The Crusades Weren't One-Sided

So they conquered Constantinople in the name of not-Allah.


Yup. Tugrul first invaded the Muslim Empires.
The Oghuz 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. A clan of this nation, the Seljuks, embraced Islam and in the eleventh century invaded Persia, where it founded the Great Seljuk Empire.

Toğrul (Tuğril, Tuğrul or Toghrïl Beg; c. 990–September 4, 1063) was the second ruler of the Seljuk dynasty. Tuğrul united the Turkomen warriors of the Great Eurasian Steppes into a confederacy of tribes, who traced their ancestry to a single ancestor named Seljuk, and led them in conquest of eastern Iran. He would later establish the Seljuk Sultanate after conquering Persia and retaking the Abbasid Capital of Baghdad from the Buyid Dynasty in 1055. Tuğrul relegated the Abbassid Caliphs to state figureheads and took command of the caliphate's armies in military offensives against the Byzantine Empire and the Fatimid Caliphate in an effort to expand his empire's borders and unite the Islamic world..
Religious fanaticism and the belief that Arabic was the only language of proper religion. Do you read the Quran in Hindi or Arabic, Sam?

Religious fanaticism? Whose? The Persians who adopted Islam, the Mongols who adopted Islam or the Turks who adopted Islam? And if Arabic was the only language, why were court matters conducted in Persian?


And that's why there is such a diversity of religious cultures there today, with religious minorities comprising as much as 0.1%, or even 1% of the population.

There is actually. Most of them are completely unknown in the west. :p

Of course, they were probably invading aliens. Right, Sam?

:D

That was the Holy Spirit most probably that beheaded the thousands of Saxons for non-Christian behaviour?:rolleyes:
 
I see - so the blameless muslims invaded the entire Middle East, forcibly converting it, but the Crusaders who responded to this aggression were the bad guys.

Right.

There is actually. Most of them are completely unknown in the west.

And completely unknown in the East! If they know what's good for them, anyway.

Sam, your debating is dishonest. You haven't addressed the issue once in all this.
 
Oh, and you falsified your own argument:

Tuğrul relegated the Abbassid Caliphs to state figureheads and took command of the caliphate's armies in military offensives against the Byzantine Empire and the Fatimid Caliphate in an effort to expand his empire's borders and unite the Islamic world..
 
I see - so the blameless muslims invaded the entire Middle East, forcibly converting it, but the Crusaders who responded to this aggression were the bad guys.

Right.



And completely unknown in the East! If they know what's good for them, anyway.

Sam, your debating is dishonest. You haven't addressed the issue once in all this.

I'm not the one who thinks an European Christian army that killed pagan Slavs, Jews, Russian and Greek Orthodox Christians, Mongols, Cathars, Hussites, Waldensians, Old Prussians and political enemies of the popes in their own countries for not being Christian was acting defensively.
 
Oh, and you falsified your own argument:

No I did not. Turgul invaded the Muslim countries. The Crusaders invaded him not the other way around. The Byzatines had been pushed back by the Arabs already. If you think beyond Muslim and Christian and recognise that there are 300 years between the Arab invasion of Byzantine and the Crusaders invading the Seljuks, you'll see where your error lies.
 
I'm not the one who thinks an European Christian army that killed pagan Slavs, Jews, Russian and Greek Orthodox Christians, Mongols, Cathars, Hussites, Waldensians, Old Prussians and political enemies of the popes in their own countries for not being Christian was acting defensively.

You confuse action with intent, and origin.
 
You confuse action with intent, and origin.

No I read history. :)

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.[1]

The Crusades originally had the goal of recapturing Jerusalem and the Holy Land from Muslim rule and were launched in response to a call from the Eastern Orthodox Byzantine Empire for help against the expansion of the Muslim Seljuk Turks into Anatolia. The term is also used to describe contemporaneous and subsequent campaigns conducted through to the 16th century in territories outside the Levant[2] usually against pagans, heretics, and peoples under the ban of excommunication[3] for a mixture of religious, economic, and political reasons.[4] Rivalries among both Christian and Muslim powers led also to alliances between religious factions against their opponents, such as the Christian alliance with the Sultanate of Rum during the Fifth Crusade.
 
