The crusades were justified

They were a moviment in response to Islamic agression against european populations and against christianity. They only came hundreds of years before Islam started attacking Europe and had for it's only purpose the defense of faith and land.
Prove me wrong
>Protip: you can't

Other urls found in this thread:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(1099)
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Literally who cares?

Europeans abandoned thousands of years of tradition, rolled over and accepted a Semitic faith once, I don't see what the big deal is about doing it one more time.

What are you even going on about 4?
I told you to discuss me on whether the crusaders were justified or not, to tell me if Europe should give up their faith and their ways to get fucked in the ass by some mudskins.

>to tell me if Europe should give up their faith and their ways to get fucked in the ass by some mudskins.
I think he was referring to the time Europeans abandoned thousands of years of religious ancestral traditions, just to embrace a new Hellenized-Jewish cult started by a peasant magician and his followers, who all thought the literal end of the world was right around the corner desu

>"their" ((((((faith))))))

Imagine! Europeans might have had to worship a slightly different interpretation of the Abrahamic god! The horror!

It's not hard at all to prove this wrong, because it's nearly impossible to prove it right. First off, we actually do have some clue what the motivations for the Crusades were, and only the campaigns against the Ottomans in the Balkans were launched in response to Islamic aggression against European populations. Before then all other Crusades were launched against Islamic aggression against Asian Christians, except for the First Crusade which was an end times craze driven pilgrimage following the private mercenary ventures of several Frankish and Norman nobles that took on a life of its own.

The reason the Crusades took centuries to begin after the first couple of Muslim expansion events was precisely because it was not a reactionary movement, but a revolutionary one. Before then there have been several responses to Arab and Berber aggression in the Mediterranean, and counter-aggression as well. It's with the Crusades that something new started, and it had more to do with an expansionist Frankish Christian ideology than any outside factor.

>Asian Christians
I meant Crusader States here, not sure why it came out like that.

Did you eat a lot of paint chips when you were a kid or something? Christianity is not a religion that originated in Europe, is this bait?

well if you think about it, it must have felt like it really was the end. Diseases killing half of the population of the entire continent. constant war, fields littered in dead bodies, not nearly enough food for half of the population, barbarians invading the remains of what once was the roman empire, etc etc
It's justified to follow a "peasant magician" if you ask me. He gave them safety.
Ancient romans didn't believe in heaven, so they were pretty sure they'd be just as fucked in the afterlife as they were in this one.
When some guy says that if they give up their culture they'd get eternal joy, peace and happyness after they died, they'd have to be fools not to go with him.
I mean, life was already shitty, so why not just go with that one guy that gives me some hope of ever being happy?

>When some guy says that if they give up their culture they'd get eternal joy, peace and happyness after they died, they'd have to be fools not to go with him.
That's precisely what a fool would do.

Did you ever stop to think that maybe Rome lost her status and power because she turned her back on the divinities that had patronized her for centuries?

Except that the crusaders killed thousands of Christians and Jews as well.

That's because they weren't the noble defenders of Christendom that retards on Veeky Forums jerk themselves into a frenzy over, they were bored greedy assholes with nothing better to do.

Well, they were mostly peasants, barely scraping by, feeling abandoned by their own gods and betrayed by those who ruled them. If you ask me, that's what anyone would do in the same situation. Their culture at the time was being raped and killed by the barbarians, getting killed by incurable diseases and starving to death.
Giving up on that kind of helped them.

>well if you think about it, it must have felt like it really was the end. Diseases killing half of the population of the entire continent. constant war, fields littered in dead bodies, not nearly enough food for half of the population
I was actually referring to Jesus and his first followers (Paul, James, Peter) thinking they were in the end times, and going to meet Jesus "in the air" in their lifetimes; not the early middle ages.

>Their culture at the time was being raped and killed by the barbarians
The great "barbarian" sackers of Rome (Alaric I, Ataulf, Geneseric, and Odoacer) were all baptized Christians desu

>and it had more to do with an expansionist Frankish Christian ideology than any outside factor. Christian ideology than any outside factor.

