Modern day Crusades..?

[J Michael]

Maybe a Billy Graham type crusade would work.

Maybe Charles Martel could stop posting his fantasies here and leave New York to Syria to get at least some insight.

Wow, is that really necessary, I posted this thread out of concern for Christians in the East facing an uncertain future under radical Islamist regimes like the Muslim Brotherhood and I get nothing but accused of engaging in "fantasies".

Don't worry "Mike", I had quite enough insight about the religion of peace right here in NY on 911, I won't be leaving here anytime soon. Maybe you need to  leave Warsaw and get to Aleppo to get a little insight yourself.

At least I'm not trying to "help" them while knowing nothing about the situation.

^ Reminds me of the scriptural saying about planks and specks in eyes. Matt. 7:3-5, Lk. 6:42, I believe. 

 

[orthonorm]

Maybe you need to  leave Warsaw and get to Aleppo to get a little insight yourself.

I think we all can agree anyone from Warsaw has already seen enough.

 

[NicholasMyra]

Why would a anti-religeous heretic like Gibbon go out of his way to glorify a defender of Christendom like Martel?

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with him.

 

[MarkosC]

Aren't they always? Still doesn't deter from the fact that a few thousand Frankish knights from a thousand miles away routed a force ten times theirs in their own back yard. Even with Saladin uniting them for a short time, the Crusaders fell due in part to their own hubris and infighting.

Western European knights - in particular those of Scandanvian/Viking descent - were I believe the most potent military units of the time.  In the Medditerreanean world alone, Norman (i.e. the descendants of the Vikings who invaded France who went on adventuring) knights:  

1. took Southern Italy from the Romans in the mid-1000s.  This led to intrigues between the Romans, the Normans, and the Pope in Old Rome and was decided in the Norman's favor by their military superiority.  

[this led to immense cultural change in the area.  In the religious sphere alone, the Normans imported the new Christian liturgies and practices of Northern Europe which eventually became medieval Latin Catholicism.  This culture apparently quickly absorbed the local Latin Christian practices, and despite occasional Norman rulers patronizing "Greek" Christianity in the area, within a few hundred years that culture was a shadow of itself and only exists as ruins today.  This is of particular concern to me because I'm descended from these folks]

2. invaded the Balkans and Greece in the mid/late 1000s, taking the second most important Roman city of Thessalonica, causing huge numbers of deaths and a military disaster for the Romans as great, perhaps greater, than the near-contemporary defeat by the Turks at Manzikert which led to them imploring Old Rome for assistance.  The Romans decided to fight the Normans first rather than the Turks, likely because the former were closer to Constantinople while the latter were way off in western Anatolia.  This led to the permanent Turkish annexation west-to-mid Anatolia, which in the long run was the more strategically important area.  

[as I recall, the Normans had ambitions of taking the Roman throne in Constatinople for their own]

This led the Pope to call the crusade.  The Romans again called on the Pope's military assistance, in the hopes they could stabilize Anatolia and use the Pope's influence to curb the Normans.  But a grand design to retake Jerusalem was something the Romans had not called for, and which led to:

3. significant numbers of Norman knights being one of major military powers in the First Crusade, inevitably leading to a feud between the two sides.  One can dispute which side was the most duplicitous (politics back then were even more dog-eat-dog than today), but one cannot fault the Romans for not trusting a large Norman army in its territory at such a time.  This bad blood quickly led to open feuding, leading to the political/sectarian debacle after the Siege of Antioch.  

Either way, this was in the end disastrous for almost all the  Christians in the Middle East.  Good numbers of them died in the wars, the "native" Chalcedonian patriarchs (often rightly considered Constantinople's agents) were kicked out. Chalcedonians IIRC were systematically disenfranchised, though  the Maronites, Armenians, and perhaps to a lesser degree the Syrian Christians did get some benefits under Latin rule. But by the time the Muslims returned they were all considered  


[note: all the above is from memory.  I don't have access to my reference books at the time.  The main one I can recall from this are some of the more recent scholarly histories of the period as well as a large three volume book on the "Melkite Greek Catholic Church" translated by that church's present Bishop Nicholas in the US.   And as an aside, one of the most loyal and powerful Roman military units of the time were a group of Scandanavian-Anglo Saxon knights]



As for the OP and the query on modern day Middle Eastern Christians in the wake of the current Arab uprisings:

I'm not Middle Eastern but I know many who are, and you can google plenty of views from them.   Generally, they are against any western involvement and would rather things stay the way they were in the late 1990s.  

That being said, this comes from people who are essentially physical or mental hostages to the pre-uprising status quote.  The regimes which have lost power due to the uprisings were corrupt, ideologically void, economically bankrupt, and often outright evil regimes which stoked sectarian fears to keep themselves in power (the Middle East has long been governed by tribal/sectarian divide and rule -  Baathist Iraq and Syria were/are arguably the worst of such regimes).  Claims that the regimes protected Christians as well as claims that the end of the regimes will be a new bright era for the Middle East are IMO equally naive.  

IMO, the regimes were not tenable and the uprisings of the past year and a half or so were inevitable since the regimes would never give in.  Assad's days are numbered too no matter how things go; the only question is how much of Syria will go with him and what kind of a Syria will come after him.  

 

[Charles Martel]

Aren't they always? Still doesn't deter from the fact that a few thousand Frankish knights from a thousand miles away routed a force ten times theirs in their own back yard. Even with Saladin uniting them for a short time, the Crusaders fell due in part to their own hubris and infighting.

Western European knights - in particular those of Scandanvian/Viking descent - were I believe the most potent military units of the time.  In the Medditerreanean world alone, Norman (i.e. the descendants of the Vikings who invaded France who went on adventuring) knights:  

1. took Southern Italy from the Romans in the mid-1000s.  This led to intrigues between the Romans, the Normans, and the Pope in Old Rome and was decided in the Norman's favor by their military superiority.  

[this led to immense cultural change in the area.  In the religious sphere alone, the Normans imported the new Christian liturgies and practices of Northern Europe which eventually became medieval Latin Catholicism.  This culture apparently quickly absorbed the local Latin Christian practices, and despite occasional Norman rulers patronizing "Greek" Christianity in the area, within a few hundred years that culture was a shadow of itself and only exists as ruins today.  This is of particular concern to me because I'm descended from these folks]

2. invaded the Balkans and Greece in the mid/late 1000s, taking the second most important Roman city of Thessalonica, causing huge numbers of deaths and a military disaster for the Romans as great, perhaps greater, than the near-contemporary defeat by the Turks at Manzikert which led to them imploring Old Rome for assistance.  The Romans decided to fight the Normans first rather than the Turks, likely because the former were closer to Constantinople while the latter were way off in western Anatolia.  This led to the permanent Turkish annexation west-to-mid Anatolia, which in the long run was the more strategically important area.  

[as I recall, the Normans had ambitions of taking the Roman throne in Constatinople for their own]

This led the Pope to call the crusade.  The Romans again called on the Pope's military assistance, in the hopes they could stabilize Anatolia and use the Pope's influence to curb the Normans.  But a grand design to retake Jerusalem was something the Romans had not called for, and which led to:

3. significant numbers of Norman knights being one of major military powers in the First Crusade, inevitably leading to a feud between the two sides.  One can dispute which side was the most duplicitous (politics back then were even more dog-eat-dog than today), but one cannot fault the Romans for not trusting a large Norman army in its territory at such a time.  This bad blood quickly led to open feuding, leading to the political/sectarian debacle after the Siege of Antioch.  

Either way, this was in the end disastrous for almost all the  Christians in the Middle East.  Good numbers of them died in the wars, the "native" Chalcedonian patriarchs (often rightly considered Constantinople's agents) were kicked out. Chalcedonians IIRC were systematically disenfranchised, though  the Maronites, Armenians, and perhaps to a lesser degree the Syrian Christians did get some benefits under Latin rule. But by the time the Muslims returned they were all considered  


[note: all the above is from memory.  I don't have access to my reference books at the time.  The main one I can recall from this are some of the more recent scholarly histories of the period as well as a large three volume book on the "Melkite Greek Catholic Church" translated by that church's present Bishop Nicholas in the US.   And as an aside, one of the most loyal and powerful Roman military units of the time were a group of Scandanavian-Anglo Saxon knights]



As for the OP and the query on modern day Middle Eastern Christians in the wake of the current Arab uprisings:

I'm not Middle Eastern but I know many who are, and you can google plenty of views from them.   Generally, they are against any western involvement and would rather things stay the way they were in the late 1990s.  

That being said, this comes from people who are essentially physical or mental hostages to the pre-uprising status quote.  The regimes which have lost power due to the uprisings were corrupt, ideologically void, economically bankrupt, and often outright evil regimes which stoked sectarian fears to keep themselves in power (the Middle East has long been governed by tribal/sectarian divide and rule -  Baathist Iraq and Syria were/are arguably the worst of such regimes).  Claims that the regimes protected Christians as well as claims that the end of the regimes will be a new bright era for the Middle East are IMO equally naive.  

IMO, the regimes were not tenable and the uprisings of the past year and a half or so were inevitable since the regimes would never give in.  Assad's days are numbered too no matter how things go; the only question is how much of Syria will go with him and what kind of a Syria will come after him.  

Interesting post, viewed obviously through the lens of an Eastern Christian. Not saying I disagree with much of it but don't have time to dissect it's entirety, although curious how you refer to the Byzantines as distinctly "Roman". There is much to discuss about the hows and whys for the call to Crusade by Urban II but make no mistake, Alexis I did ask for help less Asia Minor be overrun by the Seljuk Turks and Islam which was must the case anyway eventually. And it is no secret that many of the Frankish (Norman) Crusaders had more in mind than Holy War and protecting the pilgrims path to Jerusalem, nevertheless this wasn't the dominant driving force behind the Pope's call to arms. We can get into a deep theological, philosophical and political discussion about the West calling for Crusade but the bottom line is that Christendom was on a crash course with Islam for some time before 1095 it was just a matter of  when and how it was to come about, the Council at Clermont would soon clear all this up.

I agree the West should stay out of Arab internal affairs, as a matter of fact, that is the reason for the situation we have in Syria now but if fundamentalist regimes seize power Christian churches will be at risk, this should be cause for a concern from brother Christians outside the ME. I don't see why this would cause offense form other Eastern Christians, apparently it does.

I don't know if Assad is going anywhere soon, especially with Russian support. But if he does I agree with the unknown ramifications  especially for Christians and hence the question asked in the OP.

 

[Charles Martel]

Maybe a Billy Graham type crusade would work.

Maybe Charles Martel could stop posting his fantasies here and leave New York to Syria to get at least some insight.

Wow, is that really necessary, I posted this thread out of concern for Christians in the East facing an uncertain future under radical Islamist regimes like the Muslim Brotherhood and I get nothing but accused of engaging in "fantasies".

Don't worry "Mike", I had quite enough insight about the religion of peace right here in NY on 911, I won't be leaving here anytime soon. Maybe you need to  leave Warsaw and get to Aleppo to get a little insight yourself.

At least I'm not trying to "help" them while knowing nothing about the situation.

Why don't you enlighten me then.

And why would you parenthesize the word help?

Do you believe I have other intentions?

 

[Charles Martel]

Maybe you need to  leave Warsaw and get to Aleppo to get a little insight yourself.

I think we all can agree anyone from Warsaw has already seen enough.

Why is it looking like Paris these days?

 

[Charles Martel]

Why would a anti-religeous heretic like Gibbon go out of his way to glorify a defender of Christendom like Martel?

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with him.

Frankly I don't have the time or ambition.

 

[Iconodule]

Why would a anti-religeous heretic like Gibbon go out of his way to glorify a defender of Christendom like Martel?

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with him.

Frankly I don't have the time or ambition.

Then don't expect your opinion to be taken seriously.

 

[Charles Martel]

Why would a anti-religeous heretic like Gibbon go out of his way to glorify a defender of Christendom like Martel?

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with him.

Frankly I don't have the time or ambition.

Then don't expect your opinion to be taken seriously.

  And your is to be taken..........why?

 

[mike]

Maybe a Billy Graham type crusade would work.

Maybe Charles Martel could stop posting his fantasies here and leave New York to Syria to get at least some insight.

Wow, is that really necessary, I posted this thread out of concern for Christians in the East facing an uncertain future under radical Islamist regimes like the Muslim Brotherhood and I get nothing but accused of engaging in "fantasies".

Don't worry "Mike", I had quite enough insight about the religion of peace right here in NY on 911, I won't be leaving here anytime soon. Maybe you need to  leave Warsaw and get to Aleppo to get a little insight yourself.

At least I'm not trying to "help" them while knowing nothing about the situation.

Why don't you enlighten me then.

And why would you parenthesize the word help?

Do you believe I have other intentions?

I don't know anything about the situation too. That's why I'm not making fool out of myself and am not advicing what to do with Syria.

Without the required knowledge you will fail. Your intentions do not matter at all.

 

[Charles Martel]

Maybe a Billy Graham type crusade would work.

Maybe Charles Martel could stop posting his fantasies here and leave New York to Syria to get at least some insight.

Wow, is that really necessary, I posted this thread out of concern for Christians in the East facing an uncertain future under radical Islamist regimes like the Muslim Brotherhood and I get nothing but accused of engaging in "fantasies".

Don't worry "Mike", I had quite enough insight about the religion of peace right here in NY on 911, I won't be leaving here anytime soon. Maybe you need to  leave Warsaw and get to Aleppo to get a little insight yourself.

At least I'm not trying to "help" them while knowing nothing about the situation.

Why don't you enlighten me then.

And why would you parenthesize the word help?

Do you believe I have other intentions?

I don't know anything about the situation too. That's why I'm not making fool out of myself and am not advicing what to do with Syria.

Without the required knowledge you will fail. Your intentions do not matter at all.

I've already produced posts from your own Church's concern about the situation in Syria, maybe you believe them to be fools as well and I have been following it for some time myself now , I'm probably more informed about it than you.

And I haven't "advised" anything except cooperation and solidarity amongst Christians worldwide for their brethren in potential danger over in that aprt of the world, what is the problem?

 

[Charles Martel]

Syrian militants break into archbishop’s residence


Aleppo, Syria, Aug 28, 2012 / 02:33 am (EWTN News)

Read more: http://www.ewtnnews.com/catholic-news/World.php?id=6054#ixzz25WkFthkJ


The Franciscan priest said a solution to the conflict is not in sight “because none of the protagonists in the field, national and international, put pressure to start real dialogue.”

A member of the local Catholic hierarchy, speaking anonymously for safety reasons, warned against efforts to incite further tensions.

“With the intervention, well established, of jihadist groups, there is an attempt to foment hatred and sectarian conflict,” he said. “There is an increasing number of Wahhabi and Salafi Islamist militias, from Chechnya, Pakistan, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Tunisia, Arabia, Libya


Read more: http://www.ewtnnews.com/catholic-news/World.php?id=6054#ixzz25WkUeGNq

 

[ialmisry]

Maybe a Billy Graham type crusade would work.

Maybe Charles Martel could stop posting his fantasies here and leave New York to Syria to get at least some insight.

Wow, is that really necessary, I posted this thread out of concern for Christians in the East facing an uncertain future under radical Islamist regimes like the Muslim Brotherhood and I get nothing but accused of engaging in "fantasies".

Whatever.

Some of you Orthodox are a nasty lot.

Don't worry "Mike", I had quite enough insight about the religion of peace right here in NY on 911, I won't be leaving here anytime soon. Maybe you need to  leave Warsaw and get to Aleppo to get a little insight yourself.

The "Christian" West tore down the Arab Christian neighborhood of "Little Syria" to build the World Trade Center on top of it.  In the 911 rubble they found the cornerstone of the church of your correligionists the Maronites, which our purported "saviors" condemned and tore down to erect their modern tower of Babel.

 

[ialmisry]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

With the advent of the so-called "Arab Spring", the  Muslim Brotherhood gaining momentum and Islam encroaching on historically Orthodox lands, you don't see the possibility of a similar scenario just prior to the First Crusade?

I'm not saying it's going to happen, but there must be some solidarity between Catholics, East and West as well as more vocal opposition to the situation in the East.

No, the world is entirely reversed from then. During the time of the first Crusades western Europe was completely underdeveloped, Eastern Europe was inching towards decline, and the Arabs and Turks were on the rise culturally, economically, politically, and technologically.  In our contemporary time, the Western world is ages beyond the developing Arab/Turk/Muslim world, Eastern Europe is experiencing almost a revival of sorts (pre-Recession that is to say) and it is literally unfeasible for the Muslims/Arabs to somehow challenge the hegemony and dominance of western money and technology.  If they were to try it, it would be sudden demise. In all actuality, the Arabs would probably LOVE to be able to launch a war, we have a lot of mutual political and economic gripe which provokes hostilities at every strata of our societies. In all truth, the Western world is probably only humoring the Arabs because of financial opportunities, as I am quite sure that if it was in Western economic interests, they'd wipe the Arabs of the map without blinking  :-X

stay blessed,
habte selassie

  Well for a ragtag group of mercenaries from a collage  of "underdeveloped" nations, they sure did a number on the superior Islamic force surrounding the Holy Land

who were in the midst of a civil war.  Several, as a matter of fact.

Aren't they always?

No, they aren't.  The Fatimid Caliphate, for instance, had gone over two centuries without one.  The US hasn't done as well.

Still doesn't deter from the fact that a few thousand Frankish knights from a thousand miles away routed a force ten times theirs in their own back yard. Even with Saladin uniting them for a short time, the Crusaders fell due in part to their own hubris and infighting.

40,000+ is more than a few thousand.  And they didn't face much of a fight until Antioch, far from the Muslim centers and well under a thousand miles from Jerusalem, and did not face a battle as you describe it until the Battle of Ascalon, when they had occupied Jerusalem already.

I think your figure of 40thousand is a bit inflated, anyway, i'm talking about actual Knights or Templars who were really the force behind the Crusade. But even if your close in that number, you have to consider they crossed two continents and the Med sea just to get there, were tired, undernourished, and thousands of miles ( a logistical eternity in those days) away from their homelands

The Caliphs did as much, and more, reaching the Pyrenees and central Asia.

and that was before Antioch, a major battle they should've never won but perhaps from divine intervention or complete Arab incompetence

They were fighting Turks, not Arabs (except the Christian Arabs they expelled).

either way, the Crusaders pulled off an almost impossible victory in what you erroneously decribe as not a "Muslim center", on the contrary, Antioch was almost in the heart of the Levant with the Crusaders being surrounded by Islam.

No, that was Aleppo, whose ability to withstand the Crusader doomed the Crusades.

Antioch, between earthquakes, seiges, sackings, etc. had dwindled to nearly nothing.  That says nothing of the Patriarchate of Antioch (and for that matter, of Alexandria and Jerusalem), which remained predominantly Christian, until after the Crusades. In 1071, the Empire of the Romans looked like this: 

and many, many Christians lived across the frontier further south and east.

And Islam has always been warring within itself, the religion was founded on warring tribes which is much the case today. The children of Ishmael only occasionaly put down their sword against each other to unite and fight the invading infidel from outside their realms.

what Muslim was here?

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

This son of Ishmael

bears only the Word of God as his sword.

 

[Charles Martel]

Maybe a Billy Graham type crusade would work.

Maybe Charles Martel could stop posting his fantasies here and leave New York to Syria to get at least some insight.

Wow, is that really necessary, I posted this thread out of concern for Christians in the East facing an uncertain future under radical Islamist regimes like the Muslim Brotherhood and I get nothing but accused of engaging in "fantasies".

Whatever.

Some of you Orthodox are a nasty lot.

Don't worry "Mike", I had quite enough insight about the religion of peace right here in NY on 911, I won't be leaving here anytime soon. Maybe you need to  leave Warsaw and get to Aleppo to get a little insight yourself.

The "Christian" West tore down the Arab Christian neighborhood of "Little Syria" to build the World Trade Center on top of it.  In the 911 rubble they found the cornerstone of the church of your correligionists the Maronites, which our purported "saviors" condemned and tore down to erect their modern tower of Babel.

Sooo.....what does all this have to do with the situation for Christians in Syria again?

And last I checked the Orthodox were of the same "religion" as  Latin Roman Catholics.

 

[Papist]

And last I checked the Orthodox were of the same "religion" as  Latin Roman Catholics.

There are EOs who would disagree with this statement.

 

[Charles Martel]

ialmisry, I have no problem with Arab Christians, actually the point of this thread is my concern for them.

And why would any Christian brag about the greatness of any Islamic Caliphates?

One more thing, I don't care how many anti-Latin Catholic posters come here and try to diminish the Crusaders victory at Antioch, it was nothing short of a miracle and a testament to the Latins resolve against the infidel in the Levant.

 

[Charles Martel]

And last I checked the Orthodox were of the same "religion" as  Latin Roman Catholics.

There are EOs who would disagree with this statement.

Doesn't mean it's not true.

 

[HabteSelassie]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

ialmisry, I have no problem with Arab Christians, actually the point of this thread is my concern for them.

And why would any Christian brag about the greatness of any Islamic Caliphates?

One more thing, I don't care how many anti-Latin Catholic posters come here and try to diminish the Crusaders victory at Antioch, it was nothing short of a miracle and a testament to the Latins resolve against the infidel in the Levant.

Easy my brother, this is a world of difference between people arguing historiography and people arguing polemics

stay blessed,
habte selassie

 

[Asteriktos]

And last I checked the Orthodox were of the same "religion" as  Latin Roman Catholics.

There are EOs who would disagree with this statement.

Doesn't mean it's not true.

If you agree that Orthodox and Catholics aren't of the same religion then why did you say otherwise?  ???

 

[ialmisry]

Maybe a Billy Graham type crusade would work.

Maybe Charles Martel could stop posting his fantasies here and leave New York to Syria to get at least some insight.

Wow, is that really necessary, I posted this thread out of concern for Christians in the East facing an uncertain future under radical Islamist regimes like the Muslim Brotherhood and I get nothing but accused of engaging in "fantasies".

Whatever.

Some of you Orthodox are a nasty lot.

Don't worry "Mike", I had quite enough insight about the religion of peace right here in NY on 911, I won't be leaving here anytime soon. Maybe you need to  leave Warsaw and get to Aleppo to get a little insight yourself.

The "Christian" West tore down the Arab Christian neighborhood of "Little Syria" to build the World Trade Center on top of it.  In the 911 rubble they found the cornerstone of the church of your correligionists the Maronites, which our purported "saviors" condemned and tore down to erect their modern tower of Babel.

Sooo.....what does all this have to do with the situation for Christians in Syria again?

And last I checked the Orthodox were of the same "religion" as  Latin Roman Catholics.

Last time you checked must have been before 1100.

Worshippers of mammon aren't going to help the Christians in Syria.  Or anywhere.

 

[ialmisry]

ialmisry, I have no problem with Arab Christians, actually the point of this thread is my concern for them.

Yeeeah.

And why would any Christian brag about the greatness of any Islamic Caliphates?

Although you should give the devil his due, no Christian bragged about the greatness of any Islamic Caliphate.

One more thing, I don't care how many anti-Latin Catholic posters come here and try to diminish the Crusaders victory at Antioch, it was nothing short of a miracle and a testament to the Latins resolve against the infidel in the Levant.

Yeeeah. If you say so.

 

[Charles Martel]

And last I checked the Orthodox were of the same "religion" as  Latin Roman Catholics.

There are EOs who would disagree with this statement.

Doesn't mean it's not true.

If you agree that Orthodox and Catholics aren't of the same religion then why did you say otherwise?  ???

  Where did I I say that?  ???

 

[Charles Martel]

Maybe a Billy Graham type crusade would work.

Maybe Charles Martel could stop posting his fantasies here and leave New York to Syria to get at least some insight.

Wow, is that really necessary, I posted this thread out of concern for Christians in the East facing an uncertain future under radical Islamist regimes like the Muslim Brotherhood and I get nothing but accused of engaging in "fantasies".

Whatever.

Some of you Orthodox are a nasty lot.

Don't worry "Mike", I had quite enough insight about the religion of peace right here in NY on 911, I won't be leaving here anytime soon. Maybe you need to  leave Warsaw and get to Aleppo to get a little insight yourself.

The "Christian" West tore down the Arab Christian neighborhood of "Little Syria" to build the World Trade Center on top of it.  In the 911 rubble they found the cornerstone of the church of your correligionists the Maronites, which our purported "saviors" condemned and tore down to erect their modern tower of Babel.

Sooo.....what does all this have to do with the situation for Christians in Syria again?

And last I checked the Orthodox were of the same "religion" as  Latin Roman Catholics.

Last time you checked must have been before 1100.

Worshippers of mammon aren't going to help the Christians in Syria.  Or anywhere.

Worshipper of mammon? Really? you've got to be kidding me.

Where do you get this stuff from?

Unless you mistake me for a Zionist or Protestant of some sort.

 

[Charles Martel]

ialmisry, I have no problem with Arab Christians, actually the point of this thread is my concern for them.

Yeeeah.

And why would any Christian brag about the greatness of any Islamic Caliphates?

Although you should give the devil his due, no Christian bragged about the greatness of any Islamic Caliphate.

One more thing, I don't care how many anti-Latin Catholic posters come here and try to diminish the Crusaders victory at Antioch, it was nothing short of a miracle and a testament to the Latins resolve against the infidel in the Levant.

Yeeeah. If you say so.

Yeah I do.

I see we're getting no where here and now you're just being unreasonable because of some innate hatred of Western "Christians" as you put it, so we'll just have to agree to disagree on some issues.

Anyway I have to get going, I have some mammon close by that I need to prostrate in front of before I forget. ;D

 

[NicholasMyra]

Vovoid Todd has nothing on this.

 

[orthonorm]

Maybe you need to  leave Warsaw and get to Aleppo to get a little insight yourself.

I think we all can agree anyone from Warsaw has already seen enough.

Why is it looking like Paris these days?

Another concreter . . .

Warsaw

 

[Charles Martel]

Maybe you need to  leave Warsaw and get to Aleppo to get a little insight yourself.

I think we all can agree anyone from Warsaw has already seen enough.

Why is it looking like Paris these days?

Another concreter . . .

Warsaw

What? What does that mean. What is your point?


You Orthodox need to stop beating around the bush and say what you mean already.

We Latins don't mince words......at least I don't.

 

[ialmisry]

ialmisry, I have no problem with Arab Christians, actually the point of this thread is my concern for them.

Yeeeah.

And why would any Christian brag about the greatness of any Islamic Caliphates?

Although you should give the devil his due, no Christian bragged about the greatness of any Islamic Caliphate.

One more thing, I don't care how many anti-Latin Catholic posters come here and try to diminish the Crusaders victory at Antioch, it was nothing short of a miracle and a testament to the Latins resolve against the infidel in the Levant.

Yeeeah. If you say so.

Yeah I do.

I see we're getting no where here and now you're just being unreasonable because of some innate hatred of Western "Christians" as you put it, so we'll just have to agree to disagree on some issues.

Like the ignorance of history by those suffering from arrogance serving the Hubris of the West.

 

[Charles Martel]

ialmisry, I have no problem with Arab Christians, actually the point of this thread is my concern for them.

Yeeeah.

And why would any Christian brag about the greatness of any Islamic Caliphates?

Although you should give the devil his due, no Christian bragged about the greatness of any Islamic Caliphate.

One more thing, I don't care how many anti-Latin Catholic posters come here and try to diminish the Crusaders victory at Antioch, it was nothing short of a miracle and a testament to the Latins resolve against the infidel in the Levant.

Yeeeah. If you say so.

Yeah I do.

I see we're getting no where here and now you're just being unreasonable because of some innate hatred of Western "Christians" as you put it, so we'll just have to agree to disagree on some issues.

Like the ignorance of history by those suffering from arrogance serving the Hubris of the West.

The only ones I see "suffering" are Christians in the East with Mohamed's foot on their necks.

 

[ialmisry]

ialmisry, I have no problem with Arab Christians, actually the point of this thread is my concern for them.

Yeeeah.

And why would any Christian brag about the greatness of any Islamic Caliphates?

