The TRUTH About The Crusades
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Vikingninja
Not gonna watch because its bloody long but its pretty obvious the motivation of the crusades.
What was the motivation of the crusades?
Original post by Party Hard
Seen a few videos of his even though he's an atheist he's not a militant one like most on the internet
He's an anarcho-capitalist.
Original post by Cato the Elder
He's an anarcho-capitalist.
Which should tell you all you need to know. That said, I actually preferred his earlier, mostly "anarchist" material. Then at least he was just innocently wrong due to bad reasoning, rather than falsifying and distorting to fit a preconceived narrative to justify bigotry, which is what he does now.
[video="youtube;Y6U3S9AwbTI"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6U3S9AwbTI[/video]
Original post by anarchism101
Which should tell you all you need to know. That said, I actually preferred his earlier, mostly "anarchist" material. Then at least he was just innocently wrong due to bad reasoning, rather than falsifying and distorting to fit a preconceived narrative to justify bigotry, which is what he does now.
You are the bigoted anti-white and anti-Christian if you think the Crusades (i.e. Christians defending themselves and their brothers in Christ from Jihad) were wrong and something to beat Europeans over the head with to demoralise them.
Original post by Torquemada
You are the bigoted anti-white and anti-Christian if you think the Crusades (i.e. Christians defending themselves and their brothers in Christ from Jihad) were wrong and something to beat Europeans over the head with to demoralise them.
If you read the thread, you'll see I've been over all this already:
- I don't say the Crusades were wrong, or that they were right. I don't morally judge them at all because I think it's pointless to try to apply modern legal and moral norms to theocratic societies nearly 1000 years ago. What does it add to our historical knowledge and analysis of the Crusades? Nothing.
- To regard the Crusades as 'defensive' is not only trying to apply quite modern legal understandings of things like "aggression" to the Dark Ages/Medieval Period, but also requires a very selective and often double standard interpretation of events.
We live in an anti-White world where Whites are to taught to self hate and Whiteness is considered evil. No other people on this earth look at their own history negatively like we do. Where does this come from? let me guess..
Marxism.
Marxism.
Original post by EuropeanPatriot.
We live in an anti-White world where Whites are to taught to self hate and Whiteness is considered evil. No other people on this earth look at their own history negatively like we do. Where does this come from? let me guess..
Marxism.
Marxism.
As unpleasant as this sounds, you have a point. I was watching Michael Wood's recent documentary on China and this point really stood out: The Chinese are very proud of their culture and history (as are most of the other societies I have come across).
Original post by Aceadria
As unpleasant as this sounds, you have a point. I was watching Michael Wood's recent documentary on China and this point really stood out: The Chinese are very proud of their culture and history (as are most of the other societies I have come across).
And he is certainly no exception. Universities across the Western world are littered with professors just like him, poisoning hundreds of thousands of young minds with their cancerous rhetoric, every single day. And they're not even hiding it, they are quite happy to tell you exactly what they are doing.
Original post by Sisuphos
What was the motivation of the crusades?
Don't you mean what was the intention of the Crusades? Or do you mean what motivated the Crusaders? Difference. Also, which Crusade are you referring to?
Original post by anarchism101
Which should tell you all you need to know. That said, I actually preferred his earlier, mostly "anarchist" material. Then at least he was just innocently wrong due to bad reasoning, rather than falsifying and distorting to fit a preconceived narrative to justify bigotry, which is what he does now.
I don't like Molyneux, in fact I think he's an idiot (despite being a former fan of his) but some of his videos, like this one, are spot on.
Guys. Stop. Just stop. The first rule of being a good historian is not to cast judgement on either side as this will inevitably sway your verdict on your historical discussion. Case in point: this thread. You've gone from discussing the origin and reason of the crusades to discussing white guilt and supposedly radical liberal strawmen professors. IMO you really should not be doing this when discussing events that occurred 800-1000 years ago.
