The Crusades - Deus lo vult

The Crusades

An offshoot of a most impressive topic elsewhere on the net. Hats off to Garbarsardar.
__________________________________________________ ______________________

“For on the very day on which they had promised that they would
surrender, Solomon and all the Turks, collected from neighboring and
distant regions, suddenly fell upon us and attempted to capture our
camp. However the count of St. Gilles, with the remaining Franks, made
and attack upon them and killed an innumerable multitude. All the
others fled in confusion. Our men, moreover, returning in victory and
bearing many heads fixed upon pikes and spears, furnished a joyful
spectacle for the people of God"


Deus Lo Vult

God Wills It.





Here is a brief timeline:


CHRISTIAN INVASION (1096- 1101)


1096 April: The first organized crusader armies arrive in Constantinople, awaiting the arrival of the next 3 armies.
— August: Ill-organized bands, inspired by the crusader movement and led by Peter the Hermit and Walter the Pennyless, set across the Bosporos, and start pillaging Asia Minor, before most of them are slain by Turkish troops.
— December: The last of the 4 planned crusader armies arrive in Constantinople.
1097 June 1: Following a siege of Nicaea, the Byzantine emperor makes a deal with the Turks, that leaves the city in his hands, and the crusaders expelled from it.
— July 1: Battle of Dorylaeum.
— September: Tancred and Baldwin, both of Bouillon, leave the bulk of the crusader army, and enter the territory of Armenia.
— October 21: A siege is started against Antioch.
1098 March 10: The Christians take control over Edessa.
— June 3: Antioch falls to the Christian crusaders.
— November: The Crusaders sets out on the last leg of the campaign towards Jerusalem.
— December 12: The small city of Ma'arra east of Antioch, falls to the crusades. The crusaders shocks the Muslim world by eating human flesh from the adults and children massacred following their conquest. The Frankians would forever be referred to by Turkish historians as "cannibals".
1099 July 7: The crusaders starts attacking Jerusalem, first with a procession around the city walls led by priests. As the walls do not fall down, as they had believed (referring to Bible myths), they first attack the walls in a wild and unorganized manner. After some days, standard military techniques are introduced.
— July 15: Jerusalem falls to the crusaders, who kill almost all of its inhabitants. An estimate of 70.000 to 100.000 civilians are murdered.
— July 22: Godfrey of Bouillon is elected Latin ruler of Jerusalem.
1101: The last wave of crusaders arriving in Asia Minor are defeated by the Turks.

CHRISTIAN DOMINATION (1101- 44)

1109 July 12: Tripoli is captured by the crusaders.
1120: The Kinghts Templar are founded.
1124 July 7: Tyre is captured by the crusaders.
1129 November: Crusaders attack Damascus.
1137: The emperor of Constantinople and his army suppresses Antioch, making it a dependency.
1144 December 25: Edessa is attacked by the atabek of Mosul, and due to its geographical isolation it surrenders to the Muslims.

MUSLIM DOMINANCE and THE FALL OF JERUSALEM (1144- 87)

1145: Pope Eugenius 3 proclaims a second crusade.
1147: Christian soldiers leave for Asia Minor, starting the second crusade.
1148: Instead of embarking on the dangerous mission of liberating Edessa, the crusaders besiege Damascus for a few weeks. But even this endeavour ends when they realize that their forces are too weak for the Muslims of Damascus.
1149 July 15: The new church of the Holy Sepulchre is consecrated.
1154 April 25: Nureddin captures Damascus.
1160's: King Amalric of Jerusalem attacks Egypt on four occasions (1163, 67, 68 and 69). In the two first he has partial success — he doesn't take control of any lands but forces the rulers of Egypt to pay tribute to Jerusalem.
1169: The reconstruction of the church of Nativity in Bethelem is completed.
— March 23: Egypt submits to Nureddin.
1174 May 15: With the death of Nureddin, Saladin takes over a Muslim state that stretches from the Tigris Valley to the Libyan desert, effectively surrounding the crusader states on three sides.
1183 June 11: Aleppo submits to Saladin.
1186 March 3: Mosul submits to Saladin.
1187 May: Saladin invades the kingdom of Jerusalem.
— July 4: The Latin army is effectively defeated in the battle of Hattin (north of Jerusalem and east of Acre).
— October 2: Jerusalem surrenders to Saladin.

