Until the end of the world as we Christians believe many people shall continue to be useful instruments in the hand of the devil if they want him to be their master. Because the judgement day of the devil by God has not come, he knows he still has time to influence many people into doing his will so that many shall be his candidates and perish with him in hell. For those who are confused the whole intention of the devil is to steal, kill and destroy as Jesus puts it in the Bible John 10:10 but He, Jesus Christ declares " I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly".

Jesus Christ always emphasized loving and caring for one another to demonstrate love of God for mankind for us to live in peace, unity and harmony. God wants us to be our brothers' keeper, to protect others from harms and use the power of scripture in name the of Jesus to deliver those being afflicted by the devil. Now from the heart of God where comes destruction of life and property in the name of God? People doing this are working for the devil.

THE HOLY BIBLE SAYS GOD IS LOVE, therefore love others as your self and love God with all your strength, soul and might Luke 10:27
Christianity is all about learning to know and understand God so that man shall continue in good work and have assurance of everlasting life.
Jesus warned us to beware of those that come in the name of God but they are for destruction.

Rexyl: Until the end of the world as we Christians believe many people shall continue to be useful instruments in the hand of the devil if they want him to be their master. Because the judgement day of the devil by God has not come, he knows he still has time to influence many people into doing his will so that many shall be his candidates and perish with him in hell. For those who are confused the whole intention of the devil is to steal, kill and destroy as Jesus puts it in the Bible John 10:10 but He, Jesus Christ declares " I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly".

Jesus Christ always emphasized loving and caring for one another to demonstrate love of God for mankind for us to live in peace, unity and harmony. God wants us to be our brothers' keeper, to protect others from harms and use the power of scripture in name of Jesus to deliver those being afflicted by the devil. Now from the heart of God where comes destruction of life and property in the name of God? People doing this are working for the devil.

THE HOLY BIBLE SAYS GOD IS LOVE, therefore love others as your self and love God with all your strength, soul and might Luke 10:27
Christianity is all about learning to know and understand God so that man shall continue in good work and have assurance of everlasting life.
Jesus warned us to beware of those that come in the name of God but they are for destruction.

What about the crusades?

Atheist:-D:


What about the crusades?

Good morning,

I really had to struggle with myself before responding to your 'inquiry'. I agree that some of the primary actors in the crusades lost their focus along the way but this is not to say that the crusades started without plausible reasons.

I don't believe that every form of killing is wrong. There are times when one would kill because it is the right thing to do and when one does right, he or she pleases God. This might seem a bit harsh at first glance but a cursory look would reveal the truth in the statement.

Thanks!

striktlymi:

Good morning,

I really had to struggle with myself before responding to your 'inquiry'. I agree that some of the primary actors in the crusades lost their focus along the way but this is not to say that the crusades started without plausible reasons.

I don't believe that every form of killing is wrong. There are times when one would kill because it is the right thing to do and when one does right, he or she pleases God. This might seem a bit harsh at first glance but a cursory look would reveal the truth in the statement.

Thanks!

There was no plausible reason for the crusades.

Atheist:-D:


There was no plausible reason for the crusades.

Hi,

I guess you would say there won't be a plausible reason if every Church in the North decides to take up arms in defense against Bokoharam.

striktlymi:

Hi,

I guess you would say there won't be a plausible reason if every Church in the North decides to take up arms in defense against Bokoharam.

The crusades were a very different ball game. It was a political movement with diffrrent players each satisfying their objectives.

It did more bad than good.

I could go into the history but only if you are interested.

Atheist:-D:


The crusades were a very different ball game. It was a political movement with diffrrent players each satisfying their objectives.

It did more bad than good.

I could go into the history but only if you are interested.

Please do, I am all eyes

striktlymi:

Please do, I am all eyes

Ok.

