When I read history of the crusades. I always find myself wishing that the Latin Kingdoms had survived. From what I read, they would have, but for the newly arriving crusaders rocking the boat by wanting to fight the Infidel. I think the crusaders who had been there a while just wanted Status Quo.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Runciman
Runciman says nothing good at all came from the Crusades. Nothing but bad. Increased hatred between religions, destabilized Byzantium and began persecution of Jews in Europe.
One has to side with Islam during this period.
Runciman says nothing good at all came from the Crusades. Nothing but bad. Increased hatred between religions, destabilized Byzantium and began persecution of Jews in Europe.
One has to side with Islam during this period.
Runciman says many things. a great deal of it rubbish. A lot of things came from the crusades both ways; more direct contact, for one. And if one decides to "side" with anyone, the entire point of attempting to write semi-objective history is lost. 11th century Islam was not the goody-goody religious tolerance paradise many people believe it was.
Havard might have a few things to say about the Crusades being worthless, I believe.
EF
Havard might have a few things to say about the Crusades being worthless, I believe.
EF
I fail to see how the Crusades were good for the Muslims. Such 'direct contact' was counter-productive. They already had enough contact with the west for their needs, through trade etc. The Crusaders contributed nothing to their society other than the fear of more Crusades and the sense that all Christians are potential enemies, which were not exaclty positive influences.
Quite a few technical innovations unknown in the arab world quite clearly appeared in the crusader states and then rapidly spread outwards, for example the water wheel, which had not been in use in the arab part of the middle east since the 6th century. A number of military developments based on west european concepts, such as shock cavalry. aquired increased predominance during and after the crusading period. The technical import probably wasn't as great as the export, however, especially if we count Iberia in-the greatest know-how import area from islamic to christian areas. Additionally, in all likelihood, the crusader states' mere presence probably helped spur the mid-eastern arab political groups toward greater unity.
In regard to the crusades' resulting in the arab world looking at christians as potential enemies, well, the islamic world had been on the offensive against christian nations since the first invasions of east roman territories and weren't exactly prepared to stop. The numerous treaties concluded between islamic and christian states during the period of the crusades actually seem to indicate that mid-eastern muslims became more aware of the nuances between westernes(before the crusades little distinction had been made between byzantines and western christians, for example). Notions that islam "learned" the idea of jihad from the west is utter nonsense: any war in the Dar-er-Harb was per definition holy long before the crusades.
Though the word crusade has heavy negative meaning for contemporary moslems, well, so does jihad for the west. Additionally, do you think the word would produce such violent responses if westerners hadn't been using the entire mid-eastern world as a doormat since the 1800s?
EF
In regard to the crusades' resulting in the arab world looking at christians as potential enemies, well, the islamic world had been on the offensive against christian nations since the first invasions of east roman territories and weren't exactly prepared to stop. The numerous treaties concluded between islamic and christian states during the period of the crusades actually seem to indicate that mid-eastern muslims became more aware of the nuances between westernes(before the crusades little distinction had been made between byzantines and western christians, for example). Notions that islam "learned" the idea of jihad from the west is utter nonsense: any war in the Dar-er-Harb was per definition holy long before the crusades.
Though the word crusade has heavy negative meaning for contemporary moslems, well, so does jihad for the west. Additionally, do you think the word would produce such violent responses if westerners hadn't been using the entire mid-eastern world as a doormat since the 1800s?
EF
I couldn't agree more. For any historian to be trustworty he has to distance himself from any "sides", and only study the events, their cause/effect and compare from that. I have problems with any history litterature siding with only one side or faction. It might be well written, but it isn't good history...
Without these newly arrived forces they would have been doomed long before they ended historically. They had close to no manpower themself. Add to that the constant rivalry between the various lords and the very decentralized government they were more or less doomed to go under once the muslims got their act together under a decent leader.
Should we wish they had survived? It's impossible to say how a modern socity based on the crusader states might have evolved. One thing is for sure though: I do not think the Middle east would be a more peaceful region...
Well, with CK you may be able to create your alternate history and see what would have happened if the crusader states had survived. At least you see what would have happened up until 1453 and then transfer it to EU II and bring the Kingdom of Jerusalem up to Napoleonic times.
I don't believe laelius said Runciman was taking sides. Laelius was just expressing his own personal opinion of Islam vis-a-vis the crusaders.
Think it might have to do with the Iberians being in contact with Islam several centuries before the Latin Kingdoms came into existance?
I didn't imply that he did. I'm sorry if that could be any misunderstandings on that. However, Runciman is hardly known as the most objective historian around...Originally posted by Sonny
I don't believe laelius said Runciman was taking sides. Laelius was just expressing his own personal opinion of Islam vis-a-vis the crusaders.
That is one factor. More important I think is that the two "sides" were a lot more mixed in the Iberian theatre - more mix = more exchange of ideas. A crusader lord in Oultrajordan cared very little how his muslim subjects worked the land as long as they payed up the taxes he wanted...Originally posted by Sonny
Think it might have to do with the Iberians being in contact with Islam several centuries before the Latin Kingdoms came into existance?
Originally posted by Sonny
Think it might have to do with the Iberians being in contact with Islam several centuries before the Latin Kingdoms came into existance?
Likely...
