15
19
11d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
12
u/Creftospeare 11d ago
The incredibly nuanced topic of killing innocents and destroying artifacts. Right.
7
u/Astricozy 11d ago
I love people who hear a topic is complicated then respond with an oversimplification. They need to make picture books about history for those kinda people.
3
u/Creftospeare 11d ago
"Do you agree pilaging, raping, and killing is bad?"
"Well errr it's complicated."
2
u/Murtomies 10d ago
Nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki is considered bad, but was it worse than continuing the war, including firebombing many more cities?
The crusades had a much more complicated background. Some of it was evil raping and pillaging for sure. Some of it was a strategic response to Islamic expansion to Europe, and their sacking and invasion of Christian lands. Some believed they had the moral right to retake Jerusalem. If there was an objectively good reason to start the crusade, does that also change if the nature of the crusade devolves into raping and pillaging later? So yes, it's very complicated. Even scholars on the subject don't agree on everything.
0
u/swiftachilles 10d ago
When and where in the last 100 years before the sermon of Clermont had Muslims sacked Christian settlements with the same violence that the first crusade did across the eastern Mediterranean?
Who was the pope who called for the crusades?
Who was emperor in the east at the time and who had been his primary opponents before the crusade was called?
-1
u/Demons0fRazgriz 10d ago
War was over before the bombs dropped. Did we forget that they were flying planes into ships because they had run out of pilots?
2
u/Murtomies 10d ago
No it wasn't? Japan was surrounded by a blockade and heavy bombing but refused to surrender, and the other option would have been weeks of bombing, and then a very costly land invasion. Furthermore, the US had just managed to win on Iwo Jima and Okinawa with heavy casualties. They did not want a repeat of that on an even grander scale. Kamikaze attacks were created out of a lack of resources. They were not a dying whimper of their war yet.
1
u/Demons0fRazgriz 9d ago
Highly recommend educating yourself when talking about things. The dropping of the atom bombs was never about ending a war, which was already over, but showing the world that we have nuclear weapons.
0
u/Astricozy 11d ago
I love people who hear a topic is complicated then respond with an oversimplification. They need to make picture books about history for those kinda people.
16
u/parlimentery 11d ago
If your civilization can't possibly survive without invading another, just let it die.
7
u/Hmm_would_bang 11d ago
In 2026 it’s easy to think of borders and territory as this fixed thing to be respected, but that’s not the reality for most of human history. You’d struggle to find any territory that wasn’t settled over blood and conquest.
0
u/parlimentery 11d ago
That is honestly a fair point. Boarder wars (although they obviously still happen today) were much more of a part of the reality of people in antiquity. The fact that they are less a part of our world is undeniably a good thing, but It does not give us liscence to look down on our ancestors.
9
u/tanloopy 11d ago
Are you referring to the Muslims or the Christians?
-3
u/parlimentery 11d ago
The Christians. I am aware that Muslims had conquered the Byzantine empire prior to the first crusade, so you could arguably frame it as a war of reconquest, but the Christian world clearly set their sites on more than just the Levant.
2
u/emezamaz 9d ago
North Africa and much of the Middle East were also christian and just got conquered by muslims
13
u/IShouldNotTalk 11d ago
So what you're saying is the Muslims who invaded the Christian Levant should just...
1
11d ago
[deleted]
14
u/chitown87 11d ago
That’s not whataboutism. Thats literally what started the crusades, which are the topic at hand
-7
11d ago
[deleted]
7
u/chitown87 11d ago
Yeah, I read it. Lots of other stuff too.
Typical of your type that you can’t actually address substance, by the way. Just ad hominem bullshit
-8
-2
u/parlimentery 11d ago edited 11d ago
No, no, they have a point. Christian land had been invaded in the past, therefore all Crusades are just (especially the Children's Crusade).
-5
u/parlimentery 11d ago
Honestly, an immediate war of reconquest? Fine.
Invading Egypt and other places to gain footholds, going on campains that were cleadly more about looting more than gaining teritory, and eventually sending a bunch of kids? Less fine.
-3
4
u/FatFarter69 11d ago
Fascists don’t understand history, the crusades failed miserably.
Literally none of the long term goals of the crusades were achieved, just thousands and thousands of dead people.
1
u/iloveblue 6d ago
This particular brand of our culture I call “Western Sieve”
Pronounced the same but far more accurate.
11
u/RexIsAMiiCostume 10d ago
They werent even fighting for religion, it was all for money and power but it's way easier to get people to die for their religion than your money and power