PP videos/Islam

Chagos · Dec 2, 2015

dolphinocean said:
See above.

Nothing to see there. That jumble of events in order and context of the way you see them is virtually useless to describe actual history.

Crusade is not the poster child for your cause in defense of islam and radical muslims.

That accusation is so ridiculous, I'll not give it the courtesy of an answer.

What you however fail to comprehend is that, for reasons you persistently refuse to know, the crusades are indeed not suited for citing as an example of "well, we were as bad as they". For reasons I stated but, since you don't appear to really be here to garner some insight beyond the popular historical slants, I won't pursue with you any further.

Chagos · Dec 2, 2015

Gathomas88 said:
Ummm... Wut?

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Rome was trying to deliberately undermine the Eastern Roman Empire.

Contextually speaking, everyone involved in the Crusades would have understood the threat posed by the "Saracen" and the "Turk" to the Christian world.

Everyone wouldn't even have been bothered, let alone informed upon anything, had the Pope not lit the candle, figuratively speaking.

Since the threat did not exist.

I'd wager that not even the inhabitants of Constantinople were all that bothered, seeing how Byzantium had arranged itself with the by then (shortly before the call for help) long since rivalling Seljuk mini-states (emirates) that Byzantium was successfully playing against each other to its own gain and to their detriment.

I repeat, the capital was under no threat, the Seljuks of Manzikert having split into various rivalling factions that could never have co-ordinated into yet another promising assault.

What prompted the call for help was Byzantium having finally countered the far greater peril of the Norman invasion of Epiros and Macedonia (by finally winning those territories back and driving the Normans out) and now seeing an opportunity of recovering lands taken by the Turks after Manzikert, but preferring not to go it alone.

To address this threat to Europe overall, Sicily had fallen from Saracen rule way before the very first crusade (to the same Normans), Saracen raids on Sardinia had ceased, Bari had fallen back to Christian rule more than 200 years prior and Cordoba had fallen 60 years before, effectively more than halving Muslim holdings in Spain. The threat to Europe as a whole (if it ever existed at all) was not there.

So we can indeed assume that most those following the Pope's call to aid Byzantium were, as usual with ulterior and very worldly motives hidden under the conveniently fluttered flag of saving Christianity, duped into religious zeal and thus driven by it. That never made the Crusades into a religious campaign though, no matter how the usual gullibles continued believing that. I doubt that Bohemond was one of those naive when he took Antioch as his own prize and kept it to form a monarchy that outlasted both the Norman monarchies of England and Sicily.

Nor Baldwin to form the comparatively short lived kingdom of Edessa.

The whole point being, so as not to bore the more disinterested with excursions into REAL history, that the Crusades do not serve, historically, as a convenient hook upon which to hang Christianity for a bashing along the lines of "we wuz as bad a they be".

Best to not go down the path of incomprehension that this

dolphinocean said:
See above. Crusade is not the poster child for your cause in defense of islam and radical muslims. Get over it.

signifies.

They cannot serve in defense of anything, just as by that time the Arab speaking Muslims that some try to project into today cannot serve either. The Seljuks had completley squashed the Arab speaking world of the M.E. by that time.

This sort of thing happens when people try to interpret history only along the lines of their political agenda of today, they cease to see the actual events even when those are spelled out for them. I was ironically, even where I have no cards in that particular game, effectively defending Christianity by default. Certainly refuting the original post that brought up the Crusades in the first place.

Driven, sure. Motivated, nope.

Gathomas88 · Dec 2, 2015

Chagos said:
Everyone wouldn't even have been bothered, let alone informed upon anything, had the Pope not lit the candle, figuratively speaking.

Since the threat did not exist.

This is simply factually incorrect. The Norman conquest of Southern Italy only began in the 1060s, and finished in 1091, barely five years before the first Crusade in 1096. Before that slave raids on European territory by muslims had been a common occurrence, and - based out of North Africa - continued to be a common occurrence for centuries afterwards, sometimes reaching as far north as England, and even Iceland. The Turks had also been raiding pilgrim caravans on their way to the Holy Land for the purposes of taking slaves. Modern estimates say that the white slave trade in the Arab world might have very well accounted for millions of captured Europeans in total.

For that matter, Cordoba didn't fall to the Spanish Christians until freaking 1236, so I'm not even sure what you're talking about as far as that's concerned.

Contrary to your claims, the Muslim threat to Europe was quite well understood, and the long and short of it is that the Crusades were exactly what we claim them to be. They were part of a long overdue Christian counter-attack against centuries of Muslim aggression. The fact that Europe had been making moves in that direction for decades beforehand doesn't counter this narrative. It actually reinforces it.

The Islamic world was in something of a period of division and decline in the 11 Century, and the Christian world was actually starting to come into its own under the Feudal system. They made the best of it. The Church played its role in this by basically directing warlike rulers to turn their attentions away from one another, and towards more useful purposes, in the name of Christ and the greater good.

These efforts were ultimately failures in the Middle East, largely because the Kings leading the Crusades couldn't get their act together, and refused to cooperate with the Byzantines. However, in Spain, and a few other areas, they were far more successful.

Chagos · Dec 2, 2015

Gathomas88 said:
This is simply factually incorrect. The Norman conquest of Southern Italy only began in the 1060s, and finished in 1091, barely five years before the first Crusade in 1096.

OK, so you don't consider that "way before". Fair enough.

Before that slave raids on European territory by muslims had been a common occurrence, and - based out of North Africa - continued to be a common occurrence for centuries afterwards, sometimes reaching as far north as England, and even Iceland.

Talking threat here. The barbary pirates reached into the 19th century. So?

I'm talking about the threat to Europe. You know, threat as in being conquered.

The Turks had also been raiding pilgrim caravans on their way to the Holy Land for the purposes of taking slaves. Modern estimates say that the white slave trade in the Arab world might have very well accounted for millions of captured Europeans in total.

We talking Turks or Arabs now?

For that matter, Cordoba didn't fall to the Spanish Christians until freaking 1236, so I'm not even sure what you're talking about as far as that's concerned.

Indeed, my bad. In fact wrong forum. In another I stated that the caliphate of same name had virtually disintegrated in 1236, which should of course have been 1031.

Guess I should keep to one.

Contrary to your claims, the Muslim threat to Europe was quite well understood, and the long and short of it is that the Crusades were exactly what we claim them to be. They were part of a long overdue Christian counter-attack against centuries of Muslim aggression. The fact that Europe had been making moves in that direction for decades beforehand doesn't counter this narrative. It actually reinforces it.

Your word is not enough

The Islamic world was in something of a period of division and decline in the 11 Century, and the Christian world was actually starting to come into its own under the Feudal system. They made the best of it. The Church played its role in this by basically directing warlike rulers to turn their attentions away from one another, and towards more useful purposes, in the name of Christ and the greater good.

In that last part I agree and also point out that it was a convenient way for the church to rid itself of many of those very same, in pursuit of it goal to extend its power over secular rule.

Heck the popes even found it a convenient means of disciplining kings by sending them off to Palestine for nearly the next two hundred years. Or else (excommunication).

These efforts were ultimately failures in the Middle East, largely because the Kings leading the Crusades couldn't get their act together, and refused to cooperate with the Byzantines.

I keep pointing out that no love was lost between the Byzantines and the crusaders. Not ever. The initial betrayal at Nicaea didn't help but both Byzantines and crusaders betrayed each other regularly anyway. The kingdoms and principalities of Palestine and surroundings were not just simply not getting their acts together, they were more often than not sabotaging each other. Venice and Genoa and their rivalry didn't help much either.

However, in Spain, and a few other areas, they were far more successful.

Spain was a constant bed of rivalry between everyone and their uncle. Like the Byzantines Spanish nobles or Earls and Counts (and kings) often enough sided with Moorish (Arab) potentates against (supposedly) Christian rivals, with Moors agains their Moorish rivals and so on.

The final success consisted of consolidation, namely the union of Castile and Aragon but they still let Granada prevail until 1492 (don't close a good trade route).

All of which notwithstanding, your interpretation of Europe being under threat (of vanquishment) is as faulty as the stance (elsewhere) of Martell having saved it in the West. It wasn't under threat there either.

The whole thing of imminent Muslim world dominance (at the time) as driven by a common cause under homogeneous leadership not floating.

The Cordovans and the Damascene were barely talking to each other long before. To the point of each declaring itself to be Caliphate.

Gathomas88 · Dec 2, 2015

Chagos said:
All of which notwithstanding, your interpretation of Europe being under threat (of vanquishment) is as faulty as the stance (elsewhere) of Martell having saved it in the West. It wasn't under threat there either.

The second one is debatable. Again, as we discussed before, there's no way of knowing just how far the Muslims in Spain would have decided to push if they hadn't eventually met stiff resistance.

As for the first, it's not whether Europe actually was under threat of "vanquishment" in the 11th Century which is relevant here (though it certainly was from the 14th Century through till the 18th, when the Ottoman Empire rose to prominence). It's whether they perceived themselves to be. In that regard, the simple fact of the matter is that Christian Europeans did perceive Islam as being a threat, because it had been a very real existential threat for centuries, at least in Southern Europe. It was within that context that the Crusades were proposed. Numerous other ongoing affairs - like the reconquest of Spain - were reframed in that light by the Church as well.

The Christian world had just spent the better part of 500 years under the threat of Muslim domination. They saw an opening brought on by a moment of weakness in the Islamic world, so they took advantage of it, and made a counter attack. That's really all there is to it.

Chagos · Dec 2, 2015

Gathomas88 said:
The second one is debatable. Again, as we discussed before, there's no way of knowing just how far the Muslims in Spain would have decided to push if they hadn't eventually met stiff resistance.

Well, where I'm no muslim, I've become something of an Andalusia myself by now. And anywhere outside of summer and outside a car with heating, I'd not even push into the Pyrenees. And that's from someone who DOES have the logistics.:mrgreen:

As for the first, it's not whether Europe actually was under threat of "vanquishment" in the 11th Century which is relevant here (though it certainly was from the 14th Century through till the 18th, when the Ottoman Empire rose to prominence). It's whether they perceived themselves to be. In that regard, the simple fact of the matter is that Christian Europeans did perceive Islam as being a threat, because it had been a very real existential threat for centuries, at least in Southern Europe. It was within that context that the Crusades were proposed. Numerous other ongoing affairs - like the reconquest of Spain - were reframed in that light by the Church as well.

regarding Spain I'd suggest that the Church got onto an already fast moving bus. That's not saying that Frankish knights didn't help, especially after Alarcos.

I'd agree on the Ottomans but even with those most Northern Europeans had barely heard of them in that time. Excepting the Poles who of course had dealings with them before and played a vital role in defeating them at Vienna (the second and last siege).

The Christian world had just spent the better part of 500 years under the threat of Muslim domination.

Again I beg to differ. "World" is far too big a word here.

They saw an opening brought on by a moment of weakness in the Islamic world, so they took advantage of it, and made a counter attack. That's really all there is to it.

I don't doubt that it played a role, the reasons for engaging were simply more complex than just that.

99percenter · Dec 3, 2015

Many christians still blames jews for the death of christ. That is why christianity is more antisemetic than islam. Hitler was one of those christians who got his revenge against the jews in the worst way. His extreme christian beliefs led to the holocaust.

PP videos/Islam

Chagos

Chagos

Gathomas88

Chagos

Gathomas88

Chagos

99percenter