On Peregrinus, Part II: Getting to know the crusaders

The Call for Crusade

Villains and history

At first glance we not only see a man using “Vikings” to remove the Pope currently in Rome and replace him, but Urban also claimed to have the crown of Christ and his authority to pardon sin. Clergy proselytized murderers, that they might redeem themselves by killing the enemies of God.  Or so it seems when one views the events and facts of the Call for the Crusades without context. Timeline study is no way to understand history, for instance:  It is widely believed that FDR wanted to participate in World War II.  The economic stimulus of wartime industry provided a means to bring America wholly out of the Great Depression.  It is a matter of fact that, in 1941 the Japanese told the office of President FDR they were going to attack.  Naval intelligence intercepted communications confirming that a Japanese fleet had indeed mobilized and was somewhere in the Pacific.  The newest ships, and fleet of Air craft carriers were sent out of Pearl Harbor not long before the attack took place, and the vessels left there were ignorant of the impending attack. Without context these facts thus presented, make a convincing case that FDR allowed the Japanese to kill thousands of Americans for no other reason than to further his agenda. The truth however, was that poor communication in military command and government had caused the intelligence to fall through the cracks.

Perception is as influential in reading history as it is in our everyday life.  It is easy to find examples of “Christians” that waged cruel war for seemingly petty reasons or simply for greed.  Constantine, Charles Martel, and Charlemagne are but a few.  These men killed without mercy in the many wars they waged.  It is appalling to modern civilized society to think of such things, but how many of us have fought?  Most men and many women attended public schools and had to find their place in the social hierarchy.  Some gained popularity and respect through great achievements while others, lacking talent and good will, gain respect through intimidation.  In my own experience in public schools, I found that fights were regular and the result always the same; One got their way and one was beaten into submission.  What would have been the outcome had arms been available? Furthermore what would the result of such a contest be if every strong armed schoolyard bully had an army at his/her disposal?  With that in mind are we really so different, so much more civilized and refined than those that came before us?  There is an old saying: An argument between neighbors is war between princes.  It’s likewise pointless to debate the piety of Constantine, Charles Martel, and Charlemagne because only God knows their heart. The only thing that we can say for certain is that they acted similarly to all others of their era. What separates them from their peers is not their kind hearts, and civilized manner but the results of their achievements.  They saved Christendom from certain destruction and they died flawed, forgiven men believing in Jesus Christ.   

Deus Vult ( God Wills It! or as the gentlemen say: "I'll see your Jihad and raise you a crusade")

In the late 11^th century, Roman Emperor Alexius I wrote to various western authorities, including Pope Urban. Alexius begged the Pope to send knights which might be used as mercenaries, to defend against the Muslim conquest of his lands.  The call for additional forces went largely, though not completely, unanswered because the western powers were either defending against Norman invasion or were busy increasing their own power.  Pope Urban recognized a golden opportunity and seized it.  He wanted to solidify his position as the legitimate Pope, be restored to Rome, and stop the senseless violence that had been ravaging the Frankish kingdoms since the death of Charlemagne.  He went on what politicians today call, the campaign trail. 

“He (Pope Urban) saw, moreover, the faith of Christendom greatly degraded by all, by the clergy as well as by the laity, and peace totally disregarded; for the princes of the land were incessantly engaged in armed strife, now these, now those quarrelling among themselves. He saw the goods of the land stolen from the owners; and many,

who were unjustly taken captive and most barbarously cast into foul prisons, he saw ransomed for excessive sums, or tormented there by the three evils, starvation, thirst, and cold, or allowed to perish by unseen death. He also saw holy places violated, monasteries and villas destroyed by fire, and not a little human suffering, both the divine and the human being held in derision. When he heard, too, that interior parts of Romania were held oppressed by the Turks, and that Christians were subjected to destructive and savage attacks, he was moved by compassionate pity; and, prompted by the love of God, he crossed the Alps and came into Gaul.”-Fulcher

He toured France, Italy, and the parts of Germany where he could safely do so, condemning the sins of men and the German “Anti-Pope.”  He preached many sermons but the sermon that became legendary, was that given at Clermont. Here it is, at length, as recorded by Fulcher of Chartres:

"Dearest brethren," he said, 'I, Urban, invested by the permission of God with the papal tiara, and spiritual ruler over the whole world, have come here in this great crisis to you, servants of God, as a messenger of divine admonition. I wish those whom I have believed good and faithful dispensers of the ministry of God to be found free from shameful dissimulation. For if there be in you any disposition or crookedness contrary to God's law, because you have lost the moderation of reason and justice, I shall earnestly endeavor to correct it at once, with divine assistance. For the Lord has made you stewards over His family, that you provide it with pleasant-tasting meat in season. You will be blessed, indeed, if the Lord shall find you faithful in stewardship. You are also called shepherds; see that you do not the work of hirelings. Be true shepherds and have your crooks always in your hands. Sleep not, but defend everywhere the flock committed to your care. For if through your carelessness or neglect the wolf carries off a sheep, doubtless you will not only lose the reward prepared for you by our Lord, but, after having first been tortured by the strokes of the lictor, you will also be savagely hurled into the abode of the damned.

