NationStates Jolt Archive

I know the crusades are traditionally thought as the epitome of ignorance, unecessary violence and general badness brought about by (some would say damn here) religon. The crusades involved the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people, both soldiers and innocent civilians, from three different continents and the horrific sack of many cities

However, the crusades brought about the end of feudalism, and ushered in a non-reigious non-military middle class in europe, started the renissance, opened europe up to the more sophisticated eastern societies and such and such....

Those things would have happened eventually anyway but then, the 70,000 people who died in jerusalm would have died anyways

So, all things considered, since the crusades ushered in the beginnings of the modern world, were they realy (that) bad?

Hey, the Crusades was just Christianity's belated response to the aggresive spread of Islam - a bit late, misdirected and misled a some points, but not all that worst then most wars those days.

I thought the Black Death destroyed fuedualism because most of the serfs died. And the Crusades resulted in more tense relations with the Muslums blocking their land route to contacting Eastern societies, resulting in them going around Africa.

Well, the sacking of Constantinople was pretty bad, the oppression of the Templars, the attempted rerouting of Muslims who treated Christians far better than the Christians treated themselves, and the large trading empire they forged through blood and the direct violence. There's the second largest damage done to the Muslim world (next to the Mongols and the burning of Baghdad), and more.

Oh, and the Muslims created the renaissance, and the creation of a true middle class began in the late 1800s.

Hey, the Crusades was just Christianity's belated response to the aggresive spread of Islam - a bit late, misdirected and misled a some points, but not all that worst then most wars those days.
Excuse me? Could you get things more wrong?

Christianity at the point was wavering, it had stagnated and was even more corrupt then ever, priests and ministers and all those other fools were in it for power and money, not for love of man and god. So, to rejuvenate the religion what better way then to wage massive Holy Wars and go slaughter some heathens and steal their land and property?

Oh, and the atrocity of the crusades and witch burning, the inquisition and all the other inhumane atrocities that disgusting, hypocritical pile of crap Christianity has ushered it should have brought rational thought to all and led to the downfall of the 'religion', yet blind ignorance keeps Christianity going. Why?

I know the crusades are traditionally thought as the epitome of ignorance, unecessary violence and general badness brought about by (some would say damn here) religon. The crusades involved the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people, both soldiers and innocent civilians, from three different continents and the horrific sack of many cities

However, the crusades brought about the end of feudalism, and ushered in a non-reigious non-military middle class in europe, started the renissance, opened europe up to the more sophisticated eastern societies and such and such....

Those things would have happened eventually anyway but then, the 70,000 people who died in jerusalm would have died anyways

So, all things considered, since the crusades ushered in the beginnings of the modern world, were they realy (that) bad?
I know the Holocaust is traditionally thought of as the epitome of ignorance, unecessary violence and general badness brought about by Hitler. The crusades involved the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people, most of them innocent civilians, from nearly all of Europe.
However, the Holocaust brought about the end of imperialism, and ushered in a pacifistic, US friendly government in Europe, allowed for the creation of Israel, and such and such....

Those things would have happened eventually anyway but then, the sevral million people who died in europe would have died anyways

So, all things considered, since the Holocaust ushered in the beginnings of the modern world, were they realy (that) bad?[/

I know the Holocaust is traditionally thought of as the epitome of ignorance, unecessary violence and general badness brought about by Hitler. The crusades involved the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people, most of them innocent civilians, from nearly all of Europe.
However, the Holocaust brought about the end of imperialism, and ushered in a pacifistic, US friendly government in Europe, allowed for the creation of Israel, and such and such....

Those things would have happened eventually anyway but then, the sevral million people who died in europe would have died anyways

So, all things considered, since the Holocaust ushered in the beginnings of the modern world, were they realy (that) bad?[/

Godwin's law fulfilled.

But you win this thread I'd say.

By the standards of the time; not really. By our standards...yes.

Excuse me? Could you get things more wrong?

Christianity at the point was wavering, it had stagnated and was even more corrupt then ever, priests and ministers and all those other fools were in it for power and money, not for love of man and god. So, to rejuvenate the religion what better way then to wage massive Holy Wars and go slaughter some heathens and steal their land and property?

