(CNN) -- the Iraq War was a war for oil

[Jedi_Mindset]

No it most certainly wasn't. No one forsaw the mass popular response. Show me any serious evidence for this idea prior to Alexios 1's request for assistance and Pope Urban's call to arms. It came out of the clear blue sky.

And who could plan this? The west was fragmented and deep in its own problems.

West europe was already inhabited by a new population called the normans, they were bloodlines from the vikings and if you know the nature of the vikings you will know why they would be happy to conquer every part of this world. No this idea didnt came to pop out of no air, sure there was short time, but the real motives was actually - jerusalem, al-aqsa mosque. Can you explain to me, why after jerusalem was conquered, a group of mercenaries were ordered to dig deep under al-aqsa and they found it? The magic tablets?

It was actually the normans, who led this crusades and the vikings already mixed in with the germanic and franco populations, so did in the english populations. Hence they started to call themselves normans now. But their lust for dominance wasnt gone. Majority of the templar knights - were normans and jews posing themselves as christians.

Emotionally, of course they wanted to return Jerusalem to Christian hands - just as Saladin sought to re-conquer it.

you are big mistaken here, i am not talking about the byzantine romans, there is a difference between them and the western europe populations at that time infact western people were already mixed with viking blood - hence they started to name themselves normans to hide their real identity. Byzantine was only eatern-europe and turkey. The byzantines accepted their defeat though after they were chased out of syria and egypt. And i stated this: the christians were able to do their pilgrimage to the holy land, so did the jews. And they didnt found a problem with it. And the christians under muslim rule were treated well. So their 'emotionally' return to jerusalem was only a lie.

Are you forgetting that the Crusade was also the first pogrom against the Jews? Or is this another 'holocaust' you think is faked?

Even before the crusades jews were persecuted, this only became heavier at that time when the normans started to pop up. so, many corrupt jews went into 'undercover' and even some would sign up to be mercenaries like the templar knights and teutonic knights.

Incorrect. The 4th, 5th, 7th and 8th crusades all had Egypt as the target. They conquered as much as they were able.

Look at the map during that time and i see you didnt. Egypt wasnt their target - it was the holy land.

Look at that^they didnt plan to go further, infact they were fine in jerusalem hence they started to arrange a peace treaty with salahuddin(Ra) , this peace treaty was broken when templar knights mercenaries attacked a muslim convoy, since their HQ was already jerusalem they wanted the war to rage on again so they could march deeper into arabia at the moment.

No sign of this happening in the Crusades.

I was talking about the crusade which ended up in the colonization of muslim lands. However the idea was to always give the holy land to the jews. Thats what the last colonization was all about.

 

[Independent]

It was actually the normans, who led this crusades

Yes, many of the leaders were Normans. So what? I can't see why this makes any difference.

they started to name themselves normans to hide their real identity

What are you talking about? Hide what identity from who?

The Normans were indeed very aggressive and successful warriors who conquered England, Sicily and southern Italy (from the Byzantines no less). This was one of the reasons why they had a difficult relationship with Alexios I. But none of this has any Jewish connection.

The byzantines accepted their defeat though after they were chased out of syria and egypt

No they did not and they made many attempts to recapture lost territory. They would undoubtedly have retaken Jerusalem if they were able.

Alexios asked the Pope for assistance when he was under further pressure from Muslim raiders. He expected a few hundred professional soldiers, not the mob that descended on Constantinople a couple of years later (by which time the Muslim threat had diminished again anyway). Plainly he was very nervous of what they might do.

In a series of difficult negotiations the Crusaders agreed to continue into Asia Minor with Byzantine support. In their view, they would be taking lands to hold in their own name. In Alexios's view, they would re-take land as his vassals.

The subsequent refusal of the Crusaders to accept Alexios as their overlord, after they had successfully regained Jerusalem, was the single decisive factor which led to their later defeat - because it meant their support had to come all the way from western Europe, not Byzantium. None of this has anything to do with the Jews.

Instead of reinstating Byzantine rule in Palestine, it broke the association once and for all. In fact (if you wanted to be provocative) you could portray the First Crusade as the illegal seizure of the Holy Land by Normans not from the Muslims, but from the Byzantines.

Also - before you start constructing grand schemes around the crusade - one of the most notable things about the First Crusade is how extremely unlikely it was that they would win. Neither Alexios nor the Muslims took them seriously. They really should have lost, especially at the gates of Antioch and Jerusalem.

