Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Middle Eastern and African History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Middle Eastern and African History Middle Eastern and African History Forum - Egypt, Syria, Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and all nations of Africa and the Arabian Peninsula


View Poll Results: Which side during the Crusades were the relative "good guys"?
The Crusaders 68 47.89%
The Muslims 74 52.11%
Voters: 142. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old June 1st, 2015, 06:40 AM   #41

SSDD's Avatar
Aryaputra
 
Joined: Aug 2014
From: India
Posts: 3,538

@El Cid

1) The thread specially deals with crusades. It neither deals with history of Muslim schism or Dark age of Europe. Muslims surely had their own infighting, but it is different subject.

2) Muslim warfare against Pagans is under "Jihad", not under Crusades. Historically who treated each other better, Muslims or Christians it is another matter too. Though I am inclined to think Muslims did better.

3) In Denmark the era you are describing then it was early medieval era. Can you show me such instance after in 15th century? The matrimonial relation between Byzantine and Sassanid Empire was between Royal Families. You are also forgetting persecution of Zoroastrianism in Byzantine Empire.

Last edited by SSDD; June 1st, 2015 at 06:52 AM.
SSDD is offline  
Remove Ads
Old June 1st, 2015, 08:57 AM   #42
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2014
From: Bhuloka
Posts: 1,979

The Muslims...... Hands down
Drona Bharadwaja is offline  
Old June 1st, 2015, 09:20 AM   #43
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2014
From: Bhuloka
Posts: 1,979

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevinmeath View Post
Where did the Christian city of Alexandria disappear to?
Christian? The city of Alexandraia was an Egyptian-Hellenistic centre until 391 AD. It housed a major Serapium as well as temples of Dionysus and Apis, although a minority was Nicene Christian

The christian king Theodosius destroyed these temples and banned paganism

However, it was in christian control only until 619 AD when it was captured by Persia .

The Byzantine Christians temporarily got hold of Alexandria in 645 AD but were crushed by Arabs in battle of nikiou within one year

The crusaders got hold of Alexandria in 1365 but lost it back very quickly

Pretty much the story of christian Alexandria

Last edited by Drona Bharadwaja; June 1st, 2015 at 09:28 AM.
Drona Bharadwaja is offline  
Old June 2nd, 2015, 05:29 AM   #44
Suspended until March 19th, 2018
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: Escandinavia y Mesopotamia
Posts: 1,180

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumi View Post
How is it that you try to find logic behind the massacres that the Crusaders committed but are so adamant on another thread about the Ottomans being totally wrong on massacre/genocide. I am not saying the Ottomans were right, but if you can find logic behind the Crusaders committing atrocious acts, then you should follow the same logic and find logic behind the Ottoman actions against the Armenians. Makes no sense. There is no logic behind massacres. And you trying to find a logic behind Christians committing massacres but totally condemning Muslims committing massacres makes anything you say sound like sh*t. It just smells like a one sided prejudicial argument on both fronts. No you make no sense.
I have never ever condemned any genocide committed by the Turks or “Muslims” for 100 years ago, but their DENIAL of it. – Big difference.

I have very clearly and very logically explained why there is a logic axiom behind the Crusaders’ massacres in Jerusalem and the lack one of it from Saladin. The Crusaders when they lost Jerusalem in 1187 decided or managed to do a specific thing that the Muslims prior in 1099 did not do. The outcome then is easy to predict.

A comparative example of the siege and fall of Jerusalem’s to the Crusaders would not be a 1900’s systematical genocide in Ottoman Empire, but rather the Fall of Constantinople where the Turks also did massacre the population with exact the same reason as the Crusaders.

And don’t even pretend you don’t support the Turks’ genocide towards Armenians and their denial as it is obvious what you have written between your lines. - And taking also your completely distorted interpretation of my post here and your personal attacks I have a certain suspicion and I think you know what I am referring to.
El Cid is offline  
Old June 2nd, 2015, 05:44 AM   #45
Suspended until March 19th, 2018
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: Escandinavia y Mesopotamia
Posts: 1,180

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnincornwall View Post
El Cid - you are defying conventional wisdom there really. You dont resist longer and 'get a better deal' - you resist longer and cost the attackers more lives, more trouble and generally get massacred/enslaved as a result - as per the constant tactics of King Ferdinand. Sometimes this is just uncontrolled due to the rage of the troops - of which there must be dozens of examples.

Generally you put up a token resistance, surrender and get treated better. Especially when it is your own families you are defending, not some rock.

Plus there's also the fact that the victor has total control of whether to stick by the terms, the vanquished has none.
I think you have overinterpret my phrase “defend in a long time to get a better deal“ and that you actually agree with me.

You don’t resist longer and get a better deal IN THE FIRST PLACE, correct. But if you already in the first place have decided to fight then it is too late to surrender. The best thing you can do now onwards, when the opportunity of surrendering is missed, is actually resisting longer until you trigger the commander outside the wall to re-negotiate.

I will explain it further:

When an army decides to siege a city, it would be an expensive investment for them as they need board and lodging and even a much larger numbers of infantry than the city need of defenders. – Also when launching the siege the chance of getting harassed by other forces increase heavily as weeks pass.

Thus if the city decide to surrender it would be good for both as the city would suffers less or not suffer at all while the army outside could continue to another city with fresh “power” without being exhausted.

