Muslims conquered Spain and Portugal, the Balkans and even started going after Central Europe and Southern France until they were stopped.
Where is the equivalent conquest during the middle ages? Show me on a map where christians conquered areas of a similar size in the middle east or north africa during that time.
You cant because the closest thing to an invasion christians ever did was taking over Jerusalem and a handful of holy sites. Tiny areas that would be almost impossible to see on a continental map. The crusades were surgical strikes to retake holy sites. In terms of surface area, muslims literally conquered thousands of times more land and virtually every battle christians fought were defensive battles in Europe.
Between that and the one sided slavery, it is completely idiotic to take the centrist route and say hurr both did it.
Besides the middle east and north africa were christian until they were genocided, expelled or forced to convert. So not only did european christians never invade those lands in the way muslims took over 1/4+ of europe, but if they did so you could say they were only taking back their christian lands.
For the record im not christian and my people barely ever interracted with muslims, the only time they did so they sent the ottomans back by kicking their ass.
I have no dog in this fight, im just appalled by the level of ignorance.
All im saying is they have 0 argument for bitching about 100yrs of colonization when they did thousands of times more damage to europeans for a 1000 years. Talk about hypocrisy.
Also Spain rising to power is the only thing that made the western part of mediterranea somewhat safe. Because before that, the ottomans and the barbary pirates were hunting down and enslaving every hite person they found in that sea.
I don’t think I am taking a centrist route at all as I said I am not defending any one side or using “they both did it” argument for the sake of justification. I am against justifying it in the first place, me saying Europe and the Muslim world both did wars and slavery is true. You keep hammering that there were no conquests made by Europe similar to the Muslim world and I never claimed that, in my last post I wrote “I said battles went back and forth and I could be wrong about that.”. I do not consider being open to being wrong as ignorant.
“All im saying is they have 0 argument for bitching about 100yrs of colonization when they did thousands of times more damage to europeans for a 1000 years. Talk about hypocrisy.”
We agree on the point that it is hypocritical but as I keep saying the people bitching about 100 years of colonization has no connection to the people that did conquests in Europe other than a label. If said people believed that Europe should have been conquered by Muslims that is a whole different story because then they share the beliefs.
You shouldn’t put blame on people of today for what someone with minimal to zero connection to them did in the past, that goes both ways.
I have no ill will towards you either we are both misfits even if we disagree about this one thing, you did teach me something because from what you posted there seems to be way more Muslim conquests than Christian ones. During my history course we did go over Muslim expansion and the crusades but it was shown as more of a back and forth over a longer period of time and I think I misunderstood the sheer amount of battles.
Either way victimhood is retarded, I concede I had some wrong information and pay 15 buck for shoutout kpeaceout bye
Crusades were very limited in scale and most of them were utter failures.
In fact some crusades were aimed at other christians. Constantinople fell to the ottomans because the 4th crusade completely crippled the byzantine empire and they never recovered from it.
Im not excusing Crusades, im saying they were largely horrible failures and failed to do any damage to the muslims. If anything they did far more damage to christian orthodox than anyone. Freaky.
Yeah I mean true, it is kinda ironic when you think about it with Constantinople. The Byzantines were the continuation of East Rome and Christianity even if it was split between catholic West and orthodox East. Then these crusaders come in, sack it for some fucking reason (I actually do not know why, google tells me it was something about money huehueue) then the Turks come in and turn Byzantine to the Ottoman empire.
Also I do not think (at least the first) Crusades were a failure in the sense that somehow this band of random people actually took back Jerusalem and established Crusader states. It is quite amazing that they did not all get destroyed. But in terms of damage to the Muslim world they did not do a lot. The Muslim caliphates afaik were undone because of infighting…sounds a bit misfity
The crusade to take Jerusalem was the closest thing to a success and Jerusalem still fell eventually.
So really it can only be called a short term success at best.
The sad part is Christians often sided against one another. From catholics and protestants fighting each other, to France allying with the ottomans just to get an advantage over the others, to france and britain ganging up on russia when it was about to take Constantinople etc.
Same with Muslims oder any other Religion. Fact is that Christians who followed the Bible and no man made traditions and most of all never put state and church together, were the most peaceful people ever. Good example the first baptists in Europe.
Catholics were never Christians. They believe in a works based salvation which is unbiblical. Same with those “eastern” churches and nowadays also many protestant churches.
And where i live the only christians that go to church are either the orthodox ones (slavs, armenians, romanians) or subsaharan africans.
They put on nice suits and go with their whole family to church on sunday.
Western europeans dont even go to church once per decade.
The crusades were wrong in many ways, but one way that was not wrong was in the sense to free the Christians. Up to the 7th century whole north africa, middle east, whole turkey were all christian and were brutally taken over by muslims - even taking whole of spain for long time. Later even going up to Vienna twice and were in the end defeated.
Crusades were first of all a way to free the christians regions, former roman empire, and were a response to a call of help by the byzantines, who lost all the territories to the muslims. Unfortunately they fucked it up and were not able to hold the regions.
So nowadays Crusades are called out as bad, cause nobody talks about that muslims were the first invaders, cause it is politically incorrect to speak of. Same nowadays, muslims finally conquered Europe - even without taking up any weapons.
No, the Reformation was a way to get back to the scriptures like the early church lived (at least first 3-4 hundred years) and to correct the problems the middle ages caused in the church.
The reformation introduced the third main branch of Christianity, protestants. Before the East West schism Catholicism was the main and original kind of Christianity but the way Christianity was practiced in the Eastern Roman empire was different and they split to make Orthodox Christianity. Martin Luthers reformation was a response to catholic church corruption with simony and indulgence. Then you had the 30 year war in Europe about which kind of Christianity should be the one and only.
The early church was catholic and the real church is catholic, in the sense of the word. But the “roman catholic church” was definitly not the first church.
Reformation had never the goal to split up the church, but to reform it. No only all the ungodly stuff like indulgences, but most important to go back to the bible in the sense of the the five solas. Sola scriptura Sola Fide Sola Gratia Solos Christos and Sola deo gloriae which just meant ad fontes go back to the scripture, toss man made traditions that were unbliblical and live the way the early church lived: Salvation only by Faith alone Grace alone through Christ alone and only for Gods Glory.