Oh, so it only becomes self defense when it is your perceived view of who it is?
But what I can do the same. I could say the Crusaders were defending they're lands against muslims with the right to "self defense" as you say
No, you can't say that because the Muslims in Anatolia were not a threat to Britain, France or Germany where the crusaders came from.
Right so he would hire troops from an area that is a bigger threat to him than the muslims..
Such was the realpoitik of the Middle ages. Don't take my word for it, do 5 minutes research on Alexius's campaigns against the Normans in Eastern Anatolia.
Contanpinople didn't have problems until around the 4th crusade, which was sparked by dishonesty from the EO.
Once again, you demonstrate a lack of knowledge on this issue. The Byzantines clashed with Crusader forces from the beginning of the first Crusade. The level of friction was variable, but it was always there. Once again, do some research if you don't want to take my word for it. Again, Alexius considered the Crusaders a plague. Yes, Constantinople wasn't utterly sacked until the 4th Crusade (see the treasury of St Marks) but the fact is that Constantinople was sacked by Christian Crusaders BEFORE it was sacked by Turks.
This is just an ad-hominem. You don't know that. THe west aided the east for the betterment of christendom. THe goal was to repel muslims invasion in the east.
How the heck is "This much is true. However, there is a big difference between requesting a few companies of knights to aid in defence, and requesting a popular migration with military conquest as its goal." an ad hominem against anyone???
I was using Ottoman to show you that Peter wasn't, as you say "blowing things outta porportion". The ottoman takeover is quite the opposite example of that.
How can the Ottomans of 400 hundred years AFTER Peter be relevant in discussing Peter's appropriateness or otherwise? Especially since the Ottoman expansion was A RESPONSE TO THE CRUSADES, and not the other way around? You might as well say that The Holocaust was a response to Israeli agression, Or that the American revolution was a response to the War of 1812.
And what does the 4th crusade really have to do with this convo, were talking about the Muslim threat during the first crusade.
Well you brought up the Ottomans, who didn't attack Constantinople until AFTER the 4th Crusade... so if the 4th Crusade isn't relevant, then how are the Ottomans, who didn't even EXIST at the time of the first Crusade?
There was no direct threat to Constantinople from Turkish expansion at the time of the first Crusade. Byzantine territory had been under threat in the late 10th century, but by the actual time of the first Crusade, this had passed. Alexius had in mind troops to strengthen his border defences, he did NOT request an Anti Turk expeditionary force. And lets not forget Edessa!
And muslim extremism was a result of the Crusades? Have you even read the hadith or the few hundred years of war mohammed was in before he even got to europe?? They took over all of persia and arabia eventually extending to northern africa, medina, Uhud, the Arabian peninsula, badr and the trench.
Blaming muslims extremism on the crusades is ridiculous
So... how come there is not a single example of Muslim extremism against Christians pre-Crusade?
They ruled much longer than that! Granada ring a bell? Wow. If your not saying the Moors had allot to do with the inquisition then I think your the one pulling yout terms outta the air..
Here Ill post it from wiki for you:
Did you even read what I said? I clearly mentioned Granada, the last Muslim stronghold in Iberia, falling to Ferdinand and Isabella in 1492. The inquisition was only started in 1478... and, (again, go do some research) it ONLY HAD JURISDICTION OVER BAPTISED CATHOLICS! The inquisition had nothing to do with Muslims.
Here's what I said again. Maybe read it this time?
"
*LMCO* Well now I KNOW your just pulling terms out of thin air... The Moors ruled spain from 711 AD, the Iberian peninsula wasn't even fully Christianised at that point. The reconquista drove the last of the Muslim rulers out of the Iberian Peninsula when Granada fell to Ferdinand and Isabella in 1492. The Spanish inquisition didn't even start until 1478, and its purpose was to persecute Christian heretics, not Muslims.
And you know what? I believe the Crusades, the Spanish inquisition, the Reconquista and even the Conquest of the New World are perfectly appropriate given their contemporary context. But for good or ill, whether they ended in benefits for humanity or blatant atrocity, or a bit of both, it doesn't alter for a moment that they were all justified using the Bible. "
