preview

Crusaders Negative Effects

Decent Essays

As such, the brutal actions and only marginal motivation by religion classify the crusades as a negative time in history because of their negative impact and suffering of many innocent people. By killing thousands of innocent people who did not deserve to die nor needed to during the crusades, the crusaders show themselves as heinous and vicious, not the type of people that they intended to be. And by looting, pillaging, and attempting to expand one's power over a group that, in the first place, asked for the help of the crusaders, the crusades show themselves as not being a war of religion but a war of brutality, a quest for power and a mission to amount as much wealth as one can. This was mostly due to the fact that pope Urban II allowed …show more content…

They suggest that people have always found ways to cheat systems imposed by authority in order to benefit on a personal and interpersonal level. The crusades show this because pillaging, usually considered a sin, was allowed under pope Urban II if one joined and fought in the crusades. People were able to use this for their own benefit, regardless of if it hurt others due to the fact that they would not be punished. Additionally, historical revisionism was used to attempt to justify the actions of the crusaders such as killing thousands of Jews and taking Muslim women and children prisoner. This shows that the crusades were a negative time in history because of the fact that they were covered up so many times through it. If the merits of the crusades were good, then there would be no need to cover them up and thus, the revision of history during the crusades would not be as prevalent. On a more modern note however, the crusades beg the question: is it ok for one group to be thought of as inherently better than another? And vise versa: is it ok for one group thought of as inherently worse than

Get Access