No I did not. Turgul invaded the Muslim countries. The Crusaders invaded him not the other way around. The Byzatines had been pushed back by the Arabs already. If you think beyond Muslim and Christian and recognise that there are 300 years between the Arab invasion of Byzantine and the Crusaders invading the Seljuks, you'll see where your error lies.

I understand your error now: your grasp of geography is lacking. The Crusades were preached in response to the Arab conquest of what is today called Palestine.
 
I understand your error now: your grasp of geography is lacking. The Crusades were preached in response to the Arab conquest of what is today called Palestine.

You mean the Christians were unhappy that the Jews were back in Jerusalem. You do know that the Jews fought with the Muslims right?

Here. These may also help you to educate yourself, since you will have none other do it for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquests

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquests#Byzantine-Arab_Wars:_634-750

Thanks, I prefer to read history not editable by Zionist and Christian propaganda. Try a good library edition on the history of the Crusades
 
By the by, your cite was interesting. A puff piece designed to shift blame off Mohammed, presumably because God didn't know what his followers would get up to when he said something like "Strike terror into the hearts of the unbelievers".
 
You mean the Christians were unhappy that the Jews were back in Jerusalem. You do know that the Jews fought with the Muslims right?

I'm sorry; does this change the fact that islam invaded Christianity and not the other way around? Please expand.

Thanks, I prefer to read history not editable by Zionist and Christian propaganda. Try a good library edition on the history of the Crusades

Actually, it's editable by islamists also. Funny thing; the books I've read confirm everything I've been saying. It's only on the editable web that there's any support for your, er, "argument".
 
I'm sorry; does this change the fact that islam invaded Christianity and not the other way around? Please expand.

Yeah it does, the first time the Romans invaded Jerusalem and banished the Jews, they were not Christians. The second time they came to "reclaim" it, they were. How can you reclaim something that never belonged to you? They were the ones who crucified Christ!


Actually, it's editable by islamists also. Funny thing; the books I've read confirm everything I've been saying. It's only on the editable web that there's any support for your, er, "argument".

Oh? Lets see citations for these books please. I'd like to take a gander at the sources those books have used. I'm currently educating myself on the Crusades. :p

By the by, your cite was interesting. A puff piece designed to shift blame off Mohammed, presumably because God didn't know what his followers would get up to when he said something like "Strike terror into the hearts of the unbelievers".

Which cite?
 
Yeah it does, the first time the Romans invaded Jerusalem and banished the Jews, they were not Christians. The second time they came to "reclaim" it, they were.

How can you reclaim something that never belonged to you?

Er, it belonged to the people living there, Sam. Not all lands were ancestrally muslim, whatever the source you're reading might say.

They were the ones who crucified Christ!

And? Who cares? Why is this even an issue? We're talking about the islamic invasion of Palestine. Why were they invading land that wasn't theirs??

Sam's general position is that it isn't allowed for Middle Easterners to become Christians. Because that's the dirty European religion. Which originated in the Middle East. But which the Europeans rejected. Because they were evil Christians, but they were bad Christians. Because Europeans are dirty. Etc. It's hard to actually dig through the morass of BS to try and grant you some logical point. Frankly, it all smacks of religious supremacism.

Oh? Lets see citations for these books please. I'd like to take a gander at the sources those books have used. I'm currently educating myself on the Crusades.

From Ihatekaffir.com? That would be uneducation. :D

Sam, I read this stuff about ten years ago. I don't have my books to hand. But how about you provide the books you're deriving your information from too for a change? It's not a one-way street, Sam.

Which cite?

The one you probably removed. I'm not going to bother going back now, as it should still be on your mind.
 
Er, it belonged to the people living there, Sam. Not all lands were ancestrally muslim, whatever the source you're reading might say.

The Crusaders were natives of Jerusalem? Anatolia? Constantinople?

And? Who cares? Why is this even an issue? We're talking about the islamic invasion of Palestine. Why were they invading land that wasn't theirs??

How do you know? For all you know, Mecca was in Palestine.

Sam's general position is that it isn't allowed for Middle Easterners to become Christians. Because that's the dirty European religion. Which originated in the Middle East. But which the Europeans rejected. Because they were evil Christians, but they were bad Christians. Because Europeans are dirty. Etc. It's hard to actually dig through the morass of BS to try and grant you some logical point. Frankly, it all smacks of religious supremacism.

No, I'm pointing out that Europeans adopting Christianity and then deciding this gives a right to Jerusalem is a fallacious logic.

Sam, I read this stuff about ten years ago. I don't have my books to hand. But how about you provide the books you're deriving your information from too for a change? It's not a one-way street, Sam.

Just give me one reference. Only one. For my references, just go to Amazon and google History of Crusades. You'll get a list. :p

The one you probably removed. I'm not going to bother going back now, as it should still be on your mind.
Removed? I did not remove any cites. Please tell me which one you refer to.
 
The Crusaders were natives of Jerusalem? Anatolia? Constantinople?

They were Christians defending the rights of other Christians. The jihadis were Assyrian Christians? Manichaeans? Palestinians? Eastern Roman Empire citizens? Persians?

How do you know? For all you know, Mecca was in Palestine.

Heh. I knew this was coming. Proof, please.

No, I'm pointing out that Europeans adopting Christianity and then deciding this gives a right to Jerusalem is a fallacious logic.

What gives muslims the right to it? They didn't come from there either.

Just give me one reference. Only one. For my references, just go to Amazon and google History of Crusades. You'll get a list. :p

But did you read any of them?

Removed? I did not remove any cites. Please tell me which one you refer to.

Not bothering, really.
 
They were Christians defending the rights of other Christians. The jihadis were Assyrian Christians? Manichaeans? Palestinians? Eastern Roman Empire citizens? Persians?

False. They beheaded Saxons for being non Christians. And moved to Jerusalem to free it from infidels [which btw, included Jews]

Heh. I knew this was coming. Proof, please.
Here:

The suspicion that the location is doctrinally inspired is reinforced by the fact that the Qur'an describes the polytheist opponents as agriculturalists who cultivated wheat, grapes, olives, and date palms. Wheat, grapes and olives are the three staples of the Mediterranean; date palms take us southwards, but Mecca was not suitable for any kind of agriculture, and one could not possibly have produced olives there.

What gives muslims the right to it? They didn't come from there either.

How do you arrive at that conslusion? The Palestinians are native, if they convert to Buddism tomorrow, they still have rights to the land


But did you read any of them?

I'm reading through the top three.

Not bothering, really.

You made the claim. Now support it.
 
MOD NOTE: Posts that were off-topic, trolling, flaming, and basically nonsensical were deleted. Significant offenses received warnings.

This is the History subforum and not Free Thoughts, WEP, or the Cesspool. Please conform to civil, academic discussion or don't post here. I'll enforce this standard by deleting posts.

If you want to play in the sandbox, play nice. PM me if you have concerns.
 
False. They beheaded Saxons for being non Christians.

Wrong crusade; but this would be on par with the Salafis in India.

And moved to Jerusalem to free it from infidels [which btw, included Jews]

To restore the rights of Christians living there, I think you mean. How much simpler everything would have been if Mohammed had been a prophet first and a warlord second.

How do you arrive at that conslusion? The Palestinians are native, if they convert to Buddism tomorrow, they still have rights to the land

Well, that's funny, because you seem to think that the Christians of the Eastern Roman Empire didn't have any such rights of self-determination.

You made the claim. Now support it.

Not interested. You and I both know what I refer to.
 
Back
Top