# Shouldn't Muslims be a little more understanding about the Crusades? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 24, 2017, 10:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shouldnt-muslims-be-a-little-more-understanding-about-the-crusades/782898 "2017-03-24T10:06:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2017, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shouldnt-muslims-be-a-little-more-understanding-about-the-crusades/782898/21 "2017-03-24T19:23:37Z")
I think its pretty clear that anger about “The Crusades” in a lot of modern dialogue is really just an extension of talking about post-WWI European colonialism, something which is still in living memory and has had considerable effects on the modern state of the world. After all, there doesn’t seem to be much residual anger over the Mongolian invasion, which was both more recent, more brutal and had a far greater negative effect on the Arab world. But since Mongolia hasn’t really created much trouble for the Arabs in the last 100 years, most discussion of it is relatively academic and unemotional. ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2017, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shouldnt-muslims-be-a-little-more-understanding-about-the-crusades/782898/22 "2017-03-24T19:30:22Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > It’s not entirely clear that the people in the Holy Land wanted to be liberated. There is debate about whether Palestine was majority Christian or muslim at the time of the crusades, but the most recent citation I could find suggests that while cities were mostly Christian the population as a whole was majorty Muslim. In any case, the chrisians in Palestine were Greek Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox and thus would have been viewed as schismatics at best and heretics at worst by the Crusaders. It wasn’t the Greek Orthodox Christians that feared the coming of the crusaders, who were after all allies of the Greek Byzantine Emperor. It was the Nestorian and Jacobite churches that had the most to dread. The Arab conquests had been a blessing for these people who suffered the most horrific and bloody persecutions under one fanatical Byzantine Emperor after another. Their churches had flourished under the Arabs and Turks and the one thing they did not want was the return of rule from Constantinople. Of course the Crusaders themselves had no intention of handing over their conquests to Alexius Comnenus or the Emperors after him but that would be of little comfort to those seen as heretics by both the Greeks and the Franks and in fact they would soon learn that the Christian warriors from the West were even more barbaric and bloodthirsty than their previous Byzantine overlords. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2017, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shouldnt-muslims-be-a-little-more-understanding-about-the-crusades/782898/23 "2017-03-24T19:34:41Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > In fact, something cross my mind : are there many people who have a _positive_ perception of the crusades in the western world? I had this negative perception of the crusades for most of (if not all) my life, and it never really occured to me that people could perceive them positively. But maybe I’m assuming and projecting, and many (in particular Christians) view them on the overall as a rather good thing? Could someone shed a light on this? Although I don’t have many stats to back me up, I would imagine that in the United states and among Evangelicals in particular there is probably a very large number who do so. Most people don’t learn much about them is school, which concentrates on American History, and so ignores anything that happened before 1492. The term Crusader is used with positive connotations. So many people who don’t know any better when they hear the term think of noble chivalrous knights like sir Lancelot (minus the illicit affair) rescuing our holy land from heathen Muslim invaders. ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2017, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shouldnt-muslims-be-a-little-more-understanding-about-the-crusades/782898/24 "2017-03-24T19:40:51Z")
> [@GreenWyvern](#): > > I wonder why nobody ever seems to mention the many Muslim invasions of Europe, especially by the Ottoman Turks? > Or the million+ white Europeans sold into slavery in North Africa from the early 17th to 19th centuries? > Look up the facts for yourselves. > > I suppose these things don’t suit the standard Western historical narrative, so they tend to be ignored. Honestly my impression is just the opposite. The history of those events tend to be repeated quite a bit, while stories from the other end are the ones that aren’t often mentioned in popular discourse. The slave marts of Livorno and the piratical practice of Christians like the Knights of St. John on Malta or the Knights of St. Stephen out of Florence ( both of whom would quite happily prey on Christian shipping and enslave Christian sailors as well if they thought they were trading with Muslims - the Venetians were common targets, but hardly the only ones ) are the narratives I think you more seldom see discussed. Partly it may be a difference in scale, as the North African economies were somewhat more heavily tied to slaving than the Italian statelets. But I think it is more that atrocities from “our side” tend not to played up in historical narratives. > [@clairobscur](#): > > It’s not contradictory. Conquest would have eventually resulted in the Muslim faith spreading and dominating, as it did in Spain. And the Franks pushing the Arabs back, from Charles Martel to Charlemagne, certainly played a significant