Sleaze Glammer Posted December 28, 2007 Report post Posted December 28, 2007 Sta mislite o ovoj knjizi? Ja mislim da je odlicna, zaista prikazuje i drugu stranu medalje. Zao mi je sto nije deblja, tj veca, posto o nekim likovima nema dovoljno ( Saladin i Ricard Lavlje Srce npr ). Mada moram da odam priznanje piscu, za mnoge tesko dostupne i retke informacije do kojih je dosao i napisao u svojoj knjizi. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nightwing Posted December 30, 2007 Report post Posted December 30, 2007 odlicna knjiga..bas je sada citam... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dersu Uzala Posted December 30, 2007 Report post Posted December 30, 2007 Impresivno je da nekoga uopste zanima druga strana medalje . Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SATAN-iz Batajnice Posted December 31, 2007 Report post Posted December 31, 2007 Vaistinu Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poison Ivy Posted December 31, 2007 Report post Posted December 31, 2007 Ja sam uzela knjigu pre neki dan (spiskala sam para i para u Domu sindikata na knjige) i imam u planu da zapocnem citanje cim mi prodje ova frka sa ispitima. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dersu Uzala Posted January 3, 2008 Report post Posted January 3, 2008 Nego, otkud tim Arapima uopste oci? Ja sam mislio da smo im davno iste iskopali vizavi 'Oko za oko' i te fore. P.S. Zajebavam (se). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
рогозуб Posted January 3, 2008 Report post Posted January 3, 2008 pa i nije neka fora.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dersu Uzala Posted January 4, 2008 Report post Posted January 4, 2008 Pa, i nije. Bila je (neslana) sala. Nista se ti nemoj brinuti, imam vise prijatelja Muslimana nego prosecni Jeremija . Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
рогозуб Posted January 4, 2008 Report post Posted January 4, 2008 shto bi ja brinuo za to? :X lol Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dersu Uzala Posted January 4, 2008 Report post Posted January 4, 2008 I to sto kazes. Nego...Devil's pal. how 'bout that? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
рогозуб Posted January 4, 2008 Report post Posted January 4, 2008 ei? 0_o hau bat vat? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dersu Uzala Posted January 6, 2008 Report post Posted January 6, 2008 Vis' se ne secam ni sta sam 'teo da kazem. IspeKi pa reKi, sto b' rek'o nas narod . Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nightwing Posted January 6, 2008 Report post Posted January 6, 2008 deo o nastanku reci ''asesin'' mi je bio najzanimljiviji deo knjige Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peti.Maj Posted January 6, 2008 Report post Posted January 6, 2008 (edited) Prvi put cujem da postoje dvije strane medalje zvane Krstaski ratovi. Svako iole normalan zna da je to bio drski pokolj predvodjen evropskim viteskim sindikatima na celu i pod blagoslovom katolicke crkve a sve pod cuvenom parolom: "Pobijte ih sve, a Bog ce prepoznati svoje!" koja je bila odgovor na pitanje jednog viteza upuceno katolickom ocu (citaj: pederu i pedofilu). Pitanje je glasilo: "Oche shta cemo? Ovdje ima nevinih ljudi - zene i djeca i bebe u kolijevci?" - ovaj je na to elegantno odgovorio - Pobijte ih sve a Bog ce prepoznati svoje. E jebo bi mu kevu sad, pedersko-katolicko-sektasku! Zato vi katolici, evangelisti, prosbetarijanci, pentakostalci, jehovini svjedoci mojne da se ljutite kad vam se fino kaze da ste sekta. Jer je tako bra. Sad idem sa sprejom u ruci da napisem na Kucu Jehovinih svjedoka: Srecan vam Pravoslavni Bozic sektasi! Mislim ej! Ako je nekome potrebno da procita knjigu da bi shvatio sta se desavalo tokom krsaskih ratova onda imamo problem koji se zove: vas broj godina + 10 vjekova. Jeste, postoje 2 strane medalje. Jedna strana se zove genocid, a i druga strana se zove takodje genocid. E da mi je onog Papu provuc kroz ruke. Napravio bih od njega fudbalsku loptu. Edited January 6, 2008 by Peti_Maj Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
niking Posted January 6, 2008 Report post Posted January 6, 2008 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peti.Maj Posted January 6, 2008 Report post Posted January 6, 2008 Pazi ti tog djavola u bElom. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nightwing Posted January 6, 2008 Report post Posted January 6, 2008 Prvi put cujem da postoje dvije strane medalje zvane Krstaski ratovi. mislim da se decko samo loshe izrazio nije druga medalja vec je knjiga pisana na osnovu arapskih izvora tj svedocanstava savremenika muskimanske vere koji krstashe vide kao josh samo jedne osvajace zeljne zemlje i novca ...i nisu pogresili Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleaze Glammer Posted January 9, 2008 Report post Posted January 9, 2008 Mislim, da gresite. Ali aj da se drzimo teme. Katolicka crkva i krstasi pogotovo su ovde zgresili najvise, i to im je mrlja na dusi. ova knjiga je fascinantna zato sto pored uobicajenih europskih viteskih romana gde prikazuju krstase kao spasioce vere, vidi se da oni nisu bii ( samo ) to. Mene je najvise sokirao kanibalisticki momenat u knjizi. Znam da kad sam citao knjigu, mrzeo sam zestoko sto sam Evropljanin. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
