#crusading

He’s gonna start a new Crusade to re-establish the Greek Orthodox Church in Constantinople? Because the last time there was a Crusade on Constantinople it worked out so well for the Orthodox Church.

🎵🎶 "It's Istanbul, not South Carolina"

What exactly is transmisogyny??

Because I've seen it defined as the intersection between transphobia and misogyny, but I've also seen it defined as oppression and/or bigotry targeted at transfems, or those perceived as such.

I do think that the first may be the most accurate, since I've seen many transfeminists say such. However, it also seems to be treated as the second definition.

As in, bloggers would say that transmisogyny is the intersection between transphobia & misogyny. However, every time a transfem ends up being subjected to hate or oppression of any kind, it's immediately labelled (over all/generally) as transmisogyny, even if it isn't solely transmisogyny, by definition, or (seemingly) any at all.

This article explores how the crusade emerged as a distinct medieval institution, shaped by ideas of holy war, just war, and penance.

Saladin achieved amazing political and military success: from a humble Kurdish officer in Nur ed-Din's army, he became the Sultan of Egypt, Mosul and Damas. In 1187, he crushed the Frankish army in Hattin and took back Jerusalem. Surprisingly, his fame in the Muslim world was short-lived: in the 14th century, the great historian Ibn Khaldun only mentions him in passing in his universal history...

In the West, in the contrary, Saladin was not forgotten. But he was not remembered - as we may except - as the faithless conqueror who had committed the awful crime of depriving Christians of Jerusalem. Even though his conquests were known, medieval authors started as soon as the early 13th century to present Saladin in a very positive light: Saladin was brave, chivalrous, courteous. As time went on, he started to be depicted as a perfect knight, whose only flaw was not being Christian.

This very positive perception of Saladin as an honorable and knightly enemy was transmitted to us in almost direct line since the early 1230s. The epics of the 13th-14th century and the "romans de chevalerie" of the 15th century made him into an honorable pagan, earning him the right to appear in limbos next to Homer and Socrates in Dante's Divine Comedy. The Enlightenment philosophers then saw Saladin as an ideal of tolerance. 20th and 21th century movies generally represent him by mixing these two traditions. For example, Kingdom of Heaven (2005) by Ridley Scott presents Saladin as an honorable enemy, tolerant of all faiths, wanting nothing more than to live peacefully with the Christians.

Saladin’s mercy in Kingdom of Heaven (2005)

This narrative, however, has been challenged by historians ! So I'd like to correct a few common misconceptions about him and the events of 1187:

1) Saladin wanted to live in peace with the Christians.

One thing you need to understand about Saladin is that he SEVERELY lacked legitimacy. He was a Kurdish general leading Turkish troops ruling over Arabs, and seized power in the Muslim world by revolting against his former lord, Nur ed-Din. Until the end of the 1180s, he waged an relentless war against the unarguably legitimate heirs of Nur ed-Din.

So how did he justify his conquests ? Like Nur ed-Din had done before him, he tried to be seen as a devout Muslim ruler. Maybe he wasn't the legitimate heir, but he would be the pious leader the world needed, who would defeat both heretics and crusaders.

The first act of his political career was to depose the Shiite Fatimid Caliphate of Egypt: he used this to boast his legitimacy by presenting himself as the defender of Sunni Islam.

But this wasn't enough. He needed to convince the Muslim world to support his rebellion against the Zengids aka the most powerful Muslim dynasty that had emerged for a hundred years. So Saladin turned to djihad.

Djihad was the religious belief that Muslims should expand the Dar al-islam (the territory ruled by Muslim rulers) by military conquest. Since the time he became Sultan of Egypt, Saladin based his legitimacy on the idea that he would be the one to retake Syria from the Christians.

But Saladin had to assert his power in the Muslim world first. This led to him to a situation where he had to fight the Zengids at home (in order to stay in power) and the Crusaders States in Syria (to bolster the legitimacy he needed to win against the Zengids, and to avoid being accused of hypocrisy).

He did the logical thing: take care of the Zengids first, while trying to limit wars with the Crusaders, and then attack the Crusaders, with all the resources of the former Zengid empire at his disposal.

