Main > The Round Table
What would you have been in the medieval age?
Lord Dane:
--- Quote from: SirNathanQ on 2012-12-02, 18:42:06 ---Lord Dane, yes, as depicted in KOA, the Templars were evil punks. No one disputes that, as it was kind of the point. In reality they, and the crusaders in general, were for the most part, nothing like that.
Also the Pope in Rome had very little to do with what the Crusaders did once they got on the boats for the Holy Land. The Pope didn't direct Reynald on his raids, or the Crusaders to Hattin. The Pope called the crusade, got them on the boats, told them the overall goal, and that's really it. The Crusades were in a spiritual sense, a show of devotion, and an extremely elaborate penance (that's where the forgiveness for past sins (and those committed on Crusade). There were those of course who abused this, and took it as a licence to do whatever they wanted, but that was never the idea.
Also the Crusaders actually just barely won the first crusade. At every turn they faced overwhelming odds, and their series of victories could almost be considered miraculous. The siege of Jerusalem was an extremely hard fought siege, with much death on both sides. A sack of the city was simply standard military protocol for the time. The total exterminations took place on the Temple Mount (the last and fiercest defender holdouts), not the whole city. It was a fierce siege followed by a fierce sack. Nothing abnormal at all for the time. And I would be very hesitant to call the defenders of Jerusalem "not capable". The only reason the siege succeeded as soon as it did (and it needed to, a Muslim relief force was on its way) was because of tactical ploys by the crusader leaders.
Also the Templars weren't around for the first Crusade, being founded almost 30 years afterwards.
--- End quote ---
I said original CRUSADERS, Sir Nathan, not Templars. I know they were founded circa 1118.
Yes, they were not as well prepared & against odds but did find themselves having divine luck in most of their efforts. Desperation can motivate the most moral man to do the unthinkable even when intentions are good in his mind including betrayal to Christian beliefs.
However, Pope Urban II had everything to do with the 'motivational aspect' of those that chose to take the Holy Land & he certainly gave them the reasons to not be concerned about murder (even if not responsible for their actions). A one way ticket to Heaven & forgiveness for all past sins would be quite appealing to Christian guilt of the day especially to the knights who spent most of the their feudal days prior killing their fellow Christians in bloody disputes over land in Europe. He was the quinticential salesman of his day who knew how to market his trade to the masses of minions who followed Christian ideology.
They took Jerusalem because some competent Crusader leader(s) were able to convince (bribe) a certain Muslim guarding a tower to give them access to a lightly defended West Wall with ladders during a night raid that led to the opening of the gates. No one said Jersulaem defenders were 'not capable', they were 'unprepared'. So yes, in relation to their military tactical ploys, their strategy worked great. Just like when Joshua conquered Jericho's walls by having Isrealite spies win some whore's heart who in turn, allowed his commandos at night to scale the walls with dropped ropes & penetrate the city defenses. Distraction & deception work well in military strategy when desperate.
SirNathanQ:
Lord Dane, I was responding to Sir William's post, which seems to imply that the Templars were present during the 1st crusade.
Lord Dane, what sources do you have that say anything that happened during the siege of Jerusalem was contrary to the common practices of the day, or contrary to medieval Christian thinking?
Yes, a church endorsement was a good motivator, and when later crusades actually do start getting around to offering plenary indulgences for going on crusade, you do get some effect beyond devotion and penance (the crusades were never a straight ticket to heaven by themselves, and it was not for the remission of sins themselves, noting of course that remission and penance are two different things. As Catholics, all of the crusaders would have access to total remission of their sins through Confession, right at home.) But the Pope never directed the actual military forces in Outremer.
Also, Urban II was responding to pleas for help from Alexius I of the Byzantine Empire. The Pilgrimage (it wasn't even known as a Crusade until much later) had the goal of seizing Muslim-held territory and returning it to the Byzantines (Christians, if not Catholics) in return for military aid on their pilgrimage. Land was only taken by the Crusaders when Stephen of Blois advised the Byzantine aid that the Crusaders were lost. If there was any true "salesman" behavior going on, it was probably Urban II hoping that the Pilgrimage could re-unify Christianity (Greek Orthodox had only split from the Catholic Church mere 50 years beforehand) under the Papal banner.
Also your description is actually the siege of Antioch. Jerusalem was won by a two-pronged attack, one of which shifted their position during the night to gain the element of surprise. And my point was that the garrison mounted an effective defense. The terms "not capable" and "unprepared" were taken from your post.
Also, where did you hear that account of the siege of Jericho? I am not near as knowledgeable with ancient battles, but it sounds rather interesting.
Lord Dane:
--- Quote from: SirNathanQ on 2012-12-04, 04:49:38 ---Lord Dane, I was responding to Sir William's post, which seems to imply that the Templars were present during the 1st crusade.
Lord Dane, what sources do you have that say anything that happened during the siege of Jerusalem was contrary to the common practices of the day, or contrary to medieval Christian thinking?
