"MLE" wrote:None of which changes the fact that both sides were aggressors, and that the counter-offensives which are known as the crusades were just that -- counter-offensives.
The behavior of the combatants was the usual in such cases-- brutal, violent and frequently unjustified. I'm just a little weary of the litany of 'Europeans bad, Muslims good' that has replaced the reverse in literature.
Why do you separate the Ottoman expansion from all the other eras of Islamic expansion? Is there some cutoff date?
i know what you mean. modern interpretation does seem to say "european crusaders bad, muslims good". i think a lot has to do with who is attacking. the aggressors are usually seens as the bad ones. in the holy land crusades, the europeans were the invaders, therefore bad. on the reverse, you could say the ottomans were the invaders of the balkans up to vienna. in that case they are the "bad guys" because they are aggressors.
but i sure know what you mean. labling groups the "bad" and the "good" is unfair