cRPG
Off Topic => Historical Discussion => Topic started by: LordBerenger on January 25, 2011, 09:17:22 pm
-
One of my favorite parts of history to read about just got to be the Holy Crusades.
I don't really know why i think so but it's interesting to say the least. The city of Jerusalem feels so mysteriously shrouded in secrets etc...
Anyways. Discussion about the Holy Crusades from 1-8.
Examples of what to discuss about:
-The Crusaders capture of Jerusalem in the 1st crusade.
-The sacking of Constantinople by the Venetians.
Or just share your own personal opinions on it =)
-
There is only one thing which is good.^
Namely, the Mamluks could the infidels distribute from the holy land :mrgreen:
-
Mamluke enthusiast? :P
Yeah i guess they we're pretty epic.
Though it's more interesting imo when they broke away from their masters as slaves later :)
-
Blah blah blah about Hattin will come for sure, now lets talk about the first battle where crossbows were introduced, one bloody victory for the Crusaders.
-
Ugh i liked more the early Crusades :P Nothing against good old bow 8-)
But yeah sure let's talk about Crossbows in the Crusades. And since you came up with this great idea you start :D
-
Uh... they were used to execute masses of prisoners after they surrender in that big battle that i dont remember the name.
Yeah, your turn :D
-
What I found most interesting about the first Siege of Jerusalem, aside from letters swearing that horsemen rode up to their stirrups in blood at the Temple, was the siege towers they constructed to take the walls. Apparently they had Dutch shipwrights (or someone like that) build two massive towers piece by piece, then assemble them overnight. They apparently even had ballistas mounted on them.
-
Uh... they were used to execute masses of prisoners after they surrender in that big battle that i dont remember the name.
Yeah, your turn :D
I can't really recall which big battle. If you could specify more. Which one of the crusades were it?
@Rheinhardt: I didn't know this. Well i guess it was one major factor in the capture of it.
I doubt the Christians showed any kind of mercy to the Muslims in the first capture.
:o
-
They pretty much killed everyone, actually, even Orthodox Christians. The thought was to remake Jerusalem as a Latin city more than any real bloodlust. Of course, the Romans did the same thing a thousand years prior. And the Babylonians a thousand years before that. One of those unfortunate cities.
-
I can't really recall which big battle. If you could specify more. Which one of the crusades were it?
@Rheinhardt: I didn't know this. Well i guess it was one major factor in the capture of it.
I doubt the Christians showed any kind of mercy to the Muslims in the first capture.
:o
Third Crusade, might not be the total true truth since it from a novel but then again the book is well written and seems beleivable.
-
@Bob And it was Christians or Muslims or who got executed?
-
Muslims
-
The first Crusade which began in 1096 was formed, writes Gibbon, mostly of thieves and criminals. This was the consequence of the Council of Clermont in 1095 in which the Pope proclaimed that anyone who joined the Crusade would be given full dispensation of all his sins and would be relieved of any criminal penance he might owe.
A failure from the start fmo.
-
I don't know much about the Crusades, but is the current one the 8th?
-
I don't know much about the Crusades, but is the current one the 8th?
... This is just muslim weirdness yes?
You equate anything handy as a religious attack on your religion: Invade a muslim country and happen to be christian in the majority = Crusade.
To be fair, and attack your enemy religion, I'll give an example of christian weirdness: Nuclear war = Judgement day, so bring it on.
-
The first Crusade which began in 1096 was formed, writes Gibbon, mostly of thieves and criminals. This was the consequence of the Council of Clermont in 1095 in which the Pope proclaimed that anyone who joined the Crusade would be given full dispensation of all his sins and would be relieved of any criminal penance he might owe.
A failure from the start fmo.
You should probably say "sinners" instead of "criminals." And don't forget the very important noblemen who joined and fought in the Crusade, or the masses of peasants who joined mainly out of piety. And it did end up succeeding; perhaps surprisingly, but it did. I wouldn't call that a complete failure.
-
You should probably say "sinners" instead of "criminals." And don't forget the very important noblemen who joined and fought in the Crusade, or the masses of peasants who joined mainly out of piety. And it did end up succeeding; perhaps surprisingly, but it did. I wouldn't call that a complete failure.
Sinner criminals etc. You promise 72 or wtf number of virgins to a guy and he below himself up, whats the difference?
crusade=terrorism. If it was successful tell me about Mescidi Aksa? whats your degree of success or evidence? That Israeli fuck Palestinians? its chaos there since the known history.
Well I could call it complete failure yes and why?
First wave = criminals
Second wave = templars, noble man no doubt about it honestly.
End of Templar : burnt on a stick = failure = betrayal by whom?
And Christians still hail that child molester protector as "Holy Man" here is my answer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHRDfut2Vx0) my friend. I'm writing on that low level because you don't know what you are talking about.
-
Please you Muslim guys need to chill the fuck out. Don't make me bring out the history of the spread of Islam as comparison, cause it isn't pretty. It is no different than any other conquest or war based on religion, i.e using religion as an excuse and justification but truly all about power and wealth.
-
Yes yes. Now let's calm down.
New topic!
The supposedly myth ''Childrens Crusade''
Was it reality or just rubbish?
-
Sinner criminals etc. You promise 72 or wtf number of virgins to a guy and he below himself up, whats the difference?
crusade=terrorism. If it was successful tell me about Mescidi Aksa? whats your degree of success or evidence? That Israeli fuck Palestinians? its chaos there since the known history.
Well I could call it complete failure yes and why?
First wave = criminals
Second wave = templars, noble man no doubt about it honestly.
End of Templar : burnt on a stick = failure = betrayal by whom?
And Christians still hail that child molester protector as "Holy Man" here is my answer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHRDfut2Vx0) my friend. I'm writing on that low level because you don't know what you are talking about.
Yo, I'm not sure if this euro is trolling or just retarded.
-
Yo, I'm not sure if this euro is trolling or just retarded.
I was thinking the same thing. I'll go with the former.
-
Sinner criminals etc. You promise 72 or wtf number of virgins to a guy and he below himself up, whats the difference?
crusade=terrorism. If it was successful tell me about Mescidi Aksa? whats your degree of success or evidence? That Israeli fuck Palestinians? its chaos there since the known history.
Well I could call it complete failure yes and why?
First wave = criminals
Second wave = templars, noble man no doubt about it honestly.
End of Templar : burnt on a stick = failure = betrayal by whom?
And Christians still hail that child molester protector as "Holy Man" here is my answer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHRDfut2Vx0) my friend. I'm writing on that low level because you don't know what you are talking about.
......dude what
This is a historical conversation, not somewhere to rage about how much you hate religion
-
I think we killed this thread...oh well.
-
The Crusades was justified by Saint Augustine's Just War Doctrine, as the Saracens closed off Christian access to the holy land and threatened to destroy The Church of the Holy Sepulchre. It also was an attempt to reintegrate Palestine into Byzantine territory, but Constantinople refused to help the crusaders and left them to their fate.
In essence, it was considered by the Christians to be a defensive war, and not an offensive one.
-
In essence, it was considered by the Christians to be a defensive war, and not an offensive one.
Like searching for weapons of mass destruction?
EDIT: Fixed the context for duster :p
-
Like searching for weapon of mass desctruction?
I'm not really sure what this is referring to at all, but it's safe to assume that this statement is misguided at best
-
SO much trolling
-
The Crusades was justified by Saint Augustine's Just War Doctrine, as the Saracens closed off Christian access to the holy land and threatened to destroy The Church of the Holy Sepulchre. It also was an attempt to reintegrate Palestine into Byzantine territory, but Constantinople refused to help the crusaders and left them to their fate.
In essence, it was considered by the Christians to be a defensive war, and not an offensive one.
You know the Israelis consider the blockade of Gaza and operations like Cast Lead to be "defensive".
And America seemed to think it's invasions have been "Just".
-
And now we're pretty off topic o.O Oh what the heck :rolleyes:
-
We see that nothing has changed since 1000 years. religion is abused for power and wealth interests. every war ever started pretended to be a defensive one.
back to the main topic: the first crusade was the result of the famous speech of urban II., to get the knights to fight against the sarrazenes. in fact it was a new strategy after the plan of gregory VII. didn't succeed to build a papal army (militia sancti petri). the later founded knight orders were a solution to this problem, because they were under control of the pope. bernard of clairvaux, who wrote the templars order, combined the metaphorical use of "militia christi" (army of christ) that meaned the struggle inside the soul against the evil, with the literal use of the word as fight against "infidels".
-
You know the Israelis consider the blockade of Gaza and operations like Cast Lead to be "defensive".
