Changes

Jump to: navigation, search

Debate:Crusades... Good or Bad?

212 bytes added, 20:36, 14 January 2010
/* TRAGIC */
I can not say in my opinion that the Crusades were good or bad. I think they were both, and neither. I find it more fitting to label them as tragic. It is my belief that they should not have been carried out, or at the very least they should have been conducted differently, especially the later ones. However, the fact that they were carried out, then it is my belief that things would have been better had they been ultimately successful. That the West (and do not go deluding yourselves this was a religious thing, it was not, it was a political and cultural thing, religion was used to spur on the zealots on both sides...) should have retained the Holy Land, that the world would have been better for it, if we were to use today's world as a reference point (but then hindsight is always 20/20). The The powers that be bhind he Crusades should have left the Jews alone, and sacking Constantinople was absolute lunacy. But again, it was a different time, and you couldn't expect more from the common christian of that era to be hateful and virulent towards the "killers of Christ" nor could you expect any Pope of that era to abide any collusion or otherwise beneficial relations with "schismatics." So in a word, the whole affair was tragic.
 
 
Similiar inquiries within Islamic venues would most likely involve a "debate" over the merits of Jihad. To which right wing Americans would gasp, even when this other "debate" is essentially the same. -JBall
11
edits