Can we have an honest discussion about the Crusades and their cause?

It's not a joke. She was actually pretty too, dark hair and blue eyes and did not wear any sort of headscarf. Her father was some sort of an important person under Abbas.

the girl insisted that the Crusades were a great crime unto Muslims. So, I brought out a map, and I marked all the territories Muslims had attacked/seized-- Sicily (200_ years), Malta, Spain (almost 600 years), France (stopped by Martel), Vienna (stopped the last time by King Sobieski. She would not accept it.

I guess it's different if you grow up under Israeli occupation and need to show an Id card to get to Uni and have you bag searched as you line up and cross border. But she became vicious and it led to a huge fight. She was attractive, smart, and usually personable but this issue--probably a metaphor for other issues-- just ended the relationship.

Holy shit you both have absolutely no sense of perspective and neither of you deserve to have a relationship until you grow up.

>crusades
>turks
bruh, turks did barely exist...

That's a bit judgmental wouldn't you say? Especially for a girl who literally lives under an occupation? It's not a joke or some sort of lark either. A few years ago, there was a movie about that depicts the journey from the West Bank into the area where the University is.

You, apparently, are the classic cosmopolitan, rootless type who feels no connection or responsibility to your ancestors. I realized soon after, she needs to hold into the narrative of oppression since it colours her everyday experiences in Israel with her actual oppressors.

I can respect and sympathize with that, but it doesn't change the fact that my ancestors lived in contact fear of the moorish ships appearing on the horizon to take slaves. In a way, it was a good lesson in why "globalization' is a failed system and a lie.

The Crusades were a completely pointless endeavour. Consider that despite holding the Holy Land for more than a century, the Crusaders left absolutely no mark on any of the territories they conquered: for one, Roman Catholicism never spread beyond the Crusading lords themselves, and the rest of the population remained Orthodox, Syriac, etc. Neither did they have any demographic or linguistic impact in the areas they ruled over. What a waste of time. Plus I don't have to get into the obvious: the Crusades ultimately weakened the E.R.E., which allowed the Ottoman Turks to waltz right into Eastern Europe and the Balkans. From the Venetian Crusade of 1122, all the way to the actual Sack of 1204, the Crusades were more succesful in destroying the only strong Christian state in the region than doing anything to contain the various Muslim factions.

this dood just wants and deus vult meme out of himself

you get the idea. Not going to go back and make every distinction between the Caliphate was in Iraq, then when it moved again, then the fall of Constantinople. etc.. "turks" works well enough. Or should write out "the Caliphate while it was centered in x...?" you say "muslims" and you immediately offend people with the #notallmuslims bullshit...

the entire reason the crusades got started was because the byzantines wanted help with the tukish invasions.
And i hate that it turned into a fiasco when the leaders turned greedy because the turks were a pain in the ass for many centuries to come, that slowed down development wherever they went.

>the Crusaders left absolutely no mark on any of the territories they conquered
A. go to Syria. their forts are still there
B. The crusades led to the formulation o the Knights templar and the Knights Hospitallar, aka "Knights of St. John." The same group that saved Malta during the Siege with about 500 men under the command of Grand Master Jean De Valette.
for proof that holding Malta saved European Christendom, I'd recommend the book "Empire of the sea: the Battle of Lepanto, the Siege of Malta, and the Struggle for the Center of the World."
"tips fedora"

>800 years ago, some people attacked some other people
>this means I need to literally break off REAL relationships over what other people think about this

You're literally holding a grudge about something that *didn't even happen to you.* Hell, it didn't happen to any of your living ancestors. It doesn't matter anymore.

>colours her everyday experiences in Israel with her actual oppressors.
If her dad was in the fucking Abbas govt, she needs to look closer to home to find the root cause.

>In a way, it was a good lesson in why "globalization' is a failed system and a lie.
We didn't even mention globalism, but way to shoehorn it in.