***WARNING - LONG POST AHEAD***
(questions such as these can not be answered with one or two sentences)
As someone who is writing their masters thesis on the crusades I'll contribute my two cents. I've quickly skimmed through Molyneux's video and from what I saw he does seem to be well informed on the origins and history preceding 1095. Yes I am well aware of Molyneux's tendency to bend information for his purposes. He is correct that Islam rapidly spread from the word go and embarked on an aggressive campaign conquering the Levant, parts of Italy, parts of Africa and the majority of the Iberian peninsula.
Now, why did Latin Christendom not launch a crusade immediately when Jerusalem was conquered by Muslims hundred of years before the start of the crusades? Well the reason for that is that Christianity was still gaining influence in Europe from around 638-1095; simply put Christian solidarity was simply not there to give rise to a zealous expedition east. As well as this, western Europeans were more concerned about beating back the Muslims in the west in Spain as well as trying to claw their way out of the 'Dark Ages' if you agree with that term. It was not until the Battle of Tours in 732 that the Muslim invasion from the west began to shrink backwards. As well as this the rise of Charlemagne was able to spread Christianity further throughout mainland Europe as well as lending some general stability to what would have been modern day France, Germany and northern Italy. The fact that Pope Leo III personally crowned Charlemagne meant that the Carolingian empire had papal backing and cemented the empire as a fully Christian force. With the death of Charlemagne the empire split up and local quarreling started up again but in my opinion the Christian foundations never left and this mass spread of Christianity to the former Gaulish tribes is the Carolingian empire's lasting legacy.
From about the 900s onwards that act of penitential pilgrimage was becoming a rapidly popular activity. From what I have read this is where Muslims residing in the middle east begin to get bad press. There are frequent entries in chronicles noting that those that journeyed to Jerusalem where treated terribly by the Muslim rulers. One particularly notable example was the Great German Pilgrimage of 1065-66 in which it is detailed in the chronicles that the pilgrims are taxed at every opprtunity, harassed by Bedouin bandits (with reports of some pilgrims being captured and raped), and were barred entry to some of the most important Christian holy sites in the Middle East. As well as this in the year 1009 the Caliph Ibn al-Hakim vandalised the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem which is particularly relevant because the holy sepulchre was said to have housed the site of Christ's tomb. Native Christian residents living under the Caliphs were subjected to the 'jizyah' tax: a heavy tax with scriptural backing levied on any minority that would not submit to Islam. Can I just note that this is not 'hidden' knowledge. If the average aspiring Joe Schmoe historian, such as myself, can walk into a book store and purchase a number of books on these issues as well as look it up on the internet, it's hardly a well-kept 'secret'. There is no conspiracy to blot this information out Molyneaux!
Now, it seems the Christians living in the Middle East are getting a pretty crap deal with Muslim occupation of the holy sites, but that is only one half of the equation. Meanwhile in Europe papal authority was getting more and more radicalised. Pope Gregory VII (r1072-1085) was pushing papal reforms that emphasised the dominance of the papacy over all of Christendom. Gregory VII wanted it so that the papacy had the power to promote/demote kings and emperors and that all Christian forces should be at the will of the Pope. As well as this Gregory attempted to push an appeal to the knightly classes to join the papacy in a private army which the Pope alone could control entitled the 'militas sancti petri' (knights of St Peter). There is even evidence of Gregory trying to call for a crusade to aid the Byzantines in the east after the defeat of the battle of Manzikert, but this mostly fell on deaf ears, especially to rulers who were disgruntled at the papal reforms trying to actively control them. Historian Carl Erdman notes that within Gregory's time in papal office the language of sermons and interpretations of Scripture changed from metaphorical to literal e.g. the 'sword of saint peter' which used to be a phrase denoting excommunication was now being interpreted as a literal denotation of divinely sanctioned violence.