Fuck off marxist scum
"If neither the words of the Scriptures arouse you, nor our admonitions penetrate your minds, at least let the great suffering of those who desired to go to the holy places stir you up. Think of those who made the pilgrimage across the sea! Even if they were more wealthy, consider what taxes, what violence they underwent, since they were forced to make payments and tributes almost every mile, to purchase release at every gate of the city, at the entrance of the churches and temples, at every side journey from place to place: also, if any accusation whatsoever were made against them, they were compelled to purchase their release; but if they refused to pay money, the prefects of the Gentiles, according to their custom, urged them fiercely with blows. What shall we say of those who took up the journey without anything more than trust in their barren poverty, since they seemed to have nothing except their bodies to lose? They not only demanded money of them, which is not an unendurable punishment, but also examined the callouses of their heels, cutting them open and folding the skin back, lest, perchance, they had sewed something there. Their unspeakable cruelty was carried on even to the point of giving them scammony to drink until they vomited, or even burst their bowels, because they thought the wretches had swallowed gold or silver; or, horrible to say, they cut their bowels open with a sword and, spreading out the folds of the intestines, with frightful mutilation disclosed whatever nature held there in secret. Remember, I pray, the thousands who have perished vile deaths, and strive for the holy places from which the beginnings of your faith have come. Before you engage in His battles, believe without question that Christ will be your standard-bearer and inseparable forerunner."

Except that there were 9 crusades, each made up of different groups of people.
The first ones had a legit purpose: To retake Jerusalem and to defend their Faith and their land
Then some greedy fuckers noticed that the muslims had insane resources and decided to go to crusades to try and make their lives easier and more comfortable. Thing is: they didn't behave like christians and had no interest in christianity. They went for the fame, glory and money.
Also, the crusades happened to defend Christianity, and as you know, Jews aren't christians. While it's not justified, its easy to understand why would crusaders kill jews. I mean, think about how times were. Anyone who was not a christian was an enemy at that time.

Looks like someone needs to get laid

>Fuck off marxist scum
Not an argument. Also, first sentence is the key sentence: the words of the Scriptures and the pope's admonitions are the major arguments here to justify the First Crusade. The humanitarian angle for Eastern Christians and pilgrims was the lesser argument, a small pitch to anyone that wasn't already convinced by the first two points.

The Crusaders didn't even behave "like Christians" in the Holy Land, though.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(1099)
See specifically the "massacre" heading.

>The Crusaders didn't even behave "like Christians"

An holy war is always a war of extermination.

When the trumpets sounded, the army shouted, and at the sound of the trumpet, when the men gave a loud shout, the wall collapsed; so everyone charged straight in, and they took the city. They devoted the city to the LORD and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.

Don't remind me. Jerusalem 1099 was one of the most brutal sieges of all time. Literal rivers of blood flowing through the city.

The problem with the Crusades, is that most people who will talk about them will do huge generalizations and won't look at things in a pragmatic way. For some, the Crusades were made by religious zealots to freely murder jews and muslims, and take huge plots of lands in Outremer. For others, Crusaders were humble europeans fighting to defend their continent after almost 500 years of enduring muslims agressions.

None of those visions are real. Because there were many Crusades, and you simply can't compare a Crusade made by Kings (Like the 3rd) with a more humble Crusade made by poor pilgrims.

Except Jesus literally preached submission to the point of death.

Rage and sorrow are seated in my heart...so firmly that I scarce dare to stay alive. It seems that God wishes to support the Turks to our loss...ah, lord God...alas, the realm of the East has lost so much that it will never be able to rise up again. They will make a Mosque of Holy Mary's convent, and since the theft pleases her Son, who should weep at this, we are forced to comply as well...Anyone who wishes to fight the Turks is mad, for Jesus Christ does not fight them any more. They have conquered, they will conquer. For every day they drive us down, knowing that God, who was awake, sleeps now, and Muhammad waxes powerful.

It's basically the same thing. The only reason Christ got so well known was not because he said he was the son of God. It was because his message brought hope. By that time, Rome was doing pretty bad already and had reached it's height in "degeneracy". You had orgys everywhere, the rich were obese and always kept themselves drunk as fuck, while everyone else starved their asses. And with the slave influx from the wars rome fought, the peasants had literally nothing to do, since they couldn't work the land if they wanted. Even if I did get the time period wrong, it's still pretty shitty.
Also, still a time of constant war, hunger, disease(leprosy was really problematic in ancient rome) and obviously, widespread death and suffering.
And anyways, Christianity only gains strenght some time after Christ's death. Some 200 years, if I remember it right
Yeah because only the sacks of Rome happened. The roman empíre was limited to it, right?
Just try to understand that the Roman Empire was massive. The borders were pushed in by barbarians. Only after it was collapsing on top of itself that the sackings of Rome happened. And by the, Romans and barbarians were basically the same thing(culturally speaking at least) since Christianity had gained such strenght.
Still does not mean that they gave up their entire culture, only the religious part of it. And still, not quite. Early christians kept much of their original cultures and religions. That's why Christmas has egyptian roots and also why we have a "sunday" and "monday"(moonday).
>Solve 15 captchas because he "needs more correct answers"]
>Error: You seem to have mistyped the CAPTCHA. Please try again

If people are going to attempt "justifying" crusades, perhaps they should also try to include the Albigensian Crusade, the Bosnian Crusade, and the Bohemian Crusade/Hussite conflict

Have you ever head the bible or did you let some retarded pope/priest tell you what you know about Jesus? Refer to the image here please so you can understand what the word of Jesus truly is:

It seems not, since the crusaders which were infinitly more christian than the modern christian beta cuck,genocided the rapefugees instead of sucking their dicks.

(pic related)

>by that time, Rome was doing pretty bad already and had reached it's height in "degeneracy"

You're pretty ignorant of Roman history: the Pax Romana and its associated prosperity and relative peace lasted until the Crisis of the Third Century. And even after the Crisis, the Empire would continue to exist for some two centuries.

>"degeneracy".

First of all: Roma was at its most powerful when it was "degenerate", (according to you). On the other hand, once the Empire embraced Christianity and began moving against this so-called "degeneracy" you speak of that it became weak and more and more prone to instability.

Islamic aggression to Christianity or to Constantinople, the end point of the rich Silk Road? Have you ever wondered why the Europeans developed oceanic travels just AFTER the fall of Constantinople?
The main purpose of the Crusades was to secure the Silk Road.

Yeah actually I've read all of the New Testament and nothing in that picture contradicts what I said. I never said Jesus was 'nice'. Yeah he insulted a lot of people and hurled a lot of fire and brimstone, so what? The most violent thing he ever did was the temple incident and no one even got hurt.

>Albigensian Crusade
>1209-1229
Wasn't about faith anymore, but about riches and conquest. not really a crusade, they only used Faith as an excuse for their acts.
>Bosnian Crusade
Was about politics and conquest. Had literally nothing to do with protecting the Christian faith or defending europe. Again, not really a crusade. some greedy fucks used religion as an excuse to invade and got their asses handed to them.
>Bohemian Crusade/Hussite conflict
>1419-1434
Most of the crusades at that time were degenerate atttempts at getting rich and powerful. it was almost a crusade against the crusaders. Really retarded and obviously had nothing to do at all with the true purpose of the crusades.

Nope Jesus(as God) killed the entire humanity during the Flood, and in the second coming he will slaughter the entire mankind apart from the christians.

>It seems not, since the crusaders which were infinitly more christian than the modern christian beta cuck,genocided the rapefugees instead of sucking their dicks

But isn't that literally what Jesus told them to do?Not to resist an evildoer?

Christians HAD to ignore the insane pacifism in the NT or else Christianity would have been smothered in the cradle like every other creed that demands submission to a foe.

Early Christianity was quite literal a suicide cult. Early Christians went out of their way to be martyred by Roman authorities.

