but.......THE CRUSADES!

[saxitoxin]

Saladin the Magnanimous:

In April 1191, a Frankish woman's three-month old baby had been stolen from her camp and sold on the market. The Franks urged her to approach Saladin himself with her grievance. Saladin used his own money to buy the child back. He gave it to the mother and she took it, with tears streaming down her face, and hugged it to her breast. The people were watching her and I, Ibn Shaddad, was standing amongst them. Saladin ordered a horse to be fetched for her and she went back to camp.

https://books.google.com/books?id=D7Wgn ... sh&f=false

Fourth Crusade, English and French knights - rendered insane from syphilis - even loot Christian churches in Constantinople (with friends like this ...):

Over the next few days the westerners began to put the city to the sword. Many of its citizens were slaughtered and women of all ages were raped as the crusaders ruthlessly despoiled the metropolis. The great cathedral of the Hagia Sophia was stripped of its priceless relics and the hundreds of churches and palaces of Constantinople were pillaged.

To the crusaders, God had approved their actions by granting them victory and many returned home proudly bearing precious relics. At first, Pope Innocent III was delighted but, as news of the atrocities became clear, he changed his view and began to express anger and disgust at the westerners’ actions. He accused one senior noble of ‘turning away from the purity of your vow when you took up arms not against Saracens but Christians … preferring earthly wealth to celestial treasures’.

http://www.historytoday.com/jonathan-ph ... 8vk2Y.dpuf

[DaGip]

Crusades are cool. I wouldn't be alive without the Crusades.

[Symmetry]

If it didn't matter, why did you propose it as an argument, and delete the evidence in my post supporting my counter-argument?

You had a post that had the Pope sanctioning a war on terror? Sorry, I didn't see it, would you mind posting it again then?

If you are referring to Bush, then someone else already said it best-

Yea, who did he think he was, the Pope or something?

So your first point, that it wasn't declared as a crusade, as a noun, was wrong? And you need Papal authority to stamp that up to a capital C Crusade?

I think the nuance of theological Catholic law might well be lost on the people he declared war on.

[crispybits]

patches/tzor - can the eastern orthodox church never declare a Crusade (capital C) then? Or the anglicans? Is it a uniquely catholic thing?

[thegreekdog]

If it didn't matter, why did you propose it as an argument, and delete the evidence in my post supporting my counter-argument?

You had a post that had the Pope sanctioning a war on terror? Sorry, I didn't see it, would you mind posting it again then?

If you are referring to Bush, then someone else already said it best-

Yea, who did he think he was, the Pope or something?

So your first point, that it wasn't declared as a crusade, as a noun, was wrong? And you need Papal authority to stamp that up to a capital C Crusade?

I think the nuance of theological Catholic law might well be lost on the people he declared war on.

We had this argument before! I mean, let's ignore the excellent points that tzor has made.

I pointed out that the term "crusade" can be used in a non-religious context. For example:

Drunk driving - http://www.caidonline.com/
Cancer - http://www.avonfoundation.org/causes/br ... r-crusade/

Further, a crusade with respect to war can take a non-religious context. For example:

http://www.amazon.com/Crusade-Europe-Pe ... B000R396KK

[Metsfanmax]

ITT: Phatscotty says his stance on the Crusades was originally informed by a video game, and therefore doesn't understand how other people feel about it. Everyone else proceeds to make him look not so bad in comparison.

[thegreekdog]

ITT: Phatscotty says his stance on the Crusades was originally informed by a video game, and therefore doesn't understand how other people feel about it. Everyone else proceeds to make him look not so bad in comparison.

I look forward to the crusade against drunk driving smiting the evil pagans who practice such a religion!

I praise the worthy Father Dwight D. Eisenhower and his crusade against the Christian Germans and Italians! He was successful in freeing all of those religious relics in France, Germany, Italy and North Africa.

[AndyDufresne]

I haven't played Crusader Kings 2 in a while. I'll pick it up again probably in a few months.


--Andy

[tzor]

patches/tzor - can the eastern orthodox church never declare a Crusade (capital C) then? Or the anglicans? Is it a uniquely catholic thing?

Well I don't think they do the "crusade" thing. Given the current state of Constantinople she is in no position to do so. So whether the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople can call a crusade is a somewhat academic exercise.

The Archbishop of Canterbury? I'm going to say no on that one.

[muy_thaiguy]

I haven't played Crusader Kings 2 in a while. I'll pick it up again probably in a few months.


--Andy

I just downloaded Medieval II Total War (along with the expansions) off of Steam. That'll work for me.

[tzor]

Since someone mentioned Constantinople, let's look at the timeline of Islamic conquest against that city and the Patriarch of the east.