In the words of the gospel, Ye are the salt of the earth'? But, it is asked, If ye fail, wherewith shall it be salted?' Oh, what a salting! Indeed, you must strive by the salt of your wisdom to correct this foolish people, over-eager for. the pleasures of the world, lest the Lord find them insipid and rank, corrupted by crimes at the time when He wishes to speak to them. For if because of your slothful performance of duty He shall discover any worms in them, that is to say any sins. He will in contempt order them to be cast forthwith into the abyss of uncleanness; and because you will be unable to make good to Him such a loss. He will surely banish you, condemned by His judgment, from the presence of His love. But one that salteth ought to be prudent, foresighted, learned, peaceful, watchful, respectable, pious, just, fair-minded, pure. For how can the unlearned make others learned, the immodest make others modest, the unclean make others clean? How can he make peace who hates it? If anyone has soiled hands, how can he cleanse the spots from one contaminated?

For it is written, If the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the pit. Accordingly, first correct yourselves, so that without reproach you can then correct those under your care. If, indeed, you wish to be the friends of God, do generously what you see is pleasing to Him. "See to it that the affairs of Holy Church, especially, are maintained in their rights, and that simoniacal heresy in no way takes root among you. Take care lest purchasers and venders alike, struck by the lash of the Lord, be disgracefully driven through narrow ways into utter confusion. Keep the Church in all its orders entirely free from the secular power; have given to God faithfully one-tenth of the fruits of the earth, neither selling them, nor withholding them. Whoever lays violent hands on a bishop, let him be priests, or nuns, and their servants, or pilgrims, or traders, and shall have despoiled them, let him be accursed. Let thieves and burners of houses and their accomplices be excommunicated from the church and accursed. Therefore, we must consider especially, as Gregory says, how great will be his punishment who steals from another, if he incurs the damnation of hell who does not distribute alms from his own possessions. For so it happened to the rich man in the Gospel, who was punished not for stealing anything from another, but because, having received wealth, he used it badly. "By these evils, therefore, as I have said, dearest brethren, you have seen the world disordered for a long time, and to such a degree that in some places in your provinces, as has been reported to us (perhaps due to your weakness in administering justice), one scarcely dares to travel for fear of being kidnapped by thieves at night or highwayman by day, by force or by craft, at home or out of doors. Wherefore, it is well to enforce anew the Truce, commonly so-called, which was long ago established by our holy fathers, and which I most earnestly entreat each one of you to have observed in his diocese. But if any one, led on by pride or ambition, infringes this injunction voluntarily, let him be anathema in virtue of the authority of God and by the sanction of the decrees of this council."

There were many sermons preached at Clermont.  Pope Urban preached there for several days, it would’ve been called revival had it taken place in modern evangelical America. In his account Fulcher highlights something that is all too often omitted from the history books, the role of the Church.  There were nobles present at Clermont but the target audience was clergy, not kings.  Why would he speak as though the clergy were accountable for the sin and lawlessness of kingdoms rather than those who bore the crown?  As you might recall from previous posts, the Western Roman Empire did not fall suddenly, but due to poor policy, political weakness, corruption and more than a few socio-economic catalysts, it declined to the point of collapse.  People lost faith in the government, the politicians and influential citizens in Rome either went to Byzantium (The Eastern Roman Empire) or chose to serve one of the Roman Dux, later known as Dukes. 

The end of centralized government meant the end of safe travel.  The decline in travel and trade resulted in a decline in the exchange of ideas and technology.  Civilization in Europe became siloed, limited according to the resources and fancies of individual kingdoms. The Papal crown, as it were, was needed because Western Europe had nothing holding it together.  The Church was the last thread of the old Roman stability and civilization. It was charged with restoring God’s peace by acting as the conscience of kings and moral compass of his people.  If the Kings and the people were cruel, it was because the clergy was ineffective.  The only thing preventing a true dark age, was the light of the Church. 

Knights and Warriors: getting to know the Peregrinus

Unlike the Eastern Roman Empire, 11^th century Western Europe offered limited career opportunities.  Wealth and power was almost completely limited to the nobility.  Farming, skilled trades, and mercantile/shipping were the most common means of employ but all depended on a well-armed patron for security.  Trades were taught through apprenticeships and difficult to come by.  E.g. the son of a farmer was most likely to become a farmer.  If he wished to seek his fortunes elsewhere he could either go to sea, raid, or become a mercenary soldier (Which involved raiding and sea/river going).  Mercenaries were often poor knights and men that made their living by attacking and robbing the rivals of their patrons.  Some became successful and earned lands and titles. They in turn hired warriors of their own, who likewise hoped to win fame, fortune and titles for themselves.  A glimpse of medieval society can be seen in this quote attributed to Pope Urban:

"Let these who for a long time have been robbers, now become soldiers of Christ. Let those who once fought against brothers and relatives now fight against barbarians, as they ought. Let those who have been hirelings at low wages now labor for an eternal reward. Let those who have been wearing themselves out to the detriment of body and soul now labor for a double glory. On the one hand will be the sad and poor, on the other the joyous and wealthy; here the enemies of the Lord; there (on crusade) His friends."

