U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-21-2010, 08:20 AM
 
Location: The Woods
16,483 posts, read 21,592,838 times
Reputation: 8468

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikestone8 View Post
They came about four centuries before the First Crusade, and by 1095 had ruled Spain for about the same length of time that it's white settler population has ruled what is now the United States.

Do I take it that, should the rest of the world form an alliance to expel the white settlers (by military force if necessary) and give America back to the Indians, you would support such an enterprise and consider it morally justified?
And the crusades were not the first wars with them either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-21-2010, 09:01 AM
 
Location: Peterborough, England
472 posts, read 760,986 times
Reputation: 410
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader View Post
And the crusades were not the first wars with them either.
As far a western Europe was concerned, they were the first ones of any importance for several centuries.

There were of course the usual spats between Christian and Moslem states which happened to border each other, just as there were between neighbouring states of any religion, but it was all pretty local. After the Eighth Century, the toing and froing between Christian and Moslem states in Spain had virtually no effect on anyone outside the peninsula, nor did the Norman conquest of Sicily have much impact outside its immediate neighbourhood. Indeed, when the Bazantine Empire was crushed at Manzikert, the Normans of Sicily - about the most exposed of any Western power to the supposed "Moslem threat" were so unconcerned by it that they cheerfully attacked Byzantium from the other direction. They were in no danger from the Seljuks and they knew it.

Incidentally, as early as the Ninth Century things had got settled enough for Charlemagne to be on excellent terms with Caliph Haroun al-Raschid. This rapprochement came because Charlie didn't get on with his "fellow-Christians" in Constantinople, while Harry was similarly on the outs with his "fellow-Moslems" in Ummayyad Spain. So they were natural allies.

Fighting "for our religion", or "civilisation", or whatever, is something that happens when - and only when - it is politically convenient for it to happen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2010, 09:43 AM
 
2,377 posts, read 4,769,537 times
Reputation: 1692
I believe Haroun said it was "better to have a Frank as a friend rather than as a neighbor.."
And he did give Charlemagne that white elephant as a gift.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2010, 09:50 AM
 
1,308 posts, read 2,482,474 times
Reputation: 618
The Muslims were not attacking Christians in 1095 in Spain. When you start arguing that, because the land was taken from X centuries ago, it justifies X taking it back you rationalize all conflicts. The Visgoths should have given Spain back to the Romans and the Romans to the Cartheginians.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2010, 10:59 AM
 
2,377 posts, read 4,769,537 times
Reputation: 1692
Well, by that logic, the US should be given back to the Native Americans. And most of Europe to the Celts..That's not how things work..you win it, it's yours till some other group takes it away
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2010, 01:39 PM
 
Location: European Union
11,780 posts, read 13,219,741 times
Reputation: 31435
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader View Post
The muslims were not driven out of what is today Spain and Portugal, which they occupied, until the 15th century. ....
They were driven out of the territory of present-day Portugal by 1249.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2010, 02:03 PM
 
248 posts, read 516,934 times
Reputation: 161
By 1249, Muslim kingdoms in Spain were practically confined to the Kingdom of Granada.

But the Kingdom of Granada was a Tax Heaven, some sort of Switzerland, and they paid tribute to the Castillian kings that were poor as rats.

If it weren't by Cardenal Cisneros and her mentor, Queen Isabella (a religious cook) Granada would be now some sort of International Tax Heaven and Banking Center.

Last edited by Neng.; 02-21-2010 at 02:15 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2010, 02:11 PM
 
248 posts, read 516,934 times
Reputation: 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishtom29 View Post
Regardless of whether or not the Moslems were unified they were considered a hostile culture and force by the Christians (and they were), that's what mattered. And the Turks had recently been hammering the Greeks in Asia Minor. And if the Moslems were in a state of disunity and confusion it was all the better time to take the initiative (attack).

It's easy enough to sit in our easy chairs today and look back and think there was no hostility, no doubt the viewpoint from 11th Century Europe was different.
-----

Not really...
The Crusaders proved to be 100 times worse for Bizantium than Turks.
Spanish Christians were a better choice to Spanish Muslims than Almohads and Almoravids from Africa.
The hostility was artificial, considering that all Classic European culture came thanks to Moslems.
Crusades was a scapegoat of a bunch of fanatic Christian Talibans channeled by Nobility and the Pope to SACK Holy Land, remove excess population, etc.
Crusades were a popular mouvement that was instrumentalized by the power, the real leaders of the Crusade were characters like Simon, I believe, a lousy scoundrel.
Crusades were just plunderers, they also plundered the Cathar Country creating a false heressy.
Just plunderers from a starving, barbaric continent.

Last edited by Neng.; 02-21-2010 at 02:21 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2010, 03:54 PM
 
Location: Peterborough, England
472 posts, read 760,986 times
Reputation: 410
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trudy Rose View Post
Well, by that logic, the US should be given back to the Native Americans. And most of Europe to the Celts..That's not how things work..you win it, it's yours till some other group takes it away

It all reminds me of a dialogue I once saw (back in the 70s or 80s iirc) as the preface to a political novel -

A: Get off my land.
B: Why?
A: Because it's mine.
B: How did you get it?
A: From my father.
B: And how did he get it?
A: From his father
B: And how did his father get it?
A: He fought for it.
B: OK, I'll fight you for it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2010, 08:13 PM
 
Location: NC
10,005 posts, read 8,770,203 times
Reputation: 3062
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishtom29 View Post
Regardless of whether or not the Moslems were unified they were considered a hostile culture and force by the Christians (and they were), that's what mattered. And the Turks had recently been hammering the Greeks in Asia Minor. And if the Moslems were in a state of disunity and confusion it was all the better time to take the initiative (attack).

It's easy enough to sit in our easy chairs today and look back and think there was no hostility, no doubt the viewpoint from 11th Century Europe was different.
The Crusades were, for many of the people fighting them, first and foremost about finding a reason to do a land/money grab. War against the infidels was just a convent excuse. This was why one of the first major cities to fall in the Crusades was Christian Edessa. Behind almost every crusade you can find a king, prince, or noble looking to get themselves a piece of the pie. Whether it was the Crusaders in the Middle East looking to carve themselves a fief out of Asia minor and the Levant, the king of France looking to fill his coffers at the expense of the Cathars, or the King/Emperor of Sweden and the Holy Roman Empire respectively looking for a way to legitimize their land grabs in Finland and Prussia.

Last edited by Randomstudent; 02-21-2010 at 08:22 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top