- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: What if the European peoples had banded together to destroy the early Islamic caliphates?
Posted on 5/19/25 at 1:05 am to cbree88
Posted on 5/19/25 at 1:05 am to cbree88
Some other ideology would’ve taken hold and you’d be wondering what would’ve happened if the European peoples would’ve stopped them too.
This post was edited on 5/19/25 at 1:43 am
0
Posted on 5/19/25 at 1:09 am to cbree88
You’re responding to a liberal. The Crusades is one kf the only two historical events liberals know of (Holocaust being the other).
Posted on 5/19/25 at 1:12 am to Volvagia
quote:
And riddled with hindsight.
Yeah no shite. That’s the entire premise of the hypothetical.
Posted on 5/19/25 at 1:29 am to cbree88
While you need not agree with everything Mr Evers said, "you can kill a man but you can't kill an idea" is a truism, and long term it usually comes back stronger.
Posted on 5/19/25 at 3:35 am to cbree88
There'd be a whole lot more dogs in this world...
And Leftist women voters...
And knock out Persian women doing Porn...
And Leftist women voters...
And knock out Persian women doing Porn...
This post was edited on 5/19/25 at 3:49 am
Posted on 5/19/25 at 5:25 am to cbree88
quote:
I feel like so many areas of the world would be so much better off. The Middle East, Africa, and South Asia would all be more advanced because they wouldn’t have had an Islamic chokehold on them for the past 1300 years.They wouldn’t have been so stifled as far as education, learning, civil rights, democratic principles, etc. are concerned.
Prior to the crusades, the Islamic world was more advanced than Europe in all of the areas you listed outside maybe democratic principles.
quote:
Also, there wouldn’t have been so much conflict with neighboring peoples, and those countries economies would have thrived.
The only time there was ever “Peace” in the Middle East was when it was under complete domination by the Ottoman Empire. Additionally, the war we see in the Middle East right now is largely because of what the British and French did after WWI.
quote:
If only Europe’s peoples could have united and stamped that fire out before it became uncontrollable.
Can you give me a single instance where continental Europe + England has ever been united?
Posted on 5/19/25 at 5:38 am to Kafka
quote:
what if they did that now?
quote:
what if they did that now?
it's never to late
Posted on 5/19/25 at 6:13 am to cbree88
Sorry man. 214 is in. You’re out.
Posted on 5/19/25 at 6:23 am to Jim Rockford
It’s never truly accurate to make complete generalizations, but outside of the reconquista and the rightful anger felt at the large scale slave trade in Christian whites taking place from Islamic Africa via piracy and raiding, the crusades were as much about the taking of land and wealth as they were stopping the expansion of the islamic states.
If you were a second or third son who couldn’t inherit lands you could go and become a rich knight or baron.
If you were a king who wanted something from the pope you could go on pilgrimage or send a force on your behalf.
If you were a holy order like the Templars or the Teutonic knights you could amass incredible wealth and lands while claiming it was all for God.
Basically in a Christian Europe where upward mobility was next to impossible it was the only path for improving your lot in life if you weren’t born a wealthy noble.
All of that isn’t to say it wasn’t largely justified outside of the campaigns against Lithuania in the north and rich Christian Byzantium in the late crusades because the various Islamic entities had absolutely provoked things via expansion and slavery.
But the provocation isn’t the reason most Christians went to the crusades: it was always about either atonement so they could enter heaven or more often just seeking a better life and lands in a world in which the nobles and church controlled everything and you were likely going to die a serf within 100 yards of where you were born if you didn’t.
If you were a second or third son who couldn’t inherit lands you could go and become a rich knight or baron.
If you were a king who wanted something from the pope you could go on pilgrimage or send a force on your behalf.
If you were a holy order like the Templars or the Teutonic knights you could amass incredible wealth and lands while claiming it was all for God.
Basically in a Christian Europe where upward mobility was next to impossible it was the only path for improving your lot in life if you weren’t born a wealthy noble.
All of that isn’t to say it wasn’t largely justified outside of the campaigns against Lithuania in the north and rich Christian Byzantium in the late crusades because the various Islamic entities had absolutely provoked things via expansion and slavery.
But the provocation isn’t the reason most Christians went to the crusades: it was always about either atonement so they could enter heaven or more often just seeking a better life and lands in a world in which the nobles and church controlled everything and you were likely going to die a serf within 100 yards of where you were born if you didn’t.
This post was edited on 5/19/25 at 6:26 am
Posted on 5/19/25 at 7:05 am to Volvagia
Maybe. But if anyone here would bother to open up a history book you would understand why this happened.
You have to go back to around 600. There was serious political turmoil in the Byzantine Empire due to Phocas usurping the throne and Persians essentially overrun the Levant as well as Egypt. Additionally the Empire was threatened in the Balkans by the Avars. Enter the Emperor Heraclius. He shows up kills Phocas and then essentially buys off the Avars. Then he takes a break for a year and plans his war against the Persians. (Read up on Heraclius, he is largely forgotten but his military exploits were quite remakeable) Long story short he sets about invading the Persian Empire and plundering Mesopotamia. He whips the Persians, but the campaign takes years and he gets back the Levant and Egypt.
Fast forward to about 633 and the war is over, Herclius has reunited the Eastern Christian world and even has the Pope in Rome singing his praises. But then the Muslim Arabs start to stir up trouble on the frontier. By the time of Yarmouk in 636, the Romans are depleted and there is a resurgence of Justinian's Plague. The Romans are barely able to put 30K men on the field against the Arabs....still the battle was largely a stalemate for most of it, then the Romans make some fatal mistakes as the battle drags on and as such the Arabs begin a route of the Romans and overrun the Holy Land and Syria and a little later Egypt. The West was too weak....and too sick(literally) to mount an effective response.....and Heraclius was now too old to effectively lead the Byzantines in battle.
