Were the crusades a just war?

[Timi_Celcer]

Their goal was to conquer Jerusalem. Ok the first crusade was a defensive action, BUT, the others were NOT. They were offensive actions against muslims to conquer the Holy Land. Why did we even need the Holy Land, we can and could be saved and go to heaven without it. So why didn’t we just deploy our armies at the “Christian-muslim” border in Anatolia and wait. Why weren’t the crusades purely defensive?

SECOND: The Reconquista was unnecesseary. Why did we need Iberian penisula so much? Is Iberian penisula necesseary for us to go to heaven? I don’t think so. I also don’t think there were any mass masacres in the Iberia for us to justify that war. It was purely political. Why don’t we then conquer India by force and then it will be Christian? Are we spreading the Word with peace or with a sword?

THIRD: albigensian crusade. The biggest evil the Catholic world has ever produced. There is no way of justifying that. It was mass murder of heretics! Authorized by the Catholic Church! How can that be? If that crusade can be justified, than i could probably pick a protestant and kill him because according to the ‘justifiers’ of this evil, it is not a sin.

How can the crusades be a ‘just war’. They were anything but a just war, they were attempts by the Christians to CONQUER not defend. CONQUERING LAND IS SINFUL!

I know muslims conquered and killed Christians, but the fact is, that conquering land is sinful and since there were no high casualties, the crusades were not a just war, so they were evil authorized by the pope to conquer Holy Land, some Northern lands and Iberia. It would be the same if we now launched a crusade aggainst the Chinese, because they killed a couple of Christians and conquer them. It would not be just war, it would be evil!

I do not know what to think about that, so im finding alot of doubt. Please help.

 

[WKW_69]

The cause of Christiandom is just.

Battle of Jericho - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[RPRPsych]

Their goal was to conquer Jerusalem. Ok the first crusade was a defensive action, BUT, the others were NOT. They were offensive actions against muslims to conquer the Holy Land. Why did we even need the Holy Land, we can and could be saved and go to heaven without it. So why didn’t we just deploy our armies at the “Christian-muslim” border in Anatolia and wait. Why weren’t the crusades purely defensive?

I think they began with a defensive intent. Things were different in those days: war was man vs. man, not bombers, nukes or heavy ordnance. Most historians concede that the initial crusades were just.

SECOND: The Reconquista was unnecesseary. Why did we need Iberian penisula so much? Is Iberian penisula necesseary for us to go to heaven? I don’t think so. I also don’t think there were any mass masacres in the Iberia for us to justify that war. It was purely political. Why don’t we then conquer India by force and then it will be Christian? Are we spreading the Word with peace or with a sword?

Um, as an Indian, I’m quite sure that when India was conquered (or, rather, it was a vassal of the British Empire) it didn’t become entirely Christian. Even today, Christians make up only 2-4% of the population. So the Reconquista wasn’t a “war to convert”: it was a war to recover the territories of Christendom, which had been captured by an unjust aggressor.

THIRD: albigensian crusade. The biggest evil the Catholic world has ever produced. There is no way of justifying that. It was mass murder of heretics! Authorized by the Catholic Church! How can that be? If that crusade can be justified, than i could probably pick a protestant and kill him because according to the ‘justifiers’ of this evil, it is not a sin.

I don’t think things were so black and white. In those days, executing a heretic was legal. And a lot of these affairs had more to do with local politics than Church teaching.

I sympathize with your doubts, but at the end of it, I tell myself that:

1. any human institution is bound to have flaws - Judas betrayed Christ, Peter turned tail and fled, Peter and Paul fought, Mark deserted his ministry, Paul and Barnabas fought, and so on.
2. in those days, “Christendom” was not just a religion, but a social and political entity
3. such occurrences were the exception, rather than the rule,
4. secular historians are known to exaggerate the facts,
5. being Catholic doesn’t mean defending everything that every single Catholic has done.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Their goal was to conquer Jerusalem. Ok the first crusade was a defensive action, BUT, the others were NOT. They were offensive actions against muslims to conquer the Holy Land. Why did we even need the Holy Land, we can and could be saved and go to heaven without it. So why didn’t we just deploy our armies at the “Christian-muslim” border in Anatolia and wait. Why weren’t the crusades purely defensive?

SECOND: The Reconquista was unnecesseary. Why did we need Iberian penisula so much? Is Iberian penisula necesseary for us to go to heaven? I don’t think so. I also don’t think there were any mass masacres in the Iberia for us to justify that war. It was purely political. Why don’t we then conquer India by force and then it will be Christian? Are we spreading the Word with peace or with a sword?

