Why were the Crusades a massive failure?
Why were the Crusades a massive failure?
Falling into your wing while paragliding is called 'gift wrapping' and turns you into a dirt torpedo pic.twitter.com/oQFKsVISkI— Mental Videos (@MentalVids) March 15, 2023
Too dependent on european material support, extremely hostile neighbors, no demographic effect on/replacement of the base population (unlike, say, Israel)
"Muslim bros, you may have Constantinople"
It really depends on what specific Crusades you’re talking about.
I never understood how establishing Christian crusader states that flourished for hundreds of years deep in Muslim territory could be considered a failure. What, it's a failure because they didn't destroy all of Islam and take Jerusalem forever? Yeah sure I guess if those are the stipulations lol
>flourished for hundreds of years deep in Muslim territory
Lol this didn't happen. It was only 200 years and it was at constant state of war. The Crusades happened at a time when there was an Islamic civil war, then the Mongol invasions. Muslim powers were in no position to fight against the Crusaders.
>Hundreds of years
>"Uhm akshually it was only 200"
Yeah that's still hundreds you fucking drooling sodomite. The Christians held on to the entire fucking Levant for 200 years, regardless of your coping about the Muslims not being prepared, that's huge. Your coping disregards all the internal issues the Christians faced as well
those issues were nowhere near the level of what muslims faced and occured much later. Most muslim rulers used crusaders against one another actively, plus numerical superiority is a christian cope for their Ls, as most muslim forces fighting against crusaders were pulled from vicinity city states like damascus or allepo. Turkomans and kurds were generally mercenaries and could only be provided in limited numbers. Only Egypt could pull big numbers which were generally neutralized by european crusaders.
During first crusade, crusaders had a definitive edge in numbers. Against fatimid caliphate crusaders were outnumbered and performed well. Against seljuks they were absolutely btfo generally by outnumbered forces too. Zangids basically ended their expansion and started their reverse clock. Saladin had numerical superiority, but that was mitigated by third crusade. Tho at arsuf crusaders won great victory which may have added 100 yrs to their life line. At la forbie, they had numerical superiority, got absolutely ass blasted. And despite mongols when mamelukes showed up it was a wrap. Less be said about french twink the better.
So all in all crusaders got a lucky break during first tho they did consolidated well, but that was only cuz of state of muslim front. Once muslim put a limited millitary front, it was generally over for crusaders. Only post first and third crusade was some time during which crusaders did well, other than that they took too many Ls.
>Held out for 200 years against much larger empires.
That doesnt sound like failure it sounds like defying the odds.
The issue for the crusade states is that they were simply too few and relations witj Byzantium were poor though that is partislly Byzantiums fault.
Don't blame yourselves; you guys tried everything but the Muslims were too good. You guys even tried teaming up with the Mongols but even they got pushed back.
the byzantines were too fucking useless to capitalise on them
the first crusade was won because the saracens died of the crusaders' smell. just look at the battle near antioch, saracens fled when the crusaders approached them. it is a clear sign that the decadent, poor and smelly europeans had an upper hand against the well groomed saracens prior to the synthesis of the cultures, tech, bathing culture being carried to the west etc.
the first crusade happened during an era where bathing culture was extremely popular in Europe you fucking retard
They weren't. Like 2/3 of the places they campaigned in successfully resulted in the Crusaders goals being realised. Being Iberia and the Baltics.
Well travelling to a far away land to wage war puts you at a disadvantage
No church mandated crusade wide BLEACHING program
Muslim here. They were a success. Allah
is greater than European gods of you
infidels. All honour to his name.
Christ was born in Bethlehem, the original churches spread from Jerusalem. Our Creator chose & separated Israel from amongst the nations. Christ is God and if your book didn't cut out all of the prophecies that prove He is, you'd still be worshiping Him.
"muh doos voolt + muh righteous chrisitian god" is no match for logistics and supply lines.
Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics.
>being far away from their countries
>being constantly surrounded by muslims who are at home
>being constantly in numerical inferiority
>being isolate because your kings, who prefer build their kingdoms, neglect the holy land
>depsite all these disadvantages, crusaders etablished christian kindgoms in the middle of muslims land during two centuries
There is a reason if muslims constantly cry about crusades
>There is a reason if muslims constantly cry about crusades
There is a reason the Crusades are never mentioned at all in the Muslim world you retarded homosexual. It has virtually no impact on Islamic culture (the exact opposite in the West).
>all djihadists call westerners crusaders but crusades have not impacted on islamic culture
Jihadists are focused on larping as the caliphate soldiers in the past, difference between the templar larpers online and them is that they actually go to war, against the world's most powerful armies at that, and don't call the western armies crusaders because they fight for israelite.
They are mentioned it is just they are called the Frankish Wars. They aren't viewed any differently than any other war.
Arabs referred to all Europeans as Franks so that makes sense.
It actually depends when. For the most part they used the word Roman or 'of Rum' if they didn't know but when they did know they would either use Roman or Frank. The Rus got their own classification.
It started because of the First crusade, which was the deed of people hailing mostly from modern-day France.
It's mostly western Islam apologists/useful idiots who complain about the crusades. Muslims just see the weakness there and exploit it
Why do /misc/ LARPers see the crusades as some kind of proto-racewar when it was a proxy conflict between the Fatimids and Byzantines vs the Seljuks using the Roman Catholics as pawns?
Nowadays Christianity is generally a White religion whereas Islam is an Arab one. therefore a conflict between the two is seen as a racial conflict.
What kinda crack you smokin? 70% of Christians are black, brown, and yellow
Most Muslims are Asians
The Byzantines lost control of the situation the moment the vast crusader armies marched into Constantinople. They had just asked the pope for a few thousand mercenaries.
Deus Vult LARPers cope more over the Crusades than amerifats cope over Vietnam
whitey cant fight
Too ahead of its time. It was basically western colonialism but in the middle ages and against a technological peer.
>trying to set up a colony against a near pear enemy
They never had the population to sustain a colony and the kingdoms could collapse like a house of cards if they just lost a few battles.
Colonizing worked in America because those people were living in the stone age. And later with the rest of the world because Europe had a massive technological advantage and went through a population explosion.
>near pear enemy
Their pears are incomparable.
Are they? They're different but all pretty good.
The statement that they're failures needs to be qualified.
Even if you don't count all the cities taken and crusader states established that lasted for centuries, the fact that Europeans were able to organize such feats is astonishing and a success alone. The fact that they even arrived there and were able to maintain lines of supply and organize military orders from a Feudal society was astronomical.
> Why were the Crusades a massive failure?
The First Crusade succeeding was a massive fluke and they never got that lucky again (unless you count 1204).
I wish the cruades ended in mass gay rape
The Byzantines. They refused to help, always acted arsey towards the Latins, made treaties with Turkish sultans and tried to undermine the Crusader states at every turn. Then their internal squabbling caused the 4th Crusade to be diverted.
That and a fair chunk of bad luck and poor leadership.
They went there thinking they'd save the Christians but the eastern Christians just thought they were barbarians, not better than the Muslims. Very little indigenous support, from the Byzantines and the normal people
The Levantine Christians generally liked them, it’s mainly the orthodox Greeks who didn’t. Look at Michael the Syrian writings (a Miaphysite) for an accurate representation. He mentions a couple times the Franks being dicks and calls them stupid once, but he also extols the virtues of their kings and calls them Christ-loving. He describes their victories as gifts from God. Most importantly, he clearly outlines his hate for Muslims and his desire for their defeat.
One important thing to note is that the Levantine Christians and Muslims, especially in the countryside, were segregated from each other before the crusades. It’s really after the Franks were driven out that the Arabization of all the locals went into full force.
crusades never happened. they're horseshit history.
>"Neither the papacy nor anyone else referred to the earliest Crusades as such. At the time, writers sometimes described crusaders as 'crucesignati' — meaning 'persons marked by the sign of the cross' — but at other times, they described them using other terms such as 'pilgrim'. Crusading also evolved over time, taking on many different forms and operating in many different geographical areas — which all complicates making any easy definition."
the best crusade was the 4th crusade where the evil byzantines got dismantled.
>directly led to Rome dying its final death and cemented Christendom never fully reuniting
>directly led to Rome dying its final death
Directly led to saving Romes reputation by dismantling those evil byzantines which took a giant diarrhea on the name of Rome cause no one gave them that name for them to stain.
They were very successfull, so successfull that muslims razed all cities on the coasts so crusaders couldnt land and entrench themselved anymore.