Get Warped (or die)

[Trotters]

Hey.

The topic of this debate is on the "holy" crusades of the Medieval Ages. Where men from france, italy, post-switzerland and England went into Jerusulam and the Middle east to set war with the saracin Saladin for the holy lands. Also they would ravage people in various nomadic tribes or villages and towns, saying either convert to Christianity or be excecuted in public order. They started these crusades during the roman empire and the Time of Barbarosa, when the Saracins were attacking the holy lands of Jerusulam, which the Catholics and Prodestants clamed were theres.

Do you think the crusades should have happened at All? Happened with a diplomatic or Political issue, or pure brute force for the `Christian` Lands?

Do you think they should have just taken jerusulam and left? Or take jerusulam and keep marching with whatever supplies they had to take revenge on the men that killed the preists and villagers of Christianity in Jerusulam and past that.

Please have somewhat of an arguement in you're post, and try and refrain from swearing.

:_owned:

[Prozerran]

Nice attempt at discussion, but I would say any event in history that involved the slaughter of people should not have happened.

I watched Kingdom of Heaven and hated it. And the only redeeming point that movie made was that people shouldn't die for brick and stone. The Crusades is one of the most pointless moments of death and destruction in history I've ever read about. Not a great topic... sorry.

[Darmago]

About the crusades time period...

So there is a dude that has a sickness, a muslim doctor comes in and tells him to eat some herbs that should make him feel better. Then later a christian doctor comes in and tells him not to eat them, and then carves a cross into his forehead...

The muslims of the era were much more scientifically advanced. I mean, think about what the world would be like today if there had been open trade and diplomacy instead of war... Even more technologically advanced, there wouldnt be nearly as much of the pointless religiouse hate that is being flung around.

this question is a no-brainer.

[Modred]

The Crusades is one of the most pointless moments of death and destruction in history I've ever read about.
Never mind that the Europeans brought back parts of Arabic culture with them to Europe. Foods, clothing, knowledge and all sorts of other things. Were it not for the Crusades, why would any Europeans of that time period have ever gone to the Middle East? War disseminates trade and ideas throughout the regions it grasps. Would Marco Polo or other early European explorers have gone in search of spices and other foreign goods if the people of Europe had not experienced the exotic treats of the Arabs that the crusading knights brought back? There would have been no demand.

Surely exploration would have taken hold eventually, but without the collision of cultures that occurred as a result of the Crusades, Europe would have certainly taken longer to develop to its post-Medieval state.

And if I may ask: what does the title have to do with the topic?

[Neo]

Nice attempt at discussion, but I would say any event in history that involved the slaughter of people should not have happened.

I watched Kingdom of Heaven and hated it. And the only redeeming point that movie made was that people shouldn't die for brick and stone. The Crusades is one of the most pointless moments of death and destruction in history I've ever read about. Not a great topic... sorry.
It maybe unsavory to think of past incidents of violence, but you can't automatically discount all of them. For instance, what about people fighting for thier freedom? Even America did that, are you telling me that they shouldn't have?

The crusades may have seemed pointless, especially now that the church no longer occupies the highest authority, but you have to look at the big picture. Ok yeah, the crusades were violent, and people died, but like what was mentioned, what else happened?

There is a point where people have to say they will not be pushed any furthur and must stand up for what the believe in, if you never do that, then you will be walked all over. To say that those past violent incidents were pointless would triviliaze those peoples deaths, and even the most seemingly pointless battle as a purpose, whether it was for pride, or for freedom.

-Neo

[Xenon]

Or oil....

[Neo]

Or oil....
Oh haha.

Thats an interesting thing to post in a topic about the Crusades :P

Not that it takes a genius to see any parallels.

-Neo

[LinkTheGameFreak]

the crusades were IMO a horrible idea

"hey, lets force our religion on others and if they don't comply, we kill them!"
"what a great idea, let me get my shoes on"

I'm christian, I don't force my religion on anyone and I don't believe that is how Christ won people over... jesus never went into a city and said "hey, look, I'm the freakin messiah.. believe in me or die!"

Christianity needs to learn to set examples by being like Christ and accepting people as they are... the fact that people took the word of God and twisted it so they could force their beliefs on others is appalling and the fact that people use this as their main argument against christianity half a millenium later is the equivilant of wading in a sea of retardedness...

[Cyberspirit]

Let us face it, medieval west Europeans were brutal and selfish.

And they were extremely xenophobic and chauvinistic.

That was why early European contact with other cultures mostly ended in violence. That was also why, after the Roman empire collapsed, it took so long for Europeans to form single nations as seen today.

( Though I admit that without this desire to conquer and plunder from other cultures, Europe would not have emerged as the world power after the middle ages. )

And the medieval Church's unfortunately negative influence was not only expressed in the bloody Crusades, but also in the way it molded the believes of its subjects. All things that conflicted with "Christian" believes were branded "unholy" and "evil". "Pagan" magicians were burnt, and "pagan" gods were labeled as "devils". Worst still, "pagan" science was either dismissed as nonsense or stolen and renamed "Christian" science.

Neither the Crusades nor the muslim Holy Wars should have occurred.

Conflict allowed cultural contact ?
Such wars caused unnecessary hatred between different cultures.

Conflict spurred the development of weapons technology ?
No offense, but the weapons "developed" by the Crusaders or Holy Warriors were really LOUSY, if any developments took place at all.

For freedom and glory ?
The Europeans were not really acting in defense when they attacked Jerusalum. And there is no glory in sacrificing so many lives just to take a city that has little but religious significance. I am sure even the Saviour would never consider such an act as glorious.

So logic tells us that the Crusades were pointless and stupid. I don't care what the medieval Europeans believed or how they expected the Crusades to turn out. Just because they would not see it as a mistake does not mean it is not a mistake.

( Eh, Trotters, does "Get Warped ( or die )" refer to the way the medieval peoples tried to force their religions on others ? )

[Trotters]

First off, thankyou for the above posts.

Second off, the Title refers to the knights of Post Switzerland, England and france forcing the Muslims to become christians or die.

Third off, you've all proven pro's and con's to the crusades, but I'd like to argue with something Cyberspirit, you said, and I quote
"No offense, but the weapons "developed" by the Crusaders or Holy Warriors were really LOUSY, if any developments took place at all."

Acctually to be exact many medieval instruments of warfare were created for this war, they had the idea of a Trembuchlet from war with Post Finnish from the North but they perfected it in the crusades, this idea would later become the cannon, mabye even sprining the idea of a gun.

I don't think the American Army would be proud of themselves killing attacking insurgents with a pile of sharp sticks.
Another thing, Someone else said it, if it wernt for the crusades then The knights would have never gone over to get certain spices and suchnot. Marco Polo and his brother would have never gone to there adventures in albania and china. Never settled for trade with the chinese.

Anyways, Gotta go. I'll finish it later.

[Cyberspirit]

I admit that some things would not have happened if not for the crusades.

But the examples you gave were not very appropriate.

The Medieval Europeans did not invent big artillery or firearms. These weapons would be introduced with or without the Crusades.

And trade across Eurasia had started at least in 700 AD. So Marco Polo was not really that significant.

I think a more appropriate example for your argument would be that if the Crusaders had not kept the Turks occupied in the Middle East, then the warlike Turks might have invaded Greece with full force and Orthodox Christianity might cease to exist. Might. I am not sure.

And there is another example. This sounds callous and cruel, but I believed that the constant wars (coupled with the bubonic plague) kept the population of Europe and the Middle East down to a level that allowed the two regions to develop in their respective paths.
If the population were any larger, Europe might suffer from serious socio-economic problems. And that would really alter the course of history. Again, I cannot be sure.

[Trotters]

Damn you Cyber. I just got back from school and you got to the point I meant. But first, when you said they didn't have much to do with the weaponry, I meant if they hadn't gone to war using the trembuchlet they might have forgot about it and never created the gun.

Just to exaggerate you're point, it is true, if they didn't invade they might turn out like say, Modern Afganistan, country's that are way-overpopulated usually becoming poor in the part that all the jobs are taken and people are left to rot on the streets if the political system doesn't end up working, or people turn to bad harsh reasons of living, such as Sri Lanka and the Tiger Clan (not sure of the first name) or some african country's.

[Cyberspirit]

Ooops, sorry.

I am a random forum-crasher
rather obsessed with making any arguments objective.

Working on it.

BTW I think you were referring to the Liberation Tigers of the Tamil Eelaam.
In short the Tamil Tigers.
I heard that they have their own website !!!

[UnHoly-Assassin]

Oh please. You really think that they were fighting for the sake of religion? Christianity is merely a justification to enter foreign lands, invade it, exploit, loot it, and/or murder all the people there. All in the name of their peace-loving religion. I would think it'd be better if the crusades never happened. Sparks of intrest in foreign lands that never actually sparked would have prevented many slaughters and slavery. I would think that China would be better off had the Europeans have no intrest in them; China was pretty self-sufficient before there was the whole opium deal. I seriously hoped that there were some other nations out there at that time who could knock down the Crusaders into a humble state. It would be fitting for people so arrogrant.

