>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8AecypMBd4Knight Templar Brendan Gleeson raped and murdered Muslim school boys.
>>221196403Anti-Christian propagandaSaladin and his muzzrats were worse
>>221196403Because the arabs tried to invade and colonize Europe for 2 centuries before the crusades, and berber pirates kept raiding their coasts and ruining their trade routes?
>>221197000No it can't be that, it has to be whyt pipoll being brutes, not the heckin brownoids
>>221196958/thread
>>221197000oh but when Israel does it they are the bad guys
christians are degenerate and cruelthen pretend to be godly lmao
>>221196958Saladin was respected even by his contemporary Christian enemies and was considered as the ideal knight, which was extremely rare.
>>221196958fpbpalso it's not even close.the crusades was like literally trying to fight the islam invasion of several countries.Islam compared to those times, it's very very weak now, imagine back then it was a full blown world domination.And even then, the few troops of crusaders still managed to defeat them.
>>221196403Sounds to me like the templars should’ve smacked that assSmacked that ass
>>221198078A scholar and a poet!
>>221198101If that was the case, why didn't they help the Reconquista of Spain much earlier and support Byzantium to keep Anatolia from the Turks as they were supposed to, they saw that controlling the Levant was more profitable, especially because of its trade routes.
>>221198101Muzzies were also divided until Saladin united them. Saladin was loved even by christcucks, Dante puts him somewhere good in his comedy.
>>221198078Bullshit, He was still a fucking savage
>>221198249>Saladin was loved even by christcucksLolol lying muzzrat
>>221198249Saladin is a very interesting example of one way in which Europeans coped with and came to understand the Muslim "other" and also how they coped with and interpreted failure. In essence what we see in the development of the Saladin legend is the "domestication" of a dangerous foe.The conquest of Jerusalem in 1187 by Saladin immediately threw Europe into a tizzy and there was a need to understand just how the successes of the First Crusade, so clearly granted by God, could have been undone. The end result was a belief by figures as varied as Pope Gregory VIII and anonymous poets that the defeat was a result of Christian sin and moral failings. Within this schema Saladin functioned as a tool of God, his victories were thus the result not of any innate abilities or the strength of Islam but of the Christian God's will.So from the get-go Saladin is seen not within his own context but through a specific Western European lens. He is, in effect, transformed into a rhetorical tool.The failure of the Third Crusade to recapture Jerusalem only heightens this. Again failure is placed firmly on the shoulders of the Crusaders and Latin Christians living in the Holy Land. But we also see the image of Saladin transforming.He is still a "scourge" for God to punish the Christians but he also becomes a "mirror" by which Christian failing can be emphasized. Chroniclers and poets who write of the Third Crusade emphasize Saladin's chivalric behavior as a means of emphasizing the poor behavior of people like King Philip II of France. If a heathen king can act so well, surely Christians (who have the true word of God) should be able to as well.
>>221198439Again we can see this as a "coping" mechanism, a way to explain loss at the hands of the heathen. The loss is less severe at the hands of a worthy foe than it would be to an unworthy one. This also allows for writers to make the failed crusade less a failure and more a glorious story, albeit one that ends without the recapture of Jerusalem. Partisans of Richard (the Lion Hearted) of England are especially responsible for this sort of presentation.As John Tolan puts it in his book Sons of Ishmael: Muslims through European Eyes in the Middle Ages"The memory of a heroic struggle against a valiant and chivalrous adversary will be carefully preserved and cultivated by the descendants of the crusaders -- so much so that even the claim to have an ancestor taken prisoner by Saladin becomes a sign of prestige..."So Saladin is again more literary figure and rhetorical tool than historical or realistic person.The "mythic" Saladin continues to develop and grow in fascinating ways. New stories are invented that more and more emphasize Saladin's chivalric and almost Christian behavior.It is within this context that Saladin's appearance in Limbo should be taken.By the time Dante is writing Saladin is a mythic figure, one responsible for treating captured Crusaders generously and well, for meeting in honorable combat with valorous Christian knights, for sending gold to the Templars for the support of poor and sick pilgrims and crusaders.By the fifteenth century the legend develops so far that Saladin is said to have secretly visited Europe, able to pass as a white European knight. Some stories go so far as to have Saladin baptized on his death bed!I got this off Reddit btw, clearly the superior website
>>221198439god religious copium is so fucking retarded>hurr durr if we left one person in jerusalem why did god let it be captured by a million of arap bedouins
>>221198439>>221198457Best take ITT. Good analysis of history. Honestly the Crusades were an interesting time for Europe, the first was basically lightning in a bottle, while the rest were more or less just failed attempts to recreate that original victory. Goes to show that you can’t force the hand of God to do your bidding, things either line up just right or they don’t.
