Crescent and the Cross

[wacki]

If you are even mildly interested in history or religion and have not studied the crusades this is a very good series. I had no idea the Crusades were this bad. The show was very well done. Information could be given out a bit faster during the show but not much faster. The show isn't drawn out like so many other shows are. It really is a very well done series. Next one is on tomorrow monday night at 9/8c.

Even today stories are told of the barbaric Crusades in coffee shops in the Arab world like they happened last week. After 9/11 when Bush said we had to "launch a Crusade against terrorism" it sent shivers down the spine of the Arab world. I always thought this was uber left wing liberal crap that many were bitching just to bitch. I now realize they were right. I had no idea it was this bad.

http://www.historychannel.com/crusades/

[astroglide]

i'm tivoing these because i plan on picking up THIS (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/fullimage/91398) board game.

THIS (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/fullimage/84405) is the 'braveheart' board game, based on that historical scenario. made by the same company as you can basically tell by looking at the two. both are 2-player block-based war games.

i'm beginning to develop an interest in history as a result of this stuff. i wish i'd run into a story about napoleon's battle in marengo, austria because of THIS (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/fullimage/73426) game, for example.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Even today stories are told of the barbaric Crusades in coffee shops in the Arab world like they happened last week.

[/ QUOTE ] fanatical Muslims tend to dwell.

[wacki]

No dude. It's not dwelling. It's really that bad. I mean at the very least it makes a great campfire story.

During the show it sounded like the soldiers dug up 1 month and 4 day old corpses to eat. Can anyone confirm the age of the corpses?


If you can I would very much appreciate it.


-toasty wacki

[TheMainEvent]

[ QUOTE ]
No dude. It's not dwelling. It's really that bad.

During the show it sounded like the soldiers dug up 1 month and 4 day old corpses to eat. Can anyone confirm the age of the corpses?


If you can I would very much appreciate it.


-toasty wacki

[/ QUOTE ]

Have they done any shows on Arabic history? Trust me, they knew a thing or two about brutality before the crusaders got there.

[ThaSaltCracka]

whats your point here wacki? That crusading Christians are monsters? No [censored]. So were those god damned mulims as well. The Crusades were one of humanity's biggest [censored]-ups.

Also, I can see how this show might be amazing. War 1000 years ago was hell on earth.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Have they done any shows on Arabic history? Trust me, they knew a thing or two about brutality before the crusaders got there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, I'm not saying we are the worst by any means. I just didn't realize we were that bad. There were plenty worse I'm sure. Hitler, stalin, Ishii Shiro and many other are far far far worse. Still, for being a "holy war" it was anything but holy. The crusades have to of topped the charts in both sheer numbers of death and horrific deeds performed by a "holy army". I'm not anti-crhistian. I just thought it was an amazing story from a historical standpoint. Interesting enough that I'd tell it to someone else drunk around a campfire one day I'm sure. Hell, I'm drunk now.

-drunk wacki

EDIT: FURTHER RESEARCH MADE ME REALIZE THAT THE CRUSADE MAY NOT OF TOPPED THE CHARTS IN NUMBERS.

[PoBoy321]

My understanding, and of course I could be wrong, was always that after the rise of Mohammed in 711, Islam spread throughout the Middle Eastern world basically by Muslim warriors approacing a city, telling them that they had to pay taxes to them. If they accepted, they paid the taxes and basically everyone was ok. If they refused, they were attacked, conquered and forced to pay.

The Crusades were a military conflict with the sole purpose of destroying as many Muslims as possible and driving them out of Jerusalem.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
My understanding, and of course I could be wrong, was always that after the rise of Mohammed in 711, Islam spread throughout the Middle Eastern world basically by Muslim warriors approacing a city, telling them that they had to pay taxes to them. If they accepted, they paid the taxes and basically everyone was ok. If they refused, they were attacked, conquered and forced to pay.

[/ QUOTE ] wrong. Muslim warriors approached a city and told everyone there that they had to convert to Islam. Those that refused were killed. Islam was spread by the sword.

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My understanding, and of course I could be wrong, was always that after the rise of Mohammed in 711, Islam spread throughout the Middle Eastern world basically by Muslim warriors approacing a city, telling them that they had to pay taxes to them. If they accepted, they paid the taxes and basically everyone was ok. If they refused, they were attacked, conquered and forced to pay.

[/ QUOTE ] wrong. Muslim warriors approached a city and told everyone there that they had to convert to Islam. Those that refused were killed. Islam was spread by the sword.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, Christianity was spread much the same way throughout Europe. I know of at least a few occasions of mass murder in Germany during the Christianization of the Celts.

I was always under the understanding that the Muslims didn't paricularly care whether or not you converted so long as you paid, but I'll see if I can find some information to back one of us up.

EDIT: I found a couple of articles that say that Muslim invaders did frequently force conversion on those they conquered, but that Christians were certainly guilty of the same thing.

[imported_anacardo]

Christianity was spread by the sword. Judaism was not spread, but rather enforced, by the sword. Zoroastrianism was spread by the sword. EVERY MIDDLE EASTERN RELIGION WAS SPREAD BY THE SWORD.

[imported_anacardo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My understanding, and of course I could be wrong, was always that after the rise of Mohammed in 711, Islam spread throughout the Middle Eastern world basically by Muslim warriors approacing a city, telling them that they had to pay taxes to them. If they accepted, they paid the taxes and basically everyone was ok. If they refused, they were attacked, conquered and forced to pay.

