It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The truth about the Crusades -Christians Lost.

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by BeLowUIdontevenknowu
look at the population of muslims in europe and in switzerland.

Muslims Expansionism is on the rise again, another war must be fought to put them back where they belong.

Most certainly not. And how can you possibly blame people for immigrating? They aren't doing anything illegal. If they weren't wanted then they shouldn't've been allowed in the first place. Immigration of muslims isn't going to turn either the US or yrip into a new mulsim nation. Its not expansionism.



I declare the 3rd Crusade!

In case you didn't realize, they have already been several crusades. Besides, you are no one, you do not have the authority to declare a 'crusade' against anyone, and I somehow doubt you would be particularly effective in it.

THe good people of the world, in the US and europe are not going to let criminal murderous thugs force any segment of the population out. If anyone tries that sort of garbage, and certainly if they use warefare to accomplish it, they will be destroyed, annhilated, and looked down upon by history.




posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 07:36 PM
link   


Richard the Lionheart and French King Philip Augustus


Just a tick off beat here, but I wonder how many know that Richard and Phillip were 'lovers'?


seekerof



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 07:37 PM
link   
Just a sidenote to mods and supermods... do we have a "Conspiracies in History" forum? If we don't, that would be a GREAT addition to ATS!



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof


Richard the Lionheart and French King Philip Augustus


Just a tick off beat here, but I wonder how many know that Richard and Phillip were 'lovers'?


seekerof


Indeed they were, but i don't really put any importance to it really. Some of the Greatest Warriors of History were gay, Alexander the Great being the most famous. For all his faults and he had many Richard, the absentee King of England, was a brave Knight almost to the point of recklessness.

[edit on 26-11-2004 by Janus]



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 07:45 PM
link   
Um... Philip was Richard's lover?


He did have three wives, you know...

Although he never succeeded in "getting it up" with his second wife, Ingeburge of Denmark. It was an ugly divorce.



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Otts
Um... Philip was Richard's lover?


He did have three wives, you know...

Although he never succeeded in "getting it up" with his second wife, Ingeburge of Denmark. It was an ugly divorce.



Yep, they married for Heirs, most marriages were political and loveless.
But Richard was, by all accounts gay.

Not that i would have called him one to his face mind you, behind Castles a fully armoured mounted Knight was the super weapon of the age.

[edit on 26-11-2004 by Janus]



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 07:49 PM
link   
I guess Philip was bisexual if that was the case. He did have an intense and steaming love affair with his third wife, Agnes of Merania. He separated from her only because the Pope told him his marriage wasn't legal.



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 07:52 PM
link   
Alexander the Great married and had children too, but he had a long running affair with one of his generals whom he subsequently killed in a drunken row. Its not as unusual as you may think in the Ancient world and middle ages.



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 07:53 PM
link   
Maybe this (below) will stir, umm, I mean clear things up a bit, as to what I mentioned?


This is the Latin text, from Stubbs edition as given in Boswell CSTH 231.

"Ricardus dux Aquitaniae, filus regis Angliae, morum fecit cum Philipo
rege Franciae, quem ipse in tantum honoravit per longum tempus quod singulis
diebus in una mensa ad unum cantinum manducabant, et in noctibus non
seperabat eos lectus. Et diliexit eum rex Franciae quasi animam suam; et
in tantum se mutuo diligebant, quod propter vehmentem delictionem quae
inter illos erat, dominus rex Angliae nimio stupore arreptus
admirabatur quid hoc esset."

Boswell translates this, accurately I think,

"Richard, [then] duke of Aquitaine, the son of the king of England,
remained with Philip, the King of France, who so honored him for so
long that they ate every day at the same table and from the same dish,
and at night their beds did not separate them. And the king of farnce
loved him as his own soul; and they loved each other so much that
the king of England was absolutely astonished and the passionate love
between them and marveled at it".


and then:


Riley does this with the passage.
"...and the King of France held him in such high esteem that every day
they ate at the same table and from the same dish, and at night had not
separate chambers. In consequence of this strong attachment which seemed to have arisen between them, the King of England was struck with
great astonishment, and wondered what it could mean..."

.edu source



seekerof

[edit on 26-11-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 07:56 PM
link   
Nope, it wasn't unusual. Philosopher Michel Foucault wrote a great book called "History of Sexuality", where he states - among others - that for the Greeks, heterosexuality and homosexuality weren't valid moral categories. What was shameful was to allow yourself to be dominated during intercourse, especially if you were a grown man.



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 07:59 PM
link   
seekerof - don't forget the people who wrote the chronicles tended to exaggerate. They say something similar about Henry VIII and Franois I at the Camp of the Golden Cloth.



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 08:07 PM
link   
Yes, I would have great tendency to agree with that Otts, but these (Chronicles, Froissart, etc.) are not the only sources mentioning or insinuating such 'relationships'.




seekerof



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Otts
Just a sidenote to mods and supermods... do we have a "Conspiracies in History" forum? If we don't, that would be a GREAT addition to ATS!


I can say we finally agree on something! This is a great idea!

