Alright Veeky Forums heres one for you

Islamic countries were enjoying a period of wealth and abundance due to better access to trade with Asia and a larger collection of Greek and Latin texts than Europe. Urban II wanted these resources so he mobilized the Catholic church under the guise of taking back the Holy Lands and offered get into heaven free cards. This resulted in the Christian Levant states, who were more amicable to trade.
>boo hoo Christians had to pay jizya
At least they weren't slaughtered like jews and muslims in Europe.

Muh Urban made the call. Blah blah fake promises.

Not only was it actually believed that you could redem your sins but it was also not his call. The reconquista was already in full action. Christianity was already in battle ready stance with sights on old Roman lands.

Turks expanded way to close to core Christian lands but of course they didn't understand the difference between conquering as turks and conquering as converted muslim turks.

Jerusalem was almost literally the straw the broke the camel's back. They had a decent social tolerance around areas where Christianity was the dominant religion and then decided "you know what fuck you infidels, Islam land now"

You really can't argue that Islam didn't have it coming. Byzantines had already been fighting back Islam's agressors for nearly 300 years. It just wasn't called crusade because there wasn't a proper word for it yet.

It was bascially a PR stunt by Urban II to consolidate the Church's role in Europe due to the fact that the great schism had caused such a rift and had severely limited the Pope's authority.

Nothing like a good ol' Us vs. Them campaign to get people liking you again.

U missed out widespread rape and salughter as well as discrrimination against Christians. Jizya was one aspect of the discrimination. If u read the hadith or look at Sharia ull see that persecuting Chrisians is written into Islamic ideology.

Muslims in Europe? What have u been smoking?

>Who started the Crusades?

Pope Urban II

>Why was is it Islam's fault?

Militant expansion for centuries, ethnic cleansing of the Christian population among others in the Levant, Egypt, North Africa, Spain.
Indiscriminate slayings of Christian pilgrims.
Fatimid caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah ordered the complete destruction of the Holy Sepulchre.
Byzantium asked for aid against the Turks.
Moors remained in Spain.
Entire villages were being taken all along the Mediterranean coast to be sold into slavery. Constant attacks on Christian vessels.

>Why did Christianity destroy the Dome of Rock

This literally never happened. They just killed ~10,000 Muslims inside it, put a cross on top and used it as a church.

Only Muslims in Europe that were expelled i can think of were the colonists, eg Moors

...

>then decided "you know what fuck you infidels, Islam land now"
Source?

He's probably talking about the ones that invaded Spain or one of the many armies or slaver parties that invaded European soil.

>colonists
Ugh.
Colonization equals settlement plus power. Muslims cannot be colonizers by definition because Muslims are an oppressed minority whose culture we should be respectful of and can learn a lot from.
*sips tea*

>they remodeled... ok destroyed is a bad word, but the word had spread around the muslim world that Christianity destroyed it. Propaganda to rally. But none the less even remodeling wasn't the best thing to do. I mean I understand the motives, like cleanse the heretics... but long term definitely didnt help.

Sorry for green text not intentional

holy shit I didn't know John Green posted here
what up my man

>he thought this was funny outside of /pol/

You retards should stay in /pol/

You're right, it's not funny.
It's not funny at all.

Destruction of Holy sepulcher?????
Enslaving Christians????
Torturing any christians by tearing their guts out and hangings?

First two are well known facts. Third one, gimme a few to find it again.

>Destruction of Holy sepulcher
One of a kind event caused by a mad man
>Enslaving Christians
Christians enslaved each other too and Christian slave trade was booming in the west

Urban II didn't start it dude. He coined the term for what it was. Giving us westerners a title theme. But really the Crusades were the various battles to reclaim and expand Christianity. Obviously most familiar term is the Crusades of the middleeast the one that the term is given. But crusades in Prussia, in Spain, in Africa. All before and after Urban II

And were European states any better? No. Urban was a savvy thinker and used these events to his advantage to reinforce the power of the Church and to seize economic opportunities that existed in the Levant and Middle East.

>crusades in Prussia
Huh?

>Tu quoque fallacy
Truly there is no depth to which Islam apologists will not sink.

>One of a kind event

no, it's a clear pattern of behavior within Islam

>Christians enslaved each other

What the fuck are you talking about? Surely you don't mean serfdom, there's nothing mercantile about that.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_medieval_Europe

>Slavery had mostly died out in western Europe about the year 1000
>Church rules suppressed slavery of Christians.

well that btfo that

>Christian slave trade was booming in the west

>Venice
>Jewish merchants
>Vikings
>Iberia

well will you look at that

the reason for the crusades was that after the destruction of Rome Europe was simply starving and had a desperate need for plunder and booty, hence the ravages against Jews and prosperous Byzantium.

Teutonic Order.

>The pot calling the kettle black
like clockwork

were medieval boats really tall or were the castles and walls and such just really small?
how did they get that tall ladder in the boat?

>after the destruction of Rome

more than 500 years separate the sack of Rome from the declaration of the First Crusade, you've been sold a bill of goods.

>no, it's a clear pattern of behavior within Islam

Your evidence?

You can't claim one group of people have the higher moral ground and a justification for doing something about it despite doing the same thing themselves.

bitch where???? Urban died before he even found out Jerusalem had been taken.

everyone demonizes the guy for the mass murders that the crusaders did on their journeys but the guy was near innocent compared to the crusaders of the Rhineland massacre and Guy's sack of Jerusalem after it was captured and murdered everyone in it.

The first crusade was called by Urban not to retake Jerusalem but to expel the Seljuks from Anatolia.

thank you user

>no, it's a clear pattern of behavior within Islam
And the crusaders destroyed many mosques in Muslim territories
The slave trade was officially banned in Europe only in 1171 and it still continued afterwards. Are you also implying that Venice somehow isn't Europe?

what did you mean to convey by this post?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimrud#Destruction

>In November 2016, aerial photographs showed the systematic leveling of the Ziggurat by heavy machines.

Shame.

Oh yeah, the Crusades against Christians. I completely forgot about that.

Mosques are not churches, they are military outposts

So how does an event in 2016 have anything to do with something that happened 1000 years ago; a time which had completely different political and religious paradigms? Are seriously citing the present as an argument for what happened in the past?

Mosques are religious worship buildings first and foremost

>the crusaders destroyed many mosques in Muslim territories

so? Doesn't mean I'm wrong.

>slave trade was officially banned in Europe only in 1171

You mean the Council of Armagh? That didn't ban the slave trade, it protected Christians from being trafficked.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Africa#Northern_Africa

>Because of religious constraints, the slave trade was carried out in parts of Europe by Iberian Jews (known as Radhanites) who were able to transfer slaves from pagan Central Europe through Christian Western Europe to Muslim countries in Al-Andalus and Africa.

>The medieval slave trade in Europe was mainly to the East and South

Also its debatable and questioned still due to accountability of sources but Urban's sermon at Clermount apparently mentioned avenging the christian brotherhood and retaking the land that was rightfully under christian control prior to the invaders. Might be confusing this with Guibert of Nogent, but other accounts claim wide spread ideas by other clerics who went to the council of Clermont that it was just to fight in Jerusalem as well as against the Heretics (islam) and only against them.

>So how does an event in 2016 have anything to do with something that happened 1000 years ago

I said destruction of culture it is a pattern of behavior in Islam, which implies it is repeated over time. Learn to reading comprehension.

That Urban barely did this for any gains beside restore Christianity.

>economic motive
I think not, you couldn't even pay a king in most cases to go to the holy land and take up leadership. Church basically threated Louis VII to go. The kingdom of Jerusalem was in shambles by the time Saladin got there. its no wonder they had to surrender the City.

true but.

>retake Holy Sepulcher
>retake Jerusalem

That I highly doubt. There is no way any leader would do something so exhaustive on just good faith alone.

you know what I find the funniest thing about History and actually could make strong arguments to say that Christianity was the biggest Wewuz of all time.

They had to use the old testament to justify the crusade since being christian is supposed to be about muh peace and love brother.

