Does anyone ever read about the myriad of Crusades in the Medieval ages and feel annoyed at the colossal failures of the Western Europeans? They simply appear - in retrospect - to have been completely incompetent and incapable. As the Eastern Roman Emperor Leo the Wise wrote in his 9th century Tactica (a military manual), the Franks (Western Europeans) fought with "no discipline", maintained "little to no order in battle", rarely performed reconnaissance, often failed to fortify their camps, and had primitive logistics which often meant that extended campaigns would kill them off. Funnily enough, the author and Eastern Roman general Nikephoros Ouranos reiterated the same thing concerning the Franks when he wrote his own manual in the 11th century.
There are sporadic successes such as those in the First Crusade and the Baron's Crusade that can be attributed to more the products of luck and coincidence and individual efforts than actual strategics or planning.
The Second Crusade, the Third Crusade (Jerusalem was not retaken), the Fourth Crusade, the Fifth, the Seventh, and the complete embarrassments which were the Eight, the Barbary Crusade, Battle of Nicopolis, and the Varnan Crusade. In many instances, the Crusaders literally marched unprepared into desert environments (to which they were not accustomed) thinking some magical aid from either the Eastern Romans or God would arrive to save them, rather than undertake any proper logistics or planning before starting the campaign.
Contrast with the territorial gains made by both the Ottomans into Europe and those in the Komnenian Restoration by the Eastern Romans with the relatively tiny pieces of land the Crusaders were able to snatch for some time.
Werent the crusades filled with peasants trying to appease the pope and his hard on for Jerusalem? That would explain the lack of organization.
>Does anyone ever read about the myriad of Crusades in the Medieval ages and feel annoyed at the colossal failures of the Western Europeans?
No. What the first crusades achiever were impressive, even if they did not achieve anything really (besides from the first). You're sending an army to foreign lands without any good supply routes or domestic support. You're essentially sending an army in and saying good luck.
>here are sporadic successes such as those in the First Crusade and the Baron's Crusade that can be attributed to more the products of luck and coincidence
Exactly.
>Contrast with the territorial gains made by both the Ottomans into Europe
Ottomans expanded continuously on land, with their main power base relatively close to where they expanded to. They could always send reinforcements, supplies, new armies etc easily.
>Komnenian Restoration
Same thing.
On a plus side, Bohemond did fuck Anna Komnene.
>>1103165
>Funnily enough, the author and Eastern Roman general Nikephoros Ouranos reiterated the same thing concerning the Franks when he wrote his own manual in the 11th century.
The Byzantines were not the best when it came to timely updates and re-evaluation.
>>1103187
+
Every crusade that the Europeans fought in Europe and expanded continuously in to new territory (i.e the northern crusades) the Europeans were in the end successful. The pagans could not just withstand the weight of European manpower and production.
>>1103192
>The Byzantines were not the best when it came to timely updates and re-evaluation.
Actually, this was due more to the failure of the Franks to update their style of warfare well into the 15th century, and the information of Ouranos would have remained accurate for at least three more centuries.
>The Byzantines were not the best when it came to timely updates and re-evaluation.
They actually were known for publishing military manuals on a timely basis and updating their strategies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_military_manuals
>>1103187
>You're sending an army to foreign lands without any good supply routes or domestic support. You're essentially sending an army in and saying good luck.
The ERE set up extensive supply depots for the First Crusade from the Balkans into Anatolia, and even arranged naval resupply from Cyprus for the siege at Antioch. The Franks were constantly unable to forage well, and in the end they secured their supplies for the march to Jerusalem by threatening the local emirs to give them food and safe passage or else they would do to them what they did at Ma'arra.
>>1103215
And what exactly, was the outcome of the first crusade?
>>1103190
She was like a kid when she met him.
>>1103200
Read the OP title, as it refers solely to the Crusades against the Muslims in the Levantine area (with the exception of the Eight Tunisian crusade, which was still a disaster). We are not referring to the Iberian or Northern Crusades.
>mfw Muslims invade western Europe
>>1103224
You read my post first. I added the + to prove my point about the holy land crusades.
>>1103220
Small territorial gains that were relatively short-lived and in which Catholicism and Western European culture never managed to spread beyond the court of the rulers.
>>1103230
Exactly.
>>1103232
Still sounds like a failure to me.
>>1103221
>14
nah
>>1103220
A series of principalities. That has nothing to do with what I was talking about. The Franks didn't go in without support, nor did they prove able to supply themselves without Byzantine aid, local collusion, or outright threatening local rulers.
>>1103227
The face of a man who himself invaded most of Western Europe, and only ended up fighting Muslims because he saw his chance to get rid of his rival and secure southern France for himself. His campaigns to consolidate his claims were so brutal that the south spent decades not only rising up against him and his son, but allying with Muslim remnant forces and mercenaries to do it.
>>1103244
>Yes it does
It doesn't. I was pointing out that what you wrote in that specific quote was incorrect, and that's all.
>>1103250
My point:
Crusaded were failures because:
"You're sending an army to foreign lands without any good supply routes or domestic support."
You post: >>1103215 (the first crusade was a victory)
>>1103220 (i point this out)
>>1103237 and here we are.
Besides, events like Ma'arra dispute the notion that secure and well thought out supply chains were in place.
>>1103262
You seem to either be confusing me with the OP or someone else, or something else. My response was only that single line I quoted in >>1103215 and nothing more. That single line was incorrect. Whether you think the First Crusade was impressive, a success, a failure, or mundane is irrelevant. The line:
>You're sending an army to foreign lands without any good supply routes or domestic support. You're essentially sending an army in and saying good luck.
Is just wrong.
