₦airaland Forum

I came across this very interesting post about the Christian crusades that began sometime in the first century AD.

The thing about history is this: it is difficult to come across a completely unbiased narration of events. I'll leave you to judge.

Kindly exit now if you have the attention span of a tweet.

The carnage unleashed by the Christian Crusaders upon the Islamic world they invaded, ostensibly to avenge the mistreatment of Christian pilgrims:

"When the first crusaders came trickling into the Muslim world, the locals had no idea who they were dealing with. Early on, they assumed the interlopers to be Balkan mercenaries working for the emperor in Constantinople. The first Muslim ruler to encounter them was a Seljuk prince, Kilij Arslan, who ruled eastern Anatolia from the city of Nicaea, about three days’ journey from Constantinople.

One day in the summer of 1096, Prince Arslan received information that a crowd of odd-looking warriors had entered his territory, odd because they were so poorly outfitted: a few did look like warriors, but the rest seemed like camp followers of some kind. Almost all wore a cross-shaped patch of red cloth sewn to their garments. Arslan had them followed and watched. He learned that these people called themselves the Franks; local Turks and Arabs called them al-Ifranj (“the Franj”).

The interlopers openly proclaimed that they had come from a distant western land to kill Muslims and conquer Jerusalem, but first they intended to take possession of Nicaea. Arslan plotted out the route they seemed to be taking, laid an ambush, and smashed them like so many ants, killing many, capturing many more, and chasing the rest back into Byzantine lands. It was so easy that he gave them no more thought.

He didn’t know that this “army” was merely the ragtag vanguard of a movement that would plague Muslims of the Mediterranean coast for another two centuries. While Urban had been speaking to the aristocracy up at the monastery, a vagabond named Peter the Hermit had been preaching the same message out on the streets. Urban had addressed nobles and knights, but presumably any Christian who went crusading could get the remission of sins the pope was offering, so Peter the Hermit was able to recruit from all classes—peasants, artisans, tradespeople, even women and children. His “army” left before the formal army could get organized, in part because his “army” didn’t feel much need to get organized. They were off to do God’s work; surely God would take care of the arrangements. It was these tens of thousands of cobblers, butchers, peasants and the like that Kilij Arslan succeeded in crushing.

The next year, when Kilij Arslan heard that more Franj were coming, he dismissed the threat with a shrug. But the Crusaders in this next wave were real knights and archers led by combat-hardened military commanders from a land where the combat never stopped. Arslan’s engagement with them came down to a battle of lightly clad mobile horseman firing arrows at the armored tanks that were the medieval knights of western Europe. The Turks picked off the Franj foot soldiers, but the knights formed defensive blocks that arrows could not penetrate and kept moving slowly, ponderously, and inexorably forward. They took Arslan’s city and sent him running to one of his relatives for refuge. The knights then split up, some heading inland toward Edessa, the rest heading down the Mediterranean coast toward Antioch.

The king of Antioch sent a desperate appeal to the king of Damascus, a man named Daquq. The king of Damascus wanted to help, but he was nervous about his brother Ridwan, the king of Aleppo, who would swoop in and grab Damascus if Daquq were to leave it. The ruler of Mosul agreed to help, but he got distracted fighting someone else along the way, and when he did arrive—late—he got into a fight with Daquq who had also finally arrived—late—and these two Muslim forces ended up going home without helping Antioch at all. From the Muslim side, this was the story of the early Crusades: a tragicomedy of internecine rivalry played out in city after city. When Antioch fell, the knights took vengeance for the city’s resistance with some indiscriminate killing, and then kept heading south, towards a city called Ma’ara.

Knowing what had happened at Nicaea and Antioch, the Ma’arans were terrified. They too sent urgent messages to nearby cousins, begging for help, but their cousins were only too glad to see the wolves from the west batter Ma’ara, each one hoping to absorb the city for himself once the Franj had blown by. So Ma’ara had to face the Franj alone.

The Christian knights set siege to the city and reduced it to desperation— but in the process reduced themselves to desperation as well, because they ate every scrap of food in the vicinity and then commenced to starve. Obviously, no one was going to feed these invaders, and that was the problem with setting a long siege in a strange land.

At last Franj leaders sent a message into the city assuring the people of Ma’ra that none of them would be harmed if they simply opened their gates and surrendered. The city notables decided to comply. But once the Crusaders made it into Ma’ara, they did more than slaughter. They went on a frightening rampage that included boiling adult Muslims up for soup and skewering Muslim children on spits, grilling them over open fires, and eating them.

