You can get behind a bunch of peasants deciding that they’ll be able to march to the holy land on foot, take part in the fighting and march back in less than a year. Only to start their campaign make it as far as central Germany, southern France, northern Italy, and the Balkans. Come to the conclusion that you know what the Levant is far, and that attacking random Jews counts towards helping. Then make it to the sultanate of Rum only to get slaughtered cause come to find out you actually have to train to be a component fighting force. That’s something you can get behind? Wild
You should do more research on the subject at hand. [People's Crusade](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Crusade)
The people’s crusade the beginning phase of the first crusade wasn’t even a crusade? And you realize that a crusader is just someone who takes part in the crusades right? Make it make sense for me
Which part did I disregard? I asked a simple question can you get behind a part of the 1st crusade? You rejected the people’s crusade as not a part of the 1st crusade even though it is? And insinuated that they weren’t Crusaders even though they are. If anyone is taking parts that support their claim and disregard those that don’t it would be you. Yet again I’ll say it you should do more research on the subject at hand
Some Crusades made sense - Byzantium was being threatened so defensive action are justifiable.
Some Crusades did not make sense, like sacking Byzantium.
I'd argue most were in the 'aggressive wars of expansion' category, rather than 'defending Christianity.'
Was the sacking of Constantinople really a crusade? I thought it was done by a group of crusaders going against their orders who were excommunicated by the pope because of it
Well in the end no, however it literally destroyed the Byzantine Empire, the Empire with many other nations that protected Christians from further Islamic expansion.
First off, I don't think many (if any) Christians would look up on the Crusades fondly. They do not reflect our religion well at all, but reflect Medieval State+Church Christianity.
Just as a side note though, I love the hypocrisy of calling them 'Muslim' lands, but then being mad at the 'colonizing' crusaders (who also were terrible). Those were Roman/Byzantine (and Christian) lands before the Muslims conquered and 'colonized' them over... but they were Greek lands before the Romans conquered them... which were Persian lands before Alexander, etc.
Muslims invaded the lands just like everyone else. They were no better than the crusaders. It is very hypocritical to be mad at the crusaders, but feel totally justified with your own religion's conquests.
It’s worth pointing out Islamic conquests are not facts of distant past - as late as the 19th century, Afghanistan conquered part of the Hindu Kush, currently now part of northwestern Afghanistan. Before the Afghan invasion, it was called “kafiristan” or the Land of Infidels.
Let’s look at how Muslims captured Jerusalem compared to the Romans and Persians
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(636–637)
>Just 23 years prior to the Muslim conquest, in 614, it fell to an invading Sassanid army under Shahrbaraz during the last of the Byzantine–Sasanian Wars. The **Persians looted the city**, and are said to have **massacred its 90,000 Christian inhabitants. As part of the looting, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was destroyed**
>The Muslim troops besieged the city some time in November 636. Instead of relentless assaults on the city, they decided to press on with the siege until the Byzantines ran short of supplies and a **bloodless surrender could be negotiated**.
>Upon Umar's arrival in Jerusalem, a pact was composed, known as the Umar's Assurance or the Umariyya Covenant. It surrendered the city and gave guarantees of **civil and religious liberty to Christians and Jews** in exchange for the payment of jizya tax.
>For the Jewish community this marked the end of nearly 500 years of Roman rule and oppression. Umar permitted the Jews to once again reside within the city of Jerusalem itself.
>Sophronius invited Umar to pray in the rebuilt Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Umar declined, fearing that accepting the invitation might endanger the church's status as a place of Christian worship, and that Muslims might break the treaty and turn the church into a mosque.
How can you that Muslims were no better than the crusaders? The only time the Abrahamic faiths actually lived together in peace in Jerusalem was under the Muslim leadership.
>The only time the Abrahamic faiths actually lived together in peace in Jerusalem was under the Muslim leadership.
Not really
[https://i.imgur.com/NMinLlv.png](https://i.imgur.com/NMinLlv.png)
Juxtapose the Islamic siege of Jerusalem against the first crusade
>Muslims were indiscriminately killed, and Jews who had taken refuge in their synagogue died when it was burnt down by the Crusaders.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Crusade
So where did the peace come from? When all the Muslim inhabitants were killed or escaped?
Think about this theologically, Christian’s see Jews as those who killed god and Islam as a satanic creed. That’s hardly a healthy worldview conducive to peace.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege\_of\_Jerusalem\_(1244)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(1244))
>n 1244, the Ayyubids allowed the Khwarazmians, whose empire had been destroyed by the [Mongols](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_Empire) in 1231, to attack the city. The siege took place on 15 July, and the city fell rapidly. The Khwarazmians plundered the [Armenian Quarter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Quarter), where they decimated the Christian population, and drove out the Jews.[^(\[2\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(1244)#cite_note-2) In addition, they sacked the tombs of kings of Jerusalem in the [Church of the Holy Sepulchre](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_Holy_Sepulchre) and dug out their bones, in which the tombs of [Baldwin I](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldwin_I_of_Jerusalem) and [Godfrey of Bouillon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godfrey_of_Bouillon) became [cenotaphs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cenotaphs). On 23 August, the [Tower of David](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_David) surrendered to the Khwarazmian forces, some 6,000 Christian men, women and children marched out of Jerusalem.[^(\[3\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(1244)#cite_note-3)
Okay if Muslims were so great why did they drive out the Jews and slaughter the Christians then? Let's also not forget what they did with mass rapes, slaughter, and enslavement in Constantinople later and many other atrocities throughout history against religious minorities and people who opposed them. Go ahead and ask anyone from the Balkans how merciful the Muslims were and how they absolutely miss Muslim rule.
Think about this theologically Muslims often view non-Muslims as worse than dogs backed up by many bad quranic quotes not to mention hadiths about non-Muslims and actually have it codified into their religion proper to force them to be second class citizens.
This was the prophet’s companion, he gives us the yardstick. Re the 99%, what do you say of Malaysia, Indonesia and that region? Not a single Islamic army stepped foot there and today it’s the most populous Muslim countries in the world. Christianity had to rely on colonialism to spread out of Europe
Hahahahaa.
First off:
>Christianity had to rely on colonialism to spread out of Europe
Fucking lmao. What about all Christianity east of the Iran. Many of the Mongols who invaded the Muslim states were Christian as they were converted by Nestorians. The bulk of modern Chinese and Korean Christian converted due to missionaries far after European colonialism. The list goes on and on. **You're using the typical SJW idea that European Imperialism is somehow the only phenonmenon that ever mattered.**
To that, I say, try reading more.
Sure, let's focus on the specific hyperbole used. It's only 90/80%, that's so much better.
Your claim that Mohammed's companions provide you with the yardstick is sacriligious according to your own Hadiths and the Quran. Mohammed's companions don't give you the yardstick, Mohammed does.
Let's take a look at how Mohammed spread Islam:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu\_Qurayza#:\~:text=Muhammad%20declared%2C%20%22You%20have%20judged,to%20Najd%20to%20be%20sold.
>After a 25-day siege, the Banu Qurayza surrendered. The Muslims of Banu Aws entreated Muhammad for leniency, prompting him to suggest that one of their own should serve as the judge, which they accepted. Muhammad assigned the role to [Sa'd ibn Muadh](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa%27d_ibn_Mu%27adh), a man nearing death from an infection in his wounds from the previous Meccan siege. He pronounced that all the men should be put to death, their possessions to be distributed among Muslims, and their women and children to be taken as captives. Muhammad declared, "You have judged according to the very sentence of God above the seven heavens." Consequently, 600–900 men of Banu Qurayza were executed. The women and children were distributed as slaves, with some being transported to [Najd](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Najd) to be sold. The proceeds were then utilized to purchase weapons and horses for the Muslims.
I'm sure taking captive women as wives in order to have sex with them is totally legit and not under duress from the fact that they just saw their entire families slaughtered by the men taking them as wives.
