@thatbrickster@shitposter.world “why is everybody being mean to us? :(“

@arcana@fedi.layer02.net @thatbrickster@shitposter.world ooh what a threat, that totally justifies centuries of conflict

@a@fedi.layer02.net @thatbrickster@shitposter.world I mean, quite a lot of people did get conquered, not unreasonable for them to want to fight back against that or to support their allies in the region I’m a big fan of Khalid Ibn al-Walid, and the conquests were certainly very impressive, with the Romans and Sassanians underperforming fairly substantially. It’s an ebb and a flow though, if you dish it out you have to be prepared to take it

@a@fedi.layer02.net @arcana@fedi.layer02.net @thatbrickster@shitposter.world

@pettanko@varishangout.net @a@fedi.layer02.net @arcana@fedi.layer02.net @thatbrickster@shitposter.world based pettanko

Take into account that there were almost 4 centuries between the Islamic conquests of the Holy Land and the Crusades. While I can see how Reconquista can be considered a continuation of a defensive war, I fail to see how French, English, and Germans attacking Seljuks or Fatimids is in any way a defensive war against the Rashidun caliphate (which no longer exists). And that is just the first crusades, I'd love to hear how the Rape of Constantinople or the Northern Crusades were defensive.CC: @a@fedi.layer02.net - https://fedi.layer02.net/users/a @thatbrickster@shitposter.world - https://shitposter.world/users/thatbrickster

@mischievoustomato@tsundere.love @a@fedi.layer02.net @arcana@fedi.layer02.net @thatbrickster@shitposter.world What else is there to say? There were a lot of crusades, to characterize them all as "purely defensive and justified" or "evil whitey oppressing the poor defenseless Muslims" is silly.

@eris@p.enes.lv @arcana@fedi.layer02.net @a@fedi.layer02.net @thatbrickster@shitposter.world The Seljuk victory at Manzikert and the Muslim encroachment into Anatolia happened less than 25 years before the First Crusade was called.