The Crusader.  The West ultimately failed in its nearly 200-year quest, in the 11th and 12th centuries, to possess the Holy Land, and oust the Muslims from it.  Since we continue to live in an era of demonizing violence among and by Muslims; and they live in an era of demonizing violence among and by Christians (a reciprocal frame of mind for extremists on both sides); we look here at an odd matter in warfare, Culture, Violence and Character.

During the periods when it was succeeding, off and on, how did the West treat the opponents.  When the opponents prevailed, how did they treat the Crusaders.  The First Crusade was in 1096, see timeline at ://www.middle-ages.org.uk/crusades-timeline.htm/.  The Second was in 1144; the Third in 1187; Fourth 1202; Children's Crusade 1212; Fifth Crusade 1217; Sixth 1228; Seventh 1248; Eighth 1270; Ninth 1271. In the movies, the Third Crusade gets more attention than the others, because of the famed combatants, Richard the Lionheart against Saladin. 

What traits were idealized in the Eastern and Western cultures, for how long were those idealizations successful, and what seeds of destruction did they contain.

Our Western Crusades. Schools used to teach the myths of knights off to do right. Are children taught much of any history now, or is there too much of it to bother with. Do it yourself.

1.  Setting the Violence Record Straight.

Crusading is part of western culture.  Christianity has conducted its internal crusades, its inter-tribal crusades, crusades against unbelievers, crusades against the wrong people being in charge, dogma, etc.  See Western Ethnic Violence Timeline.  Inquisitions, crusades against "heretics" (who is not a heretic, if he or she thinks independently?).  We know less of the kinds of knights that originally rode off to kill other knights, and whom they fought, and why.  Rome and Kings. Send them off. Against any Western or Eastern set of believers whose form took issue with forms supported by Rome and the Kings.  Knights against knights.

1.1. Who lost:

Christians of differing beliefs.  The conquered include knights and European cultures with codes of tolerance rather than forced dogma and exclusion, and basic chivalry in the sense of caring for others, protection of the weaker, idealizing love, and fostering an order of the universe.  Think Cathars; the Albigensians:  deemed heretic (some Catholic theologians even said they were not Christian) for dualism in the belief system, but really targeted for their lands and as a result of papal power expansionism. See them at ://www.cathar.info/  Many of their rituals were later adopted by the Catholic Church, after the Cathars were virtually extinguished in the Albigensian Crusades in France from 1209-1255, see ://xenophongroup.com/montjoie/albigens.htm/.

Others usefully dehumanized as "heretic" -- and religious groups ignored or overwhelmed as Rome;s militaristic Christianity took over, excluding the Syriac, Eqyptian , Eastern forms and interpretations from the emerging Church.  Those who saw themselves as part of a fluid cosmic whole were -- there's the word again -- demonized. Is that so?  The power jockeying won instead of the philosophy of mutual help. 

Who else are among the losers:

Non-Christians.  Look at the native Americans, see the genocide accounts at the History News Network, on the occasion of the founding of the Native American Museum, see ://hnn.us/articles/7302.html/ native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders 1513-1842 or so, see Pacific Nations and Territories: The Islands of Micronesia, Melanesia, and Polynesia, 1995. by Reilly Ridgell, Pacific Region Educational Laboratory, Honolulu, Hawaii,
.

2.  Those who won:  Knights and cultures with codes of autocracy, punishment, enforcement, tight control at the top. The concept of paratge, living with one another, lost.

3.  How to describe the mindset of each.

Malama and Not Malama; and Paratge.  What?

For a brief idea of the difference in worldview between those who value living with one another, and those who see others as an opportunity to take power from them and exploit, look at the lexicon of concepts used in another culture, but with similar parameters:  Malama and Not Malama, from Hawaii, at ://www.noogenesis.com/malama.html/   Look at Hawaii, Pacific Islands, and the concepts there:  find "malama" - a word for protecting, caring, balance, inquiry, freedom, a concept beaten out of the conquered - almost - see Socialist Mop, Malama.

Here, we look at which attitudes produced a productive people thereafter. What  What qualities or concepts were lost in the conquering of those who had other values. Is the "universe" and its values served in our western history of violence against others? Are we worse than others, or is violence part of human nature.

If it is, then all the more reason to foster malama and paratge, is that so?


Paratge is a word from the past, beaten beneath marching feet in Western Culture, of religious authoritarians who prevailed as Rome's Empire did a lateral pirhouette into Christian militance, and who were offended by alternate views of Christianity in the East, or "heretic" in southern and other parts of Europe, and who - as a conquering institutions - required uniformity, see :Duty to Paratge.

