[crazedmongoose2003]

Originally Posted by Vall

Great, so now the crusaders are the enemy and the Jihadists where the good guys. :

Yes, the crusaders have pretty much been uniformly held at fault for the last century and a half...

where have you even been?

[VerjigormDeExile]

Originally Posted by Boneguard

Well IIRC the reported case of cannibalism were during the 1st Crusade in 1096-1099, about a Hundred year before Salah al-Din and even less the Mamluk got involved.

Yes, but the Crusader States were annihilated by Selah-al-din and the mamluks.

Short lesson: Mamluk(or Ghulam) is a term applying to slave soldiers. The Mamluks of egypt that were famousfor figting Napoleon were not the first Mamluks/Ghulams. In fact, I believe the practice began roughly 8th or 9th century, and the Seljuq turks that the Crusaders fought entered the islamic world as Ghulams/Mamluks.

You do know that the Crusaders invaded what had been a Muslim territory for centuries, don't you? And indiscriminatley butchered everyone they came accross, mind you. The entire civilian population of Jerusalem was slaughtered in the 1st Crusade. Calling the Muslims Jihadists when the Crusaders were, quite literally, on a holy war (yes, I know Jihad dosen't exactly mean "holy war") of agression is wrong on so many levels it's not funny.

Wow. Why must you exagerate? The Crusaders did NOT indiscriminatelybucher everyone they came across, instead they disriminated who they killed, especially towards the jews and muslims. The entire population of Jerusalem was not slaughtered. They did do alot of killing though, but it didn't kill the entire population. But the killing was so through that knights were said to ride through the city up to their knees in blood.

Let's try not to spout propaganda. This especially goes for those who call muslims Jihadists, as well. The issues are clouded enough without muddling them further with exagerated stories.

[Zen]

It was a massacre but the entire population wasn't killed. Some of them escaped and some of them made slaves. But the Crusaders did kill indiscriminately.

[crazedmongoose2003]

Reminder here that Crusaders ended up sacking Constantinople, another Christian city.

But in the Crusaders' defence.....the war wasn't started without cause. The muslims were pressing the Byzantines and the Balkans hard. It was just a misinterpretation. Byzantine wanted a limited number of skilled mercenaries they could control. Not unruly mobs barbaric zealots.

[Faolin]

The Crusaders did NOT indiscriminatelybucher everyone they came across, instead they disriminated who they killed, especially towards the jews and muslims.

Could you elaborate on this for me? I'm not sure exactly what you mean.

Let's try not to spout propaganda. This especially goes for those who call muslims Jihadists, as well. The issues are clouded enough without muddling them further with exagerated stories.

Sorry. In retrospect I was a little extreme with some of my language. What I meant to say was that there was a masscre on an appaling scale, and much of the violence wasn't perpetrated against Muslims or Jews. I made the mistake of going a little overboard on the details, though.

[VerjigormDeExile]

Originally Posted by Faolin

The Crusaders did NOT indiscriminatelybucher everyone they came across, instead they disriminated who they killed, especially towards the jews and muslims.

Could you elaborate on this for me? I'm not sure exactly what you mean.

Indiscriminate butchering would imply that the Crusaders killed everyone they came across. This was not the case. Before the Crusaders left europe, they tended to practice pogroms against the Jews in europe. In the near east, they tended to massacre Jewsh and Muslim occupants of cities they sacked(most christian occupants being evicted by the Muslim leaders or fear of them aiding the crusaders).

Therefore the Crusaders were discriminate, rather than indiscriminate killers.

[VerjigormDeExile]

I've found in my life, that a great number of people have very unclear ideas regarding the Crusades, Crusaders and their Muslim foes(and sometimes Allies!), and I was wondering if anyone would like to talk about it? So, to start this off:

We will be discussing the 1st Crusade(1096-1099, roughly), first. Because, well, it's first!
1) What do you think about the Crusaders? Were they oppurtunistic, expansionists, with dreams of western Imperialism? Were they devout religious Zealots?

2) What do you think of the Muslims they fought? Were they an evil empire that had to be stopped, or innocents, whose peaceful life was disrupted by the Crusades?

3) Do you think the Crusade was a positive or negative effect?

I look forward to this discussion. I'll be posting my feelings on these matters over the next few days, but by all means, join in.

[Zen]

I would go with Muslims > Crusaders :P OK, seriously:

1) You have a good mix of the greedy, zealous, faithful, stupid etc etc etc.

2) Wars fought for land and riches. We all go through that phase one time or another, some using religion as a reason.

3) It cuts both way. It reunited the various factions of Chirstiandom but yet people have their own secret agenda of gaining power and such.

[legio mortis]

Originally Posted by VerjigormDeExile

1) What do you think about the Crusaders? Were they oppurtunistic, expansionists, with dreams of western Imperialism? Were they devout religious Zealots?

They were racist, anti-semitic religious zealots. They basically represented early medieval Europe.

Originally Posted by VerjigormDeExile

2) What do you think of the Muslims they fought? Were they an evil empire that had to be stopped, or innocents, whose peaceful life was disrupted by the Crusades?

They weren't an evil empire, but some of them weren't innocent. The first crusade all started because the Byzantine Emperor needed help with wars against the Caliphates controlling the northwestern part of the Islamic world.

Originally Posted by VerjigormDeExile

3) Do you think the Crusade was a positive or negative effect?

Ultimately, I think that the first Crusade had a very negative effect. It pretty much made anti-semitism okay for hundreds of years.

[Zen]

Originally Posted by Legio Mortis

They were racist, anti-semitic religious zealots. They basically represented early medieval Europe.

Oh yeah.....I forgot most of them are uneducated and they see Muslims as the devils :P