The Crusades with Bill & Rollo

[th1b.taylor]

Rollo and I agreed this discussion will not be a session of Roman Catholic bashing and we welcome all comers but we do ask the same thing of you. We, neither one of us, obviously have an axe to grind with any more Catholics than we do with any of the, so called, Protestants.

If you are willing to look History up on the web or if you are willing to dig a History Text out from your school days, please, Join in. To begin with and to bring us all up to the same point here is a link to get us started in our study http://www.history.com/topics/crusades

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

The original purpose of the Crusades was to take Jerusalem from the Muslims and put in under control of Christians (The Roman Catholic Church).
After hundreds of years and many Crusades, the result was nothing more than a great many people dying, including women and children.
I believe that if God wanted victory for the Christians (The Roman Catholic Church), then they would have achieved permanent victory.
Picking up a sword and killing people in the name of Jesus over a piece of land is not what God calls us to do.
I do not see anything holy or sacred about these wars and the resulting deaths of so many people.

As soldiers for Christ, our weapons are prayer and the Word of God, not swords or guns, or any of that.
God sets up governments to fight the enemy.
These are the affairs of the world.
As ambassadors for Christ, we do not get involved with the affairs of the world.
We are of another world, that's who we represent.

 

[th1b.taylor]

I agree that these wars, twelve I believe, accomplished nothing but we must always be prepared, not to hollow but to defend and the scriptures must be read, all of them, in the complete context of all scripture. When Jesus was turning the ministry over to us he told the disciples to sell their cloaks to fund purchasing a sword.

Just as King Solomon told us, there is a season for everything. But on the subject, the Muslims are responsible for the Crusades. Were they not in possession of the Holy City, changing it, the vain men calling the name of the Christ would not have attacked the. Did God give them the lands of Israel to punish the Jew? Yes! Did He know what the results of the Crusades would net? Of course He did. Should Britian have kept their nose out of the Middle East? No, He knew what the plan was, well, before we did.

 

[Michael74]

Many of the crusades were little more than disorganized mobs that pillaged the countryside en route to Jerusalem, rather than well trained armies. One crusader army even sacked their ally Constantinople, permanently preventing the east and west from cooperating in the campaign. Even when armies went there, armies from different nations failed to cooperate with each other to get the job done.

At one point, an army was attacking the wall of Jerusalem, and asked another army to help them. Instead of helping, the other army want to the other side of the city, and attacked the wall there. Because of their lack of cooperation, they could not breech the wall before they were chased away by troops arriving to reinforce the city garrison..

The only sizeable and well organized army was Barbarossa's, but it scattered in confusion when something happened to their leader.

As military campaigns go, this was not a very well planned one.

 

[Michael74]

A successful campaign may have been achieved by unifying command and control of allied armies, training/equipping troops properly, developing tactics suited to desert warfare, and launching an attack to quickly conquer capitals, rather than just a few coastal cities. This may have eliminated all organized resistance, leaving locally raised anti-partisan patrols to keep order.

They did not think this through. Sending disorganized mobs against front line combat troops is an ineffective military strategy. They should have settled all issues of who controls what before sending any troops into battle. This cannot be settled in the field, with allied armies fighting each other over who gets what. That kind of division virtually guarantees victory for the opposing side. You cannot run a war by committee. Someone who knows military strategy well has to be placed in charge of the entire army.

Saladin organized his armies properly, and he won over European armies that were disorganized and divided.

And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. Mark 3:24 KJV

 

[th1b.taylor]

A successful campaign may have been achieved by unifying command and control of allied armies, training/equipping troops properly, developing tactics suited to desert warfare, and launching an attack to quickly conquer capitals, rather than just a few coastal cities. This may have eliminated all organized resistance, leaving locally raised anti-partisan patrols to keep order.

They did not think this through. Sending disorganized mobs against front line combat troops is an ineffective military strategy. They should have settled all issues of who controls what before sending any troops into battle. This cannot be settled in the field, with allied armies fighting each other over who gets what. That kind of division virtually guarantees victory for the opposing side. You cannot run a war by committee. Someone who knows military strategy well has to be placed in charge of the entire army.

Saladin organized his armies properly, and he won over European armies that were disorganized and divided.

And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. Mark 3:24 KJV

This is a great assessment of the overall situation. I fell like the intent of the Pope was a good thing but you are right, there was not a military man present to place the men where they would do the job at hand.

