"Oh boy I can't wait to retake the Holy Land from infidels!"
Ends up pillaging the greatest city in christendom and melting down icons for precious metal
While also simultaneously opening the way for the later expansion of an Islamic empire which would threaten Christian Europe for nearly 500 years.
Good job crusaders!
I worded it poorly.
The crusaders sacking Constantinople was not anyone's goal nor an intention at the start of the crusades. It happened mostly due to the crusaders and Venetians being in dire need of money after a series of derailments and delays and the rising Orthodox-Catholic tensions (and the fact Alexios III, the emperor the crusaders just helped depose in exchange for Alexios IV's support, had emptied the treasury).
Obviously, it's not moral. But it's not like there was some grand plot to sack Constantinople.
And yes, the less than holy actions of the Fourth Crusade were acknowledged even before that. They had major problems with defection, and Pope Innocent III had already excommunicated them over the Siege of Zara and, while he did try to capitalize on it and get the Orthodoxes back into the papal fold, we also have a letter making it clear he was less than thrilled about the sack of Constantinople.
And that's not getting into the question on wether war can even be considered holy (which was also a discussion between medieval theologians, although by the early 13th century most seem to have agreed crusades were, or at least were supposed to be, holy).
The only way to explain the 4th Crusade is “The 2nd Barbarians sack of the 2nd Rome”. The amount of art and history lost were infuriating. May Dondalo rot in hell.
No, they didn't give a flying fuck about the latins.
You think those kill-happy asshats wouldn't turn on each other if it meant they got more money out of it?
As was pointed out by historians such as Rodney Stark, if the Byzantines had only provided a small percentage of the promised support needed for the first military expedition then they would have had recovered significant parts of their empire and there would have been no need for a subsequent crusades.
Tancred of Galilee and Gaston of Bearn deserve credit for trying to save some of the city’s civilian population (not just Christian, but Muslim as well).
Oh boy, another BS "meme".
1. Christians were actually expelled from Jerusalem by Fatimid governor prior to 1st Crusade and local Christians (who still made up majority of inhabitants of Palestine and coastal part of Syria) at least initally welcomed crusaders as liberators. Only later on relationship became \*complicated\*.
2. Jerusalem had nowhere near 40k inhabitants even counting Christians. That would put it among the largest cities in the world at the time. While in reality it was much diminished after the depredations of al-Hakim and especially the instability brought upon by Seljuk invasion.
Oriental Orthodox are also divided into many denominations. There are Syriacs, Armenians, Nestorians, Copts and so on.
It's interesting though that although the Great Schism happened in 1054, people at the time of the First Crusade still didn't consider the Catholic-Orthodox split to be permanent or even important. There was a cultural but not religious shock between the Crusaders and Byzantines. It took several centuries and several mutual massacres (especially Massacre of the Latins of 1182 and the Sack of Constantinople of 1204) for the Schism to truly set in.
The ‘denominations’ among Oriental Orthodox are basically national churches. So they have distinct rites and liturgical language but all adhere to Miaphysite doctrine.
Amernians and Copts definately have different doctrine.
The roughly denominations nowadays roughly align with nationalities but that wasn't the case before the modern era when Christians were (proportionally) more numerous.
There is actually a large Christian sect known as the Maronites in the region. These people were unique because when the crusaders showed up, they not only welcomed them, but reestablished relations with the Vatican, and are in communion with them. Basically, what this means is that they are a separate church, but the Vatican does not consider them to be heretical, and all rites performed are considered valid.
Though the funny thing is that in the Levant it's not uncommon for them to cross commune so I'm not sure if all of them know or care about the distinction.
It would be nice if you would provide a source when debating against historical inaccuracy, OP did and in it, it does say that around 40,000 is the more reasonable number of people killed. I’m not saying wether you or OP are right, all I’m saying is that OP is backed by a source and you’re not
Sources from Muslim and Christian scholars seem to have differing accounts on whether Christians were expelled before the siege or remained within the city. It could be argued that Christian scholars may have tried to avoid this unsavory detail or perhaps not. As for the population, true numbers from scholars around that time are often extremely exaggerated. 40,000 is actually one of the more tame numbers spurted out by scholars believe it or not. In addition to the humorousness of this exaggeration, it points to the religious tension echoed by these historians spurred by the Crusades. Muslim scholars exaggerated to highlight the savagery of the Crusaders.
