]]>
It's pretty obvious that religion wasn't the only factor, but that doesn't mean the crusades were neccesarily unjustifiable.
Theft, rape, and murder aren't justifiable.
Statistics: Posted by Landerpurex — August 15th, 2011, 1:26 am
]]>
]]>
Were there some soldiers and maybe commanders on board for the religious aspect? Sure. Were the top tier guys really just in it for noble cause? I doubt it.
Statistics: Posted by Landerpurex — August 14th, 2011, 4:01 pm
]]>
Pope Urban only wanted basically to get the Orthodox church on side by getting the European kings to gather some mercenaries to help the Byzantine Emperor.
I wouldn't change a thing.
Statistics: Posted by Magicana Drofulcus — August 10th, 2011, 6:38 pm
]]>
It kinda reminds me of a lot of psychology experiments. Sure, we learned a lot from ones done in the past, but with today's standards we'll never be able to replicate them. And that's a good thing; think of the negative impact they have on the subjects.
Statistics: Posted by Nateman — August 10th, 2011, 5:44 pm
]]>
It's easy to look back on history and see the benefits and drawbacks of various decisions.
But I ask you this: If you were in a position to start another Crusade, and receive proportionally equal benefits to our culture, economy, etc:
Would you?
I don't quite understand the question, are you asking if I would start a crusade in the same circumstances? If so that's the whole point of this debate
Statistics: Posted by Nate — August 10th, 2011, 9:59 am
]]>
But I ask you this: If you were in a position to start another Crusade, and receive proportionally equal benefits to our culture, economy, etc:
Would you?
Statistics: Posted by Nateman — July 30th, 2011, 12:27 pm
]]>
Without the Romans to rally up things and keep all the tribes in check, people were just all fighting each other.
Very shortly before the Crusades, you started seeing actual national unification such as the Holy Roman Empire (Germany)
This then generated at least some stability in the region compared to a thousand tribes constantly fighting and splitting land.
Now instead of the Rhine fighting the Gelderlanders because they just wanted a slightly bigger kingdom,
we today have the Germans, French, English etc.
Preparing for Crusades meant arming and mobilizing thousands which also cycles money through the economy.
And then the return profit from the Crusades was immense. Not only did it bring back riches and knowledge they had never seen,
but then it exposed them to cultures and trade routes that otherwise never would have been thought of.
You could easily draw the link between the Crusades and the 'Age of Exploration' by this exposure to new riches spurring on the search for more.
Statistics: Posted by Znath — July 30th, 2011, 10:55 am
]]>
It's also important to establish the circumstances.
This was how Europe and the Middle East looked just before the first crusade was called. This was shortly after the Christian Byzantine Empire (technically the Roman Empire) was forced out of the levant by the Seljuk Turks. Before the conquest the population was made up almost entirely of Orthodox Christians and Jews. Muslims and Jews were not well treated under Byzantine rule, and their treatment by the new Muslim rulers is debated by historians today.
What should be noted is the extent of Arab occupation, and the numerous attempts to capture Constantinople and occupy Eastern Europe. The leaders of the European States would likely to have been very worried at this expansion, which may have been one of the major motives to join the crusade against Arab occupied lands, to weaken them.
Discuss, chaps.
Statistics: Posted by Nate — July 28th, 2011, 6:21 pm
]]>