The Romans(Byzantines) were weakend for another 100+ years. So much so that Arab Muslim armies were at Constantinople in 730? and besting the city....until they unleashed "Greek Fire" ( early napalm) on them.
Crusades don't start for another 300 years until the emergence of the Seljuk Turks....then it's mostly Western European types....French and German and English raising armies and ships to get the crusaders there. First crusade was quite effective. Crusaders take the coastal cities and capture Jerusalem. Meanwhile the Byzantines were kicking their wounds after the Battle Of Manzikert where the Emeperor had been taken captive by Alp Arslan . Turks start making gains into Asia Minor.
It's not as simple as a lack of resolve or disunity. Alot of external forces pressing the Byzantines all at about the same time along with continued turmoil in the West stemming from Hunnic invasion. Germanic tribes moving in, etc. Western Europe needed Charlemagne in 800 to get its act together and even that is short lived.
You have to go back to around 600. There was serious political turmoil in the Byzantine Empire due to Phocas usurping the throne and Persians essentially overrun the Levant as well as Egypt. Additionally the Empire was threatened in the Balkans by the Avars. Enter the Emperor Heraclius. He shows up kills Phocas and then essentially buys off the Avars. Then he takes a break for a year and plans his war against the Persians. (Read up on Heraclius, he is largely forgotten but his military exploits were quite remakeable) Long story short he sets about invading the Persian Empire and plundering Mesopotamia. He whips the Persians, but the campaign takes years and he gets back the Levant and Egypt.
Fast forward to about 633 and the war is over, Herclius has reunited the Eastern Christian world and even has the Pope in Rome singing his praises. But then the Muslim Arabs start to stir up trouble on the frontier. By the time of Yarmouk in 636, the Romans are depleted and there is a resurgence of Justinian's Plague. The Romans are barely able to put 30K men on the field against the Arabs....still the battle was largely a stalemate for most of it, then the Romans make some fatal mistakes as the battle drags on and as such the Arabs begin a route of the Romans and overrun the Holy Land and Syria and a little later Egypt. The West was too weak....and too sick(literally) to mount an effective response.....and Heraclius was now too old to effectively lead the Byzantines in battle.
The Romans(Byzantines) were weakend for another 100+ years. So much so that Arab Muslim armies were at Constantinople in 730? and besting the city....until they unleashed "Greek Fire" ( early napalm) on them.
Crusades don't start for another 300 years until the emergence of the Seljuk Turks....then it's mostly Western European types....French and German and English raising armies and ships to get the crusaders there. First crusade was quite effective. Crusaders take the coastal cities and capture Jerusalem. Meanwhile the Byzantines were kicking their wounds after the Battle Of Manzikert where the Emeperor had been taken captive by Alp Arslan . Turks start making gains into Asia Minor.
It's not as simple as a lack of resolve or disunity. Alot of external forces pressing the Byzantines all at about the same time along with continued turmoil in the West stemming from Hunnic invasion. Germanic tribes moving in, etc. Western Europe needed Charlemagne in 800 to get its act together and even that is short lived.
This post was edited on 5/19/25 at 7:08 am
Posted on 5/19/25 at 7:06 am to Rockbrc
quote:
Crusades
Catholics always do all the heavy lifting while branch off religions watch.
Posted on 5/19/25 at 7:11 am to biglego
quote:
You’re responding to a liberal. The Crusades is one kf the only two historical events liberals know of (Holocaust being the other).
It takes an impressive level of retardation to accuse someone of only knowing two historical events when their post specifically includes a historical event not in your list of two. Well done
Posted on 5/19/25 at 7:12 am to cbree88
Part of reason Columbus voyaged west looking for a quicker way to eastern Asia is because Islam destroyed the trade from East to West. Without the rise of Islam Europeans may not have made it to the new world for quite awhile longer.
Posted on 5/19/25 at 7:24 am to Rockbrc
quote:
Crusades?
There was one successful crusade that took back Jerusalem and many others that failed. That should tell you how likely success was.
Posted on 5/19/25 at 7:26 am to cbree88
The real problem was the Byzantines and Parthians wore each other out in endless war.
Posted on 5/19/25 at 7:31 am to Oilfieldbiology
quote:
Can you give me a single instance where continental Europe + England has ever been united?
Again, this is the hypothetical. It’s not a could this have happened. It’s a what if this happened.
Posted on 5/19/25 at 7:35 am to Joshjrn
My bad, you’re a liberal who’s also heard of the Spanish reconquista. You are a scholar.
Posted on 5/19/25 at 7:37 am to LB84
No. Spain endorsed the idea because Portugal was controlling the trade routes to India and the Indies around Africa and the Ottomans were bumping up the tax on trade. Contrary to popular opinion. The Ottomans did not want to cut off trade routes, they were getting rich off the take. The French and the Germans at the time had good relations with Mehmet and his immediate successors up until about 1520 or so. Also, the overland route was costly....and even shipping to say, Egypt then to Alexandria, then to the Med was costly. Not to say there was not animosity between the Turks and the Europeans, but in 1490 it's not bad. Mehmet and latter his son, Murad knew they did not have a Navy at the time that could take on the Venetians who controlled the Western Med. Lepanto is not until 1571. By that time what does Spain or for that matter Portugal care about foolishness in the Med.....even so they lent ships to the fight and their ships could kick arse at the time.
Posted on 5/19/25 at 7:38 am to biglego
quote:
My bad, you’re a liberal who’s also heard of the Spanish reconquista. You are a scholar.
Does it hurt to be this stupid?
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News