The Beginning of the Crusades

The Salvi family. At bottom, from left, Albert, Al, David and Mary. Top row, from left Kate's boyfriend, Kate, Nick, Joe and Kathy.

The Salvi family. At bottom, from left, Albert, Al, David and Mary. Top row, from left Kate’s boyfriend, Kate, Nick, Joe and Kathy.

(In 1995, Al Salvi, then a second-term state legislator in Illinois, decided to challenge the sitting lieutenant governor for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate. I ran that race for Salvi. The first Chicago Tribune poll showed Salvi at 2%, largely dismissing him as a minor nuisance. Never did the polls show him reaching 40% But we steadily grew.

In early 1996, our opponent, speaking on WLS radio in Chicago, dismissed our whole campaign as a fantasy. Going off on a riff, he said that Salvi should figure out he was totally out classed and over-matched, that he was a minor candidate who didn’t have a chance. “This is David versus Goliath,” the opponent said. “He can’t win.”

Speaking on the same station a few days later, Al set the tone for the last weeks of the campaign. Asked about the lieutenant governor’s dismissal of him as not even worthy of comment, Al said, “I heard him say this was as big a mismatch as David versus Goliath. But he forgot one thing. David won.” A lot of the press fell in love with Salvi’s style from that moment. We did, indeed, win. And our earliest supporters nicknamed themselves the “two percenters,” derived from that original Trib poll.

After the primary, Kathy had a baby boy. In remembrance of that event, they named him David. His middle name had meaning, too. Some tireless supporters in the little town of Odell had lost a son, Adam, to cancer. In his honor, David was given the name, Adam.

In those days, young Joe was a toddler. I usually called him Joe-Joe (as you can see from the above picture, it would probably not be prudent to call him that now). I often visited the Salvi household before we launched the campaign. Little Joe was my guy. He was always enthused when I came in and I could always soothe him when he got fussy. We were buds.

Al now is working on a book centering around Count Raymond of Toulouse, truly the First Crusader. Along the way, both Joe and David have become fascinated with the subject and have studied it as well. It pleases me to no end to be able to print this guest column on the early history of the Crusades, written by young David and Joe Salvi. I am told that David is the primary author and Joe made significant contributions. I have not edited this for content, only to fit the format here.)


By David Salvi and Joe Salvi

Western schools today teach that the Crusades were unprovoked acts of violence against Islamic civilization in the Middle East. This is false. The truth is that Islamic violence and military conquest against Eastern Christians, known as the Byzantine Christians, provoked the Crusades as a defensive response. Before the first Crusade began in 1095 A.D., Muslim armies conquered, through violence, 2/3rds of the Christian world and land. Muslims had taken over the Levant, including the Holy Lands where Christ preached, Syria, Anatolia (modern day Turkey), all the Eastern lands converted by Saint Paul, Egypt, the rest of North Africa, and Spain. In 732 A.D., more than two centuries before the first Crusade, Muslim armies invaded as far as Tours, France, just south of Paris. For almost a millennium, history in the West taught these facts faithfully. In recent times, however, revisionists have portrayed the Crusades as unjustified attacks on peaceful Muslim lands.

Modern revisionist historians also have tried to portray the Crusades as failures. The brutality of the Muslim armies and the danger they posed to the Christian world are now downplayed. The Crusades were in fact a series of religiously sanctioned defensive military campaigns by volunteers, which successfully halted Islamic expansion, saving Christendom and arguably the Western way of life as we know it today.

To understand why thousands of knights and their families made such profound sacrifices, one must remember that they were medieval, not modern, people. The culture of nobility in the eleventh century was one of public displays of piety. Lords were known as much for their love of God as for their skill on the battlefield…by defending the Church they defended all that was good and true in their world. In short [they] joined the Crusade…from a simple and sincere love of God.[1]

While the Pope and the great kings of the West saw the big picture (the existential threat posed by Islam), according to the foremost living authority on the Crusades, the average Crusader was expending all that he had and enduring intense hardship in order to store up “treasure where rust and moth could not corrupt.”[2] Crusaders were fighting for their God. The word “crusade,” however, is a modern word. It was not used in medieval times to refer to the defenders of the Western way of life. The word comes from crucesignati, meaning, “those signed by the cross.” Christianity is not a violent religion, even though it is now often perceived as one. On the contrary, Christ taught His followers that, “he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword.”[3] He taught His followers to “turn the other cheek” if they are slapped in the face. Christ never wore a weapon and chastised Peter for defending Him when Peter cut the ear off of Christ’s tormentors. The New Testament is filled with the language of peace and teaches that love is God’s greatest law: love thy neighbor as thyself.[4] In fact, Jesus taught that people should love their enemies!