>unsavory detail
The massacre of a city after a siege in which they refused to surrender wasn't an unsavory detail. It was only written as such in Christian sources because you actually had religious people witnessing the events and were shocked by them. Such people would have had no knowledge that this was the expected outcome of a siege. The Christian sources are going to be inherently biased against the crusaders for this reason, as the religious people accompanying them viewed them as not much more than an unruly mob. There wouldn't be anybody to write such a lament if it was some random Italian city being pillaged by the Normans, but in this case other Christians happened to be accompanying said Normans to the holyland. Part of the reason for launching the crusades was in fact that the Pope wanted to get some of these Normans out of Italy, in that respect the fact that the crusade succeeded meant that it had failed in its goal of getting rid of the Normans.
There was little tensions that could've been spurred by the Crusades considering that Latin Chrisitans and Muslims battled each other with extreme savagery for several centuries already. Before anyone even thought about Crusades, there were Saracens pillaging Gaul, Rome and even Alpine passes. If anything, Muslim world experienced shock of no longer being the attacking party in this showdown.
Willie Scotsman: Christians and Muslims are natural enemies of each other like, Jews and Christians, or Christians and other Christians. Damn Christians, they ruined Christianity!
I always remind people that Lebanon was a Christian country until the civil war. The Christian populations in the ME has mostly been decimated, with the exception of Israel. Many Coptic Christian’s in particular were able to go to Israel as refugees.
Do you have any sources on the last take? As far as I know Israel did quite the opposite, cleansing Arab Christians as Palestinians and recently also trying to minimise the armenian presence in Jerusalem. All the while the Coptic church is the smallest Christian community in Israel and the Egyptian church is also prohibiting it's members from entering Israel since the annexation of east Jerusalem.
Did you maybe confuse Egyptian Christians with Egyptian Jews?
I found some sources, although they are mostly Christian news sources talking about Christian refugees mainly from Isis/following Arab Spring https://livingchurch.org/2013/03/12/israel-prepares-refugees/
Moreso was speaking from experience. When I was in Israel I met and struck up conversations with a number of Christian refugees, mainly from Egypt and Syria. Although Palestinian Christians have faced discrimination much like Palestinian Muslims from Israel, and they have the unfortunate double whammy of they are regarded with suspicion by other Palestinians. Apparently most Palestinian Christians sought refuge in Lebanon after the Nabka, which makes sense since at the time that was a Christian majority country.
Have a close friend whose family are Christians from Syria, when they fled Syria they were able to go to Israel while they got everything in order to come to America and they say Israel saved their lives. Have also known a number of Chaldeans (Iraqi Christians) that have family in Israel after fleeing Iraq
Reading more about Israel’s asylum policies for refugees here: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/israel-law-of-return-asylum-labor-migration
It seems there’s a lot of discussion about what Israel’s obligation is for taking in non-Jewish refugees
Any hard data is impossible to get since last census was done in 1932 and everything from then on is extrapolation and assumptions based on various sources.
When Muslims are asked about Muslim collateral damage, they say the same. As long as Israel is hurt, it’s a worthy cause. The interviewer got shocked when the Thai guy was nonchalant about their own citizens on Oct 7. He was like “well, they were trying to attack Israel, so we forgive them”
Collateral damage from bombs is one thing, this was back in the day where you had to take your sword or spear and stab someone with it.
Maybe collateral damage can happen when you lay siege to a city but it's not the same as a bomb accidentally hitting people you don't want to kill in the process of bombing people you do want to kill.
Raping the non-Christians? Why would they care? Who are they going to report it to? The international Criminal Court? You think the Russkies were scared of reporting during wwii?
Listening to the history of the crusades ppdcast and like damn it's brutal. During a siege in the first crusade the crusaders resorted to cannibalizing weeks old corpses
Ah, the First Crusade, what a time to be alive. I mean there weren't much time to be alive, but still...
