Why were the crusades unsuccsesful?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Timi_Celcer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Timi_Celcer

Guest
I know some were succsesful but if we look at it overall, well we lost the holy land, its not christian now. Why is that? Why did the right religion lost against muslims? Was that because of the massacres of some crusaders commited or why? Why?
 
Timi_Celcer said:
I know some were succsesful but if we look at it overall, well we lost the holy land, its not christian now. Why is that? Why did the right religion lost against muslims? Was that because of the massacres of some crusaders commited or why? Why?
Click to expand...
  1. The military might of Christianity wasn’t held within the Church, it was held within the kingdom’s who swore a somewhat tenuous fealty to the Church…but only when it was in their best interests as well.
  2. It was a loooong way from the centers of Christian might (Europe) to the Holy Lands. It’s always hard to travel, fight, and then make it home.
  3. Christians rarely (despite what is taught in public schools today) ever removed your head for not being Christian. In Islam, however, this is an effective tool for converting the masses.
The list is much longer than this, but this is a start.
 
They were not entirely unsuccessful. We will do better next time.
 
Timi_Celcer said:
I know some were succsesful but if we look at it overall, well we lost the holy land, its not christian now. Why is that? Why did the right religion lost against muslims? Was that because of the massacres of some crusaders commited or why? Why?
Click to expand...
the West bit off more than it could chew. why would God bail out military adventurism?
 
Timi_Celcer said:
I know some were succsesful but if we look at it overall, well we lost the holy land, its not christian now. Why is that? Why did the right religion lost against muslims? Was that because of the massacres of some crusaders commited or why? Why?
Click to expand...
The goal of the Crusades wasn’t to convert the Muslims to Christianity by force. They were to secure the holy pilgrimage sites in Israel so that European pilgrims could visit them safely, which I believe was a goal that was largely accomplished.
 
tomarin said:
The goal of the Crusades wasn’t to convert the Muslims to Christianity by force. They were to secure the holy pilgrimage sites in Israel so that European pilgrims could visit them safely, which I believe was a goal that was largely accomplished.
Click to expand...
sack a few cities, sell off a few slaves, sack Constantinople just because it was somehow on the way to the holy land, establish a few petty warlords, sure, why not?
 
tomarin said:
The goal of the Crusades wasn’t to convert the Muslims to Christianity by force. They were to secure the holy pilgrimage sites in Israel so that European pilgrims could visit them safely, which I believe was a goal that was largely accomplished.
Click to expand...
Correct, and I believe you can attribute to some (small but significant) importations of Muslim scientific and mathematical knowledge to the crusades. Much of which may have been eradicated by Muslims in purges set directly against the educated of their populations.
 
That would depend on what you view as unsuccessful. You assume because they lost the Holy Land they lost the crusade. In reality the crusades taught Christian soldiers many things like how to fight wars in foreign lands, how to build large ships to carry supplies, they learned new military tactics, and they were exposed to new diseases that helped the following generations to be immune to pathogens. Then once the Muslims blocked routes to the far east, Christians took to the seas to find alternative routes to the East Indies. Instead they found two continents, allowing them to bring Christianity to a whole new world.
 
mikeeh said:
That would depend on what you view as unsuccessful. You assume because they lost the Holy Land they lost the crusade. In reality the crusades taught Christian soldiers many things like how to fight wars in foreign lands, how to build large ships to carry supplies, they learned new military tactics
Click to expand...
christendom knew how to fight wars. it had been fighting wars since imperial times, it rarely wasn’t fighting a war somewhere, usually against itself. christendom was a warrior culture. but so was islam, and the christians got whipped.
mikeeh said:
, and they were exposed to new diseases that helped the following generations to be immune to pathogens.
Click to expand...
which ones were those? nobody in Europe was initially immune to the bubonic plague pandemic in the 14th century (lasting until the 17th), just like they weren’t immune to the first plague pandemic in the 6th century, both of which devastated islamic and Christian lands. all of Eurasia is basically the same disease pool. (the crusades took place between those two pandemics) “exposed” means “causes devastating epidemic and death of 30-50% of the population from the initial exposure”, so if you think this is a benefit, then nice going, crusaders. don’t do anymore favors.
mikeeh said:
Then once the Muslims blocked routes to the far east, Christians took to the seas to find alternative routes to the East Indies. Instead they found two continents, allowing them to bring Christianity to a whole new world.
Click to expand...
post hoc reasoning. the crusades were destructive and ultimately losing propositions. western powers would have found sea trade routes regardless of the crusades.
 
I would argue, in the strategic sense, the crusades were very successful; it is very possible Christendom would have been lost without them.

First one must place the crusades in their proper context. They took place in the middle of a 1000 year long war between Christendom and Islam. After the loss if the Middle East and North Africa, and until the crusades, the war was largely a defensive war fought against Islam on three fronts: Iberian Pennisula, Sicily/ Italy, and into Europe via Asia Minor. The Crusades were the first attempt to turn this defensive war into an offensive war; and at the same time securing lands of great cultural importance to Christendom.

The result was that the greatest Islamic general of all time, Saladin, spent most of his career fighting Christians in the Holy Land instead of invading Europe. That man was going to be successful at whatevere he did, so it’s good that he was kept occupied elsewhere.

In addition, they stopped large military migration of Islam from the Middle East into Spain and which pretty much set the pattern that the Moors were responsible for defending Spain from that point forward. Allowing an eventual victory a couple of centuries later.

From that point on, the Arabs never again were willing to commit vast armies towards the invasion of Europe without holding some in reserve ( certainly a change in behavior from the first 3 centuries of Islamuc advance.

Finally, Christendom learned the necessity of fighting the war at times from a strategic sense, drawing forces from across countries at specific times, which proved decisive at Lepanto, and twice at Vienna.

Yes, Islam still made significant inroads after the crusades, notably the eventual conquest of the Byzantine Empire. But that was largely due to the continual internal weakening of that Empire, and it was likely delayed for 3 centuries due to the crusades.
 
tafan said:
…

In addition, they stopped large military migration of Islam from the Middle East into Spain and which pretty much set the pattern that the Moors were responsible for defending Spain from that point forward. Allowing an eventual victory a couple of centuries later.
Click to expand...
the Islamic invasion was stopped at the Battle of Toulouse in 721 and the Battle of Tours in 732 and in other battles in 8th century France. these weren’t crusaders, but frankish warlords (Odo and Martel).
…
tafan said:
Yes, Islam still made significant inroads after the crusades, notably the eventual conquest of the Byzantine Empire. But that was largely due to the continual internal weakening of that Empire, and it was likely delayed for 3 centuries due to the crusades.
Click to expand...
thanks, Fourth Crusade, for sacking Constantinople in 1204 (explain this one) and making this all possible.

crusades = fail.
 
Fairwinds said:
sack a few cities, sell off a few slaves, sack Constantinople just because it was somehow on the way to the holy land, establish a few petty warlords, sure, why not?
Click to expand...
I would say that except possibly for the last thing you cite, these were all unintended consequences.
 
Fairwinds said:
the Islamic invasion was stopped at the Battle of Toulouse in 721 and the Battle of Tours in 732 and in other battles in 8th century France. these weren’t crusaders, but frankish warlords (Odo and Martel).
…

thanks, Fourth Crusade, for sacking Constantinople in 1204 (explain this one) and making this all possible.

crusades = fail.
Click to expand...
Do you honestly think Islamic aggression ended in the 8th century? Wow.

As to the Sack of Constaninople, certainly a tragedy and major screwup. I never claimed the crusades were all fought intelligently, justly, or tactically successfully. I do claim they were justified in their cause, and provided many strategic benefits in the millineum long war between two civilizations. Benefits which played a large part in the eventual victory of Christendom.
 
tomarin said:
I would say that except possibly for the last thing you cite, these were all unintended consequences.
Click to expand...
Maybe unintended by the church. But the people fighting it are another story. Please letsnot whitewash the horrible things done by either side in the crusade.
 
tafan said:
Do you honestly think Islamic aggression ended in the 8th century? Wow.
Click to expand...
do not alter my comments or take them out of context. you referenced Spain and I said the invasion of France that followed ended in the 8th century.
tafan said:
As to the Sack of Constaninople, certainly a tragedy and major screwup. I never claimed the crusades were all fought intelligently, justly, or tactically successfully. I do claim they were justified in their cause, and provided many strategic benefits in the millineum long war between two civilizations. Benefits which played a large part in the eventual victory of Christendom.
Click to expand...
a “screwup” is an accident. Constantinople wasn’t accidentally sacked and the Latin Empire wasn’t accidentally established.

ProTip: before claiming the crusades were successful, observe carefully that north Africa and arabia, syria, turkey and other former Christian lands are still Islamic.
 
Fairwinds said:
do not alter my comments or take them out of context. you referenced Spain and I said the invasion of France that followed ended in the 8th century.

a “screwup” is an accident. Constantinople wasn’t accidentally sacked and the Latin Empire wasn’t accidentally established.

ProTip: before claiming the crusades were successful, observe carefully that north Africa and arabia, syria, turkey and other former Christian lands are still Islamic.
Click to expand...
Do NOT altar my comments. Also, I did not claim that the crusades stopped the invasion into Spain. What I claimed is that they stopped the movement of Arab military forces into Spain

ProTip: observe carefully that Europe is not Islamic, which was certainly the goal of Islam for a 1000 years.
 
Gricken said:
Maybe unintended by the church. But the people fighting it are another story. Please letsnot whitewash the horrible things done by either side in the crusade.
Click to expand...
Please note I am not denying horrible things happened during the Crusades or because of the Crusades. I simply do not believe these things were goals of the Crusades, which is after all the subject of this thread.
 
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top