The Student Room Group

The TRUTH About The Crusades

[video="youtube;-ilFbbk9jw4"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ilFbbk9jw4[/video]
Were the Crusades an unprovoked act of aggression on behalf of bloodthirsty Christians? Did the First Crusade mark the beginning of close to a millennium of hostility between Christianity and Islam, or did the conflict begin centuries earlier?

Stefan Molyneux takes a closer look at the historical background of the Crusades and presents shocking information that is often hidden from the general population. What is the truth about the origins of the Crusades?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Cato the Elder
[video="youtube;-ilFbbk9jw4"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ilFbbk9jw4[/video]
Were the Crusades an unprovoked act of aggression on behalf of bloodthirsty Christians? Did the First Crusade mark the beginning of close to a millennium of hostility between Christianity and Islam, or did the conflict begin centuries earlier?

Stefan Molyneux takes a closer look at the historical background of the Crusades and presents shocking information that is often hidden from the general population. What is the truth about the origins of the Crusades?


Who hides this information?
Original post by MatureStudent36
Who hides this information?


This is what happens when one side has an agenda meanwhile the other doesn't care. People will believe anything they're told these days, some people are more prone to it than others.
Original post by MrKmas508
This is what happens when one side has an agenda meanwhile the other doesn't care. People will believe anything they're told these days, some people are more prone to it than others.


The only people who go on about the crusades other than historians are sexually frustrated Muslims.
Original post by MrKmas508
This is what happens when one side has an agenda meanwhile the other doesn't care. People will believe anything they're told these days, some people are more prone to it than others.


The truth hurts.
Not gonna watch because its bloody long but its pretty obvious the motivation of the crusades.
Original post by MatureStudent36
The only people who go on about the crusades other than historians are sexually frustrated Muslims.


Imagine having to see Islamic terrorism everyday and then tell yourself it has nothing to do with your religion. It must be exhausting.
Original post by MrKmas508
Imagine having to see Islamic terrorism everyday and then tell yourself it has nothing to do with your religion. It must be exhausting.


What happened 700 years ago in Jerusalem doesn't have an impact on modern day society.

It only seems to upset backward looking idiots.
Original post by MatureStudent36
What happened 700 years ago in Jerusalem doesn't have an impact on modern day society.

It only seems to upset backward looking idiots.


What are you talking about, the crusades completely justify the ongoing annihilation of the Yezidis and the systematic persecution of middle eastern Christians across Levant. Obviously.
Original post by MrKmas508
What are you talking about, the crusades completely justify the ongoing annihilation of the Yezidis and the systematic persecution of middle eastern Christians across Levant. Obviously.


Or maybe it's just a group
Of brainless morons massacring people because they're different.

Organisations like ISIS are quite happy to kill Muslims as well.

Or are you trying to find an excuse for so Many people I the Middle East and followers of Islam for failing to embrace modernity?
Original post by MatureStudent36
Or maybe it's just a group
Of brainless morons massacring people because they're different.

Organisations like ISIS are quite happy to kill Muslims as well.

Or are you trying to find an excuse for so Many people I the Middle East and followers of Islam for failing to embrace modernity?


I was satirising terrorists...
Original post by Cato the Elder

Stefan Molyneux


Cheers, know it'll probably be nonsense now.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by MyGayDadRapedMe
You're pathetic.


Because I dismiss the ramblings of an internet fringe ideologue about historical events which he has no expertise, qualifications or background in?
[video="youtube;HIs5B2U7US0"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIs5B2U7US0[/video]
The worst part about the crusades is that both sides didn't completely wipe out the other sides religion.
Original post by MyGayDadRapedMe
But Christianity is actually a good religion based upon the golden rule and peaceful living. Islam is a horrible religion.


Original post by MyGayDadRapedMe
You can't deal with the arguments or the elucidation of real historical facts so you resort to the typical leftist tactic of attacking the man (by the means of two fallacies) rather than dealing with the arguments.


There's very little to argue against. It's simply a selective interpretation that doesn't stand up to close scrutiny, largely because Molyneux had probably decided on his conclusion before looking for evidence to back it up.

