Crusaders and Jihadis. One is OK the other is best avoided.

[Deleted]

People seem to focus on the crusades yet ignore the Muslim conquest of most of Spain and the balkans. The ottomans reaching as far as Vienna. Why is that?

Because they really didn't do anything horrible enough to remember, the Empire was incredibly progressive for the times and is largely attributed with conceiving the Renaissance movement through reintroduction of Classical authors.

[taliey]

Because they really didn't do anything horrible enough to remember, the Empire was incredibly progressive for the times and is largely attributed with conceiving the Renaissance movement through reintroduction of Classical authors.

One cool line in my linked article is that historians believed that if the Muslims had conquered Europe, the Renaissance would have been largely unnecessary.

*mic drop*

[Deleted]

One cool line in my linked article is that historians believed that if the Muslims had conquered Europe, the Renaissance would have been largely unnecessary.

*mic drop*

Yeah not many people subscribe to that though given the subsequent implosion of the Empire in later years.

[Deleted]

Should be noted that the Crusades started to provide safe passage to Pilgrims.

No they didn't.

They started to stop a fuck ton of bored European knights form being executed for fighting each other.
The Templar order started to allow safe passage to pilgrims. Though it changed over time..

[Deleted]

Nobody with any sense is idolising the crusaders, they were blood thirsty, deranged and every bit as radical as ISIS.

I agree that i would never idolize Crusaders, and they where indeed derranged. But still better then ISIS to be fair.

[Deleted]

I agree that i would never idolize Crusaders, and they where indeed derranged. But still better then ISIS to be fair.

You sure?

Richard "the Lionheart" Massacred about 3000 Muslims at Acre.. effective prisoners of war all murdered under the guise of the Catholic crusading banner.... Now if you equate population sizes and scale up to match as a proportion of modern day population.. ISIS are not even close yet

ISIS are just a modern day version of a 800 year old fight.

[Slant]

I agree that i would never idolize Crusaders, and they where indeed derranged. But still better then ISIS to be fair.

A muslim would think differently, I'd wager.

[Notchris]

A muslim would think differently, I'd wager.

They'd just assume the Crusaders ditched the plate and swords and picked up AK-47s, unless said Muslim was a Sunni.

[Vizardlorde]

Nobody with any sense is idolising the crusaders, they were blood thirsty, deranged and every bit as radical as ISIS.

I don't disagree that they are not to be idolized but I feel bad for some of them. A bunch were excommunicated members of society seeking pardon/better lives by serving the church in crusades.

[Tikaru]

This might have been mentioned already, but I'm not going through every post for a 25-page thread...

I think the difference between "Crusaders" and "Jihadis" is time. The Crusades ended hundreds of years ago, while we're still seeing some insane a**holes try to claim they're killing in the name of Allah (it's always the few who give a bad name for the rest unfortunately).

Think of it like pirates. There was nothing good about them. They raped, murdered, and were all-around horrible human beings, yet you can get your child a pirate costume for Halloween. Hell, Disney has a show about pirates right now.

So yes, once the radicals go away, people will use the term "Jihadis" as lightly and casually as they do with "Crusader" much later down the road.

[Slant]

I don't disagree that they are not to be idolized but I feel bad for some of them. A bunch were excommunicated members of society seeking pardon/better lives by serving the church in crusades.

Pretty much the same motivation for the current Jihadis... a better life after death, because they fight for "the right cause" and a better life on earth by having more power.

[tss]

Do you think we will ever be using the words Jihadi/Mujaheddin/Fedayeen in a context similar to Crusaders and Crusading?

Uh, ever read Dune?

[Kruncholyo]

One cool line in my linked article is that historians believed that if the Muslims had conquered Europe, the Renaissance would have been largely unnecessary.

*mic drop*

This is laughable and factually wrong (your source is some brainwashed stooge at Cracked, FFS). Under the society the Ummayads brought to Iberia, coercion and dominance were the way of life. Those historians are painting history the way they wished it would be and not how it was. And they are twisting facts to bash Europe and hold anything not-European as better (surprise surprise).

Being from Spain, I have seen the chains on the walls that were struck from the wrists/ankles of Christians freed from slavery. I have read Saint Teresa of Avila's diary about how she considered going to the moslem town nearby and being martyred (still in the late 1500's - the Spaniards were not as efficient at ethnic/religious cleansing as ISIS or Hamas or Hezbollah) - but she relented and played a very large role in the Church.

