The Crusades

In short it is impossible to evealuate the morality of the crusades haveing a modern viewpoint.

LightSpectra said:

The Ottomans didn't exist until after the Crusades were over. Regardless: so then they're just as justified as all of the Muslim conquests? It's not "territorial gains" so much as it is "territorial reclaiming."

You poor naive full

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusade_of_Varna
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crusade_of_Nicopolis&redirect=no
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Belgrade
All crusades intiated by the Pope. And this is without talking about the Holy League

Also, the holy land was populated by Arabs and Muslims of every type having near no connection with Europe aside from Religious shrines. Even if they did convert the populace, Muslim people, families, lives not live there. And some how, the Christans have the right to "reclaim" the land populated by these people, kill, kick or convert the lot.

So again, equally justified as all of the Muslim conquests.



The only thing that could unify all of Europe was religion. So strategically it was brilliant. Are you really bugged out because it was called a "holy war" even though it was really just a military counter-strike?

Oh yes, god wrote in Holy Scripture that Jerusalem MUST be in Christian and allowed them to attack every damn thing in its way.

Click to expand...

LightSpectra said:

No, that's like saying "that guy killed my friend and is about to kill my family. It is therefore justified to kill him to prevent my family from dying."

Wow...it makes SOOOO much more sense

I can still understand the first three Crusades

The first one was a counter-attack to get back lost lands. (However instead of giving back the lands to the rightful owner they took it and set up their own states)
The second and third was to try and push back the Muslims (Which ended in failure cause the crusaders were more engross with their own personal wants then to free Jerusalem)
But the next few were just dumb

The 4th one is the "Greatest Scandal of Christemdom" by attacking a fellow christian with gold in mind

The 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th ones were basically ran on nothing but "religious devotion" Attacking not only the Holy land but Tunisia and Egypt

Exactly. Since the First Crusade was fundamentally called to preserve Constantinople from Muslim conquest, it's hardly unjustified.

Click to expand...

Much like the Fourth Crusade was fundamentally called to preserve Constantinople from Muslim conquest by attacking it.

Sure they were forced to attack there because they owe debt to Venice, im sure they felt sorry while looting the city.

You poor naive full

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusade_of_Varna
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...is&redirect=no
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Belgrade

Click to expand...

Those aren't considered part of "the Crusades," even if called such. The Crusades ended after Edward I returned to England in 1272.

Also, the holy land was populated by Arabs and Muslims of every type having near no connection with Europe aside from Religious shrines. Even if they did convert the populace, Muslim people, families, lives not live there. And some how, the Christans have the right to "reclaim" the land populated by these people, kill, kick or convert the lot.

Click to expand...

They didn't have that right. I don't claim they did. I only claim that the declaration of war against the Muslim empires (addendum to avoid future confusion: in the first four Crusades) was justified because they were on the verge of conquering Europe.

Oh yes, god wrote in Holy Scripture that Jerusalem MUST be in Christian and allowed them to attack every damn thing in its way.

Click to expand...

Scripture also allows war in the circumstance that it is used to defend your people. (Luke 22:36. Romans 13:3-4)

England, France and Italy come together to fight off Moors and Seljuks advancing towards Europe. How is that NOT a Just War fundamentally, that is, not counting the specific things the Crusaders did (good or bad).

The first one was a counter-attack to get back lost lands.

Click to expand...

It wasn't to reclaim lost land, it was to annihilate the incoming legions that are going to rape their women, desecrate their churches and holy icons, plunder their kingdoms and enslave their people.

But since you've admitted that, then you've conceded that the Crusades were, in fact, justified.

The second and third was to try and push back the Muslims (Which ended in failure cause the crusaders were more engross with their own personal wants then to free Jerusalem)

Click to expand...

So again, we see a war whose purpose is justified but is corrupted by greedy men.

The 4th one is the "Greatest Scandal of Christemdom" by attacking a fellow christian with gold in mind

Click to expand...

The Fourth Crusade was called to attack Egypt. It was the Crusaders, not the Pope who decided to sack Constantinople. The Pope personally disowned the Latins for doing so.

You are wrong and are simply imagineing what happened to suit your idealogical beliefs. The crusaders certainly didn't feel bad no matter how much you wanted to be. Here is a excerpt from a old history text book I have layinng aorund:
"When cthe crusaders entered the city, they went on a savage spree of looting. They stole the relics from Hagia Sophia and loaded the jewel-studded communion table onto a venetian ships. The looters set fires that burned much of the city, including libraries with pricless ancient manuscripts."

cubsfan6506 said:

You are wrong and are simply imagineing what happened to suit your idealogical beliefs. The crusaders certainly didn't feel bad no matter how much you wanted to be.

Click to expand...

That's not what I'm arguing, and the fact that this is your rebuttal shows that the point of my argument flew completely over your head.

It's irrelevant what the Crusaders themselves did: the Crusades were fundamentally justified by the fact that Muslim conquests were on the verge of entering mainland Europe and no counter-attack would've meant the end of Christianity and all of its kingdoms.

Justification was all relevant. They however by modern standards were not justified. You however go Christians=good Muslims=evil scary inhuman brown people.

I've heard some whinning about Muslims conquering Europe...

So I suppose it was all right when the Rome's attempted to conquer all of Europe? Though, this was before Christianity...

Was it okay Napoleon tried to conquer Europe? Though, he was a christian was he not?

If you're gonna cry over one group trying to conquer Europe then whine about the rest.

