- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The Crusades were justified
Posted on 2/4/24 at 1:07 pm to Rex Feral
Posted on 2/4/24 at 1:07 pm to Rex Feral
Admit you don’t know anything about the Crusades before stating any of your thoughts lol the only crusade that achieved anything and it wasn’t for very long was the first. The others were largely huge wastes of resources and men that Europe could have used during the Middle Ages. The latter crusades were full of poorly trained and poorly supplied men who stole from local villagers along the way. I mean the fourth one sacked Constantinople so that in and of itself sums up the Crusades for the most part
1
Posted on 2/4/24 at 1:09 pm to billjamin
quote:
Gotta love wars being fought over who’s imaginary friend is more real.
You do realize that Christianity, Judaism and Islam all descend from Abraham who worshipped one God, right?
Posted on 2/4/24 at 1:12 pm to Rex Feral
Really fun fact, the crusaders were sent to the holy lands by a Pope who was answering a call the eastern Roman emperor.
When the fourth crusade arrived at Constantinople they sacked the city, deposed the emperor, and chopped up the remaining empire according to their creditors. This severely weakend the empire until all that was left was Constantinople, and in 1453 it was conquered by the Turks.
Way to go guys.
When the fourth crusade arrived at Constantinople they sacked the city, deposed the emperor, and chopped up the remaining empire according to their creditors. This severely weakend the empire until all that was left was Constantinople, and in 1453 it was conquered by the Turks.
Way to go guys.
Posted on 2/4/24 at 1:15 pm to Roll Tide Ravens
quote:
You do realize that Christianity, Judaism and Islam all descend from Abraham who worshipped one God, right?
Yeah I seem to remember hearing that in my 12 years of religion classes.
That commonality somehow hasn’t stopped them from murdering each other in the name of their god or prophet or imaginary friends.
Posted on 2/4/24 at 1:20 pm to KiwiHead
quote:
you need to read more into your history
Well seeing as how you completely ignored the Islamic invasion and enslavement of the Iberian peninsula (modern day Spain) I’d be careful criticizing others.
Posted on 2/4/24 at 1:31 pm to Rex Feral
quote:
Pope Urban II...united an international group that included French, Flemish, English & German peasants, knights, and kings who all came together to defend and take back the lands that had been taken [by the Muslims]... The Catholic church had created a multinational network that united Europeans...
The Victors write the history.
It's possible some if not most of the whole "Crusades" narrative is true to an extent. The Muslims/Moors did infringe on the RCC "Holy Roman Empire" (which itself routinely "infringed" warred upon upon the sovereignty of many a Provincial authority and people.)
Alternative narrative:
The Holy Roman Empire was equally about enriching themselves and satellite Kingdoms -- concerned about extending and maintaining their territories and power over their subjects / chattel -- from the British Isles to Prussia to Asia Minor to the Iberian Peninsula. That power was maintained by force of Papal authority, Kings and royalty. ("Freedom" was relative whether under the thumb of Papals OR Moors/Muslims.)
The Popes were said to promise the reward of "Heaven" to the peasants -- many who were also rounded up and conscripted from their home in the countryside to fight in these Crusades. Christians were also said to have themselves been virtual slaves as vassals, serfs and indentured/ actual slaves during this time as well as so-called "Dark Ages".
Muslims were NEVER a united monolith; Like Europe, they were ruled provincially. Some Moorish leaders ruled with an iron fist. Others were more fair, live and let live.
Contemporary Victors' Narrative aside -- The Crusades were one more series of wars fought for the usual reasons -- power, wealth & plunder. The Crusaders' were in larger-part-than-revealed to be mercenaries of their Papal - Bankers-Elites overlords. "Defend Christendom!!" like any rallying cry then or today during time of war was an exploitative and deceptive ruse.
The Papal-RCC Crusades edict may have re-calibrated territorial authority and pushed back Muslim influence, but the serfs, peons, vassals and slaves standard of living or lack of freedoms never improved as a result
Posted on 2/4/24 at 1:33 pm to Rip Torner
quote:No one said they achieved positive things, just that muslims had been warring against the entire world for almost 500 years before the first crusade ever happened, and have basically continued to this day. And even our western schools don't teach that.
the only crusade that achieved anything
Wonder why.
