‘The Crusades Were Great, Actually!’

[applegrove]

‘The Crusades Were Great, Actually!’

by Jay Michaelson at the Daily Beast

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/10/the-crusades-were-great-actually.html

"SNIP...................


When I was growing up as a Nice Jewish Boy in day school, we were taught that the Crusades were one of the worst episodes in history: marauding Christian soldiers massacring everyone in sight. Especially Jews.

Most historians tend to agree that the Crusades were a dark chapter in Christian history, with extraordinary violence carried out in Christ’s name, and with Christian doctrine often a mere excuse for murder and pillage. This, no doubt, is why President Obama mentioned the Crusades as an example of heinous religious violence last week.

It would seem to be an uncontroversial claim. Historians estimate that between one and three million people died in the Crusades (including the Crusaders), at a time when the world’s population was 300 million. That’s right—up to 1 percent of the entire world population perished in the paroxysms of violence between 1095 and 1291. The equivalent of sixty million people today.

The right-wingnut controversy following Obama’s remarks, however, has laid bare a troubling trend among conservative Christians (and the politicians eager to pander to them): They are now in the business of justifying the Crusades.



...................SNIP"

[MrMickeysMom]

1. It begs the admission….

"MY God is better than YOUR God!"

[hrmjustin]

2. It is one of many low and evil points in Christian history.

The president was making a point but the fox noise crowd did not want to listen.

[LiberalElite]

3. So what else is new? nt

[msongs]

4. there are so many low points any high point stands out by default nt

[DBoon]

5. Which is exactly why the right wing loves it

extreme violence and intolerance makes them very happy

[cemaphonic]

6. 6th Crusade was alright.

Resolved peaceably through diplomacy, and left the Pope looking like a hypocritical fool.

[Telcontar]

7. Considering the Crusades were defensive wars waged against expansionist Islam

Kinda breaks the narrative.

636 - Muslim forces defeat Byzantines, seize control over Palestine/Levant
1072 - Seljuk Empire defeats Umayyad dynasty/Fatimids, seize control over Palestine/Levant. Destruction of Christian churches
Same time period - Seljuk Turks defeat Byzantine troops, control most of modern day Turkey
1074 - Byzantine Emperor asks Pope Gregory VII for military aid
1095 - Byzantine Emperor again asks for aid, this time Pope Urban II
1106 - Urban sets in motion religious framework for military aid to Byzantines, also calls for reconquest of Holy Lands
200 years of war follow

[exboyfil]

8. You left off the cherry on the top

The fourth Crusade sack of Byzantium in 1204 - the Crusaders own co-religionists.

[Telcontar]

9. I just assumr that was a Bugs Bunny moment

The crusaders should have taken a left instead.

Actually, the West-East schism was in full force by then, so they wre not co-religionists. I think both sides had their excommunications by then.

[joshcryer]

10. Still a bloody mess.

[Telcontar]

11. No argument there