You can't compare medieval people to modern norms. In my opinion the main questions are:

1) Were the crusaders worse than any army of that age?

2) Were the christian way of warfare crueler than the muslim's?

Well Saladin and his Army still way better than any crusading army. I don't see to where are you heading to saying he is a good man only. SHOW me what his army did? period.

Last, do you know stating tailored piece of information is as bad as deceiving? Maybe you didn't mean to do so. Anyhow, lemme enlighten you. When Muslim troops routed the Byzantines on Upon this, the Byzantine emperor fled and the population fled of Amorium too, yet there was still a part of his army in Amorium.

The Muslim troops entered Angora and then headed for Amorium, which they reached ten days later and laid siege to.

The blockade started. The Byzantine emperor sent a messenger to the caliph apologizing for the ruin his army had caused in his earlier invasion of upper syria  lands and pledged that he would build the city of Zibatra that he had demolished and release the Muslim captives. But the caliph refused to come to terms and did not allow the messenger to return before the Muslims’ had conquered Amorium.

Therefore my dearest friend, Army soldiers are not civilians, and destroying the captured city is a retaliation to destorying Zibatra except, they didn't had to kill inhabitants as the Byzantines did.

Now, I won't go over your other examples. I would actually ask you this time to provide a lovely nice link about them for us to read. I don't have time to complete half told stories.

Yes, in different words, the crusaders army were worst than Salahdin's army and all other Muslim armies during the defense time. Other posts explained why in details.

Still talking about crusade, no doubt that crusade ,representing christians, they were not only uncivilized and savage but they have contributed nothing even to their fellow christian. For more details, I advice the PBS's (an American non-profit TV station of education) produced 3 hours movie "Islam-Empire of Faith" http://www.shoppbs.org/product/index.jsp?productId=1822722#related - http://www.shoppbs.org/product/index.jsp?productId=1822722#r elated

It is a well known fact that Saladin continued a policy of raiding and invasion. And why only focus on Saladin, are you afraid to venture beyond one tiny time period and one charismatic individual because it might confirm my point that both sides did horrific things to one another in war? The more you insist on confining the discussion to one individual, the more this seems to be the case.

Actually you are once again incorrect, you failed to prove they didn't kill the citizens of the city, which they infact did. They even took 40 of the city's most distinguished citizens back to Iraq and then executed them when they refused to convert to Islam. The Orthodox Church actually commemorates this atrocity with the Feast of the Fourty Martyrs, an especially solemn ceremony in Byzantine times. Hardly what you would call civilized, it was barbaric plain and simple and proves my point that armies in this period were as bad as eachother. You also failed to refute my other examples, which just vindicates my point. Also, don't accuse me of stating tailored information, I provided valid examples which you responded to be leaving out critical information, which is hypocritical. I keep refuting your incorrect statements, which you respond to by trumping up a triviality which has less and less to do with the topic, which I am then forced to correct.

I should also point out I am in no way trying to vindicate what the Crusaders did, as I have stated in other threads I believe them to be a pack of quite bloodthirsty men with wordly amibitions driving many of them. I just refuse to sit back and let someone try and say that their enemies were faultless, or gloss over their atrocities by shoving one charismatic individual in my face to distract attention.

Treatment of Dhimmis

Sheikh-al-Islam Ibn Taimiyah Liberated Jews and Christians

 Its ridiculous to condemn the christian west of being barbaric and uncivilised when the muslim east was quite obviously just as bad. The medieval age is a time of mass executions, tortures, persecution, and were cities are sacked mercilessly.

 John Julius Norwich : The apogee p49 siege of Amorium.

 "Even then the garrison fought on courageously; but at last its commander sent out three of his officers with the local bishop, offering to deliver up the city in return for the promise of safe conduct to all who wished to leave. Mutasim refused, insisting on unconditional surrender."

 "Many of the inhabitants took refuge in a large church, in which they were promptly burned alive by the conquerors; others, taken captive and led off into slavery, were slaugtered when the army's water supply ran low, or were left to die of thirst in the desert."

 Seems to me the muslims wernt all that civilised after all, I know this flies in the face of centuries of propaganda, but you'll have to get over it.

  "Well Saladin and his Army still way better than any crusading army. I don't see to where are you heading to saying he is a good man only. SHOW me what his army did? period."

 It should be pointed out that Richard the Lionheart defeated Saladin at Arsuf and then outside Jaffa. So please learn something about history before you make yourself look even more silly.

Actually they weren't defending their homeland. they were defending the territory conquered by the Arabs and subsequently taken over by Turkish (Kurdish?) tribes.

Also a lot maybe most of the Crusaders weren't on the whole 'crazed religious fanatics' but pretty materialist seekers after feudal-style estates.

The most sensible and progressive guys involved with the crusades were Frederick II and Malek-el-Khamil the sultan of Egypt, who did a deal under which Frederick II effectively bought the Kingdom of Jerusalem from Malek. (Treaty of Jaffa, 1229).

