EPTThe Crusades - Page 4
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
smokeyhoodoo
United States1021 Posts
| ||
|
Kukaracha
France1954 Posts
On May 13 2012 02:05 shell wrote: WHAT????????? not only is that incredibly wrong is also very stupid... The bizantine empire started in 320s after christ, when the roman empire fell and was divided in oriental empire (bizantium) and western empire. Since islam only apeared in 622 how can byzantium be an agressor against Islam? Get you fact rights my friend because you don't know shit.. And how did the region around Greece fall under the Roman flag, mh? Through peaceful agreements? He wrote : "which was created through conquest and unjust invasions in the first place", how can you prove this wrong? Or are some conquest (from Rome) just and others (from the Ottomans) unjust? | ||
|
Jodzog
France45 Posts
On May 13 2012 02:05 shell wrote: WHAT????????? not only is that incredibly wrong is also very stupid... The bizantine empire started in 320s after christ, when the roman empire fell and was divided in oriental empire (bizantium) and western empire. Since islam only apeared in 622 how can byzantium be an agressor against Islam? Get you fact rights my friend because you don't know shit.. He said against the arabs, not again Islam, it is not the same thing. Arabs existed way before Islam. Maybe you should be less offensive and certain about yourself ? Next time please just read calmly. | ||
|
shell
Portugal2722 Posts
->religious fervor from both sides (clearly the less important because the leaders that inflated the poor masses did it not for god but to aquire more power and money) ->Fear - Iberia was starting to be free from the muslim ocupation and strong countrys formed (Spain and Portugal) and Europe after the invasion was always afraid of a bigger one, don't forget Sicilia was occupied and most of the mediterranian were constantly atacked by muslim pirates (This goes out both ways i'm sure, Christian sailors must have done the same thing) ->money(the most important ALWAYS) since in those times those lands were rich and prosperous and the only way to get silk, spicies and other luxury items from the far east, india and china (that made the muslims rich and after the crusades the otomans very rich, until the portuguese fucked them up and went to india directly by boat, cutting them off and also the Venezians for instance "died" because of this) ->power(what else?) - The ruler of Jerusalem (the holliest city for jews, christians and muslims) would be a important person and plus those lands were important and rich(Anatolia of course and Istanbul being the bigger prize after Jerusalem, Acre and Antioch) These wars are a part of our past and we have to accept for what they were.. war is never pretty and often times there aren't winners.. only losers! For instance Portugal was occupied for muslim for around 300 years but there wasn't any "Portugal or Spain" before the ocupation only week and dirty Sueve and Visigothic kingdoms.. eventually the muslim ocupation gave us a common enemy and two strong countrys were formed that live on until today.. We learned alot from the muslim and still have them in our culture even if Portugal is like 95% catholic. For instance all the portuguese words that start with "al.." are from the muslims like "Alentejo", "Algarve", "Aljezur"! They were much more advanced then the kings of old and taught us many things ! I just people would stop putting religion in front of a person or a life... is it a god wish? | ||
|
Alexstrasas
302 Posts
On May 13 2012 01:21 Kukaracha wrote: We do, because we have a genuine interest in history. We're not trying to prove that muslims are good or evil. Personally I don't give a damn, I'm simply interested in our past. I don't see where you took the idea that no one talks about the "pillages, enslavements, crucifications etc. of the christian population", atlhough it is true that the christian population was originally treated better by the conquerors of Spain, who were far more advanced than the indigenous population. The fact that you come from Portugal yourself is meaningless, by the way. Most of the population is unaware of their own history. Pillage was fairly common back then. How do you think crusaders survived the long walk through Europe? How many cities do you think they burned to the ground? To put it simply, the only difference was that crusaders burnt everything when muslims were civilized enough to preserve valuable texts and knowledge. From your post I also don't expect you to know anything about antiquity, but many texts in the possession of sultans had simply been kept ever since the fall of the Roman empire. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Read my first post and the post above it. You have obviously no idea of what you're talking about, and should at least admit it. Despite you claiming that you only seek history accuracy, pretty much the sum of all you posted is "your wrong, wrong, worng muslims were more civilized". Are you sure you arent a muslim yourself? You just seem extremely biased. Also yeah deporting thousands of little girls to make them sexual slaves is civilized as fuck. Crusaders pillaging and burning shit is irrelevant, because they were reacting to the muslim occupation (and their pillaging), the main ideia was only retribution not the preservation of culture. Saying that its meaningless that i am from Portugal is rediclous, history of Portugal was in my school curriculum one way or the other since like pre-school up to the university. Also again, just to reiterate, im not saying that shady stuff didnt took place, especialy in the later crusades, but that surely wasnt their main purpose and you cant blame everyone for the mistakes of a few. | ||
|
shell
Portugal2722 Posts
On May 13 2012 02:14 Jodzog wrote: He said against the arabs, not again Islam, it is not the same thing. Arabs existed way before Islam. Maybe you should be less offensive and certain about yourself ? Next time please just read calmly. I know it's not the same thing but even that is incredibly stupid since way before the arabs were anything more then nomads the romans were allready in charge of that area and before the romans there were the jews. TL e-thugs FTW | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On May 13 2012 02:08 Kukaracha wrote: True, you should therefore avoid questioning something concluded by historians. It's somewhat ironic that you come up with this random "fact" that people always ramble about crusaders and not about djihadists and then speak about carefully looking at a complex problem. However, even if this is true, how is this not logical for French people to learn about crusades, for example, as it's part of our ancesters' history? Muslims only set foot in France once, and we do learn this in schools. Aside from that, why should we learn Spanish and Egyptian history (although we do learn about the conquest of Spain, you know). meh, historians rarely agree on much of anything. a man's got to pick and choose sometimes. the fact is that it is rare to hear both sides of this issue, while it is extremely common to hear the of the Crusades as a one-sided aggression led by barbaric and backward Europeans against peaceful and advanced Muslims. the opposite, that it was peaceful and loving Christians fighting a desperate war of defense against bloodthirsty Muslims is just as untrue. both sides had been responsible for aggressions and atrocities, and many of the technological and scientific advancements of both sides were taken and absorbed and affected by the other side. i don't know what point your making with the last paragraph. i don't know what people learn in French school's, or what French people want their children to learn. perhaps this rarity of which i speak is only common in America or among intellectuals in the American education system... | ||
