Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Topic: the crusades Posted: 30-Mar-2006 at 16:52 |
waht is your vuiew. do you think what they clame is a holey war or just a diffrence in religon and the wanting of land to rule over
ps im sorry for any spelling that is not right
|
|
shurite7
Knight
Joined: 14-Oct-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 91
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-Mar-2006 at 18:21 |
I'll this short and use the words of Sir Steven Runciman, the Crusades were a barbaric invasion inspired by religious beliefs.
Chris
|
Cheers
Chris
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 31-Mar-2006 at 17:23 |
Originally posted by shurite7
I'll this short and use the words of Sir Steven Runciman, the Crusades were a barbaric invasion inspired by religious beliefs.
Chris |
vairy true! some of them even cut up babies just beacuse of there religon. i think that no war can be holy do to the fact that the bibel tell you no to kill and other human. so if a " holy person" tells you that this war is what god wants how can that be i jsu t dont see how they could be dumb to the subject
|
|
R_AK47
Baron
Joined: 25-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 468
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 31-Mar-2006 at 18:42 |
After reading both of you guy's posts, I'm convinced that neither of you know anything about the Crusades. The Crusades were a reconquest, recovering lost Christian lands that had been taken by muslims. As for the atrocities that katmeowgrrr speaks of, all medieval armies did those things, not just Crusaders.
|
|
Constantine XI
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 31-Mar-2006 at 18:49 |
The Crusades were a channelling of the rising military power of Western
Europe into a form which could exceed the traditional boundaries of
Western Christendom. Motivated by Papal desire for authority, Italian
desire for trade and naval dominance, Byzantine desire for assistance,
petty nobility's desire for land and power as much as it was motived by
idealism.
It took existing military operations and transformed them into an
unpragmatic and often fanatically violent form. Apart from opening up
some trade and achieving a few token victories, it achieved almost
nothing of value. Before long the ideals of the Crusading movement were
twisted and betrayed nearly every group they were designed to benefit.
The accelerated the decline of Byzantium, fervently attacked other
Christians, added a brutish fanaticism to local Christian warfare and
ultimately the Crusades failed in their objective of holding Palestine.
Only the First and Frederick II's Crusades can be said to have achieved
their objectives satisfactorily, the rest were utter failures at best.
|
|
R_AK47
Baron
Joined: 25-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 468
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 31-Mar-2006 at 19:30 |
The 3rd Crusade was not a failure. While Jerusalem was not recovered, large portions of the Kingdom of Jerusalem/Acre where recovered by King Richard Lionheart. Richard also forced Saladin (who predictably lost every single battle he fought against Richard) to a peace treaty that allowed Christians to worship at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher.
|
|
Constantine XI
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 31-Mar-2006 at 19:42 |
Originally posted by R_AK47
The 3rd Crusade was not a failure. While Jerusalem
was not recovered, large portions of the Kingdom of Jerusalem/Acre
where recovered by King Richard Lionheart. Richard also forced
Saladin (who predictably lost every single battle he fought against
Richard) to a peace treaty that allowed Christians to worship at the
Church of the Holy Sepulcher. |
Saladin had already agreed to allow Christians to worship there after
he retook this city. Isn't it rather obvious that if Saladin doesn't
convert the Holy Sepulchre into a mosque, that he intends for it to be
used by Christians as a church anyway? Saladin's chivalry is well
documented, while he also had a concern for local Christians and so
considered it proper that they be allowed to continue using the
building. The right to worship clause in the treaty was simply
Richard's way of coming out of negotiations with something to show for
it, but in reality he had secured nothing of value in the treaty itself
that wasn't already in place.
As to the "success" of the Crusade, let's ask ourselves what the
objective of Crusade III was. To recapture Jerusalem and the Holy Land
is the answer. Was the objective completed? No. It could have been, the
Christian force was originally sizable enough to retake Jerusalem had
they shown total solidarity. But Richards, in one of his arrogant
rages, tore down the royal standard of the Austrian Duke after the
capture of Acre. Richard's brutishness and lack of tact alientated the
other Crusader royals, ensuring their departure and the inability to
complete the Crusade's objective.
The capture of a few coastal cities was a small achievement which
benefitted the Italian traders more than the Crusader movement. Control
of the holy sites was what was important to the Crusaders, they didn't
achieve that under Richard. On the other hand, Richard managed to sell
out on the ideals of the Crusade by attacking Cyprus and turning it
into a Latin territory. That the island was Christian didn't seem to
bother him. Exemplifying crusader ideals one minute, betraying
them the next. The Third Crusade failed in both its objectives and in
its ideals.