This is true and written by byzantine historian Anna Komnen that Bohemond has roasted Turkish dead bodies at front of peoples. Its also written that having bath and wash their bodies with Turkish bloods would bless their sins!!!!!!!!
___________________________________________________

Persons of every age, rank, and degree, took the cross. When men wanted faith, women left them in disgust and followed the holy banner, carrying infants in their arms. Sometimes a rustic shod his oxen like horses, and placed his whole family in a cart. Whenever a castle was sighted the poor creatures inquired if it was Jerusalem. Monks threw off their gowns and enrolled themselves as warriors. "Women appeared in arms in the midst of warriors," says Michaud, "prostitution not being forgotten among the austerities of penance." [180:2] "The moral fabric of Europe," says Mills, "was convulsed; the relations and charities of life were broken; society appeared to be dissolved." [180:3]

Walter the penniless, a gentleman of Burgundy, whose poverty was more remarkable than his military abilities, led the first body, which consisted of twenty thousand foot, and only eight horsemen. [180:4] They swept through Hungary and entered Bulgaria, where they were regarded as so many savage invaders, and refused supplies. Walter's mob turned their arms against the unfriendly Christians, but they were miserably beaten. Hundreds of them fled into a church, trusting that the Bulgarians would not spill blood in the house of God. The sanctity of the place was so far respected, but the edifice was set on fire, and many perished in the flames, while others were killed in leaping from the roof. Walter escaped with a few associates, and found refuge at Constantinople. [180:5]

Peter the Hermit led the second host of forty thousand [180:6] men, women and children, of all nations and languages. Arriving at Malleville they avenged their precursors by assaulting the town, slaying seven thousand of the inhabitants, and abandoning themselves to "every species of grossness and libertinism." According to Mills "virgin modesty was no protection," and "conjugal virtue no safeguard" [181:7] against these sanctified soldiers of the cross. King Carloman marched an army against them, and they fled. Many were drowned in the Save, on the other side of which the survivors were attacked by a large body of Turcomans. The French suffered heavily, but the Germans and Lorrainers avenged them; and Peter offered as a bloody sacrifice to God the few prisoners who remained after the battle.

Bulgaria was a desert before Peter's horde. The duke had gone to the fortified town of Nyssa, and the inhabitants had retreated into the forests. A band of Germans set fire to some houses near Nyssa, and the people rushed upon the rear of the Crusaders, avenging their wrongs with massacre and plunder. In turn the city was assaulted, but the Crusaders were repulsed with a loss of ten thousand. Peter lost heart and burst into tears, but some robuster lieutenants collected his scattered followers; and destitute of arms and money, and unable to procure provisions, they marched in a famishing state to Philipopolis, where Peter's eloquence obtained them assistance. Thence they marched to Constantinople, but the emperor prudently refused them admission, and ordered them to remain in Greece. He supplied them with provisions, and as soon as they recovered strength they "repaid his generosity by deeds of flagitiousness on his people. Palaces and churches were plundered to afford them means of intoxication and excess." [181:8] Alexius shipped them across the Bosphorus, where they recommenced their excesses. Michaud says that they "committed crimes which made nature shudder." [181:9] Peter lost all control over them, and returned to Constantinople. The French were distinguished for ferocity. They killed children at the breast, scattered their limbs in the air, and carried their ravages to the very walls of Nice. They took the castle of Xerigord, and slaughtered the Turkish garrison. But the Sultan attacked them with fifteen thousand men. Their leader, Reginald, with some companions, embraced Islamism. The rest persuaded Walter the Penniless to lead them, and soon met with the reward of their crimes. The Turks exterminated them, and made a pyramid of their bones

 Does this vendetta against the crusaders know no bounds?

 The Arabs go around conquering like mad in the name of their god and its ok, the Crusaders come along and conquer a strip of territory and they are savages....

 Sounds suspiciously like double-standards to me, the Arabs and then Muslims as a whole conquered territory like it was no ones business for centuries, undoubtedly slaughtering many a person along the way and frequently invaded the territory of others for the sake of conquest.

 How is this so different to what the Crusaders did? whereas the Arab and muslim conquests recieve no criticism, the Crusaders for taking what was only a thin strip of territory recieves nothing but criticism.

Heraclius:

You seem angry enough, so why not start a thread on the Crimes of Mohammedans in exterminating Christianity and pagan religion in North Africa; conducting the widespread slave trade in all their territories; overthrowing established governments and societies from Spain to India and operating as pirate states in the mediterranean for a couple of hundred years.

Oh, and while we are at it, how about that battle of Tours.....Invading a land that is the origin of a lot of the world's best wines by a bunch of non alcohol drinkers.  THAT took some nerve! 

Here we go again, John Julius Norwich

And who ever was talking if Saladin was winning or losing. I asked for for examples of Saladin's army committing savage acts in retaliation. Are you sure you are in the right thread?

Syracuse

Sorry, I don't know what do you mean by well known. As I always say,Saladin fought the Christian kingdoms in the holy land to return them back. That is another issue, we are focusing here on the code of conduct for Wars.

Why don't I venture beyond Saladin and crusade?

Aren't we already doing so? or what is that all deviations we had? Can you focus please on  my question. The thread is basically Crusaders were an army of savage soldiers killing Muslims, Jews and Christians! Unless you think they killed pagans instead!  Any objection to this? Later, after confessions, we can go over excuses to justify their acts. Also, take your time listing resources. This help us to go back and read in details instead of one side of the picture.

