Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

4 Pages  1 2 3 > » Bottom

Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+

> MOE: Portuguese invading Melaka were Crusaders

views
     
aliesterfiend
post Jul 9 2015, 01:24 PM

Red Dragon
******
Senior Member
1,193 posts

Joined: Mar 2008


QUOTE(ohman @ Jul 9 2015, 01:08 PM)
user posted image

He said that the primary purpose for which the Portuguese came to Malacca was for spice trade.

*
It is true because once Constantinople fell to the Ottomans in 1453 who then jacked up the prices of spices to the Western Europe. At the same time, the reconquista (which is part of the crusade) is happening in Iberia and once the last muslim kingdom in Spain fell, the conquistadors then decided that the crusades should expand out of Europe with Spain to the west (the American) and Portugal to the East (India and later the Far East).

The Bull of Demarcation by Pope Alexander VI and later decrees gave the rights to Spain and Portugal to colonize, exploit, and convert all non-Christian territory to Catholicism so yes, the arrival of the Portugese was also part of the crusades since the Holy Land was considered lost forever and inaccessible to the western crusaders.
aliesterfiend
post Jul 9 2015, 01:29 PM

Red Dragon
******
Senior Member
1,193 posts

Joined: Mar 2008


QUOTE(ALeUNe @ Jul 9 2015, 01:22 PM)
Crusader went protected holy land.

Melaka ada holy land ke?
*
Crusades does not only involve the levant. The Teutonic crusades was directed at pagan Baltic states, while the Albigensian Crusade was conducted in France.

After the fall of the Ayyubid Egypt and the rise of the Mameluks which manage to defeat all existing Christian kingdoms in the Levant there's no more crusades sent to the Holy Land.

Melaka was part of the crusades against the Ottman Empire.
aliesterfiend
post Jul 9 2015, 01:30 PM

Red Dragon
******
Senior Member
1,193 posts

Joined: Mar 2008


QUOTE(crapp0 @ Jul 9 2015, 01:28 PM)
Whatever makes them sleep/victim complex better.
*
All wars were/are of economic reasons though some, like the Crusades and the Jihad were given religious flavor.
aliesterfiend
post Jul 9 2015, 01:39 PM

Red Dragon
******
Senior Member
1,193 posts

Joined: Mar 2008


QUOTE(hippihippo @ Jul 9 2015, 01:34 PM)
Portuguese invading were Crusade, then these invasions were?

user posted image
*
From Medinah to the west started from Arab-Byzantine (Roman) wars.

From Medinah to the east started from Arab-Sassanid (Persian) wars.
aliesterfiend
post Jul 9 2015, 01:41 PM

Red Dragon
******
Senior Member
1,193 posts

Joined: Mar 2008


QUOTE(ALeUNe @ Jul 9 2015, 01:38 PM)
Don't make things complicated.
It ain't helping.

I no understand what cock you sing.
*
You say Melaka is no Holy Land - true

You imply that crusades only involve holy land - false

I show you exmaples that crusades does not only involves wars in the Levant (another name of Holy Land).


aliesterfiend
post Jul 9 2015, 01:50 PM

Red Dragon
******
Senior Member
1,193 posts

Joined: Mar 2008


QUOTE(hotjake @ Jul 9 2015, 01:38 PM)
and the reference from that wiki itself quoted:
Mohd Fawzi bin Mohd Basri; Mohd Fo'ad bin Sakdan; Azami bin Man (2002). Kurikulum Bersepadu Sekolah Menengah Sejarah Tingkatan 1. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka. p. 95. ISBN 983-62-7410-3. biggrin.gif
*
Attached Image

From The Crusades and the Expansion of the Catholic Christendom by Professor John France.
aliesterfiend
post Jul 9 2015, 01:52 PM

Red Dragon
******
Senior Member
1,193 posts

Joined: Mar 2008


QUOTE(unknown warrior @ Jul 9 2015, 01:49 PM)
Partly true.