Back to /pol/. Or grow the fuck up.

>You, apparently, are the classic cosmopolitan, rootless type...

Holy shit, not even the poster you were replying to, but you are so full of yourself that it's cringeworthy, autist.

No wonder your girlfriend left you, condescending twat.

>it doesn't change the fact that my ancestors lived in contact fear of the moorish ships appearing on the horizon to take slaves

You do realize the Greek Byzantines lived in fear of the Crusaders showing up on their lands and pillaging the area and killing people because they were both disorganized and lacked logistics, right? I don't even understand what you're trying to say.

I AM the poster he was replying to, and to be fair, the gf sounds like a dipshit too. Breaking off relationships over what people think about something that happened centuries ago is the height of autism.

What part of your masters was a mistake?

The Crusades began when Emperor Alexios Komnenos petitioned the Papacy for aid in his endeavour of recapturing parts of the Empire from various Muslim lords, particularly Anatolia and parts of Cilicia/the Levant. It is established that Alexios likely exaggerated certain details (such as "the oppression of Christians under Muslim rule", or the "destruction of holy sites") in order to secure military aid.

Pope Urban proceeded to stir up a religious frenzy based on these exaggerated reports, and so the Crusades began.

So no, you're wrong: the Crusades were not a response to Muslim 'aggression' or raids (which were a common activity at the time, and in no way exclusive to the Muslims); they were a response to a lofty goal which Pope Urban - through a combination of his own charisma and personality and the religiosity of their time - was able to make various European lords chase.

>Alexios likely exaggerated certain details (such as "the oppression of Christians under Muslim rule", or the "destruction of holy sites")
Fuck off you cunt. You don't get to peddle your revisionism by saying something was "likely exaggerated" because the historical record doesn't support your narrative.

>the Crusades were not a response to Muslim 'aggression' or raids (which were a common activity at the time, and in no way exclusive to the Muslims)
They demonstrably were as they literally started from that. The Christians of the time were neither ignorant nor indifferent to the history of Islamic conquest in the christian world and what it would mean for them if it further spread into Europe from the east.
And no, slave raids on coastal settlements were an exclusive province of Islamic pirates.

>which were a common activity at the time, and in no way exclusive to the Muslims
Technically that doesn't mean they weren't a threat.

Actual historical record shows no particular "persecution" or "oppression" of Christians in Muslim territories during the time period being discussed.

At this point in time, Christians were enabled to continue worship with the Jiyza tax, which brought Muslim lords a very lucrative profit (hence why regions like Egypt remained largely Christian even centuries after the conquests - rulers didn't want the people to convert and end a good source of income). Christian pilgrims were allowed to visit the Holy Land and its sites, and they enjoyed legal protections.

It is very likely that Emperor Alexius did exaggerate the danger the Empire was in. See:

Mayer, Hans Eberhard (1988). The Crusades (Second ed.). Oxford University Press.
Mayer, Hans Eberhard (1988). The Crusades (Second ed.). Oxford University Press.

>And no, slave raids on coastal settlements were an exclusive province of Islamic pirates.

You're fucking stupid. Piracy and coastal raiding have been a widespread activities in all of human history. It's not at all exclusive to the Muslims, and we know sources from the Middle Ages can be heavily biased (ex: sources tell us Crete under the Muslims was a pirate kingdom, but actual archeological shows "...an ordered state with a regular monetary economy and extensive trade links... with evidence that Chandax was a cultural centre of some importance"). Just off the top of my head, I distinctly remember raiders from Rus sailing to the Black Sea and pillaging Byzantine possessions and the suburbs in Constantinople in the 10th century, as well as the famous Viking invasions, with all its raids of coastal settlements.

