|
Author
|
Topic: Crusades
|
|
|
pjwhyman
New Member
Member # 619
|
posted 03-26-2005 04:21 PM
    
I haven’t read the book, but it seems to me, unreasonable to classify the crusades as purely defensive.We can see that Islam was clearly expansionist through its reduction of the Eastern Roman Empire (culminating in the capture of Constantinople). The Byzantine Emperor did request help from the Roman Church. The Crusader kingdom in Outremer could be seen as a buffer zone (sort of a medieval Iron Curtain). Perhaps the beginnings of an argument for a defensive campaign? From my reading I feel that the crusades were an attempt, by the Roman Church, to direct the militant aggression in their feudal states away from their 'Christian Brothers' and towards a nearby enemy. Fighting among Christian nations makes little financial or spiritual sense to the Church; they had a good motivation to direct that aggression elsewhere. Islam, a growing, aggressive nearby religion in possession of Christian Holy Sites, made a good target. Roman Christianity and Islam were both expansionist. They were practically neighbours and their beliefs were mutually exclusive (at least from the point-of-view of the common man). I don't think it is at all suprising that they ended up at war with each other. Phil. -------------------- "Give me the weapon and ask me the question again."
Registered: Jun 2004 | IP: Logged
|
|
chef de chambre
Admin & Advocatus Diaboli
Member # 4
|
posted 03-26-2005 05:53 PM
He might be refering to the hostility created by the intial expansion begun by Islam in the 8th century, against Spain and Southern France. That sort of set a tone that had not previously existed.The trigger for the crusade was the cutting off of the pilgrims road - Byzantium screamed before for aide from the West, and did not get it till that point. I would say that initially, the early church, right up into the early middle ages was not expansionistic - pacifisim marks the theological tenor of the early church. The Merovingina Franks used religion as an excuse for expansion against thei Saxon neighbors, but the church was hardly an accomplice or instigator to the political acts of Kings. -------------------- Bob R.
Registered: May 2000 | IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jeff Johnson
Member
Member # 22
|
posted 04-02-2005 07:36 AM
quote:
Originally posted by dsj:
since this forum isn't for debates, why don't you lock all my threads so no one can reply and argue in them?
You aren't debating. You throw a general argument into the air and expect OTHER people to argue the positive side of the premise for you. How about you actually do a little work and provide some of the material that supports the point you are trying to make, rather than get all pissy when people make intelligent counter-points? WHY does the author you mention think it was a series of defensive campaigns? Give an example! -------------------- Geoffrey Bourrette
Man At Arms
Registered: May 2000 | IP: Logged
|
|
|
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