Can you explain to me, why after jerusalem was conquered, a group of mercenaries were ordered to dig deep under al-aqsa and they found it? The magic tablets?

They were superstitious. You're moving into Dan Brown territory.

Look at the map during that time and i see you didnt. Egypt wasnt their target - it was the holy land.

What is the point of showing a map of successful conquests but ignoring unsuccessful ones? For example, the 7th crusade under Louis IX was a major attempt to take Egypt which might well have succeeded if the luck had gone with them.

I was talking about the crusade which ended up in the colonization of muslim lands. However the idea was to always give the holy land to the jews.

What is the difference between Muslims invading Christian Palestine and a Christian return attack to retake the land from Muslims? Why is one a 'colonisation' but not the other? This is just the regular ebb and flow of military history. And there is absolutely no evidence the Crusaders wanted to give anything to the Jews, quite the reverse.

this peace treaty was broken when templar knights mercenaries attacked a muslim convoy, since their HQ was already jerusalem they wanted the war to rage on again so they could march deeper into arabia at the moment.

This attack was by a maverick Christian leader, Raynald de Chatillion, who acted against the explicit instructions of the King of Jerusalem. Raynald had spent 17 years as a captive of the Muslims and the experience seems to have turned his head. He was borderline insane.

 

[Futuwwa]

Yes i know how it got started, it was already in the minds of the western people for a while. It was certainly been planned out for a little while, one of their 'reasons' was the coming danger of muslims to constantinople. But there is one thing people ignore, why their sudden obsession for the holy land? And why the jews? The european people themselves were allowed to hold pilgrimage to the holy lands. The muslims didnt stop them, so why the sudden invasions?

The propaganda that christians were allegedly tortured by muslims was made up, because even the christians living in jerusalem sided with the muslims in that time. Also some jews started to sign up for the templar knights brigades and other mercenaries. ofcourse these jews would pose themselves as christians, because they were kind of persecuted at that time by Europe, hence many jews started to move to the muslim world.

Anyway, look at the places the crusaders occupied, it was only jerusalem and the surroundings. Not really Egypt, only palestine and today lebanon plus a bit of turkey. And they didnt plan to move further. Why their obsession for the holy land? Can you tell me that?

Because the purpose of the First Crusade was to seize Jerusalem and secure it for Christian pilgrimage. Whether the stories of Christian pilgrims being abused was exaggerated or even made up from the start is irrelevant. When the topic of discussion is the motivations of the crusaders, the only thing that matters is what they belived, not whether what they believed was actually true.

The known historical facts don't support your assertion that it was a pre-planned initiative by Christian rulers. Had they actually wanted to protect Constantinople, it would have happened, or at least start being prepared, immediately after the Battle of Manzikert in 1072 when Alparslan's Turks overran Asia Minor. Yet, the Byzantine plea for help was utterly ignored by Western Europe. Pope Urban II had spent his entire time as Pope to agitate for Christian holy war against Muslims - first against Al-Andalus, and after 1072 against the Turks. Yet, he had been utterly ignored until the very last decade of the 11th century, when a spontaneous popular mass movement of crusading fervour arose in Europe in response to the stories of abuse of Christian pilgrims. The grassroots nature of the movement is proven well enough by the fact that what's usually known as the First Crusade actually wasn't the first. It was the first endorsed by the Pope, but a few years before it, the People's Crusade had taken place all on its own without any official support. The reason we don't hear much of it is simply that, due to its disorganized nature (as grassroots movements tend to be) and due to being mostly made up of peasants without much military training, it was defeated almost as soon as it arrived in Muslim lands.

And, had the real goal of the First Crusade actually have been to protect Constantinople, it would have attacked some Muslim state that actually constituted a threat to it, like one of the Turkish sultanates, or even Fatimid Egypt. But instead they went for Palestine, which was relatively poor and scarcely populated in comparison to either Syria, Iraq or Egypt.

Maybe because you arent willing to see or is ignorant in matters of history? The occupation and sending jews back to the holy land was already in the minds of the western people back then. Their attempts to destroy us was not because of their own occupations, but to guarantee that we would not pose a threat to the jews who came to palestine. This idea was not brought up in the 20th century, it was from far earlier.

