Crusades: Good or Bad?

[onodera]

AWESOME. I am currently playing as the Kingdom of Jerusalem in CKII, and my slutty fat young queen has weathered two simultaneous Jihads and a Seljuk invasion. Right now I've taken Mekka and turned it into a merchant republic. Next stop: Cairo.

[Dinner]

Abut average for wars of the period so neither good nor bad.

[Bereta_Eder]

There's a book "the crusades from the view point of the arabs" which basically says what a bunch of uncultured stinkers the crusaders were compared to the refined arabs.

[ZEE]

Change your goddamn name back to Paiktis before I change it back FOR you.

[Egbert]

At 5/1/2, Crusaders dominated the battlefield for centuries which made them an excellent tool for rolling over the AI.

So I've got to go with "good".

Civ2 crusaders were definitely good units.

Real world holy wars seem to be festivals of raping, plundering, vandalising, robbing, murdering and assorted other disgusting past times.

[onodera]

There's a book "the crusades from the view point of the arabs" which basically says what a bunch of uncultured stinkers the crusaders were compared to the refined arabs.

And a book that says the opposite.

[Bereta_Eder]

which one?

[NICE MOBIUS]

Moronically simplistic poll. As a protest, I will continue the discussion in the other thread.

Well, that, and Imran already replied there and stuff.

That's not very nice, is it Elok?

How is it a moronically simple poll, when it included the option that you suggested (good)? Plus, if you thought it was good AND bad, well it is a multiple choice poll...

Not to mention IF you thought it was a moronically simplistic poll, well you could explain your reasons in this nice convenient thread that I nicely created for you.

Instead, you've decided to continue your conversation by basically threadjacking an entirely unrelated thread, which I don't think is very nice...

Anyway, the Crusades, good or bad: well, bad, obviously...

[Sava]

Elok isn't nice. He's a flaming (non homo reference) pile of dog****

[The Mad Monk]

There's a book "the crusades from the view point of the arabs" which basically says what a bunch of uncultured stinkers the crusaders were compared to the refined arabs.

And a book that says the opposite.

I've been reading The Book of Contemplation: Islam and the Crusades on and off for about a year now; I'm about 40% through. It is a series of vignettes written by Usama ibn Munqidh, a warrior, scholar, and (usually) high ranking official who served under numerous lords, including Saladin. It's a pretty good read for the accounts of battles and intrigues. My impression of the times as seen through this book was that infighting was as rampant, if not more so, as fighting between the Muslims and "Franks", which is how they refered to crusaders at the time.

I tend to agree with Aeson.

[Bereta_Eder]

Interesting.
Actually I haven't read the other book either (too bored and uninterested).
But in every true history that's basically what happens. Chaos and everyone is on everyone's throats

[Elok]

IIRC the First Crusade only succeeded because:

A. It caught the Muslim world totally off-guard, and
B. Said Muslims were very busy fighting each other at the time--there hardly was a "Muslim world."

If the Crusades had been organized as a proper invasion and occupation instead of everybody doing two years for their souls and then going home, they'd have had a much, much harder time dislodging the Christian presence than they did. As it was, well, the Second Crusade got cut to pieces halfway across Asia Minor, the Third stalled in the Levant, the Fourth never even got to Muslim territory and the Fifth was simply a prolonged disaster in Egypt. Crusaders were hell on Jews, heretics and Greeks, more of a persistent nuisance for actual Muslims. Shortly after the Third whichever Muslim owned Jerusalem at the time agreed to simply lease it to the Emperor Frederick, on the condition that he didn't try to rebuild the walls. "You want al-Quds? Fine, whatever, it's yours."

[onodera]

which one?

I think it was written by Sam Harris, one of the acerbic atheists.

[Dr Strangelove]

The Crusades didn't do even one tenth the damage to the Middle East that the Mongols did. Now there was a Scourge o' God!

[Thoth]

Civ2 crusaders were definitely good units.

Real world holy wars seem to be festivals of raping, plundering, vandalising, robbing, murdering and assorted other disgusting past times.

So other than the ostensible casus belli, holy wars are the same as non-holy wars. Business as usual, nothing to see here.