PDA

View Full Version : Some odd and frustrating things about AC.



HisokaThorongil
06-10-2007, 10:50 PM
First of all, shouldn't Muslims be a bit dismayed after hearing about this title? After all, it is depicting the assassinations of many prominent leaders (albeit somewhat fictionalized in some cases) by the hands of a Muslim extremist sect during the crusading era of the Holy Land. The Hashshashin were extremely brutal and demented by their leader. They were not mercenaries or hired killers and had only one clear goal in mind: Absolute devotion the the Old Man in the Mountain, their leader, to gain entrance into Paradise. So devoted were some of his followers that he could merely order one of his assassins to kill himself on the spot to prove their worth in accomplishing his goals even at the cost of their lives. Do the game developer's really understand what kind of water they may be treading into? I can almost see liberal nut-job organizations like C.A.I.R. filing a lawsuit once they get wind of this game.

Secondly, why does Altair need to stop the 3rd Crusade from happening/continuing? The 3rd Crusade is valid militarily, and was even at the time. It would be like a group of soldiers trying to stop the U.S. entrance into WW2. The reasons would be completely invalid. In reality, the Assassins were only carrying out orders from their leader. "The Count of Tyre hasn't given me my supplies back from a ship of mine that shipwrecked in his port. Go assassinate him." And this was done. The Assassins weren't involved in any kind of conspiracy, or trying to stop one from happening. They were automatons of their leader who carried out any kind of sick job he sent them to do. This is yet another oddity, and one that has fused itself into frustration with me.

The game obviously will claim that it is "inspired" by true events, and is largely fictionalized. But a real problem arises, for me at least, when the many hordes of people start playing this game thinking it's pretty accurate. Every historically based movie up until this point are all "inspired" by true events, but that is largely ignored by the general public. Kingdom of Heaven, Troy, Braveheart, and etc. The first gives people the impression that the Crusades were evil and propagated by power-hungry Christian nobles. Historical fact couldn't be farther from that false viewpoint. The second might make people think that the movie was true to The Iliad. Again, that would be supremely wrong. And the third might have people presume it to be a historically accurate biography of William Wallace. In fact, the movie is barely 10% accurate to history.

And now this game might make people falsely assume things about the Assassins and the 3rd Crusade that just aren't true. Flame me until you're blue in the face if you think I'm wrong, but that doesn't change the facts that I've presented.

danirivera12
06-10-2007, 10:56 PM
yeah man i am with you, well kinda, i didnt got it at all..

danirivera12
06-10-2007, 11:06 PM
what...??? what are you talking about??

danirivera12
06-10-2007, 11:17 PM
why?? i just said i didnt got them completely...

danirivera12
06-10-2007, 11:19 PM
...why men?

HisokaThorongil
06-10-2007, 11:30 PM
Editing your posts doesn't make you look any more bright I'm sorry to say.

Thumper1980
06-10-2007, 11:44 PM
What you've said is all valid.
But you have to take this and movies n stuff for what they are.
Entertainment. Obviously the producers are gonna say anything to get people to watch it or play it. As long as they make revenue.

Not everyone is as inclined as other to see past the face value of a movie like Kingdom of Heaven, where a blacksmith suddenly becomes a master of Medieval warfare. Or Braveheart where everything is dramatised.

As far as the muslim outrage thing. Muslims have been portrayed in popular culture a lot worse.
How many movies have had Muslim extremists as the bad guys n stuff?

So who knows

noobfun
06-10-2007, 11:52 PM
Originally posted by JairStout:
First of all, shouldn't Muslims be a bit dismayed after hearing about this title? After all, it is depicting the assassinations of many prominent leaders (albeit somewhat fictionalized in some cases) by the hands of a Muslim extremist sect during the crusading era of the Holy Land. The Hashshashin were extremely brutal and demented by their leader. They were not mercenaries or hired killers and had only one clear goal in mind: Absolute devotion the the Old Man in the Mountain, their leader, to gain entrance into Paradise. So devoted were some of his followers that he could merely order one of his assassins to kill himself on the spot to prove their worth in accomplishing his goals even at the cost of their lives. Do the game developer's really understand what kind of water they may be treading into? I can almost see liberal nut-job organizations like C.A.I.R. filing a lawsuit once they get wind of this game.

Secondly, why does Altair need to stop the 3rd Crusade from happening/continuing? The 3rd Crusade is valid militarily, and was even at the time. It would be like a group of soldiers trying to stop the U.S. entrance into WW2. The reasons would be completely invalid. In reality, the Assassins were only carrying out orders from their leader. "The Count of Tyre hasn't given me my supplies back from a ship of mine that shipwrecked in his port. Go assassinate him." And this was done. The Assassins weren't involved in any kind of conspiracy, or trying to stop one from happening. They were automatons of their leader who carried out any kind of sick job he sent them to do. This is yet another oddity, and one that has fused itself into frustration with me.

The game obviously will claim that it is "inspired" by true events, and is largely fictionalized. But a real problem arises, for me at least, when the many hordes of people start playing this game thinking it's pretty accurate. Every historically based movie up until this point are all "inspired" by true events, but that is largely ignored by the general public. Kingdom of Heaven, Troy, Braveheart, and etc. The first gives people the impression that the Crusades were evil and propagated by power-hungry Christian nobles. Historical fact couldn't be farther from that false viewpoint. The second might make people think that the movie was true to The Iliad. Again, that would be supremely wrong. And the third might have people presume it to be a historically accurate biography of William Wallace. In fact, the movie is barely 10% accurate to history.

And now this game might make people falsely assume things about the Assassins and the 3rd Crusade that just aren't true. Flame me until you're blue in the face if you think I'm wrong, but that doesn't change the facts that I've presented.

its far to early to write an essay telling you how wrong you are about your lack of understanding about the nizari

why the hashassin never existed (they were the nizari people)

why you really couldnt call them a mainstream muslim, or why they were persecuted by the main muslim groups of thier day

why they were playing with the idea of conversion to christianity

and why they killed many many more muslim dignataries then they did crusaders

so read a books whose research took longer then reading the marco polo myths and re-spewing them and adding a bit of ninja

big book of nizari stuff (http://www.acampbell.ukfsn.org/assassins/index.html)


pay special attention to chapters 3 and 4

and add pearl harbour to your list of supposedly historic films, its only real historical claim is the attack on pearl harbour took the same in the film as in real life, but if memory serves they screwed up the attack sequence destroying ships in the wrong order etc

wolfe-1
06-11-2007, 12:07 AM
dude if my religion was portrayed as assassins, man I would go with it lol.

Thumper1980
06-11-2007, 12:11 AM
Pearl Harbour the movie was a total joke.
I hate that movie. With a passion.

Hurdyking
06-11-2007, 01:20 AM
Originally posted by JairStout:
First of all, shouldn't Muslims be a bit dismayed after hearing about this title? After all, it is depicting the assassinations of many prominent leaders (albeit somewhat fictionalized in some cases) by the hands of a Muslim extremist sect during the crusading era of the Holy Land. The Hashshashin were extremely brutal and demented by their leader. They were not mercenaries or hired killers and had only one clear goal in mind: Absolute devotion the the Old Man in the Mountain, their leader, to gain entrance into Paradise. So devoted were some of his followers that he could merely order one of his assassins to kill himself on the spot to prove their worth in accomplishing his goals even at the cost of their lives. Do the game developer's really understand what kind of water they may be treading into? I can almost see liberal nut-job organizations like C.A.I.R. filing a lawsuit once they get wind of this game.

Secondly, why does Altair need to stop the 3rd Crusade from happening/continuing? The 3rd Crusade is valid militarily, and was even at the time. It would be like a group of soldiers trying to stop the U.S. entrance into WW2. The reasons would be completely invalid. In reality, the Assassins were only carrying out orders from their leader. "The Count of Tyre hasn't given me my supplies back from a ship of mine that shipwrecked in his port. Go assassinate him." And this was done. The Assassins weren't involved in any kind of conspiracy, or trying to stop one from happening. They were automatons of their leader who carried out any kind of sick job he sent them to do. This is yet another oddity, and one that has fused itself into frustration with me.

The game obviously will claim that it is "inspired" by true events, and is largely fictionalized. But a real problem arises, for me at least, when the many hordes of people start playing this game thinking it's pretty accurate. Every historically based movie up until this point are all "inspired" by true events, but that is largely ignored by the general public. Kingdom of Heaven, Troy, Braveheart, and etc. The first gives people the impression that the Crusades were evil and propagated by power-hungry Christian nobles. Historical fact couldn't be farther from that false viewpoint. The second might make people think that the movie was true to The Iliad. Again, that would be supremely wrong. And the third might have people presume it to be a historically accurate biography of William Wallace. In fact, the movie is barely 10% accurate to history.

And now this game might make people falsely assume things about the Assassins and the 3rd Crusade that just aren't true. Flame me until you're blue in the face if you think I'm wrong, but that doesn't change the facts that I've presented.

The Crusades were not specifically an response to the Islamic invasion through North-Africa but rather used to regain the Holy Land (Jerusalem) and they were not in ANY way justified.. The horrific acts of prosecution committed by the Crusaders against Christians, Muslims and Jews when they had control was despicable... I'm glad the Muslims won.

knife_X
06-11-2007, 01:42 AM
Originally posted by JairStout:
The game obviously will claim that it is "inspired" by true events, and is largely fictionalized. But a real problem arises, for me at least, when the many hordes of people start playing this game thinking it's pretty accurate. Every historically based movie up until this point are all "inspired" by true events, but that is largely ignored by the general public. Kingdom of Heaven, Troy, Braveheart, and etc. The first gives people the impression that the Crusades were evil and propagated by power-hungry Christian nobles. Historical fact couldn't be farther from that false viewpoint. The second might make people think that the movie was true to The Iliad. Again, that would be supremely wrong. And the third might have people presume it to be a historically accurate biography of William Wallace. In fact, the movie is barely 10% accurate to history.

People all know these things, you come off arrogant in saying people might presume it, no one is that stupid. There is not a person alive who dosent know this allready!


Now the other things you said about the assassins... do you know this as a fact because if you dont then you dont say "that`s what they did" unless you got some proof other then what comes from the internet that would be great. They could have written this to scare people witch dosent necesarrly make it fact/s. You come here and state this as some sort of allmighty wisdom of the tree that we have to belive! Leave some sort of proof were you have read this for god sake or then your just a wannabe historian... witch we have more then enough on this forum (like me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif).

Your only valid point is your last but that is something all people above 12 know allready! Says itself "based on a true story" dosent say "historicly correct movie" same deal goes for games!

Anicrow
06-11-2007, 02:13 AM
First let me start by saying that I support him as far as his idea on presumptions of the majority of people in America (especially) goes. Face it, our country has a lot of idiots.


Anyways, the only thing that I do have a problem with is his assumption that Muslims would be offended by extremist actions, considering there are several extremist Muslims now a days, granted they're fighting for what they believe in, the religion is pushed entirely too far.

If anything Assassin's do them justice, at least it's selective and well thought out targeting. It can be called a lot of things, but they're called Assassin's, not Terrorists etc. and if anything that tile is a bit of an honor now a days.