A plan which eventually worked !

So suggesting Saladin wanted to live in peace with the Christians would be absurd: considering his lack of legitimacy, it would have been a sort of political suicide.

Also, we have no reason to doubt that he was a sincere believer in djihad, and saw it as an important religious obligation for any Muslim leader in a capacity to do so.

2) Saladin was courteous and merciful.

It's undeniable that Saladin had a certain... humanitarian side to his personality. He seems to have been ready to free prisoners and show mercy in some occasions.

HOWEVER his most famous acts of personal generosity - the ones accomplished during his campaign of 1187-1188 - were in his best interest, as they were part of a policy to encourage Christian lords to surrender their towns and castles to him. This would allow him to quickly conquer Syria, before the arrival of reinforcements from the West.

His generosity was not devoid of political calculations.

The courteous deeds of Saladin are reported with great praise in many of our Christian sources. The traditional understanding of the events of 1187 is mostly based on The Old French Continuations of William of Tyre, an extremely valuable primary source, but strongly aligned with the ideological and political interests of the Latin States ruling elite. This encouraged the autor(s) to emphasise Saladin's generosity, for three reasons:

- The idea of the "honorable pagan enemy" was very popular in medieval epics and romans

- The greater the enemy, the more acceptable the defeat

- Writing about Saladin's great courtesy helped justify the actions of the lords who had given over their cities to Saladin without much - or any ! - fighting.

Not only Saladin had a reason to be merciful, the chroniclers aligned with Holy Land lords had every interest to report it.

Thankfully other sources allow us to understand how Saladin was perceived by other contemporaries, who were not members of the ruling class:

- The Libellus de Expugnatione Terrae Sanctae, written by a mere soldier who fought at the siege of Jerusalem, expresses a deep feeling of betrayal against Balian of Ibelin and the other Christians who had chosen to "sell the city of God" to a Pagan King.

- The letters sent at the time (my research topic for this year !) give us a sense of the shock and horror that seized the contemporaries. There was certainly no admiration of Saladin's virtues there, nor any discussion of his great deeds.

A not very positive depiction of Saladin in a Latin manuscript

3. Reynald of Châtillon and Gerard of Ridefort were fanatics and idiots

Gerard (master of the Templars) and Reynald (lord of Kerak) were both highly experienced military commanders who knew exactly what they were doing. They were part of the faction which favored quick action against Saladin, before the unification of his empire. This was very sound strategical reasoning. Looking back, we see that Saladin's situation was precarious: if he suffered too much defeats at the hands of the Crusaders, and if he had to fight on two fronts at once, he would probably have lost. The truces favored by the other faction, led by Raymond of Tripoli, allowed him the time to strengthen his control on the Muslim empire.

When Reynald launched his famous raid on the Red Sea - threatening the Hedjaz, the birthplace of Islam, and raiding close to Medina, where the Prophet was buried - he dealt a devastating blow to Saladin: even if no long term teritorial gain was made, Saladin's legitimacy was badly damaged. How could he call himself the protector of faith, if he couldn't even protect the pilgrims on the road to Mecca, and the Holy city of Medina ! A few of these blows and Saladin could very well have lost his grasp on the Muslim world...

The incident that led to the campaign of 1187 and the defeat at Hattin - the raid launched by Reynald on a caravan despite the truce signed between Saladin and the King of Jerusalem - was another very calculated move. His goal was to force another war between the King and the Sultan, at a time when King Guy didn't want to go to war against Saladin. In Reynald's eyes, any delay would only give Saladin more time to unify his empire and prepare his troops.

So, were they fanatics ? Maybe. Were they idiots ? Certainly not.

A pretty unsubtle representation of Reynald and Gerard’s position in Kingdom of Heaven (2005)

To everyone out there under attack from the Jezebel spirit, the bravest thing you can do is keep living and keep speaking out. She wants you dead because you're a threat, and if you're a threat, you're doing something right. She wants you to hate and doubt yourself so she can use you for nefarious purposes. Don't fall for it (you won't if you're standing for the right thing).

She hates children, she hates God, and she hates prophets of God. I could not find the Alex Jones video to attach, sadly. 

Crusading New Zealand