part in putting an end to the Muslim advance in Europe. So, I’m not sure that this “savior of Christianity” narrative is completely wrong. Possibly. But the background history would suggest that wasn’t likely, at least to me. The thing is, is that the Umayyad state was already stretched to the limit and very shortly after Poitiers/Tours in 732 it began to violently convulse. The Great Berber revolt started in 739 and ran until 743. That had scarcely been settled ( not entirely successfully ) when the Third Fitna started in 744-747, followed by the Abbasid Revolution 747-750. No matter what happened on the fringes, it is _exceptionally_ unlikely to have affected what happened at the center - i.e. the overthrow of the Umayyads and the fracture of the Caliphate. Whether the Umayyad rump state in Iberia would have had the resources to maintain itself in western Francia after the 750’s is kinda an open question IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2017, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shouldnt-muslims-be-a-little-more-understanding-about-the-crusades/782898/25 "2017-03-24T19:52:08Z")
> [@aldiboronti](#): > > It wasn’t the Greek Orthodox Christians that feared the coming of the crusaders, who were after all allies of the Greek Byzantine Emperor. It was the Nestorian and Jacobite churches that had the most to dread. The Arab conquests had been a blessing for these people who suffered the most horrific and bloody persecutions under one fanatical Byzantine Emperor after another. Their churches had flourished under the Arabs and Turks and the one thing they did not want was the return of rule from Constantinople. Of course the Crusaders themselves had no intention of handing over their conquests to Alexius Comnenus or the Emperors after him but that would be of little comfort to those seen as heretics by both the Greeks and the Franks and in fact they would soon learn that the Christian warriors from the West were even more barbaric and bloodthirsty than their previous Byzantine overlords. Sorry, I was including Jacobites under the term “Oriental Orthodox” (which I guess is kind of a weird and artificial term, I don’t know that they call themselves “orthodox”). You’re correct though. As Steven Runciman said in the context of 13th century European Christian heresies, “more than the unbeliever it is the wrong believer, the heretic rather than the infidel, whose conversion is the chief concern of the faithful.” Religious believers generally get much more excited about persecuting heretics within their own faith than people outside of it. By the 15th century though the Eastern Orthodox were very concerned that the price of alliance / military support with the western powers would be forcing to submit to the Pope on the terms agreed on at the Council of Florence, which is why you had people like Lucas Notaras say “better the turban than the mitre”. ---
**Author:** ![Rick\_Kitchen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rick_kitchen/32/522_2.png) [@Rick\_Kitchen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick_Kitchen)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2017, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shouldnt-muslims-be-a-little-more-understanding-about-the-crusades/782898/26 "2017-03-24T21:29:17Z")
I;m sure the very Christian Byzantines were very understanding when the very Christian Crusaders sacked and plundered Constantinople. ---
**Author:** ![Weisshund](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ba8739/32.png) [@Weisshund](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weisshund)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2017, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shouldnt-muslims-be-a-little-more-understanding-about-the-crusades/782898/27 "2017-03-25T01:25:33Z")
I am not sure you will get an understanding view from anyone that was in the crusade territories that was not a crusader? They killed Muslims, and Christians, and Jews. They were not too discriminant about who got whacked with a sword a lot of times. And in reality they just made a mess ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2017, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shouldnt-muslims-be-a-little-more-understanding-about-the-crusades/782898/28 "2017-03-25T01:53:48Z")
Vastly more harm was done to the Islamic world by invasions from the east. Genghis and Tamerlane devastated Islamic civilization; the Crusaders were pinpricks in comparison. (Well, actually, Richard was quite well endowed…) ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2017, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shouldnt-muslims-be-a-little-more-understanding-about-the-crusades/782898/29 "2017-03-25T04:20:19Z")
> [@GreenWyvern](#): > > That’s a fairly rosy view of Islamic slavery. Your own cite mirrors what I’ve said. I did mention a subset got tasked with harsh labour. Galley slaves were part of those, slaves sent to the mines were another. > [@](#): > > A more balanced view, from BBC History: The French, Spaniards, Venitians, Genoans, Greeks, Maltese, Sicilians… also had galleys as their Meditteranean workhorses, you know ? Do you reckon their rowers had it any better ? Of course (where France is concerned - I’m less familiar with the others), they weren’t slaves. Merely “vagabonds” and beggars, petty thieves and guys in debt, smugglers and deserters, various protestors, Jews and Protestants… all condemned by “justice” to row. The shortest time was 3 years - but the overwhelming majority died in a couple anyway. The King’s ministers would put pressure on tribunals across the land to condemn more and more people to the galleys as the needs of the Navy grew throughout the XVIth and XVIIth centuries in particular. Much more humane, you see. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2017, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shouldnt-muslims-be-a-little-more-understanding-about-the-crusades/782898/30 "2017-03-25T05:31:10Z")
