[Jean-Carle Hudon]

Vassilis,
I don't think you can compare the political realities of Spain , form roughly ad 700 to roughly ad 1400, with the whole series of crusades to what some still call the Holy Land,from roughly AD1096 onwards.
The Franks, under Charles Martel, turned triumphant Islam back , but it was clear that the conquerors and their new faith, had come to stay, so what was left of the northern visigothic kingdoms, had to organize and eventually triumph, or eventually succomb and disappear. These two antagonistic, mutually exclusive, religious and ethnic, or national entities, depending on which anachronism you prefer, were not going to find some way of creating a united nations symposium on such a small peninsula as Spain.
On the other hand, the Crusaders come from the south of France, Germany, England, Italy, Scandinavia, and not all these places were subject to the same pressures of overpopulation, and neither Germany nor Scandinavia got involved with the age of discovery and shifting populations to the Americas. Some might even point out how some colonising countries discouraged their own people from emigrating.
I think you are painting with a very broad brushstroke in trying to reduce extremely complex histories into an easy to grasp model of determinism. We need land, let's use religion and go massacre some infidels. Sometimes it's just more complicated than that. Sometimes people really believe in what they say they are fighting for, and belief is a slippery ground. Cheers. JCH

[Bill Tsafa]

Yes, Jean I am scaling down the two campaigns to a size that I can look at them both side by side. Yes, a lot of detail is being overlooked because it is easy to get lost in it. My analysis is a starting point for discussion to branch out from. There is risk in both looking at too much detail and too little detail. You can never be sure what the right amount of detail is.

[John Cooksey]

So many perspectives in this thread, I find it fascinating. . . . Without doing detailed "quote and response", I want to address a few points.

First, the status of Christians (and Jews and Zoroastrians) in Islamic society:
Indeed, as fellow monotheists, Christians and others had the status of dhimmis, and did have to pay jizya. Other than economic, there was very little pressure from "the state" or the umma for them to convert, because they provided almost all the non-tariff tax revenue for Islamic governments for early Islamic states. Indeed, conversion was, in the earliest centuries, actively discouraged. The original "plan", if you can describe it as such, was for Muslim Arabs to be a military class subsisting off the tax and tribute of protected populations. This, however, proved impossible to manage, as the social and economic benefits of Islam were overwhelmingly attractive to some individuals and groups (many Sassanian cavalry formations "converted" en masse).
Christians and Jews had legal protection in Islamic societies, and were often *favored* for government and administrative positions (examples include Copts in the Mamluk Sultanate and both Mizrahi and Sephardic Jews in the Ottoman Empire).

What was the status of Jews and Muslims in *any* Christian country of the medieval period?

Second, the idea that a conquering group dominates and completely absorbs the energies/vitality of the conquered:
This is a popular idea both in modern cultural anthropology and in popular literature today. It is now, however, always true. One only has to look at the long term effects of the Turko-Mongolian conquest of the 13th-14th centuries on *any* major civilization that they encountered. Some Turko-Mongolian customs (weapons, armor, costume) were adopted, but on the whole, the "localizing and sedentarizing" effect of living in the midst of a huge agrarian population affected (damaged) Mongol culture in the long term, with the classic example being the Sinification of the Peking court.

Third, however irrelevant the dating might be, the "Christian" reconquest of Sicily:
This was actually prior to the Crusades by a few years, and originated from Roman imperial adventures in recapturing lost possessions. The Romans hired some rough and tumble Norman mercenaries, and the rest is history, as they say.

. .

When looking at all these centuries of Christian-Muslim conflict, it is important to be cognizant of the fact that the Muslim powers underwent vast changes between AD 634 and AD 1452. The "ethnic" composition of armies and regimes was completely overturned on multiple occasions, especially as Turkish migration continued out of Central Asia in a seemingly unstoppable river of people and horses. Just a century prior to the First Crusade, a combined force of Christian Romans and nominally Christian Kievans had finally put paid to the Khazar Khaganate, which had kept the armies of Umayyad and Abbasid Islam out of Eastern Europe and checked the westward expansion of the Turks for 3 centuries.

Pardon any misspellings or poor word choices-----it's been a very long day.
Thanks, everyone, for a great thread!

