The Crusades Weren't One-Sided

You're kidding me: one incident means that the Crusades weren't defensive? The Crusaders went there because they couldn't get picked muslim anywhere else? :rolleyes:



Not really, no. Your points do nothing to detract from the central conclusion that the Crusades were a defensive response to Arab invasion. Sorry. Fact.

I'm not even going to bother to refute that since I know it won't make any difference where you are concerned.
 
Well, it's not as though you really could refute it, so I guess I accept your surrender.
 
The Turks were secularists. They wouldn't give a rats ass who came or went for pilgrimage. The first crusade was the barbarians getting itchy for warfare and Peter the Hermit stoking their flames. "Save the holy land from the infidels!" etc.

Probably, but if the Christian church were in charge, they could get the fees, taxes, concessions, all the profit associated with the pilgrims who spent their life savings to get there.

The first crusades might have been ideological, but the later ones didn't, it became an industry.
 
To some extent, sure. No different than the reasons for the initial invasion of the region from the East.
 
Probably, but if the Christian church were in charge, they could get the fees, taxes, concessions, all the profit associated with the pilgrims who spent their life savings to get there.

The first crusades might have been ideological, but the later ones didn't, it became an industry.

The first crusade was the first time that a war was jointly launched by the west under a Pope. It lasted for 200 years while they established the "holy" city of Jerusalem [by cleaning out the Jews, who were fighting on the side of the Muslims]. After that Europe became a united entity in its wars and fought against practically anyone who was not a Christian
The Crusades were a series of military campaigns of a religious character waged by much of Christian Europe against external and internal opponents. Crusades were fought mainly against Muslims, though campaigns were also directed against pagan Slavs, Jews, Russian and Greek Orthodox Christians, Mongols, Cathars, Hussites, Waldensians, Old Prussians and political enemies of the popes.[1] Crusaders took vows and were granted an indulgence for past sins

In fact, the first crusade was the beginning of organised persecution of the Jews in Europe

The First Crusade ignited a long tradition of organized violence against Jews in European culture. While anti-Semitism had existed in Europe for centuries, the First Crusade marked the first mass organized violence against Jewish communities.


Thousands of years would be BEFORE Mohammed...:rolleyes:

Can you count?
.

Yup, can you read?
Persian identity, at least in terms of language, is traced to the ancient persian people, or Indo-European Aryans who arrived in parts of Greater Iran circa 2000-1500 BCE. Starting around 550 BCE, from the province of Fars, the ancient Persians spread their language and culture to other parts of the Iranian plateau through conquest and assimilated local Iranic and non-Iranic groups over time. This process of assimilation continued in the face of Greek, Arab, Mongol and Turkic invasions and continued right up to Islamic times.[1][2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_people
 
From Wikipedia:

"The first Crusade was What started as an appeal by Byzantine Emperor Alexius I Comnenus for western mercenaries to fight the Seljuk Turks"

IOW,the Turks were invading and they needed help.

Later on they opened up trade routes.
 
From Wikipedia:

"The first Crusade was What started as an appeal by Byzantine Emperor Alexius I Comnenus for western mercenaries to fight the Seljuk Turks"

IOW,the Turks were invading and they needed help.

Later on they opened up trade routes.

The Seljuk Turks were from Constantinople. Thats Turkey:rolleyes:

Guess where the Byzantines were from.
 
Anything you are not happy about you can take up with Wikipedia.

What is the big deal everyone was fighting everyone else.

Here is what i just found on the Seljuq Military Dynasty:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/533602/Seljuq

The Byzantine Empire was not ever its name, its a name created by the historians

Its real name is Basileia Rhōmaiōn or the Roman Empire. They were Greco-Romans, who invaded Byzantine in the 11th century when they shifted their capital from Nicomedia [also NOT in Rome]. They attacked the existing Seljuk Empire which had been existent since the 9th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Seljuq_Empire
 
There was no Turkey, it was composed of warring tribes. The Seljuk Turks were not Muslims to begin with they were shamanists like the Mongols whom they fought and replaced. But they were Indo Aryan tribes, not northern barbarians. The Seljuks who were the predecessors of the later Ottomans, united the tribes the same way that the Pope united the barbarians.

Prior to the ninth century, hordes of Turks had crossed the Volga River into the Black Sea steppes.[11] Originally, the House of Seljuq was a branch of the Qinik Oghuz Turks[12][13][14][15] who in the 9th century lived on the periphery of the Muslim world, north of the Caspian and Aral sea in their Yabghu Khaganate of the Oghuz confederacy,[16] in the Kazakh Steppe of Turkestan.[17] In the 10th century the Seljuqs migrated from their ancestral homelands into mainland Persia, in the province of Khurasan, where they mixed with the local population and adopted the Persian culture and language in the following decades.


The Oghuz (variously known as Ghuzz, Guozz, Kuz, Oguz, Oğuz, Okuz, Oufoi, Ouz, Ouzoi, Torks, Uguz, Uğuz, and Uz) were a group of loosely linked nomadic Turkic peoples. In the ninth century the Oghuz Turks from the Aral steppes drove the Pecheneg Turks of the Emba region and the River Ural toward the west. In the tenth century they inhabited the steppe of the rivers Sari-su, Turgai, and Emba to the north of Lake Balkhash of modern day Kazakhstan.[1] A clan of this nation, the Seljuks, embraced Islam and in the eleventh century invaded Persia, where it founded the Great Seljuk Empire.
 
Guess what? Islam originated in Saudi Arabia, just like Christianity originated in Palestine. Got nothing to do with Romans either. Or any other Europeans.
 
People forget that the Norman Conquest of England was, in effect, a Crusade. Although nominally Christian, the Pope regarded the Anglo-Saxon church hierarchy as heretical; they were not in any case answerable to Rome; and a deal was cut to give secular power to the Normans and clerical authority to Rome. Chief planner of the invasion was Bishop Odo of Normandy; the Catholic Church provided the (very substantial) funding. Anglo-Saxon bishops were deposed if insufficiently subservient, and replaced by French-speaking clergy obedient to Rome.

This was just one episode in the policy of the Church to ally itself with warlords for the purpose of expansion and subjugation. Other Crusades expanded the realm of Christianity into Germanic, Slav and Nordic lands, and memorably destroyed the Cathars. Among the nastinesses imported into England with the Norman Conquest and sanctioned by the Church was the "droit de seigneur" -- a practice unrecorded in Anglo-Saxon times.

The invasion of Muslim lands should not be seen as isolated from these other episodes of aggressive war by the Church. They were violent, murderous, chaotic, vile, and destined to happen; excuses irrelevant.
 
People forget that the Norman Conquest of England was, in effect, a Crusade. Although nominally Christian, the Pope regarded the Anglo-Saxon church hierarchy as heretical; they were not in any case answerable to Rome; and a deal was cut to give secular power to the Normans and clerical authority to Rome. Chief planner of the invasion was Bishop Odo of Normandy; the Catholic Church provided the (very substantial) funding. Anglo-Saxon bishops were deposed if insufficiently subservient, and replaced by French-speaking clergy obedient to Rome.

This was just one episode in the policy of the Church to ally itself with warlords for the purpose of expansion and subjugation. Other Crusades expanded the realm of Christianity into Germanic, Slav and Nordic lands, and memorably destroyed the Cathars. Among the nastinesses imported into England with the Norman Conquest and sanctioned by the Church was the "droit de seigneur" -- a practice unrecorded in Anglo-Saxon times.

The invasion of Muslim lands should not be seen as isolated from these other episodes of aggressive war by the Church. They were violent, murderous, chaotic, vile, and destined to happen; excuses irrelevant.


Exactly. The Slavic religions were all destroyed during the Crusades, the gypsies and Jews subjected to pogroms. And there were four crusades with lots of genocide, until the 300 odd states became 30 Christian nations. The first crusade is also called the first Holocaust.

Exactly. Therefore the Muslims who illegally invaded Turkey and occupy it through racist imperialism and genocidal colonization should have to pay war crimes reparations to Rome and the Catholic Church for all the Roman Christians they murdered there.

Uh those were natives who converted. Like the Roman Christians. :)

Now the Romans, what were they doing in Turkey?
 
People forget that the Norman Conquest of England was, in effect, a Crusade. Although nominally Christian, the Pope regarded the Anglo-Saxon church hierarchy as heretical; they were not in any case answerable to Rome; and a deal was cut to give secular power to the Normans and clerical authority to Rome. Chief planner of the invasion was Bishop Odo of Normandy; the Catholic Church provided the (very substantial) funding. Anglo-Saxon bishops were deposed if insufficiently subservient, and replaced by French-speaking clergy obedient to Rome.

This was just one episode in the policy of the Church to ally itself with warlords for the purpose of expansion and subjugation. Other Crusades expanded the realm of Christianity into Germanic, Slav and Nordic lands, and memorably destroyed the Cathars. Among the nastinesses imported into England with the Norman Conquest and sanctioned by the Church was the "droit de seigneur" -- a practice unrecorded in Anglo-Saxon times.

The invasion of Muslim lands should not be seen as isolated from these other episodes of aggressive war by the Church. They were violent, murderous, chaotic, vile, and destined to happen; excuses irrelevant.

Exactly. The Slavic religions were all destroyed during the Crusades, the gypsies and Jews subjected to pogroms. And there were four crusades with lots of genocide, until the 300 odd states became 30 Christian nations. The first crusade is also called the first Holocaust.

Uh those were natives who converted. Like the Roman Christians. :)

Now the Romans, what were they doing in Turkey?

They went to war. Countries all over the world go to war. Even in the far east and africa.
 
They went to war. Countries all over the world go to war. Even in the far east and africa.

All countries go to war, but the notion of replacing the natives with "white" people is a typically western one.

Look at Oilsmastery. He doesn't even know that the Palestinians are native Christians some of whom converted to Islam. He is so obsessed with the fact that the Christians must be white.

What the hell are you talking about?

The Turks were never conquered by Arab Muslims. The Khalifat never reached mainland Turkey until Turks themselves willingly converted.


Kadark

I tried to tell him that the Turks invaded Persia, but his comprehension is weak.
 
What the hell are you talking about?

The Turks were never conquered by Arab Muslims. The Khalifat never reached mainland Turkey until Turks themselves willingly converted.


Kadark
No one willingly converts to Islam. Don't be ridiculous. Do you know what Dar El Harab means?
 
Back
Top