Arabs went conquering like mad, exterminating pagans and christians from northern Africa.

Our topic is code of war conduct, not if you don't like your land to be conquered or not. Also, that was a gradual slow conversion. Egypt didn't become Muslim except after 400 years from their conquest. If we wanted a sudden conversion we could have adopted the crusade methods of just depopulating the area of their previous inhabitant and bring our people instead as it happened in Jerusalem and many other Palestinian cities. Do you understand now why we have Kurdish and Turkish tribes there who came with Saladin after the re-conquest? Because merciful crusaders depopulated the place.

Finally, a question to deviate us more away from the topic, if Muslims were as much as savage as Crusaders that time, can anyone explain why do we have Christian in the holy land since 2000 years? Spain under the treaty of Granada of 1492, couldn't stand fullfilling its requirement more than 1611 when all Muslims of Spain had to convert of leave. Now, I creatd more deviations from the topic

Styrbiorn, Please check the information you have. Saladin did not excute the prisnors of Hattin. To be more precise, he executed Rynald and his knights for their previous oath-break attacking Muslim pilgrimage caravans and slaughtering them despite a treaty signed already to allow them passage and ammunity.

Check: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hattin - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hattin

Saladin was not respected only for being brave, but a noble person, merciful, and who forced his army to go with the war code of conduct. In fact, after conquering Jerusalem, he prevented Muslims from revenging for the massacre of their relatives and fathers 99 yeas ago.

Now, regarding Acre, here is something you can read too from Wikipedia again, the fastest to find but I can supply those interested with information from books beside the online one:

On August 11 Saladin delivered the first of the three planned payments and prisoner exchanges, but Richard rejected this because certain Christian nobles were not included. The exchange was broken off and further negotiations were unsuccessful. On August 20, Richard determined that Saladin had not kept his word, and had 2700 of the Muslim prisoners from the garrison of Acre killed, including women and children. The Muslims fought back in an attempt to prevent this, but they were defeated. On August 22 Richard and his army left the city, now fully under crusader control

You mean just like the Crusaders fought to bring the Holy Land back into the sphere of Western civilization's influence? As for conduct of the wars I have already clearly established that both sides committed atrocities, so refrain from adopting such a sanctimonious attitude. Failing to know that Muslims killed innocent people and sacked cities just goes to show how limited your understanding of warfare was during the period.

Originally posted by çok geç Here we go again, John Julius Norwich

 He speaks infinitely more sense than you do im afraid, you may learn something from him though I wouldnt bet on it.

 Pikeshot.

 Its common knowledge already, cok gec is far to biased that if I could bring him in a time machine back and show him he still wouldnt believe me, so  I wont waste my time creating a thread about it. 

 His warped fantasy of muslims before during and after the medieval period is much more attractive than the reality I suspect  a cure for hard-headedness? ive yet to find one

I think its a very valid point to bring up the original Muslim expansion to compare with the crusades.  People often concentrate on the good rather than the bad and what the Muslims did especially to Africa was major crimes that are overlooked. 

But we also must remember, who started the Crusades?  The Crusaders did.  That was was started by their aggression and thus they should not be treated favorably.  It would be like blaming hte Soviet Union for Germany invading it.  Although that is a good analogy, Soviets and Germany, both were pretty evil, though one was certianly the aggressor, and that sums up the crusades quite well i think.

 I agree Constantine, nobody as far as im aware  has tried to say the Crusaders were anything other than what history shows them to be.

 Criticising one side does not mean you support the other, its just very clear the Crusaders are unfairly criticised whilst there enemies recieve little to no criticism.

 Propaganda has ensured that the Muslims are depicted as peaceful, progressive good guys, whilst the west as a whole is depicted as backward semi-barbaric savages with a penchant for eating human flesh.

 Its asburd and clearly total crap to hold such a biased view when you look at the acts of the Muslims before during and after the medieval period.

Nope, you still miss the point. The point is to state evidance as much as possible for us to return back and reveiew them instead of telling tales and stories. I tried my best to site any new information I bring. Please take the time too to do the same, at least for some of the controversial points, as Saladin massacring war prisoners after Hattin for no reason.

And yes, Salahdin was perceived to break the deal by not surrendering knights with the other prisoners. That is clear and stated in my copy-paste version. The point is, The Lion Heart killing 2700 mostly women and children. I guess it explains the concept of inferiority in the western mind that time, where a knight person can worth tens of peasants and civilans. Got it?  Aslo my copy-paste version came with a link to Wekipedia, which is unknown to be biased, though it is information is derived from other books you can site them down on the page.

And no, saying Crusaders were a punch of dogs and savages does not mean Western civilization is inferior, except at that time by Western scholars themselves. So no need to feel defensive when you hear that Crusaders are savage. It is not even a new information to absorb.

P.S: Sorry that we were able to get the Leventine and North Africa to be Musilm without the need of mass converstion and exiling those who don't want to .

cok gec:

That is ok.  Spain is sorry about exiling the Moors and Moriscos (maybe). 

 I find it odd, your obviously a big fan of the Huns, arguely the most barbaric people to have come before the Mongols  how can you glorify the Huns even though they were as bad if not a great deal worse than the Crusaders? and yet slaughter the Crusaders relentlessly?

 It is double-standards again.

Heraclius:

Give it up.....you are expecting logic and objectivity from bigots and jackasses.  There are a lot of people on the web who just get off twisting others around.  

Hmmm, I am not sure about the Huns, but definitely the Mongol Invasion before they settled down and adopted the religion and customs of the conquered land, was much more savage than the crusade. This analysis is derived when it comes to the crimes committed by both side as per number and magnitude.

Originally posted by Heraclius Originally posted by çok geç Here we go again, John Julius Norwich  He speaks infinitely more sense than you do im afraid, you may learn something from him though I wouldnt bet on it.

So what is he? Your new prophet?. Just give me another source and leave the man in peace. Very interesting the tendencies to depend on him solely. Kinda make you wonder if he is the new savor of Crusader's image. And don't worry, I am looking for his book too.

 Tell me, since when has it been a crime to use a reliable source to back up your argument? just because this particular source tears your argument to pieces is your problem not mine.

 great_hunnic_empire

 The Mongols and Huns conquered territory and when on occasion a city resisted annihilated its population or tortured its inhabitants more so the Mongols, even though the Mongols often spared people they believed to be useful to them this could not of been much comfort to the average man woman or child who was then butchered.

 Countless millions were killed in the Mongol conquests you dont create an empire that big unless the reprisels for defiance are savage and merciless. The Mongol practise of making an example of one luckless city to scare others into surrender to ensure peace clearly worked wonders, but again little comfort to the people who were massacred to make that example.

 The huns were little if any better, clearly the records are written by the enemies of the Huns and so have more than a little bias in it, but its quite clear the Huns were not only savage in battle and no better if you compare them to the Crusaders centuries later.

 You cant criticise the Crusaders for their comparably tiny offences without critising the Huns and Mongols who were often much worse. Shouldnt really need me to tell you that one. This "great" hunnic empire was built on the blood of many people to you know.

 Pikeshot. Your right.

 But I have to believe there is hope for these people  perhaps im to patient, but I shall give them one more chance to make sense and drop the bias before my patience finally gives out. Cant say I didnt try.

Yeah, I know it is great to switch the argument toward fillers such as: My argument is better than yours, I teared you down, no hope of those peoples...etc   Last time I heard those phrases were in my junior high school .  As I said, I'm looking forward getting that book too, meanwhile, expand your horizon beyond that book too my friend.

Now, I really feel everybody here got defensive for labeling the crusades "savages". Well, the statement per se is not wrong? is it? Prove me wrong? Oh yeah! Musilms, Muslims, those people killed us too. Well, just in theory let us say the Muslim Army of Coco Loco attacked the Christian  town of Hahah-MeMe and they eat them alive! Question: Were the Crusades savage? Unfortunately still Yes. Muslims being worst or better does not change their description away from "savage".

I think I posted enough Western sources to document that Muslims during crusades were way way civilized, but I guess instead of accessing them first, defensive members start collecting tales and stories opposing that concept. Sorry again, I didn't write those sources or made them accepted publically, they are Americans, British, and French resources, go ask them why their ideas differ to yours?

Damn I think Im giving Heraclius a hard time, he is already mad. Wait! I just sounded like him now

 Your criticising me for my choice of a source, there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of this source and the sources the author uses, therefore what grounds can you have to criticise me on my selection? The fact it is one source is irrelevant if the information is accurate, if you can prove otherwise then please do so.

 Has the source I have used not already proven muslim armies were as savage? is not the sack of amorium and the massacre of its population similar to the sacks and slaughter the crusaders were responsible for years later? I believe it has and is. Disagree if you wish but prove me wrong.

 Ive never once made the crusaders out to be anything other than what history shows them to, harsh, brutal and sometimes merciless, my only objection is to the unfair share of criticism the crusades recieve, when if you look up on the times etc they were no worse than anybody else.

 Criticise the crusaders if you want it doesnt bother me aslong as it is fair criticism and it is atleats pointed out that the enemies of the Crusades had would and later did things as bad.

 The medieval age being renowned for its general savagery and barbarism, west and east, christian and muslim. You cant just focus on one part of that, I think you would object if I focused solely on the atrocities the Muslims are responsible for and ignored those by the Christians. Youd be right to aswell.

No one here, with the possible exception of Quetzalcoatl, has tried to argue that many of the Crusaders were not savages. Therefore there is no need to argue a point everyone has already accepted.

Well actually you posted sources on Saladin. You basically condensed the Crusades down to the actions of one particular individual in an effort to alleviate any blame that Saladin's followers, successors and predecessors are liable for. So you cannot exonerate an entire side in a war by limiting the scope of your analysis to one individual.

Already sadistic lunatics such as Baybars have been mentioned, so deeply entrenched in cruelty was he that he actually ended up dying after accidently drinking a drink he poisoned to kill off one of his political enemies. This is leaving aside the numerous excesses he committed. If you expand your scope beyond Saladin and be prepared to examine the conduct of the Crusaders' enemies during other time periods apart from Saladin's lifetime you will find plenty of examples of atrocities (you have been provided with numerous examples already).

