Man you beat me to it... I was gonna post that. Just watched those over the weekend and they're good-ish. They left out a few things but their facts are mostly correct.I'mma also plug (Though it has little to do with justification for the crusades, just interesting tidbits) the Extra History series on The First Crusade.
Yes to both.So, my question is, would you say the crusades were a justified and holy expedition(s) or were they just a mission fueled by mans own desire?
This is exactly what we're meant to think. Whenever we hear about the Crusades, whether it be from a History Channel Documentary, a teacher, or when they're used top show an example of Christian misdeeds, there are always two very common errors made.It is of my own personal opinion, from what I have read and heard and learned, that the crusades were nothing more than a reason to go to war.
I've got two words to toss into this conversation. Two words that, from the very beginning of time, have caused great concern for those who would answer the Biblical question, "What is truth?"... This is exactly what we're meant to think. Whenever we hear about the Crusades, whether it be from a History Channel Documentary, a teacher, or when they're used top show an example of Christian misdeeds, there are always two very common errors made.
First, the Crusades weren't a single set of wars that you can lump together in to one group in any meaningful way. Saying "The Crusades" as a way of making a point about anything is like saying "My favorite food is lunch." To have a meaningful discussion we have to be specific. Are we talking about the People's Crusade? The First Crusade? And even within a given Crusade there may be multiple armies doing their own thing.
Second, The First Crusade is not the beginning of the story. By the time the Crusades were beginning, Christian Europe had already been fighting a long, aggressive and losing war against the Turks and Moors for Centuries. The First Crusade is like Star Wars Episode IV... People like to start there, but there was already a lot going on and a lot of the story had already taken place.
So to have any kind of useful discussion about the propriety and goals of the various Crusades, it is necessary to understand the actual history and setting. To do that, we have to begin our discussion with the rise of Islam.
Let me stop you there.I've got two words to toss into this conversation. Two words that, from the very beginning of time, have caused great concern for those who would answer the Biblical question, "What is truth?"
Those two words are: Historical Revisionism.
... why are you bringing me into this? I'm not a historian by any means, and any attempts to look at this will likely be tainted by my own personal, modern-day beliefs and interpretations.This is for you Sstavix and ArcticFox...
Honestly it don't matter much either way. Anything taken out of it's original context is false, be it to the positive or negative.Let me stop you there.I've got two words to toss into this conversation. Two words that, from the very beginning of time, have caused great concern for those who would answer the Biblical question, "What is truth?"
Those two words are: Historical Revisionism.
Which kind of historical revisionism do you mean? It sounds like you mean Negationism, but there is also a variety with a more positive spin to it.
Sorry Sstavix, I may have misrepresented you. I was sure you and Arctic had talked previously of starting a convo. on the crusades. My apologies.... why are you bringing me into this?This is for you Sstavix and ArcticFox...
A couple of things... Let's not get too far ahead here. Richard I was involved in the Third Crusade, which was almost a hundred years after the First. Also, not all of the Crusades went to the Holy Land. Some went into North Africa, and some were fought in the Iberian Peninsula to push the Moors out of Spain.To answer Arctic, typically when people talk about the Crusades they refer to King Richard's, which in my opinion is the most popular. I am addressing the crusades as a whole, all of them. I do realize that there were multiple ones over the years, some were successful but as they kept going on they became less and less effective in removing and defeating the Muslims in Israel.
Arguably. I'll go into more detail in due course, but keep in mind hat the First Crusade was the direct result of the Byzantine Emperor requesting aid. It wasn't like the Pope was sitting around planning wars.The first caliph decides to go and conquer Israel as a part of his plan to unite Arabia. At this time the Church had been corrupted by the clergy and various Popes, Pope Urban II sent an army of Catholics to go and help the Byzantine Empire, his ultimate goal was to open pilgrim passages for Catholics to go to Jerusalem and therefore unite eastern and western Christendom with him as it's leader.
Not really. While it's true that some of the leaders were in it for the opportunities for wealth and land, this couldn't have been a very powerful motive for the Pope himself. More detail on that later.So right there we see that the first crusade wast partially motivated by greed.
No, the Church did no such thing. Individual lords kept the lands they'd won, in violation of their oaths. It's not like a Crusade was a papal army marching under the banner of the Pope and operating on behalf of the Church. The Crusades were led, financed and fought by noble lords and kings who were called upon by the Pope to go on Crusade, but were not directly answerable to him. As for ransacking, that's true. Welcome to Medieval warfare.Also, the church didn't return much of the land to the Byzantines but rather kept it and ransacked it.
Sort of. Indulgences were given to anyone who took the cross and went on Crusade as a recruiting incentive. Indulgences were not unique to crusaders.The Pope declared the crusaders forgiven of their sins of war and said they were justified in there actions because they were doing "god's will".
Peter the Hermit's band weren't the ones who went around slaughtering Jews. That was the group from Germany. Those people were NOT acting on orders from the Pope to attack Jews. They did that on their own. In fact, the Pope tried to stop this madness.The people's crusade, led by Peter the Hermit, caused mass persecution and slaughtering of the Jews. Now, to me it just seems that there is no way to justify the slaughter of God's chosen people. The Jews even fought against the crusaders in the first two because of how mistreated they were.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests