PDA

View Full Version : Were the Crusades the first World War?



Tsuyoiko
12-07-05, 17:05
This is just an idea I had, I'm not saying I believe it, I just thought it made an interesting thought experiment. When you look at the number of countries that were involved in the crusades, could we consider them a 'world war'?

I'm no expert, but I think the following areas were all involved in some way: Anatolia, Asia Minor, Austria, Baghdad, Bulgaria, Byzantine Empire, Cyprus, Dalmatia, England, France, Germany, Greece, Holy Land, Hungary, Italy, Low Countries, Mongolia, Norway, Persia, Portugal, Prussia, Russia, Sicily, Spain, Syria, Tunisia and Turkey. I know some of these area may overlap, and there is a mix of medieval and modern names, but I'm not great at Geography!

Probably the main objection is that the crusades were not 'a' war, but a series of wars.

Any thoughts?

lonesoullost3
12-07-05, 18:18
Probably the main objection is that the crusades were not 'a' war, but a series of wars.

That's what I would say. Therefore I wouldn't qualify the Crusades as the first WW1. Everyone who had to defend themselves against the Catholic church were united in ideology, yes, however they were not united politically. Therefore as you said, it was more of a series of wars with one side always being the same.

A similar question was posted here, but regarding a WW3. My response there pretty much applies here.

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18259

Tsuyoiko
14-07-05, 11:28
Yes, it was the WW3 post that reminded me of the idea about the crusades.

Your comment about the crusaders not being 'united politically' intrigued me. Couldn't they be considered 'allies' if they are united ideologically?

Maciamo
14-07-05, 12:53
No, not world war, just Europe & Middle East/North Africa. The 1st and 2nd world wars were called "world" wars because at that time the biggest part of the globe was controlled by countries that participated in the war. Britain, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy, the US and Japan all had colonies during the First World War. In the 2nd Germany and Italy didn't really have colonies but occupied a big part of Europe and North Africa, while all Africa and most of Asia were still European (or Japanese), and people from those colonies send troops to defend their "home country" during the war. Latin America was almost the only part of the world that didn't really participate in the war, although many countries (Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Venezuela...) accepted German, Italian and Japanese immigrants (and probably some war criminals too) after WWII.

As you can see, the crusades were quite local in comparison.


I'm no expert, but I think the following areas were all involved in some way: Anatolia, Asia Minor, Austria, Baghdad, Bulgaria, Byzantine Empire, Cyprus, Dalmatia, England, France, Germany, Greece, Holy Land, Hungary, Italy, Low Countries, Mongolia, Norway, Persia, Portugal, Prussia, Russia, Sicily, Spain, Syria, Tunisia and Turkey. I know some of these area may overlap, and there is a mix of medieval and modern names, but I'm not great at Geography!

Basically the Byzantine Empire encompasses all these areas you cited : Anatolia, Asia Minor, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Dalmatia, Greece, Turkey.

Mongolia participated in the crusades ? You mean coincided with the later part of the crusades. However, they didn't fight for the Holy Land and had nothing to do with the Christian vs Muslim squirmishes.

Tsuyoiko
14-07-05, 13:35
I take your point about Mongolia, but I included it because the Mongol invasions had a knock-on effect on those directly involved in the crusades: "After conquering Russia, the Mongols under Jenghiz Khan appeared in 1241 on the frontiers of Poland, routed the army of the Duke of Silesia at Liegnitz, annihilated that of Bela, King of Hungary, and reached the Adriatic. Palestine felt the consequences of this invasion. The Mongols had destroyed the Mussulman Empire of Kharizm in Central Asia. Fleeing before their conquerors, 10,000 Kharizmians offered their services to the Sultan of Egypt, meanwhile seizing Jerusalem as they passed by, in September, 1244." (From here (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04543c.htm)

I have never really accepted the argument that the crusades were relatively local, because I think you have to take into account that the ability to travel in those days was much less than in the 20th century. So you can't make a direct comparison between the countries involved.

jarvis
14-07-05, 23:21
I'd say the greeks were the first world war.

they were the first people to think that politics and war could affect their destiny. before them, nobody really controlled that big of chunks of land.

senseiman
15-07-05, 02:01
I would think the expansion of the Mongol Empire, which conquered most of the Eurasian landmass from the middle east to China to eastern Europe would count much more as a "world war" than the crusades.

lonesoullost3
15-07-05, 03:18
We must remember that "world" is definied completely differently at different points in history. Was N. America officially recognized until Columbus happened upon it in faithful 1492? No. It was theoretically there, but no one was able to prove it. The crusades and mongol invasions took place before the discovery of America (and the events that did take place afterwards did not involve America - any of them). Therefore, "world" pre-American discovery consisted of Eurasia and Africa. To take "world war" back to the Crusades and earlier battles I think would be anachronistic. World-war was coined in the 20th century with the knowledge that it truly involved some nation on every inhabited continent. In my opinion, it's not possible to have a world-war pre 1650 (about) when the first efforts to engage in trade and colonization in America really started to take off.

bossel
15-07-05, 03:41
It was theoretically there, but no one was able to prove it.
I think, in all practicality, the continent was also practically there. :p



"world" pre-American discovery consisted of Eurasia and Africa.
This is a pretty Euro-centric view of the "world" (wonder what Amerindians have to say about this, being only theoretically there). But for the rest of your post I agree.

TwistedMac
15-07-05, 03:53
wonder what Amerindians have to say about this, being only theoretically there
meh, they were savages, they don't deserve a say.. they didn't have history until we brought it over!

Anyway, I don't really think it matters one way or the other.. that was the Crusade, this was the world war... It's not that some guy sat down and calculated how many percent of the world was currently involved in this war and made an estimate to see if it could be called the "World" war... it's just that "people" were saying "oh hell, the whole world is in on THIS war! it's a WORLD war!"

Just a name. Hell, the first one was also called the Great War, but not alot of people say that anymore... wonder what was so great about it anyway...

So in conclusion, your honour, it's just a name for the war. The cold war might not have been very cold either. I wouldn't know, I wasn't there to feel the chill.

Tsuyoiko
15-07-05, 11:09
In my opinion, it's not possible to have a world-war pre 1650 (about) when the first efforts to engage in trade and colonization in America really started to take off.

I think this is the definitive answer, although I would put it later, after the colonisation of Australia in the 1780s.


So in conclusion, your honour, it's just a name for the war.

I agree - it doesn't matter. But then neither do a lot of things that are interesting to talk about!

lonesoullost3
16-07-05, 05:18
I didn't mean to imply that Native American history did not exist before discovery (or America for that matter) - it's just that for the context of the post (as you pointed out Bossel) it was simpler not to deal with semantics - the point got across anyways ^_^.

Maciamo
16-07-05, 06:17
I didn't mean to imply that Native American history did not exist before discovery (or America for that matter) - it's just that for the context of the post (as you pointed out Bossel) it was simpler not to deal with semantics - the point got across anyways ^_^.

I don't think you implied it - you just stated it by saying that the world was defined differently at the time. But defined by whom ? The Chinese (for whom the world was almost only China than barabarian land), the Japanese (who just knew of Korea and China), the Indians, the Ameridians, the Africans, the Aborigenes of Australia ?

Personally I think it is nonsensical to talk about a world war if the war does not include at least citiznes from the 5 continents, like in WWI and WWII. We could say that the present war in Iraq is also a world war, as nation such as the USA, UK, Japan, Australia and Morocco (and many more of course) have troops in Iraq.

The crusades did not include the entire American and Oceanian continents, most of Asia (Japan, China, SE Asia, India, Siberia...) and sub-saharan Africa.

senseiman
16-07-05, 20:03
How about the Napoleonic wars then? Napoleon fought his way across Europe as far as Moscow, he invaded Egypt, and North America also became involved(with the War of 1812). Spanish colonies in South America also played a part as did British colonies in Southern Asia.

jarvis
17-07-05, 16:27
We must remember that "world" is definied completely differently at different points in history. Was N. America officially recognized until Columbus happened upon it in faithful 1492? No. It was theoretically there, but no one was able to prove it. The crusades and mongol invasions took place before the discovery of America (and the events that did take place afterwards did not involve America - any of them). Therefore, "world" pre-American discovery consisted of Eurasia and Africa. To take "world war" back to the Crusades and earlier battles I think would be anachronistic. World-war was coined in the 20th century with the knowledge that it truly involved some nation on every inhabited continent. In my opinion, it's not possible to have a world-war pre 1650 (about) when the first efforts to engage in trade and colonization in America really started to take off.

what do you mean ? there was greek tradeing posts all over the nile.

Mycernius
10-09-05, 18:52
i recently saw a programme on TV about Venice. It seem that the 4th crusade ended up as a revenge attack against Constantinople by the Venetian Doge. Apparently he was held hostage there before he managed to get back to Venice. When the 4th crusade was formed they turned to Venice to supply them with ships. The Doge did. they were meant to supply at Constantinople before continuing to the Holy Land and Jerusalem. Instead they sacked the city, killed virtually everyone, looted the city and went back home. After reading more about the Crusades, it strikes me most of them were acts of revenge, personal glory and power struggles than what they were really meant for.

jarvis
10-09-05, 19:36
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/118/52.0.html

jarvis
10-09-05, 19:45
From the safe distance of many centuries, it is easy enough to scowl in disgust at the Crusades. Religion, after all, is nothing to fight wars over. But we should be mindful that our medieval ancestors would have been equally disgusted by our infinitely more destructive wars fought in the name of political ideologies. And yet, both the medieval and the modern soldier fight ultimately for their own world and all that makes it up. Both are willing to suffer enormous sacrifice, provided that it is in the service of something they hold dear, something greater than themselves. Whether we admire the Crusaders or not, it is a fact that the world we know today would not exist without their efforts. The ancient faith of Christianity, with its respect for women and antipathy toward slavery, not only survived but flourished. Without the Crusades, it might well have followed Zoroastrianism, another of Islam's rivals, into extinction.


EDIT by Maciamo : If you are quoting from an article, please using quotation tags !

Void
11-09-05, 12:50
jarvis, yet, how many (and what) books have you read about Crusades? :D

jarvis
11-09-05, 18:11
at least 15 hundred

Steve
15-09-05, 08:10
Just chanced on this topic. This site may interest some of you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_war#Classification_as_a_world_war

Its easy to refer to the two most famous conflicts as world wars, but if you consider the (debatable) criteria - and the criteria some of you have put forward, then they don't actually qualify as 'world wars' for a good part of their duration.
Just a thought.

jarvis
15-09-05, 08:41
wasen't the anceint world in a constant state of war?

Maciamo
15-09-05, 10:18
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/118/52.0.html

Very interesting article ! Please all read it (at least from The threat of Islam). It explains well that the crusades were not free acts of aggression and imperialism, nor the epitome of self-righteousness and intolerance as so many think. The prime culprit was Islam. Islam was born out of war and expanded from a tiny part of Saudi Arabia to conquer by the sword 2/3 of the Christian world at the time. Islam had taken most of Spain and Turkey and was thus ready to take over Europe. Something had to be done, and the response of the Europeans were the crusades. In other words, the crusaders prevented Islam from destroying Christianity and sacking Europe. And the Muslims only got what they asked for.

The crusaders had to sacrifice most of their possessions (land, wealth, families... and even their lives) to save Europe. They were not the selfish war-mongers often depicted; they were heroes.

Nicolas Peucelle
16-12-09, 23:59
When I study the crusades I am amazed to be reminded in some ways by present day multi-national operations. Of cause nothing is the same, but this intermeddling of various war trained groups with different national backgrounds going "for something" abroad can represent a similarity. But this is not a world war. I understand some of the crusades as a big adventoure journey for thousands of europeans having time and desire to look for new borders abroad of their small getting worlds back home. To have the feeling to do a good thing and have fun and maybe return with a bit more money or at least prestige was sure also a component of the motivation. Clean your soul, kill some infidels, and not get bored like back home in the castle or village.. enough to bring volunteers together and make them forget that they are now living in camps not far from the other crusaders who recently were still looting their properties back home... Worldwar? Not realy but the old world raising towards a gaol which is located in Palestine and not too much more. I wouldn't consider the opponents than of the christian crusader armies to be "a world" involved. It seems the actions are much more located to the far east than a "world".

bud
07-10-10, 01:34
The crusaders had to sacrifice most of their possessions (land, wealth, families... and even their lives) to save Europe. They were not the selfish war-mongers often depicted; they were heroes.
:good_job:

LeBrok
07-10-10, 05:43
:good_job:

Except the guys that sucked Constantinople. ;)

Reinaert
13-12-10, 20:40
Hmm..

The Crusades were not a world war.

The history books lack a lot of real background for the crusades.

When the Frank emperor Charles governed Europe, the first Vikings entered the coasts of the Western European mainland. When the Frankish Empire was split in three parts, Europe became weaker, and more vulnerable for viking raids.

