were the crusades justified?

>>1639680
According to what? A modern judicial system?

As justified as any war over land ownership

>>1639680
The term "Crusade" is a broad term in and of itself, basically just refers to any war sparked by the Latin church. Some were justified, like reclaiming Christian land, others were not so justified, purging "pagans" and "heresy".

That's what I think anyways, it's 50/50 for me.

The first one yeh

>>1639709
>like reclaiming Christian land, others were not so justified, purging "pagans" and "heresy".

>That HYPOCRISY

>>1639680
Which one?

>>1639680
1st was, the Cathar crusade wasn't

>>1639680
Does 300 years of invasions to take back lands stolen from 700 years of enemy invasions sound justified?

>>1639709
>purging "pagans" and "heresy".
>not justified
uwotm8

Not particularly.

>>1639740
since we're talking 100s of years, most of the invaders would have died before the counter-invasion

If I remember correctly The Children's Crusade didn't in fact happen and is largely allegory about multiple bands of wandering poor people who fucked like rabbits.

But this is kind of a stupid question because you aren't asking about specific crusades.

>>1639680
yes

doos volt

The Crusades were mostly used to push back Islam from Europe and Byzantine, which was spreading pretty fast.

Even if it was mostly about religion, it helped preserve and unify Europe in a new way.

>>1639825
IV kind of fucked that up though.

Actually, can we just start ranking crusades by military and religious criterion?

>>1639825
You need to read a plenty if you think the crusades to the Holy Land were about Christians vs Muslims

>>1639792
>didn't in fact happen
I didn't know people actually thought they did.

>>1639788
Well it's not like they could organize a coordinated response on twitter, it was the goddamn Dark Ages news traveled slowly.

>>1639836
Oh boy hear we go with the Marxist revisionism...

>>1639825
>The Crusades were mostly used to push back Islam from Europe and Byzantine, which was spreading pretty fast.

Ironic, considering how they were either launched when Muslims were already being pushed back for decades or they ended up revitalizing Islamic strength leading to a new wave of conquests.

>>1639855
>news traveled slowly
Not really. I mean it was obviously slower than instantaneous, but it didn't take more than month for news from the Middle East or the Mediterranean to reach England.

>>1639842
Had to explain this to my former english teacher who thought they were hella real and was fond of just shouting "the crusades" whenever someone mentioned muslim terrorism happening now.

File: shit meme.jpg (78KB, 500x539px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 500x539px

>>1639825
>The Crusades were mostly used to push back Islam from Europe and Byzantine
Like that time when the crusaders destroyed Constatinople and paved the way for the Turks to conquer it?

>>1639865
>Marxist revisionism
What? Just read anything about the Outremer in that era. Most Muslim leaders were already at war with each other and didn't care about the crusade. Some were even happy it happened, because it meant local emirs could ally with the crusader states.

The same thing happened with Christians, one of the reasons the crusades failed is because most of their leaders were regularly in conflict between each other, even the military orders were at stake (Hospitaliers vs Templars).

>>1639917
Or those Crusades pushing those Muslims out of the Baltic, or those heretics and excommunicated princes in France and Italy, or all those that basically sailed by Spain only stopping once in a blue moon to take part in a siege, or those that targeted North Africa and Syria which weren't threatening to invade either Europe or the Byzantines while ignoring the Turks and Mongols that did.

No. What next, jihads are justified?

>>1639739
>1st was
The First Crusade was Latin revisionism trying to justify their various crimes against the Byzantine Empire.

First Crusade: Crusaders go and expand for themselves against the Caliphate, win and establish Crusader kingdoms.

Crusade of 1101: Like the first crusade, it was perhaps a temporary alliance of East and West against an Islamic enemy. The crusaders got BTFO by the Turks anyways.

Norwegian Crusade: Retaking of islands in the Mediterranean for Christianity. Win for Crusaders

Venetian Crusade: Venice and the Crusaders beat the Caliphate and Turks and take Tyre. Crusader victory.

Second Crusade: Status quo in the east, Reconquista successes in Spain and Portugal, Wendish crusade results in victory over and partial conversion of Slavs to Catholicism.

Third Crusade: Crusaders retake much of their former holdings but cannot take Jerusalem, and also take Cyprus

Fourth Crusade: Crusaders conquer Constantinople and install a Latin emperor, and establish crusader states in the Balkans

Crusade of 1197: Crusaders take more of the coast, including Beirut, but stop short of Jerusalem

Fifth Crusade: Crusaders lose to Ayyubids, but lose little territory as it was an offensive war.

Sixth Crusade: Crusaders win and gain Jerusalem and Nazareth, among other areas, as a concession

Baron's Crusade: Ensured Christian control of areas gained in Sixth Crusade as well as new areas such as Bethlehem

Seventh Crusade: Louis IX gets beaten and ransomed by the Ayyubids, no significant territorial changes

Eighth Crusade: Crusaders die of disease in North Africa and fail to even make it to the Middle East

Ninth Crusade: Edward defeats Baibars several times but ultimately leaves as he has more pressing concerns back home.