Between 1095 and 1271 the pope requested troops from britain and europe to the holy lands to defend the Latin church against Islamisation.

In 1095 Pope Urban II proclaimed the First Crusade at the Council of Clermont. He encouraged military support for the Byzantine Emperor Alexios I against the Seljuk Turks and an armed pilgrimage to Jerusalem. There was an enthusiastic response in western Europe across all social strata. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

They were in direct response to Islam's liberation of the Holy lands

The Crusades were a series of religious wars initiated, supported and sometimes directed by the Latin Church in the medieval period, especially the campaigns between 1096 and 1271 in the Eastern Mediterranean aimed at recovering the Holy Land from Islamic rule. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

The templar knights, who were christian warriors, got summoned

the Knights Templar or simply the Templars, were a Catholic military order founded in 1119 and recognised in 1139 by the papal bull Omne datum optimum.[4] The order was active until 1312 when it was perpetually suppressed by Pope Clement V by the bull Vox in excelso https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_Templar

They were the elite fighting unit

Templar knights, in their distinctive white mantles with a red cross, were among the most skilled fighting units of the Crusades. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_Templar

As were troops from Britain, and elsewhere

The only significant Christian success of the Second Crusade came to a combined force of 13,000 Flemish, Frisian, Norman, English, Scottish, and German crusaders in 1147. Travelling from England, by ship, to the Holy Land, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Crusade

at the request of

Pope Eugene III https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Crusade

and another involving English troops.

The Third Crusade (1189–1192) was an attempt by the leaders of the three most powerful states of Western Christianity (England, France and the Holy Roman Empire) to reconquer the Holy Land following the capture of Jerusalem by the Ayyubid sultan Saladin in 1187. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Crusade

But they could not prevent, Saladin from taking Jerusalem in 1187. He was that cocky, he offered to buy Jerusalem, in order to spare anymore bloodshed.

Saladin had captured almost every Crusader city. Saladin preferred to take Jerusalem without bloodshed and offered generous terms, but those inside refused to leave their holy city, vowing to destroy it in a fight to the death rather than see it handed over peacefully. Jerusalem capitulated to his forces on Friday, 2 October 1187 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saladin#C ... _Jerusalem

Next, Mehmed the conquerer came along a couple of hundred years later, after Islam had expanded in to Turkey, and he emerged victorious in yet another crusade battle

Mehmed the Conqueror (Turkish: Fatih Sultan Mehmet), was an Ottoman Sultan who ruled from August 1444 to September 1446, and then later from February 1451 to May 1481. In Mehmed II's first reign, he defeated the crusade led by John Hunyadi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehmed_the_Conqueror

Now, this is not something that gets highlighted in western high schools, and is rather controversial.
There is arguments against this claim, such as the claim only being recognised by the patriarchate of constantinople.

The claim was only recognized by the Patriarchate of Constantinople. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehmed_the_Conqueror

Or, contemporary scholar George of Trebizond, that supports his claim

The contemporary scholar George of Trebizond supported his claim https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehmed_th ... tantinople

And after doing what he did, he adopted the three children of the person he had just defeated, and left dead.

Emperor Constantine XI died without producing an heir, and had Constantinople not fallen to the Ottomans he likely would have been succeeded by the sons of his deceased elder brother. Those children were taken into the palace service of Mehmed after the fall of Constantinople. The oldest boy, renamed Has Murad, became a personal favorite of Mehmed and served as beylerbey of the Balkans. The younger son, renamed Mesih Pasha, became admiral of the Ottoman fleet and sanjak-bey of the Gallipoli. He eventually served twice as Grand Vizier under Mehmed's son, Bayezid II. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehmed_th ... tantinople

And what he did was, defeat the last ever Christian Roman Emperor, and leave him dead, and adopt the 3 heirs to the throne.



Mehmed the conqueror aged 21, invaded the Roman empires capital of Constantinople, toppled what remained of the Roman empire, and declared himself "Roman Emperor". The first Muslim Roman emperor ever.

