I see this image mocked often

>blind 90 year old jew sitting at the front of the biggest ever ship with his sword out screaming his lungs as the fleet moves to the city

Most serene.

Video related youtube.com/watch?v=I_To-cV94Bo

>with of course some clarification of why you think the should exist

So do more work than the original creator?

Well to be fair the debt wasn't paid so it's necessary

>do more work than the original creator
If you can travel back in time and change history, then it's possible.

>conquest battles v small fraction of conquest battles (crusades)
>not conquest battles v conquest battles

seems legit.

Can you first provide "of course some clarification" on why you think all those dots on the top map exist? Just want to make sure I'm not shadowboxing here.

What

Of course, here is a list of the battles that these dots mark.

cspipublishing.com/statistical/charts/Islam-BattlesDate.pdf

You know that the reconquest of Spain was considered as a Crusade right?

Also the defeat of most of the muslim fleets by the Spanish HRE .

Seeing how the Yugoslavic civil war is marked as a muslim conquest, I suppose we should include the Reconquista. Mark it, with my blessing. Place those dots.

They aren't.

Also the reconquest of Sicily too.

>cspipublishing.com/statistical/charts/Islam-BattlesDate.pdf

The list if full of "Spain", "Corsica", "Spain War", "Sicily", "Sardinia, "Byzantine Coast"

And the map is full of dots in these places. What confuses you?

Why use dots if your evidence is such a vague term?

You have a year, a place, and a source.
From there you can find more information about the battle.

With info such as that the domain that hosts that info is on sale.
And that after checking a battle that I already know.

Thats forgetting the inconsistency. We have a battle which is referred as "Spain" and ends with her conquest, then we have a bunch of battles which must be part of such Conquest.

The sources surely need a clean-up:
>muslimwiki.com/mw/index.php?title=Special:Search&search=Ain Jalut&go=Go
>nethelper.com/article/List_of_wars_in_the_Islamic_world

I'm not OP and I'm not even Christian or Muslim so I don't have a personal bias but IMO it seems clear the image is about the Christian nations vs. the Islamic nation(s) in the sense that it is meant to help you decide whether the crusades were justified or not by Islamic expansion with the obvious implication being that some sort of response was justified by Muslims invading and conquering huge swathes of Christian areas before the Christians ever took large-scale military action against them.

The dots in Persia could be removed for that same reason but even if it were its still clear that Islamic-expansion apologists are mega-Dindus.

Where's the sack of Zadar (in croatia) on the Crusade side?

>conquests of all forms done by people following certain faith vs conquests of very specific and rare form done by people following one branch of a certain faith

Christian conquest battles would be literally all over the map

No they FUCKING WOULDN'T.

Go prep your bull cuck

Well okay, France, Switzerland and northern Italy would be blank. Other than that, name me one place on that map where wasn't a Christian conquest.

If you're just listing crusades then you're missing a bunch in Spain, southern France, Egypt and Turkey.

But if you're going to list Muslim conquests then you should really be listing Christian conquests at the same time.

Fuck off this board faggot you're an obvious troll.

yes they would.
There was a strong religious motivation for the colonial expansion of european powers.

The """""reconquest""""" of Spain, French colonial ventures in North Africa, Spanish colonial ventures in Morocco, the piracy of the Knights of St John on Malta and Rhodes.

French and British colonial ventures in Syria, Iraq and Egypt too.

Berber piracy are worse

How far should the Christian conquest go back?

Should we count Melvin Bridge?

>Imposing value judgements on the past

Wow, get a lookie at this here PLEB.

>melvin bridge
>not milvian bridge

If we're counting battles from the dawn of Islam we should be counting battles from the dawn of Christianity.

In this case Christian conquest only count if it's inflicted on Muslim and Muslim only count if it's inflicted on Christian. It's obvious who conquered more, as seen in OP's pic and the source video youtube.com/watch?v=I_To-cV94Bo

See

Yeah sorry, autocorrect's a beach.

