I see this image mocked often. How about you add a few dots to

>>1464442
parts of northern and eastern europe.
Pretty much every colonial venture.

>muh dots
Might as well circlejerk about who printed the most stamps.

>>1464446
Those don't count since they aren't on my map.

>>1464442

Cause you should clarify the hell of that pic BEFORE we start adding more.

>>1464458
well then.
add the 4th crusade sacking constantinople then
>inb4 they wuz excommunicated

>>1464442
it would be good if it added christian conquests aswell, the islamic equivalent of a crusade is a jihad, not a conquest.

>>1464474
>promise to pay denbts
>don't pay denbts
>w-why are you taking what I owe you by force?

>>1464484
All conquest of Muslims against the Christians are Jihad though

>>1464484
It wasn't even jihad, it was just arab imperialism. Jihad came later, its much more modern.

File: rico.jpg (542KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

542KB, 1920x1080px

>>1464488
>blind 90 year old jew sitting at the front of the biggest ever ship with his sword out screaming his lungs as the fleet moves to the city

Most serene.

Video related https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_To-cV94Bo

>>1464442
>with of course some clarification of why you think the should exist

So do more work than the original creator?

>>1464503
Well to be fair the debt wasn't paid so it's necessary

>>1464518
>do more work than the original creator
If you can travel back in time and change history, then it's possible.

File: 1457896582594.jpg (249KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 1280x720px

>>1464442
>conquest battles v small fraction of conquest battles (crusades)
>not conquest battles v conquest battles

seems legit.

>>1464442
Can you first provide "of course some clarification" on why you think all those dots on the top map exist? Just want to make sure I'm not shadowboxing here.

>>1464529
What

>>1464532
Of course, here is a list of the battles that these dots mark.

http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/charts/Islam-BattlesDate.pdf

>>1464442
You know that the reconquest of Spain was considered as a Crusade right?

Also the defeat of most of the muslim fleets by the Spanish HRE .

>>1464550
Seeing how the Yugoslavic civil war is marked as a muslim conquest, I suppose we should include the Reconquista. Mark it, with my blessing. Place those dots.

>>1464561
They aren't.

>>1464561
Also the reconquest of Sicily too.

>>1464537

>http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/charts/Islam-BattlesDate.pdf

The list if full of "Spain", "Corsica", "Spain War", "Sicily", "Sardinia, "Byzantine Coast"

>>1464581
And the map is full of dots in these places. What confuses you?

>>1464587

Why use dots if your evidence is such a vague term?

>>1464592
You have a year, a place, and a source.
From there you can find more information about the battle.

>>1464597

With info such as that the domain that hosts that info is on sale.
And that after checking a battle that I already know.

Thats forgetting the inconsistency. We have a battle which is referred as "Spain" and ends with her conquest, then we have a bunch of battles which must be part of such Conquest.

The sources surely need a clean-up:
>http://www.muslimwiki.com/mw/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=Ain+Jalut&go=Go
>http://www.nethelper.com/article/List_of_wars_in_the_Islamic_world

>>1464474

I'm not OP and I'm not even Christian or Muslim so I don't have a personal bias but IMO it seems clear the image is about the Christian nations vs. the Islamic nation(s) in the sense that it is meant to help you decide whether the crusades were justified or not by Islamic expansion with the obvious implication being that some sort of response was justified by Muslims invading and conquering huge swathes of Christian areas before the Christians ever took large-scale military action against them.

The dots in Persia could be removed for that same reason but even if it were its still clear that Islamic-expansion apologists are mega-Dindus.

Where's the sack of Zadar (in croatia) on the Crusade side?

>>1464442
>conquests of all forms done by people following certain faith vs conquests of very specific and rare form done by people following one branch of a certain faith

Christian conquest battles would be literally all over the map

>>1464638
No they FUCKING WOULDN'T.

Go prep your bull cuck

>>1464643
Well okay, France, Switzerland and northern Italy would be blank. Other than that, name me one place on that map where wasn't a Christian conquest.

>>1464442
If you're just listing crusades then you're missing a bunch in Spain, southern France, Egypt and Turkey.

But if you're going to list Muslim conquests then you should really be listing Christian conquests at the same time.

>>1464643
Fuck off this board faggot you're an obvious troll.

>>1464643
yes they would.
There was a strong religious motivation for the colonial expansion of european powers.

>>1464442
The """""reconquest""""" of Spain, French colonial ventures in North Africa, Spanish colonial ventures in Morocco, the piracy of the Knights of St John on Malta and Rhodes.

>>1464696
French and British colonial ventures in Syria, Iraq and Egypt too.

>>1464696
Berber piracy are worse

>>1464652
How far should the Christian conquest go back?

Should we count Melvin Bridge?

>>1464712
>Imposing value judgements on the past

Wow, get a lookie at this here PLEB.

>>1464714
>melvin bridge
>not milvian bridge

If we're counting battles from the dawn of Islam we should be counting battles from the dawn of Christianity.

>>1464714
In this case Christian conquest only count if it's inflicted on Muslim and Muslim only count if it's inflicted on Christian. It's obvious who conquered more, as seen in OP's pic and the source video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_To-cV94Bo

>>1464727
See >>1464732

>>1464727
Yeah sorry, autocorrect's a beach.

>>1464732
A stupid and reductionist view, which hides the fact that Muslim society was far, far more tolerant and peaceful towards Christians and Jews then Christian societies were of Muslims, Jews and Pagans.

>>1464732
The image only shows the author's bias, but even if it were correct and complete, it would only show who was better at war at the time, and not have any moral implications nor dictate present day political claims and immigration policies, as you want it to and as the video's author clearly seeks.

>>1464732
And if fact the whole concept of a "Muslim" conquest is deeply problematic, an "Arab conquest" would be far more accurate.

It fails to list battles and sieges that occurred during the inter-crusade periods. The majority of Christian conquests and battles occurred between the First Crusade and Second Crusade, when they sieged various cities and fortresses throughout Syria and Palestine. The map also fails to show Christian battles/sieges in the Baltic, Iberia, southern France and Constantinople. You could argue that conflict in Iberia isn't included because they were reconquests, but you cannot leave out the Baltic, Wendish, and Albigensian Crusade battles/sieges/massacres.

>>1464732
If that's the case, why does the map include battles between Muslims and non-Christians?

>>1464769
""""""""""""""""Reconquest""""""""""""""""

>>1464782
Well Iberia is originally Christian so you could say that it's a reconquest

>>1464788
Technically it was originally pagan.

Christianity is as much a foreign religion as Islam. The only difference is time.

>>1464788
If you want to justify a naked land grab by Castile, sure.

>>1464788
Not really.

Iberia had a lot of Christians living in it. But then it didn't.

File: howsmyvette.png (16KB, 165x175px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 165x175px

>>1464442
>Literally every Arab/Turkish battle described as an Islamic war of expansion.

>The crusades billed as the only Christian religious wars.

FUN FACT: the deadliest religious war in history was the Taiping Rebellion, fought by extremist Christians against Qing China. More people died in that war than WWI.

>>1464793
>>1464796
Christianity peacefully spread into Iberia. Muslims conquered it. Christians then reconquered it in Reconquista, Is that hard to grasp?

>>1464800
>Iberia had a lot of Christians living in it. But then it didn't.
But then everything changed when Umayyad attacked

>>1464802
There were no forced conversions during the Islamic conquest of Hispania.

There were forced conversions during the reconquest.

Which one was more peaceful?

>>1464805
There's no explicit force conversions, but then you would get heavy taxes and less privilege, so you'll still be forced to convert.

>>1464811
Better than being told "convert or die".

>>1464442
>I see this image mocked often.

Because it's bullshit.

For instance I know Sardinian history and all we know is that there were some raids from around 700 AD to 1016 AD, the only certain battles took place in Calaris, and maybe Olibia and Sulky, all those other dots are random guess and their number is greatly exaggerated.

The same thing could be said about Corsica, about which we know even less.

>>1464802
>Christianity peacefully spread into Iberia.

No, it didn't.

>Muslims conquered it.

Actually, in many cases they were invited in, as they were far better administrators than the various Visigothic rulers. Additionally, they allowed Christians within their land to continue practising their faith peacefully, so the necessity of a conquest is highly dubious.

>Christians then reconquered it

An entirely different group of Christians from those who were there prior to conquest, and who still lived in Arab controlled lands, who then committed brutal genocide and forced conversion of any and all remaining Muslims and Jews, culminating in the 20th century with a brutal, autocratic regime.

>>1464488
>failed pretender promises a bunch of illogical shit to crusaders to help him get on the throne
>gets overthrown quickly like the faggot he is
>somehow the rest of the Buzantines owe shit to the crusaders
Leave and take your stale memes with you, heathen.

>>1464815
The difference is just one is subtle, the other one is straightforward.
>>1464817
Hmm, what would actually be the outcome if Reconquista didn't succeed? Muslim New World? Genuinely curious.

>>1464820
If Angelos didn't just meddle with crusading business then 1204 wouldn't happen. But alas, he did and ERE went into a downward spiral of decline. Byzantines fucked themselves.

>>1464822
Decadence, infighting and art probably.

Although imperial conquest was only a matter of time, being that close to such a militant faith and power hungry kings.

>>1464822
>Hmm, what would actually be the outcome if Reconquista didn't succeed
Poor land of Iberia.
Marocco in Europe. Later colonized by Italy and France.

>>1464817
>>1464802
Both of you have nice sources.

>>1464835
Is that really the best you can manage?

>>1464835
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Catholic_Church_in_Spain

>>1464886
>>1464886
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Catholic_Church_in_Spain

>By 689 Arabs conquest Melilla, and by 709 the already then Visigothic Spanish city of Ceuta was taken.
>By 711 Islam dominated all the north of Africa. The process of islamization of the Berber tribes had already begun, though most of the population was still Christian, Jew or polytheist. A raiding party recruited mostly amongst these newly subjugated, still non-Muslim Berbers and led by convert Tariq ibn-Ziyad was sent to plunder the south of the Visigothic Kingdom of Spain, which faced strong internal tensions and was at the verge of a civil war between the Chindasvintan, Witizan and nobiliary parties. Crossing the Strait of Gibraltar, it won a decisive victory in the summer of 711 when the Visigothic king Roderic was betrayed by the Witizan wings of his army and killed on July 19 at the Battle of Guadalete. Roderic´s body was never found and lots of rumors about his fate arose, which led to a paralysis on the Visigothic command. Tariq's commander, Musa bin Nusair quickly crossed with substantial Muslim reinforcements from the Caliphal garrison of North Africa, and by 718 the Muslims dominated most of the peninsula. The advance into Europe was stopped by the Franks under Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours in 732.

>>1464886
>>1464907
>The rulers of Al-Andalus were granted the rank of Emir by the Umayyad Caliph Al-Walid I in Damascus. After the Umayyads were overthrown by the Abbasids, some of their remaining leaders escaped to Spain under the leadership of Abd-ar-rahman I who challenged the Abbasids by declaring Córdoba an independent emirate. Al-Andalus was rife with internal conflict between the Arab Umayyad rulers, the north-African Berbers who had formed the bulk of the invasion force, and the Visigoth-Roman Christian population that was majoritary for almost the next four centuries.

In the 10th century Abd-ar-rahman III declared the Caliphate of Córdoba, effectively breaking all ties with the Egyptian and Syrian caliphs. The Caliphate was mostly concerned with maintaining its power base in North Africa, but these possessions eventually dwindled to the Ceuta province. Meanwhile, a slow but steady migration of Christian subjects to the northern kingdoms was slowly increasing the power of the northern kingdoms.

Al-Andalus coincided with La Convivencia, an era of religious tolerance (as far as Christians and Jews peacefully accept submission to Muslims, as well as being reduced to the condition of tax-paying serfs) and with the Golden age of Jewish culture in the Iberian Peninsula (912, the rule of Abd-ar-Rahman III - 1066, Granada massacre).[2]

Medieval Spain was the scene of almost constant warfare between Muslims and Christians. The Almohads, who had taken control of the Almoravids' Maghribi and Andalusian territories by 1147, far surpassed the Almoravides in fundamentalist outlook, and they treated the dhimmis harshly. Faced with the choice of death, conversion, or emigration, many Jews and Christians left.[3]

Does not sound so peaceful for me. But this is wikipedia. But from my personal experiences Muslims will make your money tax super big and make a blood tax.