The radicalisation of the Papacy along with the aggressive actions of Islam lay the foundations for Pope Urban II to successfully preach the act of crusading at the Council of Clermont in November 1095 and his subsequent preaching tours of France in the year after. There are at least 4 different accounts of what Urban preached at Clermont, and they are often quite different from each other in terms of content, but they all retain the same common themes. Urban appealed to the military classes saying that this was a way in which they could fight for Christendom and save their soul by doing it. This was a revolutionary concept; remember that the commandments of Christianity state 'though shalt not kill' and soldiery was seen as a profession that was inherently sinful because of this. Urban also tried to emphasise the suffering of fellow Christians in the middle east, with some accounts going into gratuitously violent detail with what the Muslim rulers were supposedly doing to subjugated Christians. Urban also compared Jerusalem as a captured Virgin Mary-like figure. Jerusalem was particularly important to all Latin Christians as it was seen as the 'navalli mundi' - the naval of the world; THE central place of the Christian faith. To have Jerusalem in the hands of infidels would not be good for when the second coming would occur. Speaking of which, Carl Erdman also proposes that the atmosphere of apocalyptic fervor was very high at this time and was an important driver in crusading enthusiasm. Bear in mind that all Christians at this time were fully expecting some second coming related event to happen in the year 1000 as it would be the millennial anniversary of Christ's birth. Many people flocked to Urban's call to cleanse their sins for Jesus' expected return.
TL;DR Christian radicalization coupled with Muslim subjugation and apocalyptic fears led to strong crusading enthusiasm. There is no TRUTH or SECRET KNOWLEDGE like Molyneux claims. Use your head people.
Going to leave it there now for the origins of crusade. Hope my ramblings helped the debate in some constructive way. Can give more information if needed.
Thanks.
***WARNING - LONG POST AHEAD***
(questions such as these can not be answered with one or two sentences)
As someone who is writing their masters thesis on the crusades I'll contribute my two cents. I've quickly skimmed through Molyneux's video and from what I saw he does seem to be well informed on the origins and history preceding 1095. Yes I am well aware of Molyneux's tendency to bend information for his purposes. He is correct that Islam rapidly spread from the word go and embarked on an aggressive campaign conquering the Levant, parts of Italy, parts of Africa and the majority of the Iberian peninsula.
Now, why did Latin Christendom not launch a crusade immediately when Jerusalem was conquered by Muslims hundred of years before the start of the crusades? Well the reason for that is that Christianity was still gaining influence in Europe from around 638-1095; simply put Christian solidarity was simply not there to give rise to a zealous expedition east. As well as this, western Europeans were more concerned about beating back the Muslims in the west in Spain as well as trying to claw their way out of the 'Dark Ages' if you agree with that term. It was not until the Battle of Tours in 732 that the Muslim invasion from the west began to shrink backwards. As well as this the rise of Charlemagne was able to spread Christianity further throughout mainland Europe as well as lending some general stability to what would have been modern day France, Germany and northern Italy. The fact that Pope Leo III personally crowned Charlemagne meant that the Carolingian empire had papal backing and cemented the empire as a fully Christian force. With the death of Charlemagne the empire split up and local quarreling started up again but in my opinion the Christian foundations never left and this mass spread of Christianity to the former Gaulish tribes is the Carolingian empire's lasting legacy.
From about the 900s onwards that act of penitential pilgrimage was becoming a rapidly popular activity. From what I have read this is where Muslims residing in the middle east begin to get bad press. There are frequent entries in chronicles noting that those that journeyed to Jerusalem where treated terribly by the Muslim rulers. One particularly notable example was the Great German Pilgrimage of 1065-66 in which it is detailed in the chronicles that the pilgrims are taxed at every opprtunity, harassed by Bedouin bandits (with reports of some pilgrims being captured and raped), and were barred entry to some of the most important Christian holy sites in the Middle East. As well as this in the year 1009 the Caliph Ibn al-Hakim vandalised the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem which is particularly relevant because the holy sepulchre was said to have housed the site of Christ's tomb. Native Christian residents living under the Caliphs were subjected to the 'jizyah' tax: a heavy tax with scriptural backing levied on any minority that would not submit to Islam. Can I just note that this is not 'hidden' knowledge. If the average aspiring Joe Schmoe historian, such as myself, can walk into a book store and purchase a number of books on these issues as well as look it up on the internet, it's hardly a well-kept 'secret'. There is no conspiracy to blot this information out Molyneaux!