THIRD: albigensian crusade. The biggest evil the Catholic world has ever produced. There is no way of justifying that. It was mass murder of heretics! Authorized by the Catholic Church! How can that be? If that crusade can be justified, than i could probably pick a protestant and kill him because according to the ‘justifiers’ of this evil, it is not a sin.

How can the crusades be a ‘just war’. They were anything but a just war, they were attempts by the Christians to CONQUER not defend. CONQUERING LAND IS SINFUL!

I know muslims conquered and killed Christians, but the fact is, that conquering land is sinful and since there were no high casualties, the crusades were not a just war, so they were evil authorized by the pope to conquer Holy Land, some Northern lands and Iberia. It would be the same if we now launched a crusade aggainst the Chinese, because they killed a couple of Christians and conquer them. It would not be just war, it would be evil!

I do not know what to think about that, so im finding alot of doubt. Please help.

-You are over simplifying the Crusades. They weren’t one very long and very widespread war. They were numerous different wars that took place in different areas during different time periods for different reasons. Trying to label “the Crusades” as either just or unjust would be like trying to label “all wars England ever took part in” as just or unjust.
-Same goes for the Reconquista. Not one very long war; but several separate wars and military actions undertaken for different reasons.
-Conquer- It can mean to take land/area that did not previous belong to you, take land/area that used to belong to you a very long time ago that you no longer have a valid claim on, or retake land unjustly taken from you. The first Crusade (the one everyone seems to know about) was the last. The lands “conquered” by the Crusaders actually belonged to the ERE (and should have gone back to the ERE, but that’s another issue). They “belonged” within the Christian culture/world.
-Albigensian Crusade- Perhaps you should give specifics given the rather central and controlling role the Crown of France played in this Crusade.

“I know muslims conquered and killed Christians, but the fact is, that conquering land is sinful and since there were no high casualties, the crusades were not a just war, so they were evil authorized by the pope to conquer Holy Land, some Northern lands and Iberia.”
-See above in regards to over simplification.
-So the Church teaches that as long as evil/sinful behavior only produces a small amount of tangible harm we are not allowed to counter it? You are applying the phrase “two wrongs don’t make a right” a little liberally here. I assume it’s because you are using backwards thinking (starting with the assumption that the Crusades were wrong and finding an argument that proves this).

 

[phil19034]

Their goal was to conquer Jerusalem. Ok the first crusade was a defensive action, BUT, the others were NOT. They were offensive actions against muslims to conquer the Holy Land. Why did we even need the Holy Land, we can and could be saved and go to heaven without it. So why didn’t we just deploy our armies at the “Christian-muslim” border in Anatolia and wait. Why weren’t the crusades purely defensive?

SECOND: The Reconquista was unnecesseary. Why did we need Iberian penisula so much? Is Iberian penisula necesseary for us to go to heaven? I don’t think so. I also don’t think there were any mass masacres in the Iberia for us to justify that war. It was purely political. Why don’t we then conquer India by force and then it will be Christian? Are we spreading the Word with peace or with a sword?

THIRD: albigensian crusade. The biggest evil the Catholic world has ever produced. There is no way of justifying that. It was mass murder of heretics! Authorized by the Catholic Church! How can that be? If that crusade can be justified, than i could probably pick a protestant and kill him because according to the ‘justifiers’ of this evil, it is not a sin.

How can the crusades be a ‘just war’. They were anything but a just war, they were attempts by the Christians to CONQUER not defend. CONQUERING LAND IS SINFUL!

I know muslims conquered and killed Christians, but the fact is, that conquering land is sinful and since there were no high casualties, the crusades were not a just war, so they were evil authorized by the pope to conquer Holy Land, some Northern lands and Iberia. It would be the same if we now launched a crusade aggainst the Chinese, because they killed a couple of Christians and conquer them. It would not be just war, it would be evil!

I do not know what to think about that, so im finding alot of doubt. Please help.

RPRPsych was right on with her post.

