The Crusades

Salocin

Sparrow
I recently watched a video about the Crusades I found interesting.

The gist is that Crusades were defensive in nature, and in response to centuries of aggression by Muslims.

I have always been taught that the Crusades were something Christians should be ashamed of, and feel guilty about.

Here is the video. I would enjoy hearing other's input and knowledge on this topic. Thanks.

 

Rob Banks

Pelican
I remember being taught in school how terrible the Crusades were.

I remember they were portrayed as evil Church leadership sending naive faithful to their deaths in order to achieve material gain (as opposed to just being portrayed as evil Christians victimizing poor Muslims).

I remember being taught about a Children's Crusade, in which child soldiers were led either to their deaths on the battlefield or into slave markets to be sold.

I don't know how much of that is true, but it sounds like a bunch of modern anti-Christian BS to me.
 

Mike_Key

Robin
I remember being taught in school how terrible the Crusades were.

I remember they were portrayed as evil Church leadership sending naive faithful to their deaths in order to achieve material gain (as opposed to just being portrayed as evil Christians victimizing poor Muslims).

I remember being taught about a Children's Crusade, in which child soldiers were led either to their deaths on the battlefield or into slave markets to be sold.

I don't know how much of that is true, but it sounds like a bunch of modern anti-Christian BS to me.
In an American graduate school, this one White guy American student responded to another (an old foreign Greek woman - 32 ish but yet a student), he said:

"Oh, that is that European Socialist garbage", to her proselytizing others to her communist beliefs.

You should have seen the shocked look on her face.

Some observers laughed and chuckled, she was angry and lost her steam to debate.

Equally and similarly, I recall personally saying to someone merely reiterating something I had read, not knowing or caring terribly about the veracity ...

I said:

"Oh, the crusades, those just killed only 400 people in a 10 year period. No big deal."

They lost their marbles. In dealing with these leftists and Muslims, you have to defend, bravery is a virtue and cowardice a vice.

Sadly, the Schools are teaching garbage and warping minds.

I recall distinctly in Elementary school, myself and 3 or 4 other students stood up respectfully when an elder walked into the classroom. The elder took note and appreciated it. The feminist woman teaching the class said,

"There is no need for you to stand up when someone enters the classroom."

And that is simply one minuscule example of poison.

Corrosive, degenerate, vile, delusive ... Pub-lick schools, Public "screwls"

Every gay, homosexual or queer teacher will dedicate at least 5 to 10 minutes per week, at a minimum, teaching your children about their lifestyle, typically through their own personal drama with multiple relationships. Beware ....

John 3:16
 
I recently watched a video about the Crusades I found interesting.

The gist is that Crusades were defensive in nature, and in response to centuries of aggression by Muslims.

I have always been taught that the Crusades were something Christians should be ashamed of, and feel guilty about.

Here is the video. I would enjoy hearing other's input and knowledge on this topic. Thanks.

I love medieval history. And yes, I was taught the Christian crusaders were essentially bullies who went on a rampage against the noble (though expansionistic) Muslims, who were largely minding their own business in the Middle East.

fite cath.jpg
 

NoMoreTO

Ostrich
The crusades were holy and strong. The amount of anti crusade propaganda is unbelievable. Interestingly enough the teaching on the crusades was subverted a long time ago, when other pieces of history were still accounted for in a somewhat accurate way.
 

Radoste

Sparrow
I don't know how much of that is true, but it sounds like a bunch of modern anti-Christian BS to me.
With regard to any historical subjects about which you have not personally studied the period documents and major works of serious historians, a good rule of thumb is to simply assume that the opposite of the mainstream interpretation is true until you have the time to examine the particulars for yourself. I think one could almost have a decent understanding of history just by inverting the value claims of the mainstream progressive version of history, but the issue is that progressives like to leave out events and details that they have trouble distorting to fit their narrative.
 

infowarrior1

Hummingbird
The crusades were holy and strong. The amount of anti crusade propaganda is unbelievable. Interestingly enough the teaching on the crusades was subverted a long time ago, when other pieces of history were still accounted for in a somewhat accurate way.
In my opinion the Crusades didn't achieve the objective of taking the Holy Land and holding it. It would have been more sound imho to conquer North Africa 1st and Egypt. Then having secured that supply line and the rich agricultural lands of Egypt is then able to approach and take the Holy Land.

Meanwhile Byzantium secures Anatolia and tries to take the Holy Land from the North.

Although it was very effective at keeping Islam from success in military matters save for the 4th Crusade.

The lack of proper supply lines and sustainable economy that would be able to finance and supply the Crusades ultimately doomed the project.
 
Last edited:
Top