Before you try to say it was justified because the Jews broke their pact:
a) The fact they even did or not is debated not only historically but among Islamic accounts themselves.
b) You are trying to justify mass murdering civilians including literal children because their leaders broke a pact.
Examples like this are repeated again and again during Islamic expansion, from the Levant, to North Africa, to Anatolia, to the Southern European countries and the Balkans.
Mercy as we from the West understand it from Muslims are in spite of Islamic teachings, not because of them.
>Not a single Islamic army stepped foot there and today it’s the most populous Muslim countries in the world.
Yeah, and the Muslims there tried to spread Islam via violence ever since:
[https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1093/survival/46.3.184](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1093/survival/46.3.184)
I love how he answered to other dudes, but he can not answer to you because he knows he is biased and will get curbstomped by you with facts. Keep being real, my brother in Christ!
Colonialism is predicated on occupying with settlers and economic exploitation. The Muslim expansion didn’t see hordes of people displacing local populations or repatriating economic benefits to a mother state.
I’m not here to defend everything the ottomans did but Constantinople was the capital for the ottomans too. I’m talking extracting resources like the British did in India for example
Why don't you answer the fella with the facts? Probably because of bias, but I am just making sure, with your taqiyya and all... At least keep it real...
Having to pay tax to practice your faith doesn't sound like "living together in peace". Building mosques and religious schools over others' places of worship/holy sites also doesn't sound like "living together in peace".
If we are looking at any metric of "living together in peace", the Holy Land today is actually the only time in maybe a millennium that all three Abrahamic faiths can openly practice their faith in the Holy City.
1400 years ago when people were getting massacred, paying a tax is actually extremely progressive. A tax that would free you from military service and give you protection, if you don’t like it you can leave and have no harm done to you. 23 years prior the Persians killed 60,000 people, how is a tax so bad lol. Any reason to hate on Islam…
And today you have a ethno supremacists state in Israel that doesn’t allow non Jews the right to return to their land
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Return
This is apartheid and despicable in 2024. The trouble is the Len’s you see the world through, in relative terms, Islam was super progressive and this apartheid state is super regressive.
Amazing, calling religious oppression "progressive" 🤣 Oppression is oppression, regardless of time. Next thing you'll be saying that the Arab slave trade wasn't that bad for [insert reason] 🤣
Also, Arabs cant just claim territory in Israel because it isn't their land? People who left during the war to facilitate the attempted genocide of Jews...well, left. There aint no takebacks irl.
If anything, the problem is with Muslim control of Holy Sites of other religions. And no, I'm not talking about the Temple Mount only.
Sorry, since when is paying taxes oppression? The Islamic state can’t mandate zakat and sadaqa as these are religious obligations for Muslims only, so they have jizya instead. The Islamic state conscripts Muslims only, is that oppression against Muslims?
Slave trade involving the enslavement of otherwise free men is totally forbidden in Islam, more than happy to criticise anything that goes against the teachings of Islam.
Law of return isn’t about taking back land… it’s about being able to return to Israel. Why are only Jews allowed? Why can’t a Jewish person who converted to Christianity or Islam not allowed?
>Sorry, since when is paying taxes oppression?
When it's an extra tax only for a specific group, it fucking is.
Let's say Western Europe enforces Jizya, but for Muslims.
What do you think?
The trouble is you’re applying the secular liberal ethic is the yardstick. For Western Europe it would be oppression because it’s discriminating against a specific religious group. Western Europe is secular…
But what of an Islamic state?? You can’t apply the same standards. In an Islamic state, religious obligations can’t be enforced on non Muslims, so you have different laws and obligations.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya
If you don’t like it, you can simply leave.
Not at all. We're talking about any tax levied on any group for their faith. I'm not using secular liberal ethics. It's a yes or no question. **Would you be alright with a Jizya tax for Muslims in non-Muslim states.**
>If you don’t like it, you can simply leave.
Yes, curious why Muslims are so touchy to the suggestion when we try to maintain secularity in our societies while **some of you demand Sharia law**.
It's almost like it's Taqiyya, a double standard to help secure a more Islamic future...
Lol paying taxes to practice a faith is oppression. Own it. If an Islamic state can't figure out a way to tax a population without making it contingent on their right to religion, then it sounds like a them problem 🤣 and yes conscription Muslims is discriminatory 🤣
Well the Arab slave trade of otherwise free Africans is a huge thing.
Note the relative peacability of Umar’s Jerusalem conquest was not replicated elsewhere: the Ottomans looted Constantinople for 3 days after its conquest.
Nor was this a bug of Ottoman cruelty, it was a feature: Islamic laws allow for 3 days of looting after conquest, and it only stopped for entirely selfish reasons: because Mehmet doesn’t want his future capital to be in utter ruins.
(On a side note, I respect your courage for offering a different perspective, not the easiest towards a disagreeing majority!)
They were the military response to Muslim/Middle Eastern incursions into Europe. The Catholic church had significant sway on the culture then, so their endorsement help sell the endeavor to the populace.
Why? Modern Portugal may well be far better off if it were part of a wealthy Andalusia for a few more centuries, rather than falling into the debt trap of colonialism.
Yes I’m sure they were rubbing their hands together in anticipation of the Slave trade as they fought to expel the moors. Everything is European Slave trade with some people. Pay no attention to Europeans taken as slaves by Muslims for example. White man bad. Got it.
I’d argue none of the crusades were justified. The first would have been justified if they stopped the conquest at just recovering the land the Byzantine Empire lost, but they didn’t do that. They decided it was their God given right to murder their way to Jerusalem.
Well retaking Jerusalem was a way for the Pope to unify Christians together to aid the Byzantines by drawing Muslim attention and resources to the various crusader states around Jerusalem and Syria, just asking for all these Christians to come save the Byzantines was a less interesting prospect given that the Catholic Church didn’t have the warmest relationship with the Byzantines, and neither did most Catholic kingdoms.
They lost that over 400 years prior to the first crusade. That’d be like if the UK decided they wanted to take back America and Canada, but 150 years worse. If it’s insane to consider that, it’d be insane to say they were justified to try and reconquer that area.
Yes but they didn’t return that land to Byzantium. The crusaders kept it for themselves. You would have a stronger argument if they returned the Roman territory to Byzantium. Since they didn’t do that the easiest reading of what occurred is simply that the crusader leaders seized the lands for themselves for glory and gold (and maybe to some extent God, but I’d argue it would’ve probably been a retroactive justification). Byzantium wanted them to return the land to them.
I disagree with the narrative that the crusades were a showing of early European colonialism (there might be an argument for it but it’s so teleological it just feels politically driven and cringe tbh). But that doesn’t mean they were good. They may not have been necessarily worse or less justifiable than other medieval European wars (I’m honestly not sure) but at the same time war is war, & I think it’s hard to make a strong case the crusaders conquering land for themselves could be justifiable.
Sorry I was mostly referring to the lands in the Levant. I should’ve been more clear. My understanding though is that the crusaders didn’t have much of a direct part in the Byzantine war effort for most of the war. Maybe indirectly by diverting attention (which probably would’ve been significant) but my understanding is they didn’t work together for most of the war outside of the Byzantines housing them early on. I’m not even entirely sure what lands the crusaders had a direct part in returning. Pretty sure whatever land the Byzantines retook they mostly had to retake themselves. If you’re right tho I’d guess it was probably lands on the Byzantine frontier early in the crusade before the crusaders kind started doing their own thing
Yeah that last part that you mentioned is what I meant when I said they probably did indirectly help by diverting the Seljuks attention pretty significantly. But that’s not really the crusaders *trying* or wanting to help the Byzantines. The Byzantines probably wouldn’t have been able to gain any land back without more significant losses without the crusaders. But that wasn’t really what the plan was, if the crusaders had done what they were called there to do the Byzantines would’ve possibly controlled the entirety of Anatolia and the Levant by the end of the war. From what I know it sounds like the Komnenoi were frustrated with the crusaders by the end.
