Were the crusades a response to the aggression of Muslims and the rapid expansion of Islam?
If people are so quick to bring up the crusades and Christianity being negative parts of our history, why won't they also admit that Muslims and Islam are serving the same purpose in our modern world?
>>302330
We do it.
In the daily Crusades vs Ummayad Expanion thread.
>>302356
i don't see one in the catalog so can this be it for the day?
>>302330
>Muslim armies invaded France.
No, that was just a fairly small raiding party that got caught in a skirmish.
I'm no fan of Islam and I think it's important to put the crusades into the context of Islamic expansion, but hot damn that post reeks of bias. Factual events unnecessarily skewed.
Also, not sure how he couldn't find anything notable between 848 and 1059.
>>302330
The prominent medievalist Steven Runciman, wrote in 1954: "There was never a greater crime against humanity than the Fourth Crusade." The controversy that has surrounded the Fourth Crusade has led to diverging opinions in academia on whether its objective was indeed the capture of Constantinople. The traditional position, which holds that this was the case, was challenged by Donald E. Queller and Thomas F. Madden in their book, The Fourth Crusade (1977).
Constantinople was considered as a bastion of Christianity that defended Europe from the advancing forces of Islam, and the Fourth Crusade's sack of the city dealt an irreparable blow to this eastern bulwark. Although the Greeks retook Constantinople after 57 years of Latin rule, the Byzantine Empire had been crippled by the Fourth Crusade. Reduced to Constantinople, north-western Anatolia, and a portion of the southern Balkans, the empire fell to the Ottoman Turks who captured the city in 1453.
Eight hundred years later, Pope John Paul II twice expressed sorrow for the events of the Fourth Crusade. In 2001, he wrote to Christodoulos, Archbishop of Athens, "It is tragic that the assailants, who set out to secure free access for Christians to the Holy Land, turned against their brothers in the faith. The fact that they were Latin Christians fills Catholics with deep regret." In 2004, while Bartholomew I, Patriarch of Constantinople, was visiting the Vatican, John Paul II asked, "How can we not share, at a distance of eight centuries, the pain and disgust." This has been regarded as an apology to the Greek Orthodox Church for the terrible slaughter perpetrated by the warriors of the Fourth Crusade.
>>302330
>Muslims were repulsed by the French
stinky cheese confirmed as haram
>>302330
>Were the crusades a response to the aggression of Muslims and the rapid expansion of Islam?
No, and don't let any silly revisionist tell you otherwise.
1. They waited 500 years for this "response"
2. They just ignored Muslim held Spain for a good while longer
3. It's was obviously to hold the holy land.
>>302330
>Were the crusades a response to the aggression of Muslims and the rapid expansion of Islam?
Partially that, partially due to Europe experiencing an unusual period of relative peace. So the soldier class were making a nuisance of themselves by getting drunk and harassing the local populations and clergy. So the Pope saw a way of hitting 2 birds with 1 stone.
>>302430
While the 4th crusades were a disgrace, without it, the Renaissance would never have happened. Many of the artists and craftsmen that revived the stagnating Europe were people fleeing from the collapsing Eastern Roman Empire.
First Crusade was a response to the arrival of Turks in the middle east that were much crueler than their Arab predecessors and harassed and threatened Christian pilgrims to the Holy Land.
1040 - Turks start their invasion
1055 - They capture Baghdad for the first time
1071 - Battle of Manzikert, Turks beat the Byzantine army with a lot of European mercenaries
The Turks have no opposition in Asia Minor and harass everybody.
1095 - Pope Urban II announce crusade for the Holy Land.
>>302496
But the second crusade retook Lisbon, which is very responsible for the expansion of Christianity in the rest of the world.
>>302498
>without it, the Renaissance would never have happened.
Please be trolling
>>302406
>20,000 men
>small raiding get party
>the battle of tours
>a skirmish
>>302581
>evil mooslime boogeyman was going to conquer europa with 20000 berbers
>>302586
Europe? No?
A great big chunk of Europe? Probably.
Others have done the same, with less.
>>302551
Why not? The crusade was a key factor in the collapse of the Byzantine Empire which, as I said, led to artists fleeing to Italy and Europe.
>>302330
This list misses out the Holy Sepulchre being completely destroyed by the Muslims in 1009.
People also seem to forget that the Turks at that time, at least its civil society as a whole was more advanced than middle European civil society.
Most blatantly visible in their Civil Law and scientific achievements.
Pls stop the memes.
>>302610
In addition, Crusaders returning to Europe brought back with them pieces of various cultures from different parts of the world and their technologies
>>302551
He's right. The fall of Constantinople was crucial to the Renaissance. Obviously the stupid shits that were murdering their brothers and opening the gates to the Muslims didn't know that, but their act of treachery did have at least one good effect.
>>302689
>brothers
>heretics who had slammed the gates shut in the First crusaders faces
>>302513
Is there anything the Turks don't fuck up?
>>302406
>No, that was just a fairly small raiding party that got caught in a skirmish.
No hurr has ever contained so much durr in my entire 4chan experience
Remove thyself from /his/, my dear fellow.
>>302330
The First Crusade was conceived and launched in response to the collapse of Byzantine Anatolia in 1090 from the rise of several independent rebel states, many Turkish, but also some Greek and Armenians as well. It had nothing to do with the Arab Conquests or Moorish piracy, and only later incorporated already ongoing campaigns in Spain, Italy, and North Africa against Arab-Berber states just as it did with Eastern Orthodox Christians, Catholic heretics, and Pagans in the Baltic, Balkans, and Western Europe. For that reason lists like the OP image are bullshit and, besides lots of cherry picking, are never made by any Crusades historian and only seem to turn up among amateurs with some agenda to push.
