Rick Santorum probably has no idea who Saladin and King Richard I of England were, or that they once went head to head in battle. For a while Richard the Lion-Hearted had the edge and he made a deal with Saladin to spare the lives of 2,700 residents of Acre. When Saladin couldn’t keep his end of the deal, those prisoners were put to death. Here’s an eyewitness account:
…The Franks, on reaching the middle of the plain that stretches between this hill and that of Keisan, close to which place the sultan’s advanced guard had drawn back, ordered all the Musulman whose martyrdom God had decreed for this day, to be brought before him. They numbered more than three thousand and were all bound with ropes.
The Franks then flung themselves upon them all at once and massacred them with sword and lance in cold blood. Our advanced guard had already told the Sultan of the enemy’s movements and he sent it some reinforcements, but only after the massacre.
The Musulmans, seeing what was being done to the prisoners, rushed against the Franks and in the combat, which lasted till nightfall, several were slain and wounded on either side. On the morrow morning our people gathered at the spot and found the Musulmans stretched out upon the ground as martyrs for the faith. They even recognised some of the dead, and the sight was a great affliction to them. The enemy had only spared the prisoners of note and such as were strong enough to work.
Here’s Ricky Santorum’s version of history:
“The idea that the Crusades and the fight of Christendom against Islam is somehow an aggression on our part is absolutely anti-historical,” Santorum said in Spartanburg on Tuesday. “And that is what the perception is by the American left who hates Christendom.”
He added, “They hate Western civilization at the core. That’s the problem.”
Now, I am not saying that there wasn’t aggression on all sides, but it’s absurd to say that the Crusades didn’t involve Christian aggression against Islam.
Well, I hate Christendom if it’s anything that the Republican party and Rick Santorum represents. I’ll admit that to his face; you don’t need to put words in my mouth, Dick.
Was this like the time where we Christopher Columbus had turkey with the Native Americans? Oh, sorry, the Indians? Political correctness gone awry, and what not.
Description of the siege of jerusalem, in the first crusades:
Sounds pretty aggressive to me.
yeah, personally, I don’t think the European kings or the papacy wrapped themselves in glory during the Crusades, but fighting for control of Jerusalem, in and of itself, seems like a reasonable thing for Muslims, Jews, and Christians to do. And, of course it involved a lot of aggression.
What’s different in modern times is that we’re trying to move beyond constant war and conquest through collective security, the recognition of established states with static borders and respected sovereignty, respect for the human rights of all peoples, and some degree of international law.
Also, too, we don’t fight wars for the greater glory of our interpretation of God.
But I don’t hate Western Civilization and I understand the Crusades as one side of a coin that also saw the Muslims besieging Vienna and taking over the Iberian Peninsula. I mean, can we have Constantinople back? No? Then don’t complain about the Crusades.
It’s all ancient history now.
And the inhabitants of Jerusalem that couldn’t pay the ransom to Saladin were enslaved or killed when he took the city.
It’s all the same really.
Today, a rocket went into Israel from Gaza.
The Christians didn’t cover themselves with glory during that time. Maybe that’s why history has to be re written by Santorum.
Some clips from Wikipedia. Follow up on your own. It’s a confused mess after Charles Martel stopped the Muslim advance in the 700s.
First Crusade:
Second Crusade:
Third Crusade:
Fourth Crusade:
Fifth Crusade:
Sixth Crusade:
Seventh Crusade:
Eighth Crusade:
Ninth Crusade:
For almost 200 years, the Byzantine and Roman churches sought to gain back the Holy Land. And in the 1300s, the trade routes to the East were gradually shut down to Europeans. Prompting Portugal (around Africa) and Spain (west across the Atlantic) to seek an alternative. So in a since, the search for empire was a continuation of the Crusades. But then, search for empire is what great powers and “heroic” leaders did until 1914.
The idea that “aggression” was a bad thing is anachronistic thinking when applied to the Crusades. They were part of a rollback of the Islamic advance in the 700s that lasted for over 800 years.
I don’t think this can be stated loudly or frequently enough when talking about the crusades. The Muslims invaded and conquered Northern Africa in the 7th Century AD, and for more than 300 years Christians did essentially nothing. Northern Africa was the intellectual and theological center of Christendom (Athanasius, Clement, Origen, Augustine, et al.), yet for more than 300 years the Christian response to the Muslim conquest and slaughter of those who would not convert was to turn the other cheek.
Indeed. Had it not been for the Muslim Seljuk Turkish invasion of Anatolia, there would have been no call for mercenaries.
What, you want him to read a book or something?