Muslims and Muslim countries feel confident and have the means to wage war.
Our ancestors knew this truth but we moderns like to forget it or we have been educated out of reality.
Have a look at some of the crucial battles of the past:
crusading search for land and the end of Christianity, after the conquest of Syria, Egypt, and North Africa, began to invade Western Europe under the leadership of Abd-er Rahman, governor of Spain. Abd-er Rahman led an infantry of 60,000 to 400,000 soldiers across the Western Pyrenees and toward the Loire River, but they were met just outside the city of Tours by Charles Martel, known as the Hammer, and the Frankish Army.…
hink Lepanto, Gates of Vienna, Tours, the re-conquest in Spain, etc.
Western Civilisation was defended and nurtured in very practical ways by the Christian people of the West, acting as Christians. It is a history we need to appreciate and reclaim.…
To me, I believe this is a perfect example of the importance of Faith. Ramiro the first was faced with an invincible enemy - his troops were exhausted and demoralized. The night before the inevitable battle he had a dream of Santiago or Saint James - who in life was one of our Lords first followers - he and his brother were known as the sons of thunder because of their tempers - it was his temper that they say had him killed in 44AD. They say the dream had Saint James ride to the aid of the outnumbered soldiers on a white horse. That vision and their faith carried the tide of this battle.
I used to believe that this legend was some bunk thought up by the church to sell souvenirs but since I have found out that the rise of Islam was prophesied in the bible and we have seen their true evil - I am not now so quick to dismiss this legend. If any one was going to come back from the dead to defend us against the evil of Islam it would be Saint James - the son of thunder.
ials celebrated this year. One is arguably one of the major turning points of the entire History of mankind, as it ended persecution against the Church and lay the foundation of the Christian Era - the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, which we will remember and celebrate in October.
But 800 years ago another major battle was about to take place in Andalusia. There was nothing inevitable about the Reconquista, on which so much of the History of the world as we know it would depend, due to the disproportionate influence that the quest for evangelization and discoveries would grant to the poor depopulated kingdoms of what was then largely known as "the Spains" (the Iberian Peninsula).
In the decades prior to 1212, the Reconquest had come to a halt. The Almohads, battle by battle, advanced to the greatest extent of Muslim domination in the Peninsula in centuries. In 1211, the Caliph himself crossed the Straits of Gibraltar with tens of thousands of his soldiers. 1212 would be the year that would decide if the Spains would ever be completely Christian once again.
Earlier in 1212, the King of Castille had sent an embassy to Pope Innocent III asking for a special Bull granting the privileges of Crusade to those warriors from all over Christendom who would go to Spain to aid a struggle that was common to all - a request granted by the Pope. In fact, in the Eternal City itself, the Wednesday following the Sunday of the Most Holy Trinity in 1212 was dedicated to public penance, prayers and processions led by the Pontiff himself for the success of Christian troops in Spain.
The armies of Christian kingdoms in the Spains (Castille, Portugal, Navarre, Aragon), as well as volunteers from Leon and from all Christendom, particularly France, met the Almohad forces on Monday, July 16, 1212, in sweltering fields and hills of the Sierra Morena not far from Jaén: it would be the Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa, won by Christian forces.
Muslim forces in Spain would be in permanent retreat, soon limited to the Emirate of Granada, itself finally conquered in the fateful year of 1492, well after the first Iberian seafarers had left the European mainland with a crusading spirit that would conquer half the world and take the faith of the Church of Rome to previously unknown or unreachable lands and peoples.
Note: The Province of Jaén (Andalusia, Spain) has dedicated a website to the celebration of the 800th anniversary of this pivotal battle (in Spanish).
reathing space of 154 years before the next siege and great battle against the warriors of Allah.
The Siege of Vienna in 1529 was the first attempt by the Ottoman Empire, led by Suleiman the Magnificent, to capture the city of Vienna, Austria. The siege signalled the pinnacle of the Ottoman Empire's power, the maximum extent of Ottoman expansion in central Europe, and was the result of a long-lasting rivalry with Europe. Thereafter, 150 years of bitter military tension and reciprocal attacks ensued, culminating in the Battle of Vienna in 1683, which marked the start of the Great Turkish War by European powers to remove the Ottoman presence.
The Ottoman failure to capture Vienna in 1529 turned the tide against almost a century of unchecked conquest throughout eastern and central Europe, which had previously directly annexed Central Hungary and established a vassal state in Transylvania in the wake of the Battle of Mohács. According toToynbee, "The failure of the first [siege of Vienna] brought to a standstill the tide of Ottoman conquest which had been flooding up the Danube Valley for a century past."
There is speculation by some historians that Suleiman's main objective in 1529 was in actuality to assert Ottoman control over the whole of Hungary, the western part of which (known as Royal Hungary) was under Habsburg control. The decision to attack Vienna after such a long interval in Suleiman's European campaign is viewed as an opportunistic manoeuvre after his decisive victory in Hungary. Other scholars theorize that the suppression of Hungary simply marked the prologue to a later, premeditated invasion of Europe.
Raymond Ibrahim writes: 12 September; I was recently featured in a short CBN documentary on the Siege of Vienna—a pivotal moment in history, when the invading and seemingly invincible Muslim hordes of the Ottoman Empire were finally stopped at the gates of Vienna.
Join Gordon Robertson as he travels to Vienna, Austria, to explore the history of the Siege of Vienna.
Transcript of the video. Please watch the video to correct any errors in the transcript.
Reporter: in the spring of 1529, an army of 75,000 men headed for the heart of the holy roman empire, the city of see yen vienna. if you were likely to take vienna others would fall.
Now the army marched undefeated to the west to claim it in the name of islam. an austrian leader described the muslims march of terror through europe. many thousands of people murdered or dragged into slavery. children cut out of mother's wombs and stuck on pikes. young women abused to death and corpses left on the highway. atrocities will blow your mind, putting children on pikes is one thing. often time they would take christians they like and forced them to be muslims, if not they would be tortured, gouging their eyes and thrown into fire. anything your mind can envision.
Charles the 5th dismissed the danger in vienna as a courtesy, he sent a few german and spanish troops to protect the city, just 1700 soldiers to fight an army of 75,000.
In late september the turks arrived to set up camp here outside the city. they realized their greatest enemy was the weather not the european army. that autumn was unusually cold and rainy. it are rained so heavily some of the horses and camels swept away by water.
Men climbed up trees and spent two days and nights. rain soaked the gun powder making it useless and they were forced to leave most of the heavy cannons behind. a decision they would letter forget. Ottoman troops surrounded the city, the Sultan issued an ultimatum:
IF YOU BECOME MUSLIMS, NOTHING WILL HAPPEN. IF YOU OFFER RESISTANCE, THEN BY ALLAH, YOUR CITY WILL BE REDUCED TO ASHES AND YOUNG AND OLD SLAUGHTERED.
That was the traditional invitation preceding the warfare, join us and become Muslims and renounce you are Christian or we are going to start attacking you.
In less than two weeks THE SULTAN SAID THAT HE WOULD CELEBRATE HIS VICTORY WITH BREAKFAST INSIDE VIENNA'S LARGEST CHURCH, ST. STEPHEN'S CATHEDRAL, AFTER HE TURNED IT INTO A MOSQUE.
Abandoned by the rest of europe they realized no more help was coming and they were the only thing standing between europe and armies of islam. inside st. stephens, european soldiers gathered to plan and pray. they took an oath of loyalty.
NOBLE AND COMMON COMPANIONS SWORE TO REMAIN IN THE CITY AS LONG AS THERE WAS STILL LIFE IN THEIR BODIES AND DIE ALONGSIDE ONE ANOTHER FOR THE CHRISTIAN FAITH.