And America seemed to think it's invasions have been "Just".
you want to talk about politics take it somewhere else. The fact that Muslims still see everything from the crusade's perspective shows how backwards their thinking still is. Get out of the dark ages retard.
-
there was no money to be made in the crusades, it was waged purely for religious reasons. As foreign as it sounds to us, the crusaders truely believed in god and redemption
-
there was no money to be made in the crusades, it was waged purely for religious reasons. As foreign as it sounds to us, the crusaders truely believed in god and redemption
all those caravans, sugar, paper, spices
look at that caravan there. full of gold and silver, commodities.... must... resist....... company, CHAAAAAAARGE!!!! FOR MON... err... FOR CHRIST!!!!
as in any war people fight for different reasons. money, glory, beliefs, life, freedom, slaves, sex....
-
all those caravans, sugar, paper, spices
look at that caravan there. full of gold and silver, commodities.... must... resist....... company, CHAAAAAAARGE!!!! FOR MON... err... FOR CHRIST!!!!
as in any war people fight for different reasons. money, glory, beliefs, life, freedom, slaves, sex....
conquest of palestine would not do anything to open the silk road... Nor would the raiding of caravans return more investment than a fiefdom comparing cost-benefit. Leaving for crusades means leaving your fief behind unprotected (except by the church)
-
conquest of palestine would not do anything to open the silk road... Nor would the raiding of caravans return more investment than a fiefdom comparing cost-benefit. Leaving for crusades means leaving your fief behind unprotected (except by the church)
if you're owner of fief. if you have older brothers, if you're citizen of free (royal) city, peasant trying to run away... that's a world of new possibilities. and you have to remember that for people in europe it was promissed land, land of gold, honey and milk, miracles...
-
if you're owner of fief. if you have older brothers, if you're citizen of free (royal) city, peasant trying to run away... that's a world of new possibilities. and you have to remember that for people in europe it was promissed land, land of gold, honey and milk, miracles...
you're mixing up the reasons to go to war vs the reason FOR the war. We're talking about completely different things. Those who perpretrated the crusades were not considering how much money they were going to make.
Plus, how is this war different from any other? Why would you go off to some far off land when there are wars nearby that you can benefit from? The absolving of sins is a powerful motivator
-
sorry... i misunderstood you.
the reason of crusades was actually power of papal state. it was some sort of test for christian states so pope can see his standing AND when byzantium refused helping in reconquest of holy lands it was a great chance for west church to spread influence and power. casus belli was denying access to the holy grave
that is how i perceive it
-
sorry... i misunderstood you.
the reason of crusades was actually power of papal state. it was some sort of test for christian states so pope can see his standing AND when byzantium refused helping in reconquest of holy lands it was a great chance for west church to spread influence and power. casus belli was denying access to the holy grave
that is how i perceive it
You do realize that the crusade was called BECAUSE Constantinople asked for help, right? :rolleyes:
-
You do realize that the crusade was called BECAUSE Constantinople asked for help, right? :rolleyes:
yes :) but did THEY (constantinople) help?
-
yes :) but did THEY (constantinople) help?
Yes, to get rid of the burden of riches :D Was it the third which sacked constantinople?
-
Nope. It was the 4th. When the filthy venetians sacked Constantinople.
Doges =(
-
you'll find it easier to talk about years, not in "crusade numbers", because historians don't actually agree on number of crusades (they disagree what is supposed to be considered as crusade as some were aimed at lands not in holy land and some dissolved on the road, some never reached destination etc etc).
-
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
-
are we now supposed to lol, lomao, rofl, or what? :evil:
-
Off Topic. But that's just a pure rape face. :lol:
-
hahaha
the pope coming from my state bavaria
-
there was no money to be made in the crusades, it was waged purely for religious reasons. As foreign as it sounds to us, the crusaders truely believed in god and redemption
Yeah maybe at the start, when the crusaders actualy got there it was a whole diferent story. You dont have to go far into the crusades you could look at the very first. Oh and about the Constantinopole comment, they did ask for help and the crusaders were supposed to give the land back to the Byznatine empire.
It was supposed to be a unity between the east and west christianity against the muslims, that didnt happen tho purely because of money/power/land and the greed of the crusaders claming Antioch, Edessa and so on for themselves. :/
I bet the Byzantine emperor was pissed, not to mention the muslims. Maybe we would have a united chuch today, but oh well greed ftl as always...
-
But that would mean there would perhaps not been a Ottoman Empire o.O
-
The Crusades failed because the Crusaders committed genocide against Jews, Orthodox Christians, and Muslims. Also, the sleeping lions of Islam were awaken to answer the call of defensive Jihad on behalf of the protected peoples "Dhimmi" (Jews & Orthodox Christians) and the Muslims.
However, the Crusades (in Jerusalem and Al-Andalus) resulted in the ideas of Islamic Civilization being passed on to Europe, which created the Renaissance and later the USA. Also, the Templars due to their heavy influence of Islam on their return to Europe were banned by the Catholic Church and sent underground with secret societies such as the Freemasons which passed on the spiritual message of Islam through Freemasonry. This of course resulted in the creation of the United States of America later in history based on Freemasonic (Islamic, Christians, and Jewish) esotericism. Freemasonry teaches "The Fatherhood of God (Allah) and the (Muslim Brotherhood: Submitter to God's peace and harmony in brotherhood with humankind) brotherhood of man".
Basically, our founding fathers in the USA created the United States on a foundation that is based on Islamic, Jewish, and Christian esoterics. That is why I find it ironically funny when right wing fanatics here say that the USA was founded on Christianity. It was actually the multicultural and perennial philosophy in Islam that helped make America what it is, which again that same multiculturalism is under threat by the right wing neo-crusaders.
www.unionoffaiths.com
-
Much of what you stated is complete gibberish, however some parts are true. Mainly the positive effects of Islamic culture and tehnology.
Oh and the Templars werent banned because of what you said but im to lazy right now to elaborate, maybe later
-
maybe he's writing a book named "Suhrab's code"
-
what about hashashin they were pretty cool rite?
-
what about hashashin they were pretty cool rite?
Yes, there was some guy called Altair who went around killing all the Templars. That's why they failed.
-
yea he was like doin hash and stuf then just went NUTS and killed errbody out there
-
yea he was like doin hash and stuf then just went NUTS and killed errbody out there
And all bcuz the templarz took his finger.
-
Yes, there was some guy called Altair who went around killing all the Templars. That's why they failed.
lulz, thats just a game, your so dumb hahaha
-
lulz, thats just a game, your so dumb hahaha
Oh the irony
-
lulz, thats just a game, your so dumb hahaha
Derp
-
Derp
I believe he's trolling
-
I believe he's trolling
Somehow...i doubt it lol
-
Templars became filthy rich after their holidays in the holy lands. Somone got jealous and phoned the police.
-
Probably because they couldn't tolerate rich and greedy people with big ass noses.
-
The Hashashin, who derived their name from the vast quantities of hashish they consumed, were unique among vicious killers in being both deadly and, at the same time, inclined to giggle, groove to interesting patterns of light and shade on their terrible knife blades and, in extreme cases, fall over.
-
The Hashashin, who derived their name from the vast quantities of hashish they consumed, were unique among vicious killers in being both deadly and, at the same time, inclined to giggle, groove to interesting patterns of light and shade on their terrible knife blades and, in extreme cases, fall over.
I recognise this from somewhere..My guess either terry pratchett or the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy. Am I right?
-
The former.
-
I just saw the best, most historical accurate movie of the crusades ever. It's called season of the witch. You should watch it.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3r0emrV_8E
That is all.
-
Please you Muslim guys need to chill the fuck out. Don't make me bring out the history of the spread of Islam as comparison, cause it isn't pretty. It is no different than any other conquest or war based on religion, i.e using religion as an excuse and justification but truly all about power and wealth.
Oh you mean mainly through peaceful means, namely trade and missionary work? Also bringing about a golden era of unprecedented prosperity and scientific advancement for many years to come? Roman Catholicism was spread by the sword, the spread of Islam was violent at points, but ultimately is more comparable to the spread of Buddhism than Catholicism.
I am Roman Catholic fyi
Anywho, being that I am Roman Catholic, I feel obliged to bring up an important point:
The Church during the middle ages was unfortunately very political. When the Eastern Roman Empire asked
Anywho, being that I am Catholic, I'd say its important to point out that the original purpose of the crusades was to supply the Byzantine armies with supplemental troops to fight along with the Byzantines. Instead the greedy and un-united indivdual lords went about sacking Byzantium, vandalizing this, massacuring that. Ultimately, the Crusades were forgotten by the Muslims as petty squables compared to their internal fractures and subjugation by various nomadic groups
The middle ages are a dark time for the Roman Catholic Church where the clergy held political power in the lack of any large effective government.
