The Christian Crusades are very linked to the violence going on today in the middle eastt, ( i'm not blaming christians so please do not be offended
or muslims). I was watching a History channel special on the crusades and the Jihads( mid november) . And apparently today stories are still told of mass slaughters in Arab Culture, so i figure this is one of the many many reasons why the Arabs hate the West they still think we hate them the same amount and they can never forgive us for our crimes.

At one point during the presentation the history channel said that a whole villiage had been destroyed and then the christian crusaders even though having food decided to eat the enemy's bodies. Richard the Lion hearted killed almost all of his captors while Salidin allowed them to live and fed them.

So from my point of view since these factual stories are still told,they just think it was just yesterday that we killed them, and with all the other things they hate about us they this i belive makes the situation worse.

So I want to know what do you think about the Crusades and the Jihads? do you think either side was right and why?

Also i have a ? has the Catholic Church appologized for the Crusades?

Shinsengumi89

The Christian Church felt that it was right in the time and although it looks evil today, we must take into consideration that they were trying to do the right thing. Therefore, I say that the crusades weren't evil. Yet they cannot be justified in modern terms.

I've always wanted to know why the Pope thought he could overlook the Commandment that no-one can murder and how the Pope could decide on the participants going straight to Heaven.

I don't know if the Catholics have apologized for the crusades, but I don't believe they have any reason to apologize.

The Christians were right and the Muslims are wrong. That is just how it goes when one faith (Christianity) is correct and the rest (i.e. Islam) are not.

Boris they ate woman and children surely thats wrong in the bible,

I want to ask you, when was this crusade happen?

The Crusades happened in the 1100's when the Christians invaded the sorrunding arab countries because they said the land was rightfully theirs ( they wanted to take Jerusalem) but the Arabs said we were here first so no way in hell. The Christians gathered armies from england, france, italy and other christian nations.

i believe that only the popes and the churches are the ones who can read the bible...so the armies that you're saying don't know the content of the bible at that time...not until Martin Luther opposed the Church and fought for the rights of the common people to see what's inside the bible

Gwater the Pope was the leader of them

yeah I agree...but these popes only told them that they should recover the land no matter what...besides, was the pope around when they did such things?

yes he was

merged: 03-26-2006 ~ 12:38pm
not on the battle field but he did call for three seprate wars, he asked for war remember they thought that Arabss and Muslims were scum, yes the pope thought that.

at that time, popes were powerful and anyone who opposed the Church would be punished...i believe that popes themselves misunderstood the word of the Bible...(isn't the Bible was difficult to understand) like for an instance the Church itself commanded witches should be burned alive for they are evils...sad though...just like in the crusade, popes were so one sided that they thought that only the religion Christianity is the correct one...and for this reason, *as i had just said, popes were so determined to retrieved the land that they should use force no matter how many would be killed!(I think you know the reason why these popes wanted to take the land)

If my memory's good enough, the crusades are a more complicated stuff that what it might appear at first sight...

First of all, the Bible was written in latin, that's true. Or at least, it was in Latin in the 11th century. But don't forget that more people learned latin in the 11th century than today. And even today, there are some people who can read latin without having a passport from the Vatican! Latin was the International language and most European countries used it as a legal language as well. Of course the poorer parts of the populations, the more rural parts as well couldn't have read the bible, but once again those who truly had the power to say 'let's go crusading' where usually more educated, or surrounded by people who were, or thought they were.

Now, if you look at a history book, you would see that christians were already at war with muslims at the time. The 7th / 8th centuries saw the rise of islam, even in Europe. And it was definitely not a peaceful conversion... Armies were on the march and so on. The story says that it was in 732, near Poitiers in France that the muslim troops, already weakened by the Spanish and Basque resistance were stopped. So, for most 11th century European countries the muslims already were ennemies, foreigners that attacked them in the first place.

Even worse, they proclaimed to follow another faith than theirs! Look here and there, even in MT, and you'll see people who can't abide the idea of other people not sharing their ideas. Now imagine how it could have been in an era when people had no possible way to speak about their different countries, cultures and the like... To them, 'foreigner' must have been the same word as 'dangerous' and the like. Don't forget that in some old Japanese texts Europeans were described as flesh-eating monsters, drinking baby's blood and so on...

Now, as for the reasons why there were crusades in the first place, don't forget that around the 11th century there were lots of young nobles all around Europe who wanted glory, honour and more than anything else: land. What's the point of being a noble if you don't have land... That's how it worked. I heard that, to some extent, the Vicking invasions a few centuries earlier were based on the same ideas: too many energic young people and too little land. "Go and seek your fortune elsewhere my son..."

