Agnostic.com

4 1

Moslem fundamentalists and Western liberals seem to agree that "Crusader" is a legitimate term of abuse when used to place some contemporary person or movement in the same category as European crusaders in the Middle Ages. Just for the sake of starting an argument I'd like to propose that the original Crusaders, in terms of their political and moral position, were not the "baddies" and their opponents were not the "goodies". In fact the moral standing of both sides was pretty much equivalent. One tide rolled in from the West, another from the East. Both were motivated by religious imperatives; neither gave a rat's arse for the concerns of the people living in the disputed area. Any comments?

Redcraze 4 Dec 4
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

4 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

Cruzades was that idea that is well justified (by that time moral standards) but very badly executed.
The 3 zones where they happened, they achieve some military victories and a lot of havoc.
Don't forget that the cruzades were not only to the holy land.
The asturians (after divided into leoneses, castilians, aragoneses, portugueses) and franks fought in the Iberian peninsula and north africa, the teutonics fought in the baltic areas also, and this were cruzades, less "sexy" than the holy land, but also to retrieve lands from the infidels.
And at those territories the pllage, havoc and land sharing were the same. But at least on those parts they could keep the territory at least.

0

Well in a way is about politics but more in a Geo political sense. There were Kings and commanders on the European side that either wanted to gain favor with the pope and the Roman Catholic Church so as to be granted more power and possibly install one of their own as Pope.

Or they wanted to be the one to claim victory and use that as means to separate themselves from the pope and the RCC and from there just as Martin Luther and eventually Henry the 8th be able to create their own branch of the church and be able to run their country’s as they wished.

On the moorish/Muslim side of the crusades it was about power and the rights to the land for political clout amongst Islamic world. To be the one hold all of the key sites of the Islamic faith as well as remove all of Judaism so as to declare Ishmael as Abraham’s one true son would give that leader immortality and his sons everlasting control over the Islamic faith.

So you’re right in the sense that it was never about the inhabitants of Jerusalem but neither the inhabitants of Europe they were merely pawns in a game of kings, sultans and popes.

1

Even then it was just about money and power. Nothing has changed.

@Redcraze So tell me.

@Redcraze Maybe, but I have noticed that they so called religious people when you scratch the surface a bit it all boils down to power and money.

@Redcraze What is complicated with power and money.

@Redcraze That is a cop out

1

Before now, nearly everybody was profoundly ignorant. This issue is what islam is doing to civilization today.

@Redcraze . . . yes it is. . . . without the context that the majority of humans that have ever existed have been totally without any education, we cannot understand why the psychos have been able to send them to their deaths for defence of imaginary critters.

@Redcraze . . . as you wrote, it is one bit of the whole. . . I think, ignorance combined with religious righteousness has had the most profound influence on current times.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:237106
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.