I feel that had this been organised and had the Bible, then been, available for reading and study by the common man those armys could have been made up of Christians. Those men wore the cross on their uniforms but they were not Christ like and they, very, obviously did not have the blessing of God any more than the women in the clubs and the joints wearing their cut little crosses and doing their best to bed one of the band members.

In short, these wars were not fought by Christians.

 

[jasonc]

so taking back jersusalem that was never Christian in the first place is of god? I understand a jew doing that as he was promised that land and lived there and lost it, but a gentile in England, france, Holy Roman Empire?

 

[th1b.taylor]

so taking back jersusalem that was never Christian in the first place is of god? I understand a jew doing that as he was promised that land and lived there and lost it, but a gentile in England, france, Holy Roman Empire?

No, as much as the Atheist loves to rail and to rant about the Christian Crusades, that name is an oxymoron.

 

[Mike S]

I agree that these wars, twelve I believe, accomplished nothing but we must always be prepared, not to hollow but to defend and the scriptures must be read, all of them, in the complete context of all scripture. When Jesus was turning the ministry over to us he told the disciples to sell their cloaks to fund purchasing a sword.

Just as King Solomon told us, there is a season for everything. But on the subject, the Muslims are responsible for the Crusades. Were they not in possession of the Holy City, changing it, the vain men calling the name of the Christ would not have attacked the. Did God give them the lands of Israel to punish the Jew? Yes! Did He know what the results of the Crusades would net? Of course He did. Should Britian have kept their nose out of the Middle East? No, He knew what the plan was, well, before we did.

I think they were productive, even though they didn't result in permanent Christian control of the middle East. They were not stand alone conflicts, they have to be considered as engagements in a perpetual war between good and evil. By the time of the Crusades in the eleventh and twelve centuries Islam had already run rampant over north Africa and the Iberian peninsula, brutally conquering and suppressing Christian lands. The Crusades were a long overdue push-back against a militant Islam in a war that continues to this day.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

The Crusades were meant to stop the advance of Islam and failed miserably in that attempt.
Many Crusaders thought that killing Jews was the same as killing Muslims, seeing them both as enemies of Christianity.
The whole thing was horrible.
Muslims believing in killing Christians and Christians believing in killing Muslims.
Isn't that what happened in Beirut back in the 80's?
That destroyed a beautiful city and a whole country in the process.
What good comes out of it?

 

[jasonc]

The Crusades were meant to stop the advance of Islam and failed miserably in that attempt.
Many Crusaders thought that killing Jews was the same as killing Muslims, seeing them both as enemies of Christianity.
The whole thing was horrible.
Muslims believing in killing Christians and Christians believing in killing Muslims.
Isn't that what happened in Beirut back in the 80's?
That destroyed a beautiful city and a whole country in the process.
What good comes out of it?

Lebanon was a crap hole long before that. it was part of Syria.

 

[th1b.taylor]

I think they were productive, even though they didn't result in permanent Christian control of the middle East. They were not stand alone conflicts, they have to be considered as engagements in a perpetual war between good and evil. By the time of the Crusades in the eleventh and twelve centuries Islam had already run rampant over north Africa and the Iberian peninsula, brutally conquering and suppressing Christian lands. The Crusades were a long overdue push-back against a militant Islam in a war that continues to this day.

While we might disagree on the productive aspect, we agree. I have yet to convince folks that this war is WW I but it is making the others 2 & 3 but this one is still with us and this one is breaking the world and I do wish it had been finished in the eleventh century. I am not contrary to the war, just calling it a Christian war.

 

[th1b.taylor]

The Crusades were meant to stop the advance of Islam and failed miserably in that attempt.
Many Crusaders thought that killing Jews was the same as killing Muslims, seeing them both as enemies of Christianity.
The whole thing was horrible.
Muslims believing in killing Christians and Christians believing in killing Muslims.
Isn't that what happened in Beirut back in the 80's?
That destroyed a beautiful city and a whole country in the process.
What good comes out of it?

Amen!

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Lebanon was a crap hole long before that. it was part of Syria.

Beirut was an intellectual center, a major tourist destination, and a banking center, especially during the Persian Gulf oil boom.
It fell at the start of their civil war in 1975.

 

[Michael74]

With the available irregular armies, Europe alone probably could have reconquered Spain, and held it. Their supply lines to Spain were better, and Spain was relatively defensible.