Go back my friend to previous posts. I already posted a credible source that conflicted with yours. The question would be which one is more credible? that Im working on and I'm not a hardcore defensive over my sources. I just said share with me the expansion of your horizon. Unless you like to stick with that book regardless.

I already talked about that specific story, Please go back to previous posts.

Are we talking a comparison of their opponent on the same time line? If it is? Let us build a chart comparing between Muslims aggression and Crusade aggression from the start of the crusade to the end of the crusade and then we will see if Crusade were better, at average, or below the accepted standard of that time. That is easier than going back and forth from 635 AD to 2005 AD.

I thought we are criticizing the crusades, what need do we have to bring up the Mongols, Romans, and Abbasids? If I criticize you Heraclius, would you expect me to criticize your neighbor too so you can be happy?

Well, if you decided to open a thread about the atrocities commited by Muslims conquering for example Egypt, would you like people to start listings of Christian massacres to Muslims in the Byzentine raids of the northern borders of the Abbasid empires?

No, you would prefer to hear opponents of the ideas of Muslims massacres in Egypt and their evidance, and supporters of those massacres occurance and their evidance. This way you learn. Otherwise, why do we have a specific topic for our thread?

P.S: to those who started listing massacres done for military purposes and way beyond religious prosecution, shall i start stating the Nazis massacres as them being Christian? that is non-sense.

Mm - just what the forum needed - another "My grandmother beat up your grandmother - your grandmother was ugly, mean, a bad cook and smelled funny and my grandmother was pretty, nice, a great cook and smelled like peppermint - therefore I'm better than you"  thread.

Some of you have tried to raise the level of conversation above this level in spite of the obvious intent of the others.  It can't be done - no one who starts from the "My grandma was better" position will ever admit that their grandmother might also have been a human flesh eating hag. 

Proof texting is not research no matter how you frame it.  Anyone can find loose material to support any argument if they want to.  How about some real research - with sources - both pro and con - that enlightens everyone for a change?

War is horrible and cruel, medieval wars was crueler in some aspect than the modern war. Do not be a succesful medieval ruler If you want to be a philanthopist.

And who started the Franco/British-German wars in 1914 and 1939? The French and the British.

And who started the American War of Independence? The Americans.

And who started the Gulf War of 1991? The anti-Iraq coalition.

Pick your appropriate starting date and you can pick the starter you want.

The Crusades can equally be seen as the continuation of the war that started with the Arab attacks on Palestine in the 7th century.

 Sounds suspiciously like double-standards to me, the Arabs and then Muslims as a whole conquered territory like it was no ones business for centuries, undoubtedly slaughtering many a person along the way and frequently invaded the territory of others for the sake of conquest.

 How is this so different to what the Crusaders did? whereas the Arab and muslim conquests recieve no criticism, the Crusaders for taking what was only a thin strip of territory recieves nothing but criticism.

Well, arabs were neighbor of Persians, turks are conquered Istanbul(Another holy city)  but turks didnt come from middle asia to conquerer Istanbul.  They were already living at just outside  of Istanbul.

what was relation between english men, germans and greeks, arabs of Palestine?

The Crusades can equally be seen as the continuation of the war that started with the Arab attacks on Palestine in the 7th century.

No It cannot be seen. Brits,germans or others have no relation  with Palestine and remember even greeks sometimes saw them as enemy and I dont think they were happy because of crusaders.

Killing was normal, If you kill for ruling a country, It is another think, If you kill a religion It is another thing. what arab expansionism cannot compare what crusader did. At that times regardless of religion,All empires were expansionist, but none  of them called as crusader.

People ask for sources of this article recently so here is the link;

http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~freethought/foote/crimes/contents.htm - http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~freethought/foote/crimes/conten ts.htm

http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~freethought/foote/fbio.htm - http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~freethought/foote/fbio.htm

Thank you

Mortaza:

As I read yours, Arab misdeeds in the 700s to 900s are less relevant than Crusader misdeeds in the 1100s because they occurred too long before, and/or because spreading the Mohammedan faith by the sword eviscerated most non Moslems so there were fewer people to complain or resist.

Rather Machiavellian, even if Machiavelli wasn't Moslem. 

Crimes of Crusaders were many reasons. Landness knights and poor peasants were superfluous and were excluded by feudalism. But in Palestine they had power and could live out their agression. They thought that they made a nice thing. The propaganda before the first Crusade was very succesful in the West. And they were angry because most of them died in hunger or illness during the marching. So, Crusaders thought that massacring the population of Palestine wasn't a fault.

Man has always attempted to justifying war through religion. It hasn't just been the Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc. etc. Mankind has been slaughtering himself since the beginning of recorded history and always tried to justify it one way or the other. Unfortunately, we tend to lump the ones who claim to be something, in with those who are, without really looking at their lifestyle, actions, attitudes, etc. Its not right, but its the way things are.