Sure, some one may get offended by this game, that's what makes it part of media, it's how our culture excepts things, but from a religious stand point based on the story line, well that would be pretty silly imo.

Oshikai
06-11-2007, 02:14 AM
I kind of agree with what you have to say JariStout.
Just one thing though, I am sure they were not trying to stop the war, but just eliminate the corrupt people who were benefiting fromit. Read that somewhere or maybe it was said in an interview. But the rest I think you have a valid poin.

Drunkspleen
06-11-2007, 02:30 AM
I really think you are creating a mountain out of a molehill here.

I mean, it seems to me like if anything, christians would be outraged about it, not muslims, because it seems to paint the Christians as the bad guys pretty clearly.

and I can understand the assassins being told to try and put a stop to the 3rd crusade because war in your country isn't good for business.

Maybe we are seeing some things differently but I honestly don't think there will be issues with the game based on religion and people outraged over fictional additions to the historical timeline.

Micheal_Yar
06-11-2007, 02:36 AM
Originally posted by Anicrow:
First let me start by saying that I support him as far as his idea on presumptions of the majority of people in America (especially) goes. Face it, our country has a lot of idiots.


Anyways, the only thing that I do have a problem with is his assumption that Muslims would be offended by extremist actions, considering there are several extremist Muslims now a days, granted they're fighting for what they believe in, the religion is pushed entirely too far.

If anything Assassin's do them justice, at least it's selective and well thought out targeting. It can be called a lot of things, but they're called Assassin's, not Terrorists etc. and if anything that tile is a bit of an honor now a days.

Sure, some one may get offended by this game, that's what makes it part of media, it's how our culture excepts things, but from a religious stand point based on the story line, well that would be pretty silly imo.

WOW , are you saying that in the muslim culture it is normal to kill yourself and that no muslim minds this use of sensless violence. Or am I just reading it wrongly

knife_X
06-11-2007, 02:37 AM
Originally posted by Drunkspleen:
I really think you are creating a mountain out of a molehill here.

I mean, it seems to me like if anything, christians would be outraged about it, not muslims, because it seems to paint the Christians as the bad guys pretty clearly.

and I can understand the assassins being told to try and put a stop to the 3rd crusade because war in your country isn't good for business.

Maybe we are seeing some things differently but I honestly don't think there will be issues with the game based on religion and people outraged over fictional additions to the historical timeline.

War must be perfect for assassins buisnis other people like bakers or tanners I would see have a problem so these people might need assassins besides hes doing this for religion. Not money!

NecroNetics
06-11-2007, 02:51 AM
I'll answer your first point with this question: Why aren't Germans mad when we make WWII games depicting Americans killing Nazis?

GarfieldOakman
06-11-2007, 03:18 AM
In order to widen your perspectives I offer some illuminating reading...
The Crusades through arab eyes by Amin Maalouf. Informative, enchanting with an objective approach. Once youve read it try comparin the Crusades with WW2...

Oshikai
06-11-2007, 03:24 AM
Also I am quite sure germany has very strict rules for it's video games and I think many game withblood/gore/relation to Nazi Germany get banned. But to be honest people arent going to complaine about how true or false this is in terms of religion.

FableB
06-11-2007, 04:56 AM
First of all, shouldn't Muslims be a bit dismayed after hearing about this title? After all, it is depicting the assassinations of many prominent leaders (albeit somewhat fictionalized in some cases) by the hands of a Muslim extremist sect during the crusading era of the Holy Land.

As a Muslim, I'm not dismayed about this game. Why? You said why, they're "Extremists", they do alot of things which Islam does not call for. That's why they have nothing to do with Islam, therefore I don't feel dismayed.


Secondly, why does Altair need to stop the 3rd Crusade from happening/continuing? The 3rd Crusade is valid militarily, and was even at the time. It would be like a group of soldiers trying to stop the U.S. entrance into WW2.

During the Second WW, Germany was conquering for the sake of conquering, that's why they had to be stopped, while Muslims where not conquering just for the sake of control but for the sake of safety of their own homeland, because after Islam rised from The Arabian Peninsula, alot of countries around the Muslims did not feel very comfortable about it. And If the Crusaders invaded the Holy Land just to "reclaim it" then why did kill innocent people and torturing and excuted Muslims, Christians and Jews?

And hey, alot of games and movies pictured the Muslims as hungry monsters and thirsty for blood terrorists. Why is this all happening? While there are alot of games/movies like that, but no one complained, knowing they're just games/movies, but when people heard that there is a game picturing the Crusaders as conquerers, everyone started complaining, why? Doesn't that make you think how Muslims feel about the Games and Movies that picture them as bad people too?

Anicrow
06-11-2007, 07:54 AM
Originally posted by Micheal_Yar:


WOW , are you saying that in the muslim culture it is normal to kill yourself and that no muslim minds this use of sensless violence. Or am I just reading it wrongly

You got me a little wrong, while I admit I have my own reasons for disliking the muslim religion, I was simply pointing out that anyone who is a part of that religion eithers understands that there ARE Extremist muslims, and that they do give the religion a horrible name in the rest of the worlds eyes. If anything this video game will probably do them a tad bit of justice. I find it comical that anyone of that religion could be offended by this.

I could go into a whole list of why I dislike the religion, but that would make me an Iconoclast, and incredibly off topic and probably in violation of the rules http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

Baelzath
06-11-2007, 09:36 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but having read the article that Noobfun has posted oh so many times following the oh so many posts just like this one, the Nizari were more than just Muslims. While they followed the codes set down by the Koran, they were more interested in the actual focus of religion, the yolk of the egg as the metaphor goes. It has also been stated by the developers that Altair's parents were a Muslim and a Christian, and that he follows neither faith, prefering to follow his own path.

As to your point about there being no conspiracy, well, as far as we know that is the case. However, while the devs have stated their intentions to base the game on history, there are certain blank spots which, currently, no one can fill, and such it allows an amount of poetic liscence for the producers to play with. The historical basis is meant to refer to the surroundings - the towns and cities have been created from period maps, the targets you assassinate all died in the time, whether by the hand of an assassin or not is unknown. Of course promises made can be broken, some realism will make way for greater entertainment at the discretion of the developers, but there is still a large element of it in the game.

Tbh, I suggest that you read though the essay posted by Noobfun, read through the forums some more, and maybe find some other topics where Noobfun has posted. He seems to be our resident know-it-all ^^ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Weagle One
06-11-2007, 10:00 AM
Honestly, critics make everything stupid. People should learn to take stuff at face value. Yes, it is entertainment. Take it at it's "WOW" factor.

Once you learn to enjoy things at it's face value, you'll be a lot more happy in life.

Take the movie, 300 for example... Holy moly, that was some crappy dialogues.. oh man what a downer... So what, the fight scenes were awesome. What was the movie about? Sure as hell wasn't the dialogue. It was the fight scenes.

I swear people read to far when there is nothing to read. Just enjoy the possibilities and what the game is going to be. Play the game, not yourself.

moqqy
06-11-2007, 10:47 AM
haha.. its a game, i don't get how people COULD get offended of a game/video/etc.

if they do a good game that makes my country look like bunch of **** - then do it!

if they do a good game that makes my religion look like bunch of **** - go ahead...

but the thing here is.. this game shouldn't offend anyone with brains, since it's not being negative towards anyone

... and op, funny thing is that you talk about things as facts when they're not true

Crazeelax608
06-11-2007, 03:19 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMPculxsUx8

go to 1:35 and 2:30.

They are basically brainwashing their children. Christians have plenty to be mad about towards Muslims too. If we lived in a mostly Muslim country, we would have entertainment depicting Christians negatively. What I'm saying is this kind of negative influence exists on both sides so neither side can really complain.

steveo1991_sj
06-11-2007, 04:26 PM
do you expect me to read all that..and is the game even released yet for you to know that much about it..did you make it?..yea..thought so

HisokaThorongil
06-11-2007, 05:29 PM
This is a general reply to some points I've noticed people make that I happen to disagree with. I want to thank everyone's opinions and for replying. I won't name names or use exact quotes, but here we go:

"The Assassins were not who you think they were."

I know exactly who they were. If you want a quick summary of them, try here:

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

"The Crusades were not a just war. The Christians just came in and conquered unprovoked Muslim lands."

In today's politically correct culture, that is the prevailing notion. But is it historical? You'd be right if you answered no. Let me first clear up the issue of land ownership. Here is a short chronology of who was in possession of the Holy Land. I'll start with Biblical Judaism:

Jewish control (it was conquered several times from them, but the Jews always regained it).

Roman control (officially ended Jewish control).

Byzantine control (the Byzantines were Orthodox Christians that inherited (not conquered) the Eastern half of the old Roman Empire).

Muslim Control (Muslims who were unprovoked conquered Christian Byzantine Palastine).

Crusader control (temporarily regained Palastine; was rightfully in Christian hands once again)

Ottoman control (Muslim conquest of Palastine once again).

Colonial control (European powers divided up the once Ottoman lands after their defeat in WW1).

Brief Muslim control (Arabs gain independence from Colonial rule).

Jewish control (Jews took control of the region and hold it presently).

That was very broad and brief but gives you a good idea of who was in control of the lands throughout the centuries. I will point out that it was Muslims who came in and conquered the Christian lands of Palastine without a reason. Religious fervor was basically their only alibi. Historians now argue that the Crusades were a much needed and belated responce to centuries of unprovoked Muslim conquest. Why didn't the West mount a Crusade earlier? Well, very simply, it couldn't economically. Europe was in a time period we now call the Dark Ages. You can guess what that implies. Only towards the 11th century was there a resurgence of economic growth, population increase, and somewhat stable governments in place in Europe.

Reasons for the 1st Crusade:

1. To REgain the Holy Land that had wrongly been in Muslim hands for centuries.

2. The Byzantine Emperor Alexius called for aid in defending his lands from, yes you guessed it, Muslim conquest.

3. The Turks in control of Jerusalem and much of Palastine were especially brutal to Christian pilgrims making their way to visit the Holy sites. Not to mention, the countryside was filled with bandits who frequently murdered and robbed these pilgrims.

4. Pope Urban II was distressed that Europe was such a violent place. He thought that by diverting the soldiers of Europe from fighting amongst themselves, Christian against Christian, that they instead rally as one to fight a common enemy.

5. Redemption and commandment from the Pope.

There are many more, but these should suffice. If one wants to make the arguement that there were horrible atrocities committed during the Crusades, they would be somewhat valid. But they were no different from any other war fought in history; whether they be for secular or religious reasons.

The taking of Jerusalem is a prime example of how people have bent historical fact to fit their own agendas. When the Crusaders entered the city there was no mass slaughter of every living person, including Christians and Jews. This is simply false. Most people either paid a fine to leave the city safely or were expelled completely. Those that did die, nothing can be said of them, for a small number of innocents die in any war. And here's the REAL kicker: If the Crusaders did sack the city and murder all of its inhabitants, that would STILL be considered a just act in a time of war by BOTH Christians AND Muslims at that time. When Muslims took the city of Antioch from the Crusaders in 1268, they BUTCHERED everyone. The city was said to have a population of about 200,000. Obviously that would seem horrible to you, and I bet you're shocked that such a grave act was committed by Muslims and NOT the Crusaders, but hardly any Muslim shed a tear about the sack. Nor did it cause much distress (about the sack, of course they were outraged that the city was taken from them once again) in Europe.

It's quite amazing what crazy notions people have about the Crusades. You can unleash a tirade against them all you want (not to mention, form your opinions from the politically correct) but you still haven't looked at the historical facts, or let alone even read a history of the Crusades to justify your opinions about them. I'd be willing to bet that most of you who associate the Crusades with evil haven't read a single unbiased nonfiction history of them.

That's all. Flame, complement, either way please share your opinions.

FableB
06-11-2007, 06:50 PM
I have a question, how do you know that what YOU have read about the Crusades wasn't biased or edited too?

I mean, you question the sources of others while you treat yours as the original and unbiased ones.

HisokaThorongil
06-11-2007, 07:03 PM
I mostly get my sources from noted scholars and their works. Mainly Jonathan Riley-Smith, Thomas F. Madden, Helen Nicholson, and John France. All noted historians and experts in the field. Half of whom write books published by Oxford. I somewhat like Steven Runciman's work as well.

Look them up; I use no biased material.

sladevi
06-11-2007, 09:36 PM
Originally posted by FableB:
I have a question, how do you know that what YOU have read about the Crusades wasn't biased or edited too?

I mean, you question the sources of others while you treat yours as the original and unbiased ones.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

JairStout, you lost me at wikipedia...

"you think I don't know what I'm talking about?? just look at wikipedia and you'll see that I know what I'm talking about--oh and btw make sure to use valid information when arguing against me."

zgubilici
06-11-2007, 11:00 PM
These kind of threads have been created previously and didn't fare very well for obvious reasons.

Please keep the discussions civilized, without insults, bickerings and judgmental remarks. And actually flaming is not allowed either, JairStout. Constructive criticism - yes; flaming- no.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Any of these occurrences will lead to immediate closure of the thread- no additional warning necessary.
Thanks.


---

On a different note, danirivera12 please don't multiple post anymore- use the edit button from now on if you want to modify your posts.
http://img273.imageshack.us/img273/545/foreditacwrittenarrow6hf.jpg

Thanks.

moqqy
06-12-2007, 07:50 AM
"3. The Turks in control of Jerusalem and much of Palastine were especially brutal to Christian pilgrims making their way to visit the Holy sites. Not to mention, the countryside was filled with bandits who frequently murdered and robbed these pilgrims."

Just answering this one... There was no need to start the crusade because of this - the muslims realized that Jerusalem was rich because of pilgrims, but the damage was already done and the word spreaded about the violence done to pilgrims

noobfun
06-12-2007, 08:36 AM
Originally posted by JairStout:
This is a general reply to some points I've noticed people make that I happen to disagree with. I want to thank everyone's opinions and for replying. I won't name names or use exact quotes, but here we go:

"The Assassins were not who you think they were."

I know exactly who they were. If you want a quick summary of them, try here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashshashin its about as accurate as marco polo or dan brown, but thanks for the disinformation


heres a very large chunk of history you left out


The kingdom of Israel lasted during the period from 923 BC to 721 BC

They exterminated his kingdom in 721 BC. Then, the Assyrians moved the people of Israel to Haran, Khabour, Kurdistan and Persia and replaced them with groups of Aramaians

the Babylonian Buchadnezzar defeated the Egyptian Nackhaw, north of Syria in the year 605 BC and advanced till he entered Jerusalem. There he conquered Yahoyaqim,

when the Persian Emperor, Qorash the Second, overcame the Babylonian Chaldaean State (539 BC - 332BC).

In the year 332 BC, the Macedonian Alexander occupied Palestine during his famous campaign in which he occupied Greater Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Iran and parts of India. Alexander kept the Jews safe. Since that date, Palestine entered the Greek Hellenistic Era, which lasted till 63 BC

in the helenic part above we have both ptolemaics and seleucids rulling jerusalem
persians again



Roman control (officially ended Jewish control).
pagan, and true jewish contorl ended a long long time earlier



Jewish control (popular jewish uprising). jewish



Roman control (officially ended Jewish control).
pagan but gaining christian control



Byzantine control (the Byzantines were Orthodox Christians that inherited (not conquered) the1 Eastern half of the old Roman Empire).



Muslim Control (Muslims who were unprovoked conquered Christian Byzantine Palastine). well the byzantines were forced out in 639 by persians



Muslim Control . turks swept through muslim asia invading other muslim lands as well as the asian part of the bizatine empire (modern turkey)



Muslim Control. selujiks kicked the turks out and offered peace and safe passage to christians but the crusaders had come this far so they ignored the offer



Crusader control (temporarily regained Palastine; was rightfully in Christian hands once again) spent most of its time in pagan hands so how is it rightfully christian?

selujik control (muslim) when taken by sladin



Ottoman control (Muslim conquest of Palastine once again). a different muslim nation



Colonial control (European powers divided up the once Ottoman lands after their defeat in WW1). british rule, paved the way for what is now israel



Brief Muslim control (Arabs gain independence from Colonial rule). wouldnt that be U.N. control when the british said ive had enough of this arguing and walked away



Jewish control (Jews took control of the region and hold it presently). this bits right


That was very broad and brief but gives you a good idea of who was in control of the lands throughout the centuries. I will point out that it was Muslims who came in and conquered the Christian lands of Palastine without a reason. Religious fervor was basically their only alibi.

well the jews invaded jerusalem, they in turn were invaded, the invaders were invaded etc etc its no more christian then it is jewish, islamic or what ever pagan religeons the founders believed

it was invaded by pagans(romans) who converted to christianity how does that make it more valid then a muslim nation invading


Historians now argue that the Crusades were a much needed and belated responce to centuries of unprovoked Muslim conquest. Why didn't the West mount a Crusade earlier? Well, very simply, it couldn't economically. now your just talking rubbish, how about the invasion of the muslim nation of andalucia, that was undertaken becasue the cities were not only more advanced(paved roads street lighting a 1000 years before paris or london) were the pinacle of science and medicine of the time and generated a large amount of wealth this land grab happened before the crusades, not only that it gave the europeans a glimpse of just how rich the arabic nations could be



Reasons for the 1st Crusade:

1. To REgain the Holy Land that had wrongly been in Muslim hands for centuries. yes lets give it back to the caananiets they had it first



2. The Byzantine Emperor Alexius called for aid in defending his lands from, yes you guessed it, Muslim conquest. the remnants of an invading nation bieng invaded ... imagine that, he asked for help becasue the capital was threatened, turks had taken modern day turkey the capital of constantinople was a 30 minute boat trip away. jerusalem had fallen from byzantine hands over 400 years prior. as a sub note constantinople was invaded and sacked but by crusaders



3. The Turks in control of Jerusalem and much of Palastine were especially brutal to Christian pilgrims making their way to visit the Holy sites. Not to mention, the countryside was filled with bandits who frequently murdered and robbed these pilgrims.

4. Pope Urban II was distressed that Europe was such a violent place. He thought that by diverting the soldiers of Europe from fighting amongst themselves, Christian against Christian, that they instead rally as one to fight a common enemy. see now this is more like it, not to mention a great deal of wealth was to be had by controling the ports on the silk road



5. Redemption and commandment from the Pope.
bieng freed from prison, death sentences bieng dropped if you sign up.. thats not an reason for the crusades. it was a way to get more people over there fighting


If one wants to make the arguement that there were horrible atrocities committed during the Crusades, they would be somewhat valid. But they were no different from any other war fought in history; whether they be for secular or religious reasons.

The taking of Jerusalem is a prime example of how people have bent historical fact to fit their own agendas. When the Crusaders entered the city there was no mass slaughter of every living person, including Christians and Jews. This is simply false. Most people either paid a fine to leave the city safely or were expelled completely. Those that did die, nothing can be said of them, for a small number of innocents die in any war. And here's the REAL kicker: If the Crusaders did sack the city and murder all of its inhabitants, that would STILL be considered a just act in a time of war by BOTH Christians AND Muslims at that time. When Muslims took the city of Antioch from the Crusaders in 1268, they BUTCHERED everyone. The city was said to have a population of about 200,000. Obviously that would seem horrible to you, and I bet you're shocked that such a grave act was committed by Muslims and NOT the Crusaders, but hardly any Muslim shed a tear about the sack. Nor did it cause much distress (about the sack, of course they were outraged that the city was taken from them once again) in Europe.

614 Jerusalem massacres Unknown Jerusalem Persian invaders to massacre up to 90,000 Christians.

1098 Siege of Antioch c.20,000 Antioch, Syria Almost all Muslim inhabitants slaughtered after the fall of the city to the Crusaders.

1099 First Crusade/Siege of Jerusalem c.70,000 Jerusalem Almost all Muslim & Jewish inhabitants are slaughtered after the fall of the city to the Crusaders

1191 Siege of Acre (Akko) 2,750 Akko Richard the Lionheart slaughters Muslim & Jewish prisoners taken during the siege

1209 Albigensian Crusade 20,000 to 100,000 Béziers, France Crusaders slaughter the Cathars. Other civilian slaughters occur in Toulouse & Saint-Nazaire

1268 Siege of Antioch 40,000 Antioch, Syria Sultan Baibars' of Egypt attacks, captures & loots the Christian-held city of Antioch. His armies slaughter or enslave every Christian in the city. This was the end of Antioch's 1500-year history; the city never recovered

1289 Siege of Tripoli c.10,000 Palestine Christian conquest of Muslim state; virtually the whole population killed.

1291 Siege of Tyre 10,000 Tyre, Palestine Baibars' army destroys the city & massacres the population


massacres on both sides of the fence, quick add up shows the christians a dam site better at it then the muslims though

the facts havnt been bent but most peoples knowledge of the crusades are purely of the first 3, when christians deffinatley did the lions share of the slaughtering of innocents, i guess we set the trend for the muslims to follow

shortly before the third crusade you will find that saladin took jerusalem ransomed the rich adn set free the poor as was the custom, the only people massacred were knights templar and hobiliars who were exected outside the city wall. as you can see from the fall of acre this merciful conquest was repayed with a massacre only a few years later



It's quite amazing what crazy notions people have about the Crusades. You can unleash a tirade against them all you want (not to mention, form your opinions from the politically correct) but you still haven't looked at the historical facts,

the same could be said for you knowlege of the nizari thier beliefs, practices etc

a link to wikipedia really doesnt cut it, pretty much everything in that article has been disproved a dozen times over

knife_X
06-12-2007, 10:02 AM
Originally posted by noobfun:
now your just talking rubbish, how about the invasion of the muslim nation of andalucia, that was undertaken becasue the cities were not only more advanced(paved roads street lighting a 1000 years before paris or london) were the pinacle of science and medicine of the time and generated a large amount of wealth this land grab happened before the crusades, not only that it gave the europeans a glimpse of just how rich the arabic nations could be



but still no cigar http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif coulda shoulda woulda we all know this but it didnt happen so no valid point there other are good tough. But this argument is starting to get to silly it was about AC know it`s turned ito a bible vs Koran meeting... please stop making my head hurt out of annoyment! This isnt ment for only noobfun but all...

