Crusades - Right or Wrong?

Question

Were the Crusades right or wrong?

Answer 1

Wrong - just another religious war

Answer 2

Oh my word - this is almost impossible to answer as there were at least 9 crusades, plus a possible 2, 3 or 4 others, with differing reasons behind the build-up to each.

As a massive generalisation, the invasion of any other country or city for any reason, be it religious or commerce is "wrong".

Some Crusades were more "wrong" than others - I would suggest the Children's Crusade; the sack of Constantinople; and the crusade against the Cathars fall into this category.

Answer 3

Right? from our point of view? No, maybe not. But these were the international global politics of a different age. Ripped out of their contexts, many prejudices were allowed to run riot and the crusaders commited atrocities against Jews for example before even leaving Europe. So such can be declared wrong. but self-determination and such principles weren't in existence and you have to ask: would the result of there being no crusades have been better? What would have emerged?

Culturally Europe was shaken up by their learning, and Muslim-preserved learning not only took on a new lease of life in Europe, leading to ideas of science and truth that keep us warm hereand shape our world today.

Answer 4

Wrong....
1. War for Personal Gain
Historians believe that a rise in Europe's population led to a crisis of too many noble "second sons," those who were trained in chivalric warfare but who had no feudal lands to inherit. The Crusades, therefore, were seen as a safety valve, sending these belligerent men far from Europe where they could carve out lands for themselves at someone else's expense.
2. Bloodshed to bring about the furtherance of Christianity
There is no such thing as a just war because war in and of itself is unjust, calling it a “Holy War” doesn’t change anything in fact it makes it worse. War goes against our teachings because we learn from the Bible and Jesus’ teachings to treasure human life and to be compassionate towards each other.
3. The ugly legacy
The Crusaders' committed horrible atrocities, raping, murdering and plundering Jews, Muslims and other Christians en route to Palestine. When they reached Jerusalem in 1099, blood flowed freely. Jews fled to a synagogue and Muslims to a mosque. Crusaders burned the synagogue, killing about 6,000 Jews, and stormed the mosque, butchering an estimated 30,000 Muslims. They left a legacy of fear and contempt in the Muslim world.

Answer 5

One of the driving reasons for the early crusades was to get undesireable elements out of Europe. Europe was almost at peace, no major wars being fought as such each country had a collection of what can best be described as 'robber knights' second sons or impoverished nobles, professional soldiers who would normally expect to be rewarded with lands and titles by a king for fighting his wars. Without wars to fight they cause unrest, rob, steal and possible cause rebellion. This is why the crusade was so welcomed as it got these robber knights out of 'civilised' countries and off somewhere where they could loot, murder and rape to their evil hearts content.
Good or bad? all in the eye of the beholder.

Answer 6

The official reason seems noble, to protect the Holy Land from the encroachment of Islam. The real reason is less desirable, to crush a difference of religious belief directed by the clergy of the time. How many conflicts have happened because of religion? I am sure Christ wept over the atrocities committed in His name. Allah is saddened by the loss of innocent blood. The Way is not about subjugation and dominance but peace and acceptance. I am sorry, I tend to ramble from time to time.

Answer 7

When I was age 10, I read Harold Lamb's history of them. Each had its own purpose. The first was preached by Pope Urban II to "liberate the Holy Land from the infidel". One just sacked some cities for treasure and did not even try to reach Jeruselam. I say they were all wrong, whatever their purpose. No one should take thousands of warriors to loot and kill for any reason.

Answer 8

No war fought over the concept of a "holy land" or a "god" can ever be deemed right. There is absolutely no prove of any kind whatsoever that a "god" exists and as such it cannot be proved that any land is "holy". Even if it were...killing millions to "own" or possess it can't be anything but wrong. If we fight at all, and we shouldn't, the cause must be just; WWII, The American Revolution and The French Revolution might serve as examples of just warfare.

Answer 9

No, they were not "right or wrong"

They were simultaneously right and wrong. There was far too much deception, nobility and greed involved to lump them in any area. The knights and church thought they were defending the church when in fact they were supporting people who had attacked the Islamic religious institutions with no provocation in the same manner that they requested defense from.

Answer 10

While the noble reason of protecting the holy land or in the name of God may make it sound right these terms are generally employed as a viable reason to go to war. I do not for one second think God would want anyone to kill and Christ would condone any wars fought in His name.

Answer 11

To invade a country to impose a religion, a political system, or for money is inherently wrong.

War is almost always about money (land, natural resources, oil, gold, silver, etc.) but the justification for war is draped in whatever religious, national, or humanitarian banners that people will rally behind. It works, is the sad commentary about us as people.