The Crusades Weren’t That Bad? Uh, No.

Updated on March 3, 2015 in Christianity
17 on February 17, 2015

Responding to remarks by President Obama, talking about transgressions done in the name of Christianity, some commentators pushed back, saying that the Crusades weren’t really all that bad.

Jonah Goldberg said, “The Crusades—despite their terrible organized cruelties—were a defensive war.” Rick Santorum said much the same thing. Ross Douthat described the Crusades as an “incredibly complicated multicentury story.”

In fact, up to 1% of the entire world population died between 1095 and 1291 as part of the violence of the Crusades. The Crusaders killed Jews in the Rhineland, Albigensian heretics in Spain, Muslims in the Holy Land.

Writing about a massace during the Siege of Jerusalem in 1099, Fulcher of Chartres wrote, “In this temple 10,000 were killed. Indeed, if you had been there you would have seen our feet coloured to our ankles with the blood of the slain. But what more shall I relate? None of them were left alive; neither women nor children were spared”.

The Crusades (there were many) were complex and had different motivations for different people. But they were violent. They weren’t defensive. And they weren’t no big deal.

  • Liked by
  • ZenPop
  • asull
Reply
0 on February 17, 2015

They were violent, they were a big deal, but they were defensive. History is not nearly so simple. To say Christians can not condemn the religion that causes SOME people to do terrible things in its name because of something that happened centuries ago in the name of catholicism is actually awful logic. Any one should be able to see through it.

  • Liked by
Reply
Cancel
0 on February 17, 2015

They were violent, they were a big deal, and they were both defensive and other than defensive.  That said, the Muslims are in no position to stew over them, as they weren’t exactly on the side of the angels, either.

  • Liked by
Reply
Cancel
0 on February 17, 2015

I’d also point out that between 1095 and 1291, 100% of the world’s population died 2-3 times over. As always tends to happen over a 200 year period. So that stat is kind of misleading.

  • Liked by
Reply
Cancel
3 on February 20, 2015

Christian Crusaders/ISIS= THE SAME.

Another excellent argument against religion of all kinds.

on February 21, 2015

Actually… what was the same as ISIS? You don’t have to go that far back….

The American KKK.

They did pretty much the same thing ISIS does. 

on February 25, 2015

OMG. Here we go again.

on February 25, 2015

Hunky Dory, I’m not sure how you can say that because SOME people in a religion were murderers, that makes ALL religion wrong. What about those who were devout and did only good deeds in the name of religion? The Catholic schools have made a significant impact for a lot of people (and I’m not Catholic, just saying). They accepted non-Catholics and gave them a superior education. How about Mother Teresa and all she helped?

And your statement is like saying because SOME red-headed people are serial killers, ALL red-headed people should be exterminated…The leaders and those involved with the crusades did NOT  view and exercise religion the way we do today. Religion and religious leaders was the political structure back then.

Show more replies
  • Liked by
Reply
Cancel
0 on February 24, 2015

That’s very simple to think like that.  To disregard some parts of history to push an agenda.  The reality is, that during the time of the crusades (800ish – 1200ish), bad things happened.  Islam has been fighting since at least 480BC. 
But that’s not the point.  The point is this….during this time, on both sides, the only acceptable occupation for the male population was warfare, or seamanship.  It was the industrial revolution that gave us other occupations.  We live by it, they live in caves, fornicate with goats, burn people in cages and rape the sisters of offending males, just to name a few actions. 
To compare the 400 years or so of the crusades with modern savages is a grotesque comparison.  To say that they are on equal terms is being deliberately blind.

  • Liked by
Reply
Cancel
0 on February 25, 2015

A couple of points here:

http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2011/06/florida_man_arrested_after_his.php

http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/alabama-man-cheated-on-his-wife-for-a-goat/

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/british-man-spared-jail-caught-sex-sheep-article-1.1714056

Also, agriculture, therefore farmer, was much more likely to be the acceptable occupation, because nobody was being a soldier on an empty stomach. Carpenters, tailors, ship builders…there were ALL kinds of occupations…Soldiers and sailors were also, but not the main occupations as stated.

