Shop More Submit  Join Login
×



Details

Submitted on
June 12, 2003
Image Size
554 KB
Resolution
1286×836
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
3,147 (3 today)
Favourites
15 (who?)
Comments
39
Downloads
237
×
Learn from History by nimer Learn from History by nimer
History repeats itself. Bush, Colin, Rice, and Dick are out and about pushing their Crusade. Even he admitted thats what it was until he pulled this statement back after nations voiced their resent.

If we look back at the time of the Crusades we realise that this was the darkest period of Christianity. It was also the longest war ever in the history of mankind. During the time that a Crusader bore the Cross, he was under the protection of the Church and exempted from all taxes as well as free to commit all sins. For almost three decades Christians were the most barbaric humans to walk the earth pummelling through muslim women and children in equal right as the muslim soldiers in the name of a false religious license. Hurrendous crimes were committed in the name of Christianity. Ever wonder why Hollywood only makes romantic movies based during the Crusades period and not actual factual ones? For the reason that the facts behind it were extremely ugly.

Now Bush wants to do the same thing. Even I think I'm being paranoid myself. But look at the facts - Afghanistan (muslim country), Iraq (Muslim country), Syria was threatened (Muslim country), Iran (Muslim country). Open your eyes people. This really is a Crusade. Oil and money is just a convenient bonus and distraction. It just gets worse.

Ever wondered how the Crusades ended? The 'end of the line' ruler was Richard "The Lion-hearted". Married only out of convenience he never had any kids. Actually historians say that was coz he was gay. He had no interest in looking after his people. He almost bankrupted the european nations and put all the money into this 'campaign'. His arch rival was Salahuddin Ayubi. He was the ruler who for twenty years braved the storm of the Crusaders and ultimately pushed back the combined forces of Europe which had come to swarm the Muslim lands. The world has hardly witnessed a more chivalrous and humane conqueror. Even in those times he gave all profits from the war to the people. When he died he didnt even own a piece of burial cloth to be buried in. He always freed the women and children prisoners of war and the men for ransom money.

This piece of Salahuddin Ayubi and his forces setting forth to wage war against the Christian Terrorists was made by Bruuz and I in vectors. Took about three days.

p.s. view this in full size people! Will look much nicer!
Add a Comment:
 
:iconfalconlord5:
falconlord5 Featured By Owner Nov 8, 2012
Few problems with your history:

One: The First Crusade was called because of Muslim conquest of lands in the Christian Byzantine Empire. Also to the keep the Europeans from murdering each other every few weeks, as an outgrowth of the Peace of God movement. That a peace movement (of which Pope Urban, the guy who called the Crusade, was the head of) went from "Don't kill each other" to "Please just go kill somebody, anybody else" tells you how bad Europe was at the time.

Two: The Church could not exempt you from taxes. That was secular, not religous.

Three: Historians do not believe that Richard the Lion-Hearted was gay. Bisexual, maybe. But as he had many, many extra-marital affairs with women, and at least one bastard son that he acknowledged, it's rather unlikely he was gay.

Four: The Third Crusade was not the last Crusade. There were at least six (depending on how you count the Children's and Albigensian Crusades) culminating in the Ninth Crusade. The Third is the most famous thanks to King Richie and Saladin.
Reply
:iconblakant:
Blakant Featured By Owner May 4, 2009
LA ILLAHAI ALLAH WAASHADUAANNA MUHAMMAD RASULALLAH!!!
Reply
:iconzakirs:
zakirs Featured By Owner Jul 26, 2008
awsome work bro :)
Reply
:iconhitlerisdead:
hitlerisdead Featured By Owner Aug 30, 2007
Did the holy wars involve lies, oil, and the possibility of us using a nuke? Yes people, the government has though of just clusterf**cking the place with a nuke, no matter how horrifying the idea, the government WILL think of it.
Reply
:iconbakatron:
bakatron Featured By Owner May 16, 2007  Professional General Artist
YOU TERRORIST!
Reply
:iconskirnirensiferum:
SkirnirEnsiferum Featured By Owner Apr 4, 2007
The crusaders are becoming bankrupted, as their creditors to the east are weary of shouldering the mounting debts. When the dollar falls by half against the euro over a few years, one knows the end of these foolish escapades is in sight. :rip:
Reply
:icontuilliindustries:
tuilliIndustries Featured By Owner Feb 9, 2007
I love the style you used. As a matter of fact it reminds me of the illustrations of Beowulf we used to have back in our highschool literature books. As for your description you pretty much gore your own message with your skewed view on history.

"he was under the protection of the Church and exempted from all taxes as well as free to commit all sins. For almost three decades Christians were the most barbaric humans to walk the earth pummelling through muslim women and children in equal right as the muslim soldiers in the name of a false religious license."