So, Europe started to train more soldiers. Knights were getting more influence.
The viking raids slowed down because of the militarization of Western Europe.
In the coast lines of The Netherlands, Belgium and Northern France the vikings or Norsemen even got parts of the land, and established as settlers.
Remember the French Normandie. Land of the Normans.

In 1066 a viking leader William conquered England.

So, to get to the point..
In later ages the military was not necessary anymore because of the lack of war. So the military became to be annoying Western Europe.

And that's the reason the church wanted to get rid of those gung-ho rascals.

The message was.. If you want to fight, go elsewhere, not here.

The crusades were a method to dump the most aggressive part of the European population in far away lands.
And as we know today, it was a disaster.

A holocaust against other Christians, and against Muslims and Jews.

But that's history as we see it today.

There is another point in history that shows how to do away with a lot of unwanted men. Paris after the defeat of Napoleon knew a lot of revolutionary men from all over Europe. In the years that followed those men were a threat to public safety, so the French government invented the "Foreign Legion".
An easy way to dump the unwanted aliens into some North African desert.
:innocent:

geiserich
23-01-11, 06:44
The crusades were only a response of the cruel behaviour of the is lam murder troops. Most people welcomed the holy crusade army for bringing freedom and wealth

Reinaert
23-01-11, 16:47
The crusades were only a response of the cruel behaviour of the is lam murder troops. Most people welcomed the holy crusade army for bringing freedom and wealth

Not true.

The crusaders were the rascals.
Read some history before you start to tell funny things. :useless:

Regulus
23-01-11, 19:57
Hmm..

So, Europe started to train more soldiers. Knights were getting more influence.
The viking raids slowed down because of the militarization of Western Europe.
In the coast lines of The Netherlands, Belgium and Northern France the vikings or Norsemen even got parts of the land, and established as settlers.
Remember the French Normandie. Land of the Normans.

In 1066 a viking leader William conquered England.

So, to get to the point..
In later ages the military was not necessary anymore because of the lack of war. So the military became to be annoying Western Europe.

And that's the reason the church wanted to get rid of those gung-ho rascals.

The message was.. If you want to fight, go elsewhere, not here.

The crusades were a method to dump the most aggressive part of the European population in far away lands.
And as we know today, it was a disaster.

A holocaust against other Christians, and against Muslims and Jews.

But that's history as we see it today.

:innocent:

I see a pattern here.... Take some insightful facts and wind up with a completely false conclusion.

The crusades were no disaster for Europe or anywhere else.
Isolated albeit horrific slaughters of Jews in Europe do not count for a Holocaust. They were not near the norm for that period.

Aside for, again isolated slaughters of Armenian Christians and Muslims, although equally horrific, were also not the norm.

The vast majority of this period saw the Franks (all were Franji to their opponents) probably exercising at least as much restraint if not more than their peers did back home. As you wrote, they came from a rough period; consequently they were rough men. (And a lot of them) True, they were enough of a problem that finding a way to redirect their surplus people and energies was a contributing factor. But they must be judged not in light of our ways. They must be looked at in the greater picture of their time and their opponents. If you plan on painting some type of rosy revisionist picture of the Moslem rulers of that region, then start a new post. More than one Moslem writer lamented the fact that Muslim farmers living in Frankish-ruled areas on the Levant were happier with their Christian rulers than with their former Muslim rulers, who levied substantially higher taxes on them. I really hope that you don't ride on the -"It's OK for Muslims to conquer, but not for Christians to take back" -train.

I certainly hope that the Albigensians are not going to be your victim of the hour either; a brief or detailed research about them would reveal that we all are better off having a Europe built with the influence of the Churches that we know today. I find it highly unlikely that you would have wanted to live in a Europe influenced my medieval cult-type sects.

We can't turn this thread into a disaster area, so please stick with the topic. Your position is that the crusades were not a world war and that surplus fighters needed to be redirected. You know what - on that end I can even agree in principle. Don't start spinning your wild conclusions into it. Reinaert, you are among peers here. You can’t dictate your twisted versions of what happened onto others who may very well have read substantially more than you did on the topic, accounts that support “their side”, those that take the opposite, and neutral accounts

Reinaert
23-01-11, 20:05
I see a pattern here.... Take some insightful facts and wind up with a completely false conclusion.

The crusades were no disaster for Europe or anywhere else.
Isolated albeit horrific slaughters of Jews in Europe do not count for a Holocaust. They were not near the norm for that period.

Aside for, again isolated slaughters of Armenian Christians and Muslims, although equally horrific, were also not the norm.

The vast majority of this period saw the Franks (all were Franji to their opponents) probably exercising at least as much restraint if not more than their peers did back home. As you wrote, they came from a rough period; consequently they were rough men. (And a lot of them) True, they were enough of a problem that finding a way to redirect their surplus people and energies was a contributing factor. But they must be judged not in light of our ways. They must be looked at in the greater picture of their time and their opponents. If you plan on painting some type of rosy revisionist picture of the Moslem rulers of that region, then start a new post. More than one Moslem writer lamented the fact that Muslim farmers living in Frankish-ruled areas on the Levant were happier with their Christian rulers than with their former Muslim rulers, who levied substantially higher taxes on them. I really hope that you don't ride on the -"It's OK for Muslims to conquer, but not for Christians to take back" -train.

I certainly hope that the Albigensians are not going to be your victim of the hour either; a brief or detailed research about them would reveal that we all are better off having a Europe built with the influence of the Churches that we know today. I find it highly unlikely that you would have wanted to live in a Europe influenced my medieval cult-type sects.

We can't turn this thread into a disaster area, so please stick with the topic. Your position is that the crusades were not a world war and that surplus fighters needed to be redirected. You know what - on that end I can even agree in principle. Don't start spinning your wild conclusions into it. Reinaert, you are among peers here. You can’t dictate your twisted versions of what happened onto others who may very well have read substantially more than you did on the topic, accounts that support “their side”, those that take the opposite, and neutral accounts

You advocate the wrong vision.
I am not twisted at all.
You are.

I am not saying Christians were wrong, just saying the Europeans had an overload of gung ho types that ravaged the countryside. European marauders first started looting the east, and then the west (America). Nothing new.

And don't call the Franks kind of Santaclaus types. They were very brutal.

Regulus.. You seem to be American.. And don't understand much about Europe.

Haha.. I see a pattern here... Yes.. CIA FBI CNN

Regulus
23-01-11, 20:09
Having read your response, I will only reinterate that you should take your conclusions to start a new thread. Some of what you wrote was indicative of real insightful thought. I can't think that our (the West) result was worse than the results in the area ruled by the crusaders opponents in the Levant.

Regulus
23-01-11, 20:35
i recently saw a programme on TV about Venice. It seem that the 4th crusade ended up as a revenge attack against Constantinople by the Venetian Doge. Apparently he was held hostage there before he managed to get back to Venice. When the 4th crusade was formed they turned to Venice to supply them with ships. The Doge did. they were meant to supply at Constantinople before continuing to the Holy Land and Jerusalem. Instead they sacked the city, killed virtually everyone, looted the city and went back home. After reading more about the Crusades, it strikes me most of them were acts of revenge, personal glory and power struggles than what they were really meant for.

Tragically true as far as I know.
The story goes that, for reasons I can't remember exactly (I think some accusation or type of court intrigue) Enrico Dandolo, who was a hostage in the court and future Doge, was blinded by having sunlight concentrated by mirrors directed at his forcibly-opened eyes.

For revenge for that act, plus the obvious financial advantages that Venice would get from such an action, the leadership of the city required that the troops pay for their transport by taking ports on the coast from the Byzantines. This continued until Constantinople was terribly sacked.

LeBrok
23-01-11, 22:01
Regulus, you look for sense in Reinaert posts? Good luck. He's ongoing misconception is that the winning party in conflicts has to be the cruelest, more vicious, savage, greedy, overall the worst kind of human beings. The conquered, the poor, the victims are the true good people. Right?

Going back to the subject. I think many are missing the fact that 9,10,11,12 centuries were quite prosperous for the Europe overall. The climate was warmer which increased food production and population. This great progress, wealth, and population number produced surplus of military might that was sent to fight overseas.

Regulus
24-01-11, 00:32
You're right, LeBrok. I don't know why I have not, like my Irish ancestors; enlist "Captain Boycott" in dealing with him.

I refer to the Franks as rough men, and he says that I call them Santa Claus types. CNN is extremely liberal, almost to the point of dancing with the Left, and he lumps them in with the CIA and FBI. If was at least consistent, he would have cited the FOX network. That way his rants would at least look like he sort of knows what he is talking about.