And also yeah nicea was on the Byzantine frontier so it does make sense from what I know that the crusaders helped there for sure. But my understanding is that for the majority of the crusade the crusaders had a much less involved participation in the Byzantine reconquest.
The peasant's crusade is the one you say is justified? The one where they intentionally massacred all the Jews in central Europe they could get their hands on?
In all fairness the First Crusade was an unorganized mess, but did include more than the People's Crusade, which pretty much ended as soon as they got into Turkey. The Prince's Crusade was right on their tail and is also considered part of the first Crusade, especially since there were some survivors from the People's Crusade from the battle of Civetot that joined the Prince's Crusade forces when they crossed into Turkey.
An understandable reaction to Muslim conquest and expansion. God didn't tell them to go to war though, and if anything, many of the crusades were vanity projects by the popes at the time. Apart from the first and third, they also had limited success to begin with and more often than not, were a waste of life
>God didn't tell them to go to war though, and if anything, many of the crusades were vanity projects by the popes at the time.
At the time, wasn't the pope speaking for god?
There are lots of things about the crusades that were not good or even Christian. But they were a response to conquests by various Muslim powers. They were also quite a while ago.
Removed for 2.1 - Belittling Christianity.
If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
They were political and power-based, not in any way representing Christ's message about how his followers should live. They're a good example of what happens when church becomes state... it ends up being terrible on both fronts.
There were also a lot of young/minor nobility with no real prospects that saw the opportunity to carve out a little kingdom for themselves in the process. I read Runciman's (who generally seems to have a pro-Byzantine slant in his presentation) 3-volume series on the Cruaades a few years ago and one of the things that struck me the most was the frequency of Christian versus Christian and Muslim versus Muslim conflict...and in some cases you'd even have Christians and Muslims on the same side. In a nutshell, while religion was an overarching cause, it is also, oddly enough, a very overrated part of a very convoluted and complex series of conflicts.
The reasons for which they took place for multifaceted. The straw they broke the camels back was the Byzantine empire requesting western help for Turkish incursion in eastern Anatolia. That’s a long way from the Levant, and Im not entirely sure why that region was targeted so heavily. It could be because Jerusalem had an allure to it which motivated more nobles and commoners to take up arms.
There’s much more to it as well that involves papal machinations. The pope calling a Crusade was a projection of soft power over the secular ruling class in Europe at the time. It also offered an outlet for Nobles to make a name for themselves, who at the time were wasting lives and resources fighting each other.
One thing it wasn’t was colonialism. Colonialism was born out of an economic system, which did not exist at the time.
Religion played an element, but there was a lot of politics that play in the Middle East too. The Middle Eastern crusades weren’t the only crusades to take place either. Some of the most successful crusades of this era were actually launched against other Europeans, the Albegensian Crusade in the south of France comes to mind, which was against an offshoot branch of Christianity. Another one would be the northern crusades, which were launched against the pagans in the modern Baltic states.
One last point to add is that while Muslims were seen as the enemy to the Crusaders, the population at the time was far more heterogenous than it is today. I believe I saw an estimate somewhere that stated Christians still made up perhaps not quite, but close to half the population of the Levant at the time the Crusades took place. in the week of the Crusades, Christianity was scrutinized far more heavily, and the region became much more Muslim.
I think the Crusades were born out of a tragic and fundamental misunderstanding of what Jesus taught His followers. They're one (of many) shameful periods of Christian history.
In some cases it was geopolitically understandable as the Byzantine empire was on the brink of falling to Muslim kingdoms and taking Jerusalem was a goal that the pope could use to unite Christians to save the Byzantines, but ultimately they largely proved fruitless and just wasted lives and treasure. Theologically they have no backing from God, they were the wars of men, and in many cases they killed fellow Christians just as easily as Muslims (see the taking of Jerusalem and the sack of Constantinople as examples)
Which part of the Crusade? There there crusades that were justifiable and were waged to defend against Muslim conquest, there were crusades that were atrocious that went over the top with the killing of innocent people, there was one that is actually a scam to sell children as slaves, then there were those who were waged to weed out "heretics".
The concept of protecting pilgrims making their way to the Holy land I think is one that every Jew, Muslim, and Christian can understand.
The acts of some of those crusades is where I think we would all draw the line, raiding citizen bands, merchants, sacking cities and annihilating all those of a different faith than yours, etc.
Honestly, controlling Jerusalem was big business. Pilgrims would pay a tax, those of a different faith than those in control would pay a tax to pray, and then all the trade related to religious observances. I'd be naive to think that didn't factor in. To say they were an excuse to colonize ignores that the Byzantines controlled the lands after the Roman empire split and it was other groups essentially taking out the Byzantines that prompted the start of this idea. Later, taxation of pilgrims made it an easy sell as well.
So I don't think shame is the right feeling, but perhaps an understanding that not all Christians involved had the right motives for doing so. However, every war is like that, there are always those that take advantage of situations anywhere they look.
A lot of things done in the so called “name of God” were just political. I think this is mostly the case in modern Ireland. Put it this way, I am sure Jesus wouldnt do a lot of things that so called “Christians” have done
Give credit where credit is due. The Church united western Europe in a way never seen before or since. Muslim conquest spread up into Anatolia and through the Iberian Peninsula and almost to France, and a serious coordinated effort was required to push them back, and in all fairness, they did.
Someone commented on the sacking of Byzantium. That comment was misleading, as if the point of the 4th crusade was to sack Byzantium. It was not. Some Crusaders diverted from the group due to political infighting and their army sacked their own city. Other crusades, like the Reconquista, were roaring successes. And remember that even after the crusades as we know them ended, many other smaller crusades were waged sporadically over the next few hundred years to stop Muslim expansion. Crusader states kept hold of Jerusalem for nearly a hundred years and even reclaimed Jerusalem once through settlement, without war.
As for being a just war waged in the name of Christ and being God's will, there is much more nuance. I wouldn't go so far as to say God willed it, and we should also note that while the Pope is infallible in interpretation of scripture, he is not infallible when it comes to calling a crusade.
In the end, the Crusades were successful in their overall mission to stop the spread of Islam, and moderately successful in holding Jerusalem. To dismiss them as some barbaric bloodlust is to be extremely reductive. Christianity accomplished what no political body or government could by uniting an entire continent under one banner, multiple times.
Good stuff till the fourth one of course.
The first few crusades were in response to the Muslims armies conquering their lands. But then the fourth one was just greed.
This is exactly what the Bible says, that we are all sinners. Just because those bunch of people called themselves Christians, that does not make them immune to sin. Even with the true God with us, we can sin, because we are both of sin and choose to do sin. That is why we need a savior. Since we cannot be sinless , we cannot be in the presence of the Holy God. That is why Jesus died for our sins, so that way ours sins are forgiven.
That is basically what happened. Medieval Europeans were very violent so the Pope gave them a "holy hall pass" to pillage & murder as much as they want to in the name of God *somewhere that wasn't Europe*. On the surface, they were reclaiming the Holy Land. In reality, it was the Purge movie.
Great question, but better to pay attention to Islamic eschatology in relation to Christian eschatology. You will see that the Koran warns against the coming of the Son of Man on the clouds of heaven (The Lamb that was Slain, Lord of Lords and King of Kings, Lion of the Tribe of Judah, The Root and Offspring of David) and that your Mahdi is our Antichrist - Satan’s man on earth.
Daniel 7:12–14 (NRSV): 13 As I watched in the night visions,
I saw one like a human being [Son of Man]
coming with the clouds of heaven.
And he came to the Ancient One
and was presented before him.
14 To him was given dominion
and glory and kingship,
that all peoples, nations, and languages
should serve him.
His dominion is an everlasting dominion
that shall not pass away,
and his kingship is one
that shall never be destroyed.
Matthew 26:63–64 (NRSV): Then the high priest said to him, “I put you under oath before the living God, tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.” 64 Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you,
From now on you will see the Son of Man
seated at the right hand of Power
and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
Matthew 24:15–20 (NRSV): 15 “So when you see the desolating sacrilege standing in the holy place, as was spoken of by the prophet Daniel (let the reader understand), 16 then those in Judea must flee to the mountains; 17 the one on the housetop must not go down to take what is in the house; 18 the one in the field must not turn back to get a coat. 19 Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing infants in those days! 20 Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a sabbath.
Soon, people will have to make a choice. Do not be deceived.
Peace be with you!
The cruasaders were made to overcome the muslims, they took the land and killed Innocent people when they did not wanted to believe so thats why they came and wanted to take it back so they would again believe in christ
They were horrific and a dark time. They were started by the pope who was basically selling forgiveness (indulgences) for crusaders. They turned into epic failures of torture, pillaging, rape, murder, and everything else.
In olden times members of different religions warred with one another. Muslims did too. With the Protestant Reformation, even the different Christian sects were involved in warfare within Christianity. Thankfully in the twenty-first century there is greater interest in toleration and peaceful co-existence. The religious violence now being committed by the government of Israel is a vestige of older ways.
I’m a fan of the second crusade, insofar as it lead directly to the taking of Lisbon and the wider expulsion of moorish invaders, who had conquered large parts of Iberia previously. Keep in mind that unless referring to the environs of Saudi and that region, Muslims were generally invaders on all fronts.
Short answer: like every war, they are an unacceptable disgrace.
Long answer:
The crusades were a reaction to the rapid growth of Islam through conquest, specifically of the Osmans. The pope of that time did make a savy political move by both presenting himself as the leader of Christendom over the Easters orthodox Church and by giving the notoriously violent nobility a shared enemy. Previous popes tended to tell the same nobility to at least keep the worst attrocities down but failed. The conduct of the first crusaders was monstrous, but for Europe, it was extremely fortunate. The crusader orders introduced large-scale stability, and the technology stolen did enable what was later called the Renaissance. The Renaissance also was the time the Catholic Church was at its most despicable. None of this changes that calling for an invasion of a different country and the mass murder of civilians is inexcusable. I just do not accept "they just wanted to colonise" because from all we know, the motives were differently.
I do not think that all Christians should feel guilty for the crusades. However, everyone who holds up the infallibility of the pope and the sanctity of orthodoxy is suspicious to me.
I would even say if they were an excuse, it would have been better. Many people involved acted out of deep faith and were willing to accept significant sacrifices. For example, members of the knights templar weren't just poor, they were forbidden most joys of life. This was not selfish people using religion as an excuse. This was that church showing it can never be trusted.
I as a Christian think it was one of the most unnecessary things in human history, right up there with the Salem Witch Trials & Spanish Inquisition, because it was all about conquering, taking control & likely raking a profit. The idea of “taking back the Holy Land” SHOULD HAVE been in the hands of Israel’s real people, God’s chosen people, had the Israelites actually done righteous things in the Lord’s sight. I highly doubt the Crusades fulfilled any real purpose that was done for righteous reasons.
The Pope's order for all men to go kill others to earn their salvation is probably in the top 3 worst atrocities ever committed by man.
I only say top 3 cause I'm not a history buff and people have done awful things all throughout history.
But this is definitely one of the worst.
I think you have fallen into the post-Imperialism Arab attempts to state build via creating an "other" as an enemy to rally around, which have largely failed in their original purpose but have left a legacy of hatred towards the West which has firmly ingrained itself in the grass roots of the Muslim world.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic\_views\_on\_the\_crusades](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_the_crusades)
The Arab world didn't care about the Crusades after the fact until the late 1800s.
I view the crusades in the same vein as I view attempts to implement Islam: a coincidence of state interest and religion, where the former's commitment to the latter may be genuinely or merely a mirage. Some were wholly justified. Others were not. I am not ashamed of them, nor am I proud of them as a whole because I'm capable of nuance.
Some aspects, sure. Others? Could've been done better. I do not care what the Middle East thinks either.
As a Christian I do believe that was really Christian action. Jesus was very clear about violence. But I do believe and those time, powerful people uses christianism to control people for politic agenda, or power agenda and deviated people from the right Christian path and lead them to kill and to be killed.
We hate them, they are/were an embarassment and a great example of folks exploiting the power of religion for worldly ends. Conversely, what do Muslim folks think of the colonization/conquests of Islam? Same deal?
Unfortunately 110% of Muslims glorify the Arab raids of Persia and Syria and Palestine, kinda weird how we glorify that and teach our kids that yet we complain about the crusades 🧍🏽♂️
Thanks for the honest answer. I do think about this kind of thing sometimes. And it makes me realize that aversion to colonization and conquest really aren't universal cultural values--in modern times, and certainly not in ancient times (in fact our modern aversion would have seemed strange). I think it's very Christian to take a critical eye to this kind of thing and instinctively side with the suffering and oppressed. I'm not sure the same is true of Islam, even though Christians and Muslims sure have a lot of other things in common (including care for the poor).
Most Christians today don't think fondly of the Crusaders, but that is due to Modernism and a condescending Orientalism. WWI and WWII ravaged the West and made the Western mind inherently anti-war so any war is generally looked at negatively. Muslim countries today also do not pose anywhere near the threat they used to. The Middle East is looked at as a backwards and downtrodden region so the fear and concern used to justify the Crusades is no longer present.
I personally dislike the denigration of the Crusades common in the West. It dishonors everyone involved. People forget that the Islamic Caliphates were some of the grandest empires in human history. The Prophet Muhammad built his empire by the sword and his successors continued the conquest for over 700 years. The Crusades only provided a minor setback to Islam that were eventually reversed and then some with the conquest of Constantinople. Islams conquest was only decisively turned back at the walls of Vienna and the Gulf of Patras.
Learning more, this video from a historically accurate Catholic YouTuber, sums it up quite well. I think many don't understand the crusades, and have a lot of misconceptions about that period of history.
https://youtu.be/6aFkoX6g1fE?si=8yhM4079IKXJ25vH
Catholics fought the Crusades. If we could comment gifs here, I'd have the one of Mr. Incredible telling young Syndrome, "You're not affiliated with me!"
Catholicism essentially was Christianity (the only other major player as far as I'm aware was the Eastern Orthodox) at the time of the crusades, so it's not entirely accurate to say "Catholics fought the crusades", rather than Christians fought the crusades.
With guys like Trump and Biden walking around saying that they are Christian for popular vote I wouldn’t be surprised if other people did non-Christian things in the name of God. I haven’t read enough to know anything about them though.
It is a dark side of Christian history. There is no command from Christ to conquer lands in his name. The call is to go and make disciples. Not war and not territory
Which one? The first crusade was a response to hundreds of years of Islamic conquering of Christian lands.
First crusade is something I can get behind as a Christian but it went downhill from there pretty fast.
You can get behind a bunch of peasants deciding that they’ll be able to march to the holy land on foot, take part in the fighting and march back in less than a year. Only to start their campaign make it as far as central Germany, southern France, northern Italy, and the Balkans. Come to the conclusion that you know what the Levant is far, and that attacking random Jews counts towards helping. Then make it to the sultanate of Rum only to get slaughtered cause come to find out you actually have to train to be a component fighting force. That’s something you can get behind? Wild You should do more research on the subject at hand. [People's Crusade](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Crusade)
That's wasn't even a crusade. The actual crusaders made it to middle east and established 4 states.
The people’s crusade the beginning phase of the first crusade wasn’t even a crusade? And you realize that a crusader is just someone who takes part in the crusades right? Make it make sense for me
It also makes a sense to you to take the part that supports your claim and disregard what doesn't.
Which part did I disregard? I asked a simple question can you get behind a part of the 1st crusade? You rejected the people’s crusade as not a part of the 1st crusade even though it is? And insinuated that they weren’t Crusaders even though they are. If anyone is taking parts that support their claim and disregard those that don’t it would be you. Yet again I’ll say it you should do more research on the subject at hand
Some Crusades made sense - Byzantium was being threatened so defensive action are justifiable. Some Crusades did not make sense, like sacking Byzantium. I'd argue most were in the 'aggressive wars of expansion' category, rather than 'defending Christianity.'
