Not only Muslims and Jews, but also Eastern Orthodox Christians (you know, their churches actually predate Rome) suffered at their hands.
Obviously there's only so much it can be included, but for anyone who thinks Crusaders were simply responding to Muslim aggression, think again.
In practice, George Bush and his Iraq war was closer to the original Crusades than we realize...
Would you care to list some massacres of Eastern Christians that took place during the crusades, just to inform us all better? Or even just name one? With your historical sources, please?
And, since you have accused KoH of 'leaving out' this alleged aspect, perhaps you'd suggest how Ridley & Co could have inserted such a massacre without making their movie even more of a historical travesty than it was, given that nothing of the kind happened during the period actually covered by the action.
It's right here boy, read it and weep
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades
Just search "orthodox" and you'll find many instances in there. Google on your own if you think that article is biased.
And I made no accusations, just mentioned it while conceding they can cover only so much.
Care to try again?
It's right here boy, read it and weep
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades
Google on your own if you think that article is biased.
You're lying, it's right there, deny it again and I'll copy/paste the sections and then we'll see who's reading is defective.
Your being lazy is not my problem.
Paste away: Wikipedia is not a source, everybody knows that.
Your being too lazy (or too ignorant) to produce any evidence to back up your assertion isn't my problem.
"everybody knows that"
Then "everybody" knows you're lying. See how it works? I can also pretend to know what "everybody" knows...
Wikipedia is NOT a historical source. Wikipedia is as secondary as sources get; it compiles the simplist of historical arguements compiled from numerous historical works. This does not make it any more reliable, however, as the historians Wikipedia sites have their own opinions and emphasise their own factors. These are interpretations of primary sources. Wikipedia is an interpretation of an interpretation, making it an opinion in of itself, which is why you cannot only study Wikipedia.
Concerning your point on the board, remember that this film is "Historical fiction". It has been written with historical figures and events in mind for the sake of entertainment. To lambast the film for historical inaccuracies is superfluous as the film has not been made to educate. If I wanted to know about the events I saw in the film, I would read a scholarly book, not watch Hollywood. Do think about that actual point of the film before nit-picking its historical faults; it is an entertainer, not a teacher.
Since Wikipedia has reached maturity, it is a pretty good source for finding information, and it has a pretty rigid citation policy.
Wikipedia requires citations for all sources. Go to the end of the article and find the sources.
Wikipedia does have a flaw, they will sometimes not allow primary sources to post. I posted information as a primary source, and the Wikipedia monitors kept deleting it because I could not post a link to a source. Other than that, much information can be found easily.
Unless Wikipedia got the edit feature on site than it really valid source. Most teachers won't allow the use of Wikipedia. I had do research paper for history class in college and she flat said no Wikipedia
shareWould you care to list some massacres of Eastern Christians that took place during the crusades, just to inform us all better?
http://www.historynet.com/fourth-crusade-conquest-of-constantinople.htmshare
That wasn't a massacre, as such. When towns were taken by storm in the ancient world and the Middle Ages (and indeed right up into the 19th century), they were routinely sacked, which included looting, rape, destruction and always more or less killing. (Less killing in the ancient world, where the townspeople could be sold as slaves and were therefore valuable.) But that wasn't a massacre as such, just part of the universally-accepted collateral damage that taking a city by storm entailed. Also, the population of Constantinople was very mixed; there's no suggestion that the Orthodox Christians were singled out from the Jews, Catholics, Muslims and the rest.
This thread has been running since February and I'm still waiting for someone to produce an example of a deliberate massacre of Orthodox Christians.
As another noted, please cite real sources for such a claim. Saying Wikipedia is like a bad joke.
shareThere's this section called "Bibliography", got all the sources the article took from.
Here's one of them, it checks out
https://books.google.ca/books?id=sndVK_foqI4C&pg=PA60&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
PLus a simple google will turn up many other articles supporting that:
http://www1.cbn.com/spirituallife/overview-of-the-crusades
http://history-world.org/crusades.htm
http://www.historytoday.com/jonathan-phillips/fourth-crusade-and-sack-constantinople
But hey, they all must be full of it, or in cahoots, right?
People seem not to care that the Crusades weren't spontaneous and the West endured many a massacre at the hands of Muslims bent on world domination for hundreds of years. The Crusades actually took much longer to retaliate than you would've expected, and paled in comparison to what they had endured.
It's like being bullied from Primary to University, and then finally giving the bully a good slap or two.
As for the orthodox Christian massacres, I have not heard of this, but I won't outright discount it until you provide sources.
Sources are above (non wikipedia), so go ahead and read up...
shareHere a timeline leading up to the first crusade. https://factreal.wordpress.com/2010/02/12/muslim-crusades-started-four-centuries-before-the-western-crusades/
shareSources are above (non wikipedia), so go ahead and read up...
shareIt also left out how the Muslims massacred Zoroastrians & a vast number of other things...what's your point
shareActually, the Byzantine Empire benefited from the First Crusade and in fact they were they ones, who begged the Pope to help hem against the Seljuk Turks. Btw, you opportunistic anti-catholic pillocks may not want to hear it, but St Peter is officially regarded as the first Pope, so there's hardly anything in Christianity that "predates Rome" more than just a bit.
shareI think the "predates Rome" comment was a reference to the Great Schism.
But yes, the first Crusade was to aid the Byzantine Empire.
Know what? After reading quite a bit about the Islamic Crusades (when Islam expanded under and after Muhammad), I pretty much take most of what I said back.
However the Christian Crusades degenerated into plundering and whatnot, they originally did start as a defence against Muslim aggression.
I guess you will have to defend yourself again, but how exactly did the crusades start as a defence from muslim aggression? The Seldjuk turks that practically owned the whole arab world were mostly fighting amongst themselves during the first crusades.
shareTrue, they were: that's why the First Crusade was as successful as it was. But there was no way the Franks could have known, before they set out, that they were going to arrive during a period of Muslim disunity. All they knew was that in the last thirty years or so the Seljuks had destroyed Christian Armenia and been powering across Asia Minor towards Byzantium, and there was no sign that they were going to stop until they were made to stop. It seemed clear to everyone that somebody was going to have to stop them, just as in 732 Charles Martel had had to stop the northward expansion into France of the Umayyads at Tours (only 150 miles south of Paris) and as John Sobieski would later have to stop the Ottoman Turks outside Vienna in 1683.
shareWhy dont' read a bit further back, why stop at 7th century?
share