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 77 47.53%
The Muslims 85 52.47%
Voters: 162. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old June 8th, 2015, 11:34 AM   #51

El Cid's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: Escandinavia y Mesopotamia
Posts: 1,219

Quote:
Originally Posted by SSDD View Post
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.
Pointing out that the Christians killed pagans and completely ignoring that the Muslims and even Muhammad also did do that and deducing the latter were better is just a terrible method.

The Viking Ages and “medieval era” are two completely different periods and don’t even overlap each others. The period of ca. 800-1050 in Denmark is called “The Viking Age”. After 1050CE Denmark joined the Middle Ages. Thus when we say Middle Ages about Denmark we are solely limited to a period of ca. 1050-1500.

The terms “Royal” and “Imperial” are not the same equivalence and don’t have the same significance.

The point of mine about Maurius Tiberius’ role as father-in-law was in no way to insinuate that it was the norm. Nothing I have written in my post has suggested or implied it. - The point with that was to debunk your flawed portraying of medieval Christians as fanatically hordes driven only by killing.

I have shown you examples of how a significance character like a Byzantine emperor became father-in-law for a Zarathustrian. I have pointed out why the Muslims were not particularly better, and as well answered your question whether there would had lived pagans after 1500’s in Scandinavia, in which you have turned out complete wrong.

The Zarathustrians were also persecuted generally under Muslim rule.
- So how exactly your points should stand are not quite obvious.

Besides that I am 98% sure that you have never ever read any dry academic book about the history of European Middle Ages.

Last edited by El Cid; June 8th, 2015 at 11:43 AM.
El Cid is offline  
Remove Ads
Old June 11th, 2015, 09:39 AM   #52
Citizen
 
Joined: May 2015
From: england
Posts: 6

The Muslims
kuripika kurta is offline  
Old June 11th, 2015, 05:06 PM   #53
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: VA
Posts: 1,198

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mosquito View Post
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.

Charles Martel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You misspelled [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_III_the_Isaurian]Leo III the Isaurian - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
MagnusStultus is offline  
Old June 11th, 2015, 08:11 PM   #54

Futurist's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2014
From: SoCal
Posts: 11,919
Blog Entries: 8

Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnusStultus View Post
Weren't both of them crucial in halting the Muslim advance into Europe, though?
Futurist is offline  
Old June 11th, 2015, 09:51 PM   #55
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,089

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mosquito View Post
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.

Charles Martel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Errn no. Their policy was not convert all the population to Islam.The Battle of Tours/Pointers was minor one, there was no threat to conquer Europe.
pugsville is offline  
Old June 12th, 2015, 02:40 AM   #56

johnincornwall's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: Cornwall
Posts: 6,529

Quote:
Originally Posted by pugsville View Post
Errn no. Their policy was not convert all the population to Islam.The Battle of Tours/Pointers was minor one, there was no threat to conquer Europe.
Absolutely. The hold on Hispania was tenuous to say the least at that time. It was a treasure raid (Poitiers Cathedral) which went wrong.
johnincornwall is offline  
Old June 12th, 2015, 03:02 AM   #57

AssyrianMelodies's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: May 2013
From: New Zealand
Posts: 618

The question itself was flawed I find it is easy to say either side most may side with the Muslims on this due to the fact that they had occupied the Levant for hundreds of years before the Crusades but that does not excuse the fact that the Seljuks were encroaching on the Byzantines and at the same time were seizing predominately Christian Territory. One can easily see the Crusades as Europe's reaction to Muslim encroachment and to open a new front. But that of course does not mean that the Muslims had a right to defend the land their had settled in and the Crusaders did some pretty awful things.

Like many wars it is hard to find a moral high ground like most wars. But perhaps one should also be aware of is that the Mongol Invasions created far more devastation to the region than the Crusades. So it is really hard to see.

Futurist forgive me if I am wrong but some of your threads do seem experimental to say the least like it is trying much to find a bias.

Last edited by AssyrianMelodies; June 12th, 2015 at 03:05 AM.
AssyrianMelodies is offline  
Old June 19th, 2015, 12:39 AM   #58

SSDD's Avatar
Aryaputra
 
Joined: Aug 2014
From: India
Posts: 3,838

Quote:
Originally Posted by El Cid View Post
Pointing out that the Christians killed pagans and completely ignoring that the Muslims and even Muhammad also did do that and deducing the latter were better is just a terrible method.

The Viking Ages and “medieval era” are two completely different periods and don’t even overlap each others. The period of ca. 800-1050 in Denmark is called “The Viking Age”. After 1050CE Denmark joined the Middle Ages. Thus when we say Middle Ages about Denmark we are solely limited to a period of ca. 1050-1500.
Okay then show me a Pagan temple in Denmark in 1500 CE.

Quote:
The terms “Royal” and “Imperial” are not the same equivalence and don’t have the same significance.
They are just semantics. Even if not are, what Royal/Imperial families did not necessarily mean public did same.

Quote:
The Zarathustrians were also persecuted generally under Muslim rule.
- So how exactly your points should stand are not quite obvious.
I have not denied it. But Muslims initially were more tolerant.
SSDD is offline  
Old June 21st, 2015, 08:56 AM   #59

El Cid's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: Escandinavia y Mesopotamia
Posts: 1,219

Quote:
Originally Posted by SSDD View Post
Okay then show me a Pagan temple in Denmark in 1500 CE.
What are you fishing after?

