FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   178   179   180   181   182   183   184   185   186   187   188   189   190   191   192   193   194   195   196   197   198   199   200   201   202  
203   204   205   206   207   208   209   210   211   212   213   214   215   216   217   218   219   220   221   222   223   224   225   226   227   >>   >|  
hrates. But for that timely repulse, the battles of Belgrade and Lepanto might not have been fought in subsequent ages. It would have been an overwhelming calamity had the Turks invaded Europe in the twelfth century. The loss of five millions on the plains of Asia would have been nothing in comparison to an invasion of Europe by the Mohammedans,--whether Saracens or Turks. It may be that the chivalry of Europe would have successfully repelled an invasion, as the Saracens repelled the Christians, on their soil. It may be that Asia could not have conquered Europe any easier than Europe could conquer Asia. I do not know how far statesmanlike views entered into the minds of the leaders of the Crusades. I believe the sentiment which animated Peter and Urban and Bernard was pure hatred of the Mohammedans (because they robbed, insulted, and oppressed the pilgrims), and not any controlling fears of their invasion of Europe. If such a fear had influenced them, they would not have permitted a mere rabble to invade Asia; there would have been a sense of danger stronger than that of hatred,--which does not seem to have existed in the self-confidence of the crusaders. They thought it an easy thing to capture Jerusalem: it was a sort of holiday march of the chivalry of Europe, under Richard and Philip Augustus. Perhaps, however, the princes of Europe were governed by political rather than religious reasons. Some few long-headed statesmen, if such there were among the best informed of bishops and abbots, may have felt the necessity of the conflict in a political sense; but I do not believe this was a general conviction. There was, doubtless, a political necessity--although men were too fanatical to see more than one side--to crush the Saracens because they were infidels, and not because they were warriors. But whether they saw it or not, or armed themselves to resist a danger as well as to exterminate heresy, the ultimate effects were all the same. The crusaders failed in their direct end. They did not recover Palestine; but they so weakened or diverted the Mohammedan armies that there was not strength enough left in them to conquer Europe, or even to invade her, until she was better prepared to resist it,--as she did at the battle of Lepanto (A.D. 1571), one of the decisive battles of the world. I have said that the Crusades were a disastrous failure. I mean in their immediate ends, not in ultimate results. If it is probable that
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   178   179   180   181   182   183   184   185   186   187   188   189   190   191   192   193   194   195   196   197   198   199   200   201   202  
203   204   205   206   207   208   209   210   211   212   213   214   215   216   217   218   219   220   221   222   223   224   225   226   227   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

Europe

 

political

 
Saracens
 
invasion
 

conquer

 
crusaders
 

ultimate

 
invade
 

hatred

 

resist


repelled
 

danger

 

Crusades

 

Lepanto

 

battles

 

necessity

 

Mohammedans

 

chivalry

 

infidels

 

warriors


informed
 

statesmen

 
headed
 

conflict

 

general

 
conviction
 

fanatical

 

abbots

 

doubtless

 

bishops


diverted

 

battle

 

prepared

 

decisive

 

results

 
probable
 

disastrous

 

failure

 

failed

 

direct


effects

 

heresy

 

exterminate

 

recover

 

armies

 
strength
 
Mohammedan
 

Palestine

 
weakened
 

stronger