The Crusades

[Elendil3119]

I would like to hold a balanced discussion on the Crusades; the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd in particular. What are all your opinions on these Crusades? Do you think they had positive results, negative, or a mixture? Feel free to make your own questions, and answer them if you wish. :)

[Elendil3119]

Well, since nobody else wants to kick this discussion off, I'll take the role. :) I think that the Crusades had both positive AND negative results. Below is a "paraphrased transcript" (typed by myself ;) ) from a lecture by a great man named Dr. George Grant:

The Crusades have been made the whipping boy for all those who would like to discredit Medievalism. They claim that it was all sham: hollow, worthless, corrupt etc…
What they fail to understand is that Christians are not perfect; they are sinners like everybody else. Christian history is not perfect, and anyone who would like to pretend that advocates of Christendom are trying to white-wash the sins of Christians does not understand Christianity, because Christianity is all about facing up to our sins and realizing that we need a Saviour. We do not need to be shy of recognizing where faults are. It is not a slight against the glory of Christendom that Christians were exactly what Christianity says they are: sinners.
Medievalism is a period that covers almost 1000 years. A lot of stuff happens in that long of a period: a lot of good stuff, and a lot of bad stuff. When you look overall at the sins of Christendom, the one thing you have to say is how remarkably FREE of corruption Christendom if. It was MUCH more free than any other period in history. Because Christendom was rooted in certain principles and values that transcended time, individuals, and power, it means that this is a period of great cultural flowering and truth.
History is always written from a perspective. There is NO objective source, and this ties into the original point of Christianity: we are sinners and we see things from our point of view.
For the last 150 years, it has been the opponents of Christendom that have gained the upper hand, and therefore the sins of Christendom are greatly exaggerated. Christians are not trying to minimize the sin of Christendom. We need to put all the sins of Christendom, we need to put it into the context of overall history.

Feel free to discuss this among yourselves. :)

[Dr. Ransom]

Great topic, I'll be back in a few days, so don't delete the thread! I need to finish my research paper and dig up my Church History exams...


Ransom

Edit: Ack! I forgot about this. I'll just cover my back and say I agree w/ whatever Grond says... :D

*still reading the thread*

[Beleg]

Nice enough topic. I really am amazed by the POV of that person. We people here take them in a completely different POV. I'll wait for Dr. Ransom to give his opening post before replying with my own ideas.

[Thorin]

I believe the crusades (at least the first ones) had some benefits:

1) Because of feudal war in Europe, Pope Urban II decided that to unite them, he'd call the crusade in 1095 AD. This did in fact unite Europe for a time and gave the people a common cause.

2) Also, considering that the Muslim empire was becoming increasingly larger and stronger and were very war-like (i.e. conversion by force), I think that it was in the best interests of the Western and Eastern Churches to try and take them down a notch.

However, the crusades ended up causing a lot of grief. Unfortunately, the crusaders began to abuse their power and many Christians (i.e. those deemed heretics) and Jews suffered the wrath of the Crusaders. And we must not forget the unfortunate sacking of Constantinople which had to have been one of the most stupid moves in western church history.

However, when the pope promises you eternal life and thousands of years off purgatory for your loved ones if you go on these crusades and wipe out heresy in all forms, what does one expect?

[Eriol]

And we must not forget the unfortunate sacking of Constantinople which had to have been one of the most stupid moves in western church history.

As far as I know (which is not too far regarding this subject) the sacking of Constantinople was the result of collusion between Venetian merchants and the crusaders, going against express command from the church. I also believe that all crusaders involved in the sacking were excommunicated.

This is from memory of a reading lost years ago, so I could be wrong. If not, though, it seems a little bit unfair to label it as "one of the most stupid moves in WESTERN CHURCH HISTORY".