You don't have portuguese friend like I have.

I have one and he's a pastor too.

The portuguese came here on a conquest to expand their dominion but it also happened that they were already Christian and so thus together they did evangelize the gospel.

However the primary reason has always been about expansion of their kingdom.
*
I'm sure you'll have different opinion regarding the Arab and later Ottoman (Turkish) expansion of their dominion who happened to be muslims.
aliesterfiend
post Jul 9 2015, 02:00 PM

Red Dragon
******
Senior Member
1,193 posts

Joined: Mar 2008


QUOTE(ALeUNe @ Jul 9 2015, 01:43 PM)
Go check what is crusade and make it in one line.


Literally it means to take up the cross.

QUOTE(ALeUNe @ Jul 9 2015, 01:43 PM)
Who ruled Levant before Crusaders came?
*
The Fatimid Caliphate of Egypt rules the Levant though by the time the first crusaders arrived the area has been conquered by the Seljuks.
aliesterfiend
post Jul 9 2015, 02:10 PM

Red Dragon
******
Senior Member
1,193 posts

Joined: Mar 2008


QUOTE(unknown warrior @ Jul 9 2015, 01:52 PM)
Anyway I just want to make one thing clear.

The Crusade happened because of Moslem/Islamic conquest.

It started because of that. To take back Christian land at that time.

People nowadays ignorantly made it sound as if Christian started the Crusade just like that.
*
The crusades first stated because the western kings were fighting among themselves. Then the Eastern Roman emperor request from the western pope to help them defend Anatolia from the invading Seljuks. Gregory VII earlier calls were mostly unheeded because it was purely economic and just to help the Byzantines by the western kings and not until Urban II manage to convince them to go further than Anatolia manage to convince them that they'll get immunity, redemption whatsoever if they take up the cross.

That idea of retaking back the Christian land (which was already lost for 500 years) was just something that were made up at that time because Urban II actually intended to reunited back the Western and Eastern Churches.
aliesterfiend
post Jul 9 2015, 02:12 PM

Red Dragon
******
Senior Member
1,193 posts

Joined: Mar 2008


QUOTE(ALeUNe @ Jul 9 2015, 02:08 PM)
Did Fatimid open the door to Crusaders to pass through so that Crusaders could visit Holy Land?

There you have your answer.
Write long long cock singing for what?
*
Nope. It was the Byzantines, taking advantage of the civil wars among the muslims (between the Fatimid Arabs and Seljuk Turks) at that time.

So are you questioning or are you answering ?
aliesterfiend
post Jul 9 2015, 02:13 PM

Red Dragon
******
Senior Member
1,193 posts

Joined: Mar 2008


QUOTE(ALeUNe @ Jul 9 2015, 02:11 PM)
Many people no understand.

Solomon came first?
Or Sulaiman came first?
*
סולימאן came first.
aliesterfiend
post Jul 9 2015, 02:15 PM

Red Dragon
******
Senior Member
1,193 posts

Joined: Mar 2008


QUOTE(unknown warrior @ Jul 9 2015, 02:13 PM)
Of course Soloman la.

you can blame heckline for turning everything upside down, next in line would be this aliesterfiend.
*
So when you cannot reply to my post you resort to attack me personally ?

Is that a general Christian attitude ?

I have a lot of Christian friend and none of them acts like you so I don't think you are a good example of how a Christian should act.
aliesterfiend
post Jul 9 2015, 02:27 PM

Red Dragon
******
Senior Member
1,193 posts

Joined: Mar 2008


QUOTE(unknown warrior @ Jul 9 2015, 02:09 PM)
Primarily it is political, correct.

Christians today don't really approve the Crusade because it goes against the tenets of our Faith however we cannot judge them as well because in those days and time, the Era, the social political settings are different, the lands are practically lawless. They did what they had to do, else Christian land would fall under Moslem conquest.

If anything Moslems are the ones who started this first. The aggression.
*
If you're talking about retaking the Holy Land which was Christian before the Arab conquest please know that Christian Romans only ruled the are for 300 years while Muslim Arabs have ruled the area for 500 years and claiming it as muslim 'did it first' the Romans (though they were still worshipping Jupiter, Mars etc) took them from native Jews which then the Jews were not even allowed in the city.

It was after the Muslim conquest of Jerusalem in the 7th century when the Jews were invited back to Jerusalem.
aliesterfiend
post Jul 9 2015, 02:31 PM

Red Dragon
******
Senior Member
1,193 posts

Joined: Mar 2008


QUOTE(ALeUNe @ Jul 9 2015, 02:17 PM)
One thing for sure, Moses and Abraham would give you the face of WTF if you call them Musa and Ibrahim.
*
Moses and Abraham were English words, not Hebrew which Moses certainly spoke so they'll recognize Musa and Ibrahim more rather than Moses and Abraham since Hebrew/Aramaic is much closer to Arabic than English.
aliesterfiend
post Jul 9 2015, 02:35 PM

Red Dragon
******
Senior Member
1,193 posts

Joined: Mar 2008


QUOTE(madcrow @ Jul 9 2015, 02:34 PM)
Ah finally someone who reads
*
I got A2 in SPM for History. blush.gif
aliesterfiend
post Jul 9 2015, 02:37 PM

Red Dragon
******
Senior Member
1,193 posts

Joined: Mar 2008


QUOTE(unknown warrior @ Jul 9 2015, 02:34 PM)
Nice weed, heckline.
*
Read about Vespasian conquest of Jerusalem during the Jewish rebellion in 70AD.
aliesterfiend
post Jul 9 2015, 02:41 PM

Red Dragon
******
Senior Member
1,193 posts

Joined: Mar 2008


QUOTE(hammer2014 @ Jul 9 2015, 02:40 PM)
And therefore so?

No different when the armies of Islam invaded the balkans and stopped at the gates of Vienna. No different when you guys conquered spain.

Then you guys got your assess whooped by the christian and now sit down and argue over what? Semantics?

People moved on to send probes to Pluto and land on comets and here you are arguing over some events that happened like 500 years ago  rolleyes.gif

What's the point?
*
Did I say any difference ?
aliesterfiend
post Jul 9 2015, 02:42 PM

Red Dragon
******
Senior Member
1,193 posts

Joined: Mar 2008


QUOTE(HangPC2 @ Jul 9 2015, 02:39 PM)
Malaccan Mercenaries
Malay, Turk, Persian, Javanese...
user posted image
Malaccan Artillery
user posted image

user posted image
*
Google Nusantara Ttotal War (if you have not heard of it before).

You might be interested in it though sadly I think the project was abandoned ? sad.gif
aliesterfiend
post Jul 9 2015, 02:44 PM

Red Dragon
******
Senior Member
1,193 posts

Joined: Mar 2008


QUOTE(ALeUNe @ Jul 9 2015, 02:42 PM)
They wouldn't because the anak cucu of Moses and Abraham knew we use england to call them.
The history of Abraham and Moses was unaltered.
*
So now it change the the historical Moses/Musa and Abraham/Ibrahim to their anak cucu ?

Change the goal post suddenly ?

Ok you win.
aliesterfiend
post Jul 9 2015, 02:45 PM

Red Dragon
******
Senior Member
1,193 posts

Joined: Mar 2008


QUOTE(learn2earn8 @ Jul 9 2015, 02:43 PM)
fuyoh, madlock, cannon etc sapork by ottoman and ming tapi apasal kalah?
*
Conscript army vs professional (mercenary) army.



4 Pages  1 2 3 > » 
Bump Topic Add ReplyOptions New Topic
 

Change to:
| Lo-Fi Version
0.0314sec    0.73    7 queries    GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 19th December 2025 - 02:47 AM