5 ms·

And they were Jewish or Pagan before the Christians forced their way in. Check out this article: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_violence#Chris

by mkaziz 11y ago

And they were Jewish or Pagan before the Christians forced their way in. Check out this article: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_violence#Christian_violence https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_violence#Ch... Those old warrior popes sound a lot like the Mullahs of today. I particular enjoyed this line: "In the 12th century, Bernard of Clairvaux wrote: "'The knight of Christ may strike with confidence and die yet more confidently; for he serves Christ when he strikes, and saves himself when he falls.... When he inflicts death, it is to Christ's profit, and when he suffers death, it is his own gain.'""

DanielBMarkham 11y ago
Agreed that in general it's an eerie thing. There are some interesting similarities, especially with the First Crusade and ISIS. There are also some striking differences. Aside from the Byzantine, Christianity was mostly monolithic, with secular rulers jockeying for power inside of one Pope. On the other side, the religious and secular authority were both the same person. This led, over time, to the crusades being a way of wielding internal control over Christiandom, because one guy (the Pope) could preach a crusade against any local, domestic opponents and get some kind of traction out of it. Islam has no centralized authority. (Lots of other differences also)
- maaku 11y ago
  Eh that's only true of Western Christiandom, which was of relatively less importance until the fall of Byzantine. It certainly doesn't describe the various Orthodox sects, which either didn't participate or were sometimes victims in the crusades.
  - DanielBMarkham 11y ago
    Absolutely. As I noted. The Crusades were full of ironies. One of the most prominent was that they ended up sacking Constantinople, which was exactly the opposite intent of how it all started.
- junto 11y ago
  More striking is the US and Allied invasion of Iraq, and their resemblance to the crusades. I would imagine that US fundamental Christians see that rather obviously?
  - DanielBMarkham 11y ago
    Not at all, actually. The Crusades started off when the Patriarch of Constantinople wrote a letter to the Pope wanting money, basically. He talked about how the Holy Land was in jeopardy and pilgrims couldn't make their pilgrimages anymore. So the Pope preaches a sermon about how bad things are in the Holy Land. Tons of regular people decided to go over there and fight to "take it back" The nobles saw what was happening and ended up more joining in than anything else. (They did not lead it) So here you have this ragtag army of regular citizens making a huge land journey. It must have been like locusts for the poor villages in the way. The nobles that participated, meanwhile, did what they could to try to turn this disorganized mob into some kind of organized fighting force. When they showed up, they simply overwhelmed the Islamic forces that were there. Ended up taking a huge swath of territory. Does any of this sound familiar? Sermons, unintended consequences, common-man-as-warrior, huge victory because nobody was prepared, etc? That's ISIS. It took over a hundred years for the effects of the First Crusade to wear off, and yes, in that time there were many more. But in the end the Crusaders turned out to be really good at being true believers and fighting and dying for their cause. Maintaining a complex series of alliances in a land that was hostile? Not so much. Wonder if ISIS will manage to last that long. Doubtful.

by mkaziz 11y ago

DanielBMarkham 11y ago

Agreed that in general it's an eerie thing. There are some interesting similarities, especially with the First Crusade and ISIS. There are also some striking differences. Aside from the Byzantine, Christianity was mostly monolithic, with secular rulers jockeying for power inside of one Pope. On the other side, the religious and secular authority were both the same person. This led, over time, to the crusades being a way of wielding internal control over Christiandom, because one guy (the Pope) could preach a crusade against any local, domestic opponents and get some kind of traction out of it. Islam has no centralized authority. (Lots of other differences also)

maaku 11y ago
Eh that's only true of Western Christiandom, which was of relatively less importance until the fall of Byzantine. It certainly doesn't describe the various Orthodox sects, which either didn't participate or were sometimes victims in the crusades.
- DanielBMarkham 11y ago
  Absolutely. As I noted. The Crusades were full of ironies. One of the most prominent was that they ended up sacking Constantinople, which was exactly the opposite intent of how it all started.
junto 11y ago
More striking is the US and Allied invasion of Iraq, and their resemblance to the crusades. I would imagine that US fundamental Christians see that rather obviously?
- DanielBMarkham 11y ago
  Not at all, actually. The Crusades started off when the Patriarch of Constantinople wrote a letter to the Pope wanting money, basically. He talked about how the Holy Land was in jeopardy and pilgrims couldn't make their pilgrimages anymore. So the Pope preaches a sermon about how bad things are in the Holy Land. Tons of regular people decided to go over there and fight to "take it back" The nobles saw what was happening and ended up more joining in than anything else. (They did not lead it) So here you have this ragtag army of regular citizens making a huge land journey. It must have been like locusts for the poor villages in the way. The nobles that participated, meanwhile, did what they could to try to turn this disorganized mob into some kind of organized fighting force. When they showed up, they simply overwhelmed the Islamic forces that were there. Ended up taking a huge swath of territory. Does any of this sound familiar? Sermons, unintended consequences, common-man-as-warrior, huge victory because nobody was prepared, etc? That's ISIS. It took over a hundred years for the effects of the First Crusade to wear off, and yes, in that time there were many more. But in the end the Crusaders turned out to be really good at being true believers and fighting and dying for their cause. Maintaining a complex series of alliances in a land that was hostile? Not so much. Wonder if ISIS will manage to last that long. Doubtful.