Skip to comments.MYTHS OF THE CRUSADES: Interview with Thomas Madden author of “A Concise History of the Crusades”
Posted on 12/06/2010 7:04:54 AM PST by damonw
Thomas Madden is chair of the history department at St. Louis University and author of: A Concise History of the Crusades, In October 2004 Zenit, the International News Agency, interviewed him. Madden: The following are some of the most common myths and why they are wrong.
(Excerpt) Read more at thereligionofconquest.com ...
I hate it when descriptions of human blood flowing in streets, at some points up to a horse's brisket hitch are taken out of context. With this context stuff Richard could have been called the big pussy cat instead of the Lion Heart.
Myth 3 - I thought that it was pretty well documented that Richard took the inhabitants of Jerusalem out and systematically beheaded them all.
That many were killed is not disputed. Rather the context as reinterpreted by modern people. As the author says:
Bump for later.
Bump for later.
My favorite “ignored fact” is that Muslims attacked Christians for 400 years before Christians decided to retaliate.
The Crusades were a counterattack.
Bump for an excellent interview.
I read the article and much time is spent in the defense of the Pope. All of them down through the ages.
Other than that angle, it lumps the remainder of the men into one pot, even tho there were struggles in some european countries against the Pope.
I am sure not every crusader who went to war believed in works for salvation. I am sure many believed in faith in Jesus Christ. This is a very slanted catholic article.
That is your defense for the Rape of Nanking? or do you see a difference between bombing losses, versus putting women and children to the bayonet, and the knife?
Hi Cincinatus, You’ll probably like this post allot then. THANKS!!!
BOOK REVIEW and Q&A with Rodney Stark author of Gods Battalions: A Case for the Crusades
Many thanks for the link. Stark has written several good books on the history of Christianity — all well worth the time.
Hi Richard, I’m still learning. Can you provide links to support your claim? THANKS
Hi Ramone, the way I understand it is that the time frame we are talking about there was no protestant church, printing press and English bible at that time. So it is likely that most did not believe in Justification by faith. Don’cha think?
Your Welcome Very Much,, HAVE A BLESSED DAY
If the bombing "losses" are intended or expected, then what is the difference, morally?
I like to say the Crusades were a feeble 86 year interruption to over a millennium of Islamic conquests. We are never informed about the brutality of these operations, but instead you would think four Geneva Conventions that were written at the end of WW II were actually found by unearthing an appendix to the Code of Hammurabi.
Penetrating deep into an enemy’s homeland to destroy targets and being forced to do it from the air, which results in collateral damage, is bad enough, but once you arrive there and then to slaughter them by hand, individually, is an entirely different thing.
I know that our GIs will bomb, and use artillery, but I don’t think that they will go in, root out the families from their homes and put them all to the sword, once we have taken the city.
This is from Benedict of Peterborough edited by W Stubbs in 1867 vol ii, p 189, ibn-Shaddad, pp 164-5; all as quoted by Philip K. Hitti in "History of the Arabs" revised 10th edition, page 651 published by palgrave macmillan.
THANK YOU Richard, I’ll take a looksy :)
Um, the Crusades took place in the Middle Ages -- the Catholic Church was Christianity in Western Europe, the Eastern Orthodox in Eastern Europe. No one then would have imagined anyone would see a conflict or opposition between works and faith.
“I am sure not every crusader who went to war believed in works for salvation. I am sure many believed in faith in Jesus Christ.”
Actually I am pretty sure that every crusader who went on crusade believed in salvation by grace alone - just as the Catholic Church taught.
That was a quote from the article. Don’t you get it? Things were different 1000 years ago...
Geneva Conventions that were written at the end of WW II were actually found by unearthing an appendix to the Code of Hammurabi.
Geneva Conventions appendix goes back to the Uruk period in Sumeria 5000 BC actually... (There is some indicatrion that the Sumerians plagerized them from the Atlantians). Every one knows that Crusaders were well of the Sumerian Code, appendix, Conventions, Geneva.
When the money wasn’t paid, 2,700 captives were slaughtered.
Life was tough in those days...
You definitely should be teaching college!
I was dealing with the comparison between aerial bombing and killing civilians in masse, deliberately, by hand, after a city is taken.
According to some reports, the king was there to view the fun! What’s not to like?