It's just non-stop with you, isn't it.....Originally Posted by Kadaeux
You fail. The Crusades had nothing to do with their technology level and warfare.
Your inability to tell the difference between a statistic based on the technology used and the Crusaders tendency to slaughter people out of hand for believing in the "wrong god" is pitiful.
It's just non-stop with you, isn't it.....
+1 point.
And yet you're the one defending the crusades. You even actually refer to "Heathens" as if you agree they should be killed. And yet, I bet if someone defended 9/11, since "they were just killing heathens" you'd (justifiably) have a go at them.
The american revolution would have been classified as terrorists if you consider the Syrian rebels terrorists.
made by the ever charming and talented Lillian Thorne.
Are you kidding me? You've got to be kidding me.
If you think 112 MILLION people isn't 'much slaughter' then something is incredibly wrong with your perception on the importance of life. 600 years of slaughter in the name of crusades means nothing? Christopher Columbus himself managed to wipe out entire tribes just from trying to finance a crusade.
-> Principles of international law
-> Your understanding
Look you gobshite, I'll try to summarize it clearly for you so you can get it through your thick skull. The crusades were a series of military campaigns throughout the middle ages. The intent of the crusaders was to liberate Oultremer from the Seljuks (and/or any other muslim state which happened to occupy Jerusalem). When conquering a city or a castle, it sometimes happened that civilians were killed while looting the city, but unless in rare cases, nothing extreme. That's medieval warfare for you. The hundred years war for example was far worse in terms of plundering and sacking towns than the crusades ever were. Collateral damage happens in every war, deal with it. Besides, it weren't only the Christians who sometimes fancied to sack a town, the Muslims did such things as well. There weren't much more atrocities than in any other regular war. Besides, how about Jihads? Every cultural marxist cries about the crusades, but the Jihad that conquered all of the middle east in less than hundred years are ok?
The question here is if you're the one joking or just completely stupid. 112million? Who told you that exaggeration? Certainly if you take the estimates of world population of their time into account. IF you're taking the Spanish conquistas of Meso-America into account (which has a dubious connection with the crusades, if any at all), then I hope you at least know that the Spanish brought diseases with them, which were far far far more deadly than the Spanish conquistadores. Can't blame the conquistadores because of that, can you?
The estimate numbers of casualties during the Levantine crusades only (which lasted about 200 years) would be 200,000 -500,000 at best.
You say there were 600 years of crusades so I assume you're taking the 30-years war into account, which wasn't a crusade at all. I think you have a problem with defining the meaning of 'crusade'.
My conclusion is that the crusades weren't as bad as cultural marxists want to make us believe. There were wars that were far worse. The crusades, in terms of warfare, were not much different than any other wars of the day.
Last edited by MorningWood; 12-03-2012 at 11:56 AM.
Slaughter? Yes. Genocide. . . No. Definitely slaughter. Jews were the usual "vermin" (It's in quotes because I don't believe the Jewish people were vermin) back then, and they were murdered just like Muslims. On the other hand, Christians were murdered just like Muslims too, at various points in history, not only has every one been evil bastards, but everyone has been looked upon in an unfair light.
'Slaughter' as in: the death toll that usually comes with wars. Nothing extraordinary really.
Posting Permissions