Le ebin dyoos vault maymays and kool Crusader outfits are all well and good but the only reason they exist is because Europeans were smart enough to realize that if they actually adhered to the words of Christ they would have been wiped from the face of the earth in short order.

And early Christians never took such violence into their own hands. They just waited for God to do the bloody work for them.

Where in the NT are Christians commanded to kill people? Oh right, nowhere. That's why, like cowards, they allowed themselves to be fed to lions and slaughtered for the amusement of Roman crowds.

Getting shitfaced while being obese and then fucking everyone in huge bisexual orgies is pretty degenerate if you ask me. And the Pax Romana was Rome's downfall. They needed to grow and get more slaves, but they reached a point where they simply couldn't. To the west, the ocean, to the east, huge deserts, to the north they'd freeze their balls off, go south and you find just too much trouble for too little of a reward.
The only reason Rome fell after it embraced Christianity is because it simply had nowhere else to go. It got to the top of it's power and could only go down. And it only took two centuries to fall because it was enormous in size and in power. But once it's downfall started, there was no stopping it. It had nothing to do with Christianity. The religious change happened because Rome was collapsing.
Read the bloody image. The only one you should submit to according to Christ is to God. Christ was against tyranny. He was outspoken and caused trouble at a time where everyone was scared shitless of the local government, since it rarely ever obeyed roman law as it should. Christ not only stood up against what was going on, he also did not accept people that behaved different from what he preached. The only thing that he did that comes even close to "submission" was not murdering everyone who disagreed with him.
>pic not related

Rome was at its height during Christs time. Fuck off back to /pol/ with your "muh degeneracy" shit. Orgies, excess, and a starving lower class etc. was nothing new, and certainly haven't gone anywhere.

You realize Rome had been sacked hundreds of years before that right? barbarian incursions weren't exactly new.

Jesus literally says that his followers should sell their capes and buy swords. he also says that he comes to bring the Swords. You never read the Bible, did you?

>And early Christians never took such violence into their own hands

Those pagan temples and groves didn't burn and cut themselves down, you know.

>Jesus literally says that his followers should sell their capes and buy swords.

And then when the soldiers came for him in Gethsemane he ordered his disciples to do nothing with said swords.

>You never read the Bible, did you?

Yeah, I have actually.

Yeah like that time crusaders sacked the greatest christian city on earth.
Justified

>Getting shitfaced while being obese and then fucking everyone in huge bisexual orgies is pretty degenerate if you ask me

Case of sour grapes, I take it?

>And the Pax Romana was Rome's downfall

Everyone in this thread is calling you an idiot who knows nothing of Roman history. Please, stop embarrassing yourself, for your own sake.

That was a little later.

I love this obsession with trying to make Christianity out to be some cool warrior faith rather than the proto-Bolshevism it was.

The only good bits to Christianity are the parts tacked on later

Yes Rome was at it's height. And what happened during Rome's height? Peasants starvedm small local governments ruled with an iron fist since Rome had no way to keep contact with them all and. Also, when you reach the top, what happens? You fall, that's what happens. Rome reached it's top and then started collapsing. The barbarian invasions weren't new, but the barbarians being a part of roman society was. And a starving lower class eventually gets fed up. Even more so if they're 99% of the free population and still are almost nothing when compared to the slave population, that took their jobs and let them to rot in the sun, doing nothing other than watching some guys stab themselves with swords and getting government issue free bread. No way that could get worse, right?
Well, it did. After the wars stop and the Pax Romana kicks in, the influx of slaves and resources stops, launching the Roman Empire into an spiral of despair that led to it's collapse

>Getting shitfaced while being obese and then fucking everyone in huge bisexual orgies is pretty degenerate if you ask me.

The Romans thought so, too. It's not like Roman ethics weren't a thing, or that they weren't constantly passing laws meant to crack down on moral corruption in their society (including deviant Eastern cults that didn't act and worship properly).

t. guy who gets his roman history from 1950s biblical epics

>Peasants starvedm small local governments ruled with an iron fist since Rome had no way to keep contact with them all and.

