U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-19-2010, 10:52 PM
 
Location: southern california
55,237 posts, read 72,528,935 times
Reputation: 47458

Advertisements

no more justification for crusades then than the one we are doing now. btw good post trudy. you got rep. the horrors of the cathars was something that left a terrible mark on the church.

Last edited by Huckleberry3911948; 02-19-2010 at 11:17 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-19-2010, 11:12 PM
 
Location: NC
10,005 posts, read 8,731,617 times
Reputation: 3062
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishtom29 View Post
The Fourth Crusade wasn't launched against Constantinople, it was diverted there.

It's arguable whether or not the Cathars were Christians.
Is that an excuse for what they did?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2010, 11:53 PM
 
Location: San Antonio
10,175 posts, read 18,172,027 times
Reputation: 9935
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent View Post
Is that an excuse for what they did?

No, it's a reason.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2010, 12:33 AM
 
Location: Peterborough, England
472 posts, read 756,528 times
Reputation: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by noetsi View Post
That time line shows essentially no agresive action against Western Europe (where the crusades came from) during the period of the crusades. By 900 the Holy lands were already Muslim controlled. It would have been a rational for an attack on the Holy lands in the 8th through 10th century, but no in 1092 nearly a century later.

It would be like Russia attacking Germany now, for the events of 1914-1918.

Arguably more like Britain attacking Spain now, in a belated retaliation for the Armada.

The last major conflict between the Moslem world and Western Europe was in the 8th Century, when the Moors conquered Spain and invaded Gaul. Since then, there had been conflicts over border provinces like Sicily, but nothing major, and no greater than the confilcts within the Christian and Moslem worlds at the same time. Christian rulers had been conquering provinces from each other since the break-up of Charlemagne's Empire, and Moslem ones ditto since that of the Abbasid Caliphate about the same time (mid 9th Cent). Certainly there were conflicts between Christian and moselm states where these happened to border on each other, but on no greater scale than those others.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2010, 02:26 AM
 
Location: San Antonio
10,175 posts, read 18,172,027 times
Reputation: 9935
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikestone8 View Post
Arguably more like Britain attacking Spain now, in a belated retaliation for the Armada.

The last major conflict between the Moslem world and Western Europe was in the 8th Century, when the Moors conquered Spain and invaded Gaul.

England and Spain have not been at war for over 200 years and the Armada was over 400 years ago. But at the time of 1st Crusade the Christian and Moslem worlds were in a state of hostility and war.

There was constant warfare between Christians and Moslems in Spain, indeed the period just before the 1st Crusade was when the Cid was active.

The Byzantines were under pressure from the Turks and had suffered the disastrous defeat at Manzikert less than 30 years before the 1st Crusade.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2010, 03:15 AM
 
Location: Aloverton
6,564 posts, read 11,907,157 times
Reputation: 9959
A point of clarification: there isn't a 'Moslem' or 'Muslim' world. There is, of course, an Islamic world. Whether 'Moslem' or 'Muslim' is the better transliteration would depend on the dialect, I think. But 'Muslim/Moslem' can refer only to a person, due to the nature of the word in Arabic. Not trying to take anyone to task, and we all know full well exactly what is meant, but in a topic discussing the Crusades it seems germane to clarify this and spread a bit of education.

Thus, the King of Saudi Arabia (for example) is a Muslim, but his nation can't be Muslim, any more than his pet schnauzer can be (since dogs can't say the Shahada). His citizens are Muslims, but the nation includes the land, resources, etc., and those aren't people. In fact, his religion isn't Muslim, because the religion isn't a person either. If you just use 'Islam' or 'Islamic' to refer to anything but a person, you have the idea.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2010, 10:26 AM
 
2,377 posts, read 4,757,875 times
Reputation: 1691
Irishtom29: I was going to disagree with your statement about the Cathars not being Christian...Here is a very interesting site that explains their beliefs:
Cathars and Cathar Beliefs in the Languedoc

And jkk: Thanks for the clarification between Muslim, Moslem, and Islamic
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2010, 10:27 AM
 
Location: San Antonio
10,175 posts, read 18,172,027 times
Reputation: 9935
"Moslem" and "Muslim" are adjectives as well as nouns.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2010, 10:29 AM
 
Location: San Antonio
10,175 posts, read 18,172,027 times
Reputation: 9935
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trudy Rose View Post
Irishtom29: I was going to disagree with your statement about the Cathars not being Christian

I didn't take a stance on that Trudy, I said it was arguable and it is, obviously.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2010, 10:43 AM
 
2,377 posts, read 4,757,875 times
Reputation: 1691
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishtom29 View Post
I didn't take a stance on that Trudy, I said it was arguable and it is, obviously.
I think I did not phrase my response right.. I had never heard that the Cathers were considered non-christian, so when you stated that I was suprised and looked them up...and I should have added that you are right
Seems like the did everything 100% opposite of the Catholics, so I can see, especially where they rejected the idea of priests, that the Vatican got "irritated" with them
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top