Start-Up Agreement Church Of The Brethren Agreement For: Fill & Download for Free

Gareth Jones has provided me with the answer if what you’re asking is concerning the modern day. The remaining differences between Lutheranism and Catholicism are listed on pp 72 ff. of this document which indicates there are 15 remaining topics in the three areas of church, ministry and Eucharist: http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and...A little background to the document is here: US Lutherans approve document recognizing agreement with Catholic ChurchBut if what you are asking is, “What caused the Protestant Reformation?” that is a fascinating question, and it’s one I can answer—all by myself. :-)The roots of the Reformation were laid in the 1300’s.Between 1100 and 1300 (The High Middle Ages), Christianity sort of peaked; Christians made tremendous strides in philosophy and education, the arts, even laying the foundation for modern science, affecting the future world in ways we are all still benefitting from. But from its pinnacle of power in 1200 under Pope Innocent III, the church entered a period of decline until finally breaking apart in the 1500’s. In 1303, Pope Boniface VIII’s reign ended in abject failure, and for the next century or more the church was plagued with dislocation, schism, and heresy.The Crusades had proved to be a terrible drain—not only financially—but more significantly, in human capital. Many of the church’s best, most dedicated and sincere followers went off to fight and never came home. The vacuum they left was filled by those less able. This left the church ill equipped to cope with the calamities that faced the people of Europe in the 1300’s.There was plague, famine and war, and in the midst of what one modern historian has termed the “calamitous fourteenth century,” the unique culture of the High Middle Ages began to come undone.People living during this turbulent century were thrown into confusion and despair by one terrible event after another. Many believed the biblical apocalypse had arrived.In the early 1300’s, Europe entered a disastrous period of economic depression accompanied by soaring prices and widespread famine. Against the backdrop of the Hundred Years War, social unrest increased; there were urban riots, peasant revolts, and renegade feudal armies ravaging much of western Europe.The church was faced with the reality of rival European states at war with each other. New military tactics and weapons rendered chivalry obsolete. In the Universities, new intellectual currents drove a wedge between philosophy and the theology which had been so carefully integrated by Thomas Aquinas. As culture divided and splintered around them, the church began giving up its dream of a united Christian commonwealth.But the truly major consequence of all of this plague, famine and war was depopulation; this caused the entire commercial map of Europe to be redrawn. It also caused dramatic social relocations which led to ever increasing social unrest. This radical reshaping of western society and culture is one of the primary causes of the eventual break-up of Europe’s religious unity in the 1500’s.The church was not only unable to assist society in its difficulties, the church itself was thrown into turmoil as well. From 1300–1500, the period immediately prior to the Reformation, the church was in disgrace and disarray and was unable to provide either moral or political leadership.In 1309 Pope Clement, seeking relief from Rome’s factional politics, decided to abandon Rome, and for the next 70 years, the seat of the Papacy was in Avignon, France. The Avignon Popes centralized the Papacy, reorganized the church’s finances and changed payments from kind to money, yet they rarely made any moral reforms. Their reigns were characterized by worldliness and greed. This opened the papacy to ever increasing criticism.Under Pope Gregory, the papacy returned to Rome in 1377. Then in 1378, with the Avignon papacy barely ended, a new calamity occurred: the Great Schism. When Pope Gregory died, the cardinals elected a new Pope; he was Italian. The French cardinals did not approve; they decided to withdraw and elect their own Pope who would rule from Avignon. Secular states took sides. Pious Christians became bewildered and disgusted.In 1409, both sets of Cardinals summoned a church council in Pisa in an effort to heal the breach; they elected yet another Pope! They called on the other two to resign. It was finally resolved at the Council of Constance (1414–1418)—with yet a fourth Pope!The church had been plagued with problems since the Avignon papacy and the Great Schism. Without firm guidance from the Pope, many clergy led corrupt lives of their own. Lay writers, no longer afraid of the church, delighted in exposing such scandals. Anti-clericalism seemed on the rise everywhere. The church began to splinter in the same manner as the society it was supposed to serve.Monastic reform had been a major force within the church in the High Middle Ages, but such collective acts of devotion were largely unknown in the Late Middle Ages. Dedicated and virtuous monks and nuns were increasingly rare. Innovative forms of religious expression came from lay people inspired to protest and react against what they perceived as the increasing worldliness of the church and the declining commitment of many clergy.By the 1400’s groups such as the Brethren and Sisters of the Common Life, and the Friends of God, were rising in the Rheinland, the Low Countries, and Flanders. Disappointed with traditionally trained priests, members of these groups often practiced the strict discipline of earlier monastic orders without actually withdrawing into or joining a monastery. Both John Wycliffe and Jan Hus advocate new teachings and find followers. Hus is burned at the stake.Perhaps the church could have reformed the clergy and stemmed the tide of anti-clericalism if the Papacy had been morally and politically strong, but by 1500 the Popes, blinded by greed and selfish ambition, were deeply distracted by Italian politics and fully committed to their own worldly interests.The presence of corruption and abuses inside the church, the rise of the sovereign states, the decay of medieval thought, and the revival of humanism all contributed to a growing need for change. At the same time Italy was experiencing the cultural upheaval that was the Renaissance, Germany became the epicenter of a spiritual earthquake.The church lost power to secular rulers who were determined to bring all their subjects under state control. By 1500, the English and the French kings had made their national churches free of papal control. In Germany however, where no unified nation state developed, the local political leaders did not have the power to dictate terms to the church. The German Princes, perceiving the popes as power hungry and greedy for gain, made church reform a rallying cry.These German rulers, who were already struggling to be free from the control of the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, now turned against Rome and made the first rupture with the church. They began converting their lands into independent states outside of papal jurisdiction.One of the church’s most glaring abuses at this time was the buying and selling of indulgences.; these were pardons that reduced part or all of the time Christians had to spend doing penance in atonement for their sins. Indulgences were given to those who did good deeds, such as going on crusade, and to those who gave money to the church.In 1517, the Archbishop of Mainz, Germany, offered indulgences for sale to raise money, and Martin Luther, a monk teaching