Me:
Christians are being persecuted, again.
Them:
But what about 1204 A.D.?
Discussion
Also, it definitely is not happening, but it's a good thing because they deserve it.
The argument with crusades is very wrong. Imagine having your most precious treasure somewhere (you didn’t grab that treasure) and your brothers and sisters living in peace close to that treasure. Someone comes to grab the treasure and prosecute your brothers and sisters. If you, living prosperous life in other place don’t come to risk your life to defend your brothers and sisters then what a man are you? If the crusaders were for grab and robbery then why would they risk and leave their comfortable life? (I am not talking about few traitors who were poor and joined for profit but the noble men who left their families and wealth).
Those who always bring up the crusaders argument will never try to understand why a century before St Paul (together with others) abandoned his comfortable life and embarked on a risky one. What did he gain? I guess they think he was crazy like all other martyrs? 🤔
To sum up, very likely the crusaders story is something very much emphasized by the same propaganda we hear on other subjects today. I read some historians saying the damage of crusades were in fact nowhere near to what is believed.
Crusaders were only scums looking for looting and violence and maybe glory and the sack of Constantinople is a huge proof that you cannot overpass
You're getting confused again regarding different periods of time.
Maybe. What do you mean then? The territory had been occupied by christians (byzantines) many times and there was not the problem betwern people like with the crusssders and the crussaders sacked Constantinople during the fourth crussade. What am i confusing?
You are confusing the fact that the Byzantines had lost the Near East to the Muslims hundreds of years before the First Crusade, and they appealed to Pope Urban II for help, after also losing part of Asia minor to the Turks in 1071. The Muslims were descending upon Constantinople.
The Crusaders returned part of Anatolia and then went on to found Outremer (Edessa, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Tripoli), which stayed in Christian hands until Edessa fell to the Muslims (they were constantly under attack). The Second Crusade was an attempt to reconquer Edessa, but ended in Jerusalem falling to Saladin. On the positive side, Christendom regained Lissabon, Portugal, from the Moors in the West (that was the start of the Reconquista of the Iberian peninsula).
Third Crusade was hopeless.
During the Fourth Crusade, the Crusaders were on the way to Jerusalem and were asked to help the deposed Byzantine emperor and ended up in the middle of a Byzantine civil war.
It's a long complicated history, and the Byzantines don't necessarily come out looking good.
The later Crusades were attempts to stop the Ottoman Empire from conquering Europe from the south and east, but they all failed, until they we're finally stopped at the gates of Vienna, Austria, in 1683. After that, the Muslims were slowly pushed back to the Balkans and Turkey, and Hungary and Greece were Christian lands, again.
/648px-OttomanEmpireMain.png
Greece was one of the longest-running western vassal states of the Ottomans (and their allies, the Egyptians), only freeing themselves in 1821. Then they didn't have to pay the Christian tax and give their sons to the Muslims, to fight wars of conquest against other Christians, anymore.
But, I'm assuming you knew that.
Yes i know all of that.
Funny angle to see the crussades. I mentioned the fact tha Byzantines occupied that land because someone somewhere told that the land had not been occupied by christians except the crussaders. It was not only the crussaders, it was also the Byzantines. And there was not such hate between christians and muslims. Then the land had been occupied by shia arab muslims and christians could visit the land without problems. So far eastern christians and shia muslims were kind of ok. That changed with the sunni Turk muslims. And then with the first crussade, barbaric scums from western europe gathered for looting of the eastern richer lands. They caused looting problems in Hungary and balkan Byzantine territories, so the emperor sent them hastily to asia minor where they again looted especially christisns, torturing also some of them, not muslims usually. Their goal was to plunder. The same with all the crussades. Especially the fourth. They went to Constantinople just for the plunder. The proof of the plunder is still all around the West.
The funny thing about turkish presence in Greece, is that the emperor called them the first time they came, for help against his own peoole thst rebelled...
And this is how the crussaders are known in eastern lands by christians and muslims alike. As barbaric dirty western scums.
My ancestors were never dhimmis.
Interesting. Soon I am going to the East and will ask my Eastern friends about it.
People tend to work and say things in the interest of their group or personal benefit, but I will tell you my friend, that in the end only love matters and I have received a huuuge amount of love from both my Christan and Muslim brothers in the East❤️. Those that were killing for profit in medieval times (regardless of the side), or are killing now, are all wrong. Only a violence in order to defend the innocent is justified and thats what I wanted to say in my previous note:)
Have a nice trip to the east and stay safe.
Tell us the results of the "investigation on the field".
In fact tell us also about the views of the recent events