|
shell
Portugal2722 Posts
| ||
|
Vespasian
Romania44 Posts
| ||
|
Madkipz
Norway1643 Posts
On May 13 2012 02:30 shell wrote: Guys what are you talking about? there was never a war in our world that wasn't for money or power.. We are talking about the two sides. Christians had a defensive casus belli on arabs and followed trough with the crusades. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine–Arab_Wars claim that the Byzantines were defensive against the arab invaders, then the turks were replaced with mongol hordes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusade even states that it was in response to arab attacks in Gaul )France), and the eastern roman empire was engaged with the Turks. | ||
|
shell
Portugal2722 Posts
I tought war was beetween countrys or civilizations.. not beetween some fanatics with money that send dumb children to die.. so that is now a war? my mind exploded... | ||
|
Kukaracha
France1954 Posts
On May 13 2012 02:18 Alexstrasas wrote: Despite you claiming that you only seek history accuracy, pretty much the sum of all you posted is "your wrong, wrong, worng muslims were more civilized". Are you sure you arent a muslim yourself? You just seem extremely biased. Also yeah deporting thousands of little girls to make them sexual slaves is civilized as fuck. Crusaders pillaging and burning shit is irrelevant, because they were reacting to the muslim occupation (and their pillaging), the main ideia was only retribution not the preservation of culture. Saying that its meaningless that i am from Portugal is rediclous, history of Portugal was in my school curriculum one way or the other since like pre-school up to the university. Also again, just to reiterate, im not saying that shady stuff didnt took place, especialy in the later crusades, but that surely wasnt their main purpose and you cant blame everyone for the mistakes of a few. ... On May 13 2012 00:42 Kukaracha wrote: Also wrong, as said earlier crusades were directed towards christians too. (Only mentions wars against muslim powers even though crusades were also waged against christian lands, like Toulouse in France,) On May 13 2012 00:16 Sanctimonius wrote: 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. I also fail to see how it was directed against the expansionism of Islam since it mostly expanded in Spain and nothing was done about this. Crusaders chose instead to attack another muslim faction, at the other side of the Mediterranean sea. And no I'm not a muslim, I don't see how this has any importance. Care to explain? | ||
|
alypse
2771 Posts
On May 13 2012 01:28 Whole wrote: you might want to add this to the OP for those who don't like reading: Fantastic video. Thanks. Also that channel has a lot of interesting videos like this one; those who are interested in stuff like this should definitely check them out. | ||
|
StarStrider
United States689 Posts
Please close thread according to TL standards on religious topics. | ||
|
Vespasian
Romania44 Posts
| ||
|
shell
Portugal2722 Posts
On May 13 2012 02:46 Madkipz wrote: We are talking about the two sides. Christians had a defensive casus belli on arabs and followed trough with the crusades. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine–Arab_Wars claim that the Byzantines were defensive against the arab invaders, then the turks were replaced with mongol hordes. I didn't understand you were saying i was right or wrong? because if you read your link : "These started during the initial Muslim conquests under the expansionist Rashidun and Umayyad caliphs in the 7th century and continued by their successors until the mid-11th century." See? It was a man, that wanted more power, money and lands, that united the arab nomad tribes and they faught a war for him.. was it for god? It never is.. Same for instance happened with the Huns or with the mongols.. they were always strong but they were divided and didn't have any type of interested in conquest, they did some pillaged here and there.. then comes a great leader.. a Attila for the Huns, Ghengis Khan or a Timur to unite the tribes or if you prefer that "civilization" under one leader and with one goal and boom many thousands died All it takes is a leader to unite and inspire and if he wants and has support he might or might not do war for more land.. Now if he needs more support many tactics can be used, racism against a particular enemy, religion, spread of health pillage for the people etc.. The crusades were a chance to help out byzantines, but did they help? No.. they took their lands for themselves claimed they were kings of that areas and even attacked and pillage bizantine lands.. So no it was never for god.. It was for fame, honour, money and power... | ||
|
3Form
United Kingdom389 Posts
| ||
|
Elitios
France164 Posts
What I don't find funny is that this explanation may look to some like it's meant to antagonize christian and muslims, which is not needed at all. Also, any decent textbook tells more about crusades than this post, which renders it quite obsolete. | ||
|
Shiragaku
Hong Kong4308 Posts
On May 13 2012 02:50 alypse wrote: Fantastic video. Thanks. Also that channel has a lot of interesting videos like this one; those who are interested in stuff like this should definitely check them out. Agreed. Pretty much covered what I was about to say. And one memoir is also really good. The Memoirs of Usama ibn Munqidh. It shows that religion was not everything. It provides an incredibly complex view on the Crusades. And funny thing about the Ottoman conquest on Byzantium. After the conquest, all the Europeans were blaming one another. Basically, they were saying "Yeah...the Turks are Turks BUT I HATE THOSE GODDAMN VENETIANS!!!" or the Byzantines, English, or other Italians. | ||
|
Acertos
France852 Posts
Europe became christian because of crusades too ,even in Asia there were a lot of crusades.. All the religions are the same, religion is never choosed by the normal people it's used by the people of power to justify their actions. | ||
| ||
