The Crusades Were An Act of Love

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JimG

Guest
www.crisismagazine.com

The Crusades Were an Act of Love

Editor’s note: this article originally appeared in the April 2002 print edition of Crisis. It has been edited for brevity. Misconceptions about the Crusades are all too common.
www.crisismagazine.com www.crisismagazine.com
 
How to rape history, one can argue that the crusades where defensive , but jeez his ignoring the masacres that happend

ps i dont condone any group the muslims where just as brutal as the crusaders

the idea of dying in a crusade and your sins being pardon is almost as bad as the islamic idea that martyrdom in jihad grants paradise
 
Last edited:
maybe but that doesnt mean march an army and commit a masacre so brutal even for medieval standards
 
Induvidual instances of atrocities committed by an army does necessarily negate the justice if the cause being fought. The cause of the crusades, especially the First Crusade, was extremely just. Islam waged a 1000 year war against Christendom. After winning, by force of arms, the Levant and Northern Africa, they turned their attention to Europe, the heart of Christendom. Invading through the Iberian Peninsula, Sicily/Italy, and Asia Minor. These attacks were relentless. 400 years into it, the Crusades were a just attempt to take the offensive.
Despite their eventual defeat, the Crusades were likely successful, in the grand scheme of things in preserving Christensen.
 
not only masacres but also just yeah it could be seen

not only did the crusaders commit numerous killings beacuse , they also violated their treaty and refused to give the lands back to the byzantines lying and being manipulative or meschivous in order to break their oath to emperor alexios

…no the crusades where a massive failure , the crusaders litertaly are one of the reasons why instanbul today is named instanbul and not constantinople.

they killed the empire that was the true persever of christondom (at least in defending it) the eastern roman empire

i swear this is a thing among chirstians they give to much credit to the crusaders are none to the byzantines wich with out them rome rigth now would be an islamic city
 
yeah its not like you gave an oath to return these lands back , and its not like a desserter told emperor alexios that the situation was hopeless and no crusader prince except one bother to correct him.

and that later bohemond told the leader of the byzantine contigent there was a plot to kill , and when he left bohemond acussed him of cowardice and that xDD get this freed him from his oath to emepror alexios

you know these good lying crusaders that break their oaths totaly deserve to rule , and people wonder why alexios didnt trust any of them

and later emperor Jonh komennos did do this and even tried to take more land back from the muslims but the latins flat out desserted .
 
Last edited:
repentant2 said:
At the end of the day I think we should all be able to agree that no matter what else, Jerusalem belongs to Christendom.
Click to expand...
I thought that Jerusalem belongs to the Jews. The US has recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and moved its embassy there recently.
 
Last edited:
The Byzantines get credit for holding off the invasion for 700 years. But they could not have held Jerusalem for 200 years, as the Franks did. And that during that time, they preoccupied the best military leader Islam ever had, which made a huge difference. Would Constantinople have lasted as long as it did without that interlude? Unlikely.
 
And that during that time, they preoccupied the best military leader Islam ever had?

khalid al walid hab been dead for about 5 centuries , oh you refering to saladin? saladin doesent even make it to the top 5.

while the byzantines had suffered from interal figthing …they where far from gone

the fourth crusade was what kick that tore up the empire

Also … do you think saladin would have invaded Constantinople… saladin was leader of egpypt not aleppo or some other thing , he would have asked persmision the sultan of rum to pass and attack constantinople or take long way and attack cicilian armenia, also rum had no love for him ,also rum expanded a lot in 1200s after the sack of constantinople

I N FACT
actually during the mongol invasion of rum the byzantines didnt take the chance to attack the turks beacuse they where tu busy figthin the latin empire.

so no mate your psedueo history is not giving the crusaders any good pionts

and yes the byzantines did more than the crusaders for example had the byzantine lost the 717 siege rome and the entire of italy would be muslim
 
Last edited:
  1. The US doesn’t rule the world.
  2. Christians are the rightful rulers of the Holy Land . . . .
  3. Christ rules the world, not any man or devil.
 
Last edited:
jeez luis …you guys can justify about anything

while yes the byzantines where no saints , attackin a city for revenge ( if your going to use the masacre of the latins argument) is not justification

and much less beacuse of the real reason of venice wanting hegemony over the mediterrenian trade
 
historyfan81 said:
and yes the byzantines did more than the crusaders for example had the byzantine lost the 717 siege rome and the entire of italy would be muslim
Click to expand...
Did I say the crusades accomplished more than the Byzantines? No, I gave the Byzantines credit for holding off the Muslims for 750 years. I simply stated, the obvious, for 200 years of that time, they were aided by the crusaders, who preoccupied the Muslims in the Holy Land. That’s not insignificant.
 
That’s Is debatable if you are referring to the first crusade then yes it helped the Byzantines a little
  1. jonh kommenos recovered his territory with out crusaders help in fact
    Although John fought hard for the Christian cause in the campaign in Syria, his allies Prince Raymond of Antioch and Count Joscelin II of Edessa remained in their camp playing dice and feasting instead of helping to press the siege of the city of Shaizar
    No wonder he wanted to attack the prinicilyty of Antioch who where borderline treasanus to him.
So the first crusade and argubly the hard helped
The crusaders did more harm than good in a better world the pope would have sent alexios kommenos 5 000 and alexios due to the division of the great seljuk empire and his competent record would have done a lot better since he wouldn’t have to bickpr with princes and his heir would have to deal with the incompetent crusader states in his attack on Syria .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top