Also important to revise is that Richard didn't force Saladin to the
negotiations. Saladin had all the time in the world, each day which
passed saw more Crusaders wander home and saw the situation for
Richard's kingdom at home get worse and worse as Philip II and John
Lackland tore apart the Kingdom of England. Richard needed that treaty
far more than Saladin, hence why the treaty saw only token concessions
given to the Christians and no real gains.
Edited by Constantine XI
|
|
My View
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 31-Mar-2006 at 19:51 |
Originally posted by katmeowgrrr
waht is your vuiew. do you think what they clame is a holey war or just a diffrence in religon and the wanting of land to rule over ps im sorry for any spelling that is not right
|
All wars are fought for the following 3 things:
1}Land
2}Money
3}Women
PS:In no particular order.
|
|
ArmenianSurvival
Chieftain
Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1460
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 31-Mar-2006 at 19:53 |
I think its rather simple: Europe, at this time, was the backwater
of the world compared to Islamic and Far Eastern lands (the same reason
that Europeans later wanted to find a direct route to India, because
thats where all the wealth was). For anyone that actually believes that
this was an attempt to recover "holy sites", you are sorely mistaken.
Every war is fought for economic benefit. Ideologies and false dogmas
are just one way of convincing otherwise indifferent people to join the
cause, in order to reinforce their insecure perception of the world.
The crusades and the need to "recover holy sites" is the same thing as
todays western world trying to "spread democracy" and "free trade". In
the days of colonialism, it was these same western nations that
advocated protectionism and autocratic rule. Did they gain consciounces
all of a sudden? No. Our excuses for global domination always change.
The crusades are no different.
|
Mass Murderers Agree: Gun Control Works!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Resistance
Քիչ ենք բայց Հայ ենք։
|
|
R_AK47
Baron
Joined: 25-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 468
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 31-Mar-2006 at 20:05 |
Actually, Saladin was originally planning on closing or demolishing the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. He was convinced by others not to do it, because they feared crusader retaliation. It had little to do with chivalry (another Saladin myth). I agree that Richard alienated the other crusaders (a mistake) which is why he did not have as great a victory as he could have.
|
|
Salah Al Din
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 31-Mar-2006 at 20:08 |
Originally posted by R_AK47
Actually, Saladin was originally planning on closing or demolishing the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. He was convinced by others not to do it, because they feared crusader retaliation. It had little to do with chivalry (another Saladin myth). I agree that Richard alienated the other crusaders (a mistake) which is why he did not have as great a victory as he could have. |
What I know about Salah Al Din is that he was a great fighter.An ethnic Kurd.
Edited by Guest
|
|
R_AK47
Baron
Joined: 25-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 468
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 31-Mar-2006 at 20:15 |
This is getting off topic and there is actually a thread in the medieval forum that discusses the Saladin/Richard debate. Richard was actually a far better fighter than Saladin. How many accounts of personal bravery on the battlefield are there about Saladin? None, he was not brave or skilled enough for any to have been written. In fact, he was nearly killed by crusader King Baldwin IV during a battle in which Saladin's forces greatly outnumbered (they always did) Baldwin's forces.
|
|
Sorry
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 31-Mar-2006 at 20:17 |
Originally posted by R_AK47
This is getting off topic and there is actually a thread in the medieval forum that discusses the Saladin/Richard debate. Richard was actually a far better fighter than Saladin. How many accounts of personal bravery on the battlefield are there about Saladin? None, he was not brave or skilled enough for any to have been written. In fact, he was nearly killed by crusader King Baldwin IV during a battle in which Saladin's forces greatly outnumbered (they always did) Baldwin's forces. |
Sorry R_AK47 I can't participate in that debate coz I made a new ID today n it has been disabled.If I make another one it may be diabled too in an hour or so.I'm just allowed IN as a Guest.
|
|
Constantine XI
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 31-Mar-2006 at 20:17 |
Originally posted by R_AK47
Actually, Saladin was originally planning on closing or
demolishing the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. He was convinced by
others not to do it, because they feared crusader retaliation. It
had little to do with chivalry (another Saladin myth). I agree
that Richard alienated the other crusaders (a mistake) which is why he
did not have as great a victory as he could have. |
Can you find me a document where it states that Saladin intended to do
that? I actually have a hard copy of the document infront of me which
states the dialogue between Saladin and Balian of Ibelin, if that is
the one you were referring to. In it Saladin does not state that he
will destroy the church, only that he intended on wiping out the Latin
Christians ( he distinguished between Latin Christians, who he
regarded as the enemy, and native Eastern Christians who were simply
his new subjects). As we both know Balian's threats dissuaded Saladin
from carrying out the massacre. Earlier in the same document there are
ample examples of Saladin's chivalry, such as when he personally paid a
ransom for a distressed Frankish woman whose baby had been kidnapped by
bandits. When Richard's horse was killed under him in one battle,
Saladin had his grooms lead out his personal charger for Richard to
use. Now if that isn't chivalry I don't know what is.
|
|
STUPID!
