An Argument Against Circumspection In Global History

The Crusades first came about when a Muslim force from Asia Minor threatened the Christians that lived in Constantinople. Pope John Urban II called for the First Crusade in the year 1096. The Pope ordered this crusade to back the Byzantines, a Christian civilization, in the city of Constantinople because they were threatened by a Muslim force, ““Envoys arrived from Emperor Alexius of Constantinople to ask for help against the Muslims of Asia Minor”. Crusaders would follow the word of the Pope because he promised that, “fighting for God in return for a promise of salvation”. This compares to the inspiration of the War on Terror because President George W. Bush called for “this Crusade, this, War on Terror”, following the events of September 11, 2001, the

The Crusades were the first tactical mission by Western Christianity in order to recapture the Muslim conquered Holy Lands. Several people have been accredited with the launch of the crusades including Peter the Hermit however it is now understood that this responsibility rested primarily with Pope Urban II . The main goal of the Crusades was the results of an appeal from Alexius II, who had pleaded for Western Volunteers help with the prevention of any further invasions. The Pope’s actions are viewed as him answering the pleas of help of another in need, fulfilling his Christian right. However, from reading the documents it is apparent that Pope Urban had ulterior motives for encouraging engagement in the war against the Turks. The

The Crusades were one of the most prominent events in Western European history; they were not discrete and unimportant pilgrimages, but a continuous stream of marching Western armies (Crusaders) into the Muslim world, terminating in the creation and eventually the fall of the Islamic Kingdoms. The Crusades were a Holy War of Roman Christianity against Islam, but was it really a “holy war” or was it Western Europe fighting for more land and power? Through Pope Urban II and the Roman Catholic Church’s actions, their proposed motivations seem unclear, and even unchristian. Prior to the Crusades, Urban encouraged that Western Europe fight for their religion but throughout the crusades the real motivations shone though; the Crusaders were power

The Pope had all of the power and that led to mass amounts of people going to war for the Pope. In document 4 by the Islamic leader, Saladin, he states that his people should try to retake Jerusalem to get back their holy land and to please God. The people are trying to please their gods and to give their homage to their god. That would show a religious view for the Crusades and their brethren. Document 5 by the Jewish chronicler, Solomon bar Samson, shows that there was a religious aspect to the Crusades, mind it be extremism. The crusaders would see a pack of Jews on the way to the Holy Land and they would give the Jews two choices: 1. they could kill them to avenge the death of Jesus Christ or 2. They could incorporate them into their faith and acknowledge the offspring of promiscuity. Document 7, an excerpt from “In Praise of the New Knighthood” by St. Bernard of Clairvaux, tells of the two-fold war that was being fought by the Knights Templar and the Knights Hospitallers. It was a normal killing people war, and it was a spiritual war. You are protected by the armor of faith and an armor of steel. Next, I would have liked a document from Pope Nicholas IV about how the Crusades had to stop. That would have filled in the ending to the story of the Crusades.

The age leading up to the first crusade is detailed by many current historians, as well as Pope Urban II, as a time period where inhabitants "rage[d] against [their own] brothers and cut each other [to] pieces" (Peters, Baldric of Dol, 31) for economic and social advancement. In spite of these references, many people today believe that the Pope instigated the crusades for the sole reason of reclaiming Jerusalem. However, other motivations such as supplementary religious factors and the chance for economic, social, and political gain also played major roles. These motivations were not experienced supremely by the Pope; in fact he needed to instill these inspirations in all Christians to evoke their will to fight. The holy land had long

The Crusades was an era in which a party of Crusaders invaded Jerusalem, a land which had been controlled by Muslims, in order to conquer what Christians and Muslims call the Holy Land. The war initially began when Pope Urban II declared a crusade and by persuading Christian believers that it was the duty and obligation to protect Christianity, he was able to slaughter, kill and destroy the Muslims living in Jerusalem. In return, the Muslims found no other resolution but to annihilate and avenge against the Christians. Whether or not the Crusaders believed that they were combative because they had valid reasons; from the point of view of the Christian and Muslims, the Crusades were definitely not just wars.

