@4Chan Ambassador , GOD WILLS IT
The crusades are proof that Christianity is bad, because stuff from hundreds of years ago is always relevant today.
@ReeseBobby, Dear god let this be sarcasm.
@ReeseBobby, clam dwon freind, nobody is trying to prove that your religion is bad. Nobody here anyway.
@YUNoJump, you must be new here.
@ReeseBobby, look, I'm an atheist, but I know that the crusades, while brutal when fought and both sides did unspeakable things to one another in the name of God, the christians didn't go there solely to dominate and get rid of Islam. When the Western Roman Empire fell which was catholic, the Eastern Roman Empire survived (a.k.a. The Byzantine Empire) They were orthodox and didn't like Catholics much. After several hundred years the Catholic Church grew in power but still wanted to convince the Byzantines to come back into the fold and they got their chance. The muslims began to attack and raid Byzantine cities and with their slowly depleting military and economic power, they realized they couldn't handle a force this size, so they called on the Pope for help. He saw the opportunity for an even larger and more unified Christian faith and took it assembling the first crusade
@ReeseBobby, sorry everyone, this was sarcasm.
@Kliment Voroshilov, it is.
@YUNoJump, I'm an atheist, I was making a joke.
@ReeseBobby, we just need to put you down don't we? Crusades where old men drunk and being poor trying to finance "the catholic church" or better yet...their pockets. Am I wrong?
@ReeseBobby, Don't apologize, Ariel's Man Meat gave us a snazzy history lesson
@Ariels Man Meat, clarifying just for the sake of accuracy: the split between the Catholic and orthodox churches didn't officially occur until 1054, when the bishop of Rome and the bishop of Constantinople excommunicated each other. Yes, tensions between the two sees had been mounting since the fall of the western empire (~475 AD), especially with the crowning of Charlemagne (800 AD). The first crusade (1095) wasn't just motivated by a desire to assist the Byzantines against Islam, either. Pope Urban II was on the losing side of a power struggle in the Holy Roman Empire at the time, and saw the crusades as a way of directing christendom's armies away from Europe and give himself some breathing room
1 man defending his home, is more powerful than 10 hired soldiers. Kevin Kostner taught me that.
Requiescat in pace
RETAKE THE HOLY LAND
I don't get it. And at this point I'm too afraid to ask.
@on the crapper, The knight is a crusader, crusaders fought against Muslims.
@on the crapper, this is a crusader. The crusades were "holy wars" where Christians marched to the Middle East in order to slaughter Muslims. Many times, they were told by the pope that they are guaranteed access to heaven if thy fought in the crusades.
@on the crapper, wow. Is Lamb = Islam. It's early here. I hope I don't put the cereal back into the fridge again You both the real MVPs.
@FriendlyFirefighter , Weren't the crusades more about control of jarusalem (which both religions consider part of the Holy Land) than it was about mindlessly slaughtering Muslims?
Well yes, but in my opinion it was much more about salvation. It's almost similar to radicalized jihad. Crusaders were told if you fight for the Holy Land, then you automatically get to heaven. They had no hope of getting control of the Holy Land but perhaps they were disillusioned.
I thought the crusades were about finding the holy grail or something