Political Crossfire Forums

[bob.appleyard]

LostSoul3412 wrote: I would definitely have to go with Charlemagne. Not only did it conquer the all of modern-day France, Germany, most of Italy, and Poland... but he did it all without a country to start.

Wrong. He was the third Carolingian king of Francia, which covered Neustria (northern France) Austrasia (low countries, bit of Germany) and Aquitania (Languedoc). Charlemagne conquered a bit of Spain, Saxony and Italy. He was a great conqueror, but he DID have a country to begin with, and a mighty one at that, compared to its neighbours.

Quote: Most conquers, like those listed, pitted their nations against others, but Charlemagne forged an empire out of nothing. The Holy Roman Empire was an empire that stood for over 500 years, and the Hapsburg line continued all the way till 1918 with the fall of Austria-Hungary.

Charlemagne did not create the Holy Roman Empire. The territory he conquered only lasted a generation before falling apart. Otto the Great, when he declared his "renovato" after defeating the Magyars at the Lech, was the man who most deserves the honour. But they didn't called it the Holy Roman Empire, just the Roman Empire. The "Holy" came rather a lot later.

Also note that the Holy Roman Empire continued up until Napoleon. That's 850 years.

Quote: The ability to create something, let alone an empire, out of the chaos that was created by the fall of Rome, is why I say that Charlemagne deserves the title "The Greatest Conqueror The World Has Ever Seen".

He was a great historical figure. Hardly the greatest, though.

[Saracen]

Jehan wrote: Saracen wrote: You're right, of course, Jehan. However, the Muslims at the time were driven out of Jerusalem by the Crusaders at first, with indiscriminate slaughtering of Muslims, Jews, and even Eastern Christians. When the Muslims retook Jerusalem, not a lot of blood was spilled except those of the perpetrators. Richard the Lion-Hearted was smart enough not to confront the Muslims in Jerusalem, and he was quite an exceptional character. Even I admire him for these reasons.

Saladin actually wanted to slaughter everyone in Jerusalem. The Christians, who had no intention of dying in such a way, threatened to destroy the Al-Aqsa Mosque, one of the most reverred Islamic sites of worship. This threat convinced Saladin that a violent attack would be too costly, and agreed to let them go peacefully after they paid a ransom.

I've heard of that. However, it wasn't really in his intention that he wanted to destroy Jerusalem. It was that the Christians wanted to destroy the Aqsa mosque that he used psychological warfare to force the Christians to surrender. You're right for the most part. However, Saladin mainly dealth justice more than just bloody violence: he executed several Templars who were responsible for the deaths of many Muslims, Jews and Christians (I'd say Arabs).

Quote: While there is little doubt that the Crusaders were barbaric, there are instances where the Muslims were no better. If you don't believe me, see what happened when they took Edessa.

Yep, and that's why I believe that the Crusades were not really that "Holy".

[thundertaker]

Quote: Yep, and that's why I believe that the Crusades were not really that "Holy".

Why not? There was nothing more holy in the mind of the average medieval christian than slaughtering infidels and heretics for the glory of God.......

[Saracen]

thundertaker wrote: Why not? There was nothing more holy in the mind of the average medieval christian than slaughtering infidels and heretics for the glory of God.......

The Muslims were not the aggressive ones in the Crusades. Granted, they "provoked" the violence with one of their leaders who went psycho, burned down a synagogue or a church (can't remember) and declared himself God incarnate. However, the Crusaders turned out to be bloody as well, slaughtering Arabs (Muslims, Jews AND Christians). I don't think it is "Holy" because the violence and intolerance exhibited by the Crusaders and the violence exhibited by the Arabs was by no means something "Godly".

[lowchen]

Saracen wrote: . Alexander conquered and destroyed... almost.

Really?? well tons of historians would disagree with you. Alexander built howver like most conquerors he also burnt and destroyed.

[Saracen]

lowchen wrote: Saracen wrote: . Alexander conquered and destroyed... almost.

Really?? well tons of historians would disagree with you. Alexander built howver like most conquerors he also burnt and destroyed.

Of course, but I believe that the Islamic Empire built more than they destroyed. Alexander, I believe, did the opposite.

What do you think?

[superskippy]

I would say thats ridiculous. Alexander created a culture which lasted thousands of years, he created cities that last to this day from Egypt to Turkmenistan, to India. He forged roads and highways that still last to this day. He created the Hellenistic Culture, and the Hellenistic world.

He far surpassed the Islamic Empires, few have come close to even matching his achievments.

[Misanthropy]

You all are assuming that being a great conqueror is defined by the land they subdued, the armies they harnessed, and whether or not they destroyed or created. I personally think the greatest conqueror of all time was Charlemange. He was the only king to effectively (to a certain degree) beat back the arabs from europe's borders.