I'm not gonna try and make you all feel bad by telling you what happened by the hands of the Crusades was fiendish, even if it was. But the sheer fact is how many people ba then do you think actually dreamed of Uniting Europe... I'm guessing more then a few.

But yes, lets whine about the Muslims because they could have...

LightSpectra said:

Scripture also allows war in the circumstance that it is used to defend your people. (Luke 22:36. Romans 13:3-4)

Click to expand...

Those two passages say absolutely nothing about the circumstances under which war may be waged; in fact they're not even about war at all. Furthermore, the Catholic Church teaches that six different criteria must be met for a war to count as just; merely being waged to defend your people meets only one of these criteria.

However, this whole thing is simply a troll thread and doesn't belong in History. The question whether any event was "justified" is a moral or legal one, not a historical one.

innonimatu said:

Wow, a first post resurrecting a 6 years old thread?

Wellcome, anyway. But ...a spanish creationist?! That blight has crossed the Atlantic already? Damn, it's just one nearly inexistent border away!

Click to expand...

I was actually trying to find something on the crusades for the RFC mod and didn't use the best search words being new.

jonatas said:

Brutal attempt at creating a double account "Aryann". You can do better than this...

Click to expand...

I don't have another account. What do you mean??

LightSpectra said:

You're reading this out of context. Fundamentalists use it to justify all violence towards non-believers but other parts of the Qur'an say that anyone who kills in the name of Islam is not a true Muslim.

The contemporary religious belief was that Islam was destined to rule the world because it was God's empire. Philosophers showed that it was meant to be ruled through intelligence, not brutal conquest.

Click to expand...

They justify their hero Muhammed marrying a 6 year old when he was like 50 and wife beating. This just shows to me how outdated Islam is even though being created over 600 years after Christianity, whether that quote was right or not.

innonimatu said:

Actually, I'm withdrawing that "welcome". I believe jonatas is right...

Click to expand...

So who was I in this past life?

Sorry for posting so much but I was thinking to myself how I'd only ever posted on Rhye's mod and then I remembered this so checked it out again to find all those comments of me being another account or something.

BEHIND_THE_MASK said:

I've heard some whinning about Muslims conquering Europe...

So I suppose it was all right when the Rome's attempted to conquer all of Europe? Though, this was before Christianity...

Click to expand...

No, it wasn't. I never supported that.

If you're gonna cry over one group trying to conquer Europe then whine about the rest.

Click to expand...

I don't because their actions are almost universally considered wrong by today's standards. It's the Islamic conquests that are somehow the exception. Nobody has given any clear evidence for why Muslims destroying Europe is somehow acceptable but Christians counter-attacking isn't. Bizarre political correctness?

They however by modern standards were not justified. You however go Christians=good Muslims=evil scary inhuman brown people.

Click to expand...

No, I don't. Christians committed more atrocities during the Crusades than Muslims did. However it was Muslim conquest that sparked the necessity of the Crusades.

They justify their hero Muhammed marrying a 6 year old when he was like 50 and wife beating.

Click to expand...

Modern Muslims don't justify spousal abuse, and Muhammed married Aisha when she was six because she was financially insecure and needed a husband. They did not consummate their marriage until later.

aryann said:

They justify their hero Muhammed marrying a 6 year old when he was like 50 and wife beating. This just shows to me how outdated Islam is even though being created over 600 years after Christianity, whether that quote was right or not.

Click to expand...

And that is an historical asessment of Islam?

LightSpectra said:

I don't because their actions are almost universally considered wrong by today's standards. It's the Islamic conquests that are somehow the exception. Nobody has given any clear evidence for why Muslims destroying Europe is somehow acceptable but Christians counter-attacking isn't. Bizarre political correctness?

Click to expand...

Destroy Europe?

Apperantly we have two diffrent ideas of 'Destroy'...

For me, Destroy means the complete slaughter of inhabitants in the area, in this case Europe.

Evidence from past Islam Empires in Europe show that their is no evidence of sheer slaughter of Europeans. There may be some cases but Christians can be accused of the same. In fact, in Europe the Christians can be named more guity for the death of jews and moors and other such things.

It isn't right to claim the Muslims would destroy Europe... Occupation perhaps but not destruction.

BEHIND_THE_MASK said:

For me, Destroy means the complete slaughter of inhabitants in the area, in this case Europe.

Evidence from past Islam Empires in Europe show that their is no evidence of sheer slaughter of Europeans. There may be some cases but Christians can be accused of the same. In fact, in Europe the Christians can be named more guity for the death of jews and moors and other such things.

Click to expand...

This is clearly not the definition I intend. Muslims at the time were more advanced scientifically and perhaps culturally but an Islamic government would re-define everything it means to be European. It would certainly entail the death of Christianity.

LightSpectra said:

This is clearly not the definition I intend. Muslims at the time were more advanced scientifically and perhaps culturally but an Islamic government would re-define everything it means to be European. It would certainly entail the death of Christianity.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't go so far as to say the death of Christianity.

Certainly a steep downhill decent but no its end. At the time muslims seemed pretty fine with the Christians, they could pay a tax to freely continue their religion but that was certainly better then an Inquisition.

As for culturally. This aspect I am less sure of but I find it hard that the entirety of Europe being changed to the 'desert' culture of the Mideast.

This is all just speculation, neither of us can be sure.

LightSpectra said:

This is clearly not the definition I intend. Muslims at the time were more advanced scientifically and perhaps culturally but an Islamic government would re-define everything it means to be European. It would certainly entail the death of Christianity.

Click to expand...

Oh darn imagine a world without christianity.

Plotinus pwned this thread and you guys are still debating...