View Full Version : Crusades Film in devlopment
Ridley Scott (director of Gladiator, Blackhawk Down and Alien) is beginning work on a crusades film. The film will be set in the 12th Century and apparently, deal with a fellow who becomes a knight and is involed in the defense of Jerusalem. The title is The Kingdom of Heaven.
It may be, this film will deal with the Crusades from a Muslim perspective.
The_Emperor
10-03-2003, 18:36
Quote[/b] (Pindar @ Oct. 03 2003,18:32)]It may be, this film will deal with the Crusades from a Muslim perspective.
It should deal with it from both perspectives I feel to best understand the events.
Still if it is from the Muslim side of things, whats the betting that its Richard The Lionheart against the Muslims and British Medieval Villains again... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
Mega Dux Bob
10-03-2003, 18:57
Is Arnold the Terminator who would be Governor still slated for the stairing roll? I've got to admit casting Arnold as a medival knight seems a little silly, we all know about those medival steroids and gym equipment.
Given Ridley's utterly shallow and overrated offerings known as 'Gladiator' and 'Blackhawk Down' this one is sure to suck eggs. Like Gladiator look for 10-15 minutes worth of great action sandwiched by 100 minutes of festering camel droppings.
Oooh, I hope he gets fellow hack Hans Zimmer to provide the score. There's nothing like ripping off Wagner and Holst and getting all the credit.
Someone re-animate David Lean so we can restore some respectability to the Hollywood epic
Jacque Schtrapp
10-03-2003, 19:31
It should show things from both sides. I just hope it actually portrays the crusaders as the thieving murderers that they were. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Teutonic Knight
10-03-2003, 19:36
Quote[/b] (Jacque Schtrapp @ Oct. 03 2003,13:31)]It should show things from both sides. I just hope it actually portrays the crusaders as the thieving ers that they were. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
hehe....yeah, I shall say nothing to this...
Quote[/b] ]It should show things from both sides. I just hope it actually portrays the crusaders as the thieving ers that they were.
just how many times did they clean out Byzantium on the way to the holy land anyway? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
The_Emperor
10-03-2003, 20:00
Quote[/b] (katar @ Oct. 03 2003,19:46)]
Quote[/b] ]It should show things from both sides. I just hope it actually portrays the crusaders as the thieving ers that they were.
just how many times did they clean out Byzantium on the way to the holy land anyway? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Don't ask...
Hell the Fourth Crusade never even went to the Holy Land the Venetians sacked Constantinople instead http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif
At the time Constantinople was the greatest city in the world and its wealth was legendary... Sadly the military might of Byzantium was waning at the time, so quite simply it was easier and more profitable to sack the Byzantines than to fight the Muslims http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Just goes to show how many joined the crusades for personal gain of treasure rather than for noble purposes.
Teutonic Knight
10-03-2003, 20:08
Quote[/b] (The_Emperor @ Oct. 03 2003,14:00)]
Quote[/b] (katar @ Oct. 03 2003,19:46)]
Quote[/b] ]It should show things from both sides. I just hope it actually portrays the crusaders as the thieving ers that they were.
just how many times did they clean out Byzantium on the way to the holy land anyway? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Don't ask...
Hell the Fourth Crusade never even went to the Holy Land the Venetians sacked Constantinople instead http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif
At the time Constantinople was the greatest city in the world and its wealth was legendary... Sadly the military might of Byzantium was waning at the time, so quite simply it was easier and more profitable to sack the Byzantines than to fight the Muslims http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Just goes to show how many joined the crusades for personal gain of treasure rather than for noble purposes.
right..... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
**don't ask cause I'm not getting into that argument again**
Jacque Schtrapp
10-03-2003, 20:09
At best I would guess maybe 1 out of every 5 crusaders joined out of a desire to free the Holy Lands from the muslims. The rest joined in order to free everyone on the way from their wealth. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Remember at this time islam was at the pinnacle of learning, prosperity, and tolerance.
I bet it shows the Brits as bad again. Every bloody American film vaguely based around Britain historically (except WW2 - where we are just useless) has Britain/England as the evil ones against the perfect and enlightened Scots/Americans or whoever. I'm annoyed. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif
Teutonic Knight
10-03-2003, 20:56
Quote[/b] (Jacque Schtrapp @ Oct. 03 2003,14:09)]Remember at this time islam was at the pinnacle of learning, prosperity, and tolerance.
I do hope you're kidding about this http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif
Jacque Schtrapp
10-03-2003, 21:28
Quote[/b] (Teutonic Knight @ Oct. 03 2003,14:56)]
Quote[/b] (Jacque Schtrapp @ Oct. 03 2003,14:09)]Remember at this time islam was at the pinnacle of learning, prosperity, and tolerance.
I do hope you're kidding about this http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif
No I'm not. Islamic countries were reknowned throughout the world for their scholars. They made huge advancements in mathematics, astronomy, and medicine. Being a hub for trade with the far east brought wealth unimaginable to their coffers. Perhaps most importantly was how muslims, christians, and jews lived in peace in the lands ruled by the sultans.
Compared to the relative barbarism of feudal serfdom and in the name of God wars, the ME was a far more civilized and desirable place to live in the Medieval time period.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Michiel de Ruyter
10-03-2003, 22:10
Quote[/b] (Teutonic Knight @ Oct. 03 2003,20:56)]
Quote[/b] (Jacque Schtrapp @ Oct. 03 2003,14:09)]Remember at this time islam was at the pinnacle of learning, prosperity, and tolerance.
I do hope you're kidding about this http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif
To complement Jacques excellent reply:
Most of the ancient texts (Hebrew, Roman and Greek) would have been lost forever if not for the Muslims (and Byzantines to a lesser degree), as they either preserved the originals, or copied them, or they translated them and preserved the translations.
Most of classical knowledge had to be reintroduced from the East to the west. Compared to Muslim medicine, what we had in Europe was crude butchery. In architecture, many concepts were borrowed or copied from the Muslim world. Many of the contemporary European buildings look like a small mud shed (much like W. Wallace's farm in Braveheart) compared to the Muslim palaces, the only possible exception being some of the great cathedrals. While cities of 10,000 people were considered immense (in the 14th century ghent was the 2nd largest city in western Europe after Paris (and only just) with IIRC less then 40,000 unhabitants). At the same time Muslim cities held up to 100,000's of people.
Arguably the reconquest of Muslim territory by the Christians had a devastating effecton the country. This was mosrt notable in Spain. There are various scholars who argue that Spain is almost to this day (and certainly to 1900) suffering from the backlash of the Reconquista (completed in 1492, the majority of it well before that).
IIRC other religions were tolerated, and allowed to worship, (often) protected by decrees of the rulers. In return they had to pay an extra tax though (IIRC). For example, the exodus of Jews from Spain and Portugal (many of them ending up in the Dutch Republic) took place under Catholic rule (Carlos I and Felipe II), and generally after reconquista. Most had come to Spain under the muslim caliphs.
Quote[/b] (Jacque Schtrapp @ Oct. 03 2003,15:28)]
Quote[/b] (Teutonic Knight @ Oct. 03 2003,14:56)]
Quote[/b] (Jacque Schtrapp @ Oct. 03 2003,14:09)]Remember at this time islam was at the pinnacle of learning, prosperity, and tolerance.
I do hope you're kidding about this http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif
No I'm not. Islamic countries were reknowned throughout the world for their scholars. They made huge advancements in mathematics, astronomy, and medicine. Being a hub for trade with the far east brought wealth unimaginable to their coffers. Perhaps most importantly was how muslims, christians, and jews lived in peace in the lands ruled by the sultans.
Compared to the relative barbarism of feudal serfdom and in the name of God wars, the ME was a far more civilized and desirable place to live in the Medieval time period.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
you're completely correct my friend...
Teutonic Knight
10-03-2003, 23:12
Quote[/b] (-Amon- @ Oct. 03 2003,16:25)]
Quote[/b] (Jacque Schtrapp @ Oct. 03 2003,15:28)]
Quote[/b] (Teutonic Knight @ Oct. 03 2003,14:56)]
Quote[/b] (Jacque Schtrapp @ Oct. 03 2003,14:09)]Remember at this time islam was at the pinnacle of learning, prosperity, and tolerance.
I do hope you're kidding about this http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif
No I'm not. Islamic countries were reknowned throughout the world for their scholars. They made huge advancements in mathematics, astronomy, and medicine. Being a hub for trade with the far east brought wealth unimaginable to their coffers. Perhaps most importantly was how muslims, christians, and jews lived in peace in the lands ruled by the sultans.
Compared to the relative barbarism of feudal serfdom and in the name of God wars, the ME was a far more civilized and desirable place to live in the Medieval time period.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
you're completely correct my friend...
maybe technological devealopment, but tolerence? please, the Muslims were selling Christian slaves like hotcakes and conquering Christian lands that rightfully belonged to the empire.
The way I see it, those lands were originally owned by Christendom and were aggresively conquered by the Muslims.
Don't give me bull about how religiously tolerant they were cause it's made up fairytale crap that revisionist historians like to use to make the West look bad.
Give me some modern things that Muslims scholars thought up originally. Things they copied from other peoples (i.e. algebra) do not count.
Teutonic Knight
10-03-2003, 23:59
ok, I'm going to bow out because I have realized I don't have the credentials to continue this conversation, I still disagree with you, I just don't have sufficient book-learnin' to back it up with http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Back to the movie http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Based on the precedents, I am pretty sure it will suck beyond description.
Quote[/b] (Pindar @ Oct. 03 2003,12:32)]It may be, this film will deal with the Crusades from a Muslim perspective.
Well, perhaps Mr Scott feels a little guilty about the portrayel of the Somalians in Blackhawk down, which is why is is focusing on the Musilms this time? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
I think Scott is just preoccupied with making money more than his artistic ability these days...this is from a director who produced classics such as Alien, Blade Runner and Thelma and Louise...
Ill keep an open mind. I think we need a mainstream film which may show Muslim culture in a favourable light.
hmm..i don't want to continue talking about this subject but i will say a couple of things..
were only muslims selling slaves in medieval??this was doing by all over europe ...and christians continued to sell slaves up to 1800's..
yes,muslims might sell slaves in medieval but they were not alone while doing this...
thanx for your understanding henceforth my friend http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif ...
Quote[/b] ]maybe technological devealopment, but tolerence? please, the Muslims were selling Christian slaves like hotcakes and conquering Christian lands that rightfully belonged to the empire.
The way I see it, those lands were originally owned by Christendom and were aggresively conquered by the Muslims.
Don't give me bull about how religiously tolerant they were cause it's made up fairytale crap that revisionist historians like to use to make the West look bad.
Give me some modern things that Muslims scholars thought up originally. Things they copied from other peoples (i.e. algebra) do not count.
I know these look pretty unfeasible when you look current situation of Islam, but medieval Islamic society encouraged theological questioning and discussions on the existence of God.
As for agressive conquests, I am sure that such an act should not be too surprising in the time-frame we are talking about. Holy places were a part of Roman Empire; they couldnt hold it so Muslims captured there. So did Germanic tribes agressively captured Rome. Why does it became such a big issue when it is captured by another religion? Muslims were just thinking about building a civic establishment and they needed fertile lands. I doubt the Holy places were captured by Muslims with religious intentions. And if the Holy places were THAT holy, why couldnt Romans protect them against a bunch of unarmored, poorly armed militias?
And revisionist historians were right. As I said, Muslim classical thought made a heavy emphasis on religious tolerance (most Camis had a seperate small sinagog and a small catholic church attached to them) and aside from Mohammedan era, Muslims were quite frequently questioned the existence of God.