The pagans did actually exist in the Kingdom of Denmark in the 17th centuries and even 18th centuries in some degree. – That was as well the case in Sweden.

If you are fishing after an example of forced conversions of Pagans by the Christians, then do it accurately and use the example of Charlemagne when he forced converted the Saxons.
And then so what? What is your point?

Quote:
They are just semantics.
No, they are not as “Royal” and “Imperial” mean two different things. If you labeled Emperor Augustus as “King” or the Danish King Christian III as “Emperor” in the class or at auditorium then your classmates and adjunct/professor would lift one of their eyebrow and look at each other.

Quote:
Even if not are, what Royal/Imperial families did not necessarily mean public did same.
Again: the point with Marius Tiberius was not that it was common among the population in Byzantium, but was one of my 3 examples to show you that yours prejudicial portraying of European Middle Ages is flawed and problematic.

Tribonian the most important jurist in term of producing Corpus Juris Civilis, appointed by Justinian himself was actually heathen. In Denmark we have archeological evidences of Christian and Pagan gravestones side by side. And alongside above, an important and significance character of a Christian Emperor of Byzantium became father-in-law for a zarathustrian Shah with mutual respect.

The early Muslims did by the way not tolerated pagans in the same way as Jews and Christians were. While the latter two groups were somehow tolerated as underclass citizens with a higher taxation, such terms were not giving to the pagans as they were portrayed as idolaters by Muhammad and forcibly converted from day one.

So your notion that the Muslims treated Pagans better is extremely dubious and a clearly contradiction of what the scholars on Islamic history have stated.

Quote:
I have not denied it. But Muslims initially were more tolerant.
How?

The Muslims pillaged, raped, looted and killed them in the first place as there was a fiercely war between them.
El Cid is offline  
Old June 21st, 2015, 01:32 PM   #60

Essa's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2012
From: Bahrain
Posts: 1,942

Quote:
Originally Posted by El Cid View Post
I have already explained before why there was logic reasoning behind the Crusaders’ massacre in Jerusalem and why there are also a logic reasoning behind the lack of massacre by the Muslims in Jerusalem, and I am doing this again:

When the Muslims intended to take Jerusalem in the first place shortly after the time of hijra the Christians in Jerusalem did actually GIVE UP at the quite right moment which enables the population’s life to be spared from violations. If the Rashidun forces had decided to plunder the city despite of the city did surrender then they would get worse conditions onwards in term of persuading other cities to give up as their actions previously would encourages the other cities to fight harder as they will risk their life.

When the Crusaders took Jerusalem the inhabitants did decide NOT to surrender… and eventually lost at the end. If the Crusaders had decided to spare the populations life despite their resistance, then the Crusader forces would get worse conditions onwards of persuading other to give up as their opponents most likely will resists even more as they have nothing to lose even if the crusaders managed to conquer.

When Muslims under Saladin managed to take Jerusalem without bloodshed, then the reason is simply because the populations in Jerusalem managed to defend in a long time to get a better deal with Saladin when they did surrender. – If Saladin’s forces was managed to conquer Jerusalem before the agreement was reached a massacres would be inevitable under Saladin.

Anyways: before the Crusaders managed to take Jerusalem, the Arabs or Turks also did in fact shed bloods in Jerusalem when conquering it. I don’t exactly remember exact when it was but I am definitely sure the Muslims themselves did also have cases of expelling and/or massacred the Christians populations in Jerusalem prior to the first crusade in Jerusalem. -Also Frederic 2 managed to receive Jerusalem without any stench of bloods due to a fantastic and stunning agreement with Sultan Kamil.

So your conviction that the Crusaders did shed bloods while the Muslims had a higher standard when conquering other cities is utterly false.
This is a pathetic effort to justify the massacres of the first crusade...."Bias" is all over your posts when u talk about anything related to Islam....there was a light years difference between how muslims entered Jerusalem and how Crusaders entered it...but you somehow find an excuse, so funny.....

The crusaders were a shame to their own belief after what they did in Constantinople...and the claim that the crusade happened because of christian pilgrims were detained is rubbish...its very well known that it took place because of geeed and politics....so much for a holy crusade attacking a fellow christian !!

What about the acts of Reynald de Chatellion and Guy de Lusignian ??!! Why didnt u try bringing us an excuse for that as well....since it wasnt hard finding one for the first crusade....

What about the 7th Crusade when Louis IX was captured in Egypt....go on find an excuse for this please....

A student of history should learn to give credit where it belonged....Saladdin is a figure revered by Christians and the whole world but u couldn't stand to give him any credit while the tolerance showed by him outweights anything shown by any Chrisian power in their entire history of conflict against Islam....
Essa 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 06:12 AM
Ancient Maya: Oh, those "end of the world" guys? JoanOfArc American History 9 June 15th, 2013 07:53 AM
"The First Holocaust" - Persecution of European Jews during the Crusades Salah Medieval and Byzantine History 46 November 8th, 2011 09:43 AM
Define this "history" thing that you guys seem to talk about, eh? EpicHistory360 General History 6 November 6th, 2011 08:31 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.