However if the city decides NOT to surrender then there is risk of plunders and massacres if they lose. If they in the first place have decided NOT to surrender and a fight start, then they actually still would have chance of surrender if they can refuse the army’s siege for a long time. – And if you are lucky that the commander of the army outside the wall is tired and just want the city with less damage as possible then you can re-negotiate and get a better deal.
El Cid is offline  
Old June 2nd, 2015, 06:07 AM   #46
Suspended until March 19th, 2018
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: Escandinavia y Mesopotamia
Posts: 1,180

Quote:
Originally Posted by SSDD View Post
1) The thread specially deals with crusades. It neither deals with history of Muslim schism or Dark age of Europe. Muslims surely had their own infighting, but it is different subject.
And I also did deal especially around the era of crusading:

”Even if we only focus in the context of the time around the crusade you will still observe clashes among the Muslims: as mentioned before the Shia Fatimids and Sunni Seljuk clashed and as well massacred each others that the Shia Fatimids actually find it worth to ask helps from Crusaders against Sunni Seljuk. Sunni Saladin managed to overthrow the Shia Fatimid Caliphate and installed the Sunni Ayyubid one. - So your notion that Muslims did not have any clashes within their own hemisphere during or around the time of the Crusade, while the Christians had, is just not true.”

Quote:
2) Muslim warfare against Pagans is under "Jihad", not under Crusades. Historically who treated each other better, Muslims or Christians it is another matter too. Though I am inclined to think Muslims did better.
There were no pagans in Levant around the time of crusading so the Muslims did not have any pagans to kill to convince you that your notion is flawed. – Pagans were generally neither accepted among the Muslims as their prophet has fought with them and destroyed their temples. If there were pagans in Levant during the time of crusade it is unlikely that the Muslims would have avoided of killing them.

What you or other anonymous debaters are inclined to think is totally irrelevant as I only am interesting in exhibiting your lacking ability of addressing my points where I have clearly explained why the popular misconception that Europe went in a dark ages in 500-1500 and that they were specific intolerance don’t have any foundations in academic circles among the medievalists today.

Quote:
3) In Denmark the era you are describing then it was early medieval era. Can you show me such instance after in 15th century? The matrimonial relation between Byzantine and Sassanid Empire was between Royal Families. You are also forgetting persecution of Zoroastrianism in Byzantine Empire.
As I wrote earlier “you are showing a huge amount of ignorance regarding your knowledge of the Christians’ relationship to the Pagans”. – And you have perfectly emphasized my labeling of your knowledge:

The period around 800-1050 in Denmark is not called “medieval” but “The Vikinge Age”. On your question whether I can show you example after 1400’s, then I can enlighten you that the native religion of the sami people actually existed throughout in the 1600’s and even in the 1700’s.

Of course the matrimonial relationship between the Byzantines and Persians were of the highest organ and not just of a minor trivial character. A significance, if not then the higest, profile of an Christian Empire became father-in-law for a Zarathusrian with mutual respect. That just underlines your flawed assumptions that Christians were specific intolerance during middle ages is fake.

That you also use a term like “royal” about an Imperial family of Maurius Tiberius don’t either help your case. It is called "imperial", not "royal".

Last edited by El Cid; June 2nd, 2015 at 06:17 AM.
El Cid is offline  
Old June 8th, 2015, 07:28 AM   #47

SSDD's Avatar
Aryaputra
 
Joined: Aug 2014
From: India
Posts: 3,538

I was not surely talking about Pagans of Levant but Pagans of Baltic states and North-East Europe. Early medieval era or Viking age etc are just terminology, they are used to refer same time period. Royal and Imperial are equally just about terminology, not much difference at all. Zoroastrians were persecuted in general in Byzantine empire, profile of a Christian Emperor becoming father-in-law for a Zoroastrianism for mutual respect is just exception, not a norm. So my points still stand.
SSDD is offline  
Old June 8th, 2015, 09:47 AM   #48

antonina's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2011
From: Warsaw, Poland
Posts: 6,304
Blog Entries: 7

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yaroslav the Wise View Post
One one hand, the Muslims were attacked by the Crusaders, but on the other hand, much of the Middle East was Christian land before the Muslim Jihads in the 7th and 8th centuries. Also, Christian pilgrims were restricted access to the Holy Land by the Seljuk Sultanate.

The question, in my opinion at least, is not "Who is more morally correct?" but rather, "Who is less wrong?"
I agree with you.

Some argue the Crusades should be judged in the context of the extremely violent 11-13 century European societies, not from a pacifist 21st century European perspective.

Still, essentials of Christian faith don't change over the ages - so it's hard to believe our Christian ancestors could really be blind to the fundamental wrongness of killing on religious grounds. Yet they seemed to have been (even of we consider the not so distant history of our nations )
antonina is offline  
Old June 8th, 2015, 10:00 AM   #49
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: Sarmatia
Posts: 6,626

The Arabs with their islamic religion left their country and conquered post Roman and completelly christian middle east and the whole Northern Africa and Spain. Their policy was to convert all the population to islam. If not the Franks and Charles Martel who defeated Muslims in the battle of Poitiers/Tours the whole Europe would have been probably conquered by muslims. Arabs and muslims were bloody invaders no different than crusaders.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Martel]Charles Martel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
Mosquito is offline  
Old June 8th, 2015, 10:16 AM   #50

Graveyard's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Mar 2015
From: Southern Brazil
Posts: 682

No one is "the good guy".

Almost everyone who stands living is a bad guy, otherwise he would be dead.

But I voted muslims. Christians were the ones with sh*t in their heads.
Graveyard is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Middle Eastern and African History

Tags
crusades, good guys, relative



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"Good" and "Evil" in the Middle Ages oshron Medieval and Byzantine History 20 October 15th, 2013 07:12 AM
Ancient Maya: Oh, those "end of the world" guys? JoanOfArc American History 9 June 15th, 2013 08:53 AM
"The First Holocaust" - Persecution of European Jews during the Crusades Salah Medieval and Byzantine History 46 November 8th, 2011 10:43 AM
Define this "history" thing that you guys seem to talk about, eh? EpicHistory360 General History 6 November 6th, 2011 09:31 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.