Some may say it was for political reasons, b/c of all the powers the Pope had to expand his territory, beyond religious ideology.

Others might say religious b/c the Christians wanted their "land" back from the Muslims in Palestine (term "land" loosely used here; nothing technical).

Which ideology do you think the Crusades were built upon and why?

I promise I'll type up a response of my own, but I need some sleep now, and this question just popped up from my mind for some odd reason.

I doubt it was about religion. It was about land. If the Christians did nothing, the Muslim Empire would continue to expand and eventually take the entire world. "Thou shalt not kill." The massacre of inncoent Muslims and burning of innocent Jews in Jerusalem when the Crusaders breached the walls...does that sound Christian to you?

Why is it set in stone that it's either one or the other? It's probably a mixture of both.

quote:Originally posted by Loc Dogg:

The massacre of inncoent Muslims and burning of innocent Jews in Jerusalem when the Crusaders breached the walls...does that sound Christian to you?

Didn't the Pope proclaim that all sins would be forgiven when they get back?

[This message has been edited by Paradise Lost (edited 10-13-2005).]

I'd say mostly religious. It was before the plague, and a ton of other reasons I'm too lazy to post now. I'll try later.

Mostly politics, but the church really jumped on the bandwagon and made it look like it was all about God. Kinda like what Bush is trying to do.

All big wars are political and are blamed on religion. They're always for money, land, and otherwise greed but by putting a religious spin on it they can convince the soldiers that they're dying and killing in the name of god, therefore it's not as bad.

But, there has never been a war, that I can think of, that was based purely on religious beliefs.

Cheers,

Lost

quote:Originally posted by LostCause:

All big wars are political and are blamed on religion. They're always for money, land, and otherwise greed but by putting a religious spin on it they can convince the soldiers that they're dying and killing in the name of god, therefore it's not as bad.

But, there has never been a war, that I can think of, that was based purely on religious beliefs.

Cheers,

Lost

quote:Originally posted by LostCause:

All big wars are political and are blamed on religion. They're always for money, land, and otherwise greed but by putting a religious spin on it they can convince the soldiers that they're dying and killing in the name of god, therefore it's not as bad.

But, there has never been a war, that I can think of, that was based purely on religious beliefs.

Cheers,

Lost

I'm not so sure. Europe lost huge sums of money to the crusades, and only a few of them stayed in Outremer. I think most of them went for the indulgences, or for just the ability to go to war with someone without the threat of being excommunicated for slaughtering fellow Christians.

Yes, religion is usually just

the excuse people use to do

whatever shit they really wanted

to do anyhow.

You could swap out the christians

and muslims, and it would be

about the same deal, imo.

Which Crusade?



The one the Venetians lead against Constantinople? LMOA ROFLCOPTER.

The Childrens Crusade?

The First Crusade?

Since you seem to be refering to the crusades that actually made it to the holy land, I would say they were motivated by desire to possess the holy land, as it was warm, fertile, and "holy". Remember, all this happened during the dark ages.

The Papacy probably wanted the loot from the crusade, as well as a way to unite christendom against a common enemy.

Onwards, to death or glory!

Initially religious, but then it became almost entirely political.

LostCause pretty much nailed it.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Initially religious, but then it became almost entirely political.

LostCause pretty much nailed it.

Bernard of Clairvaux was the biggest driving force to get them started, and he was definately in it for the religion. Once in Outremer, yeah, shit turned political, but that was after they started establishing countries.

Whether it was Political or not, that does not change the fact that the Muslims stole the land from the Christians and Jews. I mean, it wasn't like a bunch of crusaders came up to the peaceful old muslims and started slughtering them. No, the Muslims were one of the most violent and physically orientated group in that time period, and remain so today. You don't hear a bunch of hype in the religious media about how the Muslims slaughtered thousands and thousands of Jews and Christians to get the land in the first place. Its fact, Islam is just a violent religion whether muslims say so or not.If you read the Qu'ran, you'll see what I mean.

^You have to place the Quran in the right context. Times around 600 AD were very violent times, and that calls for a book with ( some ) very violent verses in it.

Also, yes, I consider the crusades to be caused by a mixture of religious and political reasons. The Muslims indeed conquered the holy land by violence themselves, but should that serve as a reason to just react with violence? Obviously, yes. Regrettable, but I agree that the muslims wouldn't capitulate by diplomacy( if the papacy even considered that an option ).

Who is to say "it's ok because the muslims killed others for it too! they took our land!" anyway? How do you even know the land originally belonged to the christians? Or the Jews? Bah, I'm asking questions without answers. I'm trying to rationalize something that isn't rational. Oh well.

quote:Originally posted by Loc Dogg:

I doubt it was about religion. It was about land. If the Christians did nothing, the Muslim Empire would continue to expand and eventually take the entire world. "Thou shalt not kill." The massacre of inncoent Muslims and burning of innocent Jews in Jerusalem when the Crusaders breached the walls...does that sound Christian to you?

