I've posted on this before but in light of Obama's lecturing us about the Christian crusades being as barbaric as today's Muslims......I thought it was worth revisiting.
Our government and atrocious education system have bamboozled millions of Americans into believing that the crusades were acts of craven Christian aggression on quiescent and urbane Muslim lands. They weren't.
Pope Urban II initiated the first crusade to rid the Holy Land of barbaric Muslims who'd come up from north Africa and seized Jerusalem and that part of the world in bloody invasions. Were atrocities committed? Almost certainly by both sides, but who cares? War is hell and the Muslims should have stayed home in their dark primitive holes.
For Obama to compare the Christian crusades to repel Muslim invaders, to ISIS throwing gays off roof tops, murdering women and children by the thousands, burning alive and beheading captives, is the most intellectually dishonest thing I've ever heard him utter.
What we need is another round of crusades.
5 comments:
A major problem with the Crusades concerns the necessity of armies in those years to live off the land, logistics being both forgotten from Roman practice and yet to be invented by Medieval states. This led to great hardship for those unfortunate enough to be in the path of one of these things. Discipline was also a hit or miss affair, under the control of whoever had raised a force.
Still, as you say, the goal was worthwhile and helped keep Europe out of Islam.
Just as much of an unforced error is Obama playing into radical Islamist propaganda about the Crusades. It's as if Churchill in 1940 had blasted the Nazis while conceding that they had valid points about the pernicious Jews and the German need for lebensraum!
Yes, force projection meant something entirely different in the 11th century.
This whole kerfuffle has sparked a renewed interest. Anything that gets woefully ignorant Americans reading up on history is mostly positive.
True that.
Post a Comment