An utterly absurd suggestion. Why would medieval Christian rulers support the resettlement of Palestine by Jews? This was the Middle Ages, when supersessionism was a universally accepted Christian doctrine: The Church was considered to be the new Israel and the inheritor of the Chosen status of the Jews, with the Jews being considered no different from any other people at best, or evil Christ-killers at worst. Christian Zionism would have been utterly absurd to any medieval Christian.

And if a great deal of Jews, disguised as Christians, really went to Palestine along with the First Crusade, what happened to them? The First Crusade was a success, so if there was this significant contingent of secret Jews among it, why didn't it cause a large increase in the Jewish population of the area? Before the Zionist enterprise began in the late 19th century, the Jewish population of Palestine stood at a few thousand, a population which was utterly apathetic towards the Zionist enterprise. If they were sleeper agents implanted there to facililate a later Jewish takeover, they must have fallen asleep and forgotten about it

 

[Jedi_Mindset]

Yes, many of the leaders were Normans. So what? I can't see why this makes any difference.

Yes it actually does, i dont know if you are to foolish to understand certain things or have a big part of your brain blown away, read my posts again and do not just skim through it. Reflect on each sentence and even maybe search it up. Normans were brutal, and they started to be highly involved in politics, if not for the normans, europe wouldnt have colonized a big part of the world. The normans were the head leaders of these crusaders and hated everything which was actually monetheism.

What are you talking about? Hide what identity from who?

The Normans were indeed very aggressive and successful warriors who conquered England, Sicily and southern Italy (from the Byzantines no less). This was one of the reasons why they had a difficult relationship with Alexios I. But none of this has any Jewish connection.

Again you missed a big part of my posts, the normans were the vikings, but now they were mixed with the european populations so they simply started to call themselves normans.

No they did not and they made many attempts to recapture lost territory. They would undoubtedly have retaken Jerusalem if they were able.

Alexios asked the Pope for assistance when he was under further pressure from Muslim raiders. He expected a few hundred professional soldiers, not the mob that descended on Constantinople a couple of years later (by which time the Muslim threat had diminished again anyway). Plainly he was very nervous of what they might do.

In a series of difficult negotiations the Crusaders agreed to continue into Asia Minor with Byzantine support. In their view, they would be taking lands to hold in their own name. In Alexios's view, they would re-take land as his vassals.

The subsequent refusal of the Crusaders to accept Alexios as their overlord, after they had successfully regained Jerusalem, was the single decisive factor which led to their later defeat - because it meant their support had to come all the way from western Europe, not Byzantium. None of this has anything to do with the Jews.

Instead of reinstating Byzantine rule in Palestine, it broke the association once and for all. In fact (if you wanted to be provocative) you could portray the First Crusade as the illegal seizure of the Holy Land by Normans not from the Muslims, but from the Byzantines.

Also - before you start constructing grand schemes around the crusade - one of the most notable things about the First Crusade is how extremely unlikely it was that they would win. Neither Alexios nor the Muslims took them seriously. They really should have lost, especially at the gates of Antioch and Jerusalem.

The only reason they won for a while was their blood line, the normans were always experienced warriors and they attacked with such brutal force, let me say that it was a 'blitzkrieg' tactic and it was. They ruined it by starting to attack muslims which broke the peace treaty. The byzantines accepted their defeat in syria and egypt, atleast the king heraclius did. His succesors would always try attempts to regain territory but they failed over and over again.

They were superstitious. You're moving into Dan Brown territory.

not a theory, they were and have found the magic tablets, and they started to practice it. Do you know why William Wallace spoke numerous languages which nobody could've learned in a short time. William wallace was a crusader and after he returned he led the war against the monarch of england for the independence of scottland.

What is the point of showing a map of successful conquests but ignoring unsuccessful ones? For example, the 7th crusade under Louis IX was a major attempt to take Egypt which might well have succeeded if the luck had gone with them.

You are attempting to confuse me but you fail. You simply dont understand my point so i suggest you to move out of this discussion and read my posts from the start again. with the map i explained the goal of the crusades, it wasnt egypt, it was the land of palestine.

What is the difference between Muslims invading Christian Palestine and a Christian return attack to retake the land from Muslims? Why is one a 'colonisation' but not the other? This is just the regular ebb and flow of military history. And there is absolutely no evidence the Crusaders wanted to give anything to the Jews, quite the reverse.

