French    German    Spain    Italian    Arabic    Chinese Simplified    Russian

Western Civilisation

Until the advent of materialism and 19th c. dogma, Western Civilisation was  superior to anything Islam had developed.  Islam has not aided in the development of the modern world; in fact civilisation has only been created in spite of Islam.  Proof of this resides in the 'modern' world and the unending political-economic and spiritual poverty of Muslim states and regions.  Squatting on richer civilisations is not 'progress'.  Islam is pagan, totalitarian, and irrational.   

Back     Printer Friendly Version  

Friday, February 27, 2015

Bookmark and Share

'Glory of the Crusades', Steve Weidenkopf. Why did they go?

Faith, not profit.

by Ferdinand III

'Glory of the Crusades' by Weidenkopf is an important book which corrects the Atheist-Marxist-UnEnlightenment propaganda. In revisionist history, the ever-so-educated and peaceful Moslems were tending their goats, when suddenly in 1096 and for 200 years after, hairy, smelly Barbarians from France, who did not know what a bath or a book was, set upon them, slitting their throats, raping their women, skinning their goats, squatting on vast hordes of treasures and silks. The fact that the Levant was quite impoverished, a backwater, and contained no treasures whatsoever, never enters into this myth. Europe was far ahead of 'Islam' or the cult of submission long before Muhammad invented his totalitarian moon-idol cult. This is why Islam spent 1000 years trying to conquer and subdue Europe. You don't wage Jihad from Syria to southern France against a bereft culture.

So as Weidenkopf asks, 'why did they go'? [page 21]. Why did men from Europe march 2500 miles from 1096 to 1292 to fight against Islam and reclaim Jerusalem, the city of Peace. The main reason is of course the cult of Muhammadism or Islam. The Moslem Jihad had devastated Christianity from Arabia to southern France. Millions of Christians were forcibly converted by punishing laws and regulations including taxes and second-class knave status within Moslem lands. Millions more over 400 years, were raped, enslaved, killed, or traded like meat to supply harems, armies or workers for mines and state projects. Moslems had linked up with Vikings in the White-slave trade. Christian pilgrims for 100 years leading up to the Crusades had been killed, robbed, beaten, and sold into slavery. Christian Byzantium had been largely effaced, its Christian empire desecrated and eradicated by Moslems. As the Byzantines told sundry Western Church officials and Princelings, first us, then you. Moslems were effacing the Christian faith and its superior civilization.

Weidenkopf on why did they go?

Faith is certainly a more reasonable explanation than material gain. If material reasons had been paramount, would it not have been far easier and safer for Western warriors to stay home and fight their neighbors rather than travel 2,500 miles to a distant and completely alien land? It used to be fashionable in academic circles to attribute motivation for participating in the Crusades to second- and third-born sons who, due to the traditions of inheritance in medieval Europe, could not inherit property. Faced with a large population of marauding and landless warriors, it was said, the Church marshaled these forces and sent them to the Holy Land where they could acquire land.

This theory has been thoroughly debunked by examining the actual records of those who went on Crusade.It was not the younger but rather the first-born sons of French families who overwhelmingly participated in the First Crusade. In other words, it was the men who stood to lose everything. And indeed, participating in the Crusade was a bad investment for medieval warriors, the vast majority of whom returned (if they returned) materially poorer for the experience.”

Marxists and Atheists are never good with facts. The Crusades were an attempt to salvage the holy places of Christendom, stem the Moslem advance, safeguard Europe [Moslems after all were still slaughtering and squatting over much of Spain]; and pay a penance for sins real and imagined. To go on Crusade would cost 4 times a nobleman's annual income. Land was mortgaged, property given to the Church for safekeeping, and taxes employed to pay for the costly ordeal. It was a ruinously expensive project, no one in Normandy or anywhere else, became 'rich' from the Crusades. Many were ruined, most would die.

Greed you say? Weidenkopf:

We know, too, that most of those who survived the expedition and made it to the Holy Sepulchre returned home afterward; they did not stay to acquire feudal land holdings. The Crusade was a pilgrimage, and just like modern-day pilgrims who visit a shrine or church for a period of time and then return home, so did the warriors of the Crusades. After the First Crusade, there were some nobles who stayed in the Holy Land and created what are known as the Crusader States, but these areas always suffered from a lack of military manpower because of the very episodic nature of Crusading and the desire of most warrior-pilgrims to return home.”

Christians controlled large areas of the Holy Lands for 200 years. A deficit of manpower, money and interest doomed the enterprise. No wealth was made or taken, for there was none there to make or take. The enterprise was not a Marxist-colonial attack; nor was it due to 'greed' of the 'landless nobility'. The Crusades relegated much of the elite to penury and killed many of its best young talent. Fitting Marxist-Atheist or Hollywood themes onto such a complicated, granular and faith-based movement is about as intelligent as most pop-culture propaganda issued forth today – that is to say - it is utter nonsense.  