[James H.]

O.K., I am going to put my quick two cents worth in; even though I have only the basic general knowledge of the Crusades. (And with out reading the whole thread too. ;-p )
The Crusades had as many different reasons as the people who marched and sailed to Jerusalem had personal ambition and religious faith and so the reasons can not be lumped in to just one motivation. I believe , and here I stress believe instead of know, that the main reasons the Pope of Rome called his faithful to march against the Islamic world in defense of Constantinople was 1) because even with the split between the church; Constantinople was still the ‘sister’ city to Rome with ties stretching back to the Roman Empire, 2) Constantinople (along with Rome maybe) was the last refuge of true western civilization in a period of time called the dark age of Europe, 3) Constantinople had lost Asia Minor which was a strategic buffer between the Islamic world and Christian and vital to trade with Asia I would think, 4) At this time the Muslims were a real threat to Europe, Like Christians, they viewed it as their duty to God to spread the faith and words of the Koran, they had already taken southern Spain and southern most part of Italy earlier. The theory that if one location falls to an enemy is one still used today, rather real or imagined. One has only to look at earlier examples of the theory of how Communism would spread. It was one of the reasons for Vietnam, to check the spread of Communism, and it is used today in the form of Iran and it’s spread of influence and Al’ Quaida as well. 5) Constantinople was a rich region and I am sure Rome would have enjoyed their indebtedness for the help and maybe they could even convert a few Orthodox and Muslims to Catholicism. 6) Though Orthodox, they were still Christens and for them to fall to ‘Heathens and blasphemers’ would have been an affront to God and also to the Pope and led some to question his faith or the Pope himself. Same went for the fall of Jerusalem. 7) I also believe that this gave the Pope an opportunity to unite the divided European Content and it’s Christians under the church; strengthen his own position of authority at the same time.
Now, why was the Jerusalem and Byzantium Crusades more remembered for it’s atrocities then the good? Well, that is simple; because, that is the way the world works. I mean really, look at today’s media and the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and you mostly only see the bad things coming of it and little of any good that the troops have accomplished. Is that because nothing is being accomplished; no, there is accomplishments it is just rarely covered. Same thing with the Vietnam War, I have never seen a historical coverage of media entertainment cover the good soldier deeds or Vietnams who supported our being there to try and prevent them form falling to the North Vietnamese. (And if these analogies strike anyone’s cords the wrong way; please, I do not want to get into a political discussion. I can only apologize ahead of time) Also the simple fact that because of so many different interests and people in play during the crusades with no real guidance from a single inanity other then the Pope’s call for the Crusades themselves it was amazing that any thing was accomplished really and that the atrocities did not number more. Saladin was actually well known for being generous to the conquered and a unifier for his people and excellent political negotiator as well as brutal fair which was a contrast to many of the crusaders. His treatment of Jerusalem and Byzantium was a stark contrast to the Iron fists of the crusaders as well.
Poor Spain is often forgotten I think because the kingdoms that set out to take it back were not the major powers of the time or lived on in name to modern times like England, France, Rome and Germany did. Also the Moors days were already fading. They were becoming fragmented and loosing contact with their Islamic homelands and had never in all their time occupation moved any father north outside of the Iberian Peninsula so may have not been a threat.
The Crusades were more famous also because of the famous people who took part in the Crusades and the organizations (Knight Templar for one) and Jerusalem is even to this day considered a holy city by three of the most influential religions. It is still a hot bed, it inspires minds and faith. Anyways I am cutting this short, I’m tired and need to get to bed. Hope this helps and hope I am not too far off the mark of this, let me know if I am, like I said I only know from the basic minimal information.

[Joshua Connolly]

[John Cooksey]

[Bruno Giordan]

[Randall Pleasant]

[John Cooksey]

Er, the Spartans???

That's taking things quite a bit afield from the topic of the Crusades and the Reconquista. :-)

The Achaemenid Persians *were* an integral part of Western culture, and never posed any threat to "Western" civilizations. Just like the Parthians, the Sassanians (though the Sassanians did fall prey to the monotheistic temptation to proselytize), etc. etc. Certainly Ionian culture was not seriously damaged under almost 3 centuries of Achaemenid rule.

