Opinions on the First Crusade
- Thread starter RNolan
- Start date
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
But if we judge every war by the standard of those who launched them then they'd all be justified - which get us nowhere just as fast as judging all wars by our modern standards.
RNolan
Ri Tuaithe
I didn't say that we should judge by those who launched them, I said they should judged by the standards of the time which I felt was a sufficently explicit refference to the entire of the known world then (including the Muslims).
In future kindly read before commenting.
Yours
Ross
Homie
Anti-Lefty
The point I was trying to make quite a few posts back was not that "We must not judge by our western standards of today". No, I was trying to say that most of the people in todays western world haven't got a clue about how history went down. And that we strive to be politically correct, and therefore we will get a slanted, wrong even, idea of how history actually occurred.
This has nothing to do with what "standards" we judge by, but if we are knowledgeable enough and "open minded" enough to see what really went on, to see the whole picture. Because in school we are just thaught the popular opinion and we only get a portion of the facts.
So the thread-starter decided to read some books about it, get some more info and he was surprised, surprised because history wasn't so one-sided as he had previously thought.
Homie
Anti-Lefty
I agree that there should be more choices, because the choices given didn't exactly cover peoples opinions. (I haven't even voted)
But if you voted...
A barbarian assault on a peaceful civilisation?
...you don't know the whole truth, and you have just voted by what you know from school, just the popular opinion.
But if you voted...
A barbarian assault on a peaceful civilisation?
...you don't know the whole truth, and you have just voted by what you know from school, just the popular opinion.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
OR you have voted for what was the closest choice fo your opinion, even if you know that it does not match the whole story.
It's not like any of the other option are much better.
Were the Crusade justified in term of what was commonly accepted at the time?
It is hard to judge.
Wars of conquest were definitely legitimate at the time - if you wanted more land (or cities, or whatever), and your neighbor happened to have some you felt you could take from him, feel free to do it. That is the one type of war we generaly disaprove of.
But that's not what the Crusades where - the crusade was a matter of a bunch of people from all over Europe teaming up to go attack a quite distant country.
A war to go defend an embattled ally was also legitimate, there's no doubt about it. It still is, in fact. But the Crusade don't fit the bill ; even though the Byzantine empire was under attack at that point it did not exactly ASK for help from the crusader (and it fact did not want to associate with them).
Holy war for a location of religious importance?
The question is, how can we say that fighting to capture an "holy" location was justified or not at the time of the first crusade? Before the Crusades, there are almost no examples of group of warriors going out of their way (ie, travelign enormous distances) to capture a location just because of its religious significance - certainly nothing on the scale of the Crusade to indicate that it was seen as "justified" (until Saladin's Jihad quite a bit later, and that one's not a very strong counter example).
But on the other hand, there is nothing to indicate that other civilizations would have seen it as unjustified.
It is extremely hard to determine what was seen as justified and not by a "general world view" at the time - China saw things one way , Japan another, Europe (and let's not even think of all separate part of it) yet another, and the arabs a fourth, and so on...The modern diffusion of thought and European expansion have led to a much more unified system of value in the "world powers" nowaday in comparison.
It's not like any of the other option are much better.
Were the Crusade justified in term of what was commonly accepted at the time?
It is hard to judge.
Wars of conquest were definitely legitimate at the time - if you wanted more land (or cities, or whatever), and your neighbor happened to have some you felt you could take from him, feel free to do it. That is the one type of war we generaly disaprove of.
But that's not what the Crusades where - the crusade was a matter of a bunch of people from all over Europe teaming up to go attack a quite distant country.
A war to go defend an embattled ally was also legitimate, there's no doubt about it. It still is, in fact. But the Crusade don't fit the bill ; even though the Byzantine empire was under attack at that point it did not exactly ASK for help from the crusader (and it fact did not want to associate with them).
Holy war for a location of religious importance?
The question is, how can we say that fighting to capture an "holy" location was justified or not at the time of the first crusade? Before the Crusades, there are almost no examples of group of warriors going out of their way (ie, travelign enormous distances) to capture a location just because of its religious significance - certainly nothing on the scale of the Crusade to indicate that it was seen as "justified" (until Saladin's Jihad quite a bit later, and that one's not a very strong counter example).
But on the other hand, there is nothing to indicate that other civilizations would have seen it as unjustified.
It is extremely hard to determine what was seen as justified and not by a "general world view" at the time - China saw things one way , Japan another, Europe (and let's not even think of all separate part of it) yet another, and the arabs a fourth, and so on...The modern diffusion of thought and European expansion have led to a much more unified system of value in the "world powers" nowaday in comparison.
philippe
FYI, I chase trains.
While the Byzantyn leader just wanted a group of trained mercenaries,they got a whole army of knights,infantry,women and children that where going mad because of a pope with a hunger for a christian worldempire.
Thx to the crusades anti-semitism increased,finnaly leading to concentration camps in WW2
Most knights had a hunger for power except few knights like Godfried from Bouillion a (Belgian knight
) who captured Jeruzalem but REFUSED to be the king of it.
thx to crusades we now work with 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,etc...
and not with I,II,III,IV,V,VI,VII,VIII,IX,X,etc...