[kongurous]

Oh please. You really think that they were fighting for the sake of religion? Christianity is merely a justification to enter foreign lands, invade it, exploit, loot it, and/or murder all the people there. All in the name of their peace-loving religion. I would think it'd be better if the crusades never happened. Sparks of intrest in foreign lands that never actually sparked would have prevented many slaughters and slavery.

Just about every religion in existence has gotten overzealous at least once in the history of the world. You can't tell me your vaunted Chinese haven't had a controversial or religiously-charged massacre.

I would think that China would be better off had the Europeans have no intrest in them; China was pretty self-sufficient before there was the whole opium deal.

The Crusades occured before China had a large amount of contact with European society, UnHoly-Assassin. Hell, the First Crusade started in 1095! The only contact China and Europe had achieved by that point was by few Chinese merchants who had actually traveled the entirety of the Silk Road and sold their goods in cities like Antioch, and just rumors and the like.

I seriously hoped that there were some other nations out there at that time who could knock down the Crusaders into a humble state. It would be fitting for people so arrogrant.

The way you word this, you make it sound like you were actually there. Just wanted to point that out. Now, onto the rest of this post.

The First Crusade succeeded for these two reasons: the muslims had never fought such an enemy before, and the Crusade had smart leaders in the beginning and early victories, inspiring fear. Every other crusade after that was non-effective, as it pretty much failed. The only muslim who stood up to the Crusaders for any long period of time and won battles, and inspired fear in the Christian ranks was Saladin. That was nearly 200 years after Jerusalem was taken.

Now, the reason I'm bringing this up is this: no matter how arrogant, or evil the crusaders were, they were an effective fighting force, and no matter how much you or anyone else wanted them to fall(which is a stupid endeavour, as it was 800 years ago), it wouldn't have happened.

[Cyberspirit]

Well, actually, most wars in China were either waged for territory/property or to overthrow/defend an unpopular ruler. Phrases like " God willed so !" were rarely the motivation for war.

Of course, the Chinese believed in the Mandate of Heaven, but the MoH was really a moral philosophy emphasising the fact that non-virtuous rulers cannot rule for long.

See, the Chinese were animists, so they did not adhere strictly to one set of religious believes. They were equally at ease in a Taoist shrine, a Buddhist temple, or a Mosque, or with no religious institurion at all. They were not controlled by organised religion like the medieval Europeans and muslims were.


I agree that the Crusades seemed inevitable and that they did have historical significance, but a disaster was a disaster.
Yeah, the Crusaders and Holy Warriors had great leaders and were effective fighting forces, but that was according to medieval Western standards ... standards influenced by organised religion.

[kongurous]

Well, actually, most wars in China were either waged for territory/property or to overthrow/defend an unpopular ruler. Phrases like " God willed so !" were rarely the motivation for war.

Of course, the Chinese believed in the Mandate of Heaven, but the MoH was really a moral philosophy emphasising the fact that non-virtuous rulers cannot rule for long.

Be that as it may, just about every religion and/or culture has had some sort of massacre in the name of their god/gods.

[UnHoly-Assassin]

Just about every religion in existence has gotten overzealous at least once in the history of the world. You can't tell me your vaunted Chinese haven't had a controversial or religiously-charged massacre.

Try naming one. Our only massacres were political or social, and even though those were still bad they were not in the name of a love-all entity.


The Crusades occured before China had a large amount of contact with European society, UnHoly-Assassin. Hell, the First Crusade started in 1095! The only contact China and Europe had achieved by that point was by few Chinese merchants who had actually traveled the entirety of the Silk Road and sold their goods in cities like Antioch, and just rumors and the like.

That's not the point. The point is that the ethnocentric beliefs of the members in the religion at that time caused genocide and attempts of extermination of foreign natives that they justified with their religion and color. The crusades were just one of the vast examples, such as the attempt to breed out the Australian aboriginals, the rubber terror in the Congo that was masked by paternalism,and the biological warfare waged by the European explorers that nearly wiped out the Mayans.

The way you word this, you make it sound like you were actually there. Just wanted to point that out. Now, onto the rest of this post.

It helps to read literature from different points of views.

The First Crusade succeeded for these two reasons: the muslims had never fought such an enemy before, and the Crusade had smart leaders in the beginning and early victories, inspiring fear. Every other crusade after that was non-effective, as it pretty much failed. The only muslim who stood up to the Crusaders for any long period of time and won battles, and inspired fear in the Christian ranks was Saladin. That was nearly 200 years after Jerusalem was taken.

Now, the reason I'm bringing this up is this: no matter how arrogant, or evil the crusaders were, they were an effective fighting force, and no matter how much you or anyone else wanted them to fall(which is a stupid endeavour, as it was 800 years ago), it wouldn't have happened.

We're talking about if the Crusades were better off not happening. Such wisdoms might be useful in the future, such as seeing past a virtuous disguise to see the ugly face within.

[kongurous]

Try naming one. Our only massacres were political or social, and even though those were still bad they were not in the name of a love-all entity.

Which is why I said "controversial". Controversy entails more than just religion.




That's not the point. The point is that the ethnocentric beliefs of the members in the religion at that time caused genocide and attempts of extermination of foreign natives that they justified with their religion and color. The crusades were just one of the vast examples, such as the attempt to breed out the Australian aboriginals, the rubber terror in the Congo that was masked by paternalism,and the biological warfare waged by the European explorers that nearly wiped out the Mayans.


And "that whole opium deal" has nothing to do with the crusades. It was simply because Lin Tse-hsu didn't agree with British trade, and the British got mad. China lost. The crusades were over the city of Jerusalem, quite possibly the holiest city, as far as how many religions consider it sacred, goes. There is a big difference between money and God.


It helps to read literature from different points of views.

Doesn't mean you were actually in the crusades, or with the Saracens, nor does it mean your wording makes sense without making you look like an idiot.



We're talking about if the Crusades were better off not happening. Such wisdoms might be useful in the future, such as seeing past a virtuous disguise to see the ugly face within.

The crusades had benefits, and they had their drawbacks. A lot of people died, but I am not opposed to them. The Christians simply wanted to have eternal glory in God's name, whether or not the muslims got in their way. Religion charges many things. Those things can be good or bad. In some eyes, it produced bad when the crusades occured. In others, it produced good. I don't care either way, though I myself am a bit biased, being raised christian.

[UnHoly-Assassin]

Which is why I said "controversial". Controversy entails more than just religion.
My point is on massacres in the name of religion. What is your point?

And "that whole opium deal" has nothing to do with the crusades. It was simply because Lin Tse-hsu didn't agree with British trade, and the British got mad. China lost. The crusades were over the city of Jerusalem, quite possibly the holiest city, as far as how many religions consider it sacred, goes. There is a big difference between money and God.
Why do you insist on bring up the Chinese? Did I once mention the chinese in that quote? The only time I mentioned it was in one of the previous posts in which I was stating how the chinese would have been better if Europeans never had intrests in central asia in the first place.

Doesn't mean you were actually in the crusades, or with the Saracens, nor does it mean your wording makes sense without making you look like an idiot.

I never claimed to be present at the crusades. I only claim to look at it from more than one point of view. So stop talking air; your breath isn't the best of scent.

In some eyes, it produced bad when the crusades occured.
I have one of those eyes. Can you also claim that the atrocities commited in the name of Christian civilization by Leopold of the Belgian government to be actually beneficial to mankind?

[kongurous]

I have one of those eyes. Can you also claim that the atrocities commited in the name of Christian civilization by Leopold of the Belgian government to be actually beneficial to mankind?

That guy had no right to do what he did. I'm not saying the crusaders did, but at least they had an actual goal. He was just crazy. What he did was just that, atrocious. The crusaders were as well, but when Adhemar of Le Puy(first crusade)was still alive, the worst they usually did was steal food.

Anyway, the reason I'm ignoring the rest of your post is because I really don't feel like arguing with you. I don't have a personal vendetta against you, and I'd just like to leave it at that.

[Trotters]

Skippy beat me to it, but like he said, the crusaders had a point, they thought Jerusalem, one of the Holiest places in the world, if not the biggest, belonged to them, and Christ himself. They knew this place belonged to them, it's kind of like (if you're christian) being baptized at a church, and having that church burnt down by accident, You might not go to church...but you feel like it's you'res, you have something in it that you don't want to let go, if you know what I mean.

What I'm trying to get at as well, is, It sounds cruel but I remember hearing it from someone, and thinking it's a good theory, but sounds cruel enough. What it is, is that I think these..let's call them Disasters, that happened are sorta-good. Say they didn't go inside, say they left Jerusulem alone, They'red be more reproduction right, this would end up having a say, double the amount population in certain arab country's to this day, when these country's get overpopulated they can't put as much force as needed on the population ending up certain people turn to bad stuff ruining the economy. As we all know Afganistan is a VERY overpopulated country for it's size, it's turned to alot of bad stuff, but it's changing luckilly, that is after the economy and "Good Will" of the country went to hell.