This post was edited on 2/4/24 at 5:15 pm
.png)
Posted on 2/4/24 at 1:35 pm to GBPackTigers
quote:
since you have no proof God isn’t real.
You can’t prove something isn’t real if you can’t prove it is. It’s akin to a dog chasing its tail.
Posted on 2/4/24 at 1:37 pm to billjamin
quote:
That commonality somehow hasn’t stopped them from murdering each other in the name of their god or prophet or imaginary friends.
Which one did Pol Pot worship?
Posted on 2/4/24 at 1:44 pm to crazy4lsu
Power abhors a vacuum. Around 600 or so Herclius the Byzantine emperor is crowned and starts to take back the imperial lands that were being invaded by the Avars in the Balkans and the Persians in the Eastern Med and Egypt. A few years later around 620 - 625 AD Heraclius begins to take the empire back and essentially outflanks the Persians bu invading from the North down through Armenia, Iberia and the Zagros mountains going down the Euphrates Valley and conquering Ctestiphon ( Babylon) ultimately. It was a crazy feat for the time, long and protracted.
Ultimately he is victorious and destroys the Persian Empire. But by 630 he is almost broke and his army is exhausted and there is probably another outbreak of plague. He goes around to places like Jerusalem returning holy relics, etc. He then takes a break and returns to Constantinople only to have the Arabs come up and start their raiding. Ultimately the Arabs get the upper hand and defeat the Byzantines at the Battle of Yarmouk.
The Byzantines were so exhausted after 30 years of war that Heraclius dies essentially ceding Syria, Palestine and ultimately Egypt to the Arabs who had finally coalesced around a new leader.
By Heraclius' death, maybe the Byzantines could put 30,000 men in the field across the empire and that encompasses lands that include parts of Italy through the Balkans and Anatolia.
Meanwhile, the Arabs were relatively fresh and not as affected by plague....or Avars/Slav/Ostrogoths in the European theater. By this time the people of Syria, Palestine and Egypt were used to not living with Byzantine rule overall. Byzantines get supplanted by Persians. Persians are replaced by Byzantines. Byzantines get defeated by the Fatamids (Arabs)....ultimately, Turks move in....then Crusaders....mostly French knights come in for a while only to be defeated by Turks again
Ultimately he is victorious and destroys the Persian Empire. But by 630 he is almost broke and his army is exhausted and there is probably another outbreak of plague. He goes around to places like Jerusalem returning holy relics, etc. He then takes a break and returns to Constantinople only to have the Arabs come up and start their raiding. Ultimately the Arabs get the upper hand and defeat the Byzantines at the Battle of Yarmouk.
The Byzantines were so exhausted after 30 years of war that Heraclius dies essentially ceding Syria, Palestine and ultimately Egypt to the Arabs who had finally coalesced around a new leader.
By Heraclius' death, maybe the Byzantines could put 30,000 men in the field across the empire and that encompasses lands that include parts of Italy through the Balkans and Anatolia.
Meanwhile, the Arabs were relatively fresh and not as affected by plague....or Avars/Slav/Ostrogoths in the European theater. By this time the people of Syria, Palestine and Egypt were used to not living with Byzantine rule overall. Byzantines get supplanted by Persians. Persians are replaced by Byzantines. Byzantines get defeated by the Fatamids (Arabs)....ultimately, Turks move in....then Crusaders....mostly French knights come in for a while only to be defeated by Turks again
This post was edited on 2/4/24 at 1:46 pm
Posted on 2/4/24 at 1:49 pm to Flats
quote:
Which one did Pol Pot worship?
None of the above I believe.
Posted on 2/4/24 at 1:52 pm to Liberator
quote:
Contemporary Victors' Narrative aside -- The Crusades were one more series of wars fought for the usual reasons -- power, wealth & plunder. The Crusaders' were in larger-part-than-revealed to be mercenaries of their Papal - Bankers-Elites overlords. "Defend Christendom!!" like any rallying cry then or today during time of war was an exploitative and deceptive ruse.