The muslims invaded palestine because they were in a state of war with the romans. After the romans started to oppress the muslim converts in damascus and made threats against the muslims. So yeah, they simply brought it upon themselves. Colonization is not the right word to use for this. Colonization is conquering the land and make it adopt to your culture, to spread your domination around this by oppressing the native population and supress any rebellions.

This attack was by a maverick Christian leader, Raynald de Chatillion, who acted against the explicit instructions of the King of Jerusalem. Raynald had spent 17 years as a captive of the Muslims and the experience seems to have turned his head. He was borderline insane.

He was treated well, but his lust for more war brought him to this act. However he led a team of templar knights.

Because the purpose of the First Crusade was to seize Jerusalem and secure it for Christian pilgrimage. Whether the stories of Christian pilgrims being abused was exaggerated or even made up from the start is irrelevant. When the topic of discussion is the motivations of the crusaders, the only thing that matters is what they belived, not whether what they believed was actually true.

The christians were safe and protected by the muslims during their pilgrimage, so that wasnt the obvious reason.

The known historical facts don't support your assertion that it was a pre-planned initiative by Christian rulers. Had they actually wanted to protect Constantinople, it would have happened, or at least start being prepared, immediately after the Battle of Manzikert in 1072 when Alparslan's Turks overran Asia Minor. Yet, the Byzantine plea for help was utterly ignored by Western Europe. Pope Urban II had spent his entire time as Pope to agitate for Christian holy war against Muslims - first against Al-Andalus, and after 1072 against the Turks. Yet, he had been utterly ignored until the very last decade of the 11th century, when a spontaneous popular mass movement of crusading fervour arose in Europe in response to the stories of abuse of Christian pilgrims. The grassroots nature of the movement is proven well enough by the fact that what's usually known as the First Crusade actually wasn't the first. It was the first endorsed by the Pope, but a few years before it, the People's Crusade had taken place all on its own without any official support. The reason we don't hear much of it is simply that, due to its disorganized nature (as grassroots movements tend to be) and due to being mostly made up of peasants without much military training, it was defeated almost as soon as it arrived in Muslim lands.

HAH! You said it yourself: ''Yet, he had been utterly ignored until the very last decade of the 11th century, when a spontaneous popular mass movement of crusading fervour arose in Europe in response to the stories of abuse of Christian pilgrims''

And why? Why the massive propaganda and why the sudden revival (Mainly from western europe, under rule of the normans). As i mentioned a couple of time, trace the lineage of the normans and you will know why. If not for them, europe wouldnt have conquered most of the world.

And, had the real goal of the First Crusade actually have been to protect Constantinople, it would have attacked some Muslim state that actually constituted a threat to it, like one of the Turkish sultanates, or even Fatimid Egypt. But instead they went for Palestine, which was relatively poor and scarcely populated in comparison to either Syria, Iraq or Egypt.

You dig yourself in, infact you have only proved that i am right in this matter. Now you need to ask yourself, why jerusalem? And not the territories which posed a threat to europe? independent also failed to answer this, so do you. Infact they felt fine in jerusalem, they werent really bothered to go further. And even if they managed to conquer egypt - it wouldnt be their real goal, it would be jerusalem. Trace the movements of the last colonization and you will know why.

An utterly absurd suggestion. Why would medieval Christian rulers support the resettlement of Palestine by Jews? This was the Middle Ages, when supersessionism was a universally accepted Christian doctrine: The Church was considered to be the new Israel and the inheritor of the Chosen status of the Jews, with the Jews being considered no different from any other people at best, or evil Christ-killers at worst. Christian Zionism would have been utterly absurd to any medieval Christian.

Christian zionism is a product of the crusades. The judeo-christian alliance existed at that time, now comes another question: Wasn't it also their attempts to try to rebuild their temple? The jews actually provided from these crusades, since jerusalem was now under crusader control, and some jews wanted to destroy al-aqsa and rebuild the temple. The crusaders in this case, would've agreed with it.

