is they real tho

>>2059015
Yep. Completely true. Muslims have been trying to wipe white people out since jesus died

File: the Byzantines deserved this.jpg (244KB, 1162x850px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 1162x850px

>>2059015
the Muslim conquests were bigger but that isn't even close to all of the battles either directly including the Crusades or caused by them. This is one of those things that I don't get about /pol/, if they just had the real amount of Crusader battles it would still be WAY less than the Muslim battles. Even when they're right about something they make themselves look so retarded by neglecting facts.

Proof: Does Constantinople have a dot on it?

File: 1480829660135.jpg (151KB, 848x716px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 848x716px

>>2059036
your absolutely correct.

>But that file name

Why isn't it comparing Muslim conquest battles to Christian conquest battles rather than the crusades specifically?

>>2059044
Also how come it spans Muslim history from the death of Muhammad all the way to 1920 whilst it only goes from 1090 to 1260 in the lower half?

Is it because both this things might invalidate the very politically loaded point it wants to make?

>>2059055
I think the reason it only goes to 1260 is because there weren't any crusades in the middle east after 1260. I could be wrong

>>2059055
It pushes the narrative that Christianity is no longer a violent religion, where Islam is.

To me it's fucking garbage, people will kill no matter the philosophy.

>>2059085
I understand, but my point is comparing a period of 1288 yeas to a period of 170 years in a contest of who had the fewest battles is extremely dishonest. Obviously the shorter time period is going to have fewer battles.

>>2059036
probably not counting the ones fought against fellow Christians

File: 1481176367684.jpg (192KB, 1004x1004px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 1004x1004px

It's hard for me to respect PJ media, or PragerU, or whatever hellhole this came from.

>>2059152
Some dots on Poland and the Baltics as well. Although not technically crusades.

>>2059152
>the travel to the battlefield counts as a battle

>>2059177
it is when you are chopping people up while doing it

>>2059177
>implying those don't represent campaigns
My meme, my rules.

>>2059177
The lines on France and Iberia, at least, are full campaigns with killing ad stuff.

>>2059177

>Albigensian, Baltic, Reconquista, Fourth Crusade etc etc etc don't count as crusade battles for some reason

Really made me engage in the cranial exercises.

>>2059250
Not to mention of course that the Muslim map shows all Muslim battles ever, while the Christian shows only a few picked Crusades.
Were it actually trying to be faithful to reality then all of the Christian battles of every other time period would be shown.

>>2059256
>>2059152
>>2059055
>>2059036
I think the video is specifically attacking the argument of "well the Christians did the crusades! They're just as violent as muslims!" So they only show the Crusade battles because the statement being contested only states the crusade battles.

>>2059152
>PJ Media
>hellhole

You need to go back, libtard.

>>2059041
Byzantines on the right but who's n the left

>>2060252
Latin "Empire"

>>2059152
This. Also it's totally unclear which time periods are covered here but it seems like 1000 years on top and 150 on the bottom?

>>2060256
crusader states?

>>2060263
Use google or read a book man.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_Empire

File: 1474583760719.png (490KB, 808x960px) Image search: [Google]

490KB, 808x960px

>>2059015

>>2059015
This map is incorrect. Doesn't show reconquista

>>2059015
Not this meme again, I thought we debunked this ages ago?

Anyway comparing 'muslim conquest battle' to 'crusade battle' is absurd. A crusade has a fairly specific meaning (generally it has to be papal sanctioned) whereas 'muslim conquest battle' could mean anything. If we put 'christian conquest battle' the map would be littered with just as many, if not more (considering Christianity was more widespread) markers.

The map also fails to include the albigensian crusade and it conveniently cuts of the the Baltic and Russian regions, so we can't see the northern crusades. Many would consider the reconquista a crusade of sorts as well.

Basically it's a bullshit comparison that also misses shit out.

>>2060390
>appropriating /pol culture
das racist

No, it is including seemingly every single battle that involves Muslims, from Muhammad all the way too the Ottoman empire, and compares it too a few cherry picked crusades.

There probably not even accurate either, right away you can see that Constantinople doesn't have a cross in it. I swear /pol/ is as bad as the "we wuz kangz" blacks with the revisionist history.

>no glorious reconquista

>>2059148
That's still only like the 1st Crusade

>>2060421
>no glorious re-reconquiata