262
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2023
262 points (97.5% liked)
World News
36315 readers
1376 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
The crusades would like a word.
I mean there's a good 600-700 years of stuff that was happening from the end of the crusades to the late 1940s
You mean the time when the area was controlled by the Ottoman Empire, which enforced stability on it?
I do agree, if we put the whole area under a single Empire's influence again it would likely be a lot more stable.
I don't think any sort of one state solution that would exist between the two countries would classify as an empire, and "enforced stability" is a funny way to try to make people not killing each other sound bad. Also if you want to talk about enforced, that word seems perfectly applicable to Israel's relationship with Palestine now.
@Tavarin the Crusades originated in Europe though. It wasn't the locals infighting, more like warmongering tourists.
True, but it was due to religious hegemony in the region.
@Tavarin I don't think it really was. That's what the Pope wanted people to think at the time, but historians have other explanations.
The early Crusaders attacked other Christians as well as Jewish settlements and Muslims.
During the crusades the region was controlled by the Abbasid Caliphate, and ruled as a Muslim land. The only reason the Christians, Jew, and Muslims "got along" there was due to being under the rule of a single and powerful empire. It wasn't like the Middle East of the time was separate kingdoms who got along, it was controlled by empires for almost all of its history.
@Tavarin sure. I'm not disputing that. I'm just saying the crusades weren't their fault.