Players
Byzantine empire ( Eastern Orthodox Xtians)
Fatimids of Egypts (Sunni muslims)
Turks (Seljuk and Danishmend) (mostly sunni too)
Franks (Catholics)
Normans (Catholics)
Italian city states (Venice, Genoa, Pisa, Milan) at the time part of the Holy Roman Empire
Holy Roman Empire (Catholic)
Catholic church
Eastern orthodox church

Time period of first crusade 1099

Preceding events
Turk defeat of Byzantine armies at Manzikert leading to civil war and Turks overrunning asia minor ( Current day Turkey)
Terk invasion of Fatimid territoties in Syria
Norman conquest of England (1066)
Norman conquest of Southern Italy (pushed out Byzantine influence)
Norman conquest of sicily and Norman invasions of greece (controlled by Byzantines)
Investiture controversy (Normans aided the pope)
Alexius defeat of the Bulgarians and victories against Turks in Asia minor.

Franks and Normans aid the independent kingdoms if Castile and Aragon to fight the Moors in Spain.

Alexius (byzantine emperor) requested the pope to convince Western European knights aid his wars with the Turks to help protect his borders and help make passage safer for pilgrims. He was hoping for mercenary knights to aid his army. The byzantines were the greatest Xtian kingdom in the east.

The byzantines had also fought the Franks for Ravenna over 100years ago and for numerous territories in Italy. This had passed on to the HRE who were crowned by the previous popes as the leader of the romans. This put them at odds with the byzantines.

The Normans had seized territory in Italy from both Byzantine and HRE. They had also invaded Greece.

It is doubtful that Alexius would want such enemies commanding territories on his borders independently.

Situation in the East:

The Fatimids, Byzantine and Turks were a triangle in the east, all at war with each other. The byzantines held greece, bulgaria and parts of turkey.

The fatimids held egypt, syria, jordan and palestine (including jerusalem).

The Turks held largr territories swaying from Baghdad in Iraq to Turkey,Syria etc.

The Byzantines and Fatimids had agreements in place that allowed pilgrims to access jerusalem safely. This had been in place for at least 100 years.

The arrival of the Turks hiwever put pressure on this. The Turks actively engaged bith the byzantines naand the fatimids in warfare and conquered territories from both hence the byzantines formed and alliance with the fatimids.

YES.. THE FATIMIDS AND BYZANTINES WERE ALLIES.

Still following Sir Atheist the historian

Sir Atheist I believe the aliance you refered to occurred during the fifth Crusade. It really hasn't always been there.

Sir Atheist,

I believe the first Crusade started before 1099 because the Byzanthine empire was suffered defeat in about 1071.

The crusading message

The pope discussed with Bishop Adhemar as to how best to proceed. The decision was to have a presence in the region that was catholic and controllable by the latin kingdoms (not italian but any kingdom that practised catholicism). This would best be done if jerusalem was captured and brought under the papacy.

Adhemar preached the crusade ideal in Clermont and got good support and interest. Many knights from France Italy and even Germany took the cross and plans were made. These knights fell into 2 main camps Franks and Normans.

This division would affect later crusades and destabilise the region.

To summarise: the decision was to capture jerusalem from the fatimids? Why? Alexius wanted support against the turks not the capture of jerusalem.

striktlymi: Sir Atheist,

I believe the first Crusade started before 1099 because the Byzanthine empire was suffered defeat in about 1071.

Possibly 1098 or near about.

Crusader lords coming soon!!!!!

Atheist:-D:
Crusader lords coming soon!!!!!

Lol!!! I am eager for Season 2

Sir Atheist

I am of the opinion that the Seljuk Turks defeated the 
Byzantine army in 1071 and cut off Christian access to Jerusalem, which prompted Alexis I, the Byzantine ruler at the time to implore the aid of Pope Urban II and Western Christian leaders, for fear that all Asia Minor would fall into the hands of the Turks. I believe he was even the one who brought up the idea of the crusade or Pilgrimage which he believes will be directed at freeing Jerusalem from Muslim rule.

When the Turks defeated Alexis I, they cut-off all access into the Holy land, they destroyed a number of holy sites sacred to Christians and the ruthless ruler
caliph Al-Hakim ensured that Christians were persecuted under the Fatimid.

These set the stage for the decision to embark on the first Crusade. I know that the Crusaders lost focus later on, especially after they suffered defeats but it does not mean that the first Crusade was politically motivated from the word go.

It is not uncommon for selfish individuals to use something formed for a good purpose to their selfish interest. An example is the case of the ban of Okada in some places in Lagos. I know full well that the ban was in part but today in Lagos, some police men are carrying out the order as if it was a total ban because of their selfish motive.

I also know for a fact that it is quite common too for conspiracy theorist to take advantage of some situation but really I don't think this totally explains the motive behind the first Crusade. I agree that other Crusades were motivated by Politics, Economics etc but the first Crusade is kinda different.

Thank you!

striktlymi: Sir Atheist

I am of the opinion that the Seljuk Turks defeated the 
Byzantine army in 1071 and cut off Christian access to Jerusalem, which prompted Alexis I, the Byzantine ruler at the time to implore the aid of Pope Urban II and Western Christian leaders, for fear that all Asia Minor would fall into the hands of the Turks. I believe he was even the one who brought up the idea of the crusade or Pilgrimage which he believes will be directed at freeing Jerusalem from Muslim rule.

When the Turks defeated Alexis I, they cut-off all access into the Holy land, they destroyed a number of holy sites sacred to Christians and the ruthless ruler
caliph Al-Hakim ensured that Christians were persecuted under the Fatimid.

These set the stage for the decision to embark on the first Crusade. I know that the Crusaders lost focus later on, especially after they suffered defeats but it does not mean that the first Crusade was politically motivated from the word go.

It is not uncommon for selfish individuals to use something formed for a good purpose to their selfish interest. An example is the case of the ban of Okada in some places in Lagos. I know full well that the ban was in part but today in Lagos, some police men are carrying out the order as if it was a total ban because of their selfish motive.

I also know for a fact that it is quite common too for conspiracy theorist to take advantage of some situation but really I don't think this totally explains the motive behind the first Crusade. I agree that other Crusades were motivated by Politics, Economics etc but the first Crusade is kinda different.

Thank you!

Jerusalem was in the hands of the fatimids. There was a sea route but it was costly. The land route through anatolia made it easier but was also longer. Either way could have fought the Turks and capured anatolia... left jerusalem with the fatimids as it had always been.

Crusader Lords
Franks

Godfrey of Bouillon
Raymond IV of Toulouse
Stephen II of Blois
Baldwin of Boulogne
Eustace III of Boulogne
Robert II of Flanders
Hugh I of Vermandois

Normans
Robert II of NormandyBohemond of TarantoTancred of Taranto
Of the two main groups the Franks were the most preferable or agreeable when it came to byzantine affairs. Alexius had a mutual understanding with some and got along well with the others.

The Normans however were his bitter enemies in Greece and Italy. He was very sceptical as to how to go about working with them.

He got all the Franks (without too much difficulty) to agree by oath to hand over any conquered territory back to him (some they did.)

The Normans initially refused to take the oath but would eventually give in. Tancred refused outright and never stayed in Byzantium. He smuggled across at night.

The initial march across Asia minor was successful and the crusaders worked hard together to capture Niceae (current Iznik) only for it to be handed over to Alexius. This angered the Normans who felt betrayed. This would be the beginning of things to come.

To summarise, they marched through Turkey, fought and won some great battles (Dorylaeum) and conquered Antioch (where a supposed miracle occurred :-D)
At Antioch the crusader took the main city after months of siege only for them to fail to take the citadel (fortress inside the city). A massive Turkish army had arrived with plans to reconquer the city back. The Franks had fled to get help from the Byzantines but after seeing the large Turkish army they decided the city was lost and abanded the Normans and other crusaders to their fate.
With no food and the Turkish held citadel constantly attacking them, the remaining crusaders in Antioch (Normans and others) experienced a miracle.... the lance used to pierce Jesus on the cross was found. This inspired them to victory against the much larger Turkish army. They ambushed the scattered army early in the morning and the army fled. Antioch was now in crusader hands.
From here they marched to Jerusalem and captured it (after another supposed miracle). The Normans were very vibrant in this conquest and Tancred was supposedly the first knight to enter the city. There is no doubt that they played a major role in the brutal slaughter that was to come. They killed every non xtian in the city.
Jerusalem was proclaimed xtian and latin and a regent was selected (by Adhemar of course) to rule.

PERFIDY
This has been of great debate since.

