NationStates Jolt Archive

This question I am posing is one in which I ask not the negative views of it, but for people to give their honest opinions when they take both sides of it.

This question I am posing is one in which I ask not the negative views of it, but for people to give their honest opinions when they take both sides of it.

I suppose you mean "Were the Crusaders...?"

Even so, I'm not sure I understand the question.

Yup, they was justified in a single way...

There was economic need...

I suppose you mean "Were the Crusaders...?"

Even so, I'm not sure I understand the question.I ran an auto correct and it most have done that. Thank you though for pointin that out. Yet, in context of your statement I must reply that the question targets to elimante the belief that the Crusaders were solely about killing the 'Infidel."

I ran an auto correct and it most have done that. Thank you though for pointin that out. Yet, in context of your statement I must reply that the question targets to elimante the belief that the Crusaders were solely about killing the 'Infidel."

They were about reclaiming the land, not about killing anyone. I won't say they were wrong as a concept. A lot went wrong in the carrying out of the war. And a lot of the reasoning behind it was wrong (the idea, for example, that any place in this world might be holier than another). But they were pure in intent: save the people from the infidel.

I'm just sad they went so awry.

I put unsure, because of the time period, most of the people going were sent, they didn't volunteer, and those that did the sending were ordered to do so, and most of them probably wern't told the reasons... other than "The Church wants you to..."

and was "to reclaim the holy lands from the infidels" the real reason, or one that some historian decided must be true. For all we know, some Moorish person probably made up the whole "Need to reclaim the Holy Lands" as an act of revenge. :p

I put unsure, because of the time period, most of the people going were sent, they didn't volunteer, and those that did the sending were ordered to do so, and most of them probably wern't told the reasons... other than "The Church wants you to..."

To be honest they were "forcefully convicted"... There was not physical coercion in the most of cases but a lot of talking about Heavens... Also was said them that going to crusades may heal them of the worst sickness or clear them fr their guilts... This for the lower class... There was a crusade called the "beggar crusade" (Or something like that, I'm translating from my memories at school...) composed mainly by child, poors and pox sick peoples...

The richest one were incited by popes bt gladly move their armies to get hands on new lands and the incomes of pilgrimages taxes...

and was "to reclaim the holy lands from the infidels" the real reason, or one that some historian decided must be true. For all we know, some Moorish person probably made up the whole "Need to reclaim the Holy Lands" as an act of revenge. :p

Reclaim the Holy Lands was the spoken reason... The truth behind it lies on taxes and economics rights...

it was war there is no unjust or just causes only some guys shouting “God is on my side” whilst the other does the same

Shit happens really

I agree that the crusaders were not justified to say that there actions were dictated by God. However, it should be taken into consideration that at the time the Muslims had recently annexed Spain, Portugal, Greece, Yugoslavia, Turkey, and other Christian territory.

To be honest they were "forcefully convicted"... There was not physical coercion in the most of cases but a lot of talking about Heavens... Also was said them that going to crusades may heal them of the worst sickness or clear them fr their guilts... This for the lower class... There was a crusade called the "beggar crusade" (Or something like that, I'm translating from my memories at school...) composed mainly by child, poors and pox sick peoples...

The richest one were incited by popes bt gladly move their armies to get hands on new lands and the incomes of pilgrimages taxes...which is why I said Unsure. unfortunatly, the sternographer went on mead break when the crusades were dicussed...

Reclaim the Holy Lands was the spoken reason... The truth behind it lies on taxes and economics rights...
no, Reclaiming the Holy Lands was the "Offical" reason. who knows what the "real" reason was. taxes and economic rights... or tales of Gold and riches there... or even some con artist from the Middle East pulling the biggest Con in History...

There was a crusade called the "beggar crusade" (Or something like that, I'm translating from my memories at school...) composed mainly by child, poors and pox sick peoples...
i remember hearing about a "children's crusade" where they thought they were going to join in, but instead were sold into slavery

IMO, the fact that the Crusades ultimately destroyed the Eastern Roman Empire that they were intended to save really suggests they weren't justified.

IMO, the fact that the Crusades ultimately destroyed the Eastern Roman Empire that they were intended to save really suggests they weren't justified.
... wouldn't that fall under the catagory of "Poorly Executed"?




Perhaps Executed isn't the right word...



Unless that's what the engineers behind the crusades wanted...


Hmmmm.......

i remember hearing about a "children's crusade" where they thought they were going to join in, but instead were sold into slavery

The Children's Crusade of 1212. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Crusade) One of the most severe ownings of the Middle Ages, seeing as it actually resulted in ownage.

@JuNii: I translated bad... Sorry but my english tend to fail at VERY late nights... (And here in italy are 2:35 am...)

@Murderous maniacs: I recall that, I also recall a "Crociata dei Pezzenti", and translated quite literally... It was composed by poor and children and didn't even reach the "Holy Lands", but still explained how peoples went to crusading thinking that was their own choice...

i remember hearing about a "children's crusade" where they thought they were going to join in, but instead were sold into slavery

The children's crusade was a crusade led by children to retake the holy land. However, other people did not share their views and the children were sold into slavery. Most likely from the port of Venice.

The way crusades recruited was to take sinners (because sinning was a big deal in those days) and send them on the crusade. It was kind of like a get-out-of-hell free card.

Of course the crusades were justified.
By the standards of the age, it made perfect sense.
-Rescue the 'oppressed' Christians who lived in the Holy Land and the pilgrims who faced a multitude of dangers getting to Jerusalem
-Fighting the infidel who had, over the centuries, made many attacks on Christendom (so avenging and protecting the Church)
-Liberating Jerusalem
-Uniting Christendom (by directing martial efforts against recognised enemies, especially those who had attacked the Church)
-Strengthening the hand of the Pope (he was, after all, the Holy Father, so people really shouldn't have been disobeying him or fighting him anyway), who saw himself as becoming more relevant to Christendom
-Relieving pressure on the Eastern Roman Empire (probably not so important, but still a consideration)

And why did so many people join? It was not solely for economic or temporal gains. Piety and a desire for salvation, especially in an uncertain time of violence and sin, were big draws. Eternal damnation was a damn scary thing after all. Furthermore, going on crusade was a huge expense which entailed huge risks, including death and bankruptcy - there was no real guarantee of economic benefits; and even then they might not cover the costs involved.
But of course, economic gain was part of the parcel - serve God in such a noble cause, and you will be rewarded in this next life and the next.

@JuNii: I translated bad... Sorry but my english tend to fail at VERY late nights... (And here in italy are 2:35 am...)

the difference between Offical and Real...

Offical... what they will admit to others as being the truth. "I did not have sex with that woman!"

Real... The truth... wether or not one will admit it to others. (well... sex being Penis entering Vagaina... Therefore, a "Blow Job" isn't really sex. )

:D

To be honest they were "forcefully convicted"... There was not physical coercion in the most of cases but a lot of talking about Heavens... Also was said them that going to crusades may heal them of the worst sickness or clear them fr their guilts... This for the lower class... There was a crusade called the "beggar crusade" (Or something like that, I'm translating from my memories at school...) composed mainly by child, poors and pox sick peoples...

The richest one were incited by popes bt gladly move their armies to get hands on new lands and the incomes of pilgrimages taxes...



Reclaim the Holy Lands was the spoken reason... The truth behind it lies on taxes and economics rights...

Nope... it became reclaim the Holy Land as the spoken reason... the actual initial reason was the request of help from the Byzantine Emperor who was battling the recently converted Seljuk Turks for control of Asia Minor. Only the madmen at the Council of Clermont decided it would be a good thing to try and colonise and retake the Holy Land... they should have stuck to Spain, at least they had some legitimate claim to it, not that the Muslims had claim to Palestine then, especially not the Seljuk Turks and the Kurds... let us not forget Islam conquered Palestine, North Africa and Spain. So perhaps that was their justification (in the case of Spain, of course).

