templar vs conquistador

[Cristiano viejo]

Indeed you much likely killed them or worse, enslaved them, Morisco.

Romans also enslaved children, women and old people, MENArvaItalica. We are not discussing about enslaving others but fighting others. You accused Spaniards of fighting against poorly armed Amerindians. Well, then admit that while at least Spaniards fought against hundreds of thousands of men, Crusaders massacred thousands of children, women and old people in the Kingdom og Hungary.

Crusaders fought in the desert and arab territories for that matter.

And they lost.

Spaniards and not only apparently...
Reconquista wasn't fought by Spaniards only like Conquistadores weren't only Spaniards.

Reconquista was fought absolutely mainly by Spaniards and 99% of Conquistadores were Spaniards.
You can not say the same about Romans. You even had Arab and North African emperors, and several of your best generals were foreigners or partly at least.

It doesn't matter if they won or not. Fighting in the Crusades is much more interesting imo.
Also, they lost in the Middle East not in other parts. Crusaders/Military orders weren't only in the Middle East and your Reconquista is an example.

It does matter. Crusaders were a bunch of losers who did not leave any legacy in the Middle East, and lost.

Reconquista itself was a Crusade, so the Pope decided it in a bule, and Templars fought here... but both of us know what you understand for Crusade when you started to post in this thread.

Oh, just shut up you. Who cares of American colonies?

Italians have had colonies in other parts of Europe (and outside) starting from Middle Ages, Spain only from 1500.

I would gladly defend Europe from Muslims rather than killing and enslaving primitives in America for territories...

Then Spaniards also had colonies much before 1500. In Italy without going further

[Blondie]

Crusaders massacred thousands of children, women and old people in the Kingdom og Hungary.

By the way they did same thing in Serbia, Bulgaria, Byzantine Empire etc.

[Blondie]

Who cares of Hungarians, they invaded the west, looted and killed innocent as well...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungar...ions_of_Europe

Do you realize that nomad and medieval hungarians are not same? Nomad hungarians were only 40000-50000 people, medieval christian hungarians were descedants of these 50000 conqueror and 1,5 million assimilited local peoples and Hungary was such christian catholic state like Italy.

[MinervaItalica]

Romans also enslaved children, women and old people, MENArvaItalica. We are not discussing about enslaving others but fighting others.

I don't see what the Romans have to do now, Morisco Viejo. Those were different times. Conquistadores brought slavery in modern times.

You accused Spaniards of fighting against poorly armed Amerindians. Well, then admit that while at least Spaniards fought against hundreds of thousands of men, Crusaders massacred thousands of children, women and old people in the Kingdom og Hungary.

Yes, i admit that you fought agains POORLY armed people and enslaved HUNDREDs OF THOUSANDs for profit.

It does matter. Crusaders were a bunch of losers who did not leave any legacy in the Middle East, and lost.

Not all crusades ended badly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venetian_Crusade

You're pretty ignorant if you think Crusades left any legacy. There are still many buildings in Levant, one is even an UNESCO.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krak_des_Chevaliers

You can not say the same about Romans. You even had Arab and North African emperors, and several of your best generals were foreigners or partly at least.

You had many foreigner generals and rulers as well for that matter. Habsburg (during Spain Golden Age) and Bourbons for example.

Then Spaniards also had colonies much before 1500. In Italy without going further

Italians territories (and other Europeans) weren't really "colonies" in the strict sense, i suggest you to study the term much more.

The hilarious part is that many of your general who helped you in your battles were actually Italians. Alessandro Farnese and Ambrogio Boccanegra for example, remember?

[Cristiano viejo]

By the way they did same thing in Serbia, Bulgaria, Byzantine Empire etc.

Indeed. Crusaders were professional killers of innocents. It was funny that this MENArvaItalica accused Conquistadores textually of "massacring others"

With Kingdom of Hungary I was including many current countries, yes.

I don't see what the Romans have to do now, Morisco Viejo. Those were different times. Conquistadores brought slavery in modern times.

Yeah, sure, because slavery did not exit until then

Yes, i admit that you fought agains POORLY armed people and enslaved HUNDREDs OF THOUSANDs for profit.

Better than massacring innocent people like your overrated Crusaders.

Not all crusades ended badly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venetian_Crusade

Yeah, and not all the Conquistadores finished rich, with glory and famous you are really stupid.

You're pretty ignorant if you think Crusades left any legacy. There are still many buildings in Levant, one is even an UNESCO.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krak_des_Chevaliers

WOW... I am impressed... one building in 200 years... which btw is in total ruins today

You had many foreigner generals and rulers as well for that matter. Habsburg (during Spain Golden Age) and Bourbons for example.

That happens in every empire... but they were not about Conquistadores, that it is what we are treating here

Italians territories (and other Europeans) weren't really "colonies" in the strict sense, i suggest you to study the term much more.