Supply lines to Jerusalem et al would have required maintaining naval supremacy, or making a lasting alliance with Byzantium. The coastal cities crusaders captured there could not be supplied from Europe, so they had to farm nearby land to maintain the garrisons. They did not have enough troops to defend both castle and surrounding farmland. Horse archers frequently obviated the crusaders primary battle formation, knights.

Without Byzantine support, holding coastal cities in Palestine may have been beyond the ability of the irregular armies that composed the crusades. Logistics has often decided more battles than combat.

Or suppose a king is about to go to war against another king. Won’t he first sit down and consider whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand? Luke 14:31 NIV

A lasting alliance with Byzantium may have allowed combined Euro-Byzantine armies to sweep all before them. Captured cities could have been supplied from Byzantium until resistance had been tamed. They could not forge a permanent alliance though.

There is only one thing worse than fighting with allies, and that is fighting without them.

Winnie knew that Britain could not win without allies.

 

[jasonc]

Beirut was an intellectual center, a major tourist destination, and a banking center, especially during the Persian Gulf oil boom.
It fell at the start of their civil war in 1975.

post that link, so was kabol , Afghanistan for a few decades until the Russians took it over. Afghanistan in the 70's and 60's in that area was western for a muslim nation and india air has stops to Kandahar and kabol(bagram af) in that time frame.

 

[th1b.taylor]

With the available irregular armies, Europe alone probably could have reconquered Spain, and held it. Their supply lines to Spain were better, and Spain was relatively defensible.

Supply lines to Jerusalem et al would have required maintaining naval supremacy, or making a lasting alliance with Byzantium. The coastal cities crusaders captured there could not be supplied from Europe, so they had to farm nearby land to maintain the garrisons. They did not have enough troops to defend both castle and surrounding farmland. Horse archers frequently obviated the crusaders primary battle formation, knights.

Without Byzantine support, holding coastal cities in Palestine may have been beyond the ability of the irregular armies that composed the crusades. Logistics has often decided more battles than combat.

Or suppose a king is about to go to war against another king. Won’t he first sit down and consider whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand? Luke 14:31 NIV

A lasting alliance with Byzantium may have allowed combined Euro-Byzantine armies to sweep all before them. Captured cities could have been supplied from Byzantium until resistance had been tamed. They could not forge a permanent alliance though.



Winnie knew that Britain could not win without allies.

Winston was a very bright man when it came to logistics and to tactics.

 

[jasonc]

Winston was a very bright man when it came to logistics and to tactics.

that is true but he is the reason we have the problems in the middle east with these nations: iran and Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[th1b.taylor]

that is true but he is the reason we have the problems in the middle east with these nations: iran and Iraq and Afghanistan.

Can you show me your evidence? without that you statement is unsupported and possibly conjecture.

 

[jasonc]

Can you show me your evidence? without that you statement is unsupported and possibly conjecture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Iraq

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Iraqi_Treaty_(1930)

British Prime Minister Winston Churchill was to write that the 1930 treaty provided that the British could maintain air bases near Basra and Habbaniya "in times of peace" and have the right of transit for military forces and supplies "at all times." In addition, Churchill indicated that the treaty would provide "all possible facilities" including the use of railways, rivers, ports, and airways for the passage of armed forces "during times of war."[3]
The treaty gave the British almost unlimited rights to base military forces in Iraq. It further provided for the unconditional and unlimited right of the British to move troops into or through Iraq. In 1941, the terms of the treaty were used to justify a British invasion[citation needed] and occupation of Iraq after a nationalist coup whose leaders had contacts among the Axis powers. The British used the terms of the treaty as a basis for an occupation that lasted until end of 1947. As they prepared to depart Iraq, an attempt was made to get the British installed government of Iraq to sign a new military treaty giving the British even more powers than under then 1930 treaty. While the treaty was approved, it never came into effect because of unrest and large demonstrations in Iraq against it.
Critics consider the treaty a document which was nothing more than a cover for the British to permanently limit the independence of Iraq and to give themselves a right to intervene in the internal affairs of Iraq as they pleased. The treaties always revolved around protecting the access to Iraqi oil resources by British companies by giving the British the right of military intervention in the country.

the fact is Iraq wasn't a nation as it is known today, we must be aware that brittian is to blame for Afghanistan(church fought there) Iraq and iran were under the uk empire. I don't hold all that to him but its in part his problem. its never a simple thing with them.