-
Please you Muslim guys need to chill the fuck out. Don't make me bring out the history of the spread of Islam as comparison, cause it isn't pretty. It is no different than any other conquest or war based on religion, i.e using religion as an excuse and justification but truly all about power and wealth.
Was Islam Spread By the Sword?
One of the bizarre myths perpetuated about Islam, during the centuries of mistrust during and after the Crusades, is that Muslim armies forced people to accept Islam at the point of the sword. Unfortunately this myth survives to this day.
Many Western scholars have now repudiated this myth. The great historian De Lacy OLeary wrote in Islam At the Cross-roads:
History makes it clear however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever repeated.
Indeed, it is a historical fact, that Islam spread much faster during periods of peace than in periods of war. Islam continued to spread, as it does now, when Muslims were not prevailing economically, socially or politically.
History of Tolerance and Mutual Respect
The Glorious Quran says:
Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from error [Al-Qur'an 2:256]
Traditionally Muslims have treated other religions with respect, even when they were in a position to use force.
Muslims ruled Spain for about 800 years. During these 800 years, until Muslims were finally forced out by the crusaders, non-Muslims flourished in Spain. Muslims have ruled Arabia for 1400 years, except for brief periods of British and French rule. Yet there are today 14 million Arabs who are Coptic Christians whose families have been Christians going back several generations.
The Muslims ruled India for about a thousand years. They had the power to forcibly convert each and every non-Muslim of India to Islam. Today more than 80% of the population of India is non-Muslim. All these non-Muslim Indians are bearing witness to the fact that Islam was not spread by the sword.
Thomas Arnold, a former Christian missionary in India, who cannot be accused of being pro-Islam, in his famous book The Preaching of Islam, indicates that there have been certain periods where Muslim rulers have diverted from this tolerance, but it was due to a deviation from Islamic principles, rather than conformance to them.
He concludes that the two primary reasons for the spread of Islam all over the world were merchants and the Sufis, two groups of people who went out, worked with humanity and gently invited others to their faith.
Legal Safeguards for non-Muslims under Islamic Law
The Quran and Sunnah (Traditions of the Prophet) explicitly dictate regulations and rights for the protection of non-Muslim minorities living under the rule of Islam. The Prophet even said that if a Muslim hurts a covenanted person (i.e. a non-Muslim living under the rule of Islam) or commits any injustice to him, then on the Day of Judgment the Prophet (pbuh) would be the advocate on behalf of the non-Muslim against the Muslim. What would be the sense and need for all of these prescriptions and advice, if Islam required that they be compelled to accept the religion?
The Rapid Spread of Islam
An article in Readers Digest Almanac, year book 1986, gave the statistics of the increase of percentage of the major religions of the world in half a century from 1934 to 1984. This article also appeared in The Plain Truth magazine. At the top was Islam, which increased by 235%, and Christianity had increased only by 47%. May one ask, Which war took place in this century which converted millions of people to Islam?
Indonesia is a country that has the maximum number of Muslims in the world. The majority of people in Malaysia are Muslims. Similarly, Islam has spread rapidly on the East Coast of Africa. May one ask, Which Muslim army went to Indonesia and Malaysia, and to the East coast of Africa?
Today the fastest growing religion in America and in Europe is Islam. Which sword is forcing people in the West to accept Islam in such large numbers?
The Crusades - A Muslim Perspective
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RxmrAY0C_c
(Do you want to learn more about Islam? Visit www.whyislam.org or call 1-877-WHY-ISLAM)
-
Legal Safeguards for non-Muslims under Islamic Law
The Quran and Sunnah (Traditions of the Prophet) explicitly dictate regulations and rights for the protection of non-Muslim minorities living under the rule of Islam. The Prophet even said that if a Muslim hurts a covenanted person (i.e. a non-Muslim living under the rule of Islam) or commits any injustice to him, then on the Day of Judgment the Prophet (pbuh) would be the advocate on behalf of the non-Muslim against the Muslim. What would be the sense and need for all of these prescriptions and advice, if Islam required that they be compelled to accept the religion?
Good post :)
But the bits you're referencing only refer specifically to people of the book/covenant (Jews and Christians).
-
Here's a contrary view on things (I can copy & paste too :P)
The Crusades: A Response to Islamic Aggression
by John J. ONeill
One of the most potent myths of our age is that the Crusades were little more than an unprovoked attack by a barbarous Europe against a quiescent and cultured Islamic world. According to conventional ideas, the seventh and eighth centuries constitute the great age of Islamic expansion. By the eleventh century the time of the First Crusade we are told that the Islamic world was quiescent and settled and that, by implication, the Crusaders were the aggressors. Indeed, the Crusaders are routinely portrayed as a horde of barbarians from a backward and superstitious Europe irrupting into the cultured and urbane world of the eleventh century Near East.
This at least is the populist language often employed on television and in newspaper articles. In my recent book Holy Warriors: Islam and the Demise of Classical Civilization, I have shown however that before the advent of Islam Christians had no concept of Holy War at all, and that it was from the Muslims themselves that Europeans took this idea. I showed too that the Crusades, far from being an unprovoked act of aggression on the part of Christian Europe, was part of a rearguard action aimed at stemming the Muslim advance which, by the start of the eleventh century, was threatening as never before to overwhelm the whole of Europe.
Notwithstanding the evidence presented in Holy Warriors, the consensus among the majority of medieval historians is that the threat from Islam had very little, if anything, to do with the Crusades; the Muslims were simply the convenient targets of a savage and brutal Europe, mired in a culture of habitual violence and rapine. The energies of Europes warrior-class, it is held, were simply directed by the Papacy away from internal destruction onto the convenient targets of the Islamic world. This, for example, is the line taken by Marcus Bull in his examination of the origins of the Crusades in The Oxford History of the Crusades. In an article of almost ten thousand words, Bull fails to consider the Muslim threat at all. Indeed he mentions it only to dismiss it:
The perspective of a Mediterranean-wide struggle [between Islam and Christianity] was visible only to those institutions, in particular the papacy, which had the intelligence networks, grasp of geography, and sense of long historical tradition to take a broad overview of Christendom and its threatened predicament, real or supposed. This is a point which needs to be emphasized because the terminology of the crusades is often applied inaccurately to all the occasions in the decades before 1095 when Christians and Muslims found themselves coming to blows. An idea which underpins the imprecise usage is that the First Crusade was the last in, and the culmination of, a series of wars in the eleventh century which had been crusading in character, effectively trial runs which had introduced Europeans to the essential features of the crusade. This is an untenable view.(Marcus Bull, Origins, in Jonathan Riley-Smith (ed..) The Oxford History of the Crusades, p. 19)
With what justification, we might ask, does Bull dissociate the earlier Christian-Muslim conflicts of the eleventh century in Spain, Sicily, and Anatolia from the First Crusade? The answer can hardly be described as convincing. There is plenty of evidence, he says, to suggest that people regarded Pope Urban IIs crusade appeal of 1095-6 as something of a shock to the communal system: it was felt to be effective precisely because it was different from anything attempted before. (Ibid) Of course it was different: the Pope had called a meeting of all the potentates and prelates of Europe to urge the assembly of a mighty force to march to Constantinople and eventually to retake the Holy Land. It was new because of its scale and its ambition. But to thus dismiss the connection with what went before in Spain and Sicily and Anatolia is ridiculous. Such a statement can only derive from a mindset which somehow has to see the Crusaders as the aggressors and to thereby detach them from the legitimate defensive wars which Christians had been fighting in Spain and throughout the Mediterranean in the decades immediately preceding 1095.
The fact is, in the twenty years before the First Crusade, Christendom had lost the whole of Anatolia, an area greater than France, and a region right on the doorstep of Europe. In 1050 the Seljuk leader Togrul Beg undertook Holy War against the Christians of Anatolia, who had thus far resisted the power of the Caliphs. We are told that 130,000 Christians died in the war, but that, upon Togrul Begs death in 1063 the Christians reasserted their independence and freedom. This was however to be of short duration, and no sooner had Togrul Begs nephew Alp Arslan been proclaimed Sultan than the war was renewed. In 1064 the old Armenian capital of Ani was destroyed; and the prince of Kars, the last independent Armenian ruler, gladly handed over his lands to the [Byzantine] Emperor in return for estates in the Taurus mountains. Large numbers of Armenians accompanied him to his new home. (Steven Runciman, The History of the Crusades Vol. 1 (Cambridge, 1951) p.61) Indeed, at this time, the entire Armenian nation was effectively transplanted hundreds of miles to the south and west.