Most of us hear the word, knight and think of: 

but there's a difference between the military culture in the age of Chivalry in Chaucer’s time, or that of the Gentlemen Soldier of the Victorian era and the “Knights of the Dark Ages” that embarked on the first crusade.  The Knights of the Round Table, and other such fanciful depictions are not all together absent in the 11^th century or any other time for that matter, but such virtue and honor was hardly the standard.  When Rome “fell” in the west, it was at the hands of Christianized barbarians, not pagans.  The only organized power left standing was the Catholic Church.  The clergy’s role as mentioned before was to influence the warlords of Europe to act with Christian character as best they could. It is for that reason that Pope Urban spent the better part of his sermon at Clermont on the failures of the clergy in their sacred charge.

 Given the nature of petty kingdoms and serfdom, there were no nations.  Loyalties varied from king to noble, & there were no standing armies like those of more recent history.  Armies were expensive to maintain, knights were well trained and fairly disciplined but the bulk of the army of this period were not full time soldiers.  Medieval infantry or “men-at-arms” varied in skill and professionalism, most received little formal training; this is especially true of the crusades which called for every single, able bodied man to take up arms and join the army bound for the Holy Land.

Knights were the politicians of the age, and though they acted more like mafia dons than congressmen, they were the official representative of their people.  it is true that some indulged themselves in acts of cruelty, but as a whole they were held to fairly high standards of character, and accountability by the Church.  The positive affect of the Church on medieval Europe is, I think, most evident during the period of the First Crusade.  Challenges and remonstrance echoed through Europe and were heartily answered.  Imagine, yourself as knight holding court with your peers.  A priest, whose role, station and authority was well known by all is given audience and begins as follows:

“You, girt about with the badge of knighthood, are arrogant with great pride; you rage against your brothers and cut each other in pieces. This is not the (true) soldiery of Christ which rends asunder the sheep-fold of the Redeemer. The Holy Church has reserved a soldiery for herself to help her people, but you debase her wickedly to her hurt. Let us confess the truth, whose heralds we ought to be; truly, you are not holding to the way which leads to life.

You, the oppressors of children, plunderers of widows; you, guilty of homicide, of sacrilege, robbers of another's rights; you who await the pay of thieves for the shedding of Christian blood—as vultures smell fetid corpses, so do you sense battles from afar and rush to them eagerly. Verily, this is the worst way, for it is utterly removed from God! If, forsooth, you wish to be mindful of your souls, either lay down the girdle of such knighthood, or advance boldly, as knights of Christ, and rush as quickly as you can to the defense of the Eastern Church. For she it is from whom the joys of your whole salvation have come forth, who poured into your mouths the milk of divine wisdom, who set before you the holy teachings of the Gospels.”

Entreaties like these were made in courts all across Europe.  Some took up the cross to escape debt, death, or imprisonment.  Some for promise of spoil, or to indulge themselves in pre-pardoned atrocities.  Many more embarked out of a sense of duty and piety alone.  The nature of the true motivation of each nobles’ oath may be discerned easily enough by his actions, many of which were recorded by multiple sources on both sides.

Rules of Engagement:

The Catholic Church had not yet developed the moral code of knighthood that is known today as Chivalry.  (That’s right, Chivalry would not exist without Christianity) It’s easy to assume that there were rules of war after reading the statement above but perhaps rules is too strong a word.  Etiquette is a more accurate description, as rules imply consequences.

Good Battle Etiquette:

  As previously mentioned, the first crusade took place before the age of chivalry. The viking age had ended just a few years prior so ROE varied according to the fancy of the belligerents.  Generally the knights claiming to be Christian had the good motives and were also just rulers (Just does not = nice).  One might reasonably expect the following from an army well lead by a Christian knight:

•  An enemy if found at a disadvantage, even in flight was fair game (Live to fight another day? I think ye not!). 
•  Robbing from your enemy, or indigenous noncombatants was accepted and considered by both parties (yes those being robbed knew their lot) as the fortunes of war (Do not pass woe, do not collect 200 Denarii).  
• Quarter was typically expected by and given to knights and or men of noble birth (Thanes,  Earls, etc.)  Most nobles were worth more alive, and were ransomed back at a fair price.  War could be a profitable game for the nobility, and many poor knights moved their way up the food chain in this manner. A noble that was found cast a shore in Norman or Danish territory for example, fully expected to be relieved of all his valuables, and to be held until his ransom was paid.
•  If besieging a city, the city was first offered terms of surrender (Not always unconditional).  If the governor of the city determined to resist, he (Attacking or defending leader) would usually request that the women and children be allowed to leave unmolested before the attacks commenced, and full quarter was expected to be given to them.    

Poor Battle Etiquette: aka what to expect from an invading Norman army

 Indiscriminate Rape and murder of innocent people was considered bad form by most men-at-arms and nobles.  However all those remaining inside a besieged city expected such actions.  Even if the knight was himself against rape and murder  given the character, circumstances, and discipline of the rank and file, he could do little to prevent it.  The nature of soldiers of the era (and nearly all those thereafter) were well known. When the common people heard an army was going to be in the area (armies rarely arrived before news of their approach) the typical medieval villager would have three options:

1.   Send a representative to parlay with the leader of the army for safety.
2.   Flee into the forest/wilderness or the local castle
3.    Stay hoping the army would leave you and your family unmolested. 