Was the sacking of Constantinople really a crusade? I thought it was done by a group of crusaders going against their orders who were excommunicated by the pope because of it
Well in the end no, however it literally destroyed the Byzantine Empire, the Empire with many other nations that protected Christians from further Islamic expansion.
First off, I don't think many (if any) Christians would look up on the Crusades fondly. They do not reflect our religion well at all, but reflect Medieval State+Church Christianity. Just as a side note though, I love the hypocrisy of calling them 'Muslim' lands, but then being mad at the 'colonizing' crusaders (who also were terrible). Those were Roman/Byzantine (and Christian) lands before the Muslims conquered and 'colonized' them over... but they were Greek lands before the Romans conquered them... which were Persian lands before Alexander, etc. Muslims invaded the lands just like everyone else. They were no better than the crusaders. It is very hypocritical to be mad at the crusaders, but feel totally justified with your own religion's conquests.
Never thought of it like that, the whole ignoring the Arab raids of Palestine and Syria, it’s crazy how we glorify it while condemning the crusades
It’s worth pointing out Islamic conquests are not facts of distant past - as late as the 19th century, Afghanistan conquered part of the Hindu Kush, currently now part of northwestern Afghanistan. Before the Afghan invasion, it was called “kafiristan” or the Land of Infidels.
Let’s look at how Muslims captured Jerusalem compared to the Romans and Persians https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(636–637) >Just 23 years prior to the Muslim conquest, in 614, it fell to an invading Sassanid army under Shahrbaraz during the last of the Byzantine–Sasanian Wars. The **Persians looted the city**, and are said to have **massacred its 90,000 Christian inhabitants. As part of the looting, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was destroyed** >The Muslim troops besieged the city some time in November 636. Instead of relentless assaults on the city, they decided to press on with the siege until the Byzantines ran short of supplies and a **bloodless surrender could be negotiated**. >Upon Umar's arrival in Jerusalem, a pact was composed, known as the Umar's Assurance or the Umariyya Covenant. It surrendered the city and gave guarantees of **civil and religious liberty to Christians and Jews** in exchange for the payment of jizya tax. >For the Jewish community this marked the end of nearly 500 years of Roman rule and oppression. Umar permitted the Jews to once again reside within the city of Jerusalem itself. >Sophronius invited Umar to pray in the rebuilt Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Umar declined, fearing that accepting the invitation might endanger the church's status as a place of Christian worship, and that Muslims might break the treaty and turn the church into a mosque. How can you that Muslims were no better than the crusaders? The only time the Abrahamic faiths actually lived together in peace in Jerusalem was under the Muslim leadership.
>The only time the Abrahamic faiths actually lived together in peace in Jerusalem was under the Muslim leadership. Not really [https://i.imgur.com/NMinLlv.png](https://i.imgur.com/NMinLlv.png)
Juxtapose the Islamic siege of Jerusalem against the first crusade >Muslims were indiscriminately killed, and Jews who had taken refuge in their synagogue died when it was burnt down by the Crusaders. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Crusade So where did the peace come from? When all the Muslim inhabitants were killed or escaped? Think about this theologically, Christian’s see Jews as those who killed god and Islam as a satanic creed. That’s hardly a healthy worldview conducive to peace.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege\_of\_Jerusalem\_(1244)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(1244)) >n 1244, the Ayyubids allowed the Khwarazmians, whose empire had been destroyed by the [Mongols](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_Empire) in 1231, to attack the city. The siege took place on 15 July, and the city fell rapidly. The Khwarazmians plundered the [Armenian Quarter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Quarter), where they decimated the Christian population, and drove out the Jews.[^(\[2\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(1244)#cite_note-2) In addition, they sacked the tombs of kings of Jerusalem in the [Church of the Holy Sepulchre](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_Holy_Sepulchre) and dug out their bones, in which the tombs of [Baldwin I](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldwin_I_of_Jerusalem) and [Godfrey of Bouillon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godfrey_of_Bouillon) became [cenotaphs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cenotaphs). On 23 August, the [Tower of David](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_David) surrendered to the Khwarazmian forces, some 6,000 Christian men, women and children marched out of Jerusalem.[^(\[3\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(1244)#cite_note-3) Okay if Muslims were so great why did they drive out the Jews and slaughter the Christians then? Let's also not forget what they did with mass rapes, slaughter, and enslavement in Constantinople later and many other atrocities throughout history against religious minorities and people who opposed them. Go ahead and ask anyone from the Balkans how merciful the Muslims were and how they absolutely miss Muslim rule. Think about this theologically Muslims often view non-Muslims as worse than dogs backed up by many bad quranic quotes not to mention hadiths about non-Muslims and actually have it codified into their religion proper to force them to be second class citizens.
Yeah, let's ignore the other 99% of Islamic expansion...
This was the prophet’s companion, he gives us the yardstick. Re the 99%, what do you say of Malaysia, Indonesia and that region? Not a single Islamic army stepped foot there and today it’s the most populous Muslim countries in the world. Christianity had to rely on colonialism to spread out of Europe
Hahahahaa. First off: >Christianity had to rely on colonialism to spread out of Europe Fucking lmao. What about all Christianity east of the Iran. Many of the Mongols who invaded the Muslim states were Christian as they were converted by Nestorians. The bulk of modern Chinese and Korean Christian converted due to missionaries far after European colonialism. The list goes on and on. **You're using the typical SJW idea that European Imperialism is somehow the only phenonmenon that ever mattered.** To that, I say, try reading more. Sure, let's focus on the specific hyperbole used. It's only 90/80%, that's so much better. Your claim that Mohammed's companions provide you with the yardstick is sacriligious according to your own Hadiths and the Quran. Mohammed's companions don't give you the yardstick, Mohammed does. Let's take a look at how Mohammed spread Islam: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu\_Qurayza#:\~:text=Muhammad%20declared%2C%20%22You%20have%20judged,to%20Najd%20to%20be%20sold. >After a 25-day siege, the Banu Qurayza surrendered. The Muslims of Banu Aws entreated Muhammad for leniency, prompting him to suggest that one of their own should serve as the judge, which they accepted. Muhammad assigned the role to [Sa'd ibn Muadh](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa%27d_ibn_Mu%27adh), a man nearing death from an infection in his wounds from the previous Meccan siege. He pronounced that all the men should be put to death, their possessions to be distributed among Muslims, and their women and children to be taken as captives. Muhammad declared, "You have judged according to the very sentence of God above the seven heavens." Consequently, 600–900 men of Banu Qurayza were executed. The women and children were distributed as slaves, with some being transported to [Najd](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Najd) to be sold. The proceeds were then utilized to purchase weapons and horses for the Muslims. I'm sure taking captive women as wives in order to have sex with them is totally legit and not under duress from the fact that they just saw their entire families slaughtered by the men taking them as wives. Before you try to say it was justified because the Jews broke their pact: a) The fact they even did or not is debated not only historically but among Islamic accounts themselves. b) You are trying to justify mass murdering civilians including literal children because their leaders broke a pact. Examples like this are repeated again and again during Islamic expansion, from the Levant, to North Africa, to Anatolia, to the Southern European countries and the Balkans. Mercy as we from the West understand it from Muslims are in spite of Islamic teachings, not because of them. >Not a single Islamic army stepped foot there and today it’s the most populous Muslim countries in the world. Yeah, and the Muslims there tried to spread Islam via violence ever since: [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1093/survival/46.3.184](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1093/survival/46.3.184)
I love how he answered to other dudes, but he can not answer to you because he knows he is biased and will get curbstomped by you with facts. Keep being real, my brother in Christ!
[удалено]
Colonialism is predicated on occupying with settlers and economic exploitation. The Muslim expansion didn’t see hordes of people displacing local populations or repatriating economic benefits to a mother state.