Saint Augustine of Hippo, writing in the fifth century, explained in his work “City of God” that while Christians must “turn the other cheek,” self-defense is as necessary as food and water. This doctrine, called “The Just War” principle, made possible the defensive response to Islamic aggression, which we now call the Crusades. Modern movies and other popular works have displayed a gross misunderstanding of this principle and of the Crusades, which have contributed to a popular antagonism toward Christianity. For example, the movie “The Seventh Seal” (1957) portrays the faithful in a negative light and contains several anachronisms,[5] as does the more recent movie, “The Kingdom of Heaven.”[6]

Muhammad wrote the Koran six centuries after Christ died. Muhammad was a warrior, and the Koran taught “Jihad” as one of the pillars for Muslims. Jihad means Holy War. The Koran discusses in great detail the necessity for war, and even teaches how to conduct war.[7] It sets forth violent punishment to those who do not submit to Islam. Although moderate Muslims sincerely find soft interpretations of the Koran to adjust its teachings to modern sensibilities, the fundamental fact that Muhammad was a warrior and Christ explicitly opposed war (and lived a non-violent life) is undeniable.

After Muhammad died, his followers, especially Umar, the second Muslim ruler after Muhammad’s death, continued to aggressively convert by the sword. Christians were easily defeated, as their way of life made them vulnerable to military conquerors. The Eastern lands, which Umar conquered, were part of what came to be known as the Byzantine Empire. The Byzantine Empire was the eastern half of what remained of the ancient Roman Empire. The Byzantines, with their capital in Constantinople (modern day Istanbul), had broken away from the Western remnants of the Roman Empire. Constantinople in 1095 A.D. was the greatest city in the world, named after the first Christian Roman Emperor, Constantine the Great. Constantine, Emperor of all of Rome from 306 to 337 AD is best known for being the Emperor to end the persecutions of the Christians in Rome. Christianity flourished after Constantine, but the Holy Roman Catholic Church’s position that the Pope was the head of the Church, and other disagreements, led the Byzantine Christians to break away from their Western comrades in what is known as the “great schism.” This schism, also known as the East-West Schism, occurred in 1054 A.D., and resulted in the Roman Catholic Church dividing with the Eastern Orthodox Church.

By the beginning of the eleventh century, the people living in lands which followed the teachings of the Western Catholic Church were fighting Moorish Muslim armies in the heart of Western Europe. At the same time, the people living in the “Byzantine Empire” were being overrun by Arab and non-Arab (Turkish) Muslim conquerors waging Jihad in places such as Persia, Egypt and Syria. The great Byzantine Empire had even lost most of Anatolia and Muslims threatened the very gates of Constantinople itself. Despite the differences and disputes between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Emperor of the Byzantines, Alexius I Comnenus, sent out a desperate letter to the Pope, Urban II, for help. In response, Urban II convened the Council of Clermont. The Council decided to call upon Christians in the West who were not fighting the Moors in Spain to come to the aid of the Byzantines. The Pope hoped that he could stir the hearts of soldiers by calling on them not only to defend Byzantine Constantinople, but also to liberate Jerusalem, the Holy Land.

Meanwhile, in the East, the Byzantines, who broke from the Roman Catholic Church, found themselves in a very difficult situation. They saw themselves as the true heirs of the glory of the former Roman Empire. They were Christian, but did not recognize the Pope as the head of the Church, and looked down on the “Latin” West as barbarian, although Christian.

In response to the Pope’s call, hundreds of thousands of Latin Christians, mostly from France, Italy and Germany, began a pilgrimage to Constantinople. The first to arrive were led by people like “Peter the Hermit.” These were not professional soldiers but pious and foolish people who dove blindly beyond Constantinople only to be slaughtered. Soon, however, highly trained and disciplined soldiers led by powerful lords such as Raymond IV, Godfrey, and Bohemond arrived in Constantinople and prepared their invasion of Nicaea. Nicaea was the most powerfully fortified city held by the Turks, but the Crusaders miraculously retook it. They then marched through the barren lands of modern day Turkey and defying logic somehow survived to reach Antioch, another heavily fortified city on the Eastern edge of the Mediterranean Sea. Half starved, lacking basic weapons, and with an army twice their size attacking them from behind, the Crusaders successfully reclaimed Antioch for Christ.

Throughout these battles, the Crusaders, with few exceptions, showed great discipline, honor, bravery, and marshal fortitude. They earned the respect of their adversaries. In fact, upon hearing of their successes, the Shi’a Muslim rulers of Egypt sent a letter of congratulations and admiration: the Turks were their enemies too. The Crusaders, however, did not distinguish between the different types of Muslims, and began preparations for the siege of Jerusalem, which was held by the Egyptian Shi’a Muslims who had earlier congratulated the Crusaders.

Jerusalem was the ultimate goal for the Crusaders. This is the city where Christ preached, performed miracles, was crucified, and resurrected to eternal life. It was the ultimate purpose of this military pilgrimage. In fact, all the conquests on the road to Jerusalem were handed back to Alexius, who had broken away from Rome. Under the rules of war at the time, the underdog Crusaders approached Jerusalem and offered generous terms of surrender, which were refused many times. “No quarter” was thus given, which meant that if the city did not surrender, every living thing inside would be put to the sword. Again defying the odds, the Christians retook Jerusalem. Contrary to the revisionist history taught in the last one hundred years, the Crusaders showed uncommon compassion (for that era) to their defeated enemies.


By the standards of the time, adhered to by both Christians and Muslims, the Crusaders would have been justified in putting the entire population of Jerusalem to the sword. Despite later highly exaggerated reports, however, that is not what happened. It is true that many of the inhabitants, both Muslims and Jews, were killed in the initial fray. Yet many were also allowed to purchase their freedom or were simply expelled from the city. Later stories of the streets of Jerusalem coursing with knee-high rivers of blood were never meant to be taken seriously. Medieval people knew such a thing to be an impossibility. Modern people, unfortunately, often do not.[8]

The First Crusade was a glorious victory. It was a defensive response to more than 300 years of Muslim attacks against Christian lands and people. Jerusalem was Christian again for more than one hundred years, during which time more than a million pilgrims were able to freely see the places where Jesus Christ taught, performed miracles, died, and rose from the dead. Shortly after Jerusalem was taken, Raymond IV was asked to be king of the city, but he humbly refused this offer saying that he was not worthy to be king in Christ’s city. When Godfrey was given the crown instead, Raymond left the city to take his soldiers on a pilgrimage to the Jordan River, where Christ was baptized. Upon arrival there, however, Raymond received word that a large Muslim army had been poised south of the Jordan River in preparation for an attack on Jerusalem. Although it was Raymond’s intention to return home, and although Raymond was personally insulted that Godfrey had taken the crown of Jerusalem, he led his weary men on a surprise attack against the Muslims who themselves were preparing a siege on Jerusalem. Raymond’s maneuver was a brilliant military victory, and saved Jerusalem.

In recent times, revisionist historians have created a false and misleading image of these defensive battles fought by Christians against Muslims. These battles, now known as the “Crusades,” however, saved Christendom and possibly even the West. Although not every Crusader fulfilled the holy vows demanded of chivalrous Christian soldiers, the Crusaders proved to be decent and holy people. They also proved to be brilliant and brave warriors. Against all odds, led by people such as Raymond IV, Bohemond of Taranto, and Godfrey of Bouillon, the first Crusaders defeated larger armies entrenched in massive castles, and ultimately reclaimed Jerusalem. Although the normal rules of war during the time would have allowed the Crusaders to kill the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for they refused to surrender, the Crusaders proved to be profoundly merciful.

Modern historians and popular media have tried to change this fact but original sources prove that those who died violently at Jerusalem died in battle. The Crusaders ruled Jerusalem in a generally just and honorable way for about one hundred years. Although the armies of the great Saladin later conquered the Crusaders in the Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem, and although subsequent Crusades had a mixed record of success in battle, the fundamental effect of the Crusades, from the Christian perspective, was to stop the bloody encroachment and forced conversion of Christian lands by Muslims. The Crusades, contrary to revisionist history books and the modern understanding, accomplished the goal of defending Christendom.


(Interestingly, in the Third Crusade, a peculiar respect, bordering on affection, grew up between Richard the Lionheart and his Islamic counterpart, the Saladin. The Saladin was notably kind (again, for the period) to his non-military Christian prisoners, taking some care to make sure they had blankets and sufficient food where they were held. It has long struck me that for all the blather, much of the behavior of the contestants during these battles was much more restrained and less savage than modern Jihad. I contemplate the irony that if the Saladin were alive today and treated captives with the kindness he did in the 12th Century, he might well be denounced as an infidel and assassinated by modern Jihadists. – CJ)

[1] Madden, Thomas, “The New Concise History of the Crusades” (2006), pp.12-13.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Matthew 26:52

[4] Mark 12:31

[5] For example, the movie claims to be set in the fourteenth century during a Crusade, but it portrays flagellants, witch burnings, and the black plague, all of which occurred centuries later; the Crusades actually took place during optimistic times. While artistic license can be given to the writer, Ingmar Bergman, these things create a false image in the public conscience.

[6] Historian Thomas Madden wrote of the movie, “it is a mixture of 19th century Romanticism and modern Hollywood wishful-thinking.”

[7] E.g., Koran 2:191-193, 2:244, 2:216, 3:56, 3:151, 4:74, 4:76, 4:89, 4:95, 4:104, 5:33, 8:12, 8:15, 8:39, 8:57, 8:59-60, 8:65, 9:5, 9:14, 9:20, 9:29, 9:30, 9:38-39, 9:41-42, 9:73, 9:88, 9:111, 9:123, 17:16, 18:65-81, 21:24, 25:52, 33:60-62, 47:3-4, 47:35, 48:17, 48:29, 61:4, 61:10-12, 66:9.

[8] Madden, p. 34

About charliej373

Charlie Johnston is a former newspaper editor, radio talk show host and political consultant. From Feb. 11, 2011 to Aug. 21, 2012, he walked 3,200 miles across the country, sleeping in the woods, meeting people and praying as he went. He has received prophetic visitation all his life, which he has vetted through a trio of priests over the last 20 years, and now speaks publicly about on this site. Yet he emphasizes that we find God most surely through the ordinary, doing the little things we should with faith and fidelity. Hence the name, The Next Right Step. The visitations inform his work, but are not the focus of it. He lives in the Archdiocese of Denver in the United States.
This entry was posted in General, Guest Columns and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to The Beginning of the Crusades

  1. ellenchris says:

    Please excuse the vanity in this statement, but I do have a strong background in history. Which I say only to strengthen my total support for this article: these guys really know what they are talking about! Christians were not in any way the aggressors. Muslims were lopping people’s heads off from the git-n-go in the name of conquering the world for Allah. (And “Allah” had nothing to do with the God of Abraham — it was/is the name of the Moon god of Muhammed’s tribe.) While the Crusaders were not always correct or pure in what they did, they were brave men who sacrificed a lot to protect, defend and liberate Christians who were being enslaved at best and slaughtered at worst. Europe was between the pincers of Islam: right up to Vienna in the east and the Pyrenees in the west, with enclaves in the middle. None of us would be here if the Christian world had not fought back against their violent aggression. Thank you, David, Joe and Charlie for having the courage to tell the Truth.


    • charliej373 says:

      Thank you, Ellen. When I was on my pilgrimage, Al was one of the friends who called me regularly. In the midst of it, he received the inspiration to research Raymond and become an expert on the period – and to write a book on him. We talk about that from time to time. God bless him, he credits me in some measure for inspiring him to take the matter up. But I was dazzled to see that two of his sons have really taken it up with him…and even more dazzled that, at 18 and 20 or 21, they have such a clear-headed grasp of their subject.

      But I shouldn’t be surprised. A few years ago I was visiting and Al wanted me to take a look at something his oldest daughter, Katie, had written. I have been writing professionally for a long time. Al knew I get asked to take a look at such things constantly. Well, when I dropped by his law office to chat about it after having read it, I was a little slow in gathering what I wanted to say. Al said, “Charlie, if its really bad, you can tell me. We are very old friends who have been both allies and antagonists for a very long time.” That got me going. I told him it was not that it was bad, but that I was shocked at how very good it was. I am accustomed to looking for good points that I can hang my hat on, but her piece was so closely reasoned and supported I told him I thought she had the potential for a genuinely world-class intellect. Al and his wife, Kathy, have done a profound job in raising a house full of interesting, exuberant and brilliant kids. It shows here.


    • marti says:

      Very enlightening! The moon god…no wonder our Lady is clothed with the sun standing on the moon!!


  2. Mary Wilhelmy says:

    Wow! Very impressive. A truly beautiful family, inside and out. There is HOPE. There is a Future! Thank you, thank you for this post.


  3. Kati says:

    I had to drive to my sister’s today and was listening to EWTN on the way home. A guest (whose name unfortunately I cannot remember) was talking about the history of Mohammed (his book is about Islam and Christianity). He stated that Mohammed, learning from his own experiences, basically developed a tactic that was Religious, Political and Militaristic (RPM). This is the model followed by a great many of his followers as Mohammed is considered the MODEL (Suna, I think he called it). I wish I could have heard the entire interview. I’ll have to research to see if I can find the name of the that guest gentleman. I don’t know if the show was taped or live.


  4. radiclaudio says:

    Excellent article. Very insightful and will be helpful to recall when I here about the Crusades spoken of as a way to discredit Christianity, as I often do. Thank to you Charlie and Joe and David too.


  5. jaymkay60 says:

    Wow, what a co-incidence for me as I’m currently staying in the historic Templar city of Tomar, in Portugal, and have just finished an hours-long – but intensely interesting – tour of their major stronghold here. When suppressed brutally by Philip of France they were given refuge in Portugal where they changed (with Papal approval) to being the “Cavaleiros de Cristo”, the Knights of Christ, and flourished so greatly that they played a large part in the “voyages of discovery”. Tomar is intensely proud of its Templar history, no pussyfooting around the issue so as not to “cause offence”. Also, Mass this morning in the ancient church of San Joao (the Baptist) was packed – standing room only, and many young people, young families etc. So perhaps in Portugal the dogma of the faith will always be kept. I certainly felt the contrast with my own benighted country anyway (Ireland).


  6. Art L says:

    Very well written article on the truth behind the Crusades! Look forward to reading David & Joe’s new book. If I may, I would like to recommend another historical novel, “Angels in Iron” by Nicholas Prata, which portrays the events surrounding the siege of Malta in the 14th Century, at that time held by the Knights Hospitallers, and by Sulieman the Magnificient. It is the story of one of the three major historical battles that is credited with saving Western Civilization from the brutality of the Muslim conquest of Europe.


    • charliej373 says:

      I’ll take a look at it, Art. And actually, the book is being written by David and Joe’s father, Al. Their interest in the subject became intense because of the book their Dad is working on. And as an old friend, he wanted to show me how sharp his kids have become on the matter. He was right – and I’m glad he did it this way.


  7. MM Bev says:

    I wish to address the name Our Lady of Tepeyac, which is also inaccurate as a title, because it is the name of the hill–Tepeyac Hill. The “combination of vowels and consonants in the name Guadalupe is impossible in Nahuati. So it is impossible that she could be called Gaudalupe, a meaningless sound in Nahuati. The Aztec word that is phonetically closest to Guadalupe is Coatlaxopeuh, which means: ‘she conquers the serpent.’….. The word ‘Guadalupe’ can only be a Spanish corruption, a mis-hearing or a misinterpretation. It was clear that the Spaniards could only have understood it as Guadalupe, and nothing but Guadalupe. They loved their Spanish homeland and were mad about the Black Virgin of the village of Guadalupe,…..southwest of Madrid. (page 128, “Maria of Guadalupe”, by Paul Badde)

    “Now, Guadalupe is not a Spanish or Nahuatl word. Nahuatl lacks the consonants G and D. Rather, it is Arabic: Wadi al Lub, which means “River of Black Gravel.” Further, Guadalupe does not seem to have been the original name. But it is understandable that God may have wished for the Arabic title of Guadalupe to become the very soul of that Mexico that was born with her. That is the title with which his Mother had been venerated for centuries as the Queen of Spain, the motherland of those who brought the faith to Mexico.. …..nothing more appropriate for the one who declared herself ‘honored to be the compassionate Mother of all, both you and all the peoples here in this land, and still others who are my beloved, who call to me, seeking me, those who honor me’ than to have a Jewish maiden with an Arabic name assimilated by Spain become the very soul of the American continent.” (page 53)
    Earlier in this book as she is quoted speaking in the first apparition to Juan, she says, “Know, and be assured, my dearest son, that I am the Perfect Ever Virgin, Holy Mary, the Mother of the one true God, of Ipalnemohuani (the One through whom all live), of Teyocoyani (the Creator of human beings), of Tloque Nahuaque (the Lord of nearness and closeness), of Ilhuicahua Tlaltipaque (the Lord of Heaven and Earth)….(page 18, “Our Lady of Guadalupe – A New Interpretation of the Story, Apparitions, and Image”, by Jose Luis Guerrero.)

    Truly it is an explosion of meaning upon meaning upon meaning as the symbolism is understood as the Amerindians read “our Lady”. (And, truly overwhelming to me, my missionary brother can speak this language and worked among these people for a period of time long ago-and I didn’t realize it! How much I could have asked him!)

    In an earlier posting, Charlie, I believe you mentioned the first invasion will be a mixture that will involve the Muslim Jihadists and others. It will be our beseeching of Our Lady of Guadalupe which will convert them-swiftly. Perhaps this more clearly explains why. Both of these books contain so much more information that explains events of long ago, lost to us because we do not know the Nahuati, of which the original has had a fresh and new translation. The symbolism is virtually indescribable, and I thought I pretty much knew it all. Between these two books, it becomes clear that she appeared as she who was described by another John, in Revelations 12.


  8. MM Bev says:

    OK. I can hardly see, so this will be short. There were two swords at the Last Supper (which Jesus didn’t seem strung out about). Luke Ch 22:38.
    I always figured that when He told Peter to put up his sword after whopping off the guards ear, He meant that now wasn’t the time to use it.

    If one begins reading at the beginning of the passage entitled “Instructions for the Time of Crisis”, Jesus makes it very, very clear we are going to need at some point to be purchasing armaments. Luke Ch 22:35 and following.


  9. MM Bev says:

    And last (and I can hear everyone saying, “Thank you, God”), I will quote a tinsy bit of what life was like under domination of the Muslims in the Middle Ages. (Surprise-it wasn’t fun.) I hope this book sells literally millions of copies to counteract the revisionist history we have been faced with for decades (maybe ever centuries.). We know and see the results of ISIS on the Christians and others . No matter how ;you twist it, the Koran does explicitly say to kill the infidels (and that’s all of us, and tells a variety of ways how. And they are being used.) This was just for the countries in which they “oversaw” but didn’t take full possession of.