WEAK CRUSADER STATES (1187- 1291)

1187 Ocotber 3: Pope Gregory 8 of Rome declares the 3rd Crusade, and gets positive response from European rulers.
1189: The 3rd crusade starts.
1190 June 10: The German Emperor Frederick 1 drowns in Cilicia.
1191 July 12: The crusaders takes control over the strategically important town of Acre.
1192 September 2: The treaty of Jaffa is signed.
1197: Start of a German crusade to Palestine.
1198 August: Pope Innocent 3 proclaims the 4th crusade.
1202: The 4th crusade starts.
1204 April: The crusaders sack Constantinople.
— May 9: Baldwin of Flanders is elected Latin emperor of Constantinople.
1212: The Childrens' Crusade, where the Europeans hoped that children troops could bring forth the miracle needed to recapture Jerusalem. But most children were set up by Europeans sailors and sold as slaves in Egypt.
1213 April: The 5th crusade is declared by pope Innocent 3.
1217: The 5th crusade starts.
1218 May 27: Damietta of Egypt is besieged by the crusaders.
1219 November 5: Damietta falls to the crusaders.
1221 August 30: The crusaders are defeated by Muslim troops at al-Mansura.
1227: The pope excommunicates emperor Frederick 2.
1229 February 18: The crusaders gets back the control over Jerusalem following the signing of a treaty by German emperor Frederick 2 and the Egyptian sultan al-Kamil.
— The pope launches a crusade against Frederick 2.
1244 July 11: Jerusalem is besieged by the Khorezmians.
— August 23: Jerusalem falls to the Khorezmians.
1258: Mongol troops sack Baghdad, destroying the city for decades to come.
1261: Greek forces take back control over Constantinople.
1268 May 18: Antioch falls to the Mamluks, and slaughter almost all of its inhabitants.
1289 April 26: Tripoli falls to the Mamluks.
1291 May 18: Acre falls to the Mamluks.
— July: Beirut and Sidon falls to the Mamluks.
— August: The crusaders evacuate from the fortresses of Tortosa and Chāteau Pélerin.
__________________________________________________ ______________________



What is this, you're asking? I consider the study history to be one of the most important social sciences known. This certain time period however has garnered renewed interests because of the current political situation. This, in the spirit of the Islamic Q&A thread, will be first and foremost a Questian and Answer thread. This period in history is so heavily laden with information that I'm sure most would have good questions to ask.

What is it?
Was it such a bad thing as history makes it out to be?
What were the real motivations behind everything?
What are generalizations made too often about the Crusades?
How is the historicity of popular thought on the Crusades hold up with the real deal (i.e. Ridley Scott's Kingdom of Heaven movie, etc.)?

I am here, once again, as an objective scholar. If you want to know more about this most impressive point in history, then please ask anything that comes to mind. If you fashion yourself a historian, feel free to post your opinions and ideas - but be forewarned because I will criticize and refute your points if I disagree.

Hopefully, this thread will refute misconceptions about certain events in history, and bring to light the nature of man and religion within history. I bring SERIOUS BUSINESS this time.

Ok, first of all, very very nice work. Second, do you agree with the movie Kingdom of Heaven? It was also about the Crusaders. I haven't got to watch all of it, but I was wondering if you agree with the accuracy of it.

Thank you.

