Sometimes things are more complex - and more easy at the same time. For example, historically, my nation has nothing to do with romans, while the mongols wiped out the country, in some regions the destruction reached up to 60%, meaning the total destruction of villages and towns, exterminating the civilian population, interrupting development for decades and disarranging the ethnical composition fatally.
What Caesar and Subutei did, it was both: Genocide. Yet we “remember” them differently - and I think it’s intelligible.
Our grandmothers, who lived through both the german and russian occupation in the second world war, will also give different opinions about them than - for example - the chinese war crimes. Fighting against that equals to fighting against basic human nature.
How do you know that? I thought the main character could be both pro or against heresy. Besides that, the moderate Hussites (Ultraquists) were in the end even joining the Catholic side in the fight against the radical Hussites (Taborites).
well lets be honest , they have not really helped themselves have they ? 
1 Like
I have not see it anywhere suggested that we will have choice in which side we fight for.
I don’t have any sources handy but the impression given from WH has always been that you will be fighting for Wenceslaus against Sigismund and his campaign.
Your initial motivation being revenge against the cumans (employed by Sigismund’s campaign) who destroyed your village and killed your family.
I think it’d depend on our Lord’s view. If he thinks the Crusades are good, you might be able to wear Crusader armor or be given a benefit for being a Knight of the Church (Nobody would stop a guy who is sent by God) If your Lord is against the Crusades, then I’d think the Cumans would be friendly towards you and the Crusaders would actively hunt you down.
It includes Muslim conquest, in general, and no the map for the most part is correct. Research it bud.
Oh fuck off. I say shedding light on the fact that the crusades were in response to Muslim aggression and you come in here losing your shit, say I’m being unfair to the poor innocent Muslims. I never once was bashing Islam.
Although I’m not surprised you’re saying this, after all you were defending the Muslim terrorists who tried to shoot up the cartoon contest.
@Berzelmayr seting bad guys in quotation marks probably probably wasn’t spesific enouth to explain what I mean. I don’t think there going for a clear good and evil distinction from what I have heard. I can easly imagin that you can choose sides in one quest or the other, but I assum they will focus on telling a story. That’s easier when you can force spesific scene.
This sounds like you know more than me any way.
It was ment on the topic of timeframe. I singled the ottomans out because it should be clear to anyone they are much later than the crusades and even more so than Mohammeds death.
I sayed no such thing. I have no interesst in debating collectiv ‘muslim’ or ‘christian’ guilt. It’s a pointless over generalliciation and very boring. But I seems to be your favorit topic.
I point out that your map is missleading and all you do is deflect from that. Do you really thnk that the sole pourpose of the crusades (proper) was, that that all of the christians keeps score of all of the muslims attrocities and one day they said enouth is enouth? That is an over simplification and not shading lite on the issue. Most of the expension happend a long time before and the latin christians solidartity to the byzantiens wasn’t all that reliable, as the Crusaders Invasion later for exemple shows. I am not defending ‘the muslims’ or attacking ‘the christian’ I just don’t think that’s a reasonable explaination. I can admire the efficency in unifying seperate political enteties and the strategy behind a crusade without beliving in it’s nessessity. But targeting Jerusalem is clearly symbolic and not primarily about securing the border. (Not that we are talking about actual states with actual borders)
thank you for posting the new map. 
This is constructive 
Yeah, there was that whole Nazi thing… and that is about it, actually. They weren’t slave mongers during colonial times, that makes them hellava lot better than the Brits, historically. And look at them now! Europe owes a great deal to Germany.
I seriously hope you still don’t understand what I said and aren’t just digging this up because it is convineint. Just because idiots people tried to shoot the cartoonists doesn’t automatically make there work good and valuable. If you still think that justifies murder I’ll try agin with an analogy: You wouldn’t automatically agree with any communists work just because he or she was executed on Stalins orders.
I couldn’t really let that stand, so understand the topic derail pleas.
This made me laugh.
“It’s anoying.” Because you disagree with him?
“It’s not very original.” I guess he didn’t get the memo. Political and theological stances are supposed to be based on being special rather than beliefs and facts. Gotcha.
“sombody might actually belive it.” Well, I believe that is the entire point… Oh, but heaven forbid someone speak their mind, if that happens more people might disagree with you, we can’t have that.
I believe SirWarrant can “crusade” all he wants. Especially considering how the word “crusade” apparently now means “to criticize and speak against on the internet.”
1 Like
just about everyone was . some just better than others 
"to the victor goes history "
and im afraid germany loses alot 
[quote=“Skoruligr, post:29, topic:23934”]
They weren’t slave mongers during colonial times, that makes them hellava lot better than the Brits
[/quote] Britain was the first nation to abolish slavery . some 40 years before prussia
Sorry, I agree with the general sentiment, that not all germans over deserve to be assosiated with nazis, but I can’t agree with your examples. The german empire did have colonies and even if the african inhabitants weren’t legaly slaves there is no way to make foced labour or Punitive expedition sound good. They may also have had a smaller share of the atlantic slave trade in the early modern period, but let’s face it geography (coast/naval bases) playes a larger role than lack of trying. Lot’s of germans work for the dutch colonial companies for examples. World war one could also easily have been avoided from the German/Austro-Hungarian side.
And finally Debt. Literally it may be true that europe owes a great deal to Germany but saying it like just creates more contravercy and doesn’t help your argument.
2 Likes
I can understand you have an other opinion. But I was complaining about a map that is labled missleadingly at the very best, being used in a inaproperate way. How is me getting annoyed when the poster does nothing but deflect my criticism cencorship? I only said I was annoyed with him because he wrongly persumed to know that my motivation was to defend poor long dead high medival muslims. When it was about posting a map so unpercise that people could draw compleatly wrong information from.
That’s not a matter of opinion. In the context of crusades being a reaction to muslim expention a map covering multiple hundred years after and before the crusades is simply wrong. You simply can’t react to an event that was before or after your livetime. You can react to sombody telling you about it but than you have to consider the narrativ of that sombody otherwise it’s ridiculously inaccurate work.
Posting it in this way does create the impression of intentionally lying and spreading propaganda. That is why I wrote what I wrote.
1 Like
Well, their Win to Loss ratio is actually pretty good, they just get a little over-ambitious sometimes.
The British Slave Trade Act of 1807 outlawed slave trade, but not slavery itself. In that Same year Prussia abolished slavery, whereas it wasn’t until 1834 that The British Empire actually abolished slavery.
“I am complaining about your personal crusade aginst ‘the muslims’. It’s anoying. It’s not very original. And sombody might actually belive it.”
That implies that you are complaining about him criticizing saracens. Not the map.
Now, back to the map. Every time it gets posted anywhere there is always someone like you who says some thing like “You simply can’t react to an event that was before or after your livetime.” And that person always makes me wanna tear my hair out. First off, it shows that the saracens were anything but innocent. Second, what on earth are you talking about? For hundreds of years islamic conquests, piracy, and enslaving was bleeding Europe dry! They finally realized in the 11th century that if they didn’t do something about it real soon, the saracens would eventually win. They saw what happened to Spain, and they knew that wouldn’t be the end of it, they would have been stupid to not crusade.
2 Likes
I said Muslims don’t have the right to murder people over a cartoon, and you responded by pretty much calling me a hypocrite
You quoted a Scripture
"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?
You’re the only who derailed this buddy. I was talking about how there were two sides to the Crusades and you started blabbering on about how i’m prejudice against Muslims.
1 Like
I see how that could be confused. But I was complaing about his methods. Because posting the map like this and zelously deflecting all criticism of it.
Calling it a reaction to conquests long ago does not make the use of the map credible by a long shot it still draws things into this that didn’t happen. Agin I won’t debate with you people on wether the crusades were justified by past conquests. Deal with it. But wether or not they were still has no effect on the fact that it wouldn’t be a reaction!
If you people don’t aknowlege the difference between a single Califat rapidly expending in the early middle ages and multiple independent states. If you absolutely don’t care how this ‘europe’ that was defending itselve actually looked and only want to talk about ‘muslims’ vs. ‘christians’ than there is absolutly no point in talking about this. It’s clearly not about the crusades or any particular point in time if we look at a map that covers the entire muslim conquest in the mediterainian. It’s about fitting everithing into a macro historical ‘Clash of Civilisations’ narrative that compleatly ignores the circumstances of the crusades.
If you want to continue spreading this narrativ I won’t stop you. But I don’t see anything serious to disscus so stop drawing me into this holy war. I have no interesst in pointing fingers at dead men.
:
1 Like
I said that the attack on the Byzantine empire was the reason behind the crusades. I then posted the map to show Islam had been a threat for a long time, and were more aggressive than the crusaders were.
Lol if you have no interest in this topic then why start an argument over it?
In the context of comparing western critisism of the westen churches and right wing critisim of there mortal enemy. I never intended to point finger at any particular caritacurist, if that was unclear.
Im sorry if quoting scripture is a particulary big deal to you. I don’t understand that. I just though it was funny fighting fire with fire.
And I was only appologizing for my selfe because I felt the need. I would appritiate if don’t call me buddy. I hope you don’t feel censored because of that.
1 Like