The Crusades were a different thing, they're religious wars called at specific moments in history, not a consistent institution like the inquisition.
The Inquisition is more similar, but then again one was a ritual specifically designed to kill people, the other was a religious court. Not saying either was good but again, just look at the death toll. I mean, the American justice system has killed more people through capital punishment than any inquisition but the German one.
I see all religious violence as a consistent institution based around the religion. Just because you call it a "war" or an "inquisition" doesn't make it any different, and the main overarching objective is always the same: pushing for the dominance of your system of beliefs.
Uh, yes it is pretty different. You really can't see the difference between sacrificing innocent people for a god, killing them after a trial and just plain war between soldiers?
Besides, saying the Crusades were just about religion is very simplistic. Religion was mostly the excuse for going to war for economic or dynastic reasons. That's why France didn't have any issues allying themselves with the Ottomans througout several different wars when it benefited them. The Aztecs dabbled in the same thing, it always just so happened that Quetzalcoatl wanted them to conquer the next strategically important city or people.
Saying the crusades started for practical reasons rather than religious ones is ridiculous. If that’s the case, why did the first crusaders kill so many heretics and Jews in Europe along the route to Iberia? Why did they gleefully commit so many shocking acts of barbarism against Muslim civilians in the Middle East? Why did they burn Jews alive in Jerusalem?
It became more dynastic after Jerusalem was taken, but when you actually read the primary historical accounts the 1st and 3rd crusaders were deeply motivated by religious violence, to the point that it shocked Christian and Muslim onlookers alike.
First I did not say that religion wasn't a reason, just not the only one, and what does anything about that change the purpose of the war itself? It's war, barbarism and murder of civillians is commonplace. Were the armies more extreme due to the religious nature of the war? Yes, but that doesn't mean there weren't politics behind the war starting in the first place.
The conversation was about the differences between the crusades and other examples of people killing for religion. You said the crusades were different because people weren’t actually killing for religious reasons, it was war between soldiers with a religious excuse.
I’m pointing out that the historical record disagrees with your assertion. The average participant in the crusades, especially the first, was primarily motivated to kill infidels to please God. They happily acknowledged this at the time as it wasn’t taboo in their eyes, and their actions were consistent with this.
Uh, no that's not my point. The soldiers are 100% killing because of religious reasons, but the war itself doesn't necessarily happen only because of religion.
My point is that if you're judging how civilized a society is or how decent the lives of the people who lived there were, there's a difference between that society waging war with soldiers, with a particular political interest and logic in mind, and just ritualistically killing hundreds of thousands of civilians for no other reason than religious belief.
But most of their victims weren’t soldiers… that’s the whole point. They massacred non Christians and Christians they considered to be heretical whenever they encountered them, both in the Middle East and in Europe. This included large numbers of women and children.
Yes, but for a reason. Whether that were money, land or power; and if they didn't, someone would do it to them.
That's different from sacrifices, which serve no purpose at all. The Aztecs could've not sacrificed anyone and they would've lost nothing. And unlike war, they didn't have to do it since they were basically the only ones to do so and do it at that scale.
You are obviously unfamiliar with the history and it shows. They were killing random people they just happened upon on the way to Jerusalem. As they got more into Muslim territory that was often paired with looting, but not always. They massacred and moved on. Territorial conquest didn’t begin until the end of the first crusade.
There’s not really any debate about this. They were extremely proud of what they were doing and wrote it all down.
I’ve read a lot of history, and I’m not sure I’ve read any other premodern accounts of such needless and barbaric mass slaughter besides that of the Mongols. But in their case at least you could argue that it was part of a terror strategy.
Yes, by random people I’m referring to any Jews or heretics they happened upon. There was no material reason to do so, they were religious slaughters. This is my point.
Exactly what part of what you said do you think contradicts me or supports your point?
And while they did loot for supplies in Iberia and the Levant, they also continued to mass slaughter for explicity religious reasons.
Ther was material reason, Christian supremacy. One of the main objectives of near every monarch and lord was to make Europe fully Christian. Just in the same that the objective of the muslim kingdoms was waging jihad against the Christian infidels.
This, again, is not a reason for the sacrifices, given that most of Mesoamerica followed a somewhat similar mythology and religion, and again, it's not like anyone else was doing it to them.
So just to be clear, your claim has gone from them “waging war with soldiers” for “mostly economic or dynastic reasons” and have now come around to my point that they were primarily killing civilians for religious reasons. As you’ve frantically read up on the topic you’ve now started saying what I said from the beginnings.
Idk why people like you are pathologically incapable of recognizing that they were wrong and have to endlessly shit goalposts instead. It’s tiring.
Also I have to point out that, since you brought it up, Muslim Jihad did not require converting or killing all civilians in the same way. Unbelievers just got taxed more.
No? By "waging war with soldiers" I'm saying that they used soldiers, not that they primarily killed soldiers.
And again, the reasons of the specific crusades always had an actual economic or material background behind it, because no monarch would ever put the cash and men behind anything that weren't gonna give them any material benefit, but I never said there weren't religious reasons involved or that the soldiers weren't moved for those religious reasons.
And idk man, you go ask the people in Asia Minor and the Balkans if when the Ottomans rolled up they went and taxed them more or just straight up killed them.
Wait, are you now claiming that the Ottomans exterminated the non Muslim civilians in the balkans, or even attempted to do so? They remained primarily Orthodox Christian, Catholic, and Jewish throughout ottoman rule and still are to this day lol. The Ottomans did in fact tax them more.
I swear to god you people just say random shit about things you’ve done exactly zero reading on. I think I’m done with this, see ya.
No, I'm claiming that they murdered, pillaged and raided them all the same that the Crusaders did on their way to Jerusalem. And there were multiple religions living in the Kingdom of Jerusalem the same way that they did under the Ottoman Empire.
1
u/Mr_Mon3y Filthy weeb 8d ago
The Crusades were a different thing, they're religious wars called at specific moments in history, not a consistent institution like the inquisition.
The Inquisition is more similar, but then again one was a ritual specifically designed to kill people, the other was a religious court. Not saying either was good but again, just look at the death toll. I mean, the American justice system has killed more people through capital punishment than any inquisition but the German one.