After a few days, sueman gave the order to attack, twice the Ottomans advanced to vienna and twice the austrians turned them back. with no heavy artillery, the turks had to find a different way into the city. they started a whole new war under the ground. hundreds of turks toured under the city. europeans came up with a creative way to find the bombs, they placed barrels of water in the sellers and watched the vibrations in the water so to see where they were tunnelling. they found most of the mines before they exploded.
There was no question the europeans was outnumbered. they waged a psychological war from inside the cathedral. most powerful weapon was disinformation. they led the turks to believe they had reinforcements on the way. throughout the day and night, they shouted and blew trumpets to confuse turks. according to the saltan's diary, they believed he was behind the city walls with an army of thousands. st. michaels day arrived with a heavy rainstorm. this is the day -- in reality, the turks were no closer to capturing the city.
AS THE RAIN POURED DOWN ON THE OTTOMANS TENTS, THE AUSTRIANS SENT A MESSAGE TO THE SULTAN FROM INSIDE THE CATHEDRAL, "YOUR BREAKFAST IS GETTING COLD."
The soldiers were tired, sick and running out of food. their commanders had to beat them with sticks just to keep them on the battlefield. Ottoman decided to launch one attack, this time using the saltans elite troops, the janaseries. they were no match for the fierce german pikeman.
They decided he was going to leave. janaseries decided to leave. this was a new blow to them. hey, we can actually be stopped. it was humiliated. next morning, making the turkish retreat even more difficult. in less than a month, a small group of farmers, peasant and soldiers defeated the most powerful army in the world, they single handedly stopped the march of islam through europe. the onslaught of islamic tushish empire stopped. it was an example they can be beaten. now they know these wild people can be stopped and we can do it and god is on our side. that became a pivotal part of the narrative.
The bells of st. stephens rang in celebration and the church which served as military headquarters became a house of worship once more as the people of vienna gathered to thank god for their victory. a special hymn written for the occasion based on a verse for the psalms, unless the lord guards the city, the watchman stays away in vain.
enied. Syria and Iraq fall in 636. Palestine is next in 638. And Byzantine Egypt and North Africa, not even Arab lands, are conquered by 642 and 709, respectively. Then, just two years later, the Muslims cross the Strait of Gibraltar and enter Iberia (now Spain and Portugal). The invasion of Europe has begun.
And the new continent seems no impediment to Islam. After vanquishing much of Visigothic Iberia by 718, the Muslims cross the Pyrenees Mountains into Gaul (now France) and move northward. Now it is 732, and they are approaching Tours, a mere 126 miles from Paris. The Western world -- what's left of Christendom -- could very well be on its way to extinction.
Europe is currently easy prey, comprising disunited, often belligerent kingdoms and duchies recently decimated by plague. In contrast, the Islamic world is a burgeoning civilization; so much so, in fact, that it views the Europeans as barbarians. The Muslims also command enormous battle-hardened military forces and have enjoyed almost unparalleled breadth and rapidity of conquest, while Europe no longer has standing armies. It largely relies on peasants to do its fighting, men available only when crops aren't beckoning. Yet the Christian Europeans do have one great asset: Charles of Herstal, grandfather of Charlemagne.
Sensing the coming storm as early as 721, Charles realized he was going to need a professional, well-oiled fighting force if he was to tackle the Moorish wave washing across Christendom. So, using Catholic Church resources, he set out to train just such an army. And now, 11 years later, it will be put to the ultimate test.
With a horde of 80,000 men, the Muslims once again start moving north in 732 under the leadership of Emir Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi. And after defeating Odo the Great and sacking his Duchy of Aquitaine, there is nothing standing between Al Ghafiqi and Paris -- except Charles of Herstal and his Frankish and Burgundian army. The two leaders would lock horns in October, on a battlefield between the towns of Tours and Poitier.
When the fateful day arrives, Al Ghafiqi is shocked by what lies before him. The "barbarians" have mustered a force the size of which he isn't used to seeing in these European backwaters. He nonetheless enjoys a great advantage, outnumbering the Christians by perhaps as much as two to one and possessing heavy cavalry, while his adversaries are limited to infantry. The outcome should still be favorable.
But Charles routs the Muslim forces, stopping their advance into Europe cold. He will eventually chase them back across the Pyrenees Mountains, saving Gaul -- and perhaps all of Western civilization -- from the sword of Islam. His miraculous 732 victory becomes known as the Battle of Tours (or Poitier), and it wins him the moniker "Martellus." Thus do we now know him as Charles Martel, which translates into Charles the Hammer.
Yet the Abode of Islam would not stop hammering Christendom. It is now 1095, and the Muslims are threatening Europe from the east. After seizing most of the Byzantine Empire's territory 400 years prior, they have now, just recently, subdued Anatolia (most of modern Turkey), thus robbing the Byzantines of the majority of their remaining land. The Muslims are now poised to move west into Greece itself or perhaps north into the Balkans -- Europe's "back door." And Byzantine emperor Alexius I in Constantinople knows that his realm is too weak to resist. What is he to do?
Alexius decides to approach the Church. Although he and current pope Urban II have been rivals, the pontiff recognizes Islamic expansion to be a clear and present danger. So he decides to address the matter at the Council of Clermont in 1095. In a rousing sermon in front of more than 650 clerics and Christian nobles, he appeals to Europeans to stop bickering amongst themselves and rally to the aid of their eastern brothers. What follows is an excerpt of his words as recorded by the Fulcher of Chartres:
Your brethren who live in the east are in urgent need of your help, and you must hasten to give them the aid which has often been promised them. For, as the most of you have heard, the Turks and Arabs have attacked them and have conquered the territory of Romania [the Greek empire] as far west as the shore of the Mediterranean and the Hellespont, which is called the Arm of St. George. They have occupied more and more of the lands of those Christians, and have overcome them in seven battles. They have killed and captured many, and have destroyed the churches and devastated the empire. If you permit them to continue thus for awhile with impunity, the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked by them. On this account I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ's heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians....
And thus was born the 11th-century Hammer writ large: the Crusades.
Like Martel's campaigns before them, the Crusades were defensive actions designed to stave off Muslim aggression. Oh, this isn't what you learned in college, I know. It's not what we hear from the media. It isn't what's portrayed by Hollywood. But it is the truth. And it was explained well by Thomas Madden, Chair of the History Department at Saint Louis University. In "The Real History of the Crusades" he wrote:
The Crusades are generally portrayed as a series of holy wars against Islam led by power-mad popes and fought by religious fanatics. They are supposed to have been the epitome of self-righteousness and intolerance, a black stain on the history of the Catholic Church in particular and Western civilization in general. A breed of proto-imperialists, the Crusaders introduced Western aggression to the peaceful Middle East and then deformed the enlightened Muslim culture, leaving it in ruins.
... [But] Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them. While Muslims can be peaceful, Islam was born in war and grew the same way. From the time of Mohammed, the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword. Muslim thought divides the world into two spheres, the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War.... In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece.
... [The Crusades] were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense.
And that is why I defend them today. No, they weren't perfectly executed, nor could they achieve all their objectives any more than the Cold War truly vanquished the left. Evil is always afoot. But note that the Mideast and North Africa had more Christians than Europe at the time of the early Muslim invasions -- but no one to Crusade for them. Thus, it's easy to imagine that, were it not for our hammering medieval heroes, we could well be what the Mideast is today. And unless we shelve multiculturalism and become what those crusaders were yesterday, we may not have a tomorrow.
Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com
can derive historical insight from medieval poems; an exception to this tendency can be found in the Castilian martial epic Poema del mio Cid, which displays a surprising fidelity to the documented facts of its hero’s life. Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar, known to history by his Arabic moniker al-Sayyid (“the lord” or “El Cid”), was an extraordinary eleventh-century warrior who served both Islamic and Christian lords towards the end of a peculiarly chaotic period in Iberian history, and died in 1099.
The famous vernacular poem that tells his story was written about a century after his death, and therefore presents us with more than one layer of historical insight: on the one hand, it is imbued with early thirteenth-century martial values, crusading ideals which, although alien to Rodrigo’s own period, dominated the culture of the Spanish Christian nobility in the most crucial phase of the Reconquista, which culminated in the great victory at Las Navas de Tolosa in 1212. On the other hand, however, the poem also lauds its protagonist for displaying a particular set of virtues throughout his colorful and violent career; these virtues, although somewhat more opaque to a modern audience than the anti-Moorish crusading sentiment, constitute the real reason why the historic figure of Rodrigo Diaz was considered suitable material for enshrinement as a medieval literary hero. The virtues in question are those governing lordship and vassalage, which the literary Rodrigo displays perfectly; unlike the anachronistic crusading spirit of the poem, these qualities would have been just as much at home in the eleventh century as in the thirteenth.
The Iberian peninsula in the age of Rodrigo Diaz (1043-1099) was a world of small and relatively weak kingdoms, both Islamic and Christian, in which violent conflicts between coreligionists were just as common as wars pitting Christian and Muslim rulers against one another; in such an environment, interfaith alliances between embattled warlords were normal rather than exceptional. This unique period in Iberian history was inaugurated by the collapse of the once-mighty Umayyad caliphate of Cordoba in 1031. The Umayyad family, driven from their caliphal throne in Damascus by the Abbasid revolution of 750, had taken refuge in Spain, uniting the vast majority of the peninsula under their sway until eleventh-century civil conflict tore their caliphate to pieces. The Christian kings of the north, although nominally independent, had been accustomed to pay tribute to the government in Cordoba; after 1031, however, the tables were turned, as the mighty and monolithic Umayyad state was replaced by a gaggle of squabbling emirates known to history as taifas.
In the era of the taifa kingdoms, the Christian monarchs of the north made a modicum of headway, raiding, conquering, and exacting tribute from their southern neighbors. As one can imagine, however, the richness of the spoils also created conflicts among the resurgent Iberian Christians; these conflicts, in turn, presented opportunities for crafty Islamic emirs to play different factions off of one another. Rodrigo Diaz flourished in this chaotic world due in no small part to his raw martial prowess; as an infanzon, or petty nobleman, he served the king of Castile, Sancho II, until Sancho’s untimely and suspicious death in 1072. This event added Castile to the possessions of Sancho’s ambitious brother and nemesis, Alfonso VI king of Leon; needless to say, Alfonso’s relationship with his late brother’s chief warrior and battlefield champion was awkward in the best of times. Alfonso VI was the dominant figure in the Iberian world by 1072; Christian and Islamic kings awarded him a varying mixture of fear, honor, and tribute. Hence, it is perhaps not surprising that he felt confident in doing without the services of the mighty Cid; Alfonso sent him into exile on two distinct occasions, during which many of Rodrigo’s legendary exploits took place.
Rodrigo spent his first exile (1081-1087) in the service of the Islamic emir of Zaragoza, winning spectacular victories against his new lord’s enemies, including the emir of Lerida and the infamous Christian count of Barcelona, Berenguer Ramon the Fratricide. By the end of the Cid’s first exile, however, it was clear that the politically fragmented world of the taifa kingdoms was coming to an end; the mighty Almoravid empire, headquartered in the North African city of Marrakesh, had launched an invasion of the Iberian peninsula in 1086, gobbling up many of the defenseless Islamic taifas and defeating King Alfonso himself at the cataclysmic battle of Sagrajas (az-Zallaqah). The Cid, recalled to service for a brief time in the aftermath of the catastrophe, was exiled again in 1089; after this exile came to a nominal end in 1092, the Cid spent his last years capturing Valencia and then defending it from an Almoravid host in 1094. His conquest of Valencia resulted in the re-foundation of the Christian bishopric there. Hence, although his final exploits certainly involved the extension of Christian civilization at the expense of Islam, it is more accurate to see the historic Rodrigo as an unusually successful warlord than as a crusader. Nevertheless, his conduct as a vassal to his lords and a lord to his vassals earned him enormous prestige during his lifetime, and the peculiarly medieval virtues that he displayed in the conduct of these relationships provide much of the fodder for his poetic apotheosis.