Many villagers opted for option three because they were rarely the targets of aggression, being the local food source, the invaders benefited from their productivity just as their local lord did.  Unfortunately bands of villains, which could be found in any army as they are even today, would stray from the main body and terrorize the countryside simply for the pleasure of mischief.  Fleeing into the forest was typically the best option for two reasons: 

 1. because the castle may be taken and those within were often all put to the sword.  

 2. because even if the leader of the attacking force promised to leave your village alone,          foraging parties from the attacking force or those of your "friends" in the castle, may              come requisition your goods and......  your ladies. 

Warrior culture, especially that of the Danes, Normans & Germans (Gauls or Teutons as they were called) were still influenced by, if not loyal to, the old gods of war. Desperation and greed were all important factors to the atrocities that happened in the crusades, just as they are in modern day warfare and are even common place in our own inner cities.  If you’re reading this and saying to yourself: “What does this dude know about what life was like in  the Middle Ages!?”  I could tell you that, as a fan of history, I’ve studied the period for years. I could tell you that, I’m using direct quotes from crusaders themselves and other eye witness accounts from Greeks and Arabs alike,  but that probably wouldn’t convince you.  The argument here isn’t that the crusaders were all good people, or that atrocities are to be excused because, as they say “That's their culture.”  Neither were they the warped, right-wing, Christian terrorist some would have you believe.  The argument is one of human nature and the culture and conditions of life in the ashes of the old Western Roman Empire. 

Should you require a lesson, I recommend that you put on your finest suit and take an evening stroll through Sunny Side in Houston, Ninth Ward New Orleans, or O Block in Chicago.  If you survive your visit, come back to this blog and please post your commentary.  There are good, noble people and leaders in every culture, but “culture” is a little word with a big meaning and human nature is one of the few things that never changes. Mankind can be brutal, war was and always will be terrible.  It brings out the very best and the very worst in us.  The people of the Middle Ages knew more of human nature than any anthropologist living in the United States today! 

 

The end result of a Viking raid

Ekkehard writes:

“Yet, since each one may be known by his fruits, even as wolves are recognized under sheep's clothing, those same deceivers, especially these who are still alive, may be questioned as to what port they sailed from, according to their vows, and how they crossed the sea without ships, or in what battles and places they worsted so many pagans with their small forces, what fortresses of the enemy they took there, and, finally, at what part of the wall at Jerusalem they had their camp, and so forth. And those who have nothing to answer as to the alms which they have hypocritically taken from the faithful, or as to the many bands which they have misled and murdered for plunder, and, above all, as to their own apostasy, may be compelled to do penance.”

Mobilization

This map is flawed but it does show the routes taken by the main army.  Hugh, Raymond, Godfrey, & Bohemond were not the only knights in command of The Crusade. The only error I suppose is that Nicaea and all the territory below it, should also be colored green.  The armies of Islam were nearly at the gates of the Byzantine Capitol. (The gateway to Western Europe)

        The most famous knights of the western world made preparations for the journey.  They appointed stewards for their lands, recruited men to boost their number, raised funds, often to the point of financial ruin. They chartered ships and or made arrangements for a long overland march with one of the two bodies of forces that made up the official Army. The Crusader Army was made up of  nobility from nearly every, if not every, Christian kingdom in western Europe.  It was divided into two parts, one was to march through the lands of the Teutons, the Hungarians, and finally the Greeks.  The other marched through Rome, left Italy by sea, and marched on to Constantinople.  Some knights, bigger in deed than in purse, made little provisions and hoped to win riches along the way, or perhaps carve out a kingdom for themselves.  A great many others, embarked on the journey without making any preparations whatever.  A cult-like priest named Peter the Hermit recruited thousands of men, women and children of all classes, and characters with the promise that what ever their past sins were, all would be forgiven if they left immediately for the Holy Land, trusting in God alone to provide for their needs. Other war-bands mobilized as well but only one army was destined to reach the end of the journey.  

On Peregrinus, Part I: Medieval Europe

On Peregrinus I: Medieval Europe

I thought about calling this post: “The First Crusade”, but realized that it didn’t quite fit my thesis.  The Crusades is a topic oft referred to by those attacking Christianity and or religion in general, and I didn't want to give the impression that this post is some sort of attempt at an apologia of the Crusades.  My goal with this post is to attempt to describe the Peregrinus, which is Latin for Crusaders, and the culture in the times which they lived and the role Christianity played in that time.  This is a controversial period, often used by the enemies of Christianity or religion as an example of the evils of The Faith.

Jumping to the defense of the crusades is not the appropriate response to any argument, it's simply too complex.  The easiest rebuttal is to use examples of more recent history, as it is easily relatable.  For instance, Atheism and its governing counterpart, communism, has killed more people in the last 100 years than Christianity has killed since its inception (roughly 100 million people exterminated in less than 50 years.)  Another historical attack used on the church are the wars of religion in France and Germany, which gave rise to the humanist philosophy that motivated the French revolution.  The philosophers of the French revolution also influenced Marx and Lenin.