> [@Tamerlane](#): > > Possibly. But the background history would suggest that wasn’t likely, at least to me. The thing is, is that the Umayyad state was already stretched to the limit and very shortly after Poitiers/Tours in 732 it began to violently convulse. The Great Berber revolt started in 739 and ran until 743. That had scarcely been settled ( not entirely successfully ) when the Third Fitna started in 744-747, followed by the Abbasid Revolution 747-750. No matter what happened on the fringes, it is _exceptionally_ unlikely to have affected what happened at the center - i.e. the overthrow of the Umayyads and the fracture of the Caliphate. Whether the Umayyad rump state in Iberia would have had the resources to maintain itself in western Francia after the 750’s is kinda an open question IMHO. Well, I don’t know to what extent the attack on the Aquitaine was about conquest and to what extent it was a combination of a punitive attack against Odo for allying with Munuza, and a simple raid for loot and slaves. The Abbey of St. Martin of Tours was pretty rich, and it was definitely a target. That’s not to say the Umayyads wouldn’t have tried to absorb Aquitaine, because when territory falls in your lap like that there’s a temptation to either keep it or put in somebody loyal to you, but conquest wasn’t the goal. Regarding the Crusades, I can certainly understand popular Muslim attitudes towards them. Although, I think a lot of the feelings aren’t so much about the Crusades themselves as they are about modern colonialism/neocolonialism. Most people aren’t worked up about the Crusades themselves, but it’s more that the Crusades are just thrown in there as part of a parade of horribles as an example of “see how terrible the West is to Muslims”, when their real complaint is Israel, or the Iraq war, or American support for the King of Saudi Arabia or whatever. In the future, should China come dominate the Middle East, I’d expect things like the Mongol invasion would be used as rhetorical points. There is, of course, some hypocrisy in the focusing on the Crusades as an example of “Christian/European aggression”, of course, given that Egypt and the Levant were only ruled by Muslims in the first place because they had conquered them from the Byzantines, but consistency has ever been humanity’s strong point. ---
**Author:** ![Steken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e274bd/32.png) [@Steken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steken)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2017, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shouldnt-muslims-be-a-little-more-understanding-about-the-crusades/782898/31 "2017-03-25T06:02:58Z")
> [@Simplicio](#): > > After all, there doesn’t seem to be much residual anger over the Mongolian invasion, which was both more recent, more brutal and had a far greater negative effect on the Arab world. But since Mongolia hasn’t really created much trouble for the Arabs in the last 100 years, most discussion of it is relatively academic and unemotional. Perhaps this is true among _Arabs_, but in my experience it is certainly not true among Persians. Many Persians I’ve met still talk about the Mongols with the same level of revulsion that we Euros feel when we talk about the Nazis. For example, I distinctly recall a group of Persians expressing outrage when they saw a Mongolian restaurant in Sweden called “Ghingis Khan” - they specifically said they considered it akin to naming a German restaurant “Adolf Hitler.” I agree with your overall point, though. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2017, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shouldnt-muslims-be-a-little-more-understanding-about-the-crusades/782898/32 "2017-03-25T15:21:49Z")
> [@GreenWyvern](#): > > See > [List of Ottoman sieges and landings from the 14th century to World War I](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ottoman_conquests,_sieges_and_landings) See my post right before yours. I think Eastern Europeans would generally be much more ‘aware’ of Ottoman history and Ottoman misbehavior against Christians than westerners would be. Greeks, especially. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2017, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shouldnt-muslims-be-a-little-more-understanding-about-the-crusades/782898/33 "2017-03-25T15:25:12Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > given that Egypt and the Levant were only ruled by Muslims in the first place because they had conquered them from the Byzantines, but consistency has ever been humanity’s strong point. Don’t forget Iran, they weren’t Christian of course but they had a very impressive civilization and religious tradition of their own before they were conquered by Islam. The civilization continued on of course but the religion is nearly extinct, though apparently ‘reconversion’ to Zoroastrianism is becoming something of a trend these days among disaffected youth in the ex-Soviet states. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2017, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shouldnt-muslims-be-a-little-more-understanding-about-the-crusades/782898/34 "2017-03-25T17:44:39Z")