A stupid and reductionist view, which hides the fact that Muslim society was far, far more tolerant and peaceful towards Christians and Jews then Christian societies were of Muslims, Jews and Pagans.

The image only shows the author's bias, but even if it were correct and complete, it would only show who was better at war at the time, and not have any moral implications nor dictate present day political claims and immigration policies, as you want it to and as the video's author clearly seeks.

And if fact the whole concept of a "Muslim" conquest is deeply problematic, an "Arab conquest" would be far more accurate.

It fails to list battles and sieges that occurred during the inter-crusade periods. The majority of Christian conquests and battles occurred between the First Crusade and Second Crusade, when they sieged various cities and fortresses throughout Syria and Palestine. The map also fails to show Christian battles/sieges in the Baltic, Iberia, southern France and Constantinople. You could argue that conflict in Iberia isn't included because they were reconquests, but you cannot leave out the Baltic, Wendish, and Albigensian Crusade battles/sieges/massacres.

If that's the case, why does the map include battles between Muslims and non-Christians?

""""""""""""""""Reconquest""""""""""""""""

Well Iberia is originally Christian so you could say that it's a reconquest

Technically it was originally pagan.

Christianity is as much a foreign religion as Islam. The only difference is time.

If you want to justify a naked land grab by Castile, sure.

Not really.

Iberia had a lot of Christians living in it. But then it didn't.

>Literally every Arab/Turkish battle described as an Islamic war of expansion.

>The crusades billed as the only Christian religious wars.

FUN FACT: the deadliest religious war in history was the Taiping Rebellion, fought by extremist Christians against Qing China. More people died in that war than WWI.

Christianity peacefully spread into Iberia. Muslims conquered it. Christians then reconquered it in Reconquista, Is that hard to grasp?

>Iberia had a lot of Christians living in it. But then it didn't.
But then everything changed when Umayyad attacked

There were no forced conversions during the Islamic conquest of Hispania.

There were forced conversions during the reconquest.

Which one was more peaceful?

There's no explicit force conversions, but then you would get heavy taxes and less privilege, so you'll still be forced to convert.

Better than being told "convert or die".

>I see this image mocked often.

Because it's bullshit.

For instance I know Sardinian history and all we know is that there were some raids from around 700 AD to 1016 AD, the only certain battles took place in Calaris, and maybe Olibia and Sulky, all those other dots are random guess and their number is greatly exaggerated.

The same thing could be said about Corsica, about which we know even less.

>Christianity peacefully spread into Iberia.

No, it didn't.

>Muslims conquered it.

Actually, in many cases they were invited in, as they were far better administrators than the various Visigothic rulers. Additionally, they allowed Christians within their land to continue practising their faith peacefully, so the necessity of a conquest is highly dubious.

>Christians then reconquered it

An entirely different group of Christians from those who were there prior to conquest, and who still lived in Arab controlled lands, who then committed brutal genocide and forced conversion of any and all remaining Muslims and Jews, culminating in the 20th century with a brutal, autocratic regime.

>failed pretender promises a bunch of illogical shit to crusaders to help him get on the throne
>gets overthrown quickly like the faggot he is
>somehow the rest of the Buzantines owe shit to the crusaders
Leave and take your stale memes with you, heathen.

The difference is just one is subtle, the other one is straightforward.
Hmm, what would actually be the outcome if Reconquista didn't succeed? Muslim New World? Genuinely curious.

If Angelos didn't just meddle with crusading business then 1204 wouldn't happen. But alas, he did and ERE went into a downward spiral of decline. Byzantines fucked themselves.

Decadence, infighting and art probably.

Although imperial conquest was only a matter of time, being that close to such a militant faith and power hungry kings.

>Hmm, what would actually be the outcome if Reconquista didn't succeed
Poor land of Iberia.
Marocco in Europe. Later colonized by Italy and France.

Both of you have nice sources.

Is that really the best you can manage?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Catholic_Church_in_Spain

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Catholic_Church_in_Spain

>By 689 Arabs conquest Melilla, and by 709 the already then Visigothic Spanish city of Ceuta was taken.
>By 711 Islam dominated all the north of Africa. The process of islamization of the Berber tribes had already begun, though most of the population was still Christian, Jew or polytheist. A raiding party recruited mostly amongst these newly subjugated, still non-Muslim Berbers and led by convert Tariq ibn-Ziyad was sent to plunder the south of the Visigothic Kingdom of Spain, which faced strong internal tensions and was at the verge of a civil war between the Chindasvintan, Witizan and nobiliary parties. Crossing the Strait of Gibraltar, it won a decisive victory in the summer of 711 when the Visigothic king Roderic was betrayed by the Witizan wings of his army and killed on July 19 at the Battle of Guadalete. Roderic´s body was never found and lots of rumors about his fate arose, which led to a paralysis on the Visigothic command. Tariq's commander, Musa bin Nusair quickly crossed with substantial Muslim reinforcements from the Caliphal garrison of North Africa, and by 718 the Muslims dominated most of the peninsula. The advance into Europe was stopped by the Franks under Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours in 732.

>The rulers of Al-Andalus were granted the rank of Emir by the Umayyad Caliph Al-Walid I in Damascus. After the Umayyads were overthrown by the Abbasids, some of their remaining leaders escaped to Spain under the leadership of Abd-ar-rahman I who challenged the Abbasids by declaring Córdoba an independent emirate. Al-Andalus was rife with internal conflict between the Arab Umayyad rulers, the north-African Berbers who had formed the bulk of the invasion force, and the Visigoth-Roman Christian population that was majoritary for almost the next four centuries.

In the 10th century Abd-ar-rahman III declared the Caliphate of Córdoba, effectively breaking all ties with the Egyptian and Syrian caliphs. The Caliphate was mostly concerned with maintaining its power base in North Africa, but these possessions eventually dwindled to the Ceuta province. Meanwhile, a slow but steady migration of Christian subjects to the northern kingdoms was slowly increasing the power of the northern kingdoms.

Al-Andalus coincided with La Convivencia, an era of religious tolerance (as far as Christians and Jews peacefully accept submission to Muslims, as well as being reduced to the condition of tax-paying serfs) and with the Golden age of Jewish culture in the Iberian Peninsula (912, the rule of Abd-ar-Rahman III - 1066, Granada massacre).[2]

Medieval Spain was the scene of almost constant warfare between Muslims and Christians. The Almohads, who had taken control of the Almoravids' Maghribi and Andalusian territories by 1147, far surpassed the Almoravides in fundamentalist outlook, and they treated the dhimmis harshly. Faced with the choice of death, conversion, or emigration, many Jews and Christians left.[3]

Does not sound so peaceful for me. But this is wikipedia. But from my personal experiences Muslims will make your money tax super big and make a blood tax.

>WW1
40 million deaths
>WW2
80 million deaths

Assuming Europe only takes 50% of the death count for WWII and 90%. Assuming the Christians are only 90% of the population of the time.

That's still 72 million deaths caused by Christians in WW1 and WW2 alone.

Are you retarded? Those wars are not motivated by religion at all. In both WW no one is shouting "DEUS VULT!" or any Christian equivalent of "ALLAHU AKBAR!". On the other hand those Muslim conquest are driven by their zeal and motivated by 72 virgins upon death. It's a win-win situation for them, if they succeed then more Muslim land, if they don't then there's still 72 virgins you can enjoy in afterlife.

The wording is really messed up. A crusade is something fairly specific, whereas something as generic as 'muslim conquest' could mean anything. I'm pretty sure it also cuts out battles during the crusades, and the map has conveniently left out the baltic region, which means it cuts out the northern crusades. Oh and it doesn't show the massacre of the cathars in france.