You also have to keep a few things in mind:

1. in those days, there was no TV, Radio or telephone. There were no trains, etc. Military intelligence had to be sent via horse back or sail boat. Quite often, by the time word arrived, the situation was already different.
2. The military was not professional. Most men who fought were hired for each campaign and made most of their money from colleting spoils of war. Also these Men were hired by the Kings, not the Pope.
3. During the Crusades, the Western Christians (must to the dismay of the Pope) sacked the Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, contributing to the schism. They did this because (1) they thought the Eastern Christians were idol worshipers and (2) because of riches the hired thugs were promised. The Pope was so upset.
4. many of the terrible things done in the past were (a) done during a different time, when society/life was more brutal and (b) were performed by kings & queens for their own political reasons (disguised as by the Church). Not by the Church itself.
5. It was not uncommon for Kings to force priests (and sometimes bishops) to go along with things against their will or finding a few corrupt priests/bishops
6. Back in those days, Kings claimed Divine Right to do whatever they wanted (unless the Pope stood in their way). And many times, some of Kings would defy the Pope and do it anyway (hence why the Anglican Church was formed).
7. Finally, Jesus promissed that He would protect the Church from incorrect teachings on Faith and Morals. Not from sinners, mistakes nor poor judgement.

God Bless.

 

[robwar]

-You are over simplifying the Crusades. They weren’t one very long and very widespread war. They were numerous different wars that took place in different areas during different time periods for different reasons. Trying to label “the Crusades” as either just or unjust would be like trying to label “all wars England ever took part in” as just or unjust.
-Same goes for the Reconquista. Not one very long war; but several separate wars and military actions undertaken for different reasons.
-Conquer- It can mean to take land/area that did not previous belong to you, take land/area that used to belong to you a very long time ago that you no longer have a valid claim on, or retake land unjustly taken from you. The first Crusade (the one everyone seems to know about) was the last. The lands “conquered” by the Crusaders actually belonged to the ERE (and should have gone back to the ERE, but that’s another issue). They “belonged” within the Christian culture/world.
-Albigensian Crusade- Perhaps you should give specifics given the rather central and controlling role the Crown of France played in this Crusade.

“I know muslims conquered and killed Christians, but the fact is, that conquering land is sinful and since there were no high casualties, the crusades were not a just war, so they were evil authorized by the pope to conquer Holy Land, some Northern lands and Iberia.”
-See above in regards to over simplification.
-So the Church teaches that as long as evil/sinful behavior only produces a small amount of tangible harm we are not allowed to counter it? You are applying the phrase “two wrongs don’t make a right” a little liberally here. I assume it’s because you are using backwards thinking (starting with the assumption that the Crusades were wrong and finding an argument that proves this).

I actually agree with Old Catholic. All these wars happen over hundreds of years and had many reasons to them. One simply cannot lump all of them together as good or bad, just or unjust. The first crusade was done at the request of the eastern Church looking to defend themselves against the ongoing encroachment on Christian lands and areas by the Ottoman empire as well as the constant harassment, killing and blocking of Christians making pilgrimages to the Holy Land. One of the big precipitating events to the first crusade was the unwarranted murder of a huge group of peaceful German pilgrims to the Holy Land which numbered in the thousands. It is all to easy to look back in history and try to judge events from the past using today’s understanding. There are many factors in all these past wars.

 

[RPRPsych]

RPRPsych was right on with her post.

You also have to keep a few things in mind:

1. in those days, there was no TV, Radio or telephone. There were no trains, etc. Military intelligence had to be sent via horse back or sail boat. Quite often, by the time word arrived, the situation was already different.
2. The military was not professional. Most men who fought were hired for each campaign and made most of their money from colleting spoils of war. Also these Men were hired by the Kings, not the Pope.
3. During the Crusades, the Western Christians (must to the dismay of the Pope) sacked the Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, contributing to the schism. They did this because (1) they thought the Eastern Christians were idol worshipers and (2) because of riches the hired thugs were promised. The Pope was so upset.
4. many of the terrible things done in the past were (a) done during a different time, when society/life was more brutal and (b) were performed by kings & queens for their own political reasons (disguised as by the Church). Not by the Church itself.
5. It was not uncommon for Kings to force priests (and sometimes bishops) to go along with things against their will or finding a few corrupt priests/bishops
6. Back in those days, Kings claimed Divine Right to do whatever they wanted (unless the Pope stood in their way). And many times, some of Kings would defy the Pope and do it anyway (hence why the Anglican Church was formed).
7. Finally, Jesus promissed that He would protect the Church from incorrect teachings on Faith and Morals. Not from sinners, mistakes nor poor judgement.

God Bless.

