>Jews and Muslims fought together to defend Jerusalem against the invading Franks, but the crusaders entered the city on 15 July 1099. They proceeded to massacre the remaining Jewish and Muslim civilians and also pillaged or destroyed mosques or the city itself
Why did they do this?
What was cause for anti-jew sentiment before the crusades?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades#First_Crusade_.281096.E2.80.931099.29_and_immediate_aftermath
People have always hated the jews
The leaders were Occultists posing as Christians, while the mass of fodder were brainwashed peasants.
>>570746
Leaders would take money from jews and then needed to justify not paying them back, so the jews were demonized. source:Crusader kings 2
A bunch of white Semitiboos attacked outta nowhere
Imagine a bunch of crazed Zeus worshiping Arabs invading Greece
I thought this was /his/ not /v/ or /x/
I guess nobody here knows shit about history.
>>570767
>demonize them
>take their shekels
>die
>son does the same again.
>>570746
>be some half starved lesser noble who over the course of several years spends all he has to travel to some desert shit hole
>Food is running low, you are starving and desperate for any success
>People start having visions, and rave madly about God, saints, and divine victory
>It finally happens, you and your men breach the walls of Jerusalem
>The enemy resistance is crushed with relative ease
>Slaughter-drunk
They got carried away. People believed it was the end-times. Like, this was it my dude. Wasn't even that bad for the time, in fact i would say it was pretty normal
>>570767
Jews were lenders to people in general because of loopholes around religious laws against lending money at a profit.
Moneylending is easy, profitable work (by medieval standards) for one side of it and potentially life ruining for the other, and it turns out having an identifiable small ethnic and religious minority handle all of this on the "good" side isn't all that good for ethnic and religious relations.
>>570799
Even before that though
>nspired by Pope Urban II's preaching, Peter the Hermit led as many as 20,000 people, mostly peasants, to the Holy Land shortly after Easter 1096.[58] When they arrived in Germany in spring 1096, units of crusaders commenced the Rhineland massacres in the cities of Speyer, Worms, Mainz and Cologne, despite the efforts by Catholic bishops to protect the Jews. Major leaders included Emicho and Peter the Hermit. The range of anti-Jewish activity was broad, extending from limited, spontaneous violence to full-scale military attacks on the Jewish communities of Mainz and Cologne.[59] This was the first major outbreak of anti-Jewish violence in Europe and was cited by 19th-century Zionists as showing the need for a Jewish state.
What was reason for this jew hate? Wouldn't be surprised if it was deserved somehow.
>>570820
>Jews were lenders to people in general because of loopholes around religious laws against lending money at a profit.
ahh, but there was nothing against Christians borrowing the money?
>>570833
The point is Christians and Jews weren't supposed to do it with other people of their respective tribes but the loophole was that it doesn't count if one side lends to the other. Obviously the Jews were going to have more customers that vice versa and if the chicken came before the egg on that whole higher than average linguistic intelligence thing for the Jews, they were in a good position for making a lot of money in lending.
there was good reason to hate the jews from the very beginning of Christianity's history.
Jews considered the early Christian church to be heretics and tried to exterminate them.
They were the ones who picked a fight with a religious group that grew better.
>>570867
As the religions professed by the Jews (Second Temple Judaism) and the Romans (Religion in ancient Rome) were different,[3] and since at the time Jerusalem was part of Roman Judea, the charges of the Sanhedrin against Jesus held no power before Pilate. From the three charges brought by the Jewish leaders (perverting the nation, forbidding the payment of tribute, and sedition against the Roman Empire),
hummm yea
any info on this?;
>Jews considered the early Christian church to be heretics and tried to exterminate them.
>>570827
Any number of reasons but ussually it came down to the fact that they were merchants and money lenders, and a religious minority involved in the death of the Christians God. Also, Germans. They're just terrible people.
>>570905
Acts 8:1 "at Jerusalem"; Acts 9:13 "at Jerusalem"; Acts 9:21 "in Jerusalem"; Acts 26:10 "in Jerusalem" are all about how Paul before converting to Christianity used to be heavily involved in the persecution and Christians by jews.
The Acts of Apostles details many other stories. As a competing sect of Judaism, there was antagonism just like catholics and protestants.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_of_early_Christianity_and_Judaism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_New_Testament
>>570746
Firstly, the Jews have always been extremely treacherous and underhanded.