I know this sounds like horrible propaganda that the defeated Muslims might have concocted to slander the Crusaders, but reports of Crusader cannibalism in this instance come from Frankish as well as Arab sources. Frankish eyewitness Radulph of Caen, for example, reported on the boiling and grilling. Albert of Aix, also present at the conquest of Ma’ara, wrote, “Not only did our troops not shrink from eating dead Turks and Saracens; they also ate dogs!” What strikes me about this statement is the implication that eating dogs was worse than eating Turks, which makes me think that this Franj, at least, considered Turks a different species from himself.

Amazingly enough, even after this debacle, the Muslims could not unite. Examples abound. The ruler of Homs sent the Franj a gift of horses and offered them advice about what they might sack next (not Homs). The Sunni rulers of Tripoli invited the Franj to make common cause with them against the Shi’i. (Instead, the Franj conquered Tripoli.)

When the Crusaders first arrived, the Egyptian vizier al-Afdal sent a letter to the Byzantine emperor, congratulating him on the “reinforcements” and wishing the Crusaders every success! Egypt had long been locked in a struggle with both the Seljuks and the Abbasids, and al-Afdal really thought the newcomers would merely help his cause. It didn’t seem to dawn on him until too late that he himself might be in the line of pillage.

After the Franj conquered Antioch, the Fatimid vizier wrote to them to ask if there was anything he could do to help. When the Franj moved against Tripoli, Afdal took advantage of the distraction to assert control of Jerusalem in the name of the Fatimid khalifa. He posted his own governor there and assured the Franj they were now welcome to visit Jerusalem anytime as honored pilgrims: they would have his protection. But the Franj wrote back to say they were not interested in protection but in Jerusalem, and they were coming “with lances raised.”

The Franj marched through largely empty country, for their reputation had preceded them. Rural folks had fled at their approach, and small towns had emptied into larger cities with higher walls for protection. Jerusalem had some of the highest walls around, but after a forty-day siege, the Crusaders tried the same gambit they had run successfully at Ma’ara—open the gates, no one will be harmed, they told the citizens—and it worked here too.

Upon securing this city, the Franj indulged in an orgy of bloodletting so drastic it made all the previous carnage seem mild. One crusader, writing about the triumph, described piling up heads, hands, and feet in the streets. (He called it a “wonderful sight.”) He spoke of crusaders riding through heathen blood up to their knees and bridle reins. Edward Gibbon, the British historian who chronicled the fall of the Roman Empire, said the Crusaders killed seventy thousand people here over the course of two days. Of the city’s Muslims, virtually none survived.

The city’s Jewish denizens took refuge in their gigantic central synagogue, but while they were in there praying for deliverance, the Crusaders blockaded all the doors and windows and set fire to the building, burning up pretty much the entire Jewish community of Jerusalem in one fell swoop. The city’s native Christians did not fare so well either. None of them belonged to the Church of Rome but to various Eastern churches such as the Greek, Armenian, Coptic, or Nestorian. The crusading Franj looked upon them as schismatics bordering on heresy, and since heretics were almost worse than heathens, they confiscated the property of these eastern Christians and sent them into exile."

~ Source: Destiny Disrupted: A History of the World Through Islamic Eyes by Tamim Ansary

Ishilove:
Kindly exit now if you have the attention span of a tweet.

This comment was unnecessary

Atrocities were committed on both ends. The islamic world should also tell us what they did to Christian pilgrims visiting Jerusalem. None of their writers will mention that it was their actions that eventually led to the idea that Christians must take the Holy land for themselves. The crusades were a direct response to islamic aggression towards Christian pilgrims.

Ishilove:
I came across this very interesting post about the Christian crusades that began sometime in the first century AD. The thing about history is this: it is difficult to come across a completely unbiased narration of events. I'll leave you to judge. Kindly exit now if you have the attention span of a tweet.

The Crusades did not begin in the first century AD.

The Crusades officially began in November 1095 when Pope Urban II proclaimed the First Crusade at the Council of Clermont in France. He called on Western European Christians to take up arms, aid the Byzantine Empire, and recapture Jerusalem and the Holy Land from Muslim rule.

That's almost 10 centuries(1000 years) after the first century. And the crusades came after the Islamist warlords of Arabia had invaded and colonized the following lands, reducing much of the population to slave status:
⚈ Christian ** Egypt(Conquered between 639 - 642)
⚈ Christian Italy(even attacking Rome in 846)
⚈ Christian ** Libya (647 AD - 742 AD)
⚈ Christian ** Tinusia (647 AD - 742 AD)
⚈ Christian ** Algeria (647 AD - 742 AD)
⚈ Christian ** Morocco (647 AD - 742 AD)
⚈ Christian Cypress(even attacking Rome in 846)
⚈ Christian Crete (even attacking Rome in 846)
⚈ Christian Armenia (638 AD - 639 AD)
⚈ Christian Spain ( 711 AD - 714 AD)
⚈ Christian Portugal ( 711 AD - 714 AD)
⚈ Christian Byzantine/Turkey (Circa 8th century)
⚈ Christian Syria-Palestine( 634 AD - 641 AD) .

All of the above were regions that Islam invaded and colonized, enslaving and massacring its way through the Christian world. All of the above took place before the Christians, who then decided it was best they fought back if they were to survive the scourge.

** All of these are African countries.
Important fact for those still unaware. Christianity has been in Africa for about 1900 years now, more than 500 years before Islam came into being. Judaism most likely predates Christianity in Africa, given too.

HeatSeeker:
Atrocities were committed on both ends. The islamic world should also tell us what they did to Christian pilgrims visiting Jerusalem.
➜ None of their writers will mention that it was their actions that eventually led to the idea that Christians must take the Holy land for themselves. The crusades were a direct response to islamic aggression towards Christian pilgrims.

Both sides? Islam violently colonized Christian nations, and that colonization continues to this very day, with half of Africa still under the scourge and enslavement of Islam. Over 40 million people worldwide live as slaves, and the vast majority of them are Africans enslaved in Islamic countries.

2. They do write of it. Much of what is known of the Crusades comes from Islamic sources. They wrote of how the Islamic Allah gave Islam victory over the Christians and the acts they committed against Christians, Jews, and Pagans in the name of Allah. The problem is that in this day of the internet, there has been a campaign to whitewash Islam to make it seem an oppressed political system. But the authentic and revered sources in Islam contain the records to prove Islam for what it really is, a religion spread mostly by violence and subjugation.

Kobojunkie:
Both sides? Islam violently colonized Christian nations, and that colonization continues to this very day, with half of Africa still under the scourge and enslavement of Islam. Over 40 million people worldwide live as slaves, and the vast majority of them are Africans enslaved in Islamic countries.

2. They do write of it. Much of what is known of the Crusades comes from Islamic sources. They wrote of how the Islamic Allah gave Islam victory over the Christians and the acts they committed against Christians, Jews, and Pagans in the name of Allah. The problem is that in this day of the internet, there has been a campaign to whitewash Islam to make it seem an oppressed political system. But the authentic and revered sources in Islam contain the records to prove Islam for what it really is, a religion spread mostly by violence and subjugation.

The enslavement of Israelites in Africa and all over the world is spoken of in the Bible so it is futile trying to make it a big deal. Everyone who found the people of the LORD'S anger devoured them.

When the people were chased away from Jerusalem in 70AD by the force of the roman sword, they were in a devolved state and God made them the prey and food of wild birds and beasts, which has continued till date. Everyone who found them enslaved them.

This enslavement has continued till date, it has become more subtle, replacing the heavy iron chains of transsaharan and transatlantic salve trade with the invisible heavier irons of neoliberal imperialistic vague economic theorems that no one understands but which continue to guarantee further impoverishment and enslavement of their targets

ALL WHO FOUND THEM DEVOURED THEM!

Isaiah 42:24 KJV
Who gave Jacob for a spoil, and Israel to the robbers? did not the Lord, he against whom we have sinned? for they would not walk in his ways, neither were they obedient unto his law.

Jeremiah 50:7 KJB
All that found them have devoured them: and their adversaries said, We offend not, because they have sinned against the Lord, the habitation of justice, even the Lord, the hope of their fathers.

HeatSeeker:
This comment was unnecessary

Actually, it isn't. I don't want anyone to start spamming the thread with "plz summarize".

Kobojunkie:
The Crusades did not begin in the first century AD. That's almost 10 centuries(1000 years) after the first century. And the crusades came after the Islamist warlords of Arabia had invaded and colonized the following lands, reducing much of the population to slave status:
⚈ Christian Egypt(Conquered between 639 - 642)
⚈ Christian Italy(even attacking Rome in 846)
⚈ Christian Libya (647 AD - 742 AD)
⚈ Christian Tinusia (647 AD - 742 AD)
⚈ Christian Algeria (647 AD - 742 AD)
⚈ Christian Morocco (647 AD - 742 AD)
⚈ Christian Cypress(even attacking Rome in 846)
⚈ Christian Crete (even attacking Rome in 846)
⚈ Christian Armenia (638 AD - 639 AD)
⚈ Christian Spain ( 711 AD - 714 AD)
⚈ Christian Portugal ( 711 AD - 714 AD)
⚈ Christian Byzantine/Turkey (Circa 8th century)
⚈ Christian Syria-Palestine( 634 AD - 641 AD) .

