No Crusades

I have heard it alleged that the motivation of the Pope- I think he was calll Urban- in calling for the crusades were mixed and questionable.

WI the Crusades had not been called.

Would Moslem Christian relations have been better? Would Moslems have advanced furhter or less far into Europe?

Would their have been more violence within Christian Europe without an alternative opportunity to deal with aggression
 
Derek Jackson said:
I have heard it alleged that the motivation of the Pope- I think he was calll Urban- in calling for the crusades were mixed and questionable.

WI the Crusades had not been called.

Would Moslem Christian relations have been better? Would Moslems have advanced furhter or less far into Europe?

Would their have been more violence within Christian Europe without an alternative opportunity to deal with aggression

Short answer, no.

The crusades impact on the muslim world was minimal, it is only used as a red herring by islamofascists and their western apologists to justify the current actions by those extremists.

The impact on the west is much more significant. The crusaders learned (the hard way) the importance of logistics, which led to the development of more efficient militaries. They also encountered for the first time byzantine fortresses, which inspired a castle building boom in europe. They also developed an increased taste for oriental goods, which increased trade to the region.

In sum, the crusades stimulated the development of education in the west at the same time as the mongols destroyed the centers of learning in the middle east.
 
Hansmeister said:
Short answer, no.

The crusades impact on the muslim world was minimal, it is only used as a red herring by islamofascists and their western apologists to justify the current actions by those extremists.

The impact on the west is much more significant. The crusaders learned (the hard way) the importance of logistics, which led to the development of more efficient militaries. They also encountered for the first time byzantine fortresses, which inspired a castle building boom in europe. They also developed an increased taste for oriental goods, which increased trade to the region.

In sum, the crusades stimulated the development of education in the west at the same time as the mongols destroyed the centers of learning in the middle east.
Agreed, the impact of the Crusades on the Arabic world was limited. Additionally, the urge to go out of the traditional borders of Europe was already there: population increase, unrests among the peasants, a lot of 2nd, 3rd and so on sons of the aristocracy. The Italian republics were already trading with the East, and wanted to secure basis.
Overall, it may look like the traditional Papal appeal to go and redeem the Holy Places was something tacked on to justify and use a movement alrady in place.
 

NapoleonXIV

Banned
Quite possibly Europe would remain a dirty backwater until much later. It certainly would have been far more barbarous. Most of the code of Chivalry was adopted out of shame, by Christians who noticed how much fairer and more merciful the muslims were in combat.

Hopefully, the sordid misadventure that was the Fourth Crusade would still result in Constantinople's sack. If Europe had not been stimulated by the flood of books from the Ancients that had been preserved in the Great City over the centuries the Renaissance might easily have been delayed by a century or more
 
Derek Jackson said:
I have heard it alleged that the motivation of the Pope- I think he was calll Urban- in calling for the crusades were mixed and questionable.

WI the Crusades had not been called.

Would Moslem Christian relations have been better? Would Moslems have advanced furhter or less far into Europe?

Would their have been more violence within Christian Europe without an alternative opportunity to deal with aggression

The best way to avoid the crusades is to have the Moslems NOT attack the Byzantium Empire in the first place.
 
Hansmeister said:
Short answer, no.

The crusades impact on the muslim world was minimal, it is only used as a red herring by islamofascists and their western apologists to justify the current actions by those extremists.

The impact on the west is much more significant. The crusaders learned (the hard way) the importance of logistics, which led to the development of more efficient militaries. They also encountered for the first time byzantine fortresses, which inspired a castle building boom in europe. They also developed an increased taste for oriental goods, which increased trade to the region.

In sum, the crusades stimulated the development of education in the west at the same time as the mongols destroyed the centers of learning in the middle east.

Actually that's quite wrong, although not in the way you mean. The impact of the Crusades on Islam was actually immense, although not particularly negative.

The (non-Turkic) Muslim world was pretty moribund at the time, and the need to repel the Crusaders was intensely galvanizing and re-energized the Muslim Mid East, and not a moment too soon, as the Mongols were soon to turn up.

Islam also benefitted from exposure to new ideas and peoples and the increase in trade.

It also set the tone for future relations with Islam - don't forget, the Crusades lasted for centuries, no matter how ineffectual the later ones were - they extended all the way into the 14th c against the Ottomans at the Battle of Nikopolis.
 
Derek Jackson said:
I have heard it alleged that the motivation of the Pope- I think he was calll Urban- in calling for the crusades were mixed and questionable.

WI the Crusades had not been called.

Would Moslem Christian relations have been better? Would Moslems have advanced furhter or less far into Europe?

Would their have been more violence within Christian Europe without an alternative opportunity to deal with aggression

The Crusades were actually the result of a call from the Byzantine Emperor to which the Pope was merely responding - I suspect that forces would have been sent with or without him, as Europe had a giant surplus of energy at the time. It seems to me that the POD would have to be a Byzantine victory over the Seljuks, which might obviate the need for Crusades in any case.

Maybe a storm could sink the Crusader fleet and everyone takes it as a Sign from Above and discontinues the movement.
 
Abdul, if you're as familiar with the history of the First Crusade as your performence on the board suggests you are, then you know just how many signs and other evidence of bad luck the Crusaders managed to ignore. Perhaps if they had REALLY been on a mission from God, and not a mission to grab estates...?

I might also note that the efforts by Urban and the church were, oh, a wee bit late in response to the original request for aid. When was it issued, about 20 years after the Battle of Manzikert?