It’s true that the Protestant vs Catholic wars were terrible, and while some fought for self-defense and religious freedom, both sides often went against the teachings of Christ, to say the least.  The French Revolution made religion illegal and relying on their own moral code they slaughtered thousands, finally culminating in the Napoleonic Wars which brought the whole of Europe to her knees.  The common theme in all of this is the human condition.  If all the world were Christians in practice, there would be no wars.  Unfortunately there is too much temptation to put ourselves above other, thus world peace will continue to elude us. Those that pursued the folly of trading liberty for peace or conceded to evil and aggression in history, either brought about more cruelty upon themselves or were destroyed by more enterprising men.  It's no coincidence that Utopia (Greek for “no place”) was chosen as the title of Thomas Moore’s famous book.

 

The simple truth is this: Christianity doesn't kill people, people kill people.  Just to clarify, I do not defend religion, I defend Christianity. (See Mathew 5)  There were and ARE religions out there that encourage/promote living by the sword.  Religions of the sword were an important part of the Crusades but Christianity is not one of those, as I hope you will see.  There are so many parallels to our own society and lessons to be learned from this extraordinary time. This period is so complex  that even being as brief as I can, a single post is just too great a burden on the reader, so I've broken it up into shorter parts.  I hope you find it interesting because I think its forehead smacking good! (The topic and evidence, not necessarily my rendition of them...)

The Carolingian Empire

   

By 500 A.D. the Roman Empire in the west had fractured into petty kingdoms ruled over by Romanized and non-Romanized “barbarians”.  Various movements to restore the Empire occurred such as the Merovingian Dynasty (A.D.470-750), but the most successful was Charlemagne (Charles the Great).  Charlemagne unified/pacified the barbarian tribes of Europe.  Various Northmen, Gauls, and Goths/Franks became part of a unified “Frankish” Empire:

 

By the year 800 A.D., Charlemagne had reconquered much of the European territory that Constantine had conquered, forced the pagan people to convert to Christianity, and restored law and order.  He was eventually crowned “Holy Roman Emperor” by the Pope, a title that the German monarchs would keep until after World War I.  

The Norse, Slavic, and Avars (Hunnic Tribes) resisted fiercely however and a fairly solid boundary was set for the empire along their borders. The armies of a new religion called Islam had been narrowly prevented from conquering France by the previous dynasty and Charlemagne secured his empire from further encursion though strategic alliances and by fortifying the northern Iberian Peninsula.  He also shared dominance of the Italian Peninsula with the Eastern Roman Empire that had thus far, retained most of their ancient power and prestige.

The Carolingian Empire declined sharply after the death of Charlemagne, largely due to the Germanic custom of dividing land evenly between sons.  His sons began fighting each other for complete control over the once unified Empire, which served to further undermine the imperial restoration which had been achieved by their father.  As the remaining kingdoms fought amongst themselves, a semi-new threat emerged that signaled the end of Frankish dominance in Europe, The Viking Invasion.

The Vikings

The Vikings were largely Northern European peoples very similar to the Saxons and other Scandinavian/Slav/Gaulic seafaring peoples. They (Angles and Saxons) had been used by Rome, a few hundred years prior, to fight the Breton/Celts and others.  New technology arrived around 790 A.D. which allowed the Scandinavian raiders to venture further to sea than ever before. Some scholars teach that not only were Christians unaware of the existence of these fierce warriors, but the Vikings were likewise surprised.  I find that view difficult to believe, considering the evidence of at least secondary trade, and the wars with Rome/Charlemagne pitched Christians and the Pagan Northmen against each other.  There is also surviving correspondence between the kingdoms of Britain referencing their own barbaric Saxon history and their surprise at the Pagans' ability to navigate the open sea.  Bishop Alcuin, describes the attack on Lindisfarne to King Ethelred of Northumbria (One of the Kingdoms of England near York)

“Lo, it is nearly 350 years that we and our fathers have inhabited this most lovely land, and never before has such terror appeared in Britain as we have now suffered from a pagan race, nor was it thought that such inroad from the sea could be made.  Behold, the church of St. Cuthbert spattered with the blood of the priests of God, despoiled of all its ornaments; a place more venerable than all in Britain is given as a prey to pagan peoples.  Who does not fear this? Who does not lament this as if his (God’s) country were captured?  Foxes pillage the chosen vine, where there was the Praise of God, now there are the games of the Gentiles; the Holy festivity has turned to morning.”

To better understand this era and its people, I imagine a post-apocalyptic America.  The conflict settled, peace restored by local powers and city states that engage in fairly regular mini-wars over resources, but no serious campaigns.  Armies consisted primarily of conscripted bands of the poorly trained supporters/servants of local warlords.  Additional troops were levied from semi-professional mercenaries often paid in plunder.  Now that I think about it, Road Warrior must have been inspired by medieval history.

 

In fact the Vikings resembled modern day biker gangs in many ways. Bishop Alcuin provides a brief description of them as he admonishes the fashion trends of the era:

“Consider the dress, the way of wearing hair, look at your trimming of beard and hair, in which you have wished to resemble the pagans.  Are you not menaced by terror of them whose fashion you wish to follow?”

Viking is a term that usually refers to Swedish, Danish, and Norwegian seafaring peoples (aka Pirates).  Their religion glorified strategy, intrigue, courage, and strength.  Viking women were just as fierce as the men.  The men were expected to fight and couldn’t get much attention from the ladies until they had proven themselves in battle. 

