Were the crusades led by Catholics right?

Answer 1

The crusades went both ways, it was the attempts of the Muslims led by Saladin to recapture the holy city of jerusalem form the christians, and was also the attepmts of the catholics to recapture the holy city from the Muslims.the most Famous of all crusades was the one led by Richard the LionHeart.And he was from Europe.

Answer 2

The Crusades failed in their objective which was to "liberate the Holy Land from Muslim control,protect the Christian pilgrims from the West and deliver the eastern Christians.

The Crusades were a reaction to centuries of Muslim jihad wars of conquest and raiding of Christian lands and populations which Muslim conquests continued until the late 17th Century and the raids until the 19th century.

The Crusades did not live up to their original objectives and were "colored with massacres",double- dealings,political and personal conflicts and betrayals( like the 4th Crusade).

I do not think that Christians should imitate Islamist Jihadism and rush to violence to " solve" issues. Nations and peoples have the right to protect themselves but not to subject other peoples and nations,especially by trying to kidnap God for the purpose.

Answer 3

Muslim armies had conquered much of northern Africa, Egypt, Palestine, Syria, and Spain, which had been some of the most heavily Christian areas in the world.

Thousands, and possibly millions, of Christians died during this drive to eventually bring the entire world under Islam.

The First Crusade was launched in 1095 by Pope Urban II to check the advance of the Muslims and regain control of the city of Jerusalem and the Holy Land.

I am sure that some atrocities were committed by both sides during this war but by most people's judgment this was a just war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Crusade

With love in Christ.

Answer 4

When Byzantine emperor Alexius I asked the Christian states of Europe for help against the turks, many agreed. At the Council of Clermont in 1095, Pope Urban II encouraged the assembly of knights and nobles to fight against the infidels. A series of Crusades began in 1096. So it was kind of Alexius I and the Catholics.

Answer 5

Well, that's kind of a loaded question...because most of the time, people will answer it according to our 21st century views. According to our views, was it right? Probably not.

However, those wars were fought, and decisions were made, based on views of 1000 years ago. In that time, most Christianized countries were just a few hundred years this side of paganism, and most people were still unable to read or write. The church, in teaching a largely illiterate audience, had to boil things down to the very basic concepts, but still provide structure for society. This often led to misunderstandings, either on the part of the clergy or the parishioner.

The church was also largely based in monasteries and convents, which were originally formed to provide haven from the chaos of the fall of the Roman Empire...so to head the other way, many monasteries had strict rules - rules that eventually found their way into the church, though a few hundred years removed from the original. This also led to misunderstandings of biblical mandates.

Lastly, as the culture started to change (moved away from tribal government and "God-ordained" feudalism), people started to rely less and less on the church to run their daily lives. Problem was, clerical leaders had begun to be placed in their positions due to social status, wealth, and return of favors...rather than because of devotion to God. And being who they were, they didn't want to give up their power.

All of these led to misconceptions in the church, but most of the people who fought the Crusades were doing so because they thought it was the right thing to do. At that point in history, Islam was about 400 years old, and Islamic peoples were actively expanding their territory into Christian nations...and they weren't doing so peacefully. The pope, along with many Christian monarchs, were trying to limit that expansion to non-Christianized areas.

In their eyes, the Crusades were started for "right" reasons. However, parts of the Crusades turned "wrong" when people started going not to retain holy ground, but to gain power, wealth, and influence.

When you try to determine the ethics behind a historical event, especially one from another century, you have to look at it in two ways: 1) what were the determining factors for the people involved in it, and 2) how can we apply that to today.

Application could include...
1) in our modern-day culture, taking control of territory for religious reasons isn't an acceptable thing. Whether it's opposing tribes commiting genocide in Africa, or Hindus and Buddhists fighting over territory in Asia, it's just plain not acceptable. We need to figure out ways to agree to disagree. (Unfortunately, when it comes to religious beliefs, that's easier said than done.)
2) Being passionate about your beliefs is a good thing...but make sure you don't twist that into manipulating others for your own benefit.

And the list goes on. I could write more, but honestly, it's bedtime :-)

Hope that helps!

Answer 6

The Knights Templar lost the Holy Land to Saladin of Egypt in a series of battles, and were burned on crosses en mass by the pope.

A contemporary equivalent of the Knights Templar is the Halliburton corporation.

A contemporary equivalent of the Knights of Malta, (Knights Hospitaller), is the Blackwater security agency.

Answer 7

I Believe they were led by the Christians during 1095–1291, most of which were sanctioned by the Pope in the name of Christendom. Don't know if that helps at all.

Answer 8

I always found the scripture interesting:

"a slave of the Lord does not need to fight, but needs to be gentle toward all" -2 Timothy 2:24

Answer 9

They were to "recapture" the holy land for Christians, by killing thousands of the people who lived there. I wouldn't call that right.
Also, they were lead by the government as much as by the church.