At the age of 21, he conquered Constantinople (modern-day Istanbul) and brought an end to the Byzantine Empire. After the conquest Mehmed claimed the title "Caesar" of the Roman Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehmed_the_Conqueror

East and West don't exist.

Thommo wrote:

Nevets wrote:In 1066 the pope sent troops from britain

You dont think that British troops went to the holy land? Because they did.
Though i have corrected the date, from 1066, to 1095.

The Third Crusade (1189–1192) was an attempt by the leaders of the three most powerful states of Western Christianity (England, France and the Holy Roman Empire) to reconquer the Holy Land following the capture of Jerusalem by the Ayyubid sultan Saladin in 1187.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Crusade

Also during the second crusade, a joint force of Scotland and England enjoyed success

The only significant Christian success of the Second Crusade came to a combined force of 13,000 Flemish, Frisian, Norman, English, Scottish, and German crusaders in 1147. Travelling from England, by ship, to the Holy Land, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Crusade

The only success of the entire crusade

Thommo wrote:

Nevets wrote:In 1066 the pope sent troops from britain

I know... it doesn't even amount to fatuous yet it's meant to be for discussion. Not even not even wrong. A new level; and one consistently maintained.

Thommo wrote:

Nevets wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Nevets wrote:In 1066 the pope sent troops from britain

You dont think that British troops went to the holy land?

Why ask that? Your opening fraction of a sentence contains multiple grammatical and factual errors. You even identify at least one yourself.

Take the hint that I'm facepalming those, maybe?

Thanks for pointing out the errors.

The date's mostly irrelevant comparative to the concept of the Pope sending troops from Britain.

That's not how it works.

Here's yet another example of that specious bullshit you keep foisting off Nevets, and it's not winning you any friends.

Nevets wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Nevets wrote:In 1066 the pope sent troops from britain

You dont think that British troops went to the holy land? Because they did.

Where did Thommo suggest anything of the sort?

You made up a response for him - you keep strawmanning... actually, it's worse than strawmanning because a strawman is a weak rendition of an existing argument. You don't even bother strawmanning existing arguments, you just make up wholesale positions for other people even though they've made no suggestion whatsoever that is their position.

Pull that kind of crap enough, and you're going to find your stay here becomes ever less comfortable.

Spearthrower wrote:The date's mostly irrelevant comparative to the concept of the Pope sending troops from Britain.

That's not how it works.

That was not Thommos problem.

I made a slight error with the date, originally stating it was 1066, when my link stated it was 1095.

Britain sending troops to the Crusades is not in dispute.

Spearthrower wrote:Here's yet another example of that specious bullshit you keep foisting off Nevets, and it's not winning you any friends.

Nevets wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Nevets wrote:In 1066 the pope sent troops from britain

You dont think that British troops went to the holy land? Because they did.

Where did Thommo suggest anything of the sort?

You made up a response for him - you keep strawmanning... actually, it's worse than strawmanning because a strawman is a weak rendition of an existing argument. You don't even bother strawmanning existing arguments, you just make up wholesale positions for other people even though they've made no suggestion whatsoever that is their position.

Pull that kind of crap enough, and you're going to find your stay here becomes ever less comfortable.

That is a bit extreme.

I originally did not know what he was pertaining too, and i replied before i noticed what he was pertaining too.

It was a trivial thing regarding the date. 1095, not 1066.

But also very important, i am glad he pointed it out.

Do you have a major point to dispute?

Nevets wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:The date's mostly irrelevant comparative to the concept of the Pope sending troops from Britain.

That's not how it works.

That was not Thommos problem.

I made a slight error with the date, originally stating it was 1066, when my link stated it was 1095.

Britain sending troops to the Crusades is not in dispute.

You're replying to a post which quite clearly says 'the date's mostly irrelevant' and you're talking about the date.

Rather, it was your contention that the Pope sent troops from Britain which is so far removed from reality. What's 29 years in comparison to that? The Pope had no such power. The Pope had the power to call a Crusade and encourage Christian nobles to march their armies, perhaps with some stick and carrot in some cases, but that was all. The Pope had no power to send troops from Britain or anywhere else except from the Papal States and its vassals.

Now that you appear to have grasped that, let's clear up another problem here: Britain absolutely did not send troops to the Crusades - it is entirely disputable. Most prominent in that dispute would be the fact that 'Britain' is an island - a lump of rock sticking up out of the sea, not a state. At the time of the First Crusade, there was no polity called 'Britain'. You're actually talking about England which was ruled at the time by the third son of William the Conqueror.

So we're back once again at a consistent point of complete confusion, and all this arising from just a few words you wrote. You compounded that by projecting some rubbish view onto Thommo instead of asking him what he meant.

Nevets wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:Here's yet another example of that specious bullshit you keep foisting off Nevets, and it's not winning you any friends.

Nevets wrote:

Thommo wrote:

You dont think that British troops went to the holy land? Because they did.

Where did Thommo suggest anything of the sort?

You made up a response for him - you keep strawmanning... actually, it's worse than strawmanning because a strawman is a weak rendition of an existing argument. You don't even bother strawmanning existing arguments, you just make up wholesale positions for other people even though they've made no suggestion whatsoever that is their position.

Pull that kind of crap enough, and you're going to find your stay here becomes ever less comfortable.

That is a bit extreme.

No, I am deadly fucking serious - you've done it more than a dozen times to me alone, I've seen you do it to pretty much everyone else you've conversed with too, and you've only been here 5 minutes.

Making up positions for other people on a discussion forum is not going to work out well for you. You can take that as advice and change your behavior accordingly, or you can complain about me not being nice... either way, you'll be the one reaping the ramifications when people stop being quite so civil about it.

Nevets wrote:I originally did not know what he was pertaining too, and i replied before i noticed what he was pertaining too.

Right, so then you ASK him. You don't tell him what his position is when he's not said anything at all like you suggested.

Nevets wrote:It was a trivial thing regarding the date. 1095, not 1066.

But also very important, i am glad he pointed it out.

And you're doing it again.

Thommo said nothing at all about the date.

Either you're taking the piss or you need to stop and think for a bit. You cannot claim Thommo did X when there is literally no record whatsoever of him doing that.

Factually, all you can tell is that Thommo facepalmed at your sentence, then when you challenged it, he pointed out that the tiny fraction of that sentence he quoted contained - in his words - multiple grammatical and factual errors. So that's clearly what he was saying, and I am sure that the date was as comparatively minor for him as it was for me given the other mistakes made.

Nevets wrote:Do you have a major point to dispute?

Well, yes.

The Pope absolutely did not send British troops anywhere and had no such power.
There were no "British troops"

So essentially, the entire sentence was comprised of falsehoods.

In 1066 the pope sent troops from britain

How do you manage to make 3 factual errors in just 8 words?

Spearthrower wrote:

The Pope absolutely did not send British troops anywhere and had no such power.
There were no "British troops"

So essentially, the entire sentence was comprised of falsehoods.

Are you trolling?
I think everyone knows, even from primary school teachings, that Britain sent troops during the Crusades. I'v already provided all this information.

The only significant Christian success of the Second Crusade came to a combined force of 13,000 Flemish, Frisian, Norman, English, Scottish, and German crusaders in 1147. Travelling from England, by ship, to the Holy Land, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Crusade

And

The Third Crusade (1189–1192) was an attempt by the leaders of the three most powerful states of Western Christianity (England, France and the Holy Roman Empire) to reconquer the Holy Land following the capture of Jerusalem by the Ayyubid sultan Saladin in 1187. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Crusade

Now regards, the pope

n 1095 Pope Urban II proclaimed the First Crusade at the Council of Clermont. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

and

The Second Crusade was announced by Pope Eugene III, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Crusade

Do you require proof the pope was also an influence on the 3rd crusade?

