Why do people think the crusaded were a bad thing? The Arabs had been viciously slaughtering Christian populations for four centuries before the Catholic Church called the first Crusade, and from what I was after all of the initial conquests Europe started experiencing a golden age akin to Te Rennisance. Jerusalem was also relatively peaceful after Te Crusade was over.
>be lord of bickering fiefdom
>pope calls a crusade
>levy additional taxes from overworked peasants to equip my fighting men
>prepare baggage train with my royal fineries
>rally knights and footmen to march
>instead of going to the holy land, loot and pillage my fellow Christian rival's land
>be captured, baggage train and valuables ransacked and carried off
>my former knights become brigands and terrorize Christian lands for months
>peasants pay even more taxes to secure my random
>ride home in disgrace
>repeat several times per decade until I die
>>1411543
Really it's not different from any other wars though, just that it was waged in the name of God, same shit different name
Why do people make such a big deal of the crusades particularly anyway
>>1411556
It's the white guilt meme.
>>1411522
>Why do people think the crusaded were a bad thing?
Who says its a bad thing?
Most cunts think it's just another religious war and goes to show how shitty religion can be.
The reality of the Crusades becomes more shabby the more one knows about it -
Pope Urban described completely imaginary atrocities against Christian pilgrims committed by Muslims in Jerusalem
Early Christians had been pacifists. Then, in the fourth century, they allied with the Roman empire, the world's foremost military power, and so they had to do some quick rethinking about God's opinion of armies and official violence, the "just war" theory.
The 11th-century papacy moved on from this. Now it asserted that wars were exactly what God demanded,wining enough divine brownie-points to guarantee a place in heaven.
The Fourth Crusade was worse: it managed shockingly to pervert the Crusading ideal even on its own terms. Attacks on Constantinople in 1203 and 1204, horrible deaths in quick succession for a series of Byzantine emperors, the trashing of the Christian world's wealthiest and most cultured city,
>>1411522
>The Arabs had been viciously slaughtering Christian populations for four centuries
No? The Arabs were not genociding Christians and if they were it wouldn't have taken four centuries.
The crusades were the popes way of sending unruly barons away. If they actually gave a damn about Jerusalem or pilgrims they'd have done a crusade the instant Arabs took it for four centuries later
>>1411522
>The Arabs had been viciously slaughtering Christian populations for four centuries
Kek no
>>1411645
>The crusades were the popes way of sending unruly barons away. If they actually gave a damn about Jerusalem or pilgrims they'd have done a crusade the instant Arabs took it for four centuries later
They didn't the power to do that back then
Most arab leaders didn't care about the Crusades. Some were in fact very happy it happened, and there were alliances between some Outremer states and local emirs at the time.
The Crusades were largely a military failure, mostly because the christians leaders were often in conflict with each other. Even the military orders were at stake (Hospitaliers vs Templars).
>>1411679
They didn't have much power in the 11th century either, Europe was a comparative backwater, all of Christendom could only come up with was about 30,000 troops. It was only a workable amount because by then Islam had fractured too.
>>1411522
>Why do people think the crusaded were a bad thing?
People don't think that
>>1411702
>all of Christendom could only come up with was about 30,000 troops.
/his/"""""""""""""""""""""education"""""""""""""""""""""
The HRE alone come up with 100k soldiersn abd french armies were composed of groups of 100k.
>>1412598
>soldiersn
soldiers
>abd
and the
>>1411571
It's rare I see people outside of 4chan defend the crusades (besides saying it's a cool/interesting period).
It's one of those historical subjects that seems somehow okay to make broad moralistic judgements about.
>>1412598
In the crusades or in total?
Where did you read this?
Not that guy, I'm just generally curious. Even the Roman army was only like 450k at its peak and they were far more systematic about it.
>>1412613
>In the crusades or in total?
During the third crusades for the HRE
And during all the crusades for France.
And my sources are
>Epopée des croisades, René Grousset
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Grousset
>Dei gesta per Francos, Guibert of Nogent
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dei_gesta_per_Francos