And if a great deal of Jews, disguised as Christians, really went to Palestine along with the First Crusade, what happened to them? The First Crusade was a success, so if there was this significant contingent of secret Jews among it, why didn't it cause a large increase in the Jewish population of the area? Before the Zionist enterprise began in the late 19th century, the Jewish population of Palestine stood at a few thousand, a population which was utterly apathetic towards the Zionist enterprise. If they were sleeper agents implanted there to facililate a later Jewish takeover, they must have fallen asleep and forgotten about it

The jews were undercover, they started to pose themselves as christians. So they didnt built synagogues or anything related to judaism. If you pose as one of groups of people you will eventually become one of them. During that time, the very idea of rebuilding the temple was already considered. Remember that there were numerous attempts in the past, and they achieved their goal with the colonization of the muslim world. The destroying of the caliphate, this actually paved the way for the creation of 'israel'. So if they achieved their goals 1000 years ago, the same thing would've happened, but now things were easier because they brought up a new tactic: divide and conquer, to make the muslims divided and they wont pose any threat.

And their superior technology was also one thing they were 'faster' now. And also because this was planned in advance.

The occupation of palestine was always their goal, the colonization paved the way for it. Now they have managed to conquer it, brought the jews in it, and control the state of 'israel'.

 

[IAmZamzam]

You know what's interesting? Despite there being this alleged huge conspiracy by schoolbooks to cover up the truth if memory serves it was actually in my sixth grade social studies class--in America, no less--where I was taught that the crusades were a sham and the real original reason was that the pope was trying to deflect people's attention from domestic issues onto foreign ones or something like that. A classic card up the politician's sleeve. There is no conspiracy, there are only constantly changing and contradictory trends in thought, and these are usually what really affect the textbooks for the worse. These are what really rewrite the history books time and again throughout the ages. I'm willing to bet that if I were to compare western resources about the crusades from each century since they happened I would find the supposed reason for the crusades, as well as their degree of justifiability, differing at least slightly each time.

 

[Joseph86]

A lot of us Americans do understand they are killing innocent people in the name of oil sake. Second note some of us believe 911 was an inside job to justify a war with a sovereign nation that to secure our interest in oil. I joined the military,when I turned 18 not fully understanding when I started learning more of what was going on I refused to train or partake in the plunderering of a nation for profit sake

 

[Joseph86]

A little looking into really opens alot

 

[Futuwwa]

You dig yourself in, infact you have only proved that i am right in this matter. Now you need to ask yourself, why jerusalem? And not the territories which posed a threat to europe? independent also failed to answer this, so do you. Infact they felt fine in jerusalem, they werent really bothered to go further. And even if they managed to conquer egypt - it wouldnt be their real goal, it would be jerusalem. Trace the movements of the last colonization and you will know why.

I already answered this one, and you ignored my answer.

Jerusalem was of religious significance for Christians. The crusaders believed that Christian pilgrims to Jerusalem were being abused, and thus Jerusalem had to be captured to ensure the safety of future pilgrims.

Note the bolded word. You state that the abuse of Christian pilgrims never happened, as if that would refute my position. While I aleady, in my last post, stated that it was irrelevant. What matters is that the people of Europe believed it to be so, and were outraged over it.


As for why they didn't "go further", well, that's an easy one as well. They had already achieved their main objective. Mission accomplished. At the time the First Crusade had captured Jerusalem, it was down to a few thousand men, one sixth of its original fighting strength, and had little ability to conquer even more.



I'm not going to waste time replying to the rest of your post since your entire position is dependent on the assumption that the established view about the motivations of the crusaders, long since a matter of consensus among historians and clear as day from actual medieval chronicles and other primary sources, is somehow implausible. So I'll just focus on the root of the controversy (to use the word lightly).

 

[Independent]

The only reason they won for a while was their blood line, the normans were always experienced warriors and they attacked with such brutal force

I am very well aware of Viking and Norman history and there is nothing in it to support your bizarre theories. The Normans were belligerent - so were many other peoples - so what? They spent as much time attacking the Byzantines as Muslims.

Give me one contemporary source to back up your statements.

 

[Jedi_Mindset]

I already answered this one, and you ignored my answer.

Jerusalem was, but western europe was never really bothered with it. Problem is, why suddenly after 300/400 years?

Jerusalem was of religious significance for Christians. The crusaders believed that Christian pilgrims to Jerusalem were being abused, and thus Jerusalem had to be captured to ensure the safety of future pilgrims.

Yes it is, but most of western europe at that time were normans, earlier pagans who converted to christianity. They were strong warriors, and their sudden obsessions of the holy land came into minds. I think you dont understand what i am directing at.

Note the bolded word. You state that the abuse of Christian pilgrims never happened, as if that would refute my position. While I aleady, in my last post, stated that it was irrelevant. What matters is that the people of Europe believed it to be so, and were outraged over it.