[/ QUOTE ] wrong. Muslim warriors approached a city and told everyone there that they had to convert to Islam. Those that refused were killed. Islam was spread by the sword.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, Christianity was spread much the same way throughout Europe. I know of at least a few occasions of mass murder in Germany during the Christianization of the Celts.

I was always under the understanding that the Muslims didn't paricularly care whether or not you converted so long as you paid, but I'll see if I can find some information to back one of us up.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are correct, for the most part.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My understanding, and of course I could be wrong, was always that after the rise of Mohammed in 711, Islam spread throughout the Middle Eastern world basically by Muslim warriors approacing a city, telling them that they had to pay taxes to them. If they accepted, they paid the taxes and basically everyone was ok. If they refused, they were attacked, conquered and forced to pay.

[/ QUOTE ] wrong. Muslim warriors approached a city and told everyone there that they had to convert to Islam. Those that refused were killed. Islam was spread by the sword.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, Christianity was spread much the same way throughout Europe. I know of at least a few occasions of mass murder in Germany during the Christianization of the Celts.

I was always under the understanding that the Muslims didn't paricularly care whether or not you converted so long as you paid, but I'll see if I can find some information to back one of us up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure both were spread with violence. Sad to say really, but what can you do, it is an ideology.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My understanding, and of course I could be wrong, was always that after the rise of Mohammed in 711, Islam spread throughout the Middle Eastern world basically by Muslim warriors approacing a city, telling them that they had to pay taxes to them. If they accepted, they paid the taxes and basically everyone was ok. If they refused, they were attacked, conquered and forced to pay.

[/ QUOTE ] wrong. Muslim warriors approached a city and told everyone there that they had to convert to Islam. Those that refused were killed. Islam was spread by the sword.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, Christianity was spread much the same way throughout Europe. I know of at least a few occasions of mass murder in Germany during the Christianization of the Celts.

I was always under the understanding that the Muslims didn't paricularly care whether or not you converted so long as you paid, but I'll see if I can find some information to back one of us up.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are correct, for the most part.

[/ QUOTE ]except for the muslim part.

[bobman0330]

History Channel is for lightweights. Steven Runciman wrote a very good three-volume history. Check it out.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
History Channel is for lightweights. Steven Runciman wrote a very good three-volume history. Check it out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Holy crap!

$70 for hardcover and $7 for paperback of the first volume only. massive difference.

I'm buying a paperback now!

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/det...nce&s=books (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/052106161X/qid=1131341198/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/102-1472752-1172115?v=glance&s=books)

BTW, thanks for the info bobman0330

Odd. This is the first time someone named bob taught me something that didn't involve a hammer. Wooohoo!!!!

-drunk wacki

P.S. Anything on TV is for lightwieghts.

The Inquisition was a rather mis-guided bit of Christianity, too. Sadly, a lot of things done by man in the name of their God, whatever form, were/are barbaric. There's an old saying about no army ever going into battle without "God" being on his side.

/images/graemlins/frown.gif

[mmcd]

[ QUOTE ]
after the rise of Mohammed in 711

[/ QUOTE ]

I always wondered how they came up with the name of that store. Now it all makes sense.

[TheMainEvent]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
after the rise of Mohammed in 711

[/ QUOTE ]

I always wondered how they came up with the name of that store. Now it all makes sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

POTD

[PoBoy321]

Actually, I was wrong about that date. 711 wasn't the date of the rise of Mohammed. Mohammed had his revelations in 610 and began to spread Islam c. 632. In 711, Muslims conquered Syria, Saudi Arabia and pretty much the whole Middle East.

[MrTrik]

I watched this last night and will watch again tonite. Good stuff, and I am intrigued. Are there more than two episodes?

[nicky g]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My understanding, and of course I could be wrong, was always that after the rise of Mohammed in 711, Islam spread throughout the Middle Eastern world basically by Muslim warriors approacing a city, telling them that they had to pay taxes to them. If they accepted, they paid the taxes and basically everyone was ok. If they refused, they were attacked, conquered and forced to pay.

[/ QUOTE ] wrong. Muslim warriors approached a city and told everyone there that they had to convert to Islam. Those that refused were killed. Islam was spread by the sword.



[/ QUOTE ]

This is completely and utterly wrong. Cities were forced to submit to Muslim rule and non-Muslims were discriminated against to varying degrees, but forced conversion was the rare exception. Large non-Muslim communities existed throughout the "Islamic world"; Egypt remained majority Christian for centuries under Muslim rule,for example. Islam also spread beyond the Islamic empires largely through trade routes.

The idea that each side was as bad as the other in the Crusades is also wrong. When the Crusaders took Jerusalem they slaughtered every Muslim and Jew in it, as well as large numbers of Eastern Christians. When Salah ad-Din took it back noone was slaughtered, those who wanted to remain were allowed to and Jews were invited back. Neither "side" (who was fighting who varied; there was more than one Muslim dynasty involved for example) was a model of civility in modern terms but the balance of aggression and atrocity lay formly with the Crusaders (it's misleading to call them Christians, as there were large numbers of Oriental Christians who sided with the locals).

[nicky g]

If you're interested in this an enjoyable short volume in "The Crusades Through Arab Eyes" by Amin Maalouf. It uses Arab/Muslim original sources.