AldirTheKnight
06-12-2007, 01:14 PM
north-americans have a thing for making offensive games like Ghost Recon...though I liked it, lol

Micheal_Yar
06-12-2007, 02:26 PM
Originally posted by moqqy:
"3. The Turks in control of Jerusalem and much of Palastine were especially brutal to Christian pilgrims making their way to visit the Holy sites. Not to mention, the countryside was filled with bandits who frequently murdered and robbed these pilgrims."

Just answering this one... There was no need to start the crusade because of this - the muslims realized that Jerusalem was rich because of pilgrims, but the damage was already done and the word spreaded about the violence done to pilgrims

First of all please remember guys that in those times both factions did bad things to put it lightly.

Actually it was one of the political reasons for the first crusade, to bring save passage to the Holy Land.

And if we are going to see who rightfully should have Jeruzalem. We would come out with nothing. I personnally believe that every Abrahamic religion has a right to the city.
And if the crusaders and the Muslim army's would have followed their teachings and the guidance of wise man (Atleast in how I see them) of Saladin and Baldwin IV we might have had a peacefull jeruzalem.

To clarify myself , both those man did do wrong things, don't get me wrong BUT they did atleast for a short time tryed to get along. (Altough it was kinda of a Cold War)

princeofyo
06-12-2007, 02:43 PM
For crying out loud...

It's so annoying to see people critize every little part of the game. It's a game, people, a game, why must you critize every little thing about it.

No one questioned why an Italian Plumber was stomping on hammer throwing turtles and getting more powerful by eating a mushroom. Why must you question Assassin's Creed?

noobfun
06-12-2007, 05:05 PM
Originally posted by knife_X:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by noobfun:
now your just talking rubbish, how about the invasion of the muslim nation of andalucia, that was undertaken becasue the cities were not only more advanced(paved roads street lighting a 1000 years before paris or london) were the pinacle of science and medicine of the time and generated a large amount of wealth this land grab happened before the crusades, not only that it gave the europeans a glimpse of just how rich the arabic nations could be



but still no cigar http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif coulda shoulda woulda we all know this but it didnt happen so no valid point there other are good tough. But this argument is starting to get to silly it was about AC know it`s turned ito a bible vs Koran meeting... please stop making my head hurt out of annoyment! This isnt ment for only noobfun but all... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

lol some guy comes in saying the holy land belongs to christians and always did and muslims were all just religeous nut jobs bent on invasion

wonder why i take great lengths to prove this wrong?

and it wasnt a could woulda shoulda, andalousia was a moorish nation that controlled almost all of modern spain

becasue of the wealth they generated and knowledge they held the empire was captured piece by piece and they treated far far worse the jews and moors, then they had been treated by the moorish empire


I personnally believe that every Abrahamic religion has a right to the city.
And if the crusaders and the Muslim army's would have followed their teachings and the guidance of wise man (Atleast in how I see them) of Saladin and Baldwin IV we might have had a peacefull jeruzalem.

your talking about the loose peace accord that granted all religeons access and fair treatment to jerusalem, this was agreed after baldwins death by one of the regents that ruled in the interim years between baldwins IV death and sybila's crowning.the man was Raymond III of Tripoli who still acted as regent throught out baldwin V 1 year rule

HisokaThorongil
06-12-2007, 05:23 PM
General reply #2:

Wikipedia

Why can't it be a reliable source for short definitions and summaries of things? No one should use it for serious research, but for brief information on topics that could fill up an entire book, it's quite helpful. There are some bad articles, but most are fine. If I told you to look something up in the dictionary, would you honestly do it? First you would have to actually own a large dictionary set in order to be sure that you'll find certain information, which most people do not have. So let's try to not have an arrogant, elitest attitude towards the site.

The Assassins

If you do some cross-checking on the summary given by Wikipedia about them, you'll find that it's fairly accurate. Noobfun, I'm not sure what you're getting at by giving me all that unrelated history. You said nothing at all about the Assassins. What were you getting at?

My chronology

It was not meant to be in depth. Sure, there were many other peoples who occupied the region in between the major ones I mentioned. But that's just it: I listed the major and/or longer occupations of the area. Within the crusading era alone, portions of the Holy Land were traded between everyone from the Mamluks, the Crusaders, the Turks, and even the Mongols. Again noobfun, I'm not sure what you're getting at. My aim was broad, not detailed.

"Massacres"

My point with Antioch was just what I believe you were getting at, noobfun. There were horrible acts committed on BOTH sides of the conflict; a notion lost on many people today who have a picture in their minds of the "barbaric" Crusaders who just came in and mercilessly slaughtered people for 200 years. When in fact, the damage was equal on both sides and NOT that false, one-sided pressumption many people have today. And the point I made before was that the Crusades as a whole were justified. Things went sour at times, but the intent was always valid.

"They all should get Jerusalem"

We've had 1,400 years to try and accomplish this, but it hasn't been done, and probably won't get done in the next 1,400 years.

Saladin and Baldwin IV

What makes you think that times were peaceful during each of these men's reigns? Throughout his reign, King Baldwin was planning to invade Egypt when the time was right (Egypt being the power-base of Saladin). And Saladin was waiting for the right opportunity to invade Palastine and take back Jerusalem. There was a truce for a time, but it was only held together with strings, as many treaties that were made between the two opposing factions in that area and time were. I'm now going to assume that you got that idea from the film Kingdom of Heaven, which portrays Baldwin and Saladin as "buddies" trying to keep the peace in the land. That is purely fictional; so please don't get your information about these two men from watching that movie.

"It's just a game, chill out"

Hey, I know it's only a game; you're making the wrong assumption about me. In my original post, I made the analogy about certain historical movies. What the point of that was, is to show that there ARE people out there who soley base their opinions on "entertainment" such as movies and video games. Not everyone is well versed in history to know what their playing or watching, and so they just assume. And so I cannot stress this enough: the amount of history this game is based off of is almost nil. To add insult to injury, the game developers themselves used as one of their PRIMARY SOURCES, the movie Kingdom of Heaven! How ironic that they exemplify exactly what I just described. They're using an unfactual, biased movie that will in turn, make an unfactual and biased game! So if you don't believe me, just look to the game designers of AC.

moqqy
06-13-2007, 12:28 AM
Originally posted by princeofyo:
For crying out loud...

It's so annoying to see people critize every little part of the game. It's a game, people, a game, why must you critize every little thing about it.

No one questioned why an Italian Plumber was stomping on hammer throwing turtles and getting more powerful by eating a mushroom. Why must you question Assassin's Creed?

'cos no1 cared about that game enough http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif and it wasnt even supposed to be realism based......

moqqy
06-13-2007, 12:33 AM
Originally posted by JairStout:
General reply #2:

Wikipedia

Why can't it be a reliable source for short definitions and summaries of things? No one should use it for serious research, but for brief information on topics that could fill up an entire book, it's quite helpful. There are some bad articles, but most are fine. If I told you to look something up in the dictionary, would you honestly do it? First you would have to actually own a large dictionary set in order to be sure that you'll find certain information, which most people do not have. So let's try to not have an arrogant, elitest attitude towards the site.

The Assassins

If you do some cross-checking on the summary given by Wikipedia about them, you'll find that it's fairly accurate. Noobfun, I'm not sure what you're getting at by giving me all that unrelated history. You said nothing at all about the Assassins. What were you getting at?

My chronology

It was not meant to be in depth. Sure, there were many other peoples who occupied the region in between the major ones I mentioned. But that's just it: I listed the major and/or longer occupations of the area. Within the crusading era alone, portions of the Holy Land were traded between everyone from the Mamluks, the Crusaders, the Turks, and even the Mongols. Again noobfun, I'm not sure what you're getting at. My aim was broad, not detailed.

"Massacres"

My point with Antioch was just what I believe you were getting at, noobfun. There were horrible acts committed on BOTH sides of the conflict; a notion lost on many people today who have a picture in their minds of the "barbaric" Crusaders who just came in and mercilessly slaughtered people for 200 years. When in fact, the damage was equal on both sides and NOT that false, one-sided pressumption many people have today. And the point I made before was that the Crusades as a whole were justified. Things went sour at times, but the intent was always valid.

"They all should get Jerusalem"

We've had 1,400 years to try and accomplish this, but it hasn't been done, and probably won't get done in the next 1,400 years.

Saladin and Baldwin IV

What makes you think that times were peaceful during each of these men's reigns? Throughout his reign, King Baldwin was planning to invade Egypt when the time was right (Egypt being the power-base of Saladin). And Saladin was waiting for the right opportunity to invade Palastine and take back Jerusalem. There was a truce for a time, but it was only held together with strings, as many treaties that were made between the two opposing factions in that area and time were. I'm now going to assume that you got that idea from the film Kingdom of Heaven, which portrays Baldwin and Saladin as "buddies" trying to keep the peace in the land. That is purely fictional; so please don't get your information about these two men from watching that movie.

"It's just a game, chill out"

Hey, I know it's only a game; you're making the wrong assumption about me. In my original post, I made the analogy about certain historical movies. What the point of that was, is to show that there ARE people out there who soley base their opinions on "entertainment" such as movies and video games. Not everyone is well versed in history to know what their playing or watching, and so they just assume. And so I cannot stress this enough: the amount of history this game is based off of is almost nil. To add insult to injury, the game developers themselves used as one of their PRIMARY SOURCES, the movie Kingdom of Heaven! How ironic that they exemplify exactly what I just described. They're using an unfactual, biased movie that will in turn, make an unfactual and biased game! So if you don't believe me, just look to the game designers of AC.
lol, youre not talking about the assassins either... he merely answered you.
i'll let noobfun handle the rest, he could just copy one of his old posts tho..

"the game developers themselves used as one of their PRIMARY SOURCES, the movie Kingdom of Heaven!"

lmao no. they said they used the main historican of Kingdon of Heaven as their primary source, not the movie -.-

HisokaThorongil
06-13-2007, 12:54 AM
"he merely answered you."

He used a quote of mine about the Assassins and then started to ramble on about different, random dates that had nothing to do with them. What he said was irrelevant to the topic.

"lmao no. they said they used the main historican of Kingdon of Heaven as their primary source, not the movie"

First off, I want to thank you for that barely literate sentence. You're a true testament to what is wrong with our education system. Next, I'll say that you can't use the history of Kingdom of Heaven when there is none! The movie is extremely inaccurate. Plus, why would they want to use the "history" or KoH when the events in the film don't even take place at the time of the 3rd Crusade for which the game is based?! That's even more pathetic on the part of the developers.

moqqy
06-13-2007, 02:21 AM
Originally posted by JairStout:
"he merely answered you."

He used a quote of mine about the Assassins and then started to ramble on about different, random dates that had nothing to do with them. What he said was irrelevant to the topic.