The hilarious part is that many of your general who helped you in your battles were actually Italians. Alessandro Farnese and Ambrogio Boccanegra for example, remember?

Alejandro Farnesio was part Spanish, part Italian and part Dutch, you thieve of identities

Yet they were not emperors, like Trajan or Hadrian Farnesio, Bocanegra, whoever, were our vassals and obeyed our orders. Trajan and Hadrian in the other hand...

Conquistador. More of an adventure into the unknown and they had much better endings for the most part.

"In the past, nations have embarked on conquests, but always counting on sufficient forces, adequate means and full knowledge of what they were going out to conquer and realize.

The Spaniards at the time had no idea where they were going, or what awaited them there. The generality was that the Conquistadores possessed few means, little forces and only a precarious help from their rulers. Spain was geographically far away, the journey was long and dangerous and the boats extremely weak. If they knew the hardship, they might have desist."

R. B. Cunninghame Graham, Scottish politician, writer, journalist and adventurer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cunninghame_Graham

[Damião de Góis]

In Portugal Templars changed their name to Order of Christ:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_...ist_(Portugal)

The crown actually protected them and they became influential. During the age of discoveries our ships had their crosses:



So my choice is obvious.

[Cernunnos]

I have Templar ancestry, so the choice is pretty obvious.

[MinervaItalica]

It was funny that this MENArvaItalica accused Conquistadores textually of "massacring others"

I didn't accuse anyone, it is on history books. Native tribes in America were massacrated by Conquistadores. Not my fault if you never picked up a history book, PAYASO.

Killing tribes who fight with sticks and axes using firearms is for pussies. It is not like fighting armies of Arab warriors or berber pirates.

Better than massacring innocent people like your overrated Crusaders.

But are you stupid or what? Do you think that Crusaders were the first to kill innocents on the road? Do have any idea how many armies during the Middle Ages killed, raped and looted on the their way. On the contrary, Conquistadores genocided entire civilizations.

"August 1 – Spanish massacre men and enslave women and children at Tepeaca"

"200,000 dead (including civilians)"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanis...e_Aztec_Empire

Yet they were not emperors, like Trajan or Hadrian

Trajan and Hadrian had italic origins... however why do you always fap over those two emperors? Who cares if they were emperors or not anyway? The best Roman generals were in the Republic era or early Imperial like Scipio Africanus, Sulla, Julius Caesar, Mark Antony, Crassus, Pompey, Octavian and Germanicus who crushed Arminius rebels.

Alejandro Farnesio was part Spanish, part Italian and part Dutch, you thieve of identities

He was mostly Italian (through his father) though. The Farnese is an Italian noble house.

Have you forgotten Charles V? The Habsburg first king of Spain?

[Cristiano viejo]

I didn't accuse anyone, it is on history books. Native tribes in America were massacrated by Conquistadores. Not my fault if you never picked up a history book, PAYASO.

Your history books = The tale of Pinocchio.

Killing tribes who fight with sticks and axes using firearms is for pussies. It is not like fighting armies of Arab warriors or berber pirates.

Romans used superior technology against all the peoples they faced. Interesting that you consider them pussies.

Conquistadores fought in absolute numerically inferior conditions. Firearms, if you knew something about the topic, were not decisive at all. Horses were.

But are you stupid or what? Do you think that Crusaders were the first to kill innocents on the road? Do have any idea how many armies during the Middle Ages killed, raped and looted on the their way.

Neither the Conquistadores, but you took advantage to criticize them in your first post in this thread accusing them of massacring others. The most funny thing is that you defended the Crusaders... when they did the same! No, wait, not the same, because Conquistadores did not kill women, children and old people, as Crusaders did

Damn, a Greek user even created a thread about this recently
https://www.theapricity.com/forum/sh...ce-and-Balkans

You are so incredibily hypocrite that I can not believe it...

On the contrary, Conquistadores genocided entire civilizations.

hahaha, you are really a proffesional liar, as Quentin Tarantino pointed in True Romance.
Are you sure you are talking about Conquistadores and not about Romans??

Trajan and Hadrian had italic origins...

You wish

however why do you always fap over those two emperors? Who cares if they were emperors or not anyway? The best Roman generals were in the Republic era or early Imperial like Scipio Africanus, Sulla, Julius Caesar, Mark Antony, Crassus, Pompey, Octavian and Germanicus who crushed Arminius rebels.

Because they were Hispanos, of course. And because they are two of the Five Good Emperors
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerva%..._Good_Emperors

He was mostly Italian (through his father) though. The Farnese is an Italian noble house.

Being mostly whatever means nothing. You called him Italian and he was not.

Have you forgotten Charles V? The Habsburg first king of Spain?

First king of Spain...

[Stratagos]

Conquistador, he's busy all day with chad things:

Stealing your lands, your women and your wealths.