NationStates Jolt Archive

Some of us may have studied the topic in college or high school. Those of us who have had comparative government classes and have read up on the clash of civilizations, might know what I mean when I ask wether or not the Crusades, mainly the 1st-3rd ones since they were the major ones, are of any impact in the decisions of todays world governments.

The first crusade started with mostly french and germanic knights who took up the cross when the Pope called for the Holy Land to be reclaimed. ALong with Peter the Hermet who rallied thousands of peasents in the treak to Constantinople(Istanbul).

For years after the conflict between the Cross and the Cresent would rage. Sides would change characters but the main issue would remain the same, religion. I myself wonder just how Christianity survived attacks from such attacks as the Ottoman Empire under the Sultan Sulieman who was defeat at Malta by the Knights of St. John (Knights Hospitillers).

In todays world the voice that main terrorist extremists use is the call of Jihad, or Holy War, on the infadel. While the Cross is mainly represented by the United States. I myself am a writer of sorts (freelance), and like to muddle in political history, and possible outcomes of present day topics will have on the future. So the main question I raise is for all to think on and to question in turn:

Do you think the Crusades of the medieval ages still have an affect on Western and Eastern countries choices politicaly or militarily?

Just want to make this point. While religion may have fueled the conflict, the crusades were territorial wars. European Christians were holding onto the holy lands and the Saracans wanted them back. It was as much a religious conflict as the Second World war was a war of ideologies. IE Ideologies fuelled it (Facisim vs Capitlalism and Communisim/Christianity vs Islam) but they themselves were not the cause.

Choices ? Yes.. i don't belive America to be a secular nation, nor was it ever meant to (Judicial, Executive, Legislative Branches all have religious elements)..

However, AS a cause for the clashes between middle eastern and western Cultures i do not.. Western culture simply does not see the conflicts as religious in nature and do not try to advance that notion.. IN fact I would say those conflicts are a symptom of the failor of muslim/islamic nations to advance their societies to state of which they are able to live harmoniosly with their neigbors... Unlike western/christian nations who were able to reach this realitive peace once evolving to democracies (though not devoid deviations) Muslim countries have always lived in conflict with thier negibors, from the time of antiquity till modern day, weather they be christian, judeic, or islamic conflict has alway festered (almost always taking a religoius undertone)... Experts have already surmized this is because the decentralized nature of the religion.. with no single force speaking for the faith, (like the pope) every Islamic state is another degree of Islam, essentially each being unique and different allowing conflict to insue.

there is some flaws in that point, it did start as a Holy War, to reclaim Palastine for Christianity, and only after when some knights stayed did they begin taking lands for there own since they had none back home in Europe. To make an example of what I mean, after the crusaders captured the city of Antioch they left it with barely anyone in it, and then continued onto Jerusalem which was the main target. After this victory, about 10 years the three crusader states became into being. Princepality of Antioch, Kingdom of Odessa, and the Kingdom of Jerusalem.

Do you think the Crusades of the medieval ages still have an affect on Western and Eastern countries choices politicaly or militarily?
Yes, but not nearly as much of an impact as the Caliphate's invasion of both Spain and the Balklands.

Origanlly Posted by Invidentia:
with no single force speaking for the faith, (like the pope) every Islamic state is another degree of Islam, essentially each being unique and different allowing conflict to insue.

Actaully Islam was the binding force that allowed the Turks and Ottomans later to conquear all of Asia Minor, North Africa, and then most of Spain, and only the intervening of Charlemaine(sorry if I miss spell) in france stopped them getting any further.

The Crusades were fueled by religious fanatacism - a handy tool for almost anyone who want's to have a little war. They were wrong. They resulted in a lot of death, as do all wars, and little else except bad feelings about Europe, Europeans, Christians and Christianity on the part of those who lived in the "Holy Lands".

There is NO just war, with the only exception being pure defense against actual military agression.

Any religion of any real worth would NOT support any war except one of pure defense.