Like I know this sounds really bad as well, but there's no other words I could adapt it in for you to get my point. In India for example there very overpopulated when the Tsunami happened in January many people were killed, tons upon tons and it escaladed into a huge masacre of this day and age, because this country was so overpopulated so many people died. If it wern't so populated, and it was just like a Tsunami hitting the east coast of Canada, it would be sad, hell it would still kill ton's of people, but it wouldn't be so bad.

What I mean is, that these mascares keep the population down, it sometimes can be a good thing, rebuild right? I know so many lives die, but if they didn't it would become worse and worse. E.G. the Tsunami in india doesn't happen, indian citizens are fine right? No, in years to come there population would have doubled in that one certain area, say a Tsunami, as worse as the one In January hits, it's basically millions upon millions upon millions of deaths probably 5 times as more then what would have happened in The real tsunami in January.

I know this theory and statement sounded pretty `risque`, But I think you get, what I mean by it.

[Cyberspirit]

Every criminal has a point.

Every terrorist has a point.

Even compulsive killers have a reason: to satisfy their bloodlust.

I was the one who posted the "disasters keep population in check" theory.

For this theory to make sense:

The Crusades were disasters.

The Crusades were mistakes.

We see that no matter how passionate the Crusaders were they were idiots.

And Europe became powerful only in recent history because in ancient times they were not successful at overcoming disasters.

Only the strongest survived to use the plentiful resources and later dominate the world (culturally ).

Unfortunately I cannot close the case without Trotter's permission so this discussion goes on and on and on ...

[Trotters]

Every criminal has a point.

Every terrorist has a point.

Even compulsive killers have a reason: to satisfy their bloodlust.

I was the one who posted the "disasters keep population in check" theory.

For this theory to make sense:

The Crusades were disasters.

The Crusades were mistakes.

We see that no matter how passionate the Crusaders were they were idiots.

And Europe became powerful only in recent history because in ancient times they were not successful at overcoming disasters.

Only the strongest survived to use the plentiful resources and later dominate the world (culturally ).

Unfortunately I cannot close the case without Trotter's permission so this discussion goes on and on and on ...

go wild ;)

[SuiCidAl-KiSmEt]

The medieval times were was the place for wars. A lot of wars were fought for stupide things, but religion is a big thing for people, so like the other things, thats not worth fighting for? I don't think the Crusaders were stupide, just very proud of their religion.

I also think the Crusaders shouldn't have done with they did. Killing people for their religion. They almost similare to Hitler, killing people becouse they're diffreant.

So what Im saying is that the Crusaders were horrible and... intresting.

[Xenon]

So... you're saying Hitler was horribly interesting as well?

[SuiCidAl-KiSmEt]

Lets say I was going to watch a movie and pick either a War Movie and a Disney Movie, which one would you think I would watch? The War Movie. Yes, I think Hitler was interesting. But your not going to judge me becouse I like a little violence do you?

[GenocideAlive]

The medieval times were was the place for wars. A lot of wars were fought for stupide things, but religion is a big thing for people, so like the other things, thats not worth fighting for? I don't think the Crusaders were stupide, just very proud of their religion.
This entire paragraph is mind-numbing. Who asked you to assess the intelligence of the Crusaders? And how the hell do you go from an assessment of their intelligence to the pride they take in their religion in the context of imperialism? How are those two even possibly comparable?
So what Im saying is that the Crusaders were horrible and... intresting.
So what I'm saying is, you alliterate like a sick monkey. I'm guessing you put 0 time and effort into this halfassed blurb. Mouth diarrhea FTW.

[Tissue]

I was going to resist posting here as I havent posted here earlier but Genocide alive talks a load of rubbish. If you dont understand the meaning of the post dont flame it ok?

And yes people do find hitler horribly interesting...thats why there are so many documentaries about him and his rise to power.

[hammocksleeper]

Genocide, personal attacks are not appropriate in this discussion. Please stick to the topic.

[Cyberspirit]

Trotters,
close the case,
quick !

OK, that would not be fun.
So yes, stick to the topic.

We have already ascertained that the Crusaders were unthinking religious fanatics, so, no more lengthy discussion about the mentality of the Crusaders.

A better way to stay on topic is to consider what would have happened if the Crusades did not occur. And then we conclude if it were better or worse if the Crusade never happened. I know some of us have discussed it that way already.

Standard History essay technique for discussing importance and significance, y'all !