Every Viking hoped to one day die in battle, ascend to Valhalla and feast with Thor, Odin, and etc.  There was little land in Scandinavia, and the soil was difficult to cultivate forcing the Vikings to depend on limited trade and piracy for sustenance.  In a few generations the Vikings had conquered, or at least: terrorized, settled and then influenced most of Medieval Europe.  Ivar, Bjorn, and the other alleged sons of the famous Viking raider Ragnar dominated most of England and Ireland. Meanwhile, Rollo conquered northern France and Belgium founding the kingdom of Normandy. 

The Vikings found the Christian kingdoms of England easy pickings because they put much of their wealth in isolated, undefended monasteries.  The English Kingdoms, being un-unified and slow to adapt to the Viking method of warfare were almost completely conquered by the “Danes.”  The Saxon King Alfred the Great, using old Roman tactics and discipline, eventually regained much of the Saxon dominance of southern England (Wessex) after soundly defeating the Danish forces at the battle of Edington (886 A.D.).  After the battle and baptism of the Pagans, an agreement with the Vikings finally resulted in peace, diffusion, and assimilation. 

  

            If history teaches us anything it’s that, peace is but a respite of hostility, When King Edward “The Confessor” (kin to Saxons, Danes, and Normans) died childless, his extended family battled for the crown.  The victor was William the Bastard, Duke of Normandy.  He became the new King of England and though nominally Christian, he completed the work his grandparents had started by conquering most of England.  He established the Norman dynasty, ruling (at least nominally) over England, Ireland, and most of modern day France.  King William officially brought the “Viking age” to a close in 1066.

The Normans

Norman was the word used by the Frankish people to describe Vikings, roughly translated as “North Man.”  Rollo, a famous Viking, conquered a large part of what is today northern France sometime in the 9th century.  Rollo was defeated by the king of France and to guarantee peace he married the young princess.  Rollo and his queen ruled over a mighty kingdom of north men, aptly named Normandy.  As the “Great Heathen Army” was ravaging England, the Vikings used their French colonies to support their inland river incursions, as well as conquests in the Mediterranean.  The Vikings had assailed the French before in 799 A.D., only a few years after the first recorded attack in England at Lindisfarne. Charlemagne and his heir Pippin created a series of river defenses to guard against such incursions but Ragnar, well informed of the instability caused by the Frankish civil war, circumnavigated the Frankish rivers and successfully sacked Paris.  Ragnar set the standard for marine invasions but Rollo set the standard for long term conquest.  The Vikings-Normans were officially Christian by 911 A.D. but continued to raid for sport and spoil.

The Six Dux of Normandy, Falaise Square:

 

Rollo

 

William Longsword

 

 

Richard the Fearless

 

 

Richard II the Good

 

 

Richard III

 

 

Robert the Magnificent

 

 King William “The Conqueror”

 

Not long after the founding of Normandy, it is believed that either a friend or extended family member of Rollo named Hiallt was given a barony in his kingdom.  Haillt was the patriarch of the House of Hauteville, which sailed into the Mediterranean and terrorized coastal cities from North Africa, to Italy and even led successful campaigns against the Eastern Roman Empire.  While the Norman “Duke” was busy conquering England, the small barony of Hautville's knights were busy building their own kingdom in Sicily and Italy.  After disagreements between the Pope and the Holy Roman Emperor (King of Germany and Saxony) the HRE invaded Rome and put his own Pope on the holy throne.  The exiled Pope fled to his Norman allies in southern Italy, the Norman pirate turned King of Sicily, Roger Borsa, sent his nephew with an army toward Rome. The HRE returned to Germany but the two powers could do little more than achieve a stalemate, thus the Western Christian world was left with a Norman Pope and a German Pope, each disavowing the other.  (The Eastern Roman Empire viewed “the Pope” as a Bishop.)

 

Pope Gregory, (The Pope backed by the Normans) died while still in exile in Norman occupied Italy.  His successor was Pope Urban, by all accounts a good and just man.  Urban was the new Pope but was still forced to live in exile under the protection of his Norman patrons.  He recognized the mess that Europe was in, and was appalled by the suffering caused by hundreds of years of greed induced conflict.  He was also frustrated by his lack of power caused by the German HRE and his rival for the Papacy.  Urban and the rest of Europe was well aware of the scourge of the east, many appeals had been made to the new conquerors as well as to The Emperor.  The Eastern Roman Emperor Alexius, had been using western knights and even Vikings as mercenaries for years

Man wearing replica Byzantine (Eastern Roman Empire) Varangian Guard (Viking mercenary) armor

      

A new people called the Turks conquered the Sassanid Persian Empire, and being recently converted to Islam, began to invade the rest of the middle and near-east from the eastern steppes.  These hunnish zealots conquered land regardless of religion and destroyed anyone perceived as a threat.  All non-Muslim rulers were forced to convert or be put to the sword.

Turkish noble and man at arms

Pilgrimages were no longer allowed, and the once vibrant, beautiful, Greco-Roman Middle East suffered greatly.  Normans had weakened its control over the Mediterranean, Sunni Muslims had conquered Roman North Africa, and the Turks had taken Jerusalem, Rum, and were fast approaching Constantinople. The Roman army was defeated, corruption was rampant, and the Empire found itself in serious trouble.

