Was the average Crusader a good person?

Was the average Crusader a good person?

>bloodthirsty religious fanatics or opportunistic looters in search of land and plunder

Sure.

No. They were paid soldiers, although they were christian.

Were they badass? Another question altogether.

It depends
Did he maintain the true Lutheran faith established by Jesus Christ, despite satanic vatican influence?
If yes, then yes. If no, then no.

they killed hundreds of thousands of muslims. so yes

Heretic detected

>hundreds of thousands
I know there was genocide, but it should still be sub 100k, unless there were a bunch that died from starvation after the sacks.

Depends on if you consider cannibalism,killing civillians and lying a good thing,although on a more serious note it depends on which crusade,the first crusade was an awful example of being good.

They probably were for the standards of their time and society.

Far from turning the other cheek Christians have a long history of burning and gouging out both cheeks of anyone they dislike.

Generally no. They were hired strongmen who harassed peasants for taxes during peacetime. They had a sense of honor, but only towards other Christians.

>judging a Crusader with atheistic christian morals and decadent categories
o i am laffin

Everything about this thread is just fucking stupid. That goes for the OP and people who reply.

Crusaders came from every area of Catholic Christendom and participated in crusades over a 400 year span if not more. A crusader in France in 1081 is not going to be the same as one in the Latin Empire in 1208.

delete this

Define "good"

The Bible says that those who practice sin and lawlessness will not be in Heaven.

"Good" is subjective.

They were good for their christian kings.

They were evil to muslims.

Nevertheless, thanks to them muslim advance towards europe was halted, therefore i'm quite grateful for them, and also, do understand that a lot of them were peasents looking for a "safe passage to heaven" granted by the Pope, when he called the first crusade, so in reality, those peasents tought they were doing the "right" and "good" thing, while the muslims tought they were doing a "right" and "good" thing by expanding Islam and defending themselfs agaisnt the crusades.

Therefore, the average crusader is not good.

Not really, no

>t. submissive leftist who suck ahmed's cock

I doubt they were evil persons

if you're a new narrative historian of course then they are evil baby killer monsters that love to kill musilms and jews and newborn kittens while spreading white white imperialism

Yes, the defended Christian pilgrims in the Holy Land.

Oh look, he posted it.

>Let's just take everything bad anyone who called themselves a Crusader did over severeal hundred years of history and act likes this proves that the Crusades were morally wrong from the ground up.

Notice how the second part of the image doesn't actually disprove anything in the first half? It just goes off on a completely different tangent about unrelated shit.

>in search of land
Opinion discarded

>They had a sense of honor, but only towards other Christians

Tell me about the Bosnian and Albigensian Crusades, please.

The average crusader was a person. People are by nature bad. Therfore the average crusader was a bad person by virtue of being a person.

> Sack the capital of Byzantine
The sack of the Byzantine capital was done by a excommunicated army, therefore not a crusader army.

> Rather than take back waht the Muslim agressors had taken in Iberia
They did you shit lord, crusaders from France and England passed trough Portugal and helped on the Reconquista, some of them were even awarded with lands, see Henrique de Borgonha, he was French and he was the first to rule over the county of Portucale. Pic related is the siege of Lisbon, in which the Crusaders HELPED taking back Lisbon.

> Le thirty years war
Nothing to do with crusaders

> In search of land and plunder
Yeah right, go away from this board you cuckhold.

>The sack of the Byzantine capital was done by a excommunicated army, therefore not a crusader army.

What a crock of shit, every latin first hand account(especially Geoffrey deVillehardouin's) discusses the actions as perpetrated by crusaders, and Geoffrey was there at the time.

gud boys trying to turn their lives round, dindunuffin.

>excommunicated

They were forgiven and Innocent III took a portion of the loot

>siege of Lisbon

You know he's talking about Charlemagne right, one of the most recognized "heroes of christianity"

Yes.

Half of those things aren't crusade related, and none of them came even remotely close to destroying "Europe"

Cathars shouldn't have gotten the king of Aragon to attack France. Traitors reap what they sow

Some displaced soldier willing to kill or die for a thrill to break the misery.
Convinced of their purpose, maybe, but definitely hardened by violence.

No, they were just mercenaries and loyalists to their respective crowns and the church. I don't see how that necessarily makes them good.

No, at least no more than average soldiers back then. Orders like the Templars were very devout though and disciplined though, and therefore probably good people--I'd certainly trust them more than a random person today anyway.

As much as the average person is a good person.

They were just people, but at least they (for the most part) believed they really were doing something good.

>muslim
>defending
pick one

>average
>proceeds to list specifics
sometimes i wish there were flags so we could find the muslims easier