But the Turkish attacks continued. From 1065 onwards the great frontier-fortress of Edessa was assaulted yearly. In 1066 they occupied the pass of the Amanus Mountains, and next spring they sacked the Cappadocian metropolis of Caesarea. Next winter the Byzantine armies were defeated at Melitene and Sebastea. These victories gave Alp Arslan control of all Armenia, and a year later he raided far into the Empire, to Neocaesarea and Amorium in 1068, to Iconium in 1069, and in 1070 to Chonae, near the Aegean coast. (Ibid.)
- - - - - - - - -
These events make it perfectly clear that the Turks now threatened all the of Empires Asiatic possessions, with the position of Constantinople herself increasingly insecure. The imperial government was forced to take action. Constantine X, whose neglect of the army was largely responsible for the catastrophes which now overwhelmed the Empire, had died in 1067, leaving a young son, Michael VII under the regency of the Empress-mother Eudocia. Next year Eudocia married the commander-in-chief, Romanus Diogenes, who was raised to the throne. Romanus was a distinguished soldier and a sincere patriot, who saw that the safety of the Empire depended on the rebuilding of the army and ultimately the reconquest of Armenia. (Ibid.) Within four months of his accession, Romanus had gathered together a large but unreliable force and set out to meet the foe. In three laborious campaigns, writes Gibbon, the Turks were driven beyond the Euphrates; in the fourth, and last, Romanus undertook the deliverance of Armenia. (Decline and Fall, Ch. 57) Here however, at the seminal battle of Manzikert (1071), he was defeated and captured and all of Anatolia was irretrievably lost.
Any honest reading of these events leaves us in no doubt whatsoever that the aggressor was Alp Arslan and his Turks, and that Romanus Diogenes march into Armenia was a last-ditch counter-attack by the Byzantines to prevent the loss of all of Anatolia.. Yet observe how the battle is described in the recently-published Chambers Dictionary of World History: The Byzantine Emperor, Romanus IV Diogenes (1068/71), tried to extend his empire into Armenia but was defeated at Manzikert near Lake Van by the Seljuk Turks under Alp Arslan (1063/72), who then launched a full-scale invasion of Anatolia. (Bruce Lenman (ed.) Chambers Dictionary of World History (London, 2000) p. 585)
We see in the above a graphic example of the disinformation disseminated by the mentality of political correctness, where the victim is transformed into the aggressor and the aggressor portrayed as the victim.
Alp Arslan was killed a year later, and the conquest of Asia Minor, virtually all that was left of Byzantiums Asiatic possessions, was completed by his son Malek Shah (1074 1084). These conquests left the Turks in possession of the fortress of Nicaea, on the southern shore of the Sea of Marmara, and the survival of Constantinople in question.
These then are the major political events which prefigured the First Crusade. Within a space of thirty-five years the Turks had seized control of Christian territories larger than the entire area of France, and they now stood poised on the very doorstep of Europe. We are accustomed to think of the Crusades as first and foremost an attempt by Christians to retake the Holy Land and Jerusalem; but this is a mistake. The Emperor Alexius Comnenus now made his famous plea to the Pope, not to free Jerusalem, but to drive the Turks from his door, to liberate the huge Christian territories in Asia Minor that had so recently been devastated and annexed by the followers of the crescent. It is true, of course, that the Turks, who had also assumed control of Syria/Palestine, now imposed a barbarous regime in that region; and that the sufferings of Christian pilgrims as well as native Christian populations in that region, described so vividly by Peter the Hermit and others, provided a powerful emotional impetus to the Crusading movement among ordinary Europeans; but the relief of pilgrims was not to begin with at least the primary goal of the Crusaders. Nonetheless, the barbarous nature of the Turkish actions in Palestine was a microcosm of their behavior throughout the Christian regions which they conquered, and the nature of their rule in the entire Near East is described thus by Gibbon in his usual vivid manner:
The Oriental Christians and the Latin pilgrims deplored a revolution, which, instead of the regular government and old alliance of the caliphs, imposed on their necks the iron yoke of the strangers of the north. In his court and camp the great sultan had adopted in some degree the arts and manners of Persia; but the body of the Turkish nation, and more especially the pastoral tribes, still breathed the fierceness of the desert. From Nicaea to Jerusalem, the western countries of Asia were a scene of foreign and domestic hostility; and the shepherds of Palestine, who held a precarious sway on a doubtful frontier, had neither leisure nor capacity to await the slow profits of commercial and religious freedom. The pilgrims, who, through innumerable perils, had reached the gates of Jerusalem, were the victims of private rapine or public oppression, and often sunk under the pressure of famine and disease, before they were permitted to salute the holy sepulcher. A spirit of native barbarism, or recent zeal, prompted the Turkmans to insult the clergy of every sect; the patriarch was dragged by the hair along the pavement and cast into a dungeon, to extort a ransom from the sympathy of his flock; and the divine worship in the church of the Resurrection was often disturbed by the savage rudeness of its masters. (Chapter 57)
The ordinary peasants of Europe may not have been fully cognizant of the danger from the east, but the ruling classes and the Church could not have been anything but alarmed. Yet even if the peasantry and artisans of Europe knew little about Anatolia, they would certainly have had some knowledge of the Muslim threat. It is Marcus Bulls suggestion that they did not which is untenable. The advances of Abd er-Rahman III and Al-Mansur through northern Spain in the latter years of the tenth century would have sent a flood of Christian refugees into southern France; and the raids even into southern France which continued well into the eleventh century would have sent refugees from there fleeing into central and northern France. These people would have spread knowledge of the danger throughout western Europe. Granted, peasants and manual laborers would have had a very imperfect understanding of Islam and what Muslims actually believed; but that is not the point: They knew enough to know that Muslims were enemies of Christ; that they waged war against non-combatants and enslaved women and children, and that they had conquered all of Spain and threatened France.
And this is a point that needs to be stressed repeatedly: The reality is that, far from being quiescent and peaceful, by the latter years of the tenth century Islam was once again on the march. Muslim armies waged wars of conquest against non-believers from one end of the Islamic world to the other; from Spain in the west to India in the east; and this new aggression was not confined to the eastern and western extremities, but proceeded along the entire length of Islams borders. The Christian kingdoms of Armenia, Georgia and Byzantium were threatened with extinction, and Muslim armies fought with Christians in Sicily and other Mediterranean lands. Many aspects of this new Islamic thrust, particularly those which occurred around the beginning of the eleventh century in Spain and India, are strangely reminiscent of the earlier Islamic expansion in the eighth century, so reminiscent indeed that they might even cause the casual observer to wonder whether the birth of Islam has been somehow misdated and moved into the past by several centuries. So, for example, we are told that the main Islamic invasion of India began with the conquests of Mahmud of Ghazni, a Turkish-speaking prince based in Afghanistan, who launched a series of 17 campaigns into Northern India. These began in 1001 and ended in 1026, just four years or so before his death; a series of campaigns, we should note, which caused immense destruction and loss of life in the country. By the 1020s Mahmud ruled an empire that included much of the Indus Valley, Afghanistan and Persia. Yet these conquests, at the start of the eleventh century, seem to echo those of Muhammed bin Qasim, three centuries earlier, who created an Islamic Empire in roughly the same region (circa 710).
It is strange too that Mahmud of Ghaznis name differs but little from that of his predecessor. Only the n in Ghazni differentiates it from Qasim, a word which could equally well be written as Qasmi.
In the western end of the Islamic world we encounter the same phenomenon. In the tenth century, says Runciman, the Moslems of Spain represented a very real threat to Christendom. (Runciman, op cit. p. 89) Under Abd er-Rahman III (912-961) the followers of Muhammad found a leader who promised to repeat the successes of the eighth century. As founder of the Cordoba Caliphate, he presided over a new age of splendor and military power. His forces battled the Christians to the north, and the boundary between the two religions was marked by the battles he fought. The most decisive of these were at Simancas (939), between Salamanca and Valladolid on the Duoro River, where he was stopped. These were areas that had been overrun by the Muslims two centuries earlier, though the Christians had apparently retaken them in the interim. In many ways then Abd er-Rahman III resembles his ancestor and namesake Abd er-Rahman I, who conquered these areas in the eighth century. And this new conquering impulse continued under Al-Mansur (980-1002), whose career was to see Muslim power once again enveloping all of Spain, including the far north. He burned Leon, Barcelona and Santiago de Compostela, and, copying his Muslim predecessors almost three centuries earlier, advanced over the Pyrenees. We are told that in Al-Mansurs time, Never had the Christians found themselves in such a critical position. (Louis Bertrand, The History of Spain (2nd ed. London, 1945) p. 57)
It was the attacks of Al-Mansur that finally roused Christian Europe into undertaking the Reconquista, which commenced with the campaigns of Sancho III (called the Great) of Navarre and the Norman Baron Roger de Tony in the 1020s. Yet these events recall the earlier beginning of the Reconquista with the victory of Don Pelayo at Covadonga around 718.
