A Short Series on the First Crusade

a reply to: babloyi

What are you talking about? Who was trying to "Expand the Caliphate"? What on earth does that even mean? "Caliphate is a tenant of Islam"? What on earth are you talking about? What does that sentence even mean? Do you even know what those words are? Or do you just see certain trigger words ("Crusader", "Muslim", etc) which send you into a rage where you start spouting "technical" muslimmy words?

You obviously dont know your history, if you even have to ask me what a caliphate is

You should probably learn the History of Islam, its tenants and what they were doing in the world at that time

And learn about Christianity and what they were doing in the world at that time

before posting a video thats complete BS

its all about religion on both sides

At the time the first Crusade was declared, Jerusalem had been under muslim rule for 400+ years. Nobody was "expanding" it. The Seljuq Turks, who were fighting the Byzantines (who then went to the Pope for help, again totally unrelated to Jerusalem) while allowing the Abassid Caliphate to continue in a fairly ceremonial position after defeating them, they certainly weren't fighting to "expand the Caliphate", whatever that means. Quite the opposite.

Wrong again , you should probably watch the videos that pretty much destroy the assumptions and assertations made in your video.....

The Seldjuk, were trying to expand the caliphate.......history man history

The Seljuk Turks (also known as Seldjuk, Seldjuq or Seljuq) are a major branch of the Oghuz Turks and a dynasty that ruled parts of Central Asia and the Middle East from the 11th to 14th centuries. The Seljuks migrated from the north Iranian provinces in Central Asia into mainland Iran formerly known as Persia.

The Seljuks were a group of nomadic Turkish warriors from central Asia who established themselves in the Middle East during the 11th Century as guardians of the declining abbasid caliphate.

early 1097 a Crusader army from western Europe and a Byzantine army from Constantinople marched into territory in Asia Minor occupied by the Seljuk Turks. The first objective of the Crusaders was the city of Nicaea, 55 miles southeast of Constantinople. After months of siege, the Seljuks surrendered. Constantinople's army entered Nicaea and the Crusaders went ahead without delay toward Jerusalem, to be delayed at the city of Antioch in northern Syria.

Anitoch had been taken by the Seljuks in 1085. It had been a Christian city, and without its capture, it is said, the Crusaders would not have been able to move on to Jerusalem. The Crusaders besieged the city for 7.5 months. The Seljuks attacked twice to end the siege but were defeated both times.

A classic case of using today's morals and standards to judge the events of yesteryear.

Surely they should be taken in context with the norm's of the day?

originally posted by: Freeborn
A classic case of using today's morals and standards to judge the events of yesteryear.

Surely they should be taken in context with the norm's of the day?

?

I was just stating facts of who was what and who was where

not sure where the "judgement" comes in

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

I know perfectly well what the Caliphate is, thank you. It really does seem I've got a better grasp on history than some here. "Expand the Caliphate" is a totally absurd expression in this context. Did the pope try to "Expand the Papacy"?
The Sejluq turks had absolutely nothing at all to do with the Caliphate in any sense at all. They conquered an area the Abbassid Caliphate was in power over, and left Al-Qaim (the Caliph at the time) with some basic ceremonial power. they weren't otherwise affiliated with it, they weren't fighting for it, it was just there, the Caliphate served and was subservient to the Sultan (not the other way around) and proclaimed his names in the congregational prayers.

Simply saying "You're wrong, bro!" is not an argument, and is especially silly when you happen to be wrong. And then you quote to me information that was already present in the videos I linked, and in a much more detailed manner? Perhaps you should watch them. The Islamic Caliphates at the time (neither the Abbassids nor the Fatimids, who were the only players relevant in that arena) had little to no relevance to the genesis of the Crusades.

a reply to: babloyi

I know perfectly well what the Caliphate is, thank you. It really does seem I've got a better grasp on history than some here. "Expand the Caliphate" is a totally absurd expression in this context. Did the pope try to "Expand the Papacy"?

Obviously not, one of the main key tenants of Islam at the time and indeed the Caliphate, was to expand the Caliphate

Im guessing since you separate this, you really dont have a grasp on history.......

