Morality Games
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2009
- Messages
- 3,733
- Reaction score
- 1,156
- Location
- Iowa
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Absolutely nothing you spew here addresses the fact that Muslims invaded Christian lands and took over Christian cities for 400 years before the first Crusade.
Either you didn't read or you are a liar. I quote my post:
The Moors had halted their advance into Iberia (aka, Portugal, Spain, and Aragon) several centuries previously, after Charlemegne drove them back. Whether the Christian Iberian nobles had still had a right to drive into Africa after such a long period is questionable (do the Native Americans have the right to drive everybody else out of the Americas?). Sicily was a possession of the Byzantine Emperors; Moors were invited to take it in exchange for aid during a minor Byzantine Civil War. Later, the Arabs conquered it from the Moors, not from Christians.
The Turks were attacking the eastern frontier of the Byzantine Empire. However, Western Europeans were attacking the the Empire's western frontier prior to the Crusades and seized territory over the course of their Crusades (indeed, many leaders in the Crusading movement were investors in the effort of Western Europeans to conquer Byzantine's western lands). So, calling "foul" on the Turks is a little overbearing.
Conflating the Moors, Turks and Arabs into Muslims is a strawman, because it implies unity and motivations that aren't real. My main point is that under the ethical conventions of medieval times the Iberians could justify a counter-attack against the Moors, but a religious war was dubious since it implied a religious ferocity and determination driving Moorish action that was no longer the case, and in any event had stopped being the case three centuries previously. However, employing religion as a means of mobilizing military and economic support from across Europe and justifying the ruthless measures necessary to regain southern Iberia was the campaign strategy the Iberian kings felt they needed in order to win. But saying the "Muslims are taking over" when the Moors stopped three hundred years ago and were occupied administering the territory they already had is hardly a legitimate claim.
A religious war against the Turks was potentially justifiable, since they were the only Muslims actively attacking territory held by Christians in mass in that phase of history, but if oppressing the poor Eastern Orthodox Christians warranted a Crusade, the nations of Western Europe were also deserving of being crusaded against, since Western nobles were exploiting the weakness of the Byzantine Emperors to carve out domains for themselves in the western frontier, in areas like Greece. There, on religious grounds (Catholic versus Orthodox), they established socieites of High Justice where treatment of the Eastern Orthodox Christians was inferior to what their lot would have been under Sharia Law; see Scotland under England in Braveheart to get an idea of what this High Justice entailed.
More importantly, the Arabs had not orchestrated attacks Christians in any significant sense -- the closest they came to a real conquest was Sicily, and they took that away from Muslims who had already conquered and settled it -- so why they deserved to be crusaded against by Christians and have Jereusulam taken away from them is unclear. In this case, a religious war was not even potentially justifiable.
Until you can admit that there is nothing to discuss.
Admit your conflation of all Muslims into a single political-military entity was valid? No.
Last edited: