|
On May 12 2012 22:22 Miyoshino wrote:
Constantinople wasn't sacked by the crusaders on the first crusade. They weren't allowed inside the city or given food so they moved on to Antioch. But they were supposed to help Alexios since Alexios had asked for help.
One of the leaders of the crusade was a mortal enemy of the Byzantine empire.
I guess he meant the fourth crusade.
|
On May 12 2012 22:24 babybell wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2012 22:17 nttea wrote:
I've always felt blaming religion for wars is pretty ridiculous, they're mostly motivated by human greed and politics. From what i can see Islam and Christianity are pretty indistinguishable from each other in their Hypocrisy and vileness. That's not a fair statement. Take Islam for example. The Arab expansion was incredible and throughout the Arab sultanates during from the 7th century and for a long period of time that lasted until the 13th or 12th, depends on how you look at it, these areas of Northern Africa, the Iberian Peninsula and the Middle East went from depressed unorganized areas into the world's center of culture. Religion helps to consolidate the masses and provide a clear set of goals. That isn't always bad for the people and good for some supposed "puppeteers".
"these areas of Northern Africa, the Iberian Peninsula and the Middle East went from depressed unorganized areas into the world's center of culture"
lmao, are you for real? Seriously how brainwashed can people get?
User was warned for this post
|
On May 12 2012 22:17 nttea wrote:
I've always felt blaming religion for wars is pretty ridiculous, they're mostly motivated by human greed and politics. From what i can see Islam and Christianity are pretty indistinguishable from each other in their Hypocrisy and vileness.
Yes, but with a note that Christianity in the West is playing an increasingly marginal role, while Islam is playing an increasingly larger role in many peoples lives. Blaming religion for wars is not that ridiculous by the way, wars are fought for many reasons, power, culture, and yes, partially religion. Any reason that can be used to show the difference in men, instead of the similarities is a good ally in war.
|
|
|
The Muslim world was flat out winning. It was a golden age for Islam. They were responsible for huge advancements in astronomy, they invented trigonometry, they had hospitals in every city. Meanwhile Christian nations were just kicking the shit out of each other in their feudalistic in-fighting. The Crusades consolidated their power and directed it before they just languished and their religion got overtaken. Then Genghis Khan finished the job.
|
On May 12 2012 22:28 Alexstrasas wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2012 22:24 babybell wrote:On May 12 2012 22:17 nttea wrote:
I've always felt blaming religion for wars is pretty ridiculous, they're mostly motivated by human greed and politics. From what i can see Islam and Christianity are pretty indistinguishable from each other in their Hypocrisy and vileness. That's not a fair statement. Take Islam for example. The Arab expansion was incredible and throughout the Arab sultanates during from the 7th century and for a long period of time that lasted until the 13th or 12th, depends on how you look at it, these areas of Northern Africa, the Iberian Peninsula and the Middle East went from depressed unorganized areas into the world's center of culture. Religion helps to consolidate the masses and provide a clear set of goals. That isn't always bad for the people and good for some supposed "puppeteers". "these areas of Northern Africa, the Iberian Peninsula and the Middle East went from depressed unorganized areas into the world's center of culture" lmao, are you for real? Seriously how brainwashed can people get?
They may not have been depressed and all that unorganised, but you can't argue against the Muslim world being the centre of culture in that period of time.
|
On May 12 2012 22:28 Alexstrasas wrote:
"these areas of Northern Africa, the Iberian Peninsula and the Middle East went from depressed unorganized areas into the world's center of culture"
lmao, are you for real? Seriously how brainwashed can people get?
This:
On May 12 2012 22:32 floor exercise wrote:
The Muslim world was flat out winning. It was a golden age for Islam. They were responsible for huge advancements in astronomy, they invented trigonometry, they had hospitals in every city. Meanwhile Christian nations were just kicking the shit out of each other in their feudalistic in-fighting. The Crusades consolidated their power and directed it before they just languished and their religion got overtaken. Then Genghis Khan finished the job.
Just because Western European culture has been uncontested for half a millenium and you now associate arab faces with cultural backwardness it wasn't always this way. There is no brainwashing here. If the Iberian peninsula was split into civilized and uncivilized, the Moors would be the civilized ones. For many years, the library of Cordoba alone had more Greek philosophical texts than all of Western Europe combined.
|
On May 12 2012 22:32 floor exercise wrote:
they invented trigonometry
This is just not true. They expanded it, but the foundations were already set by the greeks and later the indians.
|
On May 12 2012 22:10 Miyoshino wrote:
It is quite clear what he means. Intellectuals lied about the crusaders to make Christianity look bad. That are his words.
In the west the crusader for a long time were seen as brave noble knights fighting the infidels. This is why in ordinary language 'going on a crusade against' is acceptable language..
Then intellectuals, after going through the historical documents, offered a different view. To him this is a 'lie for politicial reasons'.
Of course this happened a few decades ago. But the crusades happened a long time ago and for centuries theese events were still in the collective memory of the people in the west and people in the near east. But their accounts different vastly.
Great resume, although I would disagree they started to lie after "going through the historical documents".
The refusal of any historical perspective when talking about the Christian Crusades is only a small part of the vast anti-national and self-hating movement emerging after WW2 in Occident.
|
Just for pointing out the obvious, Turks are not Arabs. We were just affected by some part of Arab culture and shared the religion after some time. Our sources and baseline culture had nothing to do with original Arabs.
|
some people in this thread should look up a guy named breivik....shit...
|
On May 12 2012 22:28 Alexstrasas wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2012 22:24 babybell wrote:On May 12 2012 22:17 nttea wrote:
I've always felt blaming religion for wars is pretty ridiculous, they're mostly motivated by human greed and politics. From what i can see Islam and Christianity are pretty indistinguishable from each other in their Hypocrisy and vileness. That's not a fair statement. Take Islam for example. The Arab expansion was incredible and throughout the Arab sultanates during from the 7th century and for a long period of time that lasted until the 13th or 12th, depends on how you look at it, these areas of Northern Africa, the Iberian Peninsula and the Middle East went from depressed unorganized areas into the world's center of culture. Religion helps to consolidate the masses and provide a clear set of goals. That isn't always bad for the people and good for some supposed "puppeteers". "these areas of Northern Africa, the Iberian Peninsula and the Middle East went from depressed unorganized areas into the world's center of culture" lmao, are you for real? Seriously how brainwashed can people get?
ahm well if you don't believe that then you might've been the brainwashed one, since all historical records would agree with that
also I don't see why spanish would tolerate moors for so long if they were technologically behind...
|
Childrens Crusade wiki
This is a little forgotten part of the history of the crusades, I read about it in a book on the history of the knights templar, blew my mind that it actually happened. People back in the day were really just not very enlightened... (stupid)
|
From what I've read, the high ups of the catholic church and the government conspired to enrich themselves by telling the congregants that they would get glory from god if they invaded and plundered other countries.
|
You're being biased towards only the first Crusade in your post. There were as many as thirteen crusades, and the majority were not aimed at reclaiming the Holy Land. I also wouldn't really draw a line between the Battle of Tours (a minor raid at best into what became France - the Muslim Caliphate never really made significant attempts to claim Europe, and no Muslim power did until the rise of the Ottomans) and the Crusades - your're talking about a gap of four centuries there. Bit of a long response time.
Look at the later Crusades - hell, Constantinople, the one you talk about falling in the mid-15th century? Only fell, was only weak enough, because the Fourth Crusade conquered it. That's a Christian power conquering a Christian power, right there. You do mention that people feared the Crusades - damn right. Nearly every one in the beginning was kicked off with pogroms against the Jews in Europe. Then you have the later Crusades, such as the Albigensian or the Teutonic - one in France, against the heretic Cathars (but still nominally Christian) and the other in what became Prussia against Slavic pagans (where is the reactionary element here...?).
They began as an ill-formed, hazy movement to reclaim the Holy Land and became appropriated by the Popes to largely further their power politically, before becoming a political tool of smaller kings and nobles who wanted a smear of justification for their own actions. It's worth thinking about this notion of 'Just War', which was not limited to crusading, was also applied to William's conquest of England - he received papal backing to claim what he said was rightfully his. Don't make the mistake of thinking this was the godly Christians fighting back the muslim Caliphate hordes, not least because the Caliphate had fractured and devolved into infighting long before the Crusades were even thought of. Keep in mind that Urban II never intended for there to be a Crusade - how could he, when it had never happened before? It was simply a group of people who all basically had the same idea, and Urban didn't realise what he had allowed - namely the repudiation of all sins simply by travelling to the Holy Land and allowing them to indulge in whatever actions they wished. These guys were not travelling out of altruistic intentions, throughout the sources we get this notion that they knew fully well that their sins would be forgiven. In later years, when Crusading was a more organised affair, people would regularly go to the holy Land to have their sins wiped clean. This was the primary aim - simply by travelling on Crusade, rather like a pilgrimage, sins would be forgiven no matter what. It's worth considering that the notion that you could enter heaven free of sins for warmongering was a Christian notion - the idea of jihad in it's modern form arguably came from this.
|
Definitely was a war of aggression but then again...the conquest of richard the lionheart is a pretty cool tale. I always preferred western knights to shitty little arab knights riding around on ponies with bows and their silk cloth. Nothing cooler than a barder warhorse and a suit of armour + a broadsword. When I went to Turkey I talked to some guys about this and they were like 'haha stupid western armour? It looks so stupid and they are so clunky and useless, much better a brave knight of suleiman's horde with his majestic robes and well made sword, and rapid horse.
Funny how perspectives on these things come almost entirely from your background.
|
On May 12 2012 22:42 babybell wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2012 22:28 Alexstrasas wrote:
"these areas of Northern Africa, the Iberian Peninsula and the Middle East went from depressed unorganized areas into the world's center of culture"
lmao, are you for real? Seriously how brainwashed can people get? This: Show nested quote +On May 12 2012 22:32 floor exercise wrote:
The Muslim world was flat out winning. It was a golden age for Islam. They were responsible for huge advancements in astronomy, they invented trigonometry, they had hospitals in every city. Meanwhile Christian nations were just kicking the shit out of each other in their feudalistic in-fighting. The Crusades consolidated their power and directed it before they just languished and their religion got overtaken. Then Genghis Khan finished the job. Just because Western European culture has been uncontested for half a millenium and you now associate arab faces with cultural backwardness it wasn't always this way. There is no brainwashing here. If the Iberian peninsula was split into civilized and uncivilized, the Moors would be the civilized ones. For many years, the library of Cordoba alone had more Greek philosophical texts than all of Western Europe combined.
True true. The Muslim world is basically the only reason we have a large chuck of the ancient Greek texts that we prize so highly, many of which only survived in Arabic for centuries. Windmills? Yeah, we got those from conquering Al-Andalus (otherwise known as Spain). I've seen claims that the Renaissance was basically a direct result of the Reconquista, namely the Arab libraries that became property of the Catholic Spanish throne were translated and disseminated throughout Europe leading to a rediscovery of the Ancient Greek philosophies and mathematics.
|
On May 13 2012 00:20 sc4k wrote:
Definitely was a war of aggression but then again...the conquest of richard the lionheart is a pretty cool tale. I always preferred western knights to shitty little arab knights riding around on ponies with bows and their silk cloth. Nothing cooler than a barder warhorse and a suit of armour + a broadsword. When I went to Turkey I talked to some guys about this and they were like 'haha stupid western armour? It looks so stupid and they are so clunky and useless, much better a brave knight of suleiman's horde with his majestic robes and well made sword, and rapid horse.
Funny how perspectives on these things come almost entirely from your background.