European culture knew paratge to varying degrees through other contacts, including with each other:

• the Cathars,
• the Occitan-speakers in Southern France, Northern Italy and the Pyrrhenees areas of Spain, and earlier, 
• in the sense of incidents of not forcing conversion after victories, the Muslims invading Spain in the 800's or so, and leaving infidel minorities in their communities without expulsion, Jews and Christians, but restricting them and taxing only.  No slaughter.  Just use them, limit them. Is that so?  See chronology at ://www.turizm.net/turkey/history/ottoman.html/ Note the centuries of peace, despite inequality, and the blooming of Muslim culture in Spain during the 8th-14th Centuries.  See Pursuing "dhimmitude" in Spain, Muslim occupation 
  
• also in not forcing conversion after victories, the Ottoman Muslims invading Europe through the Balkans in the 1300's, see chronology at ://www.turizm.net/turkey/history/ottoman1.html/ at the left menu, 1300's ff.  
  

 
In what ways might the Paratge approach be superior, particularly in warfare - a counterintuitive idea.  Have there been leaders whose success in instigating long periods of peace can be explained, at least partially, by their doing paratge as to the conquered.
.
Hearts and minds.

Which approach of the conqueror wins hearts and minds:  the forceful killer, the expeller, the punisher; or the one who incorporates the vanquished and allows some continuity - even if taxed, and restricted.  See Saladin and Richard I of England - the Lionheart.  Richard understood the concept, but could not find it in himself to use it consistently.  Saladin did.  They respected each other, balanced each other, but Saladin's peace lasted.
The battles for Jerusalem, the Crusades, the Middle Ages.  What are some of the roots of present conflicts, racial-cultural-ethnic hatreds. Whose approach of conciliation led to lasting periods of peace (Saladin);  whose approach of slaughter the vanquished led to more violence (Richard I).

• Little blood. 637 CE. The armies of Islam take Jerusalem in 637 Common Era.  It was the time of the Dark Ages in Europe. Who ran Jerusalem before then?  The Christians? Or others?  The taking was followed by four hundred years of peace - no slaughter when the city was taken, just restrictions on numbers of churches that the Christians could build, and taxes on them, but the religious groups lived together.  Amazing.
  
• Eyewitness to History website:  Read an account of someone, identity unknown, but who is reliably believed to have been there, at ://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/crusades.htm/  The description was published before 1101.  They took Jerusalem and slaughtered, slaughtered, slaughtered. 
  
• Sidelight big blood.  1187. In 1187, the Islamic Saladin takes back Jerusalem from the Crusaders. Richard the Lionheart and others formed the Third Crusade to wrest Jerusalem back from Saladin. In particular, King Richard I, known as the Lionheart, of England, See ://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/lionheart.htm/. The had to take Acre first - a city on the way.  With disagreements on terms and delays on payments,and already overextended from the effort in Jerusalem, Saladin could not obtain the release of Muslims in Acre and Richard had them slaughtered. 
• When Saladin (of Kurdish origin, born in Tikrit, what is now Iraq) conquered, he became known for his chivalry and mercy; he did not slaughter all the Christians in the city of Jerusalem, as the Christians had slaughtered the Muslims;  instead he provided a means for getting to the coast and on ships and out. See ://www.answers.com/topic/saladin/  He even invited the Jews to return, see ://www.jerusalem.com/article_544/Saladins-Reign-in-Jerusalem/.
  
• 1270 - fast forward to the Seventh Crusade, after takings and retakings of Jerusalem left it by that time in the hands of the Muslims.  Enter the French.  And see them fail.  See ://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/crusade1250.htm/.  See summaries and historical details on things like the food crusaders ate, at ://jeru.huji.ac.il/ef1.htm/; and at ://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/cru2.htm/ and the timeline at ://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/cru1.htm
  

Of interest here:  How do the two sides differ in basic opposition philosophy over the centuries.  Who has "honor", or "paratge" (a difficult concept for us, thanks to our own cultural decisions, conquests to exclude those who espoused it). 

Are we, the West as virtuous and such a boon to civilization's march upwards, as we like to think. Is a President justified in acknowledging that we have made mistakes (yes).
.
1. Jerusalem is home to many religions, and its control pivots on many concepts. Are these relevant:

• Historical right, in that so much time passed with one group in control that any later divisions arbitrary by others, must fail (in the view of those there); 
• The Right of Return.  The right of the wrongfully excluded to regain what they lost, according to today's standards, so that original claims remain; or - again, time - 
• Exclusion by Laches.  Did laches take hold, favoring the occupants' claim  (somebody waited too long before asserting rights, so that rights of others who continually occupied, supersede). But then, Has so much time passed since Israel was carved out after Word War II, that their rights similarly have superseded what Palestinians who were on the land all that time, might have been originally opposed. 

No answers. At least, no easy answers.