The reader might well wonder why this revival of Islamic conquest in the eleventh century seems so uncannily to resemble the Islamic conquests of the seventh and eighth centuries. That indeed is a moot point: one to be discussed in a future article. For the moment, all that needs to be emphasized is that, contrary to popular belief, the tenth and eleventh centuries constitute a period of massive expansion by Islam, an expansion felt all along Islams boundary with Christendom. The Crusades were clearly part of an attempt to stem this aggression.
-
Was Islam Spread By the Sword?
One of the bizarre myths perpetuated about Islam, during the centuries of mistrust during and after the Crusades, is that Muslim armies forced people to accept Islam at the point of the sword. Unfortunately this myth survives to this day.
Many Western scholars have now repudiated this myth. The great historian De Lacy OLeary wrote in Islam At the Cross-roads:
History makes it clear however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever repeated.
Indeed, it is a historical fact, that Islam spread much faster during periods of peace than in periods of war. Islam continued to spread, as it does now, when Muslims were not prevailing economically, socially or politically.
History of Tolerance and Mutual Respect
The Glorious Quran says:
Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from error [Al-Qur'an 2:256]
Traditionally Muslims have treated other religions with respect, even when they were in a position to use force.
Muslims ruled Spain for about 800 years. During these 800 years, until Muslims were finally forced out by the crusaders, non-Muslims flourished in Spain. Muslims have ruled Arabia for 1400 years, except for brief periods of British and French rule. Yet there are today 14 million Arabs who are Coptic Christians whose families have been Christians going back several generations.
The Muslims ruled India for about a thousand years. They had the power to forcibly convert each and every non-Muslim of India to Islam. Today more than 80% of the population of India is non-Muslim. All these non-Muslim Indians are bearing witness to the fact that Islam was not spread by the sword.
Thomas Arnold, a former Christian missionary in India, who cannot be accused of being pro-Islam, in his famous book The Preaching of Islam, indicates that there have been certain periods where Muslim rulers have diverted from this tolerance, but it was due to a deviation from Islamic principles, rather than conformance to them.
He concludes that the two primary reasons for the spread of Islam all over the world were merchants and the Sufis, two groups of people who went out, worked with humanity and gently invited others to their faith.
Legal Safeguards for non-Muslims under Islamic Law
The Quran and Sunnah (Traditions of the Prophet) explicitly dictate regulations and rights for the protection of non-Muslim minorities living under the rule of Islam. The Prophet even said that if a Muslim hurts a covenanted person (i.e. a non-Muslim living under the rule of Islam) or commits any injustice to him, then on the Day of Judgment the Prophet (pbuh) would be the advocate on behalf of the non-Muslim against the Muslim. What would be the sense and need for all of these prescriptions and advice, if Islam required that they be compelled to accept the religion?
The Rapid Spread of Islam
An article in Readers Digest Almanac, year book 1986, gave the statistics of the increase of percentage of the major religions of the world in half a century from 1934 to 1984. This article also appeared in The Plain Truth magazine. At the top was Islam, which increased by 235%, and Christianity had increased only by 47%. May one ask, Which war took place in this century which converted millions of people to Islam?
Indonesia is a country that has the maximum number of Muslims in the world. The majority of people in Malaysia are Muslims. Similarly, Islam has spread rapidly on the East Coast of Africa. May one ask, Which Muslim army went to Indonesia and Malaysia, and to the East coast of Africa?
Today the fastest growing religion in America and in Europe is Islam. Which sword is forcing people in the West to accept Islam in such large numbers?
The Crusades - A Muslim Perspective
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RxmrAY0C_c
(Do you want to learn more about Islam? Visit www.whyislam.org or call 1-877-WHY-ISLAM)
Yea Islam is so fucking peaceful. My country tasted 5 centuries of your "peaceful" spread. Only 4.5 milion Croats left from your "peaceful" ways, more of them live outside fleeing from the horror that was the Turkish invasion. But we won, and many people forget how the "wall of Cristianity" held. If we hadnt you would probalby continue to "peacefuly" spread Islam all over Europe
-
Yea Islam is so fucking peaceful. My country tasted 5 centuries of your "peaceful" spread. Only 4.5 milion Croats left from your "peaceful" ways, more of them live outside fleeing from the horror that was the Turkish invasion. But we won, and many people forget how the "wall of Cristianity" held. If we hadnt you would probalby continue to "peacefuly" spread Islam all over Europe
THE SPREAD OF ISLAM IN THE BALKANS
How the Islamic civilization emerged in the Balkan Peninsula is one of the most complex problems and requires multi-dimensional research. Unfortunately, many historic facts concerning Islam and the Balkan Peninsula have been "forgotten," or even distorted. This has been the result of centuries of pressure from the Serb and European historians and their political establishments.
The two ways that enabled the spread of Islam in the Balkans were:
(1) The military expeditions sent to extend the borders of the state of Islam, and
(2) The persuasive powers of the Islamic teachings themselves made people ultimately embrace it.
Insofar as the nations of the Balkan Peninsula are concerned, the overwhelming historic evidence reveals that military expeditions were of little significance in the spread of Islam. Thus, the teachings of Islam were the crucial factor in winning people over. The Quranic declaration that "there is no compulsion in religion," gave people the feeling of freedom for the first time in centuries. The very famous Albanian writer, S. Frashëri, observes: "Apart from the usage of military might to spread Islam, there does exist another way without turning to invasion or the force of arms, a way that is often not mentioned by the historians." Arnold Toynbee considers this a major point and mentions it in his book, too.
Looking back in history, it is easy to understand which way was the most influential means of spreading Islam; the force of arms or Islamic teachings. Most of the time, the Muslim armies only opened the "door" for the Islamic civilization to present itself, and ultimately the people would see the difference.
Islamic civilization entered the Balkan Peninsula mainly from the West through the contacts with Andalusia in Spain, from the South through Mediterranean Sea and Sicily, and from the Northeast through Hungary. Even though the evidence is minimal, after a serious analysis, the above questionhow did Islam come to the Balkan Peninsulawould be finally answered.
After all the research, three are the ways through which the Islamic civilization gained its foothold in the Balkan Peninsula, and a further elaboration of them will follow.
Trade relations
The development of Islamic civilization and of the Muslims themselves conditioned the expansion of trade. The goods produced were mainly traded with neighboring nations, however, the traders often ventured even further to far and unknown places. This is why that since the 9th century trade relations between Europe and the Middle East through the Mediterranean Sea has been booming. In these trade relations, the most daring Europeans were those from Florence, Venice, Pizza, Genoa, followed by the French, and Catalonians. The European merchants through Egypt and Syria ventured far into the Far East.
The Illyro-Albanians had established trade relations with the Arab and Turkish nations, and not only the port-cities of the Adriatic Sea, but the rural parts of the Balkan Peninsula inhabited by them as well. Such strong trade relations had been established since ancient times, and continued into the pre-Ottoman and Ottoman periods.
The Arab gold and silver coins excavated in Potoci, near Mostar of the present-day Bosnia-Herzegovina, date back to the time of Marwaan II (744-750 C) which tells of the extensive trade relations the Muslims had with the Balkan nations, first the Albanians and later the Slavs.
Port-cities along the Adriatic Sea like Dubrovnik, Tivari, Ulqini, Durazzo, Valona, Himara, etc., and other Greek and Southern Italian cities were centers of trade. During the 12th century, the well known Muslim historians and travelers, Al-Idreesi and Ibn Hawkal, tell in fine details the social and political situation of those places. They also describe the road going through the Balkan Peninsula, from the Aegean Sea along the valley of the Vardar River to the coasts of the Adriatic Sea.
Usually, the Italian merchants traveled by sea, whereas the Muslims mostly traveled overland. The merchants from Venice and Florence used to trade regularly and exchanged their goods mostly in Istanbul and Gallata. Well known are also the caravans from Dubrovnik to Istanbul, and vice versa.
Such strong trade relations have had a great impact on the Balkan nations. Apart from buying and selling, which was the primary intention, the merchants brought many new ideas and changes. This was intensified further when the Muslim merchants started to establish themselves in some fortified and secured coastal cities. The first Muslim colonies appeared. Though they were very small in the beginning, they became larger, and even stronger.
Military and political relations
The first part of this article highlights the ways in which Islam was introduced in the Balkans, with the trade relations being the primary focus. In this part, other factors are highlighted, namely: military and political relations with Muslim countries.
By 634, the Muslims, in their attempt to spread Islam to every possible area, had started to attack the borders of the Byzantine Empire, and made the first attempt to conquer Constantinople (now Istanbul). Some years later, in 717-718, the Muslim army under the command of Maslamah surrounded Constantinople, however, they could not conquer it. In this expedition, the Muslim army penetrated as far as Adrianople (now Edirne) and Salonika, and this was known as the first contact by the Muslim armies with the Balkan nations. They also built a mosque near Gallata, known as the Arab Mosque. This ledsome Arabs (Muslims) to settle in Constantinople and Salonika.
In the 9th century, the Muslims were more direct in their intentions towards the Balkan Peninsula. This was simple to understand because they conquered Crete in 823, Sicily in 827, and some parts of the Southern Italy as well, and the Balkan Peninsula was next in line.
During 840-841, the Muslims conquered Taranto, Italy, and undertook incursions into the Balkan Peninsula, conquering Budva, Kotor, Rosi, and Rijeka. They even surrounded Dubrovnik for fifteen years, but without any success. This was the time when the Illyro-Albanians had their first contacts with the Muslim armies. They kept trying to take over the Balkan Peninsula until 1023 when they lost control of the Southern Italy.
The traces of this new civilization are to be found everywhere. Nearby the cathedral of Trogir, there is a statue of an Arab man wearing turban, which is a sign of well established relationships. There also are the tombs of two Arabs, which is evidence that they must have been living there for some time.
On the other hand, the conquest of Spain by the Muslims opened a new chapter in their relations with the Balkan nations. Some of the Slav tribes, especially the Slovenians and Croats, had good relations with the Muslim Spain. In the royal court of Haakimi I (791-822) there were 2000 guards of Croatian origin. Such a large number of guards indicated the extensive relations between them.
This variety of military relations was extended to the politics, too. The Muslim countries had cordial relationship with their Balkan counterparts. In 856, the Serb king, Mikhail III, sent his envoy to the Caliph Al-Mutawakkil Ibn Ar-Rasheed of the Abbasid dynasty to arrange a form of debate on religious matters.
In 922, moved by the Islamic teachings, the Bulgarian king sent an envoy to Caliph Al-Muqtadir of the Abbasid dynasty to convey his familys decision to embrace Islam.
In this point, well known are the contacts that Caliph Haroon Ar-Rasheed had established with the European rulers. He had sent his envoy to the Serb king, Carl the Great, in order to establish cordial and reciprocal relations.
The Croat ruler, Prince Tomislav, had good relations with caliph Abdur-Rahmaan III and even used to exchange gifts. Abdur-Rahmaan III had sent envoys to all the Slav kingdoms to discuss and charter their future relations.
The Europeans, the Balkan nations included, kept continuous contacts with the Muslimsthe Fatimids (969-1171), the Ayyubids (1171-1250) and the Mamluks (1250-1517)because of various interests, trade being one of them.
The Slavs were allies to the Muslims against the Roman and Byzantine Empires. However, their relations with the Illyro-Albanians will define the future military and political actors of the Balkan Peninsula. At the beginning, those relations were cordial, but changed rapidly.
Yet, there were various contacts between the Muslims and the Illyro-Albanians. The fact that the Illyro-Albanians were ruled by the foreignersthe Roman and Byzantine Empires, the Serbs, etc.means that they were almost never identified as an independent political entity.
Missionaries and migrations
Maybe the most important factor that influenced the rapid spread of Islam among the Illyro-Albanians was the work of missionaries and migrations of different groups of people. There are indications that travelers and theologian visited almost every part of the peninsula centuries before the Ottomans appeared and played an important role in preaching Islam. This was in some way assisted by the fact that the Muslims controlled many territories around the Balkan Peninsula (Southern Italy, some Greek islands, the Asia Minor, etc.), and by the incursions of the Muslim armies as well.
Maybe the most important among the migrations was a group of Turkish Muslims who settled in Southern Hungary (near the border with the Byzantine Empire) and somewhere near the Ohrid Lake (Macedonia) as well (almost in the center of the peninsula). This was the time when the first concentrated Muslim dwellings were seen in the peninsula.
The Russian Czar Theofil, while fighting in the Asia Minor, forced many Muslims to migrate. They settled in the Balkan Peninsula in the valley of the Vardar River. They came to be known the "Turks of Vardar."
Yet, the presence of the Muslims in the Balkan Peninsula was so great that the Christian kingdoms could no longer tolerate them. Thus, in the 13th century, many crusades directed to the Middle East passed through the peninsula and exterminated the Muslims living there.
Learn more about how Islam brings peace and is against war, terrorism and intolerance: www.islamdenouncesterrorism.com
-
You're both wrong... it was because the pope stole Altair's finger.
-
This text is filled with so much bullshit it would take me ages to even try to reply to it. Seeing how you are suffering from extreme brainwashing im not going to debate with you. Hell i admit that Cristianity was spread by the sword but some of those statements in your text are laughable, actualy 90% of that text is pure propaganda.
I pick this part beacause it was particulary hilarious:
The Europeans, the Balkan nations included, kept continuous contacts with the Muslimsthe Fatimids (969-1171), the Ayyubids (1171-1250) and the Mamluks (1250-1517)because of various interests, trade being one of them.
Contacts? Oh my god this made me lol irl. Yea contacts, contacts of sabers and swords.
Oh my, i could reply to almost all the sentences in that text, such is the ammount of bullshit. I will just stop reading this now.
-
This text is filled with so much bullshit it would take me ages to even try to reply to it. Seeing how you are suffering from extreme brainwashing im not going to debate with you. Hell i admit that Cristianity was spread by the sword but some of those statements in your text are laughable, actualy 90% of that text is pure propaganda.
I pick this part beacause it was particulary hilarious:
The Europeans, the Balkan nations included, kept continuous contacts with the Muslimsthe Fatimids (969-1171), the Ayyubids (1171-1250) and the Mamluks (1250-1517)because of various interests, trade being one of them.
Contacts? Oh my god this made me lol irl. Yea contacts, contacts of sabers and swords.
Oh my, i could reply to almost all the sentences in that text, such is the ammount of bullshit. I will just stop reading this now.
It's not your fault, you are an uneducated and ignorant person brainwashed by third world eastern european parents who know nothing of their history, except what the racists and biggots put there for you. However, the Muslim Empire that stretched three continents was mostly a peaceful Empire and of course had to defend itself against Crusaders. Also, there are good and bad people in every group, so not all Muslims represent the faith or the collective.
If you want to learn about the history of Islam, I suggest visiting www.muslimheritage.com also if you want to learn about the art and science that the Crusaders learned from and without would still be in the dark ages: www.1001inventions.com
-
I must be extremely bored to do this... and i know you wont listen but here goes:
THE SPREAD OF ISLAM IN THE BALKANS
Insofar as the nations of the Balkan Peninsula are concerned, the overwhelming historic evidence reveals that military expeditions were of little significance in the spread of Islam. Thus, the teachings of Islam were the crucial factor in winning people over. The Quranic declaration that "there is no compulsion in religion," gave people the feeling of freedom for the first time in centuries. The very famous Albanian writer, S. Frashëri, observes: "Apart from the usage of military might to spread Islam, there does exist another way without turning to invasion or the force of arms, a way that is often not mentioned by the historians." Arnold Toynbee considers this a major point and mentions it in his book, too.
Military "expeditions" were the main way of spreading Islam into the Balkan Peninsula. Also 5 centuries of bloody warfare is a invasion not a simple "expedition".
It gave people freedom? are you serious? Male children were taken for the Turkish army and raised in Islam, great freedom they had eh? Villages were burned to the ground and the population that wasnt Muslim was considered inferior and pushed around, The Turks offered perks and privelidges to the people that converted to Islam so some did, prefering to live normal lives under the Turkish rule rather then being frowned upon.
Looking back in history, it is easy to understand which way was the most influential means of spreading Islam; the force of arms or Islamic teachings. Most of the time, the Muslim armies only opened the "door" for the Islamic civilization to present itself, and ultimately the people would see the difference.
Yea it opened the door with sabers and torches, so much for the power of peacefull Islamic teachings
Islamic civilization entered the Balkan Peninsula mainly from the West through the contacts with Andalusia in Spain, from the South through Mediterranean Sea and Sicily, and from the Northeast through Hungary. Even though the evidence is minimal, after a serious analysis, the above questionhow did Islam come to the Balkan Peninsulawould be finally answered.
Mainly from the West? Are you kidding me? It came with the Turkish invasion. A historical fact that im sure you will try to deny somehow.
After all the research, three are the ways through which the Islamic civilization gained its foothold in the Balkan Peninsula, and a further elaboration of them will follow.
The development of Islamic civilization and of the Muslims themselves conditioned the expansion of trade. The goods produced were mainly traded with neighboring nations, however, the traders often ventured even further to far and unknown places. This is why that since the 9th century trade relations between Europe and the Middle East through the Mediterranean Sea has been booming. In these trade relations, the most daring Europeans were those from Florence, Venice, Pizza, Genoa, followed by the French, and Catalonians. The European merchants through Egypt and Syria ventured far into the Far East.
The Illyro-Albanians had established trade relations with the Arab and Turkish nations, and not only the port-cities of the Adriatic Sea, but the rural parts of the Balkan Peninsula inhabited by them as well. Such strong trade relations had been established since ancient times, and continued into the pre-Ottoman and Ottoman periods.
The Arab gold and silver coins excavated in Potoci, near Mostar of the present-day Bosnia-Herzegovina, date back to the time of Marwaan II (744-750 C) which tells of the extensive trade relations the Muslims had with the Balkan nations, first the Albanians and later the Slavs.
Port-cities along the Adriatic Sea like Dubrovnik, Tivari, Ulqini, Durazzo, Valona, Himara, etc., and other Greek and Southern Italian cities were centers of trade. During the 12th century, the well known Muslim historians and travelers, Al-Idreesi and Ibn Hawkal, tell in fine details the social and political situation of those places. They also describe the road going through the Balkan Peninsula, from the Aegean Sea along the valley of the Vardar River to the coasts of the Adriatic Sea.
Usually, the Italian merchants traveled by sea, whereas the Muslims mostly traveled overland. The merchants from Venice and Florence used to trade regularly and exchanged their goods mostly in Istanbul and Gallata. Well known are also the caravans from Dubrovnik to Istanbul, and vice versa.
Such strong trade relations have had a great impact on the Balkan nations. Apart from buying and selling, which was the primary intention, the merchants brought many new ideas and changes. This was intensified further when the Muslim merchants started to establish themselves in some fortified and secured coastal cities. The first Muslim colonies appeared. Though they were very small in the beginning, they became larger, and even stronger.
Ofcourse there was trade, such trade was present from ancient times, it however had nowhere near the significance it says in this text for the spread of Islam in the Balkans
Military and political relation
On the other hand, the conquest of Spain by the Muslims opened a new chapter in their relations with the Balkan nations. Some of the Slav tribes, especially the Slovenians and Croats, had good relations with the Muslim Spain. In the royal court of Haakimi I (791-822) there were 2000 guards of Croatian origin. Such a large number of guards indicated the extensive relations between them.
Croatian mercenary guard where renown for their loyalty and skill in arms and were present at many courts, they had relationships everywhere and this was before the Invasion.
This variety of military relations was extended to the politics, too. The Muslim countries had cordial relationship with their Balkan counterparts. In 856, the Serb king, Mikhail III, sent his envoy to the Caliph Al-Mutawakkil Ibn Ar-Rasheed of the Abbasid dynasty to arrange a form of debate on religious matters.
In 922, moved by the Islamic teachings, the Bulgarian king sent an envoy to Caliph Al-Muqtadir of the Abbasid dynasty to convey his familys decision to embrace Islam.
In this point, well known are the contacts that Caliph Haroon Ar-Rasheed had established with the European rulers. He had sent his envoy to the Serb king, Carl the Great, in order to establish cordial and reciprocal relations.
The Croat ruler, Prince Tomislav, had good relations with caliph Abdur-Rahmaan III and even used to exchange gifts. Abdur-Rahmaan III had sent envoys to all the Slav kingdoms to discuss and charter their future relations.
First of all its King Tomislav not Prince Tomislav, secondly he was a skilled diplomat, thus the gifts, he had to focus his military might elsewhere.
The Europeans, the Balkan nations included, kept continuous contacts with the Muslimsthe Fatimids (969-1171), the Ayyubids (1171-1250) and the Mamluks (1250-1517)because of various interests, trade being one of them.
Again this contacts. Funny how you mention them like they were peaceful trade relations or something when infact the Turkish invasion is the greatest scurge in the history of Croatia. Funny also how you mention Croatia as a 3rd wordly country. Do you know why people consider us a 3rd world country? All the history of Croatia is full of defensive warfare, and the greatest devastation to the population was during the Turkish "contacts". Maybe we would be as prosperous as westren European countries if you didnt pound us to the ground continueusly.
The Slavs were allies to the Muslims against the Roman and Byzantine Empires. However, their relations with the Illyro-Albanians will define the future military and political actors of the Balkan Peninsula. At the beginning, those relations were cordial, but changed rapidly.
Yet, there were various contacts between the Muslims and the Illyro-Albanians. The fact that the Illyro-Albanians were ruled by the foreignersthe Roman and Byzantine Empires, the Serbs, etc.means that they were almost never identified as an independent political entity.
Missionaries and migrations
Maybe the most important factor that influenced the rapid spread of Islam among the Illyro-Albanians was the work of missionaries and migrations of different groups of people. There are indications that travelers and theologian visited almost every part of the peninsula centuries before the Ottomans appeared and played an important role in preaching Islam. This was in some way assisted by the fact that the Muslims controlled many territories around the Balkan Peninsula (Southern Italy, some Greek islands, the Asia Minor, etc.), and by the incursions of the Muslim armies as well.
Maybe the most important among the migrations was a group of Turkish Muslims who settled in Southern Hungary (near the border with the Byzantine Empire) and somewhere near the Ohrid Lake (Macedonia) as well (almost in the center of the peninsula). This was the time when the first concentrated Muslim dwellings were seen in the peninsula.
The Russian Czar Theofil, while fighting in the Asia Minor, forced many Muslims to migrate. They settled in the Balkan Peninsula in the valley of the Vardar River. They came to be known the "Turks of Vardar."
Yet, the presence of the Muslims in the Balkan Peninsula was so great that the Christian kingdoms could no longer tolerate them. Thus, in the 13th century, many crusades directed to the Middle East passed through the peninsula and exterminated the Muslims living there.
Learn more about how Islam brings peace and is against war, terrorism and intolerance: www.islamdenouncesterrorism.com
Im sorry for any spelling mistakes i made, and again i only replied to the points that concerned the teritory under Tomislav. You just cant say that the spread on the Balkans was peacefull, and the historians know it. I dont deny the peaceful teachings in the Kuran but in practice concerning the spread of Islam it is simply not true
-
Sure, the Turks did do a lot of things that didn't represent Islam or Muslims, but you have to think of it this way...many of the Janissary who later became Sultans themselves were originally Balkan Christians. You don't see the same thing in Europe at that time do you? Where do you know in Europe's Christian Kingdoms Muslims being recruited as soldiers then becoming the King of a Christian European country? Islam is much more tolerant and does not care about race and is multicultural, something that Europe was not and still has issues with. In the end, multiculturalism and equality of the races will win and that is what Islam stands for.
Was Islam Spread By The Sword? Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvHeqyCumgo
[BTW: It is amazing how there is a double standard when the truth is said...quickly people talk about "religious propaganda", while the whole thread is about "Crusades" which are violent Christian attacks on Muslims, Jews, and Orthodox Christians. Reminds you of the Shariah banners and Rep. King on the news who are nothing bot religious biggots.]
-
Can you take your religious propaganda elsewhere? Thank you.
-
Yes or i lock this thread, trololololol.
:P
Though they fought in the name of God so ;/
-
multiculturalism and equality of the races will win and that is what Islam stands for.
Multiculturalism and equality of the races won't win, cause multiculturalism is bullshit and there are no races.