It's not supposed to be very accurate. Rather, it's about as accurate as Scott's previous work 'Gladiator.' All the characters and people represented are there for modern political commentary rather than truthful depictions of the history. Balian was not that young nor born in France, and he was far from the good-guy image Bloom portrays. Guy de Luisignon, while a shady character in actual history, was also illportrayed - he wasn't a Templar. Templars were a monastic military order that stressed aestheticism and celibacy. Guy was rich and married. Sybilla didn't fall in love with Balian. The Leper king actually had a son who took over for a while, so on and so forth.

Also, while the majority of the common folk in the movie were accurately portrayed, all of the major good guy characters were highly secular. While some were indeed a bit more liberal than the norm during their time (although Saladin was barbaric by our values, he was the epitome of knightly virtue in his own time) a lot of the major players were extremely liberal. This is alike to making a movie about the Salem Witch trial and having the hero characters turn out to be rational modern thinkers who want to save the witches and live in peace with one another. Though not impossible, it certainly isn't very likely.

However, as far as a movie goes, it totally rocked. The message was great and the characters were awesome. Trying to take the movie apart like some sort of war documentary and then criticizing it is folly - it's Hollywood. When we want accuracte movies, we go see a documentary and not a multi-million dollar blockbuster movie staring Orlando Bloom. This is like going to go see 'Pearl Harbor' and think you're there to get a 100% portrayal of history. In the general public, the story itself sells, not the historical accuracy of it. Gladiator or Braveheart wouldn't be rated so highly if it did.



As for the message - I agree with Kingdom of Heaven. The rationale behind the more likeable characters is a good outlook on life. The Blonde Hospitaller knight (the one in black who traveled with Godfrey and Balian in the beginning) had some great notions about religion. The King of Jerusalem and Saladin, although MUCH more liberal than they really were, are superb examples of great leadership and responsibility.

What is it?

It was an attempt to control nations that did not want to be controlled.

Was it such a bad thing as history makes it out to be?

No, it was likely much worse. War back then was not nearly as pretty as made out in Kingdom of Heaven, I'm sorry to say.

What were the real motivations behind everything?

Power, and for the Muslims taking a place of worship they considered sacred. The Christians of that time did not care overly about Jerusalem, and would not have marched if their leaders hadn't wished it. The Muslims however, found the place highly important and believed it demanded the acts they committed. In this instance, I side with the Muslims. At least they had the firmness of character to follow what they believed to the letter.

What are generalizations made too often about the Crusades?

That it was something Christendom was right in doing.

How is the historicity of popular thought on the Crusades hold up with the real deal (i.e. Ridley Scott's Kingdom of Heaven movie, etc.)

In a history book, perhaps pretty well, but Kingdom of Heaven is highly illogical in two senses: one, Balian was portrayed as being a good person that instantly understood war and had great depth of character, as well as spiritual security. Two, Saladin's men were shown questioning him, something that would have resulted in instant death for a Christian man, much less a Muslim man. The movie was highly false.

On the other hand, the priniciple of the movie was very well done, despite the unneeded sexual scene and the unrealism that plagued it.

Eh... if you read his post, I dont think he was asking those questions. Those wer just FAQ's that he thought of.

I don't agree that the so-called "Holy Wars" were really "holy" or in any way necessary, even considering the Pope's seeming approval and sanction of it, and the fact that the Crusaders fought under the banner of Christendom. Why were they really fought? Pride. Greed. To conquer for something other than the sake of conquering--at least in the perspective of those who fought. Were the results anything like one should expect from a "Holy War" campaign? Of course not. Pillaging and plundering of cities, raping of women, and so on, are hardly respectable behaviors, much less "holy." However, this is only to be expected, unfortunately. Anyone with the audacity to fight a war for any reasons that aren't completely just (which, in recent years--recent years meaning the last couple thousand or so--nearly never happens, with the possible exception of World War II) isn't going to do so halfway. They're going to suck whatever booty (pun entirely intended) they can, and reap whatever spoils they come across, be it women, valuables, or territory.

