Your thoughts on the Crusades?

Jan 7, 2013
64
0
#1
Hello everyone! Sir. Charles Wellington III here with an amazing thread again. Either way, what is your opinion on the Holy Crusades?

I have studied the Crusades quite extensively, and know quite a bit about them, the events, and the people involved, but how do you feel about them? Were they Justified?

My thoughts: Yes they were justified, and I believe the Pope had every right to initiate a call to arms from the reaches of Christendom - as the Byzantine Empire was under constant attack from Islam.
 

chris7375

Secretary of State
Jun 11, 2012
740
8
Stuart
#2
I myself find it could have been avoided. It was a power play more or less. It was a battle for the right of land whether Jesus walked on the land or not. Not enough to fight over. The things I have read also probably not as much as you have pointed to a power play like governments do today.
 

clax

Banned
Jan 6, 2012
1,975
4
Texas
#3
I understand that the church was using religious dogma to justify wars in order to establish trade routes with the west indies
 

chris7375

Secretary of State
Jun 11, 2012
740
8
Stuart
#4
I understand that the church was using religious dogma to justify wars in order to establish trade routes with the west indies
Power playing like I said I would agree. Though again my reading on this subject is limited it had more to do with them using religion as a way to coral the people to fight for a cause that really was not the cause to begin with. I hope that makes sense :D.
 

clax

Banned
Jan 6, 2012
1,975
4
Texas
#6
Power playing like I said I would agree. Though again my reading on this subject is limited it had more to do with them using religion as a way to coral the people to fight for a cause that really was not the cause to begin with. I hope that makes sense :D.
My knowledge is limited, just read some dusty old books for history class in college.
 
Jan 7, 2013
64
0
#7
I disagree with Chris, and Clax. Clax, there were already trade routes to the West Indies (the Byzantine Empire was a large consumer of these goods actually; Spices, Pepper, Silk, ect). And Chris, it was avoided for some time. When there was a presence of both Muslim, and Christian influence, there was free reign within the Holy land, that was until the Muslims started (first) attacking pilgrimages, of both faiths, to and from the Holy land... then the initial POWER GRAB that later caused the Crusades.
 

chris7375

Secretary of State
Jun 11, 2012
740
8
Stuart
#8
I disagree with Chris, and Clax. Clax, there were already trade routes to the West Indies (the Byzantine Empire was a large consumer of these goods actually; Spices, Pepper, Silk, ect). And Chris, it was avoided for some time. When there was a presence of both Muslim, and Christian influence, there was free reign within the Holy land, that was until the Muslims started (first) attacking pilgrimages, of both faiths, to and from the Holy land... then the initial POWER GRAB that later caused the Crusades.
How many Crusades were there 12 I think I can't remember. It was a fight for land. The land worshipped by all sides. Muslims, Jews, Christians. You have to look at the time Christian Pilgrimages were attack in Europe also due to the lack of belief. The Muslims were not the first to attack Christian Pilgrims.

Though I don't agree with Muslim doctrine you and I have discussed this before. Each crusade was for control of land.
 
Oct 25, 2012
3,775
614
Louisville, Ky
#9
War sucks...Religion Sucks....Religious War Sucks Doubly.

Regardless of the validity of the cause in the individual mind, it was an unfortunate and bloody period in Human History.
 
Dec 20, 2012
677
12
Florida
#12
The first Crusade did not begin until 477 years after Mo the Pedophile and his merry men started going around attacking caravans and killing people. During that 477 years, marauding Muslims conquered more land on 3 continents than the Roman Empire at its height, while killing millions of people. So was the Crusades justified ? The only thing I question about it is >> what took the Pope and the Crusaders so long to act against this madness ?
 
Jan 7, 2013
78
0
Sanity is relative
#13
I see nothing justified in an attempt to dominate one culture over another by instituting war.

They weren't there to save those who were enslaved, free other people from degradation or torture.

They used to the church as an excuse to dominate a culture, and invade their lands.
 
Jan 7, 2013
64
0
#14
The first Crusade did not begin until 477 years after Mo the Pedophile and his merry men started going around attacking caravans and killing people. During that 477 years, marauding Muslims conquered more land on 3 continents than the Roman Empire at its height, while killing millions of people. So was the Crusades justified ? The only thing I question about it is >> what took the Pope and the Crusaders so long to act against this madness ?
*Squishy Skeever 'likes' this post*
 
Jan 7, 2013
64
0
#15
What else is funny, did you nay-sayers know that Islam glorifies the Crusades to this day? Every day, there are shops and halls, and just random public gatherings where they tell stories about killing infidels, and the sort (US).

They marvel at the fact that so many Christians were killed during this time... they deserved nothing less than the blade.
 
Jan 7, 2013
78
0
Sanity is relative
#16
What else is funny, did you nay-sayers know that Islam glorifies the Crusades to this day? Every day, there are shops and halls, and just random public gatherings where they tell stories about killing infidels, and the sort (US).

They marvel at the fact that so many Christians were killed during this time... they deserved nothing less than the blade.
So, you're alright with killing Muslims, because 1000 or so years ago, Muslims killed Christians in defense of their lands and culture.

Really?
 
Jan 7, 2013
78
0
Sanity is relative
#19
Da faq'? where did you get that from GG? Your anus would be high on my list. I never said that.

First, leave my body parts out of it, or we are going to end up in the same place we were before. Attack the thought, not the poster.

You felt they should be 'put to the sword'. That has only one interpretation.
 

Similar Discussions