The theme of lordship and vassalage appears at the very beginning of the poem; as the Cid sets off into exile, the reader is presented with a vivid picture of his journey through the city of Burgos. Accompanied by a band of loyal knights, the Cid receives no hospitality there due to King Alfonso’s edict, while the townsmen and their wives, powerless to help, cry out “Dios, qué buen vassalo, si oviesse buen señor!” (“O God, what a good vassal; if only he had a good lord!”). The Cid is portrayed as a good vassal because of his blind loyalty to the ungrateful Alfonso, even in the face of exile and punishment. He is also a good lord, however: he protects, provides for, and rewards his own vassals generously, attracting hundreds of noble followers even as a homeless exile. The poem moralizes frequently on this point, noting that after the Cid and his men captured Alcocer, “how well he had rewarded his own vassals! He had enriched them all, knights and foot soldiers—you could not have found one poor man among them. Those who serve a good master are always well off!” (Qué bien pagò a sus vasallos mismos! / A cavalleros e a peones fechos los ha rricos, / en todos los sos non fallariendes un mesquino; / qui a buen señor sirve siempre bien en delicio).
In conclusion, it should be noted that for medieval warriors, chivalry was much more than a sterile ritual code or a body of literary conventions. Chivalry imposed highly practical and clearly-understood obligations on the knightly warrior class; these were men capable of great violence but also grand acts of piety and generosity, whose personal relationships with one another held western society together. Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar, not without reason known as al-Sayyid, epitomized the chivalric code in a manner similar to other historical figures that we find transformed into literary heroes; by doing so in his lifetime, he became an exemplar to knights of a much later generation, whose crusading valor would break the back of Islamic power in Spain.
(English quotations taken from Rita Hamilton’s translation, Penguin Classics edition)
Tagged as: El Cid, Isalm, Knightly Virtue
Just fill in the box below on any 4F page to be notified when it changes.
Muslim Terrorism Count
Most Western societies are based on Secular Democracy, which itself is based on the concept that the open marketplace of ideas leads to the optimum government. Whilst that model has been very successful, it has defects. The 4 Freedoms address 4 of the principal vulnerabilities, and gives corrections to them.
At the moment, one of the main actors exploiting these defects, is Islam, so this site pays particular attention to that threat.
Islam, operating at the micro and macro levels, is unstoppable by individuals, hence: "It takes a nation to protect the nation". There is not enough time to fight all its attacks, nor to read them nor even to record them. So the members of 4F try to curate a representative subset of these events.
We hope that free nations will wake up to stop the threat, and force the separation of (Islamic) Church and State. This will also allow moderate Muslims to escape from their totalitarian political system.
The 4 Freedoms
These 4 freedoms are designed to close 4 vulnerabilities in Secular Democracy, by making them SP or Self-Protecting (see Hobbes's first law of nature). But Democracy also requires - in addition to the standard divisions of Executive, Legislature & Judiciary - a fourth body, Protector of the Open Society (POS), to monitor all its vulnerabilities (see also Popper). 1. SP Freedom of Speech Any speech is allowed - except that advocating the end of these freedoms 2. SP Freedom of Election Any party is allowed - except one advocating the end of these freedoms 3. SP Freedom from Voter Importation Immigration is allowed -except where that changes the political demography (this is electoral fraud) 4. SP Freedom from Debt
The Central Bank is allowed to create debt - except where that debt burden can pass across a generation (25 years).
An additional Freedom from Religion is deducible if the law is applied equally to everyone:
Religious and cultural activities are exempt from legal oversight except where they intrude into the public sphere (Res Publica)"