1. All Christians are under the protection of the Church, not just Crusaders.
2. They were not "free to commit all sins." What the Church granted for embarking on the Crusades was absolution for the corporal punishments of previous sins, and a promise that if one should die while on a Crusade then they shall go to heaven (Much like martyrdom and external Jihad). However if a Crusader - like the French bastard Raynald de Chattilion - were to commit atrocities in the manner which you seem to have applied to all Crusaders (Which is just like saying all German soldiers in WWII were NAZI fanatics), then the immediate skip to Heaven would be void, as the man/men would've died in a state of mortal sin.
3. "Christians were the most barbaric humans to walk the earth." Interesting, I didn't know all Christians embarked on the Crusades, nor was I aware that every last one of them fell under your steroetype. As a matter of fact the Knights Templar, a military order made up of mainly warrior monks, were considered on a large scale to be the ideal of chivalry. Gracious, devout, respectful, kind, fearless in battle, and adhering to a strict code of conduct which covered all ground from private life to rules of engagement. If you go back and read some actual history you will find that even their enemies had respect for them and were more than honored to face them in combat.

Also, as brutal as you claim the whole lot of Crusaders were, you seem to be forgetting why the Crusades were launched in the first place.
Turkish Muslims raiding the Byzantine Empire and attacking columns of Christian pilgrims in the Holy Land for the win anybody?

There will be atrocities committed in war, but they will come from BOTH sides.

As for good ol'Salahuddin Al-Ayyubi, who happens to be one of my personal heroes for his cunning and honour, he did not push back the Europeans as you claim. In the Second Crusade he did indeed retake Jerusalem and allow the remainig Christian soldiers safe departure from the land, but in the third Crusade (The King's Crusade) where he squared off against old Richard (Who seems more bisexual than homosexual) the end resolution was a treaty which allowed Christians to re-enter the Holy Land.

Also it would not be totally accurate to refer to Richard and Salahuddin as arch rivals, as though they did fight one another the respect they had for one another was incredible. It actually seemed to border on a type of sitcom friendship. In an instance where Richard took ill, Salahuddin had mountain snow, fresh fruit, and medicine sent to comfort him. Salahuddin greatly admired Richard, for he was a leader who would be at the very front lines with his men. He was actually quite a terrifying spectacle in battle. The Muslims described him as a furious giant who cleaved men in half with his battle axe without tire.

Also it would not be proper to refer to Salahuddin as a humane conqueror as technically he was not a conqueror. He even went to such far lengths as not using seige engines such as catapults if there was a chance he would damage a holy shrine, be it Muslim, Christian, or Jew, just so people would not associate him or those under his command as conquerors.

"Now Bush wants to do the same thing. Even I think I'm being paranoid myself. But look at the facts - Afghanistan (muslim country), Iraq (Muslim country), Syria was threatened (Muslim country), Iran (Muslim country)"

Though I along with many of my fellow man are oppossed to the reasons for the invasion of Iraq saying that Bush wants to do the same thing is just ridiculous. The purpose of the Crusades was to make safe the Holy Land for all pilgrims, so if Bush is doing the same thing then why is the US government so friendly with Isreal?

The shmuck did call it a crusade true, but calling something a crusade doesn't make it a holy war.
The definition of "Crusade" is:
any vigorous, aggressive movement for the defense or advancement of an idea.
For example, you could crusade against child abuse. In Bush's case, he's claiming that the idea is "Democracy".

"But look at the facts - Afghanistan (muslim country), Iraq (Muslim country), Syria was threatened (Muslim country), Iran (Muslim country)"
Yes, they are Muslim countries, what's your point? In the Second World War the Allies invaded Muslim land, Catholic land, Atheist land, and Pagan land yet there was no religious agenda behind that and Afghanistan struck at the USA in force, so why does this situation tie in with the Crusades of the medieval era any more than those other examples?

Once more, I love the image. The movements, the sword-waving horseman, the dust cloud, I love it all. Just remember to get your historical facts straight before you try to give a history lesson and leave such blatant bias at the door in exchange for a little patience and grace.
Reply
:iconiranians:
iranians Featured By Owner Nov 23, 2006
:clap: g00d w0rk & info
-
:+fav:
Reply
:iconprima275:
prima275 Featured By Owner Nov 8, 2006
lol It seems unfair to list religion as the sole cause of problems, godless/religionless nations have done their fair murder, rape and so on. Its people that are the problem. about the crusades, those lands the crusaders went to were christian lands way before they ever were Islamic lands. lol and the bush part, most those countries listed are usually the ones that promote terrorism, cause problems, are ruled by asshats and so on. But that aside, its a nice pic. As ~mladen said it does give a "mythical feel of brave warriors riding into battle"
Reply
:iconaranthulas:
Aranthulas Featured By Owner Oct 1, 2006
WOW what a piece, this deserves much more attention, i love it.
Reply
Add a Comment: