format_quote Originally Posted by
'Abdullah
In fact Rene Grousset discusses how Catholics acted in not only the middle east, but also in Europe in countries such as Hungary. And like a true historian Grousset shows the good and bad...so it is therefore appropriate in the grand layout to say tolerance was a major aspect of the middle ages. Thats not the same as saying that tolerance was the defining value of the middle ages, no one has made that argument. And btw other sources have shown Muslims and Jews were a minority in the levant in the Kingdom of Jerusalem.
Another scholar Johannes Andreae also as brought up earlier argued that Jewish rites should not be harmed and that the Jewish people should be unharmed. So we have this and beyond that earlier itt sources showing friendships and conversations between Catholics and non Christians in the middle ages...so thats more then tolerating a different faith one disagrees with...it shows that European Catholics would take up friendships with non Christians in the middle ages which is a level of tolerance of accepting people of different faiths. Getting back to Grousset, allow me to showcase more from the Epic of the Crusades....information which shows that like in many wars even modern that warcrimes do occur but they did not define the first crusade as a whole. We can see whether traveling through Europe or arriving in the Levant to set up Kingdoms that European Catholics brought with them tolerance, This is based upon information from The Epic of the Crusades by Rene Grousset. Grousset was a renown French Historian writing in the early 20th century about various topics not just the co called Crusades but also for example about the life of Genghis Khan. Grousset discusses many figures of the crusades like Peter the Hermit, whom led the dreaded Peoples Crusade which took off from Europe well ahead of the Barons armies.
Peter the Hermit is btw provided in a good light by Grousset which runs against the unproven allegations agaisnt Peter the Hermit on wikipedia for example. Peter was said to be a pious Christian, perhaps to pious as Peter was willing to take on criminals, criminals that hoped to attain salvation on the road to the Holy Land. Peter may have thought that some of the criminals that joined the peoples Crusade would change for the better, and surely many did but unfortunately not all did. Unfortunately some of Peters followers gave in to there old ways, robbing and looting for example in Hungary and in Byzantine areas. These actions upset The King of Hungary Coloman… and the Emperor of Byzantine Alexius Comnenus and btw some of those followers of Peter the Hermit were punished by the Hungarian King and Byzantine Emperor. That said, when the Peoples Crusade finally reached Byzantine on Aug 1 1096, Emperor Comnenus told the Catholics to wait for the Backup of the professional Christian armies led by the 4 barons such as Godfrey, even Peter the Hermit told his followers to wait to march against the Turks…but zeal and selfishness perhaps took over and without Peter the Hermit about 25,000 men, many non Knights but with a few Knights, set off and crossed the Bosphorus to battle the Turks.
By Oct 21 1096 decided to do something remarkable, without a central leadership but with faith in Christ marched on to Nicaea the Turkish capital. The peoples crusade was crushed, and of the 25,000 men, only 3,000 would return alive in retreat back to the Byzantine Empire. And btw Grousset praised Peter the Hermit, where Peter went wrong was perhaps not having a background check on those that took up the peoples Crusade. Or perhaps Rather Peter should have tried to have tighter control over his followers. After all it was men such as Emich of Leisingen whom was anti Jewish, indeed it was reported that Emich terribly mistreated Jews. Otoh I can also comment on the character and behavior of other Christian leaders of the so called First Crusade. Btw Grousset points out that w of those 25,000 men there were some bad eggs, but not all were bad. There would have been good everyday people in the Peoples Crusade, one can imagine the Good Catholics probably tried to physically prevent the bad Catholics from mistreating others. In every war it seems there are crimes of course.
Anyway Grousset says the following of Godfrey, and this is a total turnaround from how Grousset views Emich, During the Crusades he(Godfrey) was to prove a pious pilgrim, full of good grace, gentleness, charity and Christian humility. Godfrey was so capable that he was able to reassure the very Hungarians whom were mistreated by some of those of the Peoples Crusade. And Godfrey and his army marched right through Hungary toward the Holy Land with no issue. Note the description of Godfrey, note how a 20th century historian describes Godfrey as full of good grace, gentleness, charity and Christian humility. Godfrey learned his pious ways in Europe and was respected by Hungarian Christians as well as Arab Muslims. Grousset points out intolerant Christians like Count Emich but at the same time points out the tolerance of other Christians of the first crusade. Its not that the levant was a special case, we can see that tolerance was a major aspect of European Christians of the middle ages pointed out by Grousset and other sources listed itt both Muslim and Christian. And when the Kingdom of Jerusalem was established with Godfrey as its first leader....we can see that Muslim rebellions were not an issue...this tells that Muslims found justice in the Kingdom.
And just as how Christians lived in and prospered in Muslim majority lands, so did Muslims in Catholic majority lands. Note how I come itt with respect for Muslims....unlike Muslims or Christians whom attempt to claim one is superior to another. I come itt to try and act as a Catholic Knight of the middle ages would, God willing with politeness and respect of non Catholics. The true Catholic faith is shown in the Catholic Kingdom of Jerusalem where Muslims and Christians were equals and made friends with one other.