Article Comments:

Related Articles:


7/22/2023:  Seven Myths of the Crusades (Myths of History: A Hackett Series), Alfred J. Andrea and Andrew Holt

7/1/2023:  Skanderbeg, the unknown Christian Albanian warrior and hero

4/25/2023:  St. Ferdinand III. The greatest of the Crusaders.

4/6/2023:  Alfonso VI and the Christian war to save civilisation in Spain

4/3/2023:  Don Pelayo, Spain and the Muslim Jihad of the 8th century

11/20/2016:  The Crusades in Christian perspective

6/28/2016:  Atheist-Protestant lies about the Crusades - all to further the victimhood status of the Moon cult

5/1/2015:  Belloc and the glory of the Crusades and the liberation of Christians.

4/23/2015:  The Legend of Don Pelayo, by Marian Horvat, Phd.

4/13/2015:  Why the Crusades were necessary. No Islam, no Jihad, no necessity for the Crusades.

3/6/2015:  Witless Westerners, the 'sack of Jerusalem', and Moslem propaganda.

3/4/2015:  The Crusades, Jerusalem and the myth of 'rivers of blood'

2/27/2015:  'Glory of the Crusades', Steve Weidenkopf. Why did they go?

2/25/2015:  'Glory of the Crusades', Steve Weidenkopf Phd [appeal to authority!]

7/17/2014:  The real cause of the Crusades was Islam of course. The moon cult's Jihad.

6/9/2014:  Tyerman and Crusading, in 'The Medieval World' edited by Peter Linehan, Janet L. Nelson, 2013

7/1/2013:  Ernle Bradford: 'The Great Siege of Malta'.

6/5/2011:  The Monks of War, by Desmond Seward

5/6/2011:  Teutonic Knights: Desmond Seward's 'The Monks of War', 1972, Penguin books.

4/25/2011:  The Albigensian Crusade and Cultural Marxism

4/20/2011:  Thomas Madden, 'The New Concise History of the Crusades', and Sultan Baibars.

4/15/2011:  Thomas J. Madden's, The Concise History of the Crusades, 2005. Part One.

3/17/2011:  Book Review: 'The Crusades', by Michael Paine, Chartwell Books 2006, 137 pages.

1/13/2011:  January 13th 1128, the Pope recognizes the Knights Templar.

1/9/2011:  The Crusades - the necessity of fighting back.

1/8/2011:  Review: 'The Crusades' by Johnathan Riley-Smith 2nd edition.

1/2/2011:  Michael Haag: 'The Templars' - part 2.

12/29/2010:  'The Templars', by Michael Haag

12/4/2010:  Joseph Attard, 'The Knights of Malta'

11/24/2010:  Cavaliero's, the Knights of Malta or 'The Last of the Crusaders' – prosperity and benign governance.

11/23/2010:  Review: Roderick Cavaliero's 'The Last of the Crusaders and the Knights of St. John'

10/27/2010:  A first-hand account: “The [Great] Siege of Malta 1565”, by Francisco Balbi di Correggio

10/13/2010:  The Knights of Malta (1530-1798). Integral to Western development.

10/12/2010:  Hospitallers part 2: The Knights of Cyprus and Rhodes (1309-1522)

10/11/2010:  A brief history of the Hospitallers and the Knights of St. John.

10/10/2010:  David Nicolle, 'Knights of Jerusalem, the Crusading Order of Hospitallers 1100-1565.'

9/17/2010:  Nicholas Kristof and the Lame-Stream media hatred of the Crusades.

9/9/2010:  'Holy Warriors: A Modern History of The Crusades', by Johnathan Phillips

8/3/2010:  Review: 'Making War in the Name of God', Christopher Catherwood

7/29/2010:  1204 and the Crusader 'sack' of Constantinople. A necessity.

7/12/2010:  Roger Crowley: 'Constantinople, The Last Great Siege 1453'

7/3/2010:  Thomas Asbridge: 'The First Crusade'. Simply bloody awful.

6/19/2010:  The beautiful Crusades and saving civilization.

6/18/2010:  Christopher Tyerman, "God's War: A New History of the Crusades" - Read it.

6/17/2010:  Piers Paul Read: 'The Templars'. A great 'Read'.

6/16/2010:  Book Review: 'The Crusades', by Michael Paine, Chartwell Books 2006, 137 pages.

6/3/2010:  Medieval Italy; why did the Christian north succeed where the Orientalized south failed ?

5/11/2010:  Book Review: 'The Crusaders' by Regine Pernoud.

4/19/2010:  Book Review; Regine Pernoud, 'Those terrible Middle Ages'

4/11/2010:  Book Review: “The Templars” by Regine Pernoud, English edition 2009.

4/4/2010:  July 15 1099 – one of the great days in history. Jerusalem retaken.

4/3/2010:  Book Review: Empires of the Sea, by Roger Crowley. [The Final Battle for the Mediterranean]

3/20/2010:  Review: Rodney Stark's 'God's Battalions – The Case for the Crusades'

3/16/2010:  Why the Crusades were a success.

4/24/2009:  Byzantium: The Decline and Fall by John Julius Norwich, 450 pgs, 1996.

3/17/2009:  Common myths about the Seven Crusades which occurred 1095 to 1299