The Fall of Constantinople - Steven Runciman;

This post has 7 comments with rating of 5/57

• 
  marcodiluce
  June 23rd, 2019
  

  

  Thank you for sharing, and Charlton Griffin reading, awesome.

  The Fall of Constantinople - Steven Runciman;
• 
  flarecat777
  June 23rd, 2019
  

  

  Man, I am SO confused. I though the Crusades was all about Europeans taking land that belonged to Muslims from the start. What? Muslims invaded Christian lands first? NO WAY!

  The Fall of Constantinople - Steven Runciman;
• 
  mysticat21
  June 23rd, 2019
  

  YES way. Even the name ‘Constantinople’- is not Ottoman Empire name.And the Crusades where not for taking the land,but for the wealth AND just keeling the population . The city was build by Emperor Constantin Roman-Byzantine Empire …

  The Fall of Constantinople - Steven Runciman;
• 
  mysticat21
  June 23rd, 2019
  

  Don’t you love History.Wars,Rise of the Empires,fall of the Empires, mass destructions.Makes you wonder what chromosome is responsible ;-] and how the humanity survived

  The Fall of Constantinople - Steven Runciman;
• 
  Audi0books
  June 29th, 2019
  

  

  If you think that Crusades were only to take land from Muslims then you need to read a bit more. Even Constantinople itself was first sacked by greedy Crusaders centuries before Muslims invaded it.

  Read about the Cathars
  Read about the Baltic Crusades

  Crusades were the greatest series of wars for pluder before the European colonialists and later on the US of A took over.

  The Fall of Constantinople - Steven Runciman;
• 
  caesar963
  August 10th, 2019
  

  

  The Christian Crusades were extremely limited in scope, mandate, impact & effect, but they have certainly grown in the distortion. So, ask yourself this, in an objective, clinical, historiographical manner: if the “Crusades were the greatest series of wars for plunder before the European colonialists and later on the US of A took over,” how would you regard the overwhelming series of militant Jihads which preceded them, and actually seized, put to the sword & held three quarters of Christendom? Not too negligible, you’ll no doubt agree. Yet everyone talks, in a deeply uninformed way, of course, about the Crusades, and not the centuries of aggression which caused them. You need to know this material, not to support silly prejudice, but to be able to make factual arguments and to think logically.

  An historical conundrum: would strife-torn, extremist North Africa, Turkey, Syria and the rest of the Muddled East have been better off if they had remained Christian? Would these regions be more stable, developed & peaceful now?

  The Fall of Constantinople - Steven Runciman;
• 
  ProfitPagan
  March 26th, 2020
  

  The taking of Jerusalem, first by the Muslim Arabs, then by the Western Christians, and finally by Salahuddin and his united Muslim army, illustrate the point quite well, I think. The first taking, by the Arab Muslims, was not a violent conquering. They maintained and had good relations with a Jewish quarter and a Christian quarter.
  When the Second Crusade (or, the First Military Crusade) took Jerusalem, they killed everyone- Muslims, Jews, and Christians. It was all-out slaughter. There are contemporary reports that in places of the city, the blood was so deep it reached mens’ ankles.
  The final Christian loss of Jerusalem to Salahudddin is the story-teller. It was a near-total non-violent seizure. No Christians were killed, except any Templars foolish enough to remain in the city. All Christian women were free to leave if they chose, allowed to take as much as they could carry. In hundreds of cases, this meant wives carrying their husbands on their backs as they left the city. This was not stopped or even discouraged. All other Christian men in the city were held for ransom, but even that was regularly waived. The Muslim army was ordered NOT to kill or molest in any way anyone (again, excepting Templars) inside the city, and they obeyed.

  Those who speak of the often violent expansion of the Muslims as being the original violent actions that “inspired” the Crusades are simply deluding themselves. The story of the Crusades not commonly understood in the West is that the Christian Crusaders often killed more fellow Christians than Muslims. They seized Christian-held land for themselves. Just one survey of the actions of the Second Crusade as it made its way to the Holy Land will show the mindless aggression and violence of the “Christians.”
  Finally, look to Richard’s Crusade. His taking of Acre, for example. He had expressly agreed with Muslim leaders, especially Salahuddin, that the Muslim occupants of Acre were to be spared, ransomed back to the Muslims. Instead, in an operation that took three entire days, Richard ordered all 3,000+ of them hanged. Richard the Lionheart, to be sure.

  This action alone tells the true story of the Crusades best. The Crusades were originally inspired by a lie-filled passionate speech by the Pope, which initially touched off the First Crusade, commonly known as “The People’s Crusade,” a mass migration of unprincipled, non-military Christians who thought that by sheer force of numbers alone they could “retake” the Holy Land. Of course, they failed spectacularly. The Pope’s open encouragement of Christians killing “infidels” was the overall insipration of the Crusades, the “taking of the cross” ensuring the forgiveness of all sins led to the formation of the Knights of the Temple of Solomon, the first openly Christian military order in history. Battle as a form of penance is a blight on Christian history, and will forever remain so.

  The Fall of Constantinople - Steven Runciman;

Add a comment (please log in before commenting)