The Sejluq turks had absolutely nothing at all to do with the Caliphate in any sense at all.

Really? Their own history says your wrong

They conquered an area the Abbassid Caliphate was in power over, and left Al-Qaim (the Caliph at the time) with some basic ceremonial power. they weren't otherwise affiliated with it, they weren't fighting for it, it was just there, the Caliphate served and was subservient to the Sultan (not the other way around) and proclaimed his names in the congregational prayers

LoL again you obviously dont know how the Caliphate works, I linked you their own information from their own websites on their own history.......The sultan maintains their allegiance to the Caliph and still operates under the caliphate

You can deny it all you want, but facts are facts.........and I backed mine up with their own history

Your revisionist history is wrong ,not mine and the fact that you try to say "this had nothing to do with religion" is obviously just as ridiculous

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

Obviously not, one of the main key tenants of Islam at the time and indeed the Caliphate, was to expand the Caliphate

I think you mean 'tenet', oh erudite and all-knowing one.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask
"Islam at the time"? Again, I think you're entering into territory of "I don't know what I'm talking about". There has never ever, in the history of Islam or anything else, been "Expand the Caliphate" be a main key tenet of Islam.

You linked me information from the website of the Seljuq Turks and their "Caliphate" ? Amazing! I must've missed this, I'm sorry, I didn't even know they existed any more.
Either way, again, there is no history of the world, at least not in this universe, where Tughril Beg (the Seljug Sultan) was subservient to Al Qaim (the Abbassid Caliph at the time). Al Qaim did request Tughril to recapture Baghdad from a Shia dynasty (and thus implicitly backed Tughril, explicitly doing so by declaring his name every friday in the congregational prayers), but when Tughril succeeded, Baghdad was ruled by Tughril, not by Al Qaim.

originally posted by: aorAki

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

Obviously not, one of the main key tenants of Islam at the time and indeed the Caliphate, was to expand the Caliphate

I think you mean 'tenet', oh erudite and all-knowing one.

thank you sir for the correction

a reply to: babloyi



again proving your clueless below:

"Islam at the time"? Again, I think you're entering into territory of "I don't know what I'm talking about". There has never ever, in the history of Islam or anything else, been "Expand the Caliphate" be a main key tenet of Islam.

Actually Islam and its Caliphate are not inseparable , at least then, Islam dictated that it was a moral , spiritual and governmental establishment, there was no discernment between Islam and governement, Islam WAS the government, and it was called the Caliphate and Sharia was the law


Part of the whole reason ISIS is doing what its doing, is to RE ESTABLISH that caliphate .....

I really dont care if you like it or not........or if you believe it or not

Facts are facts

The information i linked came from THEIR OWN sources on THEIR OWN history.......

You can make up your own story of how things went

but you cant make up your own facts

This discussion with you is going no where, ive repeatedly posted actual information, and facts while you, on the other hand have done nothing but supply your own spin.......

Ive put out the information, people can make of it what they will, as for our discussion, it seems futile

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: babloyi
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask
I'm certainly no fan of what ISIS is doing. Don't see what that has to do with Islam, though. Or where I mentioned being horrified about anything (not that I am or am not, just pointing out that you're reading your own bias into what I said, which isn't what you want to think I said).

But if you're attempting to play "tit for tat" (a fairly useless game, if you ask me), in the same vein, judging from your avatar glorifying these horrific events, "Christianity" doesn't seem to have changed much either, then...

selling women and children into sex slavery
Until then it holds no water

No, the Vatican just turned their head, then moved clergy to different parishes. They condoned, allowed, and ignored pedophelia up until recent years when they were becoming bankrupt from all the lawsuits.

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: babloyi
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask
I'm certainly no fan of what ISIS is doing. Don't see what that has to do with Islam, though. Or where I mentioned being horrified about anything (not that I am or am not, just pointing out that you're reading your own bias into what I said, which isn't what you want to think I said).

But if you're attempting to play "tit for tat" (a fairly useless game, if you ask me), in the same vein, judging from your avatar glorifying these horrific events, "Christianity" doesn't seem to have changed much either, then...

selling women and children into sex slavery
Until then it holds no water

No, the Vatican just turned their head, then moved clergy to different parishes. They condoned, allowed, and ignored pedophelia up until recent years when they were becoming bankrupt from all the lawsuits.

Completely agree with that , which is why i despise the catholic hierarchy and feel the papacy is not only a farce but has become as far from what Christ taught, as apples are from tomatoes

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

The comment wasn't aimed at you, or anyone specifically.

It's an error many make - using the morals and standards of today to judge the events of yesterday.
This whole thread is really based on that whereas I believe they should be taken in context with the morals and standards of the time in which they occurred.

To be honest I'm not sure why you would assume my comment was directed at you.

And I don't understand why such an approach should be so contentious.

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: babloyi
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask
I'm certainly no fan of what ISIS is doing. Don't see what that has to do with Islam, though. Or where I mentioned being horrified about anything (not that I am or am not, just pointing out that you're reading your own bias into what I said, which isn't what you want to think I said).

But if you're attempting to play "tit for tat" (a fairly useless game, if you ask me), in the same vein, judging from your avatar glorifying these horrific events, "Christianity" doesn't seem to have changed much either, then...

selling women and children into sex slavery
Until then it holds no water

No, the Vatican just turned their head, then moved clergy to different parishes. They condoned, allowed, and ignored pedophelia up until recent years when they were becoming bankrupt from all the lawsuits.

Completely agree with that , which is why i despise the catholic hierarchy and feel the papacy is not only a farce but has become as far from what Christ taught, as apples are from tomatoes

You mean Christ wouldn't have lived in that ornate palace in the Vatican or dressed in the opulent robes and hats? To be fare Pope Francis has eschewed the lifestyle of previous popes and has been more Christ-like than anyone else who has inhabited that position in my lifetime.

The final episode, with some clarifications, corrections and extra bits that didn't fit in:

And to tie back to what the original idea of this thread was about, and what so many people started arguing about in here ("No, their fault!", "No, THEIR fault!" etc.):

(transcribed and edited for readability)

But the more I read, the harder it was to really defend the Crusades. I mean, this thing was a mess.
..The thing is, we don't need to grasp at straws to find justifications for this. This is part of our history, and we should look at it honestly. The fact that this is part of history doesn't make us bad or the church that these men believed in bad. It's something to learn from and to help us understand the present.

And asked about the "unsung heroes of the Crusades":

A lot of these Bishops who defended the jews really are unsung heroes. I mean, you never hear about them. I thought some went above and beyond to protect them, which I thought was awesome. Tancred is my other favourite, the more I read about him, the more I liked him, maybe because it's in contrast to some of the company he kept, but he's this kid who shows up, sort of just brought along by his uncle. And this is his journey to prove he's his own man. And he struggles with that, and as he needs to prove himself a great warrior, he tries within the bounds of the time, certainly more than anybody else there, to be humane.

I had never heard of Tancred before this, and learning about him from this video series (and reading up on him later) has been enlightening. Instead of memorialising faceless brutal murderers, who even murdered their co-religionists in the name of God and the Crusades (but were actually just in it for money, land and power), perhaps looking up to this guy would be nice. The rest of the Leaders of the Crusades swore an oath to the Byzantine emperor that they'd capture the land for him, totally intending (and later acting on this intent) to break their oath, Tancred refused to give the oath in the first place. Later, during the attack on Jerusalem (where the Crusaders famously murdered so many of the locals that they were knee deep in blood), Tancred gave his banner to a group of citizens to ensure their protection.

A huge reach-back-in-time bump (but that seems normal here these days for some reason), but this video came out recently that reminded me of this thread. A constant refrain here was "The Crusades were retaliatory!", "The other guys started it!", etc.

I always knew those claims were hogwash that had been spoonfed to be responses when the crusades were brought up, but did not have the time nor energy to be constantly collating references and crafting answers to a hydra of ignorance.

Luckily, this video did it for me! It is actually a response to another video, but that video very consistently also combines the usual statements about this topic, so it all works out!

nvm some old thread

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

oops I take that back - thread active again. Now I must begin to study it closer.


Great points about how we romanticize the past and "western centric" thinking never judges its own actions without bias.