Second, why does everyone forget about the Muslim conquest of Iberia and why does it always get detached from any conversation about the crusades? It was ever present in the minds of all Christian leaders and they were well aware of the Jewish role played in said conquest. I'm sure they suspected the Jews played a role in other Islamic conquests as well.
>>570966
>Second, why does everyone forget about the Muslim conquest of Iberia and why does it always get detached from any conversation about the crusades
Because it wasn't a centralised jihad like the Crusades were.
It was originally a raid by Berber converts that were having trouble adapting to Arab influence. I read it in detail a while ago but I can't really remember that much.
>The conquering army was made up mainly of Berbers who had themselves only recently come under Muslim influence. It is probable that this army represented a continuation of a historic pattern of large-scale raids into Iberia dating to the pre–Islamic period, and hence it has been suggested that actual conquest was not originally planned.
>>570981
>haha oh man, all these christians
>w-wait. You mean we could just take it all?
Makes it way better
>>570981
>it wuzint cenchrulized
So fucking what? It was devastating and destructive and took way more territory than the crusades.
>>570981
> why does everyone forget about the Muslim conquest of Iberia
Because the Christians of that time didnt give much of a shit about it. A previous crusade was organised to drive them out of Spain but it fizzled out at a foreign level. They were only interested in Jerusalem and the holy lands. Hence why they didnt try and drive the Muslims from Spain the lands east and south east of Anatolia which is what the case would have been if it were a response.
>>571168
Yeah but it lacked the religious element to it. By your reasoning the victims of colonialisation are victims of christianity.
>>571168
>It was devastating and destructive
Not really, no.
>>570746
>Why did they do this?
Just have to put yourself in that position. The First Crusaders had enormous hardships, and when they finally broke through into the city of Jerusalem, most of them went wild. Not excusing it. It was a slaughter, but there isn't much to go by to suggest it was anything dramatically worse than what would take place in European sieges at the time.
>What was cause for anti-jew sentiment before the crusades?
Jews in Europe had always been seen as anti-Christians. They were always the dumb elder brother religion who didn't know better at best, and active agents against Christ at worst. But really things only began to come to a head with the organization of the First Crusade and the pillaging and destruction of Jewish communities in the HRE. It only got worse from then on, though of course it hadn't been rainbows and sunshine before then, but nothing on the scale seen until this period.
>>570981
>continuation of a historic pattern of large-scale raids
>"oops, we didn't mean to conquer anyone"
I think it's useful to consider the fact that "chivalry" is a concept that did not come about until the century AFTER the crusades. It was largely a product of the rise to prominence of the tournament, particularly in France. It was initially a way for Knights to compete in these contests without it being a bloodbath that ended up with lots of the ruling class dead (particularly because they were worth a lot more alive).
The idea of the "courtly, honorable, chivalrous knight" is a product of later centuries, and a fair amount of renaissance romanticization. Even when it was a serious creed, it was never quite as noble as people much later liked to imagine.
The knights and nobles who took part in the crusades and the early crusades in particularly were warrior elites, whose place in society depended on martial skill. They have a lot more in common with a Celtic chiefs companions and retainers than they do with Sir Galahad. Their equipment was more sophisticated and culture had progressed but they were still professional killers whose job it was to crush people who stood in their way.
Add to that the blessing of the Pope, indulgences, remission of sins committed on Crusade, and the always-present tendency to indulge in an orgy of killing after a stressful siege and it really shouldn't surprise anyone they murdered their way through Jerusalem when they got in.
People always cluck their tongues and shake their heads as though this was a sign of how dishonorable and ignoble the knights were, but they're looking through a lens of some knightly ideal that was never what they think it was, and anyway wouldn't even start to form as an ethic for the knights and nobility until decades and centuries after the Crusade.
It's also worth pointing out they weren't very nice to their fellow Christians of the oriental rites, either.
>>571469
>The Caliph didn't call it
That doesn't mean it wasn't a conquest.
>>571168
>It was devastating and destructive
Didn't it basically transform what was an irrelevant backwater shithole into objectively the most advanced European society
>>570746
>What was cause for anti-jew sentiment before the crusades?
The same reasons that people who make their living by manipulating money are always detested.