[Thekri]

Well, in reference to the words (Because this thread was originally supposed to be discussing the words, not the events).

The word "Crusade" and its derivative "Crusaders" wasn't even used until relatively recently, therefore it is important to realize the word was never used to describe current events, but rather a historical image.

The Roman Catholic Church did business in Latin, it issued proclamations in Latin, and the words it used were the ones used by the people that went on them (since that is why they were going). Pope Urban II started the "Crusades" when he declared the first "Miles Sacrum" or "Sacred/Holy War", prior to this any wars endorsed by the Papacy had been considered to be just or necessary wars. With the announcement went a new set of Catholic doctrine to define what a Miles Sacrum was, and how it was different, and this was the doctrine that resulted in the "Crusades". The people that went on a Miles Sacrum were called Milites Christi (Soldier of Christ) if they were noble or Fideles Dei (Faithful of God) if they lacked a noble title. These titles came with a host of privileges in this life and the next, especially the noble variant.

The term "Crusade" literally means a procession of Crucifixes. It wasn't commonly used to describe the Miles Sacri until the mid 1700s. It was invoked to portray the wars as being a Missionary effort into heathen lands, and was driven into common use by the First and Second Protestant Great Awakenings that focused on global missionary efforts. As such the name was engrained into western culture as a positive term, associated with the supposed benevolence of sharing the word of Christ to the heathens, and applied to both Spiritual Warriors (Missionaries, preachers) and Physical ones (The original Milites Christi).

-----------------------
Apologies, I took 3 graduate level classes in college on the Crusades, it was my research focus.

[taliey]

This is laughable and factually wrong (your source is some brainwashed stooge at Cracked, FFS). Under the society the Ummayads brought to Iberia, coercion and dominance were the way of life. Those historians are painting history the way they wished it would be and not how it was. And they are twisting facts to bash Europe and hold anything not-European as better (surprise surprise).

Being from Spain, I have seen the chains on the walls that were struck from the wrists/ankles of Christians freed from slavery. I have read Saint Teresa of Avila's diary about how she considered going to the moslem town nearby and being martyred (still in the late 1500's - the Spaniards were not as efficient at ethnic/religious cleansing as ISIS or Hamas or Hezbollah) - but she relented and played a very large role in the Church.

Nationalism here, nationalism there, what a tedious chore.

[Mithan]

One thing that is lost with todays world, is that Crusaders were a bigger tool of the governments back then than the Church.

[TheGravemind]

I don't disagree that they are not to be idolized but I feel bad for some of them. A bunch were excommunicated members of society seeking pardon/better lives by serving the church in crusades.

Doesn't excuse the massacres and other gut-wrenching crimes that the crusaders carried out, such as massacring all Jews in their path to the middle east.

- - - Updated - - -

In most cases the Church was the government.

An oversimplification of feudal-era societal political stratification. Richard the Lionheart was not directly answerable to the Church, but derived much of his authority from it, especially amongst the masses.

[TheGravemind]

Well, yeah, it was an oversimplification. Which is why it was so short... it had a seed of truth in it... which is what I was going for...

It didn't have a "seed of truth" in it. The Church was the religious authority that exerted political influence over the masses, not "the government" itself.

[ati87]

I never said "Muslims are evil"
What i was trying to say that Western society has evolved socially since the times of Crusades. We don't let the church tell us to go kill people anymore. So yeah i can say that "it happened xx years ago" because it is a relevant argument. If Christians or Catholics now tried to do the same as what they did in the Crusades they would be heavily condemned just the same as Jihadists are now.

Why? Because it invalidates your point? You can't selectively use modern standards to judge past actions. The difference between the two is that one happened centuries ago, the other is still happening.

So what is the justification of kicking the government of Iran again? Or invading Irak or given irak weapons so they can invade Iran? Or splinting the Ottoman empire up and then dividing the control of the lands between the English and the French? or the foreign aid given to Mubarek (and the current government of Egypt)

What ever bloody justification the Crusaders had a thousand years ago (which the validity can be questions since their are allot of lies that came from the church regarding everything that was Jewish or Muslim) what's the difference in result between the crusades and all of the above.

Because it seens to me that the results are the same....controlling a part of the world that isn't yours.

Like the guy below you said, just removing the justification that is religion doesn't make it a huge difference, stupid shit stays stupid shit no mater the motivation.

Going from 'doing stupid religious things' to 'doing stupid things' would technically be called an evolution.. But in the end you're still doing stupid stuff.