I do admire the Italian Renaissance, but even the most casual of historians has to admit that the renaissance would not have been possible without the preservation and expansion of knowledge in the (Christian) Eastern Roman Empire and the various Islamic universities of the early Middle Ages.
Mathematics, astronomy, and medicine flourished under the vibrant interchange of ideas in the Early and Classical Islamic Era. Even after the time of the previously mentioned al Ghazali, Islamic scholars were among the foremost scientists in the world. Averroes, for example, though a Muslim, was one of the most respected scholars in the world in the 12th and 13th centuries, no matter one's religion.
Without the extremely active efforts of international translators in Islamic universities, the whole history of "Western" science and scholarship would have been greatly limited.

Figural/representational painting in Islamic art is known from every era. Though many of the umma do believe that humans should not be represented, the only thing strictly forbidden is the representation of humans as objects of worship, in order to prevent idolatry.

Good topic, folks!

[Christian Henry Tobler]

Indeed John - Arab scholars were the 'caretakers' of much of the knowledge of Classical Antiquity during the Migration period and early parts of the Middle Ages. Aristotle, for instance, was re-patriated to the West in the 11th and 12th centuries, via the Scholastics, from Islamic schools.

We need to be careful in using today's East and West as templates for understanding history. A 12th century Muslim would find today's Islamic culture alien, and a Christian of the same era would not understand today's version(s) of his religion.

All the best,

Christian

[John Cooksey]

[Nathan Keysor]

As I mentioned before, a lot of the negativity about the Crusades comes from post WWII historians (particularly the 1960's variety). The trend was to go against established history by pro-western authors such as Hillaire Belloc. It became fashionable to wax on about the superior culture of the East and diminish the accomplishments of the West. The Crusades were particlarly derided because they were a religiously motivated war. War (bad) + Christianity (bad) = Crusades (bad). This view has been perpetuated until quite recently.
Most of us on this forum are products of an educational system that has promulgated this idea. It is therefore easy to understand the dismay of some at the thought of the Crusades being beneficial. This is cultural and historic trend that started before many of us were born. It is evidenced in books and movies. In particular the movie "Kingdom of Heaven" was very hostile to the west (indeed it was CAIR approved). Many of the above posts are quite articulate in defense of Muslim culture. I'm not here to bash it. I'm merely trying to even the playing field for the pro west point of view. The Crusades have gotten a bum rap.
Luckily, the pendulum is starting to swing back the other way and there are books less hostile to the Crusades out there. I would suggest to anyone actually interested in the subject that they read "The Leper King and His Heirs: Baldwin IV and the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem" by Bernard Hamilton. This will contradict what's been fashionable in the past fifty years or so of historical writing on the subject.

[Christian Henry Tobler]

Hi Nathan,

I have no strong feelings about the Crusades, save for feeling that several of them being botched. There's credible evidence to suggest that indeed the Christians of Palestine were coming under greater pressure until the 1st Crusade.

However, the Crusades could only have ended as they did, and this speaks to why I don't feel your theory on Islamic conquest of Europe is viable. People of this period were incapable of creating long-lasting empires stretched too thinly across too many ethnicities. The Crusader states were doomed largely for this reason - controlling a largely alien landscape using leaders from half a continent away just isn't a strategy likely to work.

Plus, it begs the question: if there was so much chance of a Muslim conquest of Europe, how come Europe couldn't even conquer itself? Charlemagne's empire dissolves quickly upon his death, and the Holy Roman Empire that replaces it ultimately has little central authority and no suzerainty over France, Britain, Scandanavia, or Spain - to say nothing of the queasy authority it had over most of Italy.

Arguably, the most successful attempt at control of Europe was by Rome, but the price they had to pay in the loss of Roman identity proved its own downfall, in many ways.

Holding territory so tightly so as to control its religion is a very modern thing, and one that hasn't even worked in the modern era. The Soviet Union never fully quelled it, neither has China. The most successful empires of ancient days were those that allowed considerable autonomy and local culture - such as the Great Khanate (really, a bunch of less khanates strung together). The Caliphate system worked much the same way.