Now, it seems the Christians living in the Middle East are getting a pretty crap deal with Muslim occupation of the holy sites, but that is only one half of the equation. Meanwhile in Europe papal authority was getting more and more radicalised. Pope Gregory VII (r1072-1085) was pushing papal reforms that emphasised the dominance of the papacy over all of Christendom. Gregory VII wanted it so that the papacy had the power to promote/demote kings and emperors and that all Christian forces should be at the will of the Pope. As well as this Gregory attempted to push an appeal to the knightly classes to join the papacy in a private army which the Pope alone could control entitled the 'militas sancti petri' (knights of St Peter). There is even evidence of Gregory trying to call for a crusade to aid the Byzantines in the east after the defeat of the battle of Manzikert, but this mostly fell on deaf ears, especially to rulers who were disgruntled at the papal reforms trying to actively control them. Historian Carl Erdman notes that within Gregory's time in papal office the language of sermons and interpretations of Scripture changed from metaphorical to literal e.g. the 'sword of saint peter' which used to be a phrase denoting excommunication was now being interpreted as a literal denotation of divinely sanctioned violence.
The radicalisation of the Papacy along with the aggressive actions of Islam lay the foundations for Pope Urban II to successfully preach the act of crusading at the Council of Clermont in November 1095 and his subsequent preaching tours of France in the year after. There are at least 4 different accounts of what Urban preached at Clermont, and they are often quite different from each other in terms of content, but they all retain the same common themes. Urban appealed to the military classes saying that this was a way in which they could fight for Christendom and save their soul by doing it. This was a revolutionary concept; remember that the commandments of Christianity state 'though shalt not kill' and soldiery was seen as a profession that was inherently sinful because of this. Urban also tried to emphasise the suffering of fellow Christians in the middle east, with some accounts going into gratuitously violent detail with what the Muslim rulers were supposedly doing to subjugated Christians. Urban also compared Jerusalem as a captured Virgin Mary-like figure. Jerusalem was particularly important to all Latin Christians as it was seen as the 'navalli mundi' - the naval of the world; THE central place of the Christian faith. To have Jerusalem in the hands of infidels would not be good for when the second coming would occur. Speaking of which, Carl Erdman also proposes that the atmosphere of apocalyptic fervor was very high at this time and was an important driver in crusading enthusiasm. Bear in mind that all Christians at this time were fully expecting some second coming related event to happen in the year 1000 as it would be the millennial anniversary of Christ's birth. Many people flocked to Urban's call to cleanse their sins for Jesus' expected return.
TL;DR Christian radicalization coupled with Muslim subjugation and apocalyptic fears led to strong crusading enthusiasm. There is no TRUTH or SECRET KNOWLEDGE like Molyneux claims. Use your head people.
Going to leave it there now for the origins of crusade. Hope my ramblings helped the debate in some constructive way. Can give more information if needed.
Thanks.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- AQA A-level History Crusades revision guides?
- History A Level Coursework NEA
- Primary Sources and Historians for AQA A Level History Coursework
- Had the Ottoman Empire been Christian rather than Muslim
- Edexcel A Level History Paper 1 (options 1A–1H) 9HI0 - 26 May 2022 [Exam Chat]
- OCR A-Level History Unit 2 (Y201-Y224) - 13th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Had Constantinople survived the 1453 Ottoman offensive, could Byzantium have survived
- Truth or Dare? 😈
- William Wordsworth
- OCR A Level History Non-British period study: All Exams - 22 Jun 2022 [Exam Chat]
- NARIC equivalences and GCSE equivalences (Maths and English)
- Can bad people do good things?
- have you ever revealed a secret when angry with someone?
- How can I get started on my NEA for History A-Level?
- Boyfriend told me his ex is better looking?
- Can Christian couples disagree on evolution/age of the Earth?
- Police application, former drug use
- Anyone worked as Court usher at ministry of justice
- Strange girl
- how to stop lying
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