>WW1
40 million deaths
>WW2
80 million deaths


Assuming Europe only takes 50% of the death count for WWII and 90%. Assuming the Christians are only 90% of the population of the time.

That's still 72 million deaths caused by Christians in WW1 and WW2 alone.

>>1464930
Are you retarded? Those wars are not motivated by religion at all. In both WW no one is shouting "DEUS VULT!" or any Christian equivalent of "ALLAHU AKBAR!". On the other hand those Muslim conquest are driven by their zeal and motivated by 72 virgins upon death. It's a win-win situation for them, if they succeed then more Muslim land, if they don't then there's still 72 virgins you can enjoy in afterlife.

>>1464442
The wording is really messed up. A crusade is something fairly specific, whereas something as generic as 'muslim conquest' could mean anything. I'm pretty sure it also cuts out battles during the crusades, and the map has conveniently left out the baltic region, which means it cuts out the northern crusades. Oh and it doesn't show the massacre of the cathars in france.

>>1464992
A massacre is hardly a battle

>>1464995
The Batak massacre in Bulgaria is listed there as a jihad muslim conquest.
It was an Ottoman army killing Ottoman christians in their Ottoman village.

>>1464995
It was explicity a crusade, and the source of that image is about a man talking about religious violence. It's just splitting hairs and missing the point to say it's not a battle so it doesn't count.

>>1464947
>le 72 virgins meme
epic, simply epic

>>1464930
The only European religious conflict is probably the Yugoslav Wars, before that you have to go all the way to the 30 years war to find something.

>>1464947
>ottoman imperialism is about 72 virgins
>fucking kosovo separatism is about 72 virgins

did you see the list of battles?
there are battles fought by secular mustafa kemal turkey in there, the guy loathed islam

File: charlemange_teaches_saxons_the_religion_of_peace.jpg (74KB, 564x752px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 564x752px

>>1464442
> Every conquest by Muslims was religiously motivated
> Crusaders were the only conquests by Christians in history

>>1464442
reconquista

>>1464442
>>1464446
People complain that bumfuck Latvian wars and other shit not involving Islam aren't on there
When the picture is clearly only dealing with Islam v Christianity
You could add dots were Muslims attacked non-Christians as well but again that would be beside the point

>>1465163
When muslims fought christians, christians also fought muslims. It goes two ways.
How do you decide who gets the point?

>>1464536

I think he's asking us to include all Christian forays into the Muslim world, such as the WW1 and WW2 battles.

>>1464442
What about the Reconquista? It wasn't a crusade, but it still was a conquest battle. This map is comparing apples to oranges

>>1465183
Depending on who the aggressor was

>>1464550
>>1464579
Does taking back your own country still count though?

>>1465163
>the picture is clearly only dealing with Islam v Christianity
Then why are there red dots in Saudi Arabia?

>>1465072
>puking monk
Nice touch

>>1465072
The christianization of Europe was mostly done through missionary work, unlike the islamization of north africa and the middle east which was done through conquest.

>>1465674
>The christianization of Europe was mostly done through missionary work
Except for Saxons, Balts and whatever pagan resistance newly converted rulers in Germany, Poland and Russia had to crush. Then again, by 15th century there were no pagans left in Europe, and soon after Reconquista Jew and Muslim were forcedly converted or expelled from Spain. After that Christianity managed to destroy native religions of Latin America in a 100 years.
>islamization of north africa and the middle east which was done through conquest.
Now you just don't know that are you tanking about. Islam don't practice forced conversions (although there were some rare instances of overzealous rulers), conversion to Islam was generally volunteer and gradual. There are still big native Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian and even proto-christian Gnostic communities left in the Middle East, 1400 years after supposed "conversion by conquest".

>>1465674
The Christianization of Europe was done through suppression of lesser pagan tribes and their shrines and rituals by diplomatically establishing a political alliance with powerful landholders, while the Islamization of the Middle East was done through political alliance with lesser pagan and Christian and Jewish tribes by personally establishing family alliances with the rural countryside.