EDIT: The amazing google, with keywords "Sacking Constantinople Crusades", produced this link, I think you will find it interesting:

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ291.HTM

And this also:

http://members.tripod.com/medievalhistory/crusade.html

[Dengen-Goroth]

The Crusades were vital in shapping the western identity, and for that credit must be given. However it was not a beneficial movement overall. The capture of Jerusalem resulted in the slaughter of many muslims and jews, woman and children, etc. The consistent inflamatory acts seared into the psyche of numerous muslims the image of crude barbaric christians whose sole intentions were to destroy them. The march towards the 'holy land' resulted in the murder of many jews in Germany as well as other European nations, as well as other horrible crimes (the sack of Constantinople being one). I suggest everyone and anyone interested in this topic read "Holy War" by Karen Armstrong, insightful and throroughly enjoyable! I have a question, how do you think the crusades have impacted our current culture?

[omnipotent_elf]

i need another point of view to get an objetive opinion
i have only ever heard of the british side.......

[FoolOfATook]

I wrote a paper in my Medieval European history class from the perspective of a Knight Templar who converted to Islam, rather than face death at the hands of his captors. It was a lot of fun, especially since I wrote the whole thing in blank verse, and then wrote in the "translator's foreward" that blank verse was the only rhyme scheme appropriate in English for the type of Arabic poetry that my knight had written in.

Anyway, my three favorite facts that are somehow related to the Crusades:

1. How the Europeans reffered to all of their Muslim enemies as "Saracens", while the Muslims called all of the Europeans "Franks". Well, that was generally true, anyway...

2. That the only sport allowed to Knights Templar was lion hunting in Palestine.

3. Not really a fun fact, more of a depressing one, but Saddam Hussein used to link himself to Saladin, when he would name all of the Arabic heroes he was similar to. Saladin was a Kurd, making Hussein's use of this true hero all the more despicable and cynical.

Not actually contributing to the conversation, but fun nonetheless ;)

[Robin]

The key point is the development of Christian violence. When Urban II summoned the council of Clermont and called upon all knights to go to Jerusalem it was something entirely different from what had ever been done before, made possible by that Urban was himself a feudal fief before he became Pope. For two decades his theory had been gaining support and in 1095 it surfaced into the world of the masses. What was it that made so many want to leave house, home, family adn fortune for the holy land? It was from the beginning not even seen as a penance for the sins, that evolved during the twelth century.The pilgrimage was something conducted as a penance but holy war was not accepteduntil the church followed it's time and shared it's view of violence as acceptable. Even then theology was not developed enough to see it as an act of submission to God and thus a penance, as the Monk promises evolved to later.

The chief reason for the organization of this was to save Byzantiumand stop the muslim advance beofre it came into Europe from the east. The holy sepulchre in Jerusalem was seen as a bonus, but not as important, if it had been in muslim hands for 400 years, it could wait a little longer. The point with making it a holy war was to unite the warring lords in Europe towards the objective of saving eastern and western christianity. Ooops... Got to go now, bye!

[Eriol]

I hope you come back, Robin! I am interested in what you have to say further about the subject. Your first paragraph revolves around the concpet of violence -- somewhat vague, and something that was clearly not invented by the Church, or in medieval times ;). And I felt a distinct disapproving tone. Perhaps I'm wrong, since your second paragraph states quite clearly that it was originally a defensive effort. Defending your culture (i.e. saving eastern and western Christianity) sound like an acceptable goal.

Anyway, I'm waiting to hear more!

Send my regards to Húrin...

[Dr. Ransom]

One strong benefitual result of the crusades was to help bring Europe out of the fudal system and into a nationalistic system. This than allowed for many other positive changes... such as the reformation, and voyages of discovery, increased trade which sprouted the middle class. But the loss of Constanstanoble itself offset many of the positive results.

The chief reason for the organization of this was to save Byzantiumand stop the muslim advance beofre it came into Europe from the east. The holy sepulchre in Jerusalem was seen as a bonus, but not as important, if it had been in muslim hands for 400 years, it could wait a little longer. The point with making it a holy war was to unite the warring lords in Europe towards the objective of saving eastern and western christianity.

I don't quite agree with this as stated. The western church wanted to reunited the east and west for the sake of power and control. While the defence of Byzantium should have been a chief priority, it fell by the wayside and relations between east and west grew worse and worse until the sack of constanstanoble.