← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Petr
Thread ID: 12764 | Posts: 4 | Started: 2004-03-17
2004-03-17 05:33 | User Profile
(What follows is a contemplation of Crusades from a purely military-historical point of view. I personally oppose the theological concept of spreading religion with a sword.)
Were Crusades really a military defeat for Christians? It is a common perception that they were, and that they wasted European manpower and resources ultimately for naught.
(At here we can mention the exception of crusades against Muslims in the Pyrenean peninsula, where they we’re indeed successful, and the Age of Great Expeditions couldn’t have started without them.)
While this defeat-idea certainly true to a certain degree, I’ve just read something that made me think “the big picture”
The main enemy of Christians during the Crusader era were a powerful Turkish nation of Seljuks that had just broken the military might of Byzantine Empire in the battle of Manzikert in 1071, taken over Anatolia and we’re already almost on the shores of Aegean Sea, when the first crusade began.
Seljuks were a great and powerful tribe, probably as numerous and martially capable as that another great Turkic wave from Central Asia, following them few hundred years later, the Ottoman Turks.
I recently stumbled upon John Henry Newman’s (more known as Roman Catholic apologist) online book about Turks, written in 1853.
Here it is: “Lectures on the History of the Turks”, quite an interesting piece in itself.
[COLOR=Navy]http://www.newmanreader.org/works/historical/volume1/turks/[/COLOR]
Newman offers this thesis: [COLOR=Navy]
“To one point only is it to our present purpose to direct attention. It is commonly said that the Crusades failed in their object; that they were nothing else but a lavish expenditure of men and treasure; and that the possession of the Holy Places by the Turks to this day is a proof of it. Now I will not enter here into a very intricate controversy; this only will I say, that, if the tribes of the desert, under the leadership of the house of Seljuk, turned their faces to the West in the middle of the eleventh century; if in forty years they had advanced from Khorasan to Jerusalem and the neighbourhood of Constantinople; and if in consequence they were threatening Europe and Christianity; and if, for that reason, it was a great object to drive them back or break them to pieces; if it were a worthy object of the Crusades to rescue Europe from this peril and to reassure the anxious minds of Christian multitudes;—then were the Crusades no failure in their issue, for this object was fully accomplished. The Seljukian Turks were hurled back upon the East, and then broken up, by the hosts of the Crusaders [Note 12]. The lieutenant of Malek Shah, who had been established as Sultan of Roum (as Asia Minor was called by the Turks), was driven to an obscure town, where his dynasty lasted, indeed, but gradually dwindled away. A similar fate attended the house of Seljuk in other parts of the Empire, and internal quarrels increased and perpetuated its weakness. Sudden as was its rise, as sudden was its fall; till the terrible Zingis, descending on the Turkish dynasties, like an avalanche, cooperated effectually with the Crusaders and finished their work; and if Jerusalem was not protected from other enemies, at least Constantinople was saved, and Europe was placed in security, for three hundred years”
[url]http://www.newmanreader.org/works/historical/volume1/turks/lecture4.html[/url][/COLOR]
So could it have been, that without Crusades that kept Seljuks on the Islamic “homefield” and exhausted their strength, Turks might have captured Constantinople and broken into the Balkan peninsula hundreds of years earlier than they actually did?
And who knows how well they could have been repelled, had they appeared to the gates Vienna already by, say, 1250 AD?
Any comments?
Petr
2004-03-19 18:41 | User Profile
That's an interesting link. I picked up and read Sir Charles Oman's [I]The Art of War in the Middle Ages[/I] and he comes to a similiar conclusion:
"The Crusades had two objects. The first was to relieve the pressure of the Turks on Constantinople, which had been so dangerous eversince the day of Manzikert. The second was to conquer the holy land and restore its shrines to the custody of Christendom. Both of these purposes were to a certain extent accomplished: the Turkish frontier in Asia Minor was thrust back many scores of miles, and nearly two centuries elapsed before the Seljuk Turks were able to recover their lost ground. Jerusalem was stormed, and for ninety years remained in the hands of the Franks. But these ends were acheived in the most wasteful manner, by the most blundering methods, and at the maximum cost of life and material."
