Should we be thankful for the crusades?

RobertKK · 26-06-2015 01:18PM #1

The crusades were mainly a reaction to the spread of Islam. They are often viewed as being something bad, while positive arguments are ignored.

Does anyone believe we would have the freedoms we have, if the crusades had not happened and the spread of Islam into Europe had not been stopped?
Taking this further, did the crusades stop the rest of the world from being converted to Islam?
For example, the Americas, parts of Australasia, where Europeans went and it was Christianity that became the dominant religion.

Should we be thankful for the crusades?

The Diabolical Monocle · 26-06-2015 01:27PM

Its a fair point. Thought about this before and its kind of the lesser of two evils in a sense.
Obviously if you're a native American from history in Peru or wherever getting a colonial sword in the face its not too appealing, but then again we could have ended up with a world of burkas and stonings for the very long term.

Short term pain long term gain.

ScumLord · 26-06-2015 01:34PM

Europe was coming into it's own at the time, even though the Muslims made their way through a lot of Spain and France they could only really get away with it because the European nations hadn't consolidated themselves into organised groups. Once France got the slightest bit of organisation into it's military it drove the Islamic invaders out.

Maybe it could be argued it gave European states the push it needed to create the powerful nations still around today but I don't think the Islamic empire would have made it too far into Europe.

The crusades were little better than large scale viking raids, they might have drawn a line in the sand that made the middle eastern countries second guess going anywhere near Europe but it also created a long term blood feud between Christians and Muslims that we're still suffering through today. The things the Crusaders did was disgusting, they went on a killing spree killing everyone they came across.

wes · 26-06-2015 01:36PM

I am sure there will be some fools who will say the same about 9/11 or something several 100 years from now, and go on about those awful westerners and what not.

Pumpkinseeds · 26-06-2015 01:37PM

The Moors were far more advanced in Science and Medicine than the Europeans. At the time of the Crusades most European countries still thought it was unhealthy to wash themselves or their clothing. So no, I don't think we should be grateful for the slaughter of people based on religious beliefs, politics and greed.

Dravokivich · 26-06-2015 01:39PM

Would you be thankful for the Crusades if you weren't Christian?

TwoShedsJackson · 26-06-2015 01:43PM

Should we be thankful for an attempted genocide inspired by religion? I'm going to go with no.

wes · 26-06-2015 01:44PM

Does this include the crusades against the wrong type of Christians btw. Constantinople was sacked by crusaders. Crusaders also wiped out another European Christian sect the Cathars. Not to mention atrocities against Jews as well.

The crusaders actually share a lot in common with ISIS, both frame there many atrocities as being "defensive", but there actions show this to be complete and utter nonsense. Both are/were genocidal fanatics, and the fact that both groups have there defenders is utterly bizarre.

wes · 26-06-2015 01:45PM

Dravokivich wrote: »

Would you be thankful for the Crusades if you weren't Christian?

Remember you had to be the right kind of Christian as well.

Oink · 26-06-2015 01:45PM

Stop me if I'm wrong but was the whole point of the crusades not to keep a host of murderous hooligans entertained? I mean, the whole idea was to get all them fighting nobles to go fight somewhere else. So they just told them hey, why don't you go save Jerusalem or something. It wasn't about saving Europe from the Moors, it was about get our own idiots out of the place.

Saipanne · 26-06-2015 01:47PM

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

The Moors were far more advanced in Science and Medicine than the Europeans.

Islam. The finest minds of the 11th century.

The Diabolical Monocle · 26-06-2015 01:48PM

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

The Moors were far more advanced in Science and Medicine than the Europeans. At the time of the Crusades most European countries still thought it was unhealthy to wash themselves or their clothing. So no, I don't think we should be grateful for the slaughter of people based on religious beliefs, politics and greed.

Looks obvious at first ... But given the option of that or a giant caliphate for centuries it gets a bit tricky.

