Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Medieval and Byzantine History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Medieval and Byzantine History Medieval and Byzantine History Forum - Period of History between classical antiquity and modern times, roughly the 5th through 16th Centuries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 23rd, 2012, 11:05 AM   #11
Citizen
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 28

I just want to throw in the thought that using the Crusades as an objection against the West is quite absurde, considering that it was the reaction to centuries of extreme muslim aggression that began with Muhammad and reached Central Europe (France) in as little time as a few decades.

It was more an act of defense then of attack.
Homo Badensis is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 23rd, 2012, 01:51 PM   #12
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by Homo Badensis View Post
I just want to throw in the thought that using the Crusades as an objection against the West is quite absurde, considering that it was the reaction to centuries of extreme muslim aggression that began with Muhammad and reached Central Europe (France) in as little time as a few decades.

It was more an act of defense then of attack.
First, using any piece of historical information as any "objection" against any modern cultural entity couldn't be any more absurd to the Nth degree.

Then, with all due respect, the most elementary review of any hard historical information on the Crusades will show you how extremely absurd is the thought that you did throw here.

To begin with, the Ummayad invasion of Aquitania (Southern France) was more than three centuries before the First Crusade, i.e. like Cromwell relative to us; needless to saym such invader (mjkostly Berbers & Spanish) were entirely unrelated with the population of Palestine slaughtered by the Crusades.

In a nutshell, the Crusaders (fundamentally from western & central Europe) had simply not been in contact with the Muslims (naturally a blanket sweeping generalization to begin with) for being the victims of any aggression.

Even worse, the local ("Orthodox") Christians living in Palestine and the Medieval Roman Empire (Constantinople) who had actually been in contact & sometimes in conflict with the Muslims were even more the victims of the fanatic aggression of the Crusaders than the Muslims themselves.

Just read a little about the Fall of Constantinople 1204.

And we have not talked yet about the fanatic frenzy of the First and several other Crusades...
sylla1 is offline  
Old November 23rd, 2012, 01:58 PM   #13
Citizen
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 28

Well, they were not directly in contact. I was talking about the "bigger picture" of the Muslim aggression against the Christian and Jewish world, which was really a "total war", spreading like an epedemy with unbelievable speed.
Of course this was well known to everyone in Europe, and if I remember correctly the muslim aggression against the (remaining) Christians in the "holy land" was one of the reasons for the crusade. After the wars in Western Europe the terror against Christians in islamized countries did not cease. It is for a reason that those countries have close to zero Christians nowadays.

I am mainly saying that it is ridiculous for muslims or anti-western leftists to use the "crusades" to prove how bad "Christians"/the "West" were, when "christians"/the "West" with their crusades just reacted to centuries of unbelievable muslim aggression in the Mediterranean region and against the West in general.
Homo Badensis is offline  
Old November 23rd, 2012, 02:02 PM   #14
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by USMC View Post
I think it was the same ol' reason it always is, GREED.
One might wish such would have been the general case...

It certainly was the case of the most rational western parties involved, especially the Venetians and other merchants from Italian and other Mediterranean ports.

For better or for worse, greed alone could not have even remotely explained the crystal clearly fundamentally religious fanatic frenzy that ravaged the whole Middle East and even the Balkans, from Tunis to Zara, either the Muslim,Christian, or Jewish populations.
sylla1 is offline  
Old November 23rd, 2012, 02:32 PM   #15
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by Homo Badensis View Post
Well, they were not directly in contact. I was talking about the "whole picture" of the Muslim aggression against the Christian and Jewish world, which was really a "total war", spreading like an epedemy with unbelievable speed.

Of course this was well known to everyone in Europe, and if I remember correctly the muslim aggression against the (remaining) Christians in the "holy land" was one of the reasons for the crusade.

I am just saying that it is ridiculous for muslims or anti-western leftists to use the "crusades" to prove how bad "Christians"/the "West" were, when "christians"/the "West" with their crusades just reacted to centuries of unbelievable muslim aggression in the Mediterranean.
Nope, such was not the case either.

You are distorting history as much as the arguments of the people you find so ridiculous, as anyone could easily verify.

The blame game of trying to "prove" who was the "bad" of the story just for any modern social discrimination is plainly just wasting time in History.
sylla1 is offline  
Old November 23rd, 2012, 02:37 PM   #16
Citizen
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 28

The crusades would never have happened without the aggressive muslim conquest of not only Northern Africa, South-Western Europe, but also the Levante, and the following oppression of Christians in the holy land. That is a fact. And it is an important fact, because muslims love to use the crusades to draw attention away from the dark history of islam.
Homo Badensis is offline  
Old November 23rd, 2012, 03:00 PM   #17
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by Homo Badensis View Post
The crusades would never have happened without the aggressive muslim conquest of not only Northern Africa, South-Western Europe, but also the Levante, and the following oppression of Christians in the holy land. That is a fact. And it is an important fact, because muslims love to use the crusades to draw attention away from the dark history of islam.
Dejá vu ???

Nope, it was not any "fact".

As BTW anyone could easily verify in this same thread or elsewhere along Historum.

All nations & cultures have what could be considered their "dark side".

From such obviousness it would be absurd to the Nth degree to pretend to abuse from any modern religion, culture, or nation.

Easy as that.
sylla1 is offline  
Old November 23rd, 2012, 03:07 PM   #18
Citizen
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 28

Of course it was a fact, and I canīt even believe you are questioning that.
There would have be no point in the crusades, if the land still had been in Christian hand. But it was not. And why? Because Muhammad and those who followed his example were dilligent conquerors of non-muslim land. Also a fact.
Homo Badensis is offline  
Old November 23rd, 2012, 04:05 PM   #19
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by Homo Badensis View Post
Of course it was a fact, and I canīt even believe you are questioning that.
There would have be no point in the crusades, if the land still had been in Christian hand. But it was not. And why? Because Muhammad and those who followed his example were dilligent conquerors of non-muslim land. Also a fact.
The only fact here is your crystal clear agenda; it's your choice, and your reasons are entirely your own.

Believe it or not, "facts" are noy established here by repeating bare assertions, even ad infinitum.

As you can easily verify all along Historum, facts are established simply by using relevant hard evidence; easy as that.

If you may be able to share yours with us here, we may all be able to understand the relevant historical facts a bit better.

Otherwise, I'm afraid any useful debate would be simply impossible

(Not that any historical hard facts would be modified an inch for that, of course; sorry)
sylla1 is offline  
Old November 23rd, 2012, 04:20 PM   #20
Citizen
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 28

What do I have to prove? The muslim aggression in the whole mediterranean region? That the muslims occupied as much christian land as they could? You can read that up in any basic history book, itīs not like I am coming up with something fancy. Itīs basic knowledge. Also, you can read in any history book that the crusades started to "free the holy sites" and to support the Byzantines against muslim troops. So of course the muslim war on non-muslims provoked all this.
Homo Badensis is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Medieval and Byzantine History

Tags
crusades, reason


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Reason Why [Japan vs US] ? Richard Potato War and Military History 25 April 26th, 2011 03:19 PM
Where does reason come from? coberst Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 23 August 4th, 2009 08:39 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.