The word “crusade” comes from “cruce-signati” meaning “those signed by the cross”. It’s modern meaning is for any huge endeavor; for example, a crusade against illiteracy, or poverty. The original Crusades have come to be viewed as a military campaign, religious warfare. Of course religious warfare is despicable, but wars for real estate and secular ideology are okay. The exception in modern time is militant Islamofascism. “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.”
The big clash now between Western Civilization and Islam is a repeat of what happened about a thousand years ago. Christianity had no armies until the Roman Emperor Constantine got converted from paganism about 312 CE. Jesus had no armies. Mohammed had armies. I believe sources need to be looked at; they inform thoughts and behavior or any organization and belief.
Mohammed began by waging war, first against Mecca, the neighboring villages and towns to consolidate his power. He ended up conquering all of Arabia and the Middle East; Persia, Egypt and Syria. After his death, Islam continued to use military might to conquer and convert. They conquered North Africa. Moved across the Straits of Gibraltar and conquered Spain. They met defeat in France. On the other side of Europe, Islamic armies moved in deep, claiming Greece, Bulgaria, Albania, Hungary, Croatia, and Serbia.
They had ships on the Danube. In 846 CE a naval expedition entered the River Tiber and Arab forces sacked Ostia and Rome.
The Crusades were a defensive measure. I’ll start with the First Crusade, which was a success, and then over the next few posts show how the rest were at best marginal failures and others absolute failures.
3 comments:
I am a muslim. This post isn't about Islam so i might be intruding--if so I apologise---I only wanted to point out that you may have some misunderstandings about Islam and Prophet Muhammed(pbuh). Maybe, someday, if you have the time and the interest, you could find an unbiased biography of Prophet Muhammed(pbuh)?
Well said, Steven. The denigrators of the crusades—mostly historians from the late 19th century on—have always been offering (mainly) materialistic reasons for the crusades. They also stressed the brutality of the “cruce-signati” warriors, but didn't offer any explanation other than the stupidity, barbarism and intolerance of the crusaders. Yet the original justification for crusading was Muslim aggression. And in terms of atrocities, the two sides' scores were about even.
Post a Comment