Medieval History

True, true. The Muslims did take that land from the Christians. The main point behind the 1st Crusade was to allow pilgrimages to the Holy Land. You have to know the Christians in the Holy Land were being persecuted by the Muslims.

It's fair that whole cities were massacred? Not to mention all of Europe was pagan before it was Christian, so it's only fair that we all get sacrificed in the name of Iuppiter, because, you know, Christians forcefully took the land from pagans.

That simply didn't happen until the 3rd and 4th Crusades.

For the most part, Pagans willfully chose to become Christian. It's not the same as just blowing over the Christian kingdoms and taking them for yourself.

It was mostly organizations like the Teutonic Order who were violently killing Pagans. And for the record, the Teutonic Order wasn't supposed to be doing that. The Poles invited them in to make sure the Pagans didn't go around sacking Polish cities and maybe even convert Lithuania into a Christian kingdom peacefully. The Teutonic Order took that as permission to conquer the Baltic. At which point, it was more of a rogue "theocracy" than a crusader state.

Karakoran basically said what I was going to say.

EDIT: Actually the Christians really didn't sack cities in the 3rd Crusade. The 3rd Crusade was more of an honurable fighting style and both sides had mutual respect.

Oh, well, in that case, it's all right, I guess. Wait, no, it isn't.

Somewhere, I doubt that, can't think of any sources to validate that, though. Although I do think the Roman Empire was openly persecuting paganism after Constantine (?).

Good to know.

Also, is it just me who finds it somewhat silly that people from the Americas are discussion who has right to what land and discussing about who was where first? I don't know, seems kinda...weird to me.

No, it's true.

Maybe some of the most extreme branches of it, like cults. But even then, probably only a little. Nothing comparable to what they did to Christians before that.

Well obviously we can't say that the slaughters of Indians, in the rare event they occurred, were good. But for the most part, there were few Indians comparative to the size of the land they were living on. Plus, they were given relatively the same rights as Whites(no one was just lynching them in Downtown New York like the Muslims did to Christians), at least away from the Frontier.

I wasn't saying it wasn't true, I was saying that that fact hardly matters when you simply say that the Crusades were simply reconquests that were fair.

War on paganism, death sentences, pillaging and tearing down of temples, a complete ban on paganism, etc etc.
But, you know, minor stuff. Not to mention that's just the Roman Empire. Quote:

Also:

They also gave them infected blankets so they'd all die a horrible death, and pushed them further and further away from the lands they had lived on before the colonists. The "deals" the colonists made with them to "buy" the land were ridiculous.

While in some conflicts the Natives themselves were the aggressors, this all has little to do with what I said in the first place. I said it was ridiculous (especially) for descendants of colonists to say the Muslim had no right to the Holy Land (which, might I add, is their Holy Land as well) when their own homeland was acquired through debatable methods as well.

Just for the record, the Roman empire persecuted christians much before Constantine made it the official religion.

I know, Nero was a particular fan of setting Christians on fire and using them as garden lamps. Religious persecution is always bad. That is, only when it's actual persecution. Not getting your arguments shat on on the internet while you're still a massive religious majority.

I'm not trying to say christians are all saints and all, but instead trying to say christians were also victims of religious atrocities and not the only religion to commit (did I write that right?) them.

Of course, they were persecuted as well, a lot of which came from...well, other Christians during the Inquisition, but I get your point. However, that doesn't mean the shit they did (and some individuals are still doing from time to time) is any better than any other religious persecution.

Of course, but I didn't say that from reading my posts again. Also if you go back a bit on medieval times...the Muslims took christian cities first, so I guess they were the agressors some 300 years before the crusades. =P ( I know that's retarded because its like as saying the UK has a reason to attack the US because they were the agressors)

Of course, I know, and I wasn't trying to imply that. It's just that it really irks me when I read people are saying Christians are being persecuted in the US or bullshit like that.

That is indeed the worst argument ever. Christianity mostly spread because of the Roman Empire, which had been warring through the known world. It used to be religiously tolerant, and tended to adopt other religions' gods, but when religions were deemed dangerous, the Romans had no problem with cracking down on it as hard as they could.

I can assure you I'm not one of those people...heck i'm not even in the US lol

I think most of those people lack the intelligence to use the internet beyond Facebook anyway.

How would you define that Medieval Age? I would say it ended with the fall of Constantinople, but when do most people say it started? Also, what would you consider the number one important event of the period? That dwarfed all other events? In the world, mind, not just Europe.

1.) THIS IS NOT AN ARGUMENT ON INDIANS @Karakoran, don't turn it into one please?

2.) I believe that there should be no, "we owned the land first" bullshit, because we are all humans. I am one of those people that believes the only way for the human race to survive, stop destroying our planet and ourselves, is to slowly merge into one giant democratic country in control of everything in the world. This country would be able to conserve resources and stuff, because they wouldn't have to worry about trade or the fact that some resources can not be used because they are in 3rd world countries, etc. So, I don't care what religion owned the land first, because I believe we all share one ethnicity, human, and that should override any other loyalties.

3.) Wasn't the Mayan civilization flourishing around the time of Europe's dark ages? And how were China/Japan doing?

I don't care about your personal opinions here, the historical coffeehouse only cares about facts and what actually happened. Medieval people didn't care about a united world with a democratic government, et cetera.

Yes Mayans were flourishing, together with the Incas and Aztecs, although the latter came some 400 years after the peak of the Mayan civilization ( and no they didn't predict the world's end ffs). Japan was being a feudal state with shoguns and that non-sense, with two main civil wars, plus they resisted a mongol invasion (with a little help from the weather). China at least on the late dark ages was being raped and pillaged by the Mongols.

Well, any discussion about the Crusades and Reconquista ultimately comes down to morals

China invented gunpowder during the time right? That the Mongols proceeded to steal and use? Also, I'm surprised there has been no discussion of the Mongols yet, as they were arguably one of the most defining empires of the period.

The mongols were a bunch of Uncivilized barbarians that ravaged the world for a time and then dissolved.