As long as you agree that the islamic interests (various caliphs, tribes and sects) were basically operating almost identically (religion as a pretext for expansionary war) I would largely agree.
Many of the crusaders and jihadists of the time were motivated purely out of religious idealism.
But the political and religious leaders on both sides were just fighting for the same reasons they fought before and after the crusades: power, land and wealth.
This post was edited on 2/4/24 at 2:32 pm
Posted on 2/4/24 at 1:55 pm to KiwiHead
The organizing drive under Muhammed could have occurred under other Arab kingdoms. One of the kings of the Lakhmids dreamed of a united Arabia as well. Why it occurred under the primarily merchant tribes of Mecca is an interesting historical question, and arguably gives us a clue to what the organizing impulse was.
The pattern of Roman-Persian wars continued in the Byzantine and Rashidun eras, and in some ways continued into the Ottoman-era with the Ottoman-Safavid rivalry as well as Ottoman claims into Europe proper.
The pattern of Roman-Persian wars continued in the Byzantine and Rashidun eras, and in some ways continued into the Ottoman-era with the Ottoman-Safavid rivalry as well as Ottoman claims into Europe proper.
Posted on 2/4/24 at 1:58 pm to Tigerinthewoods
quote:
quote:
God isn't real.
You believe that God isn't real.
Just think, at the moment of your last breath, you will find out for sure.
Love and Beauty exist for some...others not so much. The death of a Believer and a Non-Believer re God would be the same physical process for both, as perceived by Worldly (non-Spiritual) viewers. Yet for the Believer, losing the bonds and limitations of perception and self and 'expanding' into the Self-Aware Energy Reservoir (God) would be the ultimate form of liberation, exhilaration and exploration. Not to mention Love. But only from the POV of the 'dying' Perceiver; Belief/Faith being key via the "perception is reality" narrative. While the same experience from a Non-Believer's POV would simply be a loss of consciousness by degree, and absorption into a feelingless Energy Reservoir. One would be a wonderful feeling and experience, the other not so much.
So the real issue of whether or not God exists, rests on the idea that Energy, is, or can be a Self Aware Entity. We are proof that it can, with awareness existing by relative degree depending on the complexity of said Entity. Simple Amoebas not much awareness...Humans being aware of their Self-awareness to the point of questioning their 'Source', I.e., "Creator".
The final premise that determines whether or not THE Energy Reservoir which is THE basis for all that can exist, is whether said Energy is tied together in an infinitely complex way that we cannot comprehend, given our relatively simple cognitive ability, and that if it is, then the likelihood of such being a Self Aware Entity such as we are proof of, is very high. That would be God.
Quantum Theory proves that there is some form of unity in the Energy Reservoir, as experimental and instantaneous reactions defy known and proven Laws of Time, Space and Relativity. Einstein instinctually knew this 'Unity' existed and sought via Mathematics to prove a Total Unity Theory. He fell short. That was aiming high.
The idea of the infinite Energy Reservoir not being Self Aware (no God/Spiritual "I Am") is ludicrous on its face and contrary to scientific knowledge if not a silly and uneducated or foolish and vein notion, given that I am typing and the Reader is reading. And as petty and very simple self-aware Entities at that, we are proof of this basic Principle.
I forgot to throw in Loving, as a descriptor of the 'God Character', as those who love, full well know that Love exist. Love is Unity.
To each their own. It's always the consequences that are the proof. I'm going with the "loon" version of belief.
Posted on 2/4/24 at 2:21 pm to LSUGrad2024
Jizya was collected by the vassals as tribute to keep guys like Mehmet, Murad and Suleiman from showing up to collect it themselves. If you welched on the Sultan he sends a lot of soldiers to make you pay up and part of that penalty used to be taking some of the boys from the noble families and forfeit to become Janissaries.....like Vlad the Impaler and his brother.
