Christian Shrine?

[Úmarth]

Let me give you a short summary, the 1st Crusade was called after the Byzantines appealed to the Pope for assistance in staving off Islamic forces for CENTURIES.

True, but they very quickly forgot about aiding the Byzantines in favour of invading Arab Jerusalem and the 'Holy Land', which was the focus of all subsequent crusades (and the 4th crusade of course turned on their fellow Christian Byzantines and did what the Muslims never could: sack Constaninople).

Not that this has any relevance to the OP...

 

[kochman]

Doesn't change the fact that they started as a reaction...
The Pope didn't just randomly decide to attack the Levant one day.

 

[Leoreth]

I know my history books well enough, thank you

1. Yes, the First Crusade started mainly because the Byzantine Emperor called for aid against the Seljuks. But for the majority of the crusaders soon considered Jerusalem as the main target, as Umarth already pointed out.

2. There was little reason to attack Jerusalem other than mere aggression (and revenge). The city has been in Arab hands by more than 400 years at that point, so it can be legitimately considered an Arab city. Christian pilgrims were allowed to visit their holy sites, so no reason to "assert the Christian pilgrims' rights", whatever that means. The destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in 1009 was seen as a reason by many contemporary Christians, but already was 80 years ago and was viewed as a fatal error by most Muslims of that era.

3. Even if there was a legitimate reason to attack the city, the sack of Jerusalem ended with a cruel massacre on the whole Muslim population. How does that fit into a justified defensive action?

So in short: The crusades were not the simple "Chivalrous Christians fight the EVIL Muslims" story you would like to paint it as.

 

[kochman]

Ok... it's clear you are reading your history books poorly.

Jerusalem was a city in the Christian Empire of Byzantine until taken by force. Doesn't matter when.
They were trying not only to protect Constantinople, but to reclaim all the lost lands for Christianity. Reclaim, as in take back what was taken by force... as in, a reaction to the muslim takeover...
Therefore, not an act of unwarranted aggression.

I suggest you re-read your history books, and throw in the dictionary while you are at it, because you clearly just don't get it.

Go ahead and have the last, ill-learned word, because I am done.

 

[Leoreth]

So following your logic, Jerusalem is a Jewish city. It was conquered by the Romans by force, doesn't matter when
The Christians acquired this land by force just like the Muslims did. Why should they have any more right to own it? Besides your own obvious Christian bias, of course?

And please keep your poor ad hominem arguments for yourself. You humiliate yourself.

 

[Higher Game]

The city has been in Arab hands by more than 400 years at that point, so it can be legitimately considered an Arab city.

Sorry my German friend, but land that your nation held for much longer was given back to Poland, and Israel got its land back after 2000 years.

Land disputes are legally settled by the international community; in the Middle Ages, that meant the pope. Simply possessing land doesn't grant authority over it (see Taiwan) and lacking it doesn't mean it's not rightfully yours as determined by whatever the global authority is at the time.

Massacres happen because a population doesn't submit to legitimate ethnic cleansing by population exchange or deportation. In this case, the civilians can be considered partisans or terrorists and are not entitled to ordinary rights. They positioned themselves to be voluntary martyrs, which isn't uncommon for religious fanatics, so there shouldn't be any guilt in purging them or considering it aggressive; it is, in fact, reactive to their behavior.

Too much history is materialistic or pragmatic in this area, instead of being rational or consistent.

 

[BurnEmDown]

So following your logic, Jerusalem is a Jewish city.

Oh no, by that logic the city is actually Jebusite

 

[Leoreth]

Massacres happen because a population doesn't submit to legitimate ethnic cleansing by population exchange or deportation. In this case, the civilians can be considered partisans or terrorists and are not entitled to ordinary rights. They positioned themselves to be voluntary martyrs, which isn't uncommon for religious fanatics, so there shouldn't be any guilt in purging them or considering it aggressive; it is, in fact, reactive to their behavior.

VOLUNTARY martyrs?? LEGITIMATE ethnic cleansings???

Oh, I get it, you have "National Socialist" as your forum rank.

I certainly don't want to be called "German friend" by such a person.

I have presented the historical facts, but I won't let myself be drawn into a justification battle with arguments from whatever ideology. May the reader decide, if there is still any.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

Land disputes are legally settled by the international community; in the Middle Ages, that meant the pope. Simply possessing land doesn't grant authority over it (see Taiwan) and lacking it doesn't mean it's not rightfully yours as determined by whatever the global authority is at the time.

The problem with this is that much like in modern times the so called "international community" did not include equal representation of all nations.

Firstly, no one even included to ask the Arab nations. I am sure that the united Muslims of the world would have not agreed to the pope dealing out lands they inhabited for centuries.

Just like the UN is today for America, so the Pope was just a too used by Cristian invaders to justify their shameless wars of aggression against lands that they wanted to claim.

VOLUNTARY martyrs?? LEGITIMATE ethnic cleansings???

I don't understand your outrage. They won the war, they conquered the land, by medieval standards they OWN the population as serfs.

By the standards of the day you could get into more trouble killing one of a lords dogs than killing one of his serfs.

 

[Higher Game]

VOLUNTARY martyrs?? LEGITIMATE ethnic cleansings???

Oh, I get it, you have "National Socialist" as your forum rank.

Partisans have always been counted as enemy troops, albeit irregulars. Ethnic cleansing by all sides redrew the map after WWII such that no one was dominant, and no war has broken out ever since. It's not the same thing as genocide.

National socialism as Evola describes is the closest thing reasonably attainable to the Platonic ideal of government.

Firstly, no one even included to ask the Arab nations. I am sure that the united Muslims of the world would have not agreed to the pope dealing out lands they inhabited for centuries.

Just like the UN is today for America, so the Pope was just a too used by Cristian invaders to justify their shameless wars of aggression against lands that they wanted to claim.

Even a cursory examination of theology finds very strong similarities to the Arian heresy. Mohammad opportunistically manipulated his "visions" to suit whatever political goals he had; compare tolerant early suras (love people of the book, etc) to more violent later ones, when his army had grown. The hypocrisy inherent in that faith excludes it.

Judaism isn't a suitable candidate for mediation because of its insular nature, small population base, lack of a single dominant interpreter, and hodgepodge belief systems that no one follows (see bizarre Talmud findings).

Matriarchal religions are savage, superstitious fantasies designed to explain ignorance about the world, and have few if any moral insights. Orthodox Christianity is a good base, but was too decentralized and weak. No, only the pope was suitable for the situation, and his decision was rational.

 

[Panopticon]

Can we have a no Nazis rule on the RFC forum please.

 

[El Bogus]

Yeah, that would be great! Nazis could propagate in the OT forum... (I have experienced it yet...)
and @ leoreth: just don't care about some mad people from some mad country... the British will soon get their American colonies and the Natives will pitch their Tipis again.

 

[Mazzini]

Judaism isn't a suitable candidate for mediation because of its insular nature, small population base, lack of a single dominant interpreter, and hodgepodge belief systems that no one follows (see bizarre Talmud findings).

Matriarchal religions are savage, superstitious fantasies designed to explain ignorance about the world, and have few if any moral insights. Orthodox Christianity is a good base, but was too decentralized and weak. No, only the pope was suitable for the situation, and his decision was rational.

Yeah man, great point. Everything about medieval Catholicism was 100% rational and internally consistent, with religious dogma never twisted to serve political or economic ends... And the pope was an impartial, universally respected, and wholly legitimate leader of the "international community."

Thank you for giving us a decent road map to the bizarre beliefs one must apparently embrace along the path to Nazism.

 

[micbic]

Yeah man, great point. Everything about medieval Catholicism was 100% rational and internally consistent, with religious dogma never twisted to serve political or economic ends... And the pope was an impartial, universally respected, and wholly legitimate leader of the "international community."

You forgot the most important. He always was willing to discuss other opinions, and promoted scientific research evenmore than the Humanists.

 

[Higher Game]

Materialistic wars such as Rome vs Carthage typically pit one race against another, and the loser typically gets wiped out; because they both are ideologically and spiritually opposed, and usually expanding, it becomes a "world isn't big enough for both of us" situation that ends very poorly for one side, and gloriously for the other. Certainly, no one looks at Rome as being barbaric or cruel for wiping out an inferior Semitic culture. They needed the living space, nothing personal.

The Crusades were ideological, based more on faith than bloodlines. These kinds of wars often result in concessions and tributes, conversions, language changes, and other lesser shifts. These characterize much of Islam's expansion. In context of these, mass deportations or exterminations feel out of place and atrocious. They are wars for memetic superiority, not genetic, and are held to different standards. People who can't handle exceptions to the rule (inevitable with such massive campaigns) find it disconcerting because they don't see the big picture.

 

[Panopticon]

Now this Nazi is trying to justify the slaughter of the Second World War in Poland, Russia, etc. by citing the Roman Empire. Go somewhere else, Nazi.

The best approach may be to ignore this individual from now on.

 

[Leoreth]

@ leoreth: just don't care about some mad people from some mad country... the British will soon get their American colonies and the Natives will pitch their Tipis again.

I've also had that thought already

National socialism as Evola describes is the closest thing reasonably attainable to the Platonic ideal of government.

Which is why the Platonic ideal of government has been criticized a lot.

I don't understand your outrage. They won the war, they conquered the land, by medieval standards they OWN the population as serfs.

By the standards of the day you could get into more trouble killing one of a lords dogs than killing one of his serfs.

First: The killing of a city's entire population is an act of cruelty even for Medieval standards. It was easier to justify, especially against Muslims, and definitely used more often as a demonstration of power, but it was still considered horrible.
Second: I'm outraged because it was judged legitimate obviously by modern standards. And because of the fact that an entire population is labeled "partisan" without a single proof.

Even a cursory examination of theology finds very strong similarities to the Arian heresy. Mohammad opportunistically manipulated his "visions" to suit whatever political goals he had; compare tolerant early suras (love people of the book, etc) to more violent later ones, when his army had grown. The hypocrisy inherent in that faith excludes it.

Judaism isn't a suitable candidate for mediation because of its insular nature, small population base, lack of a single dominant interpreter, and hodgepodge belief systems that no one follows (see bizarre Talmud findings).

Matriarchal religions are savage, superstitious fantasies designed to explain ignorance about the world, and have few if any moral insights. Orthodox Christianity is a good base, but was too decentralized and weak. No, only the pope was suitable for the situation, and his decision was rational.

This is one of the most messed up collection of "facts" that I've ever read, complete with a hilariously ridiculous conclusion. As already pointed out: the medieval papacy was an instrument for worldly power, and there is no reason why other religions or even confessions should be subordinate to it.

Materialistic wars such as Rome vs Carthage typically pit one race against another, and the loser typically gets wiped out; because they both are ideologically and spiritually opposed, and usually expanding, it becomes a "world isn't big enough for both of us" situation that ends very poorly for one side, and gloriously for the other. Certainly, no one looks at Rome as being barbaric or cruel for wiping out an inferior Semitic culture. They needed the living space, nothing personal.

Most modern historians believe now that the Roman "cleansing" of Carthage wasn't as drastic as depicted. And its motivation definitely wasn't "living space", because there wasn't even a concept of nations that need this "space". Carthage was destroyed because of Roman fears of another war ... so it's rather similar to say, the Morgenthau Plan. And no, I view the destruction of Carthage as cruel and unnecessary, and there even was an opposition to it in the Roman senate.

 

[Deon]

Wow, I was going to check a discussion about a civ4 wonder and found a thread about justification of nazism and slaughter... Really, is it needed here?