If you want specific examples:

- For a start, we're talking about generic power politics between states for the most part, rather than some monolithic struggle between Christianity and Islam: both Christian and Muslim states fought among themselves about as much as they fought each other, if not more so.
- He mentions that previously 'Christian lands' were conquered by Muslim empires, but not that those lands became 'Christian lands' usually because they were conquered by Christian empires, or by pagan kingdoms who then converted to Christianity.
- He mentions Islamic slavery but not Christian slavery - in fact he goes as far as to deny that Christians were even involved in slavery at all until 1519, which is a flat-out lie - slavery was widespread and common in the Byzantine Empire, and throughout Europe - according to the Domesday Book, 10% of England's population were slaves in the 11th Century. Venice was a hub of slave traders.
Original post by MyGayDadRapedMe
It's a more objective analysis that the one we usually get from the media or the universities following the agenda which is to not even mention specifics not mention the 4 centuries of Jihad prior to the first Crusade and whine about the poor Muslims and talk about how evil Christians or whites are. You'd probably fit in there.


You've got a very bizarre view of medieval historians and their analytical methods. The Crusades are, for the most part, so far back that historians of the period express far less moral judgement than historians of the modern era. And certainly none analyse it within anything like a modern concepts of international law - that would be stupidly anachronistic.


Well duh. This doesn't even contradict anything he even said. It's only a 27 minute video.


He chose the medium. If he wants to restrict himself to a short video presentation, wrong claims are going to come across as even more wrong.
.
The fact is that Islam was more unified in one aim in a way that Christianity wasn't - which is Jihad against the infidel.


Islam was more unified at first due to most of it being in one state, the Caliphate. But that gradually fell apart after the fall of the Umayyads in the 8th Century. And of course, Islam was divided between Sunnis and Shias, just as Christianity was between Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

It only took 100 years for Islam rule over massive portions of the old world - nothing comparable happened with Christianity or the Roman Empire


Actually, quite comparable to the Roman Empire - the vast majority of it was conquered within the space of about 200 years - basically the two centuries either side of Year 1, though some was done prior to 100 BC. Most of the barbarian conquests and migrations that took place as Rome was falling happened incredibly quickly - within a few decades of sacking Rome, the Visigoths had conquered most of Iberia.

- it took much longer to spread because it wasn't almost entirely violent as Islam's spread certainly was.


No, it took longer to spread because Islam was a state religion from very early on, whereas it took Christianity until Constantine to become the official religion of a major state.

That has to be one of the most retarded arguments I've ever seen. So the Christians of Syria should just accept their dhimmitude, mass murder, slavery etc. because obviously the fact that the Syrians were pagans or Zoroastrians and then converted to Christianity means that the Syrian Christians have no right to call anywhere home and defend themselves. How didn't I see the impeccable logic!


About as blatant and blathering a strawman I've ever seen. I argued that Molyneux is, essentially arguing that conquests of lands of Christian states by Muslim states was a form of illegitimate aggression, despite the fact that the Christian states, in general, acquired those very lands through similar conquests, i.e. he is being inconsistent. I never brought the question of morality and individuals into it.

On this point I will conceded that he is wrong to say that Christians weren't involved in slavery. They were to a lesser extent (particularly in Western Europe) and slavery was banned in England since the 12th century.


It wasn't banned, it just died out - to be replaced by serfdom.

In any case the point about slavery is that for the Europeans and/or Christians, it was another reason to want to start a Crusade to protect themselves as their coasts were constantly attacked by Muslims slavers and pirates with their people sold into one of the most brutal forms of slavery that has ever existed. It's natural to expect a response to this even if it was too late or not as successful as a mentally healthy European might have hoped.


So the best way to stop raids on Italy by pirates and slavers in Libya and Tunisia is to capture Palestine/Lebanon/Syria/etc? Yeah, that makes sense....

Do you have anything to back up you claim that Islamic slavery in the Dark/Middle Ages was " one of the most brutal forms of slavery that has ever existed"?

So what is the appropriate response to this aggression, this Jihad then? Curl into the fetus position and beg for forgiveness? Do you think the Crusades were morally wrong then? If so was the previous Jihad or subsequent Jihad against the Christian world and Europe worse?


As I said earlier, I think it's stupidly anarchronistic to try to judge the Dark Ages and Medieval period by modern concepts of international law and morality. It doesn't add anything to our understandings of the period.
Seen a few videos of his even though he's an atheist he's not a militant one like most on the internet
Original post by Party Hard
Seen a few videos of his even though he's an atheist he's not a militant one like most on the internet


He dithers around to whatever he thinks will get him attention.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you