New ways of thinking.
But we got NOW a hatred of the muslims becuase of the crusades.For them we are the "white devil"
Becuase this poll has not a good option to vote
i voted barbarian assault because we where the side who was the most bloodthristy.
Thx to the crusades anti-semitism increased,finnaly leading to concentration camps in WW2
Most knights had a hunger for power except few knights like Godfried from Bouillion a (Belgian knight
) who captured Jeruzalem but REFUSED to be the king of it.thx to crusades we now work with 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,etc...
and not with I,II,III,IV,V,VI,VII,VIII,IX,X,etc...
New ways of thinking.
But we got NOW a hatred of the muslims becuase of the crusades.For them we are the "white devil"
Becuase this poll has not a good option to vote
i voted barbarian assault because we where the side who was the most bloodthristy.
History Guy
Number Six
It was certainly justifiable at the time, it is only now in modern times that, after most of us have lost faith, we just don't seem to understand, or even want to understand, and that part is our fault, not their's, because if we do not try to see it from the perspective of those who fought, we'll never understand it.
The Arabs were just as much to blame in the Crusades, and that is so. They were just as aggressive, if not even more so. The Crusades were in their own way justifiable, the first crusade especially so.
The Arabs were just as much to blame in the Crusades, and that is so. They were just as aggressive, if not even more so. The Crusades were in their own way justifiable, the first crusade especially so.
History Guy
Number Six
Philippe, forgive me for saying so, but your post was a very silly one indeed.
Mad Bomber
Commander
Phillipe:
Let me correct you on a few points. The Byzantine Emperor asked pope Urban II to ask for fighters from Christian Europe to fight to liberate the Holy land & territories once held by the Byzantine Empire. He expected a disciplined, well trained, well equipped army. In most cases he got an unruly rabble led by a few minor nobles & landless knights. The crusades had Nothing to do with Anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism is descrimination against the Jews, something that was around for at least 2000 years before the beginning of the crusades. Nor is Anti-Semitism limited to Moslems. (Hitler was a Christian)
To all others:
The crusades were caused by the expansion of two cultures & the enevitable clash between the two. Moslems & Christians had already been fighting for centuries before the Crusades began. The fact is that the Moslems were trying to expand into Christian territory, & had been since the initial spread of Islam. (Who did Charles Martel defeat at Tours?) The Crusades were tragic and unavoidable and both sides deserve equal blame for the bloodshed that resulted.
Let me correct you on a few points. The Byzantine Emperor asked pope Urban II to ask for fighters from Christian Europe to fight to liberate the Holy land & territories once held by the Byzantine Empire. He expected a disciplined, well trained, well equipped army. In most cases he got an unruly rabble led by a few minor nobles & landless knights. The crusades had Nothing to do with Anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism is descrimination against the Jews, something that was around for at least 2000 years before the beginning of the crusades. Nor is Anti-Semitism limited to Moslems. (Hitler was a Christian)
To all others:
The crusades were caused by the expansion of two cultures & the enevitable clash between the two. Moslems & Christians had already been fighting for centuries before the Crusades began. The fact is that the Moslems were trying to expand into Christian territory, & had been since the initial spread of Islam. (Who did Charles Martel defeat at Tours?) The Crusades were tragic and unavoidable and both sides deserve equal blame for the bloodshed that resulted.
philippe
FYI, I chase trains.
I mean:When the knights got fanatical they also got the feeling that the "murderers of jezus"should be killed.It was not ordered by the pope but the knights just wanted to kill those poeple who where not catholic+the fact they think they are the murderers of christ..
Mad Bomber
Commander
Your statement that the Knights got fanatical are incorrect, the fact is that most of the knights were not able to control their troops. This is evidenced by their actions when they reached Byzantine country & also by the fact many times they slaughtered jews, & christians living in the same city as the moslems. If your argument is that the anti-semitism started because the jews killed christ, well maybe some people believe that but IMO its just an excuse for hating jews which as I said previously was around a very long time before the crusades or Christ himself, remember that Jesus was a Jew!
Homie
Anti-Lefty
"it was the churches fault, plain and simple,not teh muslims, well for the most part, and yes i am catholic, so dont think i am in this side for religion but for what i think historically happened"
Then you don't know what historically happened, although I don't blame you, most people have the impression of the crusades that you have. Actually I was expecting that about 90% of the posts on this thread would be like Phillipes (sharing his opinion that is) but surprisingly enough only ca. 50 % are. I constantly get the feeling that people on this forum are more enlightened than pl in Real Life.
Then you don't know what historically happened, although I don't blame you, most people have the impression of the crusades that you have. Actually I was expecting that about 90% of the posts on this thread would be like Phillipes (sharing his opinion that is) but surprisingly enough only ca. 50 % are. I constantly get the feeling that people on this forum are more enlightened than pl in Real Life.
Homie
Anti-Lefty
Until now I have abstained because I did not feel that any of the options were satisfactory. But since so many have voted option nr.2 in lack of a better option, I will vote nr.1 for the same reason.