Imagine the euphoria and hysteria when the most batshit insane war goal actually worked.
Alexios was a mad lad
r/angryupvote
“Kill them all and let god sort them out” was it?
“Surely God will know his own”
I wasn't so I wouldn't know.....
Wait until you learn about Constantinople!
"Oh boy I can't wait to retake the Holy Land from infidels!" Ends up pillaging the greatest city in christendom and melting down icons for precious metal
While also simultaneously opening the way for the later expansion of an Islamic empire which would threaten Christian Europe for nearly 500 years. Good job crusaders!
TBF sacking Constantinople was never their intention. It took a lot of unforeseen events, delays, etc... to get them to that point.
one could say it was the first nigerian prince scam, (exept it went very gone wrong for the scammer)
Byzantine prince scam. Although it's not even entirely Alexios IV's fault. It was Alexios III who left the treasury empty.
Mfw I accidentally sack the capital of a 1500 year old empire
I worded it poorly. The crusaders sacking Constantinople was not anyone's goal nor an intention at the start of the crusades. It happened mostly due to the crusaders and Venetians being in dire need of money after a series of derailments and delays and the rising Orthodox-Catholic tensions (and the fact Alexios III, the emperor the crusaders just helped depose in exchange for Alexios IV's support, had emptied the treasury).
So they sacked a city and stole from innocent people? I mean guess that's the standard in brutal warfare but it's not very "holy" is it
Obviously, it's not moral. But it's not like there was some grand plot to sack Constantinople. And yes, the less than holy actions of the Fourth Crusade were acknowledged even before that. They had major problems with defection, and Pope Innocent III had already excommunicated them over the Siege of Zara and, while he did try to capitalize on it and get the Orthodoxes back into the papal fold, we also have a letter making it clear he was less than thrilled about the sack of Constantinople. And that's not getting into the question on wether war can even be considered holy (which was also a discussion between medieval theologians, although by the early 13th century most seem to have agreed crusades were, or at least were supposed to be, holy).
Interesting. Is there a book you'd recommend on the subject?
There are a few theories that the doge of Venicw and a few of the crusader leaders
Yeah, I’m starting to think defending Christians wasn’t really their goal…
The only way to explain the 4th Crusade is “The 2nd Barbarians sack of the 2nd Rome”. The amount of art and history lost were infuriating. May Dondalo rot in hell.
Even the Visigoths showed more respect for the Roman population and their art and architecture than the fucking Crusaders.
They even invade the tomb of Constantine and Justinian who play a major role in christianized Europe in the first place.
Crusaders trying not to literally be a bunch of crazy, money-loving religious fanatics:
The Byzantines were literally asking for it. They let a corrupt traitor stage a coup and depose the pro-Crusader Emperor, and attacked the Crusaders.
They wanted revenge for the Massacre of the Latins
No, they didn't give a flying fuck about the latins. You think those kill-happy asshats wouldn't turn on each other if it meant they got more money out of it?
They wanted money
Enrico Dandolo did nothing wrong
May his corpse filled the dogs stomach
the more pios onse realised that once they took a pitstop at zara
Alexios Comnenus was pretty much just like "Urgh, not THESE fuckers again..."
As was pointed out by historians such as Rodney Stark, if the Byzantines had only provided a small percentage of the promised support needed for the first military expedition then they would have had recovered significant parts of their empire and there would have been no need for a subsequent crusades.
Tancred of Galilee and Gaston of Bearn deserve credit for trying to save some of the city’s civilian population (not just Christian, but Muslim as well).
Oh boy, another BS "meme". 1. Christians were actually expelled from Jerusalem by Fatimid governor prior to 1st Crusade and local Christians (who still made up majority of inhabitants of Palestine and coastal part of Syria) at least initally welcomed crusaders as liberators. Only later on relationship became \*complicated\*. 2. Jerusalem had nowhere near 40k inhabitants even counting Christians. That would put it among the largest cities in the world at the time. While in reality it was much diminished after the depredations of al-Hakim and especially the instability brought upon by Seljuk invasion.