The muslims treated the pilgrims well, for 300 years western europe didnt found any problem with it. But a massive change suddenly happened which brought forth the crusades. For years they have sought to dominate the holy land and since 1915 they've accomplished. Now they control it through the state of 'israel'. Alot of the crusaders were western europeans, while alot of western europeans went to pilgrimage to jerusalem which was under muslim rule. The 'israel' idea was already in their minds back then.

As for why they didn't "go further", well, that's an easy one as well. They had already achieved their main objective. Mission accomplished. At the time the First Crusade had captured Jerusalem, it was down to a few thousand men, one sixth of its original fighting strength, and had little ability to conquer even more.

And they didnt plan to go further either, but the holy land is never really mentioned in christianity, israel is and so on but the jews claim they have more right to it because they think they pave the way for their messiah by rebuilding the temple. Christianity supports this idea as well, and it existed already at that time. The judeo-christian alliance, didnt the qu'ran talk about it?

I'm not going to waste time replying to the rest of your post since your entire position is dependent on the assumption that the established view about the motivations of the crusaders, long since a matter of consensus among historians and clear as day from actual medieval chronicles and other primary sources, is somehow implausible. So I'll just focus on the root of the controversy (to use the word lightly).

Not an assumption, it is the result of me studying and tracing lineages, there are many puzzles which still needs to be answered regarding the crusades, however by simply denying the jewish-christian idea to rebuild the temple is ignorance in my eyes. You have only brought up schoolbook studies, i refer that term to schoolbooks, to make you think what they want. History is not being told what it is today, there are many lies and deceptions in it.

 

[Jedi_Mindset]

I am very well aware of Viking and Norman history and there is nothing in it to support your bizarre theories. The Normans were belligerent - so were many other peoples - so what? They spent as much time attacking the Byzantines as Muslims.

Give me one contemporary source to back up your statements.

if you know their nature, then the crusades were a part of the plan to spread their dominance or colonizations. And they achieved. I think you are the one who bring up bizzare theories, again school book niveau. There is actually plenty of it to support my 'theory', eschatology, do you know it?

you only base your opinion at what is being told to you. And you never search for yourself. Thats the lazy-method my friend.

There was always a plan to take Jerusalem back though, but no one would actually have considered it. So when the normans adopted christianity, they used their warrior-expanionist mindset to justify the crusades. Crusades were religiously fueled but also politically and expansionist like.

Christopher Walker identifies the rise of the Normans as a major factor in the start of the Crusades. He states, in his refreshingly even-handed book, ‘Islam and the West’:

“Within Europe a number of elements changed the prevalent attitude from peaceful pilgrimage to violent conquest of the Holy Land. The first was the coming of the Normans. This people, originally from Scandinavia, had within two generations remodelled itself as a dominant force within the society of Europe. They were assertive, dictatorial, controlling and militant, though sometimes content to act as mercenaries. They liked social hierarchies. If they could not be dominant they were content with submission; with a tendency towards warfare, they seem not to have rated equality highly. … But they were greater agents for change, perhaps as a result of their instincts for violence and hierarchy. They made their militant cause popular by gaining, where necessary the blessing of the pope, but were unafraid of excommunication. They used the papacy as they saw fit and the papacy made use of them. When William the Conqueror invaded England in 1066, his army was led by a knight carrying a papal banner emblazoned with a red cross; the invasion of England thus took on the appearance of a crusade before the Crusades. In dating the capture of Jerusalem (‘the event preferable to all events’), Foulcher of Chartres makes a point of indicating that it occurred twelve years after the death of William, King of England.”

 

[Futuwwa]

Jerusalem was, but western europe was never really bothered with it. Problem is, why suddenly after 300/400 years?

The muslims treated the pilgrims well, for 300 years western europe didnt found any problem with it. But a massive change suddenly happened which brought forth the crusades.

Yes, and that change is that pilgrims started to be abused at that time, which set in motion the chain of events that led to the appearance of a grassroots-level movement of crusading fervour.

Can you provide any rational reason to reject this simple, straightforward hypothesis?

 

[Jedi_Mindset]

Yes, and that change is that pilgrims started to be abused at that time, which set in motion the chain of events that led to the appearance of a grassroots-level movement of crusading fervour.