If you dont think that Muslim scholars are mere copiers of existing philosophies, that is too sad. Urgently visit this site
http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/phil/philo/phils/muslim/
and read this
http://www.amazon.com/exec....s=books (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0745619614/qid=1065223282/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/104-1909550-8415916?v=glance&s=books)
and for a clear superiority of Medieval eastern philosophy over western philosophy:
http://www.amazon.com/exec....s=books (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1572920459/qid=1065223401/sr=1-4/ref=sr_1_4/104-1909550-8415916?v=glance&s=books)
Of course as I said Islamic civilisation had its zenith in medieval ages (and throughout Ottoman period, which was more or less a tolerant empire) and declined terribly after that.
Teutonic Knight
10-04-2003, 00:59
Quote[/b] (Cebei @ Oct. 03 2003,18:35)]If you dont think that Muslim scholars are mere copiers of existing philosophies, that is too sad. Urgently visit this site
please don't patronize me, it leads to a very, very ugly exchange of words. There is nothing I dislike more than a sarcastic patronizing opponent in an argument, so cease and desist.
as for the aggressive conflict part, I'm not saying that it was their fault they conquerored that land, I'm just saying the Christian west had the right to take it back and that's what they did. The holy land belonged to the Christian empire, the Muslims conquerored it, and the Christians tried to conquer it back. It's really that simple.
************************************************************
Now here is an article that expresses my viewpoint, and I will expect you to also post an article and we can have fun tearing up each others articles Won't that be fun?? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif
************************************************************
Thomas F. Madden, Medieval Historian (http://www.crisismagazine.com/april2002/cover.htm)
I had no intention to be patronizing and I doubt that other people would find any patronizing words or comments or intentions or slightest intention of patronizing in my post. This is a discussion forum and my only motive for writing was to discuss and/or provide information on a specific subject. I read my post again and still couldnt find any phrases that would create such a reaction; if anybody else has such clues I would readily go back to the entrance hall.
Gregoshi
10-04-2003, 04:14
Cebei, there was nothing wrong with your post. It was well stated and provided references. I saw no patronizing. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif Thanks for providing your own reference TK. Let's just remember that we are discussing issues, not other patrons. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Anyway...
...I believe we were all agreeing how badly this movie is going to suck - oh, and that the English would look like stupid, raping, murdering heathens regardless of which perspective the movie chooses. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
ahhh, the theatrical cynicism here. How can people be against religious war, particularly on a wide screen? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
kataphraktoi
10-04-2003, 07:40
Frankly, the portrayals of Islam are the views of the educated elite. Unfortunately, we don't know the attitudes of the common Muslim and their views of Christians.
Comparing the West to Islam makes Islam look more tolerant but doesn't necessarily make Islam tolerant. This argument adds perspective but not substance.
We have to consider the texts that are available to us - Christians and Muslims alike have a theoretical base of what their religiion is, but, as you all know, it isn't practised in reality. To bag Christianity is to close one eye and use the other.
Again, how do u define tolerance?
I assure you, tolerance in Islam may have a different context to our UN human rights context.
My view is that they are just as EQUALLY bad as each other.
WHile it is true that Muslims transmitted valuable Latin, Greek, etc texts of the ancient classics to the West, it was Byzantium who transmitted them to Islam. In the 14th and 15th century, Byzantine scholars are directly linked to the Renaissance with their collection of the same texts.
An example. Gemistos Plethon. Manuel Chrysolas.
Teutonic Knight
10-04-2003, 15:07
Quote[/b] (Gregoshi @ Oct. 03 2003,22:14)]Cebei, there was nothing wrong with your post. It was well stated and provided references. I saw no patronizing. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif Thanks for providing your own reference TK. Let's just remember that we are discussing issues, not other patrons. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Anyway...
...I believe we were all agreeing how badly this movie is going to suck - oh, and that the English would look like stupid, raping, ing heathens regardless of which perspective the movie chooses. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
I took no offence but
Quote[/b] ]If you dont think that Muslim scholars are mere copiers of existing philosophies, that is too sad. Urgently visit this site sounded like he was being sarcastic. If you weren't being sarcastic, then I apologize, I merely misunderstood you http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif .
Other than that I agree...
Who would play Saladin?
Well, I know of a person who was born in exactly the same village with Saladin and although methods are different, he too was invloved in state affairs. Both are mujahiddins and I suspect, as he is unemployed currently, he would happliy play Saladin in a crusade movie.
The actor (http://www.buko.info/bilder/saddam.jpg)
Actually, instead of a crusade movie, I would think of a trilogy of knight orders.
Lord of the Kings 1(stupid name) http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif : Teutonic Order
Lord of the Kings2:Hospitallers
LOK3:Templars
If not, perhaps a Dune type strategy game in which Atredies, Harkonnen and Ordos are Teutons, Templars and Hospitallers. Each with different unit stats and units, fighting against each other.
You can do the movie of this utopic thing. But I want Will Smith as Richard Coeur de Lion.
Teutonic Knight
10-04-2003, 16:23
Quote[/b] (Cebei @ Oct. 04 2003,10:13)]You can do the movie of this utopic thing. But I want Will Smith as Richard Coeur de Lion.
ok....that ends it for me http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
here come the kings in black..... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
and Tom Hanks as the Byzantine emperor. and Saddam is too close to Saladin, make that Dolph Lundgren as the Saladin. And James Cameron as the director. Jurrasic Knights. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif
For a crusade movie to be well-made, the producer must be someone other than present main producers. A new guy can spark some interest in me. Otherwise we will see the Holywoodisation of the crusades.
Perhaps.. LLcoolJ as a teuton and Jim Carrey as the French princess.
Quote[/b] (Cebei @ Oct. 04 2003,10:35)]For a crusade movie to be well-made, the producer must be someone other than present main producers. A new guy can spark some interest in me. Otherwise we will see the Holywoodisation of the crusades.
What about this other guy (http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/), he would be a great script writer IMO http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
They are sick in their minds. They say they brought 65 knights into center of city. I say to you this talk is not true. This is part of their sick mind.
Quote[/b] ]What about this other guy, he would be a great script writer IMO
How dare you??? He is the most serious man in the world, please dont offend the whole forum with posts like that. Everyone takes him seriously, so should you http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Romans captured our holy places we just took them back
Mount Suribachi
10-04-2003, 19:42
I accept that the English will look bad, but as long as Mel Gibson isn't involved, we won't look too bad http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
As for how the film will portray the crusaders...I reckon thats a real toughie.
They could decide to show the crusaders for the murdering, raping, pillaging barbarians that they were, but then they run the risk of portraying the muslims as poor innocent people, who had never done anything wrong in their whole life (and certainly never did anything so wicked as attacking the lands of another religion) and it will bomb at the box office cos it goes against the stereotypes and the good guys are actually the bad guys.
Or they could throw the history book out the window and portray the stereotypical Crusader as a noble and virtuous knight fighting back the heathen hordes. In which case their will be a storm of criticism from the liberal film media and the muslim community.
Kind of a lose-lose situation.
Teutonic Knight
10-04-2003, 20:27
I'm okay with throwing out the history books http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Quote[/b] (Teutonic Knight @ Oct. 04 2003,14:27)]I'm okay with throwing out the history books http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
well with so much hatred around against arabs and muslims, it will just add fuel to the fire. If blackhawk down is anything to go by, the film will be total jingoistic racsit claptrap. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Whether Muslims or Crusaders should be portrayed innocent or vulgar must be determined according to which crusade is being shot here.
In general portraying Muslims as good an innocent can be a one-time favor and sacrifice by the film makers. The situation is pretty tense already, so the other way would be a bit risky (who would care about that anyway).
Actually it cant be much hard to portray both sides equally right, so noone would complain about anything.
Quick search on Goolge found this thread:-
http://www.moviejustice.com/forums....ry26150 (http://www.moviejustice.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=2861&st=0&#entry26150)
A quote from Scott:-
Quote[/b] ]It's a movie I've been thinking about for 20 years. It's going to take place in the middle of the Crusades, around 1130, 1136, and feature Saladin, a Muslim, who was the wisest of all the knights, a trustworthy man of his word. He kept the peace around Jerusalem, which was held by Baldwin, a Christian who believed that any religion should be able to come to the city and pray. The two men had a connection of respect. I don't want the movie to be about knights in armor and chaps charging around with red crosses and waving swords and hacking off heads. It really should be a fundamental discussion between the two religions and not only that, but the actual misrepresentation of the Holy Roman Empire by the Catholic church, which was in those times seriously corrupt. When they got down there, the people the church regarded as infidels had a faith that was as strong, if not stronger than the fundamental rules of Christianity. What comes after that? It will be Gladiator 2,' probably in '05. The script is done. It's very simply the next generation. Roman history is so exotic that where you go next is taking the son, Lucius, somewhere.
Looks interesting. I take back my 'jingoistic' comment from before, I was just basing it on BHD. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
Ser Clegane
10-04-2003, 22:31
Quote[/b] (sparrow @ Oct. 04 2003,16:26)]Quick search on Goolge found this thread:-
http://www.moviejustice.com/forums....ry26150 (http://www.moviejustice.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=2861&st=0&#entry26150)
A quote from Scott:-
Quote[/b] ]It's a movie I've been thinking about for 20 years. It's going to take place in the middle of the Crusades, around 1130, 1136, and feature Saladin, a Muslim, who was the wisest of all the knights, a trustworthy man of his word. He kept the peace around Jerusalem, which was held by Baldwin, a Christian who believed that any religion should be able to come to the city and pray. The two men had a connection of respect. I don't want the movie to be about knights in armor and chaps charging around with red crosses and waving swords and hacking off heads. It really should be a fundamental discussion between the two religions and not only that, but the actual misrepresentation of the Holy Roman Empire by the Catholic church, which was in those times seriously corrupt. When they got down there, the people the church regarded as infidels had a faith that was as strong, if not stronger than the fundamental rules of Christianity. What comes after that? It will be Gladiator 2,' probably in '05. The script is done. It's very simply the next generation. Roman history is so exotic that where you go next is taking the son, Lucius, somewhere.
Looks interesting. I take back my 'jingoistic' comment from before, I was just basing it on BHD. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
Sounds very promising - however, I find the comments on Gladiator 2 slightly disturbing...
Osama Bin Laden is Saladin wannabe
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
I love forums
Quote[/b] (sparrow @ Oct. 04 2003,16:26)]What comes after that? It will be Gladiator 2,' probably in '05. The script is done. It's very simply the next generation. Roman history is so exotic that where you go next is taking the son, Lucius, somewhere.
This can't be good... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/shock.gif
Quote[/b] (Cebei @ Oct. 04 2003,10:35)]and Saddam is too close to Saladin,
Ha-Ha-Ha http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
that's cool http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Mount Suribachi
10-05-2003, 09:25
Quote[/b] (sparrow @ Oct. 04 2003,20:46)]If blackhawk down is anything to go by, the film will be total jingoistic racsit claptrap. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Actually, I thought BHD was pretty good. I was expecting a real OTT hollywood production, but they pretty much stuck to the book. Theres very little in the film that didn't actually happen.
Have you read the book? You should, the author interviewed Somalis and Americans in depth and does a very good job of portraying both sides POV
kataphraktoi
10-05-2003, 09:30
Movie is called TRIPOLI
eddeduck
10-05-2003, 13:43
Some time last year, I saw a program on C4 called Crusade which I think was about the second and third crusades (both against saladin). the third was lead by Richard. The program highlighted the relationship between the two men. Even though they did not meet.
An example was given of this it was said that at the battle of Jaffa when Richard was Unhorsed, Saladin sent him one of his own. I belive that a movie should perhaps explore this relationship.
This program also commented on the short temper of Richard, His tactical genius, His Fondness for crossbows (Insidently He was killed By one in the end In france somwhere.), An how he got so close to jerusalem. In this program It said that he shed tears when he saw the City as he realised he could not take the city and then hold it so he went back to europe to get a bigger army (which never happened)
Did anyone else remember seing this program and did I get these things right?
Quote[/b] (Mount Suribachi @ Oct. 05 2003,03:25)]
Quote[/b] (sparrow @ Oct. 04 2003,20:46)]If blackhawk down is anything to go by, the film will be total jingoistic racsit claptrap. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Actually, I thought BHD was pretty good. I was expecting a real OTT hollywood production, but they pretty much stuck to the book. Theres very little in the film that didn't actually happen.
