I found it on /pol/
Red pill me /his/
>>1272070
Yes, this is accurate.
>sourcing wikipedia
cringe
>>1272086
Wikipedia isn't ideal but it is a better source than your own ass, which most of the people moaning about Wikipedia think is just fine.
This picture is completely accurate.
>>1272086
>lol wikipedia is useless xdddd
literally is the best and easiest way to inform other people
Or would you rather they linked to the 100 sources listed on wikipedia?
>>1272112
Well, they're not wrong.
>>1272127
Wikipedia is amazing, but if you are gonna source something from wikipedia, source the source wikipedia uses, or you will look like a retard.
>>1272127
It would be better if they linked to truth about how Crusades was a basis of the modern European identity.
>>1272142
>It would be better if they linked to truth about how Crusades was a basis of the modern European identity.
How would they cite something that is literally [citation needed]?
>>1272070
Both pictures are correct are incorrect.
Yes, some of the crusades were perfectly justified to defend pilgrims. It didn't stop many massacres, including of christians, and some wars happening in the Holy Lands simply because some lords decided it would be fun to raid muslim caravans. The Teutonic Knights were fucking autistic cunts, but then again, they were germans.
I don't see however what the destruction of the Cathars has to do with that. The cathars would have never waged any crusades, they were poor cunts who could be compared with salafists today. Or the conversion of the saxons ? A pagan who attacks your lands is as dangerous as a muslim who attacks your lands.
Or the 30 years war ? This happened way after the end of the crusades.
Completely correct, the mongols defeated islam, then they converted to it because christanity was so garbage. The crusades in particular failed conversion so terrible bad they only managed to weaken bzyatines for muslims, the only successful case I can think of is Lithuania converting to Christianity to ally with Poland in destroying a crusader state
>>1272157
> The Cathars would have never waged any crusades
The Crusades was against Cathars.
>>1272112
It is accurate though.
>>1272170
The Crusades weren't about conversion though. They were simply about pacifying the roads for pilgrims.
It was a failure, of course, just like you'll see a lot of failures in History. Doesn't mean it was "garbage" or "terrible".
>>1272176
Which is what I meant.
I don't see the point of the picture. Cathars were dangerous heretics, they killed monks, and the Crown of Aragon even used them to try to wage war on the King of France. They deserved to receive a Crusade on them to pacify the Languedoc.
Not every crusade has to be against muslims. In fact, crusades were never about killing ennemies of the Church ; It was always about reaching a goal. In the case of the Cathars, it was to force the conversion of a contentious people.
Can we all agree that Child Crusade was a best Crusade?
>>1272182
Right those 12 crusades that were mostly private weren't about taking land, waging hundreds of years of war for no gain is the definition of garbage
>>1272070
Painting either side as unilaterally monstrous is childish and inaccurate
>>1272239
apologizing from a false position of neutrality is intellectual charlatanism
>>1272247
A serious historian doesn't take sides, that's what the other says. OP's picture is a weak form of propaganda: lies answering to lies.
>>1272274
It's nonsense and blatantly untrue to say that historians don't form value judgements and opinions and always take a supposedly neutral position.
>>1272309
It's 100% accurate.
>>1272127
This is a mount stupid opinion. Wikipedia is a bad source, especially on history when there are hundreds of books on a single section of wikipedia.
>>1272339
>Civil War wasn't about slavery
Ebin pic man
>>1272351
found the retard
in case you're not baiting, slavery was ONE of the reasons for the Civil War, not the main reason
>>1272357
Slavery was MAIN reason why Civil War started, and your memery about state's rights won't change it.
>>1272357
State's rights to perform slavery is still slavery, nigga. Try harder.
>>1272339
>I've always understood that we went to war on account of the thing we quarreled with the North about. I've never heard of any other cause than slavery.
John Singleton "Grey Ghost" Mosby, legendary Confederate commander and celebrated autobiographer of the American Civil War.
>>1272274
>Unbiased opinions
>>1272376
>>1272379
The original is this. Don't get your panties in a twist. T
>Devastate a region over the nature of democracy and federalism with debates going back to thomas jefferson
>Oh shit abraham how do we cover this imperialism
>"Then the retarded cousin fuckers illegally seceded because we wanted to stop their slave rapery and obesity" T. ye old john green
>>1272127
Wikipedia numbers in many battles are completely worthless, and they failed to remove simple bias from tons of articles.
>le every battle before 400 was 100k v 100k because Herodotus was the most reliable source
I could probably look at the economic strength of a nation and pull a more accurate number out of my ass than many wikipedia numbers
>>1272421
>I could probably look at the economic strength of a nation and pull a more accurate number out of my ass than many wikipedia numbers
You sound completely clueless.