Can you provide any rational reason to reject this simple, straightforward hypothesis?

Nonsense, pilgrims were never abused on the roads to jerusalem. Atleast, they were being protected by the muslims. Are you seriously believing propaganda?

There was always a plan to take Jerusalem back though, but no one would actually have considered it. So when the normans adopted christianity, they used their warrior-expanionist mindset to justify the crusades. Crusades were religiously fueled but also politically and expansionist like.

Christopher Walker identifies the rise of the Normans as a major factor in the start of the Crusades. He states, in his refreshingly even-handed book, ‘Islam and the West’:

“Within Europe a number of elements changed the prevalent attitude from peaceful pilgrimage to violent conquest of the Holy Land. The first was the coming of the Normans. This people, originally from Scandinavia, had within two generations remodelled itself as a dominant force within the society of Europe. They were assertive, dictatorial, controlling and militant, though sometimes content to act as mercenaries. They liked social hierarchies. If they could not be dominant they were content with submission; with a tendency towards warfare, they seem not to have rated equality highly. … But they were greater agents for change, perhaps as a result of their instincts for violence and hierarchy. They made their militant cause popular by gaining, where necessary the blessing of the pope, but were unafraid of excommunication. They used the papacy as they saw fit and the papacy made use of them.When William the Conqueror invaded England in 1066, his army was led by a knight carrying a papal banner emblazoned with a red cross; the invasion of England thus took on the appearance of a crusade before the Crusades. In dating the capture of Jerusalem (‘the event preferable to all events’), Foulcher of Chartres makes a point of indicating that it occurred twelve years after the death of William, King of England.”

This^

 

[Futuwwa]

Nonsense, pilgrims were never abused on the roads to jerusalem. Atleast, they were being protected by the muslims. Are you seriously believing propaganda?

How do you know that they were not abused? Do you have any proof? Is there some reason why the suggestion is implausible? How do you know that it is, as you claim, "propaganda"?

 

[Jedi_Mindset]

How do you know that they were not abused? Do you have any proof? Is there some reason why the suggestion is implausible? How do you know that it is, as you claim, "propaganda"?

Studies, lectures, and it has been known in history that this propaganda card was used to justify their bloody crusades to jerusalem, however none of it was true. And if so then it would be minimized to a few isolated incidents.

Perhaps your view of these events isnt right as you claimed it to be. If you study the crusades then you will know it was bogus.

 

[Futuwwa]

Saying that it isn't true doesn't make it so. Now, any actual evidence that it did not happen or was limited to a few isolated incidents? Care to provide proof? Because if you're going to claim that history as we know it is bogus, you better post some proof. Simply saying that it is so doesn't suffice.

I'll ask again, do you have some proof that it didn't happen?

And if not, can you make a rational argument for why it is implausible that it would have happened?

 

[GuestFellow]

LOL how did the crusades came into this? I'm so confused.

 

[Networks]

Obviously, whole war was about stealing the wealth, just like it was with Libya.

 

[GuestFellow]

^ Oh now I see how the crusades fit into this. Thank you!

 

[Jedi_Mindset]

Saying that it isn't true doesn't make it so. Now, any actual evidence that it did not happen or was limited to a few isolated incidents? Care to provide proof? Because if you're going to claim that history as we know it is bogus, you better post some proof. Simply saying that it is so doesn't suffice.

I'll ask again, do you have some proof that it didn't happen?

And if not, can you make a rational argument for why it is implausible that it would have happened?

I am flabbergasted that you believe the words of kufar and not from the muslims, especially during that day or age. It is widely researched that the christians leaders spew propaganda to justify their crusades. I dont have to post any source which rebuttles your thinking, with simply logic you will know that the muslims protected christians and jews who lived in al-andalus and provided, gave them money for their pilgrimage to jerusalem. Their caravans were even protected by muslim soldiers, so how comes abuse there into play? The jews and christians were enitrely thankful of the muslims. Now desperate attempts didnt work to call the christian world for an crusade to conquer jerusalem. So there is an card they needed to play to justify their wars: Propaganda, lies. They already had their henchmen to wage these crusades: the normans, the warriors who were bloodlines from the vikings. Now to justify their conquest, they only needed to use propaganda. Compare it today, they use propaganda to justify their wars on muslim countries.

Are you also going to believe the words of them to justify their wars on afghanistan, iraq, mali, somalia et cetera?