    “Devsirme” was the “boy tribute” routinely collected by the Turks from conquered peoples. It took different forms as it developed, but everywhere it was practiced it meant that parents were forced to hand over some of their make children to the Turks. …..Ottoman conquerors (and was that so long ago?) took masses of slaves, men, women, and children, as we will observe, but the requisitioning of the boys in particular was made a regular system subject to minute regulations. It is estimated that about a FIFTH of the children of Eastern and Central Europe were taken by the Turks as tribute; collection seems to have varied according to the needs of their Turkish overlords in the beginning, and later became an annual practice in some places. (Of course, there was also monetary tribute, too.)
    Devsirme typically involved seizing boys aged fourteen to twenty and training them for diplomatic and military roles in the growing Ottoman Empire. Recruitment agents would choose the fittest and most attractive boys and take them away to the court of the sultan, where they were raised as Muslims (possibly forced to submit to an excruciating circumcision) and trained extensively for their new roles, including service in the Janissary corps, the elite Ottoman infantry composed almost entirely of former Christians., They would never be allowed to marry of own property, but they could rise to relatively high positions of authority.
    A similar Ottoman institution was the “icoglan”, a variation of the “devsirme”, involved the collection of little boys six to ten years of age. They too were converted to Islam, shut up in the sultan’s palace under the care of eunuchs, and rigorously trained for fourteen years, after which they filled positions in the sultan’s administration…..within this cruel system there was room for corruption and the possibility of an even worse fate for the captives. The kidnappers might take more children than they needed and try to sell the rest back to the parents. If parents couldn’t purchase them, , the boys would become ordinary chattel slaves, and be sold in a slave market.
    Those kids were usually sent far away. Of the few that escaped and made it back home, would find their fathers cruelly punished, which discouraged further escape most effectively.
    “Then there was the practice of taking boys who were attractive as well as robust, that they would end up as victims of Turkish pederasty. (a practice technically forbidden by the Muslim religion, but there are many references to it in historical records). (And it is still being done. I mean, just assuming, when I see a picture of Kolmani tongue kissing a boy about ten years old from one of the schools.) Knowing it would be enough to sicken any parent watching his child depart with the Janissaries.”

    And this both outrages me and sickens me! It is utterly beyond the anything except a sick, repulsive mind There is a tendency on the part of some admirers of the ottomans to minimize these atrocities. More than one historian has excused the two practices described as the equivalent of sending a child away for a prestigious education and training for a lucrative career. The describe “devsirme and its variations as A MEANS OF BETTERMENT FOR THE CHILDREN of the rustics of Europe. Bloody, sick, warped revisionists! Makes you want to vomit.

    I can’t write any more of this stuff, and believe me, there is lots more. And slaves were not taken just from Europe. Incredible numbers from so many lands were taken just as chattel slaves. (African slaves for America are almost insignificant in comparison numbers, although no slavery if any kind is acceptable or excusable. (And we have incalculable numbers of slaves today.) Just be aware that it is not against the Muslim religion to lie to an infidel, but rather a mark of intelligence and cunning.

    THANK GOD FOR THE CRUSADES. HAD THOSE PEOPLE CHOSEN NOT TO FIGHT WE REALLY WOULD ALL BE UNDER THIS SYSTEM. Nothing ever goes perfectly. Were there wrongs done? Yes. Will there be wrongs done as we contend with today’s situation against what is coming our way? Yes. Should we defend ourselves and protect our loved ones? Well, that evangelists dream, if comes to fruition, may mean yes. His advice was excellent. Start now. Know your sherrifs, and police well. Support them (good ones) and be aware that God may call upon us to protect our loved ones and fellow countrymen. BUT FIRST- WE MUST HAVE A DEEP, DEEP, CLEAVING TO GOD, AND AN INCREDIBLE UNDERSTANDING OF HIS WORD. Which means, read your bible, and allow His word to enlighten your actions. And take a tip from Charlie. I sure am. Acknowledge God, get right with Him, take the next right step and be a sign of HOPE. Our world needs HOPE so badly-and so do we. At least when we come here, we leave full to the brim with that hope. Believe me when I say, I need this as much for me, as I am making it a comment.



  10. narnialion54 says:

    Here we go….Level 8

    The Crusade has begun:

    from a commenter at the end of article

    Enkido Shamash · Stockholm University
    We, the Christians of Iraq, are actually the indigenous people of Iraq. Our ethnicity is ASSYRIAN. We have lived in Iraq for 7 000 years. Unfortunatly we are a minority today due to genocides and massacres committed against us by Kurds, Arabs, Turks, Persians.

    We need help to survive in our ancestral lands. We aim to have a selfrule on the Nineveh Plains which is the heart of ancient Assyria. Right now, the Islamic State has occupied the Nineveh Plains and they need to be pushed back. Another problem is that the Kurds (who are Iranians from the Zagros Mountains and also have occupied Assyria and committed genocides against the Assyrians in 1915 and 1933) are also against the Assyrians’ national rights as indigenous people. They want to occupy Nineveh Plains and turn us into “Christian Kurds”. We need support from the world!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s