Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Ben Ficklin
But he doesn't mention that Crusaders didn't turn the land that they did capture back over to Byzantium.

The area that the Crusaders were focused on, Jerusalem and its surroundings, hadn't "belonged" to the Eastern Roman Empire for closing on 500 years.

The Byzantines had a much better case for some of the other territories, such as Antioch, the Crusaders glommed onto.

The Crusaders had sworn to return conquered land to Alexis, but rightly or wrongly they believed they were absolved from that obligation because Alexis didn't support them as he'd sworn to do, abandoning them to what he thought would be defeat at Antioch.

29 posted on 02/21/2015 11:59:56 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]


To: Sherman Logan
"hadn't belonged to to the Eastern Roman Empire for closing on 500 years"

Correct and I agree with you. I only mention it because many try to use that as a reason or justification for the Crusades.

Pope Urban's reasoning revolved totally around expanding the influence of the western Church. Nobody in Constantinople asked for the crusades.

31 posted on 02/21/2015 12:10:14 PM PST by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson