Whats wrong with this map?

I've heard its wrong

Its not. Muslim conquest battle is simply any battle that they were involved in and attempted invasions. People think it's misleading because the second map only involves the crusades.

Not just that, it only counts the initial 3 crusades. It doesn't count any of the other anti-Ottoman battles or even the fucking Reconquista. It's misleading at best, deliberately so at worst, and I'm fairly sure that was intentional.

It isn't really, people will bitch that the second picture doesn't show the Northern Crusades or some shit but the map doesn't even extend there.

It's not false exactly but it misleading.

It'd be the equivalent of going, say, "American battles" and plotting every battle Americans have fought since their conception on a world map, and then placing it against "Russian battles in the Crimean war."

If you factored in stuff like the reconquista and the baltic crusades it'd be a bit of a different map.

the top map also implies that all this was by the death of muhammad, pbuh, while that's factually false.

>pbuh
lel, whats the point if you are going to acronym it?

its just a map that was made to subvert people that know nothing about history
basically any battle or raid muslims were engaged in are shown as "muslim conquest battles" but only some of the sieges the crusaders have won are shown as "crusade battles"

you should not fall for these stuff unless you are retarded or american

Lads I counted all the battles and divided it over the timespan to see how violent Muslims and Christians are according to the data given by this graph in non-propaganda form.

What do the numbers represent?

Number of battles
Timespan between the earliest and latest given battles
Number of battles per year.

The numbers on the map just represent how many battles the regions I counted them by which were
>Spain & Portugal
>Italy
>France
>Balkans
>Anatoalia & the Caucasus
>The Levant & Arabia
>North Africa
>Iran and everything to the east of Iran.

it's propaganda

number of goats raped

'Muslim conquest battle' isn't a good comparison to 'crusade battle'. Muslim conquest could mean anything really, whereas a crusade has a specific meaning.

It also excludes crusades. I'm pretty sure it leaves out plenty of middle eastern crusades, as the Albigensian crusade and the reconquista (if that counts as a crusade). The map even conveniently cuts off so you can't see the baltic and Russian region, which would include the northern crusades.

To begin with
New/Past battles and the dots are places in a suspcious way anyway.

It forgoes every crusader battle in Europe. Whether it's against muslims or not.
Bosnian crusade
Albigensian crusade
Aragonese crusade
Northern crusades
And vs muslims the reconquista and crusades against the Ottomans (Savoyard, Varna, War of the holy league), Barbary Crusade
.

It also doesn't show various Christian battles in the inter-crusade periods, such as all the battles and sieges following the First Crusade.

It's politically incorrect.

The upper map is basically made up. There is no evidence that even half of those 500+ battles took place, and even if they did take place, they don't say anything about the nature of those battles themselves. E.g. for all we know, most of those """""battles"""""" might have been insignificant border skirmishes.

The crusader map in comparison is therefore deceitful on purpose, because they only count the large battles there, and not even actually all of them. No skirmishes seem to be counted.

It's basically trash.

its not that wrong, its infographic, so yes its probably shit, but the red dots on the upper one pretty much do cover the extent of the incursions, even if we cant know the exact number and scale of ''engagements''

the crusader one is wrong mostly because it ommits the shit in east and south europe and anatolia

What I don't like also is that it shows modern world borders

There's literally one dot for every square inch of Spain/Portugal. How ANYONE take this map with a grain of salt I don't know

Cause everyone knows that Muslims literally move into every inch of Iberia and substituted the Aryan with mudbloods.

I remember however that the original video in which it appeared, mentioned that those """battles"""" were established through archaeological evidence, but the problem is that there's actually a lack of archaeological evidence of battles during the early Arab conquests. I think they sucked most of those battles from their thumb.

Are you trying to tell me that someone making a chart for the internet the shows Islam to be historically inherently more violent than Christianity is inaccurate?

Who'd have thought!

>Implying the Ottomans were really Muslim
They were doing it for cynical territorial gain to build an empire, much like most states, their being Muslim was just coincidence largely due to the fact that Turkic people just adopted whatever the most politically convenient religion was.

So?

So to count their territorial battles as "muslim conquest" is misleading.

If that were the case, Christian forces invaded Iraq to create a pseudo-Christian (Shia) puppet state.

They'd also count all the wars they waged in asia, africa and the americas.

The Crusade battles are only the major battles of the first crusade. there were more than a dozen crusades in the Middle East alone at that isn't even counting these.