The Crusades were bloody. There was raping, enslavement, slaughter, pillage, and theft. What makes it any different from any other war? All war is gruesome, all war is unwanted, but it is a necessary thing. With the advent of volunteer armies (The Americans were one of the first to permanently adopt a standing army of volunteers), in the 19th century, wars are generally fought by men more in control of themselves.

The armies of the day were mostly made up of prisoners, mercenaries, etc. Many were volunteers however in the case of the Crusades, but one must understand that those days were different. Those were days where men could follow their lusts without much to stop them. It was an inevitable outcome. All wars have these things. The Soviets in World War II outdid any Crusade in raping and pillage, the Nazis as well, though the Soviets probably did more then they. I will not speak in detail of it here, but a poem by the name of Prussian Nights gives an account of what happened in the words of a Soviet soldier who was there and committed them himself.

In terms of the causes of the Crusades, I think most can agree that all of them except the 1st-3rd had only monetary goals. The first three Crusades had opened valuable trade with India and China, and the European markets began flowing with spices, silks, and other goods. However, I believe that the first three had innocent intents-to protect the pilgrims which the muslims refused to protect (Which by treaty they were obligated to do), to reclaim the Holy Lands, and to spread Christendom. Surely the normal traits of war were present on both sides, but no nation or society or counterculture can deny that every single war fought by humanity (With the possible exception of World War I) had massive after-the-battle pillaging.

I'll make it short. Crusades were the outcome of muslim Jihad.

First: The Crusades led to the massacare of many Jews both in Europe and in the Middle East. I know God has chosen to punish his own on several occasions in the Bible (pre grace) when they failed to obey or honor Him. In each case God sent prophets over a period of hundereds of years to warn the Jews of pending Judgement if they did not change their ways. God is slow to wrath. I do believe God can and has done this post grace as well. For example, in AD 70, when the Romans sacked Jerusalem, I believe is a fulillment of such a prophecy in the new testament. But who are we to make such a judgement? If anything involves attacking Jews then it is not Biblical and we should fight against such ideals. God keeps his unconditional promises to everyone. As for his conditional promises everyone tends to break those and we pay for the consequences. Just because we live in grace under God's Son Jesus Christ we are not free of consequences of our sins. We are just free of final Judgement after we die. If the motive involves the killing of Jews or any population for the "honor of God" then it is not Biblical. Keep in mind the crusades also led to the slaughter of anyone that did not support the Catholic Church. This included other Christians that did not believe the Catholic Church of the time were Biblical. Clearly the Catholic Church did not exercise Jesus's commands to his believers. I don't believe there are or will be any new prophets after Jesus but I do believe we (Jew and non-Jew) have all the warnings we need in the Old Testament. Plenty of examples of consequences for our actions and a clear definition of what "sin" IS.

Second:. God has used other nations to punish the Jews but you will also find that God still punishes those other nations afterwards for what they did or did no do. God still holds us accountable for our action or inaction. For example. Say God chooses to punish the Jews for something (only God knows this we don't, we only know that someone is attacking the Jews) I believe God can hold us accountable for not even trying to come to their aid. God keeps his promise that anyone that curses them will be cursed and anyone that blesses them will be blessed.

Finally: Ultimately the Crusades did shape the modern church. Due to the wide spread persecution of anyone non-Catholic it did lead to true Bible believers escaping to new lands and further spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ. God can make good of any evil we try to do.

I thought,this might help.
https://youtu.be/I_To-cV94Bo

Originally posted by Barnard:

As many of you might know the Crusades (to the East) generally have a negative reputation and the mainstream voices bad opinions on it. In school, atleast in my case, when it was mentioned it had an overall negative connotation of bloodthirst and pillaging as well. It is also, at least, one of the roots of so-called "white-guilt" and a reason why Europeans are not allowed to be proud of their Christian history.

The fact is that many people are misinformed about the Crusades and they don't know the full story. They just think "Crusades=bad". I myself, until recently, didn't know much about it either. But for the past week or so I have been researching it and learned the actual reasons and intentions of that part of history.

