The Crusades Weren't One-Sided

Facts? You're clueless. The Roman Empire was run by the Romans, they occupied various peoples who did not consider themselves Roman. Its like saying the native Americans are really British because the British occupied them. And the proof of this is "The Sun Never sets on the British Empire". You're ridiculously ignorant of history.

Who cares where the Caucasus is? The Greeks and Romans are not Asians and the Turks are. The Crusaders invaded Asia Minor and Jerusalem and neither of these places have anything to do with them.
 
S.A.M. said:
The Roman Empire was run by the Romans, they occupied various peoples who did not consider themselves Roman.
Click to expand...
You mean sort of like how there are no Arabs or Muslims in the Israeli Knesset?

Who cares where the Caucasus is?
Click to expand...
:roflmao:

Obviously you don't even though you're the one who brought it up.

The Greeks and Romans are not Asians and the Turks are.
Click to expand...
I thought you said the Greeks and Romans are caucasians?

:roflmao:
 
Some response. The Europeans invaded Asia. Thats offensive, not defensive. The fact that other Europeans were already occupying parts of Asia is irrelevant. And does not change the fact that the barbarians and Romans were both invading a region where they were imposing their religion on the people.
 
Ah the world as it was was all conquest:

Achaemenid_Empire.jpg


Hey look... doesn't that look like Europe was being Encroached there... must of been a "Defensive" Invasion? (Almost Oxymoronic if you ask me)

Seriously the crusades was caused by a bunch of people with bullshit ideologies, fought against other people with even more bullshit ideologies, the outcome.... More bullshit ideologies.

As they say... "History is doomed to Repeat itself", mostly because people never "bury the Hatchet"

(And before anyone points out the map is before the crusades, I know. I'm just pointing out that stuff occurred before, Centuries before in fact)
 
Yeah, but the Persians never replaced entire native populations. Nor did they care about the local customs and such or delibberately enforce their language and beliefs. Thats not true for the Romans, who considered non-Romans as barbarians. Or the crusaders who considered non-Christians as unworthy of living.
 
S.A.M. said:
Yeah, but the Persians never replaced entire native populations. Nor did they care about the local customs and such or delibberately enforce their language and beliefs. Thats not true for the Romans, who considered non-Romans as barbarians. Or the crusaders who considered non-Christians as unworthy of living.
Click to expand...

Not quite, the Romans didn't just invade countries, they did much like the Persians. Their armies would be enough to cause a countries rulers to bow to their might, in doing so their rulers were allow to maintain sovereignty but at the cost of a tax and loyality to Rome.

The Persians did the same in the Gerco-Persian Wars. Not all of Greece was united, some cities sided with the Persians in exchange for control over the other Cities/Provinces.

I guess you can say this was the earliest forms of creating "Puppet Governments" through of course Tyranny.

In regards to the Romans they did allow the "barbarians" to become Romans, however they had to serve Rome in their Armies for a duration until they "Earned" that right. Even slaves could become free men through this.

I'd suggest reading the Background section of the First Crusade Seems to have a lot of Muslims encroaching Spain and Italy. Obviously Rome being the the Capital of not just Italy at that time but also the seat of the Catholic church, I'm guessing they weren't too happy about this "invasion" in their territory which was greatly enhanced by certain events.

Kind of funny really, here's an instance of a historical repeat:

Look at the "damage and Destruction" section of The church of Holy Sepulchre

And the repeat:
Buddha Statue Destroyed

(Of course the funny thing is that a news article today suggest they found another one close by to where the destroyed statues were, apparently "hidden". Probably why Buddha's are shown laughing, you destroy one but there is always another to take it's place.)
 
I have read the background section. I am not discussing the Romans per se [who were expansionists for as long as the Persians].

But the formation of an army of Christian barbarians under the Pope, who killed not only Muslims but also pagans and Jews specifically for being infidels. [For the Jews it was the First Holocaust and the beginning of organised persecution in Europe]. The "Muslims" as you classify them, were, at different points in history, the Arabs, the Berbers and the Turks who were quite distinct from each other and not a force based on religious elimination of infidels, but imperialists with empire building ambitions. The Crusaders had a specific aim of cleansing Jerusalem of Muslims and Jews [hence the Jews fighting on the side of the Muslims]. The Crusaders also targeted members of the Eastern church in Anatolia as they were sacriligeous Christians.
 
I don't really think it matters who cast the first stone, the fact remains that people use religion as a way to do shitty things to one another period. I'm surprised anyone still has a religion and hasn't woken up to the fact that it's just their to control people, to manipulate them for one or other persons benefit.
 
Stryder said:
Not quite, the Romans didn't just invade countries, they did much like the Persians. Their armies would be enough to cause a countries rulers to bow to their might, in doing so their rulers were allow to maintain sovereignty but at the cost of a tax and loyality to Rome.