> [@GreenWyvern](#): > > I wonder why nobody ever seems to mention the many Muslim invasions of Europe, especially by the Ottoman Turks? > Or the million+ white Europeans sold into slavery in North Africa from the early 17th to 19th centuries? > Look up the facts for yourselves. > > I suppose these things don’t suit the standard Western historical narrative, so they tend to be ignored. I really do not understand this comment. The Ottoman expansion into Europe is routinely brought up by folks who want to portray Islam as a violent religion threatening Europe, who often downplay the the role of typical imperial expansion at the expense of one’s neighbors. > [@clairobscur](#): > > > [@tomndebb](#): > > > > Charles Martel is still being hailed as the savior of Christianity for defeating a routine military campaign by the Umayyad Caliphate intended for conquest, not proselytization. > > It’s not contradictory. Conquest would have eventually resulted in the Muslim faith spreading and dominating, as it did in Spain. And the Franks pushing the Arabs back, from Charles Martel to Charlemagne, certainly played a significant part in putting an end to the Muslim advance in Europe. So, I’m not sure that this “savior of Christianity” narrative is completely wrong. It is a matter of emphasis and the understanding that supports such emphasis. The battle is frequently described and discussed in terms of “saving Christianity.” However, the conquests of North and South America, Oceania, and the subjugation of the Indian sub-continent and sub-Saharan Africa are never described as “Christian” conquests even though such conquests included some number of persons who did express the desire to proselytize and convert those who were conquered. It is true that, as Tamerlane has noted, the Umayyads were on the point of being wracked by internal feuds. Of course, one could speculate on the possibility that a victory at Tours might have given them sufficient control over Western Europe that it might have served as a pressure relief valve where dissidents might be sent to hold other lands rather than fighting among themselves or where the disaffected might have gone to establish their own kingdoms more distant from Umayyad control. This could have resulted in the expansion of Islam throughout what is now France. However, the purpose of such conquest and expansion would have remained old fashioned empire building rather than an expansion of Islam. ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2017, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shouldnt-muslims-be-a-little-more-understanding-about-the-crusades/782898/35 "2017-03-25T18:07:38Z")
> [@GreenWyvern](#): > > See > [List of Ottoman sieges and landings from the 14th century to World War I](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ottoman_conquests,_sieges_and_landings) How about you make a similar list for England or France over the same timeframe and get back to us with regards to who tops the list of imperial expansionist jackasses? ---
**Author:** ![Ramira](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ramira/32/344_2.png) [@Ramira](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramira)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2017, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shouldnt-muslims-be-a-little-more-understanding-about-the-crusades/782898/36 "2017-03-25T18:41:11Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Regarding the Crusades, I can certainly understand popular Muslim attitudes towards them. it is a subject that is very middle eastern although you all keep writing " Muslim" but it is really middle eastern. in the Maghreb I have never heard the term once ever. > [@](#): > > Although, I think a lot of the feelings aren’t so much about the Crusades themselves as they are about modern colonialism/neocolonialism. Most people aren’t worked up about the Crusades themselves, but it’s more that the Crusades are just thrown in there as part of a parade of horribles as an example of “see how terrible the West is to Muslims”, yes > [@](#): > > There is, of course, some hypocrisy in the focusing on the Crusades as an example of “Christian/European aggression”, of course, given that Egypt and the Levant were only ruled by Muslims in the first place because they had conquered them from the Byzantines, but consistency has ever been humanity’s strong point. both were opened up mostly successfully because the byzantines were so oppressive to the flavors of the christians living in these regions that had different doctrine from the imperial byzantine. And that the islamic armies were very light in their touch for the local populations contrary to the byzantines. no comparison to the muderous behaviours of the crusaders - towards everyone not a Latin christian. > [@Steken](#): > > Perhaps this is true among _Arabs_, even more, the easterners of the Machreq. > [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > The civilization continued on of course but the religion is nearly extinct, though apparently ‘reconversion’ to Zoroastrianism is becoming something of a trend these days among disaffected youth in the ex-Soviet states. Like you like to promote the idea that the Soviets were not so bad… it is amusing. > [@Rick\_Kitchen](#): > > I;m sure the very Christian Byzantines were very understanding when the very Christian Crusaders sacked and plundered Constantinople. Or the orthodox in the Levant. > [@Weisshund](#): > > I am not sure you will get an understanding view from anyone that was in the crusade territories that was not a crusader? > > They killed Muslims, and Christians, and Jews. > They were not too discriminant about who got whacked with a sword a lot of times. > And in reality they just made a mess they were murderous to all who were not of their Latin christianity. It is a very Latin christianity habit, like the crimes of the expulsion of the moriscos and the sephard Jews (both who go on to contribute largely make up the above mentioned corsaires of the 16 century, as revenge). ---
**Author:** ![Ramira](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ramira/32/344_2.png) [@Ramira](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramira)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2017, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shouldnt-muslims-be-a-little-more-understanding-about-the-crusades/782898/37 "2017-03-25T18:43:20Z")
> [@aldiboronti](#): > > There was little understanding on display. . Al Andalous etc. Little understanding, yes, of the history in the op. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2017, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shouldnt-muslims-be-a-little-more-understanding-about-the-crusades/782898/38 "2017-03-25T18:54:46Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > It is a matter of emphasis and the understanding that supports such emphasis. The battle is frequently described and discussed in terms of “saving Christianity.” However, the conquests of North and South America, Oceania, and the subjugation of the Indian sub-continent and sub-Saharan Africa are never described as “Christian” conquests even though such conquests included some number of persons who did express the desire to proselytize and convert those who were conquered. The Spanish and Portuguse conquest of South and Central America was _absolutely_ driven largely by the motivation of religious conversion, so it’s certainly fair to describe them as “Christian conquests”. Same for Africa although to a lesser extent. The British subjugation of the Indian subcontinent wasn’t as self consciously driven by religious conversion as the Spanish or Portuguese imperial adventures had been, and they weren’t all that effective at converting people anyway, but religious motivations certainly played _some_ role, and those people who resisted the British advances (Hindus as well as Sikhs and Muslims) absolutely saw what they were doing as “saving Hinduism” or “saving Islam” as the case might be. I don’t agree that either the European conquests of the Americas and Africa or the various Arab/Turkic/Persian military conquests can be attributed wholly or even mostly to secular concerns. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2017, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shouldnt-muslims-be-a-little-more-understanding-about-the-crusades/782898/39 "2017-03-26T00:43:33Z")
> [@Ramira](#): > > both were opened up mostly successfully because the byzantines were so oppressive to the flavors of the christians living in these regions that had different doctrine from the imperial byzantine. And that the islamic armies were very light in their touch for the local populations contrary to the byzantines. To some extent that was true in Egypt, not in Syria. The Syrians were for the most part Orthodox. > [@](#): > > no comparison to the muderous behaviours of the crusaders - towards everyone not a Latin christian. Not really true, with the exception of the Fourth Crusade. For the most part, though, Muslims and Jews had legal restrictions, but Eastern and Latin Christians weren’t legally distinguished. While some of the initial conquests were bloody (like the sacking of Jerusalem), administration in the Latin Kingdoms wasn’t particularly oppressive or violent. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2017, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shouldnt-muslims-be-a-little-more-understanding-about-the-crusades/782898/40 "2017-03-26T02:59:04Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > The Spanish and Portuguse conquest of South and Central America was _absolutely_ driven largely by the motivation of religious conversion, so it’s certainly fair to describe them as “Christian conquests”. Same for Africa although to a lesser extent. While there was a lot of talk of “Let’s go convert the pagans” among church men, the motivation to fund exploration and to set up the administration of colonies was primarily driven by a desire for profit. Regardless, one must seek out specific historians to discover a claim for religious conversion as a motivation and it is extremely difficult to discover claims of the “Christian conquest” of those lands. > [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > I don’t agree that either the European conquests of the Americas and Africa or the various Arab/Turkic/Persian military conquests can be attributed wholly or even mostly to secular concerns. That missionaries tagged along with explorers and conquerors is a fact. That the explorations and conquests were prompted by religious desires has little to do with actual history. For example, in the Muslim conquest of North Africa and Iberia, (on which so many people hang the lesson of spreading the Word by the sword), the initial conquerors continued to follow Mohammed’s rule that forced conversion was wrong and they made little effort to actually impose Islam on the captured states. Missionaries and favorable economic rules soon encouraged conversions, but the conquests were not carried out for that purpose. The period of forced conversion and harsher penalties for non-Muslims came later, when the nations had been established and later rulers wanted to include religion among the methods to consolidate their rules. The first serious persecution of Christians in North Africa did not begin until the period of the Almoravids and the Almohads in the eleventh and twelfth centuries–four hundred years after the earliest assaults on North Africa. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shouldnt-muslims-be-a-little-more-understanding-about-the-crusades/782898.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shouldnt-muslims-be-a-little-more-understanding-about-the-crusades/782898.md?page=3)