The Crusades: Glorious Mission, Cause of Modern Sectarian Violence, Neither, or Both?
- Thread starter palinurus
- Start date
johnnycando
Frosted Tips
- Messages
- 3,744
- Reaction score
- 490
Both.
Right reasons.
Wrong tact.
Right reasons.
Wrong tact.
dshans
They call me The Dribbler
- Messages
- 9,624
- Reaction score
- 1,181
Well, let's see.
This thread is fraught with potential pitfalls, erroneous history and any number of just plain "why bothers."
Right off the bat we have "tact" rather than "tack," though things were certainly on the tactless side back then - from both the port and the starboard.
Then there's a bit of irony with NDCrusader checking in ...
This thread is fraught with potential pitfalls, erroneous history and any number of just plain "why bothers."
Right off the bat we have "tact" rather than "tack," though things were certainly on the tactless side back then - from both the port and the starboard.
Then there's a bit of irony with NDCrusader checking in ...
Irish Insanity
Well-known member
- Messages
- 9,885
- Reaction score
- 584
I could be wrong, but I think this was started to bring a discussion over from a thread it didn't belong in.
A thread asking for prayer.....
GoIrish41
Paterfamilius
- Messages
- 9,929
- Reaction score
- 2,120
That is sad, indeed
The Crusades: Glorious Mission, Cause of Modern Sectarian Violence, Neither, or Both
The Crusades: Glorious Mission, Cause of Modern Sectarian Violence, Neither, or Both
Let's go back 5 centuries to the root of the matter.
Mohammad: Glorious Mission, Cause of Modern Sectarian Violence, Neither, or Both
Without Mohammad there would be no Crusades.
The Crusades: Glorious Mission, Cause of Modern Sectarian Violence, Neither, or Both
Let's go back 5 centuries to the root of the matter.
Mohammad: Glorious Mission, Cause of Modern Sectarian Violence, Neither, or Both
Without Mohammad there would be no Crusades.
C
Cackalacky
Guest
I blame Abraham for having Isaac and Ishmael.
pkt77242
IPA Man
- Messages
- 10,805
- Reaction score
- 719
That works both ways. Without Christianity there is no Crusades.
dshans
They call me The Dribbler
- Messages
- 9,624
- Reaction score
- 1,181
Hell, why not blame Hagar. It all tracks back to the wimmins.
bobbyok1
Dominates Wiffle Ball
- Messages
- 1,448
- Reaction score
- 1,287
And let's go one more step and blame Sarai (later renamed Sarah by God) because she is the one who put Abraham up to sleeping with Hagar on the first place.
“Now Sarai, Abram’s wife, had borne him no children. But she had an Egyptian slave named Hagar; so she said to Abram, “The Lord has kept me from having children. Go, sleep with my slave; perhaps I can build a family through her.” Abram agreed to what Sarai said.”
Genesis 16:1-2 NIV
It all comes back to a woman.
Last edited:
Old Man Mike
Fast as Lightning!
- Messages
- 8,979
- Reaction score
- 6,471
This thread has no business in IE nor anywhere unless a). it's supposed to be some odd joke [which in itself is off-base given the sociological strains of the times]; or b). it's meant to be a serious discussion by people who have done a heckuva lot of study into what really went on.
If anyone wants to make serious contributions to such a topic which is fraught with potential jerkism, I'll recommend a readings list, as the scholarly basis for the history of the crusades has been laid down for many years.
1). A History of the Crusades, 3 volumes, ed. Kenneth Setton, 1969 --- perhaps the best foundationstone;
2). A History of the Crusades, 3 volumes, Steven Runciman, 1968 --- a close second;
3). 2 books by Jonathan Riley-Smith:
a]. The Knights of St. John in Jerusalem and Cyprus {1050-1310}, 1967; and
b]. The Feudal Nobility and the Kingdom of Jerusalem {1174-1277}, 1973.
4). The Sundered Cross: the Story of the Fourth Crusade, Ernle Bradford, 1967.
5). Arab Historians of the Crusades, ed. Francesco Gabrielli, 1957.
