Well, I wasn't even going to bring up the subject of Holy relics this time, but now that you mention it yes, a new crusade would have to include the recovery of some of them in its objectives.  Perhaps the liberation of the piece of the True Cross that was captured by Saladin.  Of course relics and icons would have to be carried into battle by the crusaders as well, perhaps mounted on top of their tanks and APCs. 

Why not recover the cities of the ancient Patriachs?  It would be a good way for the pope to restore good friendship between catholicism and the orthodox/coptic christians.  This could eventually lead to the one, united church being formed between the denominations.

@Digenis - Yes, I know what happened in 1204.  This crusade would right that wrong and recover the city for Greece!

@Maju - A fascist crusade?  Hhmmm, thats an idea....

There is no need to imagine, Bush said that his 'War on Terror' is a Crusade, the Muslim world belive it to be a Crusade and only Muslims have been attacked.

But if your so excited for one just imagine Bush as Pope Urban

 "This could eventually lead to the one, united church being formed between the denominations."

No way, the Catholics tried to end Orthodoxy not be freinds with them. Many a case the one of the sides would rather join with Muslims in battle against the other.

Just a question, if i was to open a topic on a global Jihad on the infidals to regain lost Muslim lands such as Iberia. I am more than sure that this topic would be closed as to not offend our western members. Just a thought

"Bush calls crusade"

I meant if i too were to discuss for historical amusement.

Nice pic Subutai !!!

If the muslims had not demolished the original Church of the Holy Sepulcher and vandalized the sepulcher itself, in a moment of religious fanaticism, the crusades may never have happened.  Yes, I know that they eventually allowed a small shrine to be rebuilt where the original once was, but that does not excuse the first crime.  In fact, religious fanaticism is what inspired muslims to invade the christian lands bordering the mediteranean in the first place.  The crusades were a reaction to this.  As you can see, any crusade, whether in the past or today, is actually a reconquest of lands that were taken.

As you can see, any crusade, whether in the past or today, is actually a reconquest of lands that were taken.

Reconquest from what? natives of land just changed their religion, so European barbarians never had this lands. I didnt know germans have cities at egypt or syria.

The natives of the lands where originally orthodox and coptic christians that were forcibly converted to islam after an arab conquest.  Thats a little different than simply changing religion as you stated.

No they didnt converted forcefully, Infact at the begining of Islam, changing religion is decouraged.

So what will crusaders do? change their religion back forcefuly?

You are talking rubish, sorry.

Also remember when crusaders entered jerusalem, they also killed a lot christian. Infact they were most numbered bandids world ever saw.

Good idea, the West should start a crusade, stop by in the Greek capital, pillage it, kill people on the streets and f**k nuns in the churches, and turn it into a Latin kingdom with a German king like in the good old times.

 I think it would be failed,all Crusades were fail except the First Crusade, but there is a propblem we don't have Baybers, I call him (CRUSADER SLAYER) he defeated Three crusades.

you put Israel in your topic to play a a big part as a ally I must disagree with you cause if it would be a real Crusade any helping from Jews will be refused.

when the Crusaders entered Jerusalem they murdered almost every inhabitant of Jerusalem. Muslims, Jews, and even eastern Christians were all massacred.

No need to afraid, they should past anatolia again, they only survived one time.

Have we all forgot what the Islamic group Al-Qaeda has done in NY?

I dont see this as religous, its a matter of freedom and protecting a countries citizens. Ask yourself, if the US were to have sat back and did nothing after 9/11 how fast would have the disease we call Islamic fundamentalism have spread? 

Wow, so much confidence. If we call the US "christian crusaders", as Bin Laden did, than the whole Islamic nations' days would be pretty much numbered were it to be an all out war.

Yes I don't think the islamic nations would do to well in that situation.

Medieval armies of all nations and faiths slaughtered and abused the civilian population of cities that were conquered.  You are judging the crusaders by todays standards rather than the standards of the time.  You may say that no one was forcibly converted to islam, but even if they didn't they still made life miserable if you were not a muslim.  Everyone else in a medieval islamic nation was considered second class.  That and that fact that they converted churchs into mosques left few places of worship left for non muslims.

Komnenus, I agree with you completely in regards to the fourth crusade.  It was the first crusade that I was referring to as being successful.  The fourth crusade was a complete disaster.  It eventually led to the fall of Constantinople in 1453 which leads us to some of the issues we are all arguing about now (such as Hagia Sophia's status).  If the fourth crusade had not happened, Hagia Sophia might be a church today, and we would not have anything to argue about in regards to its status.  I'm getting off topic now though.  Anyways, while I glorify many of the crusades (the first and third in particular) I feel the complete opposite in regards to the fourth.

They are even cruel for their own times, you can ask this to greeks, first, second or third crusaders, every one of them harmed byzantium one way or other.

i dont see why this thread should be kept open

so Closed.