Setting Tardbrain Al-Gebra Straight on the Crusades

[Hugo Chavez]

good luck, bro.

So here's the thing . . . the American Civil War was far bloodier and much more recent than the Crusades. How come we've all learned to live in harmony, whereas people elsewhere still keep bringing up the Crusades? IDK, but it's just something that occurred to me.

Approx. 618,000 to 700,000 Americans killed in the Civil War

The total number of deaths due to the crusades has been estimated everywhere from 1.5million to 9 million--Robertson, History of Christianity: p168  Several estimates found in approx. the 4-5 million range.

Raymond of Agiles, historian, described the capture of Jerusalem by the Crusaders in 1099:
Some of our men cut off the heads of their enemies; others shot them with arrows, so that they fell from the towers; others tortured them longer by casting them into the flames. Piles of heads, hands and feet were to be seen in the streets of the city. It was necessary to pick one's way over the bodies of men and horses. But these were small matters compared to what happened at the temple of Solomon, a place where religious services ware ordinarily chanted. What happened there? If I tell the truth, it will exceed your powers of belief. So let it suffice to say this much at least, that in the temple and portico of Solomon, men rode in blood up to their knees and bridle reins.

[Nordic Superman]

So let it suffice to say this much at least, that in the temple and portico of Solomon, men rode in blood up to their knees and bridle reins.

False. In a Stephen King movie maybe... but not in reality.

How about we also bring up the topic of the muslim invasions that allowed them to get to Jerusalem in the first place? How many people did those pigs kill?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquests

[Hedgehog]

False. In a Stephen King movie maybe... but not in reality.

How about we also bring up the topic of the muslim invasions that allowed them to get to Jerusalem in the first place? How many people did those pigs kill?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquests

I think the numbers are a TOTAL for dead people in the battles.
On both sides, both Muslims and Christians.

Side note:  A lot died from diseases, actually, if I remember correctly, it was an absurdly high amount of people who died from diseases compared to those who died from actual battle.








You seem a little like a Liberal apologist, feeling the need to mention slayings of Christians when slayings of Muslims are brought up..


YIP
Zack

[Nordic Superman]

You seem a little like a Liberal apologist, feeling the need to mention slayings of Christians when slayings of Muslims are brought up..

YIP
Zack

Well, if you ask the average Joe on the street: "Do you know about the Christian Conquests?" they will answer yes. If you ask them about the muzzy conquests, most will not have a clue. E.g Berserker.

Did you know about the muslim conquests Hedge?

[Hedgehog]

Well, if you ask the average Joe on the street: "Do you know about the Christian Conquests?" they will answer yes. If you ask them about the muzzy conquests, most will not have a clue. E.g Berserker.

Did you know about the muslim conquests Hedge?

I haven't read the link, but if you mention muslim conquests, I associate that with their conquests of the Iberian peninsula.

YIP
Zack

[Hugo Chavez]

I think the numbers are a TOTAL for dead people in the battles.
On both sides, both Muslims and Christians.

Uhm... Both of you are wrong in your replies. I did not imply the estimate numbers of killed people were only Muslims or did not include non-combat deaths..... Didn't even think to imply it... As I highlighted in Gebs statement I only had issue with the statement that the American Civil War was bloodier than the crusades.  I've seen estimates from 40 to 70,000 killed in the battle accounted above.  Clearly Knee high is an exaggeration but obviously the exaggeration was meant for the purpose of giving description to some serious carnage that must have been one hell of a sight to try an describe.  Nordic is such an idiot in his obvious ass-sumption that my post was pro-Muslim.  Nowhere did I say anything alluding to that.  So Nordic fool, bring up what you want... It doesn't address the point made whatsoever so knock yourself out...

[Hugo Chavez]

Well, if you ask the average Joe on the street: "Do you know about the Christian Conquests?" they will answer yes. If you ask them about the muzzy conquests, most will not have a clue. E.g Berserker.

Did you know about the muslim conquests Hedge?

ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME ASSHOLE ARE YOU FOR ONE SECOND SERIOUS ABOUT THAT STATEMENT FUCKER??? You're the guy without a clue... 

[Hugo Chavez]

Nordic, you better get your ass in here and own up to completely putting your own context into my post.