Have you read the book? You should, the author interviewed Somalis and Americans in depth and does a very good job of portraying both sides POV
Yes I read the book, and I thought it did a better job of portraying the Somalis than the film did (it never really tried did it?).
Ridley Scott did get slated by critics for his portrayel of Somalis in the film.
Griefmaker
10-05-2003, 13:54
hi guys
I find that bbc mini series hosted by terry jones was a good view on the crusades. Anyone seen that?
You really see how crazy the crusaders were, plus all the in-fighting. The muslims really were the educated lot at the time. And its repeating here on tv starting monday nite, sweet.
Quote[/b] (kataphraktoi @ Oct. 05 2003,03:30)]Movie is called TRIPOLI
At least it isn't called ZUCCHABAR... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Teutonic Knight
10-05-2003, 21:46
Quote[/b] (sparrow @ Oct. 05 2003,07:50)]Ridley Scott did get slated by critics for his portrayel of Somalis in the film.
what is there to portray about that Somalies here? I'm confused...
The Blind King of Bohemia
10-05-2003, 21:56
The movie isn't called Tripoli. That's another film he's doing with Russell Crowe. I heard it will be called Kingdom of Heaven.
I also hear he wants Orlando Bloom as the lead.
Quote[/b] (Teutonic Knight @ Oct. 05 2003,15:46)]
Quote[/b] (sparrow @ Oct. 05 2003,07:50)]Ridley Scott did get slated by critics for his portrayel of Somalis in the film.
what is there to portray about that Somalies here? I'm confused...
Portraying them not just as cannon fodder for the rangers. The film goes into great depth about one american who dies to a gunshot wound to his leg, but how many somalis also would have suffered worse due to the firepower the americans unleashed?
C'est la vie
TK, Much developement of the western world was down to the Crusades and the fact that Western Leaders came into contact with Muslim technology... Mate, the first round towers instead of square for castles came from contact with Muslims...
If you read Warriors of God (Sorry, can't remember the author, as it's at home!http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif It gives an excellent and very balanced account of Richard the Lionheart and Saladins clashes. A really inspiring book and I must tell you this:
Our Western, Frankish/Norman Crusader heroes were downright brutal, murderous people Let's face it, you mentioned slavery, what is serfdom? The Western lords enslaved their own people, but just called it something else
The fact is, the Pope appologised some years back in an official capacity for the atrocities committed over many centuries. And you can trace a lot of the tension between Christian and Muslim countries back to those times.. Unfortunately, our past reprosentatives were more concerned with Wealth, titles and butchery than they were about liberation..
This is why, as a British citizen, it really makes me cringe when President What day is it Bush starts talking about Crusades... Please Mr Bush, do some advanced reading...
Quote[/b] (Griefmaker @ Oct. 05 2003,07:54)]hi guys
I find that bbc mini series hosted by terry jones was a good view on the crusades. Anyone seen that?
You really see how crazy the crusaders were, plus all the in-fighting. The muslims really were the educated lot at the time. And its repeating here on tv starting monday nite, sweet.
Yes mate.. The account of the first ever encounter between muslim and European cavalry was hilarious Stated that The European Knights used big, strong Stallions as their chargers and the Mulsims used more nimble, smaller fillies for their swifter style of warfare.. The result?? Christian Stallions chasing Muslim fillies accross the battlefield (looking for a bit of the other!http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif, with warriors on their backs trying to kill each other
Man, if I had a time machine...
Teutonic Knight
10-11-2003, 03:11
Quote[/b] (sparrow @ Oct. 05 2003,19:59)]
Quote[/b] (Teutonic Knight @ Oct. 05 2003,15:46)]
Quote[/b] (sparrow @ Oct. 05 2003,07:50)]Ridley Scott did get slated by critics for his portrayel of Somalis in the film.
what is there to portray about that Somalies here? I'm confused...
Portraying them not just as cannon fodder for the rangers. The film goes into great depth about one american who dies to a gunshot wound to his leg, but how many somalis also would have suffered worse due to the firepower the americans unleashed?
C'est la vie
oh I see, I thought you were implying that the Somali s were justified in dragging Americans bodies through the street... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
Quote[/b] ]TK, Much developement of the western world was down to the Crusades and the fact that Western Leaders came into contact with Muslim technology... Mate, the first round towers instead of square for castles came from contact with Muslims...
If you read Warriors of God (Sorry, can't remember the author, as it's at home It gives an excellent and very balanced account of Richard the Lionheart and Saladins clashes. A really inspiring book and I must tell you this:
Our Western, Frankish/Norman Crusader heroes were downright brutal, ous people Let's face it, you mentioned slavery, what is serfdom? The Western lords enslaved their own people, but just called it something else
The fact is, the Pope appologised some years back in an official capacity for the atrocities committed over many centuries. And you can trace a lot of the tension between Christian and Muslim countries back to those times.. Unfortunately, our past reprosentatives were more concerned with Wealth, titles and butchery than they were about liberation..
This is why, as a British citizen, it really makes me cringe when President What day is it Bush starts talking about Crusades... Please Mr Bush, do some advanced reading...
But were not the crusaders responding to a real military threat on their territory? here is the article again, please take the time to read it all the way through, and then judge it... Thomas F. Madden, Medieval Historian and author (http://www.crisismagazine.com/april2002/cover.htm)
kataphraktoi
10-11-2003, 13:07
The apologies seem to come from one side but not the other?
Meaningful interfaith dialogue....HAHAHAHAHAHAHA...sorry.
History has a selective memory, the Historian is the judge.
Teutonic Knight
10-11-2003, 14:07
Quote[/b] (kataphraktoi @ Oct. 11 2003,07:07)]The apologies seem to come from one side but not the other?
Meaningful interfaith dialogue....HAHAHAHAHAHAHA...sorry.
History has a selective memory, the Historian is the judge.
G.K. Chesterton, the apostle of common sense (http://www.chesterton.org/gkc/historian/historians.html)
Quote[/b] ]But were not the crusaders responding to a real military threat on their territory? here is the article again, please take the time to read it all the way through, and then judge it... Thomas F. Madden, Medieval Historian and author
I dont know TK. It is the second time I am readin the Madden article and; man the eastern mediterranean was not cursaders' province, it was Roman province (I mean how much French, English or German can Tripoli be for ex.?) and before the Romans it was Parthians' province. Given that how much Christian was the Romans when the eastern meditarranean was captured, I dont see any reason why those provinces should be rightfully Christian. Moreover these provinces were under threat since the emergence of Islam mid 7th century; why would the Church wait 400 years to retaliate? Can crusades be a distraction to avoid the battles between christian warlords? Did the Church really care about the Holy places or did the Church simply wanted to get rid of the rogue warlords and outlaws and wanted them to be sent anywhere except Europe?
As for the article; I actually cant expect an equidstant and truly academic paper from a magazine called CRISIS which portrays the Pope, the white house, the virgin mary (is that her?) and an american flag and is written after sept 11. Would you believe in a similar subject article published in Al-Fatih (the conquest) magazine, by a Muslim and written after American liberation of Iraq?
People may not know everything, but Madden assumes he know everything and unfortunately he is wrong. The historical facts he has written about Ottoman history are simply wrong for example, but a Turk cannot fall into these. He makes a point and is well argued, but he is structuring his arguments on historically wrong facts. Perhaps his internationally published papers are better but this one is simply one sided and is not an academic paper, just his viewpoints. I assume you like it because his views are similar to your views am I correct?
Shigawire
10-11-2003, 17:46
I really look forward to this movie. I am a big fan of Ridley Scott's cinematography, choreography and overall composition.. also, John Logan did great on the screenwriting for Gladiator. Hans Zimmer made a very memorable OST.. which I subsequently bought.
About the 1st Crusades.. The difference between Catholic european barbarians and the scientifically advanced arabs is remarkable. The Arabs were incredibly advanced back then, compared to the catholic europe.
Back in 1087->1191 , an Arab gentleman was expected to be a poet and philosopher as well as a warrior. Even at this early age, they had correctly calculated the distance from earth to the moon. And one Arab had even suggested that if he could split the atom, it would release enough power to destroy a city the size of Baghdad. Furthermore, Jerusalem itself was a multicultural city. Jews, Moslems and Christians all lived together harmoniously. Christians on pilgrimages to Jerusalem were freely allowed across to the Holy Places.
Teutonic Knight
10-11-2003, 18:26
well I can see there's no convincing you guys, and I would love to continue this debate, however I just don't have the book knowledge to continue a rational conversation about this subject...
I still disagree with you, I'm just not knowledgeable enough to debate it, becuase I can't stand people who go through with arguments when they have no idea what they're talking about http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
Teutonic Knight
10-11-2003, 18:29
Quote[/b] (Cebei @ Oct. 11 2003,11:15)]As for the article; I actually cant expect an equidstant and truly academic paper from a magazine called CRISIS which portrays the Pope, the white house, the virgin mary (is that her?) and an american flag and is written after sept 11. Would you believe in a similar subject article published in Al-Fatih (the conquest) magazine, by a Muslim and written after American liberation of Iraq?
can you say predjudice?
Quote[/b] ]can you say predjudice?
Can you clarify please, is it me or..?
Quote[/b] ]About the 1st Crusades.. The difference between Catholic european barbarians and the scientifically advanced arabs is remarkable. The Arabs were incredibly advanced back then, compared to the catholic europe.
Back in 1087->1191 , an Arab gentleman was expected to be a poet and philosopher as well as a warrior. Even at this early age, they had correctly calculated the distance from earth to the moon. And one Arab had even suggested that if he could split the atom, it would release enough power to destroy a city the size of Baghdad. Furthermore, Jerusalem itself was a multicultural city. Jews, Moslems and Christians all lived together harmoniously. Christians on pilgrimages to Jerusalem were freely allowed across to the Holy Places.
Welcome to the forum Shigawire http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif I am impressed by your knowledge of these informations. How possibly can a Norwegian know about this?
Jabir Ibn Haiyan (Geber) Chemistry (Father of Chemistry) Died 803 C.E.