Could rulers from the Middle East have quelled and ruled Europe, supplanting the entire continent's native religion and its associated customs? No, I don't think so, and I think there's lot of history telling us why.

All the best,

Christian

[Nathan Keysor]

Christian,

You raise excellent points. The difference with an Islamic empire however is that Islam is a political and religious ideology. It replaces existing laws with shariya. Islam itself was divided even during the Crusades into factions.

It is entirely plausible for Islam to have conquered Europe. It didn't happen do to historical accidents mostly but it was a real threat. I agree that it wouldn't have held together as a unified empire but it would be a vastly different world than we know today.

I agree that many of the Crusades were botched (particularly in their short term goals). I still contend that the effect of increasing European dominance in the mediterranean is crucially important to Europes economic stability. If muslims had been unchallenged there they would have gained more footholds in Europe and the economic strength to exploit them. This would have cause more territorial gains. Denying this to them was essential for future European dominance of the seas and oceans.

After the Reconquista Christendom almost immediately started trying to bypass the Muslim lock on trade with India and China. They were able to do this and were further strengthened economically. The future voyages of discovery bring more prosperity to Europe.

Now, if Islam had remained in control of the mediterranean Spain could have been easily reinforced, Europe would be economically shut off from the rest of the world and future discoveries would be made by the people that were in control of shipping: Muslims.

This is not to say that the Crusaders were the only thorn in the side of a possible pan-islamic empire. The Mongols helped out in this regard as well. However the importance of the Crusades in strengthening European naval power cannot be understated. Ship building technology was the cutting edge technology of the day and the source of most of Europes future success.

[Joshua Connolly]

[John Cooksey]

These are getting too long to reply to in detail, sadly.

I do, however, think that all of us involved in this thread, myself included, have been making too many generalizations. We are talking about vastly different regions and time periods, ranging from the mid-7th century to the 17th century, from the Levant to Iberia. I know that the original question was directly addressed to differences between the Iberian Reconquista and the Crusades to "retake" the Holy Land, but I am not sure that we can adequately address these differences given our constraints.
Several of us obviously have strong feelings and well-developed thoughts on a great many issues---I know that I certainly do!
Each one of us has sources to cite and evidence to bring to the table to support our arguments, and that is good . . it's the very essence of academic discourse.

Obviously both the Reconquista and the Crusades occurred over a great many years (centuries). The individuals and groups involved had their own agendas and their own reasons for participating, just as did the Umayyads and the Almohads and the Abbasids and the Seljuks when they launched wars against foreign territories. . . . .
Some were religious, some were political, and some were economic. Some might have even been very personal and impossible to pigeonhole.

We can only speculate, now, about the "what-ifs" and the "what-might-have-beens" if this conquest had succeeded or that crusade had failed . . we can't know.

I do believe that the "geopolitics" of any region and era are vastly more complicated than we are stating here. Both Iberia and Syria-Palestine were regions where Christians of various sects, Muslims of all stripes, and Jews of every sort (plus the odd pagan, Zoroastrian, et al.) cohabited for centuries. Living, trading, fighting, intermarrying. There were shifting alliances between groups, betrayals and conspiracies, terrible massacres and all too human acts of charity and good will.

In Spain, certainly, both the period of Islamic control and the Reconquista had vast effects on the historical development of Iberian culture as a whole, creating the vast and beautiful tapestry that is modern Latin culture. If neither had happened, Iberian culture wouldn't resemble what we know at all.
A similar situation holds true everywhere that vastly different (and sometimes not so different) cultures meet and come into conflict.

On a personal note, however, I will always believe that Classical Islam was a more tolerant religion that medieval Christianity, based on my reading of the sources. I will believe that Islam and Christianity have a great deal more in common than they do in difference, and that there were a great many reasons why both faiths appealed to various groups over time--and why they were easily used as a tool for the furtherance of personal political gain or ambitions.

I am certainly neither Christian nor Muslim, and I consider myself neither an apologist nor burdened by some sort of media-induced guilt.
We can all read the same books and examine the same sources: being individuals, however, we will all come up with diverse individual perspectives based on the same raw information.

I hope the thread keeps going, and I'll check back in a bit!

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

[Joshua Connolly]

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

[Joshua Connolly]