For the sake of the initial question shown in the title, I'll refrain from sharing my research info here.

So, what is your view and opinion on the Crusades? Good? Bad? Necessary? A black page in history?

The Crusades were wars between the still-pagan roman empire and islam, it was all flesh, may as well be the same as two secular states warring with each other.
Jesus would've denied old harlot scarlet rome and would have been killed by them in that time, and so would I.

Funny how history often repeats itself.

"My kingdom is not of this world" ~Jesus

I have to refute that. The Roman Empire during the Crusades (Much better known as the Byzantine Empire) was a very Christian empire, at least in theory. True, Constantinople had seen better days, and the last great emperor they had was Basil I (Or maybe II), but the empire as a whole identified as Eastern Orthodox or independent Christianity. Many of the Christians of Asia Minor had been largely uneffected by the squabbles of the Orthodox and Catholics, and followed other teachings, many probably identified with the original Gospel taught to them by Paul himself centuries before. It is for this reason that Georgia exists religiously as it does today- it largely survived the holocaust of islam.
The Crusades were by definition a reaction to the jihads against the Byzantines, and the original purpose in them was to reclaim all of Asia Minor as well as the Holy Land and give all of it (Except for roughly Antioch, Edessa, and everything South) back to the Byzantines. In that regard, it was certainly not a pagan conflict.

Originally posted by Jean Valjean:

I have to refute that. The Roman Empire during the Crusades (Much better known as the Byzantine Empire) was a very Christian empire, at least in theory. True, Constantinople had seen better days, and the last great emperor they had was Basil I (Or maybe II), but the empire as a whole identified as Eastern Orthodox or independent Christianity. Many of the Christians of Asia Minor had been largely uneffected by the squabbles of the Orthodox and Catholics, and followed other teachings, many probably identified with the original Gospel taught to them by Paul himself centuries before. It is for this reason that Georgia exists religiously as it does today- it largely survived the holocaust of islam.
The Crusades were by definition a reaction to the jihads against the Byzantines, and the original purpose in them was to reclaim all of Asia Minor as well as the Holy Land and give all of it (Except for roughly Antioch, Edessa, and everything South) back to the Byzantines. In that regard, it was certainly not a pagan conflict.

Don't get me wrong, I love my roots and western civilization, but if you think there was, is, or can ever be a "Christian empire" apart from Jesus sitting on the throne of David, then we probably disagree also about a lot of basic, even salvific, topics.

"My kingdom is not of this world." ~Jesus

I'm not saying the Byzantine Empire was celestial. What I am saying is that it was a Christian nation, like America, France, Poland, Brazil, or many others.

I don't wasnt to sound pesimistic, but i doubt there ever was a real christian country. Christian like countries with christian adopted cultures - sure.

The Crusades were brilliant.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_R8viSgLTVM

The Crusades were born from the violent aggression of Islam, which had conquered ancient Christian territory in the Holy Land and North Africa and established a large foothold in Europe within a century of Muhammad’s death in the early seventh century. Particularly troublesome to Christian Europe was the conquering of Jerusalem in 638 by an Islamic force that sacked the city for three days and destroyed over 300 churches and monasteries.

Additional Christian territory was stolen by Islamic conquerors in the late eleventh century when the Seljuk Turks, a nomadic peoples from the Asian steppe who converted to Sunni Islam, invaded Anatolia (modern-day Turkey), a very important province of the Byzantine Empire. Emperor Romanus IV Diogenes (r. 1068-1071) gathered a mixed force of imperial troops and mercenaries in an attempt to stop the Seljuk advance, but they were defeated at the Battle of Manzikert in 1071. Their victory allowed the Seljuks to consolidate their power in Anatolia, establishing it as the Sultanate of Rum with its capital in the ancient Christian city of Nicaea, site of the first ecumenical council in 325 and within striking distance of Constantinople.

And so, in the first place, the Crusades were launched to recover these conquered Christian territories and return them to the patrimony of Christ, which is one of the criteria for a legitimate exercise of violence.

