Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Crusades. How important were they in stopping Islam's aggressive wars colonisations and invasions in Europe?
What is your opinion?
Add Opinion
Superb Opinion
+1 yIf you know! You know 😉. I am a christian from the middle east, no one wants to hear the ugly truth about their religion. There was the good crusaders and there was the bad ones, both killed muslims and stopped the aggressive attacks. It wouldn't be accepted that a religion attacks another now days but look what they did with the christians in Iraq and Syria 🤷♂️. If you know! You know
238 Reply- +1 y
- +1 y
Sorry @uslegionary but this will not help your argument either. I mean if anything, the crusaders did the groundwork for the Muslims to conquer Constantinople by literally burning it down previously and ravaging the countryside multiple times. The "Aggressive attacks" objectively also did not stop since Constantinople is no longer called that after being conquered by the Muslims.
- +1 y
@Jaximus-Lion is entirely right. Even today in every Muslim country Christians and other non-muslim religious groups have been oppressed and suppressed for a thousand years which continues today.
- +1 y
- +1 y
I have witnessed the brutlity of muslims hatred but no one wants to hear my scars stories
- +1 y
@Jaximus-Lion agreed you only have to look at the no go areas in sweden
- +1 y
- +1 y
- +1 y
- +1 y
- +1 y
- +1 y
It's more like conflict phobia
- +1 y
- +1 y
- +1 y
@Jaximus-Lion What more is there to talk about? The Crusades were objective failures both for the mess they created, the fact that they did not stop Muslim expansion and also started religious conflicts that extends to present day and all because a pope wanted to secure support for himself.
Its also pointless to talk with USLegionary about it since he demonstrates that he does not really understand history which is why it devolves into him falling back on old talking points he has been primed to regurgitate such as the provably false claims like Sweden being the rape capital etc.. He is like a broken record that skips around without any real coherency. - +1 y
- +1 y
- +1 y
The battle of Lepanto is actually a pretty good example. Namely that even when the Christians did win something, it was a hollow victory. Namely that it did not really accomplish anything aside from the victory of the battle itself. They did not leverage that victory to achieve military objectives in the Ottoman Empire to reconquer land they previously lost.. They just sat on their hands..
Also your whole spiel about Portugal and Spain circumventing Africa to open new trade routes also does not support your argument that the Crusades was important in stopping the Islamic aggression.. since that was not a Crusade... - +1 y
@Soteris the battle of lepanto ended ottoman dominance of Mediterranean sea, thus cutting their maritime trade profits worth much more than mere territory. Henry the navigator of Portugal was a member of the Knight's of christ which was set up by the Knight's template.
Up until the crusades Islamic aggression went largely unchecked but suddenly a Christian kingdom appeared inside the heart of islamic territory. - +1 y
Complete nonsense. The Ottoman Empire still had complete control over the eastern Mediterranean sea. Sure, it reduced their control over the western side but that is hardly a crippling blow. I also love how you imply that because a navigator happened to be a crusader or whatever, that this was now a crusade and that it would in any way shape or form would be unique to just having any old navigator with you because as we all know, crusaders are famous for their skills as navigators of ships and other navigators would definitely have flubbed it all up. Totally..
As for the Crusader States they were hardly that consequential nor were they long lasting. In contrast the damage the first crusade did to the Byzantine Empire I would argue is much greater and certainly aided the Muslims in conquering it as well as giving them a path for further conquest of Europe as well as a religious motivation to do so. - +1 y
- +1 y
People don't like it, they don't accept it but it does not mean things are not happening. I have been through things my self and i can give stories about others experience. I am not defending other religions orpeople but if i show you for example how the united stated are such a bully country! How many American would accept the fact? 🤷♂️ So same thing goes here
- +1 y
@Jaximus-Lion I am not basing my views on my own experiences. I am also not basing my views on anecdotal evidence I find. Saying that no one wants to hear your stories or that my opinion does not matter because I "live in the wrong areas" is precisely why my words matters and yours dont.
Why? Because I am saying that things like the No-Go Zones never existed.. because they never existed.. This is not because I never lived next doors to them but because I looked into the matter and saw that it was just false. You on the other hand is, as far as I can tell, relying on anecdotal evidence which does not give you a true picture of the situation and in this case appears to give you literally the opposite of the truth.
This is not about me being Swedish and defending Sweden or seeing things from a Swedish perspective. This is about what is true and what is not true. - +1 y
- +1 y
- +1 y
Be that as it may, but they have never been regarded as "No-Go zones". In fact they were classified as "vulnerable areas" instead and all those stories about police not willing to go there and such is just pure bullshit. In reality they are subject to increased police resources and are improving over time.
This is as opposed to the propaganda bullshit people like USLegionary believe in which says its a lawless area controlled by immigrants where police and emergency services can't travel into or through and its all thanks to immigration etc..