People get hung up on the prefix, but the fact is that Muslim states in Spain were well established by even the start of the reconquista. Then there's Cueta and other colonial territories in Morocco. The new world should be included, religion was the primary justification for capture of territory and the enslavement of the natives. Also leaving out European crusades against pagans but including Islamic battles against them stinks of agenda pushing.

>>1464745
>Accuses others of reductionism
>"Muslim Culture"

The image on OP is full of shit, but so are you. There was not a unified "Muslim Culture". As one example, there were something like three Muslim dynasties in Spain, with wildly divergent views on how to treat infidels. The famous "Jewish Golden Age" in Spain came screeching to a halt when a new dynasty took over and started to institute oppressive laws.

>>1464442
Daily reminder that one of those muslim dots is a Roman christian/pagan battle

top kek

>>1466457
Fair enough, but speaking generally I'm right.

>>1464581
>>http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/charts/Islam-BattlesDate.pdf
Having looked up the source, at least for the first few pages, it relies on McCormick's Origins of the European Economy which has a sort of survey timeline of events. Most of the ones involved in the chart/graph are themselves sourced from a 1985 PhD dissertation by M.A. Ageil titled "Naval Policy and the Rise of the Fleet of Ifriqiyyah from the First to the Third Centuries A.H."

As others have extensively pointed out, most of these events are recorded as raids, not actual battles of conquest.

>>1464811
Taxes under Muslim rule were generally lower than under previous rulers. Even if you weren't Muslim. Taxes for Muslims were just lower than that.

>>1467150
Furthermore, Ageil's abstract to his paper (I wish I could find it, seems interesting) basically says how the Arabs built a fleet first to defend against the Byzantine fleet, and that conquest in the Western Mediterranean wasn't even a goal until the Aghlabids in the 9th century, making almost all of citations of 'Muslim Conquest Battles' for places like Corsica, Sardinia, and Sicily before the year 800 misleading.

>>1465674
Islam took a thousand years to become a majority in the middle East.

>>1464442

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MC0S60Gp5rM

>>1465674
>The christianization of Europe was mostly done through missionary work
It was done by the sword in many parts of Europe, and most definitely in the Americas.

>>1464442
Only triggered libtards object to the map. They've been indoctrinated to heavily to be able to accept the obvious truth.

>>1464442
Well it compares all the battles involving the people of one religion through all time against some specific campaigns in a specific area in a specific time.

If anyone looks at that image and takes it seriously they are beyond retarded.

>>1465674
Lel. Any time a Christian state conquered a pagan state they would impose Christianity and kill those who refused to convert.

>>1469041
>>1469050
Mixed signals.

>>1469050
>Well it compares all the battles involving the people of one religion through all time against some specific campaigns in a specific area in a specific time.
That's false, most of those dots are just made up.

See:

>>1464816

>>1464581
>>1464597
It is not a valid source, we have NO RECORDED BATTLES in Sardinia except for a few near Calaris, and another near Sulky, the others are just random guesses or raids, like the one in Tharros.

>>1469060
Yeah probably, I can't imagine that many battles in Spain, unless they're including the defensive battles of the Muslims during the Reconquista as Muslim conquest battles which they probably are.

There's so much insane bias and lies about Islam which makes no sense, you don't need to lie or make shit up for Islam to look bad.

>>1469077
Well Spain was conquered for hundreds of years.

Sardinia was just raided, there were only a few proper ones, like the one against Mujahid, and I am fairly certain there were none in the interior lands, while in OP's pictures there are just random dots all over the island, they should be only over the coasts.

>>1469099

Cause they just put dots.
There were muslims in Spain for centures? Then the whole country should be full of dots.

Big islands? A bunch of dots will fit!

File: jihad.jpg (46KB, 1020x111px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 1020x111px

>>1464537
American president Jefferson declaring war on Morocco to kill pirates is listed as Jihad.

>>1464801
That weren't Christians, their leader was fucking nuts

>WE MUST DEFEND BYZANTIUM FROM THE MUSLIMS
*Sacks Byzantium*

>>1469220
One way to defend it is to oust the perceived to be incompetent command and replace them with perceived to be competent commanders.
It was mostly good intentions. Maybe.