Christian pilgrims were also subjected to harassment and violence, which demanded a defensive response from Christendom. The Seljuks, who were known for their brutality, threatened pilgrims to the holy sites in Palestine. As an example, a group of 12,000 German pilgrims led by Bishop Günther of Bamberg in 1065 was massacred by the Seljuks on Good Friday, only two days' march from Jerusalem.

The invasion of Christian territory, Muslim persecution of native Christians and pilgrims, plus the threat posed to the Christian Byzantine Empire, were all legitimate reasons to engage in defensive warfare and, and Bl. Pope Urban II cited them as justification for the First Crusade. And so in 1095, at the Council of Clermont, the pope preached an armed pilgrimage to recover the lost Christian territory of the East and specifically the Holy City of Jerusalem.

Urban viewed the Crusade as a pilgrimage, the aim of which was not to conquer but to visit the place of pilgrimage and then return home. Later popes maintained the understanding of the Crusades as just, defensive wars with the central goal of the recovery of ancient Christian territory. Heroic men and women of faith, rooted in love of Christ and neighbor, undertook the Crusades as acts of self-defense and recovery of stolen property. This is the proper understanding of these important events in Church history.

Well I've already shared this video on the forums in another topic, but because of ✠Wichert✠'s posts it seems apt to post it again. There's a present and ongoing battle of the flesh going on in the world today, there's no doubt about that, and the short video will speak to that. But the question is, do those in Christ Jesus fight in the flesh over worldly things like land, or are things like this actually some kind of tool the Most High uses as a threshing floor or refiner's fire? America has been called a Christian nation a lot, and a majority of people have checked the Christian box on paperwork, it's an easy thing to do, and it's often just a cultural identifier (what your parents and/or grandparents were), when Christian heads start to roll (and they will, it's just a matter of time) it will be much less common.

I know that God knows my heart, and I don't believe I can lose my salvation for defending my house with lethal force, it's more about where my heart is, though, almost as if striving in the flesh shows a lack of faith on my part. When I was new in Christ I walked in love and was bullet proof, I faced off on occasion with some very violent opposition, right up in my face, it didn't phase me, I walked in love, knew that God was in control of the situation... here just recently a crazy neighbor was raising his voice and I'm still struggling daily to put my flesh down over that, it seems so unjust, he needs to be put in his place after all, for being so disrespectful. But then, I mocked and hated on Christians for most of my life as an atheist, surely I need to be put in my place, after all.......


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytdMUddGe-U

Originally posted by finster_35:

Have you ever heard Black Sabbath's song calls "War Pigs"? If not I suggest you listen to it.
In the song "War Pigs" Black Sabbath sings about what war is like in general
For example that policticians started the war and with that said is a crusades the best option there is? I believe in Defence of your home town , country , and religion but I dont believe in killing thousands of innocent musslims or jews or budas(sorry if I spelled it wrong) people just for the satifaction of those political and "peaceful christian" leaders. If God wants us to fight in a crusades however I will be the first one there but i don't think that God would like to have another crusades and neither would I. War and crusades are far differnet from each other. They are both blood sheds but in wars you fight for the soul purpose of defending your town , country , and even your religion while crusades are more terrible because you kill thousands of innocents just for what, Your religion? God doesn't want us to shed an innocent's blood just for the sake of our religion and in a matter of fact it hurts your religion even more. Starting a crusades is just like building an office building and shoot every one in it just because some of those employees just don't like you. This is why we never should have a crusades and it never every should happen in the future !

Not a real Christian comment

We, In 7th Grade are learning about the crusades... I think its giving us Christians a bad name for what these crusaders did to innocent people. Its good that one of the leaders of the battle relized what he had been doing and stopped killing the innocent and ransoming them. I understand why Pope Urban II wanted the Holy Land (Jerusalem) But couldnt there just be a simplier solution than just killing everybody? They shouldve asked for a treaty to let them go there freely with no violence. And it is even worse that both the Muslims and Christians bot said we were doing it in the name of God. < that is one of the worst parts imo