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 31-Mar-2006 at 20:35 |
Originally posted by Constantine XI
Originally posted by R_AK47
Actually, Saladin was originally planning on closing or demolishing the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. He was convinced by others not to do it, because they feared crusader retaliation. It had little to do with chivalry (another Saladin myth). I agree that Richard alienated the other crusaders (a mistake) which is why he did not have as great a victory as he could have. |
Can you find me a document where it states that Saladin intended to do that? I actually have a hard copy of the document infront of me which states the dialogue between Saladin and Balian of Ibelin, if that is the one you were referring to. In it Saladin does not state that he will destroy the church, only that he intended on wiping out the Latin Christians ( he distinguished between Latin Christians, who he regarded as the enemy, and native Eastern Christians who were simply his new subjects). As we both know Balian's threats dissuaded Saladin from carrying out the massacre. Earlier in the same document there are ample examples of Saladin's chivalry, such as when he personally paid a ransom for a distressed Frankish woman whose baby had been kidnapped by bandits. When Richard's horse was killed under him in one battle, Saladin had his grooms lead out his personal charger for Richard to use. Now if that isn't chivalry I don't know what is.
|
Happy All Fools day Constantine...................................
I have to go now......
|
|
R_AK47
Baron
Joined: 25-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 468
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 31-Mar-2006 at 20:35 |
Originally posted by Sorry
Originally posted by R_AK47
This is getting off topic and there is actually a thread in the medieval forum that discusses the Saladin/Richard debate. Richard was actually a far better fighter than Saladin. How many accounts of personal bravery on the battlefield are there about Saladin? None, he was not brave or skilled enough for any to have been written. In fact, he was nearly killed by crusader King Baldwin IV during a battle in which Saladin's forces greatly outnumbered (they always did) Baldwin's forces. |
Sorry R_AK47 I can't participate in that debate coz I made a new ID today n it has been disabled.If I make another one it may be diabled too in an hour or so.I'm just allowed IN as a Guest.
|
You must be Jhangora, the infamous banned one that is spoken of on these forums.
|
|
Constantine XI
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 31-Mar-2006 at 20:37 |
Happy April Fools Day, Jhangora . I give you credit for persistance.
|
|
Constantine XI
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 31-Mar-2006 at 20:42 |
Originally posted by Someone in South Korea
R_AK47 wrote:
Actually,
Saladin was originally planning on closing or demolishing the Church of
the Holy Sepulcher. He was convinced by others not to do it, because
they feared crusader retaliation. It had little to do with chivalry
(another Saladin myth). I agree that Richard alienated the other
crusaders (a mistake) which is why he did not have as great a victory
as he could have. |
|
What I know about Salah Al Din is that he was a great fighter.An ethnic Kurd. |
Saladin was a Kurd, but his contemporaries regarded him as being one
of the less bombastic and battle thirsty of the Islamic leaders who set
out from Syria to subjugate Egypt. Saladin was a man who was moderate,
diplomatic, a good organiser and very cultured. Richard was the exact
opposite, 6ft 4 in a time of history when most men were an average of
5ft 3 in height, personally brave, an inspiring leader of men,
physically magnificent and easily enraged.
Saladin did have to ward off many assassination attempts and lead
armies into the field often, but in terms of pure martial prowess
Richard stands out more.
|
|
shurite7
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 31-Mar-2006 at 22:09 |
[QUOTE=R_AK47]After reading both of you guy's posts, I'm convinced that neither of you know anything about the Crusades.
You are mistaken in your comment. I have been studing the crusades along with the Mongol invasions for several years and have become quite knowledgable. The original question is quite complex and has no right or wrong answer, just an opinionated one.
I simply quoted a short passage made by a professor who wrote several books regarding the crusades. I gave no opinion or view.
Yes you are correct in the fact that all medieval armies, not just the Europeans, conducted acts of savagery, butchering and other horrible atrocitties. Those same acts have been going of for centuries, before and after the crusades, even today.
|
|
Jhangora
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Apr-2006 at 06:33 |
Originally posted by Constantine XI
Happy April Fools Day, Jhangora . I give you credit for persistance. |
Thanx Constantine.Would you mind making a post or two here---------------->http://www.allempires.com/forum/foru m_posts.asp?TID=10512&PN=1
PSorry admin as a whole.I have always disliked authority.What do I have to get in?Kill myself & be born again.No I won't do that,I'm a Hindu but not sure about the existence of soul.
|
|