tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33445632.post3374102031875304378..comments2024-01-20T11:56:48.682+01:00Comments on WindRose Hotel: G. K. Chesterton Vs the “black legend” of the CrusadesS.R. Piccolihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15622464895435470724noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33445632.post-52931020506483386512010-09-05T00:20:23.475+02:002010-09-05T00:20:23.475+02:00"If crusades to the Levant were imperialistic..."If crusades to the Levant were imperialistic, they were expressing a form of imperialism very different from the 19th-century variety, because it was governed by the need to regain or hold the ruined fragments of a cave in the middle of Jerusalem. For most crusaders there was no prospect of material gain, only great expenditure on enterprises that were arduous and dangerous. Christian holy war is abhorrent to us, but we have to accept that fact that our ancestors were attracted by a vibrant ideology, based on a coherent theology which to some extent constrained it. Crusades cannot be defined solely in terms of inter-faith relations as many of them were waged against opponents who were not Muslim, but, what- ever the theatre of war, an expedition could not be launched to spread Christianity or Christian rule, but had to be a defensive reaction to an injury perpetrated by another."<br /><br />Jonathan Riley-Smith, "Truth is the First Victim" Timesonline May 5, 2005 (http://www.crusades-encyclopedia.com/truthisthefirstvictim.html)AleRossihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18045341216734140628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33445632.post-78270524121134455392010-09-04T23:07:39.925+02:002010-09-04T23:07:39.925+02:00An absolutely stunning piece, thanks for sharing!An absolutely stunning piece, thanks for sharing!Carolyn Bergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16117562015966817924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33445632.post-27500313621627854592010-09-04T22:59:05.714+02:002010-09-04T22:59:05.714+02:00A thought-provoking post from an outstanding blog ...A thought-provoking post from an outstanding blog ...marcovaleriosphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01681076220791169893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33445632.post-87882334714592719732010-09-04T03:23:38.121+02:002010-09-04T03:23:38.121+02:00Great piece, great writing. It will never be repea...Great piece, great writing. It will never be repeated enough: the myth that the Crusades were unprovoked, imperialist actions against the peaceful, indigenous Muslim population, as well as for instance the depiction of Saladin as merciful and magnanimous, are simply false and not supported by any historical evidence. The Crusades only started after five centuries of Islamic Jihad had conquered and annihilated, or forcibly converted, over two thirds of what had formerly been the Christian world. Shortly after the Islamic conquest of Jerusalem in 638, Christian pilgrims were harassed, massacred and crucified. Muslim governors extorted ransom money from Pilgrims and ransacked churches.<br />In the 8th Century Muslim rulers banned all displays of the Cross in Jerusalem. They also increased the penalty tax (Jizya) on Christians and forbade Christians to engage in any religious instruction, even of their own children! In 772, the Calipha al Mansur ordered the hands of all Christians and Jews in Jerusalem to be branded. In 923, a new wave of destruction of churches was launched by the Muslim rulers… And so on. The list is endless…buddypnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33445632.post-57494486270182394452010-09-04T00:46:37.194+02:002010-09-04T00:46:37.194+02:00Chesterton provided a very insightful and lucid an...Chesterton provided a very insightful and lucid analysis of what the Crusades were all about. But if we really understand what the Crusades were all about, we won't be easily fooled by ideologues such as Osama bin Laden or his various Western counterparts.Hans-Hermannhttp://www.spiegel.de/international/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33445632.post-32961858384159519942010-09-03T16:15:02.583+02:002010-09-03T16:15:02.583+02:00No doubt it's true that the First Crusade was ...No doubt it's true that the First Crusade was more a fully justified reaction to an invasion, than a pretext to invade. But one can't say that the Second Crusade was a justified success, and the Third Crusade was even worse. <br /><br />Although it would be much preferable to raise glorious banners to worthy causes, the facts will always remain that the Fourth Crusade- to which those who wish to defend the Crusader wars never seem to want to refer- was a shameful and unjustified disaster. <br />To my knowledge the only Pope who, on two occasions- in Rome and in Istanbul- made formal apologies for the consequences of the Fourth Crusade, was Pope John Paul II. <br /><br />http://mirino-viewfinder.blogspot.com/2010/02/venetian-lesson.htmlMirinohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14762774089637304953noreply@blogger.com