Thread by @TuuBiiSan

Thread on the crusades

A general comparison of the behavior of the crusaders compared to their Muslim counterparts.

As well as debunking modern right-wingers claiming the "crusades were defensive"

Due to the incompetency of the Byzantine Empire the Muslims had a very easy time conquering and winning over the lands of the Romans.

Source: Van Ginkel, J. J. (2007). The perception and presentation of the Arab conquest in Syriac Historiography
brill.com/view/book/edco…

The Syriac historian Dionysus writes, by the hands of the Muslims, the Syrians acquired salvation.

He presents the war as a conflict between the noble Arabs who fight honorably vs the arrogant Romans who start engaging in scorched earth tactics against their own subjects

In Amr's conquest of Egypt, Pope Benjamin of the Copts says how the victory of the Muslims is due to the wickedness of the Romans

Source: The Chronicle of John, Bishop of Nikiu: Translated from Zotenberg's Ethiopic Text. Vol. 4. Arx Publishing, LLC, (2007). pages 200-201

Dr. Jonathan Phillips, Professor of Crusading History, University of London states this was one of the reasons Islam expanded so rapidly, because they had these Islamic ethics, and were developing poor dark age areas

Source: Phillips, Jonathan. Holy Warriors. (2010). Pages 19-20

While the areas conquered by Islam, like Spain/Southern Italy blossomed into a Golden Age, the rest of Western Europe was in constant conflict with itself

Source: Asbridge, Thomas S. The First Crusade: A New History. Oxford University Press on Demand, (2004). pages 30-31

But good things never last, and success breeds jealousy. And they would declare a crusade just so they could get some easy money

Source: Ridley, Aaron, and Judith Norman. "Nietzsche: The Anti-Christ, Ecce Homo, Twilight of the Idols: And Other Writings." (2005). pages 63-64

Pope Urban II gave his speech at Clermont declaring the 1st Crusade.

It was really just him making up stuff cause the Catholic Church's political influence had been declining, and nobody was listening to them.

(Phillips, 2009, pg 22-23)

The Muslim conquest of Jerusalem happened in the 7th century; 1st crusade in the 11th century, 400 years later.

Urban II (and modern right-wingers) claiming it as self defense, is like Britain attacking America/France today for the revolutionary war.

(Asbridge, 2005, pg 28-29)

In reality it was just a common and typical political maneuver to regain his power. Hence why he held his speech in France. A place he grew up in and had many political connections.

(Asbridge, 2005, pg 32)

The so called "holy warriors" ironically were far from it, Urban, and even the knights themselves knew how degenerate and sinful they were. In their mind they needed to so something to repent

(Asbridge, 2005, pg 33)

The promise of being saved by "liberating Jerusalem" and having your sins cleaned was a good offer to the knightly classes.

While in reality there had been no systemic persecution of Christians as Urban II claimed in his speech at Clermont

(Phillips, 2009, pg 24-25)

And aside from that, being able to take over an area that had been built up by 2 centuries of a Islamic Golden Age, being called a "land of milk and honey" was promising to someone who lived in a dark age place with diseases and poor harvests

(Phillips, 2009, pg 26)

While Western European mercenaries commonly fought for the Byzantines long before this.

What the Roman Emperor Alexius didn't realize as that this time would be different, & the Pope was planning to take Jerusalem for himself, not give it to the Romans,

(Phillips, 2009, pg 27)

So now the crusaders, instead of doing what they would normally do, that being raiding their own churches and committing sacrilege, were now sent off to do the same in Islamic lands

(Phillips, 2009, pg 31)

At Jerusalem, they kill indiscriminately, women and children alike.

Killing lasted days, filling the air with hot vapor from the blood, with the smell of decaying bodies still being present 6 months later.

Source: Asbridge, Thomas. The Crusades (2010) Pages 71-72

An eyewitness account describes the massacre that happened to worshipers at the Al-Aqsa masjid, with knights waddling with blood up to their knees

Source: Krey, August C., ed. The First Crusade: The Accounts of Eye-Witnesses and Participants. (1921) Page 261

Another account show how unlike the Muslims they have no concept of military ethics. When a group of people surrender, they are killed anyways. Women and children are also not spared. And their greed is just so carnal, the things they do for money

(Phillips, 2009, pg 50)

Compare this to a Muslim army, when a group of crusaders, (who had been massacring villages) surrender to them.

A crusader writes how he is surprised they are not killed but the Muslims continue to behave like honorable warriors, despite that they can choose to take revenge.

Of course logistics is something they don't understand, so after they take Jerusalem they realize there is no food left.

So they start engaging in cannibalism and start eating the dead Muslim civilians

Source: Peters, Edward, The Chronicle of Fulcher of Chartres (1998) Page 84

And that pretty much ends the 1st crusade.

Thread is over but I'll add a second half, while I'm at it, which provides some interesting insights into life under crusader rule, and medieval life in general

One fascinating thing is, back then, although to the Christians this was a big event. To Muslims it was really nothing serious, and was seen as just a bunch of Byzantine mercenaries going around raiding stuff, and Muslim kings didn't really care.

(Asbridge, 2010, pg 78)

The Muslims back then had figured out the recipe for Greek fire(napalm), however local christians had tipped of the crusaders on this defensive weapon and told em what the Muslims would use as a counter measure against this weapon (vinegar)

(Philips, 2009, pg 49)

The crusaders would eventually start settling, and over time started to learn how to behave somewhat civilized by observing their Muslim neighbors

They basically assimilated into Eastern culture and became frenemies

Sources: (Peters, 1998, pg 281) & (Phillips, 2009, pg 64)

Although they still weren't very intelligent, falling for simple military tactics, like feigned retreats. Which later a guy named Usama told Salahuddin, that the crusaders would always fall for this trick every single time, and would never learn.

(Phillips, 2009, pg 65)

Their knowledge on many things non-existent for example in medicine, and they were unable to maintain the advanced technologies they inherited, so they employed local Muslims, Jews and Arab Christians to help them run things.

(Phillips, 2009, pg 66)

The Andalusian Ibn Jubayr writes about Jerusalem under crusader rule on his visit there.

Many things have declined such as being able to maintain a proper sanitation department, and the once beautiful city streets are filled with garbage & excrement.

(Phillips, 2009, pg 31)

Similar things happened in Spain after the crusade over there, where hundreds of public bathhouses were closed. Nietzsche writes

But Al-Andalus is a different crusade and a different topic, there are 9 in total + some more non numbered ones

(Ridley, 2005, pg 18)

I'll make separate threads about those topics later, they deserve a thread all of their own.

Over all I'll end with this, from the historian Edward Gibbons, on how Jerusalem was always far more civilized under Muslim rule than either Byzantine or Catholic rule.

</thread>