668: First Siege of Constantinople: This attack lasts off and on for seven years, with the Muslim forces generally spending the winters on the island of Cyzicus, a few miles south of Constantinople, and only sailing against the city during the spring and summer months. The Greeks are able to fend off repeated attacks with a weapon desperately feared by the Arabs: Greek Fire. It burned through ships, shields, and flesh and it could not be put out once it started. Muawiyah has to send emissaries to Byzantine Emperor Constans to beg him to let the survivors return home unimpeded, a request that is granted in exchange for a yearly tribute of 3,000 pieces of gold, fifty slaves, and fifty Arab horses.

677: Muslims send a large fleet against Constantinople in an effort to finally break the city, but they are defeated so badly through the Byzantine use of Greek Fire that they are forced to pay an indemnity to the Emperor.

August 15, 717: Second Siege of Constantinople: Taking advantage of the civil unrest in the Byzantine Empire, Caliph Sulieman sends 120,000 Muslims under the command of his brother, Moslemah, to launch the second siege of Constantinople. Another force of around 100,000 Muslims with 1,800 galleys soon arrives from Syria and Egypt to assist. Most of these reinforcements are quickly destroyed with Greek Fire. Eventually the Muslims outside Constantinople begin to starve and, in the winter, they also begin to freeze to death. Even the Bulgarians, usually hostile to the Byzantines, send a force to destroy Muslim reinforcements marching from Adrianopolis.

August 15, 718: Muslims abandon their second siege of Constantinople. Their failure here leads to the weakening of the Umayyad government, in part because of the heavy losses. It is estimated that of the 200,000 soldiers who besieged Constantinople, only around 30,000 made it home. Although the Byzantine Empire also sustains heavily casualties and loses most its territory south of the Taurus Mountains, by holding the line here they prevent a disorganized and militarily inferior Europe from having to confront a Muslim invasion along the shortest possible route. Instead, the Arabic invasion of Europe must proceed along the longer path across northern Africa and into Spain, a route which prevents quick reinforcement and ultimately proves ineffective.

858: Muslim raiders attack Constantinople.

[saxitoxin]

Since someone mentioned Constantinople, let's look at the timeline of Islamic conquest against that city and the Patriarch of the east.

668: First Siege of Constantinople: This attack lasts off and on for seven years, with the Muslim forces generally spending the winters on the island of Cyzicus, a few miles south of Constantinople, and only sailing against the city during the spring and summer months. The Greeks are able to fend off repeated attacks with a weapon desperately feared by the Arabs: Greek Fire. It burned through ships, shields, and flesh and it could not be put out once it started. Muawiyah has to send emissaries to Byzantine Emperor Constans to beg him to let the survivors return home unimpeded, a request that is granted in exchange for a yearly tribute of 3,000 pieces of gold, fifty slaves, and fifty Arab horses.

677: Muslims send a large fleet against Constantinople in an effort to finally break the city, but they are defeated so badly through the Byzantine use of Greek Fire that they are forced to pay an indemnity to the Emperor.

August 15, 717: Second Siege of Constantinople: Taking advantage of the civil unrest in the Byzantine Empire, Caliph Sulieman sends 120,000 Muslims under the command of his brother, Moslemah, to launch the second siege of Constantinople. Another force of around 100,000 Muslims with 1,800 galleys soon arrives from Syria and Egypt to assist. Most of these reinforcements are quickly destroyed with Greek Fire. Eventually the Muslims outside Constantinople begin to starve and, in the winter, they also begin to freeze to death. Even the Bulgarians, usually hostile to the Byzantines, send a force to destroy Muslim reinforcements marching from Adrianopolis.

August 15, 718: Muslims abandon their second siege of Constantinople. Their failure here leads to the weakening of the Umayyad government, in part because of the heavy losses. It is estimated that of the 200,000 soldiers who besieged Constantinople, only around 30,000 made it home. Although the Byzantine Empire also sustains heavily casualties and loses most its territory south of the Taurus Mountains, by holding the line here they prevent a disorganized and militarily inferior Europe from having to confront a Muslim invasion along the shortest possible route. Instead, the Arabic invasion of Europe must proceed along the longer path across northern Africa and into Spain, a route which prevents quick reinforcement and ultimately proves ineffective.

858: Muslim raiders attack Constantinople.

I love how the Muslims are cast in the role of Wiley Coyote to the Byzantine Roadrunner - a bumbling band of morons whose pure ineptitude seals their constant, comic defeats in the face of a small band of heroic Europeans. The lavish and rich detail of the Byzantine underdog victories is all the more magnificent when their final, crushing defeat to a 19 year-old Ottoman general is omitted ...

[jonesthecurl]

I believe the last official "Crusade", ie sanctioned by the Pope, was the Spanish Armada.