A massacre is hardly a battle

The Batak massacre in Bulgaria is listed there as a jihad muslim conquest.
It was an Ottoman army killing Ottoman christians in their Ottoman village.

It was explicity a crusade, and the source of that image is about a man talking about religious violence. It's just splitting hairs and missing the point to say it's not a battle so it doesn't count.

>le 72 virgins meme
epic, simply epic

The only European religious conflict is probably the Yugoslav Wars, before that you have to go all the way to the 30 years war to find something.

>ottoman imperialism is about 72 virgins
>fucking kosovo separatism is about 72 virgins

did you see the list of battles?
there are battles fought by secular mustafa kemal turkey in there, the guy loathed islam

> Every conquest by Muslims was religiously motivated
> Crusaders were the only conquests by Christians in history

reconquista

People complain that bumfuck Latvian wars and other shit not involving Islam aren't on there
When the picture is clearly only dealing with Islam v Christianity
You could add dots were Muslims attacked non-Christians as well but again that would be beside the point

When muslims fought christians, christians also fought muslims. It goes two ways.
How do you decide who gets the point?

I think he's asking us to include all Christian forays into the Muslim world, such as the WW1 and WW2 battles.

What about the Reconquista? It wasn't a crusade, but it still was a conquest battle. This map is comparing apples to oranges

Depending on who the aggressor was

Does taking back your own country still count though?

>the picture is clearly only dealing with Islam v Christianity
Then why are there red dots in Saudi Arabia?

>puking monk
Nice touch

The christianization of Europe was mostly done through missionary work, unlike the islamization of north africa and the middle east which was done through conquest.

>The christianization of Europe was mostly done through missionary work
Except for Saxons, Balts and whatever pagan resistance newly converted rulers in Germany, Poland and Russia had to crush. Then again, by 15th century there were no pagans left in Europe, and soon after Reconquista Jew and Muslim were forcedly converted or expelled from Spain. After that Christianity managed to destroy native religions of Latin America in a 100 years.
>islamization of north africa and the middle east which was done through conquest.
Now you just don't know that are you tanking about. Islam don't practice forced conversions (although there were some rare instances of overzealous rulers), conversion to Islam was generally volunteer and gradual. There are still big native Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian and even proto-christian Gnostic communities left in the Middle East, 1400 years after supposed "conversion by conquest".

The Christianization of Europe was done through suppression of lesser pagan tribes and their shrines and rituals by diplomatically establishing a political alliance with powerful landholders, while the Islamization of the Middle East was done through political alliance with lesser pagan and Christian and Jewish tribes by personally establishing family alliances with the rural countryside.

People get hung up on the prefix, but the fact is that Muslim states in Spain were well established by even the start of the reconquista. Then there's Cueta and other colonial territories in Morocco. The new world should be included, religion was the primary justification for capture of territory and the enslavement of the natives. Also leaving out European crusades against pagans but including Islamic battles against them stinks of agenda pushing.

>Accuses others of reductionism
>"Muslim Culture"

The image on OP is full of shit, but so are you. There was not a unified "Muslim Culture". As one example, there were something like three Muslim dynasties in Spain, with wildly divergent views on how to treat infidels. The famous "Jewish Golden Age" in Spain came screeching to a halt when a new dynasty took over and started to institute oppressive laws.

Daily reminder that one of those muslim dots is a Roman christian/pagan battle

top kek

Fair enough, but speaking generally I'm right.

>>cspipublishing.com/statistical/charts/Islam-BattlesDate.pdf
Having looked up the source, at least for the first few pages, it relies on McCormick's Origins of the European Economy which has a sort of survey timeline of events. Most of the ones involved in the chart/graph are themselves sourced from a 1985 PhD dissertation by M.A. Ageil titled "Naval Policy and the Rise of the Fleet of Ifriqiyyah from the First to the Third Centuries A.H."

As others have extensively pointed out, most of these events are recorded as raids, not actual battles of conquest.