Let us not repeat things without understanding. We just addressed that point earlier and I asked then, if forced conversion was applied why do we have Christian in Iraq, Syira, Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan...everywhere and Jews living there before the Islamic invasion and still live there. Why didn't they disappear or their history cut, like what happened to Muslims in Spain and Malta?

A. J. Arberry, a well known middle eastern expert and translated the Quran too, said: 

The rapidity of the spread of Islam is a crucial fact of history... The sublime rhetoric of the Qur’an, that inimitable symphony, the very sounds of which move men to tears and ecstasy”. (M. Pickthall, The Meaning of the Glorious Qur’an, p.vii) ...

Christian in Egypt for instance were the majority for hundreds of years before their converstion flipped the coin. Just bear in mind that the fact the conversion of conquered Islamic countries was fast, does not necessary means it was forced. At least you didn't fell in the mistake of saying South East Asians were conquered and convert to Islam by force, because no Muslim Army of any Empire travelled there to conquer them

Doesn't amaze you too that while Muslims being crushed and prosecuted by the Mongols, in less than 40 years, most Mongols will be Muslims?

Connecting aggressive actions to something that started centuries ago is a weakness that I thought only nationalists had.  You seem to be trying to justify the crusades because of what the Arabs did centuries before.  Now if your trying to prove that all the people are the same thats fine, but if your trying to justify the actual crusades that way than thats just sad.  It would be like saying modern day Egypt could declare war on Lebanon to get back her territory from thousands fo years ago.

Man is it ust me or are Europeans uber sensitive about this stuff?  If even th epeaceniks and the commies jump on the crusaders were awesome bandwagon whats next?

Sheikh-al-Islam Ibn Taimiyah Liberated Jews and Christians

Well, I still find Tododai's Point meaningful in this sense too. You cannot use examples of 300 years later to justify what the crusaders did. Now, I am-with my limited knowledge- do not dispute the interpetation of history Kritovoulos has brought. However, the person background can be helpful too. He is first greek, so no wonder his intensive criticism on a specific time of history which is the fall of constantinepole and Mehmet II. Because of the fact that he is a contraversial historian with a lot of Greek national bride in him. Most of his articles will be a nice addition to websites like:

http://koz.vianet.ca/turmoil.htm - http://koz.vianet.ca/turmoil.htm  With a title called "The Ottoman Halocaust"

http://members.fortunecity.com/arthur_kemp/hwr35.htm - http://members.fortunecity.com/arthur_kemp/hwr35.htm  Europa: The History of the White Race

Anyhow, we cannot run through greek history of Ottomans and Ottoman history of greeks. I guarantee you we will have a whole new world of accusation of both sides which is already known to a lot of people the love between Greeks and Turks

Iskender, they dispute him between being just a comtemporary, a historian, and that Mehmet II commissioned a biography of himself in Greek, from a minor Greek official, who is Michael Kritovoulos. So that is a dispute already. It will be little hard to believe Sultan Mehmet II will commission someone who will picture him as a ruthless or savage conquerer. Anyhow, even with that, how can you use a source of a man commissioned to write about someone in a specific way? I guess you just liked to take his words that fits your purpose

Now, I looked everywhere for the quotations you have that Kritovoulos said, especially the second part. I only found so far the largest collection of his quote on this website (which is by the way hardcore anti-ottoman) and no mentionining of the quotations you have said about the killing that occured by order to the civilians.

http://www.stormfront.org/whitehistory/hwr35.htm - http://www.stormfront.org/whitehistory/hwr35.htm

Can you please supply me with the sources you acquired those quotes from?

Finally, this is a record of Mehmet II treatment to the conquered city. Now Kritovolous himself says that he left the city with everything including the names and he transferred a lot of Turks and Muslims to the city to make it a Muslim one. So he didnt' have to slaughter them by the  way. And this article is by the Washington Post, and as you are in the States,  you know its credibility. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/constantinople.htm - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/ch ap1/constantinople.htm

Yet there were not enough Muslim Turks for Constantinople to be a wholly Turkish city. The majority of the empire's population, at this stage, was Christian. Turks were needed throughout the empire, to people Balkan cities and the Anatolian countryside. Accordingly, so the historian Kritovoulos wrote, after 1453 the Sultan gathered people in Constantinople `from all parts of Asia and Europe, and he transferred them with all possible care and speed, people of all nations, but more especially of Christians. So profound was the passion that came into his soul for the city and its peopling, and for bringing it back to its former prosperity.' In the new capital each mahalle or quarter (the basic living unit of the city, with its own places of worship, shops, fountains and night-watchmen) kept, with the name of its inhabitants' city of origin, its special customs, language and style of architecture.

I didnt read all, because I dont want to make angry myself, but again remember after 500 year of turkish rule, All place protected their ethnicity. Just Turks added, after 100 year, No Turk at balkains. And remember most of new country found by Europeans lost their ethnic majority. For Iskender bey, sorry but he was agresive side, he broken an agreement. And Murat 2 was more honourful and more peaciful man than your beloved hero, He even retreat from his throne(one of most powerful throne) twice after an agreement made with christians, twice this agremets was broken by christians. one of them is your honorful hero, Iskender bey.

By the way, This has no relation with crusaders.