>>1272070
their timeline is fucking all over the place holy shit
>>1272070
The Batlics were full of pagans that were raiding Europe and committed atrocities beyond even the Saracens, as many sources and historians acknowledge. They didn't "frequently" kill Slavs, the idea they were proto-colonists is a modernist outlook. The Teutonics were invited over to stop pagan raids, it was simply political war.
The Byzantine Emperor was murdered by an usurper who took hostile actions against the crusaders, they had to fight to leave. This pop-history version that they sacked Constantinople for lawls goes to show how ignorant people are of the Crusades.
Seige of Baghdad happened over 150 years after the Crusades. Even so the Mongol were allies with the Crusaders in the levant against the Muslims and many fought in the Siege of Baghdad as well.
This guy then skips ahead to the Thirty Years War long after the crusades were over, than runs back to Charlemagne long before they began, which shows he's desperate for slander. Even so, every historian agrees the Thirty Years War was about political power of the Hapsburg, not religion. Charlemagne took back Barcelona and other land from the Moors to add to the Reconquista, and the Saxons and other pagans had been killing themselves for centuries, the 'massacre of verdun' is basically a hoax based off of one sentence.
>>1272460
At least people who post "hitler didndu nuffin" on pol are self aware
>>1272472
>I got BTFO so I'm just going to tip fedora and run away
>>1272327
All of it is 100% accurate.
Both top and bottom.
This is what you idiots fail to realise, that's why you keep bickering about it.
>>1272460
This is Sputnik-tier disinformation. Holy shit.
>>1272460
>hapsburg
>P
Are you retarded?
>>1272472
>>1272517
>>1272519
>Getting BTFO so hard you have to resort to meta-shitposting
Sad.
I know there's a lot of Turkroaches on this board, but this shit's just sad.
>>1272527
Your last (You) faggot
>>1272413
>using a bioshock infinite picture to defend the confederates
oh the irony
>>1272537
I don't think /pol/-tier retards understand irony on any level.
>>1272070
not vidya
>>1272070
I'm starting to think Slavs will blame Western Europe for anything and everything.
>>1272437
That's the best part.
>the Hundred Years War was just a retaliation for Napoleon's wars against England, so why did William the Conqueror invade?
>>1272339
>The American Civil War really is about slavery
It was?
>>1272112
Do you seriously think the Crusades were motivated out of religious, idealistic reasons?
>>1272070
The problem with this is it groups all of the crusades together each one being very separate. The first crusade was actually a victory. Jerusalem was secured in a short amount of time and Byzantium was again left as a reasonably powerful force in the area. there where some stupid moments but generally it was very successful. as you go on from then the reasoning for crusading gets more and more ridiculous and by the fourth, it was completely pan head retarded. they killed Christians and Muslims alike and sacked the very capital they where asked to protect assuring its eventual fall. Some redeeming ones occurred post fourth but it didn't make up for it.
Hi, other /his/torians, I have a theory/idea about economic motivations for the why the Crusades happened and I want other opinions on it.
The Eastern Mediterranean was were silk road traders from across the world, from Africa to China, made contact with Europeans. If various European kingdoms controlled the Levant then they could effectively control what came in and out of Europe and how much of it is taxed, right?
Tell me if this is retarded and why, because medieval history of Europe is not my forte.
>>1272616
>economic motivations for the why the Crusades happened
None. This is modern revisionism. Most Crusaders sold everything they had to go, and those that made it back were usually broke.
>>1272622
>sell me your land and property cheaply, and go die for the glory of god
>ok
christcucks gonna get cucked
>>1272460
>They didn't "frequently" kill Slavs, the idea they were proto-colonists is a modernist outlook. The Teutonics were invited over to stop pagan raids, it was simply political war.
The Teutons conducted massive ethnic cleansings of both Pagans and Christians and then invited colonists on land that was "freed" is such way.
>>1272640
That's certainly how the Polish would like to imagine it. Fact is the pagans weren't these peaceful tribal people wiped out by colonialism. They were raiders and pillagers who provoked their own defeat. "Massive ethnic cleanings" is genocide, which they were not subject to. They mostly just assimilated.
>>1272622
Yes, of course the soldiers believed the shit Pope Urban told them; the peasants and soldiers were told they'd get instantly sent to heaven if they died in the Crusades without time in Purgatory.
I'm talking about the people who planned it and authorized it; the fact that people came back broke is irrelevant because they'd failed. Failure means things didn't go as planned and instead went to shit.
>>1272187
>Cathars
>dangerous
Fuck off, CIDF
The Crusades attracted common folk and nobles alike, many of which sold all their possessions to finance the long journey.