Oh, and the atrocity of the crusades and witch burning, the inquisition and all the other inhumane atrocities that disgusting, hypocritical pile of crap Christianity has ushered it should have brought rational thought to all and led to the downfall of the 'religion', yet blind ignorance keeps Christianity going. Why?
Because it was the people who were acting corrupt that kept it going in positions of leadership, they monopolized the ability to interprate the Bible so much that they pretty much ended up ignoring a great deal of it. When people like the Protestants (Yes, I know, they did the witch burning too)started questioning this and got real translations of the Bible out to the masses, (Partly thanks to the printing press) people could actually take the Bible literally for once, not just what the church told them was right.

*snip*
1) I call Godwin, So I automatically win and there is nothing you can do to stop me
*dances*
2) The two incidences have nothing to do with each other. Whereas the Holocaust was an empire slaughtering it's own people, the Crusades was just two empires/social groups grinding away at each other over turf.
Further, where the Holocaust brought no actual change (even the "discoveries" that the Nazis made through experiments were worthless) the Crusades helped break the back of the Islamic empire, but more importantly, the advances (such as the University) that Europe managed to recover shifted them out of their primitive state and into a world power.
Which is another thing that seems to be forgotten when discussing the Crusades, at that time Europe was the third world long-shot, and the Arabs were the super-power.

I thought the Black Death destroyed fuedualism because most of the serfs died. And the Crusades resulted in more tense relations with the Muslums blocking their land route to contacting Eastern societies, resulting in them going around Africa.

The Crusades are generally thought to have opened up a fairly insular Europe to the ideas in the wider world. A wide selection of society (from kings to priests, earls to peasants) went into the east and saw the (compartively) advanced worlds of the Byzantines and Islamic Caliphates for themselves. When they returned, they brought some of the ideas they found with them. Serfdom (which was the enslavement of about 90% of the population of medieval Europe) relied on a concrete Church/State monopoly of thoughts and ideas. Only by telling the 90% that their enslavement was divinely ordained and that rebellion would result in an eternity of hell could the ruling elites maintain their stranglehold. Thus, when people went into the east, they saw that things did not necessarily have to be that way. Also, the Muslims and the Byzantines possessed many Greek and Roman works long lost to the West - the Crusades gave the west the chance to obtain these, either through a process of clerical copying or by taking them through conquest. These texts were later to be vital in the creation of the Renaissance and of Christian humanism. Thus, the crusades did help destroy feudalism by injecting new ideas into the west from the east.

It is commonly held that the Black Death did destroy feudalism. However, some academics of this period hold that peasant conditions and wages did not dramatically increase after the Black Death - the state was fairly quick to limit the freedoms caused by the Black Death: in England, for example, The Statute of Labourers was released in 1350/1 and this froze wages at pre-plague levels. Essentially, it is believed that, although the Black Death was a factor in the decline of feudalism, it was just one of many gradual effects that eventually consumed feudalism between 1350 and 1500.

Also, you can't really claim that the Crusades limited the Muslims in Eastern Europe, considering the Ottomans were able to take large amount of the Balklands precisely because the Crusades had dramatically weakened the Byzantine Empire, thus allowing the Ottomans to usurp the Byzantine civilisation. The loss of Constantinople remains, in my opinion, the greatest loss to Western Europe from 1000 to 1900.

1) I call Godwin, So I automatically win and there is nothing you can do to stop me

Godwin describes a tendency, but tells us nothing about winning or losing...

Crusades helped break the back of the Islamic empire, but more importantly, the advances (such as the University) that Europe managed to recover shifted them out of their primitive state and into a world power.
Which is another thing that seems to be forgotten when discussing the Crusades, at that time Europe was the third world long-shot, and the Arabs were the super-power.
In my opinion, you could almost go so far as to say that they were one of the main causes in ushering in the Renaissance. Along with possibly the fall of Moorish Spain...things that had been left by Arabs were then discovered by Europeans.

Maybe.

I don't really know enough about it to say anything more than that.

Excuse me? Could you get things more wrong?
Don't know what you see is incorrect - Islam was spread by the sword, first in Arabia, spreading out to conquer the Persians and drive back Byzantium, conquer the Holy Lands and continue west through North Africa and almost all of Spain. Even Sicily was conquered for a time, and if not for Tours and other battles they would have continued onward into Europe.

Tours is probably the most important battle in medieval history.

Tours is probably the most important battle in medieval history.Tours, a battle which took place 300 years before the Crusades.

Tours, a battle which took place 300 years before the Crusades.
Yes, we know...

Tours was a battle in france stopping muslums from Spain
not at all related to the crusades.

Tours, a battle which took place 300 years before the Crusades.

So? Europe was fractured, divided at that time - it's because of that disunity that Tours was important.

In my opinion, you could almost go so far as to say that they were one of the main causes in ushering in the Renaissance. Along with possibly the fall of Moorish Spain...things that had been left by Arabs were then discovered by Europeans.

Maybe.

I don't really know enough about it to say anything more than that.
That was always the view I got out of it. The Arabs were the enlightened ones, heirs to the Roman legacy and with a theological view that (at the time) encouraged studying the world and advancing science. On the other hand, the West was run by a bunch of ignorant fundamentalists who justified why they were making everyone miserable by God's will, and invented concepts such as "chivalry."

Yes, we know...Then why bring it up?! Stop trying to threadjack, jeeze!

That was always the view I got out of it. The Arabs were the enlightened ones, heirs to the Roman legacy and with a theological view that (at the time) encouraged studying the world and advancing science.

Greek, rather than Roman, legacy, shurely?

What I find sad about the crusades is that the whole of Europe and christianity beat some random Muslims happening to be standing there, and are proud of it.
Later, a general named Saladin PwNeD them using a local army and resources.
Whole of Europe and Byzantium vs. Saladin, Saladin won. Crusaders sacked constantineople for some random reason also(wtf? can some1 explain this???). Later, the Seljuk Turks later conquered all of the Byzantine Empire to create the Ottoman Empire.
Most sadly (is that right?) is that THE WHOLE TIME THIS WAS HAPPENING THE MUSLIMS DID NOT CONSIDER THE CRUSADERS A MAJOR THREAT. Thats right the WHOLE TIME. You know why? Because to the east was anohter empire : THE FUCKING MONGOLS who were pwning noobs.

SO

A War:
Europeans vs. (Saladin) - (What resources were lost to the Mongols) - (Whats resources were used agianst the Mongols)
Yeah it turns out those overconfident Europeans just got F$&@ING RAPED!!!!!!!

What I find sad about the crusades is that the whole of Europe and christianity beat some random Muslims happening to be standing there, and are proud of it.
Later, a general named Saladin PwNeD them using a local army and resources.
Whole of Europe and Byzantium vs. Saladin, Saladin won. Crusader sacked constantineople for some random reason also. Later, the Seljuk Turks later conquered all of the Byzantine Empire to create the Ottoman Empire.
Most sadly (is that right?) is that THE WHOLE TIME THIS WAS HAPPENING THE MUSLIMS DID NOT CONSIDER THE CRUSADERS A MAJOR THREAT. Thats right the WHOLE TIME. You know why? Because to the east was anohter empire : THE FUCKING MONGOLS who were pwning noobs.

SO

A War:
Europeans vs. (Saladin) - (What resources were lost to the Mongols) - (Whats resources were used agianst the Mongols)
Yeah it turns out those overconfident Europeans just got F$&@ING RAPED!!!!!!!

Sry i'm high on happy fun flavor pot

I want more people to follow Imperial Evil Vertigo's example and use large font a lot and use 'fuck' more.

Then why bring it up?!
It's part of the reason behind the Crusades. It took awhile before Europe could become strong enough to fight back, what with constantly being attacked by Muslims, Magyars and Vikings. Then the "Mad Caliph" goes and burns down the Holy Sepulchre and stops pilgrimage to Jerusalem for awhile, pisses the Christians off a bit, and Byzantium comes around and says "Hey Pope, we could use some help against these guys, spare a few men?"

The Crusades were not a clear-cut, black-and-white deal. Neither side was above the general pillage and slaughter that was common in those days, but to call the Crusaders ignorante fundamentalists is a gross overstatement. Muslims living in the Crusader states were granted many rights (nor were there any programs of forced conversions), and even the Knights Templar allowed a visiting Muslim dignitary to pray in their headquarters on Temple Mount, repremanding a young knight for trying to stop him mid-prayer.

I want more people to follow Imperial Evil Vertigo's example and use large font a lot and use 'fuck' more.
That would require us to lower our intelligence though, something I would rather not... :D

Just to be clear: while Saladin was a great man and a great military leader, he was usually bested by the best military mind of his time on the European side: Richard I of England. Richard's army, even without the help of the Holy Roman Empire's and French forces turning back and with his men darn near dead of scurvy still managed to fight his way within sight of Jerusalem. It was the lack of supplies and men to continue the fight that stopped Richard, not Saladin's expertise in warfare per se. It is interesting, though, that Richard and Saladin sometimes wrote letters to the other congratulating each other on brilliant use of tactics in battles they had just fought.