Yes, a church endorsement was a good motivator, and when later crusades actually do start getting around to offering plenary indulgences for going on crusade, you do get some effect beyond devotion and penance (the crusades were never a straight ticket to heaven by themselves, and it was not for the remission of sins themselves, noting of course that remission and penance are two different things. As Catholics, all of the crusaders would have access to total remission of their sins through Confession, right at home.) But the Pope never directed the actual military forces in Outremer.
Also, Urban II was responding to pleas for help from Alexius I of the Byzantine Empire. The Pilgrimage (it wasn't even known as a Crusade until much later) had the goal of seizing Muslim-held territory and returning it to the Byzantines (Christians, if not Catholics) in return for military aid on their pilgrimage. Land was only taken by the Crusaders when Stephen of Blois advised the Byzantine aid that the Crusaders were lost. If there was any true "salesman" behavior going on, it was probably Urban II hoping that the Pilgrimage could re-unify Christianity (Greek Orthodox had only split from the Catholic Church mere 50 years beforehand) under the Papal banner.
Also your description is actually the siege of Antioch. Jerusalem was won by a two-pronged attack, one of which shifted their position during the night to gain the element of surprise. And my point was that the garrison mounted an effective defense. The terms "not capable" and "unprepared" were taken from your post.
Also, where did you hear that account of the siege of Jericho? I am not near as knowledgeable with ancient battles, but it sounds rather interesting.
--- End quote ---
I agree with the Urban II historical account of why Crusaders went on Pilgrimage to the Holy Land resulting from the Byzantine Emperor requesting assistance from the Roman Church. It was just more a "ploy" on the part of the Pope that allowed the Crusades to begin (not just the invitation by the Byzantines who did not have the military might to retake their once-held territory from the occupying Muslims). Pope Urban II wished more to unify the East and West under the Papal banner so Christian power would again reign in Rome. Granted, he did not control the masses who flocked on pilgrimage but he began what he knew would result... a good marketing campaign to assist the Church's end goal.
True enough regarding the practice of "remission" and "penance" right at home but the Pope could not motivate masses of murderous Christian soldiers on campaign for something they could do at home. He needed to appeal to those knights who would undertake the campaign by his guarantee of divine forgiveness for all sins if they went on campaign in the name of Christendom.
Honestly, we know the crusaders were motivated by different reasons (i.e. faith, greed, power, etc) in accordance with most accounts of the 3 year campaign (1095-98) to reach Jerusalem. The effort alone to reach Jerusalem under such dire and poor conditions would lead many of them to do inhumane and barbaric things, and it has according to history. Noone can really say it was one mitigating factor that drove them to go, but I think if Urban II hadn't made his plea, the Crusades would not have happened in the same way. He took advantage of a situation and did it well.
The Byzantines needed the Papacy aid but did not want to share what they now enjoyed. They did not expect a Catholic mob of about 100,000 Crusaders at their doors so they were hesistant to welcome them. This made the leaders of the Catholic campaign reign in their own efforts to retake the lands from Muslims for other reasons and led to betrayal. It certainly would not make reunification of East and West occur.
Yes, those were "my terms" from my post. ::) History Channel's series "Ancient Battles of the Bible" accounts for a whole documented history dedicated to the Israelites campaigns to take Canaan. Series noted battles led by Joshua, David, etc. that included Jericho.
Sir James A:
--- Quote from: Lord Dane on 2012-12-02, 20:47:35 ---They took Jerusalem because some competent Crusader leader(s) were able to convince (bribe) a certain Muslim guarding a tower to give them access to a lightly defended West Wall with ladders during a night raid that led to the opening of the gates. No one said Jersulaem defenders were 'not capable', they were 'unprepared'. So yes, in relation to their military tactical ploys, their strategy worked great. Just like when Joshua conquered Jericho's walls by having Isrealite spies win some whore's heart who in turn, allowed his commandos at night to scale the walls with dropped ropes & penetrate the city defenses. Distraction & deception work well in military strategy when desperate.
--- End quote ---
Desperate or not, effective is effective. Never heard of that story. Seems interesting, is it fact based on evidence, or speculation?
Lord Dane:
--- Quote from: James Anderson III on 2012-12-04, 22:44:56 ---
--- Quote from: Lord Dane on 2012-12-02, 20:47:35 ---They took Jerusalem because some competent Crusader leader(s) were able to convince (bribe) a certain Muslim guarding a tower to give them access to a lightly defended West Wall with ladders during a night raid that led to the opening of the gates. No one said Jersulaem defenders were 'not capable', they were 'unprepared'. So yes, in relation to their military tactical ploys, their strategy worked great. Just like when Joshua conquered Jericho's walls by having Isrealite spies win some whore's heart who in turn, allowed his commandos at night to scale the walls with dropped ropes & penetrate the city defenses. Distraction & deception work well in military strategy when desperate.
--- End quote ---
Desperate or not, effective is effective. Never heard of that story. Seems interesting, is it fact based on evidence, or speculation?
--- End quote ---
Which one, Jerusalem or Jericho? Jerusalem account was more speculation which is to say unproven but the Jericho siege account is documented history.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version