Al-Asmai Zoology, Botany, Animal Husbandry. 740 - 828
Al-Khwarizmi (Algorizm) Mathematics, Astronomy, Geography. (Algorithm, Algebra, calculus) 770 - 840
'Amr ibn Bahr Al-Jahiz Zoology, Arabic Grammar, Rhetoric, Lexicography 776 - 868
Ibn Ishaq Al-Kindi (Alkindus) Philosophy, Physics, Optics,
Medicine, Mathematics, Metallurgy. 800 - 873
Thabit Ibn Qurrah (Thebit) Astronomy, Mechanics, Geometry, Anatomy. 836 - 901
'Abbas Ibn Firnas Mechanics of Flight, Planetarium, Artificial Crystals. Died 888
Ali Ibn Rabban Al-Tabari Medicine, Mathematics, Caligraphy, Literature. 838 - 870
Al-Battani (Albategnius) Astronomy, mathematics, Trigonometry. 858 - 929
Al-Farghani (Al-Fraganus) Astronomy, Civil Engineering. C. 860
Al-Razi (Rhazes) Medicine, Ophthalmology, Smallpox, Chemistry, Astronomy. 864 - 930
Al-Farabi (Al-Pharabius) Sociology, Logic, Philosophy, Political Science, Music. 870 - 950
Abul Hasan Ali Al-Masu'di Geography, History. Died 957
Al-Sufi (Azophi) Astronomy 903 - 986
Abu Al-Qasim Al-Zahravi (Albucasis) Surgery, Medicine. (Father of Modern Surgery) 936 - 1013
Muhammad Al-Buzjani Mathematics, Astronomy, Geometry, Trigonometry. 940 - 997
Ibn Al-Haitham (Alhazen) Physics, Optics, Mathematics. 965 - 1040
Al-Mawardi (Alboacen) Political Science, Sociology,
Jurisprudence, Ethics. 972 - 1058
Abu Raihan Al-Biruni Astronomy, Mathematics. (Determined
Earth's Circumference) 973-1048
Ibn Sina (Avicenna) Medicine, Philosophy, Mathematics, Astronomy. 981 - 1037
Al-Zarqali (Arzachel) Astronomy (Invented Astrolabe). 1028 - 1087
Omar Al-Khayyam Mathematics, Poetry. 1044 - 1123
Al-Ghazali (Algazel) Sociology, Theology, Philosophy. 1058 - 1111
Abu Bakr Muhammad Ibn Yahya (Ibn Bajjah) Philosophy,
Medicine, Mathematics, Astronomy, Poetry, Music. 1106 - 1138
Ibn Zuhr (Avenzoar) Surgery, Medicine. 1091 - 1161
Al-Idrisi (Dreses) Geography (World Map, First Globe). 1099 - 1166
Ibn Tufayl, Abdubacer Philosophy, Medicine, Poetry. 1110 - 1185
Ibn Rushd (Averroes) Philosophy, Law, Medicine, Astronomy, Theology. 1128 - 1198
Al-Bitruji (Alpetragius) Astronomy Died 1204
Ibn Al-Baitar Pharmacy, Botany Died 1248
Nasir Al-Din Al-Tusi Astronomy, Non-Euclidean Geometry. 1201 - 1274
Jalal Al-Din Rumi Sociology 1207 - 1273
Ibn Al-Nafis Damishqui Anatomy 1213 - 1288
Al-Fida (Abdulfeda) Astronomy, Geography, Histrory. 1273 - 1331
Muhammad Ibn Abdullah (Ibn Battuta) World Traveler. 75,000 mile voyage from Morocco to China and back. 1304 - 1369
Ibn Khaldun Sociology, Philosophy of History, Political Science. 1332 - 1395
Ulugh Beg Astronomy 1393 - 1449
Strangely enough, UCLA's website on Islamic civilisation portrays crusades as something different than what I would expect from an American University.
First and Second Crusades destroyed much of the Islamic labratories and scientific achievements. Much of the scientific knowledge invented by highly advanced Muslim scientists were destroyed by relatively backward European crusaders.
A bit harsh remark on Europeans though, but it is true that Islam was the zenith of civilization between 800-1500.
Shigawire
10-11-2003, 22:16
Thanks for the welcome http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Wow, that's quite a list of people..
Another science they exelled at was biology and anatomy of the human body.. the advances in surgery were such that they had all kinds of surgical tools, especially made for each type of operation. And they are remarkably similar to the tools we see with today's surgical tools. It seems we didn't reach their level of surgical prowess until.. 1600-1700s
Really? That should be the Ottoman period. But Leonadro DaVinci should have reached the Islamic surgical learning. Well, of course one man may not change everything.
Are you a surgeon? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Quote[/b] (Cebei @ Oct. 11 2003,16:01)]Welcome to the forum Shigawire http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif I am impressed by your knowledge of these informations. How possibly can a Norwegian know about this?
Jabir Ibn Haiyan (Geber) Chemistry (Father of Chemistry) Died 803 C.E.
Al-Asmai Zoology, Botany, Animal Husbandry. 740 - 828
Al-Khwarizmi (Algorizm) Mathematics, Astronomy, Geography. (Algorithm, Algebra, calculus) 770 - 840
'Amr ibn Bahr Al-Jahiz Zoology, Arabic Grammar, Rhetoric, Lexicography 776 - 868
Ibn Ishaq Al-Kindi (Alkindus) Philosophy, Physics, Optics,
Medicine, Mathematics, Metallurgy. 800 - 873
Fascinating Cebei, thanks for posting this.
Does kind of put western society into perspective, I think.
Marshal Murat
10-11-2003, 23:44
I think this show is to prove biased due to the flares of muslim hatred that has been going on. I am assuming that the Crusaders to be portrayed the loving people that they are usually marked out to be and the Saracens are to be some dirty thieving scum dressed like the Uruk Hai.
You are welcome
Actually the reason why we are discussing these things, is to try to see how would Christians and Muslims would be depicted in a crusade movie.
Although most of the medieval historians (non-Muslim of course) I have taken lessons concerning the crusades believed that the crusades were a shame for catholic history, I dont believe that such a long campaign should be blamed on crusaders in general.
Thus if they are to make such a movie they have to find a common ground. It is highly unlikely that the moive will favor crusaders (given the current situation of Muslims), but they should not depict Muslims as innocent and poor fellas.
Quote[/b] ]Saracens are to be some dirty thieving scum dressed like the Uruk Hai.
LOL and Saladin as Sauron http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
Well, hopefully the film will just go to show how badly muslims have been treated throughout history (starting really from the crusades)...it may put things into perspective, that was what I was getting at.
It just isnt widely known that the Islamics had such a developed society at this period in history, I mean I had no idea at all I dont think it is really that well established.
Marshal Murat
10-12-2003, 00:28
I hope they show the true portrayal that the Islamic people were fair and truthful, I mean after the Crusaders sacked Jeruseleam they didn't care if you were Christian or Muslim you are dead. They are portrayed in a light of the ultimate saviors, while all they did was selfish.
Teutonic Knight
10-12-2003, 00:45
you're preaching to the chior Murat http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
Emp. Conralius
10-12-2003, 01:56
Well, I just read this entire 3-page thread just now. The name of the thread sparked my interest because I enjoy and admire Ridley Scott's work.
I really dont know how to say this without being too deliberate or putting someone on the spot but here goes:
Teutonic Knight, you appear to try to discredit the Muslim people, culture and theology in about ALL of your posts in this thread. If anyone looks back and reads all your posts, your thinking is made quite evident. And to a point, it actually bothered me.
I'm not flaming you (whether you think or not). I'm just stating the obvious on your ideas that were made openly clear. I'm not looking for a flame skirmish.
but I guess I'm just preaching to the choir...
Anyways, the portrayal and persceptive of the film will definately tell you a lot about the outcome the film will have. Not too sure about Gladiator 2 though. Maybe a sequel would be straight (I stress maybe), but sequel to Gladiator is worthy of another name.
All in all, the whole Crusader subject matter is a touchy subject in this day and age, I just hope Scott pulls it off and it doesent end up a dissapointment like Gods and Generals.
Teutonic Knight
10-12-2003, 17:20
Quote[/b] (Emp. Conralius @ Oct. 11 2003,19:56)]I really dont know how to say this without being too deliberate or putting someone on the spot but here goes:
Teutonic Knight, you appear to try to discredit the Muslim people, culture and theology in about ALL of your posts in this thread. If anyone looks back and reads all your posts, your thinking is made quite evident. And to a point, it actually bothered me.
I'm not flaming you (whether you think or not). I'm just stating the obvious on your ideas that were made openly clear. I'm not looking for a flame skirmish.
but I guess I'm just preaching to the choir...
ok first of all I never discredited the Islamic culture for any achievement in the field of science and scholarship, I was merely defending my conviction that the crusaders were not a gang of landhungry, barbarian savages preying on the poor inn0cent Muslims who had never done anything wrong.
As for your being offended, I'm sorry if it offends you that I disagree with someone on a point and argue about it in a civil manner, but that just seems a little ridiculous to me...
I do not flame people so never fear in that regard http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
Quote[/b] ]but I guess I'm just preaching to the choir...
what the hell does that mean?
were you drinking when you made that post or sleep deprived or what?? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif
Anyhoo I'm sorry if I offended anyone somehow or whatever http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
Quote[/b] ]can you say predjudice?
You still havent explained what you meant by this remark Teuton.
Emp. Conralius
10-13-2003, 02:28
Quote[/b] (Teutonic Knight @ Oct. 12 2003,11:20)]
Quote[/b] (Emp. Conralius @ Oct. 11 2003,19:56)]I really dont know how to say this without being too deliberate or putting someone on the spot but here goes:
Teutonic Knight, you appear to try to discredit the Muslim people, culture and theology in about ALL of your posts in this thread. If anyone looks back and reads all your posts, your thinking is made quite evident. And to a point, it actually bothered me.
I'm not flaming you (whether you think or not). I'm just stating the obvious on your ideas that were made openly clear. I'm not looking for a flame skirmish.
but I guess I'm just preaching to the choir...
ok first of all I never discredited the Islamic culture for any achievement in the field of science and scholarship, I was merely defending my conviction that the crusaders were not a gang of landhungry, barbarian savages preying on the poor inn0cent Muslims who had never done anything wrong.
As for your being offended, I'm sorry if it offends you that I disagree with someone on a point and argue about it in a civil manner, but that just seems a little ridiculous to me...
I do not flame people so never fear in that regard http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
Quote[/b] ]but I guess I'm just preaching to the choir...
what the hell does that mean?
were you drinking when you made that post or sleep deprived or what?? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif
Anyhoo I'm sorry if I offended anyone somehow or whatever http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
Well, I'm glad that I can avoid a flame war. I really didnt think the preaching to the choir line would displease you to the point of mild profanity, but you proved me wrong http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
And yes, while I was writing my last post, I was under the influence of alchohol and suffering from insomnia. Great Job
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
Take that however you may, but try to keep a cool head http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
Anyways, has anyone found out which point of view the film will be done in? I read mention of Orlando Bloom as one of the leads.
Quote[/b] ] man the eastern mediterranean was not cursaders' province, it was Roman province (I mean how much French, English or German can Tripoli be for ex.?) and before the Romans it was Parthians' province. Given that how much Christian was the Romans when the eastern meditarranean was captured, I dont see any reason why those provinces should be rightfully Christian. Moreover these provinces were under threat since the emergence of Islam mid 7th century; why would the Church wait 400 years to retaliate? Can crusades be a distraction to avoid the battles between christian warlords? Did the Church really care about the Holy places or did the Church simply wanted to get rid of the rogue warlords and outlaws and wanted them to be sent anywhere except Europe?
This is a good post with several proper questions. If I may jump in, I'll attempt to answer a few:
The Levant was certainly part of the East Roman Empire and Christian at the time of Arab expansion. The whole of it was taken in the 7th Century.
I think the typical answer as to why several centuries passed before Western Europe became involed are:
1) At the time of the Muslim conquest Western Europe did have the capacity to launch expeditions across Europe into the Middle East. Western Kingdoms were still very much a thing in process. Despite the victory at Tours against the Muslims,(732) the Franks wouldn't really develope into the Carolingian Empire until the reign of Charles the Great and even then were fairly simplistic regarding infrastructure.
2) The Levant was considered lost territory of the East Romans. Subsequently, the original impetus for a crusader movement didn't begin until an appeal was made by Alexius I, the Byzantine Emperor, to the Pope for assistance against Muslim incursions.
The Magnates of the First Crusade actually swore to the Byzantine Emperor(by his insistance) to restore to him all lands taken that were former Imperial territories. This oath was considered void, by most of the Crusader Lords, when the Byzantines didn't assist (aside from some seige engineers) in the taking of Anitoch.
3) Questioning the intentions of the Crusaders is legitimate. However, many of the clear distinctions made in the Modern Period are difficult to maintain when it comes to prior eras. The sheer expense of setting of for war so far from one's interests, which would be vunerable without the Lord's presence, indicates a degree of religious devotion irrespective of individuals who may have taken the cross solely with the idea of secular gain.
4) Papal interest may well have been to push back Islam as well as to increase the sphere of Papal control vis a vis the Patriarch of Contantinpole and Christian Orthodoxy.
Pindar;
Great post. Actually my intention was to provide one end of the continuum, which the teutonic knight constitutes the other end. While interpreting events, one has to think in terms of the historical context and thus an event scarcely has rights or wrongs. The motive behind my questions was to level TK's extremist approach with the questions from another extreme (though these questions were our final exam questions asked by an English professor http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif ).