That would require us to lower our intelligence though, something I would rather not... :D
This is General, not the Greek Forum.

That would require us to lower our intelligence though, something I would rather not... :D
Yeah screw that Evil Vertigo guy! Lets not read what he said! Keep our intel!

That Evil Vertigo guy :mp5: then from far away :sniper:

The crusades kept Richard out of England. Therefore they were well worth the effort.

Yeah screw that Evil Vertigo guy! Lets not read what he said! Keep our intel!

That Evil Vertigo guy :mp5: then from far away :sniper:

You know, I think n00bage J5KN3 might be the next avian flu...

Just to be clear: while Saladin was a great man and a great military leader, he was usually bested by the best military mind of his time on the European side: Richard I of England. Richard's army, even without the help of the Holy Roman Empire's and French forces turning back and with his men darn near dead of scurvy still managed to fight his way within sight of Jerusalem. It was the lack of supplies and men to continue the fight that stopped Richard, not Saladin's expertise in warfare per se. It is interesting, though, that Richard and Saladin sometimes wrote letters to the other congratulating each other on brilliant use of tactics in battles they had just fought.
Yea, and he did so well on the way home...

The crusades kept Richard out of England. Therefore they were well worth the effort.
Well...not that he would have spent much time there anyway :p

Yea, and he did so well on the way home...

You can't win 'em all, I guess.

Those things would have happened eventually anyway but then, the 70,000 people who died in jerusalm would have died anyways

Um, maybe I took that the wrong way, but....

Just to clarify, are you trying to justify mass-slaughter on the basis that "They would have died anyway?"

"jihads, crusades, persecution, genocides. human lunacy in the name of god.... is it gods will, or your will?"

yes, there were bad. and anytime you say it's god will to kill people, you're wrong. no god would want anyone to die.

yes, there were bad. and anytime you say it's god will to kill people, you're wrong. no god would want anyone to die.
So you assume, but when was the last time you talked to a god? Just because humans view themselves as the hot shit of the universe, doesn't mean that the divine give a flying fuck about a hundred thousand fresh corpses here or there.

So you assume, but when was the last time you talked to a god? Just because humans view themselves as the hot shit of the universe, doesn't mean that the divine give a flying fuck about a hundred thousand fresh corpses here or there.

I see your following my example. Next time use huge font. I like bob dylan.

I know the crusades are traditionally thought as the epitome of ignorance, unecessary violence and general badness brought about by (some would say damn here) religon. The crusades involved the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people, both soldiers and innocent civilians, from three different continents and the horrific sack of many cities

However, the crusades brought about the end of feudalism, and ushered in a non-reigious non-military middle class in europe, started the renissance, opened europe up to the more sophisticated eastern societies and such and such....

Those things would have happened eventually anyway but then, the 70,000 people who died in jerusalm would have died anyways

So, all things considered, since the crusades ushered in the beginnings of the modern world, were they realy (that) bad?

Personally, I think The Crusades gets way too much press. The Spanish Inquisition. Now there was religious evil at it's finest. *nod*

Yeah screw that Evil Vertigo guy! Lets not read what he said! Keep our intel!

That Evil Vertigo guy :mp5: then from far away :sniper:

Well, I could pick apart your "argument" then...

What I find sad about the crusades is that the whole of Europe and christianity beat some random Muslims happening to be standing there, and are proud of it.
Uh, no. Normally I would never use a Wiki article as fact, but I would use this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Crusade#Analysis_of_the_First_Crusade) as a nice springboard for, you know, learning somthing about the First Crusade.

Later, a general named Saladin PwNeD them using a local army and resources.
Whole of Europe and Byzantium vs. Saladin, Saladin won.
Umm, Byzantium never fought with the Crusaders, and Saladin's victory at Hattin is mostly due to the idiocy of the commanders there, nothing anything special on his part. He met his match against Richard the Lionheart.

Crusaders sacked constantineople for some random reason also(wtf? can some1 explain this???).
Again, know (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Crusade) what you're talking about before you make yourself sound stupid.

Later, the Seljuk Turks later conquered all of the Byzantine Empire to create the Ottoman Empire.
Well, it was the Ottomans who, you know, created the Ottoman Empire, and the Crusades had long since ended by that point.

Most sadly (is that right?) is that THE WHOLE TIME THIS WAS HAPPENING THE MUSLIMS DID NOT CONSIDER THE CRUSADERS A MAJOR THREAT.
Don't know what you're trying to accomplish here (Actually they would even ally with the Crusaders against other Muslim powers)

You know why? Because to the east was anohter empire : THE FUCKING MONGOLS who were pwning noobs.
Yeah, including the Muslims; sacking of Baghdad sucked, didn't it?

Yeah it turns out those overconfident Europeans just got F$&@ING RAPED!!!!!!!
There was no "rape", unless you count the "rape" of historical facts in your immature emotional outburst

1. The Crusades most definitely were that bad. The Crusaders mutilated and ate the corpses of the citizens of cities they sacked, pillaged, and burned. They killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people to shore up the Catholic Church's power and distract Europe's elite from warring on each other. It was the exact same thing, with not a whit more moral or ethical justification, as modern-day Islamic terrorism.

2. The Crusades were not the cause of the Renaissance. Not at all directly, at least. Yrsina pestis was the cause of the Renaissance. The Black Death. Millions died, the social order was shaken up like a house in a earthquake, faith in religion was screwed with, the common folk got pissy, and new opportunities in business and leadership opened up. Thus, the Renaissance. While it could be argued that the Crusades led to the bubonic plague's entry into Europe, the primary direct causation event of the Renaissance was the Black Death.

1. The Crusades most definitely were that bad. The Crusaders mutilated and ate the corpses of the citizens of cities they sacked, pillaged, and burned. They killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people to shore up the Catholic Church's power and distract Europe's elite from warring on each other. It was the exact same thing, with not a whit more moral or ethical justification, as modern-day Islamic terrorism.

A source for this supposed wide-spread canniblism? Again, both sides engaged in slaughter and sacking, that was the norm for the day. The primary drive was not to kill the Infidel, covert them, or even land and wealth (many nobles and would-be nobles did gain wealth from the experience, but it was a very expensive trip to the Holy Lands), it was the forgivness of all sin the Pope offered to anyone who went on the Crusade.

What I find sad about the crusades is that the whole of Europe and christianity beat some random Muslims happening to be standing there, and are proud of it.
Later, a general named Saladin PwNeD them using a local army and resources.
Whole of Europe and Byzantium vs. Saladin, Saladin won. Crusaders sacked constantineople for some random reason also(wtf? can some1 explain this???). Later, the Seljuk Turks later conquered all of the Byzantine Empire to create the Ottoman Empire.
Most sadly (is that right?) is that THE WHOLE TIME THIS WAS HAPPENING THE MUSLIMS DID NOT CONSIDER THE CRUSADERS A MAJOR THREAT. Thats right the WHOLE TIME. You know why? Because to the east was anohter empire : THE FUCKING MONGOLS who were pwning noobs.

SO

A War:
Europeans vs. (Saladin) - (What resources were lost to the Mongols) - (Whats resources were used agianst the Mongols)
Yeah it turns out those overconfident Europeans just got F$&@ING RAPED!!!!!!!

You're absolutely right. The Muslims didn't consider the West to be a major threat because they were fighting the Mongols.

Oh, yes, Saladin was fighting the Europeans and Genghis Khan was conquering Persia when he was eight. Before he had risen to the head of the Mongol tribe, before he fought the Chinese, he was fighting the Muslims.
[/sarcasm]

Ha.

The Muslims were every bit as divided then as they are today. Saladin was the first man to unite the Muslims since the Sunnis and the Shi'a split away from each other. The Muslim armies were wealthy, and though the Christian armies had a hard time of it and came from a much poorer region of the earth, the Muslims still had difficulty defeating the Christians.

Saladin was an excellent general, and an excellent king, but his troops were crap. European knights, under the command of Richard would regularly defeat them.

What the Crusades did do: They made Greek Classics PC in Europe again. It brought spices and new (old) ideas back.

It took, however, the Mongol Invasions of the 1200s (ie: Saladin was dead) for the nesesary ideas to enter Europe to enable the Renaissance.

As a side note, Feudalism (in Europe) was effectively ended in the early 1800's, during and after the French Revolution, when conscript, nationalist armies led by officers chosen by their merit, rather than by birth, defeated the more traditional armies time and time again. As the ideas of the French Revolution spread, either by choice or (more commonly) by the sword, especially through out continental Europe, feudalism came to an end. At least in Western and Central Europe.