>>302707
>byzantine emperor asks for a few thousand knights to help bolster his planned attack against the Turks
>He receives huge fucking armies of beatnik westerners that at any point could just decide to say fuck it and start tearing his empire to shreds.
gee I wonder why?
>>303040
Fourth crusade meets a Byzantine royalty on the way to the Holy Land, he says he will fund their crusade if they will just take him to Constantinople and help him oust the usurper. Crusaders think that is a good deal. Find out that everybody in Constantinople hate that fucker when they get there, be blamed for all eternity for sacking Constantinople when actually they were just tricked by some Byzantine joker.
First Crusade was amazing as fuck
given that distance, time constraints, the impulsive nature of it, it's a logistical nightmare in that time period and yet they traveled halfway around the world and fucked shit up as a viable expeditionary force
the failure of essentially every Crusade after should attest to the feat
>>302330
>to the aggression of Muslims
They wanted to take back their homes that had been so for almost 2,000 years, not to mention take back half their empire that hadn't seen a border reduction since late 100CE
There was nothing bad about the cursades in any fashion(but that won't stop faggots from trying to say otherwise)
>>303073
The crusaders fucking gutted the city, half the shit in the doges palace in Venice is stolen loot from the sack of Constantinople. IIRC there's a bronze statue of 2 charioteers right outside that has a plaque reading looted from the hippodrome of Constantinople in 1204.
>>303106
They wouldn't have even gone there if it hadn't been for that Byzantine prince sweet talking them.
The detour to Constantinople cost a lot of cash, which the Byzantine prince failed to give them, so they had to take it by force.
>>303103
I don't think you even have a vague understanding of medieval history
>>303122
Why not just continue on and loot in the holy land,
And what did they honestly expect interfering in the politics of one of the most intriguing polities of the time?
>>302330
No.
The Crusades were a response to the desperate pleas of the Roman Empire after the Battle of Manzikert. At the same time, a hope of reconciliation between the seats of Christendom, a demonstration of the political power of the papacy, and a simple solution to the aberrant consequences of German inheritance system (which, instead of privileging the firstborn, as the Salic law, divided the property in dwindling proportions).
>>302739
Russians
Crusades/jihads benefitted both the middle east and europe with a common, external enemy and the rapid transfer of technology.
Of course the Crusades were defensive.
Of all the Apostolic sees, only Rome and Constantinople were still in Christian hands. And the Muslims were harassing Christian pilgrims. They also destroyed an important Church. And of course it took a long time for a response. That was the 1000's. They didn't have internet or twitter. You didn't have #SaveChristianPilgrims or #AvengeManzikert twitter campaigns.
If the Crusaders wanted money, there were richer lands closer to them.
>>302586
20,000 soldiers at the time of the Battle of Tours was a whole lot. Phillip II had less than that in Bouvines, some centuries later.
>>303745
>20,000 was a lot
It is a workable number and probably oversized for many kings, but a lot? Roma. Legions sometimes amassed 100,000 soldiers and lost, and they werent random peasants scattered together with no moral either.
>>302330
>Were the crusades a response to the aggression of Muslims and the rapid expansion of Islam?
No. None of the the sources from the period indicate that was the reason. None of the planning of the military campaigns considered that a factor.
There is no reason to believe that the Crusades were a response to Islamic 'aggression' except presentism.
>>303760
In 732, in Western Europe, it was a lot.
The Muslims conquered Hiberia with less than that.
>>303782
Why where rhey so successful? Was Iberia kinda wanting carthage 2.0?
>>303760
20,000-30,000 was how many Turks there were at the Battle of Manzikert.
The Mongols at the battle of Mohi in Hungary had 25,000-30,000 troops.
>>303790
20,000 is a lot for the period. The biggest battles in the 1st Crusade, centuries after, didn't have armies much larger than that.
At this period, I think only China could field armies that were much bigger than that.
>>303790
pretty much
the visigoths were acting like snowniggers
DEUS VULT
>Were the crusades a response to the aggression of Muslims and the rapid expansion of Islam?
Umayyad had achieved maximum expansion in the year 750
Crusades started a little before 1100.
In short, no, the Crusades weren't in response to muslim expansionism since they happened literally 350 years after the muslim conquests.
Also, this is taken from literally the 2nd sentence in the wiki page about the Crusades:
>In 1095 Byzantine Emperor Alexios I, in Constantinople, sent an ambassador to Pope Urban II in Italy pleading for military help against the growing Turkish threat
>>303832
Weren't the Turks muslims?
>>303838
#notallturks #prayforbyzantium
>>303832
so it was because of turks
fucking asshole turks
>>303809
Tfw if the sandniggers behaved better iberia would be chill with a new carthage
>>303838
The Seljuks were, but not the Pechenegs, nor those already in the Byzantine army such as the general that accompanied the First Crusade to Antioch.
>>303838
Not all of them. Even then it doesn't matter, since the fact that the Crusades happened 350 years after islam's expansion pretty much disproves the idea that they happened in response to it.
>>302406
>>302446
>>302330
>>302356
>>302513
>>302527
>>302551
>>302581
>>302586
>>302604
>>302610
>>302621
>>302634
>>302637
>>302689
>>302707
>>302739
>>302744
>>302798
>>303040
>>303073
>>303096
>>303103
>>303106
/pol/ get out>>303106
>>303122
>>303130
>>303153
>>303678
>>303712
>>303745
>>303719
>>303765
>>303782
>>303790
>>303798
>>303805
>>303996
Hurr I don't like Christians /POL/ duhh
