www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West The Crusades

Yet was this invasion of Turkey not prompted by similiar outrages, though perhaps not in the same scale, from Greek Cypriots? The Turkish Cypriots claim their rights were violated as well. Was there not a coup by Greek Cypriots and a plan to unite with Greece prior to the invasion? If the US has failed to address this issue adequately (and let's not overlook the EU as well), perhaps it is because it is one almost as intractable as the Arab/Israeli Conflict. Beats me how to solves this one. I'd prefer a Turkish withdrawal, some kind of union between both sides where rights are respected, etc., yet how to get both sides together again is something I am not sure of.

Another intractable conflict which defies such black-and-white views IMO. The Muslims have many legitimate complaints against the Orthodox, from destruction of their mosques, murder of their people, loss of their lands and rights, etc. How do we move beyond such recriminations from both sides to peace?

As an aside, no matter how 'precise' weapons become in any bombing-raid mistakes will happen and innocents will die -- period. That is a fundamental rule of war that technology cannot overcome. The loss of innocent life may be minimized, but cannot be completely prevented. Hence why before war is sought the reasons must be enough to warrant the dead babies on television.

If I recall correctly, Nagorno-Karabakh is a majority Armenian region of Azerbaijan correct? Is this another example where Stalin ripped a chunk of land from one ethnic group and gave it to another like the Russian Crimea in Ukraine?

No, Carroll is more a product of the time he grew up in. I've read his books and enjoyed them. Spotting the bias wasn't difficult, yet the same is true of any history text I've read. I do not limit myself to one author or a few but prefer to examine the entire scope. Frankly, the 'truth' lies somewhere in-between all of them IMO. Carroll brings out some things I haven't found in other secular texts. I can appreciate that as it fleshes out more of the story. This doesn't mean I am unable to spot his biases. If I wrote a history book, or you did as well, do you not think that no matter how 'objective' or 'fair' either of us was being some bias would still creep in? Of course it would. Read Carroll, Runciman, or whomever you wish, but do not pretend that bias is something any historian or scholar is free of.

Yes, "Triumph" is a bit tedious to read and I agree that the tone is well, triumphalistic. The Sack of Constantinople was disgraceful and though the story usually told ignores much of Byznatine shennanigans, even taking these into account they do not justify the actions of the Crusaders against the city.

As for the Crusades themselves, they were IMO a desperate and ultimately failed response to years of Muslim aggression against Christendom (East and West). The did no more than bring the conflict to the heart of the enemy just as the US has done in Afghanistan. It is for that reason that while I may deplore the atrocities, the overall goal was correct. Somehow Christians defending themselves from repeated invasions by the Muslims is overlooked when discussing the Crusades.

Well, I am all pro-Byzantine empire and the like but the Georgians sided with the Muslims during the Crusade times and were spared much pain because of it. (Source: The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy.)

anastasios

Anastasios

Which Crusade are you refering to ? I know King David IV "The Builder" while not directly allied with the Crusaders, extensively fought against the Seljuk Turks at the time as the 1st Crusade, and later on King Georgi IV was planning on participating in what would be the 6th Crusade, when Georgia got blindsided by the Mongols in 1223. Also, I have previously read of participants in the various Crusades, from the Caucus Mountain region

Johan

Yes, there were violent attacks carried out on Turks by the Greek Cypriot Nationalist group EOKA, but they pale in comparison to what the Turkish Army and Air Force did on the island. Unfortunately, what exacerbated tensions and drove so many Greek Cypriots into the Enosis Movement (which advocated union with Greece), was the extreme political favoritism shown to Turkey by first Great Britain and then the United States. For a clearer understanding of this tragic situation, I again would highly recommend "Cyprus" by Christopher Hitchens.

In the case of Kosovo, It was the Western Media that portrayed the Moslem population as poor downtrodden peasants being ethnically cleansed by brutal Orthodox Serbs, when the reality (clearly substantiated by population statistics) is that in actuality, it is the Orthodox Serbian population which is being ethnically cleansed from the region which is now over 90 pct Moslem !

The situation in Nagorno-Karabakh may appear more complex, because it no longer shares a border with Armenia, but for a better explanation than I could give here's the website of the Office of the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh, and it has some very interesting information concerning Azerbaijan's links to Islamic extremists. http://www.nkrusa.org/nk_conflict/conflict_history.html

Dear Friends,

My own two cents' worth is that the Sack of Constantinople stuck in the memories of the Orthodox not because of the carnage or the thievery.

As we know, there were other episodes of such between both East and West.

I venture to say that the SOC was a defining moment for East-West ecclesial relations.

When the "crusaders" committed their acts of profanation on not only sacred icons and cathedrals of the EAst, but also cast Holy Communion into the streets etc., this brought home, I believe, something the Church of Constantinople had previously refused to entertain - that the West and the East had become two different Churches not in communion with one another.

We know that after the episode in 1054, many Eastern hierarchs simply considered it a personal confrontation between two hierarchs. I would say that few in the East considered 1054 a formal act of separation between the entire West and East.

It was really in 1204 that the awareness that such separation truly existed penetrated the Byzantine consciousness.

That is why the Sack of Constantinople continues to exert such a presence in the collective and historical awareness of Eastern Orthodox Christians.

However, the idea of "Crusader" was one that was eagerly accepted by various Orthodox Churches.

St Alexander Nevsky did consider himself and his armies to be "Orthodox Crusaders" fighting the West that, at the moment when Rus' was taking on the Mongol hordes, decided to attack it.

The same consciousness pervaded St Theodore Ushakov, commander of the Russian fleet in his battles with Muslim armies.

The Kozaks also considered themselves "Soldiers of the Cross" and even adopted the Crusader flag and the Cross with the Muslim quarter moon etc.

My view, anyway.

Alex

Thanks, fellow New Yorker! As I've said previously, agath�s grapheis.

Alex--I still don't get how the Sack of Constantinople had anything to do with the western Church.

I remind you that when the Imperial Government re-took the city, they also cast Holy Communion into the streets.

While the Sack was condemned by the Roman Pope--and all who partook therein were excommunicated--I don't recall the Emperor or Patriarch of Constantinople imposing similar penalties on those involved in the counter-sack.

Does Crocker approve of the Sack? Maybe--maybe not.

But we do have people on this forum who condemn the UGCC for rejecting her forced and genocidal "absorption" in 1946.


LatinTrad

Actually, there is only one person on this forum who does this and this view is NOT representative of mainstream Orthodox opinion which is expressed well by Bishop +Kallistos (Ware) in the revised version of "The Orthodox Church"