Weird things going on The Erce

[Absinthe]

+destroyed+

[Baron Samedi]

Well, the south does some crazy shit to ya.

So does meth.....

[Grey]

Well, the south does some crazy shit to ya.

So does meth.....

Yeah, but those tend to go together.

[Baron Samedi]

I will say, in all seriousness, that the forum was progressing forward very nicely.

Thanks to whoever for fucking it up.

[Murphy]

So don't use the term Europe in place of Christendom.

Quite frankly, it's a perfectly adequate swap.

Europe had been already saved , in 732 ad by the Franks for the record.

What do you mean? As Alana has already pointed out, the Moors were still in Spain and were all but pressing on France's border except for the Spanish people.

Why didn't anyone notice that between the mudslim conquest of holyland and the first crusade there's a span of ... 470 years!

mudslims take over Palestine in 634-636 ad , the first crusade dates back to 1099 , so what does it make you think this?

it makes me think that arabs had been already stopped , in fact their last succesfull invasions dated to 9th century in Sicily.

Things were actually pretty peaceful in the Holy Lands and the East for that time. Muslims, Jews and Christians lived relativley happily together under Islamic control.

However, that changed with the Seljuk Turks. These vile barbarians persued an aggressive expansionist policy, which threatened not only Christians, Jews and the Byzantine Empire but their very Islamic brethren as well!

The Turks turned it into a Holy War. Not us.

So the real reason for the crusade must have been something else , neither the rescue of Europe (because they had been already pulled back as we know) nor the salvation of Holyland , since Palestine fell to the arabs some 470 earlier than the first crusade.

The real reason for the First Crusade is simple. The East begged for help, and the West answered. The Turks were destroying the peace that existed in the East.

The Turks were a threat to everything, and so they had to be stopped. We stopped them for a while. In the end it was the Egyptians and miscommunication with between the West and East that resulted in the fall of the Latin Kingdoms.

Imho the crusade were the first attempt of Europeans to develop colonialism , give the soldier/pilgrims/colonials a reason (the faith or in the 16th century the lust for gold) , conquering a land , opening up new markets etc

The materialist reasons. They completely fall flat on their face. I suggest you actually read a decent history book on the crusades. The basic fact is that the majority of those who went on the First Crusade went for the simple reason of defending their Christian brothers against Islamic expansionism. The original agreement with the Byzantines excluded the possibility of the Western knights taking lands in the East because the land belonged to the Byzantines. The Western knights agreed with this. It was, as I pointed out, failure between the Byzantines and the West that ended up with the Western powers setting up their Kingdoms in the East.

Also, do you know how much, in those ages, it cost for a knight to be well.. a knight? A fortune. Add this with the cost it would take to make a journey to the Holy Land whilst keeping supply lines going with the West? Then add on top of that, when they set out, they really did not have a hope at claiming lands because any land belonged to the Byzantines? This was sanctioned by the Pope as well, you know.

Then the averege peasent.. sure he went to set up a new silk trade route for his little plot of land just outside Paris ..

having eventually failed to obtain a secure route for Asia Europeans (Portuguese) then resolved to circumnavigate Africa , then Spanish by pure chance discovered America for the same very reason , find a way to Asia free of muslims , in order not to pay them a percentage over any trade.

It is my understanding, European trade with the Far East didn't even exist back then because the Europeans were hardly aware of it.

Regards,
The Papist.

[Murphy]

And I will just note, all the Crusades after the First are very iffy, even in my books. I only give my complete support the First!

Regards,
The Papist.

[Aragorn]

More tags less talk!

Interesting evolution of this thread: From whining about the Erce up to the Crusades.

[Ulf]

Honestly, this is the dumbest series of events I've witness in a long time.

If you wanted to start a forum/website, why would you not just buy it yourself? What is the reason behind bringing in people you've never met, IRL?

Really, it had it coming.

Whatever, long live Apricity.

[Lulletje Rozewater]

And I will just note, all the Crusades after the First are very iffy, even in my books. I only give my complete support the First!

Regards,
The Papist.

And what about the last one,the Turks saw their ass at Malta

[Brännvin]

*tag* who impregnated mother erce?


Loki, Lyfing, chap or lauretian?