Anyway, my main problem with the histories of the crusades are that our (recent) historical tradition has had a strange habit of vilifying just about anything about medieval christian civilization while simultaneously finding its heroes in medieval islam. Of course this is nonsense, medieval moslems were usually no better than medieval christians. Intolerant practices, like in Egypt in the 800s, of having the christian clergy's hands branded with a cross and the name of their church on pain of having same hand cut off, are either ignored or not known to many historians of medieval islam.
In truth, moslems were as predjudiced as christians, or indeed as any people in any age were people quite often identify more with religion than with nationality or ethnicity. When people talk about the benevolent attitude of the islamic rulers of the Levant, that of not forcing people to convert to islam, they tend to forget that missionary activity in the crusader states didn't really get underway until in the early 13th century and then peacefully(and unsuccesfully). It was not practical, by either moslem or christian, to butcher wholesale the population of cities and rural districts that is going to provide you with the resources you need to rule the territories conquered.
An example often brought forward is the treatment Jerusalem received in 1099 as opposed to 1187. I.e. widespread butchery verseus the(fairly) humane treatment of taking everybody who could not pay a ransom as slaves.
Though a hundred years has passed between the two incidents and comparison therefore being somewhat moot, consider this:
In 1099, Jerusalem was taken by storm. In 1187, the surrender was negotiated(Saladin negotiating from a position of strength, to say the least). A _very_ old rule of warfare in both west and east, dating back to roman times, is the difference between a negotiated and forced surrender of a strongpoint and the entitlement of both soldiers and commanders to do whatever they like to a city taken by storm. While this does not the wholesale butchery that occured after the siege in 1099, it certainly goes a long way towards explaining the difference between the two different sieges.
EF
le Roi nous mande aupres de lui
Yes, the last sentence "one has to side with Islam during this period" is my own sentiment. I enjoyed reading the posts, and I am drifting to more a middle position. As Tacitus said,
"sine ira et studio" (without rancor and partisanship)
Originally posted by Sonny
I don't believe laelius said Runciman was taking sides. Laelius was just expressing his own personal opinion of Islam vis-a-vis the crusaders.
Yes, the last sentence "one has to side with Islam during this period" is my own sentiment. I enjoyed reading the posts, and I am drifting to more a middle position. As Tacitus said,
"sine ira et studio" (without rancor and partisanship)
I wonder how hard it shall be in CK if a crusader kingdom is invaded to get troops there. in EU2 i could just load 30k troops into a boat and that would be that, but....
in CK i hope the holy land is not exactly a hop, skip, and a jump away.
in CK i hope the holy land is not exactly a hop, skip, and a jump away.
Originally posted by Jaron
I wonder how hard it shall be in CK if a crusader kingdom is invaded to get troops there. in EU2 i could just load 30k troops into a boat and that would be that, but....
in CK i hope the holy land is not exactly a hop, skip, and a jump away.
Well with all the problems you'll face with the nobles and other classes I don't think rasing 30k armies like there is no tomm. will be an option in the early crusading period.
This is what I'm hoping Chili. I'd like to see little fiefdoms not be wildly annexed if at all possible.
Originally posted by Havard
I didn't imply that he did. I'm sorry if that could be any misunderstandings on that. However, Runciman is hardly known as the most objective historian around...
hmm, i was just going to buy Runciman's "Sicilian Vespers". i have not read him yet so i do not know whether he is biased or not.
As i would like to read more on the Levant in ithe Middle Ages, Havard, which historians in your view are more balanced"?
thanx
Well, regarding modern historians finding heroes in Islam, even contemporary sources praise Saladin as a better example of the ideals of Christian Knighthood (even of the Crusaders themselves) than most Christians.
And then you have the oft-overlooked 3rd man on the scene, the Byzantine Emperor, who really wasn't much better off with the Crusader states than with moslem neighbors. It'd be interesting to see what would have happened if the Crusaders could have been convinced to first re-take Anatolia for the Empire. They might have succeeded in re-claiming the Byzantine heartland and established their Crusader Fiefs as buffer-states on the Byzantine-Arab frontier. Maybe even bring about more cross-schism contact with the west (young knights going east to make a name for themselves, then come home), and an ultimate reunification of churches? Or, more likely, overthrow the Emperor, not as a Fourth Crusade but a regular Byzantine coup/civil war. But it's unlikely they could have stayed united and motivated in anything other than a constant drive toward Jerusalem.
Well, I'm going to give it a try in CK Of course, they'll be Irish Crusader states
And then you have the oft-overlooked 3rd man on the scene, the Byzantine Emperor, who really wasn't much better off with the Crusader states than with moslem neighbors. It'd be interesting to see what would have happened if the Crusaders could have been convinced to first re-take Anatolia for the Empire. They might have succeeded in re-claiming the Byzantine heartland and established their Crusader Fiefs as buffer-states on the Byzantine-Arab frontier. Maybe even bring about more cross-schism contact with the west (young knights going east to make a name for themselves, then come home), and an ultimate reunification of churches? Or, more likely, overthrow the Emperor, not as a Fourth Crusade but a regular Byzantine coup/civil war.
But it's unlikely they could have stayed united and motivated in anything other than a constant drive toward Jerusalem.Well, I'm going to give it a try in CK
Of course, they'll be Irish Crusader states