But, whatever. It's all in the past. People can fight stupid wars if they so wish. I refuse to take part in them.

Sorry, but the timeline is misleading. The Crusades were a reaction.
Question time, first: who owned this territory known as the "Holy Land" prior to the mid-650s? Even then, who composed a major portion of the population until well into the 13th century?

Anyway, the Crusades as a reaction. First, it has to be accounted for that all of the areas of Asia Minor and North Africa excepting the Arabian Peninsula and traditional Persia were Byzantine until the mid-7th century.

They had been the traditional "christian" territories since the 1st century, and at this point, were still Catholic territories officially under the Bishop of Rome. This wouldn't change until 1054 when the Catholic-Eastern Orthodox Schism was made official. Interestingly, at this early stage in the 7th century the Byzantines were uncertain what they were dealing with. They were so confused by the situation with Islam that the Bishop of Alexandria actually excommunicated Muhammad - mistakenly believing from the close similarities with many other heretical groups and similarities of his teachings to the Bible - on the assumption that he was simply a heretical priest. Another of the more slow burning issues came in 1009, when the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was destroyed the Caliph of Cairo, and stories began trickling west through Byzantine territory about Muslim cruelty toward Christians.

The immediate cause of the Crusades wasn't the loss of this territory itself. It was the desperation of the Byzantines that proved the immediate cause of the war. In 1071 the Battle of Manzikert was fought between the forces of the Seljuk sultan Alp Arslan and the Byzantine Emperor Romanus. Romanus lost and was captured, although most of his army survived. Shortly after this he was deposed, blinded, and exiled from Byzantium and died a few months following his exile.

After this massive loss, all of eastern Anatolia fell, and the Byzantines called on Papal support for a war to retake it. Here's a map from 1081 that shows the Byzantine territory at the time. Here it is in 1025. Remember, this call for support in 1071 is only seventeen years following the Schism itself, which illustrates the precarious position the Byzantines were in. It wasn't until twenty-five years later that the next Pope, Urban II, had gotten the political situation in Europe stabilized enough to answer the call to arms of the Byzantines.

From the perspective of both the Pope and the Byzantines it was a defensive war. They were being systematically overrun in Spain and from the east, all while the Muslims held lands that had been the heart of Judaism and Christianity for thousands of years. As far as they were concerned they were protecting themselves, not "dominating" anything. They were recovering what was their property already. It's not like the Crusades happened in a vacuum caused by a Papal acid trip. (Although, I do find the idea of eventually rising to some high office and making all of my policy during acid trips somewhat appealing).

Excellent. I realised there would be plenty of commentary labeling them as evil acts, but I'm glad there are also differing arguments. Sadly, being stressed for time, I can't be as thourough in my responses as I would like.


The truth of the Crusades lies somewhere in the middle of the viewpoints LionHarted and William Shatner have. It wasn't solely an unprovoked evil act of greed and war and neither was it an altruistic venture to fight back against Muslim conquests. The majority of the reasoning lies in the middle with some elements of both extremes playing into the situation.

Even if the majority of the lands held prior to Muslim conquests were Christian lands, they were first and foremost Byzantine lands. They were the Eastern Roman Empire and moreso a political empire that was at odds with every other empire at the time. The Sassanids were prone to give respect to the Byzantines more than the French or English simply because constant war has taught them to respect each other.


It wasn't as defensive a struggle as one would think. When the Moors overran Spain, no one but the Visigoths and perhaps the Church cared much. The Franks were indeed concerned when raids began on their own land, but after fighting these back, they again forgot what happened across the Pyrenees. There are no friends among nations, you must remember.

Originally Posted by William Shatner

Question time, first: who owned this territory known as the "Holy Land" prior to the mid-650s? Even then, who composed a major portion of the population until well into the 13th century?

As a religious domain, it was non-Catholic Christians. As a political domain, it was the Byzantines.