"lmao no. they said they used the main historican of Kingdon of Heaven as their primary source, not the movie"

First off, I want to thank you for that barely literate sentence. You're a true testament to what is wrong with our education system. Next, I'll say that you can't use the history of Kingdom of Heaven when there is none! The movie is extremely inaccurate. Plus, why would they want to use the "history" or KoH when the events in the film don't even take place at the time of the 3rd Crusade for which the game is based?! That's even more pathetic on the part of the developers.

:S you are a true testament how stupid someone can be.. i mean cmon SERIOUSLY find out about the stuff before you come and say stuff... first you could think a little about KoH and when it happens...

edit.... ok maybe ure not smart enough for that so i'll help you a little bit...

the movie happens at 1187 if i remember correctly, and that is PRETTY DAMN CLOSE TO THIRD CRUSADE IS IT NOT? and it ends at the start of the third crusade...

and obviously you cant read ^^ they're not using the history of KoH, you idiot, theyre using the historian -.-

also if you did a bit research, you would learn that there IS accurate things. check noobfuns posts here.....
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/5251069024/m/6...761074145#6761074145 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/5251069024/m/6761074145?r=6761074145#6761074145)

and it looks like youre looking for flame wars - i never said anything offending but you just simply wasn't intelligent enough to discuss it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

knife_X
06-13-2007, 04:34 AM
Originally posted by moqqy:
using the history of KoH, you idiot, theyre using the historian -.-

I think me ment historian you dont have to call him a idiot nevertheless just cause you got some larger then life complexes.

moqqy
06-13-2007, 05:53 AM
Originally posted by knife_X:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by moqqy:
using the history of KoH, you idiot, theyre using the historian -.-

I think me ment historian you dont have to call him a idiot nevertheless just cause you got some larger then life complexes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i think you might want to read his post again. there was no historian in KoH? yes there was.. so your point was?

larger than life complexes? it's good that you contribute to the conversation without anything to add

Stav015
06-13-2007, 05:57 AM
Originally posted by JairStout:
Editing your posts doesn't make you look any more bright I'm sorry to say.

moqqy
06-13-2007, 06:00 AM
Originally posted by Stav015:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JairStout:
Editing your posts doesn't make you look any more bright I'm sorry to say. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

explain please? does that quote have some "deeper meaning" which i am unaware of?

Micheal_Yar
06-13-2007, 06:19 AM
Originally posted by JairStout:
General reply #2:

Wikipedia

Why can't it be a reliable source for short definitions and summaries of things? No one should use it for serious research, but for brief information on topics that could fill up an entire book, it's quite helpful. There are some bad articles, but most are fine. If I told you to look something up in the dictionary, would you honestly do it? First you would have to actually own a large dictionary set in order to be sure that you'll find certain information, which most people do not have. So let's try to not have an arrogant, elitest attitude towards the site.

The Assassins

If you do some cross-checking on the summary given by Wikipedia about them, you'll find that it's fairly accurate. Noobfun, I'm not sure what you're getting at by giving me all that unrelated history. You said nothing at all about the Assassins. What were you getting at?

My chronology

It was not meant to be in depth. Sure, there were many other peoples who occupied the region in between the major ones I mentioned. But that's just it: I listed the major and/or longer occupations of the area. Within the crusading era alone, portions of the Holy Land were traded between everyone from the Mamluks, the Crusaders, the Turks, and even the Mongols. Again noobfun, I'm not sure what you're getting at. My aim was broad, not detailed.

"Massacres"

My point with Antioch was just what I believe you were getting at, noobfun. There were horrible acts committed on BOTH sides of the conflict; a notion lost on many people today who have a picture in their minds of the "barbaric" Crusaders who just came in and mercilessly slaughtered people for 200 years. When in fact, the damage was equal on both sides and NOT that false, one-sided pressumption many people have today. And the point I made before was that the Crusades as a whole were justified. Things went sour at times, but the intent was always valid.

"They all should get Jerusalem"

We've had 1,400 years to try and accomplish this, but it hasn't been done, and probably won't get done in the next 1,400 years.

Saladin and Baldwin IV

What makes you think that times were peaceful during each of these men's reigns? Throughout his reign, King Baldwin was planning to invade Egypt when the time was right (Egypt being the power-base of Saladin). And Saladin was waiting for the right opportunity to invade Palastine and take back Jerusalem. There was a truce for a time, but it was only held together with strings, as many treaties that were made between the two opposing factions in that area and time were. I'm now going to assume that you got that idea from the film Kingdom of Heaven, which portrays Baldwin and Saladin as "buddies" trying to keep the peace in the land. That is purely fictional; so please don't get your information about these two men from watching that movie.

"It's just a game, chill out"

Hey, I know it's only a game; you're making the wrong assumption about me. In my original post, I made the analogy about certain historical movies. What the point of that was, is to show that there ARE people out there who soley base their opinions on "entertainment" such as movies and video games. Not everyone is well versed in history to know what their playing or watching, and so they just assume. And so I cannot stress this enough: the amount of history this game is based off of is almost nil. To add insult to injury, the game developers themselves used as one of their PRIMARY SOURCES, the movie Kingdom of Heaven! How ironic that they exemplify exactly what I just described. They're using an unfactual, biased movie that will in turn, make an unfactual and biased game! So if you don't believe me, just look to the game designers of AC.

LOL no no , What I was talking about was the loose accord. Wich in that time wsa kinda of acclomishment. But I did thought that all the three religions were granted safe passage to jeruzalem in their time, but alright guess I was wrong about that.

knife_X
06-13-2007, 08:01 AM
Originally posted by moqqy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by knife_X:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by moqqy:
using the history of KoH, you idiot, theyre using the historian -.-

I think me ment historian you dont have to call him a idiot nevertheless just cause you got some larger then life complexes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i think you might want to read his post again. there was no historian in KoH? yes there was.. so your point was?

larger than life complexes? it's good that you contribute to the conversation without anything to add </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe you should read my post again, obviously you wanna be a samrt guy but you seem to be a idiot. Thats why I`ll leave you alone with it and see if you can figure it out.

So I am guessing that everything you add to a forum is necessary for everyone to take as a fact? BS anything you write is either downgrading someone or letting your great great well of wisdom glance upon this forum. Were are you from?


You called him a idiot cause he said "They are using the historican of KoH" I am guessing he ment "Historian" so you had no reason to call him a idiot. That was your whole agenda wasnt it? To come on different forums trying to act like a smartass when your nothing but a snotty brat.

moqqy
06-13-2007, 08:51 AM
Originally posted by knife_X:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by moqqy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by knife_X:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by moqqy:
using the history of KoH, you idiot, theyre using the historian -.-

I think me ment historian you dont have to call him a idiot nevertheless just cause you got some larger then life complexes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i think you might want to read his post again. there was no historian in KoH? yes there was.. so your point was?

larger than life complexes? it's good that you contribute to the conversation without anything to add </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe you should read my post again, obviously you wanna be a samrt guy but you seem to be a idiot. Thats why I`ll leave you alone with it and see if you can figure it out.

So I am guessing that everything you add to a forum is necessary for everyone to take as a fact? BS anything you write is either downgrading someone or letting your great great well of wisdom glance upon this forum. Were are you from?


You called him a idiot cause he said "They are using the historican of KoH" I am guessing he ment "Historian" so you had no reason to call him a idiot. That was your whole agenda wasnt it? To come on different forums trying to act like a smartass when your nothing but a snotty brat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

lmao seriously mate.. ill start from the end of your post

"You called him a idiot cause he said "They are using the historican of KoH" I am guessing he ment "Historian" so you had no reason to call him a idiot. That was your whole agenda wasnt it? To come on different forums trying to act like a smartass when your nothing but a snotty brat."
I SAID THAT... HE SAID THERE IS NO HISTORY IN KOH.......... SIGH! you just proved you dont read posts or dont understand them.

then from the start..

"Maybe you should read my post again, obviously you wanna be a samrt guy but you seem to be a idiot. Thats why I`ll leave you alone with it and see if you can figure it out."

how do i wanna be a smart guy? how do i seem to be an idiot? SIGH, ill use the thing you said now, and its ment to you.
To come on different forums trying to act like a smartass when your nothing but a snotty brat.
you just showed that you are a "snotty brat smartass"

"So I am guessing that everything you add to a forum is necessary for everyone to take as a fact? BS anything you write is either downgrading someone or letting your great great well of wisdom glance upon this forum. Were are you from?"
did i ever say that everything i add to a forum is necessary for everyone to take as a fact? nope, never said that. you are BS because i am not downgrading someone, and damn, is it bad if i tell what i know? if you think it is, you should maybe reconsider why these forums exist=/

and if you said that because i said

"it's good that you contribute to the conversation without anything to add"

that's got nothing to do with each other. you didnt add ANYTHING to the conversation except flaming. now think about it a little bit, and again as you said..

"you seem to be a idiot. Thats why I`ll leave you alone with it and see if you can figure it out."

noobfun
06-13-2007, 04:41 PM
i would say with all due respect but right now i dont feel you deserve any, your posts are not only as historically inacurate as KoH but your personal agenda based posts are desperatly bordering outright racism and are now starting to grate my nerves

you also fail to hold a cohesive argument

you first deny the worst known massacre of all the crusades saying the crusaders didnt kill anyone but the muslims they killed thousands, then when i put the massacre you just denied existing on the list of atrocoties carried out by both sides you agreed that it happened

i also left off the list the thousands of jews that were massacred by the french contingent of the first crusade, as they marched following the banks of the rhein they dragged every jew they could find in to the street and exectued them, then burned down thier home adn killed and none jews that tried to stop them. this was carried out in germany a long way before they reached the holy land wouldnt you agree

crusader chroniclers made many accounts of the actions of the first crusade, they basically raped pillaged and slaughtered thier way to the holy land and yes this included the christian countries they passed through



Originally posted by JairStout:
General reply #2:

Wikipedia

Why can't it be a reliable source for short definitions and summaries of things? No one should use it for serious research, but for brief information on topics that could fill up an entire book, it's quite helpful. There are some bad articles, but most are fine. If I told you to look something up in the dictionary, would you honestly do it? First you would have to actually own a large dictionary set in order to be sure that you'll find certain information, which most people do not have. So let's try to not have an arrogant, elitest attitude towards the site.

