Is this remotely true or is it meme history?

Is this remotely true or is it meme history?

It's only comparing it to the first Crusade and it isn't even all of the battles there. It's retarded propaganda.

meme history

For one it doesn't even list the christian cities the crusaders sacked.

I don't get what the point of those dates are. None of those battles happened in 632, or 1090.

Also, it's stupid for conflating the "Muslim Conquest" which was a large chain of events, with numerous different players, that took place over the course of multiple centuries, to the Crusades which were a set of events with a much smaller scope that largely occurred over around a century's time. It's like comparing the gradual process of Rome's expansion, to Alexander the Great's conquest of Persia.

Look man, real shit.

Religious wars throughout the middleages were 9 times out of 10 based off of two of the three G's that everyone throughout history has played the game of war for.

God
Gold
Glory

Which ones were they?

Pro tip: it wasn't God.

Here is what it comes down to based off this map. It looks like a western civ book for freshmen in college.

A lot of those red dots... i mean the berebers... they were converts. The turks... coverts. They had already been raiding and taking land prior to the faith of Islam being attached to them. It's kind of like how Charlemange was Crowned Emperor of the HRE while on his conquest of Europe.

The Caliphs at those times were probably like:
"Oh shit these guys are fucking up our lands! Hey Raiders, you want to convert to Islam, you're soul will be saved and unlike being Catholic you can have MuLtIpLe WiVeS!!


As far as in terms of Christianity you look at the religious wars and Nations like France switched sides half way through back to being Catholic when they realized the Protestants were losing ground and didn't wana be cucked by Spanish and Italians.

Another thing to look at is the Crusades wernt even liked by many of the leaders! It pretty much took threats from the Church to be excommunicated or damned to hell for them to go.

Most of the time they went because they were either persuaded or that it was necessary because it was either fight or be invaded by Muslims.

Anyways. Yeah no total meme.

Meme history.

They've counted a handful of battles from one single Crusade on the "Crusade Battles" map, and appear to be counting some campaigns as single battles; but are including every last raid or incursion over the centuries by Muslim forces, even those that weren't part of jihads.

There were numerous Crusades against pagan Europeans living in Eastern Europe, particularly the Baltic Crusades targeting Prussians, Wends, and other Slavic, German, and Finnish peoples. Christians were also attacked by Crusades, such as the Albigensian Crusade against Cathars in France and the Bosnian Crusade launched after the Christian communities there did not agree to be absorbed under the control of the Vatican.

The Fourth Crusade turned into a giant clusterfuck where instead of heading to the Levant the Crusaders attacked the Byzantine Roman Empire on behalf of Venice, slaughtered tons of Orthodox Christians along the way, then invaded and sacked Constantinople.

It doesn't even include all Crusades battles. Also, if they are including all muslim conquest battles, why not include the Wars of Religion, or the colonial expansion wars, since they were nominally for the expansion of Christendom.

>What is the inquisition

We just gonna ignore Christian conquest into the Americas and Asia?

>taking /pol/ bait seriously

So you're Muslims spent centuries waging war against Europe and Christians only spent a decade?

Christians spent several decades in various Crusades, not to mention the Reconquista. And since the Muslim conquest map includes conquest against non-Christians you might as well be fair an include Christianities systematic destruction of pagans and pagan people all throughout Europe.

is the Reconquista a crusade?

>you're Muslims
lol, wut? They're not "my" Muslims. My point is that you can't think of the "Muslim Conquest" as some monolithic event. Based on all the dots, OP's map is conflating every single time a Muslim country went to war against a Christian country as part of the "Muslim Conquest," unique circumstances and motivations be damned. You can't compare what OP's image is describing to the Crusades. A more reasonable comparison to the Crusades would be the expansion of the Rashidun Caliphate.

Wasn't holy war.

And the Ottoman conquest of the Balkans was?

10/10 mental gymnastics

>unique circumstances and motivations be damned.
Thanks for trying to correct us on what a holy war is, but I will stick with my definition of a religious cult spreading its faith with the sword

The pretext was religious. To bring all the heathens into the Church's fold, the colonizers said.

lol, sure senpai. Whatever keeps that ever fragile worldview of yours in check.

Thanks, keep submitting like a good muslim

Cringe

I can't even comprehend being this retarded

Why? Seems irrelevant.

Abdul as usual shifting the goalposts. Middle eastern Muslims attacked European Christians way more than the other way around. Deal with it Mohammed.

...

What about all the victims of christianity?
Like european pagans or the american natives.

If a Muslim conquers you it is a Muslim conquest. What else would it be?

>whataboutism

Every fucking time Tariq.

This is pretty much wrong from the begining of time it was always europeans invading asia or africa until islam came about and switched seats for about 400 years and then europeans got back to doin their thing, attacking asia and africa + the entire world
anyway you can believe whatever helps you sleep at night because what you think does not change what the rest of the world knows to be true

And if a christian conquers you its christian conquest and christian conquest hasn't left a single part of this world untouched

Go make some moonshine cletus.

...

Don't forget the americas

>muslim conquest battle
>could mean any battle involving some muslims
>crusade battle
>crusade having a very specific meaning
This comparison alone is bad, but I'm pretty sure the map also excludes middle eastern battles (eight crusades and only 13 battles all together? I don't buy it). It also decides to skip the Albigensian crusade and the reconquista which could arguably be considered a crusade. The map even conviently cuts off so we can't see the nortern crusades.
Basically it's pure memery, the terms used are bad enough, but it also decides to just toss out a load of crusade battles as well.

Based

...

There's a difference between a "Muslim Conquest" and being conquered by a muslim nation. It's a nuance, but still an important one. When you say "Muslim Conquest" you're using Muslim as as the descriptor and thus are implying that the conquest is primarily religiously motivated. This was not the case for plenty of the red dots on OP's map. The expansion of the Ottoman Empire was not religiously motivated. It was just good ol' fashioned conquest, done to Christians and Muslims alike.

When you relegate everything to a "Muslim Conquest" you're ignoring the fact that a good portion of these conquests were politically motivated rather than just Jihad after Jihad. By the logic of OP's image, you ought to include everything the Europeans did in West Africa in the 19th century as "Christian Conquest" even though that scramble for Africa had fuck all to do with religion.

>ignores wars against pagans.
It's meme history.

>you ought to include everything the Europeans did in West Africa in the 19th century as "Christian Conquest"
Done by secular european states, not by the appointed rulers of allahs world.

Nice try

> secular european states
secularism was still not a thing dumb retard the kings and queens of the british empire/france/spain took their authority from God, also forgetting west africa what do you say about the americas? who's pretext was religious.

>from the begining of time it was always europeans invading asia or africa until islam came about and switched seats for about 400 years

No. Europe as some homogenous entity didn't even exist before the time of the muslim conquests. There were plenty of powers based in Mediterranean Europe who often invaded the Mediterranean parts of Africa and the Near East, but powers from those areas invaded them just as often. Everyone in that period of time would invade their neighbors at some point or another. The Islamic conquests could even be be seen as just another power moving in on the Mediterranean, though based in Arabia rather than Egypt or Rome or Greece or Carthage. You're retarded.

Also, run-on sentences are bad, you should really learn to use commas.

Im pretty sure Cromwell did away with the divine rights of kings, now tell me, to muslims have a divine right to rule the world?

>secular
>Spain doesn't renounce it's state religion until the 70s
>Portugal doesn't renounce it's state religion until the first republic in the early 20th century
You can come back from your fantasy land anytime you like friend.

I didn't realize Cromwell dictated the politics of France, Spain, and Portugal. Also, the state religion of Britain is still the Church of England.

> You're retarded
Rude and uncalled for

Why are moo slims always going on about how alpha their religion is in other threads yet in this one they're downplaying centuries of Muslim incursion into Europe? Sad!

Its called "the enlightenment" which made european states secular entities, now remind us, which religion still has its followers participating in holy war during current year?

Pretty much all three abrahamic religions still do

Becoming a secular entity isn't so vague a thing as you seem to think it is. States become secular entities when they announce that they're secular entities. France became a secular entity in the late 1700s (well after it had done its fair share of colonization in the New World), when it announced it was a secular entity. The same goes for Portugal and Spain.

So's ur mom lol

Dude what the fuck, have some manners

Right, so when they became nation states and weren't ruled by holy writ, they didnt announce holy wars on anyone.

But Islam still does

A holy war by any other name

I can't tell if you're genuinely getting upset over a grade-school insult, or if you're trying to bait me into baiting you, like some kind of bait riddle trapped in a bait enigma.

>they didnt announce holy wars on anyone.
But Islam still does

True, True, but as I've explained many times before. Just because Islamic states did and still do announce holy wars doesn't mean that every single blessed war they declare is automatically a Jihad. To think so would just be obtuse. A non secular state can still launch secular decisions and policy. I don't actually believe that everything Europeans did in America, Africa, and Asia was primarily religiously motivated. The only reason I'm acting that way is because I'm applying the same logic you are concerning how you think Muslim states acted.

Not every conquest by a religious state is automatically a holy war.

I dont need to be reminded again and again of these political vicissitudes, the fact remains Islam is still practicing holy war,sex slavery and barbarism in this day an age, while christians are not.

You can paint your goat and call it your girlfriend, but its still a goat

>the fact remains Islam is still practicing holy war,sex slavery and barbarism in this day an age, while christians are not.

Yes, but that isn't really what this thread is about, is it?

Im defining holy war, what do you think the thread is about?

And your definition of holy war is obtuse as I've told you again and again. This thread is about whether or not OP's picture is reasonable, and it isn't.

I'm sorta upset but this is Veeky Forums and I'm a grown up so whatever. But I was also jokingly replying

It's bullshit.

1000 years of Muslim-Christian contact vs one individual crusade.

So we have a different definition of holy war,but by your own admission, mine is correct

I said that Muslims still practice Holy War, which is true. You believe that every war they declare is by definition automatically a holy war, which is false. Pretty simple stuff here user.

The ottoman empire declared jihad on england at the begining of WW1 do you consider that a holy war?

I don't know much about muslim history but islamic holy war? in this day and age a muslim majority country declaring holy war against another country? no way, "islamic" terrorism groups yeah but actual countries? no way

So to make it fair they should put any battle ever where a christian country is the aggressor, right?

First off, let's be precise. The Sheikh-ul-Islam was the one who declared Jihad, not the Sultan. By the time the Sheikh declared Holy War, the Sultan had already okay'd the Black Sea Raid against Russia and thus entered WW1 2 weeks before the issuing of Jihad. The Sultan himself even formally declared war against the Allies before the Sheikh made his statement. The declaration of Jihad made by the Sheikh, was mostly a gesture to get the Islamic world up in arms, and was wholly separate from the actual declaration of war and entering into world war 1.

So back to your question, do I consider it a holy war? No, because the issuing of the Jihad was made after the Ottomans had already entered the war. However, let's forget all that and say that I do agree with you that it was a holy war. That still doesn't prove your case. All it proves is that that one instance was a Holy War. However, your point is that every single war ever declared by a Muslim nation on a non Muslim nation is automatically a Holy War. This one example does not prove that point.

Now if you would, please provide me the evidence that the Ottoman-Hungarian Wars were Jihads, as you believe them to be.

They wouldn't declare a Holy War, but not for lack of mentality, but rather fear of being destroyed by NATO. Iran absolutely would declare a Jihad if it could get away with it. France wouldn't declare a Crusade anytime soon.

Ottoman battles on that map usually weren't seen as holy wars either.

so basically you're just talking out of your ass? alrighty

Amazing intellect

coquettish slut