Originally posted by leonheartmm
basically, all relegions and their followers{most of em} are full of crap, theyr all ignorant.
This thread isn't about religion. It's about history.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
i being a former muslim and still livin in pakistan with my pure muslim family{who still think that im a muslim} can say that with certainty.
Good for you.
But that doesn't give you any special insigth into anything.
And this thread is not just about history, but arab/mid-eastern
history, which you're not involved in anyway.
King Burger> 👆 for making the most sense and displaying the most working braincells in here...
"Might makes right"?? HHahahahhahah. Okay so the big neo-nazi geek has the "right" to beat the living sh*t out of me?
Any country with nuclear capabilities has the "right" to use them?
I'd imagine "Might makes right" is a motto of the big, muscular but not too bright...
Originally posted by King Burger
The kings and knight responded, but not because of any
religious sentiments (they couldn't care less), but because
it was a chance to et their hands on the legendary wealth
of the "East". BUt they too used the religious reasons to
get the ignorant publis to go along with it.
Generalising a little bit aren't ya? The Lionheart stood to gain nothing by going on crusade, in fact, he raised taxes and while he was away his kingdom was in danger of being taken from him by John and fellow crusader, Philip II of France. Similarly, the French contingent during the Third Crusade kept urging Richard to lay siege to Jerusalem even though it was military suicide - while Richard had his eye on Egypt to prevent reinforcements coming to Saladin's aid.
Godfrey of Bouillon refused to be crowned King of Jerusalem out of piety, during the First Crusade.
They couldn't care less? I beg to differ.
Originally posted by King Burger
If you're going to make the arguement that the Crusades
(and/or other later Europeaninvasions of arab/muslim lands)
are a retaliation of arab/muslim invasions of Europes, then
one can make the arguement that the arab/muslim invasion
of Europe was in retaliation of european (that is greeke and
roman) invasions of North Africa/South-West Asia.
And why exactly are the Muslims retaliating for European incursions into Africa when Islam wasn't a religion until the 6th/7th century AD, long after Europeans settled in Africa (Punic Wars - Rome against Carthage in North Africa - happened before 200BC and Alexander's adventures to the East were a century before that).
Just so you know there were multiple reasons for the Crusades:
Gain access to Arabian goods
retake Holy Lands
Spread Christianity.
Unfourtunatley, many people who were recruited to go on the Crusades were former convicts who were told they could go free after the war. But when these convicts got to the Mid East they raped and pillaged, instead of trying to spread religion
No doubt, there were multiple reasons that people went on the crusades - some went for adventure, some for religious reasons, some for financial gain or land, some went to retake the holy city and some just wanted to get away from the bad living conditions in Europe. It would be naive to think that ALL crusaders who went to the middle east went for ONE reason.
As the post above this one mentioned, there were also convicts who were released to serve as muscle in the crusades, to pay for their crimes or forgiveness of sins - the church wrongly thought that these prisoners would behave as professional soldiers. And just so you know, when an invading army took a city by storm, rape and pillaging were the norm during those times - both Christians and Muslims knew this was a rule of war.
Actually Saladin especially did not allow his troops to do anything like that, i'm not saying it didn't happen. But Saladin had a lot of respect for the enemy soldiers, not the rulers but the soldiers because they were willing to die for their believes. Saladin held many prisoners but all were treated in a good manner, when the Crusade was over all of them were released. Saladin like it or not was one of the most civilised generals in the entire history...
Now to go back to the topic...
The crusades and iraq being related?
That is indeed bullshit, they weren't... 9/11 was no retaliation for the crusades, the crusades weren't retaliations for Muslim attacks in Europe and those weren't retaliations for Roman or Greek attacks into their lands. They were all just wars fought for reasons that have absolutly nothing to do with each other except for perhaps the fool here and there that wanted to mimic a great general of old. But besides that the wars hardly had anything to do with each other.
You don't see England attacking the US again because of a war that happened many many years ago, you don't see Holland and Spain going at it again just because they fought a war years earlier, France and England don't do it... Germany and Denmark. Seriously history is an important factor in our live and yes the Punic wars still affect us today, but that doesn't mean that every war that hapeneds now a days hapeneds because some country wants revenge on some country for not doing something there that they should have done.
Re: My Crusade/Iraq theory
Originally posted by moviejunkie23
hey guys
i was thinking about the correlations between Iraq/Afganastan and the crusades and i think i thought of some details were it really shows how history repeats itself.
Now when you take the Crusades all you really hear about is how the christians just ran down arab countries in their "holy war" without provocation and committed terrible notrosities. This however is a misconception, they don't give you the whole picture.
Musilms had for hundreds of years prior invaded european counries such as Spain for instance. There were many christian lands that were invaded.
The "Crusades" was actually a retaliation of the many years of muslim invasion and seeked to put a foot hold on arab countries to stop it once and for all.
I belive the Catholism aspect of it and the religeos aspect was a "trumpet" to get everyone excited and was a "cause" that the European populace could get behind and support at the time. There is nothing like waving a flag and saying "i have a righteos cause" to get people motivated to take some action, and religeon can be a powerfull motivator.
So then you watch in history the muslims woke up the sleeping giant and they got hell to pay for their efforts. It was so memorable apparently what the europeans did to the muslims we all but forget it was in retaliation to muslim invasions.
Now to connect this to now.
Iraq and Afganastan may be closer to a "Crusade" than you think.
Think about 911, you could think of that as the initial attack that awakes the "sleeping giant". Now what happens, does Bush say he lets do a war for catholism?? NO the flag or cause of the day has changed from religeon to "Democracy and freedom" that is now the giuse he drapes over the war to justify it and rally people when in fact the real reason (just like the real reason during the crusades was not religeon in my opinion) the real reason is trying to strategicaly put a foot hold on muslims countries in order to try to reduce risk of attacks. Its paying back a flesh wound for a decapitation as well. Its not wise to instigate with certain countries or people (Americans are one of them)In a nutshell its history repeating itself. You have the initial attack by muslims and then you soon watch the whole sky falling over muslim countries. And instead of mask the crusaders wore at that time wich was catholithism the new mask is that of "Democracy and Freedom for all"
Well anyway what do you guys think? Solid theory? Where are the holes? What are the strenghths? Input is always appreciated
It may be true what you are thinking but I am not sure.JM 😕
Originally posted by Fishy
Actually Saladin especially did not allow his troops to do anything like that, i'm not saying it didn't happen. But Saladin had a lot of respect for the enemy soldiers, not the rulers but the soldiers because they were willing to die for their believes. Saladin held many prisoners but all were treated in a good manner, when the Crusade was over all of them were released. Saladin like it or not was one of the most civilised generals in the entire history...
Which is actually a great thing (as far as it can be said) that he kept his promise of non rape, since quran allowes ''sex with the right hand possesions'' - ie. woman captured in war, making him more noble than others whos book doesnt say anything like that, yet they commited such terrible crimes. (although as K Von Doom already mentioned, it was a ''norm'' of the war then)
Originally posted by Fishy
Actually Saladin especially did not allow his troops to do anything like that, i'm not saying it didn't happen. But Saladin had a lot of respect for the enemy soldiers, not the rulers but the soldiers because they were willing to die for their believes. Saladin held many prisoners but all were treated in a good manner, when the Crusade was over all of them were released. Saladin like it or not was one of the most civilised generals in the entire history...
I consider Saladin to be the MOST honourable figure of the Crusades - much more than the Nur Al Din, Richard I, Frederick and Godfrey - but even he was subject to the rules of war. In the siege of Jerusalem, Saladin's army broke through the walls so Belian of Ibelin rode out to try and sue for the city's surrender. Saladin said that he's already taken the city by storm so depriving his men of the customary "rape and pillage" (that came with storming a city) would be wrong.
Not all prisoners were treated in good manner when captured by Saladin, high ranking prisoners and common people were but Templars and Hospitallers were killed instantly because of their religious fervour. He personally even lopped of Reginald of Kerak's head (although the guy deserved it).
That guy you mentioned is probably written about in the Northern Crusades - not as well documented as the Middle Eastern Crusades. There were a few monarchs who didn't see eye to eye with Rome. Most notable was 'Holy Roman Emperor' Frederick, who was actually at war with Rome. This German Emperor was excommunicated twice by Rome for not fulfulling his crusading vows. He eventually went on crusade (the Fifth) and being a devious one, he made a deal with the Sultan of Egypt for Jerusalem. The Pope wasn't happy with the way he achieved the goal.