The Thread

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Ba-dum-bump!

Saw two historical documentaries on TV yesternight, one on the First Crusade and one on Hannibal. Nice to actually have an evening where TV was worth watching...

Learn anything new?

Did the first crusade actually reach the "holy land". As I recall the whole thing disentegrated rather quickly as the band reached a town in eastern europe which was "muslim". As I recall the crusaders decided a muslim town was a muslim town so why go all the way to the middle east to burn and pilage?

[Mike Solli]

[:D]

Yeah, rape the horses and pillage the women.

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Ba-dum-bump!

Saw two historical documentaries on TV yesternight, one on the First Crusade and one on Hannibal. Nice to actually have an evening where TV was worth watching...

Learn anything new?

Did the first crusade actually reach the "holy land". As I recall the whole thing disentegrated rather quickly as the band reached a town in eastern europe which was "muslim". As I recall the crusaders decided a muslim town was a muslim town so why go all the way to the middle east to burn and pilage?

First crusade was the only "successful" one, iirc.

Later crusades sacked "Muslim" towns like Constantinople, leading (in large part) to complete the destruction of the Byzantine Empire.

[DuckofTindalos]

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

Learn anything new?

Did the first crusade actually reach the "holy land". As I recall the whole thing disentegrated rather quickly as the band reached a town in eastern europe which was "muslim". As I recall the crusaders decided a muslim town was a muslim town so why go all the way to the middle east to burn and pilage?

Wrong crusade, niceguy. The First Crusade actually achieved its stated objective of driving the Muslim occupiers out of Jerusalem, in a bloodbath of cataclysmic proportions.

[DuckofTindalos]

The crusaders, led by the Frankish knight Godfrey of Bouillon, took Jerusalem in May, 1099, four years after Pope Urban II told them it was okay to murder and pillage, as long as the victims weren't fellow Christians. When they entered Jerusalem, they slaughtered practically the entire population, Moslems, Jews and Christians.

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

[:D]

Yeah, rape the horses and pillage the women.

[:D] OH that is so wrong!

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

The crusaders, led by the Frankish knight Godfrey of Bouillon, took Jerusalem in May, 1099, four years after Pope Urban II told them it was okay to murder and pillage, as long as the victims weren't fellow Christians. When they entered Jerusalem, they slaughtered practically the entire population, Moslems, Jews and Christians.

Well really, what's a knight to do...it's so difficult to tell them apart. [:'(]

[Mike Solli]

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

ORIGINAL: Terminus

The crusaders, led by the Frankish knight Godfrey of Bouillon, took Jerusalem in May, 1099, four years after Pope Urban II told them it was okay to murder and pillage, as long as the victims weren't fellow Christians. When they entered Jerusalem, they slaughtered practically the entire population, Moslems, Jews and Christians.

Well really, what's a knight to do...it's so difficult to tell them apart. [:'(]

Yeah, but what about the bishops that were leading them!

[niceguy2005]

Well, what I was getting confused about, as it turns out, was that the First Crusade encompassed a number of other "crusades". THe part I was thinking about was called the "Poeple's Crusade" which set out several months before. They did end up in troulbe in Hungary but most made it to Constantinople anyway, though as I recall the peasants were all slaughtered when they corssed over to Asia Minor.

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli
Yeah, but what about the bishops that were leading them!

Ever try to lead an armored knight charging an enemy?

Edit: well of course not, silly question, but the point is clear.

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli
Yeah, but what about the bishops that were leading them!

Ever try to lead an armored knight charging an enemy?

Edit: well of course not, silly question, but the point is clear.

Mostly, they were looting and burning after any fighting was over.

[DuckofTindalos]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

Later crusades sacked "Muslim" towns like Constantinople, leading (in large part) to complete the destruction of the Byzantine Empire.

Actually, the Byzantine empire didn't collapse until 1453, when the Ottoman Turks sacked Constantinople, and the last emperor, Constantine XI, died...

[DuckofTindalos]

The Byzantines had a short resurgence from 1097 until about 1180, where they mostly cleared Asia Minor of the Seljuk Turks, the depredations of whom had caused the Byzantine emperor, Alexius I, to ask the Pope for help in the first place. This plea for assistance from his "brother in the faith" lead indirectly to the First Crusade.

[DuckofTindalos]

In 1180, the emperor Manuel Comnenus, of the same dynasty as Alexius I, died, and with him the last upturn in the Byzantine fortunes. Five years later, the Byzantines lost their lands in the Balkans after a rebellion erupted in Bulgaria, and in 1204, Constantinople fell to the Fourth Crusade, leading to the founding of the Latin Empire, a Catholic (as opposed to Greek Orthodox) successor to the Byzantines.

This lasted until 1261, when Emperor Michael VIII Palaeologus recaptured the city. The Byzantines held on to their rapidly disintegrating empire until 1453.

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

Later crusades sacked "Muslim" towns like Constantinople, leading (in large part) to complete the destruction of the Byzantine Empire.

Actually, the Byzantine empire didn't collapse until 1453, when the Ottoman Turks sacked Constantinople, and the last emperor, Constantine XI, died...

hmmm... yes, but from what i understand, the Crusader's sacking of Constantinople (1204 after the gates were opened) pretty much bankrupted the empire, and it was a "quick" downhill slide from there (quick being a relative term - taking about 250 years). The City had withstood all Moslem attacks for >500 years before 1204.

[DuckofTindalos]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

hmmm... yes, but from what i understand, the Crusader's sacking of Constantinople (1204 after the gates were opened) pretty much bankrupted the empire, and it was a "quick" downhill slide from there (quick being a relative term - taking about 250 years). The City had withstood all Moslem attacks for >500 years before 1204.

"Withstood" is a slight misnomer. More than a few times, besiegers were bribed to go away. The problem with bribing an enemy is that you have to keep doing it...

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

Hey, T: when posting on the ANTI-Thread, be sure to change the subject line to THE THREAD!!! [:'(]

That's just terrible! I can't believe anyone would do such a horrible thing!

[DuckofTindalos]

WIIIIIIIITCH!!!

[Tankerace]

SHe turned me into a newt........ I got better.....

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

SHe turned me into a newt........ I got better.....

You're just similar to a newt yet different. [:'(]