[Eyeball Chambers]

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA   

[Hugo Chavez]

A statement could be made that more bloodshed occurred in a shorter period of time in the Civil War than a stretch of the same number of years during any point from the Crusades.  But the Civil War was not bloodier than the Crusades.

[Nordic Superman]

Wait... aren't you one of these conspiracists that don't even believe your own goverment?

But you will accept as fact 101% some statement by a person nearly 1000 years ago?

You've already said the "knee high" blood was an exaggeration.

But... the rest of his statements are gospel truth right? Sorry buddy, can't have it both ways.

[Hugo Chavez]

Wait... aren't you one of these conspiracists that don't even believe your own goverment?

But you will accept as fact 101% some statement by a person nearly 1000 years ago?

You've already said the "knee high" blood was an exaggeration.

But... the rest of his statements are gospel truth right? Sorry buddy, can't have it both ways.

f**k you are stupid.... I don't want it both ways... That's some crappy spin boy... You came at me like my post was pro Muslim... YOU WERE WRONG--OWN IT.... That historian is quoted on that battle everywhere... DEAL... WITH... IT...  Here is a separate account from another that notes AT the temple they were ankle deep in blood.  If that's true, it is not totally inconceivable that the blood could have ran to lower parts IN THE TEMPLE at higher levels as accounted for by Raymond of Aguiles... Knee Deep was never the important point assclown... The point of extreme carnage is FACT...

If Bohemond was cruel, Godfrey's conquest of Jerusalem was barbaric. The crusaders forced their way into Jerusalem on the 15th of July 1099. For the next two days there was ensued a continuous massacre by them of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, both Muslims and Jews. The carnage is preserved for posterity by many eye-witness account. Given below is one taken from Gesta Francorum (The Deeds of the Franks):

The defenders fled along the walls and through the city, and our men pursued them killing and cutting them down as far as Solomon's Temple, where there was such a massacre that our men were wading ankle deep in blood ... Then the crusaders rushed around the whole city, seizing gold and silver, horses and mules, and looting the housing that were full of costly things. Then, rejoicing and weeping from excess of happiness, they all came to worship and give thanks at the sepulchre of our saviour Jesus. Next morning, they went cautiously up the temple roof and attacked the Saracens, both men and women [who had taken refuge there], cutting off their heads with drawn swords ... Our leaders then gave orders that all the Saracen corpses should be thrown outside the city because of the stench, for almost the whole city was full of dead bodies ... such a slaughter of pagans had never been seen or heard of, for they were burned in pyres like pyramids, and none save God alone knows how many they were. 


Another eyewitness account, by Raymond of Aguiles, not only corroborates the above account but conveys a sense of his own religious ecstasy at experiencing such a complete and total Christian victory:

Wonderful sights were to be seen. Some of our men (and this was more merciful) cut off the heads of their enemies; others shoot them with arrows, so that they fell from the towers; others tortured them longer by casting them into flames. Piles of heads, hands and feet were to be seen in the streets of the city. It was necessary to pick one's way over the bodies of men and horses. But these were small matters compared to what happened at the Temple of Solomon, a place where religious services are normally chanted ... in the temple and the porch of Solomon, men rode in blood up to their knees and bridle reins. Indeed it was a just and splendid judgement of God that this place should be filled with the blood of unbelievers since it had suffered so long from their blasphemies.


A total of about 40,000 Muslims + X? 20-30,000??? Crusaders were killed in that two-day massacre of Jerusalem. [10] The Jews were murdered along with the Muslims, many were huddled into the synagogues and burned alive. [11] Thus was Jerusalem saved by the Christians from infidel hands. [c]

[Nordic Superman]

f**k you are stupid.... I don't want it both ways... That's some crappy spin boy... You came at me like my post was pro Muslim... YOU WERE WRONG--OWN IT.... That historian is quoted on that battle everywhere... DEAL... WITH... IT...  Here is a separate account from another that notes AT the temple they were ankle deep in blood.  If that's true, it is not totally inconceivable that the blood could have ran to lower parts IN THE TEMPLE at higher levels as accounted for by Raymond of Aguiles... Knee Deep was never the important point assclown... The point of extreme carnage is FACT...

Wow, powerful MELTDOWN

So one account says knee high, another ankle high? Statistically speaking it is more likely the blood was at a level half way up the lower leg.

So which of these fellas is telling the truth?

[Hugo Chavez]

Wow, powerful MELTDOWN

So one account says knee high, another ankle high? Statistically speaking it is more likely the blood was at a level half way up the lower leg.