Reinaert
24-01-11, 20:13
Well.. You two are doing it again.

CNN is part of the American establishment, and not left sided.
In fact the political left doesn't exist in the USA.

As least in European view.

It must be hard for you to accept anything else than what you learned at school. Which is a lot of old outdated blabla.

And it's like I said. The Christian Crusaders drew first blood.

Accept that. It's the true history.

It's very simple.
I repeat.
After the vikings started their assaults on the European coasts, Western Europe started to militarize slowly. At a point in time all those soldiers began to be annoying. They were often looting and harassing civilians.

So the Catholic Church had a bright idea to send them into a far away war.
And one of the main reasons they went was, that all their sins would be forgiven, and that all loot they got was for themselves.
That was a custom in those days. :innocent:

Don't try to make me angry about your arrogant way of writing.

Reinaert
24-01-11, 20:25
We can't turn this thread into a disaster area, so please stick with the topic. Your position is that the crusades were not a world war and that surplus fighters needed to be redirected. You know what - on that end I can even agree in principle. Don't start spinning your wild conclusions into it. Reinaert, you are among peers here. You can’t dictate your twisted versions of what happened onto others who may very well have read substantially more than you did on the topic, accounts that support “their side”, those that take the opposite, and neutral accounts

Well, you can say that others may also have many books about the subject, but the only point is they have read the wrong books.
Americans write books about the history of Europe, but they simply copy what is written in older versions.
I know it's hard to find books that give a complete story with the latest knowledge combined.

History is far more complex than what an easy reader may think.

The idea of war is like today. America has an army, and interests in producing weapons. Also unemployment, and a need to get rid of aggressive types.
So they go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Just like the medieval Europeans sent their most aggressive men to the middle east. But it isn't a world war.

Regulus
24-01-11, 21:22
CNN is part of the American establishment, and not left sided.
In fact the political left doesn't exist in the USA.

.

... thus with a single sentence does a man prove a complete lack of credibility.

Reinaert
24-01-11, 23:56
... thus with a single sentence does a man prove a complete lack of credibility.

As if Americans would be credible at all, in fact they suffer from a moral, intellectual and financial bankruptcy. :grin:
Your posting is very cheap. And not contributing to this discussion.
Proof you aren't able to imagine Europeans see the world totally different than Americans.
Nice to learn such a thing from this forum..
But I, as a European, don't like to be dictated by Americans how to think.
Your propaganda is false. Wikileaks proves the USA is abusing the world in a gross way.
We knew it all.. Years and years, but all the abuses weren't easy to prove.
Today I saw another American television program about the Cuba crises.
And it's been proven a lie. Kennedy wasn't the great diplomat.
The USA had nuclear missiles in Turkey, on the doorstep of the Soviet Union.
So the nuclear aggression was from the Americans.
The Soviets wanted the missiles out of Turkey, so they started a campaign to put nuclear missiles into Cuba. And it worked. Kennedy got the nuclear missiles out of Turkey to begin with.
And the Ruskies were asked not to talk about it...
Why should they? Their problem was solved. ;)

Don't play the bogey, son.
It isn't going to work.
We know a lot more than you can ever imagine.

Regulus
25-01-11, 00:06
I don't know what the "bogey" means in your usage.

Don't blame me, you dug this hole yourself. With your CNN quip, you have effectively canceled yourself out of any chance of being considered seriously. Many people disagree with me on points or positions, but at least I don't make wild, obviously false statements. I would rather have credibility than try to stomp people and fail.

Reinaert
25-01-11, 00:15
I don't know what the "bogey" means in your usage.

Don't blame me, you dug this hole yourself. With your CNN quip, you have effectively canceled yourself out of any chance of being considered seriously. Many people disagree with me on points or positions, but at least I don't make wild, obviously false statements. I would rather have credibility than try to stomp people and fail.


Haha.. In warfare propaganda and espionage is very important.
You are doing that constantly.
Buzz off.

Nothing has changed from the invasion of the romans and the vikings until now.
All greed. Nothing but greed.

Regulus
25-01-11, 00:44
Interesting angle, switching back to something that at least is partially true. Greed unfortunately, is all-too-often a major factor.

I thought that your next reply would have been something along the lines of claiming that Al-Jazeera was pro-Israel.

LeBrok
25-01-11, 01:34
I'm holding my breath and expecting something from the left field, literally by the way.

Reinaert, how would you classify your political inclination? Is there a name for it?

barbarian
25-01-11, 08:07
... thus with a single sentence does a man prove a complete lack of credibility.
regulus, you are a 44 years old american living in NJ. do you really believe that there is a political left in US?

Regulus
25-01-11, 15:29
Barbarian, I have read your posts. Your credibility may be less than that of Reinaert, if that is possible. Let's avoid discussions that make us all look like idiots. Can you imagine a new person coming on to this forum and seeing a debate on whether or not a political left exists in the US? It would be the same as debating if there is a far right or not in European countries. Our situation here in the US is known to all, so don't pretend not to know about it.

Now, like I first wrote on this thread, if you want to discuss these things, start a new thread just about that. This thread was whether or not the crusades were the First World War. I think that the First World War was the Seven Years War.

Let’s avoid the political equivalent of arguing whether or not jumping into a lake makes one wet.

barbarian
25-01-11, 15:40
Let's avoid discussions that make us all look like idiots.

i dont think you need my help about how you look like. if you dont want to speak about nothing other than WWars why do you open a new discussion about peoples credibility. i dont care about your credits. who do you think you are?

Regulus
25-01-11, 15:48
i dont think you need my help about how you look like.


Bravo - and arguing with you would certainly ensure that the label would stick.
One of my favorite phrases is that "I am not as stupid as I look."

It appears that I must also find this thread wrecked due to the gyrations of the Reinaert/Barbarian duo. One sings and the other dances.
Good day to you.

barbarian
25-01-11, 16:03
Bravo - and arguing with you would certainly ensure that the label would stick.
One of my favorite phrases is that "I am not as stupid as I look."

It appears that I must also find this thread wrecked due to the gyrations of the Reinaert/Barbarian duo. One sings and the other dances.
Good day to you.

well. i must admit that i made some mistakes in this discussion. sorry for that, but, i dont like your ratings, ideas, anything. and i see that you feel the same about me. so no need to worry any more. i will not discuss with you anymore. peace.

Cambrius (The Red)
25-01-11, 21:28
The Crusades may have been driven more by economics than religion.

Reinaert
25-01-11, 22:54
The Crusades may have been driven more by economics than religion.

Of course ;)

Mzungu mchagga
26-01-11, 00:06
The Crusades may have been driven more by economics than religion.

Not only the Crusades, but also I guess every other alleged religious war...

Anyways, personally I think the 'Seven Years War' was the first real World War.

Regulus
26-01-11, 01:44
[QUOTE=Mzungu mchagga;364077]Not only the Crusades, but also I guess every other alleged religious war...

It is interesting to really look at all the theaters of the Seven years War.
There also was a book "The Scratch of a Pen' 1763 and the transformation of North America". It argues that the events and personalities of that year had a greater effect towards the eventual war with the colonies than anything or anyone else.

The author outlines how the colonists "never saw themselves as British citizens more than at that time period" and that the seeds for change were sown right alongside it.

Britain became such a powerhouse after the war. I always wonder how different things would have been if Parliament had played its cards just slightly differently with the colonies.

Regulus
26-01-11, 19:41
Anyways, personally I think the 'Seven Years War' was the first real World War.


This was the part of the quote that I wanted to use. See directly above.

Melusine
26-01-11, 20:25
Tsuyoiki and all,

The crusades were Invasions by the European Christians vs. the Muslims in the Holy Land. Beginning circa 1098 to 1272. Religion was the motivating factor.
http://www.historyguy.com/the_crusades.htm

According to this URL from a google search under: what determines a war, a world war?
http://wiki.answers.com/QWhen_is_a_war_classed_as_a_world_war

A world war constitutes "major" countries of the world,
Christian Europe did not consist or was "the world" during the crusades. Africa, America, Asia, India etc were not involved in this religious conflict that lasted almost 200 years.

Melusine

LeBrok
26-01-11, 21:21
First of all Tsuyoiki's post is from 5 years ago and I don't think she comes here anymore. Don't expect her reply.

Secondly, the last time I checked Palestine where crusaders where going was in Asia.
Thirdly, I'm sure that some Arab/Muslim forces were coming from Africa. Looks like 3 continents were involved and biggest countries on them.
Also, if you list continents, I wouldn't include India in this list.

Tell us, if only religion reason had lead to crusades, why was rich, christian Constantinople attacked and pillaged in one of the crusades?

Reinaert
29-01-11, 18:50
Tsuyoiki and all,

The crusades were Invasions by the European Christians vs. the Muslims in the Holy Land. Beginning circa 1098 to 1272. Religion was the motivating factor.
http://www.historyguy.com/the_crusades.htm

Melusine

No, It wasn't. Greed was the major factor. Like all wars.
The second factor was to get rid of a lot of nasty men, who were rampaging through European countries.

Yeah.. www.historyguy.com Sounds really credible ;)

LeBrok
29-01-11, 20:14
No Reinaert, there was no united european political program the get rid land off nasty men. The ruling parties/kings in Europe didn't have this united social platform. If you are aware of any documents from way back stating otherwise, you are welcome to change my mind.
You are giving to much credit to one force being able to organize complicated ventures for 200 years. Usually there is bunch of small elements coming together in certain order to culminate in a big effect, like crusades this time. The elemental, quantitative, partial, many different things, if they work together they often mask and mislead people in believing that there is one universal, united force or organization controlling things.

I agree that greed or getting rich was one of main factors going to crusades, or many other war. Other factors are:
- Religion and promise of comfy afterlife. Life doesn't end after death, so no big deal if I die.
- The "Holy Land" was long time in christian hands, and was conquered by Muslims. This was a huge reason in Europe to go save the Christ homeland from infidels.
- Male predisposition to war is another big one. Give young guys a good reason and weapons to fight, and they are more than ready. For their whole childhood tell them romantic stories about great ancestor warriors (indoctrination), and you have an army of new martyrs. You don't need to twist guys arms to listen to the war stories, that's our genetic predisposition too.
- Also, the times were quite good in Europe, there was money to spend for the crusades. Not sure what was the cost of crusades, but we are talking about moving hundred of thousands of people and equipment through Europe and the sea. There were no new crusades organized in 1300 hundreds when big famine and black death came and ruined Europe.

Reinaert
29-01-11, 20:26
No Reinaert, there was no united european political program the get rid land off nasty men. The ruling parties/kings in Europe didn't have this united social platform. If you are aware of any documents from way back stating otherwise, you are welcome to change my mind.
You are giving to much credit to one force being able to organize complicated ventures for 200 years. Usually there is bunch of small elements coming together in certain order to culminate in a big effect, like crusades this time. The elemental, quantitative, partial, many different things, if they work together they often mask and mislead people in believing that there is one universal, united force or organization controlling things.

I agree that greed or getting rich was one of main factors going to crusades, or many other war. Other factors are:
- Religion and promise of comfy afterlife. Life doesn't end after death, so no big deal if I die.
- The "Holy Land" was long time in christian hands, and was conquered by Muslims. This was a huge reason in Europe to go save the Christ homeland from infidels.
- Male predisposition to war is another big one. Give young guys a good reason and weapons to fight, and they are more than ready. For their whole childhood tell them romantic stories about great ancestor warriors (indoctrination), and you have an army of new martyrs. You don't need to twist guys arms to listen to the war stories, that's our genetic predisposition too.
- Also, the times were quite good in Europe, there was money to spend for the crusades. Not sure what was the cost of crusades, but we are talking about moving hundred of thousands of people and equipment through Europe and the sea. There were no new crusades organized in 1300 hundreds when big famine and black death came and ruined Europe.

You talk nonsense!

Melusine
05-02-11, 03:19
Reinaert, I totally agree with you about the greed part , but lets not forget power. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutelly. Do, look at history and the "players" as to who/whom wanted the power. amd treasures in "The Holy Land".

And as for LeBrok, I second the reply ( by Reinaert). You (leBrok) talk nonsense.

Melusine

LeBrok
05-02-11, 06:04
I can't believe Reinaert have a fan from USA, the land of CIA. He is not going to like it. lol

Sorry to criticise your geographical and historical knowledge Melusine, you're sounding a bit defencive. But don't frown too much, constructive criticism is a fist step to improvement. :)

trishjw
15-02-11, 21:02
Some would consider the Persians against the Arabs and Egyptians though they lost to the Greeks to be the first world war since that was one of the main areas of "civilization" at that time in the late 500's BC.

Crooks
26-08-11, 08:41
Your guess about the places are almost right and obvious .The crusade war was fought in those areas .