Why Did The Crusades Happen?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2014 2:03 AM GMT
    I have read several threads on RJ where the crusades were often used by RJ members as examples to point to the violent nature of Christianity. Remembering back to ancient history classes, the crusades were indeed violent but they were reactions against the invasion of Europe by Muslims.

    Proposition: Some historians see the Crusades as part of a purely defensive war against the expansion of Islam in the near east. (However, others see them as confident aggressive papal led expansion attempts by Western Christendom.)

    Between the years of 623-1050, The Muslim Conquests or Islamic conquests or Arab conquests overtook many empires and invaded both Spain and Southern Italy. The Muslims dominated Spain for 500 years. In fact some of its onion-dome architecture is evidence of the invasion. In 1095 Pope Urban II proclaimed the first crusade, with the stated goal of restoring Christian access to the holy places in and near Jerusalem.

    Do you agree that the crusades were a symbol of Christianity's violent nature or was it to defend Western Europe from further incursion by the Muslims?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2014 2:04 AM GMT
    This should be interesting icon_lol.gif

    giphy.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2014 2:06 AM GMT
    Xavier92 saidThis should be interesting icon_lol.gif

    giphy.gif


    Why don't you just go ahead and post a popcorn gif in every thread? Oh wait a minute....you have. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2014 2:08 AM GMT
    woodsmen saidI have read several threads on RJ where the crusades were often used by RJ members as examples to point to the violent nature of Christianity. Remembering back to ancient history classes, the crusades were indeed violent but they were reactions against the invasion of Europe by Muslims. So I present my proposition here using Wikipedia so that we can discuss it.

    Proposition: Some historians see the Crusades as part of a purely defensive war against the expansion of Islam in the near east. (However, others see them as confident aggressive papal led expansion attempts by Western Christendom.)

    Between the years of 623-1050, The Muslim Conquests or Islamic conquests or Arab conquests overtook many empires and invaded both Spain and Southern Italy. In 1095 Pope Urban II proclaimed the first crusade, with the stated goal of restoring Christian access to the holy places in and near Jerusalem.

    Do you agree that the crusades were a symbol of Christianity's violent nature or was it to defend Western Europe from further incursion by the Muslims?


    You're better off just Googling this information for yourself. There's a ton of information about it online. All you'll get here are flame wars and popcorn gifs by people who think they're being original.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2014 2:08 AM GMT
    Scruffypup said
    Xavier92 saidThis should be interesting icon_lol.gif

    giphy.gif


    Why don't you just go ahead and post a popcorn gif in every thread? Oh wait a minute....you have. icon_rolleyes.gif


    I'm just waiting to see you get butthurt. Oh wait, you already are. icon_wink.gif
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Apr 27, 2014 2:15 AM GMT
    Atheists don't scare me, because they can only speak for themselves. Theists who are promoting violence aren't speaking for themselves. They're speaking for God, and they're dragging God's name through the mud. A good Christian should condemn the crusades right alongside the atheist, or else they're just allowing their religion of peace and love to be forever highjacked.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2014 2:15 AM GMT
    I remember having a debate about this in my World History and Arts classes.

    As I far as I recall the Crusades as noble as the the Christian groups make sound,were basically Kings and Religious leaders trying to fight out conversion and religious domination.So they used whatever means necessary to help portray Muslims as vicious barbarians. The Islamic expansion help bring the world into a more modern secular theology within the realm of science , mathematics and arts. Every world power had its 'evil men and certain Muslim leaders were no different.

    After Crusades, Islamic expansion was definitely pushed back and sadly the Muslim leaders eventually just reverted back or rather stagnated and well just fast forward to past few decades.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2014 2:24 AM GMT
    Is is possible that the crusades happened due to the situation in Europe, plague, the black death, etc had decimated western Europe. It was felt to be a chastisement sent by God.
    The crusaders thought they could have God's favor by recapturing the Holy Land.
    Ultimately it was a land grab by the west. The crusaders sacked Constantinople the heart of Eastern Christianity.
    For the most part the crusaders were rapacious, and self serving.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2014 2:44 AM GMT
    Just another excuse for a road trip and to kill some Jews along the way.
  • tj85016

    Posts: 4123

    Apr 27, 2014 2:48 AM GMT
    thanks, interesting post

    would be interesting to compare the Christian vs Islamic accounts of the stories, but history tends to be pretty self-serving
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2014 2:50 AM GMT
    The Muslim Conquests from which the crusades resulted were started by the Islamic prophet Muhammad in the 7th century. He established a new unified polity in the Arabian Peninsula which under the subsequent Rashidun (The Rightly Guided Caliphs) and Umayyad Caliphates saw a century of rapid expansion of Muslim power.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2014 3:06 AM GMT
    Blood is the ink in which history's pages are writ.

    The crusades were disgustingly barbaric but there's never really been a golden age in history where everyone everywhere was at peace.
  • MikeW

    Posts: 6061

    Apr 27, 2014 3:13 AM GMT
    woodsmen saidDo you agree that the crusades were a symbol of Christianity's violent nature or was it to defend Western Europe from further incursion by the Muslims?

    This question doesn't even make sense. Why does it have to be one or the other? There are always multiple layers of motivation, especially when it comes to war, almost always having to do with wealth and power. Religious reasons are usually just used as motivational tools by the power elite to get men who would otherwise prefer to stay home, slop their hogs and fuck their wives, to risk their lives for (the potentate's) glory.

    Even putting it in terms of "Christianity's violent nature" makes me wonder what you are *really* getting at. You seem to be on a tare recently about violence and atheists and Christians… so I'm wary of your motivation and not clear what you hope to achieve by this thread.

    In any case, you are asking about something that happened more than a thousand years ago, and you're asking about a conflict that continued for almost 200 years.

    In the middle ages feudal kingdoms and principalities were battling one another constantly. This is true within Christendom and far beyond. After the collapse of Charlemagne's empire, the southern remnants became a collection of states loosely connected to the Holy See of Rome. In the East, the Byzantine Empire was gradually loosing territory to an expanding Islam and the muslim conquest of Persia. Meanwhile and elsewhere, Scandinavia didn't convert to Christianity until around 1000 AD. William of Normandy defeated the Saxons in England a scant 66 years later. And THEN we get to the Crusades:

    In 1095 at Council of Clermont, Pope Urban II calls for war to rescue Holy Land from Muslim infidels. The First Crusade is assembled in 1096. The Christians capture Antioch (1098 ) and Jerusalem (1099). They establish the Crusader States, ruled by Europeans. It is the only successful crusade. The Second Crusade begins after the Seljuk Turks recapture Edessa, one of the Crusader States, in 1144. It is led by King Louis VIII of France and Holy Roman Emperor Conrad III. Crusaders perish in Asia Minor (1147).

    Saladin controls Egypt (1171), unites Islam in holy war (jihad) against Christians, recaptures Jerusalem (1187). Third Crusade (1189) under kings of France, England, and Germany fails to reduce Saladin's power. Fourth Crusade (1200–1204)—French knights sack Greek Christian Constantinople, establish Latin empire in Byzantium. Greeks reestablish Orthodox faith (1262).

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2014 3:15 AM GMT
    ^ The question focuses on whether the crusade's violent is for violent sake or a reaction against the invasion of Muslims in Western Europe.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Apr 27, 2014 3:20 AM GMT
    woodsmen said^ The question is focusing on whether Christianity's crusade's violent is for violent sake or whether it was a violent reaction against the invasion of Muslims in Western Europe.

    It was violent because it was war. The cause of war is always same old story, and most of us are the pawns. The trouble is that when people use religion to justify killing others then they never stop. The war just goes on forever.
  • MikeW

    Posts: 6061

    Apr 27, 2014 3:21 AM GMT
    woodsmen said^ The question is focusing on whether Christianity's crusade's violent is for violent sake or whether it was a violent reaction against the invasion of Muslims in Western Europe.

    What you're saying makes zero sense. WARS ARE NEVER FOR VIOLENCE'S SAKE… They are either offensive or defensive. And when you're dealing with a history as complicated as that of the Mediterranean region, especially when were talking about something that happened a 1000 years ago, there's never going to be a clear cut answer to "who started what". The politics were dense and on-going since the fall of the Roman Empire a thousand years prior to the Crusades.
  • tj85016

    Posts: 4123

    Apr 27, 2014 3:22 AM GMT
    woodsmen said^ The question focuses on whether the crusade's violent is for violent sake or a reaction against the invasion of Muslims in Western Europe.


    seems like the latter
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2014 3:23 AM GMT
    MikeW: Muslims invaded Europe. Europe fought back under guise of the crusades. You don't understand these two sentences?
  • MikeW

    Posts: 6061

    Apr 27, 2014 3:28 AM GMT
    woodsmen saidMikeW: Muslims invaded Europe. Europe fought back under guise of the crusades. You don't understand these two sentences?

    WTF? Then why are you asking this preposterous question about "Christianity's violent nature" and whether or not the crusades were "violent is for violent sake"? You're making no sense.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2014 3:30 AM GMT
    ^ The premise of this thread is based on the use of crusades by various RJ members as example of Christianity's violent. See the OP.
  • MikeW

    Posts: 6061

    Apr 27, 2014 3:43 AM GMT
    woodsmen said^ The premise is based on the use of crusades by various RJ members as pedagogical example of Christianity's violent in various threads. So I wanted to discuss the reasons behind the crusades to seek whether the crusades were Christianity's violent for violent sake or for other reasons.

    As I thought, you have a bug up your butt about violence, atheists, and theists.

    Perhaps it would help if you'd quote a specific example or two or three where some atheist used the crusades as a "pedagogical example of Christianity's violent" (sic). Otherwise, we're discussing a pig in a poke.

    The point I see being made is that Christians are hypocrites. Jesus said "love your enemies" (Matthew 5:44) but throughout history they haven't done it, regardless whether their "enemy" was a fellow Christian, a pagan or a heathen. WORSE… religious gooblygook has been used to JUSTIFY the violence of war.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2014 3:45 AM GMT
    You're being extremely rude. Stay to discuss the topic or please leave.
  • MikeW

    Posts: 6061

    Apr 27, 2014 3:49 AM GMT
    woodsmen saidYou're being extremely rude. Stay to discuss the topic or please leave.

    I'm being rude? You start a troll thread saying some RJers have done such and so without providing links, quotes or context… but I'm being rude for calling you on it, pointing out your agenda? LOL!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2014 3:59 AM GMT
    MikeW, No need to try to derail the thread. Surely you read the OP? But to keep peace, here are at least one quote:

    KBM13 said "I often find that people say that atheism is immoral, but god's rule is absolute, so if he said go kill somebody, then it would be moral to kill people, which is how the crusaders, slavers, Cortez, and all other fanatics justified their missions for god."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2014 3:59 AM GMT
    I'll read this thread later, but one word or two words rather: Turks/Mongols. Also responsible for heightening the Arab slave trade (made Atlantic Slave Trade look like it was conducted by angels), introducing gun powder to the West, Bubonic Plague, 400 years later with making Columbus find a sea route to the Indies as the later Ottoman Turks tried to monopolize land routes to the East or outright closed them, and many other things. After accounting for the Oriental pests, other conditions and things fall into place, like religion, greed, etc, specific persons motivation, etc, etc. But always account for the Turks first in whatever their manifestation!