Well the bottom picture was them trying to reclaim lost lands. Neither event was clean.
Are you referring to the Crusades? Those weren’t really Christians “trying to reclaim lost lands,” since the Middle East was never “owned” by Christians. Christianity, especially Catholicism never really took root in the Middle East until much later, so the Pope declaring that all good Christians should join the Crusades really was a war of aggression.
On the other hand, you could be referring to the reclamation of Spain, but I don’t think that’s what that painting is depicting.
Those weren’t really Christians “trying to reclaim lost lands,” since the Middle East was never “owned” by Christians. Christianity, especially Catholicism never really took root in the Middle East until much later,
4th-7th centuries AD under the Eastern Roman Empire call that into question.
Fair enough. I guess I should say that the group calling for the “reclamation” of the Middle East for Christianity was not the indigenous people. The Romans were a colonial power in the Middle East, so saying that a Roman Pope could call for a reclamation is like Great Britain trying to reclaim India.
While I may have gone too far in saying Christianity has not taken root in the Middle East, I stand by my central thesis that the Crusades were wars of aggression.
The Romans were a colonial power in the Middle East, so saying that a Roman Pope could call for a reclamation is like Great Britain trying to reclaim India.
I mean, if we’re going that route, the Turco-Persian Muslims occupying the Levant at the time were a colonial power there too, and the Levant only came under Muslim control in the first place because it was quite literally conquered by non-native inland Arab tribes from a Byzantine-Christian majority in the 7th century.
While I may have gone too far in saying Christianity has not taken you in the Middle East, I stand by my central thesis that the Crusades were wars of aggression.
Never suggested it did. However I’d like to hear your argument as to how Catholics were just trying to reclaim it for Christians when they were slaughtering Romans and sacking Constantinople.
The position you put forward had nothing to do with the general Topic at hand? Your position did not try to refute the comment you quoted in that post? When he specifically mentioned Catholics in the post and you quoted it? Just a complete deviation that had no merit? Well my mistake then I apologize. I thought you were participating in the conversation.
Those weren’t really Christians “trying to reclaim lost lands,” since the Middle East was never “owned” by Christians.Christianity, especially Catholicism never really took root in the Middle East until much later,
It was not so much an act of aggression as it was an act of protection. Christians in those areas, people as well as traders, were killed and taken into slavery.
You really think Christians wanted to March down until a dessert region thousands of miles from home just for the fun of it? Christians were under attack in the region.
Not saying it was all sunshine and rainbows, but the notion that the crusades were about spreading Christianity is not accurate.
Are you referring to the Crusades? Those weren’t really Christians “trying to reclaim lost lands,” since the Middle East was never “owned” by Christians. Christianity, especially Catholicism never really took root in the Middle East until much later, so the Pope declaring that all good Christians should join the Crusades really was a war of aggression.
On the other hand, you could be referring to the reclamation of Spain, but I don’t think that’s what that painting is depicting.
4th-7th centuries AD under the Eastern Roman Empire call that into question.
Fair enough. I guess I should say that the group calling for the “reclamation” of the Middle East for Christianity was not the indigenous people. The Romans were a colonial power in the Middle East, so saying that a Roman Pope could call for a reclamation is like Great Britain trying to reclaim India.
While I may have gone too far in saying Christianity has not taken root in the Middle East, I stand by my central thesis that the Crusades were wars of aggression.
I mean, if we’re going that route, the Turco-Persian Muslims occupying the Levant at the time were a colonial power there too, and the Levant only came under Muslim control in the first place because it was quite literally conquered by non-native inland Arab tribes from a Byzantine-Christian majority in the 7th century.
Agreed there.
History is mostly a great play of conquering powers deciding who gets to tax the starving masses.
Yeah you remember the 4th Crusade right? I think that kind of derails your argument here buddy.
How does the 4th Crusade retroactively revert the ownership of the Levant in the 4th-7th centuries under the Christian Eastern Roman Empire.
Never suggested it did. However I’d like to hear your argument as to how Catholics were just trying to reclaim it for Christians when they were slaughtering Romans and sacking Constantinople.
Then you aren’t arguing against a position I’ve actually put forward.
The position you put forward had nothing to do with the general Topic at hand? Your position did not try to refute the comment you quoted in that post? When he specifically mentioned Catholics in the post and you quoted it? Just a complete deviation that had no merit? Well my mistake then I apologize. I thought you were participating in the conversation.
As I quoted in my original response:
It was not so much an act of aggression as it was an act of protection. Christians in those areas, people as well as traders, were killed and taken into slavery.
You really think Christians wanted to March down until a dessert region thousands of miles from home just for the fun of it? Christians were under attack in the region.
Not saying it was all sunshine and rainbows, but the notion that the crusades were about spreading Christianity is not accurate.