The distance to the Holy Land, its lacks of riches, and the small chance of ever returning doesn't sustain the view that Crusaders were mere greedy plunderers, using religion as a tool to seek riches and powers.
The first leader of the Crusaders, Godfrey of Boullion, who used to be a duka in France, refused the title of King of Jerusalem, saying that he wouldn't wear a crown of gold where Christ wore a crown of thorns. He was addressed by his old ducal title, and as defender of the Holy Sepulchre.
He died in Jerusalem, never returning to Europe.
And many other nobles had similar fates. The Crusader Kingdoms were never safe nor rich, so it's unfair to claim Christians went there to live an easy and luxurious life.
Then again, you can always find people who had less noble intentions, such as the Venetians. They commonly participated in the Crusades, yet were never very interested in the Holy Land.
In one expedition, they tried to have the Crusaders fight Hungarians who were threatening their commerce. Most of the Crusaders refused to stop along the way to fight other Christians.
They were also responsible for the infamous sack of Constantinople.
>>1272616
Actually, there is a degree of truth to this, but in the way you put it. There really wasn't much economic motivation in the first crusade, but once they actually had secured the levant, trade was facilitated properly and many people started to realize how great trade was.
http://www.academia.edu/1557509/POTTERY_FROM_CRUSADER_ACRE_AS_EVIDENCE_OF_CORRELATION_BETWEEN_POTTERY_DISTRIBUTION_AND_MEDIEVAL_MEDITERRANEAN_TRADE_ROUTES
This is a fun little read
>>1272086
This. Wikipedia has a well-known leftist bias, here let me show you a reliable source, like this obscure youtube channel and jpg I found on /pol/.
>>1272070
>Northern crusades consistend only of Teutonic knights
>Venetians are anything but jews interested in shekels
>Venetians characterize and entire time period
>Byzantium didn't recover within 300 years
>the Mongols invaded in the 11th century
even the wikipedia puts the Mongol invasion 150 years AFTER the first crusades.
>citing irrelevant dissent crushing that rulers called crusades though they were against papal order
>The crusades caused Luther which caused the European wars of religion
Ho-Lee-Fuk
>Charlamagne was a "crusader"
kill me mane.
Whoever made this was illterate and salty, they could have made salient legitimate points with real considerations, instead they memed it up.
Other than that, its a good collection of "historical" memes.
>>1272070
>Albigensian Crusade
The cathars started the war by murdering the papal legate, and they were degenerates who prohibited sex and considered women as subhumans.
Their extermination was a good thing.
>>1272413
>slaving owning "democracy"
>whining about imperialism
Are Southerners really this retarded?
>inb4 muh states rights
>>1273116
The thing it is countering cites nothing at all. If you have a better source give one.
Why can't the Crusades be done for religious and selfish reasons?
Parceling people into neat little categories doesn't work very well.
Same goes for the Islamic conquests of North Africa, the Levant, Persia, and Spain.
>>1272070
the funny thing about this picture is that both the top and bottom are true
>>1272070
No, it takes a bunch of random disconnected events (basically everything bad the Crusaders ever did) and ignores the actual motivation and intention behind the first few Crusades.
It's like undermining the victory of the Allies in WW2 by saying "Well you know, they killed civilians in their bombing campaigns right? So yeah, checkmate. This proves they weren't good either.".
The second picture lists things that just have nothing to do with the motivation for the Crusaders as a whole. The Crusaders did bad things from time to time, but in their war with Islam their goal was protecting their own kind from aggressors.
This image basically uses the same logic modern liberals use to defend Muslims so I'm not surprised one of them edited this
>Dude like, you know the Crusaders also destroyed shit and killed civilians. So that means that they weren't ever defending their homelands from Islamic invasion because man. They were just as bad yo. refugees welcome!
>>1272170
The image doesn't even claim that Crusaders defeated Islam.
How's your day been going though Professor Green? Sucked any arab cocks?
>>1272707
>They were also responsible for the sack of Constantinople
Isn't this the historical version of "The US Government did 9/11"?
The 4th Crusade was originally set to target Alexandria for the Venetians, and it had a pretty damn good chance of succeeding. Why the hell would they re-direct it to Constantinope with the specific intention of fucking up the Byzantines? I don't see what the Venetians stood to gain from it.
"Massacre of the Latins" isn't an argument either. It wasn't enough of a reason to ruin their own Crusade and destroy Constantinople.
>>1275434
> I don't see what the Venetians stood to gain from it.
Sweet cash instead of dying for nothing.
>>1275404
I agree with your analysis of the second part, but the exact same thing applies to the first part. treating the crusades as some sort of clash of unified cultures, where western Europeans were defending themselves despite not being directly threatened since 732 and the fact that conquering overseas territory can hardly be seen as defensive. retrojecting a cassus belli onto thousand year old conflicts is stupid in the first place.
