PDA

View Full Version : The Crusades



pefjr
12-07-2009, 12:09 PM
Is the conflict in the middle east just a continuation of the Crusades? GW called it a Crusade but it was quieted. Fanatical muslims are calling it a jihad and not quieted.

peb
12-07-2009, 12:14 PM
Is the conflict in the middle east just a continuation of the Crusades? GW called it a Crusade but it was quieted. Fanatical muslims are calling it a jihad and not quieted.

No. The crusades are long over. You might say it is a continuation of the centuries long war between Islam and the West (I am not for sure if I hold this view), but the crusades were a particular part of that war. So it is definitely not part of the crusades.

Nicholas Scheuer
12-07-2009, 12:14 PM
In Catholic elementary school we were told that the Crusades were about wrenching Jerusalem out of the hands of "Infadels", and to recover the Chalice that Jesus used at the Last Supper.

I believe George Bush and Barack Obama have different objectives. Neither has mentioned the Chalice, and Israel is in firm control of Jerusalem.

Moby Nick

paladin
12-07-2009, 12:55 PM
Two factions fighting each other because God was on their respective side.....

Does anyone know the prime piece of technology that enabled the Arabs to defeat the Crusaders?

Uncle Duke
12-07-2009, 01:01 PM
Is the conflict in the middle east just a continuation of the Crusades?
Which conflict do you mean? Israeli vs Palestinian is different than Islamic Fundamentalism, which seeks restoration of the "Caliphate", I think.
See the section "Reestablishment of the Caliphate", especially the sub_section "Islamist Call" here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliphate

A number of Islamist political parties and Islamist guerrilla groups have called for the restoration of the caliphate by uniting Muslim nations, either through political action (e.g., Hizb ut-Tahrir) or through force (e.g., al-Qaeda). Various Islamist movements have gained momentum in recent years with the ultimate aim of establishing a Caliphate; however, they differ in their methodology and approach. Some are locally-oriented, mainstream political parties that have no apparent transnational objectives.

Kaa
12-07-2009, 01:09 PM
No it is most certainly not a continuation of the Crusades. Crusading has been dead for several hundred years.

the basic "deal" in the Crusades was:

"You go on Crusade and your sins will be forgiven you."

For the upper classes in mediaval Europe, most of whom were very sinful (the murder rate in medieval England was four times what it is today, and rapes of peasant's daughters were not even counted) this was a good deal.

Well, kinda. There were lot and lots of other ways to get your sins forgiven, especially if you were a noble.

I would probably describe the basic deal of the Crusades as

"You go on a Crusade and not only will your sins be forgiven, but you'll rape and plunder and get a chance to become filthy rich and maybe even get your own fief on the land taken from the Arabs".

Now *that* was an excellent deal, especially for the non-eldest sons of nobles who didn't stand to inherit much in the way of land.

Kaa

Popeye
12-07-2009, 01:14 PM
Does anyone know the prime piece of technology that enabled the Arabs to defeat the Crusaders?

incendiary weapons ?

Syed
12-07-2009, 01:27 PM
Two factions fighting each other because God was on their respective side.....

Does anyone know the prime piece of technology that enabled the Arabs to defeat the Crusaders?

Archery!

Kaa
12-07-2009, 01:28 PM
Does anyone know the prime piece of technology that enabled the Arabs to defeat the Crusaders?

Hmm... I don't know. I always assumed that the Crusades run out steam mostly because of economics and will (as in, lack of).

Tactically, I suspect the heavily-armored European knights had many difficulties in the hot sands of the Middle East. Light cavalry could and probably did dance rings around them.

Kaa

pefjr
12-07-2009, 01:33 PM
Two factions fighting each other because God was on their respective side.....

Does anyone know the prime piece of technology that enabled the Arabs to defeat the Crusaders?prayer:D

2MeterTroll
12-07-2009, 01:33 PM
Two factions fighting each other because God was on their respective side.....

Does anyone know the prime piece of technology that enabled the Arabs to defeat the Crusaders?
washing there hands and having a brain when it came to recovery.
sterilized surgical instruments.
an actual understanding of where and how disease was spread.
Theres just so many things Paladen. To many to count really.
Thats why George won the crusades in the 40's all it took was dividing up the middle east and giving jerusilim to the jews. he fulfilled to the letter the edict of the holy see.

John of Phoenix
12-07-2009, 01:34 PM
I'm thinking crossbows with metal tipped bolts to penetrate armor.

Keith Wilson
12-07-2009, 01:44 PM
Is the conflict in the middle east just a continuation of the Crusades?No.

Glen Longino
12-07-2009, 01:47 PM
stirrups? (sp)
Ooops! I should have googled first.
Stirrups were in use before the Crusades.

Popeye
12-07-2009, 01:56 PM
those satin baggy pants and curly toed golden slippers must have taken everyone by surprise

paladin
12-07-2009, 02:11 PM
Glen hit it......stirrups were in total use by Arab Nations....the Crusaders generally used saddles without stirrups, or the few that did were merely toe straps....the Arab could turn and twist in the saddle without being dismounted when fighting....The crusaders were easily unhorsed and had to fight more or less straight ahead.....even the plains indians developed a makeshift stirrup when riding bareback or with a blanket allowing them to turn and shoot a bow from the horses back...without the aid of the white mans' saddle.

Kaa
12-07-2009, 02:24 PM
Glen hit it......stirrups were in total use by Arab Nations....the Crusaders generally used saddles without stirrups, or the few that did were merely toe straps...

Urban legend, I'm afraid. The European horsemen acquired the stirrup from the same source as the Arabs -- from the Monglols -- but that happened way before the crusades.

