapid decline was guaranteed and the catalyst of the crusades was created.
On the battle of Manzikert, the full army of the Byzantine empire (led by the emperor himself,) and the full army of the Seljuk Turks (led by Alp Arslan.) The battle progressed until the Turkish forces curved around the right flank of the army. The reserves designated to protect that flank were under the command of a political rival, and they were all pulled back. The result? The rest of the army retreats. According to what I've read, they weren't actually slaughtered as some believe, but the Byzantine emperor was taken as a prisoner of war. This descends the Byzantines into political turmoil, and the muslims continue their push until they've taken almost all of Anatolia.
Why would this catalyst the crusades? Because taking Anatolia crippled the empire. How?
Anatolia was the bread-basket of the empire, providing every essential it needed; it produced the majority of the country's food, it was a prime recruiting ground, and it had land-routes to its major commercial centers. The Seljuks hit the empire's food production, army, and economy in, some say, a single day. Absolutely horrifying.
The Byzantines send a request for help to Christendom. More specifically, to Pope Urban II who has his own problems
Christendom has fallen into interwarring between its nations, splitting the region apart. Pope Urban II's end-goal, most say, was to unite christendom. It's possible he may have even wanted to unite the eastern and western religions... or just create catholic control in eastern-christian europe.
Anyway, additionally the Pope had actually been kicked out of Rome by the Holy Roman Empire (germany,) and replaced with an unelected anti-pope.
Though most importantly, the Byzantine Empire was a front-line against the muslim nations. As long as they were there, the east could not attack Christendom as they had Byzantinium. As long as they were there, Christendom was relatively safe (though not entirely, as 711 - 788 and 846 show.) They had exposure to the muslims before, but even if they hadn't merely hearing from the Byzantines would be enough; the christian west was objectively inferior to the eastern military. Their armour designs (stapled plates and norman helms,) their tactics (a focus on infantry, a relic of the late western roman empire,) and their castle designs (switching back to wooden pallisades) were nothing; the east had full-body chainmail, cavalry-focus, and sturdy stone castles. This was not a force you wanted on your door-step, and it does not help the fear to learn that your defense was just annihilated by a Seljuk army.
All of this is why the crusades happened. It was to fortify the defense, push back the Seljuk Turks, unify christendom, and secure the pope's power. The Muslims were at war for 400 years and had pushed into christendom before.
It was not unprovoked.
So this is why they happened, but there's one more thing I want to touch on with what Cenk said:
"... the christians marched down to Jerusalem to attack the Muslims, and by the way on their way the crusaders killed endless christians. Because, why? They were hungry, they wanted that town, they wanted the spoils of war... and, oh, by the way Jews?"
It's amazing to me that he's learned about this yet knows so little about this event.
This was not from the crusaders - That being the force Pope Urban II promised to the byzantines and ordered to ready up for the coming fall harvest (knights, lords, and proper soldiers) - this was from the people's crusade. This is lobbing in an independent radical force of pumped-up raiders with professional soldiers.
"On the way the crusaders killed endless christians"
Yes. Why? A mix of things - From raids for food, to riots, to actual offensives... It's hard to know where to start.
The people's crusade were hungry because they didn't know how much food was actually necessary for that long trek. Before the first crusade, Jerusalem was more of a mythical place than a location travelers and pilgrims frequently went to (as it became.) The common peasant had no idea how much food was needed. Though, even if they did it wouldn't matter; the actual crusade was on hold until the fall harvest because that's when the majority of food grew and was ready. Before then, there wouldn't be enough food to supply an army on the move, who supplied on the way to their destination. When Cenk, or anyone else, tells you they were "hungry," that's an understatement. They were starving to death.
The massacre of the Jews was, believe it or not, completely condemned by the church. Count Emico is one of the popular antagonizers in this, and he was someone who was halted again and again. Some towns bribed him to leave, only to be assaulted anyway. He fought town garrisons trying to halt his genocide, some personal garrisons of the priests. His force was slaughtered when he and his men pillaged christian Hungary and attracted their actual soldiers.
... Just as a little addition, it's important to know the People's crusade is one of the biggest jokes in history. When Peter the Hermit (the biggest cause of the People's crusade, but also someone who really spread around word of the real crusade) got his army across the bosphorus, they immediately had leadership issues stemming from nationalities. Peter lost control and went back to Byzantinium, leaving his army to themselves. They split in half to different areas. One half lost against a muslim army and was captured. The other half received a message that their buddies found dope-ass gold and they took the bait to also get captured. They were warned from members within their group, but... dumb dirty peasants, I guess.
Anyway, they lost. Those who could be converted were enslaved, and those who weren't were executed.
Back on track, they did nothing but further tear Christendom apart. The church did not support them, and they were not the force Pope Urban II was rallying. The People's crusade and the forces of the First Crusade are entirely different.
I think that's about everything. I hope this was educational. Look further into this, learn about the crusades, and be vocal when someone gets the details wrong. The sooner this misconception is executed, the better.
