well the 4th crusaders were actually excommunicated by the pope. [spoiler:1673s4hw]until the money came in from the sacking and he withdrew the excommunication :lol:[/spoiler:1673s4hw]
Turkic architecture is just terrible, but the Arabian style that was so prolific throughout the Abbasid Caliphate is far more pleasing to the eyes. The Ottomans just made a general mess of the nice Gothic and grotesque structures that dominated Byzantium. It is a complete shame since the Byzantines were doomed anyways that the Abbasids were unable to maintain control of Anatolia, instead the lands fell into the hands of the dastardly Turks.
Not in communion with the Catholic Church. They were branded as such for a short while but later reconciled their differences and united under the banner of Christendom. This doesn't diminish the fact that they are factually heretics.
Bytheway, anybody else noticed that people start randomly leaving the forums at about 5:30 eastern standard time?
The majority of the Crusades weren't half bad. Obviously some of the atrocities (on both sides, no it wasn't just "big evil Catholics"), sacking of places like Constantinople, and other things weren't the greatest. But in the end it was Christians trying to retake the Holy Land which was sorely oppressed by the Muslims.
Just remember that the only crusade that was ever succesfull was the 1st. (not considering the ones in europe)
has anyone noticed that after everyone leaves the forums at 5:30 eastern times, many others get back on around midnight eastern time?
Ya the first made some progress but people just weren't willing to keep dying in the far corners of the world after they failed in the 2nd.
Ya, it was the bottom of the barrel and probably one of the reasons for there not being a 5th crusade.
well actually when the Ottomans were gonna take over Constantinople the Pope was actually preparing to launch a 5th crusade to help the byzantines but the byzantines declined the offer
