Posted on 02/25/2002 8:13:51 AM PST by quidnunc
Author Belloc, Hilaire, 1870-1953
Title The Jews, by Hilaire Belloc
Imprint Boston, New York, Houghton Mifflin [1922}
I found the book at a college library because it was on the same rack as MacCaulay's history. I agree that a few wacky ideas don't have to disqualify the corpus of one's contribution to society, but, that said, this is a case of someone who is very critical of all non-Christians, to an extent deemed repugnant by today's standards. In his time his ideas were fairly commonplace. My worries are about using the ideas of someone who has generated repugnant ideas about one race to discredit another, very similar, one.
I believe that the Turkish control of Muslim world happened even without Crusaders from the West. It must have accelerated it, though. The first Crusade is the only one which achieved its goal. That is partly because the first Crusader fought Arabs rather than Turks. Arabs' main battle units are mounted soldiers with lances. This formation was easier to defeat than Turkish steppe formation made up of mounted archers. And their tactics emphasizing deception and speed all helped defeat subsequent Crusades. European Crusaders were fighting Turks not Arabs after first Crusade. Saladin was a Sunni Kurd. But his troops were all Turks. Eventually, Crusaders have become minor disturbance in Muslim world. Hashashin sect was more pressing concern for rules in Mid-East. Even Saladin had to compromise with Hashashins. A few different groups of Turks carved up entire Mid-East. Most of them first started as slave soldiers for Caliph. The slave soldiers were under direct control of Caliph of Baghdad, who can attack any political enemies of Caliph. Other ordinary Muslims balked at all-out war against other Muslims because Koran says that Muslims should not attack other Muslims. So if rival Caliphate appears, Caliph in Baghdad is in quandary. That is why they recruited Turks as if they were slaves, bought in the market. But in time, these soldiers took power from Caliph rendering him as a more figurehead.
Mongol invasion was repelled not by Arabs but Marmeluks of Egypt, Turkish soldiers who took over Egypt. Mongols were distracted by succession intrigue back home. So the troops in Mid-East at the time was not at peak strength. But anyway, they fought against Marmeluks. So this was battle between two steppe tribes from North and Central Asia, not Arabs. Crusaders ironically had great hopes for Mongols(!). They heard news that large steppe army were coming from Central Asia into Mid-East. Crusaders began to weave their wishful thinking into this news. Soon, Mongol army were seen as long lost Christian steppe tribe coming to help fellow Christians in need. When Mongols were going from Damascus, which they just conquered, to Jerusalem, Crusaders rode with them. This was a symbolic guesture of solidarity at the time. But soon Crusaders had second thoughts about true nature of Mongols. So they sent messenger to Baybar, the ruler of Egypt. They buried their hatchet and cooperated. Crusaders helped Marmeluks for safe passage through their area and set up for battle. Marmeluks won the battle near Jerusalem. So everybody was spared from Mongol carnage.
Mid-East was busy with bigger players than Crusaders in later years. Hashashins, Seljuks, Ottomans, Mongols, Marmeluks. Crusaders were minor players. They only held on to small strips of Land in Levant. Hardly a big loss considering that they have domain streching from Morroco to Central Asia.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.