Just get the fuck out of here and back to /pol/, LARPer.

to divide the world at that time simply into christian and muslim does not do the situation justice. the crusaders were western latin christian who had a significant disconnect with the eastern christians that lived in 4 out of the 5 centers of early christian thought and learning both in culture and in faith.
the byzantine emperor asked for support, true, but what he got was a horde of fanatics that sought not to support their brothers in faith as much as to find glory for themselves. in the process they committed massacres all over the place, they even massacred european jews who had nothing to do with the whole affair at all.
in the short time that they were actually successful european nobles set up their own states in the holy land not really caring much about their orthodox brothers. shortly after though they were defeated, making the whole endeavour completely pointless

but most importantly, let us not forget that the crusades (specifically the 4th) were the reason why 4 of the 5 centers of early christian thought and learning are now majority muslim instead of only 3.

Neither of these narratives are true.

Alexios petitioned the Papacy, yes, but for the purpose of planning the march of a Latin army the emperor had already begun trying to recruit through a series of letters to prospective barons who might be tempted to take the pilgrim's road and join up for mercenary service with the empire. It's not that he exaggerated, but that later Crusaders and Western historians distorted the original call to be one against the Muslims of Syria, when the emperor had actually meant to aim this mercenary force against every single enemy of the Byzantines, from Serbs and Pechenegs in the Balkans to Turks and Armenians in Anatolia.

The religious frenzy that stirred up a great Latin host was not driven by any sense of revenge or safeguarding Eastern Christians, but were excited that all the news they were hearing about chaos in the East lined up with eschatology at the time about the coming end, and this was something that took over the Prince's Crusade only near the end of the long march sometime after Antioch was taken. Until then while many were clamoring to arrive in Jerusalem in time for the end of things, the barons were still in charge and looking to secure for themselves Anatolian and Syrian duchies as Byzantine vassals (with the exception of Bohemund, who aimed to create an independent state which would allow him to attack the ERE from both sides).

The First Crusade had very little to do with the initial Arab Conquests or the Moorish raids of the later 10th century, which by the time of the First Crusade had been greatly suppressed and played little role in the march east. The 11th century was almost entirely about Latin expansion in the Mediterranean, and the First Crusade was a new front that was exploited at the right time.

Also, slave raids on coastal settlements was a near universal activity, and in the 11th century Italian pirates were on the ascendancy in the Western Mediterranean.

>And no, slave raids on coastal settlements were an exclusive province of Islamic pirates.

The Venetian Crusaders engaged in raids on Byzantine trading outposts in the Aegean during the 1120s.

On a side note, Venice was famed for selling slaves of Slavic origin once the Pope banned the sale of Christian slaves to Muslims. Venice regularly engaged in slave raids on the Dalmatian coast against the Pagani. This is around the 9th century, which the De Administrando Imperio attests to.

if you're maltese, i.e. an arabic speaking catholic, then you should know that identities in the mediterranean are complicated and that the line does not go strictly between muslims and christians.

Tbh I used to get really pissed at my gf over this shit too. She was Pakistani and literally Muslims could do no wrong. Its actually pretty annoying. Im not gonna break up with her over it but come the fuck on you can't see the flip side of an argument? It shows a deeper underlying problem other than just being wrong.

Feel free not to respond, I don't mean to be rude, but how does she feel about violence between Muslim sects?

>you can't see the flip side of an argument?
That flip side of the argument makes her feel like you did. That's the problem with the flip side - they don't exist for negotiation, only to dominate and say everyone else are wrong/jews/privileged/etc.

I believe Byzantine ships sacked the port of Marseille sometime before the First Crusade, and the Adriatic was full of Dalmatian Slavonic pirates fighting with Venetians. And then there's the North Sea shitshow.

>I believe Byzantine ships sacked the port of Marseille sometime before the First Crusade

Source?

In the Annales Bertiniari. In 848 Greek pirates sacked Marseilles. Just a few years before that Arabs sacked it. And a few years after that Normans came and sacked the surrounding area.

>historical record shows no particular "persecution" or "oppression" of Christians in Muslim territories
>Jiyza is not oppression
>Christians having to live under Islamic law that treats them as second class citizens is not oppression
>Islamic conquerors definitely did not pillage, rape and enslave, even though their religion explicitly permits it.

>Christian pilgrims were allowed to visit the Holy Land and its sites, and they enjoyed legal protections.
>An entire knightly order was founded to protect pilgrims from raiders but that doesn't count because the pilgrims were 'allowed' to visit the Holy Land

You're fucking brainwashed mate.

She ignored it as I remember. It has been a while but when Id bring it up Id get something like "Its bad and wrong but X is worse." The way she would talk is 99% of Muslims love everyone and especially other Muslims.

If the crusades were Christians vs Muslims, what were the Jews up to?

Whatever you say, LARPer.

are you high?

That first paragraph is fucking incoherent as fuck. Most of this is really, it's hard to give a response when I don't know what you're trying to say.

>This entire post
>You're fucking brainwashed mate.

Daily reminders
>The early church as pacifist
>Following their alliance with Constantine and his army,they formulated the "just war" theory
>The 11th century papacy decided that Wars were exactly what God wanted and tried to start crusades
>Urbans predecessor,Gregory VII tried and failed to launch a crusade
>Urban used atrocity propaganda to launch the successful first crusade

>He doesn't understand the definition of words
>Smug reaction image

The Crusades were clearly a powerplay by the Pope and various European lords, the continual holding of those lands had more to do with the money and power involved than the religion, not to mention the Crusades weren't Christians vs Muslims, it was a set of Christian factions vs a set of Muslim factions. Religion was a backdrop. I'm not saying Muslims didn't shit all over the middle east and Europe at some point beforehand, but it has less to do with the Crusades than it was made out to be.

not him but here

>taxation is oppression

Kek yourself

Behind the scenes, scheming their next move

"Yes g-goy, fight for the Holy Land that we'll end claiming centuries later. Good goy"

not OP but im high and i understand him

>You do realize the Greek Byzantines lived in fear of the Crusaders showing up on their lands
Again, patently untrue. Yes, there were incidents were the soldiers--without pay and food--took to helping themselves.
But your contention that the Eastern Roman Empire (which, BTW, in the Latin sources thesis how it was known right up until the fall) feared being sacked by the West more than the Turk is trash.
Right up until Constantine Xi died on the battlefield, they were still requesting Western help to keep the city from falling. There are also all sorts of legends surrounding Hagia Sophia (few of which are still extant since the Turks purged the city of Greeks in 1949 and shoved the Archbishop into a small, cramped area where he is regularly abused by the thrashing public).
There are 2 legends in particular. One is, the night before the city fell, the Hagia Sophia was surrounded by a strange blue glow all night as the Holy Spirit Left. The other? As the Turks filed in th rape, murder, and loot the Church, 2 priests fled "into" the wall to save the host from desecration. They will return the daily the Church is reconsecrated.

You do understand that Christians, particular in Morrish-occupied Spain, were taxed at a rate they simply could not afford and it caused many of them to end up bankrupted and then to spend live and a galley slave?
Of course you know that. But as--wild guess here-- a Muslim living in the West, why would that matter to you? Another photo of my believed Hagia Sophia, which we WILL reconsecrate one day...

>Religion was a backdrop.
Again, you are just regurgitating to me whatever your marxist economics or history professor told you because they will go to any expense not to blame Islam for anything. Have yo see a map of what Islamic expansionism looked like one generation after the death of Mohammed? 4 of the 5 primary centers of the Christian world had been CAPTURED and one was being threatened. This was a faith people held for ~550 years. Are you going to sit with a straight face and tell me that's accurate? Keep in mind, you are not dealing with a fellow undergrad who is going to defer to you since you have brown skin, but someone who cared enough about the subject to get an MA in it.

>an arabic speaking catholic
Maltese is not Arabic. They can understand what we ay most of the time, when they begin speaking at their normal rate of speech, we cannot understand a thing they say. If you ever went to Malta and called someone an "arabic speaking catholic," you may well get punched in the face. Maltese are a mix of anicent Phoenician, some Norman, some Italian, not no Arabic. This can be easily discerned from a 23 ad me test and then comparing oneself to fellow Maltese
>

>That first paragraph is fucking incoherent as fuck
No, you just don't have the reading comprehension to understand it. I did make one mistake, which was putting 2-- rather than 200 in the paragraph.

I used to teach LSAT classes for Kaplan as a part time job in law school in NYC to buy my books. You are like an obnoxious student telling me "yeah, this LSAT reading passage doesn't make sense..." rather than understanding that you simply aren't clever enough to comprehend it.

>Muhhamads actually want to say Asiatic despot rule of Turks and moors was some sort half-way decent arrangement for their subjects.
>Not the oppressive rape and murder that would put European empires to shame

This.

> I actually had to end a relationship with a girl I was dating from Palestine I was seeing because she would simply not even consider the other point of view and we could not agree to disagree.
That's a standard behavior from those muslim barbarians.
They cannot into Truth.

Again, either a "we wuz.." or a basic lack of reading comprehension. Notice, you don't react to a single statistic or say "hey, tell me where you got x from..." or more aptly, "I'm a high school dropout, can you please explain this in a more guttural form of English such as the type to which I am accustomed?" Nope. People like you are why this board is in the state it's in.

I'll also add, all the statistics I give are from memory. Yes, I had to take a different career path into law simply because I refused to ever deal with the bullshit of an academic environment in the "safe space" culture that was already clearly beginning to bloom years ago at the more elite universities.

This egalitarianism snowflake mentality of, "If I don't understand it, there most be something wrong..." No friend, maybe it's just over your head.

Sounds like a personal issue

Blacks want gibs and reparations for slavery. Why shouldn't Europeans who were enslaved and mistreated by muslim turks and moors want the same thing?

Does anyone want more Hagia Sophia photos from when the entire place was emptied out? It gives a much better idea of the scale.

>Sounds like a personal issue
Note, since I assume you come from leddit. Unless you direct who you comment is addressed to, no one will know or care. In this case, since it's under my comment, I'll assume me but I still don't care. You aren't arguing any sort of fact, but just attempts at backhanded insults which really aren't all that insulting or clever. You cannot give details or discuss the historical issue in depth since you lack the knowledge.

They already got them in the form of Muslim slaves taken in kind, plus European hegemony over the MidEast for a few decades.

Considering you've only replied to posters that made the slightest personal pass at you and ignored everyone else that discussed the matter rationally, yeah, definitely personal.

>They already got them in the form of Muslim slaves taken in kind
{Citation Needed}

user, I just finished working and came to see the thread. Personal insults always welcome if they are clever put downs. I specifically came here to give rare photos of Hagia Sophia from when it was emptied out--something you literally cannot get anywhere else-- and no one even takes the slightest notice.

You won't bother watching this I'm sure, but her tis the late Dr. Tony Martin explaining the scale of the Arab trade in blacks and how it reach 100 million with a 90% (!!!) death rate during the trip to Arabia. No, that's not a typo. Which does not excuse Western slavery but sure as hell puts in in proportion and gives context:

youtube.com/watch?v=Uu0vQrZbhQo

The Crusades hardly even show up in Muslim historical texts because they weren't seen as that important. The Europeans were heathen savages to the Islamic states, and their arrival was seen as less of a conquest and more of a temporary setback to Islam's spread due to decadence and a lack of cohesion between Islamic rulers. In the time frame of the Crusades, wars between Muslim rulers accounted for much more death and destruction than the crusaders ever caused, and the Europeans were themselves often caught up in middle-eastern politics when Muslim rulers allied with then to further their own claims. In addition, the majority of Crusades were massive failures, and a few of them didn't even make it out of Europe, let alone Anatolia.

