• For users new and old: the forum rules were streamlined when we transitioned to the new software. Please ensure that you are familiar with them. Continued use of the forum means that you (a) know the rules, and (b) pledge that you'll abide by them. For more information, check out the OrthodoxChristianity.Net Rules section. (There are only 2 threads there - Rules, and Administrative Structure.)

Book on the Crusades from an Orthodox perspective

Katechon

Elder
Joined
Nov 16, 2018
Messages
419
Reaction score
182
Points
43
Location
Germany
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
ROC-MP
Are there any of those kind of books? Given the fact that the Crusades were atleast implicitly anti-Orthodox.
 

bwallace23350

Sr. Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2020
Messages
236
Reaction score
74
Points
28
Location
Alabama
Faith
Anglican
Jurisdiction
ACNA

bwallace23350

Sr. Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2020
Messages
236
Reaction score
74
Points
28
Location
Alabama
Faith
Anglican
Jurisdiction
ACNA
When you say that the Crusades were in some way anti orthodox that is not true to an extent and true to an extent. The first crusade is and was not anti orthodox at all. The social interaction within the crusader states were not always anti orthodox but Latins were favored. It is a complicated time, a bit out of my area of expertise but I do know a good bit about the Comenenos Emperors and reigns. Each Crusade should be viewed separately.
 

Saxon

High Elder
Joined
Sep 1, 2016
Messages
641
Reaction score
179
Points
43
Age
32
Location
Canada
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
UOCC
You hear an awful lot about 1204 in Orthodox circles - fair - but very little about 1182. Those nuances, eh?
 

Katechon

Elder
Joined
Nov 16, 2018
Messages
419
Reaction score
182
Points
43
Location
Germany
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
ROC-MP
You hear an awful lot about 1204 in Orthodox circles - fair - but very little about 1182. Those nuances, eh?
I don't mean the Fourth Crusade necessarily, but moreso for example the Latinization efforts the crusaders undertook when establishing their kingdoms in Outremer a hundred years prior. The distinct ethos behind an undertaking like the Crusades is also very interesting, since it definitely breaks with the way people conceived of war and government in times prior, and it is interestingly something that carried over into secular times, if you think about the way George W. Bush, Franklin Roosevelt or even Hitler propagandized their wars.
 
Last edited:

bwallace23350

Sr. Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2020
Messages
236
Reaction score
74
Points
28
Location
Alabama
Faith
Anglican
Jurisdiction
ACNA
Take the first crusade at the time. We say that the great Schism happened in 1054. Well yes and no. You had a Papal delegate without the authority, because the Pope was dead, to excommunicate someone and you had the Patriarch only excommunicate the Papal Delegate. You will find times after this where communion was offered to Latin people in the East and vice versa. It was not a clean break but a gradual break truth be told. For the most part those that went on Crusade did not know or ever really know that there was a rift. Alexios was sending an Army to help the Crusaders at the Siege of Nicea but Stephen of Blois fled and told them all hope was lost so they stalled although Nicea eventually did surrender to the Byzantines to the consternation of the Crusaders. You also had some problems with the Crusaders and Byzantines on what help was promised and the not returning of the land that was conquered. It was a messy situation. All in all the Eastern Christians preferred the rule of the Latins to the Muslims. What doomed the Crusaders was the loss at the Field of Blood in Antioch and the Weakening of Byzantium, caused by the 1204 catastrophe. Of course if Andronicus Dukos had brought up the rear guard at Manzikurt we probably would never have had to have a crusade. The Sejuks would have been thrust south. Also if Manual Commenanus would have paid more attention to Anatolia and not gifted the Sejuk Sulton so much wealth on his visit things might have gone different also.

But the Latins, for the most part, set themselves up at the top and then the Eastern Christians, and so on. You do have outliers such as an Eastern Christian became Marshal of Jerusalem. You also had the rulers of Edessa intermarrying with Armenian Christians.
 

Tzimis

Taxiarches
Site Supporter
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
5,520
Reaction score
199
Points
63
Location
wilderness
Faith
Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction
EP
Byzantium was taken down mostly through sedition and internal strife among its oligarchy. United it would have never fallen to the Ottomans.
Family dynasties emerged and created separatist groups that eliminated central power.
Some of those groups were the Comneno-Ducae, Comneno, Andronicus, Angeli, Lascarids.
It's an unfortunate lesson in united we stand, divided we fall.
 

bwallace23350

Sr. Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2020
Messages
236
Reaction score
74
Points
28
Location
Alabama
Faith
Anglican
Jurisdiction
ACNA
Byzantium was taken down mostly through sedition and internal strife among its oligarchy. United it would have never fallen to the Ottomans.
Family dynasties emerged and created separatist groups that eliminated central power.
Some of those groups were the Comneno-Ducae, Comneno, Andronicus, Angeli, Lascarids.
It's an unfortunate lesson in united we stand, divided we fall.
Yes that was a most unfortunate event of the 1204 "crusade" It had always been there but it was amplified 1000 percent after that. Basil II attempted to squelch things and crushed the Phocas family for the most part.
 
Top