>>1275442
That was the Crusaders, not the Venetians. The Venetians were the ones who supplied the ships, they weren't the ones doing the fighting.
It also wasn't the Venetians who told them to go to Constantinople, it was Alexios IV.
It was just Greek/Latin fighting that got way the fuck out of hand and caused the Crusade to be forgotten about. The Venetians had nothing to do with it unless you look at them as the scheming Jew of Europe or something.
>>1275455
Religious oppresion towards Christians was taking place in the Middle East at an increasing rate prior to the First Crusade. That and Muslim raids on souther Europe were still very much a thing.
I'm sure you've heard of the Jizya tax. Well it goes far beyond a simple demanding of more money from non-Muslims. It is outright public humiliation where non-muslims are spat on and whipped in the streets as they are made to hand over their money.
Europe at the time of the initial Arab expansion was no where near strong enough to stage a counter attack on the massive Caliphate. If they were the Crusades would have happened much earlier.
But since the Muslims continued their aggressions and oppressions of non-Muslims and found themselves in a position that was far weaker than the initial Caliphates the Pope decided to launch a unified offensive against them to establish a safe Christian zone right in the heart of the Holy Land.
Yes, after the First few Crusades it descended into Nobles bickering and the Holy Orders became glorified bankers, but the intent behind the first few Crusades was pure.
The odds were so stacked against them that the First Crusade can absolutely not have been declared out of anything except the pure intention to defend their own kind. It was a miracle it worked.
>>1272070
regardless of european exceptionalism, you'd be praying five times a day right now if they didn't kill them barbaric dirteating fucks
>>1272070
Organized religions are led by people who may or may not actually be connected to divine beings who may or may not exist. That argument doesn't need to happen here so let's agree to disagree.
But ambitious, often callous, people are often attracted to positions of power. And in the engine of ambition, sentimentality burns the best.
>>1272460
>pop-history version that they sacked Constantinople for lawls
When you realize this isn't ironic shitposting...
>>1272696
Cathar Internet Defense Force get out
Seditious cunts that inspire the invasion of your kingdom from rivals need to be put down.
>>1275564
I'd have been praying 5 times a day if it weren't for Vienna. When they lost, they lost to unorganized, expeditionary forces. There's literally no way they could project the kind of power that the ottomans eventually would.
I can thank Turks, actually. For fucking up the Arabs and Persians with muh horse archers, and then just fucking up.
>>1275434
Crusaders showed up in too little numbers to pay for the Venetian fleet so they agreed to help Venice retake their Adriatic colonies to pay off their debt. Then an exiled Byzantine nobleman said he'd give them money to pay their debt, and convert the Orthodox Greeks to Roman Catholicism if they put him on the throne of Byzantium. Crusaders did it, then he got kicked out. The Byzantines refused to pay the crusaders, set their fleet on fire, and then tired to starve them out. So they sacked Constantinople.
>>1275466
This. I don't get the "catholics ruined byzantium" meme. Sure they do, but they go on sputtering it out of context. Made this in another thread:
>be a Byzantine noble
>hire a bunch of crusaders to make my dying father emperor again, make myself co-emperor
>chase the toppled pretender away from Constantinople
>father died unsurprisingly, rival elected emperor cos you're a fucking idiot that left Constantinople where poor af Catholics are waiting their promised booty
>new emperor wants everyone to fuck off, Dandolo don't want to leave without their pay
>Constantinople got sacked
It was Byzantines themselves that doomed their own faith. If there's anything that could've saved the empire, it's the Crusade of Varna. Unfortunately the Turks won, then 1453 happened.
Keep in mind that it is says christianity almost destroyed europe, not the crusades
Kill yourself.
>>1272070
You left out crusaders eating people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Ma'arra
>>1272357
It was about the expansion of slavery to new territories actually.
>>1272622
>>1272668
I'd argue ESPECIALLY becuas ethey sold their native shit they planned on gaining something in the Levant.
The vast majority of warriors don't actually PLAN on getting killed, but if you go on a crusade like you describe, selling your possesions is (at least in your little peasant mind) a win-win situation:
>You die
You go to haven, where you don't need your earthly possesions anyway
>You survive
You get granted some part of the Land of Milk and Honey and Live there till you di and also o to Heaven
Additionally a shitload of crusaders were second sons who wouldn't have gained anything from their father / had no possesions, pretty much the same guys who would later colonise the world. For them the prospect of gaining Land in the Levant was the described win-win situation.
>>1272707
>The eternal guido
>>1275466
We need a new money lender meme for Venice.