The Assassins

If you do some cross-checking on the summary given by Wikipedia about them, you'll find that it's fairly accurate. Noobfun, I'm not sure what you're getting at by giving me all that unrelated history. You said nothing at all about the Assassins. What were you getting at?


in what way is it even close to accurate? most names and dates are right but practically everything else is ludicrouse..... the crusaders were aware of the nizari through the syrian branch of the nizari, they didnt go to iran. now hassan-i-sabbah while he ruled at alamut(iran) never left the fortress once it was established and the syrian nizari recruited thier own defensive army and fida(the assassins) from amongst thier own people, it was far to dangerous to travel from the western edge of syria through iraq and into the heart of iran becasue that would mean crossing 2 highly aggressive enemy teritories that if bieng caught would mean certain death and a witch hunt for ishma'ili muslims (nizari were an off shoot of ishma'ili muslimisim) living in the city who would then be executed also. so how did the syrian nizari do the whole garden thing and other rediculous initiations with hassan when they never went to iran. alamut its self is a small but heavily fortifed and defensable fortress, there was no room for the secret garden, its also at an altitude that couldnt support such a magnificently lucious garden. as already stated they held areas in mountain's so they could easily defend them selves so dragging drugged initiates out of the mountain passes and valleys to a lower altitude to deposit them in a garden for a week would be extremly dangerous and if any of the enemie nations saw them comming down the mountain carrying a guy who's comatosed from hash would more then likely be killed, and if they were doing this dont you think they would follow them to the garden and just kill anyone there and destroy it

almost all of the plausable stories that are now said to be about hassan we have direct knowledge that they were about sinan the ruler of the syrian state during the third crusade this comes in the form of european, nizari and arabic chroniclers. sinan was the old man of the mountain, did the whole getting 2 fida to jump from a tower to show how loyal his men were. they also didnt think they would go to special heaven for dying while on an assassination by the time of the third crusade they believed they were already in a heaven of sorts, lifted up from the world and brought closer to god they were the chosen they went to heaven as long as they were good nizari(and most nizari wernt fida so)

hassan-i-sabbah was a deeply religeous man and enforced islamic law with a passion that make the taliban look like boy scouts so why would he go against the word of allah and supply intoxicating substances when the koran its self prohibts thier use. he even had his own son exected for drinking wine

william of tyre the most notable of the crusader chroniclers spent a large amount of time at the syrian state of the nizari people and spoke with a deep understanding of thier beliefs and practices, no mention was ever made of the use of drugs, secret gardens, or any of the other many rumours that we have about them,(most of them came from marco polo who turned up hundreds of years after they were destroyed)

most books you can get about the nizari are based on A) marco polo B)von Hammer Purgstall who wrote a book ascribing to them every kind of debauchery imaginable and also used that book to take a swipe at other secretive societies such as jesuits and free masons that he disliked believing all secretive societies are intrisically evil

hell hala lung has written a book called

Knights of Darkness: Secrets of the World's Deadliest Night Fighters

Synopsis
Enter the shadowed lairs of ancient China's deadly moshuh nanren, medieval Japan's Iga and Koga ninja clans, Russia's Spetsnaz commandos, Korea's hwarang, North Vietnam's Vietcong, the Middle East's hashishin assassins and the U.S. Army's Green Berets. This shocking book reveals the stealth secrets of history's night stalkers.

and again we know from nizari,crusader,arabic croniclers that the nizari walked up in broad day light adn stabbed you with a dagger

or they took a position in your house hold( notable dignataries and rulers) that would allow them close proximity to you and wait years if required until the order came then they would stab then

the myth's have overshadowed reality by a long long way, but the truth is the real history is far more interesting

so the information about them bieng branded heretical by pretty much every branch of islam and were persecuted for this wasnt information?

the fact that the hashassin never existed, they were the nizari people, thier assassins were called fida. the word hashassin was aroudn long before the nizari and remind in use until almost present day. its meaning covers both hash eaters, disruptive people, and bandits

i also gave you a link to a book based on the latest factual information we have based on the works of the 2 most notable scholars of the nizari, but i guess you didnt read that as its wasnt pro christian anti muslim enough

that enough information for you?


My chronology

It was not meant to be in depth. Sure, there were many other peoples who occupied the region in between the major ones I mentioned. But that's just it: I listed the major and/or longer occupations of the area. Within the crusading era alone, portions of the Holy Land were traded between everyone from the Mamluks, the Crusaders, the Turks, and even the Mongols. Again noobfun, I'm not sure what you're getting at. My aim was broad, not detailed.

then why start it with jewish control? they lost rule of the city long before the romans came, the romans took direct control around 30ad the jews lost rule of jerusalem in 792bc

in the over 700 years inbetween its pretty much under arabic rule, when alexander invaded he left the persian dignataries in power as was his way to keep the country running in the same way(it was the richest nation on earth and he wanted some of that money heading back to macedonia)

that paints a very different picture to the one you portraid

it was NEVER under jewish rule from 792bc until very recent history

nothing bad is said about the romans mindlessly invading for economic reasons

nothing bad said about the byzantines, you even make the point that they didnt invade but inhereted it when the eastern roman empire collapsed and a large chunk of it became the byzantine empire


Muslim Control (Muslims who were unprovoked conquered Christian Byzantine Palastine).
you make great pains to point out the unprovoked, but failed to mention the unprovoked invasion by the jew, or by the romans or the many many other invasions since it fell out of jewish control, btw the persians that invaded jerusalem wernt even muslim, they didnt convert to islam until later. but you seem to find it hard to differentiate several arabic nations from a religeon

Crusader control (temporarily regained Palastine; was rightfully in Christian hands once again)

see where im getting this idea about thinly veild racism the bad muslims took it unprovoked
even though its rightfully christian... as ive already shown its been in the hands of various arabic nations for a rediculously large portion of its history so why is it rightfully christian?


Ottoman control (Muslim conquest of Palastine once again).
it was first taken back by saladin, and changed through various arabic nations hands until the ottoman empire held it

so in 3000 years of history(that i gave dates for) jerusalem has been controlled by various arabic nations for well over 2000 years, just remind me why its rightfully christian will you? i cant seem to find any valid reason, hell lets go back to its begining thats over 4000 years

the reason i listed all those dates was simple you had a huge hole from 792bc until 30ad(ish) when the romans took direct control of jerusalem

jewish control for roughly 250/300 years christian control(rome converted officially around the end of the 4th century) roughly 300 years
roman (pagan various religeons)300 years
arabic well over 3000 years (this can be broken down further to islamic 1300 years)


That was very broad and brief but gives you a good idea of who was in control of the lands throughout the centuries(totally inaccurate). I will point out that it was Muslims who came in and conquered the Christian lands of Palastine without a reason[. Religious fervor was basically their only alibi. Historians now argue that the Crusades were a much needed and belated responce to centuries of unprovoked Muslim conquest.

again failing to mention that european nations had invaded several times (macedonia/greece and rome) alexanders was kinda prevoked but who prevoked the romans to invade?

why would they need an alibi? and why would it HAVE to be religeous fervor? rome expanded its borders, greece/macedonia expanded its borders to alomst the entire known world, britain expanded its borders, france expanded, germany expanded, america expanded, spain expanded, israel expanded, basically since the dawn of time nations have expanded thier borders for a combination of religeous or economical reasons so why must many arabic nations many of which wernt even islamic have to have expanded becasue of its muslim religeon (see we have another christian/jewish/pagan is fine muslim is bad thing going)



"Massacres"

My point with Antioch was just what I believe you were getting at, noobfun. There were horrible acts committed on BOTH sides of the conflict;

well your ealier post and ill quote


The taking of Jerusalem is a prime example of how people have bent historical fact to fit their own agendas. When the Crusaders entered the city there was no mass slaughter of every living person, including Christians and Jews. This is simply false.

its not its probabily the greatest massacre to occur during all the crusades


1099 First Crusade/Siege of Jerusalem c.70,000 Jerusalem Almost all Muslim & Jewish inhabitants are slaughtered after the fall of the city to the Crusaders

this was taken from my previous post an estimated 70,000 arabs,jews and christians that got in the way slaughtered, but you want us to believe that the first hand accounts we have of it were wrong.


The pillage of Jerusalem
Now that our men had possession of the walls and towers, wonderful sights were to be seen. Some of our men (and this was merciful) 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 with what happened in the Temple of Solomon, a place where religious services are normally chanted. What happened there? If I tell the truth, you would not believe it. Suffice to say that, in the Temple and 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 the unbelievers, since it had suffered so long from their blasphemies. The city was filled with corpses and blood.
From Raymond d'Aguilers, Historia francorum qui ceprint Jerusalem
this was written by someone who was there he saw what happened but your trying to tell us it didnt happen and then point at one of the 2 known massacres by muslims through out 4 crusades

christians good, muslims bad ...



"They all should get Jerusalem"

We've had 1,400 years to try and accomplish this, but it hasn't been done, and probably won't get done in the next 1,400 years.

again an interesting choice of date range 1400 years since muslims (they wernt muslim but you seem unable to differentiate again)pushed the byzantines from jerusalem


sorry guys i know its a bit long but i felt it needed to be said.

it isnt meant as a flame but i understand parts of it can be read as such and agologise if this is the case with the exception of the first paragraph

zgub this threads getting tired and slipping even deeper in to the murk of potentially racist comments(personally think its already over the line) and flame wars can we get it closed please

Krambernie
06-13-2007, 08:44 PM
Noobfun,

You seem pretty knowledgeable on some of these historical issues. Are you working towards a degree in history, or do you teach?

Also, I think conversations like this are great, when a few articulate and knowledgeable people bat around some important stuff. I like a good argument--and I mean "argument" in the sense of giving and taking account, not name calling or the verbal equivalent to hair-pulling. And there IS a good argument in here! I'm glad to see the exchance between you and Jairstout. It brings out some of the complexity and sensitivity involved in just coming to an agreement on history (or historical facts), and well as how to intepret it.

I'm not a historian, but when I get the chance I love reading about the Crusades or Alexander the Great or what have you. Now, being no expert, I find myself agreeing with the substance of Jairstout's posts (I am not qualified to pass any serious judgment on the facts Jairstout, or you, bring to the table). I know that the two of you are arguing about some of the historical facts--and I think that's a good thing to do--but ultimately, I don't see this as an issue of simply who has the facts on their side. The facts of are course important, but it's also about perception, how WE TODAY view what happened back then. We broadbrush historical events as either GOOD or EVIL, but it's always more complicated than that (well, usually). And--correct me if I'm misinterpretting you Jairstout--the "gist" of what you're saying is that we tend to simply see the word "Crusades" and think: EVIL! But (and I think this is part of your point?) things were not so simple--maybe from the point of view of their own time and they're own notions of morality, they were justfied (in a broadbrush sort of way). Now, we can look back and think they were perhaps misguided (and nobody denies horrible things were done on all sides of the fighting), but maybe we shouldn't judge them morally, by standards they did not have. We live in a different time. Maybe, Noobfun, you might agree with this? If I'm missing the point here, please don't hesitate to correct me (Jairstout, Noobfun, or anyone else). I can't spend any more time reading over these posts and thinking about it right now (in a few weeks I'll have more time).

Oh, but one more thing before I go. I do think it's too strong to lay the charge of "racism" or "potential racism" on Jairstout. As far as I can tell, he hasn't said anything "potentially" going in this direction. From my point of view, the word "racism" is a powerful word (it carries a lot of "moral outrage" and a very strong sense of evil in our society--and rightfully so), and it's probably better to not accuse someone of it, unless it's quite clear. The more it's used, the more it will lose significance. If everyone is a racist, then what do we do about the real racists? :-)

Anyway, I'm enjoying the history and the discussion. Feel free to contact me in private if you want to talk.

By the way, this is my first post (hurray for me!!)

HisokaThorongil
06-13-2007, 09:35 PM
General reply #3

"but your personal agenda based posts are desperatly bordering outright racism and are now starting to grate my nerves"

Oh no! You have it backwards, my friend!