The crusading armies were poor in their fighting tactics and often undisciplined as fighting units. To me this reinforces that the crusades were largely self-defensive and fought by armies that were basically re-learning the tactics of combatting the asiatic horsemen as they went. The biggest mistake the crusaders made against the turks was allowing their cavalry and infantry to seperate after an initial victory by pursuing the vanquished turks who would then regroup and counterattack. In pursuit the European cavalry spread out and was less effective. The Europeans virtually always won when they remained close together and used missile weapons to harass the retreating turks instead of pusuing them. Eventually the Turks would have to commit their forces and they usually lost when they did so. But the Europeans were tragically slow in learning this (or even remembering it once they had learnt it) and continually allowed the Turks to draw their cavalry away from their infantry, which was armed with bows and other missile weapons, so that the Turks could fight using hit and run tactics rather than fully engaging the European forces. When they maintained discipline, though the crusaders won some great victories against the Turks, like in Antioch where they overcame great odds. They were also overwhelmingly succesful against non-turkish muslims like the Egyptians who didn't have the same hit and run tactics. There is no doubt in my mind the crusades saved Europe from the fate of the East Roman Empire. At the very least the crusaders held off the muslims until Genghis Khan broke the fighting spirit of the Middle East.
-Llen
2004-03-19 20:20 | User Profile
Did you know that for a short period of time, Western Crusaders, Middle Eastern Christians and Mongols actually joined forces in an attempt to crush the Islamic power in the Middle East for good?
For a long time, it was actually unclear whether Mongols would convert to Christianity or Islam, and how many of you knew that a considerable part of conquering Mongol armies were actually Nestorian Christians? (I’m NOT bragging about this!)
Definitely one those quirks of history worth examining!
[COLOR=Navy]
“Hulagu was bitterly hostile to Islam, and much influenced by his Buddhist and Nestorian Christian entourage. His wife Dokaz Khatun and his principal lieutenant Kitbogha or Kitbuka were Christians, and a portable tent-church travelled with him, in which mass was celebrated daily. Mongke is said to have promised the Christian King of Armenia, who visited Karakorum in 1255, that the Mongols would restore Jerusalem to the Crusaders when they had destroyed the power of the Muslims. The Asian Christians were filled with extravagant hopes and expected the rapid downfall of Islam: the European nations were less sanguine.”
“ The Mongol army, in composition more Turkish than Mongol, and including contingents from the Christian kingdoms of Armenia and Georgia, was probably the largest, best equipped and best disciplined that had ever issued from the steppes of Central Asia.”
“Hulagu ordered the Caliph to come in person to his camp, with his family and retinue, to tell his people to stop fighting, and to give up his wealth and treasure. His commands were obeyed, and the metropolis of Islam was abandoned to the merciless bloodlust of the conquerors. The palaces, colleges and mosques were plundered and burnt; the cultural accumulation of five centuries perished in the flames, and the appalling figure of 800,000 is the lowest estimate given of the number of men, women and children who were slaughtered in the streets and houses. The Christians, gathered in a church under their patriarch, alone were spared.”
“The Christians of the East hailed the ruin of Baghdad (1258) in the spirit of the 'Babylon is fallen, is fallen! ' of the Book of Revelation, and looked forward to the end of half a millennium of Muslim domination. Hulagu's armies were soon in Syria: Aleppo resisted, was stormed and the non-Christian population massacred; Damascus gave in without a fight, three Christian leaders (the Mongol commander Kitbogha, the King of Armenia and the Frankish Count Bohemund of Antioch) riding through its streets and forcing Muslims to bow to the cross;”[/COLOR]
Longer description here:
[url]http://www.iun.edu/~historyn/Turkmong.htm[/url]
/////////////////////////////////////////////
Here is a description of the destruction of the Baghdad Caliphate by Mongols in 1258, narrated to a monk chronicler by an Armenian Christian prince who participated in the campaign at the side of Mongols and was an eyewitness:
[url]http://rbedrosian.com/kg12.htm[/url]
[COLOR=Red] 60. The destruction of Baghdad.
