The Crusades

[Butterbeer]

Originally Posted by Tessar

I'm not saying that everyone had pure motives--in a huge force, it's impossible to have everyone be of pure motives. The main idea behind it likely seemed pure to many of them, though, and they were fighting for what they believed in.


Butterbeer--It's slightly more ironic that you're pointing out my misspelling, considering the vast amount in every post you make :P.

Well i only did so out of a sense of fun and humour (it made me laugh) and anyway if you want to get serious or shirty about it i don't go around pulling people up on spelling and i don't pretend to spell everything right: who does? I refute totally that EVERY post i make contains spelling mistakes though! (let alone every post containing vast amounts of spelling mistakes: can you prove that?)

what does ": P." mean by the way?

Best
BB
( )

[me9996]

Originally Posted by Mercutio

Come on guys....you've got it all wrong. The Crusades were nothing but the younger sons letting off some steam (being so fed up with primogeniture ).


note ^ is only very very very slightly serious!

Huh?

[Tessar]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

Well i only did so out of a sense of fun and humour (it made me laugh) and anyway if you want to get serious or shirty about it i don't go around pulling people up on spelling and i don't pretend to spell everything right: who does? I refute totally that EVERY post i make contains spelling mistakes though! (let alone every post containing vast amounts of spelling mistakes: can you prove that?)

what does ": P." mean by the way?

Best
BB
( )

You may feel perfectly free to have it in your signature--I wasn't attempting to be serious or 'shirty' in any way . I agree that it was very funny that I made that spelling mistake, and I was poking back at you in the name of humor--not because I was angry or didn't like what you had done. The :P, is me meaning to put in a ... to show that I was joking.

[Count Comfect]

Mercutio's actually on to something. For instance, the first 2 Kings of Jerusalem were younger brothers of Count Eustace of Boulogne. Definitely had a lot to do with their dissatisfaction with their inheritance.

The whole "mistreatment of pilgrims" issue was/is a big disagreement between the two cultures about whether it actually happened. And of course, Muslim pilgrims weren't exactly welcome in Jerusalem POST-Crusade...

[Khamûl]

Originally Posted by me9996

Huh?

Primogeniture is where the eldest son inherits the family estate. So the younger sons would have a much, much smaller portion of the estate (if any at all).

[Butterbeer]

Originally Posted by Tessar

You may feel perfectly free to have it in your signature--I wasn't attempting to be serious or 'shirty' in any way . I agree that it was very funny that I made that spelling mistake, and I was poking back at you in the name of humor--not because I was angry or didn't like what you had done. The :P, is me meaning to put in a ... to show that I was joking.

cheers: yeah the
makes a big difference to how you read it!

best BB

has anyone ever played the Pc game stronghold: the crusades?

[me9996]

I'm going to try one more time... the first crusade was started when some turkish people conquered some land from some other people... now normaly this wouldn't be nodiced much or cared about in the vadican city at all... but they moved into Jewruselum (Sorry about my spelling)... the people who used to live there let christains visit, the turkish invaders didn't... so the king (or whatever) of constandanople desided to ask for help... so the Pope declared war on the turkish people in order to take back Jeurselum... so they did... the rest of the crusades were little more than land wars compared to the first one.