God you're a fucking faggot

There were European slave markets trading in Middle Eastern slaves throughout the Middle Ages and Renaissance. Malta especially was a big one.

Neck yourself you huge autist

Its worth mentioning that Alexios expected a core of professional soldiers, western men clad in metal from head to toe on top of huge warhorses that had impressed him so much in the past. He did certainly not expect a fuckload of pilgrims, beggars and every other sort of scum that followed the barons and their men at arms.

If the ratio was 1 to 100,000 it really doesn't sound equal.

>what were the Jews up to?
During the Crusades, the Morrish conquest of Spain, the siege of Constantinople, you name it, the Jews were on the side of the Moor. In Spain, Jews were known to either open the gates secretly at night, provide maps, etc..

If one reads an account of the Fall of Constantinople, after the blood orgy of raping nuns, behaving infants and used their severed heads to extinguish candles, the Sultan did 3 things:
1. Went to the Cathedral pulpit and said "Rest now brothers, this place belongs to Allah."
2. Requested 500 Jews be sent from other parts of the Ottoman empire to handle the slave sales, confiscation of goods, that sort of thing
3. Called for a Greek who spoke Arabic to drawn him "a map of the known world" and label it in Arabic

This last point, right on he surface, reveals that all the talk of Muslims as "tending the flames of wisdom during the European Dark Ages" was her bullshit. Christ alone knows how much they destroyed when the sacked Constantinople that the world will never regain.

Just as modern "scholars" try to use every trick in the book to absolve Muslims of blue for burning down the library of Alexandria, despite the quote which has survived from the commanding general: "Burn it, all wisdom men need is in the Koran."

Having been raised in Malta after the socialist craze and before the Pc disaster, I'm in a unique place to comment on this since-- for a while at least-- the old stuff was brought out of the archives during the late 80s.early 90s when the Church stopped worrying so much about being loved by the Jewish element in the media and allowed students to just hear the truth.

We don't know the ratio, because there's little information on the scale of Muslim and Jewish slaves in Europe. But it'd hardly be that one-sided considering how there were markets in Lisbon, Aragon, Marseille, Livorno, Malta, Palermo, Venice, and Constantinople.

>Neck yourself you huge autist
Sir, by your language and choice of topic, I can tell that you are very learned. Perhaps you would allow me a bot time to bask in the glow of your knowledge and ask philosophical questions?

Don't play dumb. You know the ration and treatment doesn't even come close.

Alt translation: "Any criticism of Islam shows that you;re actually just an ignorant bigot who doesn't like brown people, so stop doing research on their history. They're peaceful, now stop doing your own research on the Quran and the history of Islam."

>Just as modern "scholars" try to use every trick in the book to absolve Muslims of blue for burning down the library of Alexandria, despite the quote which has survived from the commanding general: "Burn it, all wisdom men need is in the Koran."

They're hardly tricks, but responsible source criticism that you would apply to any historical claim.

>Don't play dumb. You know-
No, I don't, because I don't pretend to know what can't yet be proven without an extensive survey. Wanting to believe the scale is unfairly tipped one way or another is completely a matter of belief.

>There were European slave markets trading in Middle Eastern slaves throughout the Middle Ages and Renaissance
Can you please provide an example? the only muslims "slave labor" used during this time was as galley slaves, and then only because Muslim shad begun the practice. you are aware of janesseries, correct user? the kidnapping of young greek/baltic men at about age 8, brainwashing them in fundamentalist Isam, and then using them as an elite form of cannon fodder?

you've also heard of "harems," where pretty young Europeans girls (blondes with blue eyes were especially highly sought) were kidnapped from their coastal homes sometimes as young as 6?

Can you please tell me the European equivalent of the practices? I'd be genuinely curious, as in much study I've never come cross any such thing. Thanks in advance.