ScumLord · 26-06-2015 01:48PM

wes wrote: »

The crusaders actually share a lot in common with ISIS,

They were a lot worse than ISIS. Image if you heard there were thousands of armed Muslims marching towards Europe with the intent of rampaging through cities killing men, women and children. It would be terrifying.

super_furry · 26-06-2015 01:48PM

Impossible to say. What role did and do the Crusades continue to have in developing the radical Islam mindset?

wes · 26-06-2015 01:50PM

ScumLord wrote: »

They were a lot worse than ISIS. Image if you heard there were thousands of armed Muslims marching towards Europe with the intent of rampaging through cities killing men, women and children. It would be terrifying.

Fair point, I was talking more in the ideological sense. In that they claim to be acting in defense of there people, and then end up murdering just as many of there own.

wp_rathead · 26-06-2015 01:52PM

Ya we got to take their more advanced science and medicine and use it to Europes advantage
Oh and got taste some their spices
All it took was the near 20 million deaths - so ya totally am grateful

buried · 26-06-2015 01:59PM

Total utter gibberish. The first crusade was created by Urban II in order to help Constantinople reclaim parts of Anatolia. Then the Frankish barons went on the offensive straight into the middle east and Jerusalem to seek bounty and land for themselves. Both Islamic caliphates in the middle east at the time had no intention of 'spreading Islam'.

jam_mac_jam · 26-06-2015 02:05PM

The crusades were nothing to do with the spread of Islam and didn't stop the spread of Islam.

What are you on about?

Saipanne · 26-06-2015 02:06PM

Did he mean the efforts of Charlemagne?

buried · 26-06-2015 02:19PM

Saipanne wrote: »

Did he mean the efforts of Charlemagne?

Charles Martel he could be on about. Charlemagne's grandfather.

The Corinthian · 26-06-2015 02:25PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Does anyone believe we would have the freedoms we have, if the crusades had not happened and the spread of Islam into Europe had not been stopped?

If you do believe this then you really need to study history more.

The crusades were concentrated on the defense of the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire and the 'liberation' of the Holy Land. They also ended long before Islamic expansion did, they were already petering out by the 14th century and effectively came to an end with the fall of Constantinople 1453. The expansion of Islam, instead was halted at the battle of Vienna over two centuries later in 1683.

Did they help to slow down expansion? In reality they helped speed it up, because in running to the 'defense' of Byzantine Empire, the Crusaders also managed to sack it more than once, install at least one 'Latin' dynasty and overall weaken an already weakened power from eventual invasion from the Ottomans.

Islam was ultimately stopped by a number of factors. Europe, originally trailing in terms of knowledge and learning, overtook the Islamic World, thanks to the Renaissance and, later, the Enlightenment. And the Islamic World became fractured and balkanized, with the Ottomans eventually becoming the dominant power, but never having the same success of the original Islamic expansion.

In short, it really didn't have much, if anything, to do with the Crusades at all, so your entire thesis is flawed and just based on a lack of historical knowledge.

Pumpkinseeds · 26-06-2015 02:30PM

Saipanne wrote: »

Islam. The finest minds of the 11th century.

As opposed to the Catholic church in the 21st century who still won't permit the use of condoms among Catholics, despite the situation in Africa with Aids and HIV? All religions have their flaws, I'm not promoting one or the other. But back in the days of the Crusades, if I'd to put my life in the hands of Moorish doctor or an English doctor I'd have chosen the Moor.

Saipanne · 26-06-2015 02:35PM

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

As opposed to the Catholic church in the 21st century who still won't permit the use of condoms among Catholics, despite the situation in Africa with Aids and HIV? All religions have their flaws, I'm not promoting one or the other. But back in the days of the Crusades, if I'd to put my life in the hands of Moorish doctor or an English doctor I'd have chosen the Moor.

If you can find a single post anywhere where I defend or support any abrahamic religion I'll meet you in person and bow at your feet.

Otherwise, FO.