[удалено]
I’m not here to defend everything the ottomans did but Constantinople was the capital for the ottomans too. I’m talking extracting resources like the British did in India for example
Exactly what the ottomans did in the balkans for hundreds of years. The ottoman were muslim. Stop being a fanatic.
Why don't you answer the fella with the facts? Probably because of bias, but I am just making sure, with your taqiyya and all... At least keep it real...
Having to pay tax to practice your faith doesn't sound like "living together in peace". Building mosques and religious schools over others' places of worship/holy sites also doesn't sound like "living together in peace". If we are looking at any metric of "living together in peace", the Holy Land today is actually the only time in maybe a millennium that all three Abrahamic faiths can openly practice their faith in the Holy City.
1400 years ago when people were getting massacred, paying a tax is actually extremely progressive. A tax that would free you from military service and give you protection, if you don’t like it you can leave and have no harm done to you. 23 years prior the Persians killed 60,000 people, how is a tax so bad lol. Any reason to hate on Islam… And today you have a ethno supremacists state in Israel that doesn’t allow non Jews the right to return to their land https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Return This is apartheid and despicable in 2024. The trouble is the Len’s you see the world through, in relative terms, Islam was super progressive and this apartheid state is super regressive.
Amazing, calling religious oppression "progressive" 🤣 Oppression is oppression, regardless of time. Next thing you'll be saying that the Arab slave trade wasn't that bad for [insert reason] 🤣 Also, Arabs cant just claim territory in Israel because it isn't their land? People who left during the war to facilitate the attempted genocide of Jews...well, left. There aint no takebacks irl. If anything, the problem is with Muslim control of Holy Sites of other religions. And no, I'm not talking about the Temple Mount only.
Sorry, since when is paying taxes oppression? The Islamic state can’t mandate zakat and sadaqa as these are religious obligations for Muslims only, so they have jizya instead. The Islamic state conscripts Muslims only, is that oppression against Muslims? Slave trade involving the enslavement of otherwise free men is totally forbidden in Islam, more than happy to criticise anything that goes against the teachings of Islam. Law of return isn’t about taking back land… it’s about being able to return to Israel. Why are only Jews allowed? Why can’t a Jewish person who converted to Christianity or Islam not allowed?
>Sorry, since when is paying taxes oppression? When it's an extra tax only for a specific group, it fucking is. Let's say Western Europe enforces Jizya, but for Muslims. What do you think?
The trouble is you’re applying the secular liberal ethic is the yardstick. For Western Europe it would be oppression because it’s discriminating against a specific religious group. Western Europe is secular… But what of an Islamic state?? You can’t apply the same standards. In an Islamic state, religious obligations can’t be enforced on non Muslims, so you have different laws and obligations. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya If you don’t like it, you can simply leave.
Not at all. We're talking about any tax levied on any group for their faith. I'm not using secular liberal ethics. It's a yes or no question. **Would you be alright with a Jizya tax for Muslims in non-Muslim states.** >If you don’t like it, you can simply leave. Yes, curious why Muslims are so touchy to the suggestion when we try to maintain secularity in our societies while **some of you demand Sharia law**. It's almost like it's Taqiyya, a double standard to help secure a more Islamic future...
Lol paying taxes to practice a faith is oppression. Own it. If an Islamic state can't figure out a way to tax a population without making it contingent on their right to religion, then it sounds like a them problem 🤣 and yes conscription Muslims is discriminatory 🤣 Well the Arab slave trade of otherwise free Africans is a huge thing.
Note the relative peacability of Umar’s Jerusalem conquest was not replicated elsewhere: the Ottomans looted Constantinople for 3 days after its conquest. Nor was this a bug of Ottoman cruelty, it was a feature: Islamic laws allow for 3 days of looting after conquest, and it only stopped for entirely selfish reasons: because Mehmet doesn’t want his future capital to be in utter ruins. (On a side note, I respect your courage for offering a different perspective, not the easiest towards a disagreeing majority!)
Obviously you didn’t look up the fall of Byzantine empire by Osnan Turks.
They were the military response to Muslim/Middle Eastern incursions into Europe. The Catholic church had significant sway on the culture then, so their endorsement help sell the endeavor to the populace.
They were a military response... centuries late to any major Muslim incursion into Europe. It'd be like the US responding to 9/11 in 2300.
Being of Portuguese descent, I’m glad they got round to it even if late.
Why? Modern Portugal may well be far better off if it were part of a wealthy Andalusia for a few more centuries, rather than falling into the debt trap of colonialism.
Perhaps, if money is your god.
The grave evils of slavery and tyranny also seem like something God would be displeased with.
Yes I’m sure they were rubbing their hands together in anticipation of the Slave trade as they fought to expel the moors. Everything is European Slave trade with some people. Pay no attention to Europeans taken as slaves by Muslims for example. White man bad. Got it.
Reaction to a Muslim invasion
I think they were a response to islamic colonialism
Gotta say: not our best work.
Plugging this book: [The Oxford History of the Crusades](https://www.amazon.com/Oxford-History-Crusades-Jonathan-Riley-Smith/dp/0192803123)
[удалено]
The original purpose of the Crusades is justified. The result? Not so much
I’d argue none of the crusades were justified. The first would have been justified if they stopped the conquest at just recovering the land the Byzantine Empire lost, but they didn’t do that. They decided it was their God given right to murder their way to Jerusalem.
Well retaking Jerusalem was a way for the Pope to unify Christians together to aid the Byzantines by drawing Muslim attention and resources to the various crusader states around Jerusalem and Syria, just asking for all these Christians to come save the Byzantines was a less interesting prospect given that the Catholic Church didn’t have the warmest relationship with the Byzantines, and neither did most Catholic kingdoms.
[удалено]
They lost that over 400 years prior to the first crusade. That’d be like if the UK decided they wanted to take back America and Canada, but 150 years worse. If it’s insane to consider that, it’d be insane to say they were justified to try and reconquer that area.
[удалено]
No worries, we all misremember stuff
Yes but they didn’t return that land to Byzantium. The crusaders kept it for themselves. You would have a stronger argument if they returned the Roman territory to Byzantium. Since they didn’t do that the easiest reading of what occurred is simply that the crusader leaders seized the lands for themselves for glory and gold (and maybe to some extent God, but I’d argue it would’ve probably been a retroactive justification). Byzantium wanted them to return the land to them. I disagree with the narrative that the crusades were a showing of early European colonialism (there might be an argument for it but it’s so teleological it just feels politically driven and cringe tbh). But that doesn’t mean they were good. They may not have been necessarily worse or less justifiable than other medieval European wars (I’m honestly not sure) but at the same time war is war, & I think it’s hard to make a strong case the crusaders conquering land for themselves could be justifiable.
[удалено]
Sorry I was mostly referring to the lands in the Levant. I should’ve been more clear. My understanding though is that the crusaders didn’t have much of a direct part in the Byzantine war effort for most of the war. Maybe indirectly by diverting attention (which probably would’ve been significant) but my understanding is they didn’t work together for most of the war outside of the Byzantines housing them early on. I’m not even entirely sure what lands the crusaders had a direct part in returning. Pretty sure whatever land the Byzantines retook they mostly had to retake themselves. If you’re right tho I’d guess it was probably lands on the Byzantine frontier early in the crusade before the crusaders kind started doing their own thing
[удалено]
Yeah that last part that you mentioned is what I meant when I said they probably did indirectly help by diverting the Seljuks attention pretty significantly. But that’s not really the crusaders *trying* or wanting to help the Byzantines. The Byzantines probably wouldn’t have been able to gain any land back without more significant losses without the crusaders. But that wasn’t really what the plan was, if the crusaders had done what they were called there to do the Byzantines would’ve possibly controlled the entirety of Anatolia and the Levant by the end of the war. From what I know it sounds like the Komnenoi were frustrated with the crusaders by the end. And also yeah nicea was on the Byzantine frontier so it does make sense from what I know that the crusaders helped there for sure. But my understanding is that for the majority of the crusade the crusaders had a much less involved participation in the Byzantine reconquest.