On The Iraq "Civil War" (update): Victory or defeat? My answer is Yes

The Un-united States of Iraq:

I was reading my morning news which, of late, includes among others: The Moscow Times and Ekurd.net. *(Mainstream American news alone is for Sheep)  I found myself motivated to update a previous post.  It’s been several months since I posted my thoughts on ISIS/ISIL’s appearance (Officially) on the world stage.  I typically avoid devoting my blog posts to current events, as conjecture and opinions can get one into trouble.  It’s now 2015 and a LOT has changed in the region since, much as a result of our weakened foreign policy.

Much indeed has changed in the world as a whole: terror cells have sprouted up in every western country, of note.  The oil market is experiencing a war of its own, with powerful players being pushed to the brink.  Militarization of police forces, government attacks, conspiracy, abuse of privacy, and various other threats to the Unites States’ Constitution. 

The wireless infrastructure that we, our employers, and our financial institutions have become dependent on has proved to be unsecure.  Amazing artificial intelligence projects are now in development, including the first self-educating, self-programing robot. We are living in exciting time, a turning point in world history, like the world of the nineteen-teens, we are in relatively uncharted water! 

Many people are concerned with the instability that has been left in the wake of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the ever-present fear mongering media has many people and politicians convinced that the world is coming apart at the seams. 

Though there are always uncertainties and a single event may cause the pendulum of history to swing back at any moment, things are not nearly as bad as all that.  POTUS has declared the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan over, many are outraged but many are relieved. *(There’s always a third group that is simply indifferent out there as well, but those people probably aren’t reading this blog.)  I personally am very relieved!  This may come as a shock to some of my friends, they are probably saying to themselves right now, something to the effect of: “Just when we’re most needed, Obummer declares victory and runs away!?” or “Why did we send our men and women there to die, if we were just going to abandon the place to terrorists!?”  The reason is, not abandonment of cause but of strategy.

 To understand the Middle East, and our relationship with them, we need to, yes you guessed it, understand the history!  (*See: http://www.timemaps.com/history/iraq-1500bc)  The Middle East was the cradle of civilization, the earliest and greatest known civilizations appeared in ancient Summer and Ur.  

Google Images: Victory Stele

Great conquerors such as the Akkadians, Assyrians, Babylonians, and Persians etc. constantly vied for control of the region. The Persians lost to Alexander the Great’s Greek Army, The Greeks lost to the Romans in the west and various Sarmation tribes of horse archers in the east.  The Romans alone fought against the eastern tribes such as the Parthians, and the Sassanid Empire and their successors, The Ottoman Turks, for well over a thousand years! 

Google Images: Ottoman Iraq

 Those ancient people were dominated by empire after empire for a very long time, never experiencing a national identity.  Yet we scratch our heads when Winston Churchill’s neatly drawn map of the Post World War I Middle East seems a little dysfunctional?

Google Images: Iraq revolt of 1920 Map

The British were professionals when it came to colonization, they had it down to a science.

Google Images: Colonization

If you look at any British colony in history you will find at least one commonality: An empowered minority.  In the Americas it was the social elites, often with ties to England.  In Iraq they empowered the Sunni’s, which developed into an oil rich and Stalin like regime. The idea being, the minority would feel threatened and be self-motivated enough to fight for and maintain itself, without tying up the resources of the British Empire.

Google Images: British Iraq

  It worked well, too well in fact, but a quick glance into British history shows us when colonialism became taboo , and the United Kingdom began to allow its colonies to slip from her grasp, temporary chaos usually followed.

The region that we refer to as “The Middle East” is a massive region, with very rich and diverse cultures. The cultural differences, inherent in a history as described above, are divisive enough without religion being a factor.  Islamic fundamentalist, or as I call them, non-westernized Muslims are simply fuel to the fire.  This problem is nothing new though, anti-imperialist, post-modern society just doesn't have the stomach, or the know-how to control a people that simply DO NOT want to be together.  There is only one method of control, which effectively brings democracy and stability to such a people.  That strategy was the United States’ WWII strategy of choice, a strategy that was discussed though not implemented in Vietnam, and the strategy proposed by Gen. Patraeus’ version of the Army Counter Insurgency Manual. 

The idea is that if a foreign power, or powers invade, destroy, and occupy a belligerent nation for long enough, they will change the mindset of the up-coming generation(s) enough to allow them to self-govern, though permanent occupation is still likely. The reason the “Neo-Con” politicians were railed on for not having an exit strategy was partly because, EXIT WAS NOT PART OF THE STRATEGY! Or at least, not anytime soon. The long term occupation strategy was effective in Japan, Germany, South Korea, and etc. but the American public today will/should not support such long term commitments.  