There is a very real difference between what is real and what is made up to politically benefit racists all around the world. - +1 y
Most Helpful Opinions
12.1K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. They were a crime against Christians, Jews and Muslims under the guise of "religious conflict"
The so called "Crusades" were driven more by Western greed and ambitions of princes who wanted to "show prowess on the battlefield" than any legit religious concerns.
11 Reply- +1 y
These Prince's served a purpose and were rewarded. It was the first real strike back against Muslim aggression.
Ask to an AI Persona
Laura
Have questions about GirlsAskGuys? I'm here to help!
James The Foodie
From savoring Italian classics to discovering the bold flavors of Japanese cuisine, I explore...
Advisor Smith
With years of experience guiding individuals in their education and career paths, I'm here to...
Fashionista Amy
I'm here to inspire and guide you with a touch of latest trends or advice on personal style.💅👒
Travel Buddy
I'm your go-to travel companion, passionate about exploring new destinations and experiencing...
Athletic Chloe
Whether you need tips on improving your game, insights on fitness and nutrition, or just want to...
Cinematic Lily
With my rich background and passion for the arts, I share insights on films, TV shows, and...
Love Doctor Brad
Welcome to the heart of understanding and transformation. I am your guide on this journey to...
Gamer Bella
With my passion and experience in hobbies and leisure activities, I'm here to offer personalized...
What Girls & Guys Said
0
Opinion
9Opinion
8K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. All the crusades failed and arguably only further stoked the hatred between the Islamic world and the Christian world. Before they did those stupid crusades they actually welcomed Christian pilgrimage to Jerusalem and other holy sites under Islamic control, not so much after.
So yeah.. the question should have been "how much did it assist?" rather than how much it helped stopping them.
248 Reply- +1 y
the hatred already existed after hundreds of years of Muslim invasions into Christian lands and pirate raids all over southern Europe taking hundreds of thousands of Christian slaves.
Before the crusades the Muslims had taken all Christian lands of North africa, had conquered mist of Spain and launched a failed invasion of France, they had pushed back the Eastern roman empire out of the middle east, conquered scilily, invaded Christian Armenia, and had laid siege to both Rome and constantinople multiple times. The capture of the holy land was the first real defeat the Muslims had and the first time their own territory had been invaded. - +1 y
No, the hatred did not already exist. The Islamic conquest of that time was pretty much just the normal struggle between nations with the Islamic ones coming out on top rather than something particularly religiously motivated. This changed after the Crusades when the Christians started making this blood feud personal.
- +1 y
Invading and raiding other countries in the name of Islam is pretty much hatred. Even today the remaining Christians in Muslim lands are still persecuted going back to those 7th century conquests.
- +1 y
You just described what the crusades did. They conquered rich valuable territory that was along the Silk Road...
- +1 y
No they did not. They specifically organized a "holy" war against all of Islam, targeted their holy sites and started butchering civilians and committing atrocities. It is very different and made the Muslims feel like they were victimized which in turn unified them against Christianity and motivated a response.
- +1 y
Rome and constantinople are holy sites. The first crusade shocked the Muslim world, for the first time a Christian army had defeated them on their own terms
- +1 y
The first crusade was a success. A tiny Christian army took set up various kingdoms in the middle east. The Muslim world was so shocked that its PTSD 900 years later
upload.wikimedia.org/.../...der_States_in_1135.svg - +1 y
You know what? Why dont you just watch a youtube video and see for yourself.
www.youtube.com/watch
It was pathetic. - +1 y
I seen it. How a few thousand men persevered in such conditions and succed against all odds may be the reason the shouted Dues vault. Also...
https://youtu.be/c7y2LRcf4kc - +1 y
The orginial goal was the capture of Jerusalem
- +1 y
That was the Eastern Roman Empire's goal, but remember most of those who went on crusades were the very same Germanic descendants who had collapsed the Western Roman empire and set up kingdoms in France, Spain, Italy, Britain and so on. The orginal goal of the crusade as called for by the Pope was an armed pilgrimage to the holy land.
- +1 y
Absolutely it would. They were wealthy and a different religion and prior to the crusades the lombards, Norman's and franks were kicking them out of scilly and Italy
- +1 y
Sure even in saxon England most of the nobles didn't even know that they had taken it from the Romans, that the Romans had once been non Christian and that their saxon ancestors shared the same religion as their viking invaders
- +1 y
It's rich, it's at that moment weak. Weakness in that time period invites attack. Which the Christian kingdoms knew all too well after hundreds of years of raids and invasions.
- +1 y
Of course. They byzantine were neither Frank, lombard or goth
- +1 y
Different side of the coin like Arian Christians or coptic Christians
- +1 y
The byzantine were already been beaten by the Muslim turks, Bulgarians, swedes and beaten by Norman's in in Italy. They were weak and ripe, they survived another 200 years almost to the age of discovery and the recoquista when the Islamic world started to decline.
- +1 y
Muslims were kept occupied by the crusader kingdoms for 100 years, Bulgarians, Hungarians, scandanavians and Mongols were the real threat to mainland Europe at this time to the byzantine empire.
- +1 y
Meh, you act as if the Muslims really cared that much about the Crusaders taking the holy land.. They really did not. From the Muslims point of view, the Crusader states really were not that big of a part of their history or even the Crusades as a whole. It was not really until the Ottoman Empire that the land that far north held any real importance for them.
So no. Them taking the holy lands did little to nothing against the Muslims whos core territories was much further south. - +1 y
The crusades are a big deal even today to Muslims, the crusades captured and threatened Muslim lands and holy places. Even today non-muslim people are not allowed to rule themselves or have any say in government in lands Muslims have conquered.
- +1 y
No because they had already been invading Christian kingdoms before hand ie North africa, eithiopia, Armenia, Greece, Italy, Spain, France, Asia minor, Petra, Saudi Arabia, Syria... They certainly weren't going to allow the reclaimed Christian lands in the holy land to remain Christian ruled.
- +1 y
Not true at all. The crusader states were filthy rich, its how they were able to maintain huge well armed armies. European states espicially northern Europe were very impoverished.
- +1 y
The Muslims were caught on the backfoot, shocked and though had 100 times the troops to call on they weren't proffessional soldiers or the equivalent of knights as well as the logistics of moving a huge army through a desert region. It was only when Saladin came along 100 years later that they were able to meet the crusaders on an equal footing in battle and use strategy to defeat them long term.
- +1 y
How do you get serfs in say Francia, Normandy, Germany, Italy, burgundy, Scandinavia to join a crusade? Anyway the latins were a landed class in the kingdom of Jerusalem at least 20,000 strong basically wiped out at the Battle of hatin, they served as knights, footsildiers archers. The peasants tilled the field and there were a lot of European mercenaries groups such as Italian crossbowmen and turk horse archers. It wasn't gunpowder that ended the use of the Knight on the battlefield but the conclusion that the mass deployment of peasants as infantry pikemen, footsoldiers, archers and crossbow men with some or a lot of training would be more effective and cheaper than armies of knights which need expensive suits of armor, a large expensive war horse, expensive weaponry, years of training and of course 2-3 squires, yeoman etc to look after them.
- +1 y
You mean like the "peoples crusade"? Also, the feudal lords can literally just levy their own peasants to go to war so if they are going on a crusade then sure as hell their peasants are as well.
The military system between the Muslim world and the European world is pretty much the same. Nobles keep a small group of professional soldiers such as knights then employs mercenaries and fill out the rest with peasants. - +1 y
True they can but generally wasn't the case. Peasants were how you funded their lifestyle, a Peasants not on the field costs you money as Lord. Lords feuding with each other used to kill or capture each other's serfs in raids rather than attack a fortress or fight each other.
There's a notion even today that the medieval Knight was this paragon of honor and virtue when the reality was that he was the local thug, murderer, rapist, theif and bully. Samurai were the same too. - +1 y
You know what is even more expensive than removing your workforce to put into your army? Employing them as professional soldiers in the first place. The whole system of levying peasants were done specifically because no one had the centralized economy of Rome anymore and could not afford to raise legion after legion.
As for the modern idea of chivalry about how knights were paragons of virtue, that is a later romantization that is not backed by actual history. Its Victorian fanfic. - +1 y
If your a wealthy state you can afford to keep a well trained powerful and disciplined force. Europe around this period had been decimated by various plagues and the population was only stating to bounce back, armies during this period were generally small. The Italian states for instance generally used mercenaries armies. At Crecy and agincourt the French had at least 10,000 knights, not including infantry, the Knight's template maintained a huge force in Europe as did the hospitalars and tectonics. It was really the English, Swiss and Germans who started levying huge peasent armies using new weapons and tactics that would leave smaller armies of Armoured knights massacred.
Rome wasn't just fielding huge armies of well trained vetrean troops but also the best armed and Armoured of the era but generally their armies were small too. - +1 y
Oh please. Rome could field hundreds of thousands of professional soldiers. That is many times the forces in the first crusade and the Romans were all professional solders rather than the ramshack crusaders.
As for the battle you are referring to its a few hundred years after the last crusade for the holy land and France is probably the strongest country in Europe at the time and they only have a rather small few thousand knights and professional soldiers.
