Did you ignore my counter point altogether or just focused on that word? I've seen people like Steven Crowder prop up the defense argument.
- 1
Deus Vult - A Megathread (Read OP Before Posting)
- Thread starter Mr. Capiatlist
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
Did you ignore my counter point altogether or just focused on that word? I've seen people like Steven Crowder prop up the defense argument.
Yup. Because there was some fuzz about For Honor, and, actually, for CK2 as well. So one person would find lack of Deus Vult phrase, triggered and declared this all "shadow SJW plot to rewrite language silently". Then hell would be unleashed.
Been there, seen that.
See, this is why you aren't taken seriously. Crowder isn't alt-right, he is simply a Christian conservative.
This is mostly incorrect, since the First Crusade was directly launched in response to the Byzantine Empires plea to Pope Urban for support against the current and active threat against them. The defense in question wasn't of the already conquered lands but the current Byzantine territory under continous siege by muslim powers.
Although I also don't really agree with the idea that these territories having been conquered "centuries ago" makes them somehow ineligible for reclamation, given christians were still living in them and were facing active persecution and supression. In fact muslim enslaving of christian pilgrims was another reason given for the Crusades.
Especially since that reasoning also justifies all subsequent crusades as defensive efforts against the conquering muslim powers, since the "Holy Land" also had been held by christians for centuries then.
Of course you're right of the Baltic crusades, but thats also not what people are generally thinking of here.
Sure, call people what you want. I'm still getting downvoted just for correcting history by people so "concerned" with history whitewashing.
- 1
Alt-right? This has been a debate by respected historians before the phrase alt-right even came to be. If the alt right want to weigh in on debates then that's up to them but it doesn't mean they own them.
Here's an article by historian Thomas F. Madden from 2011 for example.
https://www.crisismagazine.com/2011/the-real-history-of-the-crusades
Allright, Paradox.
Please give us an official answer to this:
Did the journalist lie there, or what happened.
Also, in either case, don't ever let yourself get interviewed by these guys again, the interviewers attitude was below every manure pit.
Please give us an official answer to this:
Did the journalist lie there, or what happened.
Also, in either case, don't ever let yourself get interviewed by these guys again, the interviewers attitude was below every manure pit.
While you are right on the conquest of the Levant being centuries old, and the defensive argument not suiting the Baltic Crusades, the argument given for the Crusades was in response to Alexios' plea for help after losing Anatolia to the Seljuk Turks... scarcely a decade prior. Also, there was the remarkably harsh rule of Caliph Al-Hakim, during which several churches were damaged or destroyed, and the rights of Christians under Fatimid rule were curtailed.
Edit: Beat to it by @False_Prophet
Its not as if the Islamic conquests stopped at the Levant, and while medieval demography is an inexact science, most demographers think that the area was still majority Christian at the time of the Crusades. Heck, the Crusader States were themselves "centuries old" by the time they fell, so would you also consider the Muslims in 1291 as unjustified aggressors when they took Acre?
Also most alt-right types are on the side of the Baltic pagans when it comes to the Baltic Crusades.
What you said and what he said are in no way incompatible. The Muslim conquest of the Levant was centuries old (although the Eastern Roman Empire had been contesting that conquest for nearly a century by the time of the Crusades), but the First Crusade was, according to our best sources, triggered by the recent Muslim/Turkish conquest of Anatolia under Tughril Bey and his various subordinate rulers.
e.g. the First Crusade was launched as a result of Muslim aggression (or rather, aggression by a Muslim ruler/rulers), and they had as their goal the reconquest of a region that had been under Christian control centuries ago. Think of it as a stretch goal on a Kickstarter that got more hype than the main project.
EDIT: I got the wrong Turkish ruler. It was Alp Arslan and Malik Shah who were involved in the conquests in Anatolia: Tughril Bey was the man who took de facto control of the territory of the Abbasid Caliphate. My bad guys.
Well, you see, the person tried to say "We haven't looked at it yet", but somehow his mouth said "Rest assured, that will absolutely never be in the game", thereby miscommunicating the actual situation.
Either that, or the journalist took creative liberties, but such a thing is surely impossible and unprecedented.
Nobody, including the crusaders, thought the First Crusade was going to be as militarily successful as it was.
Maybe. But arguing that the Crusades, wars that involved shipping men from Europe and send them on the opposite side of the Mediterranean to attack lands held by Muslims for four centuries at that point, were actually defensive in nature is just having a warped definition of "defensive".
Nope, IT WAS. Deus lo vult was used by Ordo Equestris Sancti Sepulchri Hierosolymitani after it`s creation in 1099, but Deus Vult was said by Urban II in 1095, and Deus Vult actually was battlecry of first Crusade. So... All that blowing still actual. And I don`t know who is really wrong over there, but...
...and actually this particular Christians wasn't exactly Romans as well.
I want you to contemplate for a moment that you are basically saying that the Invasion of germany towards the end of WW2 was a war of aggression because people got shipped from across the ocean to perform it.
Agreed. Even if there was Islamic expansion elsewhere, there is no way you can reasonably twist the entire conflict into being defensive in nature. And seeing as the original person on that topic was saying the entire conflict was defensive, I don't think there's a reason we should limit things to what people thought before the Crusades even kicked into high gear.
Well, you see, the person tried to say "We haven't looked at it yet", but somehow his mouth said "Rest assured, that will absolutely never be in the game", thereby miscommunicating the actual situation.
Either that, or the journalist took creative liberties, but such a thing is surely impossible and unprecedented.
Knowing Rock Paper Shotgun, I wouldn't be surprised if the writer just sat there daydreaming about being held aloft by the grateful masses like Daenerys and didn't hear what Paradox actually said, and had to pad the article with his own inferences. Still, getting from "we dunno yet" to "absolutely comrade, we reject these vile dogwhistles and shall join you in banishing them from the video games!" is a hell of a leap to make without the author getting at least some affirmative comment from Paradox.
Arguing that the Allies in WW2, a war that involved shipping men from North America and sending them to the opposite side of the Atlantic to attack lands held by Germans for millenia at that point, were actually fighting a war defensive in nature is just having a warped definition of "defensive".
- Status