It was about religion. Because right after invading land, they tried to convert everyone. They killed many who opposed their ideas, it's a fact in history that you can research.

Does it sound Christian? Yes. There were many more wars, and religous-events-of-death that happened. Just cause christians today don't run around kliling other people and doing the things that they have done in the past (i.e. slavery of blacks)...doesn't change the fact that it is part of christian history. Such as the church ripping off people for money so that their souls would be saved.

So you may be saying, "Well if they did all that, then they weren't really christians."

But in fact, they were. The church has not always been so goody too-shoe, or so civil as it is today. Most christians just refuse to acknowledge such history as being related to their religion, because they can't beleive its where religion came from. Not everything about religion, christian, muslim, or others have always been so sun-shiney.

Go read about the Roman wars and christian influence, and many things they did that you might find barbaric, or horrid, stuff that would TODAY be considered wrong. Time are different, and that is that.

If christians didn't want to be part of any of this horible stuff, then they shouldn't have jumped on the band wagon. But they did, so what does that say?

I think it is good Church and state were seperated, they had too much influence, and it wasn't positive. Things seem much better with them seperated.

[This message has been edited by Aeon (edited 10-18-2005).]

Religion is politics.

The crusades were just like every other war, politics disguised with religion. So yes, they were religious. The people fighting probably thought it was for religious purposes to make those infidels go to hell when they killed them, so sure, why not.

quote:Originally posted by Shylok:

*Shylok's post*.

Those are quite some extreme views, but, ok. Are you part of Bush's Cabinet?

To Paradise Lost:

Well, I know things in life aren't so clear cut when we're discussing an issue and its causes, and that it usually ends up being a combination of both factors (or more for other cases). So yeah, nothing really set in stone, but just curious of answers to my thread.

quote:Originally posted by Anger Management:

Some may say it was for political reasons, b/c of all the powers the Pope had to expand his territory, beyond religious ideology.

Others might say religious b/c the Christians wanted their "land" back from the Muslims in Palestine (term "land" loosely used here; nothing technical).

Which ideology do you think the Crusades were built upon and why?

I promise I'll type up a response of my own, but I need some sleep now, and this question just popped up from my mind for some odd reason.

The pope called for a crusade because of political reasons. Noble went on the crusade basically because they were bored.

all greed, everything else is secondary smoke

quote:Originally posted by Cancerous Cretin:

all greed, everything else is secondary smoke

Wow, you really don't know anything about the period.

Politician’s would blame religion... The church would blame politics...

But since the church was controlled by captain's of industry, I'd say they didn't want to pay the territory tax while moving their goods through the Middle East on their way to Asia...

quote:Originally posted by Axiom:

Politician’s would blame religion... The church would blame politics...

But since the church was controlled by captain's of industry, I'd say they didn't want to pay the territory tax while moving their goods through the Middle East on their way to Asia...

Are you retarted? "Captains of industry"? In the twelth century? They didn't even have industry. Europe was a fuedal agricultural society.

Political

Religion is a wonderful scapegoat in situations like that.

quote:Originally posted by SurahAhriman:

Are you retarted? "Captains of industry"? In the twelth century? They didn't even have industry. Europe was a fuedal agricultural society.

Yes I am retarded, and obviously so are these people...

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/trade/hd_trade.htm#

I should add however, without sounding too retarded, that we know since as early as 1800BC that the city of Babylon had enacted the first code of law we know of. It involved taxation and citizenship... Travellers through the land ruled by the king paid for the privilege... We know these laws appear in Persian successors courts also I think that’s around 500Bc...

Maybe industry is the wrong word… “Tycoon’s of Merchandise” may be more befitting…



[This message has been edited by Axiom (edited 10-27-2005).]

People who say retarted are retarded.

quote:Originally posted by Axiom:

Yes I am retarded, and obviously so are these people...

ht tp://www.m etmuseum.o rg/toah/hd/trade/hd_trade.htm# (http: //www.metm useum.org/ toah/hd/tr ade/hd_tra de.htm#)

I should add however, without sounding too retarded, that we know since as early as 1800BC that the city of Babylon had enacted the first code of law we know of. It involved taxation and citizenship... Travellers through the land ruled by the king paid for the privilege... We know these laws appear in Persian successors courts also I think that’s around 500Bc...

Maybe industry is the wrong word… “Tycoon’s of Merchandise” may be more befitting…





Yeah, I thought you were referring to Carnigie-esqu figures. And I can't find anything about the topic online.

religion is a political tool and always has been so both

Children's Crusade pwned.