I haven't read all these thoroughly, but have done so moderately well. It is apparent that by far the primary motivation for the Crusades was wealth production by the hoped-for control of the trade routes. The fourth crusade didn't even bother to go to the middle east and stopped to conquer Constantinople instead. The first crusade was driven by second or third sons of royalty who would not succeed their fathers. Later the "Big Boys" went on one [Richard the Lion-Hearted, Philip Augustus of France, Frederick Barbarosa of Germany/Holy Roman Empire], whereupon Saladdin kicked their asses after much bloodshed everywhere. Both Saladdin and Richard come off as somewhat reasonable leaders given the viciousness of this. Frederick was OK too in general, and was killed in battle. Philip seems to have been a jerk who only went because he didn't trust Richard alone with the conquest opportunity. Anyone looking for "spiritual intentions" need look elsewhere. One glance at the Crusader "policy" of using the severed heads of their victims as catapult "shot" should dissuade such naiveties.
I view threads like this as unconscious attempts at increasing the hatred between American anglos and American muslims and muslims in general. Everyone's entitled, I suppose, to their prejudices and fears, but they should not be based on the Crusades.
If anyone wants to make serious contributions to such a topic which is fraught with potential jerkism, I'll recommend a readings list, as the scholarly basis for the history of the crusades has been laid down for many years.
1). A History of the Crusades, 3 volumes, ed. Kenneth Setton, 1969 --- perhaps the best foundationstone;
2). A History of the Crusades, 3 volumes, Steven Runciman, 1968 --- a close second;
3). 2 books by Jonathan Riley-Smith:
a]. The Knights of St. John in Jerusalem and Cyprus {1050-1310}, 1967; and
b]. The Feudal Nobility and the Kingdom of Jerusalem {1174-1277}, 1973.
4). The Sundered Cross: the Story of the Fourth Crusade, Ernle Bradford, 1967.
5). Arab Historians of the Crusades, ed. Francesco Gabrielli, 1957.
I haven't read all these thoroughly, but have done so moderately well. It is apparent that by far the primary motivation for the Crusades was wealth production by the hoped-for control of the trade routes. The fourth crusade didn't even bother to go to the middle east and stopped to conquer Constantinople instead. The first crusade was driven by second or third sons of royalty who would not succeed their fathers. Later the "Big Boys" went on one [Richard the Lion-Hearted, Philip Augustus of France, Frederick Barbarosa of Germany/Holy Roman Empire], whereupon Saladdin kicked their asses after much bloodshed everywhere. Both Saladdin and Richard come off as somewhat reasonable leaders given the viciousness of this. Frederick was OK too in general, and was killed in battle. Philip seems to have been a jerk who only went because he didn't trust Richard alone with the conquest opportunity. Anyone looking for "spiritual intentions" need look elsewhere. One glance at the Crusader "policy" of using the severed heads of their victims as catapult "shot" should dissuade such naiveties.
I view threads like this as unconscious attempts at increasing the hatred between American anglos and American muslims and muslims in general. Everyone's entitled, I suppose, to their prejudices and fears, but they should not be based on the Crusades.
Last edited:
ACamp1900
Counting my ‘bet against ND’ winnings
- Messages
- 48,951
- Reaction score
- 11,234
The Phillip and Richard thing has always interested me, one of the more dysfunctional military partnerships I've have come across... Their chapters in The Plantagenets read like a weird soap opera...'were people really this power drunk?'
Last edited:
zelezo vlk
Well-known member
- Messages
- 18,013
- Reaction score
- 5,055
I prefer the battle of Lepanto myself.
Modern problems in the Middle East are more related to artificial boundaries drawn by outsiders as European colonialism faded. In addition, much of the present conflict is centered on older regional conflicts betwee Sunni and Shiite factions of Islam.
American involvement is tied to backing authoritarian regimes to ensure access to Middle East oil reserves. In short, we backed some pretty ruthless dictators to make sure the oil flowed freely. The ruling families flourished and continue to fluorish while the masses are subjected to supression and poverty.
American involvement is tied to backing authoritarian regimes to ensure access to Middle East oil reserves. In short, we backed some pretty ruthless dictators to make sure the oil flowed freely. The ruling families flourished and continue to fluorish while the masses are subjected to supression and poverty.
C
Cackalacky
Guest
I will not tolerate insulting members. Cut it out or take a healthy break.