In fact, there is a popular theory which says:



Dr. Lynn White Jr. in his book "Medieval Technology and Social Change", explicitly states that there is a direct causal relationship between the adoption of the stirrup for cavalry and the introduction and development of "feudalism" in Carolingian France. His belief is that the stirrup was necessary for "shock troop" capability and that without it, the mounted knight could not have evolved. His hypothesis started a fire storm among historians since it attributed a major social system, the feudal system, to a simple, mechanical device. Scholars with vested interest in the social causes of societal change were profoundly offended and a battle was joined that continues today.

From a technical point of view, White proposes that the energy transfer from animal to human to lance is enabled primarily by the coupling of the stirrup. It connects the horse's 1000 pounds and forty miles-an-hour speed to the end of the couched (under arm) lance via the knight. This massive momentum was used much like a tank to take down massed foot troops or mounted warriors. It gives competitive advantage to the user primarily in striking force, over powering lightly armored horsemen

That makes sense to me -- I can't imagine stirrup-less heavy cavalry and the European nobles at the times of the Crusades were definitely *heavy* cavalry.

Kaa

TomF
12-07-2009, 02:30 PM
And here I was thinking Paladin was meaning the Arabs' preference for using mares (for manouverability) vs. the Europeans' preference for using stallions (for strength/aggression). True.

Seems to me that a mare in season left to run near the Crusaders' camp might leave a few unlucky knights ... unhorsed.

John of Phoenix
12-07-2009, 02:32 PM
Early biological warfare.

paladin
12-07-2009, 03:05 PM
May I suggest, taking a very close look at the early paintings of the crusades...Knights, horses etc and note the difference in trappings on the saddles.
Yes, the stirrups came from the same source...but were developed differently....I don't mean recreations of Knights...I mean the actual paintings from the period.....and the development of the saddle etc.

and part of it was Tom's posting above....

Kaa
12-07-2009, 03:18 PM
May I suggest, taking a very close look at the early paintings of the crusades...Knights, horses etc and note the difference in trappings on the saddles.
Yes, the stirrups came from the same source...but were developed differently....I don't mean recreations of Knights...I mean the actual paintings from the period.....and the development of the saddle etc.

Sure. Let's take a look at the Bayeux Tapestry (likely second half of the XI century):

http://www.albion-swords.com/articles/images/norman/bayeux2.jpg

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/MEDspurs.jpg

Stirrups, stirrups everywhere...

Kaa

TimH
12-07-2009, 04:02 PM
interesting.

The specific crusades to restore Christian control of the Holy Land (http://woodenboat.com/wiki/Holy_Land) were fought over a period of nearly 200 years, between 1095 and 1291. Other campaigns in Spain and Eastern Europe continued into the 15th century. The Crusades were fought mainly against Muslims (http://woodenboat.com/wiki/Muslim)

TimH
12-07-2009, 04:03 PM
It seems that there were indeed stirrups during the crusades.

Did they have roadside bombs back then? that could explain it. :)

Glen Longino
12-07-2009, 04:40 PM
An interesting side-note is that most middle-eastern countries maintain stables of Arabian horses and have done so continuously since antiquity, with pedigrees that reach back into antiquity.
There are as many famous horses among Arabs as there are famous people.
When Iraq fell, one of my first thoughts was what would happen to the horses in the Iraqi stud.
It seems that they were kept virtually harmless, to my relief.
I've always liked Arabian horses and had a few, along with quarter horses. But in my part of the country most people detest the Arabian horse for the same reasons they detest Mexicans and Arabs.
Every chance I get, I tell my ornery neighbors they don't like Arabian horses because the horses have more sense than they do, are better looking, and don't chew tobacco.

TimH
12-07-2009, 04:58 PM
too small.

Glen Longino
12-07-2009, 05:09 PM
too small.

Heheh! I've heard that before too!

TimH
12-07-2009, 05:14 PM
They are good for endurance racing with lightweight people though.

peb
12-07-2009, 05:25 PM
interesting.

The specific crusades to restore Christian control of the Holy Land (http://woodenboat.com/wiki/Holy_Land) were fought over a period of nearly 200 years, between 1095 and 1291. Other campaigns in Spain and Eastern Europe continued into the 15th century. The Crusades were fought mainly against Muslims (http://woodenboat.com/wiki/Muslim)

It was not just Eastern Europe, but well into central Europe and your century a couple of hundred years offalso. The battle of Lepanto, a sea armada aimed at Italy was in the lat 16th century. The Battle of Vienna in 1683 somewhat marks the end of Islamic attempts to conquer Europe.

TimH
12-07-2009, 05:35 PM
your century a couple of hundred years offalso.

Take it up with Wikipedia.

Glen Longino
12-07-2009, 05:35 PM
They are good for endurance racing with lightweight people though.

Yes! I can understand why cowboys around here don't rope off Arabians since they are light-weight.
But most of these boys either love something or they hate it, no tolerance.
I guess I appreciate the heritage of those horses back to King Solomon, whereas most of my friends appreciate horses back to their last rodeo.
Speaking of rodeos, my neighbor, Cody Ohl, is in Las Vegas at the Big Time Rodeo trying to win another world championship tie-down roping title, which would be #6.
And he ain't riding an Arabian!;)

Big Woody
12-07-2009, 06:00 PM
Every chance I get, I tell my ornery neighbors they don't like Arabian horses because the horses have more sense than they do, are better looking, and don't chew tobacco.
I think I know why you've got ornery neighbors. :cool:

Glen Longino
12-07-2009, 06:05 PM
I think I know why you've got ornery neighbors. :cool:

Nope! They were this way long before I got here.;)

skuthorp
12-08-2009, 05:13 AM
Rome sent expeditions to wipe out what they saw as rivals to their version of christianity and a challenge to their power. They haven't changed a lot really, people were always regarded as dispensible.