Personally, I think the victory of the Franks at Poiters is criminally understudied for the impact it had on the formation of Western Europe. Too much is devoted to the valiant defense of Constantinople, without realizing it all could've been lost centuries before.

Let's take about the crusades instead.

CHARLEMAGNE!!!!!!!!!

Lots of historic racism in here.

The Arab conquests of Spain and the Ottoman conquests of the Balkans--those are the only two major ones I can think of. Both of them had negative effects on Europe, especially the latter.

The crusades were purely reactionary. These offensives led to them. As well as a population boom in w. Europe

@Supermario - the Arabs almost took Constantinople hundreds of years before the Turks came into play

@goldfinger0303
Many different creeds and kinds besieged Constantinople, but none of them were successful. Constantinople was attacked hundreds of times. It was only in the 1450s that it was successfully captured, but that's only because the Germans helped the Ottomans break in. I like your name, by the way. Great movie!

"The crusades were purely reactionary."

The crusades were misguided opportunism given the ability to look reactionary. Big difference.

Can't have a Pope call a Holy War if there's nobody to war against. :P

@ghug
That's not true. The Crusades were a triggered response from Christians, who felt that their companions in the Middle East were being mistreated by Muslim invaders. Before the Muslims invaded Jerusalem, the Middle East had a fairly stable Christian community. When those communities became compromised by Muslim invaders, Christians from Europe banded together to re-liberate those communities.

Catholics fought a lot of Orthodox Christians in the crusades. It was propaganda and ethnocentrism. The Muslims weren't doing anything right either, but come on.

@ghugh
Correct! Somebody who finally pointed it out (other than myself, of course). The Catholic Church fought very grudgingly against the Orthodox Church. This is the main reason why the Ottomans were as successful as they were.

The fourth Crusade saw Constantinople attacked by Christian invaders, despite the fact that it was the Orthodox Christians of the Byzantine Empire who went to the pope asking for help against the Muslims.

Of course when that help arrived, it is of little surprise that the Crusaders created their own mini-states in the middle east, rather than handing them over to the Byzantine Emperor. Because as usual, religion was just used as an excuse to justify pilitical conquests.

Used by both sides.

As for the Moorish conquest of Spain, my understanding is that this was a greag time of enligthenment and peace for Spain, all peoples of the book (ie Jews and Christians) were welcome under Muslim rule, not like when the Christians re-conquered Spain and exiled bith the Jews and Muslims - the gains in knowledge fom having Christian monks who learned Latin and Muslim Scholars who knew arabic (and had Arabic tranlations of ancient greek texts) lead to a huge recovery of ancient greek knowledge which had been lost to western europe. So we do have a lot to thank the tolerant Islamic culture in Spain for.

http://www.blackhistorystudies.com/resources/resources/15-facts-on-the-moors-in-spain/

I agree with goldfinger about Poitiers. Had Charles Martel lost in 732 to the invading Muslims, all of Europe might have become Muslim (which would have made the siege of Vienna and Constantinople, nonevents). Also, Martel's grandson, Charlemagne wouldn't have ruled, so that's kinda big too.

Not sure any of this would've prevented the Bowling Green Massacre though. ;)

@orathaic
Now that I remember, the Eastern Empire (Byzantine Empire) requested help from the West, who, upon arriving at Constantinople, sacked the city, which weakened it tremendously. This only gave more incentive to the Ottomans to attack Constantinople. Afterwards, the Germans built large siege cannons for the Ottomans, which were used to destroy the defensive walls of the city. Pretty lame stuff, to be honest. But that's what it is. All of these factors contributed to the fall of the city.

@^ yup super mario.

The fall of on of the greatest cities. It outlast Rome by nearly 1,000 year, and was considered a 'second rome' leaving Moscow to later claim it was the 'Third Rome' - especially when it became the most prominent city where Eastern Orthodox Christianity was dominant.

Also, just looking at Spain. It was Visigothic Spain which was conquered.

The Germanic tribe which had held most of the penninsula for 300 years (since the Western Roman Empire fell) was held for 800 years by Arab rulers.

That is a lot longer than the Visigoths held the area... Eventually the various competing Kingdoms united into Spain and Portugal. Thiugh even today Spain has seperatists from its former regions... The Spainish and Portuguese went on to become two of the most expansionist and murderous empires known to modern history. South America, West Africa, and the Caribbean would never be the same again.

I think it was the Spice trade with Indonesia which made Portugal an effective super-power. Meanwhile it was Incan Silver which rocketted Spain into prominence, until Inflation inevitably kicked in and collapsed their economic system.

** the Visigoths conquered Iberia from the romans. Held it for 300 years, and were then in their turn conquered by the Arabs from Morrocco - who ruled for 800 years.

Meanwhile i know very little about the early Ottoman Empire, though there is a pretty good series about it on Extra History, and particularily Suliman the Great. Probably the greatest Emperor since Justinian, (until Napoleon)

See: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLhyKYa0YJ_5Be8gG49Sh7rsW_fFNcbGOE

"Personally, I think the victory of the Franks at Poiters is criminally understudied for the impact it had on the formation of Western Europe. Too much is devoted to the valiant defense of Constantinople, without realizing it all could've been lost centuries before."

Poitiers is widely studied by historians. What they have found, by the way, is that it was not an "invasion" it was the equivilant of a raid. Subsequently Europeans and the French in particular trumpeted it as Martel stopping a large scale moorish invasion of France, this is largely fanciful

What could have been...

https://youtu.be/0Pf6PMSB8uo

If not for some small raids, the Roman Empire could have collapsed before Constantine converted to Christianity... And who knows...

*Battle of yours

*tours

@orathaic
That is where we differ. I know a lot about the Ottomans, and for good reason, too. You seem to be pretty knowledgable about Spain, though. Good to know that we each have our own talents.