Why the crusades were awesome?

[Danioover9000]

   Good example of other developmental factors, and doing your own research into history. Don't take for granted mainstream history, and ideological views:

   Just goes to show, if they got this part of history wrong, what other parts of history are distorted and lied about?

[Recursoinominado]

Don't believe everything you see, historical revisionism is a thing.

Everyone has an agenda.

[Vrubel]

@Danioover9000 That's biased as hell, he conveniently leaves out genocidal massacres committed by the people's crusade led by Peter the Hermit. And they literally killed every man, women and child after they conquered Jerusalem in the first crusade. Of course social advancement and "legit" geopolitical considerations allowed for the crusades to happen.
But apart from an unbelievably successful first crusade, they were mostly a series of failures and disasters, also for the wider Christian world. They sacked Constantinople because of some petty internal squabbles, which Crusaders had all the time. Constantinople would never recover from that and the most wealthiest and advanced medieval Empire would be mostly forgotten and not given much thought after the Turkish conquest. 

The medieval age is complex and nuanced but in general, Muslims were more advanced and tolerant back then. Obviously, everyone was a barbarian in a sense back then. Saladin was not like a highly enlightened and compassionate good guy but in a medieval Islamic context, he certainly had a certain decency and integrity. Definitely not as fanatic as the Christians.

[Danioover9000]

@Vrubel

2 hours ago, Vrubel said:

@Danioover9000 That's biased as hell, he conveniently leaves out genocidal massacres committed by the people's crusade led by Peter the Hermit. And they literally killed every man, women and child after they conquered Jerusalem in the first crusade. Of course social advancement and "legit" geopolitical considerations allowed for the crusades to happen.
But apart from an unbelievably successful first crusade, they were mostly a series of failures and disasters, also for the wider Christian world. They sacked Constantinople because of some petty internal squabbles, which Crusaders had all the time. Constantinople would never recover from that and the most wealthiest and advanced medieval Empire would be mostly forgotten and not given much thought after the Turkish conquest. 

The medieval age is complex and nuanced but in general, Muslims were more advanced and tolerant back then. Obviously, everyone was a barbarian in a sense back then. Saladin was not like a highly enlightened and compassionate good guy but in a medieval Islamic context, he certainly had a certain decency and integrity. Definitely not as fanatic as the Christians.

   To me the video is a great example of a time when the world was peak stage blue to red, and problems with revisionism. As the principle goes, no ideology or dogma of any kind.

[Danioover9000]

@Recursoinominado

11 hours ago, Recursoinominado said:

Don't believe everything you see, historical revisionism is a thing.

Everyone has an agenda.

   Yes, this video is a good example of that. Just people sugar coating history, whichever side you bias and prefer for, you'd give a rosy tint to.

[Danioover9000]

   Why am I getting hate mail and death threats here? Please go a read the guidelines page first before posting. No dogma please.

   'Don't shoot the messenger.'.

[Zedman]

Author fights against biased mainstream narrative about crusades with some bias of his own

[Sucuk Ekmek]

@Danioover9000 This is a low quality post.

[Danioover9000]

@Zedman

2 hours ago, Zedman said:

Author fights against biased mainstream narrative about crusades with some bias of his own

   Can't be helped I guess. Not many people have a tier 2 cognitive development, a systemic stage yellow view of the world.

[Danioover9000]

@Sucuk Ekmek

1 hour ago, Sucuk Ekmek said:

@Danioover9000 This is a low quality post.

   How? I'm just sharing what bias looks like, from the mainstream takes of the crusades, to this person's take. It's mostly an example of some misinterpretations of stage red/blue.

[Israfil]

3 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

@Vrubel

   To me the video is a great example of a time when the world was peak stage blue to red, and problems with revisionism. As the principle goes, no ideology or dogma of any kind.

Do not think that this isn't biased. The whole point of ideology is that you are unaware that you're reproducing it as you do.
 

 

[hyruga]

Yeah without the crusades, all the people living in Europe would have Islam as their religion. The women would wear headscarf and the men wear robes.

You wouldn't be talking about psychedelics. Men would be talking about how many wives they would take and government would discuss on whether alcohol should be legalized.

Edited August 22, 2023 by hyruga

[Israfil]

33 minutes ago, hyruga said:

Yeah without the crusades, all the people living in Europe would have Islam as their religion. The women would wear headscarf and the men wear robes.

You wouldn't be talking about psychedelics. Men would be talking about how many wives they would take and government would discuss on whether alcohol should be legalized.

Source: voices from my head.

[Sucuk Ekmek]

1 hour ago, Danioover9000 said:

@Sucuk Ekmek

   How? I'm just sharing what bias looks like, from the mainstream takes of the crusades, to this person's take. It's mostly an example of some misinterpretations of stage red/blue.

Oups, my bad. I thought you were promoting this video.

[Danioover9000]

@Sucuk Ekmek

43 minutes ago, Sucuk Ekmek said:

Oups, my bad. I thought you were promoting this video.

   Yes, my whole point in making this thread is to share what ideological views, biases, especially for past historical events that had a lot of stage red/blue, looks like. To me, this is not limited to Christianity vs Islam vs Judaism, it's ways more than that. There was a point when the Mongolian empire was so wide and big that if they were more tactical and resourceful, they'd become the next super power or at least their fall as an empire would have been later. If China's geography or evolution was different, and they were aggressive in they're expansion, they would have been the super power later. Id Germany won WW1 or WW2, Germany would have been the next superpower.

   That's all I'm trying to show, oh, and those still reading please stop with the hate mail, haven't attacked anyone personally. Just sharing some ideological views and examples. Please be civil, read the guidelines before commenting thanks.

[Danioover9000]

@hyruga

1 hour ago, hyruga said:

Yeah without the crusades, all the people living in Europe would have Islam as their religion. The women would wear headscarf and the men wear robes.

You wouldn't be talking about psychedelics. Men would be talking about how many wives they would take and government would discuss on whether alcohol should be legalized.

   Yes, I partly agree, but eventually those would be limits to religion, and the separation of religion and state, and liberalism would still emerge, capitalism would still happen regardless. For example, even if Germany won WW2 and half or more of the world fell under it's sphere of influence, later Germany would still fall like all other empires before it. Stage blue would hit an excess, which would make it untenable, and the transformational dilemma would still occur and the collective ego would transform more over time into stage orange and green, maybe into stage yellow and turquoise. Evolution, despite what individual egos or collective egos want, will still happen regardless of ideological worldviews indoctrinated, groomed and gas lite by your upbringing and culture.  

[Danioover9000]

@Israfil

57 minutes ago, Israfil said:

Source: voices from my head.

   Come on, don't be bad faith and uncharitable. Please try to understand that user's point of view.

[Vrubel]

Stronghold Crusader was a sick game though 

[Israfil]

1 hour ago, Danioover9000 said:

@Israfil

   Come on, don't be bad faith and uncharitable. Please try to understand that user's point of view.

Counterhistory is not a serious argument. Christians were as fanatic, and in some regards more fanatical than Muslims in the middle ages. The roots of nationalism also have its roots in the Crusades. I could also argue that Nazism would never come into being if it weren't for the Crusades. It is simply not fruitful to analyze the past on basis of what could be, being more useful to analyze it as it is.

[Danioover9000]

@Israfil

1 hour ago, Israfil said:

Counterhistory is not a serious argument. Christians were as fanatic, and in some regards more fanatical than Muslims in the middle ages. The roots of nationalism also have its roots in the Crusades. I could also argue that Nazism would never come into being if it weren't for the Crusades. It is simply not fruitful to analyze the past on basis of what could be, being more useful to analyze it as it is.

   I'm not here to argue and debate, heated discourse, against forum guidelines. Sometimes it's useful to study history IMO, from multiple perspectives, to learn the lessons, mistakes, and successes, especially the failures, so that we can discern the present and the future, to not repeat past atrocities. If you don't take counter history into consideration, and don't look at past mistakes, and maintain general ignorance and evil of the population, and elite class, then people who are ignorant of developmental factors, will keep on repeating their ideological worldviews thinking they're right. Again, not limited to Christians, Muslims, Jews, there's so many more ideologies like Taoists/Daoists, Confucianism, Traditionalism, conservativism, modernism, centrism, liberalism, libertarianism, socialism, progressivism, communism. and so many others.