Our strategy was not a secret government conspiracy, it just wasn't advertised. Israel among others, warned against our plans for occupation. An article came out in the New Yorker, back in 2004 by Seymour Hersh titled, “Plan B” it explained the issue quite well, the article begins:

July, 2003, two months after President Bush declared victory in Iraq, the war, far from winding down, reached a critical point. Israel, which had been among the war’s most enthusiastic supporters, began warning the Administration that the American-led occupation would face a heightened insurgency—a campaign of bombings and assassinations—later that summer. Israeli intelligence assets in Iraq were reporting that the insurgents had the support of Iranian intelligence operatives and other foreign fighters, who were crossing the unprotected border between Iran and Iraq at will. By early August, the insurgency against the occupation had exploded, with bombings in Baghdad, at the Jordanian Embassy and the United Nations headquarters, that killed forty-two people. A former Israeli intelligence officer said that Israel’s leadership had concluded by then that the United States was unwilling to confront Iran; in terms of salvaging the situation in Iraq, he said, “it doesn’t add up. It’s over. Not militarily—the United States cannot be defeated militarily in Iraq—but politically...” 

Hersh goes on to reference a statement by Ehud Barak: 

"the former Israeli Prime Minister, who supported the Bush Administration’s invasion of Iraq, took it upon himself at this point to privately warn Vice-President Dick Cheney that America had lost in Iraq; according to an American close to Barak, he said that Israel “had learned that there’s no way to win an occupation.” The only issue, Barak told Cheney, “was choosing the size of your humiliation.” 

 I’ve repeatedly used the term “Our/The Strategy”, as if there was a single agreed upon strategy that both the American politicians and military had agreed upon, that was/is not the case. Ben Franklin said: “Democracy is the absolute worst form of government, accept for all the others.” The people that make the decisions in our country have their own reasons for doing so, they may be personal or not, I don’t wish to paint with too broad of a brush, but the Human Factor is a very important one.  Agenda’s change with the wind in D.C., military leaders may be up for review or retirement, interests may be re-prioritized, and public opinion will sway in whatever direction the media wishes it to… There are many reasons why the best strategies are passed over, or altered along the way. 

        The nature of our political system makes long term commitments, of any kind, difficult. In fact the 1980's and 90's were notorious for American attack and abandon actions.  A sort of "We'll help you fight, to a certain extent, and or until we don't want to anymore" interventionist policy.  As you might guess, it didn't go over very well.  (e.g. Vietnam, Bay of Pigs, Contra, Afghanistan I, Gulf War I, Mogadishu, etc.)  Sure we knocked some heads but what did we get out of it? and at what cost?
  
       There was another strategy that was on the table at the time, which called for the creation of a three state nation of Iraq.  Someone with half a brain either by touring or reading a history book, realized that there were many different people and cultures in Iraq, and a partitioning of the state according to cultural borders, would be more a stable solution than trying to unify a nation of people that hated each other.  Unfortunately the occupation theory won out, at least the American led strategy won out, there were other nations active in the region as well.  Israel, once they realized what America was going to do, began to implement its own plans for what they believed was our inevitable failure. The Article continues:

“Israel’s immediate goal after June 30th is to build up the Kurdish commando units to balance the Shiite militias—especially those which would be hostile to the kind of order in southern Iraq that Israel would like to see,” the former senior intelligence official said. “Of course, if a fanatic Sunni Baathist militia took control—one as hostile to Israel as Saddam Hussein was—Israel would unleash the Kurds on it, too.” The Kurdish armed forces, known as the peshmerga, number an estimated seventy-five thousand troops, a total that far exceeds the known Sunni and Shiite militias.

Israel and many others, including our own pro-partition strategists, believed that Iraq would become three states sooner or later. The Kurds took advantage of the aid and solidified their position as an independent state, though not officially recognized as a nation they fought to become one, at least in operation.  They formed a provisional government and took control of their natural resources, much of which was/is still “officially” controlled by Baghdad. It’s important to remember that the Kurds are the most motivated, stable and western friendly nation in the region.  The Kurds have faced numerous attempts at genocide at the hands of the Sunni’s, including the use of WMD’s on Kurds in Halabja back in 1988.

Google images Halabja

        The Image above, which was taken after Saddam’s dirty bomb killed thousands of Kurdish men, women and children, has become an icon for Kurdish resistance and independence. The Kurd Army is making great progress, something they could not have done without U.S. involvement.  Those quick to jump on the anti-Iraq war bandwagon, are quick to forget the international threat that was destroyed during Operation Iraqi Freedom, and slow to realize the importance that invasion played in the lives of those that suffered so terribly.  Though we cannot commit American lives to die fighting all evil in the world, our operations in Iraq though not without flaw, were justified.   

          I know what you’re thinking… “But now look at it, it’s a mess!” I say yes it is, for the moment it is a tragic, terrible, but necessary and temporary mess.  The atrocities being committed in this new war in Iraq may have been averted if we had chosen “Plan B”, and pushed for international support in implementing that plan, but hind sight is 20-20 and blood would have been shed on all sides regardless.  We are late in the game, in supporting the Kurdish state but I hope we continue to do so and don't simply attack and abandon them again.

         If we recognize the Kurds as an independent state, and give them the support that they need, the entire region will stabilize itself and be much better off than it has ever been or ever would have been under foreign occupation.  So take heart America, the war is not lost, Evil will not triumph, the cause for freedom and independence continues, we just aren't leading the charge anymore.  The fate of the those people may or may not be in the strongest hands but they are certainly in the right hands and its a dark soul indeed, that can look at these final images and disagree. 

Google Images: Peshmurga