So I believe that both sides had their good reasons. Just when you look from a broader perspective many historians believe that the Muslims were the suffered part in the conflict and many scholars believe that the Crusaders' way of liberating the provinces (destorying improvements which included labratories, museums, artworks etc. and killing Christians along Muslims) is no different than the raids of the barbarians, thus makes the whole Crusade thing dubious.
Anyway really informative, thanks pindar.
kataphraktoi
10-13-2003, 14:18
Anyone considered the fact that Western Europeans were hardly enamoured by the Muslim raids in the Mediterranean, the Muslim base near Marseille and the ever constant threat of the Ummayads in Spain???
I doubt that Western Europeans would have had the time to develop a keen sense for discovery and technology being occupied by the thought of survival.
Teutonic Knight
10-13-2003, 14:35
Quote[/b] (kataphraktoi @ Oct. 13 2003,08:18)]Anyone considered the fact that Western Europeans were hardly enamoured by the Muslim raids in the Mediterranean, the Muslim base near Marseille and the ever constant threat of the Ummayads in Spain???
I doubt that Western Europeans would have had the time to develop a keen sense for discovery and technology being occupied by the thought of survival.
amen brother http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif
Teutonic Knight
10-13-2003, 14:38
Quote[/b] (Cebei @ Oct. 12 2003,12:08)]
Quote[/b] ]can you say predjudice?
You still havent explained what you meant by this remark Teuton.
you judged right away an article, just because of certain icons you saw at the top of a website it was posted on.
Quote[/b] ]Anyone considered the fact that Western Europeans were hardly enamoured by the Muslim raids in the Mediterranean, the Muslim base near Marseille and the ever constant threat of the Ummayads in Spain???
I doubt that Western Europeans would have had the time to develop a keen sense for discovery and technology being occupied by the thought of survival.
We are not neglecting that true fact. However Saracen&Berberi threat in the Mediterranean and Spain stands really pathetic when compared with the destruction brought by the Vikings and the Magyars; both are European and non-muslim. Islamic threat on the Mediterranean was only a coastal threat posed on Italy and needless to say, Islam brought significant advancement to Spain which could never be produced by the Spaniards at that time (if in doubt search the net for Cordoba and Alhambra Palace). So both of these events are irrelevant with the chaos Europe suffered. Thus it would not be correct to relate the chaos in Europe with any kind of Muslim faction. It was the Europeans that kept themselves from advancement prior to 1000s. Moreover Arab threat in the meriterranean remained throughout mid 700s, Viking invasion began in 800. I dont understand you rationale.
Lets assume that you are correct. Lets assume Muslims caused terrible wreckage on the Mediterranean and in Spain (which is not true of course). What damage or threat can Muslims cause on Brits, Germanics, Franks etc..? Were they drinking tea?
Quote[/b] ]you judged right away an article, just because of certain icons you saw at the top of a website it was posted on.
TK, lets get one thing straight. I am not a Muslim and I did more than sufficient book reading to be able to discuss the matter with any professor or scholar. I read the article twice (I told you that I did) from top to bottom, each and every word. An academician does not rely on prejudice. Believe me, I wont need prejudice to decide that the article has no value. He is simply using fake/wrong historical facts. That is an academic crime. Teuton; THE ARTICLE IS NOT TRUE...
Heck I am not even Muslim and I am defending Arabs. You guys are hilarious.
Teutonic Knight
10-13-2003, 16:11
Quote[/b] (Cebei @ Oct. 13 2003,09:31)]
Quote[/b] ]you judged right away an article, just because of certain icons you saw at the top of a website it was posted on
TK, lets get one thing straight. I am not a Muslim and I did more than sufficient book reading to be able to discuss the matter with any professor or scholar. I read the article twice (I told you that I did) from top to bottom, each and every word. An academician does not rely on prejudice. Believe me, I wont need prejudice to decide that the article has no value. He is simply using fake/wrong historical facts. That is an academic crime. Teuton; THE ARTICLE IS NOT TRUE...
granted,
quote the article by line you disagree with and give uncontestable proof of your point. That's all I ask, you say that Madden gives grotesquely false information, so prove it.
Great I thought you'd never ask. So viola Quoting from Madden's article
Quote[/b] ]For starters, the Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression—an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands.
Same question I asked you. How much Christian were the Levant prvinces? Yes there were Christians, but were they the majority? Secondly, these provinces were captured without any religious intent, in mid7th century. Christians came to defend the provinces 400 years later. How Christian does Madden think the Levant became within that 400 years AND MOST IMPORTANTLY COULD THERE BE ANY CHRISTIANS IN THOSE PROVINCES HAD ISLAM BEEN BRUTAL AND SAVAGE? AND HOW COME THE CHURCHES WERENT DESTROYED, IF MUSLIMS CAPTURED THOSE PROVINCES WITH RELIGIOUS INTENTIONS? HOW COME THERE WERE STILL CHRISTIANS PRAYING IN CHURCHES IF ISLAM IS SO VULGAR? And of course why did the crusaders killed christians and destroyed the churches http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif that is something that I cant understand.
Quote[/b] ]Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them. While Muslims can be peaceful, Islam was born in war and grew the same way.
Oh really? How did Christianity expand? Muslims didnt give a sheet to christians, didnt care about them. And yes as for Islam grew the same way: That is why Islam became the zenith of civilisation right? They advanced science through sword.. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
Quote[/b] ]When Mohammed was waging war against Mecca in the seventh century, Christianity was the dominant religion of power and wealth.
I cant believe I am actually replying to this statement. Power and Wealth? dont make me laugh, te whole levant was poor and dying under christian rule Oh my God.. The guy should read some Qoran and real Islamic history.
Quote[/b] ]The Christian world, therefore, was a prime target for the earliest caliphs, and it would remain so for Muslim leaders for the next thousand years.
Oh really? Which caliph did Madden spoke with? Islam expanded both east and west. There were pagans in the east and christians in the west. Why cant he understand such a simple reasoning? Where un-christian could they expand? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
Quote[/b] ]With enormous energy, the warriors of Islam struck out against the Christians shortly after Mohammed’s death. They were extremely successful. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt—once the most heavily Christian areas in the world—quickly succumbed. By the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece. In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of western Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East.
Most of the areas he speaks of were only partly Christian. The church was losing subjects with the fall of Roman empire and those places widely practiced paganism.
Quote[/b] ]That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense.
Yes so they waited 400 years for that huh-huh.. Well we have to tell Madden that Christianity ceased in those provinces throughout the fall of Roman EMpire and actually since the antiquity to 1100s, the only truly Catholic Christian province was Rome (most of the EUrope was practicing pagan religions or misinterpretations of catholicism)
Quote[/b] ]Pope Urban II called upon the knights of Christendom to push back the conquests of Islam at the Council of Clermont in 1095
I am quoting my previous medieval history instructor here (dont worry he is not muslim either): The whole chivalry concept and crusades are actually invented by the Papacy in order to prevent wars between Christian warlords and to increase extent of the papal control through assigned dukes from the crusader armies. Thus the emergence of the crusades are simply economic. Later on truly religious people joined the crusades too, but religion was hardly the starting point of the crusades.
Quote[/b] ]it was usually asserted that Crusaders were merely lacklands and ne’er-do-wells who took advantage of an opportunity to rob and pillage in a faraway land. The Crusaders’ expressed sentiments of piety, self-sacrifice, and love for God were obviously not to be taken seriously. They were only a front for darker designs.
Well, who I am going to believe? General academic opinion that crusaders were outlaws or a guy who says Anatolia had been christian since the antiquity? Also if the crusaders were that pious, why did they kill christians and pillaged churches?
Quote[/b] ]Scholars have discovered that crusading knights were generally wealthy men with plenty of their own land in Europe
Oh yes that is the only correct thing that came out oof this article.
Quote[/b] ]Even wealthy lords could easily impoverish themselves and their families by joining a Crusade. They did so not because they expected material wealth (which many of them had already) but because they hoped to store up treasure where rust and moth could not corrupt.
DOES ANYONE BELIEVE THIS???? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif This is hilarious.
Quote[/b] ]They were keenly aware of their sinfulness and eager to undertake the hardships of the Crusade as a penitential act of charity and love.
Church made them believe that they are sinful. Otherwise all of the christian lords would kill each other in battles and according to Pope's misperception of Islamic threat, they would be open to Islamic conquest.
Quote[/b] ]Of course, they were not opposed to capturing booty if it could be had. But the truth is that the Crusades were notoriously bad for plunder. A few people got rich, but the vast majority returned with nothing.
Can the winners be the feudal lords and losers the ordinary footmen? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
Quote[/b] ]How does a man love according to divine precept his neighbor as himself when, knowing that his Christian brothers in faith and in name are held by the perfidious Muslims in strict confinement and weighed down by the yoke of heaviest servitude, he does not devote himself to the task of freeing them? ...
Where were you when Romans lost the provinces and throughout 400 years?
Quote[/b] ]Is it by chance that you do not know that many thousands of Christians are bound in slavery and imprisoned by the Muslims, tortured with innumerable torments?
No it is not by chance. It simply doesnt exist. But I know of a great number of Levantian christians enslaving and torturing themselves before Islam.
Quote[/b] ]The reconquest of Jerusalem, therefore, was not colonialism but an act of restoration and an open declaration of one’s love of God.
Oh so thats why they killed christians. Humm now clear. Killer love
Quote[/b] ]It is often assumed that the central goal of the Crusades was forced conversion of the Muslim world. Nothing could be further from the truth. From the perspective of medieval Christians, Muslims were the enemies of Christ and His Church. It was the Crusaders’ task to defeat and defend against them. That was all. Muslims who lived in Crusader-won territories were generally allowed to retain their property and livelihood, and always their religion. Indeed, throughout the history of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem, Muslim inhabitants far outnumbered the Catholics. It was not until the 13th century that the Franciscans began conversion efforts among Muslims. But these were mostly unsuccessful and finally abandoned. In any case, such efforts were by peaceful persuasion, not the threat of violence.
What kind of a travesty is this? Like they say 'its all written'. I will only ashame myself if I rely to this paragraph.
Quote[/b] ]The Crusades were wars, so it would be a mistake to characterize them as nothing but piety and good intentions. Like all warfare, the violence was brutal (although not as brutal as modern wars). There were mishaps, blunders, and crimes. These are usually well-remembered today. During the early days of the First Crusade in 1095, a ragtag band of Crusaders led by Count Emicho of Leiningen made its way down the Rhine, robbing and murdering all the Jews they could find. Without success, the local bishops attempted to stop the carnage. In the eyes of these warriors, the Jews, like the Muslims, were the enemies of Christ. Plundering and killing them, then, was no vice. Indeed, they believed it was a righteous deed, since the Jews’ money could be used to fund the Crusade to Jerusalem. But they were wrong, and the Church strongly condemned the anti-Jewish attacks.
When? 800 years later when the Pope also condemned Crusades?
Quote[/b] ]When we think about the Middle Ages, it is easy to view Europe in light of what it became rather than what it was. The colossus of the medieval world was Islam, not Christendom. The Crusades are interesting largely because they were an attempt to counter that trend. But in five centuries of crusading, it was only the First Crusade that significantly rolled back the military progress of Islam. It was downhill from there.
The guy himself says that the crusaders wrecked the Islamic civilisation. But again he makes a very crucial mistake. It was totally uphill from there; hence the great Egyptian empire and the Ottoman Empire.
Quote[/b] ]The Fourth Crusade (1201-1204) ran aground when it was seduced into a web of Byzantine politics, which the Westerners never fully understood.
Totally ridiculous. Crusaders made a secret treaty with the Byzantian pretender. Then converted the Hadgia Sophia church into a tavern. Come to Turkey to see it. Oh what a piety, what a love, what righteousness. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
Quote[/b] ]Europeans began to ponder the real possibility that Islam would finally achieve its aim of conquering the entire Christian world.
Islamic motive was never destruction of Christianity. Throughout the Ottoman lands all three major religions survived and conversion was never obligatory. Classic Ottoman camis included churches and sinagogs inside.
Quote[/b] ]In 1529, Suleiman the Magnificent laid siege to Vienna. If not for a run of freak rainstorms that delayed his progress and forced him to leave behind much of his artillery, it is virtually certain that the Turks would have taken the city. Germany, then, would have been at their mercy.
Well this is concerning my own history so Madden hits the wrong rock. The Grand Vizier of Suleiman had the vice art-lover he never used the famous ottoman canons during the siege to preserve the vast cultural achievements. Thus he tried to wait until sufficient troops for infantry charge arrived. This delay caused the defeat of the ottomans.
Quote[/b] ]The Sick Man of Europe limped along until the 20th century, when he finally expired, leaving behind the present mess of the modern Middle East.
What is this hatred all about? The present Middle East is the product of British Imperialism. I guess anyone would know this.
Quote[/b] ]Whether we admire the Crusaders or not, it is a fact that the world we know today would not exist without their efforts.
Those crusades would end the christianity. Only reason for the ottomans to expand westward was the crusades. They just didnt want to be attacked anymore. Had catholics sit tightly, Ottomans would mostly stay in Anatolia.
-------------
I guess that answers your questions. The article is extremely biased and prejudiced and is ultimately wrong. A shame for Madden.
Cebei,
I'm glad you liked my earlier post.
Quote[/b] ]Just when you look from a broader perspective many historians believe that the Muslims were the suffered part in the conflict and many scholars believe that the Crusaders' way of liberating the provinces (destorying improvements which included labratories, museums, artworks etc. and killing Christians along Muslims) is no different than the raids of the barbarians, thus makes the whole Crusade thing dubious.
In terms of assigning a threat accessment to the various challenges to Christendom from the 8th through the 11th Centuries. I believe Saracen moves are considered the more dangerous simply because Vikings and Magyars were groups that would eventually be absorded by the Christian society they had plundered, whereas Saracens represented a rival Civilization fully capable of offering a new ensign men could gather to.
I believe one of the critical, if typically unrecognized, actions of the Reconquista was the sack of Toledo in 1087. The vast library that fell into Christian hands, marks in many ways, the reintroduction of Aristotle to the West.
Actually, instead of threat, I was trying to answer which of them produced most actual destruction and prevented Europe from prosperity. Vikings, Magyars or Saracens? Saracens were a big threat but never got throught Italian Mediterranean and I mea, comparng Viking destruction with Saracen destruction...?
Teutonic Knight
10-13-2003, 19:39
but you can't prove anything you say there, I have no reason to believe you more than I do Madden.
If you can prove what you say with actual texts written from the day, then I'll believe you. (no stuff written by the staff of the Vatican, or the folks in the Sultans Harem or anything http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif )
Quote[/b] ]but you can't prove anything you say there, I have no reason to believe you more than I do Madden.
Are you drunk or something? How possibly can I prove that? Take you to an excavation? Send you with a time machine? Wake up Just read ANY of the GOOD books on the subject and you can believe me more than you believe Madden. Just do something yourself, I am not your personal tutor or getting paid for introducing you the truth.
Or perhaps I am just over doing it. I should let you into the hands of ignorance perhaps.
Ha.
kataphraktoi
10-14-2003, 12:45
Cebei, u have completely missed the point I am making.
Like most defensive apologetists, they often use a comparative reply or response by addressing issues of quantity - in this case - how much damage was caused.
I never insinuated the Muslims were the worst offenders in the Mediterranean littoral - I only made the point that they caused a great deal of devastation to Western Europe. Now whether, the Muslims caused or did not cause as much damage as the Vikings and Magyars is just drawing attention from the issue.
yes, we all know the Muslim contribution to Spain, but again the point is missed. It was under Muslim control, i was talking about the areas under non-Muslim control which was Western Europe. Due to Spain's oriental orientation it could be conisdered part of the Muslim East than the Christian West.
I am not one of those bigots who are ignorant, and I am not one of those people who are ill-informed either - not that you were implying that. Just a reminder.
I even have a Muslim friend who holds other Muslims in disdain over their views of the Crusades. He thinks that the whole Muslim offense to the Crusades is nothing but a childish stunt or an act of infantile stubborness. The whole blowup about Crusader atrocities in the Muslim east is taken out of perspective - we tend to forget the Muslims did much worse in the Mediterranean theatre.
I don;t expect to impress anyone about my friend's opinions but I agree with him on certain points. This whole Crusading issue is blown out of proportion because it offends our modern sensibilities.
ALong with the Vikings, Magyars and Slavs, we can add the Muslims as one of the scourges of Western Europe.
Even the most civilised are capable of doing bad things. Byzantium included. No matter the intellectual contribution, no matter the scientific achievements, no matter what amazing things one has achieved, it does not mean one is incapable of perpetrating reprehensible things.
Just one last thought: I've always heard that Muslims say that the West does not try to understand them. Heres my question: have Muslims tried to understand the West?
We castigate the Medieval Europe for thinking that the muslims were idol worshippers and that Muhammed was some sort of god. But anyone noticed Muslim accounts of the Franks? Apparently their stupidity was due to the cold weather in the north
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
kataphraktoi
10-14-2003, 12:51
I agree with Pindar, both the Islamic world and Christendom had apparatuses or institutions in place to assimilate rather be assimilated. The threat was real for the Christians more than Islam. And remember, the Muslims were very advanced in assimilation, they did quite well with the indigenous Christian population - their only failure in assimilation were the Egyptian Copts who were stubborn in all attempts to asismilate. In all the rest, they were able to reduce Christians to only a small minority within Muslim boundaries. The Christians had a harder time assimilating Muslims simply because their only experience of Islam was through welfare. It is easy to blame Christianity but like most Muslims would retort, theres a difference between the Quran and practising Islam. Do Muslims recognise the difference between the Bible and practicising it?
Nice point Pindar.
The only real devastation Islam brought Europe was during Ottoman times. And in that era Europe was already improving. I guess we were talking about the 400 year gap during which christianity did not respond to the invasion of the Levant. And you made the point that europe was not able to respond because of Muslim threat. Those years are from 650 to 1000. And during that era Islamic devastation stands funny when compared to other hordes. Real devastation of Islam comes mid-15th century. And still that devastation didnot prevent europe from scientific advancements. Which confirms my point that Islam did nothing to Europe which could prevent them from taking back the lost provinces between 650-1000.
Crusades are the attempts of the Pope increasing the Church's area of influence and preventing inter-christian fighting.
Oh and being Muslim does not mean having a thorough historical knowledge. Tell your Muslim friend to read some history.
Quote[/b] ]I agree with Pindar, both the Islamic world and Christendom had apparatuses or institutions in place to assimilate rather be assimilated. The threat was real for the Christians more than Islam. And remember, the Muslims were very advanced in assimilation, they did quite well with the indigenous Christian population - their only failure in assimilation were the Egyptian Copts who were stubborn in all attempts to asismilate. In all the rest, they were able to reduce Christians to only a small minority within Muslim boundaries. The Christians had a harder time assimilating Muslims simply because their only experience of Islam was through welfare. It is easy to blame Christianity but like most Muslims would retort, theres a difference between the Quran and practising Islam. Do Muslims recognise the difference between the Bible and practicising it?
I really dont understand why is this related with the topic we are discussing. Nice points though, I can never say no to these. But... I mean
Actually from what I have answered so far, I realize that the thing is going into whether muslims or the christians were wrong.
Please do not change the subject, as I neither believe in the innocence of the muslims nor the fault of the christians.
Lets keep of the movie.
Its neither. Its the fault of religion.
The_Emperor
10-14-2003, 14:43
From what I have read most of the Kings and Princes of the West did not mostly participate in Crusades to rescue holy places, they were more interested in treasure, and making a reputation for themselves. (a fact proved by the attempted attack on Constantinople by some loose elements of the First Crusade, and the later more successful attacks by the Fourth)
One of the main reasons the Pope also called Crusades into being was to stop Christians killing Christians in the many wars of the era, it was better for outsiders to suffer than fellow Christians.
Another reason was the march of the Turks in the East. Previously the West had come to an understanding with Egypt that Christain pilgrims would be allowed to visit the Holy Land. (this shows the tolerance that existed in much of the Islamic world towards people of differing religions)
That deal had worked for a number of years, however at the time the Seljuk Turks had no respect for deals with Christians. Their advance threatened the route to the Holy Land for Pilgrims, something the Church couldn't tolerate.
As far as Byzantium goes, the princes of the west hated it, it was a fading power growing militarily weak... But its reputation for wealth was legendary.
Ultimately a Crusade was a miss-match of people, some were true beleivers, but most went to bolster their own reputations and to line their pockets.
Sadly the Crusaders often behaved very badly, and were much worse than the Muslims. However there were notable event when the Muslims were equally brutal and vicious.
The Crusades ultimately destroyed the tolerance that existed in the East towards Christians.
A tragedy for all.
Teutonic Knight
10-14-2003, 15:38
Quote[/b] (Cebei @ Oct. 14 2003,07:01)]the 400 year gap during which christianity did not respond to the invasion of the Levant.
umm, how could the West have responded if they wanted to? The West was in the middle of the dark ages (470-1050) and could not have possibly gathered a military force strong enough to turn back the tide of the Muslim invasion of the Levant. Hell, the French were barely able to defend their own land from Moorish incursions, much less recapture the Levant
Teutonic Knight
10-14-2003, 15:40
Quote[/b] (The_Emperor @ Oct. 14 2003,08:43)]From what I have read most of the Kings and Princes of the West did not mostly participate in Crusades to rescue holy places, they were more interested in treasure, and making a reputation for themselves. (a fact proved by the attempted attack on Constantinople by some loose elements of the First Crusade, and the later more successful attacks by the Fourth)
One of the main reasons the Pope also called Crusades into being was to stop Christians Christians in the many wars of the era, it was better for outsiders to suffer than fellow Christians.
Another reason was the march of the Turks in the East. Previously the West had come to an understanding with Egypt that Christain pilgrims would be allowed to visit the Holy Land. (this shows the tolerance that existed in much of the Islamic world towards people of differing religions)
That deal had worked for a number of years, however at the time the Seljuk Turks had no respect for deals with Christians. Their advance threatened the route to the Holy Land for Pilgrims, something the Church couldn't tolerate.
As far as Byzantium goes, the princes of the west d it, it was a fading power growing militarily weak... But its reputation for wealth was legendary.
Ultimately a Crusade was a miss-match of people, some were true beleivers, but most went to bolster their own reputations and to line their pockets.
Sadly the Crusaders often behaved very badly, and were much worse than the Muslims. However there were notable event when the Muslims were equally brutal and vicious.
The Crusades ultimately destroyed the tolerance that existed in the East towards Christians.
A tragedy for all.
I agree with this entirely, nice post emporer http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
Teutonic Knight
10-14-2003, 15:43
Quote[/b] (Cebei @ Oct. 14 2003,05:53)]
Quote[/b] ]but you can't prove anything you say there, I have no reason to believe you more than I do Madden.
Are you drunk or something? How possibly can I prove that? Take you to an excavation? Send you with a time machine? Wake up Just read ANY of the GOOD books on the subject and you can believe me more than you believe Madden. Just do something yourself, I am not your personal tutor or getting paid for introducing you the truth.
Or perhaps I am just over doing it. I should let you into the hands of ignorance perhaps.
Ha.
no, I wanted you to give me examples of your points from texts of the time, that is, if you actually want to prove your point. Don't be so patronizing, I know I can be stubborn and frustrating, but don't let me fall into ignorance just yet http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
Quote[/b] ]umm, how could the West have responded if they wanted to? The West was in the middle of the dark ages (470-1050) and could not have possibly gathered a military force strong enough to turn back the tide of the Muslim invasion of the Levant.
I wonder who had put europe into the dark ages http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif Looking back on to the first crusade, I see that they werent sufficiently organized and powerful, they could have produced a larger army in the Carolingian times..but why why why wait until 1000s http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif Could it coincidentally have coincided with the decline of Papal power? Besides Moorish incursions stopped for France after the defeat of the Muslims in the Battle of Tours and after that Muslim threat did not get past through Spain. When the forst crusades were launched Muslims were still in Spain. It is not a good reasoning therefore.
Quote[/b] ]no, I wanted you to give me examples of your points from texts of the time, that is, if you actually want to prove your point.
The historical sources that exist on the internet are quite insufficient for me to explain my point. Which of course will produce a similar skepticism from you in return. Most historical texts are in Latin and in Arabic, which we analyzed in the university. Do you know Latin and Arabic to sufficiently interpret these texts?
Quote[/b] ]I know I can be stubborn and frustrating, but don't let me fall into ignorance just yet
You are reading just one article (which is quite wrong) and developing your opinions on that. You are also believing in what you want to believe (which can be understood if one would read the whole thread) and you are probably the only person on the forum believing in such ummm revisionist facts. You have to read classical history before getting into the revisionist school. Besides revisionist history does not mean providing wrong facts, like Madden does.
I am not against what Madden thinks, I am against what he provides as historical fact. I wonder if he could have made the same remarks without distorting reality that much.
Anyway, read ANY book. And I am closing the discussion because I am repeating myself in each post.
By the way what the Emperor says confirm my point, why are you so skeptical of my points?? Hard to understand really.
Teutonic Knight
10-14-2003, 16:35
Quote[/b] ]You are reading just one article (which is quite wrong) and developing your opinions on that. You are also believing in what you want to believe (which can be understood if one would read the whole thread) and you are probably the only person on the forum believing in such ummm revisionist facts. You have to read classical history before getting into the revisionist school. Besides revisionist history does not mean providing wrong facts, like Madden does.
This is not the only thing I have read, I have read a number of other books on the subject from both points of view. I was merely presenting that article as an example of my position. I just don't have the kind of education you have on this subject (I'm only 15 gimme a break).
Quote[/b] ]By the way what the Emperor says confirm my point, why are you so skeptical of my points?? Hard to understand really.
not quite.
Quote[/b] ]The historical sources that exist on the internet are quite insufficient for me to explain my point. Which of course will produce a similar skepticism from you in return. Most historical texts are in Latin and in Arabic, which we analyzed in the university. Do you know Latin and Arabic to sufficiently interpret these texts?
I have a rather rudimentary knowledge of Latin grammar and vocabulary and can translate and interperet pieces by classical writers (i.e. I have translated Caesar's Gallic Wars). I guarantee you I would not be skeptical of original texts, because IMHO I think they should be the basis of all historical teaching.
Quote[/b] ]I'm only 15 gimme a break
Sorry, I am taking everything I said back. Time will show you the truth. I just thought that these were the opinions of an adult which was another reason why I got pissed off.
For a 15 y/o, these knowledges are more than good, perspective comes with time.
Why didnt you say that in the beginning? I feel like an idiot now.
Adding to the list of Arabic influence in the west (world), did anyone mention our number system? 0-9
Teutonic Knight
10-14-2003, 17:02
Quote[/b] (Cebei @ Oct. 14 2003,10:52)]
Quote[/b] ]I'm only 15 gimme a break
Sorry, I am taking everything I said back. Time will show you the truth. I just thought that these were the opinions of an @dult which was another reason why I got ed off.
For a 15 y/o, these knowledges are more than good, perspective comes with time.
Why didnt you say that in the beginning? I feel like an idiot now.
my apologies, I thought you already knew my age. Don't feel like an idiot, I enjoy being treated as a mental @dult. I just haven't had the opportunity of a college education yet, so my knowledge of some subjects is rather limited. Seriously you couldn't tell I wasn't an @dult? I'll take that as a compliment http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
kataphraktoi
10-14-2003, 17:02
Oh my Goodness, real devastation by Muslims with the arrival of the Ottoman Turks
Thats news to me and the people living in the period between 600 - 1300.
Christians never really freed themselves from devastating Muslim raids until Byzantium captured Crete and turned the tide to the point where it became a dead even draw until the rise of European naval power.
My Muslim friend is a major in history at University, his knowledge is not because he's a Muslim.
No noone did. Stage is yours http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Quote[/b] ]Adding to the list of Arabic influence in the west (world), did anyone mention our number system? 0-9
Because it was a Indian invention ?
http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~histor....ls.html (http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Indian_numerals.html)
http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~histor....ls.html (http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Arabic_numerals.html)
kataphraktoi
10-14-2003, 17:06
Teutonic Knight...hmmm....Teutonic Squire http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif:D
Michiel de Ruyter
10-14-2003, 17:09
Teutonic Knight,
I do agree with you that the original teksts should be the source of history teaching as much as possible...
but still, be sceptic of them as most are (extremely) biased...
Quote[/b] ]Oh my Goodness, real devastation by Muslims with the arrival of the Ottoman Turks
Thats news to me and the people living in the period between 600 - 1300.
Christians never really freed themselves from devastating Muslim raids until Byzantium captured Crete and turned the tide to the point where it became a dead even draw until the rise of European naval power.
My Muslim friend is a major in history at University, his knowledge is not because he's a Muslim.
I am glad to be of assistance for you and your friends from the dark ages. But what I said was not a secret.
You are actually giving the answer yourself: Crete. It was a naval threat. Muslims never managed to invade Europe after the Tours defeat, until the Ottoman times. The Amavids are somewhat local, and I doubt they brought destruction but not advancement. The real devastation was brought by the Vikings. Oh come on.. dont tell me you dont know these things, when did a Muslim set foot on Europe after Tours defeat? Other than Spain..
Where did you learn these things? Are you reading Madden too? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
Teutonic Knight
10-14-2003, 17:17
Quote[/b] (Michiel de Ruyter @ Oct. 14 2003,11:09)]Teutonic Knight,
I do agree with you that the original teksts should be the source of history teaching as much as possible...
but still, be sceptic of them as most are (extremely) biased...
exactly, you must still filter everything you read for bias, no matter who wrote it. Howver the people who actually lived in the time know allot more about than modern historian's guessing games....
Quote[/b] ]my apologies, I thought you already knew my age. Don't feel like an idiot, I enjoy being treated as a mental @dult. I just haven't had the opportunity of a college education yet, so my knowledge of some subjects is rather limited. Seriously you couldn't tell I wasn't an @dult? I'll take that as a compliment
Haha very funny. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
Teutonic Knight
10-14-2003, 17:20
Quote[/b] (kataphraktoi @ Oct. 14 2003,11:06)]Teutonic Knight...hmmm....Teutonic Squire http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif:D
yeah, not quite there yet. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
I got my name from the fact that 3 of my ancestors were members of the Teutonic Crusader Order and took part in the Die Dracht Nacht Osten. I'm rather proud of that heritage http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Quote[/b] ]I got my name from the fact that 3 of my ancestors were members of the Teutonic Crusader Order and took part in the Die Dracht Nacht Osten. I'm rather proud of that heritage
I see why you are so stubborn about the crusades. You are telling the most important things the last. I feel even more stupid now, thanks. Anyway Teutons are my personal favorite too.
Quote[/b] ]Hmm, what about Sicily ?
Oh sorry, so that is why Europeans could not create a reation to Muslim invasion of the Holy places. I see, very critical point, center of civilisation, art, science and troops: Sicily Surely invasion of Sicily meant the destruction of Europe. Bad bad Muslims.
Why are we having a hard time keeping on the subject and getting the point?
Quote[/b] (magnatz @ Oct. 15 2003,02:05)]
Because it was a Indian invention ?
I did not know that it was originally Indian, thanks for the link...
Arabic_numerals.html (http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Arabic_numerals.html) http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Diagrams/marrakushi.gif
Teutonic Knight
10-14-2003, 17:43
Quote[/b] (Cebei @ Oct. 14 2003,11:29)]
Quote[/b] ]I got my name from the fact that 3 of my ancestors were members of the Teutonic Crusader Order and took part in the Die Dracht Nacht Osten. I'm rather proud of that heritage
I see why you are so stubborn about the crusades. You are telling the most important things the last. I feel even more stupid now, thanks. Anyway Teutons are my personal favorite too.
Why are we having a hard time keeping on the subject and getting the point?
haha, funny man http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
Teutonic Knight
10-14-2003, 18:08
Quote[/b] (Cebei @ Oct. 14 2003,11:10)]Oh come on.. dont tell me you dont know these things, when did a Muslim set foot on Europe after Tours defeat? Other than Spain..
but wasn't that only because of the wars of repulsion (Crusades, Reconquests, The Byzantines just fending off the tide?) that kept them from doing so? Not because Islam wasn't expansionist, it was that Europe was able to fend it off.
I could be totally wrong tho, just a hunch...
Quote[/b] ]but wasn't that only because of the wars of repulsion (Crusades, Reconquests, The Byzantines just fending off the tide?) that kept them from doing so? Not because Islam wasn't expansionist, it was that Europe was able to fend it off.
Yes of course. Europe defended the mediterranean and like kataphraktoi said, after Byzantians got Crete, Muslims lost their valuable sea base and could not launch any attack on Europe. Crusades and reconquests were quite later than this.
Europeans held the Muslim invasion in the Mediterranean, but Amavids succeeded in Spain.
Teutonic Knight
10-14-2003, 18:17
Quote[/b] (Cebei @ Oct. 14 2003,12:15)]
Quote[/b] ]but wasn't that only because of the wars of repulsion (Crusades, Reconquests, The Byzantines just fending off the tide?) that kept them from doing so? Not because Islam wasn't expansionist, it was that Europe was able to fend it off.
Yes of course. Europe defended the mediterranean and like kataphraktoi said, after Byzantians got Crete, Muslims lost their valuable sea base and could not launch any attack on Europe. Crusades and reconquests were quite later than this.
Europeans held the Muslim invasion in the Mediterranean, but Amavids succeeded in Spain.
So, the Crusades were defensive wars then?
Quote[/b] (Cebei @ Oct. 14 2003,11:29)]
Quote[/b] ]Hmm, what about Sicily ?
Oh sorry, so that is why Europeans could not create a reation to Muslim invasion of the Holy places. I see, very critical point, center of civilisation, art, science and troops: Sicily Surely invasion of Sicily meant the destruction of Europe. Bad bad Muslims.
I was just answering to this question :
when did a Muslim set foot on Europe after Tours defeat? Other than Spain..
Actually Sicily was both a cultural hub and a important economic resourse, both under the Romans, the Byzantines, the Arabs themselves, the Norman and the Germans. Its decline came with the French, Spanish and Borbonic dominations. And BTW, the fact that countries from all around the mediterranean and beyond kept fighting for the control of Sicily until WW2 should give you a clue of its strategical importance, if looking at a map is not enough.
As for the why europe didn't react, there are a number of points to be taken into consideration:
1) In the 650-1000 BC period Europe was not a monolithical organization under the guide of the Pope, as you seem to imply. The countries that made up Europe had their own problems - the invasions by Vikings, Magyars and Avars that you mention, plus a number of caresties and epidemies, plus the depopulation of southern europe due to the Gothic wars - in Italy that was so bad that invading Frank and Saxon armies died of starvation in the once-rich Padanian Plain.
2) The church itself only became a political power around 800 AD, when the Frank emperors granted temporal power to the bishop of Rome (based on a fake document) and were crowned emperors in exchange. Before that the Pope wasn't even able to appoint bishops, and even late as 1000 AD there was a lot of opposition to his rule in important catholic centers such as the abbeys of Cluny and Farfa.
3) North Africa and the Middle East at the time of the Arab expansion were regarded as ex-provinces of the Roman Empire, ie Costantinoples. The Frank and German emperors had no business to take them back, even if they had the resources.
So, of course it was not because of the invasion of Sicily if the West couldn't react to the Arab expansion. But raiding Rome was probably a bad PR move anyway http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
That said, I do agree 100% with you that the Levant Crusades (and the other crusades that both sides conveniently forget to mention, each one for its own reasons) were used by the Pope to enforce and expand his authority. Moreover in my opinion launching a attack 400 years later was not justified anyway (imagine Mexico attacking the United States in 2200 to get Texas and California back), but medieval people wasn't keen on cultural relativism as we are, so my opinion probably doesn't count.
Finally, I don't remember having disparaged or offended Muslims in this thread or elsewhere, so you probably could have saved the bad, bad muslims stuff for some worthier cause. Pointing out facts is not the same thing as being hostile... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Had Spaniards launched a crusade to the other side of the Gibraltar, that would have been a defensive war. But as we have spoken before, Romans lost the province in 600s (which Roman empire we are talking about at 600s is another question), then attempted rescue in 1000. And these provinces were Parthian before Romans came. Can that give Parthians a right? If Christianity was that important, why did they let the holiest places captured in the first hand?
400 years is a long time. Throughout those years the population changed in the Holy places, and thus I ask the question To save whom did the crusaders went to the Levant?.
Similarly, crusades would have been defensive had the church produced a quick response. After 400 years no where would belons to anybody. And again the question, how much chrsitian were those provinces?
Teutonic Knight
10-14-2003, 18:41
Quote[/b] (Cebei @ Oct. 14 2003,12:37)]Had Spaniards launched a crusade to the other side of the Gibraltar, that would have been a defensive war. But as we have spoken before, Romans lost the province in 600s (which Roman empire we are talking about at 600s is another question), then attempted rescue in 1000. And these provinces were Parthian before Romans came. Can that give Parthians a right? If Christianity was that important, why did they let the holiest places captured in the first hand?
400 years is a long time. Throughout those years the population changed in the Holy places, and thus I ask the question To save whom did the crusaders went to the Levant?.
Similarly, crusades would have been defensive had the church produced a quick response. After 400 years no where would belons to anybody. And again the question, how much chrsitian were those provinces?
but perhaps another purpose of the crusades to the Levant was not only to free the holy places, but an attempt to break the back of Muslim expansion....
Quote[/b] (Cebei @ Oct. 14 2003,12:37)]400 years is a long time. Throughout those years the population changed in the Holy places, and thus I ask the question To save whom did the crusaders went to the Levant?.
Similarly, crusades would have been defensive had the church produced a quick response. After 400 years no where would belons to anybody. And again the question, how much chrsitian were those provinces?
Hehe, we were posting the same concept at the same time.
Great minds think alike http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
As for these provinces being christian before the Arab rule, they definitely were. Many of them had even experienced persecutions against heretics and pagans under Vandal and Bizantine rule, or infighting between different christian factions. In Anatolia Nicea and Pergamon were the place of choice to hold councils, not exactly something that would have been done in a pagan country.
But as you say, after half a millennium this didn't make a lot of difference.
Quote[/b] ]but perhaps another purpose of the crusades to the Levant was not only to free the holy places, but an attempt to break the back of Muslim expansion....
Sure. But then it is not a defensive war. Also Papacy had his own motives too.
Quote[/b] ]As for these provinces being christian before the Arab rule, they definitely were. Many of them had even experienced persecutions against heretics and pagans under Vandal and Bizantine rule, or infighting between different christian factions. In Anatolia Nicea and Pergamon were the place of choice to hold councils, not exactly something that would have been done in a pagan country.
Sure they were christian, but I am after the ratio of the christians to other religions. I doubt %100 of the population was christian. But in the end that doesnt make you less correct.
Teutonic Knight
10-14-2003, 19:03
I'm confused, aren't you playing against your own argument here? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
Magnatz, you are right, so I am now using my well deserved right of rest. So much for defending Muslims, which I criticize myself; but for other reasons.
Quote[/b] ]I'm confused, aren't you playing against your own argument here?
No I am not.
Teutonic Knight
10-14-2003, 19:15
Quote[/b] (Cebei @ Oct. 14 2003,13:11)]
Quote[/b] ]I'm confused, aren't you playing against your own argument here?
No I am not.
oh, if you say so http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
You know, that 400 years debate has me thinking two guys.
One guy hits the other, smack in the face, the other guy just looks confused at the first who expects something back. Nothing happens and they part. Thrre days later the second guy run into the first guy again and gives him a good punch to the chin.
What was that for? Asks the second guy's friend.
I had to defend myself, he was attacking me...
Quote[/b] ]oh, if you say so
I mean I can write a one page explanation for that but I am just too tired of the same thread. Thats why I didnt ask which part you find contradicting, even though I have no clue about what you find dubious. LOL
Teutonic Knight
10-14-2003, 20:07
Quote[/b] (Cebei @ Oct. 14 2003,13:34)]
Quote[/b] ]oh, if you say so
I mean I can write a one page explanation for that but I am just too tired of the same thread. Thats why I didnt ask which part you find contradicting, even though I have no clue about what you find dubious. LOL
my apologies, I didn't know you were tired.
The_Emperor
10-14-2003, 21:50
So after all that... Will a Crusades film be a good idea? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Big King Sanctaphrax
10-14-2003, 21:56
Quote[/b] (The_Emperor @ Oct. 14 2003,21:50)]So after all that... Will a Crusades film be a good idea? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
So long as there's lots o' blood and cinematic whoop-ass. As you may have guessed, I don't require the films I watch to be paticularly deep...
Teutonic Knight
10-14-2003, 21:56
Quote[/b] (Big King Sanctaphrax @ Oct. 14 2003,15:56)]
Quote[/b] (The_Emperor @ Oct. 14 2003,21:50)]So after all that... Will a Crusades film be a good idea? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
So long as there's lots o' blood and cinematic whoop-ass. As you may have guessed, I don't require the films I watch to be paticularly deep...
amen
Quote[/b] (The_Emperor @ Oct. 14 2003,15:50)]So after all that... Will a Crusades film be a good idea? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Most likely I will go and watch it... But most likely only for the action, I think I will close my ears for any political views.
Teutonic Knight
10-15-2003, 02:52
amen, bring on the head-bashin' and the beheading and the dismemberment and all that other stuff of such things... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
kataphraktoi
10-15-2003, 05:12
Ditto, I don't really care about who's offended or wants to start a riot because they weren't portrayed fairly or like an angel, blah, blah ....I want the movie...Bottom Line.
Rocket_Boy
10-15-2003, 10:03
Quote[/b] ]Ditto, I don't really care about who's offended or wants to start a riot because they weren't portrayed fairly or like an angel, blah, blah ....I want the movie...Bottom Line.
Plus anyone who may be mis-represented is surely dead long enough not to care too much.
I want Saladin portrayed with Victoria's Secret lingerie angels' wings.
see Saladin costume (http://www3.mistral.co.uk/minthouse/vscannes00s.jpg)
I guess it will add another dimesnion to the film.
Quote[/b] (Cebei @ Oct. 15 2003,11:38)]I want Saladin portrayed with Victoria's Secret lingerie angels' wings.
see Saladin costume (http://www3.mistral.co.uk/minthouse/vscannes00s.jpg)
I guess it will add another dimesnion to the film.
No thank you... let it be on her...
I can't even imagine a middleaged man with a big beard wearing that.
hellenes
10-15-2003, 21:04
I just have to say that the whole ...poor muslim defnders the bad bad crusaders rapin killin stealin... has some day to end, the middle east was orthodox and the bedouin invaders took it and none speaks about those atricities,
im not saying that the crusaders were angels (see 4th crusade) but neither the muslims were and if you want to know the egyptian possessers of palestine were heretics in sunny turkish eyes (they were shia) so the crusaders AND the turks wanted that area from the egyptians as for someone saying that the muslims preserved the ancient culture i advise him to look at the beheaded statues and the scratched ikons in asia minor and greece.
The point is IMHO that all the people recognise the reality as it is without the antiracistic prejustice which leads to dicrimination against the europeans in many occasions.
note: the arabs were the first that started the trade of the black native of afrika.
Quote[/b] (hellenes @ Oct. 15 2003,15:04)]note: the arabs were the first that started the trade of the black native of afrika.
I thought that it was the Egyptians that did that first. But if you mean along the lines of an industry...
But of course the Muslims did atrocities back then, it was what the winners did in every war. There is a reason why the bufferzones in ancient wars (and much later too) were destroyed, they simply got ravaged by both sides.
So no, the Muslims were not ohh so innocent. Besides weren't another reason for the Crusades to secure the pilgrimroutes, that had been attacked for some years before the Peasant Crusade?
Legolas goes fighting the Uruk-Hai http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Tadaaaa (http://movies.go.com/movies/K/kingdomofheaven_2005/)
Furunculus
11-14-2003, 18:07
The main reason for the Catholic church instigating the crusades was the breakdown of feudalism.
Catholic supremacy in european states was maintained by their support to christian kings who in turn reigned by divine right. The kings used this 'divine right' to maintain authority and control over the feudal lords in their kingdoms.
From the 11th century onwards the feudal lords in europe became progressively more powerful and independant from the soveriegns and thus the influence of the church was reduced because the kings could not manage their territories effectively. The most effective way of mitigating the problem was too send these pugnacious nobles to the holy land where they could:
-carve themselves a powerbase
-preserve the holy land from a resurgant islam
-act as a buffer between the islamic ME and Christian europe
-bolster the power of the church in europe by helping the christian kings maintain power in their kingdoms.
Very good idea really, shame the catholic church decided to divert the fourth crusade into southern france, and the fifth crusade into Byzantium, which rather made a mockery of defending the wholly land, instead it was obviously an attempt by the catholic church to destroy other sources of christianity, i.e. the orthodox church and the Cathars.
That aside, the christian west (inc the Catholic church), did percieve a growing threat in the expansion of the Muslim Caliphates, thus the Crusades were seen as a method of mitigating that threat. Most importantly was the need to install a buffer between the Muslim ME and Christian Europe, Outremer was its name, and its creation was nominally justified by the liberation of the holy land from which the new kingdom would spring.
As to which side was purer? what an irrelevant question no side was the good, nor were they the bad, although plenty of good and bad individuals existed on both sides.
Yes Muslim/Arab science and literature was pre-eminant in the pre-crusades period, but this is somewhat attributable to the problems of the dark-ages. during and after the crusades Christian/European science and literature went through a fantastic stage of growth due in no small part to the re-assimilation of eastern knowledge.
Anyone spot the trend?
> the west advanced slowest when under threat but took-off once they gained security and the ability to expand.
> the east advanced fastest when they were in expansion, but development slowed rapidly when they came under threat.
its the same statement but in reverse.
Back to the film: bring it on, there haven't been enough swords-n-sandals movies in a long time. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif But i don't want a 'sympathise-with-the-poor-downtrodden-arabs' movie, nor too do i want a hollywood 'heroes-n-villains' extravaganza of bull. Most important of all; keep Mel Gibson away from it http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif
furunculus
....which means that Orlando Bloom (legolas) will be on the top of the cast, as a blacksmith.
gaelic cowboy
11-15-2003, 00:53
Despite all the arguements would everyone not agree that the time was right for european expansion and conquest. Dont get me wrong not in a moral sense but they had the ability so they did it. various advances in ship design weaponary and tactics the relative calm compared to the earlier era's ie the barron's revolts stirups for mounted knights yes i know its from a much earlier age but the kights didnt known that. We all know that when a more advanced and or aggressive race comes into contact with a more passive or primitive race the subjugation of the weaker one is assured. The parralel in my own country is easy to make Ireland would never have lasted much more than the 1300s on its own as the technical martial advancement's and cohesive national identity did not exist. As a result the norman kings proceded to take chunks of the country from the 1160 on. The Islamic nations while wealthy and having stong armies or leaders had slipped in other areas and were unable to recover former glory.
kataphraktoi
11-15-2003, 06:36
Meh, neither Christian nor Muslim has the moral high ground on each other.
We all love our myths.
- Crusades did it for Christ http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
- Muslims were very tolerant http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
- The Pope was holy http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
- Everyone lived happily ever after http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.