Yeah that's why Rome never recalled governors who abused their power. Oh wait yes they did. A lot.

Like the other guy said; Please, just stop.

>'le degeneracy destroyed rome'
>Rome was 'degenerate' for centuries, before and during its golden age
>Rome finally fell like every other civilization in history
>"SEE DEGENERACY BROUGHT DOWN ROME"

Imagine being this stupid.

gets me every time

Is there people on Veeky Forums dumb enough to defend Islam though? That shit needs to go.

>other guy
Yeah because they clearly had internet back them, so the Emperor knew who was being nice and who was being mean instantly. There was no such thing as travel times between fucking Jerusalem and Rome, right?
And the fact that they recalled their governors for power abuse only proves my point that they were abusing their power. And they were abusing it a lot, just like you said.
They cared about it, but not enough to punish the rich faggots who did it.
You know, if you arrest the guy that pays your salary, you end up starving.

Who even said that degeneracy destroyed Rome?

>They cared about it, but not enough to punish the rich faggots who did it.
Yes they did. What famous sexual degenerate did Christian Roman authority suppress? All the major ones were tried and punished during the Republic and early Empire, leaving only the emperors who were no better or worse after Christianity. Hell, even the Popes and the Barbarian kings that replaced them under Christian guidance were still degenerate.

Gibbon

I'm not talking about the Emperors or the senate, I'm talking about the really rich guys that worked "behind the scenes". The ones without political careers that still had insane influence in the Empire due to their absurd amount of money.

What?

>I'm talking about the really rich guys that worked "behind the scenes"
Such as?

I'm fucking with you

You know what I"m talking about. The David Rockefellers of their times. You know, the guys that don't go down in History, but that were obviously there..
The patricians among the patricians, you could say.
Probably the same guys to get the Gracchus brothers killed

Fuck off back to /pol/, it's obvious you don't have any clue about even elementary Roman history.

I don't know where did you get the idea that I'm from pol, but if I'm wrong, just tell me where so I can improve. Did the Gracchus not get murdered?
Weren't the patricians really filthy rich and generally uncaring about the regular roman's life?

You guys are missing the point of this thread. It wasn't about ancient roman history it was whether or not the crusades were justified

>You know what I"m talking about.
I honestly don't. Your only example is a political assassination, hardly the stuff of bisexual orgies.

That implies Christian Roman landowners were not just as rich (or degenerate) based on no evidence.

Christians....during the republic? Are you high?
Christianity starts as a very weak movement and only grows towards the end of the Empire.
And if the murder of the two guys that got any power to change roman society and their replacement with some shitty worthless puppets for Tribunes isn't enough to make you understand, I think nothing less than one of them coming up to you and explaining what was going will. The Gracchus being murdered wasn't politics. Donald Trump getting shanked would be politics. It was about keeping the status quo. They were a danger to the stablished powers in Rome and the ruling elites didn't want that.

I didn't say a thing about the republic, just Rome in general throughout its history. And it was still politics, one that would repeat throughout the rest of Rome's history far after it became Christian. Land reform against corrupt landowners and political violence to oppose it continued for almost 1,000 years well into the Byzantine period, and it does nothing to help your case that Pagan Rome was morally corrupt in ways that Christian Rome was not. The fact that when pressed for some kind of example of sexual debauchery you come to us with a political assassination involving land reforms, and nothing else, is telling. Your position is not based on evidence, but on supporting the presumption of Christianity lifting Rome out of moral degeneracy and looking (and failing) to support it factually.

You are a racist and an incredibly rude human.

>Nope Jesus(as God) killed the entire humanity during the Flood
Have you been to Kentucky to visit the Ark yet?

The same arguments Christians used to justify slaughter in the Crusades can also be used by ISIS today.
ITT: we justify killing because our God is bigger and better than their God.
Just Wow!!!

Is it true that Europe was "culturally enriched" by Muslims during the Crusades?