File: good night crusader.jpg (94KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 960x720px

>>1469224
Thats such a weak justification. Just admit they were fucking cunts.

>>1465674
>unlike the islamization of north africa and the middle east which was done through conquest.
Not really. Sure they conquered the areas but they didn't impose islam on the populace.

>>1465562
>Does taking back your own country still count though?
The people who conquered The boot & Sicily were Norman invaders who had papal sanction. It's a bit of a joke to call their venture a crusade, but it did have papal blessing.

t. John Julius Norwich fanboy

>>1465674
>missionaries convince some king to convert
>he threatens his subjects with death to convert

>>1469220
>>1469232
Just pay your debts next time, hmm?

>>1464442
I'm not going through the process of adding the dots, but the crusades should be replaced with Christian conquest battles in general. Since every battle Muslims fought against non Muslims for the entirety of their history is on that map. Christian conquest battles might for example include the Spanish conquest of America(notably Aztecs and Incas). French and British conquest of the Americas. The expansion of Portuguese Brazil, the westward expansion of the us at the cost of the natives. The Portuguese, French, Dutch and most importantly British conquest of India, the Dutch conquest of Indonesia, the scramble for Africa, the opium wars, the list goes on and on.

>>1469785
Most of those conquests had nothing to do with Christianity

>>1469790
Most of the Ottoman conquests have nothing to do with Islam.
There are even Berber pirate raids marked there.

>>1469790
Most of the Muslim conquests were done for the same reason as the Christian conquests, imperialism.

>>1464507
Nice video. Share it to all kebabs.

>>1464442
Where's the Spanish reconquista?

>>1464442
All Imperialistic conquest of Muslims compared to a narrow amount of Christian religiously motivated battles.( How religiously motivated they were are also debatable, soldiers might have been religiously motivated but who knows what the second son leaders wanted).

That's not to say Christians or Muslims were better and it is wrong in itself to apply modern day standards to expansionist views of old rulers but this image is pretty much a nitpick. Also I doubt there weren't that many battles in Spain and South Italy.

>>1470979
Spain

>>1464643
>Charlemagne wuz a good boi he dindu nuffin need more clay fo dat church da Saxons is idolators anyway

>>1465674
>CHARLGE MAGNE

>>1470438
That video is wrong for the same reasons the map is wrong.
How is it a "nice video"? Its ahistorical, and even anti-historical.

>>1465562
>taking back your own country
Al-Andalus had been muslim clay for like 500 years at that point.

>>1464446
>colonialism = crusades

when will this meme end

>>1473589
And? The Christians got there first.

>>1473898
Lmao, m8. Can you even imagine what world politics would look like if everyone started using the "was there first argument"? I'm not even mad that christians took spain from arabs, but please don't pretend they had some moral high ground to invade an established state.

File: oy vey.png (37KB, 2000x1455px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 2000x1455px

>>1473958
>Can you even imagine what world politics would look like if everyone started using the "was there first argument
Haha, yeah

>>1469729
Enrico Memendolo please go.

>>1464947
Stop arguing on his terms. Besides you're obviously ignorant. The sultan in Istanbul proclaimed Jihad.

>>1464503
>shitting on MY NIGGA enrico dandolo

IM BOUT TO POP A CAP IN A NIGGA ASS

>>1473958
They didn't just decide to invade it one day

There was frontier that existed for the entire time the Muslims were in the peninsula which started being pushed back the other way when the tides slowly turned

>>1473898
Pagans got there first, and christians burned them at stakes and crucified them.
Christianity is a new development in human history, dummy. The "we wuz there first" logic doesn't work.

>>1473882
>its a meme
>all the papal approval and stated mission to christianize the new world is a meme.

>>1473882
>its the arab man's burden to spread islam to the infidels
HOLY WAR, IT SHOULD BE PUNISHED!
>its the white man's burden to spread christianity to the savages
ENLIGHTENMENT, THE COLONIES SHOULD BE THANKFUL!

>>1464561

Those battles were conquests by Turks. Funny how Serbia did the least fighting eh?

>>1477040
The table form of this map is linked in the thread, two of the dots are from the Serbian-Albanian conflict in Kosovo.
These battles are marked as Jihad. NATO bombing Belgrade is marked as Jihad too.