“To compare the 400 years or so of the crusades with modern savages is a grotesque comparison.  To say that they are on equal terms is being deliberately blind.” I believe you are absolutely wrong on this. At the time, the Crusaders were “modern savages”…just more organized and better financed.

  • Liked by
Reply
Cancel
0 on February 25, 2015

At the time, but not now.  Are we looking at this from a modern perspective or an overall?  From a modern perspective, they are savages.  There are several ways that in and of itself can be determined.  One, look at the treatment of women.  Two, look at not just the goals, but their approved methods of achieving said goals.  Three, look at the tools they use on a daily basis.  Four, education of youth. 
What I’m getting at is that now, in the 21st century, they ARE in fact, savages.  Were the crusades bad?  Yes, but at least we moved on (thanks ultimately to the industrial revolution). 
SocietyGirl, while I respect your opinion, you’re not accurate.  Yes, there were farmers, craftsmen, sailors, merchants and the like, but those made up, at most, 20% of the male population.  And they were shunned, openly.  Guild socialism (the protection of the weak at the expense of the able) is well documented.  Then of course you’ve got the Inquisition, the witch-hunts and other such insane practices that have gone on until, literally, my great grand parents. 
So, in conclusion, comparing them to a small window of history, or to us today, is false.  Just as saying helium has three electrons is false, and for the same reason.  A is A.

  • Liked by
Reply
Cancel
0 on February 26, 2015

The10thman: You’re looking at all of this from a Western perspective. We really do some bad shit in these other countries and no one here ever hears about it. We all think we’re the great liberators. We’re not. We’re involved in everybody’s business all over the world because we are protecting resources that we need. It’s all business. We allow or stop those things that benefit us directly or indirectly. We really are horrible people and some societies are viewing it from a very different perspective and feel they are protecting themselves, much like we did to the English during the american Revolution. Terrorism is all the same: doing bad things randomly. We support it when it benefits us.

  • Liked by
Reply
Cancel
0 on February 26, 2015

I’m not a horrible person, just so we understand ourselves.  My typical day:  Up at 5, eat breakfast.  Get to work (I work with children at a pediatric dental office).  Get off around 5, go home.  At this point, it depends on the day.  I play cello, I fence (Greek Olympic, not building), some evenings I paint.  I go through my daily life in a productive, non destructive manner. 
Now, our Servants (politicians) are horrid people.  They truly are.  Do I vote?  Yes.  But I didn’t vote for them.  Personally, I like the isolationist philosophy when it comes to our foreign policy.  But, that was over a century ago now.  To say that we are horrid people based on the decisions and actions of 545 elected officials is a blatant falsehood.
Yes, it is relative.  They see putting a bomb on a mentally ill woman so she can push a button in a crowd a reasonable method to achieve their goals.  We are NOT on par with them.  They stone women for adultery, we promote it on TV and in music (only 30% of sexually active women with multiple partners use condoms…..which is gross, by the way). 
What I’m getting at is that, yes, back in the day, before explosives and firearms, it was much the same ideology and methods (walk for months and attack).  Today, not so much.
Can you provide some examples of horrible things we do overseas that are the same caliber as Jihadi Akmed and his followers?

  • Liked by
Reply
Cancel
3 on February 26, 2015

First off, “The victor tells the tales”

Secondly the ‘Crusade’ stories were nothing more than a cover up for the Catholic Church to send the Templars around destroying all ‘heretic’ beliefs, which I’m all for, but they also happened to be destroying all evidence of Gnosticism in the process, deeming it to be heretical, even though they were the private teachings Jesus gave to his students/disciples. Oh, and they rounded up all the old relics.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/templars/knights_templars01.htm

on March 1, 2015

And this make it ok, how?

on March 3, 2015

Where in my text did I say that it was ok?

on March 3, 2015

Alright, I did say I’m all for getting rid of heretic beliefs. But not when you deemed half of Christianity heretics. That’s like being a white man racist against white men, or black racist against black people. I agree with the ideal, just not the method.

Show more replies
  • Liked by
Reply
Cancel
Loading more replies