Do you think the Crusades of the medieval ages still have an affect on Western and Eastern countries choices politicaly or militarily?
definatley. hundereds of years of religious wars and aggression leads to cultural resentment: the 'holy lands' resenting western europe and islam resenting christianity. this is exerting itself in all sorts of ways today.
it's stupid but true - just look at the dislike caused by hundreds of years of war between the english and the stupid peace-loving surrender-monkeys french.
:rolleyes:

Any religion of any real worth would NOT support any war except one of pure defense.

Islam was a binding force, and the Koran does not condone war but, and theres a but, it said that the world should be turned to the wisdom of Islam. Thus combining the fierce turkish tribes in a fanatical tsunami that engulfed most of the world.

The Crusades were fueled by religious fanatacism - a handy tool for almost anyone who want's to have a little war. They were wrong. They resulted in a lot of death, as do all wars, and little else except bad feelings about Europe, Europeans, Christians and Christianity on the part of those who lived in the "Holy Lands".

There is NO just war, with the only exception being pure defense against actual military agression.

Any religion of any real worth would NOT support any war except one of pure defense.
So it's ok to stand idly by while genocide, torture, mass murder and other assorted benefits of being under the heel of an oppressive goverment are perpetrated on your neighbors? Interesting variant of isolationism. :headbang:

Islam was a binding force, and the Koran does not condone war but, and theres a but, it said that the world should be turned to the wisdom of Islam. Thus combining the fierce turkish tribes in a fanatical tsunami that engulfed most of the world.
The Q'uran explicitly admonishes followers of Islam to convert all they encounter to the "one true faith" by the sword if they will not willingly convert.

Exactly what I meant.

So it's ok to stand idly by while genocide, torture, mass murder and other assorted benefits of being under the heel of an oppressive goverment are perpetrated on your neighbors? Interesting variant of isolationism. :headbang:Keep banging that head. Maybe some sense will be jammed in there.

DEFENSE includes defending those who need assistance defending themselves.

Those who TRULY need to be defended.

The Q'uran explicitly admonishes followers of Islam to convert all they encounter to the "one true faith" by the sword if they will not willingly convert.I've heard this a number of times - but no one has ever supplied the exact quote or a link to a reputable source.

Please do so.

Because, according to most religious fanatics (pick a sect - any sect), god wants them to convert the world to their religion, using force if necessary.

Only, that specific direction from god always seems to have been verbal, and no one took notes.

I don't think it's Christianity, or Islam, or Judeaism, or Hinduism (?) that cause wars in the name of religion or god - it's just the fanatic nutcases that claim to be members of one religion or another.

For centuries, Christianity has been spread with violence. Holy Land, South America... et cetera. I think only great religion that has NOT been spread by violence, is Buddhaism.

For centuries, Christianity has been spread with violence. Holy Land, South America... et cetera. I think only great religion that has NOT been spread by violence, is Buddhaism.

Not true either. The Buddhist Kings of asia had armies to beat up other people, not say "Please become a Buddhist, please?"

Not true either. The Buddhist Kings of asia had armies to beat up other people, not say "Please become a Buddhist, please?"Wait... Damn it, you are pretty right. But still, religions should not be spread with violence and war.

For centuries, Christianity has been spread with violence. Holy Land, South America... et cetera. I think only great religion that has NOT been spread by violence, is Buddhaism.

I think the point about Islam is that Islams central human figure (Muhammad) forged Islam as a faith via viloence. I cant remeber the name of the battle specificly but it was after he was thrown out of one town for preaching only one God where tradesmen there were selling many God's to people. He went and attacked a caravan of them with a group of his followers and won, despite being hideously outnumbered. Thats the "Forged by sword" idea of Islam. In Chrisitanity, Jesus never did anything similar.

I cant remeber the name of the battle specificly...


Badr?

Badr?

Thats the one!

I think the point about Islam is that Islams central human figure (Muhammad) forged Islam as a faith via viloence. I cant remeber the name of the battle specificly but it was after he was thrown out of one town for preaching only one God where tradesmen there were selling many God's to people. He went and attacked a caravan of them with a group of his followers and won, despite being hideously outnumbered. Thats the "Forged by sword" idea of Islam. In Chrisitanity, Jesus never did anything similar.
His posting had nothing to do with Jesus. You are right in this, anyway.

His posting had nothing to do with Jesus. You are right in this, anyway.

My point was to settle this argument.

Person 1 says "Islam was spread by the sword, people were killed and forced to become Muslims"

Person 2 says "But that happened in Christainity too"

Person 1 says "Ermm..."

Person 3 (Me) says "But Islam was founded by the sword (see battle of Badr), where as Christianity was founded far more peacefully"

My point being that Christianity has a far more peaceful begining than does Islam. Also if you look at Islamic history, there is very little of it where they are not at war .And the Bible predicts this. See Genesis 16

Exert begins

Genesis 16: 1-12

Hagar and Ishmael

Now Sarai, Abram's wife, had borne him no children. But she had an Egyptian maidservant named Hagar; so she said to Abram, "The LORD has kept me from having children. Go, sleep with my maidservant; perhaps I can build a family through her."
Abram agreed to what Sarai said. So after Abram had been living in Canaan ten years, Sarai his wife took her Egyptian maidservant Hagar and gave her to her husband to be his wife. He slept with Hagar, and she conceived.

When she knew she was pregnant, she began to despise her mistress. Then Sarai said to Abram, "You are responsible for the wrong I am suffering. I put my servant in your arms, and now that she knows she is pregnant, she despises me. May the LORD judge between you and me."

"Your servant is in your hands," Abram said. "Do with her whatever you think best." Then Sarai mistreated Hagar; so she fled from her.

The angel of the LORD found Hagar near a spring in the desert; it was the spring that is beside the road to Shur. And he said, "Hagar, servant of Sarai, where have you come from, and where are you going?"

"I'm running away from my mistress Sarai," she answered.

Then the angel of the LORD told her, "Go back to your mistress and submit to her." The angel added, "I will so increase your descendants that they will be too numerous to count."

The angel of the LORD also said to her:

"You are now with child
and you will have a son.
You shall name him Ishmael,
for the LORD has heard of your misery.
He will be a wild donkey of a man;
his hand will be against everyone
and everyone's hand against him,
and he will live in hostility
toward all his brothers."

Exert ends

And Ishmael is the child that Islam and the Arab nation are decended from

Choices ? Yes.. i don't belive America to be a secular nation, nor was it ever meant to (Judicial, Executive, Legislative Branches all have religious elements)..

However, AS a cause for the clashes between middle eastern and western Cultures i do not.. Western culture simply does not see the conflicts as religious in nature and do not try to advance that notion.. IN fact I would say those conflicts are a symptom of the failor of muslim/islamic nations to advance their societies to state of which they are able to live harmoniosly with their neigbors... Unlike western/christian nations who were able to reach this realitive peace once evolving to democracies (though not devoid deviations) Muslim countries have always lived in conflict with thier negibors, from the time of antiquity till modern day, weather they be christian, judeic, or islamic conflict has alway festered (almost always taking a religoius undertone)... Experts have already surmized this is because the decentralized nature of the religion.. with no single force speaking for the faith, (like the pope) every Islamic state is another degree of Islam, essentially each being unique and different allowing conflict to insue.

I beg to differ. Many Americans see it as a Holy War, just look at the media. If anything, seeing these fools in the media has convinced the radicals of war. In any case, Cordoba had miles of streets that were lighted about 800 years ago, while other European cities were mere villages. Not to mention, Europeans got most of their technology from Arabs, which they got from East Asia. Except for the Bedou in Arabian deserts, Arabs lived quite up to civilization, even during the twentieth century. Look at the majority of Europe, not the major cities. It is still very rural, especially in central and eastern Europe, and even in Britain in many areas. The Middle East is very advanced in its major cities. It just shows how naive some people can be, and how elitist they are indeed.

I beg to differ. Many Americans see it as a Holy War, just look at the media. If anything, seeing these fools in the media has convinced the radicals of war. In any case, Cordoba had miles of streets that were lighted about 800 years ago, while other European cities were mere villages. Not to mention, Europeans got most of their technology from Arabs, which they got from East Asia. Except for the Bedou in Arabian deserts, Arabs lived quite up to civilization, even during the twentieth century. Look at the majority of Europe, not the major cities. It is still very rural, especially in central and eastern Europe, and even in Britain in many areas. The Middle East is very advanced in its major cities. It just shows how naive some people can be, and how elitist they are indeed.

1) Just because you were advanced then does not make you any more supirior. Also Islam was not the only culture to cross the great divide

2) I think Europe developed a great deal of technology itself and had made just as many achivements as Arabian culture so dont pass yourself off as something your not. Supieror. Historicaly the only nation lacking is America.

My point being that Christianity has a far more peaceful begining than does Islam. And the Bible predicts this. See Genesis 16

...

The angel of the LORD also said to her:

"You are now with child
and you will have a son.
You shall name him Ishmael,
for the LORD has heard of your misery.
He will be a wild donkey of a man;
his hand will be against everyone
and everyone's hand against him,
and he will live in hostility
toward all his brothers."

Exert ends

And Ishmael is the child that Islam and the Arab nation are decended from

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but the angel of the Lord here only predicts that Ishmael will live a life of hostility, not that his descendents shall as well, no?

My point was to settle this argument.

Person 1 says "Islam was spread by the sword, people were killed and forced to become Muslims"

Person 2 says "But that happened in Christainity too"

Person 1 says "Ermm..."

Person 3 (Me) says "But Islam was founded by the sword (see battle of Badr), where as Christianity was founded far more peacefully"

My point being that Christianity has a far more peaceful begining than does Islam. And the Bible predicts this. See Genesis 16

Exert begins

Genesis 16: 1-12

Hagar and Ishmael

Now Sarai, Abram's wife, had borne him no children. But she had an Egyptian maidservant named Hagar; so she said to Abram, "The LORD has kept me from having children. Go, sleep with my maidservant; perhaps I can build a family through her."
Abram agreed to what Sarai said. So after Abram had been living in Canaan ten years, Sarai his wife took her Egyptian maidservant Hagar and gave her to her husband to be his wife. He slept with Hagar, and she conceived.

When she knew she was pregnant, she began to despise her mistress. Then Sarai said to Abram, "You are responsible for the wrong I am suffering. I put my servant in your arms, and now that she knows she is pregnant, she despises me. May the LORD judge between you and me."

"Your servant is in your hands," Abram said. "Do with her whatever you think best." Then Sarai mistreated Hagar; so she fled from her.

The angel of the LORD found Hagar near a spring in the desert; it was the spring that is beside the road to Shur. And he said, "Hagar, servant of Sarai, where have you come from, and where are you going?"

"I'm running away from my mistress Sarai," she answered.

Then the angel of the LORD told her, "Go back to your mistress and submit to her." The angel added, "I will so increase your descendants that they will be too numerous to count."

The angel of the LORD also said to her:

"You are now with child
and you will have a son.
You shall name him Ishmael,
for the LORD has heard of your misery.
He will be a wild donkey of a man;
his hand will be against everyone
and everyone's hand against him,
and he will live in hostility
toward all his brothers."

Exert ends

And Ishmael is the child that Islam and the Arab nation are decended from

That isn't true at all. Islam wasn't spread by the sword. Notice how there are still Christians and Jews living in the Middle East? Notice how until these Neo Pagan movements came about recently, there were no Pagans in Europe? There weren't even the other sects of Christianity, such as Arianism, left. I don't want to here you're stupid banter. Islam wasn't founded on it either. Ishmael founded the Arabs, not Islam. Not to mention, that Bible verse is a bunch of Jewish propaganda. If you look at the verses, there is one that says Abraham was circumcised when he was 99 years old, when Ishmael was 13. Yet, when Isaac was born, and Ishmael cast out (Abraham was 100), Ishmael was depicted as a child on his mother's shoulder. Not to mention, Abraham was to sacrafice Ishmael, not Isaac. It said his only son. Well, Ishmael was his only son for 13 years before Isaac was born. Isaac was never his only son. You're justification is a bunch of crap.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but the angel of the Lord here only predicts that Ishmael will live a life of hostility, not that his descendents shall as well, no?

He says later in Genesis 17 that his covenent is not with Ishmael and that he too will be a great nation. Other translations make it clear that his nation will be viloent. I'm just attmepting to find them.

He says later in Genesis 17 that his covenent is not with Ishmael and that he too will be a great nation. Other translations make it clear that his nation will be viloent. I'm just attmepting to find them.

