FRIHOST • FORUMS • FAQ • TOS • BLOGS • DIRECTORY
You are invited to Log in or Register a Frihost Account!

Crusades- Right or Wrong?

   Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Philosophy and Religion
 


haydenharasta
Below is a short text derived from www.medievalcrusades.com I am curious to wonder not necessarily if people believe if the crusades was right or wrong, but where do you, the people, believe the world would be now if Pope Urban II had not instituted the Crusades? Do you believe the world would be a different place? Politically? Socially? Diplomatically? Economically? Let me know what you think!

Quote:
The year was 1095 CE, William the Conqueror had united England under one crown 30 years earlier. The French had been dividing properties amongst their sons for generations, causing bloodshed between brothers over small pieces of real estate. In reaction, Pope Urban II expanded "The Truce of God", which outlawed fighting from Sunday to Wednesday, and banned fighting involving priests, monks, women, laborers and merchants on any day of the week. Italy was a collection of city-states, constantly being overrun by invading hordes, the latest of which were the Normans, who had just started to become "civilized".

There was also the Byzantine empire, ruling from Constantinople, whose emperor at this time was Alexius Comnenus. To his East, the Turks were rapidly encroaching on his empire, and had begun attacking pilgrims on their way to - and in - Jerusalem, causing him great distress. He wrote to his friend Robert, the Count of Flanders, in 1093, telling him about supposed atrocities committed by the Turks on the Christian pilgrims, and Robert passed this letter on to Pope Urban II. Urban, an opportunist, saw this as a perfect way to solve some of his local problems. He personally promoted a Holy Crusade to reclaim the Holy Lands from the barbarian Turks. Thus, the First Crusade was launched in 1096 CE.

At this point, we need a list of players. Many went along, but only a few are worth remembering. It was an international group, with members from France, Italy and England. From France, we have Hugh the (not so) Great, Count of Vermandois, brother of the French King of Northern and Central France, and a man of little character with no other importance to our story. With him were Godfrey, Baldwin and Eustace of Bouillon, sons of the Duke of Lower Lorraine - descended through their mother from Charlemagne - along with their cousin, Baldwin Le Bourg. Also from France, we have Raymond IV of Saint-Gilles, Count of Toulouse, who had already fought the Moors in Spain. His mother was a princess of Barcelona. He was the first to "Take the Cross".

From England, we have Robert, Duke of Normandy, son of William the Conqueror. From Italy, we have Marcus Bohemond, Prince of Toranto, son of Robert Guiscard, a Norman who had not fallen too far from his barbarian tree, and also his nephew Tancred.

We have set the players, now for the place. It was called the Levant, the land over the ocean, the Latin Orient. The area in question is now called Israel, and also includes parts of Lebanon and a small stretch of Syria and southeastern Turkey. It was divided into the four Crusader States of Antioch, Edessa, Tripoli and Jerusalem. It was a small stretch of land that was steeped in religious heritage and held the promise of bestowing riches upon the men who could control the "land flowing in milk and honey".

What follows is a story of war, holy visions, unholy alliances, promises made with fingers crossed, sieges and slaughters, the details of which fill volumes.


Thanks again all...HH...

Edit by tidruG: I added the quote tags. Please use quote tags when copying from other sources
The Conspirator
Murder, treachery, genocide. And all does in the name of a man who said "love thy enemy"
Mahatma Gandhi one said "You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty." but its hard when you see allot of dirty drops.
darvit
I think that using the Name of the Lord to carry out such unspeakable acts is just not acceptable. It's senseless killing; it's actually quite sick.

The Crusades are over, and its effects has changed hostory and the world as we know it. There is nothing we can do about it, except learn from it.

And I heard that the late Pope John Paul II has apologized in behalf of the Faith to the others whose spiritual brothers and sisters have been victimized by this mass murder.
Soulfire
Things happen, there's nothing we can really do about it now except, well, not do it again. It happens time and time again, to everyone, every race, every religion - some sort of... "skeleton in the closet"
Vrythramax
I can't bring myself to believe killing in the name of God can be right under any circumstances. It doesn't matter if it happened 400 years ago or 4 hours ago....killing is just wrong, and to us God as your justification? That can only lead to trouble.
Rhysige
Crusades where wrong through modern standards thats clear from anyones view however this does not make them wrong by the standards of the time.

Did they make a difference? ofcourse they did Razz something that big would change the course of the world.
Soulfire
But I have to wonder, is this a comparison to terrorism? Because notice that the Crusades were in the past. And it's not necessarily just the Christian aspect of it, the Crusades were also just general people against Muslims. I'm no authority on the subject, but it doesn't take too much to know that killing in the name of God isn't right, especially by a God who commands me "Thou shalt not kill."

Two parties at war. Stuff happens. (Or happened, considering this is the past).
HoboPelican
Hmm, there is an interesting line in the above quote.

Quote:
To his East, the Turks were rapidly encroaching on his empire, and had begun attacking pilgrims on their way to - and in - Jerusalem, causing him great distress.


Believe me, I am no apologist for the the crusades and have always thought it was a terrible blot on Christianity. But this one line makes me wonder a bit about the origins of it all. It seems to imply that the Turks where stealing land and attacking "civilian" pilgrims. This seems like a darn good reason to send a force. Not saying it justifies any atrocities, but does seem to imply a valid beginning.

Any thoughts on that?
cbf-cma
It is arguable that the crusades brought western civilization out of the Dark Ages by creating trade with the East, which preserved ancient Roman and Greek science and literature. You can also argue that World War I and II brought about a global advancement in communication and technology despite the loss of over 50 million people. However, I wouldn't say the crusades or any war was ever a good thing because there is always a peaceful alternative to those sorts of acomplishments. Of course, that goes for class-war as well. No one really has to die for freedom and equality as long as we can understand the basic rights of others, which is in everyone's capacity.

"Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be acheived through understanding" - Albert Einstein
hyhy
HoboPelican wrote:
Believe me, I am no apologist for the the crusades and have always thought it was a terrible blot on Christianity. But this one line makes me wonder a bit about the origins of it all. It seems to imply that the Turks where stealing land and attacking "civilian" pilgrims. This seems like a darn good reason to send a force. Not saying it justifies any atrocities, but does seem to imply a valid beginning.

Any thoughts on that?


Hell no. The crusades was against non-christians, and most of time those non-christians wasn't doing any harm than for instance beliving in other religion than catolicism which cant be harming (jews, cathars, etc.). Just popes were stupid, as well as the many of the rest of christians, and all tried to spread catolicism all over the world, which couldn't be done.

And that only imply that religions are evil.
HoboPelican
hyhy wrote:
Hell no. The crusades was against non-christians, and most of time those non-christians wasn't doing any harm than for instance beliving in other religion than catolicism which cant be harming (jews, cathars, etc.). Just popes were stupid, as well as the many of the rest of christians, and all tried to spread catolicism all over the world, which couldn't be done.

And that only imply that religions are evil.


Well, I was just posing a question based on the citation above that claimed the Turks were encroaching and attacking non-combatants. Do you have a reference that disputes that? I'm sure that religious differences played the major part, but that info above seems to indiate the Turks were not blameless.

And I understand on a gut level why you say"only imply that religions are evil" I think the real issue is that any group of humans is going to have a power structure that will entice "evil men" to use that group for their own agenda.

The question I'm posing is, were the Turks blameless?
hyhy
HoboPelican wrote:
Well, I was just posing a question based on the citation above that claimed the Turks were encroaching and attacking non-combatants. Do you have a reference that disputes that? I'm sure that religious differences played the major part, but that info above seems to indiate the Turks were not blameless.

And I understand on a gut level why you say"only imply that religions are evil" I think the real issue is that any group of humans is going to have a power structure that will entice "evil men" to use that group for their own agenda.

The question I'm posing is, were the Turks blameless?


I think Turks was blameless. History says the Jerusalem wasnt found by christians but by jews and then evil romans came and murdered lots of jews, took over the city and threw away the rest of jews. In 1072 Turks won the battle vs Byzantium (romans) and regained their empire. After that they didnt allow christians to enter their city, (maybe as romans threw away jews from city). Well maybe that was blame. But the christians broke that rule, and came with a big army. From wikipedia:

Quote:
First Crusade
After Byzantine emperor Alexius I called for help with defending his empire against the Seljuk Turks, in 1095 at the Council of Clermont Pope Urban II called upon all Christians to join a war against the Turks, a war which would count as full penance. Crusader armies marched to Jerusalem, sacking several cities on their way. In 1099, they took Jerusalem and massacred the population. As a result of the First Crusade, several small Crusader states were created, notably the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Following this crusade there was a second, unsuccessful wave of crusaders, the Crusade of 1101.


Shocked
HoboPelican
I understand that is what we usually are taught. But to use your own quote, with different emphasis.

Quote:
First Crusade
After Byzantine emperor Alexius I called for help with defending his empire against the Seljuk Turks, in 1095 at the Council of Clermont Pope Urban II called upon all Christians to join a war against the Turks, a war which would count as full penance. Crusader armies marched to Jerusalem, sacking several cities on their way. In 1099, they took Jerusalem and massacred the population. As a result of the First Crusade, several small Crusader states were created, notably the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Following this crusade there was a second, unsuccessful wave of crusaders, the Crusade of 1101.


What was he defending against? The other wiki I quoted implied encroachment of territory by Turks and pilgrims being attacked.

I'm not an expert on this era, so I am just posing questions. Do we know anything about what territories Alexius was referring to? If these were stolen lands, how long had they possessed them? I think these issues might reflect on the origin the crusades. Not to the underlying causes (differences in religion, empire building, etc), just what set it off.
hyhy
I think here's an answer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Crusade
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seljuk_Turks
HoboPelican
hyhy wrote:
I think here's an answer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Crusade
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seljuk_Turks


Reading through the first one, I got this.

Quote:
Meanwhile, Muslim armies had been busy conquering much of northern Africa, Egypt, Palestine, Syria, and Spain, which had been some of the most heavily Christian areas in the world. The Reconquista in Spain was the first major effort by Christians to retake lost territory, which occupied Spanish knights and some mercenaries from elsewhere in Europe in the fight against the Islamic Moors. Elsewhere, the Normans were fighting for control of Sicily, while Pisa, Genoa and Aragon were all actively fighting Islamic strongholds in Mallorca and Sardinia, freeing the coasts of Italy and Spain from Muslim raids.


So what I see is that Muslims had be attacking christian territory. Which had been taken from Muslim? which had been taken from unknown tribesmen before that?

Is it safe to say it was turbulent time and that both sides had a big hand in the mess?
Soulfire
Well, it's kind of a you punch me I punch you thing. But I'm still wondering what the significance of this topic is - does it have much point nowadays?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Philosophy and Religion

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2007 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.