Baldwin IV was even more of a badass in real life this movie is such a poor muzzrat propaganda
>>221198558You completely missed the premise of the movie the moment you started watching it as an us vs them scenario. 2/3rds of the movie had nothibg to do with Muslim vs Christian premise, but was entirely Philosophical. It was a critique of the religious divide, but you're a reddit-- a 4channeler, thus it completely went over your head.
>>221197000As opposed to the Latin Empires, that dindu nuffin.
>>221196403They did this 700 years ago.Muslims do this everyday in London.
>>221198688>People fighting for selfish reasons le bad>People seeking the Kingdom of God le goodWhy is this so hard for 4channel?
>>221198439This has always been my take as well. Saladin as the victor needed to be interpreted as a man of stronger virtue than the European crusaders as viewing otherwise brings with it a troubling cognitive dissonance of God willing Islam to defeat Christianity
You've got to view the movie through the proper historic context, that is, it is a critique of the Iraq War, which was still ongoing when the movie was made. It's not really about the Crusades or even the actual religions involved in it. It's about the American Evangelical Protestantism of the second Bush administration, and how it was used to whip people into a war frenzy.
>>221198885>muh headcanonin any case sadam was retarded and shouldnt have chimped out so many times
>>221198747>I'm going to please god who told me not to kill and not fight for worldy gains by waging waryou christkikes are beyond belief
>>221196403It doesn't matterWe are in the end times and the only thing that is matter now is repentance and mercy prayers so we can be saved in the age of incoming judgement
>>221198249True, Egypt and most of the Levant were still mostly Shia and Christian, they were initially neutral or even friendly toward the Crusaders because they also disliked the Seljuk Turks whom they saw as barbarian occupiers and ursurpers, but Crusaders carried out raids and plundered local areas and behaved even worse, which made them seek protection from Saladin.
>>221198966>2 more weeksalso the bible says the apocalypse should have happened in the 1st century during the apostle's time. sorry your pastor left that out
>>221198989Fuck off, antichrist shill I refuse to knell to the beast My King, God and Saviour is Jesus deep in my heart and all my strength
>>221198989The bible never states when the apocalypse will happenFuck off retard. Christ is King
>>221198989Wasn't the whole point of the apocalypse that nobody except God knew when it would take place?
>>221200296the point of the apocalypse is that it's badass
>>221196403The leper king was cool, should have made a whole movie about him.
>>221196403shitslimes are vile rapist animals?
>>221199331Both Peter and John prophesied it to be "imminent".
>>221199331>Christ is Kingof the jews>The bible never states when the apocalypse will happenwrong retarded christshithttps://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2016%3A27-28&version=NIV
>>221196403It was essentially propaganda because of the war in Iraq this movie is essentially about invasion of iraq not crusades
>>221198257>Bullshit, He was still a fucking savageEveryone was. It was the middle ages. But Saladin, apart from his contemporaries, was a little better than that.
>>221198989If you’re referring to Matthew 24:34, I’m pretty sure he’s not referring to the apocalypse described in revelation, but the destruction of the second temple, which legitimately happened in 70AD.This interpretation is even strengthened by the fact that Jesus himself states that he does not know the final day or hour only a few verses later.