If you want to start fielding armies of 50-100'000 then you need to conscript peasants because you simply can't afford professional soldiers or mercs at those numbers. - +1 y
Rome could field vast armies yes but then they were a huge empire but generally their battles were maybe 10-50 legionnaires in any one place. The crusaders at the Battle of hattin field 20,000 which was basically all the latins in the crusader kingdom and when they lost the male Latin population was wiped out of the crusader kingdoms. You might be able to field a vast army of peasants but you have to feed them, water them etc which is a logistical problem, there may be too many to live off the land or forage from the existing population. At the Battle of hattan saladin had captured all the waterhole and he let the crusaders weaken in the desert heat.
- +1 y
The Roman legions worked as a unit. Trying to split up and protect he vast areas of Rome was a fools errand in the first place so they instead responded to attacks or went on the offensive rather than prevented damage from happening all together. But that is besides the point. The Feudal system was designed to decentralize authority and security which drastically reduced the amount of troops any given country could field as well as its quality, relying heavily on peasant levies.
This is just a fact. The Crusades were no different nor was the crusader states. As for logistics? That is always a concern which is why armies of that day had to spread out and be good at foraging and pillaging the nearby countryside to sustain their campaign. Only the smallest forces could survive on their own supply train or with help from nearby friendly large cities. - +1 y
The Roman Empire lasted 1500 years. Roman legions and its legionaries were expensive to maintain and were largely replaced by the 4th century. Without the contest expansion and conquests the legions were too expensive to maintain which was why they started using cheaper Levy troops in the boarder regions along with the problems of a reduced population in the empire due to plagues.
Crusader states were very different, maintaining small proffessional armies gave them an advantage over their neighbours is why they lasted 100 years, they could rely on levies in the crusader states because the locals were Jews, Muslims, Syrians, Orthodox Christians etc so had to recruit knights and foot soldiers from frankia, Italy, Germania, Scandinavia, Normandy, holy roman empire etc. - +1 y
You mean during the literal decline of the Roman Empire? Also its not really the cost as much as the pool of recruitment that truly limited the Romans during this time. This is mostly because of their limitations of who they allowed to join.
As for why the Crusader states lasted "so long"? Mostly it is because the Muslims were busy and only got around to crushing them later after having dealt with their own power struggles.
saladeen At the same time the western civilization was coming out the dark ages that lasted 400 years. If Muslim wanted to wipe out the Christianity they could have 10 fold. While European was coming out the Black Death Islam scholars took a big leap in math architecture and astronomy.
It was a general name Salahuddin
History has never witnessed a ruler who was so admired by the people he defeated. Saladin’s preaching and behavior left an impression so deep that he is still respected not only by Muslims but also Christians and Jews.
His action change the way of the crusaders/night templars!!.00 ReplyThe reconquista was more successful than the crusades, Europe needs a new reconquista.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconquista
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks/europe-attacks.aspx
10 Reply- 345 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. +1 y
There was multiple crusades. The Christian crusades were 500 years after the moors conquered much of Europe. Many of the problems today are caused by the world powers of early 1900s Britain, France & Russia trying to weaken the Ottoman Empire.
Look up the Sykes-Picot agreement 1917. They split up former territory of turks established borders that exist today. Look how well thats worked.
Should’ve left Turkey in charge.
03 Reply- +1 y
Nah. Turkey picked the wrong side in ww1. The Sykes-Picot agreement was the price they paid for defeat just like how Germany lost its colonial empire. The ottoman empire started to weaken in the late 18th-19th century when Atlantic European countries started becoming wealthy and more powerful with global wealth from colonies. Ottoman power started to decline when European empires were able to access India and China by sail so the Silk Road became less important.
Turkey was already the sick man of Europe by 1900, weakness brings enemies - +1 y
Problem I have is when all the durka durkas blame usa for their ills. It was originally Britain, France and Russia. When things went to shit they were like oh ya you americans wanna take over sure come on in !
- +1 y
The situation in the middle east is the way it was meant to be, no one powerful states. Divided states are easier to control, its why gas was so cheap for so many decades
- 3.5K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. +1 y
Not important at all, as all they did was bringing aggressive wars, invasion and colonisation.
10 Reply - 4.1K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. 8 d
muslims did colonize africa but failed to colonize italy. it saved Europe.
00 Reply - +1 y
Crusaders were opposite of important.
10 Reply - +1 y
I would say very important
00 Reply 4K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. Mostly they were ineffective at that.
00 Reply
Show More(4)
Be the first girl to share an opinion
and earn 3 more Xper points!
Click "Show More" for your mentions
Home > Society & Politics > Questions > Crusades. How important were they in stopping Islam's aggressive wars colonisations and invasions in Europe?
Add your reply For "{0}"
Most Helpful Opinion(mho) Rate.
Learn more
Learn more
We're glad to see you liked this post.
You can also add your opinion below!
