Christians could have won the crusades

[Emperor Harkonnen]

During the 3rd Crusade(I think) there were one great military leader on each of the fighting sides over the holy land.

On the muslim side we have Saladin, a leader who managed to put a stop the wars among the muslims, and gather them in the fight against the christians.

On the Christian side we have Richard the Lionheart. The King of England(I think) who led the Christians to many victories. He was superior to Saladin within strategical skills. And outmaneuvered him several times in battles. Richard the Lionheart managed to avoid all ambushes laid for him by the muslims. He was the greatest military leader the middle ages had seen.

U DON'T NEED TO READ THE ABOVE, IT IS ONLY THE BACKGROUND.

Richard the Lionheart had go home to England, only a few months before Saladin died. He managed to create a peace treaty with Saladin, which would last for some time, before he left. When Saladin died, muslims started once again to fight against themselves.

if Richard the Lionheart did not have to return to England, and stayed as long as he was supposed to in the Holy land, perhaps the Christians would have won the crusades! what do you guys think about this subject, do you think they would have captured more land?

[Dante]

By that time the Christian army was exhausted. The reason Richard made peace was because he saw that even if he did take Jerusalem (which was unlikely enough) he would be unable to hold it. His supplies, men, and patience were at an end.

If he had stayed longer he may or may not have won, but he would not have been able to keep his winnings. Personally I don't think he would have managed it. Also, I think you're underestimating Saladin; he was something of a military genius himself.

EDIT: Also, what do you mean 'supposed to?' During his entire reign he spent a combined total of six months in England, the rest off fighting some war or other, generally the crusades. Granted his mother was a brilliant regent but you'd think he might have spent a bit more time in his own kingdom.

[Emperor Harkonnen]

I said supposed to because, he said that he would stay till Eastern that same year. Though he did not, because of his brother, dunno the details about this though.

Didn't I mention that saladin was a great leader. I know he was a military genius also. Though from what I have read, Richard was a better strategist. He won several battles against Saladin.

Richard did not mainly try to take Jerusalem. He aimed for other goals, more strategically important, to later take Jerusalem.

No the reason why Richard made peace, was because he was to travel home to England. Saladin knew that he would benefit from this, because he saw the advance of the Christian army, and knew he did not stand a chance in the battles. Though he did not know that Richard did this because he knew that without him the christians would not hold their possessions in the holy land. he wanted to win time, for him to perhaps return.

[Dante]

Saladin used different tactics from Richard. Less open charging, more ambush etc. This led to not winning so many battles but killing an awful lot more of the enemy. Richard's troops wore heavy armour and padding, hardly appropriate battle gear for the desert. Saladin's troops were much more lightly eqipped and thus better able to use 'hit-and-run' tactics. Again, avoiding open battle. I think Saladin was possibly the better strategist of the two of them. Richard was simply better at fighting open battles his way. He wasn't so flexible.

Saladin would have lost Jerulsalem had Richard attacked it but only because he was too far away and the city was poorly defended. Had Richard taken it he knew Saladin would have caught up and in the state his men were in they would be slaughtered. Especially after fighting a battle to get Jerusalem.

The deal he made wasn't just military, it allowed Christian pilgrims to visit Jerusalem as well, while it remained in non-Christian hands. This was what he wanted anyway.

[Emperor Harkonnen]

The Christians fought very well, because Richard always went infront of the army. Fighting with his soldiers in battle. this gave them fighting spirit. and the moral of the christian soldiers was much higher than among the muslims.

this is probably the reason why the christians fought better than the muslims during all the crusades.

perhaps saladin was a better strategist. but Richard was a better leader. he knew how to get his men to fight their best. he knew how to get confidence into them! He was a great leader.

[TMA_1]

parish the thought that ultra legalistic christians would take jerusalem. Both the muslims and christians were just as hipocritical in their faith in so many ways. none followed their scriptures too well at all. I think the lord made it so that christians couldnt win, because frankly the church was pretty currupt and sickening at the time.

[Sardauker-Kirov]

You should neither underestimate the christians and muslims in any way.

They both had their advantages.

And yes, even if they did take the city. There will be thousands of rebels operating inside it and sabotaging the christians until they stand up and revolt counting the enemies of the christians with it.

[nampigai]

parish the thought that ultra legalistic christians would take jerusalem. Both the muslims and christians were just as hipocritical in their faith in so many ways. none followed their scriptures too well at all. I think the lord made it so that christians couldnt win, because frankly the church was pretty currupt and sickening at the time.

and you don't think it is today? maybe not corrupt, but at times it sickens me.

I couldn't help it, sorry.

[TMA_1]

the difference is that the church doesnt control the governments of the western world, that is a huge difference I must say. Also, those churches that arent currupted arent killed horribly by the catholic church, we are able to have some semblence of peace. Though there are many secularists who would like us to disappear.

[nampigai]

heh well I'm not saying that the church controls Bush, but in my eyes he's as fanatical as any moslem leader.