No. Most of the common mainstream disdain for the Crusades stems from lack of knowledge and/or education about the subject. The European Crusader armies were not unique in engaging in an offensive war. The Holy Land had been Jewish/Christian beforehand and the fact of the matter is that the Crusades were a response to Muslim aggression and conquest of the territory prior.

Another fun fact idiots never consider: Muslim armies had been invading Europe as early as the 8th century (with Tours). The Crusades pale in comparison to the scope of Muslim aggression in the Middle East and Europe that persisted almost since the inception of the religion.

We can inference the fact that slavery in Europe at this time a largely exotic affair. Not Millions.

> Christ alone knows how much they destroyed when the sacked Constantinople that the world will never regain.

Mostof it had already been lost to the venetians and their crusading buddies mate. First by the puppet emperor they put in place, who was happy to pay his western buddies by melting everything made out of gold and silver that he could get his hands on, particularly church relics and then when the city was finally sacked everything of value was taken or melted. The lions in venice didnt just magically show up there.

>Y-you broke up over your principles? If only I could find a girl who'd have sex with me I'd bend over backwards for m'lady

>I don't pretend to know what can't yet be proven without an extensive survey
Oh, your tribe "pretends" to know quite a lot! The idea that a Muslim army burned down the library of Alexandria (which had indeed suffered slight damage previously, perhaps as far back as Caesar) is completely true. I blame my my own European counterpart for obfuscating matters like this in deference to a minty population who are going to just keep taking more and more and more.

If a group of Christian immigrants on the Islamic peninsula (who would never be allowed there in the first place) behaved as Muslims do in Italy, France, Germany, etc... they would have been beheaded. All of them.

amazing to be lectured by a Muslim on this board on "tolerance," when the Saudis have yet to take a single "migrant" from a war where they and the other Gulf States (Qatar, Oman, Kuwait, Bahrain UAE) provided much of the funding and weaponry.

Women base their final convictions on emotion and feelings, user. You failed in trying to win an argument using logic with a woman.

>Mostof it had already been lost to the venetians and their crusading buddies mate
Ah, thanks! So it was the CRUSADER armies who either painted over.scratched out.otherwise defaced the mosaics inside Hagia Sophia (see my own personal photos above). I never knew that, learn new things here everyday.

Here's a primary source:
sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/1248serfs5.asp

Arab and Moorish slaves were used on church owned property and as domestic servants. The Janissaries began as a corps of prisoners of war who were later taken from Balkan villages to increase their numbers, and who subscribed to their own Sufi dervish orders.

Elite cannon fodder is an oxymoron.

Harems were also places that took in maids and young brides who willingly joined in order to take part in courtly politics. Most slave women taken for the harem were in fact made to serve these girls, and it's later that the institution begins to favor slaves of humble or unknown origin over women of higher status.

Based on what, exactly? We'd be shooting from the hip with any sort of guess. It's not as though European slaves in Middle Eastern markets could be that much higher considering 1-1.5 million is the high estimate over a span of several centuries. A good several hundred thousand seems likely, and that's mostly because demographics are greatly skewed towards Europe versus a more sparsely populated Middle East that wanted and needed the cheap labor.

I don't have any interest in modern politics and existentialism. It doesn't change that to take the idea of an Arab involvement in burning down the Library of Alexandria is more of a stretch than accepting the Gnostic gospels as old as the originals.

>using logic with a woman
That's all true. She was pretty (for a Palestinian to have blue eyes, I always insisted her ancestors must have ben a victim of human trafficking, which she did not like). But I didn't really make the thread to moan about losing a girl. Just that it truly taught me how cemented these views are in the Middle East. They never considered, Christians never attacked and pillaged Mecca or Medina. We may as well have pillaged Mecca, it couldn't be any worse than now since it literally looks like Las Vegas. Have to wonder about the sanity of anyone who would sign off on that for a supposedly very accent and holy place.

