Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Crusades

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Kansas Bear View Post


    1. Richard I was born Sept 1157 so he wasn't invading Cyprus in 1081!!!

    2. The 'Crusades' didn't start until 1096.

    3. Richard I was part of the 3rd Crusade; different 'Crusades', different people, different objectives.


    i m sorry , you are right , richard the lionheart came in Cyprus in 1191
    Solon you Greeks will be for ever kids,you forget your history and you start all over again(Plato)

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Lunatock View Post
      Off the top of my head. Probably the biggest screw up was when Jerusalem was taken the first time. English Knights, maybe also French Knights.

      They tried three times to get over the wall, into the city. Figuring God was mad at them. They decided to atone for any sins. By walking around the city barefoot. Once each time for all three times they were kept out.

      As soon as they made the third trip around. They rushed to put thier shoes back on. And attacked Jerusalem in a frenzy.

      This time, they managed to breach the wall. Then proceeded to start killing Muslims and Christians alike. The Jews in Jerusalem tried to bribe the Knights. And were instead locked in a Synagogue, and it was burned down.

      The same book I read that from, said that in some places the blood was knee deep. And that is where the saying, "The streets shall flow with the blood of the non-believers", originated from.
      It also never happened. It's right up there with Nero fiddling when Rome burned, as most passed along fictional accounts of History. Yes, the Crusaders took Jerusalem, but it was by negotiating with the city and the gates were opened to them. There was no slaughter.

      The entire Historic myth is the result of some bragging knight sending a letter home to say how cool he was and making up stories of the slaughter. Because it was the first news of the taking of Jerusalem to reach Europe, the story spread like wild fire and took on a life of its own. But it didn't happen.
      Work is the curse of the drinking class.

      Comment


      • The Crusades were mostly fought to reestablish whose lake the Mediterranean was. Wars are fought over trade and resources, including land. Otherwise the Crusaders wouldn't have sacked the biggest Christian bastion in the Middle East, at the urging of some Italian merchants. Putting a religious spin on it just made it easier for the masses to swallow. If we are to assume that the Crusades were primary launched to reassert control of Christian principalities over the Mediterranean, then for that alone they were successful.
        Work is the curse of the drinking class.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by ChrisF202 View Post
          Whats the deal with this move "Kingdom of Heaven". How biased is it? Has anyone seen it yet?
          Wildly biased and inaccurate. It was a fun movie, but after they turned it into a freedom and liberty movie, in a Crusader setting, it got to be a bit much. I also would have liked it if in the main character's education they actually showed him learning about siege tactics. They also decided to turn a religious order of knights into what most US movies reserve for the red coats.
          Work is the curse of the drinking class.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Maggot View Post
            It also never happened. It's right up there with Nero fiddling when Rome burned, as most passed along fictional accounts of History. Yes, the Crusaders took Jerusalem, but it was by negotiating with the city and the gates were opened to them. There was no slaughter.

            The entire Historic myth is the result of some bragging knight sending a letter home to say how cool he was and making up stories of the slaughter. Because it was the first news of the taking of Jerusalem to reach Europe, the story spread like wild fire and took on a life of its own. But it didn't happen.
            I believe you are incorrect.

            There are multiple primary sources of the slaughter, the Gesta Francorum and Raymond of Aguilers. Consult the Medieval Sourcebook: Medieval Sourcebook: The Siege and Capture of Jerusalem 1099

            Why do you assert it did not happen?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Bulgaroctonus View Post
              I believe you are incorrect.

              There are multiple primary sources of the slaughter, the Gesta Francorum and Raymond of Aguilers. Consult the Medieval Sourcebook: Medieval Sourcebook: The Siege and Capture of Jerusalem 1099

              Also, Ibn Al-Athir, Ibn al-Qalanisi, and Abu Sa'ad al-Harawi.

              Comment


              • I support the Crusaders

                Reality bytes,


                Revisionists cry wolf , blaming to the Crusaders for 'attacking sarracen lands.
                They forget that territories were the Crusaders fought were former Christian territories, Judaea, Syria, Egypt , the rest of North Africa .

                Those territories were not muslim terrorities but Christians , Islam imperial , colonial , expansive agressive policy of pursuing world conquest attacking , invading and occupying the East, India Caucasos, and WEst, Spain, France, Italy, Asia Minor using slavery to control the population and political, economical mistreatment and blackmail in order to convert the conquered populations to Islam, needed an strong response.


