Christians could have won the crusades

[Emperor Harkonnen]

no it is fun to wounder how it could have been. how everything could have been better.

though if the christians had won, science would probably have not come as far as it has today.

u forgot to mention the greeks, Edric ;)

It was the romans who had the territory at that time. so what you are saying is basically that it is okay to conquer land from others. so we can take all the land we want from others. good idea, why cannot USA just capture the whole of middle east. it has been captured many times before, why not now too? ???

[nampigai]

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)

offcourse they killed people, it's hard not to do so in war, but as I said they weren't the first to conqour others. I guess it was just their time.

[Acriku]

no it is fun to wounder how it could have been. how everything could have been better.

though if the christians had won, science would probably have not come as far as it has today.

Woah, you're saying that if the ruthless Christians of that time were ultimately victorious, things could have been better? That's a scary thought.

[Wolf]

It was suggested in Robert A. Heinlein's book Starship Troopers that all wars -- even the Crusades -- are the result of population pressure. Population pressure is what resultes when one "people" begin to socially, culturally, popularly, or economically challenge and conflict with another.

The Crusades are no exception, with an expanding Islamic empire that is riding the waves of a fast-growing people and new technology (relatively), they make an excellent rival for Christendom. The pope, not being an idiot, decides that he has to 1) do something about the Islamic empire before it surpasses Christendom, and that he has 2) the perfect tool with which to hand out some ass-kicking; religion.

There you have it. Population pressure can also be applied to today; with Muslim birthrates relatively high and European/American birthrates lower in comparison, is it any wonder that we are already fighting a "low-intensity war"? The American Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s is also not an exception; growth rates among African Americans was booming, threatening many of the Southern Caucaisans. The result, inevitably, was a movement among racist whites to suppress African Americans, a battle which African Americans eventually won.

We think of the Crusades as mainly a religious conflict, but, the real motivations for war do not have religion among them. Granted, religion was used to fuel the fire and get people fighting on both sides, but, in this sense, religion is more like a weapon, and less like the man who wields it. Look at the Christian and Islamic religious and political leaders to see what the real motivations for conflict were. Though, to quote Robert A. Heinlein, you will need birth rates and trade routes to do it.

[Acriku]

Does this cover the mass killings of heretics of the Church and pagans?

[Wolf]

The mass killings were catalyzed by serveral things. The Church knew it had to whip up the fervor in its subjects in order to mobilize its forces to deal with political and economic issues. Therefore, in its efforts to strike the fear of God in its subjects, it had to make examples of people who were not so religious. Thus, you have executions here and there. Also, once the fervor has been inspired, the people themselves will go out and kill some more heretics without the Church's prodding -- because they've been motiviated to that point. In this case, the mass killings are more the after-effect of the Church utilziing religion as a tool for more important, and more economic, issues.

Mass killings were never the goal, meerely the means to an end which was motivated by the effects of economic and political population pressure.

[Acriku]

I neither would say that mass killings were the goal, but many of the actions made by, and in the name of the Church were religiously driven. For example, discriminating who to kill based on their religious beliefs.

[Caid Ivik]

I don't want to...hurt your ideals, but mass civilian slaughters were usual part of warfare maybe until WW2, in Asia or Africa it is still normal. Civilians are part of infrastructure, and when they are hostile, you have to replace them. Immoral? Yes. But christian rules of engagement were written just 30 years before.

[Emperor Harkonnen]

you cannot only critizise the church for killing. all religions have done that. many still do. not christianity though.

Especially Islam has been a murder religion. it was spread with war. christianity was too, but not by far to the extent Islam used such means of gaining believers.

the crusades were not only religious. they were also territorial. The Christians wanted to have back their previous territories, which the muslims had captured. it was not necessarily a religious war. though this was a mean to motivate people as you said Wolfwiz.

but what kind of masskillings have we had? can anyone give an example?

[exatreide]

But Muslims(by Muslims i mean the turks ) Didnt persacute other religions, as long as you payed your taxes to the sultan you could pray to jesus, Zues or whatever for all they cared as long as it didnt conflict with what the Church was doing, But if you were an arab in france you would be burned and dragged through the streat.

[Emperor Harkonnen]

yes and that is how it should be!

though now it is opposite, now Islam is intolerant, and christianity is tolerant.

[Caid Ivik]

you cannot only critizise the church for killing. all religions have done that. many still do. not christianity though.

Especially Islam has been a murder religion. it was spread with war. christianity was too, but not by far to the extent Islam used such means of gaining believers.

but what kind of masskillings have we had? can anyone give an example?

Not religions are killing. Wars are killing. You must know that religion was a tool of ruling: as it was meritful for Turks to convert to islam, when they wanted to hold their arabian domains longer.

[Acriku]

It seems that people have mistaken my post. I only am pointing out these mass killings not to criticize the Church (although I'd freely do that any other time), but to point out that there are religious motives for these mass killings.

[Sardauker-Kirov]

The Islam could be tolerant.

It is the politics to blame for. They're pushing their own religion beyond the lines.

For example, today, if you walk around in the Netherlands or in some other European countries holding a sign of your religion and other markings that points to that religion, they won't have a problem against it.

In MOST Arabian countries, they'll have you shot for pointing out to your religion in public.

[Caid Ivik]

Well, in France...

[Emperor Harkonnen]

I think what france does is great. equality between man and woman is much more important than choosing your own religion, and be able to show that you belong to it.

yes Islam could be tolerant, but it is not. it has not been for 600 years. I believe the intolerance started when they captured Istanbul, or Constantinople at that time.

[Anathema]

"Great"? It doesn't even have anything to do with equality of any sort. It's simply xenophobic, and it disgusts me that a supposedly modern society would adopt such a law.

The muslim states became increasingly militaristic due to the threat of the crusades. Jews and Christians were eventually excluded from any position of power.

[nampigai]

The Islam could be tolerant.

It is the politics to blame for. They're pushing their own religion beyond the lines.

For example, today, if you walk around in the Netherlands or in some other European countries holding a sign of your religion and other markings that points to that religion, they won't have a problem against it.

In MOST Arabian countries, they'll have you shot for pointing out to your religion in public.

please state wich countries?

most arab countries have christian minorities.

[Sardauker-Kirov]

Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Nigeria possibly Egypt and Morroco and all those other African countries.

If you question this, please go there holding a sign with. THE LORD LOVES YOU.

I'll be behind you watching my clock and time everything until you get shot down or mangled by a angry mob.

[Emperor Harkonnen]

"Great"? It doesn't even have anything to do with equality of any sort. It's simply xenophobic, and it disgusts me that a supposedly modern society would adopt such a law.

The muslim states became increasingly militaristic due to the threat of the crusades. Jews and Christians were eventually excluded from any position of power.

for the first thing, that was my opinion. and I stick to it! I believe it is okay, since I think it will support equality.

That muslims became militaristic due to this, is just something you perhaps think. I don't believe you have any acctual serious source for this. They had to become militaristic. the whole religion is built upon this. When you base a culture mainly upon war, that is what you will get in the end. This happened some time after the crusades also, so I do not think it was the crusades which caused this.

The crusades on the other hand, weakened the turks to such an extent that they reached no further than Vienna.

[nampigai]

Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Nigeria possibly Egypt and Morroco and all those other African countries.

If you question this, please go there holding a sign with. THE LORD LOVES YOU.

I'll be behind you watching my clock and time everything until you get shot down or mangled by a angry mob.

all of those countries have christians minorities and some of them jewish as well... 

[Caid Ivik]

The muslim states became increasingly militaristic due to the threat of the crusades. Jews and Christians were eventually excluded from any position of power.

Not exactly. Turks were for Arabs barbarian tribes, which served as mercenaries. Don't forget Arabs had many states and in 10th century they fought many wars against each other. But like many times in history, military overthrew government. To maintain the rule, turkish begs started to convert to islam, however, remained aggressive. Raids against Byzantines did the work. That started crusades.

[exatreide]

it was also reported in all parts of the western empire to, Of the balkans from 1453-1911 that the turks were soft with the christians as long as they minded there own business and helped fight wars...if it wasnt for those damned ventians and austrians.... We might be speaking Turk today.... Turkey is the most modernized of all islamic nations and it has one of the strongest US funded militaries to boot...a few problems with the Kurds....

[Anathema]

I was thinking more about Egypt then the Turks, but anyway I'd still rather be a jew in Turkey in 1200 then a muslim in France.

[Emperor Harkonnen]

well why would we care about Egypt. It was the turks and christians who were the fighting sides during the crusades.

It was the muslims own fault that the crusades happened. If they had not attacked Byzantine, the crusades would not have happened.