Although you should give the devil his due, no Christian bragged about the greatness of any Islamic Caliphate.

One more thing, I don't care how many anti-Latin Catholic posters come here and try to diminish the Crusaders victory at Antioch, it was nothing short of a miracle and a testament to the Latins resolve against the infidel in the Levant.

Yeeeah. If you say so.

Yeah I do.

I see we're getting no where here and now you're just being unreasonable because of some innate hatred of Western "Christians" as you put it, so we'll just have to agree to disagree on some issues.

Like the ignorance of history by those suffering from arrogance serving the Hubris of the West.

The only ones I see "suffering" are Christians in the East with Mohamed's foot on their necks.

after the Crusaders pulled the rug from under their feet, kicked Mohamad, and ran away.

 

[Charles Martel]

ialmisry, I have no problem with Arab Christians, actually the point of this thread is my concern for them.

Yeeeah.

And why would any Christian brag about the greatness of any Islamic Caliphates?

Although you should give the devil his due, no Christian bragged about the greatness of any Islamic Caliphate.

One more thing, I don't care how many anti-Latin Catholic posters come here and try to diminish the Crusaders victory at Antioch, it was nothing short of a miracle and a testament to the Latins resolve against the infidel in the Levant.

Yeeeah. If you say so.

Yeah I do.

I see we're getting no where here and now you're just being unreasonable because of some innate hatred of Western "Christians" as you put it, so we'll just have to agree to disagree on some issues.

Like the ignorance of history by those suffering from arrogance serving the Hubris of the West.

The only ones I see "suffering" are Christians in the East with Mohamed's foot on their necks.

after the Crusaders pulled the rug from under their feet, kicked Mohamad, and ran away.

Yea, whatever.....26 thousand posts on this forum and this is all you can come up with?

You can't even spell Mohamed right.

Seems in your view, the Latin Crusaders did such a good job usurping Christianity in the East it never recovered.

 

[NicholasMyra]

Seems in your view, the Latin Crusaders did such a good job usurping Christianity in the East it never recovered.

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

 

[Nephi]

You can't even spell Mohamed right.

Can't help but nit-pick here, but as far as I'm aware there's no standardized transliteration of that name into English. I think Mohammad or Muhammad are more accurate to the Arabic though.

 

[ialmisry]

ialmisry, I have no problem with Arab Christians, actually the point of this thread is my concern for them.

Yeeeah.

And why would any Christian brag about the greatness of any Islamic Caliphates?

Although you should give the devil his due, no Christian bragged about the greatness of any Islamic Caliphate.

One more thing, I don't care how many anti-Latin Catholic posters come here and try to diminish the Crusaders victory at Antioch, it was nothing short of a miracle and a testament to the Latins resolve against the infidel in the Levant.

Yeeeah. If you say so.

Yeah I do.

I see we're getting no where here and now you're just being unreasonable because of some innate hatred of Western "Christians" as you put it, so we'll just have to agree to disagree on some issues.

Like the ignorance of history by those suffering from arrogance serving the Hubris of the West.

The only ones I see "suffering" are Christians in the East with Mohamed's foot on their necks.

after the Crusaders pulled the rug from under their feet, kicked Mohamed, and ran away.

Yea, whatever.....26 thousand posts on this forum and this is all you can come up with?

Just answering a fool in his folly. I save the good stuff for intelligent conversation.

You can't even spell Mohamed right.

Sure can:محمد

Btw, Romanized it's Muhammad, and Anglicized it might be Mohammed.  But "Mohamed," that's just illiterate.

Seems in your view, the Latin Crusaders did such a good job usurping Christianity in the East it never recovered.

Latin Crusaders are destructive that way.

 

[Sinful Hypocrite]

God will prevail in the end. So we are best off praying for mercy.

LET US SET OUR SIGHTS ON THE REAL KINGDOM

LUKE  12
4“I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. 5But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him. 6Are not five sparrows sold for two penniesa? Yet not one of them is forgotten by God. 7Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.

32“Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has been pleased to give you the kingdom. 33Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys. 34For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

 

[mike]

You can't even spell Mohamed right.

Lol. Ialmisry is a native Arabic speaker.

 

[MarkosC]

after the Crusaders pulled the rug from under their feet, kicked Mohamad, kicked the native Christians in the *&&^ and ran away.

I unfortunately have to agree with this, as edited above.   I hate to sound anti-Western - I'm really not - but this really is a case where (the then-resurgent) Western Europe did not produce good fruits, and the Latin Church unfortunately was highly culpable.  

[“was” I say because I believe recent Popes have apologized, though the Latin Church’s awareness of how bad things got is still IMO insufficient, sometimes negatively effecting interaction and dialogue]

First, per your previous question, I call the empire in Constantinople the “Roman Empire” and the people there “Romans” because that's what they called themselves, and they are my ancestors.   "Byzantine" is a name given to them in the Renaissance to further separate that empire from the Renaissance classicists' idealized ancient Rome.  

