Why were the Crusades a massive failure?

Why were the Crusades a massive failure?

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Too dependent on european material support, extremely hostile neighbors, no demographic effect on/replacement of the base population (unlike, say, Israel)

  2. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    "Muslim bros, you may have Constantinople"

  3. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    It really depends on what specific Crusades you’re talking about.

  4. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    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

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >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.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >Hundreds of years
        >"Uhm akshually it was only 200"
        Yeah that's still hundreds you fricking drooling sodomite. The Christians held on to the entire fricking 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

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          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.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >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.

  5. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    bump

  6. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    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.

  7. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    the byzantines were too fricking useless to capitalise on them

  8. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    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.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      the first crusade happened during an era where bathing culture was extremely popular in Europe you fricking moron

  9. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    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.

  10. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Well travelling to a far away land to wage war puts you at a disadvantage

  11. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Baibars

  12. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    No church mandated crusade wide BLEACHING program

  13. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Muslim here. They were a success. Allah
    is greater than European gods of you
    infidels. All honour to his name.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      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.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Yay, yay.

      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.

      Nay, nay.

  14. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    "muh doos voolt + muh righteous chrisitian god" is no match for logistics and supply lines.
    Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics.

  15. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >being crusaders
    >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

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >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 moronic homosexual. It has virtually no impact on Islamic culture (the exact opposite in the West).

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >all djihadists call westerners crusaders but crusades have not impacted on islamic culture

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          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 israelites.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        They are mentioned it is just they are called the Frankish Wars. They aren't viewed any differently than any other war.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          Arabs referred to all Europeans as Franks so that makes sense.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            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.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            It started because of the First crusade, which was the deed of people hailing mostly from modern-day France.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      It's mostly western Islam apologists/useful idiots who complain about the crusades. Muslims just see the weakness there and exploit it

  16. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    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?

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      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.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        What kinda crack you smokin? 70% of Christians are black, brown, and yellow

        Most Muslims are Asians

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      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.

  17. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Deus Vult LARPers cope more over the Crusades than amerifats cope over Vietnam

  18. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    whitey cant fight

  19. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Too ahead of its time. It was basically western colonialism but in the middle ages and against a technological peer.

  20. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >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.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >near pear enemy
      Their pears are incomparable.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Are they? They're different but all pretty good.

  21. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    The statement that they're failures needs to be qualified.

  22. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    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.

  23. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    > 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).

  24. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    too naive

  25. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    I wish the cruades ended in mass gay rape

  26. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    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.

  27. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    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

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      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.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        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.

  28. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    crusades never happened. they're horseshit history.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >"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."

  29. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    the best crusade was the 4th crusade where the evil byzantines got dismantled.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >directly led to Rome dying its final death and cemented Christendom never fully reuniting
      Some Crusade.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >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.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      grandiose delusions

  30. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    They were very successfull, so successfull that muslims razed all cities on the coasts so crusaders couldnt land and entrench themselved anymore.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *