I've not seen the film but I hear that in the usual Hollywood history rewriting the Crusades, who prevented Islam sweeping over Europe, are bad and the Muslims, who had ransacked their way across the middle east, North Africa, Spain and to the gates of Vienna, are all good?
Small moves Ellie, small moves
You might want to read up on your history there. All the crusades except for the first one where varying degrees of failure.
Also you haven't seen the movie. So you can't talk about the plot. Sorry those are the rules.
Uniting the forces of Christandom against the onslaught of Islam and preventing it's spreading through Europe was not a failure.
Small moves Ellie, small moves
This is not what the crusades did. You don't know *beep* about history. Read up.
shareYou are correct sir.
Juliet Parrish: You can't win a war if you're extinct!
It is what the crusades did.
But I'm happy to hear your condensed version of what you think they achieved.
Small moves Ellie, small moves
You keep saying the Crusades, but it was only really the First Crusade that achieved what you claim, and it only stalled Islamic expansion towards Europe for a brief period. The other crusades aimed towards the East were largely failures, and the land taken by the first was lost relatively quickly. Many of the crusades weren't even targeted at Muslims, and were instead concerned with weeding out heretics and pagans in various parts of Europe.
shareWhat I'm claiming is that it helped unify and motivate the forces of Europe to prevent Islam sweeping further across Europe.
It may not have recovered the lands that the Muslims conquered over the preceeding four centuries, and it didn't prevent them gaining land in future centuries, but it did help to awaken Europe to the very real threat that it faced.
Rather than viewing the Crusades as a dreadful stain on history instigated by the evil Christians, they should be viewed as a defensive action that set Europe's mind to the dangers of Islamic expansion and prevented that doctrine dominating Europe.
Small moves Ellie, small moves
Well crusades did not come from some religious vacuum they were effect to cause of islamic expansion attempts to Christendom. The first crusade came around 443 years AFTER muslims had made first raid to Italy, 427 years after first muslim siege of Constantinople, 380 years after muslim conquest of Spain, 363 years after Battle of Tours (in FRANCE), 249 years after Rome the Capital of Christendom was sacked by muslim army. First crusade became only after muslims had conquered 2/3 of christian world. Some poor oppressed victims indeed...
shareA lot of BS, the Crusades didn't have anything to deal with the conquest of Spain, Sicily, or the intrusion in France.
The muslims NEVER sacked Rome, read history: Rome was sacked trice (four times if you include the occupation from the Nazis in 1943), once by the Gauls from Northern Italy, once by the Vandals and once by the Catholic Imperial army of Charles the Vth.
Juliet Parrish: You can't win a war if you're extinct!
Did happen in 846 so go read a book.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_raid_against_Rome
You are clearly an ignorant American.
I happen to be Italian and I know the story of my country, that is a complete fabrication, the raiders NEVER got inside the town because they weren't an army and they weren't equipped to siege a town.
Alaric, Genseric, Brennus and the Bourbon in charge of the Imperial troops got INSIDE Rome and sacked it, killing thousands of people
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Allia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Rome_(410)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Rome_(455)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Rome_(1527)
These are REAL sacks, and the damage done by the German Protestants in 1527 are still visible today, the muslims did NOTHING to Rome in comparison to these "good" Christians.
Same thing regarding Bisantium which was sacked by your beloved Crusaders during the Fourth Crusade, inflicting a mortal blow to the Eastern Empire from which they would have never recovered.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Constantinople_(1204)
They became famous because they put a prostitute on the throne of the Emperor with the blessing of the Pope himself...nice people, weren't they?
Juliet Parrish: You can't win a war if you're extinct!
Well it does not matter even if you are half mongol and half albanian, the facts does not change Moslems attacked Christendom FIRST and kept attacking even hundreds of years AFTER crusades. They even made raids against ICELAND. BTW I am an antitheist but you are right Christians are to me more beloved than muslims are (since in over all Christians have no caused nearly as much harm as Islam have. Islam takes the cake for just what went on in Indian alone) they seem to be more likings of loony leftie like you.
shareThe movie was your typical liberal circle jerk session.Knights Templars = bad. Christians = bad. Muslim rulers in 1492 Spain = poor, innocent victims of the evil Christians. They even made Queen Isabela of Spain literally look like a clown, with some inexplicable face paint on her, which has no basis whatsoever in history. Hollywood jews must still be butt hurt at the fact they were expelled from Spain in 1492 along with the muslims.
shareAnother trumpidiot ranting about liberals and cheering ethnic cleansing of Jews by fanatic Catholics...you forgot to close your with "hail Hitler" or with claiming the Hollywood jews are still butt hurt by the Nazi final solution 1941-1945.
Juliet Parrish: You can't win a war if you're extinct!
Another trumpidiot ranting about liberals and cheering ethnic cleansing of Jews by fanatic Catholics...you forgot to close your with "hail Hitler"
Are you trying to make sense of a movie which states the Spaniards in 1492 were creating a TEMPLAR state?
And that the Templars weren't freethinkers persecuted by the Inquisition and burned at the stake but exactly the opposite?
In any case, the Sultan of Grenada is a p***y, so I don't the muslims came out well from this movie as well.
Juliet Parrish: You can't win a war if you're extinct!
It's about an organization that believes humans need to be controlled, they use the church as a means to an end. The Templars are basically ancient Hydra.
shareYou have heard wrong, this film has nothing to do with the crusades.
I recommend the book 'The Murdered Magicians: Templars and Their Myth' by Peter Partner. In Part One it gives the real history of the Templars, ending in the attack on the order by King Philip IV of France and Pope Clement V in 1305 and its eventual disbandment in 1312.
Part Two traces the Templar myth which began about 100 years later. It is total nonsense (though sometimes entertaining!). It is good that a historian has recorded the details. According to the myth, the Templars' organisation survived and prospered, for good or ill. It was claimed that Islamic magicians had given them occult powers. There are people alive today who believe that the Templars joined with the Illuminati and took over the world. Others think they are the enemies of the Illuminati. Some of those who take this nonsense seriously have no idea that the real Templars had anything to do with the crusades.
This film has the Vatican installing a Templar Kingdom in Spain in 1492, nearly 200 years after the Vatican had - in the real world - helped to destroy the Templars. it is obvious that the film is based on the Templar myth, not on the real history of the Templars.
I can't be bothered with a signature
It's a fictional movie based on a fictional game. But there's always someone who has to whine about Islam, religion etc. You must be great at parties.
----
How low can adults sink?? Just ask Sinister. He loves comics and hates women.
And that's your brain on action movies! :)
Not every conflict necessitates one side to be the "good guys".
First of all - the "Crusades" were not only wars agains Islam. The Catholic church undertook a number of crusades against Christian and even catholic nations and communities. Pretty much anyone one pope or another didn't fancy was eligeable to have a crusade called against them. And by the way, legally, they still are. :P
As for the portion of Crusades which were directed against Islamic nations and caliphates, they were not about ideology or religion, but about geopolitical interests - as are all wars. Do not make the mistake of thinking that crusaders did not wreak the same havoc in the Middle East that the Turks did on their way to Vienna.
For reference, you may want to read up on the 1204 crusader sacking of Constantinople - a Christian city! They didn't care. They were just passing by on their way to "liberate" the holy lands. But that was just a pretext. They were there to murder, pillage and get rich, Christian or Muslim made no difference.
What the valiant crusaders left of Constantinople never did recover. You could safely say that they are the reason it was eventually conquered by the Ottomans and remains Istanbul to this very day.
There were no "good guys" in the crusades, except the civilian casualties.
back in medieval times the crusaders were the exect same as the jihadists only with cristianity
share