monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Not disagreeing with anything you said, just adding. It wasn't Islam that threatened Byzantium it was the crusaders.

Quote:

The siege and sack of Constantinople occurred in April 1204 and marked the culmination of the Fourth Crusade. Crusader armies captured, looted, and destroyed parts of Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine Empire. After the capture of the city, the Latin Empire (known to the Byzantines as the Frankokratia or the Latin Occupation)[4] was established and Baldwin of Flanders was crowned Emperor Baldwin I of Constantinople in the Hagia Sophia.

After the city's sacking, most of the Byzantine Empire's territories were divided up among the Crusaders. Byzantine aristocrats also established a number of small independent splinter states, one of them being the Empire of Nicaea, which would eventually recapture Constantinople in 1261 and proclaim the reinstatement of the Empire. However, the restored Empire never managed to reclaim its former territorial or economic strength, and eventually fell to the rising Ottoman Sultanate in the 1453 Siege of Constantinople.

The sack of Constantinople is a major turning point in medieval history. The Crusaders' decision to attack the world's largest Christian city was unprecedented and immediately controversial. Reports of Crusader looting and brutality scandalised and horrified the Orthodox world; relations between the Catholic and Orthodox churches were catastrophically wounded for many centuries afterwards, and would not be substantially repaired until modern times.

The Byzantine Empire was left much poorer, smaller, and ultimately less able to defend itself against the Turkish conquests that followed; the actions of the Crusaders thus directly accelerated the collapse of Christendom in the east, and in the long run facilitated the expansion of Islam into Europe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Constantinople

It wasn't Islam that threatened Byzantium it was the crusaders.

Scrape all of the bullsh*t off of the accounts others give, and it boils down to Franks hoping to take land and create a kingdom in the middle east. They didn't give a rat's patoot about the Church of the Holy Sepulcher,

They were the invades, and for more than a century, they were very pleased with themselves.

On February 14 th and 15th, 1945, the Eighth United States Army Air Force dropped 1,475.9 tons of incendiary bombs on Dresden.

As for the crusades, you initially claimed they had been necessary to prevent a Muslim invasion of Europe.

The Holy Land (sic) was no part of Europe, and therefore the Seljuk Turks' invasion was no threat to Europeans or Christianity.

You originally claimed that the first crusade was launched to prevent a Muslim invasion of Europe. When you saw that wouldn't fly, you changed your tune, and now pretend that you had never said that--which is typical of your rhetorical style.

As can be seen from the map above, dated at 1180 CE, the Turks were nowhere near an invasion of Europe.

You are, however, completely unable to ever admit that you are wrong, or that you have made a mistake.

That's OK, though, the rest of know how often you are full of sh*t.

You know darned well, they'll all disappear for a long while. Those who don't will ignore their previously boasted predictions.

You certainly don't have any kind of grasp of history. I suspect that your grasp of geography is poor as well. Of course, you don't have a clue about ethnography.

The so-called homeland of the Jews was invaded by Arabs, long before the Turks showed up. But then, the Romans had kicked the Jews out in the second century CE.

Really, you ignorance is pathetic.

When you leave, no matter why, and then come back more than 1600 years later, your claim to a "homeland" is just bullshit,

and the Zionists are murderous thugs.

In the post I quoted earlier you said that: "It was clear that as soon as the Byzantines fell, Europe was going to be next." As a matter of fact, neither Arabs nor Seljuk Turks invaded Europe. The Osmanli Turks began fighting the Romans (only 19th century historians and idiots call them "Byzantines") in Anatolia in the 13th century, almost 200 years after the first crusade. They invaded Europe in the mid-14th century, long before Constantinople fell to the Turks, a century before the end of the Roman Empire. The end of the Roman Empire came when the Osmali Turks took Constantinople on May 29, 1453, and Constantine XI, the last Emperor, died fighting in the streets.

Muslims are not a monolith.

Your grasp of history is pathetic--more like non-existent.

I still haven't found the original crusades thread,

Although I do recognize the Byzantine Empire's rightful control of Turkey and Syria.

I would love to see the Crusades restarted to drive the Muslims out of both countries, and the reestablishment of the Byzantine Empire on that land.

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Well, they never wanted "to re-establish of the Byzantine Empire on that land" - would be contrary to the idea behind the crusades (see vexillum sancti Petri) ...

Yes. "What I want" and "what the Crusaders wanted" are two very different things.

The Crusaders wanted to capture Jerusalem, for Xiantity.

I, on the other hand, think Jerusalem is best left in Jewish hands.

I think it would be nice to see Constantinople back in Xian hands however. Damascus too.

And the notion of Western imperialism is a fallacy. The West was minding its own business and suddenly the Muslims decided to come and conquer us. Then when we try to retake our own lands from the people who stole them, it is somehow illegitimate?

Nonsense.

The Muslims invaded the West while we were minding our own business.

The Crusades (Fourth Crusade excepted) were legitimate wars of justified self defense against Islamic aggression, and there was nothing exploitative about them.

Walter Hinteler wrote:

I wonder, why you named explicitly the 4th crusade - the 5th certainly would have been here better for your "ideology".

I was exempting the Fourth from my general praise of the Crusades.

The Fourth Crusade did not go fight the Muslims. Instead they went and killed the Byzantine Empire, paving the way for the Muslims to invade Europe from the east.

Maybe the Byzantine Empire died with the passing of Manuel Komnenos, and the Fourth Crusade merely looted the Empire's corpse before the Muslims could do the same.

But I can't help but wonder, if not for the Fourth Crusade, could the Byzantine Empire have rebounded and persevered?

The Crusades were a just war of self defense against Islamic aggression.

Well, except for the fourth one.

There were two triggers for the Crusades I believe. One was all the Muslims invading the Byzantine Empire, and the other was the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem.

The first event that ultimately triggered the Crusades was the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in 1009. This provoked widespread public outrage that fueled popular support for the Crusades.

Muslims then resumed attacking the Byzantine Empire starting with the Battle of Kapetron in 1048. This was followed by the First Battle of Manzikert in 1054, the Battle of Caesarea in 1067, and the Battle of Iconium in 1069.

After winning the Second Battle of Manzikert in 1071, Muslims flooded in and took over the heartland of the Byzantine Empire.

In 1095, the Byzantine Emperor appealed to the West for aid in driving those Muslims invaders out. This appeal provided the legal justification for the Crusades, and it directly kicked off the First Crusade.

Europe was indeed threatened with invasion. The fact that the Byzantine Empire stood between Europe and Islam only meant that they had to be invaded first. It was clear that as soon as the Byzantines fell, Europe was going to be next.

The excellent Vlad Dracula did manage to check the Islamic advance for awhile after the fall of the Byzantine Empire.

Mr. Dracula knew just what to do with Islamic invaders, and he did it well. But alas, his reign was all too short.

The Crusades were a response to the destruction of the Holy Sepulcher, which greatly inflamed public opinion, and a response to the invasion of the Byzantine Empire, which subsequently requested military help from Western governments.

The Muslims could not invade Europe at the time because the Byzantine Empire still stood in their way. And even after the fall of Byzantium, the excellent Vlad Dracula stood in their way as Prince of Wallachia.

but there is this:

Oralloy wrote:

Setanta wrote:

The last time you brought up this bullshit, those were an afterthought--you initially said that Europe was threatened with invasion; those two points you came up with when i contradicted that claim.

Europe was indeed threatened with invasion. The fact that the Byzantine Empire stood between Europe and Islam only meant that they had to be invaded first. It was clear that as soon as the Byzantines fell, Europe was going to be next.

Hoist on your own petard, Bubba.

Dunning-Kruger syndrome in spades here.

I've shown and documented your ignorance time and again.

Like all ignorant people, you confidence in your knowledge far exceeds your actual grasp of the subject under discussion.

I've shown you're wrong again and again.

You're just too ignorant to realize it.