Imagine a hotel like that overlooking St. Peter's Square?

lel, muslims may have defaced some mosaics but the crusaders destroyed every single statue, reliquary, altars and pretty much everything made of metal. You have your head so far up your ass that you're willingly ignoring the tremendous damage done to the city and its population by the crusaders. By the time the roaches conquered the city the was barely anything left to loot, deface or a population to abuse.

>for a Palestinian to have blue eyes, I always insisted her ancestors must have ben a victim of human trafficking, which she did not like

I think that highlights a major issue with your thinking. You come to these conclusions with little to no evidence for them but insist on their absolute truthfulness because they align with a certain narrative. There are several reasons why a Levantine would have blue eyes, some of which date back to human movements since before Islam even existed.

Thats what happens when you put the books aside and use /pol/ as a source for education instead.

I was going t go one by one and refute these, nd having dated a Muslim for 2 years I have tolerance for a certain amount of this bullshit. But as soon as you begin justifying the practice of Janesseries...you lose me.
also, "elete cannon fodder," in this case, makes absolute sense. Even Islamic Scholars will admit that the Ottomans were willing to lose incredible numbers of lives in pursuing any military goal.

(while this man is not an authoritative source, his graphs are correct...so you, i the believe these people just willing one day saw the superiority of Isa and gave up 500 years plus of faith? Or would you agree they were converted by the sword?

>But your contention that the Eastern Roman Empire (which, BTW, in the Latin sources thesis how it was known right up until the fall) feared being sacked by the West more than the Turk is trash.

WRONG

The Byzantines were dismayed when the First Crusade showed up in Byzantine territory, especially because these had taken to pillaging from the local citizenry, since - having no administrative apparatus - they were completely incapable of conducting logistics to enable supply lines. The citizenry of Constantinople and its suburbs quickly became afraid of the undisciplined Latins, and even the Emperor was disappointed (and that's an understatement) that the Pope had sent such rabble along, since when he had asked for help, he had expected a more capable and organized force.

Also:
>believing in folk-tales

Go the fuck back to /x/, retard.

>use /pol/ as a source for education instead.
I love how you continually try to somehow insult anyone you disagree with by trying to associate them with pol. I'm aware of the different ME groups with blue eyes such as al-awaites, yazidis, etc.. It wasn't only her blue eyes, she just completely European features to where she would not have looked out of place dressed nice and walking down the street in Paris in the 1930s.
You try to make sweeping generalizations to tar other people, yet you demonstrate very little working knowledge of the cause you purport to defend.

What the hell is your point you took from "crusader kings?" In the western Latin sources, right up until the end, BYZANTINE WAS KNOWN AS EASTERN ROME. This is demonstrably do. Do you read Latin? How do I know the answer is no?

Read what you copy pasted, take whatever is stuck up your brown out and then read it again. You are so desperate to "catch" someone who knows more than you that apparently don't see you've made as ass of yourself...

Now, read what you copied, read what you wrote, and then read what i wrote. :)

I don't believe I ever justified Janissaries to you or to anyone. I explained to you that your details on who and what they were was mistaken, and corrected them. And that does not make 'elite cannon fodder' any less a contradiction. The Ottomans did not lack for actual cannon fodder in the first place, which makes a need for an elite form of them rather pointless.

And I'm not sure what your last point has to do with what we were just discussing, but no. MENA was not converted from Christianity to Islam by the sword (Central Asia and Iran after the Mongols and Timurids were). The region had a substantial Christian presence for centuries after the Arab Conquests which continued right into the 20th century when we see a substantial decline with the rise of Arab Nationalism.

>demonstrably TRUE. Like being assaulted on all sides by someone trying to "trip you up." Pick any decree addressed from/to Byzantium right up until the fall--written in Greek or Latin-- and you will see this is how they describe themselves. That's not a debate.

Whatever "crusader...we wuz kings" game you used to think you "Caught me" has nothing to do with the name of the geographic area. also, your information is wrong, but these are minor details.