In the year 707 of the Armenian Era [1258], Mongke-Khan, the great king of the kings of the earth, conqueror of the world, mustered a countless host and went to a distant land in the southeast against a people called the Nayngas. For this people had rebelled from him and did not pay him taxes like the other lands. The Nayngas were warlike men, fortified by their land; and they were idol-worshippers. Furthermore they devoured their old men and women. The whole clan of sons, grandsons and great grandsons would assemble [314] and would skin their aged parents through the mouth. They would remove the flesh and bones, cooking and eating them, leaving no leftovers. Out of the skin they make a bag which they fill with wine and from which all of them drink using the [deceased's] male member. However, only relatives do this, and none other, since they alone were sired [g377] by the deceased and it is theirs alone to eat and drink of him. The skull they encase in gold and drink from it for an entire year.
Mongke-Khan went against them in battle, crushed and forcibly subjugated them. But on the way home, death pangs gripped him and he died. His brother Arigh Boke (Arik' Bugha) seized the throne.
Now Hulegu (who was his brother and had been appointed head of the troops in the East by him) commanded all those subject to him to go against the Tachik capital, Baghdad, which was the seat of the Tachik dominion.
The king who sat in Baghdad was not called sultan or melik as the Turkish, Iranian or Kurdish autocrats customarily are, but caliph, that is, a descendant of Mahmet. The great Hulegu went against the caliph with a countless multitude [composed] of all the peoples subject to him. This [315] was done in the autumn and winter seasons because of the severe heat of that country [in the summer]. Prior to his departure [g378] he ordered Baiju-noyin and the troops with him in the land of [the sultan of] Rum to go and surround the great Tigris River on which the city of Baghdad was built, so that no one flee by boat from the city to Ctesiphon or to the more secure Basra. They immediately obeyed the command, tying pontoon bridges across the great river and sinking between [the surface of the] river and its bed sturdy fences with iron hooks and pipes so that no one depart the city swimming without them knowing about it.
Now Caliph Must'asar [translator's note: in fact, the last caliph was al-Musta'sim], who resided in the city proudly and presumptuously sent many troops against those guarding the river. [The caliph's men] were under the command of a chief named Dawdar [davat-dar, "vice-chancellor"] ostikan of his house. Dawdar went and first triumphed, killing some three thousand T'at'ars. When evening fell he sat eating and drinking without a care. And he sent messengers to Caliph Must'asar saying: "I defeated all of them, and tomorrow I will do away with the few survivors."
Now the crafty and ingenious T'at'ar army spent the entire [g379] night arming and organizing. They surrounded the Tachik army. [316] Among the T'at'ars was prince Zak'are, son of Shahnshah. At daybreak they put their swords to work, destroying the entire group and throwing them into the river. Only a few men escaped.
That same morning the great Hulegu surrounded the city of Baghdad, stationing everyone an arm's length from the wall [and telling them] to demolish it and guard well that none escape. He sent the valiant Prhosh [Xaghbakean] and others as emissaries to the caliph, so that he would come out obediently and pay taxes to the Khan. [The caliph] gave a stern reply full of insults, claiming to be lord of sea and land, and boasting about the [magical] banner of Mahmet, saying: "It is here and, if I touch it, you and the entire world will be destroyed. You are a dog, a Turk. Why should I pay taxes to you or obey you?"