All of the above were regions that Islam invaded and colonized, enslaving and massacring its way through the Christian world. All of the above took place before the Christians, who then decided it was best they fought back if they were to survive the scourge.

I know when it began. That century thing confuses me a lot. 1095 is the ELEVENTH century, not FIRST 😂😂😂😂

Ishilove:
I came across this very interesting post about the Christian crusades that began sometime in the first century AD.

The thing about history is this: it is difficult to come across a completely unbiased narration of events. I'll leave you to judge.

Kindly exit now if you have the attention span of a tweet.

Bolded's right. This is one side of the story.

If we are talking about the crusades, I think it is equally germane to ask. What was the fate of several hundred thousand blacks that the Arabs raided from Africa as slaves? How come there aren't any remnants of black populations in the middle east today?

The crusades were an inevitable response to the mindless bloodletting and wiping out of predominantly Christian communities by ravaging hoards of jihadists.

I hope you all wake to see that religion is fake

Ishilove:
I came across this very interesting post about the Christian crusades that began sometime in the first century AD.

The thing about history is this: it is difficult to come across a completely unbiased narration of events. I'll leave you to judge.

Kindly exit now if you have the attention span of a tweet.

There are some very interesting account in the "The Silk Roads: A New History of the World" by Oxford historian Peter Frankopan.

It will make you see the current crisis in modern day west Asia and the role played by China, Turkey, Russia, Italy and India/Pakistan as a cycle of history that goes way back.

Below is pix of my hardcopy of the book.

Nonesense post. The crusade was formed as a reesult of the Muslim Ottoman Empire that were killing millions of Christians and jews in Europe and around the world. The European Christians then formed the crusade to teach Muslims a lesson and defend Christianity from extinction[s][/s]

Kobojunkie:
The Crusades did not begin in the first century AD. That's almost 10 centuries(1000 years) after the first century. And the crusades came after the Islamist warlords of Arabia had invaded and colonized the following lands, reducing much of the population to slave status:
⚈ Christian Egypt(Conquered between 639 - 642)
⚈ Christian Italy(even attacking Rome in 846)
⚈ Christian Libya (647 AD - 742 AD)
⚈ Christian Tinusia (647 AD - 742 AD)
⚈ Christian Algeria (647 AD - 742 AD)
⚈ Christian Morocco (647 AD - 742 AD)
⚈ Christian Cypress(even attacking Rome in 846)
⚈ Christian Crete (even attacking Rome in 846)
⚈ Christian Armenia (638 AD - 639 AD)
⚈ Christian Spain ( 711 AD - 714 AD)
⚈ Christian Portugal ( 711 AD - 714 AD)
⚈ Christian Byzantine/Turkey (Circa 8th century)
⚈ Christian Syria-Palestine( 634 AD - 641 AD) .

All of the above were regions that Islam invaded and colonized, enslaving and massacring its way through the Christian world. All of the above took place before the Christians, who then decided it was best they fought back if they were to survive the scourge.

Its all politics......and these are not taught and encouraged as free thought and speech in our socities

HeatSeeker:
This comment was unnecessary

she just derail the thread unnecessarily

HeatSeeker:
Atrocities were committed on both ends. The islamic world should also tell us what they did to Christian pilgrims visiting Jerusalem. None of their writers will mention that it was their actions that eventually led to the idea that Christians must take the Holy land for themselves. The crusades were a direct response to islamic aggression towards Christian pilgrims.

Please search the history books and tell us what the Muslims did to the Pilgrims.

Also, tell us what the Muslims Rulers did that made it a Religious duty for Christians in Europe to wage such a relentless war on the inhabitants of that same Holy Land considering the fact that the same Europe told us that Peter was built Jesus Church in Rome and not Jerusalem.

I will wait....

The knife is a household object, but can be used as a weapon.

The tool no matter how good, is dependent on the users intent for it

Just like the way the Fulanis are ravaging nigeria now and when others stood up to them,...then they cry like babies

odd-looking warriors had entered his territory, odd because they were so poorly outfitted: a few did look like warriors, but the rest seemed like camp followers of some kind. Almost all wore a cross-shaped patch of red cloth sewn to their garments.



