Actually there were also late medieval crusades against Orthodox Christians (in the Eastern Europe) and even against dissident/heretic religious movements in the Western and Central Europe - e.g. Cathars/Albigensians and Hussites. The Crusades against muslims (and Byzantium) are by far better known, but still...
Hide / Show Replies
If you feel like adding a section on those Crusades, I'd be all for it. An intereting part of history. IIRC, the pagequote is actually Amalric's charming little line during the Albigensian crusade.
Schild und Schwert der Partei
I see it a good component of this page.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Wereboar
The entry about Hashashin sect is based on popular urban legend. According to historian (details in references for the Wikipedia article about Hashashins) it is very unlikely that The term "Hashashin" might simply come from the name of their first leader, Hassan-i-Sabbah (as "Hassansins") given the Muslim sects were commonly named after their founders of leaders - the Hashashin sect was an offshot of the Nizarites (named after Nizar) that is was the movement within the Ismailites (named after Ismael).
Abu Maalouf argues that Sinan was known as a level-headed, workaholic scholar and religious leader. It would be very unlikely for someone like him to habitually smoke hashish or allow his disciples to do the same. In his opinion, Hashashins were named "Asasiyun" - people of Asās, the foundation of faith. It also likely that the term "hashish eaters/smokers" was a derogatory wordplay used by their opponents (in the way of Dominicans [named after st. Dominic] nicknamed later "Domini Canes" i.e. "Dogs of the Lord").
Why do I write all that. Well, this a history trope, so it would be nice if the tropes referred to actual history, not the urban legends.
Confusion on 'Blue and orange morality' entry: I'm a bit confused over what is meant by "And by the 'modern secular' (relativist) mindset, who said killing was wrong and why should we believe them?", is it trying to make some dig at 'relativist' morality? If so then the point is nowhere near as clever as the person who made it thinks it is, as there are several branches of philosophy that establish a secular basis for morality.
Edit: Sorry about the formatting, first time I've done this, I should probably take a look at those resources.
Edited by Gokumohan