Well she strongly implied that the muslim arab invaders were simply just "retaking" jerusalem from the Christians and not conquering it.Can we get a definition of "denounces"?
"retaking"
What's the difference?conquering
they retook Jerusalem because they already took it before the crusades, at least that's how I understood it, you're being pretty pedanticWell she strongly implied that the muslim arab invaders were simply just "retaking" jerusalem from the Christians and not conquering it.
One of the reason why the crusades happened in the first place is because they where retaking the lost christian lands back from muslims.they retook Jerusalem because they already took it before the crusades, at least that's how I understood it, you're being pretty pedantic
we're talking past each other, I never disputed that, I just said it doesn't seem like she's denouncing the crusades because she said "retook" as opposed to "reconquered"One of the reason why the crusades happened in the first place is because they where retaking the lost christian lands back from muslims.
the crusades was absolutely justified.
Were they? Then answer the following questions, if the crusades were only defensive and definitely not done with any material motivations, then why did the crusaders:One of the reason why the crusades happened in the first place is because they where retaking the lost christian lands back from muslims.
the crusades was absolutely justified.
>That means European Christians were ruling for almost 7 generations
They did it to secure Thrace and neutralizing Bulgaria was necessary to stabilize their rule against potential threats from multiple fronts. If they looked weak it would’ve invited attacks.3. Moreover, why did the Latin Empire immediately attack Christian Bulgaria after its establishment?