So which of these fellas is telling the truth?

What part didn't you fucking comprehend with the fact they were each talking about different areas.  At the temple vs. in the temple you illiterate bastard....  It's a sizable area... Nice of you to not address the fact that you took my post as pro-Muslim...  Own it fucktard...  Also nice of you to completely ignore that the point of extreme carnage is still made no matter which account you take... Pick your fav shitforbrains.. But don't Spin it again bitch...

[Nordic Superman]

Wow, calm down dog fiddler!

[Hugo Chavez]

More evidence you're full of shit you red-rocket playing retard.  Care to guess where the people would have sought refuge... No shit... Behind the temple walls... That many people being gutted, beheaded, sliced and diced in one place... Come on... Own up...

According to the French historian Michaud, on the conquest of Jerusalem by the Christians in 1099 `the Muslims were massacred in the streets and in the houses. Jerusalem had no refuge for the vanquished. Some fled from death by precipitating themselves from the ramparts; others crowded for shelter into the palaces, the towers and above all, in the mosques where they could not conceal themselves from the Christians. The Crusaders, masters of the Mosque of Umar, where the Muslims defended themselves for sometime, renewed their deplorable scenes which disgraced the conquest of Titus. The infantry and the cavalry rushed pell-mell among the fugitives. Amid the most horrid tumult, nothing was heard but the groans and cries of death; the victors trod over heaps of corpses in pursuing those who vainly attempted to escape. Raymond d'Agiles who was an eye-witness, says :that under the portico of the mosque, the blood was knee-deep, and reached the horses' bridles.'
There was a short lull in the act of slaughter when the Crusaders assembled to offer their thanksgiving prayer for the victory they had achieved. But soon it was renewed with great ferocity. `All the captives', says Michaud, `whom the lassitude of carnage had at first spared, all those who had been saved in the hope of rich ransom, were butchered in cold blood. The Muslims were forced to throw themselves from the tops of towers and houses; they were burnt alive; they were dragged from their subterranean retreats, they were hauled to the public places, and immolated on piles of the dead. Neither the tears of women nor the cries of little children--- not even the sight of the place where Jesus Christ forgave his executioners, could mollify the victors' passion... The carnage lasted for a week. The few who escaped were reduced to horrible servitude'.
Another Christian historian, Mill adds: `It was resolved that no pity should be shown to the Mussalmans. The subjugated people were, therefore, dragged into the public places, and slain as victims. Women with children at their breast, girls and boys, all were slaughtered. The squares, the streets and even the un-inhabited places of Jerusalem, were strewn with the dead bodies of men and women, and the mangled limbs of children. No heart melted in compassion, or expanded into benevolence'.

[Nordic Superman]

Hmm... sounds like they were having great fun to me...

What's the problem with "the lads" just out for some fun? Haha

[Hugo Chavez]

Hmm... sounds like they were having great fun to me...

What's the problem with "the lads" just out for some fun? Haha

Please point to where I addressed the "wrongness" of it. Again... The ONLY thing I was pointing out was that the American Civil War was not "Bloodier" than the Crusades...  I did not make a pro-muslim point.... I did not make any other point whatsoever...

[Nordic Superman]

Please point to where I addressed the "wrongness" of it. Again... The ONLY thing I was pointing out was that the American Civil War was not "Bloodier" than the Crusades...  I did not make a pro-muslim point.... I did not make any other point whatsoever...

Ok i've been owned.

But you can't possibly not think it was wrong? Right?

[Hugo Chavez]

Ok i've been owned.

But you can't possibly not think it was wrong? Right?

Seperate Story... I wouldn't have tried to debate that here... I don't know... Part of me says fuck it... Killem all... Part of me say, no... that's fucked up...  It's the nature of man. 

[Deedee]

Raymond d'Agiles who was an eye-witness, says :that under the portico of the mosque, the blood was knee-deep, and reached the horses' bridles.'

Hate to be fussy about extraneous details, especially when it comes to dramatic license, but those must have been some awfully short horses.

[Migs]

damn deedee, why did you cheapne the thread with a pic of a gay guy?

[Deedee]

It's all about the equity for me. 

[Migs]

i mean if you are into gay guys...

[Deedee]

Nothing wrong with just looking...

Have I ruined this thread.