Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
First, don't you think that it is quite possible, and perhaps necessary, to distinguish historical Islam from modern Islam of the 20th Century and later? In other words, weren't the Muslims of the Middle Ages fighting for different objectives (still under the Islamic name), in a different manner, which changes things altogether?
To answer the question: Basically, no. Like everyone else who fought at that time, they were fighting for their lives and existence and they came to power through violent means. That's just a fact and way of life back in the Middle Ages.I think the extremist Muslims (mainly Iranians) are desiring the glory days of a caliphate, but I don't think that's the present day goal of Islam. And the current conflict over Jerusalem? So if we "successfully" fight off the Muslims, should Jerusalem be Jewish or Chrisitian? Look at Iran now. The president wants to wipe them off the map. In my research for Cyrus, I've come across many personnal Iranian blogs talking about Iran's (Persian) history and how it so much in conflict with what's happening now. Their founding father is mentioned in the Jewish/Christian holy book in a very good way. From a PSYOP perspective, we need to use this!Phid, I'm not trying to bash the Catholic Church, but I think this was a very dark time in their history. And I'm not trying to sugarcoat the Muslim conquests either. I'm fairly certain they weren't just peacefully given Jerusalem, and I'm sure they committed what we would define today as atrocities...just like everyone else did at that time.
Why would thousands of soldiers be willing to travel thousands of miles to battle in some far off land?
I think for a number of reasons. They were paid to be soldiers, if they abandoned their duties, bad things would happen to them. They were obeying the orders of their kings and had no choice. The Catholic Church and popes were the final authority about religious matters (and many political matters) and had major influence over a lot of people. Whether that's good or bad is a subject for another thread.I know I've changed my opinion over the last year about what's happening now (flip-flopped, if you will, but never changed sides). The Crusades and this current conflict is not about religion. There's issues about religion (and they should be addressed diplomatically...and I wish the government of our country would put aside this "seperation of church and state" thing and do it), but that's not the main driving force behind it. But it's a good excuse to continue it. :-
I think it's time to renew this topic.My thoughts (warning: some may find it offensive)Muslims and Jews got along back then (isn't that ironic?) and BOTH were persecuted by the Catholic church. The Byzantines did not want an all out war when they asked for help against the Seljuk Turks. After all, they were enjoying being the center of trade between the east and the west. Muslims, Jews, Christians all got along just fine with trade, bartering etc.1st crusades- Jerusalem, many women and children were killed and beheaded by the crusading Christians. (yet, nowadays people say Islam is the religion of terrorism..and a lot of that completely incorrect argument is based on because terrorists show beheading videos. :-). I'm not saying ANYONE is the religion of terrorism, I'm just pointing out a fact. 2nd Crusades - Crusaders lost terribly..all because of 3 or 4 cities retaken by the Muslims (I have a big "why bother" question here about this one)After the Third Crusades - the Venetians saw an opportunity to overtake Constantinople's predominance in trade, so THEY (the crusaders, not the Muslims) destroyed Constantinople.Effects: The Christians' "holy war" was not just against the Muslims, it was also against the Jews and all other "infidels".NOW do people understand where I'm coming from when I often come to the defense of Islam or Muslims? Do you now get why I think the "crusades mentality" (many deny they have this, but it is what it is) is absolutely WRONG? Why have the Muslims/Islam been considered the "bad guys" throughout all this? I just don't see it. The Muslims wanted an empire. No one else, none of the absolutely egotistical kings or popes wanted an empire back then either? The Muslims were also very good at doing business with the West and vice versa. This was not about religion, regaining the "Holy Land", was just a pathetic excuse to start a war that engulfed all of Europe and the Near East and ended relationships between the West, Muslims, and Jews for good...even to this day Europe has problems with the anti-semitism that began with the Crusades. (Nevermind Hitler's holocaust, what about the holocaust and pogroms against the Jews during the Black Plague?)Are my facts incorrect?Is my history class and book teaching me a Leftist view of history? (I'm sure some would say so)I'm sort of angry and shocked how common history ("history" that lacks factual evidence) has given a bad rap to Muslims and Islam. IMO, this is where diplomacy died. This is where the history and policy lessons of those like Cyrus II became completely irrelevant.Thought comment: Show me why the Crusades were justified. Show me were the Muslims persecuted the Jews or non-Muslims as much as the West did, and maybe I'll change my mind about all this.
First foundation of English parliament formed around 1290's, France's Estate-General around 1300-ish. (according to my book). But then again the book says the House of Lords and House of Commons “eventually came into existence”. So how long did this “eventually” take? A few hundred years, or just a few years?
Seattle makes me nervous. But I think Favre's hungry. We shall see. I admire him a lot. Yeah, he's rich and all, but he donates a lot, and he's had some rough spots in his life and pulled through. (same hip injury as Bo Jackson, absolutely horrible in his rookie years, some family problems..I guess his brother and sister spent some time in prison). But he overcame the obstacles and has become one the greatest quarterbacks in NFL history. The Dallas game after his father died was moving, to say the least, and ever since then I've been a bigger fan.
Yeah, that last paragraph says a lot. If it was over a span of a hundred years or so, I'd say there may be some influence. But they all seemed to develop their systems of government simultaneously.So far (Chap 10) it's working. But I see trouble on the horizon in the remaining chapters.
Archaeologists concluded that the Minoans had not only survived but thrived after the eruption, expanding their culture until they were hit by some other, unknown disaster?perhaps some combination of fire, earthquake, or foreign invader.
That's kinda compelling evidence against it, though, isn't it? Some say it was the Mycenaens who pilllaged and levelled them.Or maybe the Minoans were the Jews (just kidding ;D)
The Abbassids were also the first to use propaganda in their rise to power.
The first? I don't know about that. There where many who used propaganda before them.
Yes.
Jacobovici endorses the theory that the cataclysmic eruption of the volcano at the island of Thera/Santorini, which apparently ended Minoan civilization, may also be identified with the Biblical account of the plagues against Egypt.
etc.That's pretty much what the archeologist on HC was saying.
Being good to the conquered people IS being smart. (and of course, when the Babylonians didn't resist and actually welcomed him, that must have made the job of conquering easier).
Jews or Semitic? Could be important? As according to what I have learned Jews are Semitic but not all Semites are Jews.Wally
The show specified the Jews...Israelites.
