Found this. Cannot verify the total accuracy but seems to be good. Does not show the raids or sieges. If it did the area of Palestine would be colored solid.
Interesting. Where is that from? What is the significance of 'Past Battle' vs 'New Battle'? Looks like Alexandria is the only New Battle shown.
Was posted to me by a friend who has become very simplistic in his world view. Likes everything black and white.
Originally came from someone named Dinesh D'Souza? Seems to be a christian fundamentalist who may know something about history. (Generally a trait that doesn't show up in arguements with the fundamentalists around here.)
i am really angered and insulted at bozo's statement the other day saying that the Crusades were evil and we are sorry. Just looking at that map you posted reminds me that the Crusades were targeted at a specific area in retaliation for the widespread conquests of a religion not based on love but based on killing those who don't believe.
In fact if I'm not mistaken the Crusades were launched in an effort to liberate Israel and the holy land.
The expectation to gain vast new fiefdoms for themselves was certainly not very far down on the list of motivators for the nobles, great and small, who participated in the crusades.
Quote from: Staggerwing on February 08, 2015, 08:39:14 AM
Interesting. Where is that from? What is the significance of 'Past Battle' vs 'New Battle'? Looks like Alexandria is the only New Battle shown.
It's from "Center for the study of political islam" - whatever that is
The pictures are taken from a video shown during a lecture by Bill Warner (PhD).
Past- and new battles is plotted to show a progress over a longer period of time. You'll have to see the videos to make sense out of it.
I think the two pictures in besilarius post is from this lecture:
Another interesting Bill Warner video - 45 minutes long, but worth the time - is this:
Why We Are Afraid, A 1400 Year Secret
Thanks, Attila. Figured the image was from something bigger, but couldn't find it.
Quote from: Staggerwing on February 08, 2015, 03:49:07 PM
The expectation to gain vast new fiefdoms for themselves was certainly not very far down on the list of motivators for the nobles, great and small, who participated in the crusades.
Or kind-of-small money-pittish fiefdoms, for the nobles who went. Absolution for sins at home was more of a draw, generally: the crusades cost a ton of money.
Never said their expectations were realistic. :))
Before the crusades, European nobles were content on killing their cousins to get what they wanted. Come on, you had descendants of the Vikings mixed in with the lot. For a time, many of the Arab lands had secured a lot of the knowledge and experience from the Roman Empire in their realms, and were well off and trading well, while a lot of Europe was just getting by.
Pope Urban II figured he could steer them away from this and focus on a more 'holy' goal (and at the same time, get more support for the church). These The problem is, the Byzantine Emperor never asked for legions of crusaders to be sent over, and that's what happened. Apart from the fighting in the Holy Land, the crusaders eventually went on to sack Constantinople and split & rule their empire as their own for a bit, contributing even more to the decline of the Eastern Roman Empire (and opening the door to the Seljuk and Ottomans), which I always found very ironic.
Well, strictly speaking the Byz Emperor did ask for help, and desperately so.
What he didn't ask for, was several waves of undisciplined semi-well-armed pilgrim mobs using his land as a route to Jerusalem.
This difference was crucial to how he treated the mobs when they arrived on Crusade. Under the circumstances he thought they didn't have a chance against the Muslim occupiers -- he had begged for serious legions of soldiers, not for this rabble! -- and on the other hand they did have a strong chance at pillaging (if not outright raping) his land passing through. So he promised help, didn't send it, and kind of threw them to the wolves, going so far as to play both interlopers (the pilgrims and the Muslims) against each other.
Which naturally led to huge resentment and legitimate complaints of having been betrayed by some Byzantine plot or other. ;)
Cue the sack of Constantinople eventually by another wave of Crusaders (though even then that wasn't their original plan).
I agree with that Jason, thanks for clarifying. I was thinking of checking with you on this one, as IIRC you had a big AAR on the Byzantines in CK2! :)
The Bzy Emperor was worried the crusaders would take the lands for themselves instead of gaining it back for the Byzantines and so made them swear an oath to him. The crusaders felt cheated (e.g. after Nicaea), but that also prevented the wholesale slaughter of the inhabitants of Nicaea.
I do still find it ironic that after asking for help, the latin crusaders just came and made it worse (the Latinokratia).
About this thread, I'm not sure I get the point. A map showing muslim conquests in Europe, North Africa and the Holy Land. The Crusades were not a 100% noble thing. People fought for many reasons and exploited the opportunities for land, wealth, conquest, as in all wars. European crusaders were also campaigning against disbelievers in Europe (i.e. the Northern Crusades, the wars against Novgorod, the Reconquista on the Iberian Peninsula, the campaigns against Cathar Heretics and others). The effects on the European Jewish population was also a disaster.
Ultimately, I think it comes down to this - you cannot find a majority Mulsim nation that was converted peacefully.