Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Medieval and Byzantine History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Medieval and Byzantine History Medieval and Byzantine History Forum - Period of History between classical antiquity and modern times, roughly the 5th through 16th Centuries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old August 8th, 2012, 09:36 PM   #1

Gnaeus's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Jul 2012
From: Toronto
Posts: 197
Did the Crusades have a victor?


I apologize if this thread has been made before, as I know that there are many, many threads about the Crusades.

I often think about the Crusades, being the grossly over romanticized conflicts that they were, and I think of questions about them. Most of the time I come to some sort of answer, but I think that the Title question, how won them needs to be answered by people who know more about history than I do. Because its kind of confusing who won the Crusades. Maybe nobody won, maybe the Crusades are to much of a generalization to pin down a victor. All opinions are welcome.
Gnaeus is offline  
Remove Ads
Old August 9th, 2012, 01:05 AM   #2

arras's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: Slovakia
Posts: 14,335

Crusades were several military campaigns which had objective of retaking Christian lands lost to Muslims and/or to take new lands from pagans and Christianize them (Baltic region).

Some of them succeeded, some of them failed. They succeeded in Iberia and Southern Italy/Sicily and some islands of Mediterranean (even if I am not sure if official Crusade was declared there). They also succeeded in Baltic region. They failed however to hold on to Levant with Jerusalem, even if they initially were quit successful there.

In general, I would call them successful as they significantly advanced Europe militarily, economically, politically and in terms of organization. Before Crusades Europe was backwater. Of course you can debate if Crusades were cause or rather result of advancement of Europe. I would say both, as they were on one hand result of revival of European power and at the same time they contributed to it's further revival and development.

So I would say European Christian civilisation was their ultimate winner.
arras is online now  
Old August 9th, 2012, 01:46 AM   #3

Essa's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2012
From: Bahrain
Posts: 1,784

I think generaly they've been a failure....

They may have had minor successes and a major one in the first Crusade but none of them was successful in achieving their goal: Regaining holy lands from Muslims.....despite the fact that the Muslim world was fragmented at the time..

So I don't see how European Christianity was a winner ?
Essa is offline  
Old August 9th, 2012, 02:34 AM   #4

arras's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: Slovakia
Posts: 14,335

By inciting advancements in military, organization, politics, science, trade, banking, technology, navigation, shipbuilding, heraldry and many other fields. Advancements which later allowed Europe to dominate world.

Moreover Christians rooted Muslims out of Southern Europe and managed to hold on to Levant for some 100 years.
arras is online now  
Old August 9th, 2012, 04:04 AM   #5

Essa's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2012
From: Bahrain
Posts: 1,784

Quote:
Originally Posted by arras View Post
By inciting advancements in military, organization, politics, science, trade, banking, technology, navigation, shipbuilding, heraldry and many other fields. Advancements which later allowed Europe to dominate world.

Moreover Christians rooted Muslims out of Southern Europe and managed to hold on to Levant for some 100 years.
Yes but how come these advancements are related to the Crusades themselves ?....it could've happened without these wars.
Essa is offline  
Old August 9th, 2012, 04:29 AM   #6

arras's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: Slovakia
Posts: 14,335

As I said, by directly promoting these advance as well as exchange of information with Middle East.

These advances may or may not happened without Crusades but that is irrelevant. Crusades happened and they did influenced Europeans to advance in many of those fields. Therefore Christian Europe on large benefited from them (I am not saying they had no negatives of course).
arras is online now  
Old August 9th, 2012, 04:32 AM   #7
Baldgustus of Baldistan
 
Joined: Aug 2009
From: Londinium
Posts: 2,196

I don't see how the Crusades are a victory for the Christians (in the long term). Their (by which i mean Mr Pope) stated objective was to remove the Muslims from (or at least their control over) the holy lands. Which didn't happen, so how can anyone see the Crusades as a victory when they didn't meet their own objective?!
Baldtastic is offline  
Old August 9th, 2012, 05:21 AM   #8
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Mar 2010
From: Montréal
Posts: 512

Crusaders are barbarians and savages that pillaged their way through the Holy Land killing muslims and jews alike. The Crusades are a scourge to christianity, and they distorted the good-hearted inoffensive teachings of the Church and plunged Islam and Christianity in a gladiator fight for eternity.
BrowniesRule is offline  
Old August 9th, 2012, 05:34 AM   #9

arras's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: Slovakia
Posts: 14,335

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baldtastic View Post
I don't see how the Crusades are a victory for the Christians (in the long term). Their (by which i mean Mr Pope) stated objective was to remove the Muslims from (or at least their control over) the holy lands. Which didn't happen, so how can anyone see the Crusades as a victory when they didn't meet their own objective?!
Because Crusades were not just series of military campaigns, it was political and religious movement and as such had many other implications than just control of Holly Land. And those implications were on large positive for Christian Europe.
arras is online now  
Old August 9th, 2012, 05:47 AM   #10

DreamWeaver's Avatar
Misanthropologist
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Wales
Posts: 10,323
Blog Entries: 6

Its a question of scale really, and how one defines "win" and what exactly one means by the crusades. How does one wich to define such things? I personally am a Pluralist.

On a pulrey military point of view concerning individual campaigns and objectives, the First and Sixth are clear successes, the Second and Seventh failures for examples.

If one is speaking on a much greater level then one must move into greater themes.
DreamWeaver is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Medieval and Byzantine History

Tags
crusades, victor


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Crusades SPERRO Medieval and Byzantine History 66 September 29th, 2011 01:34 AM
Different Victor at the second Battle of Philipi Isoroku295 Speculative History 2 March 8th, 2010 04:44 PM
GIAP: The Victor in Vietnam bigscreeninkster History Book Reviews 1 December 29th, 2009 02:15 AM
Victor Davis Hanson Pantagruel History Book Reviews 12 July 22nd, 2009 06:24 AM
Victor Hugo Commander History Book Reviews 8 June 11th, 2008 07:11 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.