Second, there is no doubt that many of the crusaders victories were significant military feats, something that requires will and morale, and in that sense are notable, and sometimes unquestionably admirable as military feats.  

Third, I do not doubt the sincerity of some of the crusaders.  Some of the religious orders, as much as the concept is odd for Eastern Christians, conducted themselves well, though others (in particular the Normans), were out for themselves and not for "Christendom".  

However, in the end, nothing good for the Christians of the Middle East came from the crusades.   During Latin rule, aside from the Maronites and some of the Armenians, they were either ignored, given second class status (compared to Latin Christianity), considered enemies or expelled.   (I would note that similar happened in the Greek Islands under Venetian rule)  Of course, afterwards, all Christians were considered collaborators by the Muslims.  

From the perspective of Chalcedonian Eastern Christians (i.e. those in the Empire and those in union with the Empire), crusading – Papally authorized calls for troops to go fight - were an unmitigated disaster.  

Politically, the Emperor asked the pope for troops to help shore up the Roman frontier (also note that anti-Norman and anti-German politics probably had some play in this).  He was not expecting a mass movement of loosely-organized knights running around Anatolia, forming their own states, expelling his representatives, massacring "his" people (i.e. the Chalcedonian Christians of the Middle East), , causing excessive political headaches with the Muslims (the crusaders could always go to a home where they would not worry about Muslims.   The Romans home was right next to the Muslims and had to deal with them when they got overly upset), and going on a principled but likely unsustainable attempt to conquer Jerusalem.  Moreover, Crusaders would almost always kick out the local bishop, appoint their own, and massacre/expeltheir flocks, or reduce the flocks to what amounted to dhimmitude, except with the Latins replacing the Muslims on top.  

Moreover, once Constantinople was taken by the rogue 4th crusade  (abetted by dynastic squabbling all too typical of both pagan and Christian Roman politics), you are aware that the Pope specifically praised the unexpected act as ending the "schism" (while condemning crusader's excess) and that him and many subsequent pope specifically called for crusades against "schismatics" to prop up the Latin "Empire" in Constantinople and fight the natives.  

The “Latin dhimmitdue” combined with these crusades in Greece, the Ionian islands and Anatolia are part of the reasons many Greek Christians preferred Muslim versus Latin rulers once the Empire crumbled - the experience of expulsions or functional dhimmitude under the Latins was perceived to be worse than actual dhimmitude under the Muslim.  

Seems in your view, the Latin Crusaders did such a good job usurping Christianity in the East it never recovered.

The answer would be, "yes".   The crusades were awful for the native Christians, some more than others, but still bad.  

If you want a discussion from a Catholic source, see "History of the Melkite Patriarchates Volume 1 Pre-Modern Period", written by one of Rome's top "Orientalists" of the early 1900s and translated under the supervision of the man who is now the Melkite Catholic bishop in the US:
https://secure.webvalence.com/ecommerce/kiosk.lasso?merchant=ecpubs&kiosk=books&class=6




As far as today goes, I think everyone would like some of the current Middle Eastern governments (in particular Egypt and Syria) to protect the rights of all citizens and residents regardless of creed or sect, but doing so constructively is hard.  Moreover, my understanding of Middle Eastern politics is that expecting them to do so is unrealistic – oftentimes, politics is viewed as a winner-takes-all-for-his-backers-or-sect kind of affair.   The West can probably work good there, but it will have to be careful and tread lightly unless something egregious (e.g. systematic persecution of Copts) takes place.  

[as an aside, my stone throwing at Old Rome is one sided because it’s the topic here.  There are plenty of stones that could be thrown against Constantinople as well]

 

[Green_Umbrella]

ialmisry, I have no problem with Arab Christians, actually the point of this thread is my concern for them.

Yeeeah.

And why would any Christian brag about the greatness of any Islamic Caliphates?

Although you should give the devil his due, no Christian bragged about the greatness of any Islamic Caliphate.

One more thing, I don't care how many anti-Latin Catholic posters come here and try to diminish the Crusaders victory at Antioch, it was nothing short of a miracle and a testament to the Latins resolve against the infidel in the Levant.

Yeeeah. If you say so.

Yeah I do.

I see we're getting no where here and now you're just being unreasonable because of some innate hatred of Western "Christians" as you put it, so we'll just have to agree to disagree on some issues.

Like the ignorance of history by those suffering from arrogance serving the Hubris of the West.

The only ones I see "suffering" are Christians in the East with Mohamed's foot on their necks.

after the Crusaders pulled the rug from under their feet, kicked Mohamad, and ran away.

That is a joke. The Christians in the east were folding under Islam all on their own long before any Crusaders showed up and stopped total collapse.