рогозуб Posted January 10, 2008 Report post Posted January 10, 2008 to su gluposti, pogotovu to za ljudozhderstvo... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LazaGNR Posted January 11, 2008 Report post Posted January 11, 2008 (edited) Prvi put cujem da postoje dvije strane medalje zvane Krstaski ratovi. Svako iole normalan zna da je to bio drski pokolj predvodjen evropskim viteskim sindikatima na celu i pod blagoslovom katolicke crkve Nisam citao tu knjigu Krstaski Ratovi U Ocima Arapa,al' sam citao jednu drugu (hahaha ) Uglavnom,moji narucili neku knjigu,ne znam joj tacan naziv,al' nesto tipa "Istorija za koju se malo zna" (lupam),i uglavnom tamo ima jedan tekst o tim krstaskim pohodima. Znaci,kad su napokon upali u taj Jerusalim,ono,jebali su keve svim zivima (i mrtvima) Kaze se da (posle osvajanja grada) od srece sto su uspeli i sa uverenjem da vrse 'boziju volju' su krenuli u takav pokolj...krvi je bilo do kolena (bukvalno) Ubijali su redom - i muslimane,i jevreje,pa i hrsicane koji su vec bili tu (u Jerusalimu) Stoke pijane (citaj: ...i pedofilu). Mmm,pedofilija to su gluposti, pogotovu to za ljudozhderstvo... Pa sad...kakve su stoke (od ljudi) tamo boravile - ne bi me cudilo... Edited January 11, 2008 by LazaGNR Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dersu Uzala Posted January 11, 2008 Report post Posted January 11, 2008 I mi smo se tu negde umuvali . "In 1188, Duke Stefan Nemanja sent an envoy to Nirnberg, Friedrich Barbarossa's Capital of the Holy Roman Empire inviting him to stay during while Crusading to the Holy Land, Count Berthold Andex of Istria's Krain who was at the same time Duke of Croatia and Slavonia. The Holy Roman Emperor disembarked on the First Crusade and arrived on 27 July 1189 to Niš with 100,000 Crusaders, where Stefan Nemanja and Stracimir accepted and guested Emperor Friedrich. A marriage was arranged between Barthold Andex's daughter and Miroslav's son Toljen to strengthen Serbian-German relations. Nemanja's proposals to Barbarossa that he should abandon the Holy War and strike at the Byzantines with him met little approval. Friedrich needed Byzantine help to move his military might to Asia. Friedrich's plans changed when a Byzantine force stopped him from reaching his next stop - Sophia. The Greeks also started raiding his Army, which infuriated the Emperor so much that he planned an offensive to Constantinople itself. Stefan Nemanja offered 20,000 men to support the Emperor's military campaign, while the Bulgarians offered more than twice that amount. Despite being in his early 70s, Stefan Nemanja followed the Crusaders with his Army to the border at Trojan's Gate, when he moved to new conquests and dispatched envoys to Adrianopolis to officialize the Alliance with Emperor Friedrich. While his envoys were negotiating with Berthold Andex, who was negoatiating in Friedrich's place, Nemanja took Pernik, Zemen, Velbužd, Žitomisk, Stob, Prizren and rest of Kosovo and Metohija and even Skopje. The alliance with the Crusaders was not forged, because Friedrich signed peace with the Byzantines on 14 February 1190 in Adrianopolis." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peti.Maj Posted January 11, 2008 Report post Posted January 11, 2008 (edited) to su gluposti, pogotovu to za ljudozhderstvo... ne bi me od njih nista iznenadilo. tkz svestenici katolicke crkve su vec tada poceli da se bave crnom magijom itd. tako da znajuci da su postojale elitne grupe vitezova koje su pripadale iskljucivo vatikanu.... ne bi me cudilo da je medju njima bilo i ljudozdera. @Dersu Uzala pa sve te horde ljudozdera su morali preci preko balkana kako bi stigli do bliskog istoka (izuzev pomorskim putem naravno). i eto stefan nemanja cak i dobro poslovao sa njima, za razliku od ovih danasnjih... Edited January 11, 2008 by Peti.Maj Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LazaGNR Posted January 11, 2008 Report post Posted January 11, 2008 i eto stefan nemanja cak i dobro poslovao sa njima, za razliku od ovih danasnjih... ...ljudozdera? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nightwing Posted January 11, 2008 Report post Posted January 11, 2008 to su gluposti, pogotovu to za ljudozhderstvo... pa i nije...evo zbog cega mislim da je to istina 1. i evropski i istocnjacki savremenici pisu o tome 2. krstasu arapin nije covek i nema dusu posto nije hriscanin , znaci stoka 3. ipak je to srednji vek + posle duge opsade grada kad nisu imali sta da jedu i piju ne bi me cudilo da su takve stvari radili , potpono prolupali po onoj vrucini 4. takvih primera imas koliko hoces u mnogo blizoj proslosti ipak, mislim da su to vishe pre izdvojeni incidenti vojnika nego neki organizovan krkanluk :) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dersu Uzala Posted January 12, 2008 Report post Posted January 12, 2008 (edited) Ovo je u stvari isecak iz knjige o kojoj se debatuje (autora Amin Maalouf-a), a ispod je isecak gdje Dr. Helen Nicholson, SSCLE-FAQs: Cannibalism During the Crusades: Several Christian sources of the First Crusade report instances of cannibalism. Specifically, starving crusaders were reported to have eaten their fallen Muslim opponants. Although such behavior was undoubtedly very rare, sources claim that Muslims spread terrifying rumors of crusaders "who fed very greedily on the bodies of saracens." Radulph of Caen, an eyewitness to events at Ma'arra in 1098, wrote, "In Ma'arra our troops boiled pagan adults in cooking-pots; they impaled children on spits and devoured them grilled." (1) The chronicler Albert of Aix seemed to rank Muslims lower than dogs when he wrote, "Not only did our troops not shrink from eating dead Turks and Saracens; they also ate dogs!" Guibert of Nogent, in his work Historia Hierosolymitana, provides more details on the incident of cannibalism at Ma'arra. There he notes that whenever the Tafurs who took part in the expedition discovered "scraps of flesh from the pagan's bodies" cannibalism was practiced with little discretion. According to Guibert, the Tafurs were well aware that the Muslims feared them because of cannibalism. For that reason, on at least one occasion, the Tafurs publicly "roasted the bruised body of a Turk over a fire as if it were meat for eating, in full view of the Turkish forces." Guibert notes that the Franks also practiced cannibalism, but they did so "in secret and as rarely as possible." Fulcher of Chartres also refers to the same instance of cannibalism at Ma'arra. In his Historia Hierosolymitana, also known as A History of the Expedition to Jerusalem, Fulcher confirms that when the crusaders "suffered from excessive hunger" at Ma'arra, they engaged in cannibalism. He wrote, "I shudder to say that many of our men, terribly tormented by the maddness of starvation, cut pieces of flesh from the buttocks of Saracens lying there dead. These pieces they cooked and ate, savagely devouring the flesh while it was insufficiently roasted." Raymond of d'Aguilers also recorded incidents of cannibalism... [Continued...] Anonymous author of the Gesta Francorum... [Continued...] Anna Comnena- Normans- Roasted babies [Continued... Muslim authors also attest to the practice by Crusaders... [Continued...] Concerning the more specific claim that the crusaders ate babies, Dr. Helen Nicholson notes, 'Eating babies' is a standard accusation in Western civilisation against one's religious or political opponents. It is the ultimate taboo, as you will realise. Hence the Romans accused the early Christians of eating babies, the medieval West accused Jews and heretics of eating babies, in medieval literature pagans eat babies, the Revolutionary French peasantry accused the French nobility of eating babies. The crusaders did eat their horses (which in Britain at least is only one step up from eating babies) and during the first crusade one group of warriors (the 'Tafurs') were accused of eating babies...The Tafurs were recorded to have resorted to cannibalism at the siege of Ma'arra; this was reported by Raymond of Aguilers, but not by other chroniclers of the First Crusade (France, Victory, p. 315 and note 49). It is tempting to deduce that they were accused of this crime because they were poor warriors, even peasants, despised and feared by the more noble warriors who regarded them of being capable of any depravity. In other words, the accusation reflects fear and distrust between classes, rather than what actually happened. The Christian peasantry were regarded as 'other' and 'alien' by the Christian nobles. In contrast, the Muslim warriors were brave and had their own code of warrior ethics which was very like the Christian warriors' code of ethics. But peasants did not share any warrior-ethic; they fought dirty. Hence Christian nobles could regard Christian peasants as being far more alien than Muslim warriors. They were sure that warriors would always act honourably, but they were sure that they could never trust the peasants to behave honourably! Alternatively, it is possible that the story of cannibalism originated with the Tafurs themselves. If they put it about that they ate the bodies of their dead enemies after battle they would scare their enemies so much that any enemy they met would flee rather than fight them." Btw babies taste of chicken. Edited January 12, 2008 by Dersu Uzala Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts