Most of history is remembered and told through the lens of western Europe...

>Muslim Fundamentalists
THE CRUSADES WERE WORSE THAN THE HOLOCAUST.

>Actual Contemporary Muslim leaders and historians during the Crusades.
"Fucking Frankish barbarians. I mean, yeah they're a Nuiscance but we have bigger shit to fry like the Caliphate Breaking Up and all these Turkic Invaders coming non-stop."

The Cid Campeador, the Spanish epic poem, is an interesting take, in that it considers both sides of the conflict.

Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar, AKA "Cid" (literally Arab for "Sir") starts as a knight in the service of King Sancho of Castille, a popular hero cruzading against the Muslim invaders. But King Alfonso of Leon, murders his brother Sancho and takes the throne, unifying both lands. He sends Cid into increasingly dangerous missions to get him killed, because he felt threatened by his popularity, but he always prevails. Eventually, he gets fed up with him, and exiles him.

In exile, Cid comes under the protection of the Arab Mutamid (Al Mutamid), Taifa of Zaragoza, and the perspective of the story changes into a non-Western view of the conflict. Mutamid is shown as an erudite poet, a true scholar and honorable gentleman compared to the ruthless, backstabbing and crude Alfonso.

Eventually Cid by the end of the story, Cid with his followers seized the city of Valencia, where he becomes Lord of Valencia. In his new position, he has to repell a new invasion by the Berber Emir Yusuf of Morocco, so the story switches into a Western pespective again as Yusuf is shown to be extremely ruthless.

Attached: 1508293839854.jpg (622x521, 63K)

From what I have learned, talking to multiple nations (Indian, Georgian, Colombian etc.) most people generally don't care much about Hitler's ideology or generally the Western theatre of the Second World War.
They actually see it as just another European war.

>Eastern Romans
>involved in crusades

It's also interesting that by the end of the Cid has a massive following among both Christians and Muslims. This is shown both in the poem and the historical record.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Cid

Yep. In India they don't draw much distinction between Churchill and Hitler. Millions of people died under the empire, millions died under the Nazis. You say potato I say potato

my dad is peruvian, and his insights on the malvinas situation and ensuing south american reaction are interesting

In India you can collaborate with the Nazis and still be a national hero. They'll even name airports after you

Attached: wpid-bose1_10x7.jpg (1024x768, 95K)

The absolute state of this delusion.
Eastern Romans may have regarded the Franks as something savage (yet noble and terrifying) if you read the alexiad.
Muslims however regarded their weapons as superior and when they were following the likes of zengi and salladin they could hardly say the franks were savages.
Aslo muslims where then well aware they were fighting to retain Byzantine clay and infact the invading horde.

>that period
>"X rightful clay"

no

Since someone mentioned the Holocaust: the absolute absence of fuck given by Asians to what is considered the worst Genocide in Western History.

The interesting perspective to that is something that goes along these lines"
>"Why should we give a fuck about it when 1) we are people colonized by European powers- the same ones the Nazis are fucking up- and 2) the Holocaust- no matter what Nazis fucking say- is ultimately white on white violence?

I think the only countries in Asia that gave a fuck was the Philippines and that one Japanese diplomat.

Attached: nazi-thailand_2011447i.jpg (620x434, 68K)

user, the Holocaust death toll is like a Sunday in chinese history. Why would they give a fuck?

Do Japanese and Chinese even consider "world war two" or do they talk in terms of some Sino-Japanese imperial war?
I mean, thats where WW2 started and ended, and they didn't interfere much in the rest of the conflict.

>Do Japanese and Chinese even consider "world war two" or do they talk in terms of some Sino-Japanese imperial war?
>I mean, thats where WW2 started and ended, and they didn't interfere much in the rest of the conflict.

There is a WWII for both China and Japan. However their local slugfest that started in 1937 is called the 2nd Sino-Japanese War. They consider that war as joining the global WWII deathmatch as opposed to THE START of WWII.

Dude read some Muslim primary sources.
Why would they think the Franks had superior weaponry when every crusade apart from the first was completely btfo.
The Islamic world was well ahead of western Europe throughout the middle ages

The first crusade had the problem that Persia had with Alexander. Some savage from somewhere far away comes and acts like tough shit. Nobody cares. A local satrap/turkic warlord goes to take him out. Oops, a blunder, things like that happen. Still nobody cares. A second satrap or an alliance of a few go. Ooops. This might be serious. And only then does the real reaction happen, but its too late.

The europeans did their best Anatolian warlord impression when the Balkans fell, and Bulgaria and Serbia were similarly divided and couldn't muster a proper response, each thinking its not a big deal. Byzantium even supplied the Ottomans as they entered the peninsula, thinking they'll take out their old enemies then collapse as usual.

India's getting into fascism in general lately. apperently Mein Kampf is a best seller.

It was a bestseller in Europe too, when the copyright ended and it could freely be printed for the first time. Just novelty, the book is dull.

They have the right combination of deep insecurity about India's place in the world combined with intense nationalism. Also a sexually repressed population and a ready made internal and external enemy in Muslims/Pakistanis

>From their perspective it's a bunch of illiterate savages who don't even wash coming over and attempting to conquer the most powerful empire in the middle east through sheer autism
this isn't their perspective at all, maybe you should try actually reading the shit you mentally deficient retard. they were in a fractured state when the first crusade was launched, they were seen as just another warring faction and often respected quite a bit, even allying with them

What primary sources did you read? ibn al-Athir certainly considered the Franks uncivilised compared to the Muslims or the byzantines

There was also some byzantine source that said when turkic or bulgarians are invited to talk to the king, they go talk to the king. When franks are invited, they first are told to take a bath, then talk to a translator who talks to the king.
Certainly there was arrogance in the east about westerners, though you can argue if it was warranted.

I was curious what the Japanese called those wars and found out that the 1st Sino-Japanese war was called 日清戦争 (Japan-Qing War) and the 2nd Sino-Japanese war was called 日中戦争 (Japan-China War). Also, google returns several million results for 太平洋戦争 (Pacific War) and only a few hundred thousand for 第二次世界大戦 (Second World War) which lines up with what I've seen. Scholarship and public interest is, understandably, overwhelming interested in the Pacific theater.

Bulgaria/Byzantium were all silk and perfume, but I am not sure about the turks. Were they also persian-like and oriental in their nobility, or more leathery horse lords?

Euro-centric point of view is good because of real role of Europe in the world for all historic times.
Another problem is that absolute majority of non-european historical conceptions were formed with participation of Europeans - e.g. Chinese bullshit about 6000 years.

>Read Julius Evola

Attached: BrokeBack.jpg (971x565, 141K)

>Read Julius Evola

Attached: 146775150591.png (414x441, 163K)

This is real fucking neat, thanks. Will read the Poem now. Any idea of which translation would be the best? Spanish is my native language, but I don't know if I can handle the original text.

Prior to the 20th century China had an unbeatable record for like the 5 bloodiest wars in history. Individual countries' death tolls, even including civilians are like chump change to them.

>For the chinese the opium wars were unfair. Wich is wrong since they didn´t want to buy drugs wich enough reason to declare war.

This is nonsense and modern day Chinese propaganda.

European traders sold opium _in bulk_ to Chinese merchants who then sold and distributed it throughout China. It wasn’t a case of European “pushers” standing on street corners selling drugs to innocent Chinese, the Chinese were happily selling to their own people.

Attached: Tai-Pan.jpg (335x543, 43K)

If you have nothing relevant to say don't post

I haven't read Evola but Jews really are the creators of British empire, Rothschilds and other banking families in particular.

In Poland
-First World War was joyous beautiful event which is celebrated
-colonialism by Western Europe was their mistake, we are happy we didn't patricipate
-tolerating non-Europeans as citizens is going to create same problems as Ostsiedlung did for us
-19th century was the century of oppression and tyranny almost a dark age
-liberalism and secularism are poison
-Napoleon was a great hero, scholar and liberator

The Chinese are probably just confused at what the fuss is all about with a mere six million dead.

>-First World War was joyous beautiful event which is celebrated

wait what?

Germany, Russia and Austria all held the poles under their control Once these empires were basically destroyed by the war, the polish nation popped up again.

>get partitioned by three great powers
>spend a century attemptings uprising and trying to wriggle out of the situation
>eventually the political consensus becomes that we should align ourselves with one of the partitioners, try to get Poland united within the partitioning power by beating the other two, and hope to push for as much autonomy as possible
>politicians divided on which of the three powers we should align ourselves with
>huge war happens
>all three partitioning powers end up BTFO despite being on different sides
>get independent Poland with lands from all three partitions

Thats not the point, you moron. The point is the chinese government banned opium, so the english merchants petitioned the english government to go to war over the ban.
The chinese government had tea and silver, and the english wanted tea and silver. Except they din't have much that the chinese wanted, so they had to sell them SOMETHING. And with opium banned, they decided they will go to war to lift the ban so they can continue selling it.

Don't try to make it anything other than an unethical, immoral and just on a very human and civilizational level WRONG war. It was the anglos being shit low quality humans and ruining things for other people.

But the people clearly wanted opium and were prepared to buy it. It's not like the Chinese government was democratic and represented the people, it was a tyrant clamping down on the free market.

>but the american people clearly want heroin (which is literally opium)
>the american government banning heroin trade is undemocratic and illgetitimate
>us proud british people, a nation of clerks and shopkeepers, should invade and lift the ban
>for the queen and for free trade, lads!!!!

Or you can do the same thing with slaves, underaged prostitutes, even human meat if you are particularly depraved. There being possible customers doesn't mean the law banning the goods are illegitimate.

It does though. If there's a victim, they can sue to other party, if there's no victim, why should there be a crime?

>There being possible customers doesn't mean the law banning the goods are illegitimate.
>It does though.

Thats the weakest argument for slavery I've seen so far, and its on Veeky Forums instead of /pol/. Amazing.

With slavery there is a clear victim, brainlet.

> The point is the chinese government banned opium, so the english merchants petitioned the english government to go to war over the ban.

No they didn’t. Despite the ban on opium in China, there was still a strong black market for it and Chinese merchants were eager to buy opium from European merchants, who were unable to buy tea for anything except silver.

Thus the Euro merchants sold opium to Chinese merchants in exchange for silver, which was they then exchanged to Chinese merchants for tea.

By the time the British went to war with China to force free trade, the Brits themselves had banned the sale of opium.

Attached: tai-pan_us1sh.jpg (856x1300, 166K)

>>-First World War was joyous beautiful event which is celebrated
>wait what?

Nobody in Poland would call it a "celebrated beautiful event" but in the run-up to WWI, the Poles generally supported Imperial Russia and hoped they'd win the war. As the attitude by then was that it was "our" empire, as Poles could climb the social ladder and gain success within the Russian system, something that wasn't possible under the Germans and not really possible under the Austrians.

from what ive heard they were terrified by the crusaders because the crusaders slaughtered and cannibalized the muslims and conquered every city in the holy land

Slavniggers have opinions? Who cares?

>The Islamic world was well ahead of western Europe throughout the middle ages
Nice Europhobic myth

The franks were so backward in the middle ages that they had the most advanced farming technology, the most advanced military tactics and technology, the most advanced architecture, the most advanced laws and scoial structure that they easily swept through the holy land, spain, the baltic, the byzantine empire crushing everything in their wake like an avalanche

Attached: notre-dame-cathedral-paris.jpg (1024x682, 354K)

So why did all the crusades apart from the first get btfo? Why did the ottomans get to Vienna?

The crusader states existed in the middle east for centuries completely surrounded by muslims, that tells you everything you need to know about their military superiority

>Why did the ottomans get to Vienna?
because in their way were divided petty feudal entities warring with eachother who weren't even "franks"(catholic), at Vienna the turks got BTFO

>treaty of tordesallas is actually enforced
MUH DICK

>military superiority
It’s literqlly just a Cold War of Shi’a and Sunni that stops it

Good book; hilarious insults.

the british literally did nothing wrong in the opium wars

>>get independent Poland with lands from all three partitions

Annexation of Western Prussia was a mistake.

For Asians the Eastern Theatre was more important

>for all historic times.

Attached: 1509973513402.png (645x729, 75K)

>The crusader states existed in the middle east for centuries completely surrounded by muslims,
>because in their way were divided petty feudal entities warring with eachother
Is this cognitive dissonance? Do you think the Crusader states could have lasted along as they did if the local muslim feudal entities weren't even more divided then the european ones?

There are people here who bought into the "enlightened muslim" myth. And that's what truly frightens me. We live in an age where history is being subverted.

>We live in an age where history is being subverted.
By those disgusting white nationalists

>they had the most advanced farming technology, the most advanced military tactics and technology, the most advanced architecture, the most advanced laws and scoial structure
This wouldn't be true until around the 13th century at the earliest.

>that they easily swept through the holy land, spain, the baltic, the byzantine empire crushing everything in their wake like an avalanche
And neither did this happen as a result of technology any more than the Turks swept through the Middle East because they had more advanced farms, tactics, or laws. Or the Germanic tribes for that matter.

Since someone mentioned the Opium War: Brit Whig history pretty much depicts China as a bad guy since they weren't into the British Whig's Credo of Free Trade. So British history pretty much makes a big fuss about the Opium War "Opening China to the world."

Meanwhile, if you look at Chinese history, it's only the Brits who were fucking locked out of the sea trade since 1) it didn't have anything the Chinese wanted/needed to buy and 2) the rudeness of British sailors & envoys. Meanwhile China was pretty OK with the Dutch, the Spanish, the Portuguese and the French.

If anything the Opium War actually led to a general panic among Europeans who- fearing that Britain will monopolize Canton- demanded their own concession ports from China.

Attached: European Merchants Awaiting Imperial Audience.jpg (800x485, 116K)

Up until the scientific revoltuion it wasn't "technology" that helped armies win, it was organization and administration. In fact a lot of the time the less technologically advanced people won, see arabs vs persians, mongols vs chinese, etc.

But that's wrong, You fucking idiot.

The crusades failed for a variety of reasons. The 2nd crusade for example had poor leadership and non-existent goals so it dissolved, the third had to call it quits because of the French king fucking off to steal English land. Later ones were then crossing an entire continent to fight a united front against them which is obviously difficult.

Accounts meanwhile say European armour stopped Arab arrows easily and even the footmen would keep walking with dozens of arrows in them which failed to pierce their armour

>Arab arrows
>third crusade onwards
>Arab
In the trash your opinion goes

>What are some curious non-western European view points when it comes to major historical events?

Attached: 1519970666053.jpg (823x960, 153K)

Turks were full sultan mode by that time

And what would you have called them oh great enlightened one?

I used it as a catch-all term, should I list all the ethnicities instead you moron? If that's your only criticism it speaks volumes.

I double that image, fucking brainlet...

You have no fucking idea about the political landscape of the time.

So this is the fabled /pol/ revisionism.
Nigga what is damascus steel?

>I don't know which states and powers existed in the Medieval levant
>middle easterners are Arabs or something right?
>guess I'll just call them Arabs
You're a dumb one

Is Wikipedia blocked in your country?

What accounts are these?

Arrow and steppe cavalry was the backbone of Turkish conquests and was really only second to the Mongols back then.

Most political entities were ruled by turks at the tine you illiterate faggot and their armies were also consisting of turks.

And they also had a solid infrastructure that came with comverting to islam. Which was the reason that made them so good at not only conquering but also keeping it. Their communication trough their vast land was rome-tier. Which isvthe very reason they did not dissolve after initial conquests like mongols and alexander.
Too bad any time they are mentioned, pol boys explode in their autistic rage as turks are forever branded as the enemy for white nationalists.

People already demolished your shit opinions but let me add more.
Do you think SUPREME EUROPEAN ARMOR stopping ““““ARAB ARROWS”””” mean anything? What is the proportion you think that had access to plate armor ir even chain mail during crusades? You think an avarage foot soldiers had that armor? No idiot. Only nobles and knights had that kind of armor. Which was like 5-10 percent of the army. Also you have to carry the armor which weights like 50 kg and get someone to dress you and get someone to maintain it cuz it also rusts. So even if everyone had those plate armors it would be arguable not as effective as you might think as it is a bad logistical desicion for inter continential expeditions that includes a whole lot of traveling.

>cannibalized

Attached: 152354898.jpg (320x204, 19K)

This, the Romans weren’t Germans because the Germans don’t exist yet, they were the afterbirth of the treaty of verdun

I like the Saddam-centric view of the world where he was a modern day Saladin, had nearly sunk a USN frigate with impunity, slayed millions of Shia heretics, controlled one of the largest armies on the planet, and knew Baathist destiny would rule Mecca better and longer than the House of Saud.

This guy is lolbertarian or ancap. This is exactly how these people talk kek

>whuddaya mean there's higher moral good than profit?!?!?!?!

The account about arrows was not about how advanced European armor was, but how disciplined Richard's army was in ignoring Saladin's attempt to bait them into a bad charge