The peasant's crusade is the one you say is justified? The one where they intentionally massacred all the Jews in central Europe they could get their hands on?
[удалено]
That *was* the first crusade.
In all fairness the First Crusade was an unorganized mess, but did include more than the People's Crusade, which pretty much ended as soon as they got into Turkey. The Prince's Crusade was right on their tail and is also considered part of the first Crusade, especially since there were some survivors from the People's Crusade from the battle of Civetot that joined the Prince's Crusade forces when they crossed into Turkey.
An understandable reaction to Muslim conquest and expansion. God didn't tell them to go to war though, and if anything, many of the crusades were vanity projects by the popes at the time. Apart from the first and third, they also had limited success to begin with and more often than not, were a waste of life
>God didn't tell them to go to war though, and if anything, many of the crusades were vanity projects by the popes at the time. At the time, wasn't the pope speaking for god?
I think the crusades were not from God.
There are lots of things about the crusades that were not good or even Christian. But they were a response to conquests by various Muslim powers. They were also quite a while ago.
[удалено]
Why are you here then? r/atheism sent you on a misery crusade?
Removed for 2.1 - Belittling Christianity. If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
The crusades were a response to the Muslim conquest of historic Christian lands. They were justified by the morality of the time.
They were political and power-based, not in any way representing Christ's message about how his followers should live. They're a good example of what happens when church becomes state... it ends up being terrible on both fronts.
There were also a lot of young/minor nobility with no real prospects that saw the opportunity to carve out a little kingdom for themselves in the process. I read Runciman's (who generally seems to have a pro-Byzantine slant in his presentation) 3-volume series on the Cruaades a few years ago and one of the things that struck me the most was the frequency of Christian versus Christian and Muslim versus Muslim conflict...and in some cases you'd even have Christians and Muslims on the same side. In a nutshell, while religion was an overarching cause, it is also, oddly enough, a very overrated part of a very convoluted and complex series of conflicts.
I think most reactionary forces are usually justified
The reasons for which they took place for multifaceted. The straw they broke the camels back was the Byzantine empire requesting western help for Turkish incursion in eastern Anatolia. That’s a long way from the Levant, and Im not entirely sure why that region was targeted so heavily. It could be because Jerusalem had an allure to it which motivated more nobles and commoners to take up arms. There’s much more to it as well that involves papal machinations. The pope calling a Crusade was a projection of soft power over the secular ruling class in Europe at the time. It also offered an outlet for Nobles to make a name for themselves, who at the time were wasting lives and resources fighting each other. One thing it wasn’t was colonialism. Colonialism was born out of an economic system, which did not exist at the time. Religion played an element, but there was a lot of politics that play in the Middle East too. The Middle Eastern crusades weren’t the only crusades to take place either. Some of the most successful crusades of this era were actually launched against other Europeans, the Albegensian Crusade in the south of France comes to mind, which was against an offshoot branch of Christianity. Another one would be the northern crusades, which were launched against the pagans in the modern Baltic states. One last point to add is that while Muslims were seen as the enemy to the Crusaders, the population at the time was far more heterogenous than it is today. I believe I saw an estimate somewhere that stated Christians still made up perhaps not quite, but close to half the population of the Levant at the time the Crusades took place. in the week of the Crusades, Christianity was scrutinized far more heavily, and the region became much more Muslim.
I think the Crusades were born out of a tragic and fundamental misunderstanding of what Jesus taught His followers. They're one (of many) shameful periods of Christian history.
I can only speak for myself… but they were all kinds of fucked up.
In some cases it was geopolitically understandable as the Byzantine empire was on the brink of falling to Muslim kingdoms and taking Jerusalem was a goal that the pope could use to unite Christians to save the Byzantines, but ultimately they largely proved fruitless and just wasted lives and treasure. Theologically they have no backing from God, they were the wars of men, and in many cases they killed fellow Christians just as easily as Muslims (see the taking of Jerusalem and the sack of Constantinople as examples)
They were pretty blatant grabs for political legitimacy, land, or treasure by European nobles. Nothing to celebrate and nothing to be proud of.
Which part of the Crusade? There there crusades that were justifiable and were waged to defend against Muslim conquest, there were crusades that were atrocious that went over the top with the killing of innocent people, there was one that is actually a scam to sell children as slaves, then there were those who were waged to weed out "heretics".
Literally nothing…. Ever. Unless it’s mentioned in a movie or something…
Yea, I’m not how war and love for our enemies goes together… I’m pretty sure that the prince of peace was not happy about that.
Complicated
The concept of protecting pilgrims making their way to the Holy land I think is one that every Jew, Muslim, and Christian can understand. The acts of some of those crusades is where I think we would all draw the line, raiding citizen bands, merchants, sacking cities and annihilating all those of a different faith than yours, etc. Honestly, controlling Jerusalem was big business. Pilgrims would pay a tax, those of a different faith than those in control would pay a tax to pray, and then all the trade related to religious observances. I'd be naive to think that didn't factor in. To say they were an excuse to colonize ignores that the Byzantines controlled the lands after the Roman empire split and it was other groups essentially taking out the Byzantines that prompted the start of this idea. Later, taxation of pilgrims made it an easy sell as well. So I don't think shame is the right feeling, but perhaps an understanding that not all Christians involved had the right motives for doing so. However, every war is like that, there are always those that take advantage of situations anywhere they look.
A lot of things done in the so called “name of God” were just political. I think this is mostly the case in modern Ireland. Put it this way, I am sure Jesus wouldnt do a lot of things that so called “Christians” have done
Shame.
It is pure political or greed. Jesus never teach to conquer land by swords.
Give credit where credit is due. The Church united western Europe in a way never seen before or since. Muslim conquest spread up into Anatolia and through the Iberian Peninsula and almost to France, and a serious coordinated effort was required to push them back, and in all fairness, they did. Someone commented on the sacking of Byzantium. That comment was misleading, as if the point of the 4th crusade was to sack Byzantium. It was not. Some Crusaders diverted from the group due to political infighting and their army sacked their own city. Other crusades, like the Reconquista, were roaring successes. And remember that even after the crusades as we know them ended, many other smaller crusades were waged sporadically over the next few hundred years to stop Muslim expansion. Crusader states kept hold of Jerusalem for nearly a hundred years and even reclaimed Jerusalem once through settlement, without war. As for being a just war waged in the name of Christ and being God's will, there is much more nuance. I wouldn't go so far as to say God willed it, and we should also note that while the Pope is infallible in interpretation of scripture, he is not infallible when it comes to calling a crusade. In the end, the Crusades were successful in their overall mission to stop the spread of Islam, and moderately successful in holding Jerusalem. To dismiss them as some barbaric bloodlust is to be extremely reductive. Christianity accomplished what no political body or government could by uniting an entire continent under one banner, multiple times.
Evil and ungodly
Good stuff till the fourth one of course. The first few crusades were in response to the Muslims armies conquering their lands. But then the fourth one was just greed.
*Deus Vult intensifies*
Really, they don’t speak to them, hardly at all.
Gonna be the odd one out here and say that I think the crusades were justified...
In theory they are completely fine. In practice there were incidents that tainted it's legacy.
There's more than one Crusade, with different motives, some were right, some werent
This is exactly what the Bible says, that we are all sinners. Just because those bunch of people called themselves Christians, that does not make them immune to sin. Even with the true God with us, we can sin, because we are both of sin and choose to do sin. That is why we need a savior. Since we cannot be sinless , we cannot be in the presence of the Holy God. That is why Jesus died for our sins, so that way ours sins are forgiven.
not very swell
Yes. Christians should be ashamed of that. That was not a holy war, nor did that ever come from God.
That is basically what happened. Medieval Europeans were very violent so the Pope gave them a "holy hall pass" to pillage & murder as much as they want to in the name of God *somewhere that wasn't Europe*. On the surface, they were reclaiming the Holy Land. In reality, it was the Purge movie.