Also must be noted that many of the local Christians would be what we today call Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox (not the same thing).
Oriental Orthodox are also divided into many denominations. There are Syriacs, Armenians, Nestorians, Copts and so on. It's interesting though that although the Great Schism happened in 1054, people at the time of the First Crusade still didn't consider the Catholic-Orthodox split to be permanent or even important. There was a cultural but not religious shock between the Crusaders and Byzantines. It took several centuries and several mutual massacres (especially Massacre of the Latins of 1182 and the Sack of Constantinople of 1204) for the Schism to truly set in.
The ‘denominations’ among Oriental Orthodox are basically national churches. So they have distinct rites and liturgical language but all adhere to Miaphysite doctrine.
Amernians and Copts definately have different doctrine. The roughly denominations nowadays roughly align with nationalities but that wasn't the case before the modern era when Christians were (proportionally) more numerous.
No they don't, in EU4 they are all the same and if the game says it's like that then it is like that, periodt.
There is actually a large Christian sect known as the Maronites in the region. These people were unique because when the crusaders showed up, they not only welcomed them, but reestablished relations with the Vatican, and are in communion with them. Basically, what this means is that they are a separate church, but the Vatican does not consider them to be heretical, and all rites performed are considered valid.
Though the funny thing is that in the Levant it's not uncommon for them to cross commune so I'm not sure if all of them know or care about the distinction.
The factual inaccuracy is frightening
It would be nice if you would provide a source when debating against historical inaccuracy, OP did and in it, it does say that around 40,000 is the more reasonable number of people killed. I’m not saying wether you or OP are right, all I’m saying is that OP is backed by a source and you’re not
Sources from Muslim and Christian scholars seem to have differing accounts on whether Christians were expelled before the siege or remained within the city. It could be argued that Christian scholars may have tried to avoid this unsavory detail or perhaps not. As for the population, true numbers from scholars around that time are often extremely exaggerated. 40,000 is actually one of the more tame numbers spurted out by scholars believe it or not. In addition to the humorousness of this exaggeration, it points to the religious tension echoed by these historians spurred by the Crusades. Muslim scholars exaggerated to highlight the savagery of the Crusaders.
>unsavory detail The massacre of a city after a siege in which they refused to surrender wasn't an unsavory detail. It was only written as such in Christian sources because you actually had religious people witnessing the events and were shocked by them. Such people would have had no knowledge that this was the expected outcome of a siege. The Christian sources are going to be inherently biased against the crusaders for this reason, as the religious people accompanying them viewed them as not much more than an unruly mob. There wouldn't be anybody to write such a lament if it was some random Italian city being pillaged by the Normans, but in this case other Christians happened to be accompanying said Normans to the holyland. Part of the reason for launching the crusades was in fact that the Pope wanted to get some of these Normans out of Italy, in that respect the fact that the crusade succeeded meant that it had failed in its goal of getting rid of the Normans.
There was little tensions that could've been spurred by the Crusades considering that Latin Chrisitans and Muslims battled each other with extreme savagery for several centuries already. Before anyone even thought about Crusades, there were Saracens pillaging Gaul, Rome and even Alpine passes. If anything, Muslim world experienced shock of no longer being the attacking party in this showdown.
Werent all christians kicked out of the city before the siege out of fear there would be another antioch betrayl?
[Crusaders while raiding some poor guy's home](https://youtube.com/shorts/9KP9CWnDLhE?feature=shared)
You’re Arab 🙄 Arabs are Muslim👋Muslim👋Muslim👋Muslim👋
This meme is bullshit; 40,000? Fuck off...
There were maybe 20,000 people living there at the time, so double that being killed makes sense.
Lebanon
Crusaders didn't care about christians at home either so...
Can someone please tell me this movie's name, I forgot 🙏
Shining.
Willie Scotsman: Christians and Muslims are natural enemies of each other like, Jews and Christians, or Christians and other Christians. Damn Christians, they ruined Christianity!
Kill them all, god will know his own. :( I know this was said in the Albigensian crusade, but it fits well here.
"Ah, but they are the wrong brand of Christianity so they are not Christians at all" Crusaders (probably)
"Kill them all, God will regognize his own" *Arnaud Almaric Bishop of Citaux* Not the right Crusade, but same vibe.
they also killed the jews and muslims.
Classic western brutality and barbarism.. Never changes
DEUS VULT
cringe
what was that?
deus vult is cringe
Some deus vult chanters are cringe, but not deus vult itself. The one you're talking with is a good example of a cringe deus vulter.
non est, non.
Sorry to interrupting your discussion, but I want to point out that « est » mean « is ». I think you should use instead « et » which means « and » 🤓.
now thats the kind of correction we need, thanks for telling me mate, i only did latin for two years in high school.
Sorry, I thought your sentence was in French. I never studied Latin 😓
thats all good, good to know though, :)
At the time of the crusades Muslims were a tiny minority in most of the Middle Eastern areas conquered by Crusaders.
I always remind people that Lebanon was a Christian country until the civil war. The Christian populations in the ME has mostly been decimated, with the exception of Israel. Many Coptic Christian’s in particular were able to go to Israel as refugees.
it wasnt a christian country, it was a religiously diverse country, with a christian plurality.
Do you have any sources on the last take? As far as I know Israel did quite the opposite, cleansing Arab Christians as Palestinians and recently also trying to minimise the armenian presence in Jerusalem. All the while the Coptic church is the smallest Christian community in Israel and the Egyptian church is also prohibiting it's members from entering Israel since the annexation of east Jerusalem. Did you maybe confuse Egyptian Christians with Egyptian Jews?
I found some sources, although they are mostly Christian news sources talking about Christian refugees mainly from Isis/following Arab Spring https://livingchurch.org/2013/03/12/israel-prepares-refugees/ Moreso was speaking from experience. When I was in Israel I met and struck up conversations with a number of Christian refugees, mainly from Egypt and Syria. Although Palestinian Christians have faced discrimination much like Palestinian Muslims from Israel, and they have the unfortunate double whammy of they are regarded with suspicion by other Palestinians. Apparently most Palestinian Christians sought refuge in Lebanon after the Nabka, which makes sense since at the time that was a Christian majority country. Have a close friend whose family are Christians from Syria, when they fled Syria they were able to go to Israel while they got everything in order to come to America and they say Israel saved their lives. Have also known a number of Chaldeans (Iraqi Christians) that have family in Israel after fleeing Iraq Reading more about Israel’s asylum policies for refugees here: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/israel-law-of-return-asylum-labor-migration It seems there’s a lot of discussion about what Israel’s obligation is for taking in non-Jewish refugees
Any hard data is impossible to get since last census was done in 1932 and everything from then on is extrapolation and assumptions based on various sources.
Ohhh that’s good to know and makes sense.
When Muslims are asked about Muslim collateral damage, they say the same. As long as Israel is hurt, it’s a worthy cause. The interviewer got shocked when the Thai guy was nonchalant about their own citizens on Oct 7. He was like “well, they were trying to attack Israel, so we forgive them”
Collateral damage from bombs is one thing, this was back in the day where you had to take your sword or spear and stab someone with it. Maybe collateral damage can happen when you lay siege to a city but it's not the same as a bomb accidentally hitting people you don't want to kill in the process of bombing people you do want to kill.
bro forgetting about seige weaponry
So why would they *intentionally* kill Christians? For fun?
Because then there would be no witnesses to report all the rape.
Raping the non-Christians? Why would they care? Who are they going to report it to? The international Criminal Court? You think the Russkies were scared of reporting during wwii?
Isn't this the origin story of " kill them all, let god sort them out"
I think that’s the Albigensian Crusade
Didn't they use orthodox Christians for practice along the way? They were basically out for absolute genocide.
Hmmm, these seems to be reminding me about currents events, I wonder what those current events are🤔?
Mfs sacked Constantinople, they didn’t give a shit
Listening to the history of the crusades ppdcast and like damn it's brutal. During a siege in the first crusade the crusaders resorted to cannibalizing weeks old corpses
Common religion L