Antioch was in Turkish hands but Jerusalem was in Fatimid hands. An agreement by Alexius to the Fatimid ruler of Egypt (Vizier of Egypt) was already in place to ensure the Fatimids supported his and the Crusaders wars against the Turks. They actually did. They refused to support the Turks even when they requested it. The invasion and conquest of Jerusalem was perfidy to them by Alexius.

Did alexius know the crusaders plan to conquer Jerusalem? Of course he did. Everyone knew. He planned to use this is to enrich himself and with his oaths enforce the crusaders to abandon all conquered territories to him (including Jerusalem). The moment a regent of Jerusalem was declared (no king of Jerusalem as jesus was the king of Jerusalem... or something along those lines) he was put against the new crusader territories and became an enemy to some extent.
So the new territory had the turks as enemy to the north, the fatimids to the south and east (Damascus) and now the byzantines to the north and northwest.
The fatimids immediately responding by sending an army to crush the crusaders and take Jerusalem. It was defeated and only then were the crusaders given some respite however the crusader lands were divided into 4 main territories (County of Edessa, County of Tripoli, Principality of Antioch and Kindgom of Jerusalem). The whole territory was known as the Latin Kingdom of the Orient or OutRemer.

Note: Edessa was the first Christian kingdom conquered and held by the crusaders (Nicaea was given back to Alexius). The Christians in Edessa rebelled and pushed out their Turkish rulers. Hence it was taken with no bloodshed.

What was the crusade all about?

The Byzantines needed help to fight the Turks. They had witnessed how Frankish and Norman Knights had aided the Spanish kingdoms to fight the Moors of Africa in Spain. He wanted something similar. In Spain the knights fought as part of armies of the Spanish kingdoms with no separate agendas. This was why it was so successful. In the crusades the Normans and Franks had their dukes, barons and other monarchs present and with intentions to hold conquered territories and establish their own kingdoms so greed was a motivating factor.

The Roman Catholic church and the Eastern Orthodox church had been divided and at times in opposition since the great schism. As the byzantines controlled most of the pilgrim routes to Jerusalem they made most of the money from worship, donations etc from pilgrims. It was deemed essentially by the RCC (most likely by the pope) that this be reversed and they have a major presence in the region.

The conquest of Jerusalem set the fatimids at war with the crusader states and eventually with the byzantines hence dragging this war into a Christian–muslim affair.... one the muslims were always going to win in the long run.

Outcome of the crusades
A lot came as a result of the crusades, technology transfer from the east to the west. Trade made Italian city states wealthy (Milan and Venice in particular), new military-religious orders were formed for healthcare and warfare. The first real global banking network was created (by the Knights Templar).

There was however a darker, more insidious outcome of the crusades...

The pope and the RCC now had a potent weapon. The crusades were never about fighting muslims but fighting the enemies of God. Who were these enemies? Only the popes could say and hence crusades were done against pagans (wendish crusade) and xtians (albigensian crusade).
The albigensian crusade was painful. They were known as Cathars, a group of xtians in south France (Languedoc) who were deemed heretical. The pope called for a crusade against them and a disastrous warfare began the destroyed much of the economy of that region of France (they never really recovered). A lot of them were slaughtered, burned etc.
Finally it all came back to the Byzantines. The fourth crusade was hijacked and diverted against them and the byzantines ended up in them being conquered by the crusaders. The pillage and plunder of Constantinople is one of the worst in history. Treasures of over 1000 years of Roman rule were plundered like the worst the Vandals delivered on Rome. The RCC was established in Constantinople but how long would it last?

Rejuvenation of Islam.
Just like how the 100 years war between England and France united France and gave it its identity the crusades united Islam in the Near East and gave it a common enemy. If ever there was a call for jihad this was it. Xtian warrirors attacking, pillaging and killing muslims was more than enough to inspire the least fanatical in Islam. Now they needed unity. The warring crusader states allowed that. The crusaders half asleep and constantly at war with themselves allowed Saladin to creep up and unify Islam (through bloodshed of course) before turning his sword against Xtianity and capturing Jerusalem. So after 100 years Jerusalem was back in Muslim hands. The pope died of shock on hearing the news. A new crusade was called.... the one of kings. England, France and the Holy Roman Emperor. 3 mega titans against the Saladin.

The crusade of kings.... what went wrong?

coming soon!!!!!!