Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Crusades

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Crusades

    ironman422
    Registered User
    (1/1/04 8:42)
    Reply | Edit Re: CRUSADERS
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I believe the aim of the Crusades was not unjustified, although many of the acts committed by the Crusaders were.

    Christian Europe had been at the receiving end of an Arab and Turkish onslaught for over 400 years when the First Crusade was launched. Moors from Africa invaded and conquered Spain, and were only stopped at Tours in NW France by Charles Martel in 732.

    Arabs were running amok in the Mediterranean, conquering Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica, parts of southern Italy, sacking Rome and St. Peter's basilica in 846 A.D. forcing the Pope to flee.

    Throughout the 7th-9th centuries, there were multiple attacks on Constantinople by Arab fleets.

    The Byzantines were being invaded by Seljuk Turk armies in the 10th and 11th centuries.

    In the 10th century Moors from Andalusia set up pirate dens along the coast of southern France, disrupting commerce, raiding towns such as Marseilles, taking slaves, etc.

    To suggest that the Crusades were unjustified wars of conquest is short-sighted.
    208
    Yes
    21.63%
    45
    Yes, but many of the acts committed during the Crusades were not
    34.13%
    71
    No
    44.23%
    92
    "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

  • #2
    The Europeans were responding to being attacked. Doubt that any acts committed by the Euros were any worst then acts committed by the Muslims. Besides judging ancient conflicts by modern standards is a waste of time.

    Comment


    • #3
      I agree that you cannot judge the ast by today's standards. For that reason i am not sure you can attribute more to the attacks on the Euros. they weren't coordinated int eh same way the response was.

      Also we know the standards of the response, it was those 2000 year old teachings.
      at

      Comment


      • #4
        The crusades were begun with very noble and justified reasons. But as with anything that human hands touch, the methods used to make the idea come to life were less then noble.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Trooth
          I agree that you cannot judge the ast by today's standards. For that reason i am not sure you can attribute more to the attacks on the Euros. they weren't coordinated int eh same way the response was.

          Also we know the standards of the response, it was those 2000 year old teachings.
          Which were interpreted very differently 1000 years ago.

          Comment


          • #6
            Well, that's an assumption that both the Crusaders and the Sword of Islam were both united against each other. The fact was that it was not one big war nor a bunch of little wars but a migration of both east and west of marauders.

            What people tend to forget is that the Turks originally came from the Mongol Steppes and their move into the Middle East was anything but peaceful. Perhaps only the Mongols surpassed their feriocity.

            Comment


            • #7
              My point is that whatever your interpretation. People of the time felt that the only way to achieve a proper society was to ensure that only their morality and culture was pre-eminant. They took their justifcation for this from their teachings and proceeded to debate the matter at length using swords.
              at

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Trooth
                My point is that whatever your interpretation. People of the time felt that the only way to achieve a proper society was to ensure that only their morality and culture was pre-eminant. They took their justifcation for this from their teachings and proceeded to debate the matter at length using swords.
                So that makes the Crusades unjustified? How?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Because it isn't a civilised way to behave. And one of the principles of the crusades was to liberate the civilised lands from the barbarians.

                  If we took that argument to its logical conclusion we would still believe the earth was flat, that the heavans revolved around it and the different races of humans were in fact different species.
                  at

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Trooth
                    Because it isn't a civilised way to behave. And one of the principles of the crusades was to liberate the civilised lands from the barbarians.

                    If we took that argument to its logical conclusion we would still believe the earth was flat, that the heavans revolved around it and the different races of humans were in fact different species.
                    The ancient Europeans simply respond to and invasion of their lands with an attack of their own. I can't fault them for taking the only course they could. You label them uncivilized. Be what standard can you judge a 1000 year people. Did they kill civilians? Sure. But that was the reality of the time.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Well, the interpretation fo the time was the the vile race should be removed from the civilised lands int he name of Christ and Christ's teachings. Further they were to not be contained, or controlled by wiped out.

                      Christ's teachings remain the same today as they were then and whislt i am not a religious person i am not convinced He would endorse said genocide.
                      at

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Trooth
                        Well, the interpretation fo the time was the the vile race should be removed from the civilised lands int he name of Christ and Christ's teachings. Further they were to not be contained, or controlled by wiped out.

                        Christ's teachings remain the same today as they were then and whislt i am not a religious person i am not convinced He would endorse said genocide.
                        Christís teachings are in fact very different today, then they would 1000 years ago. For one, those teachings are put in a very flowery light now. A thousand years Jesus wasn't seen as all peace and love, like he is today.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I think people got alot of things mixed up here. There were over 5 major Crusades and about 11 minor ones. Not all of them and in fact, not one can be attributed to any one single goal.

                          To state that Europe was responding to Islamic invasions ignore the fact that Europe wasn't united. The English couldn't care less about the Spaniards and their Crusades against the Moors. The French were allied with the Turks to check the Russians. In fact, the Europeans were fighting more amongst themselves than against Islam. Even Richard the Lionhearted was kidnapped for ransom in Europe.

                          About the only thing that gave the Crusades some sort of historical unity was the call by the various Popes to embark on liberating the Holy Lands.

                          On the other side of the coin, the Arabs were far from being united. Salidin was not a military leader by any stretch of the imagination. He managed to negotiate a truce between the various factions and even then, it wasn't wholly united. You've had various tribes that were actually bribed by Constinople to stand aside.

                          About the only thing that can be said about the Crusades was that it was a mess from beginning to end.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Off the top of my head. Probably the biggest screw up was when Jerusalem was taken the first time. English Knights, maybe also French Knights.

                            They tried three times to get over the wall, into the city. Figuring God was mad at them. They decided to atone for any sins. By walking around the city barefoot. Once each time for all three times they were kept out.

                            As soon as they made the third trip around. They rushed to put thier shoes back on. And attacked Jerusalem in a frenzy.

                            This time, they managed to breach the wall. Then proceeded to start killing Muslims and Christians alike. The Jews in Jerusalem tried to bribe the Knights. And were instead locked in a Synagogue, and it was burned down.

                            The same book I read that from, said that in some places the blood was knee deep. And that is where the saying, "The streets shall flow with the blood of the non-believers", originated from.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I personally that it's sick that those animals set out to "liberate" the "Holy Lands" at the behest of the Pope, the "supreme spritual leader" of Christianity and ended up raping, butchering and plundering everything they happened upon that wasnt bolted to the ground
                              TwentyFiveFortyFive

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X