The first crusade was preached by a pope name pope urban the second in France in 1095. Christians in Europe believed that Islamic message was against and a contradiction to what the Christians were saying. Many Christians were afraid that it could over run the Christian idea on believes. The pope urban the second said that it’s not a sin to kill non Christian’s and kill non believer’s in our faith, he made a deal that if you fight in a place called the holy land you will be forgiven, all the past sins the pope even says that going to the holy land is a ticket to heaven. It was a great deal for many of the soldiers that believed in their religion believes. The religion sold the soldiers a dream of fame, glory and they will be given great riches. This made many of the nights go on their crusades because of their open opportunity’s they are given. Many had rage to Muslims it created a different Muslim crusade causing them to raise an army. People would have never imagine how life would have been in the Middle East

The Crusaders were a Christian based terrorist group that was organized to force Islamic practicing Muslims to convert to Christianity or suffer to the blade of their swords. Because of this terrorist group, innocent lives were slain in both the Christian and the Islamic religions. Pope Urban II saw this opportunity as:

There are many reasons Pope Urban II has decided to partake in this necessary crusade against the Muslims. Some of his reasoning stems from Christianity’s current teachings. For example, the New Testament reveals Jesus had said to bring “not peace, but the sword” (Matt 10:34). Apart from God’s input, the Pope must follow the Just-War Theory for a crusade to become valid. In order to consider a crusade as righteous, it must have a high probability of success, the right intention, a just cause, exhausted all peaceful alternatives, an assessment of proportionality and an official declaration of war from Pope Urban II.

Christianity is beginning to flourish and thrive, Pope Urban II and others were trying to establish Christianity in the Middle East. But initiating this started a war against Islam, with the objective of recollecting the city of Jerusalem. The Franks were famous for defeating Umayyad Caliphate “the Franks were members of a Germanic people that conquered Gaul in the 6th century and controlled much of western Europe for several centuries afterward.” The entire war was more about land instead of religion; this first crusade set a precedent for the rest of the campaigns to come. The origin of the Crusades started off with Pope Urban II’s plea; the Pope wanted to wage war with the Muslims over holy land. In the first crusades, you have two different perspectives. The Muslims and the Christians, at first the Muslims were clueless on who this new enemy was. The Muslims were utterly astonished when their land was invaded and pillaged. On the contrary, Christians looked at the crusades as “God’s will” they looked at the campaign as taking back what rightly belonged to them. These two perspectives are complete opposites, this aiding the war between the Muslims and Christians.

Conflict arises due to the clashing of principles, ideals and doctrines among parties that both wish to have it their way, intensifying any discord. When two parties collide on even footing and seek to defend their own beliefs, there may not even be blame or fault that needs to be placed upon either party, as it could be seen as their right to fight for what the two parties want, which no doubt enhances the difficulty to find a resolution. The clash of values among people is exhibited in Asghar Farhadi’s “A Separation” which we see Nadar and Simin arguing as to whether they should remain in their home country of Iran or go overseas to pursue prosperity. Nadar’s argument that he needs to remain in Iraq in care for his senile father is in sync

“It is my hypothesis that the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. The fault lines between

In 1992, Samuel Huntington had suggested his idea on the Clash of Civilizations (COC) which he later, in 1996, discussed in more detail in his book The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (Huntington 1996). The most popular inference made from his thesis is the idea that post-Cold War conflicts will be due to cultural difference and religion rather than cooperation. Huntington surrounds this idea around eight major civilizations which are: Western, Confucian, Japanese, Hindu, Latin American, Islamic, Salvic-Orthodox, and African (Payne 2013). However, although there are individuals that support this idea, there have been many criticisms to Huntington’s thesis. This paper will critically evaluate Huntington’s thesis in relations to the Muslim-U.S. relations. Huntington refers to certain cultures being totally different whereas the culture of the United States is not that much different to that of the Muslim. Also, paper will address a study that provides qualitative data that proves that Muslim-U.S. cultural differences are unlikely to be the cause of conflict and other studies show that it more likely to be caused by other situations. Huntington also fails to provide a link between cultural characteristics and behavior as well as civilization and foreign policies.

Global conflicts now are one of the most complicated problems in the world. The reason for this is that global conflicts are directly connected with the global problems of modernity. The following issue had come into focus back in the last century. Today, there is a struggle with global conflicts at the obsolete level, including the action of international organizations, research scientist, psychologists, military, politics, and other specialists from various fields. Regretfully, I must admit, that this problem is still urgent because of lack of government’ and citizens’ consciousness about actual extent of danger, or as possible because of unwillingness to realize it. This, undoubtedly, destructively affects both themselves and planet as a whole, furthermore “the modern world is altering by a giant and

As being stated by Samuel P. Huntington, the Clash of Civilization is a hypothesis in which the primary sources of conflicts in the post-cold war era are more dominant to the people’s cultural and religious identities. Civilization has three attributes which are the objective elements – language, history religion, customs, and institution; the subjective elements – variable levels of self-identification; and civilization itself is dynamic – they rise and fall, divide and merge. Dialogue between civilizations are also needed and will give significant impacts for not only both civilizations but also for the world. This paper would like to discuss and analyze two cases about the possibility of Post-American World Order towards the potential Dialogue between Civilizations or the Clash of Civilizations theory; and the contribution of Dialogue between Civilizations towards the management of negative impact in this globalization era.