The crusades were started for the most part by the christians in the attempt to spread christianity over all of europe.

The crusades were Christians pushing back Muslims who were invading Europe and forcing people to become Muslim. I think it's about time for another crusade if you ask me.

Thank you alias at least you seem to know what your talking about.

To think that the (or even "a") main reason for the crusades were to help the Byzantine Empire against the ghazwat is to be very narrow minded and ignorant of the situation. The western Europeans were of a very weak relationship with the Byzantine Empire, and were even betrayed by them before and visa versa.

Even if Muslims weren't attacking the Anatolian Peninsula (NOT Europe), the crusades would still have happened as it was a war of religion sanctioned by the Pope specifically for the purpose of taking Jerusalem and converting "infedels". It was a war of conquest. Hence CRUSADE. It was for the most part unprovoked.

I don't think I'd ever have to suffer the day in attempting to convince someone that the bloody crusades weren't justified.

I just want to point out a fact that i know more about European history than Katczinsky who only got a 3 on the AP test. I got a 4. SO now what Katczinsky!

Sorry, but that is 100% wrong.

Nice. Another gullible "revisionist history dolt."

And while I don't think I've seen anybody here claiming that the Crusades were right, or Christian, only a complete dumbass would believe that they were just "war for war's sake".

Are you an idiot, do you not know any history what so ever? Seriously learn more history and then come back and we'll have a disscussion.

I didn't, and only a dumbass wouldn't comprehend what I was saying. They fought it over religion, not just "for war's sakes" (although I'm sure that was a large part of it [this is Medieval times we're talking about afterall]). The Christians wanted to forcebly convert "infedels" (or kill them, as they thought it was the path to heaven), and take Jerusalem by force. They didn't just fight Muslims back that were trying to take parts of the Anatolian Peninsula (not Europe), instead they took Jerusalem, slaughted men woman and children, and took even more lands and cities beyond Jerusalem.

This is no revised history. Perhaps it seems that way to you as it doesn't fit your narrow world view that is obviously highly biased against any reilgious or world view that you hold yourself.

Good lord, how stupid can you be about this.

Did history just "start" immediately before the Crusades?

Why don't you address the FACT that Islam had been rapidly spreading - by force and savagery - for 350 years prior to the Crusades?

Please give an excuse for such Muslim atrocities as...
- The slaughter of Mecca.
- The Nakhla raid.
- The Battle of Badr.
- The slaughter of the Qaynuqa Jews.
- The Battle of the Trench.
- The women of Banu Mustaliq.
- The raid of Khaybar.
- The "treaty" of Hudaybiyya.
- The Tabuk raid.
- The Battle of Uhud.
- The be-heading of the Qurayzah Tribe.

Or how about you explain away...
- The "Rightly Guided Caliphs" and their atrocities.
- The Umayyad Dynasty.
- The Abbbasid State.


Care to deal with any of those "completely un-related" issues? Or do you just want to quietly admit to yourself that you're in WAY over your head?