As a matter of fact, some time ago, while I was watching a geography channel I heard about a thesis: there was no religion wars. There are lots of reasons to wage a war, but not really religion. People may want political benefits, economical benefits. People may want to fight for an idea of 'nation', or to mark their difference... But in the end, there is no real religion war.

During the crusades, the kinghts wanted land, but what about the church? Don't forget that, at the time, there were some people speaking against Rome. From the East, some gnostic ideas were gaining weight. So the central authority needed something to unite the 'good christians.' The 'Holy Land' had fallen to heretic hands? Good, let's take it back! It's basically the same idea behind most European nationalistic wars. Some people say France truly became France during the wars after the revolution, and other people claim that Germany united thanks to Bismarck and the war against France...

To be honest, I guess that religion was, for the crusades, nothing more than an excuse for the war... That was not the first time, and wouldn't be the last. Don't forget that the crusaders also plundered Constantinople on their way... They all were christians nonetheless. Granted, some were orthodox while others were catholics and something like half a century earlier most catholics of Constantinople (mainly Venitians and other Italians) had been chased and killed by mobs.

Another thing to note is that there were lots of crusades, not all of them toward the Middle East. Prussia, Southern France,... All of these places suffered from crusades.

Now, about the abuses, the horrors commited during that time, I would tend to believe them, at least to some extend. I don't really think that christians would have eaten human flesh, but I can believe that they killed innocent people. They did attack pilgrims on their way to the Mecca, they did attack holy cities, they did slaughter and kill... But don't forget that muslims were no better. Just as a reminder, it was not the nazi that invented the idea of forcing the jews to wear distinctive marks. I don't remember the exact name but in the 7th century the muslim caliphates decided that jews should only wear yellow garnments. Three centuries later, the Vatican took the hint and forced some jews to wear the David star. There have been slaughters done by christians AND by muslims. But the thing is that, after the war, people tend to remember the evil doings of the loosers and to forget what their own troops did. You want a proof? Only yesterday I read a paper about an American historian (I suck at remembering names, sorry) who works on the darker sides of the second world war. He says that there had been over 17 000 rapes done by US troops in England, France and Germany (11 000 for Germany alone). In Stuttgart alone, French troops are linked to 1 500 rape cases. The war brings back the darker sides of human beings. But the winner has the opportunity to tune the history books to its taste. [mode sarcasm on] By the way, curiously enough, this historian hasn't found any US publisher for his book. [mode sarcasm off]

About Saladin, personally I tend to admire him to some extent. The situation he was in was far from being easy, but he managed to win quite a few difficult cases. Nonetheless he was far from being perfect. Granted he took great care of some prisoners, but at the same times others were not half as lucky. Don't forget that a great deal of the Hattin battles were killed by order of Saladin. And don't forget that even though he was a really interesting character, his followers were far from reaching his level...

As for Richard, he may have been a Lion hearted man, but near his French lands, he was nicknamed 'ochenon', the local expression for 'yes and no.' He was said to be indecisive on many things. And once again he was no more than a human being.

So as a whole, the crusade was hardly anything more than a war for economical and political resons. The pope wanted power, the knights wanted land. The Middle East offered both to those who could grasp them. The populations were blinded with smooth words, [mode sarcams on] showing how great their ways were, and how barbarous the 'locals' could be. They were the good ones, and the others were evil. They had the right and the duty to bring them the true words of God... And to reap the benefits of the conquered land... [mode extra sarcasm on] Now, let's play a little game... In the preceding paragraph, change the words knights' by 'companies', 'land' by 'oil' and add a great G to 'good' and capitalized E to 'evil'. That's the Axis of this little silly game. One last thing, instead of a 'pope', imagine a 'president', ready to smite the dragon... like saint George... [mode extra sarcasm off] [mode sarcasm off]

I can't blame people from the Middle East for being wary of the past history, for resenting christians for what they did. But I can blame them for seeing only one side of the coin, for not admiting that they did some pretty harsh things too. And for forgetting that God, Allah, Ahura Mazda, the Great Trout in the Sky, or whatever the name you want to call It certainly doesn't like the idea of his creations killing each other.

Le pire des crimes, c'est de torturer ou massacrer les etres humains pour faire leur salut ou leur bonheur selon sa propre idee.
The worst of the crimes, it is to torture or massacre human beings for their safety or their happiness according to your own idea.
Rene Barjavel, If I were God.

i agree with post ^
there is a saying about wars,
The victor writes the history books and they vanquished reads them.

and also this series of 3 wars shapped the middle east if not the whole world. If the christians had won the middle east at least would look allot differently.

but i would like to point out to anyone who wants to see how much the muslims hated the christians for the crusades should look at spain 700-1400.

and also history is a good teacher when it come to wars and how they are waged. Often the stated reasons and the underlying reasons are often different.