The Persians did the same in the Gerco-Persian Wars. Not all of Greece was united, some cities sided with the Persians in exchange for control over the other Cities/Provinces.

I guess you can say this was the earliest forms of creating "Puppet Governments" through of course Tyranny.

In regards to the Romans they did allow the "barbarians" to become Romans, however they had to serve Rome in their Armies for a duration until they "Earned" that right. Even slaves could become free men through this.

I'd suggest reading the Background section of the First Crusade Seems to have a lot of Muslims encroaching Spain and Italy. Obviously Rome being the the Capital of not just Italy at that time but also the seat of the Catholic church, I'm guessing they weren't too happy about this "invasion" in their territory which was greatly enhanced by certain events.

Kind of funny really, here's an instance of a historical repeat:

Look at the "damage and Destruction" section of The church of Holy Sepulchre

And the repeat:
Buddha Statue Destroyed

(Of course the funny thing is that a news article today suggest they found another one close by to where the destroyed statues were, apparently "hidden". Probably why Buddha's are shown laughing, you destroy one but there is always another to take it's place.)
Click to expand...

yeah but the romans unlike the persians were really big on genocide.
 
People are apparently hard wired to believe in God. So long as that's the case there will be religion.

The Crusades were a way for Kings to seek wealth and cull off some bothersome nobles. They were also a way for the Pope to assert the church's influence. Some say that Europe was getting a bit crowded at the time and some people got together and decided a good war was just the thing to keep people busy.
 
The massacres of the Christians [Christians and Lions?]? The beheading of thousands of pagans? Organised persecution of the Jews?
 
S.A.M. said:
The massacres of the Christians [Christians and Lions?]? The beheading of thousands of pagans? Organised persecution of the Jews?
Click to expand...

The European Celt's (Prior to the Irish Excursion) were known to take the heads of their fallen enemy and stick them on sticks outside of their huts. Kind of a way to let your neighbours know not to mess with you, lest be it your neighbour happens to already be on a post. The Germanic tribes were renowned for being brutal barbarians, Romans of that time found the only way to deal with such Barbarians was to symbolise what happens to them should they cross swords and this is why many people were crucified (Not just one)

You just have to look at the insurrection lead by Spartacus and other escaped slaves in their attempt to return home while ransacking Rome's towns/Cities. Not a nice response from Rome but a response to a threat that could of brought a downfall to their empire far before Christianity raised it's ugly head.

The Library of Alexandria destruction was often attributed to religious unrest, an old fashioned "book burning" perhaps caused by feared heresy. Albeit the actual burnt scrolls that remain weren't exactly piled up and burnt, but left in a burning building which probably goes more in line with the theory presented in the wiki article.

Heck, Lets just look at Stoning heretics or adulteresses, the cutting the hands off of those that Steal, or the tongues of those that lie. Which culture used that as a way to try and maintain their "civility"?
 
Heck, Lets just look at Stoning heretics or adulteresses, the cutting the hands off of those that Steal, or the tongues of those that lie. Which culture used that as a way to try and maintain their "civility"
Click to expand...

No idea, since all these are post colonial punishments. The most severe punishment under the Ottomans for adultery was a fine. They had the famous Turkish baths and no concept of hetero- or homo-sexuality. Cutting off hands and tongues? More orientalism. Its seen in Sudan after British rule.
 
S.A.M. said:
No idea, since all these are post colonial punishments. The most severe punishment under the Ottomans for adultery was a fine. They had the famous Turkish baths and no concept of hetero- or homo-sexuality. Cutting off hands and tongues? More orientalism. Its seen in Sudan after British rule.
Click to expand...

Really, but isn't the Sudan under Sharia' Law?

sharia,
the religious law of Islam. As Islam makes no distinction between religion and life, Islamic law covers not only ritual but every aspect of life. The actual codification of canonic law is the result of the concurrent evolution of jurisprudence proper and the so-called science of the roots of jurisprudence (usul al-fiqh).


The penalty for adultery

In accordance with hadith, stoning to death is the penalty for married men and women who commit adultery.

In the words of the Prophet, Allah's Apostle


Volume 2, Book 23, Number 413:
Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar :
The Jew brought to the a man and a woman from amongst them who have committed (adultery) illegal sexual intercourse. He ordered both of them to be stoned (to death), near the place of offering the funeral prayers beside the mosque."