However, Hulegu did not become aggrevated because of the insults nor did he write any boasts. He merely said: "God knows what He does." Then he ordered the wall demolished; and they demolished it. He said to rebuild it again and guard it carefully. And they did so. [g380]
[317] The city was full of soldiers and people. For seven days they stood on the walls but no one shot arrows at them nor were swords used, either by the citizens or by the T'at'ar soldiers. But after seven days the citizens began to request peace and to come [to Hulegu] with affection and submission.
And Hulegu ordered that this be done [that peace be made]. Then countless multitudes came through the city gates, climbing over each other to see who would reach him first. [Hulegu] divided up among the soldiers those who came out and ordered [the soldiers] to take them far from the city and to kill them secretly so that the others would not know. They killed all of them.
Four days later Caliph Must'asar [i.e., al-Musta'sim] also emerged with his two sons, with all the grandees and much gold, silver, and precious stones as fitting gifts for Hulegu and his nobles. At first [Hulegu] honored him, reproaching him for dallying and not coming to him quickly. But then he asked the caliph: "What are you, God or man?" And the caliph responded: "I am a man, and the servant of God." Hulegu asked: "Well, did God tell you to insult me and to call me a dog and not to give food and drink to God's dog? Now in hunger the dog of God shall devour you." And he [318] killed him with his own hands. "That," he said, "is an honor for you, because I killed you myself and did not give you to another for killing." He ordered his son [g381] to slay one of the caliph's sons while he gave the other son as a sacrifice to the Tigris River, saying: "It did not harm us but was our collaborator in killing the senseless ones." And he said: "This man caused much blood to flow through pride. Let him go and answer to God and may we be innocent." He also killed other grandees.
[Hulegu] then ordered the troops guarding the walls to descend and kill the inhabitants of the city, great and small. [The Mongols] organized as though harvesting a field, and cut down countless, innumerable multitudes of men, women, and children. For forty days they did not stop. Then they grew weary and stopped killing. Their hands grew tired; they took the others for sale. They destroyed mercilessly.
However, Hulegu's wife, the senior Khatun, named Doquz Khatun (Toghuz xat'un) was a Christian. She spared the Christians of Baghdad, Nestorians and other denominations and beseeched her husband not to kill them. And he spared them with their goods and property.
[319] [Hulegu] ordered all his soldiers to take the goods and property of the city. They all loaded up with gold, [g382] silver, precious stones, pearls, and costly garments, for it was an extremely rich city, unequalled on earth.
[Hulegu] himself took as his share the caliph's treasures--three thousand camel loads; and there was no counting the horses, mules and asses. Other houses, full of treasure, he sealed with his ring and left guards. For he was unable to take everything, since there was so much. Five hundred fifteen years had elapsed since that city was built by the Ishmaelite Jap'r in 194 A.E. [A.D. 745] on the Tigris River above Ctesiphon (Katisbon), about five day's journey above Babylon, and it had taken everything into its kingdom like an insatiable blood-sucker, swallowing up the entire world. It was destroyed in 707 A.E. [1258] paying the blood price for the blood it had caused to flow and for the evil it had wrought. When its measure of sin was filled up before the Omniscient God, He repaid it justly, strictly, and truthfully. And the [g383]arrogant and fanatical kingdom of the Tachiks ended after a duration of six hundred and forty seven years. Baghdad was taken on the first day of Lent, on Monday of the month of Nawasard, the twentieth of the month by the moveable [calendrical system].
[320] All this was narrated to us by prince Hasan called Prosh, son of the pious Vasak, son of Haghbak, brother of Papak' and Mkdem, father of Mkdem, Papak', Hasan and Vasak who was an eyewitness to the events and also heard about events with his own ears, [a man] enjoying great honor in the Khan's eyes. [/COLOR]
////////////////////////////////////////
Petr
2004-03-23 07:08 | User Profile
Petr,
Great Post! Yes, The Crusades were a just war to protect Europe.
It is long past time for the next holy war to protect Europe!