[Symmetry]

If it didn't matter, why did you propose it as an argument, and delete the evidence in my post supporting my counter-argument?

You had a post that had the Pope sanctioning a war on terror? Sorry, I didn't see it, would you mind posting it again then?

If you are referring to Bush, then someone else already said it best-

Yea, who did he think he was, the Pope or something?

So your first point, that it wasn't declared as a crusade, as a noun, was wrong? And you need Papal authority to stamp that up to a capital C Crusade?

I think the nuance of theological Catholic law might well be lost on the people he declared war on.

We had this argument before! I mean, let's ignore the excellent points that tzor has made.

I pointed out that the term "crusade" can be used in a non-religious context. For example:

Drunk driving - http://www.caidonline.com/
Cancer - http://www.avonfoundation.org/causes/br ... r-crusade/

Further, a crusade with respect to war can take a non-religious context. For example:

http://www.amazon.com/Crusade-Europe-Pe ... B000R396KK

But when it's used in the context of war on Islamic countries, it's not all that non-religious.

[thegreekdog]

So is your beef that the president used the word crusade once? Or is your beef that the United States is making war on Islamic countries and that is a crusade?

Frankly, I'm more concerned about the "making war" part and I'm indifferent to the religions of the combatants. The Catholic Church, which called for, supported, and otherwise helped to prosecute the actual Crusades are not supportive of the current American war on Islamic countries/groups (and, I'd have to check to make sure, probably doesn't care for any wars).

[tzor]

I love how the Muslims are cast in the role of Wiley Coyote to the Byzantine Roadrunner ...

I don't know where you got that idea from. Constantinople was the last bastion of the old Roman Empire, lasting centuries after Rome had fallen into the dark ages. As such it would be the most difficult prize to obtain and would not be obtained until centuries after it had completely fallen.

On the other hand, the conquest of Spain was easier than a hit knife through soft butter, and it took centuries for Christians to reclaim the land.

[Symmetry]

So is your beef that the president used the word crusade once? Or is your beef that the United States is making war on Islamic countries and that is a crusade?

Frankly, I'm more concerned about the "making war" part and I'm indifferent to the religions of the combatants. The Catholic Church, which called for, supported, and otherwise helped to prosecute the actual Crusades are not supportive of the current American war on Islamic countries/groups (and, I'd have to check to make sure, probably doesn't care for any wars).

He declared a crusade. It wasn't used as a verb, and it wasn't approved by the Vatican, as far as I can tell.

I'm confused as to the legalistics of this. Should he have declared it more than once? Should he have had Papal backing?

[Symmetry]

I love how the Muslims are cast in the role of Wiley Coyote to the Byzantine Roadrunner ...

I don't know where you got that idea from. Constantinople was the last bastion of the old Roman Empire, lasting centuries after Rome had fallen into the dark ages. As such it would be the most difficult prize to obtain and would not be obtained until centuries after it had completely fallen.

On the other hand, the conquest of Spain was easier than a hit knife through soft butter, and it took centuries for Christians to reclaim the land.

That "reclamation" partly courtesy of the Spanish Inquisition? Not exactly Christianity's high point.

[tzor]

So is your beef that the president used the word crusade once?

Was that directed at me? Why is it that my serious remarks are never taken seriously and the remarks never meant to be taken seriously are?

Was that remark supposed to be taken seriously? Well if you thought it was, perhaps it was not and if you didn't think it was, perhaps it was meant to be?

Islamic invasions have been going on since the founder started ... well invading. We haven't even gotten back to the point where we were at the start of the Crusades. Spain was Islamic. France almost became Islamic. Coastal cities were under constant attack.

And the crusades, one small moment in history, cannot compare to over a thousand years of constant warfare, which included the attacks on United States shipping by the Barbary Coast Pirates. Moreover, any crimes that might have occurred by rogue units working under a "crusade" pales to the various war crimes that were done in the history of United States military, including, but not limited to, the massacres done during the Mexican American war, and General Sherman's "march to the sea." The president should be well advised to remember that people who live in glass houses should never sing opera.

[Symmetry]

Directed at me, methinks.

[tzor]

That "reclamation" partly courtesy of the Spanish Inquisition? Not exactly Christianity's high point.

And it wasn't the low point either. People throw that event around without having even knowing the historical context.

Spain had finally been mostly liberated from Islamic occupation. Getting a little tired of the whole former Islamic rule thing, the King and Queen of Spain decides that it would be better if every non Christian was kicked out of the kingdom. (Yes, that also got applied to Jews, which is the real problem that develops.) Both Muslims and Jews decide to "convert." Consider that in the case of the former, it's a DEATH SENTENCE to renounce the faith, however it is a holy thing to lie to the infidel, so we can guess what they are actually doing. In the later, it was probably a case of just not wanting to move so doing whatever was necessary to "get along" was probably a prudent thing to do.

So both groups, for whatever reasons, converted for the sake of appearances, but had no intention of abandoning their faith. But now they are "Christians" and subject to the Inquisition.

So let's recap, for a moment, because in explaining things I seemed to have forgotten your stupid point. You see the Inquisition came AFTER the reclamation, and after the laws were passed kicking all non Christians out of Spain, and only after people started seeing them practice their old faith.

[patches70]

So let's recap, for a moment, because in explaining things I seemed to have forgotten your stupid point. You see the Inquisition came AFTER the reclamation, and after the laws were passed kicking all non Christians out of Spain, and only after people started seeing them practice their old faith.

I think sym's stupid point is that the OP is talking about The Crusades and the effect it had on his early view on the Christian religion. Sym comes in and says "Bush declared a crusade!" as if that is the same thing as the OP is talking about, which it isn't. It's akin to sym coming into a thread about ice cream flavors and saying he likes getting sexed anally. It leaves people scratching their heads at his non sequitur except it's not funny because sym doesn't know the difference between a Crusade and a crusade.

There are parties who wish to have the US' war on terror viewed as a Crusade because it stirs certain feelings in people. As Napoleon once said- "A man doesn't fight for a half pence a day. You must speak to his soul." or something abouts. In sym's case, his animosity and hatred for all things American clouds his brain.
That's my take on it at least.

[Symmetry]

That "reclamation" partly courtesy of the Spanish Inquisition? Not exactly Christianity's high point.

And it wasn't the low point either. People throw that event around without having even knowing the historical context.

Spain had finally been mostly liberated from Islamic occupation. Getting a little tired of the whole former Islamic rule thing, the King and Queen of Spain decides that it would be better if every non Christian was kicked out of the kingdom. (Yes, that also got applied to Jews, which is the real problem that develops.) Both Muslims and Jews decide to "convert." Consider that in the case of the former, it's a DEATH SENTENCE to renounce the faith, however it is a holy thing to lie to the infidel, so we can guess what they are actually doing. In the later, it was probably a case of just not wanting to move so doing whatever was necessary to "get along" was probably a prudent thing to do.

So both groups, for whatever reasons, converted for the sake of appearances, but had no intention of abandoning their faith. But now they are "Christians" and subject to the Inquisition.

So let's recap, for a moment, because in explaining things I seemed to have forgotten your stupid point. You see the Inquisition came AFTER the reclamation, and after the laws were passed kicking all non Christians out of Spain, and only after people started seeing them practice their old faith.

And, of course, the Spanish Inquisition was started before the end of the Reconquista.

[saxitoxin]

So is your beef that the president used the word crusade once?

Was that directed at me? Why is it that my serious remarks are never taken seriously and the remarks never meant to be taken seriously are?

Was that remark supposed to be taken seriously? Well if you thought it was, perhaps it was not and if you didn't think it was, perhaps it was meant to be?

Islamic invasions have been going on since the founder started ... well invading. We haven't even gotten back to the point where we were at the start of the Crusades. Spain was Islamic. France almost became Islamic. Coastal cities were under constant attack.

And the crusades, one small moment in history, cannot compare to over a thousand years of constant warfare, which included the attacks on United States shipping by the Barbary Coast Pirates.

Saying the Arab and Berber invasion of Hispania or the Barbary Wars were "Islamic invasions" is as accurate as saying the U.S. part in the Barbary Wars was the "Episcopalian invasion of Morocco." None of these events were religiously motivated, but were the routine efforts by kings and emirs to acquire treasure that have occurred for centuries.

[saxitoxin]

I love how the Muslims are cast in the role of Wiley Coyote to the Byzantine Roadrunner ...

I don't know where you got that idea from.

From your post - viewtopic.php?f=8&t=210640&start=25#p4622338 - which is a bizarre re-imagining of history.

In this version, a large force of bumbling Muslims can't help but shooting themselves in the foot time and time again through various hijinx and pratfalls, as a small group of clever and valiant Christians holds the gates of civilization. Minor historical footnotes are blown-up to drive-home the point that the Muslims are a bunch of hapless morons. Meanwhile, the fall of Constantinople is reduced to a single sentence ... all the rich detail of idiotic miscues and crushing defeats is suddenly nowhere to be found - no mention that the greatest military minds in Europe were defeated by a 19 year-old Ottoman general, or that the city was blown apart by cannons the Byzantines had previously been given the chance to purchase but couldn't afford because their own prime minister had embezzled half the treasury.

NOW, having said all that, I still like the Adventures of Baron Munchausen.