[Saracen]

superskippy wrote: I would say thats ridiculous. Alexander created a culture which lasted thousands of years, he created cities that last to this day from Egypt to Turkmenistan, to India. He forged roads and highways that still last to this day. He created the Hellenistic Culture, and the Hellenistic world.

He far surpassed the Islamic Empires, few have come close to even matching his achievments.

You're right about Hellenistic culture, but let's just examine the Islamic Empire's contributions... if you please.

For example, you have Ottoman architecture, which is still applied this day in Turkey and other parts of the Arab world. You also have many advancements in the field of Medicine... Philosophy... Art... Astronomy... and other fields of science...

Not to mention that they created a Civilization out of North Africa, East Asia, the Middle East and part of Europe.

Here is a map of the early Islamic Empire:



Here is also the map of the later Islamic Empire, including the Silk Road:



And with this, I'd like to say: Allahu akbar!

[Saracen]

Welcome to the forums! :-D

Misanthropy wrote: You all are assuming that being a great conqueror is defined by the land they subdued, the armies they harnessed, and whether or not they destroyed or created. I personally think the greatest conqueror of all time was Charlemange. He was the only king to effectively (to a certain degree) beat back the arabs from europe's borders.

Are you sure it was Charlemagne who expelled the Arabs? The last time I heard, he was fighting alongside the Abbassids against the Umayyad Moors of Spain, who managed to repel the invading Christian army, who also got their @$$es kicked even further by a Basque ambush. It was after this major invasion that he never set foot in Al Andalus (Iberia) again.

[Misanthropy]

Yes the Islamic empires of old did do a great deal on conquering but that was back then. If they had not stayed in a 5th century mindset, they might have much more land under their rule today.

[Saracen]

Misanthropy wrote: Yes the Islamic empires of old did do a great deal on conquering but that was back then. If they had not stayed in a 5th century mindset, they might have much more land under their rule today.

Are you implying that Muslims are backwards? That's a bit racist, don't you think?

[Misanthropy]

No, im simply implying that their mindset is well out of date. That statement could further imply it has something to do with their religious rules. I do not intend that in a racist way, but it is fact that many of the islamic people are far behind, and this hinders their ability to be strong leaders, and even conquerors, of the modern world.

[Saracen]

Misanthropy wrote: No, im simply implying that their mindset is well out of date. That statement could further imply it has something to do with their religious rules. I do not intend that in a racist way, but it is fact that many of the islamic people are far behind, and this hinders their ability to be strong leaders, and even conquerors, of the modern world.

I highly doubt that. It's not that we are in such a mindset, but because our leaders are making it seem that they're a mindset. I suggest you do some reading on interventionism and then come back to me. It's not really a fact that Muslims are "far behind". It's just that there is a large lackk of education because of property and despotic leaders that rule us. At the present, you are right: we at the moment are too weak. God, I just wish we could go back to the glory days of the Islamic Empire. I'm not calling for an invasion or an expansion, but I'm calling for the same liberal rule that ruled over Muslims, Christians and Jews alike during those days.

[Misanthropy]

I do understand what you are saying...and yes i know keep everyone else's hands out of the middle east. I completely agree with what you say about the leadership. I persoanlly think the vast majority of the violence and warring that has been going on in muslim countries is due to poor leadership. When they feel they are loosing power, or even fear that they might loose power, they are compelled to do something to secure their authority. Im many cases they begin wars to create a common enemy and unite the people underneath their leadership. They do not care much for who they attack, just as long as it keeps them in power. I think this creates much hatred and anger which can only have a negative effect, and of coarse this helps keep the people and nations from once again gaining power.

You say you wish for the days when Islamic countries had a respectable place in the world. Well History has a way of repeating itself.

[Saracen]

Misanthropy wrote: I do understand what you are saying...and yes i know keep everyone else's hands out of the middle east. I completely agree with what you say about the leadership. I persoanlly think the vast majority of the violence and warring that has been going on in muslim countries is due to poor leadership. When they feel they are loosing power, or even fear that they might loose power, they are compelled to do something to secure their authority. Im many cases they begin wars to create a common enemy and unite the people underneath their leadership. They do not care much for who they attack, just as long as it keeps them in power. I think this creates much hatred and anger which can only have a negative effect, and of coarse this helps keep the people and nations from once again gaining power.

You say you wish for the days when Islamic countries had a respectable place in the world. Well History has a way of repeating itself.

Ok, sorry, but I mistook you at first. I agree, though. However, if you want to really know why they behave like that, you have to study interventionism. I recommend William Blum's "Rogue State" (even though I haven't read the whole book myself).

[Misanthropy]

I'm not sure that even reading that would help me understand their reasons and how they think, but thank you for the recommendation. I will look into it. I'm not sure that anyone who is not in a position of substantial power can understand their reasoning. All I can say is that if I were in a position of power such as they are, I would try to play my cards differently and worry about the people more than my own lust for power. But then again we are all just human, and there is no telling how a situation can change one's mind.

[superskippy]

Quote: You're right about Hellenistic culture, but let's just examine the Islamic Empire's contributions... if you please.

For example, you have Ottoman architecture, which is still applied this day in Turkey and other parts of the Arab world. You also have many advancements in the field of Medicine... Philosophy... Art... Astronomy... and other fields of science...

Not to mention that they created a Civilization out of North Africa, East Asia, the Middle East and part of Europe.

Here is a map of the early Islamic Empire:

Alexander single handidly dredged up cities from the deserts, he built libraries, he built schools, he built highways and museums, he built monuments, he built ports, he built civilizations and nations, he forged a culture that has lasted for thousands of years. He conquered from Greece to the tips of Arabia, to Egypt, to India, to Turkmenistan, to Afghanistan.

As for the Islamic Empire the map you present while impressive is also desceptive, for not all that land was under direct rule and nor was it united. For example the Sarmation Muslim Princes to the east, and the African Muslim Princes and Rulers of North Africa and the deserts to the south.

Alexander created more then the Islamic Empire, he conquered more singlehandidly, and he did it in a decade.

Think about it, in a single decade the lifespan of a baby to becoming a very young boy, he conquered from the shores of Greece, to the mountains of Afghanistan, to the rivers of India, down to the sands of Arabia, and to the Pyramids of Egypt, to the steppes of Turkmenistan. He built cities that housed hundreds of thousands of people and house millions in the current day, over 40 of them. He built schools, roads, highways, museums, libraries, and much more. He created a bond and culture between the West and the Persian world. He did this in 10 years.

He is unsurpassed, he is a conqueror and a builder of civilizations. He was a Titan of men and remains unsurpassed overall to this day.

Quote: Are you sure it was Charlemagne who expelled the Arabs? The last time I heard, he was fighting alongside the Abbassids against the Umayyad Moors of Spain, who managed to repel the invading Christian army, who also got their @$$es kicked even further by a Basque ambush. It was after this major invasion that he never set foot in Al Andalus (Iberia) again.

It's odd really the parallels you can draw from the wars in Spain. In those days it was the fanatical Christian warriors who fought incessently against the Muslims probably spending a million of their sons to drive the Muslims from Spain, it took them centuries but they finally did it. They had no concept of defeat, or that their mind numbing casualties and relentless wars werent worth it or that they might end up in defeat.

Compare that to the Muslim extremists of today and their mindset and I think you'll find some eery similarities.

[Saracen]

You've been reading history, skippy, and so far you managed to oust the argument in the greater conqueror, but not the greater contributor. ;)

superskippy wrote: It's odd really the parallels you can draw from the wars in Spain. In those days it was the fanatical Christian warriors who fought incessently against the Muslims probably spending a million of their sons to drive the Muslims from Spain, it took them centuries but they finally did it. They had no concept of defeat, or that their mind numbing casualties and relentless wars werent worth it or that they might end up in defeat.

Compare that to the Muslim extremists of today and their mindset and I think you'll find some eery similarities

Indeed, but the problem is that Jihad is being misinterpreted for that very reason. Let me explain.

The Crusaders saw their actions as "defense". When the ruler of Palestine, Hakim, started burning a few churches and then declared himself God incarnate, the Christians of Europe felt that it was their duty to liberate these Christians from who they call "savages" and "saracens" (saracen was an offensive word at that time, pretty much like how "Zionist" and "liberal" are being used). What they didn't know is that it was just this one ruler who was later ousted and overthrown that exhibited this intolerance. The Crusaders made the mistake of assuming that all Islamic Caliphs at the time were intolerant and bloodthirsty, whereas it was evident that they were far from it: Jews were permitted re-entry into Jerusalem after the conquering of the city by the Caliph Umar, but that was before the crusades.

The "Jihadis" of today (or in Arabic, Mujahid) are those who fight against oppression (pretty much like your average Palestinian throwing rocks at incoming IDF troops, or Uighur Muslims in China fighting off Communist death squads, but you get the idea). However, they are attributing the same word to those who are killing and beheading people, like in Iraq. The strange thing is that when people use something to justify their actions... something that has nothing to do with violence... the word itself becomes feared.

[superskippy]

Quote: You've been reading history, skippy, and so far you managed to oust the argument in the greater conqueror, but not the greater contributor.

Really?

The man in a decade reforged the world, he dredged up cities Alexandria in Egypt a city that was old when the Romans took it. He built highways, schools, museums, universities, libraries, academies. He created a culture that linked the Persian World to the Western World.

He was but one man, and he did all of this.

The Islamic Empire contributed to sciences and math as well as other things over the course of centuries.

Alexander created a new world in 10 years. No one has surpassed him and in this new age of the world no one probably ever will.