Page 1 of 5

The Crusades

Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 6:59 pm
by Nalaris
Simple topic. The Crusades. Would the world be better off if they hadn't happened? Were they right, wrong, somewhere in the middle? Was each crusade different or were they all basically the same? Can the Crusades be related to the conquistadors, the imperialism in the Middle-East, or (shudder) the war in Iraq?
Debate, but refrain from swearing, it's annoying and, quite frankly, it makes you look like a moron.

Re: The Crusades

Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 11:54 pm
by nitefyre
Nalaris wrote:Simple topic. The Crusades. Would the world be better off if they hadn't happened? Were they right, wrong, somewhere in the middle? Was each crusade different or were they all basically the same? Can the Crusades be related to the conquistadors, the imperialism in the Middle-East, or (shudder) the war in Iraq?
Debate, but refrain from swearing, it's annoying and, quite frankly, it makes you look like a moron.


History's 20/20...

Better off if they didn't happen? Sure, ceteris paribus.

Were they 'right'? Righteous feeling, perhaps? Right for the world, probably not.

Was each crusade different? Similar motivations but of course, like everything, there are differences in time, technology, characters, etc.

Were the crusades related to future events in time? Yes, most events in history are based, related or connected to another similar event somehow. The turmoil in Iraq can be drawn back to the beginning of the three religions, the crusades, WWI's collapse of the Ottoman Empire and Britain's ensuing attempt to secure its mandate. Or then again, you can look at it in terms of contemporary politics, Saddam's rise to power, the Iran-Iraq proxy conflict and US foreign policy in the Cold War, Oil, 9/11...etc. I think you pretty much figure that after High School World History.

Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 1:00 am
by Pie
Ok, lets start of.

better if the crusades never happened? It would have been beter if the muslims(No ofenc) Hadn't attacked jeruselim and if the cristins, jews, and muslims could have lived in peac.

It would have been better if the knights templar(I believ... but it was in a movie, so you never know) Didn't start a war with Saladin.

It would have been better if so many lives WERENT LOST IN THE WAR.

But what would have happened if the crusades didn't happen? Who knows? Perhaps all of the extra knights would have gon to war and the byzantine empyer would engulf the entyer of europe. So, lets not remenence on the past.

Were they right? NO!!!! HELL NO!!!!!

Jeruselim shouldn't have been invaded in the first place. Also, the teachings of the catholic church that Killing an infadel wasn't murder, but the path to hevin is COMPLEATLY RONG. Also, WAR BECOUS OF RELIGIN IS ALSO RONG. Just let them worship their oun god, you can worship yours, and everyone is happy.

are the crusades different?

... All in all, cindof. The basic princible, that one country attacks and captures a city, another group of contrys take it back is part of this cherade, BUT, Jerusilem was attacked becous of RELIGOUS BELIEFS, one of the resons of the Al Qida.. or whatever..... and thus i have stated that the imperialism of the middle east is... not tru. In the middle east, nothing like the crusades have happened. At least, nothing in my knowlage.. wich.. i might be rong.

Still, its RELIGIOS INDIFERENC!!! Is it indeferance? I think indiferance means that you fors your ideas apon somone els.

Also, in the crusades, there was always the SPOILS OF WAR. IN the war in Iraq, no spoils, exept for infermation, and perhaps oil, and of course, FREEDOM!!!!!



Was each crusade different? NO!!!!

The basic needs of a 1000A.D. Crusade. A king thinks that freeing jerusilem will free him frome sin. He goes into Europe to find recruts. he comes out of europe, "Liberates" a few citys, and a few thousand gold, trys for jerusilem, fails, or wins, and everyone goes on with there lives..... that is, those that havent LOST THERE LIVES FOR RILIGIOS INDIFERENCE(Again.. right word? I don't know)

There you go. I WIN1!!!

Re: The Crusades

Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 1:46 am
by Thetaris
Nalaris wrote:Debate, but refrain from swearing, it's annoying and, quite frankly, it makes you look like a moron.


.......Moron is a swear word...

Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 2:59 am
by Pie
YOU BOTH SWERED!! YOU BOTH LOOK LIKE MORONS!! OH NO!!! NOW I'M A MORON!!!!!

Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 3:01 am
by MrPenguin589
We're all morons... but I have a mohawk. :D

Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 3:16 am
by Pie
well.. .I once had this hamster... looked AWSOM in a moehawk, AND IT ATE MY HOMWORK!!! No seriously, it would nibble on the answer sheat. I ALMOST got it to eat that paper, but NOOO, THE ANSWERS WERE STILL THERE!!! Darn hamster.

Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 5:09 am
by Torch
DISCLAIMER: This post is likely outright offensive to some, so proceed with caution. And I'm not picking on Christians, those same principles apply to almost all beliefs, but that's what I'm most familiar with.

Interesting topic. Are you including the current Crusade, er, liberation of Iraq?

The reality is humans don't play well together, at least not in the big picture. It's easy to blame religion, or politics, or ethnic cleansing, or whatever one chooses. For particular situations, one, or usually more, factors influence us to kill each other.

The big difference with religious actions are the participants truly believe they are "right" in the eyes of a god. This allows for all sorts of atrocities, which are "sanctioned" by their god as right. It's funny that the same Christians who condemn terrorists acting in the name of their god proclaim the Bible is true in its entirety. That of course includes things like the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, all the way down to the children, by their "God of love" and that same god instructing his followers to kill off many people in gruesome ways. (Go try taking out an entire town with the jawbone of an ass and keep it PG-13.) Yet these same people take offense if someone else follows their own beliefs to the same extent, and most religions cry foul when any other belief system displays its beliefs.

I think all violence in the name of any god is pretty much just a human rationalization for doing what they want and trying to make their belief system rule, therefore it's more about power than spirituality.

Crusades? Wrong.
Terrorist attacks in the name of any god? Wrong.
Selectively killing off a people because of their beliefs or non-beliefs? Wrong.

On the flipside, there's something to be said for the participants in these actions: At least they truly believe what they say they believe, and are willing to go to any length to do it. Doesn't make their actions right, but at least they live what they say. Go up to any Christian and slap him or ask for his coat. See how many turn the other cheek or give you both their coat and their shirt too. Of course, that's a lot to expect, it was only some guy named Jesus that said to do those things, and he isn't that prominent in that particular doctrine. :roll: They're probably not relevant today. We only quote verbatim and follow the letter of the word when it suits us, like to condemn gays or something like that, and not when it involves swallowing our pride or responsibility for our actions.

So for the extremists: that's 10 points for conviction and non-hypocrisy, but minus 20 for their actions.

Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 6:18 am
by Thetaris
Bah, I know little about the Crusades, but here's my view.

Anyone that kills anyone for something they believe in is WRONG.

Anyone that kills anyone who will kill for their belief IS RIGHT.

It's either this:
a) Kill bad guy, save many people
or
b) Let bad guy kill people, kill bad guy.

That way you're losing X and saving Y rather than lose X and Y at the same time.

Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 6:33 am
by Torch
Thetaris wrote:Anyone that kills anyone for something they believe in is WRONG.

Anyone that kills anyone who will kill for their belief IS RIGHT.


But using this logic, everyone can kill anyone.

If I (rightly, according to the second statement) kill person A because I believe in killing anyone who will kill for their beliefs, and either they have or I think they will, then I'm killing them for my beliefs, which makes me wrong. This then makes me fair game for anyone believing what I believe, since I've killed for my beliefs of this ideology and that makes them right. But if they're willing to kill me for my beliefs, obviously they believe the same thing, and then someone is right to kill them... :shock:

While on the surface this sounds great, it's this sort of thinking that causes more death than it saves, since the very nature of the argument makes all those "right" also fit into the "wrong" category, and therefore it's then right to kill them too.

Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 12:06 pm
by kronos
better if the crusades never happened? It would have been beter if the muslims(No ofenc) Hadn't attacked jeruselim and if the cristins, jews, and muslims could have lived in peac.


Pie, i beleive jerusalem was orginally Muslim...the first crusade was to claim the city for the Christians. You are basing you views on teh movie Kingdom of heaven..which i think im not sure was the third crusade. In total there was 7.

Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 1:39 pm
by formerly known as hf
Thetaris wrote:Anyone that kills anyone for something they believe in is WRONG.

Anyone that kills anyone who will kill for their belief IS RIGHT.
That's a cyclic argument, you'll end up dead no matter which part you followed, as torch pointed out.

Bush was told by God to attack Iraq, making it a religious war. The similarities to the Crusades, in many ways, are striking.

Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 7:03 pm
by Mafia Salad
It looks like a lot of people look at the crusades and see a holy war between religions and nothing more. But it was a lot more complex then that, and it isn't that hard to find out what else was going on that lead up to the crusades.

European Christians had been going on pilgrimages to Jerusalem and the rest of the "Holy Land" for centuries before the crusades, and for 3-4 hundred years it was ruled by Muslims. This didn't bother the Christians or the Jews who lived and traveled there, they all got along.