I dont understand why someone should honored for crusaders, Special when they attacked and destroyed and sucked easter christianity. I think They are just religious bandids. They  didnt only harmed their enemy but their allies too. Ask cypriot greeks, what they suffered under crusaders.

I dont know what you mean, but I know even after 1500 year, there were christians at the Suidi Arabia(until vahabis exiles to them), heart of Islam. After 900 year 20-30% of anatolia was christian. (Until exiles)

Most of Muslim crimes were last 100 year, If you want to justify crusader, be sure our crimes are more justification. we were resisting christian expansion and colonization at our land. But crusaders resist Islamic  expansion at another one land. 

I'm not trying to justify the Crusades. I was just de-justifying the Arab/Kurdish/Turkish occupation of the area. Neither the Latin 'Franks', not the Arabs, nor the Kurds, not the Turks, nor the Romans, nor the Hellenes, nor the Persians, nor the Egyptians, nor the Assyrians, nor the Babylonians, maybe not even the 'children of Israel' had any right there apart from might of arms.

The Crusades were just one episode in the millenial struggle for control of Palestine. When that particular episode started, or who started any particular episode is irrelevant to anything. The answer to 'who started the Crusades' is the crusaders. The answer to 'who started the Ottoman conquest' is the Ottomans. The answer to 'who started the Arab invasions' is the Arabs.

None of which matters a damn.

And I was making the point that the Crusades were just one episod

Main difference is that expansionist of turk and arab aim is to rule christian place.

crusader aim is to destroy muslims.IIRC, Jarusalem is not only their aim. They attacked bosnians because of their religious sect difference. They attacked other sect and people. They even attacked franks.(I am not sure about last one)This wars were not standart expansionist war, their aim was to destroy people, not to rule land. So You cannot compare them with arab, Turkish or another expansion. Aim had much importance.

I admit I have just glanced at this thread a couple of times, so maybe this has already been addressed:

Has anyone any opinion on whether the Crusades (at least the first one) was a political diversion on the part of the Papacy to heavily engage the lay nobility and princes in remote places where they would be less able to affect the increasing temporal power of the Church, and the clergy's control of wealth (land) in Europe?  Any views?

God, I am such a cynic.

That is exactly what it was.

Got to love the way we all defend our ethnic views on history. We even try to back it up with logic and rationalized thinking of sorts. This form of reasoning is usually the weakest kind. In the end, when it is all said and done, there is no right or wrong but just our own view of how things should be. Attack and counter attack. Thats the way it was and probably will be.

So here's my absurdity on this topic. In the name of religion, pagans worshipped anything from air to idols. Would be Moslems overcame their past pagan ancestry and pushed for monotheism. They became Moslem. Christians, paganism mixed in with montheism, were afronted by a challenger to the true faith and challenged the Moslems. Crusaders, Arabs, Franks, Turks did their deeds and now we are all bitchin about it or glorifying it. So there you are!

1. Most of those people who didnt convert didnt because they had institutions that united them in a single identity, Serbs and Greeks had orthodoxy, which was still a big power in the Ottoman Empire. Albanians were mostly Catholics, and with no united identity under a religion.

Dont persuade yourself, They have no power over the ottomans, I know at cyprus, even ottomans built this religious powers. When conquesting Istanbul, Mehmet 2 let orthodox to live, ottomans didnt let them to live, because they were powerful.

2. We Albanians generally look down on the Ottoman era of our history since our rediscovery of our pre-Ottoman past. Since then we see the ottoman era as an dark age of our history and as a separation from our main heroes and the west. Thats also why during Hoxha we went through a time of "rewesternizing" our country through the removal of Turkish/Arabic words that had seeped into our language.

All muslim albanians think like this? It looks like they are indifferent, but christian albanians are more radical.

Who protected their ethnicity? Unless there was a strong enough institution that could unite them, the people of the Ottoman Empire would be sucked into Islam or Turkencized like wildfire. How many people who moved into Turkey after the ottoman empire was over, were actually Turks and not just a Turkencized or muslim people of the Balkans?

Firstly ottoman exiled a lot turks to balkains. This is their way.

who said all people come Turkey call themself as Turk? They were calling themself as albanian, bosnian or pomak(Bulgar Muslims) and Some of them still calling themself as this.  Turkification becomed a reality after the Turkish nationalism. Some Muslims who come from greece dont even know Turkish.  It is not our guilt, christians killed muslims at balkain, and they fleed to Turkey. Do you know even know, you can saw some elders(I saw one at rize,and she was laz), who dont know turkish? Jews langauge only becomed Turkish after 1960. They were turkified after Nationalist Turkey not ottomans.

A tolerant empire ruled though Sharia laws, an empire that did not permit conversion of muslims, but allowed and embraced others doing so, an empire that taxed and soldierized non-muslims. Cmon. Yea, The Ottoman Empire had its tolerance in its hayday. But in the end, they were just another Islamic empire.

Is it realy difficult to explain? Ottomans were tolerant for their times. Not for this times. Greeks prefered ottomans instead of latin both at Istanbul and cyprus. Jews come(fleed) to ottomans for their life. Dont this show you anything? People who lived at that times choosed to ottomans, and their sons say their father was tortured. do you know ottomans culture better than these guys?