"you first deny the worst known massacre of all the crusades saying the crusaders didnt kill anyone but the muslims"

I did no such thing.

"i also left off the list the thousands of jews that were massacred by the french contingent of the first crusade, as they marched following the banks of the rhein they dragged every jew they could find in to the street and exectued them, then burned down thier home adn killed and none jews that tried to stop them. this was carried out in germany a long way before they reached the holy land wouldnt you agree"

Cherry-picking isolated incidents that don't have any relevance sure is easy ain't it noobfun? Like all warfare, the violence was brutal (although not as brutal as modern wars). There were mishaps, blunders, and crimes. These are usually well-remembered today. During the early days of the First Crusade in 1095, a ragtag band of Crusaders led by Count Emicho of Leiningen made its way down the Rhine, robbing and murdering all the Jews they could find. Without success, the local bishops attempted to stop the carnage. In the eyes of these warriors, the Jews, like the Muslims, were the enemies of Christ. Plundering and killing them, then, was no vice. Indeed, they believed it was a righteous deed, since the Jews' money could be used to fund the Crusade to Jerusalem. But they were wrong, and the Church strongly condemned the anti-Jewish attacks. Fifty years later, when the Second Crusade was gearing up, St. Bernard frequently preached that the Jews were not to be persecuted.

"they basically raped pillaged and slaughtered thier way to the holy land and yes this included the christian countries they passed through"

You're one to talk about people having their own agendas. Good Lord man! What kind of history are you reading? "Crusading," Professor Jonathan Riley-Smith has rightly argued, was understood as an "an act of love""”in this case, the love of one's neighbor. The Crusade was seen as an errand of mercy to right a terrible wrong. The second goal was the liberation of Jerusalem and the other places made holy by the life of Christ and NOT to rape, pillage... yada, yada, yada as you say. You mix up INTENT from PRACTISE.

The Assassins:

I'm not even going to begin to pick a part what you wrote about them. If you *really* have researched into the Assassins, and the summary on Wikipedia is inaccurate of them, I'll give you that. Do you truely believe that's the case? If you answer yes, then I'll accept what you say. For I like people who do their own research from reliable sources and come to their own conclusions rather than presume.

"then why start it with jewish control? they lost rule of the city long before the romans came, the romans took direct control around 30ad the jews lost rule of jerusalem in 792bc"

You're right. I'm not denying that. I rushed through the ancient period. That's why I ONLY mentioned Jewish and Roman control. That wasn't the time period in which I was trying to prove my point.

"you even make the point that they didnt invade but inhereted it when the eastern roman empire collapsed and a large chunk of it became the byzantine empire"

There were two Roman Empires. One in the West and one in the East. The Western Empire disolved by the constant invasions by barbaric tribes from across the Rhine. The Eastern Roman Empire, however, never FELL. There were no barbaric tribes who invaded and captured the Eastern lands. And so it then came to be known as the Byzantine Empire. Under Justinian, it even gained lands previously under Western Roman rule. I'm totally right about the Byzantines, sir.

"you make great pains to point out the unprovoked, but failed to mention the unprovoked invasion by the jew, or by the romans or the many many other invasions since it fell out of jewish control, btw the persians that invaded jerusalem wernt even muslim, they didnt convert to islam until later. but you seem to find it hard to differentiate several arabic nations from a religeon"

You miss the very simple fact of that part of my chronology: It was in Christian hands BEFORE Muslims captured the area. The Crusade was formed to *RE*gain those lands which rightly belonged to Christians. Any other nation that inhabited the lands BEFORE the Muslim invasion NEVER mounted an assault. They had just as much right to reclaim it as their own as the Crusaders did. But none ever did. Only the Christians, and they were justified in doing so.

"see where im getting this idea about thinly veild racism the bad muslims took it unprovoked"

What?! You wip out the race card just for me saying that factual statement? Get a hold of yourself! That's a powerful word....

"it was first taken back by saladin, and changed through various arabic nations hands until the ottoman empire held it"

Wrong again. Christians regained it in 1228 and held it until 1244; a period of 16 years. The Ottomans came MUCH later, but here again, you fail to realize the point of my chronology. They were the next major power to hold it for a long period of time (all the way until 1922 actually).

"so in 3000 years of history(that i gave dates for) jerusalem has been controlled by various arabic nations for well over 2000 years"

This is about the 7th time you have FAILED to realize the POINT of my chronology. How many times do I need to spell it out for ya'???

"again failing to mention that european nations had invaded several times"

8th time....

"its not its probabily the greatest massacre to occur during all the crusades"

Then you exemplify the left's PC mindset they propogate.

"this was taken from my previous post an estimated 70,000 arabs,jews and christians that got in the way slaughtered, but you want us to believe that the first hand accounts we have of it were wrong."

I actually disregarded those numbers, as they're probably unfactual. But you can certainly try and prove yourself to be right. By all means, back up your bold claims.

"this was written by someone who was there he saw what happened but your trying to tell us it didnt happen and then point at one of the 2 known massacres by muslims through out 4 crusades"

Oh my!!! Thank you oh so VERY much for being the biggest suck-up to the ignorant PC crowd (harsh but true)! Let me clear your mind of this hypocrisy. Crusades scholar Thomas F. Madden sums it up perfectly:

"Myth 3: When the Crusaders captured Jerusalem in 1099 they massacred every man, woman, and child in the city until the streets ran ankle deep with the blood.

'This is a favorite used to demonstrate the evil nature of the Crusades. Most recently, Bill Clinton in a speech at Georgetown cited this as one reason the United States is a victim of Muslim terrorism. (Although Mr. Clinton brought the blood up to knee level for effect.) It is certainly true that many people in Jerusalem were killed after the Crusaders captured the city. But this must be understood in historical context. The accepted moral standard in all pre-modern European and Asian civilizations was that a city that resisted capture and was taken by force belonged to the victorious forces. That included not just the buildings and goods, but the people as well. That is why every city or fortress had to weigh carefully whether it could hold out against besiegers. If not, it was wise to negotiate terms of surrender. In the case of Jerusalem, the defenders had resisted right up to the end. They calculated that the formidable walls of the city would keep the Crusaders at bay until a relief force in Egypt could arrive. They were wrong. When the city fell, therefore, it was put to the sack. Many were killed, yet many others were ransomed or allowed to go free. By modern standards this may seem brutal. Yet a medieval knight would point out that many more innocent men, women, and children are killed in modern bombing warfare than could possibly be put to the sword in one or two days. It is worth noting that in those Muslim cities that surrendered to the Crusaders the people were left unmolested, retained their property, and allowed to worship freely. As for those streets of blood, no historian accepts them as anything other than a literary convention. Jerusalem is a big town. The amount of blood necessary to fill the streets to a continuous and running three-inch depth would require many more people than lived in the region, let alone the city."

"again an interesting choice of date range 1400 years since muslims"

I chose that date because that was roughly when Islam began and started to conquer new lands. Surely you got that right? Maybe not... just go look up the founding of Islam.

"zgub this threads getting tired and slipping even deeper in to the murk of potentially racist comments(personally think its already over the line) and flame wars can we get it closed please"

For me personally, I believe *you* are the one with a MASSIVE chip on your shoulder with a bigotry against Christianity. I can't say for sure as I've never met you in person, so I'll try not to judge *too* much, but the "signs," as you so aptly said of my "racism," seem to be there with you. I'm a Christian myself, and I hope this isn't true.

zgubilici
06-14-2007, 01:05 AM
I have already asked all of you to keep things civilized in here.

JairStout, this thread fares no better than the similar (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/5251069024/m/7881012584/p/1) ones (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/5251069024/m/6771094684?r=6461015684#6461015684) that you've created previously. Those were closed, for the reasons for which this thread approaches closure very rapidly (and they can be seen again in the closure posts of the linked threads) - I asked you at that point to keep these kind of discussions in PTs, for obvious reasons. And it would be a very wise choice to start that PT now with the people you wish to debate this further.
I gave this thread another chance at this type of topic with the hope that the discussions can be kept respectful to the other members' beliefs, opinions, etc. But it is going downhill very rapidly. If I see anymore nit pickings,bickerings, finger pointings, insults and flamings, this thread will reach a very abrupt end. This is the final warning.

moqqy and knife_X, do not insult your fellow forum members or bicker again - this is not the only thread in which you are displaying this behaviour - it has to stop, or you will have to face suspension.


Thanks.

knife_X
06-14-2007, 03:03 AM
lol ok zgubilici I`ll stop but hes so funny hehe I cant control myself. Have to annoy him when it`s so easy.

noobfun
06-14-2007, 07:15 AM
Originally posted by JairStout:
General reply #3

"but your personal agenda based posts are desperatly bordering outright racism and are now starting to grate my nerves"

Oh no! You have it backwards, my friend!

"you first deny the worst known massacre of all the crusades saying the crusaders didnt kill anyone but the muslims"

I did no such thing.


Cherry-picking isolated incidents that don't have any relevance sure is easy ain't it noobfun? Like all warfare, the violence was brutal (although not as brutal as modern wars). There were mishaps, blunders, and crimes. These are usually well-remembered today. During the early days of the First Crusade in 1095, a ragtag band of Crusaders led by Count Emicho of Leiningen made its way down the Rhine, robbing and murdering all the Jews they could find. Without success, the local bishops attempted to stop the carnage. In the eyes of these warriors, the Jews, like the Muslims, were the enemies of Christ. Plundering and killing them, then, was no vice. Indeed, they believed it was a righteous deed, since the Jews' money could be used to fund the Crusade to Jerusalem. But they were wrong, and the Church strongly condemned the anti-Jewish attacks. Fifty years later, when the Second Crusade was gearing up, St. Bernard frequently preached that the Jews were not to be persecuted.

"they basically raped pillaged and slaughtered thier way to the holy land and yes this included the christian countries they passed through"

You're one to talk about people having their own agendas. Good Lord man! What kind of history are you reading? "Crusading," Professor Jonathan Riley-Smith has rightly argued, was understood as an "an act of love""”in this case, the love of one's neighbor. The Crusade was seen as an errand of mercy to right a terrible wrong. The second goal was the liberation of Jerusalem and the other places made holy by the life of Christ and NOT to rape, pillage... yada, yada, yada as you say. You mix up INTENT from PRACTISE.

nope im not mixing intent from practice

the intent was simple reclaim the holy land back to chrisendem, the practice was rape pilage and massacre all the way to jerusalem


The taking of Jerusalem is a prime example of how people have bent historical fact to fit their own agendas. When the Crusaders entered the city there was no mass slaughter of every living person, including Christians and Jews. This is simply false. Most people either paid a fine to leave the city safely or were expelled completely. Those that did die, nothing can be said of them, for a small number of innocents die in any war.

your missunderstanding Thomas F. Maden

your above words indicate very few people were killed just a bit of colateral damage most people were ransomed or just walked off in to history unmolested

what Thomas F. Maden was trying to say with his myths about the crusades is that the myth about every man woman and child in the city bieng killed was a myth, its actually a miss quote from Fulk (or Fulcher) of Chartres account


At the noon hour on Friday, with trumpets sounding, amid great commotion and sbouting "God help us," the Franks entered the city. When the pagans saw one standard planted on the wall, they were completely demoralized, and all their former boldness vanished, and they turned to flee through the narrow streets of the city. Those who were already in rapid flight began to flee more rapidly.

