Were the Crusades justified?
Asked by
Charles (
4823
)
May 4th, 2012
Of all the periods of history, few are more complex than the Crusades. Historians are said to be still trying to sort it out. Depending on the writer, any number of reasons are given for the strong response to Pope Urban II’s appeal to help fellow Christians in the Holy Land and curb the spread of Islam: Many crusaders were drawn by the papal forgiveness of sins and to gain eternal favor, some were motivated by a sense of adventure and booty, others had reasons that often conflicted with their fellow crusaders. Their ranks were often rife with petty jealousies and sometimes Christians fought Christians, which was certainly the case in the capture of Constantinople. Strange alliances developed, where Jews fought alongside Muslims against Christians in Jerusalem.
The crusades went on for over 150 years and descriptions of the horrors of the crusades are often ghastly, where one French eye witness at the fall of Jerusalem said “the carnage lasted for a week.” Perhaps the most terrible development was the Children’s Crusade in which large numbers of young French and German boys were caught up in the religious fervor and volunteered to go to Palestine. Many of them who arrived in Marseilles were tricked by slavers, who instead of taking them to Palestine, sold them into slavery in Egypt.
From our vantage point of time, was there any justification for the crusades?
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
12 Answers
It depends on whether you are a devout Catholic or not. Catholics certainly felt that they were doing god’s work by killing everyone else. There are some catholics even today who would agree with that premise.
As a scion of a group that was frequently killed by the Catholics, I would argue that their anti-semitism and lust for Jewish blood was irrational.
But I didn’t live in the 1300s.
One of them, the one aimed at repelling Muslim invaders from Europe, is easily justified. The rest, not so much.
@Nullo The First Crusade aided the Byzantine Empire in fending off the Turks… But I would hardly call that an invasion of Europe. Had they succeeded they’d have taken control of areas near modern day Greece… and area the Ottoman Empire would come to control for centuries anyways.
The remainder of the Crusades vs the Muslims took place in the Holy Land, and the majority of them were instigated by the Christians. Not to say terrible things weren’t done by both sides, but in general it was the Pope or some ambitious Christian king out of Europe instigating the trouble.
Oh and no, in my opinion they were definitely not justified. If anything they were simply a huge waste of life and time.
@tedd The Fourth Crusade was the Sack of Constantinople. That one was just stupid.
5 and 7 were in Egypt, 8 was in Tunisia.
Turns out I was thinking of the Battle of Tours, which was not a Crusader campaign.
I think that the Crusades’ stunning lack of success suggests that they were not, after all, God’s will. :D
@Nullo Yah I remember reading about the 4th. That was a huge irony, here they are coming to save the day from the awful muslims… anddddd oops we ransacked your city. Sorry bout that….
Yah the Crusaders enjoyed moderate success at best, especially after Saladin and his kin took control on the Muslim side. For all you hear about Richard the Lionheart, it’s funny to read how often he got beat by Saladin…... It’s also funny to read how good of friends they apparently were, even though they never even met.
@tedd IIRC they were mercenaries that nobody was going to pay.
”I think that the Crusades’ stunning lack of success suggests that they were not, after all, God’s will. :D”
Then god was obviously on Islam’s side. Should you not convert immediately?
There is no justification for the Crusades, but they did have some favorable consequences for Europe. They brought Europeans into contact with a more advanced civilization. The Europeans learned quite a bit from the science and mathematics of the Arabs. In particular they adopted the decimal system (so called Arabic numbers) that the Arabs learned about from India.
@ragingloli Hardly. God makes it clear that missionary work isn’t supposed to involve pillaging. A compare/contrast of the Crusades with the New Testament teachings shows that the Crusades are sort of the opposite of what was supposed to be going on. It is made clear elsewhere that God will not bless endeavors that run counter to His will. So it wasn’t so much a case of the Muslims winning as it is of the Crusaders losing for trying to do something in God’s name in their own strength, for their own reasons.
@Nullo I think the real point you’ve missed is that God would not pick a side in a war, nor would he endorse one. Neither side had his backing. (assuming you/I/we believe in a God anyways).
Answer this question 
This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.
Composing members:
0