-
@Laufknoten, you are hillarious "Multiculturalism is bullshit and there are no races", then what is there? I think racism and biggotry has literally driven some people to insanity and they no longer possess cognitive abilities or have the brainpower for rational thought. Instead, they believe chocolate chip cookie ideologies that multiculturalism (which is how all us homo sapiens evolved) is bs and all the different colors of people don't exist. Wow, I think you have really made my day in double standards, ignorance, and trying to just ignore reality. Thanks for your comedy relief and my comedic enjoyment today because without it I would not be laughing so hard. :mrgreen: BTW, when the Persians (gorillas) first went to India, they thought they could keep the soldiers from 'breeding' with the local Dravidian population, however as in Jurassic Park..."nature finds a way!" and now you have most of Northern India as a hybrid and evolved gorilla-Dravidian mix. Races are beautiful and should be celebrated just like genders which without we would be Sea Horses. Again, thank you for the comedic relief which I am still ROFL. :lol:
(I am racially gorilla (Persian) and religiously Muslim. I have some Azeri blood, which is racially again gorilla but linguistically Turkish.)
-
He is right, the Islam is very tolerant. Like the Borg they accept everyone to join in. Getting out is a bit of a problem though.
With all the BS posted, the thing Turkish people should really proud on is that they managed to create a secular state despite having a population of mainly Islamic believe. That is the great achievement of Ataturk and the Turkish nation.
-
With all the BS posted, the thing Turkish people should really proud on is that they managed to create a secular state despite having a population of mainly Islamic believe. That is the great achievement of Ataturk and the Turkish nation.
This.
Also, please don't bring in term "gorilla", it causes much confusion. Ask central european, eastern european, middle-eastern [preferably persian] and indian people, you'll get somewhat different definitions of "gorilla". Truth, however, seems to be somewhere in between - everyone's right?
-
Let's keep this thread on topic. Religious debate belongs in its own thread in Off Topic or Spam.
-
Also take your debate about races elsewhere too. Thanks for the help great Batman :D
-
Also take your debate about races elsewhere too. Thanks for the help great Batman :D
great Batman :D
Trololo?
Game nicks: Kalam_BRD, Midnighter_BRD
-
christianity is peaceful religion. as islam, too. most of religions are pacifistic. (but there is very big BUT.)
but people are not. many protestants went over border from croatia to turks during history. turks were sometimes really more tolerable to other religions than christians. it is not because they didn't want to convert them, but mostly because of money and politics (higher taxes etc - raja (raya) and famous "the enemy of my enemy MIGHT be my friend). i don't say that there were no openminded people in those times, but they were very rare.
oh and beside THE war, there were pillage and plunder parties on both sides (even during "peace") which were driven by greed and money, but they always said it was solely because of "infidel scum" :rolleyes:
-
christianity is peaceful religion. as islam, too. most of religions are pacifistic. (but there is very big BUT.)
but people are not. many protestants went over border from croatia to turks during history. turks were sometimes really more tolerable to other religions than christians. it is not because they didn't want to convert them, but mostly because of money and politics (higher taxes etc - raja (raya) and famous "the enemy of my enemy MIGHT be my friend). i don't say that there were no openminded people in those times, but they were very rare.
oh and beside THE war, there were pillage and plunder parties on both sides (even during "peace") which were driven by greed and money, but they always said it was solely because of "infidel scum"
Very good points made, it is not the religion, but rather the greed and politics of the man who chooses to abuse faith or lack there of (ie. Stalin). For the most part, the Ottomans were good at welcoming people, however they were an Empire and it's like dealing with a broadsword and not a scalpel, as wel can see in Libya and the USA.
Also, I would recommend checking out this site in regards to religious unity: www.unionoffaiths.com
-
Safavid stop being OOT and go make you're own thread about islam and the're peaceful way's!
Goddam it we are talking about the crusades, bloody battle, white assasi... I mean templars and mamlukes...
And so I say onething RICHARD LIONHEART IS L33T in so many levels... but not in stronghold crusader, noo in that game he's a asshole!
-
he was leet jerk
-
So to come back on the first comment I made, the Battle I was talking about is the Battle of Arsuf, which was won by the Crusaders under the command of Richard the Lionheart.
-
And so I say onething RICHARD LIONHEART IS L33T in so many levels... but not in stronghold crusader, noo in that game he's a asshole!
He can't build walls in that game, seriously.
In two games in a row, he left big holes in the walls, and my Assassins quickly killed him both times.
8-)
He was a good leader IRL though, :wink:
-
God really?
for me he makes star forts and the likes then goes to molest my farming peasant with his knights!
-
What the hell is a Star Fort? Anyhow.....
I've heard some rumors though i clearly doubt them that the ''Teutonics Knights Order'' was active at the last crusades in the Holy Land. Just a load of crap right? As far as i know they just wanted to make the crap countries to the east abandon their pagan bullshit and accept christianity with catholicism
-
Star forts?
Its walls make a star?
God William...
-
Sounds pretty crap. Good thing i've never played that game :D
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_fort
which one crusade do you consider the last one? year?
-
The Order of Brothers of the German House of Saint Mary in Jerusalem, the full name of what is commonly the called The Teutonic Knights, like almost all of the crusader knights orders it was set up to aid those on their travels to the holy land, making great profit for the members of the order.
Becoming wealthy and powerful its leader was asked by the pope to assist in purging heresy from Poland and the east of Europe, with terrifying results.
in answer to your question, yes they were involved in the crusades, acting as mercenaries and as holy warriors, the same as nearly every single knightly order in Europe was involved.
-
Here's a watch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqK-RuntywY
-
I've seen it =) :P
And i've also watched some History Channel documentaries as well.
Also read The Oxford Illustrated History of the Crusades.
There needs to be a fully historically accuracte game in First Person View covering the Holy Crusades 1-3 with some real nasty graphics and perhaps using Frostbite 2 engine :P
Most of the games covering the holy crusades are so unrealistic it's just painful to play them.
Either it's some sci fi story or i'm almost drowning by the amount of magic that's being thrown at me lol.
Would've been great if we could play through as a Saracen and either a Templars Knight or a French/English knight looking to capture Jerusalem.
-
Here's a watch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqK-RuntywY
Thanks for that mate ;)
was a nice show.
-
Why have you abandoned this glorious thread?
We need more Holy Cross discussion pronto!
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ez6wfJWVCeI
HERE HERE god wills it!
-
Bump, why u no talk about the DEUS VULT, ALLAHU SNACKBAR crusade?
-
Crusades.. long journey..
not good :(
I luv crossbows but hit hard
injustice...
-
Do it right :P
Crusades very very bad !!
injustice ! !
I love Crusades but
a very difficult journey, crusade and hit hard
-
Thats right :mrgreen:
-
Bump dis shiet. What once was the 2nd most viewed topic in historical discussions parts of forum seem to have died. You must spread more pro christianity or islam talks in this thread or just talk about why Frederick Barbarossa failed so hard.
-
God Wills It
-
I recommend everyone read a book by Thomas F. Madden called; The New Concise History Of The Crusades and also a book by Emmet Scott called; Mohammed & Charlemagne Revisited. Both excellent books to read, they will change your understanding of the crusades and the middle ages in general.
-
It's not your fault, you are an uneducated and ignorant person brainwashed by third world eastern european parents who know nothing of their history, except what the racists and biggots put there for you. However, the Muslim Empire that stretched three continents was mostly a peaceful Empire and of course had to defend itself against Crusaders. Also, there are good and bad people in every group, so not all Muslims represent the faith or the collective.
If you want to learn about the history of Islam, I suggest visiting www.muslimheritage.com also if you want to learn about the art and science that the Crusaders learned from and without would still be in the dark ages: www.1001inventions.com
Most of what the the Muslims call their discoveries was in fact just discoveries that had been made by people they had conquered, ever asked yourself why did the Islamic world stop making so many fantastic discoveries? You want to know why? Cause their expansion through Jihad was halted, once the Islamic world could no longer conquer new peoples its scientific discoveries dried up.
And that 1001inventions book is total garbage.
-
It's not your fault, you are an uneducated and ignorant person brainwashed by third world eastern european parents who know nothing of their history, except what the racists and biggots put there for you. However, the Muslim Empire that stretched three continents was mostly a peaceful Empire and of course had to defend itself against Crusaders. Also, there are good and bad people in every group, so not all Muslims represent the faith or the collective.
If you want to learn about the history of Islam, I suggest visiting www.muslimheritage.com also if you want to learn about the art and science that the Crusaders learned from and without would still be in the dark ages: www.1001inventions.com
Watch this video:
https://youtu.be/rK7MYvliSnk?list=LL5Yc3cOEFxwT3QRYRO-y6hA&t=166
Crusades ended hundreds of years ago, while Jihad is lasting to this day since the beggining of Islam.
-
Watch this video:
https://youtu.be/rK7MYvliSnk?list=LL5Yc3cOEFxwT3QRYRO-y6hA&t=166
Crusades ended hundreds of years ago, while Jihad is lasting to this day since the beggining of Islam.
He's banned and have been 4 a long time