The Corinthian · 26-06-2015 02:36PM

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

As opposed to the Catholic church in the 21st century who still won't permit the use of condoms among Catholics, despite the situation in Africa with Aids and HIV? All religions have their flaws, I'm not promoting one or the other. But back in the days of the Crusades, if I'd to put my life in the hands of Moorish doctor or an English doctor I'd have chosen the Moor.

LOL. Sure, you definitely didn't give any indication of which religion you really hate in your last post.

crockholm · 26-06-2015 02:37PM

Oink wrote: »

Stop me if I'm wrong but was the whole point of the crusades not to keep a host of murderous hooligans entertained? I mean, the whole idea was to get all them fighting nobles to go fight somewhere else. So they just told them hey, why don't you go save Jerusalem or something. It wasn't about saving Europe from the Moors, it was about get our own idiots out of the place.

OK, I'll stop you.You are wrong.Very wrong historically.It may pass for"A man in a pub told me..." type history,but that would be it.

crockholm · 26-06-2015 02:39PM

ScumLord wrote: »

They were a lot worse than ISIS. Image if you heard there were thousands of armed Muslims marching towards Europe with the intent of rampaging through cities killing men, women and children. It would be terrifying.

You ought to read the history of the Balkans then.

Pumpkinseeds · 26-06-2015 02:41PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

LOL. Sure, you definitely didn't give any indication of which religion you really hate in your last post.

I don't particulary hate any religion, if anything I'm indifferent to them. I'm merely being specific as the Crusades was essentially the Catholic church versus the Moors, using the Spanish monarchy to do it's dirty work. In terms of medicine, the Moors had learning and were much more advanced in medicine than the English who pretty much used leeches and bleeding as a cure for everything. I haven't been inside a church for at least a decade.

The Corinthian · 26-06-2015 02:45PM

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

I don't particulary hate any religion, if anything I'm indifferent to them.

Actually clearly you are not.

I'm merely being specific as the Crusades was essentially the Catholic church versus the Moors, using the Spanish monarchy to do it's dirty work. In terms of medicine, the Moors had learning and were much more advanced in medicine than the English who pretty much used leeches and bleeding as a cure for everything.

Oh. My. God.

So the Crusaders went to fight the Moors by going in the wrong direction. Or were those Moors in Jerusalem?

Just stop. Please. Read a book. Educate yourself.

I haven't been inside a church for at least a decade.

Why do you think any of us care whether you've been in a church in the last decade? Has it relevance to your argument or how indifferent you are to religion? LOL

Irish Praetorian · 26-06-2015 02:48PM

wp_rathead wrote: »

Ya we got to take their more advanced science and medicine and use it to Europes advantage
Oh and got taste some their spices
All it took was the near 20 million deaths - so ya totally am grateful

Think you've tossed an extra 0 in there by mistake.

Pumpkinseeds · 26-06-2015 02:49PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually clearly you are not.

Oh. My. God.

So the Crusaders went to fight the Moors by going in the wrong direction. Or were those Moors in Jerusalem?

Just stop. Please. Read a book. Educate yourself.

Why do you think any of us care whether you've been in a church in the last decade? Has it relevance to your argument or how indifferent you are to religion? LOL

Boards really needs an oh fcuk off button.:)

topper75 · 26-06-2015 02:50PM

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

The crusades were nothing to do with the spread of Islam and didn't stop the spread of Islam.

What are you on about?

True.

The 'spread of Islam' did breathe in Europe's letterbox though at a later date when the Turks moved toward Vienna.

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Battle_of_Vienna

This is one of the most pivotal events in entire history of Europe in my opinion. Yet none of my schoolteachers ever even referred to it.

I could not morally justify the crusades. But, I'm not religious so ...

For other really important stuff that our Western-Euro focused school curricula don't address, read A Little History of the World by E. H. Gombrich.

Should we be thankful for the crusades?

Welcome!

Comments

Welcome!