Exactly the same way Islamic terrorists sneak into communities in the south of Nigeria in readiness for their Jihad.

Before you cry about the crusades
First whine about jihad which is ongoing till today

Everyone is a hero/victim on their own story

sweetjohn:
Nonesense post. The crusade was formed as a reesult of the Muslim Ottoman Empire that were killing millions of Christians and jews in Europe and around the world. The European Christians then formed the crusade to teach Muslims a lesson and defend Christianity from extinction[s][/s]

You're missing the point. Yes, the Crusades did not arise in a vacuum; They were, in part, a response to years of conflict and Muslim expansion into Christian lands. But that doesn't mean they should be seen as some glorious or heroic campaign. They also involved massacres, brutality, and the suffering of countless innocent people. History is best understood with all its complexity, not through romanticised stories.

Like HeatSeeker pointed out up there, blood curdling, hair raising atrocities were committed on both sides.

Why did the crusades happen? Can you Islamists jihadists tell us why?

Same story everytime.

You guys start wars against weak people and when they fight baxk you go Àbout crying and playing victim.

FreeStuffsNG:
There are some very interesting account in the "The Silk Roads: A New History of the World" by Oxford historian Peter Frankopan.

It will make you see the current crisis in modern day west Asia and the role played by China, Turkey, Russia, Italy and India/Pakistan as a cycle of history that goes way back.

Below is pix of my hardcopy of the book.

Thank you. I'll search out the hard copy.

aybabz101:
Just like the way the Fulanis are ravaging nigeria now and when others stood up to them,...then they cry like babies

People fail to learn from history. When one religion takes up weapons against another religion by acts of terrorism or banditry, the victims cannot keep enduring the attacks forever. Humans of any race or religion are capable of violence revolution if pushed to the point of extinction/genocide.

”The thing about history is this: it is difficult to come across a completely unbiased narration of events. I'll leave you to judge
This is definitely not a sensible thing to say. If you want to talk about the atrocities committed by the crusaders, why not start by telling us what that very word “crusade” means?
It was a series of wars fought in response to years of violence and torture in the hands of Islam. It was a series of war fought to reclaim. Now, do you reclaim what was never stolen from you? This annoyingly silly trend of setting a bad precedent only to start crying victim really needs to stop. It’s annoying. Today, Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran are doing just the exact same thing. Just last week, on Friday I think, Iran bombed a cargo ship plying the Hormuz even while a ceasefire agreement was ongoing but if the US should retaliate and level down the country like Israel often does with Gaza, you will see them crawling out of their burrows to cry to the world about how they are killing “babies” and committing massacres.
We all need to come to the realization that actions have consequences. The crusade and its consequences was a painful response to years of violent oppression, ethnic cleansing and massacres in the hands of hardline Muslims but instead of blaming those who started it, we are here talking about the atrocities committed by those who were only defending and liberating themselves.

Funny the op failed to mention Constantinople and Anatolia were Christians cities for more than a millennium, both the Muslims and Christians committed genocide on a scale unimaginable.

"Constantinople was the jewel of Eastern Christendom for over 1,100 years"
Anatolia was also a Christian city.

These foreign religions aren't from God, they're all man made and it's clear as day 😂

Wicked revisionism!
To project Muslims as victims
And project Islamophobia
When they are till this day
The chief terrorists of the world.
Jihadists will kill many more
Before Jesus returns...

Thank you....the spirit of conquered and occupied is embelded in Islam,.and I see no reason why anyone can blamed the actions of the crusaders, difficult as it was for them the idea of saving Jerusalem from this salvages was a necessity.
Islam world participated in slavery and slave trade yet today none of their scholars can boldly accept this fact or admit to it.
This people were active in east Africa at the coast Zambezi acting as middlemen for the Europeans.
The jihad of Usman dan fodio(1804)that swept across the north and some parts of today central Nigeria was total madness that claimed unaccountable lives of other faiths.....yet in many schools especially in the north none of them can mention what happen to none muslims and those who dares to resist Islam.
It's unfortunately unfortunate that we found ourselves in the middle of this people.

HeatSeeker:
Atrocities were committed on both ends. The islamic world should also tell us what they did to Christian pilgrims visiting Jerusalem. None of their writers will mention that it was their actions that eventually led to the idea that Christians must take the Holy land for themselves. The crusades were a direct response to islamic aggression towards Christian pilgrims.