Volume 3, Book 34, Number 421:
Narrated 'Aisha:

Sad bin Abi Waqqas and 'Abu bin Zam'a quarreled over a boy. Sad said, "O Allah's Apostle! This boy is the son of my brother ('Utba bin Abi Waqqas) who took a promise from me that I would take him as he was his (illegal) son. Look at him and see whom he resembles." 'Abu bin Zam'a said, "O Allah's Apostle! This is my brother and was born on my father's bed from his slave-girl." Allah's Apostle cast a look at the boy and found definite resemblance to 'Utba and then said, "The boy is for you, O 'Abu bin Zam'a. The child goes to the owner of the bed and the adulterer gets nothing but the stones (despair, i.e. to be stoned to death). Then the Prophet said, "O Sauda bint Zama! Screen yourself from this boy." So, Sauda never saw him again

Volume 3, Book 49, Number 860:
Narrated Abu Huraira and Zaid bin Khalid Al-Juhani:

A bedouin came and said, "O Allah's Apostle! Judge between us according to Allah's Laws." His opponent got up and said, "He is right. Judge between us according to Allah's Laws." The bedouin said, "My son was a laborer working for this man, and he committed illegal sexual intercourse with his wife. The people told me that my son should be stoned to death; so, in lieu of that, I paid a ransom of one hundred sheep and a slave girl to save my son. Then I asked the learned scholars who said, "Your son has to be lashed one-hundred lashes and has to be exiled for one year." The Prophet said, "No doubt I will judge between you according to Allah's Laws. The slave-girl and the sheep are to go back to you, and your son will get a hundred lashes and one year exile." He then addressed somebody, "O Unais! go to the wife of this (man) and stone her to death" So, Unais went and stoned her to death.

Volume 4, Book 56, Number 829:
Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar:

The Jews came to Allah's Apostle and told him that a man and a woman from amongst them had committed illegal sexual intercourse. Allah's Apostle said to them, "What do you find in the Torah (old Testament) about the legal punishment of Ar-Rajm (stoning)?" They replied, (But) we announce their crime and lash them." Abdullah bin Salam said, "You are telling a lie; Torah contains the order of Rajm." They brought and opened the Torah and one of them solaced his hand on the Verse of Rajm and read the verses preceding and following it. Abdullah bin Salam said to him, "Lift your hand." When he lifted his hand, the Verse of Rajm was written there. They said, "Muhammad has told the truth; the Torah has the Verse of Rajm. The Prophet then gave the order that both of them should be stoned to death. ('Abdullah bin 'Umar said, "I saw the man leaning over the woman to shelter her from the stones."
 
And? What does that have anything to do with anything? There are many Hadiths from Jews. All the Hadiths were written 200-800 years after Mohammed died. According to Bukhari only 4000 of his 600,000 Hadiths may be considered authentic. So whats the point in relating them?

I could read you similar verses from the Bible and Torah. Which by the way are your scriptures that the Arabs later got familiar with. The Quran has no such stories.
 
chuuush said:
The vety fact that some people here try to defend the crusade barbarities (by blaming the victims) and some stupid ass-head here calls the prophet of Islam the first terrorist and all muslims terrorists make this a futile discussion.
Click to expand...

While I disagree with the latter two comments, it is unquestionably true that the Crusades were a defensive response to islamic invasion. This is not in serious question, as you can see from Sam's avoidance of the issue, and not related to barbarities committed along the way, which were common to all medieval armies.

S.A.M. said:
The Roman Empire by the way, was an European invasion of other lands.
Click to expand...

This is a very supremacist way to avoid the issue. The people of the Eastern Roman Empire had been Christian for hundreds of years. Who were the muslim invaders to tell them what to worship? Does not a few hundred years in a place make a homeland? (I seem to recall you using that as your yardstick about other invasions, so it's reasonable to conclude the same here).

S.A.M. said:
Yeah, but the Persians never replaced entire native populations. Nor did they care about the local customs and such or delibberately enforce their language and beliefs. Thats not true for the Romans, who considered non-Romans as barbarians. Or the crusaders who considered non-Christians as unworthy of living.
Click to expand...

And? The people of the Eastern Roman Empire were Christians, whether you like it or not (apparently: not). Moreso the Christians of early Syria, Jordan, and Palestine. Why do you consider that islam has special dispensation to invade them?

pjdude1219 said:
yeah but the romans unlike the persians were really big on genocide.
Click to expand...

Err..how's that again?

(In pjspeak, this means "that's a crock".)

S.A.M. said:
The massacres of the Christians [Christians and Lions?]? The beheading of thousands of pagans? Organised persecution of the Jews?
Click to expand...

...I'm confused. Are we talking about islam or the Romans here?

:D

Geoff
 
S.A.M. said:
And? What does that have anything to do with anything? There are many Hadiths from Jews. All the Hadiths were written 200-800 years after Mohammed died. According to Bukhari only 4000 of his 600,000 Hadiths may be considered authentic. So whats the point in relating them?

I could read you similar verses from the Bible and Torah. Which by the way are your scriptures that the Arabs later got familiar with. The Quran has no such stories.
Click to expand...

Because they are quoted and revered, as examples to be followed, and emulated, from the saying and the Life of the Prophet, and as such, rational for Islamic Laws of Sharia'.

If Mohammad said so, it is law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top