Is it just that you deny, "he ordered them"?

Ok, well, at the very least, he begged them pretty please, and they obliged.

Nevets wrote:Are you trolling?
I think everyone knows, even from primary school teachings, that Britain sent troops during the Crusades. I'v already provided all this information.

Are you trying to be a cock?

Think carefully before responding.

Has the battle between east and west happened already

Nevets wrote:Between 1095 and 1271 the pope sent troops from britain

Your insistence on mischaracterizing what people write is going to net you ever more robust responses. I assure you.


And no, Britain did not send troops to the Crusades as I literally just explained to you. If that's what you took away from primary school, then I fear you may need to re-sit some of the classes.

Spearthrower wrote:

Nevets wrote:Are you trolling?
I think everyone knows, even from primary school teachings, that Britain sent troops during the Crusades. I'v already provided all this information.

Are you trying to be a cock?

Think carefully before responding.

Has the battle between east and west happened already

Nevets wrote:Between 1095 and 1271 the pope sent troops from britain

Your insistence on mischaracterizing what people write is going to net you ever more robust responses. I assure you.


And no, Britain did not send troops to the Crusades as I literally just explained to you. If that's what you took away from primary school, then I fear you may need to re-sit some of the classes.

Ok, have updated the OP to remove the Pope sending the troops, to instead requesting the troops, and have removed the troops being sent by Britain, and replaced it with just "troops from Britain".

But you have to remember, this is the Holy Roman Empire, and not the Roman empire.

There is a subtle difference.

And it involves the Papal.

But you are correct. We have no proof the Pope sent the British troops. Nor that they were sent by the King of England. That would be "belief". So we just assume they sent themselves.

Fair enough that you didn't know, but that's actually against the forum user agreement:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/old-a ... t-t76.html

Members of rationalskepticism.org agree to:

1.2. not...

k. edit your posts substantially if others have responded to them.

The point here not meaning to suggest you're hiding your earlier remark, but rather that someone reading this thread later will now be confused.

Nevets wrote:
But you have to remember, this is the Holy Roman Empire, and not the Roman empire.

I don't get what you're saying at all.

The Pope was not subject to the HRE, nor was the HRE subject to the Pope. Although both sides variously tried to pretend otherwise, the de facto situation was they were independent states. The Papal States were not part of the HRE.

Neither were part of the Roman Empire, it having collapsed long before... in fact, it was that collapse that eventually gave rise to both the HRE and the Papal states.

Nevets wrote:There is a subtle difference.

The difference between the HRE and the Roman Empire is not subtle, but glaringly obvious both in terms of its geographical boundaries (the HRE largely being Germany for most of its timeframe) and governance.

Nevets wrote:And it involves the Papal.

That sentence doesn't confer any meaning at all.

Nevets wrote:But you are correct. We have no proof the Pope sent the British troops. Nor that they were sent by the King of England. That would be "belief". So we just assume they sent themselves.

Again, the Pope can't send troops - not his authority except in then Papal lands and vassals (i.e. Urbino), and there were no "British" troops, that being an anachronism.

We can know about English troops sent by the King of England because we have records. Actually, it's not quite that simple as a Crusade meant that any landed nobility could, in theory, up and travel to join the Crusade irrespective of what their secular liege wanted, but in practice it meant they had to fund the training and equipping of of volunteer peasants... which some lords still did, typically with disastrous results.

We do know with certainty that the then King of England, Henry II, prepared to send a veritable army on the 3rd Crusade at the end of the 12th century (although he died a few months prior to departure so it was his son Richard who went) with a troop count of around 9000 English, Norman, and Welsh trained soldiers and potentially tens of thousands of non-combatants including sailors, engineers, and porters.

Has the battle between east and west happened already

Are you suggesting that there is some sort of definitive battle between east and west?
If so, what is the supposed implication of the outcome of that battle?