                It is truth that the Crusaders perform horrible acts, we , the WEst can confront and admite our at acts , let not forget the string of horrors that the Muslim perpetrator against so many. While the fabled Caliphate of Cordoba is portrait as an oasis and example of mulsim good behavior
                First , such cases were not the norm but limited cases and they were not so tolerant and so peaceful and so embracing as portrait by their fans,
                their description is overblown out proportion

                The Order of St John, is one of my favorites and the famous, Castle of St John of Acre was a military marvel , only supercede by the courage and valour of the members of the order.

                The West could be safer if a rebirth of such Military Order could be feasible,
                The West lack such strong fiber in this moment , they have a mental strenght and spiritual strenght enourmous

                lacking in our present armed forces, as the numereous testimonies of soldier coming back with emotional trauma which really made them disabled.

                Those Crusaders lived horribles experiences of war but many were able to perform and to find a higher calling and inner strenght to raise above such horrible scenes of wars


                So Bravo for the Crusaders and lets praise for miracles , a New Generations of Christians Crusaders

                Comment


                • polybius,

                  talk about over-romanticizing.
                  There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by astralis View Post
                    polybius,

                    talk about over-romanticizing.
                    Heh, the Christians of old took up the holy flaming sword like a D&D Paladin.
                    "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

                    Comment


                    • How about the Albigensian Crusade?
                      Was it justified?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
                        Heh, the Christians of old took up the holy flaming sword like a D&D Paladin.
                        then i'll take dual-wield scimitars and a long dagger and a short bow ;)

                        do we use D10 system instead of D20?
                        Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none; be able for thine enemy rather in power than use; and keep thy friend under thine own life's key; be checked for silence, but never taxed for speech.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Big K View Post
                          then i'll take dual-wield scimitars and a long dagger and a short bow ;)

                          do we use D10 system instead of D20?
                          Heh, I think you know more about D&D than I do. ;)
                          "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Speedy View Post
                            How about the Albigensian Crusade?
                            Was it justified?
                            What about the Northern Crusades?

                            The Hussite Crusades?

                            It's a pity that most ignore the Reconquista, 750 years of conflict due to Muslim invasion.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
                              Heh, I think you know more about D&D than I do. ;)
                              :) we play a lot of D&D games, Whitewolf's Vampire the Masquerade/Dark Ages etc.. ;)
                              Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none; be able for thine enemy rather in power than use; and keep thy friend under thine own life's key; be checked for silence, but never taxed for speech.

                              Comment


                              • One of the most famous warriors of the Crusades was Richard the Lionheart, King of England from 1189 to 1199.

                                He was the son of King Henry II and the brother of King John, of Magna Carta fame.

                                Many people say he got his nickname due to his fearlessness on the battlefield during the Crusades.

                                Richard was a central Christian commander during the Third Crusade, effectively leading the campaign after the departure of Philip Augustus, and scoring considerable victories against his Muslim counterpart, Saladin.

                                But there is a macabre legend which shows how he REALLY got his name.

                                The legend goes that the King of England was imprisoned in a foreign King's castle somewhere on the Continent of Europe whilst returning from the Crusades.

                                The foreign King decided to send a lion into Richard's cell to, obviously, eat Richard for supper.

                                Richard was having none of it. He wrapped his arm up in a piece of his clothing to protect himself and stuffed it down the lion's throat.

                                The fearsome King then ripped out the lion's heart. Finding that the door to his dungeon was unlocked, he ran into the banqueting hall where the king and many noblemen were enjoying a great feast.

                                Defiantly, Richard plonked the still-beating lion's heart onto the table in front of the King.

                                Richard the Lionheart also had another ingenious way of escaping imprisonment.

                                After Richard was imprisoned in a foreign dungeon, his minstrel Blondel travelled Europe from castle to castle, loudly singing a song known only to the two of them (they had composed it together) outside each castle. Eventually, he came to the place where Richard was being held, and Richard heard the song and answered with the appropriate refrain, thus revealing where the king was incarcerated.

                                And England's flag, a red cross on a white background, dates back to the time of Richard the Lionheart (Richard I) and the Crusades. He and his army wore white tunics with red crosses on them. At that time, King Edward the Confessor - England's first saint - was England's patron saint, but Richard the Lionheart decided to make England's patron saint St George.

                                To this day England's patron saint is St George and its flag is a red cross on a white background.
                                Last edited by Blackleaf; 02 Mar 08,, 20:25.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X