I would also like to see an economic forum also.......



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by edsinger
Well both religions are comming to a climax at some point. I guess we will see which one was right all along then....

Well, they've both been saying that for about 2,000 years now, so lets not worry about that.


frosty
First the Jews are kicked out of Ur,

I think it was Uruk no? Anyway, abraham was a native to that city, and the 'jews' didn't exist. They weren't kicked out. Abraham left with only his family. So if anything it shows the interrelatedness of the two groups.



then the Greek and Persian Empires go to war,

The persians are an entirely different people from teh sumerians and the greeks have nothing to do with the christians or jews in this 'christian v muslim' dichotomy

then comes the Roman empire,

Whats that got to do with this?


then it's the Moor invasion,

The muslims also expanded into north africa and conquered the visigothic kingdoms that were there. Conquering the visigothic kingdom in spain was really just par for the course.


then the Crusades, then its colonization, then comes 9/11, and now comes the Muslim invasion by immigration. What is next for a war that has been on going for the last several thousand years?

There simply hasn't been an ongoing war between 'europeans' and 'muslims' for thousands of years. Trying to reach back to times before the existence of islam and even christianity doesn't really make any sense, those other struggles had their own partiuclar reasons. The arabs fought the byzantines becase the byzantines were fighting the arabs and vice versa. Ultimately the Turks swept in from their non muslim central asian homeland and settled that anyway. The Greco-Persian struggles were largely over ionia and the athenian interference with persian rule there. Also, after alexander conquered Persia, he 'medeized', he adapted to their ways and adopted many of their customs, and intergrated himself into persian culture, while at the same time spreading hellenistic culture throughout the east. Even in teh early muslim period there were christian communities in Iraq, Syria, Iran, india, etc. There isn't anything especially long term (in terms of projecting into the past) about the current struggle between the liberal democratic west and a backwards fundamentalist theocratic east. People in general struggle with one another. If you are looking for a constant, thats it.


Looks like the middle east if I ever saw it.

Not Sure if this includes any of the middle east

It's also safe to know that Vienna came under attack by Muslim invaders during the 1600's. It's not a religous war, but a war amongst two different people, the west and middle east. And it has been ongoing for quite some time. It's not as if the Muslims suddenly lept up and started attacking the west.



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 11:55 PM
link   
edsinger and I agree on something??

Stop the presses!!!


Seriously, I was thinking topics like disappearances (the Dauphin during the Revolution, Czar Alexander I's "faked" death, the grandduchess Anastasia) as much as - yes - the real meaning of the Crusades, what forces were really at work during the Versailles treaty in 1919, etc...



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 11:57 PM
link   
No one says they have just started, the radical element has now see a inherent weakness in the West and want to either kill or convert us. Kind of like the Spanish conquistadors in the New World. They just had no way to fight back, we do.



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ottsedsinger and I agree on something??
Stop the presses!!!



Well I guess I am not the inhuman person you thought I was then huh? Sooner or later we had to agree on something.
Cheers!



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 12:21 AM
link   
edsinger - I never thought you were inhuman. Occasionally infuriating, yes, but not inhuman.

Yes, cheers!



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty
Looks like the middle east if I ever saw it.

And?


Not Sure if this includes any of the middle east

And what part of that is native to rome? Its a tiny little dot in the upper part of that boot shaped land. The rest was taken through domination and conquest. If anything it shows that the 'middle east' was fighting a defensive war against roman expansionism. In fact, that very much is what was happeneing when teh Roman Emperor in Byzantium was being overrun by the successors to the Parthians. Byzantium wasn't 'merely' defending itself against irrational 'arab' expansionism. It was involved in and had been an agressor at times in a series of wars between it and anohter regional power. Not engaging in some sort of undeniable 'middle east versus the world' struggle.



It's also safe to know that Vienna came under attack by Muslim invaders during the 1600's.

And what does that have to do with the First Crusade?



a war amongst two different people, the west and middle east. And it has been ongoing for quite some time. It's not as if the Muslims suddenly lept up and started attacking the west.

Claiming that the muslim seige of Vienna is part of the same stuggle that went on between athens and persia is rather stretching don't you think? Its sort of like saying that the cold war was just an estension of thrace's conflicts with the Scythians.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 01:16 PM
link   
I thought that a very interesting piece of history is that when Richard was going to go forward with the 'liberation' of Jerusalem, he was pressed with the notion that even if he could conquer, how could he control the country once it was his. None of his knights wanted to spend their lives there,but some otheres were fighting for the glory and the piece of land promised them.

He eventually decided that there was no way to actually take and control and he was going to turn away and go home. He was however persuaded to move forward, and the ensuing battle did not secure Jerusalem for the Christians. The leaders split the region with Richard taking control of mostly coastal towns. I would not say the Christians lost....

The history of the crusades is fascinating in the fact that a Holy war has raged for centuries, and it is just our turn.

side note- AS far as Catholic light, I have used that for years. These are the peoplethat go to mass when the grandparents are in town or go to Midnight mass on Christmas...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join