Count Raymond and his men, who were attacking the wall on the other side, did not yet know of all this, until they saw the Saracens leap from the wall in front of them. Forthwith, they joyfully rushed into the city to pursue and kill the nefarious enemies, as their comrades were already doing. Some Saracens, Arabs, and Ethiopians took refuge in the tower of David, others fled to the temples of the Lord and of Solomon. A great fight took place in the court and porch of the temples, where they were unable to escape from our gladiators. Many fled to the roof of the temple of Solomon, and were shot with arrows, so that they fell to the ground dead. In this temple almost ten thousand were killed. Indeed, if you had been there you would have seen our feet colored to our ankles with the blood of the slain. But what more shall I relate? None of them were left alive; neither women nor children were spared.

what the men women and children actually meant was of the people who took refuge in the temple of solomon all were massacred near 10,000 in this 1 temple now imagine how many that was in the 2 temples he mentions, now think about how many that could be in the entire city (the full account can be found here (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/fulk2.html))

there WAS a HUGE massacre but not every man woman and child in the city as the myth goes

what do i mean about the rape pilage and murdering thier way to the holy land


All this occurred on the third day of the incoming month of June, the fifth day of the week, the third day before the Nones of June. All the squares of the city were already everywhere full of the corpses of the dead, so that no one could endure it there for the excessive stench. No one could go along a street of the city except over the bodies of the dead. the fall of antioch : Gesta

and all the below accounts took place in christian europe


Emico, Count of the lands around the Rhine, a man long of very ill repute on account of his tyrannical mode of life. Called by divine revelation, like another Saul, as he maintained, to the practice of religion of this kind, he usurped to himself the command of almost twelve thousand cross bearers. As they were led through the cities of the Rhine and the Main and also the Danube, they either utterly destroyed the execrable race of the Jews wherever they found them (being even in this matter zealously devoted to the Christian religion) or forced them into the bosom of the Church. ooo forced convertion from judaism .. isnt that against the rules of christianity


And thus the men of our race, zealous, doubtless, for God, though not according to the knowledge of God, began to persecute other Christians while yet upon the expedition which Christ had provided for freeing Christians both taken from Ekkehard of Aura


But the abovementioned Peter was the first to reach Constantinople, on the Kalends of August, and with him was a very large host of Alemanni. There he found assembled Lombards, and Longobards, and many others. The Emperor had ordered such a market as was in the city to be given to these people. And he said to them, "Do not cross the Strait until the chief host of the Chritians has come, for you are not so strong that you can do battle with the Turks." The Christians conducted themselves badly, inasmuch as they tore down and burned buildings of the city and carried off the lead with which the churches were constructed sold it to the Greeks. The Emperor was enraged thereat and ordered them to cross the Strait. After they bad crossed, they did not cease doing all manner of evil, burning and plundering houses and churches. At length they reached Nicomedia, gesta again

i wasnt cherry picking a certain event with the jewish massacre, there were many of them undertaken by several crusading armies they also caused havoc and mass destruction in hungary (christian) and the above shows of thier actions in byzantium the country they were sent to help

all of the accounts above are first hand accounts and can be found from here (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/index.html)

yes your right he did preach about not killing jews as did the pope of both the first and second crusade, jews were always looked upon as christians that got a bit lost(by deny jesus as the son of god) but they will catch up and be good christians later

which is why after rome adopted christianity as its primary religeon it made it law that paganism was punishable by death, unless you were jewish



The Assassins:

If you answer yes, then I'll accept what you say. For I like people who do their own research from reliable sources and come to their own conclusions rather than presume.

YES



You're right. I'm not denying that. I rushed through the ancient period. That's why I ONLY mentioned Jewish and Roman control. That wasn't the time period in which I was trying to prove my point.

You miss the very simple fact of that part of my chronology: It was in Christian hands BEFORE Muslims captured the area. The Crusade was formed to *RE*gain those lands which rightly belonged to Christians. Any other nation that inhabited the lands BEFORE the Muslim invasion NEVER mounted an assault. They had just as much right to reclaim it as their own as the Crusaders did. But none ever did. Only the Christians, and they were justified in doing so.

your chronology didnt make sense staring with jewish control then jumping 700 years to roman it spent those 700 years in arabic hands, prior to the jew's capturing the city it was in arabic hands, after it was captured from christian hands by arabs then islamic turks

it was only christian before muslim because islam in its present from wasnt around, prior to islam the main religeon was a form of idol worship that entailed praying facing mecca and pilgramges to damascus that can still be seen in islam today. infact of the many idols at mecca that were worshiped the main one was called allah. as islam is an intergration of some of the earlier idol worship with zoastrasism christianity and judasim you could arge it was an early form of islam so there for they were thier first

it was in arabic hands before it became christian, so it isnt RIGHTLY christian land, it was founded by an arabic culture spent most of its time in arabic hands. so chronologically it belongs to arabs of what ever faith they chose to follow at the time

the only way it could be rightfully christian is in terms of conquest who ever holds the land it belongs to but then when it was conquered again it was no longer rightfully christian

or religeous terms, its full of christian religeous places, well in that case its rightfully jewish they had thier holy places there before christianity began. if its christian because christian holy places were built on top of jewish holy places then its rightfully muslim becasue they placed thier holy places on top of yours, which ever way you look at it in this sense it isnt christian but muslim or jewish




What?! You wip out the race card just for me saying that factual statement? Get a hold of yourself! That's a powerful word....

"it was first taken back by saladin, and changed through various arabic nations hands until the ottoman empire held it"

Wrong again. Christians regained it in 1228 and held it until 1244; a period of 16 years. The Ottomans came MUCH later, but here again, you fail to realize the point of my chronology. They were the next major power to hold it for a long period of time (all the way until 1922 actually).

yes it is and yes i do, ive had this discusion here serveal times and thats where it usually heads so i play it now so you will keep your self in check later. adn your statement was all that factual as ive shown

no it isnt wrong at all saladin captured it shortly before the third crusade

the fact that i missed a very brief 16 years(it was counted in the rough who held it for how long dates) is kinda petty to raise as you dropped over 700 years of arabic rule from your chronology



This is about the 7th time you have FAILED to realize the POINT of my chronology. How many times do I need to spell it out for ya'???

8th time.... guess you need a 9th your chronolgy was a brief history to show how it was rightlyfully christian (and your chronology was flawed)

mine was more indepth and showed how it was predominantley arabic rule in its history so there fore rightfully arabic



Then you exemplify the left's PC mindset they propogate.

I actually disregarded those numbers, as they're probably unfactual. But you can certainly try and prove yourself to be right. By all means, back up your bold claims.

"this was written by someone who was there he saw what happened but your trying to tell us it didnt happen and then point at one of the 2 known massacres by muslims through out 4 crusades"

Oh my!!! Thank you oh so VERY much for being the biggest suck-up to the ignorant PC crowd (harsh but true)! Let me clear your mind of this hypocrisy. Crusades scholar Thomas F. Madden sums it up perfectly:

"Myth 3: When the Crusaders captured Jerusalem in 1099 they massacred every man, woman, and child in the city until the streets ran ankle deep with the blood. your misquoting/understanding this your using Thomas F Maddens words which disprove the myth that everyone was slaughtered to disprove there was any slaughter, weve already covered so yes it harsh but untrue, lets move on shall we




"again an interesting choice of date range 1400 years since muslims"

I chose that date because that was roughly when Islam began and started to conquer new lands. Surely you got that right? Maybe not... just go look up the founding of Islam.

yes i know when islam was founded, which is how i know the persians(arabs) that rightfully regained the city of jerusalem for the arabic people(couldnt resist using your own universals) wernt muslim they converted later


"zgub this threads getting tired and slipping even deeper in to the murk of potentially racist comments(personally think its already over the line) and flame wars can we get it closed please"

For me personally, I believe *you* are the one with a MASSIVE chip on your shoulder with a bigotry against Christianity. I can't say for sure as I've never met you in person, so I'll try not to judge *too* much, but the "signs," as you so aptly said of my "racism," seem to be there with you. I'm a Christian myself, and I hope this isn't true.

ok lets place care and share i was born and raised a christian attended church every sunday followed by sunday school(think of it like bible studies for kids if your not english). read the bible cover to cover several times (revelations is my favorite) started asking questions because of it and realised what i was bieng taught wasnt the religeon of the bible, looked in to history took the meanings and guides to how a person should live and droped all the bits and exercises that were added later

i view christanity like i view most organised religeons dam good in its ideals and prinicples unfortunatley it practices and controlers dont live up to them

now you could tell me im not going to heaven and im going to burn in hell, but the bible already told me christians arnt going to heaven its only got room for 20,000

i dont have a chip on my shoulder against any religeon i just object to people using it to try and enforce false facts on others. such as this is rightfully christian thats rightfully muslim etc etc

i play devils advocate, the more you head one way the more i head in the opposite

the more you demand it was christian the more i show it was arabic

the more you deny a slaughter then more i prove it was so

both sides were equally guilty of destruction and massacre, the christians were ahead on the numbers and occassions though

MKCC14
06-14-2007, 03:36 PM
Its just a game, some people take things a bit too far.

FableB
06-14-2007, 04:58 PM
I'm don't know much about history as you guys do, so I'll try to keep myself out of this, but I just HAVE to say the following:

Jerusalem is not the first nor the last piece on Earth who happens to be in a constant conflict over its history, and who-rightfully-owns-it.

Arabs may have done some mistakes, but the problem is, Western people, or let's say, governments also did, and DOING. Take that little city in Morocco for example (Sorry, I forgot its name), that city is part of Spain, and the Spanish governent still hold it, and you Morrocan people can't enter it without a Visa. It's normal, every nation wants to control either to ensure its safety or to ensure its economic balance, and sometimes both.

And there are alot of such cases all over the world, governments in constant conflicts, historians in constant biasing. That's why I think such discussions will not come to an end, no one will say "Ok, you're right, Jerusalem truly belongs to...", because the problem is history has been biased for each side, each side biased some facts to support its call for ownership, and these things happen all he time, and its not a good thing.

I like this history lesson that everyone is giving, but what bugs me is things such as "No, that is not right...A historian named "..." said...", if you search enough, you will find ANYTHING (Biased and unbiased facts), that's why things can't really settle. You can name a source and call it unbiased, but can you tell for sure? You can't.

EDIT: One more thing, JairStout, please don't you the term "Muslim Terrorism", differentiate. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

moqqy
06-20-2007, 07:10 AM
Well it's a little bringing the topic back up, but seems like JairStout came up with almost exactly the same thread before http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/5251069024/m/7881012584

zsmith53
06-20-2007, 09:43 AM
Here everyone....this was just something interesting I picked up from google. Not saying it's true, and not trying to make a point, but it's a good read.

http://www.alamut.com/subj/ideologies/alamut/etymolAss.html