>>1103268
>You're sending an army to foreign lands without any good supply routes or domestic support. You're essentially sending an army in and saying good luck.
But that line was not talking about the first crusade. As i have been trying to point out for the past 20 minutes.
>>1103276
>But that line was not talking about the first crusade. As i have been trying to point out for the past 20 minutes.
The full line:
>No. What the first crusades achiever were impressive, even if they did not achieve anything really (besides from the first). You're sending an army to foreign lands without any good supply routes or domestic support. You're essentially sending an army in and saying good luck.
If you were talking about anything other than the First Crusade, you did not make that clear then or in the past 20 minutes.
Also, if you were talking about the whole of the Crusades and not just the First, the statement is even more blatantly wrong. The whole of the 12th and 13th centuries saw the domination of Latin navies and shipping in the Eastern Mediterranean, as well as extensive personal and diplomatic relationships with local Christian powers like Cilicia Armenia and Latin Cyprus, or well-connected regions like Provence and Southern Italy.
>>1103165
While i hate crusader bashing that's on /his/, Nicopolis was a massive fuck-up and we lost because of retarded french knights:
Sigismund called a war council on the 24th, in which he and Mircea of Wallachia suggested a battle plan in which the Wallachian foot soldiers, who had experience in fighting the Turks, would be sent in the first attack to meet the Turkish vanguard; this was usually a poorly armed militia, normally used for pillage but used in battle to tire opponents before they met better quality Turkish forces. Sigismund claimed that this vanguard was not worthy of the attention of knights. Sigismund proposed that, once the shock of first clash had passed, the French form the front line to rush in, while the Hungarians and the other allies follow to support the attack and keep the sipahis (Turkish cavalry) from sweeping around the crusaders' flanks. D'Eu denounced the proposal as demeaning to the knights, who would be forced to follow peasant footmen into battle. He reportedly stated, "To take up the rear is to dishonor us, and expose us to the contempt of all" and declared that he would claim front place as Constable and anyone in front of him would do him mortal insult. In this he was supported by Boucicaut; Nevers, reassured by the confidence of the younger French lords, was easily convinced.[37]
With the French set on a charge, Sigismund left to make a battle plan for his own forces. Apparently within hours, he sent word to the camp that Bayezid was only six hours away. The crusaders, said to be drunk over dinner, reacted in confusion; some refused to believe the report, some rose in panic, and some hastily prepared for battle.
D'EAU, YOU IDIOT!
>>1103299
>t.Frankboo
>>1103308
But I'm Muslim
>>1103307
>While i hate crusader bashing that's on /his/
Why? It's completely justified. They were complete idiots, and the mistakes committed at Nicopolis were committed in almost every single one of the Crusades.
What kind of idiots attempt to undertake foreign overseas invasions when they don't even possess a standardized army or a bureaucracy to handle the logistics?
>inb4 Mongols did it
They were a one-trick pony, literally.
I still cant understand why they tried attack backlines like Jerusalem before securing Asia Minor and Fertile Crescent. These seem badly planned in every aspect
>>1103329
>trying to conquer a desert backwater instead of assisting the Eastern Romans in reclaiming resource-rich Anatolia or focusing on similarly resource-rich Egypt simply because a book of fiction says some fictional characters were there
>>1103353
The Holy Land was always important, so trying to take it back doesn't matter.
Now, the problem is, the entire reason the crusade started was helping Alexios take back christian lands. They fucked up that.
>>1103329
Jerusalem was a singularly religious target. Most of the powerful barons would have dicked around conquering large swathes of northern Syria like Antioch and Edessa with secure lines to the sea, the Byzantines, or areas with substantial local Christian presence if not for the pilgrim mass of followers that demanded the army march south straight for Jerusalem.
That's why the campaign from Antioch to Jerusalem was mostly just securing quick treaties of passage and supply and not conquest until they reached Jerusalem. Once the city was taken, the remaining barons fanned out from this location to take as much territory as they could and make the best of their situation.
>>1103329
>These seem badly planned in every aspect
That's the Crusades for you.
>>1103307
>We lost
>We
At the very least 630 years old and talking shit on 4chan, that battle must really have gotten to you.
>>1103165
I think you're a retarded byzantiboo
>the Third Crusade (Jerusalem was not retaken)
The third was easily the greatest since it was just Richard beating Saladin in almost every battle and he secured pilgrimage rights/protection which was the main source of conflict since the start.
>>1103651
>"The third was easily the greatest..."
A failure, considering that the explicit goal of the Levantine Crusades was always to take back Jerusalem and the Church of the Holy Sepulcher from the "heathens" and directly under Christian control. At most, Richard secured the right of Christian pilgrims to visit it, and even then, had to concede to Saladin's requirement that they could only visit Jerusalem unarmed, in an era when most travelers would have taken a weapon with them.
>"I think you're a retarded byzantiboo"
Better than a retarded Frankboo.
>>1103651
Didn't Saladin win tho
>>1104120
Ignore his post, he must be an english troll.
Richard went there for nothing, gained nothing except a friend: saladin. But knowing frederick also became friend with him, a question must be asked: did he pay them to go back or were they afraid of him?
Funny how HREboos always make fun of the Eastern Roman Empire, and yet, the ERE was the only European power at the time capable of providing logistics and establishing supply lines, as well as having military manuals and an art of war with established military officials, positions, and a bureaucracy/civil service that could raise armies in an orderly fashion and maintain them, unlike the HRE and all the shitty kingdoms and duchies of the West that thought some bit of bravery and chivalry could be considered a 'strategy' and where their "armies" were nothing but levied peasants and rabble told to march led by the rulers' cronies without any organization, logistics, or strategy.
>>1103353
>The Levant was a desert Backwater
Burger detected