Reminds of me P.J. O'Rourke discussing 'the troubles' in Ireland. After boasting of how it all began with one of his own relatives(a wife snatcher or some such), he notes that his distant kinsman in England(King Edward the Whatever) rushed to his Irish kins salvation only 20 years after the original plea for help.
 
Thread Ressurection

Do you know what an interesting possibility would be?

WI Alexios I Komnēnos' call for mercenaries to be placed under Rhomaioi command to retake Anatolia had been answered... by mercenaries to be placed under Rhomaioi command to retake Anatolia.

Pope Urban's call for a crusade was a painful case of unconsious misdirection (few Franks knew jack about Anatolian and Levantine Geography), and the bands of fanatics & fortune-seekers were the last thing the Emperor wanted or needed.

A few forces of heavy calvary and/or infantry competently directed against the still nebulous Seljuik/Turcoman domains might have turned the tide (and if given land, the various Frankish forces could have helped undo the damage caused by converting the farms of soldier-freeholders to sheep pasture or absentee landlords)

HTG
 

Kadyet

Banned
The Crusades simply would have gone elsewhere. There were crusades against the Albigensians in France, against the Muslims in Spain and Portugal, against them in Sicily, and against pagans in Bohemia and Eastern Europe.
 

Straha

Banned
a crusade thats instead directed against eastern european pagans may mean more friendly relations between islam and christendom eventually
 
Kadyet said:
The Crusades simply would have gone elsewhere. There were crusades against the Albigensians in France, against the Muslims in Spain and Portugal, against them in Sicily, and against pagans in Bohemia and Eastern Europe.

The first crusade took place in 1096-99, the Albingensian in 1209-45. Between 1096 and 1209, how would those efforts and energies be used? In Spain, Sicily, Prussia?
 
So, does no Crusades also mean no cont'd Islamic hatred and animosity to the West due to OTL atrocities like the 1099 Jerusalem massacre which was committed by the Franks uttering Jesus' name ?
 
Melvin Loh said:
So, does no Crusades also mean no cont'd Islamic hatred and animosity to the West due to OTL atrocities like the 1099 Jerusalem massacre which was committed by the Franks uttering Jesus' name ?

I don't think anyone was really thinking about that at the time - everyone behaved that way in those days. Also, the attitude of Islam toward the West from the 11th c to the 18th was essentially indiference, not hatred. After that it was respect and fear - the hatred is a 20th c thing and is imtimately related to imperialism and the creation of Israel.
 

Faeelin

Banned
Abdul Hadi Pasha said:
Actually that's quite wrong, although not in the way you mean. The impact of the Crusades on Islam was actually immense, although not particularly negative.

The (non-Turkic) Muslim world was pretty moribund at the time, and the need to repel the Crusaders was intensely galvanizing and re-energized the Muslim Mid East, and not a moment too soon, as the Mongols were soon to turn up.

Fat lot of good it did them, if that's the case.
 
Kadyet said:
Probably Spain and Sicily.
Sicily was already Norman, since 1030. And the Norman kings were sniffing in North Africa and in Epyrus.
But the main commerce was with the ME: given the aggressivity of merchants, the need to safeguard trade routes and the appetites of the Sicilian Normans (coupled with a weak Islamic ME), I would think that the Crusades (or a reasonable facsimile) would be very hard to butterfly away.
Unless you get an early Black Death: this might really change the priorities.
 
LordKalvan said:
Sicily was already Norman, since 1030. And the Norman kings were sniffing in North Africa and in Epyrus.
But the main commerce was with the ME: given the aggressivity of merchants, the need to safeguard trade routes and the appetites of the Sicilian Normans (coupled with a weak Islamic ME), I would think that the Crusades (or a reasonable facsimile) would be very hard to butterfly away.
Oh I agree that House d'Altavilla and perhaps some other mediterranian powers may take advantage of the anarchy in the Levant around that time. However the differences are noticable
  • Not as much rabble (if any) shambling in from beyond the Alps really reduces the manpower and forces the need for a more delicate political touch on the part of the aggressors.
  • Fewer millinialist progroms against European Jewery.
  • Stronger Rhomaioi hold on Anatolia with the Turkish invaders either dead, fled, or offering themselves in vassalage.
  • Perhaps a more charitable perception of the Franks on the part of the Romans due to the more diciplined nature of the forces passing through and settling the marchlands. Not to mention a reduction of ferocious anti Rhomaioi bigotry in the west.

HTG
 
Abdul Hadi Pasha said:
Why do you say that? The Mamelukes were able to defeat the Mongols. If they hadn't Islam would have been screwed.
Not that certain of this on several counts.
  • The Mamelukes fell upon a rear-guard and took them out, but attention was directed back towards Karakoum and a full-sized force in Syria would have been another story.
  • The Sinai was not good horse country by any stretch and a full sized invasion could easily have been choked off there
  • Unless the Mongols saw fit to depopulate the Nile Valley (much harder to wreck the agriculture due to the lack of actual infrastructure needed), I do not see the local Khans eliminating Islam (even if they never convert they cannot place any real penalties on the local Muslims).
  • What's the Mahgreb, chopped liver?

That being said, a Mongol Egypt would certainly bend the history of the region in interesting directions (Baibars was not a Nice Man, and the Levant suffered greatly from his Convert's Zeal).

Hmm... What would have been the odds of Lesser Arminia and the mainland Crusader states being a going concern at this point?

HTG
 
Top