What is the most misunderstood historical event?

[Formaldehyde]

And boom goes the dynamite!

Did it add at all to the discussion? Or is it helping to derail it even further?

And you claim your only intent was ... humor.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Stop incessantly discussing me with personal attacks and blatant strawmen.

 

[Formaldehyde]

What you seem to disagree with is me pointing out the obvious. That you really see nothing wrong with it, and even apparently wish to promote it.

I rest my case.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Your obviously attacking me with strawmen. One might say incessantly. And you don't stop, you just keep badgering.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Again, what do you think I should do when people incessantly intentionally misrepresent my positions and engage in personal attacks instead of addressing the issues, as you are now doing once again yourself through sarcasm and ridicule?

What would you do?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

You're incessantly personally attacking me instead of discussing the issues and doing this even in spite of me asking you to stop.

 

[chijohnaok]

blablabla... I don't really see why you'd qualify "Islamic expansion" as euphemistic distortion ?



You really need to back up the figures you are giving here. 270m dead is just fantasy number unless you show us hard evidence. Most Islamic expansion was more a political expansion than really a religious one, and almost no “massacres” happened before the invasion of the Indian Peninsula which was the only “bloody” invasion and happened mostly much later. When Muslims conquered Egypt, the Levant, North Africa and Spain, most local people kept their original religion for a long time and the conversion happened gradually mostly because of “discrimination” and not because of obligation.
You also need to back up the “Muslims had been capturing and importing millions of slaves from Europe” as again, nothing in History validate your sentence.



I don’t really understand what you mean by “justified”? are you trying to tell us that Crusader had “just” reasons to go for the Crusades ? or that they just had reasons?
I would agree with the second by the way as very few wars happened for no reason. I however do not get the first as :

1. Why would a “desperate” call from the Byzantines makes the Crusades just? Why would Byzantium be the Good guys to help against the bad “Muslims”? What makes Anatolia more rightfully the property of The Emperor not the Caliph?
2. Same wise with Spain, why would the Vizigoth, barbarian coming from thousands of km from Iberia, be more rightfully the owners of the Land than the Maures?
3. All Crusades were fought in lands that were controlled by Muslims, namely the Levant and north Africa. How do you end calling them defensives? Angles and Franks were fighting defensive wars in the suburbs of Cairo, Tunis and Jerusalem?!!

Oh and by the way, one of the worst massacres Crusaders did was not against Muslims, but they did in Byzantium.

In all cases, what was “bad” about the Crusades was not the fact that Christians did go for war against Muslims or that the land wasn’t rightfully theirs. Quite honestly, lands back than belonged to Kings not people. What made Crusades bad were the massacres committed in the name of the Cross by the Crusaders not only in the Holy lands but also in Europe itself as Crusaders very often started killing Jews at home, and often all the way to the Levant including in Byzantium.



That sounds more like “far right” BS than a History teacher analysis. I really invite you to read “The Crusades seen by the Arabs”, written by Amin Maalouf, a Lebanese/French novelist. He is Christian by the way.

All Crusades were fought in lands that were controlled by Muslims, namely the Levant and north Africa. How do you end calling them defensives?

Many of these areas were controlled by Christians before the Muslims came in and conquered them. I suppose trying to take them back might qualify them as "defensive".

 

[Formaldehyde]

Since you won't even answer a simple question, I must assume you are indeed approving of it.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Moderator Action: Smiley-only posts are spam. Please do not post spam, even in non-RD threads.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[abradley]

So what were you saying?

Moderator Action: Smiley-only posts are spam. Please do not post spam, even in non-RD threads.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[BenitoChavez]

This thread is going places. Islam vs Christianity, emoticons, and incessant strawmen personally attacking forum members! Oh my.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Many of these areas were controlled by Christians before the Muslims came in and conquered them. I suppose trying to take them back might qualify them as "defensive".

Does this strike you as being "defensive"?

The Crusades were military campaigns sanctioned by the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages. In 1095 Byzantine Emperor Alexios I, in Constantinople, sent an ambassador to Pope Urban II in Italy pleading for military help against the growing Turkish threat. The Pope responded promptly by calling Catholic soldiers to join the First Crusade. The immediate goal was to guarantee pilgrims access to the holy sites in the Holy Land under Muslim control. His long-range goal was to reunite the Eastern and Western branches of Christendom after their split in 1054 with the pope as head of the united Church. A complex 200-year struggle ensued.

The People's Crusade prompted the murder of thousands of Jews, known as the Rhineland massacres. Constantinople was sacked during the Fourth Crusade rendering the reunification of Christendom impossible. Due to the weakening that resulted from the siege, the remnants of the Byzantine Empire finally fell to the Ottomans in 1453. The Catholic Church mounted no coherent response when their last stronghold in the region, Acre, fell in 1291.[6]

They wanted to get to Jerusalem and murdered thousands of Jews because they were being "defensive"?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Since you won't even answer a simple question, I must assume you are indeed approving of it.

Yawn, stealth edits. This isn't what was posted when I responded with . Must remember to always quote someone directly.

The answer is -

Why should I answer a question that is clearly an obvious strawmen meant to attack my character personally? You continue to incessantly badger me and attempt to draw me into ad hominem attacks on you while you level them at me.

So why should I engage beyond asking you once again to stop?

 

[Leoreth]

This thread is going places. Islam vs Christianity, emoticons, and incessant strawmen personally attacking forum members! Oh my.

It's more like a "how to deliberately misunderstand historical events to suit your political agenda" thread at this point.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Yawn, stealth edits. This isn't what was posted when I responded with . Must remember to always quote someone directly.

The answer is -

Why should I answer a question that is clearly an obvious strawmen meant to attack my character personally? You continue to incessantly badger me and attempt to draw me into ad hominem attacks on you while you level them at me.

So why should I engage beyond asking you once again to stop?

Still think this is a chat room?

It's more like "how to deliberately misunderstand historical events to suit your political agenda" thread at this point.

Or facts, who really need them?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Still think this is a chat room?

Red herring. Incessant. Straw man. Personal Attacks. Incessant.

 

[Formaldehyde]

There apparently no length you are willing to go to intentionally derail yet another thread.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

There apparently no length you are willing to go to intentionally derail yet another thread.

Stop incessantly personally attacking me.

 

[chijohnaok]

Does this strike you as being "defensive"?



They wanted to get to Jerusalem and murdered thousands of Jews because they were being "defensive"?

No.

As stated in your post:

The immediate goal was to guarantee pilgrims access to the holy sites in the Holy Land under Muslim control. His long-range goal was to reunite the Eastern and Western branches of Christendom

Those were the goals.
The manner in which they attempted to achieve those goals was certainly less than desirable.
Murdering thousands of Jews was a bad thing.
Sacking Constantinople (and ultimately weakening it to where it eventually fell in 1453) was unwise.


The goal of retaking the lands conquered by Muslims so as to guarantee pilgrims access to holy sites were what I was using the term "Defensive" for.

There are numerous examples in history where the ultimate outcome differ greatly from the original intended goals.

 

[abradley]

Hey Abradley, if we're going to judge a religion based upon what things have been done in it's name in the past, then Christianity (especially catholicism) is also equally bad for many terrible things have also been done in it's name.

Christians have also slaughtered loads of people, engaged in genocidal warfare, persecuted religious and ethnic minorities, forcibly converted people at the end of a sword or gun, if you think Islam is inherently unique in this regard you are either naive or just blind to the negative history of your own religion.

No ain't naive or blind, what you accuse us Christians off is true, but the difference is the foundation of the two religions.

Christianity was founded on Christ's teachings and actions, he was a near pacifist.

Islam is founded on Mohammed's teachings and actions, he was a warrior/ prophet.

In both religions the members are expected to follow the founder's teachings and actions.

Were Christian's following Christ's teachings and actions when they committed the acts you referred to, no.

Were Muslim's following Mohammed's teachings and actions when they committed violent actions, IMHO yes.

Now, IMO, we humans aren't the noble savages some say we are, I feel we need guide lines telling us how to interact with each other, Christ's guidelines tell us to love our neighbor, while Mohammed's tell us to war against none Muslims.

That's it.

Simple.