The Crusades- Share your view

i have started this topic so we can discuss all aspects of the crusades which i have recently begun taking a large interest in and look forward to any inputs

From what i have read the crusader states never truly got on, their were always feuds, power struggles and disagreements such as Raymond of Tripoli and his secret agreement with saladin that led to the disaster at the springs of cresson.

do you think the final fall of outremer was due to a lack of enthusiasm from people in europe to go on crusade since the last few outposts all fell within a relatively short space of time to the mamluks, perhaps it was inevitable that it would fall as it relied on increasing aid from europe, the muslims were united while Christendom for the most part wasn't.

Dear DreamWeaver and historynut..!

I will respond to this question, but not here! It seems that since I follow a course not navigated by most of the powers in charge here, that I have to post in a safe or segregated area.

But, mostly I will concern those posts to the last few crusades, since they have the most important place in my view!

If you are interested, you will soon be able to view or read my intentions on the "alternative history" portion of this site!

The address is; http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=28217

Which starts at the basic level, I.e., "the Sea peoples!" You must know that the last few crusades are invasions by crusaders "from / of the Sea!"
Regards,

Edited by opuslola - 04-May-2010 at 14:13

Good post eaglecap! Yes, the topic is too wide, seperated by hundreds of years,and dozens of popes and kings, etc.!

Restriction would be nice!

Having read the web-site shown by "historynut91", I have certain reservations about these words; "Even with smart technologies, the United States has killed far more innocents in our wars than the Crusaders ever could. But no one would seriously argue that the purpose of American wars is to kill women and children."

It seems that "smart technologies" only existed within the last 20 or so years, even less? And, it is specific that the site mentioned only the United States! So, even with the mentions in crusader history of the massacre of entire cities men, women and children, over a period of hundreds of years, the author of the site has concluded that the United States has in less than 20 years "killed far more innocents in our wars than the Crusaders ever could.!"

I would classify those words as pejorative and inflamatory!

I certainly do not think the possession of "smart technology" has killed more "innocents" than the hundreds of years of crusading did!

Just how many "innocents" have been killed in the last 20 years by "smart technology?" A technology designed to do just the opposite!

It seems the author(s) are but another group of American haters!

But, it seems this is to be expected!

But, of course the writers of the site, obviously included the world wars and other wars that the USA has been involved with, where the number of "innocent deaths" are merely the result of greater populations and better death dealing weapons!

If the crusaders had similar weapons, the war in the Levant would have been over in close order! Infidels were expected to die! And, I don't think that any of the crusaders would have had the least worry about killing as many of these "innocent" people as possible!

Edited by opuslola - 04-May-2010 at 15:28

Originally posted by eaglecap

I am listening to "God Wills it" by Dr. Madden and I agree with the other user and I do not agree with all he says. I am also reading The First Crusade: The Chronicle of Fulcher of Chartres and other source material. Edited and with an intro from Edward Peters. It is very interesting reading the sermon given by Pope Urban II at the council of Clermont and the different versions.



[/QUOTE]






HS Fink's translation of Fulcher of Chartres is a better one, I would recommend that.

The Speech given at Clermont by Urban in November 1095 is something of a mystery. All the accounts which record the speech given were all written after the success of the First Crusade. Thus begins the great debate on how much is recorded via hindsight in the light of such an amazing success. Was Jerusalem the original intended target, how big a role did it play, what were Urban's original intentions? All these come into question as a result.

Originally posted by DreamWeaver Originally posted by eaglecap I am listening to "God Wills it" by Dr. Madden and I agree with the other user and I do not agree with all he says. I am also reading The First Crusade: The Chronicle of Fulcher of Chartres and other source material. Edited and with an intro from Edward Peters. It is very interesting reading the sermon given by Pope Urban II at the council of Clermont and the different versions.

HS Fink's translation of Fulcher of Chartres is a better one, I would recommend that. The Speech given at Clermont by Urban in November 1095 is something of a mystery. All the accounts which record the speech given were all written after the success of the First Crusade. Thus begins the great debate on how much is recorded via hindsight in the light of such an amazing success. Was Jerusalem the original intended target, how big a role did it play, what were Urban's original intentions? All these come into question as a result.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the source I will look into picking it up and thanks for the latter info! I was aware of this but thank you for sharing.

Fink's translation of Fulcher of Chartres
Is it still in print?

Yes it is still in print.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Fink+Fulcher+Chartres&x=0&y=0


Thomas Asridges book on the First Crusade is alright as is John France's Victory in the East if you want to go down a militaty route of understanding. J. Phillips released a book on the Second Crusade which is again fairly good. Queller's work on the 4th Crusade still remains the best.

DreamWeaver wrote;

"For example I have been given estimates by charities and organisations like Amnesty International et al. that 600,000 Iraqis have died since 1991 as a result of 2 wars."

Yeah, I have also heard such figures! So, just how many of those casualities were members of Iraq's army and Air Force? Just how many of them were killed by their own commanders when they ran? Just how many of them died after looting Kuwait? Just how many of them died just watching "Shock and awe?", chuckle!

But, in real figures, the fact is that "no one knows?" Especially when it come to non-combatants!

Just how many Iraqui non-combatants have been killed by their "cousins?", in the religous warfare that still continues?

Certainly if the Iran / Irag war is of any meaning, it shows that death to anyone by either the forces of Iraq or Iran, is not worth keeping track of! The attitude of both of these combatants was "kill them all!"

I really doubt that US and Coalittion forces had the same attitude?

But, perhaps you have proof that I am wrong?

Regards,