:D You know how many knights dumped their armour when they realised how hot it was in the Levant? Hell, Barbarossa died because he went for a swim in his armour. And Lionheart's tale was basically him pissing off the nobles of Europe while he went to the Middle East, conquering Cyprus on the way (another Christian power...) and having to hide who he was on the way back for fear of being discovered. It's a toss-up who was a worse king of England, him or John 
|
Useless post and thread, does not belong in the "General" section but in blogs at best. The OP is a poorly understood and strongly biased restranscription of a Wikipedia article.
A short list of Siroko's shortcomings :
- What he says can only be applied mostly to the first crusade,
- Only mentions wars against muslim powers even though crusades were also waged against christian lands, like Toulouse in France,
- Brushes off the fourth crusade as unimportant, although it essentially destroyed the Byzantine Empire and thus allowed a later Ottoman conquest,
- Considers Europe as a unified continent under the christian banner even though any glimpse at any history book suggests otherwise,
- Compares short muslim incursions in France with the establishment of catholic kingdoms in today's Israël,
- Ignores the political dimension of any of these conflicts, where religion sometimes didn't even matter (an example being the alliance of France and Syria against Egypt).
So when Siroko says that :
They were called by the Pope and several European leaders with the goal of fighting Islamic expansionism
It is false.
was currently conquering Christian Oriental lands (Byzantine)
This is false too (crusaders themselves brought the Byzantine Empire to its knees).
this was nothing more than a fight between Islamic expansionism and Christian resistance to it.
Also wrong, as said earlier crusades were directed towards christians too.
I find this post very upsetting. I feel as if a child was trying to teach me German ontology.
|
On May 12 2012 22:42 babybell wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2012 22:28 Alexstrasas wrote:
"these areas of Northern Africa, the Iberian Peninsula and the Middle East went from depressed unorganized areas into the world's center of culture"
lmao, are you for real? Seriously how brainwashed can people get? This: Show nested quote +On May 12 2012 22:32 floor exercise wrote:
The Muslim world was flat out winning. It was a golden age for Islam. They were responsible for huge advancements in astronomy, they invented trigonometry, they had hospitals in every city. Meanwhile Christian nations were just kicking the shit out of each other in their feudalistic in-fighting. The Crusades consolidated their power and directed it before they just languished and their religion got overtaken. Then Genghis Khan finished the job. Just because Western European culture has been uncontested for half a millenium and you now associate arab faces with cultural backwardness it wasn't always this way. There is no brainwashing here. If the Iberian peninsula was split into civilized and uncivilized, the Moors would be the civilized ones. For many years, the library of Cordoba alone had more Greek philosophical texts than all of Western Europe combined.
You say there is no brainwashing, however there are only two possible explanations for saying stuff like that. Either a) you are brainwashed or b) you are making ignorant comments.
Too bad for you armchair historians i am actualy Portuguese as in from Portugal, the country that was formed while Christians were retaking the Iberian peninsula and all early history is around figthing moors off the peninsula.
I cringe everytime i see stupid shit being posted about the crusades, its pretty much shitting on the past of all europeans just for the sake of passing anti-religion or globalization propaganda.
Why no one talks about the pillages, enslavements, crucifications etc. of the christian population? Why no one talks about the deportation of thousands of peninsular women? One muslim general alone took around 300,000 peninsular woman (supposedly virgins, so most likely underage girls) with him to Damascus.
Another thing this general took was one of the biggest peninsular treasures, a jewelled table belonging to King Solomon, wich takes us to the other point wich is the retarded glorification of claims of Muslim cultural and scientific contributions, like saying that the library of Cordoba alone had more Greek philosophical texts than all of Western Europe combined.
Well shit, if they pillaged then hauled half of the treasures from europe no wonder they had a great library.
Here is a recap of the crusades. Muslims were shitting all over europe, Christians got pissed, gathered up took europe back then launched a counter-atack.
Did crusaders killed people? Sure, they were knights and it was the medieval times.
Its not like its much better nowadays with people pissing on mutilated corpses and taking pictures to put on facebook, atleast back then people fought for something (even if some exploited the whole situation), not like now were you have rambo wannabe sheeple doing atrocities and regular sheeple back at home eating the grass that has been layed down for them.
Anyways, stay classy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