at nearby Wittenburg University responded by compiling his famous 95 theses and nailing it to the front door of the church for everyone to see. His theses were questions and arguments about the legitimacy of indulgences, and they challenged the sacraments of confession and penance and the authority of the Pope. He ignited a firestorm.The church’s response to Luther was slow at first, but in 1520, Pope Leo X excommunicated Luther. Luther burned the papal document in public, and the church responded by branding him a heretic and an outlaw. Frederick the Wise of Saxony was Luther’s patron and protector throughout all of this as the 95 theses began to circulate throughout all of Germany.In 1521, “Lutheran” churches began springing up. Some radical followers caused riots, drove priests from their homes, closed down monasteries and destroyed religious images. Luther made it clear he rejected the violence and distanced himself from it and from the political and social reforms of his followers. Luther had not originally intended to start a rebellion or a new church; he had intended reform from within. Responding as the leaders did sealed the Catholic church’s fate.The first generation of reformers now gave way to the second generation that was active in the 1530’s. The most influential of these was John Calvin. Calvin’s thought had impact on the political, social, and economic life of the sixteenth century, and later, also on business and capitalism. Calvin’s followers had a readiness to oppose tyranny with arms that made them dangerous everywhere. Leaders started to become wary of opposing these reformers.During this same era, Henry the VIII separated the English church from the papacy thereby founding the Church of England.The timeless spiritual yearning of human beings for authenticity and sincerity, the fatigue with corruption and abuse of power and trust, the history of failure and corruption within the church, all led to religious dissent that only spread the more it was opposed. The secular rulers watched with fear stemming from the threats of heresy, and from the assumption that a single religion was needed within each community to buttress its institutions, especially the state.Until 1530, compromise had seemed possible, but with the constant growth of mutually hostile sects, warfare became the means for secular rulers to deal with crisis.Charles V clashed with other dynastic houses and the Hapsburgs went to war with the Velois—but these had a religious aspect as well, especially in Germany. War between Charles and Lutheran forces eventually erupted in 1546—the year Luther died— and lasted until 1555. In 1556 when Charles V abdicated, Phillip II inherited the Spanish crown and became the head of the Roman Catholic cause.Philip had fiery ambition and money from the riches of Mexico and Peru. He had highly trained and well equipped armies. He expelled Muslims from Spain and defeated the Turks in the Mediterranean. He won battle after battle and seemed unstoppable.However, in 1567, he launched a bloody campaign in the Netherlands, but was unable to conquer them. In 1588, there is an Anglo-Spanish War but Philip fails again and England turns back the Spanish Armada (with the aid of bad weather) and remains Protestant. In 1589 there is a Franco-Spanish war; but the clever French King converts to Roman Catholicism in 1593, and Spain’s ambitions are finally frustrated.Phillip’s goal of a reunited Christendom was never going to happen anyway. The Protestant world was too determined, the consciousness of nationality and the shift in loyalty nationalism produced away from religion to the state itself, along with the rise of the sovereign state system, had all advanced too far for any one sovereign to succeed in uniting Europe under a single banner any time in the foreseeable future.When Phillip died in 1598, Spain was declining, and Europe was divided into independent States and several religions.The Reformation had been followed by a Catholic counter-reformation as the church was forced to fight for its very existence. The Jesuits were founded and their rise to power was quick.The legacy of these two powerful Reformations are many. The Protestants established a glorification of the work ethic with its justification of capitalism, Puritanism and pietism, and justification by faith and grace. On that basis, Protestants insisted everyone could commune with God without interference from a Priest. Bibles in multiple common languages begin to be published, and the concept of public education is advocated so every human being may become able to read the Bible for themselves.The Catholic church attempted to control the spiritual and moral life of its members and insulate them from the world thereby placing them on a collision course with modernity. It was not until after WWII that it began to adjust and adapt as well.In reaction to all the religious upheaval, humanism began to revive during this same period. Protestant and Catholic alike overlooked the significance of this. It is not until the 18th century and the Enlightenment that it becomes the dominant view of an increasingly secular society.The period from 1520 until 1603 brings to a close the third and final phase of the Renaissance. This 83 year period, framed by the deaths of Raphael and Queen Elizabeth I, saw the foundations of early modern Europe move firmly into place. A world culture and economy, in embryo, begins during this period. This momentous development was foreshadowed in the shift of Europe’s commercial axis from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic, as well as in the start of Europe’s exportation of peoples, technology, religions and ideas to colonies in Asia, Africa, and the Americas.The Christian church had stepped in and virtually saved civilization when Rome fell; it climbed to heights of achievement and service, then gave it all away through war, greed and corruption. From this point on, it divides and divides and divides again.(Material taken from “THE WESTERN HUMANITIES” ; Roy T. Matthews and F. Dewitt Platt.)

Yes, the truth is that the culture known as “Byzantines” were not Greeks. Nor were the ancient Macedonian Greeks. Nor were the ancient Athenians ,Spartans, Cretans greek either. In fact neither modern Greeks are Greeks.In fact Greece does not exist. The blue area is in reality extremely deep water . This is the true map . The landmass goes only until Albania,Fyrom,Bulgaria and Turkey.In fact, this below is the true nature of Greeks and its a conspiracy to kill all humans and to steal all other human cultures as our own. We hit when you expect it at least . Oh and of course we eat young turkish girls and fyromian babies for breakfast. True story—————————————————-Ok ! And now lets be serious and deconstruct your wrong (and antigreek propaganda) premises.Probably you are just trolling or just want to make u statement. I am writing this answer mostly for the other readers. Try not to tribalise people into bad and good groups. Immature, idiots exist in every group of people. Also having a famous historical culture, an empire etc. does not say something for your personally and for your personal progress and development. But ok , In the end, haters gonna hate .Look, I dislike greek ultranationalism and grecocentrism (the Greeks did everything etc) /eurocentrism. But I also dislike the other extreme , namely anti greek propaganda (the Greeks/Europeans did nothing). Lets look at the facts and the available sources .First about culture and than about “empires”. The Greek culture would be an extremely important culture and birthplace of western civilisation even without any greek empire . Of course were Greeks influenced by Babylonians and Egyptians as later Westeuropeans were influenced by Greeks. The fact that usually a scientific and cultural revolution has influences and does not happen in vacuum does not decrease the worh of the revolution and of course also not the worth of the older influences(which were usually revolutions on their own in their time/context) . But the Greeks underwent their own scientific/cultural revolution in 500 BC- 200 AD and I will name only a few things. The Greeks were the first who understood 2,500 years ago that the Earth is not flat but spherical(ok, today we know that its not exaclty a sphere, but you get the point). They even measured the circumference of the Earth with a small error and they even measured the distance to the Moon with a small error. All this with ancient methods.They started a democracy ,very different to our modern democracy, but it was base which later developed our modern democratic concept. Greeks were also founders of western philosophy, mathematical proofs, and investigation of nature with rational methods which was the base for the later physics. Greek philosophers like Epictetus the Stoic philosopher were among the first who disagreed with the death penalty (even for criminals) 2,000 years ago and Stoic philosophers were among the first who uttered the word cosmopolitanism, namely that its natural to love your country/people , but furthermore its also natural to love the whole world/humanity and to regard all the world/humans as your people/homeland.I will not speak more about greek culture , because its off topic, but the main point is that the greek culture would be great and breathtaking, even if the Greeks did not have any empire. In fact, taken for itself its not something admirable to have a large empire. Ok, u have a large population , a large era and possible a strong numerous army and you invade other areas to steal their resources. What does it matter ? Its more a negative trait than a positive trait(taken for itself).As for the greek empires now, can you read the letters in the picture below?(ancient Macedonian mosaic floor)(can you read the letter at the coins of Philip and Alexander)No one can read and understand something from it, if he does not know greek language and greek letters.As a Greek I can tell you what ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΣ means and what ΦΙΛΙΠΠΟΣ means. Because this was their name , not Alexander and Philipp .After the battle of Granikos, Alexander sent as a spoil of war 300 persian armor suits to Athens as an offering to the goddess Athena and as symbol of the unity of the Greeks/Hellenes, with exception of one greek city.ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΣ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΟΥ ΚΑΙ ΟΙ ΕΛΛΗΝΕΣ ΠΛΗΝ ΛΑΚΕΔΑΙΜΟΝΙΩΝ ΑΠΟ ΤΩΝ ΒΑΡΒΑΡΩΝ ΤΩΝ ΤΗΝ ΑΣΙΑ ΚΑΤΟΙΚΟΥΝΤΩΝ."Alexander, son of Philip and all the Greeks except the Lacedaemonians/Spartans , (present this offering from the spoils taken) from the barbarians inhabiting Asia"Generally , the Persians called the Greeks Yauna ,because of the Ionians Greeks of Minor Asia. Now how did the Persian call the Macedonian Greeks specifically? The Persians called the Macedonian Greeks Yauna Takabara “Greeks with hats that look like shields” , because of the hat that many Macedonian Greeks had. The name of the hat was καυσίαMacedonian GreekMacedonian Greek soldierOk, maybe tha Persians were parts of the conspiracy of the Greeks :) . Lets look at what the Indians said about the invasions of Alexander and the hellenistic diadochi empires.The Indians and Indian literature called the Greeks of Alexander and the macedonian greek diadochi states as Yona or Yavana . It means Greeks (from the Ionian Greeks of Minor Asia)Yona - WikipediaHow did the Indians call Mένανδρος (Menander-Milinda) , the king of the Indo greek kindom who ruled almost until modern Bangladesh ?“King Milinda and his bodyguard of "500 Yonas" in the Milinda Panha.”To give a little historical context , its not known to many people(and even to many Greeks) , but the Greek diadochi of the Grecobactria state(around modern Afghanistan) invaded north India in 180 BC and ruled there as Indo-greek kingdom until around 10 AD. They did this probably because they wanted to protect the Indian Buddhists from persecutions towards them. A common grecobuddhist culture was developed as many Greeks were/became Buddhists. There was an greek artistic influence as the famous Buddha scuplture was made there for the first time and the famous Buddha sculpture is probably influenced by greek arts and the greek artistic presentation of the god Apollo. There are even some scupltures with the Buddha where Hercules protects him.Here is a coin of the Μenander, king of the Indo-greek kingdom. Its in greek language and greek letters. It says Βασιλέως Σωτήρος Μενάνδρου. King Menander our SaviourAnd look also at thishttps://greekcitytimes.com/2018/06/21/indian-presidents-says-most-famous-greek-to-come-to-india-was-alexander-the-great/Actually ,trying to proof that the Macedonians Greeks were Greeks or that the Spartan Greeks were Greeks is like when one would try to proof that the Earth is round or that objects fall down . All the historians and the researchers of the world say the same. Only some fridge historians of Fyrom say otherwise, because they love their national fairytaile. But ok you have also some people who claim that the Earth is flat and they think they are the few smart ones because they think that Earth is flat.Reasons for some propapanda of FyromSlavic-Bulgarians tried to invade and to conquer medieval greek Macedonia , but they could not. When the Ottomans than invaded the Balkans, in the geographical area of Macedonia(which is much larger than the traditional greek Macedonia) lived also many Slavs/Bulgarians . So many Bulgarians/Slavs who lived there, called themselfes Slavomacedonski etc. They called themselves like this, but they had no relation to the greek macedonian culture, to the Macedonian Greeks, nor any historical rights to greek Macedonia. Until now everything is fine. But, then in the end of the 19th century , the inteligentsia of those Bulgaromacedons/Slavomacedonska founded an imperialistic fairytale in order to justify slavic impereliasm and going to the warm waters. The fairytale was that Slavomacedonska are not Bulgars who live in the geographical era of Macedonia, but actual Macedonians and that is their right to conquer greek Macedonia from the bad Greeks. Later this was changed to the idea thas Slavomacedonians are allegedly an ancient culture and that the ancient Macedonians Greeks were the same culture with them . Now, its not funny.I(We) do not have something with any people or any country, but when you try to have antigreek - propaganda in order to unite the different groups of your country then I have an issue. Posts like this in quora indicate that Greeks have valid reasons to be suspicious of ultranationalistic fyromian attempts to threaten north Greece(greek Macedonia) .Greeks have nothing against people of Fyrom/Skopye. The old slavic expansion idea to the Aegean is in the history books and with the Bulgarians Greeks have very warm brother relations since decades now .Sadly, some ideology crackpots of Fyrom is the last remaint of old slavic expansionism in greek Macedonia. But ok I think (and hope ) thats its only a minority of the people of Fyrom.People overcome your brainwashing. Its not only about the name. If you call yo call yourself Macedonians, Spartans , Athenians , Chinese, Aliens, Klingons, Orcs etc. do this, but clarify THAT you are Slavs/Bulgarians, Slavomacedonians, or Slavospartans , Slavoathenians and and have no historical/cultural relation to greek Macedonians , greek Spartans, greek Athenians and that you have no geographical interest to greek Macedonia and the other borders of north Greece.Bulgarians say to you that they brainwashed you and that you are Bulgarians of the geographical era of Macedonia. Bulgarians have an amazing culture and a rich history. Why do you denounce the bulgarian heritage for a fake one ? Its not you fault , but the fault of decaded of brainwashing. If you wanna call yourself Slavomacedonians/North Macedonians do it, but you should clarify that you do not have any relation with greek culture ,greek people and greek lands and especially that you do not have any relation with Macedonian Greeks (of ancient,medieval and modern times) and that you do not have any territorial claims to north Greece (Macedonia, Epurus and Thrace)Greece/Greeks are interested in friendship and good relations with all the balkan people and with most people we have . The Balkan people have many wounds from the past . All the balkan people should be united and develop commerical , educational relations etc.MAP LESSONIf you after all the above sources, you still doubt the that the Macedonians were Greeks and that the hellenistic diadochi states were greek/hellenic ruled empires, than sorry but you are a hopeless case ;)——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————NOW , lets move forward to ΡΩΜΑΝΙΑ. Do you know what this is ? Maybe you know Βασιλεία Ρωμαίων . Or Πολιτεία Ρωμαίων . No, you don’t know this ? How should you? I will help. You have to know greek letters and greek language in order to read and understand those words.Ρωμανία (Rhomania=land of the Romans)Βασιλεία Ρωμαίων (Basileia Rhomeon= Kingdom of the Romans)Πολιτεία Ρωμαίων (Politeia Rhomeon=State of the Romans)The people of the east roman empire used those names in greek for their selfdescription. And nongreeks and people who do not know greek language cannot understand what the people of the East Roman Empire meant.Screw tha name Byzanz. Greeks never suggested the name Byzanz as a name for Rhomania . It was suggested by western historians after the fall of Konstantinopel 1453 and it was imposed to the greek people by the West inteligentsia. Originally people of the East Roman Empire called sometimes Βυζάντιο Byzanz only the capital Κωνσταντινούπολη Konstantinopel. We should only use Byzanz as a description for others to understand what we say, because the term is now used for a very long time(byzantine studies etc.) . At least, until academia and laypeople use the name Rhomania again and ρωμαίικες σπουδες ή ρωμανιώτικες σπουδές = rhomaniotic studies. From now on , instead of byzantine I will say Rhomioi for the byzantine people and Rhomania for Byzanz. In the end you will understand who the Rhomioi were and are.ΤΗ ΥΠΕΡΜΑΧΩ ΣΤΡΑΤΗΓΩCan non Greeks or people who do not speak the greak language understand this hymn ? Do they know this hymn today and the historical story of it? Can people of modern Rome or Italy understand it ?Its a part of the Akathist hymn (the unseated hymn, because people stand up when they sing this hymn in the orthodox liturgy) , adressing Virgin Mary as the savior of the siege of Konstantinopel 626 by the Sassanid Persians and the Avars. It was a terrible battle/siege and almost it was a win for the Persians and the Avars. But the Konstantinopel defenders won and attributed their victory to the Theotokos/Virgin Mary.Akathist - WikipediaAll Greeks (and Cypriot Greeks of course) know this story as a cultural folk lore story and most of us when we were young felt the desperation of the siege of 626 as something that happened to our culture.Τῇ ὑπερμάχῳ στρατηγῷ, "To you, invincible champion" (meaning the Theotokos Virgin Mary)Its one of the most beautiful and emotional hymn of the “byzantine” religious music and most Greeks (irrespective if they are religious or not) feel an emotional relation with this hymn .Here the byzantine “akathist hymn” of 626 again with many photos and videos of the greek army and greek revolutionaries. We sing this hymn many times in the military and also many times in celebrations etc.ΔΙΓΕΝΗΣ ΑΚΡΙΤΑΣThen, can you read the name Διγενής Ακρίτας ; Do non Greeks know about the acritic songs , the battles of Digenis Akritas against the “Saracens” and the battle against Death himself? Digenis Acritas is a legendary figure, symbol of the acritical warriors of Rhomania .The acrites were Rhomioi border warriors who had land and protected the borders and the people from Rhomania from raids of militant Moslems in the rhomaniotic-arab wars. The greek world had and has good relations with the peaceful Moslems and there was a lot of respect between the greek and and moslem world, scientific, cultural exchanges etc.. But , simultaiously Greeks did a brutal defensive war against militant Islam and militanτ moslem expansion. Greeks(Rhomania) were for centuries the Theromopyle of the european /western/ christian world. As often, religion was often the pretext and gold the motivation.Rhomania/Greece has one of the oldest traditions of fighting for protection and justice against militant imperialistic Moslem raids and this Greece has many similarities with the Indians ,Chinese ,South east asians and with the Reconquista Spanish(and of course also with Habsburg and Russians later)Rhomania and the acrites bled for centuried against militant moslems /medieval Daesh version. For centuries the acritical warriors protected Rhomania and they decimated the militant moslem hordes who invaded. Rhomania had shared borders with the most powerful islamic empires and there was an almost constant battle and borderaids , as militant Moslems wanted to raid/plunder infidels and they wanted to go to their 70 virigns/paradise , while Rhomioi warriors fought for freedom,justice and to protect their people and wealth from the invasions/raids.Digenis and the dragon, 13th century rhomaniotic dishThere is a continuous greek tradition of demotic songs about Digenis (and many other acritic songs) that goes back to the era of the rhomaniotic -arab wars. There are countless demotics folklore songs about Digenis Akritas and other acritical warriors.This is a famous cretan greek acritic song about Digenis Akritas“Digenis is in the moment of dying and the Earth fears him/is terrified by him, and the gravestone is panicked , how should it cover Digenis” etc. (rough free translation of the first verse)This is another famous song/poem about Digenis :You see the acrites(of the rhomaniotic-arab wars and the rhomaniotic-turk wars) are even today folklore heroes in greek folklore and we honor them like we honor the greek revolutionaries in 1821–1830 and the greek soldiers/warriors of all the wars fought in the last two centuries. Which other culture honors the acrites of Rhomania and feels them so close in its folk lore culture ?In the video above , there are many traditional pictures of Diogenes and the Acrites. Note the traditional weapons and armor of the Rhomioi border warriors. Armor, composite bow, spear, sword, mace etc29. May 1453In which other culture other than Greece(and Republic of Cyprus) is the 29.May a national mourning day. I guess most non Greeks (with exception Turks) do not even know what was the terrible crime which happened this day. A crime against humanity and against human culture. It was the sack of Konstantinopel 1453.This is a medieval greek pontic song about the fall of Rhomania . It says literarily “Rhomania was taken” Η Ρωμανία πάρθεν . About the fall of Konstantinopel .Its an extremely sad and melancholic song. In the end it says “even if Rhomania fall, it will blossom again and come again”In fact, in medieval greek folklore there are countless legends about the liberation of Konstantinopel from the ottoman turkish moslem yoke/occupation. Who else has this ? Do the Italians have this ? The French ? The Germans?Beside the hate for the criminal bastards/animals of the ottoman army of 1453, in which culture other than the greek culture , there is also an almost equal hate for the criminal bastards/animals of the fourth crusade 1204 who used the civil conflict in Rhomania and sacked Konstantinopel. This was the true reason for the collapse of Rhomania. For the next century Rhomioi fought mainly against the latin crusader occupation and this was also the main long term reason for the defeat of the crusaders in the Jerusalem as without a strong Rhomania , the crusaders could not hold for long there and also now the crusaders withdraw forces to fight/invade/occupy Rhomania instead of liberating and protecting Jerusalem.I respect the crusaders who wanted to liberate Jerusalem from the Seljucs Moslems , with some exceptions, they were some of the most brave and badass warriors that the world has ever seen. But in Greece there is only hate and abomination for the criminal idiots of the fouth crusade.Παλαιολόγος ΧΙIn which other culture/folklore other than greek culture/folklore is Κωνσταντίνος Παλαιολόγος ΧΙ a national hero ? He was the last emperor of Rhomania , outnumberd 10:1 he did not surrender Konstantinopel to the Ottoman Turk invaders and he fought until the end.In many places , in many greek churches and in many places in Greece we have this flag . The 4 B are Bασιλευ Βασιλέων Βασιλεί Βοηθή (King of the Kings (God) help the King)Kolokotronis , one of the leaders of the victorious greek war of indepence(1821–1830) against the Ottoman Turk Empire , said “Our King (Palaiologos) was killed . He did not make an agreement (with the Turks). His guard fought an eternal neverending war against the Turks and two castles were unconquered. The guard of the king were the klephts (greek guerilla warriors during the ottoman occupation/invasions) and his castles were Mani , Souli and the greek mountains. “Mani, Souli and some other places were unconquered by the Ottomans. Also Ottomans did not have a control in the greek mountains and there was almost a small intensity consant guerilla war between Greek guerillas and Ottomans regulars and irregulars.The main aim of the greek revolutionaries in 1821 was to liberate Konstantinopel , the Rhomioi people and lands and to restore Rhomania . This was not achieved in 1821, though we liberated Peloponnese ,central Greece and some islands. Who else tried to liberate the Konstantinopel Greeks and all the other Greeks from the ottoman tyranny? Only the Russians did wars against the Ottomans , because of geopolitical reasons and they wanted to go until Konstantinopel because of the shared orthodox culture . Greeks respect those russian attempts a lot.Who else than the greek army tried to liberate the Rhomioi and restore Rhomania in the balkan war of 1912 and the greek-turkish war of 1919–1922. The aim was to free the Rhomania lands and populations of Eastern Thrace(Konstantinopel), Minor Asia, Pontos, Kappadokia etc. Most of our allies betrayed us , they did not support us or they even supported Kemal secretly. The national schism of Greece also played a role in the behavior of the Entente allies, but nevertheless their behavior was almost a betrayal.ΚωνσταντινούποληWho else other than Greeks(and Cypriot Greeks) calls Κωνσταντινούπολη (Konstantinopel) still Konstantinopel ? If I have a flight in Athens to Konstantinopel the table shows Konstantinοpel and not Istanbul .All the Europeans and most countries in the world call Konstantinopel Istanbul with exemption of the beloved Armenians(Boli from Πόλη/city), Slowenians(Cargrad/city of the Zars) and Icelandians (who still have the medieval viking name for Konstantinopel)— >>> The Varangian guard salutes :)(Istanbul is btw also probably from the greek name στην Πόλη stin Poli /in the City, but nevertheless it says something if only Greeks personally and officially still call Konstantinopel as Konstantinopel).To make the obvious more obviousIn other words, medieval Greeks are the Rhomioi of Rhomania. Rhomioi/Romans in medieval times is another name for the medieval Greeks. Its very simple really . Greeks were even by the hellenistic times a panethnicity. Somethink like the Americans today. Being Greek/Hellene had more to do with language and culture than only with ethnicity. Many other ethnicities were hellenised in the hellenistic times.When the Romans conquered Greece and all the mediteranian , greek became the language of the educated and most of the rulers knew also greek. The east contuned to have greek as lingua franca and it never stopped to have greek as lingua franca. Even in the west roman empire , greek was the privilige language of the educated,merchants etc.The Roman Empire was heavily influenced by greek/hellenic culture /philosophy and later also by Christianity , have in mind that most of theologioans are from the greek cultural/linguistic eastern orthodoxy.After approximatly 200 AD , roman citizenship was given to all free citizens of the Empire. Now, all Italics, Greeks, Syrians , Celts, Spanish, Moors etc. etc. who were free citizens were also Roman citizens.When, the west part of the roman Empire collapsed it was a huge shock for the Empire. After the moslem arabic conquests of Egypt and Syria , huge non greek populations were now away from the Roman Empire. With all the conquest in the west and east and the lose of huge non greek populations, the greek and the hellinised percent of the population grew dramatically relatively to the total population. The heart regions of the east remains of the Roman Empire wer mayority greek. Of course, Greeks were also around from 146 BC -476 AD. Greeks did not kill themselves after 146 BC :P . Greeks were very active in philosophy,politics, sciences , in the military of the empire in all those years.We have Greeks who were Roman citizens and servend in Roman politics and Roman military. After 100 -200 AD Roman meant citizen of the Empire and not ethnicity of the city Rome/latin italian ethnicity. For instance ,we have Arrian, a greek historian,military commander of the Roman army and Roman citizen (90 -160 AD)Arrian - WikipediaAfter 500–650 AD , the remains of the Roman Empire were based largely on the greek population/culture .The tricky issue is that because Έλληνες(Hellenes/Greeks)/Roman citizens became Christians (some peacefully, some with direct or indirect violence) in 300 AD-600 AD, most Greeks stopped calling themselves Hellenes/Greeks as it was accosiated with the greek pagan religion. So the Greeks continued to call themselves only Roman citizens/Rhomioi and not Greeks and Roman citizens as they have done before (200 AD -500 AD) . After Heraclius , the empire itself changes the language from latin to greek, as the majority of the people could understand and speak greek(like english in the USA) , but only few could understand latin.Its not that Rhomania became /was a greek national empire . Of course, it continued to be a multiethnic /multinational empire(like every empire by definition) and many non greek ethnities/cultures were proud parts of Rhomania and contributed a lot, but overall it was in culture a greek empire and Rhomioi/Greeks were the heart and at the heart of the Empire , literarily and metaphorically. And this empire was the Roman Empire. Greeks could/managed to save and to continue he remains of the Roman Empire. They were Greeks and Rhomioi/Romans (=citizens of the Empire) . Its like for instance if Mexiko and Canada invade the USA and then only Washington DC stays free. Lets say that the mayority in Washington DC are proud Greek Americans / US citizens of greek ancestry.They will continue to be proud Americans and proud Greeks. Being Greek Americans and being the majority they would use more and more greek culture and language . If for any reason they stop calling themselves Greeks(as the Greeks /citizens of the Roman Empire did in late antiquity) and continue only with the name Americans , than in the future more people will equate the word American to the meaning Greek and greek culture of this era. They will be proud Americans (citizens of the state and legacy), but they will not be the same Americans as modern USA with the anglosaxon mayority culture.The medieval Greeks/Rhomioi are citizens of Rhomania, the Roman Empire, but they are not the same culture with the latin cultural Roman empire of 100 ADIn fact, even today in greek folklore ,songs and description a very popular name and selfdescription of Greeks is Rhomios and Rhomiosini. We still are proud Rhomioi and call ourselves also Rhomioi.If you say to a Greek “Rhomie” he will turn and look at you.Rhomania and Rhomanotic culture is not only for christian orthodox Greeks, nor is ancient Greece only for ethnic pagan Greeks. Nor is grecobuddhist culture only for Buddhist Greeks. Most Greeks(irrespective of religion/irrelligion/worldview etc. ) respect/should respect all their historical heritage. It has to do with culture, not only with religion, nor with blood/ehnicity etc. In fact if foreign people grow up in Greece today, if they speak greek, know the greek culture, love Greece and feel/want to be Greeks, than for us they are Greeks. Of course , only if they can also drink uzo and love feta :)In fact, this is some of the most famous modern songs . Some of the most famous greek singer have interpreted this song.Τη Ρωμιοσύνη μη τη κλαιςDont cry about Rhomanity/Greekness)Turks call the Greeks of Turkey Rum (from Rhomioi) and it was those Rhomioi/Greeks that were persecuted in Turkey in the last 50 years and were pushed largely out of Konstantinopel. And it is Greece which pushes Turkey to accept the Konstantinopel Rhomioi/Greeks back in Konstantinopel and to have there their right to be able to flourish. Greece and Turkey had an agreement in 1922 that the moslems and Turks of greek Thrace will be able to stay in greek Thrace and that the Konstantinopel Rhomioi/Greeks will be able to stay in Konstantinopel, Imbros and Tenedos. But in the last decades the turkish goverments did not respect the treaty and they pushed pogroms and illegal and immoral taxes to the Konstantinpel Greeks. Its good that many modern turkish people regret all those crimes, but we have still a long way to go until the peaceful return of the Konstantinopel Greeks/Rhomioi in Konstantinopel. They will return and they will have rights and freedoms. And why not? The Hagia Sophia should open as a christian orthodox church again, as it was originally. All this is not in anyway a danger/threat to the turkish people . But its about the indigenous rights of the Greeks/Rhomioi.The historical center of Konstantinpel was greek until 1922 and even until some 40–50 years ago.To give another example that all people equated Konstantinpel/Rhomania with Greece and greek culture , here a small part of the Turkish letters of Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq (1522-1592) . He was ambassador of Habsburg Austria-Germany in Ottoman captured Konstantinopel. Habsburg empire was than a main power in middle Europe and often it was the main defense/opponent of ottoman turk imperialism in Europe . Habsburg Austrian/German people and armies did often desperate defensive wars against the superpower Ottoman Empire in its attempts to capture Vienna..“those places(greek) seem to grieve and ask for christian help and christian care once more. And still truer are those words of Konstantinopel, or rather of the whole of Greece . That land was once most prosperous , today it is subject to an unnatural bondage. It seems as if the country, which in ancietn times discovered the fine arts and every liberal science, were demanfing back that civilisation which it gave to us, and were adjuring us, by the claim of a common faith to be its champion against savage barbarism . But it is all in vain. The princes of Christendom have other objects in view, and after all , the Greeks are not under a heavier bondage to the Turks, than we are to our own vices….. The ties of common faith and the duties we owe our brethren ought to have drawn us to their assistance . At the present . we are seeking across the wide seas , the Indias and the Antipodes . And why? Is this because in those lands they are simple guideless creatures from wich rich booty may be torn ,without the cost of a single wound ? For those expeditions religion supplied the pretext and gold the motive .This was not the fashion with our ancestors. They too had their toil. They too had their dangers. But honor was the prize they thought , not profit. However that may be, I see that the (ottoman)arrows are being sharpened for our destruction . And I fear it will turn out that if we will not fight for glory, we shall be compeled to fight for existence..” (Turkish letters) 1555–1562Greeks are not imperialisticThe truth is that Greeks/Rhomioi never were (and of course are not) an imperialistic / aggresive culture. We were and are mostly interested in personal affairs and culture, economy, sciences, commercial relations etc For most of our time we only did wars to defend ourselves from foreign invasions . The majority of the greek colonies in the 800–700 BC were peaceful colonies , commercial relations etc.The only aggresive war by Greeks was done for 7–8 years by Alexander the Great. And this was also only partially aggresive, as it was an attempt to liberate the Greeks of Asia Minor and to punish the Persians from the Persian raids and campaigns in Greece 150 years before. The camaign of Alexander to India was an an aggresive war and probably the only true aggresive war by the Greeks as the Indians had done nothing against Greeks. Actually its only 7–8 years of campaign.Demetrios of the grecobactrian kingdom who invaded north India and founded the indo greek kingdom did this more as a protection of Indian buddhists than as a conquest and Grecobactrians of 180 BC were by this time probably at least Indians as they were Greeks.Culture and peace in RhomaniaAlso, the Greeks who continued the eastern part of the Roman Empire, though they had one of the longvivid and succesful states and one of the strongest,deadliest and most efficient combined arms militaries of the world, they mostly did defensive wars because they preferred peace and diplomacy to war. Because they said, after a war, even if you win the war, you have more enemies than before. This Rhomeiko/medieval greek concept of peace and war was very different from the understandnis of the medieval time and very similar our modern view of peace. Of course, we should not idialize anyone and especially not a medieval army. Not of Rhomania , not of anyone. Battles and wars were brutal and bloody. But in comparison to most others , Rex Grecorum(as the West called Rhomania) was much more peaceful and preferred to fight only as a last solution to stop the invaders. But , usually, if it fought war, it annihilated the invaders.The culture of Rhomania was not a culture of decline as the old western bias says. Because of Christianity(and other reasons) the Greeks did not have the same love to scientific “progress” /philosophy that they had in ancient times. But nevertheless, medival Greeks/Rhomioi had many achievements in engineering, medicin, music and even in military philosophy and strategy and tactics. In comparison , to the rest of Europe Rhomania never lost the classical greek education. The greek works were never lost in Rhomania. There was a conflict between secular greek education/philosophy and christian monasticism in Rhomania , but this off topic. Rhomioi/medieval Greek scholars played also an important role in the Renaissance.Greek scholars in the Renaissance - WikipediaMost other cultures(like classical latin Romans , French, British, Ottomans , Russians , Americans etc. ) had an active policy of conquest,colonialism and exploration of others for centuries.To finish, Greeks had empires (Macedonian greek empire and diadochi states and Rhomania) . And simultaniosuly , in comparison, Greeks were among the most peaceful cultures in the world . We were and are not an imperialistic culture. As our freedom and independence is sacred to us, every freedom and indepence is sacred to us. But dont harm us, dont attack us or you will regret it. And do not slander Greeks / Greekness/Rhomanity in quora :) . But ok, haters gonna hate.Its not necessarily pride to have empires and its not bad if your culture did /does not have. Most important is culture. Do not judge people only because they are in different groups. Also , even if your group had the whole galaxy as empire, even if it had NOT even a small island as territory , it does not give/or take worth of YOU as a person. Your acts /life as a person matters, not what others did.EDIT → Its difficult to write in quora about a subject and to avoid misconceptions about other subjects. The subject was the hellenicity/greekness of ancient Macedon and ancient diadochi states, as well the hellenicity/greekness of the Rhomania and to help people understand the obvious, that we modern Greeks/Rhomioi are the cultural continuation of the Rhomioi/medieval Greeks and we have the same rhomaic folklore and culture. Rhomania is our father and ancient Greece our grandfather. We need both to understand ourselves , firstly you will know your father, than your grandfather, but often you will pass more time with your grandfather than with your father, without ignoring your father though.By no means is my aim to portray the Greeks/Rhomioi as saints that were always betrayed by demonic foreigners. Sometimes , foreign politicians /leaders did wrong decisions and betrayed the greek cause, though it was a cause of justice. But stupidity, idiots , wrong decisions exist in every culture,nation,city, in fact almost in every neighbourhood and family. For instance the biases of the West toward Rhomania and the medieval greek world and the bad relations between Rhomania and the contemporary Western European powers were caused also by the religious schism(between Orthodoxy and Catholicism) and by the problem that the Westerners had with accepting thar Rhomania was the Roman Empire.Also, some politicians of Rhomania had often a very sneaky behavior and made wrong decisions. For instance the massacre of the Catholic Latins of Konstantinopel in 1182 by the greek/Rhomioi mob of Konstantinopel. The Greeks/Rhomioi who did those horrible acts were also criminal bastards/animals and not better than the criminal murders of the ottoman army of 1453 and the crusader army of 1204. Massacre of the Latins - WikipediaAlso, though , historically many european christian governments -because of their own financial and geopolitical interests - supported the Ottoman Turks and ignored the Greeks/Rhomioi and the other balkan christian people and their pleads for help and freedom , there were also many european people (Serbians, Montenegrians, British , French, Germans, Italian,Spanish etc. etc. ) who supported the Greeks and many even came and fought in the greek revolutionary wars. Also Haitians, Americans and even some moslem Turks supported the greek cause . Many of those people were more greek in spirit and deserve more to be called Greeks/Rhomoi/Hellenes than many other Greeks are/ or deserve it. So, its not about groups, but mainly about people and personal decisions.

Were the Crusades a success for Christianity?Not if you mean “were they of long term benefit to Christianity?”. Christianity became militarized by them, which led to all kinds of problems in the Late Middle Ages. Christianity gained no territory nor wealth nor converts from them. They did not curb the spread of Islam or save Byzantium or protect the many sacred sites of Christianity. They cost the lives and livelihoods of many of the best and most devoted Christians of an entire era, leaving the dillettants in charge to chart the future course of Christianity. The worst centuries of Christian history, when the church was corrupt and in decline, were those at the end of the Eastern crusades. They did rediscover Aristotle as an indirect result, but that’s about all that can be seen as even a partial benefit.The crusades were of some benefit to Europe, however. By occupying Islamic forces in defending the East, they prevented the full force of the Islamic jihad from arriving on all the shores of Europe at once, instead of just a few at a time. The crusades opened trade to the East, and by the end of the crusading era, economic prosperity was increasing all across Europe.By that time, Europe was experiencing both Renaissance and Reformation, and there was fierce competition between the increasingly secular European nation-states for money, land and power. Values had changed. Leaders, both Christian and Muslim, secular and spiritual, came to realize war could be harnessed for other more practical gainful purposes than crusade.Colonialism began.Royal programs of militarization, the imposition of autocratic government, the attempt to control and direct violence—ostensibly for the common good—served the interests of the ruling elite more than crusading ever had.The moral influence of Christianity declined.Were the Crusades a success?Success is generally measured by how well someone achieves their goals. So, first that means knowing what the goals of crusade actually were. The best way to understand this is with Pope Urban II’s speech at Claremont because that is what set the original goals and got it all started.The important versions of the Pope’s appeal are recorded by Fulcher of Chartres, Robert the Monk, Baldric of Dol, Guibert of Nogent, and William of Malmesbury.[1] Fulcher is accepted as the most trustworthy, but despite some verbal differences, there is remarkable agreement between them.The necessity of aiding the brethren in the East is found in all the recordings of the speech, so it seems pretty safe to say that was a top priority and primary goal. The sufferings of Christians in the East is mentioned by three of the historians, while the sufferings of Christian pilgrims who were being attacked, killed, enslaved or forcibly converted is mentioned by Guibert.[2] (page 3 footnote 10) Desecration or destruction of the churches and holy places is mentioned by all, while Guibert stresses Jerusalem’s problems under Islamic rule.Three of Christianity’s five primary episcopal sees (Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria) were captured in the seventh century.The other two (Rome and Constantinople) were attacked in the centuries between 600 and 1100.Constantinople would be captured in 1453, leaving only one of the five episcopal sees (Rome) in Christian hands by 1500.To put this in perspective, one need only consider how many times Christian forces have attacked either Mecca or Medina. The answer, of course, is never.The fact the East had asked for help is stressed in all versions of the speech along with the many advances of the Turks. By the time of the first crusade, Muhammad’s followers were rapidly taking over the known world, having already conquered two thirds of what had been the Roman empire. When the Byzantines asked for help, the empire’s borders had been steadily shrinking for 4 centuries. There was no doubt they were in genuine need of military aid.That “this is God’s work” is mentioned specifically by Fulcher, but it is the underlying theme in all the versions. There is a subtle appeal in Urban’s speech to the ascetic spirit of the times. People had a concern for living the ''vita apostolica'' (the genuinely apostolic life) and expressing Christian ideals in active works of charity. This was exemplified by the new hospitals, the pastoral work of the Augustinians and Premonstratensians, the service of the friars - and the crusades. Senior churchmen of this time presented the concept of Christian love for those in need as the reason to take up arms. "The charity of St. Francis may now appeal to us more than that of the crusaders, but both sprang from the same roots." [3](page 180; 190–192)“As difficult as it may be for modern people to believe, the evidence strongly suggests that most crusaders were motivated by a desire to please God, expiate sin through self-sacrifice and suffering, and put their lives at the service of their “neighbors” as understood in the Christian sense.”[4]This is the motive that makes so many moderns uncomfortable, but going to the defense of those unable to defend themselves is the very definition of “Just war” and is a standard we still follow today even as a secular nation.The special sanctity of Jerusalem is mentioned in all versions of the speech. The desecration of the Holy Sepulchre is specifically referenced. There was a "powerful sense in Christian thought of the time of the importance of the concreteness of Jesus' human existence... The city of Jerusalem's importance is reflected in the fact that early medieval maps place it at the center of the world."[5] (page 338)There are other aspects of crusading that might have constituted personal goals for some, such as the promise of eternal rewards, though there are no temporal rewards discussed in any of the versions of the speech.But mostly this is it.These were the acknowledged, advocated, and fully embraced goals of the majority of the knight crusaders. How well did they achieve them? The First crusade was successful by these standards.In the long term, later crusade efforts were not very successful.The crusades failed in the long-run to curb the spread of Islam.When we think about the Middle Ages, it is easy to view Europe in light of what it became rather than what it was in the middle ages, but the colossus of the medieval world was Islam, not Christendom. The Crusades are interesting because they were an attempt to counter that, but in four centuries of crusading, it was only the First Crusade that significantly rolled back the military progress of Islam.The Muslim world was eventually victorious because of the insightful and charismatic leadership of Nur al-Din and Saladin, and by the Baybars’ unflinching ruthlessness, and by the very nature of Christian crusading. Crusades were constructed as voluntary and personal, and this did not readily lend itself to unity of purpose where military goals were concerned. The crusaders were frequently disorganized, often at odds about who should be in charge, and occasionally refused to cooperate with each other, dividing their armies, and going their separate ways. This made them much easier to defeat. [6]They did not fail to capture land and gain wealth because those were never goals.The crusaders had no intention of staying in the East and most didn’t. In fact, so many went home after the First crusade, the crusader forts were left critically undermanned, which ultimately led to Jerusalem falling back into Moslem hands.“Scholars who see the crusades as the beginning of European colonialism and expansionism would have surprised people at the time. Crusaders would not have denied some selfish aspects... but the predominant emphasis was on the defense and recovery of lands that had once been Christian and on the self-sacrifice rather than the self-seeking of the participants." [7] (page 15)Wealth was not a goal. Crusaders were volunteers who paid for, and supplied, their own fighting men, sometimes taking their entire household with them, and paying for that as well. During the past few decades, computer-assisted charter studies (a charter is a medieval European record of sales or loans of lands and/or rights to use the land) have proven that crusading knights were generally wealthy men—first born sons—with titles, land, and prosperity. Europe is littered with thousands and thousands of these medieval charters. Early crusaders sold off so many of their possessions that they caused widespread inflation.[8] Even wealthy lords impoverished themselves and their families by joining a Crusade, and many were bankrupted by it.They failed to save Byzantium and damaged Constantinople.One of the chief reasons for the foundering of the Fourth Crusade, and its diversion to Constantinople, was the fact that it ran out of money. It was so indebted to the Venetians that it found itself unable to keep control of its own destiny. In March 1204, the Venetian leadership decided on the outright conquest of Constantinople in order to settle the debts the crusaders had acquired to go crusading. They drew up a formal agreement to conquer Constantinople and divide the Byzantine Empire between them. The intent of the expedition had been to recapture the Muslim-controlled city of Jerusalem, by first conquering the powerful Egyptian Ayyubid Sultanate, the strongest Muslim state of the time, but they simply ran out of money, food and supplies, were diverted, and failed.Louis IX’s Seventh Crusade in the mid-thirteenth century cost more than six times the annual revenue of the crown. Eventually the sums necessary to mount a crusade simply made it impossible to continue.The crusades didn’t fail to convert the Muslims because conversion was never a goal.Evidence overwhelmingly suggests that none of the military religious orders confronting the Muslims sought to impose baptism by threat of force.[9] Muslims who lived in Crusader-won territories were allowed to retain their property and livelihood, and always, their religion. Throughout the history of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem, Muslim inhabitants far outnumbered the Catholics, yet they stayed and lived under crusader rule peacefully when they could have left. It was not until the 13th century that the Franciscans began making peaceful conversion efforts among Muslims but these were mostly unsuccessful and finally abandoned.Were the Crusades a success for Christianity?Mostly No, if you think of Christianity as the religion that paid so much for them. Partially Yes, if you think of Christianity as all of Europe, overtly religious or not, who did benefit from them.Footnotes[1] https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1834642.pdf[2] The Crusades from the Perspective of Byzantium and the Muslim World[3] CRUSADING AS AN ACT OF LOVE*[4] The Pilgrimage Origins of the First Crusade[5] The Oxford Companion to Christian Thought[6] The Crusades, Christianity, and Islam[7] The Crusades from the Perspective of Byzantium and the Muslim World[8] The Crusades: A Complete History[9] The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise: Muslims, Christians, and Jews under Islamic Rule in Medieval Spain: Fernandez-Morera, Dario: 9781610170956: Amazon.com: Books