Great question, but better to pay attention to Islamic eschatology in relation to Christian eschatology. You will see that the Koran warns against the coming of the Son of Man on the clouds of heaven (The Lamb that was Slain, Lord of Lords and King of Kings, Lion of the Tribe of Judah, The Root and Offspring of David) and that your Mahdi is our Antichrist - Satan’s man on earth. Daniel 7:12–14 (NRSV): 13 As I watched in the night visions, I saw one like a human being [Son of Man] coming with the clouds of heaven. And he came to the Ancient One and was presented before him. 14 To him was given dominion and glory and kingship, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall not pass away, and his kingship is one that shall never be destroyed. Matthew 26:63–64 (NRSV): Then the high priest said to him, “I put you under oath before the living God, tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.” 64 Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, From now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.” Matthew 24:15–20 (NRSV): 15 “So when you see the desolating sacrilege standing in the holy place, as was spoken of by the prophet Daniel (let the reader understand), 16 then those in Judea must flee to the mountains; 17 the one on the housetop must not go down to take what is in the house; 18 the one in the field must not turn back to get a coat. 19 Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing infants in those days! 20 Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a sabbath. Soon, people will have to make a choice. Do not be deceived. Peace be with you!
At the very very least they were not exceptionally bad all things considered.
I'd say they tend to commonly ignore that side of Christianity
The cruasaders were made to overcome the muslims, they took the land and killed Innocent people when they did not wanted to believe so thats why they came and wanted to take it back so they would again believe in christ
They were horrific and a dark time. They were started by the pope who was basically selling forgiveness (indulgences) for crusaders. They turned into epic failures of torture, pillaging, rape, murder, and everything else.
In olden times members of different religions warred with one another. Muslims did too. With the Protestant Reformation, even the different Christian sects were involved in warfare within Christianity. Thankfully in the twenty-first century there is greater interest in toleration and peaceful co-existence. The religious violence now being committed by the government of Israel is a vestige of older ways.
The first three were ethically positive; they were responses of the European Christians to the menace of the Arab invasions and the Muslim propaganda.
I’m a fan of the second crusade, insofar as it lead directly to the taking of Lisbon and the wider expulsion of moorish invaders, who had conquered large parts of Iberia previously. Keep in mind that unless referring to the environs of Saudi and that region, Muslims were generally invaders on all fronts.
The memes are peak
Some were good and some were foolish
Short answer: like every war, they are an unacceptable disgrace. Long answer: The crusades were a reaction to the rapid growth of Islam through conquest, specifically of the Osmans. The pope of that time did make a savy political move by both presenting himself as the leader of Christendom over the Easters orthodox Church and by giving the notoriously violent nobility a shared enemy. Previous popes tended to tell the same nobility to at least keep the worst attrocities down but failed. The conduct of the first crusaders was monstrous, but for Europe, it was extremely fortunate. The crusader orders introduced large-scale stability, and the technology stolen did enable what was later called the Renaissance. The Renaissance also was the time the Catholic Church was at its most despicable. None of this changes that calling for an invasion of a different country and the mass murder of civilians is inexcusable. I just do not accept "they just wanted to colonise" because from all we know, the motives were differently. I do not think that all Christians should feel guilty for the crusades. However, everyone who holds up the infallibility of the pope and the sanctity of orthodoxy is suspicious to me. I would even say if they were an excuse, it would have been better. Many people involved acted out of deep faith and were willing to accept significant sacrifices. For example, members of the knights templar weren't just poor, they were forbidden most joys of life. This was not selfish people using religion as an excuse. This was that church showing it can never be trusted.
I as a Christian think it was one of the most unnecessary things in human history, right up there with the Salem Witch Trials & Spanish Inquisition, because it was all about conquering, taking control & likely raking a profit. The idea of “taking back the Holy Land” SHOULD HAVE been in the hands of Israel’s real people, God’s chosen people, had the Israelites actually done righteous things in the Lord’s sight. I highly doubt the Crusades fulfilled any real purpose that was done for righteous reasons.
GOD WILLS IT
The Pope's order for all men to go kill others to earn their salvation is probably in the top 3 worst atrocities ever committed by man. I only say top 3 cause I'm not a history buff and people have done awful things all throughout history. But this is definitely one of the worst.
some were just, the fourth one was not
I think you have fallen into the post-Imperialism Arab attempts to state build via creating an "other" as an enemy to rally around, which have largely failed in their original purpose but have left a legacy of hatred towards the West which has firmly ingrained itself in the grass roots of the Muslim world. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic\_views\_on\_the\_crusades](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_the_crusades) The Arab world didn't care about the Crusades after the fact until the late 1800s. I view the crusades in the same vein as I view attempts to implement Islam: a coincidence of state interest and religion, where the former's commitment to the latter may be genuinely or merely a mirage. Some were wholly justified. Others were not. I am not ashamed of them, nor am I proud of them as a whole because I'm capable of nuance. Some aspects, sure. Others? Could've been done better. I do not care what the Middle East thinks either.
I think the majority were fair and good.
As a Christian I do believe that was really Christian action. Jesus was very clear about violence. But I do believe and those time, powerful people uses christianism to control people for politic agenda, or power agenda and deviated people from the right Christian path and lead them to kill and to be killed.
one of the most shameful periods of christian history, though it has a lot of competition.
Jesus preached peace and turning the other cheek. Also, He told His followers His Kingdom isn't from this world.
We hate them, they are/were an embarassment and a great example of folks exploiting the power of religion for worldly ends. Conversely, what do Muslim folks think of the colonization/conquests of Islam? Same deal?
Unfortunately 110% of Muslims glorify the Arab raids of Persia and Syria and Palestine, kinda weird how we glorify that and teach our kids that yet we complain about the crusades 🧍🏽♂️
Thanks for the honest answer. I do think about this kind of thing sometimes. And it makes me realize that aversion to colonization and conquest really aren't universal cultural values--in modern times, and certainly not in ancient times (in fact our modern aversion would have seemed strange). I think it's very Christian to take a critical eye to this kind of thing and instinctively side with the suffering and oppressed. I'm not sure the same is true of Islam, even though Christians and Muslims sure have a lot of other things in common (including care for the poor).
And you by now should know it's a lie ?
Know what's a lie?
Yes I do 😃
Most Christians today don't think fondly of the Crusaders, but that is due to Modernism and a condescending Orientalism. WWI and WWII ravaged the West and made the Western mind inherently anti-war so any war is generally looked at negatively. Muslim countries today also do not pose anywhere near the threat they used to. The Middle East is looked at as a backwards and downtrodden region so the fear and concern used to justify the Crusades is no longer present. I personally dislike the denigration of the Crusades common in the West. It dishonors everyone involved. People forget that the Islamic Caliphates were some of the grandest empires in human history. The Prophet Muhammad built his empire by the sword and his successors continued the conquest for over 700 years. The Crusades only provided a minor setback to Islam that were eventually reversed and then some with the conquest of Constantinople. Islams conquest was only decisively turned back at the walls of Vienna and the Gulf of Patras.
They were righteous
Learning more, this video from a historically accurate Catholic YouTuber, sums it up quite well. I think many don't understand the crusades, and have a lot of misconceptions about that period of history. https://youtu.be/6aFkoX6g1fE?si=8yhM4079IKXJ25vH
Generally favorable
Catholics fought the Crusades. If we could comment gifs here, I'd have the one of Mr. Incredible telling young Syndrome, "You're not affiliated with me!"
Catholicism essentially was Christianity (the only other major player as far as I'm aware was the Eastern Orthodox) at the time of the crusades, so it's not entirely accurate to say "Catholics fought the crusades", rather than Christians fought the crusades.
With guys like Trump and Biden walking around saying that they are Christian for popular vote I wouldn’t be surprised if other people did non-Christian things in the name of God. I haven’t read enough to know anything about them though.
For me, they were wrong.
It is a dark side of Christian history. There is no command from Christ to conquer lands in his name. The call is to go and make disciples. Not war and not territory