Were the crusades justified? It's always been an issue of debate since the crusades. Europeans coming on ships to liberate people 400 years after the initial problem of Islam and its conquests. From Urban and the House of Komnemnos' perspective it's justified because after Manzikert and Romanus Diogenes humiliation they needed something to occupy the Turks as they were running up victory after victory and the emperors in Constantinople were ineffective in stopping them to that point.
Were the crusades justified? It's always been an issue of debate since the crusades. Europeans coming on ships to liberate people 400 years after the initial problem of Islam and its conquests. From Urban and the House of Komnemnos' perspective it's justified because after Manzikert and Romanus Diogenes humiliation they needed something to occupy the Turks as they were running up victory after victory and the emperors in Constantinople were ineffective in stopping them to that point.
Posted on 2/4/24 at 2:21 pm to crewdepoo
quote:
God isn't real.
I haven’t met many vocal Arab atheists. Lucky for you the Christians kicked the Muslims out of Europe or you would have been blindfolded and grown off a building for saying that.
Posted on 2/4/24 at 2:35 pm to crewdepoo
quote:
God isn't real.
Prove it
Posted on 2/4/24 at 2:37 pm to crazy4lsu
What's interesting is that by 1453, Ottoman Sultans were probably more of European stock than Asian Turkish stock. Mehmet was probably more Serb/Greek than Turkish. His father, Murad was probably the result of a marriage between an Ottoman and a Byzantine princess.
The Ottoman Sultans looked to the West more than the east.
As to the Arabs, the Lakahmids and the Ghassanids among others were tired of being the Byzantine contractors by the time of Heraclius. The guys from Mecca came up and gave them a reason to join against the Byzantines and their complicated convoluted b.s. plus they looked at the "Romans" and saw that they were not as strong as they had been in the past especially after what the Persians had recently been able to accomplish.
The Ottoman Sultans looked to the West more than the east.
As to the Arabs, the Lakahmids and the Ghassanids among others were tired of being the Byzantine contractors by the time of Heraclius. The guys from Mecca came up and gave them a reason to join against the Byzantines and their complicated convoluted b.s. plus they looked at the "Romans" and saw that they were not as strong as they had been in the past especially after what the Persians had recently been able to accomplish.
Posted on 2/4/24 at 4:38 pm to KiwiHead
quote:
What's interesting is that by 1453, Ottoman Sultans were probably more of European stock than Asian Turkish stock. Mehmet was probably more Serb/Greek than Turkish. His father, Murad was probably the result of a marriage between an Ottoman and a Byzantine princess.
Indeed, the Sultan claimed the seat of Rome among his titles.
quote:
The Ottoman Sultans looked to the West more than the east.
There were concerted efforts from the administrative level downward to appear 'cosmopolitan' from the early Ottoman period in Constantinople. Again, this followed similar patterns of Islamic polities adopting mostly Greek and Roman administrative structures during the early Islamic expansion.
quote:
The guys from Mecca came up and gave them a reason to join against the Byzantines and their complicated convoluted b.s. plus they looked at the "Romans" and saw that they were not as strong as they had been in the past especially after what the Persians had recently been able to accomplish.
The feat of organizing the various Arab tribes, in my view, had to be driven by the mercantile interests of the Qurayshi tribes at large. Those tribes valued those interests above tribal rivalries that could definitely have motivated their attempts to dominate trade north of the trade routes through the western portion of the peninsula. Like other aspects of Islam, such as the story of Jesus as a child, which takes portions from the Syriac Church as well as the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas, the piecemeal method of collection of Quranic gave Muhammed a method by which he could respond sensitively to immediate needs while also incorporating aspects which would be familiar to Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians. I think the patchwork compilation of Quranic verses along with the mercantile interests and methods of the Qurayshi tribes at large made for a perfect storm in the right geopolitical climate. Any earlier and the likelihood was that any united Arab power would still be vassalized by either the Romans or Persians.
Posted on 2/4/24 at 4:43 pm to billjamin
quote:
None of the above I believe.
Then maybe theism isn't the common denominator.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News