The call for help from the Byzantines was successfully done by Alexius the First, who requested skilled mercenaries of Europe to aid him in fighting off the Seljuks. At this point, the Abbassids were at relative peace with the Byzantines. The wars between the Arabs and Romans ended with Egypt and the Levant in Arab hands and the Byzantines still held Anatolia. There was relative peace for over two hundred years between the empires as infighting on both sides stifled any new concentrated war efforts.

Then came the Turks, a unifed steppe people who lived through expansion of territory. Just like unification of the Huns and Mongols brought wars of conquest, the Turks decided to expand West and South. The Abbassids soon became puppets of the Turks because of the influence of the Mamluks, Turkish generals and warriors who came to rule the Egyptian empire. Thus, with the Southlands consolidated in their favor, the Turks had one way to expand - they rode forth into Anatolia against the Byzantines.


Now, the Byzantine army was in a terrible mess. It was in a state of decay with poorly trained levies and aging equipment making up its bulk. The Byzantines had also faced decay thanks to constant wars against Thracian Perchenegs AND Norman mercenaries in Thessaly. While victorious, against the Normans, the 27 years of war cost his army to break even more. Victory against the Perchenegs was also only possible thanks to Alexius' greatest gift - his skill in asking for help. He persuaded other tribes to fight against the Perchenegs to act as buffers to his state. This very same talent carried over to his plea to Europe where he built a very impressive case for help in fighting the Turks. He knew he had no hope of getting other nations to help him fight the Turks themselves, this effort failed before. However, the Turks are newcomers to Islam, having become an Islamic people late in the 10th century. This strengthened his case and he used the fact that these were Muslims to help him plead.

Alexius wanted the same skilled warriors and mercenaries he fought against in Thessally. What he got was not what he wanted. Europe was controlled by warrior knights and kings who were barely controllable. The Church repeatedly had tried to control their behavior with programs that tried to submit these warrior knights to a peaceful life of true chivalry. However, this was nominally effective. However, the idea of Crusade gave the Church exactly what it needed. Much like what early Jihad did for the warrior class of Arabia, the Crusades allowed the knights of Europe to vent their skills and desires towards a less damaging alternative instead of infighting.

Also, while Urban wanted to heal the effects of the Schism, by no means did he want to bring the Orthodoxy to an equal level of power. A war against the Seljuks would only empower the Byzantines, but a war directed towards Jerusalem would leave behind an area of Latin control that would both empower the Papal Vatican and weaken the influence of the Byzantine Patriarch.

Every man, Christian and Muslim, had his own agenda in the Crusades.

From the perspective of both the Pope and the Byzantines it was a defensive war. They were being systematically overrun in Spain and from the east, all while the Muslims held lands that had been the heart of Judaism and Christianity for thousands of years. As far as they were concerned they were protecting themselves, not "dominating" anything.

Lands that were only Christian for about 400 years. In this light, the Muslims had equal claim since they owned the land for almost 400 years. The Jews were never considered in either case.

The First Crusade had a point, and that was Jerusalem. If true defense of Christendom was the key, Crusaders would go help Visigothic lords in the Reconquista while fighting Turks in Anatolia. They instead tore up what was left of Byzantium lands with looting and pillaging, weakened the Byzantine armies and Orthodox faith in favor of Catholicism and papal armies, and didn't care much for the Turks fight against the Romans.

I have a question--who is this Solomon mentioned in your quotation? And, where did the quote come from?

I have my own opinions on each of the "Cruz"ades, individually, but I'm more interested in the answer to the above two questions :0P'

"My science sense is tingling" haha.

The quotation is from a letter by Anselme of Ribemont written to Manasses II, the Archbishop of Reims in the year 1098.

Source: http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/Cruslet.html

The name Solomon is a Romanticized version of Suleiman or Süleyman - and most probably a reference to Süleyman Ibn Kutalmish, a Turkish Sultanate of Rüm (Anatolia and lower Caucuses).