Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

the crusades

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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

Back to Top
shurite7 View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 14-Oct-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 91
  Quote shurite7 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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
Back to Top
R_AK47 View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 25-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 468
  Quote R_AK47 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
  Quote Constantine XI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
R_AK47 View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 25-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 468
  Quote R_AK47 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
  Quote Constantine XI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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
Back to Top
My View View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote My View Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.

Back to Top
ArmenianSurvival View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1460
  Quote ArmenianSurvival Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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։
Back to Top
R_AK47 View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 25-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 468
  Quote R_AK47 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
Salah Al Din View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Salah Al Din Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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
Back to Top
R_AK47 View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 25-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 468
  Quote R_AK47 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
Sorry View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Sorry Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.

Back to Top
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
  Quote Constantine XI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
STUPID! View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote STUPID! Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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......

Back to Top
R_AK47 View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 25-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 468
  Quote R_AK47 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.

Back to Top
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
  Quote Constantine XI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Mar-2006 at 20:37
Happy April Fools Day, Jhangora . I give you credit for persistance.
Back to Top
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
  Quote Constantine XI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.

Back to Top
shurite7 View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote shurite7 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.

 

Back to Top
Jhangora View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Jhangora Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.124 seconds.