Oh, there were two 'beggar's' Crusades... the crusade led by Peter the Hermit which tore a swath through the Balkans and ended in their destruction in Asia Minor, and the later 'Children's Crusade' near the time of the Fourth Crusade (which all it did was sack Constantinople) and resulted in them all being sold into slavery by shady merchants.

The children's crusade was a crusade led by children to retake the holy land. However, other people did not share their views and the children were sold into slavery. Most likely from the port of Venice.

The way crusades recruited was to take sinners (because sinning was a big deal in those days) and send them on the crusade. It was kind of like a get-out-of-hell free card.

Unfortunately, most of those that got that get-out-of-hell free card got to enjoy it pretty quickly, though most Crusaders never died at the hands of the 'enemy'. Weather, disease, shipwreck, other Crusaders and starvation did the trick before many of them could die in battle.

i remember hearing about a "children's crusade" where they thought they were going to join in, but instead were sold into slavery

Was it in Slaughterhouse Five?

I agree that the crusaders were not justified to say that there actions were dictated by God. However, it should be taken into consideration that at the time the Muslims had recently annexed Spain, Portugal, Greece, Yugoslavia, Turkey, and other Christian territory.

Nuh-uh. In the time of the first crusade, Portugal and most of Spain were under Islamic control. But they never actually pushed past modern Turkey until much later, with the conquest of Constantinople (now Istanbul) by the Ottoman Empire in 1453.

(EDIT - There were battles fought in continental Europe in the decade or two beforehand, but i'm not certain if any territory was annexed or not. Nevertheless, it wasn't until long after the crusades.)

Hindsight is always a fun tool.

People of the time thought they were justified. Just as the Turk thought he was justified in taking the Holy lands.

What matters is the lessons we learn (I know I know) versus what was right....

Strangely it is hard to see the point of the Christians of that time. The Crusades started out for a reason which could be seen as a quite good one. You see in the opening years of the eleventh century the Seljuk Turks took the Holy Land from the Christians. Then they proceeded to destroy the Holy Splechure, think of destroying the Kaaba in comparison to this. As well, they had already conquered former Christian lands of Egypt, North Africa. And Middle Eastern lands.

Nuh-uh. In the time of the first crusade, Portugal and most of Spain were under Islamic control. But they never actually pushed past modern Turkey until much later, with the conquest of Constantinople (now Istanbul) by the Ottoman Empire in 1453.

(EDIT - There were battles fought in continental Europe in the decade or two beforehand, but i'm not certain if any territory was annexed or not. Nevertheless, it wasn't until long after the crusades.)

The big attacker in Europe during the time of the Crusades were the Mongols, who almost made it to Vienna before running out of steam (and leaders kept dying, forcing them to return to Asia). During the Crusades, the Normans actually conquered parts of Greece and created the Duchy of Athens. It wasn't really until the 14th century that the Turks made a push into the Balkans. And one of the worst Crusades in the period was the Albigenisian Crusade which cleansed the Languedoc and parts of Catalonia of the Cathar heresey.

Really, by the time the Crusades ended, the Muslim momentum had halted with Egypt falling under the control of the Mameluks and the remaining powers fragmenting in much the way the European powers remained fragmented.

I put unsure, because of the time period, most of the people going were sent, they didn't volunteer, and those that did the sending were ordered to do so, and most of them probably wern't told the reasons... other than "The Church wants you to..."



Huh???? There was no draft in the Middle Ages, it's an invention of the French Revolution. Only free knights were expected to go on Crusade, but thousands of (unneeded and unwanted) commoners, with no military experience, went voluntarily, only to be slaughtered or sold into slavery by the Saracens.

Where do you people learn history?

I suspect that had the 'christians' won the crusades, and that part of the world had been culturally european - christendom for want of a better word - then no-one would even be discussing this.

After all, people do not bang on about the reconquista, do they?

Anyway, it's silliness to talk about 'were they justified' as if they have any relevance today in that sense. A great deal has happened since then, and all of the actors are long dead. No-one looks for a good moral foundation for the norman conquest of england (well, unless you go to Bayeux, where they think it was just spiffy, but to be fair they also love english tourists, so you have to take the rough with the smooth); why is there a need to treat the crusades any differently?