Fair enough. I guess I should say that the group calling for the “reclamation” of the Middle East for Christianity was not the indigenous people. The Romans were a colonial power in the Middle East, so saying that a Roman Pope could call for a reclamation is like Great Britain trying to reclaim India.
While I may have gone too far in saying Christianity has not taken root in the Middle East, I stand by my central thesis that the Crusades were wars of aggression.
The Romans were a colonial power in the Middle East, so saying that a Roman Pope could call for a reclamation is like Great Britain trying to reclaim India.
I mean, if we’re going that route, the Turco-Persian Muslims occupying the Levant at the time were a colonial power there too, and the Levant only came under Muslim control in the first place because it was quite literally conquered by non-native inland Arab tribes from a Byzantine-Christian majority in the 7th century.
While I may have gone too far in saying Christianity has not taken you in the Middle East, I stand by my central thesis that the Crusades were wars of aggression.
Fair enough. I guess I should say that the group calling for the “reclamation” of the Middle East for Christianity was not the indigenous people. The Romans were a colonial power in the Middle East, so saying that a Roman Pope could call for a reclamation is like Great Britain trying to reclaim India.
While I may have gone too far in saying Christianity has not taken root in the Middle East, I stand by my central thesis that the Crusades were wars of aggression.
I mean, if we’re going that route, the Turco-Persian Muslims occupying the Levant at the time were a colonial power there too, and the Levant only came under Muslim control in the first place because it was quite literally conquered by non-native inland Arab tribes from a Byzantine-Christian majority in the 7th century.
Agreed there.
History is mostly a great play of conquering powers deciding who gets to tax the starving masses.