The trouble came when the Seljuk Turks took over as the power in the area, and started turning the pilgrims away. How would you feel if you spent your whole life saving and working to visit the land of your savior and were sent home by people who don't even believe your God to be anything more than a prophet. The more insistent pilgrims were killed for not turning back.

On top of this, a lot of people were making money transporting, feeding, housing and selling stuff to the pilgrims, most prominently the Eastern Roman Empire. and now their sources of income were being killed or sent home to tell there friends and family not to go.

I don't know a lot of the battle accounts or even very many of the people involved, so I'd just make a fool of myself if I went into that part of it.

What I think is the turning point of the crusades from a war to protect Christians and the places they consider holy to a race for riches and power is after the first crusade when the Europeans set up there own kingdoms instead of giving control of the area back to the people who were in charge of it before the Seljuk Turks came in. From there they started turning on their Muslim allies, the local Jews, and even each other. The wealth and stories that the first crusaders brought back home with them attracted different kinds of people to the next crusades then there were on the first one.

I do think that the crusades had a major impact in history, if they had not taken place the more violent Muslims who were expanding their power in the Middle East would have gained more power and possibly conquered most of Western Europe and stopped or dramatically altered the development of western civilization. But that’s all speculation, the crusades did happen and there is no accurate way of changing that now or seeing what the world would be like if they hadn’t.

EDIT: I'm talking about the historic crusades from Western Europe to the Middle East in the 11th 12th & 13th century, not all the other wars that people call crusades, although many of those are interesting too.

Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2006 6:30 am
by Nalaris
Mafia Salad wrote:The trouble came when the Seljuk Turks took over as the power in the area, and started turning the pilgrims away. How would you feel if you spent your whole life saving and working to visit the land of your savior and were sent home by people who don't even believe your God to be anything more than a prophet. The more insistent pilgrims were killed for not turning back.

On top of this, a lot of people were making money transporting, feeding, housing and selling stuff to the pilgrims, most prominently the Eastern Roman Empire. and now their sources of income were being killed or sent home to tell there friends and family not to go.


It warms my heart to see that someone on this forum actually knows why the first crusade was fought. Because the Seljuk Turks were exploiting or sometimes killing the pilgrims who were Jerusalem bound. Thank you, Mafia Salad. Thank you very much.

Did the Pope or any of the Counts, Kings, Dukes, etc. who went on the crusades have ulterior motives? Some certainly did. Some defied the Pope by not even going to Eastern Europe and just slaughtering Jews in modern day Germany. The Pope didn't like this. Few people did. But no one stopped them.

The Second Crusade was mostly an attempt to protect the takings from the First Crusade, but it failed.

The Third Crusade was an effort to retake Jerusalem which had fallen between the Second and Third Crusades (yes, Jerusalem was in Christian hands during the Second Crusade. It promptly fell out of them.), and quite frankly would've succeeded in capturing Egypt, Saladin's power base, and then Juresalem, had Prince John been a good little Steward and not sold English land to the French. This drew Richard away, and the Third Crusade promptly fell apart.

The Fourth Crusade was fought against the Byzantine Empire because they pretty much betrayed the other crusading nobles in earlier crusades. Western Europe won.

After that, it all follows one, easy to remember dogma: Go try to capture Jerusalem from X direction and fail.

The Muslim world was largely unaffected by the crusades. They didn't even know they happened, and an European king traveled to the tomb of Saladin and found it in terrible disrepair, because at the time, the Muslim world didn't care. It was part of the uncivilized outside, not the far more interesting Dar-el Islam, World of Islam. Muslims didn't remember the Crusades until the Middle-East saw European colonization in the form of the British Economic Imperialism of the 1800's. The Crusades were colored the same way Imperialism was.

Now that my long and probably boring history is over, I'm going to make a thought provoking statement: Is there any organisation, state, movement, ideal, religion, etc. that is not abhorred by things that have outlived it? Think of one thing that no longer exists today from those categories and consider how most people think of it. Hippies. The Roman Empire. Medieval Europe. etc.

And moron is a swear word? Really? Since when? Where? Why?

Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 8:17 pm
by Surly
There are many different ways of interpreting the causes of the First Crusade... but ultimately that line of thought is pointless... :P

Would I think the world would be better if there had been no crusades? No. Because then I wouldn't be studying medieval history are degree level.

In the words of Pie... I WIN

Oh, can we discuss the Albegensian Crusades? They are far more... pointless.

Burn the heretic!!