Genesis 21:18?

He says later in Genesis 17 that his covenent is not with Ishmael and that he too will be a great nation. Other translations make it clear that his nation will be viloent. I'm just attmepting to find them.

No, you're attempting to find what you want to find. Britain was also a great nation, and screwed up the entire world. But they're not in the Bible. And neither is Arabia in the sense that you want them to be. They are of course mentioned, but I suppose you should hold the Jews responsible and say they are a hostile nation because many of their Kings had horrible relations with the outside world.

That isn't true at all. Islam wasn't spread by the sword. Notice how there are still Christians and Jews living in the Middle East? Notice how until these Neo Pagan movements came about recently, there were no Pagans in Europe? There weren't even the other sects of Christianity, such as Arianism, left. I don't want to here you're stupid banter. Islam wasn't founded on it either. Ishmael founded the Arabs, not Islam. Not to mention, that Bible verse is a bunch of Jewish propaganda. If you look at the verses, there is one that says Abraham was circumcised when he was 99 years old, when Ishmael was 13. Yet, when Isaac was born, and Ishmael cast out (Abraham was 100), Ishmael was depicted as a child on his mother's shoulder. Not to mention, Abraham was to sacrafice Ishmael, not Isaac. It said his only son. Well, Ishmael was his only son for 13 years before Isaac was born. Isaac was never his only son. You're justification is a bunch of crap.

1) I am aware that Ishmael founded the Arabs and not Islam. But out of the Arabs comes the religon of Islam, and later on in the New testement, nationalities are irrelevent in God's eyes now. So what does that tell you?

2) God did not make a covenent with Ishmael, and becasue Ishmael was illigimate, God did not regonise him as Abrahams first son. Obviously he knew about him, but he only regonised Issac as Issac was a child out of Abrahams marriage.

No, you're attempting to find what you want to find. Britain was also a great nation, and screwed up the entire world. But they're not in the Bible. And neither is Arabia in the sense that you want them to be. They are of course mentioned, but I suppose you should hold the Jews responsible and say they are a hostile nation because many of their Kings had horrible relations with the outside world.

My point was that Islamic and Arabian history are very bloody ones, as is predicted in the Bible. You can believe/not believe that if you wish. What you have to accept as true is that Islam was founded by the sword (Battle of Badr)

the crusades led way for the age of exploration cultural diffusion and more goods for the west. The age of exploration led way to the encounter of america and the genocide of the nonconverted natives.

the crusades led way for the age of exploration cultural diffusion and more goods for the west. The age of exploration led way to the encounter of america and the genocide of the nonconverted natives.Those were sad times indeed...

No, you're attempting to find what you want to find. Britain was also a great nation, and screwed up the entire world. But they're not in the Bible. And neither is Arabia in the sense that you want them to be. They are of course mentioned, but I suppose you should hold the Jews responsible and say they are a hostile nation because many of their Kings had horrible relations with the outside world.

Genensis 17:20?

And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation

Do you think the Crusades of the medieval ages still have an affect on Western and Eastern countries choices politicaly or militarily?
Maybe a little. But what caused the crusades still has a major affect, religious fundamentalism.

The crusades were an indirect reason how America was discovered and founded. In the Holy Land they could get resources that they werent able to get in Europe. So they tried to sail to Asia and found settlements there. But it wasnt Asia, it was America, and they soon discovered this. (I got this out of my college US History Book).

Genensis 17:20?

And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation

That still doesn't predict that his nation will be a violent one.

The Crusades were lead by the Merovingian dynatsy and later their decendents. It is likely that these were the bloodline (holy grail) of christ. In order to proclaim themselves as Christs and Magdelens decendents they felt the needed to rule the Holy land.

Telegram me if you have any comments on this.

Christ did not have a bloodline because he was never married. That is Da Vinci code crap. Christ is the son of God and not just a mere human like us. He did not have children.

Christ did not have a bloodline because he was never married. That is Da Vinci code crap. Christ is the son of God and not just a mere human like us. He did not have children.

One does not need children to have a bloodline:

Matthew 13:55 - "Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?"

Mark 6:2-3 - "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?"

Gal. 1:19 - "But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother"