|
|
Post by You_Got_A_Stew_Goin_Baby on Aug 3, 2017 19:46:33 GMT
Even from a pro-Christian point of view, you'd be hard-pressed to defend the Crusaders sacking the Christian city of Constantinople. Agreed. It wasn't supposed to happen. Stew didn't mention it but if memory serves they previously sacked the Christian city of Zara in order to pay for their transport before they even reached Constantinople. The Fourth Crusade was a failure. They never made it to their objective. I think the Pope ended up excommunicating the entire army. I did mention it briefly, along with the Albigensian Crusade, as an example of Christian infighting. Most all pure intentions of Holy War against infidels dissipated after the First Crusade. The later crusades were mostly land grabs...nascent experiments in colonialism that would be remembered and recalled later by the conquistadors in the New World in their fight against Aztecs/Incas. If you want to point a finger at a muslim group and call them the enemies of Europe, then it has to be the Seljuk Turks, who were migrating westward from central Asia. The Arabic caliphates were mostly squabbling among themselves and of little threat to European dominion...even the Byzantines. And yes, the Fourth Crusade was a complete failure, and the pope lifted his excommunication of the participants and, of course, accepted the loot that was taken from Constantinople...it's what Jesus would've wanted. If the Arabic caliphates and Constantinople would've been left unmolested by Crusaders, the Seljuk/Ottoman Turks probably would've still conquered Anatolia and threatened Europe. But, it would've taken them longer. Looking at it that way, I can't agree with you/maya/the video that the Crusades saved Eruope.
|
|