Catholic Church.
>we wuz Romans.
>we wuz Jews.
Romans being the kings, jews being nd sheit.

>no way any leader would do something so exhaustive on just good faith alone

not really, these things happen from time to time you know.

>sees Holy Lands
gibsmedat

>Who started the Crusades?
The Latin Franks, as they themselves extolled proudly. The point of the First Crusade was never simple expeditionary campaigning, which had been done before and often, but for reasons unique to Frankish Latin Christianity involving their veneration of holy relics, pilgrimage, Cluniac reforms, and eschatology.

To be fair we can't prove it either way.
>did the crusaders all go to heaven?
we dont know...
>was Urban ultimate good guy trying to save Christian land from evil turks, with no other motives?
we don't know for sure... just poor evidence that succeeds his time.

also not saying the popes post Urban II were liars or shady. just saying you cant prove Urban was as evil as a lot of people make him to be.

Hungary had a large Muslim population in this period.

I like this.
wouldn't say they were the main aggressors but definitely part of the equation without a doubt.

DEUS VULT

lol dis I likey

>They had to use the old testament
What many don't realize is that they weren't forced to use the Old Testament, they were wholly invested in it by the time the First Crusade was ever considered. This as a lot to do with the Frankish take on Latin Christianity in which the Franks saw themselves as a lost tribe of Israel and God's chosen - among other things such as the divine right of kings and the sacred nature of the noble aristocracy.

The Turks are basically at fault.

Unlike the Fatimids or other Arab Muslims, they did not care much for the usual Muslim treatment of Christians and Jews and would often massacre entire cities(they were steppe nomads duh), they conquered Anatolia(arguably the most populous Christian province at the time) and moved into the Holy Land, plundering and massacring on their way.

I suggest you revisionists here read the primary sources on what the Turks did to civilians in the area.

Also, the Turks SACKED JERUSALEM, which is something historiography completely omits for some reason.

> The slave trade was officially banned in Europe only in 1171 and it still continued afterwards.

Pathetic attempt at false equivalence, as usual for his.

More slaves would be traded in a single market in Egypt than whole of Europe at the time.

Europe did not have mass slavery since the Carolingian times while Muslims practiced wholesale theft of entire tribes and had to quell mass slave rebellions already in the 9th century.

There was a robust slave trade in Renaissance Europe, and 18th century Alexandria, Egypt only have like 1% slave population.

This basically, nomads who were keep nomadin and know jack shit about the new religion.

I find it funny how right wing retards always try to justify it by citing islamic expansion around 650-700, rather than what u said. Shows how ignorant they actually are about the subject

> There was a robust slave trade in Renaissance Europe

lol no.

There were a few Med ports with some thousand captured Muslims but that is about it.

Meanwhile millions enslaved in the Muslim world.

> and 18th century Alexandria

Fuck lol.

As recently as the 1950s, Saudi Arabia's slave population was estimated at 450,000 approximately 20% of the population, a similar situation was present in Morroco and some African Muslim states.

Even in fucking modern times, during the Second Sudanese Civil War people were taken into slavery; estimates of abductions range from 14,000 to 200,000.

Slavery in Mauritania was finally criminalized in August 2007 ffs.

Comparing that to a couple ports in Malta and Spain is laughable.

> There was a robust slave trade in Renaissance Europe

lol no.

There were a few Med ports with some thousand captured Muslims but that is about it.

Meanwhile millions enslaved in the Muslim world.

> and 18th century Alexandria

Fuck lol.

As recently as the 1950s, Saudi Arabia's slave population was estimated at 450,000 approximately 20% of the population, a similar situation was present in Morroco and some African Muslim states.

Even in fucking modern times, during the Second Sudanese Civil War people were taken into slavery; estimates of abductions range from 14,000 to 200,000.

Slavery in Mauritania was finally criminalized in August 2007 ffs.

>There were a few Med ports with some thousand captured Muslims but that is about it.
And that's about what Muslim Mediterranean ports were like.

>millions
In the Middle Ages, no. The enormous scale of Arab slavery is something that takes off from the thousands or tens of thousands before the 18th century to the hundreds of thousands and millions afterward, and all as a result of the rise of African slaver sultanates in this era.

You're retroactively taking 19th century Arab-African slave trading and applying it backwards.

>Be muslim
>Invade Spain
>Force assimilation, although not by violence but by discrimination and the occasional threats, rape and executions
>Get shit kicked in by Castillians
>Have the option to either convert or go back to the desert you came from

>Be kike
>Participate collaborating with the muslim invadors.
>Start riot in cities, open the gates for the saracen
>Partake in literal high treason
>Get told to convert or fuck off

>OY VEY DOSE EBIL SPANIARDS HOLOCAUSTED DEM POOR MUSLIMS N JEWS

LOS VISIGODOS como buenos GERMANOS dejaron entrar a los MOROS en nuestra PENÍNSULA.Los Asturianos Y CASTELLANOS al ver esto nos aliamos contra el MORO y formamos el reino de ASTURIAS.LOS ASTURIANOS decidieron dejar entrar a los traidores de los VISIGODOS en sus tierras y al mezclarse formaron la ABOMINACIÓN que se conoce,que Dios me perdone, como LEONESES.Al ver esto el CONDE de CASTILLA con el apoyo unánime de los CASTELLANOS.Tras lograr nuestra INDEPENDENCIA los CASTELLANOS marcharon a SIMANCAS para aniquilar a los MOROS en contra de la voluntad de los LEONESES. Pero los CASTELLANOS destrozaron a los MOROS con la ayuda de SAN MILLÁN y LOGRAMOS conquistar tierra rica que nos trajo la RIQUEZA y trigo suficiente para CRECER y PROSPERAR.Y convertirnos en la potencia hegemónica UNIVERSAL

>Al ver esto el CONDE de CASTILLA con el apoyo unánime de los CASTELLANOS declaró la independencia

The crusades were as justified as muslim conquest. From out modern perspective meaning they were unjustified, from a medieval perspective both Jihad and the Crusades were.

Stop with your bullshit moral relativism you only use against Christians and Europeans anyway and never against poor poor innocent Muslims.

>be jew
>fight to expand the frontier of the carolingian empire into catalonia
>resettle empty towns and castles by loyally following your frankish count
>defend said towns from umayyad incursions, laying the foundations for the reconquest several centuries later
>some idiot who gets all his historical knowledge from wikipedia says some more typical idiotic shit

read a book

>>be jew
>>fight to expand the frontier of the carolingian empire into catalonia
Lel.Jews weren't even allowed to fight in the army and in Catalonia Jews were treated way worse than in Castile.It is undeniable that the jews open the gates to the muslims in places like Toledo,Cuenca or Zaragoza amongst others.

Pagans. Much of Europe wasn't Christian until way late up in the middle ages.

I'm not a byzaboo, but the Byzantines were the only party durinig the crusades who I can sympathise with.

Remember that the crusades started with Byzantium asking for help after losing the battle of Manzikert to defend their remaining lands and maybe retake some lost territories. Taking Jerusalem wasn't even a goal originally, but by the time the Pope called the first crusade it went from "let's help out the Byzantines" to "let's take Jerusalem".

Of course he really just called the crusade to further his own goals of being more influential in Western Christianity than the Emperor. Jerusalem wasn't even ruled by the Turks who invaded the Byzantines, but of Fatimid Egypt, who were Shias and thus also enemies of the Turks. Of course, "let's take the Holy City" is a much better rallying cry than "let's help the Byzantines recapture Nicaea" if you are Pope who wants to become more relevant by uniting many European rulers and commoners for a single project. Even though holding Jerusalem was an unrealistic goal and it just hurt Christianity in the long run to wast resources on that instead of kicking the Turks out of the rest of Anatolia.

So already by the first few crusades Byzantium got screwed over as Crusaders regularly robbed and killed Byzantine citizens they were supposed to save and not helping them much at regaining land. And I didn't even mention the 4th crusade yet.

