Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Well, you can take that in two ways, corrupt domination of the church that treated their citizens and subjects crappy or a culture that tolerated other peoples (throughout the ages some Muslim leaders were good or harsh) but still second class citizens which they were worse in the Byzantine empire and I think you mean the Dhimmi which was an Ottoman Turk concept. Some, maybe not all, Caliphs or Arab leaders were more tolerant towards their Christian subjects but the Ottomans were touted as having a more relaxed system towards their subjects be they Christian or others. It got pretty bad near the end of the 19th century.

Then you can't or won't dispute what I said. Your cryptic vague answer is hardly a fact nor answers. Move on.

Because I am trying to make a point, which you either ignore or can't answer. I'm not the one mixing up arguments here and if I keep repeating the same thing, answer it or stop quoting it.

Bla bla bla, again, nothing whatsoever to do with what I said nor the topic at hand and I already mentioned Diocletian. You do know who Diocletian was don't you? It happened before, waaaay before the Crusades....Oomph.

It should be but you keep pursuing something or other. I've already demonstrated the facts. Not my fault you keep ignoring them in a case that I am repeating myself.

   

Sorry, you have not "demonstrated the facts", you just keep bringing back the discussion to the begenning, so I won't play you silly game. You want a cherchage de bébites debate and I won't give it to you.

You mentioned Diocletian... so what ? You still want to blame the separation on the Crusades : « it also encompassed the inherent schism that exists today between the West and the East, that was not positive. »

As for dhimminitude being the sole invention of the Turcs... gosh you know nothing about Islam.

   

Yep, I did demonstrate the facts and you have nothing and answered nothing rather than this slop. I keep bringing this discussion to the beginning? I'm not intertwining this discussion into 50 separate ways to make your point, hypocrite. Tough.

You can't answer anything I presented to you and I hardly need the likes of you to dictate on this discussion. You lost. Shame you had to present your attitude in this fashion in the end, I liked to believe we had a pretty good discussion going on.

I mentioned Diocletian, so what? You were just bitching to me about your "opinion" on the separation of the East and West as if I didn't know the concept as being before the Crusades. I merely mentioned it as a reason for the eventual weakness of the empire later on. Blame the separation on the Crusades? I just mentioned the separation BEFORE the Crusades. What the hell are you talking about?

Pretty arrogant and hypocritical from someone without the rudimentary knowledge of the Byzantine Empire and its workings, can't answer my points yet has the gall to say, because of one word I know nothing of Islam (as if that one word means you have the ultimate knowledge of Islam yourself hypocrite) and then come up with that single sentence without having anything yourself on the matter. I'm not an expert on Islam and never claimed to be, neither are you for that matter but hey, you're the expert because you know what a Dhimmi is and its sole invention. I never said it was the "SOLE" invention of the Ottomans but it was a concept the Ottomans took after they conquered other territories by religion. Pardon me if I took the Durandal way out and didn't make myself clear. Gosh...pretty cheap way to make your exit here chump.

   

Last thing I have not replied too : the defensive system of Constantinople and greek fire ; ok, they had made the city prevail twice already, but YOU YOURSELF said the city would INEVITABLY fall one day or an other, so you can't say the city would have survived FOR SURE in 11/1200 something and would still have been taken FOR SURE in 13/14/1500 something.

You pretty much don't know a thing about it + contradict so it fits your argumentation. Sorry dude, your "facts" are based are based as much on suppositions & extrapolations as mine are, so I'm throwing back the "arrogant and hypocritical" thing.

Bottom line : the Crusades were both legitimate (was my initial argument) and usefull.

   

You insult me in the last post and now this?

First, get your dates right. You're grasping at nothing and it seems you don't see the big picture at all. Extrapolating and guessing dates of 1200, 1400 and so forth isn't proving your point. The city held out defensively from the Arabs from the 7th century and other continuous attempts. Greek fire wasn't the solution and never was. It was corruption in government, heir problems and weak currency and governemtn, not to mention getting double crossed by people of their own faith that made them weak and eventually their downfall. Think about that. Nobody conquered the walls of Constantinople at that time until the Venetians.

Even after that, the Byzantine Empire was corrupt and weak as it was. The Byzantine currency was worthless, people disunified, that is the internal picture, which was what I was talking about, an eventual downfall but you ignored that and you are talking about Greek Fire, 500 years beforehand? What is your point or is this just some disparate attempt at getting the last word?



Nope sorry. I go by facts and historical knowledge, you, criss cross examples and topics, mish mash your arguments about different topics which make no sense to make your so called point which I have disproven time and time again. So far, you haven't disproven anything I said or anything and now.....wow, I am contradicting myself to fit my argumentation? Extrapolations? Suppositions? PROVE IT!!! The onus is on you buddy. Look back 10 pages, I contested your stupid opinion on the matter and now its my contradiction to prove my point, not yours? My facts are based on extrapolations and suppositions like yours are? Interesting. In that case, what the hell are you contesting if you are not right either?

I'm not an idiot, I am a history major, with a specific interest in Ancient, and Medieval European history. Again, your arrogance and desperation is evident. I don't know anything about Islam or what I am talking about but you do? You chastise me with actions you can't ascribe yourself? What is that?...You're done.


Bottom line, you don't know what your argument is or was and I note several segmented arguments on your part. Perhaps if you stuck to the topic at hand instead of going on several tangents, you might have saved face. Nope, you had an argument, and then you lost it and lost this entirely.

Bye bye.

   

« The city held out defensively from the Arabs ... Greek fire wasn't the solution and never was. »

Yep, the superb defensive system of Constantinople (and you *only* precised greek fire and huge walls) ; you said "we" (i.e. only you yourself alone) can be sure it would have allowed it to repel the Muslims circa 1100 AD.

Nice, then why didn't it do so in 1453 (where you say the downfall was inevitable) ??? "Corruption" and "weak currency" ? Give me a fuc_ing break !

2 pure suppositions that, moreover, don't get along with each other.

And it's not a matter of having the final word. You insisted I had not replied to one of your arguments, so I did. Now you say I should not have. My gosh...

« I am a history major »

I really, but really don't give a damn. Dhimminitude an Ottoman invention = historically ignorant of things related to Islam. That's it that's all.

« Bye bye. »

PS: (to help you a bit 'cause your totally lost) "initial argument" = before ShepherdsDog braught the Byzantines.

   

Nice, then why didn't it do so in 1453 (where you say the downfall was inevitable) ??? "Corruption" and "weak currency" ? Give me a fuc_ing break !

Artillery!

Twenty-seven feet long, 2 l/2 feet in bore, the great weapon could hurl a 1,200-pound ball over a mile. When it was tested, a Turkish chronicler wrote that a warning was sent out to the Ottoman camp so that pregnant women would not abort at the shock. Its explosions, he said, "made the city walls shake, and the ground inside." The cannon's size, however, was also its liability. Crewed by 500, it took 2 hours to load and could only fire eight rounds per day. Fortunately for the Turks, Mehmet had many more practical and more proven pieces-2 large cannons and 18 batteries of 130 smaller caliber weapons

   

« Artillery! »

Interesting, other than the fact that primitive bombards was just one "goodie" available to a 85.000-strong horde that was faced by 7.000 defenders.

My point remains that there's no guaratee that the city would have held out, say, in 1105 if the Crusaders had not interrupted the Muslim conquest of Anatolia.

   

Nothing in this slop (that is legible) add anything new that I haven't already defeated and now you are disparately repeating yourself. Give it a rest.

English next time but I'll do my best to rip this shit if I can read it. The Muslims didn't attack Constantinople in 1100's anyways so no idea what the hell you are talking about.

Greek fire repelled the Arabs in the 8th century and multiple attacks and did help the Byzantines greatly. Did that negate other factors that what was wrong with the Byzantines internally and externally? No but then again, you didn't know that since in your next great intellectual sentence shows....No I idea what the hell you are talking about "we" since I speak in first person but oh well.....idiot.

Again, what the heck are you talking about? Why didn't Greek fire protect Constantinople -as if I am concerned about that because that is not my argument - Because the siege of Constantinople was primarily a land based attack and Greek fire was used for the navy.....Constantinople didn't have the manpower because nobody in the west cared about them and they were weak from the bubonic plague.

The fact you question corruption and weak currency as a byproduct of Byzantine weakness speaks of your own ignorance and unwillingness. Next about my ignorance about Islam....hypocrite.

Read a book and get a clue. Suppositions? They're facts. Show me where those two reasons were not a factor of Byzantine weakness and its eventual downfall.

You still haven't replied to any of my arguments with any concrete facts that defeat or counter what I said. You keep rambling on, insulting me and repeating yourself with nothing. This discussion, while civil at the beginning, is long over and you lost. Now you're just frothing at the mouth.

That may be but we're not talking primarily on Islam are we? Idiot. I'll repeat for you, I never said Dhimminitude was an Ottoman invention (nice of you to throw that word there) and stop ascribing me a position I never said. I said the Ottomans used the concept from Islam by which they were the primary Islamic power at the time. You're calling me historically ignorant? What a fucking laugh from this shit you are providing me.

I'm lost? You're the one mixing, mishing and mashing your arguments and I know what the initial argument was, you don't. Too bad you resorted to insults because your crap was countered. It was an interesting discussion.

The Crusades delayed the inevitable. It provided the Byzantines with some losses and gains but in the end, the final straw was the fourth crusade, conquered by their own religion.

Think about that hypocrite.

   

You're talking about hypothetical guesses and guarantees in history. Those things have already been done and you're basing that shit as your argumentative pillar? Too easy.

   

The Christian crusuaders were little more than ignorant barbarians much like the George Bush Repulicans. The Muslims were and are by and large not much fun to be around, but to suggest the crusuaders were useful, na.
I think the more we are exposed to whether or not its gospel truth, is good it provides food for thought something the religions do not provide. Religion itself is not the problem, its the people who claim to know the meaning of every word as written by their saviour that is the problem.
The Knights Templer were great at organizing and operation the organization they formed and defended. On the other hand the were intolerant of anything thing that didn't conform to their narrow view of the world, as religion was the basis of their thinking.

   

You don't fucking know if the city would have falen or not in the next few decades if the Crusaders would have not intervened when they were called. The 2 previous failed sieges are no guarantee of the coming third would have failed as well, I don't swallow THIS hypothetical guess ! Won't keep turning in a circle forever.

My turn to say bye.

To damngrumpy, the knigths templars were sure zealots, but the fact remains that they and the others like them saved Christendom thus allowing it to evolve into the Western Civilisation we have today.

Also, we could talk forever about how they were fanatics and warmongers etc etc etc, but this quote from wkipedia is quite interesting :

« Cependant, en dehors du champ de bataille, on note qu'une certaine tolérance religieuse les animait. En 1140, l'émir et chroniqueur Oussama Ibn Mounqidh, par ailleurs ambassadeur auprès des Francs, se rendit à Jérusalem. Il avait l'habitude d'aller à l'ancienne mosquée al-Aqsa, « lieu de résidence de mes amis les Templiers ». L'émir rapporta une anecdote pendant laquelle les Templiers prirent ouvertement sa défense lors de la prière. Alors que la façon de prier des musulmans était à la fois inconnue et incomprise des Francs nouvellement arrivés en Orient, les Templiers, eux, trouvaient leur intérêt en faisant respecter ce culte, même si celui-ci était qualifié d'infidèle. »

Wouuuw, so those naaasty Templars allowed a Muslim to pray regularly in Al Aqsa while they controlled it ??!!

As for Bush, please, I hate this comparison. Just look at what he's doing with Kosovo and a hypothetic 2nd "Palestinian" state. Bush = not crusader.

   

It's a swedish picture but it's also true that no other scandinavian film have been close to the budget of this one. I guess that's what they wanted to get across. The director is danish, however.

I bought ticets to it just yesterday. Premiers 25'th here in Gothenburg. I'll post some clips for anyone interested.

   

Here's a clip in english:
Arn - The Knight Templar

There are a few others if you search the scrollbar list to the right in the same link. Most of them are in swedish however. Enjoy.

   

Yeah that's what I meant.

Anyways, this movie looks awsome, better than Kingdom of Heaven.

However I don't know if they are gonna twist history like in K of H. Arn is a fictional guy, so they can invent pretty much all they want and put it in the context of the Crusades.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arn:_The_K ... plar_(film)

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next