[Caid Ivik]

3rd Crusade was only a big show of three kings, who could not make order in their countries, so they tried to take glory on conquest. Richard III. was killed during a rebellion, his land disintegrated after end of his tyranny. Friedrich II. died on the way, but it was no end of Hohenstauff military rule, which turned the Imperial Throne to be like senkoku shogunate. Only Phillippe II. had something from it.

[Emperor Harkonnen]

And yes, even if they did take the city. There will be thousands of rebels operating inside it and sabotaging the christians until they stand up and revolt counting the enemies of the christians with it.

why would the population rebel? they were originally christians after all. why wouldn't they want to come under the christian faith again as their ancestors?

and there is a reason why you don't hear about so many riots at that time. noone dared to riot. they would only fail. so that would be very unlikely.

[Caid Ivik]

Christianity isn't only engine of world bewegungheiten...

[Wolf]

Remember, this is the time period in which "rights" and "democracy" have no place in society. If you rebel, you are beheaded, or hung, or killed in some other fashion. This was the day and age in which might makes right. So, shut up and plow your fields, peasant, or the soldiers will kill you.

[Sardauker-Kirov]

why would the population rebel? they were originally christians after all. why wouldn't they want to come under the christian faith again as their ancestors?

and there is a reason why you don't hear about so many riots at that time. noone dared to riot. they would only fail. so that would be very unlikely.

Any country would feel unpleasant if they suddenly hear that they're now part of another Empire.

No matter if the enemy is muslim or christian.

In WW2 Holland didn't liked the invasion of Germany, the Germans is a Germanic race like us Dutch people and still a majority of us. (Even today.) Hates them.

A weak unorganized, badly equipped riot could easily be torn apart.

Rebels with a leader and a well organized structure plus weapons and other equipment nessecary to utilise a uprising to the maximum can be efficient.

Remember the Partisans in WW2 that sabotaged the German supply lines and other.

[Dante]

why would the population rebel? they were originally christians after all. why wouldn't they want to come under the christian faith again as their ancestors?

and there is a reason why you don't hear about so many riots at that time. noone dared to riot. they would only fail. so that would be very unlikely.

We were all originally bacteria. You see me trying to absorb nutrients from my enviroment? Times change and people change with them. And they are often very reluctant to go back. (Edric, if you sieze on that I'll pillage you)

Nah. Riots might have had a high chance of succeeding with the fast and lightly-aquippred rebels working against heavy, hot, armoured knights.

[Dude_Doc]

I like what Morpheus said in The Matrix: "What happened, happened and could not have happened in any other way."

;)

[Emperor Harkonnen]

[Caid Ivik]

Maybe you should study more about battles between crusader states. They survived so long only because Turks were also very separative. However, it was only a matter of time they will start to stagnate. So, soon we have fall of Edessa to hands of Mosul sultanate, and when militant kurdish sultan Saladin took Egypt, there was no chance to withstand him. But if these states would more cooperate between themselves (and also with Byzantion; with which they had as well many streits), it would be much harder for muslims.

[Emperor Harkonnen]

why would I care about battles between the crusader states? it is the crusades which interest me.

why did the muslisms absolutely want to conquer so much land? why did they take all this? were they evil?

[nampigai]

I don't think they were evil. They were actually benevolant, and allowed christians, jews and other religions to do what they want. Often they(the moslems) used the same churches on fridays as the christians used on sundays. They never forced others to convert into islam, and allowed them to have their own tax collecter. Christians could even rise to become administrators and councellors for the Caliphs.

So I wouldn't call them evil, that's just the christian propaganda.

As for why they conquered? call them! I really don't know what drives people to conquerer others? But they weren't the first nor the last people to conquer others. And they weren't the most evil.

[Emperor Harkonnen]

So I wouldn't call them evil, that's just the christian propaganda.

That's the absolutely opposite of Christian propaganda. All I hear about is Christians complaining about how much more benevolent other religions have been compared to them. who were so much worse than others before.

I know the muslims were tolerant, still it was wrong of them to conquer the holy land. they were ceratinly not benevolent. They were warriors who subjegated several regions of the byzantine empire. I believe that you don't hear the whole thruth when you read about stuff. I think both Christians and Muslims were equally evil when it came to fighting. Muslims were not good noble people who only got their followers with peace, and impression you may get when you read history books.

They conquered countries by force! They killed people. (I know the Christians did too, but that we have agreed on)

[Caid Ivik]

As christian crusader states were divided, so were those muslim ones. All that idea of crusades came up with series of mercenary revolts troughout sultanates, where turkish mercenaries (by the way they weren't fully muslimized) took rule and became a threat to Byzantines. First crusade was succesful in it, that it disrupted this threat, at least for a century. However, their states decayed and on south, in Egypt, arised a new military superpower, which started to push out as christians as well as Turks.

[Edric O]

The Holy Land had already been conquered and re-conquered hundreds of times by the time the Muslims got there. The Christians and Muslims had no more claim to it than the Jews, or the Romans, or the Persians, or the Egyptians, or the Babilonians, or the Assyrians, or the Philistenes, or...

You get the point.

[Acriku]

Then again who can really claim land as their own.

Anyways, it's impossible to say that such-and-such could have happened, because what is done is what has happened. We know of no other definite route history could have taken, so speculation is far past its worth of pondering.