>So already by the first few crusades Byzantium got screwed over as Crusaders regularly robbed and killed Byzantine citizens they were supposed to save and not helping them much at regaining land.

Crusaders didn't attack Byzantines. The only reason the Byzantines didn't reclaim more land is because they were incompetent.

>Crusaders didn't attack Byzantines

The Byzantine Emperor Alexius Komnenus planned on retaking the territory lost to the various Turkic tribes in the preceding years. To that end, he held negotiations with the Papacy in order to receive some aid. To secure this aid, he exaggerated the frailty of the Empire and the 'crimes' committed against Christians by the Muslims, which riled up Urban to call for a holy war.

The Byzantines had not expected this: the Alexiad of Anna Komnenus makes it clear that Alexius was disgusted at the sight of the unorganized, filthy, rag-tag team of Crusaders that on two occasions made their way to Constantinople (the People's Crusade, and the Baron's Crusade): he had expected some mercenary contingents to aid him, not an entire army that supplied itself by pillaging the Byzantine countryside and hungrily eyed the Byzantine cities.

In all honesty, the Crusades were a pointless exercise and a waste of time and effort; they achieved nothing in the long term, failing to even leave much of a mark on the territories the Crusaders occupied for little more than a century.

The opposite is true, Alexios I did reclaim a lot of lost territory, but mostly without direct help from the crusaders. They only helped to liberate Nicaea then Marched through Anatolia to Jerusalem, leaving other cities in the area in Turkish hands. They were then liberated by the Byzantines.

This!!!!!

Except for the last part. Crusades are the reason you're breathing user. Take it in and accept it. It's the truth. You seem to have studied the crusades you should know that Europe owes its continuation to the crusades.

Obviously bait.

Please justify otherwise.

not during the first crusade they did

>robust

weaselly af

>they achieved nothing in the long term

lol, you know very little about this subject. The Crusades were highly significant when it came to free trade in the Mediterranean.

How. Or do you just not like words. I could guess already.

>af

Sigh, another fucktard talking out of his ass.

> but by the time the Pope called the first crusade it went from "let's help out the Byzantines" to "let's take Jerusalem".

Wrong.

> Of course he really just called the crusade to further his own goals of being more influential in Western Christianity than the Emperor.

Arguable, but simplistic and nothing more but an allegation.

> Jerusalem wasn't even ruled by the Turks who invaded the Byzantines, but of Fatimid Egypt, who were Shias and thus also enemies of the Turks.

Wrong, the Fatimids lost Jerusalem and the Holy Land to the Turks and they did not retook Jerusalem until spring of 1099, by that time crusaders were already passed Antioch.

> Even though holding Jerusalem was an unrealistic goal and it just hurt Christianity in the long run to wast resources on that instead of kicking the Turks out of the rest of Anatolia.

Utterly retarded statement.

Jerusalem was not retaken by Muslims until 1244 and the capture of the Holy Land ushered in a complete European naval dominance of the Eastern Mediterranean after centuries of Muslim incursions and piracy, this made trade flourish and sped up development to usher in the renaissance.

> So already by the first few crusades Byzantium got screwed over as Crusaders

Yeah, recapturing most of the Anatolian coastline and the entirety of Western Anatolia sure screwed them over.

Fucking hell.

> And I didn't even mention the 4th crusade yet.

What is the massacre of the Latins.

Who is Alexious IV?

The crusaders were invited to Constantinople.

Not their fault Byzantine politics of retardation went full retard with the crusader army still there.

> he exaggeratedthe 'crimes' committed against Christians by the Muslims, which riled up Urban to call for a holy war.

No he fucking didn't, we have numerous primary sources on what the Turks did those years, both Christian and Muslim sources describe them doing massacres of entire populations, including Muslims.

Also was not aware of pillaging in the first crusade of the Byzantines. I know of old lands between turk hold and Byzantines hold that they ravaged at times. This was seen as fair game as the controls over the lands often changed between many of the allegiances.

Am I wrong, do explain a bit if you don't mind.

Nice bait.

It was an expulsion of attempted colonisers.