Great post! We shouldn’t see the Crusades through the 20th century lens of liberal democracy and mechanized warfare. A good (if flippant) way to view that time is to play a “swords and kingdoms” RPG, and think of how things might have worked in those days.

[P.S. I’m a guy!]

 

[captainrick]

If “CONQUERING LAND IS SINFUL,” Moses has a lot of explaining to do! As has been said, it was a very different time during the crusades.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Some minor points.

In the first Crusade, the Crusaders actually did return a lot of formerly Byzantine lands to the Byantines.

The Crusades were not against the Ottomans. The Seljuks had conquered vast swaths of formerly Greek, then Arab land. The Arabs didn’t like the Seljuks either, and often allied with the Crusaders against them.

It was the Mamluks who ultimately extinguished the remaining Crusader states, not the Ottomans. Later, of course, the Ottomans conquered the Mamluks.

In the early Crusader era, most of Palestine was feudal. That is, political authority was very decentralized. It was feudal under the Arabs at the time of the Crusades, and the Crusaders simply replaced many of them as feudal rulers. And the subjects were Christian as often as not and, as was the case in feudal societies, didn’t much care who “lived in the castle” as long as taxes weren’t too bad. But the Crusaders often coexisted with Arab feudal leaders as well.

The Arabs were much less the victims of Crusaders than they were of trans-national (for the time) conquerers having their origins in Central Asia; conquerers like the Kwarazmians, Seljuks, Mongols and Mamluks. Arabs struggled with Central Asian conquerers for a long time, and sometimes won, but ultimately succumbed to the Turkic Ottomans.

 

[Ridgerunner]

1. The military was not professional. Most men who fought were hired for each campaign and made most of their money from colleting spoils of war. Also these Men were hired by the Kings, not the Pope.
2. During the Crusades, the Western Christians (must to the dismay of the Pope) sacked the Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, contributing to the schism. They did this because (1) they thought the Eastern Christians were idol worshipers and (2) because of riches the hired thugs were promised. The Pope was so upset.

Permit me to quibble with a couple of things out of an otherwise excellent post.

-The western military men were absolutely professional, just not in the modern, national, sense. Frankish (and other western) knights were military men practically from birth. They were so good at it that 9000 of them overcame a massively larger Byzantine army and conquered a city with a population of about a million. They were bound by oath to their “next lord up” in a pyramidal heierarchy. Only the top leaders were truly independent.

-The schism was a fact before the Fourth Crusade. The Byzantine emperor had been deposed and blinded by factions within the Empire. His son solicited western aid, promising a) 10,000 Byzantine soldiers to a new crusade in Palestine, b) to pay the cost of their transport, c) to end the schism.

But it all depended on his father being put back on the Byzentine throne. A treacherous Venetian ruler (who had been blinded by the Byzantines in a previous anti-Italian purge in Constantinople) came through with the transport IF the Crusaders would recapture a Venetian port on the Adriatic. They did, and were excommunicated by the Pope for fighting against Christians. The Venetian ships took them to Constantinople, where they really did put the deposed Emperor back on the throne, at least momentarily. But he was deposed again, and the Byzantines tried to starve the Crusaders (who were outside the city walls) to make them leave, and made the further mistake of attacking them as well. The attack resulted in the Franks taking the city. Finding themselves in possession of the richest and most populous city in the known world, the Franks neglected to go to Palestine and really crusade. The Venetians stole a lot of stuff, collected their transport costs, kept some formerly Byzantine ports, and that was that.

Nothing to be proud of on anyone’s part.

 

[byzantium]

I believe there was a just and valid reason for the crusades. The way they were conducted is a different story.

Remember the Muslims conquered two thirds of the Christian world and would have taken the other third if they had taken the Roman Capital Constantinople.

The first crusade was called because the great Christian bulwark against Islam, The Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantine Empire) was beginning to fail after the Turks wiped out the Roman Army at Mazikurt in 1071 and overran all of asia minor. The Turks accomplished in a decade what the Arabs had failed to do in 4 centuries conquer the heart of the Eastern Empire.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Roman_Empire_600_AD.PNG

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/Age_of_Caliphs.png

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Byzantiumforecrusades.jpg

Being a Christian inst about being a pansy. Its about being a man, fighting the good fight and defending the faith against infidels.

The concept of a just war has always been part of Catholicism. Where would Christianity be if Constantine the Great had not won the Roman Empire at Milvan Bridge. Christ appeared to him and instructed him to fight under the sign of Chi Rho.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Milvian_Bridge

 

[1ke]

Their goal was to conquer Jerusalem.

Try again. Their goal was to liberate Jerusalem and the Holy Land from invaders.

Ok the first crusade was a defensive action, BUT, the others were NOT. They were offensive actions against muslims to conquer the Holy Land.

To liberate the Holy Land.

Why did we even need the Holy Land, we can and could be saved and go to heaven without it. So why didn’t we just deploy our armies at the “Christian-muslim” border in Anatolia and wait. Why weren’t the crusades purely defensive?

You seem to be placing this in terms of conquering, instead of in the proper context of liberating the peoples who lived there.

SECOND: The Reconquista was unnecesseary. Why did we need Iberian penisula so much? Is Iberian penisula necesseary for us to go to heaven? I don’t think so. I also don’t think there were any mass masacres in the Iberia for us to justify that war. It was purely political. Why don’t we then conquer India by force and then it will be Christian? Are we spreading the Word with peace or with a sword?

I don’t think the people of the Iberian penninsula see it quite the same way. They were repelling invaders and reclaiming their land and their freedom.

THIRD: albigensian crusade. The biggest evil the Catholic world has ever produced.

An opinion.

There is no way of justifying that. It was mass murder of heretics! Authorized by the Catholic Church! How can that be? If that crusade can be justified, than i could probably pick a protestant and kill him because according to the ‘justifiers’ of this evil, it is not a sin.

These were the worst kind of heretics, the ones advocating anarchy and the overthrow of the government. The governement was just in putting down such a revolt, no different than putting down those who would rise up in anarchy in our streets today against the common good.

How can the crusades be a ‘just war’. They were anything but a just war, they were attempts by the Christians to CONQUER not defend. CONQUERING LAND IS SINFUL!

You have a lot of wrong ideas about the Crusades. Where are you getting this? I can recommend Hillaire Belloc’s work and also Warren Carroll’s books for a better understanding of this subject.

I know muslims conquered and killed Christians, but the fact is, that conquering land is sinful and since there were no high casualties, the crusades were not a just war, so they were evil authorized by the pope to conquer Holy Land, some Northern lands and Iberia. It would be the same if we now launched a crusade aggainst the Chinese, because they killed a couple of Christians and conquer them. It would not be just war, it would be evil!

I think the Christians who were conquered, tortured, enslaved, and forced into conversion would have an entirely different perspective on being rescued through the efforts of the Church and the armies of their fellow Christians.

They sent their pleas for help to the Pope and to Christian kingdoms. You seem to be totally unaware that these were all Christian kingdoms until the Muslims invaded and committed unspeakable attrocities against the Christians living there. Did they not have a right to defend their homes and lives, and to ask for help in doing so to repel the invaders?

I daresay you would do the same if your home and land were invaded, your sister raped and tortured, your hands cut off, and if you were forced to accept Mohammed or be tortured-- would you not long for rescue?

I do not know what to think about that, so im finding alot of doubt. Please help.

Because you have a completely wrong idea about the crusades.

 

[1ke]

And, lest anyone “quibble” with what I’ve written-- yes I realize that it is a giant oversimplification of the politics and dynastic aspirations of various European rulers of the day and the 1000 years of turmoil and fighting. thankfully the Mohammadens were turned back from Vienna. Perhaps Timi is also unaware of the continuation of fighting up until only about 300-400 years ago with continued incursion and offensives against Europe, particularly in the very troubled regions of Eastern Europe.

 

[Cruciferi]

I believe the first Crusade was needed and definitely just. All of Christian Europe was in grave danger of being taken over by Muslim hordes. I would’ve ordered the Crusades again and again if necessary. I believe the subsequent crusades became nothing more than mercenary led looting conquests; however, the first and most united was undoubtedly needed and right!
Behold the words of William T. Sherman who summed up war without beating around the bush. "You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it." Regardless, of the theologians and historians debates war will never be 100% just or nice. It will always have terrible consequences and collateral damages. We can attempt to shorten or mitigate the suffering; however, it never changes the fact that war is hell.

 

[Ridgerunner]

And, lest anyone “quibble” with what I’ve written-- yes I realize that it is a giant oversimplification of the politics and dynastic aspirations of various European rulers of the day and the 1000 years of turmoil and fighting. thankfully the Mohammadens were turned back from Vienna. Perhaps Timi is also unaware of the continuation of fighting up until only about 300-400 years ago with continued incursion and offensives against Europe, particularly in the very troubled regions of Eastern Europe.

Understanding you’re oversimplifying on purpose, I might still point out that the Kosovo war was a distant product of the Turkish invasion of Europe. We were on the wrong side, of course, and helped ensure an Islamic narco-state in the Balkans.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

I believe the first Crusade was needed and definitely just. All of Christian Europe was in grave danger of being taken over by Muslim hordes. I would’ve ordered the Crusades again and again if necessary. I believe the subsequent crusades became nothing more than mercenary led looting conquests; however, the first and most united was undoubtedly needed and right!

 Behold the words of William T. Sherman who summed up war without beating around the bush. "You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it."  Regardless, of the theologians and historians debates war will never be 100% just or nice.  It will always have terrible consequences and collateral damages.  We can attempt to shorten or mitigate the suffering; however, it never changes the fact that war is hell.

Europe was not in grave danger “of being taken over by Muslim hordes”, the First Crusade was about trying to mend the rift between East and West theologically. Additionally the Seljuk Turks killing and maiming pilgrims was a major motivation and it stood in stark contrast to the Muslim Arabs who had had amicable relations with the West in part due to protecting Christian pilgrims.

 

[byzantium]

Europe was not in grave danger “of being taken over by Muslim hordes”, the First Crusade was about trying to mend the rift between East and West theologically. Additionally the Seljuk Turks killing and maiming pilgrims was a major motivation and it stood in stark contrast to the Muslim Arabs who had had amicable relations with the West in part due to protecting Christian pilgrims.

Christianity is not limited to Europe, The entire Roman Empire converted to Christianity,

Christian Africa, Egypt, Syria, Palestine, Southern Italy, Crete, Iberia (Half the Christian world), had been aggressively conquered by Muslims.

After the battle of manzikurt in 1071 all of Asia minor was lost to the Turks, The Capital of the Turkish Sultanate of Rum was Nicaea, the site of the great church council from where we got the Nicaean Creed.

Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, Cathage, Constantinople and Rome were the major centres of Christianity in the Roman Empire, all but Rome and Constantinople had been conquered .

The Arabs came very close to defeating the Roman Empire and taking the Roman capital Constantinople. Raided Roman Asia minor yearly, and launched massive campaigns against specific cities such as Amorium trying to break down the Roman defensive system.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Amorium

Muhammed said in the Koran he who takes Constantinople shall be blessed. The standard bearer of Muhammed died outside the city walls trying to conquer the city. Not deny their are good, righteous Muslims, but their is no such thing as moderate Islam.

It is very clear the first Muslims who rode out of the Arabian desert were out to conquer the world. Islam is not a religion of peace, Muhammed brought nothing but the sword.

Every Christian has a valid cause to defend the faith against false prophets, and enemies of Christ.

The companions of the “prophet” were very different men than the Apostles of Christ.

 

[1ke]

Understanding you’re oversimplifying on purpose, I might still point out that the Kosovo war was a distant product of the Turkish invasion of Europe. We were on the wrong side, of course, and helped ensure an Islamic narco-state in the Balkans.

Oh yes, I realize its a war we are still fighting. All a product of what came before.

 

[Burt_Macklin]

And, lest anyone “quibble” with what I’ve written-- yes I realize that it is a giant oversimplification of the politics and dynastic aspirations of various European rulers of the day and the 1000 years of turmoil and fighting. thankfully the Mohammadens were turned back from Vienna. Perhaps Timi is also unaware of the continuation of fighting up until only about 300-400 years ago with continued incursion and offensives against Europe, particularly in the very troubled regions of Eastern Europe.

Seems more than a minor “quibble” to note that the main Islamic aggression that you mentioned to justify the crusade, the conquest of Jerusalem, had taken place in 638, more than 400 years ago. There was never any great love between Christians and Muslims, and there were always sporadic outbursts of violence as empires contested for more land and power. But it wasn’t as if there some sort of planned mass offensive against Christian Europe at the time of the first crusade. The main violence that you mentioned as the impetus behind the crusade wasn’t committed by the people who lived in the contested lands at the time, but by their great-great-great-great grandfathers.

 

[Timi_Celcer]

1ke you say that the goal of the crusades was also to free the Christians from muslims. Why then, was our only goal Jerusalem? Were not Christians in Egypt also deserving freedom?

Second, you still didn’t explain the Albigensian crusade? How is that particular crusade just war?