Because there were no Turks there until the Turks decided that they liked to make the Balkans, their home through conquest. You barg into someones house by force, stay there for a while and settle family, then when that person finally gets the power to expell you, you expect him to treat your family good?

Yes this is rule of jungle, after 500 year they have no  right to  live at their land. Nonsense, and sorry barbaric. you have still less tolerance from Ottomans, and you accuse them. Maybe ottomans just exile all balkain people. After all because they let them to live, Their people  died at the end.But well Ottomans were better than you.(Singular)

Yes Scanderbeg did get aggressive when the Pope called for a Crusade on the Turks but think about it, was there ANY reason to trust the Turks? Afterall, their main goal was the Balkans and Mehmet would do his best to take the land in the end. He was taking everything around Scanderbeg... Tell me Mortaza, where should trust come in?

You are showing your inknowledge about ottomans, It was not Mehmet, but It was Murat, make agreement,and yes,damn It. He can trust Murat 2.He didnt ever broken any agreement, but your crusaders did. So when they attacked your people after you broken agreement twice, why do you think, they are worse people than you? They tried to live with peace twice, and crusaders broken this peace twice.

Your "peacefull" Murad was nothing more then a conquerer, he was FORCING himself on the land of others, ofcourse Christians were going to attack, nobody wanted to see some other major Christian city in the Balkans like Ragusa or Bucharest become a trapped Constantinople. Murad didnt conquer that much because he didnt have the administrative brains to have a lot of land, and so he preffered to keep them as Despots, so he can reep the benefits while at the sametime not have to administer the land(case example: Serbia).

Again you are showing you lack of knowledge about Murat 2. didnt you read what I write? He did not want to become a patisah. He retreat his throne twice, to interest his religion and literature. Both time,  Christians attacked ottomans(breaking with threatry), and he returned his throne back.

Even his son Mehmet 2 called him his throne with this word.

If I am patisah, I order you " Come here and protect my country", If you are patisah "come here and protect your country"

Do you see a despot, a power hungry empire at Murat 2? Be a little neutral, If he was so power hungry, he would not left his throne twice.

So think again, who is more power hungry? a guy broken an agreement, leader of crusaders and who is attacked ottomans, when they had agrement with him.

Or  a guy, who retreated his throne twice, to interest with his religion and literature? who made agreement with christians twice,  even they broken first one. who returned his throne, with the wish and force of his son.  who returned his throne for protecting his country.

I dont think any one will  choose first one for a hero but second.

Nobody is admiring the Crusaders yet Im sick and tired of hearing about the peaceful muslims. Throughout history, who was the most aggressive in what they wanted? Muslims conquered everything in their path, from Iran to Spain. yet nobody says a word on that. On top of that, I see muslims complain that they were unfairly kicked from lands like Spain or even Sicily, When THEY were the conquerers. Its the same case with the Ottomans.

I am not talking about you, but I remember someone who said, I am honerful with crusaders. for Spain or sicily, should they exile and kill all muslim? did muslim do this?

before Scanderbeg took power, there were some in Albania also. Although you know why they became muslims? Because they thought it was over and that the Ottoman Empire would eventually suck the land up anyway.

Cheap excuse, they can change their  religion when ottomans came. It was sufis  who teach them islam, and It was again them who turkified anatolia.

Ofcourse not. Does that make sense? Think about what may happen should the power fall... The people would look back at the religion and how violently it took power over their lives, and theyll have what a certain people in the Balkans are going through right now.
Instead just let them "prosper" in their and let the inevitable happen, the people will be sucked up through government prefarations and political advantages. That way, when power falls, there will be no memory of a violent takeover.

ah damn,what ottomans should be done, what will you  done? If you were them? Isnt 500 year is enough for everything? Is it realy difficult to believe they didnt care with your religion.

Tell me this Ilteqie, would Albania or Bosnia have been muslim today had it not been for the Ottoman empire?

Crap, what type of logic is this, without knowing islam, They cannot be muslim.

Imposing a language is harder then religion.

Infact It is easy, If aim was to change their langauge, but ottomans aims  were not this. think about it, until their last day,they dont even care much for turks.We are calling this empire, as Turkish empire because of their patisahs.

Easy. Jerusalem, which was viewed by Medieval Europe as the center of the world. It was their that Jesus died, and therefore, a major focus of Western attention. Imagine seeing some aliens from Mars taking over Mecca. Now imagine a group of violent people from Central Asia wanting to conquer Mecca in the name of God, but killing everyone in their path, regardless of their creed? What relation do those Central Asians have with the people of Arabia?

Easy. Jerusalem, which was viewed by Medieval Europe as the center of the world. It was their that Jesus died, and therefore, a major focus of Western attention. Imagine seeing some aliens from Mars taking over Mecca. Now imagine a group of violent people from Central Asia wanting to conquer Mecca in the name of God, but killing everyone in their path, regardless of their creed? What relation do those Central Asians have with the people of Arabia?

excatly what I want to say, we cannot compare expansionism of arabs and turks with  crusaders.