Redpill me on the crusades
>>1297968
Only about 200 survived because of a deal one crusader made. The rest of the crusaders were pissed.
40,000 slaughtered. 1099 Jun 15 & 16. THE STREETS LITERALLY RAN
WITH BLOOD.
>>1297968
they captured Jerusalem and then under Guy de Lusignan completely fucking blew it in every single way and lost everything they gained.
>Muslims attack and conquer things from the early 8th century until the 11th century or so, largely due to Christians being divided and fighting among themselves.
>Pope doesn't like this at all and also wants to repair relations with the Orthodox Church which separated in 1054 and which he thought he begin to lure back by helping them out a bit.
>Muslims give him the pretext he needs to launch an invasion by messing with the rights of Christian pilgrims.
>Christians and Muslims fight for hundreds of years, Christians winning at times and Muslims at other, Muslims win.
>Muslims somehow believe this is what destroyed their Golden Age and not the Mongols/Timurids fucking everything up, and even then that didn't actually ruin them because the Turks and Iranians became incredibly powerful and advanced and arguably far better than Europe until around the late 17th century.
>>1298006
>>Muslims somehow believe this is what destroyed their Golden Age and not the Mongols/Timurids fucking everything up, and even then that didn't actually ruin them because the Turks and Iranians became incredibly powerful and advanced and arguably far better than Europe until around the late 17th century
Actually Most didn't care about the Crusades after 1300 untill Western scholars in the 1900's told them to care about it
Crusaders were controlled by Jesuits
>>1298006
>Muslims somehow believe this is what destroyed their Golden Age and not the Mongols/Timurids fucking everything up, and even then that didn't actually ruin them because the Turks and Iranians became incredibly powerful and advanced and arguably far better than Europe until around the late 17th century
Other than the massacre of jerusalem in the first crusade the crusades are a very insignificant part of history for muslims or atleast nowhere as recognized as it is by people here,i don't get why it's so praised here despite all of them failing excluding the first crusade and the norwegian one if you count that as a crusade.
>>1298163
The term crusade triggers muslims and leftists living in the west
OP here, what are essential books I should be reading on this subject. I don't want a pro Arab whitewash, I just want cold facts about the crusades.
>>1297968
>Promised to return Holy Land to Byzantine
>Byzantine let them pass
>Didn't return Holy Land
>First three Crusades killed a bunch of civilians, including Christians
>4th Crusade targeted Christians exclusively
>Never effectively halted the advance of Islam
The crusades is the Roman Catholic Church in a nutshell: Traitorous, vile, a complete failure and ultimately only harmful to Christianity.
The only people you could ever give any credit to, are the Hospitallers aka The Knights of Malta. Other than that, catholics are pure cancer.
>>1297968
The problem with the Crusades, is that most people who will talk about them will do huge generalizations and won't look at things in a pragmatic way.
For some, the Crusades were made by religious zealots to freely murder jews and muslims, and take huge plots of lands in Outremer.
For others, Crusaders were humble europeans fighting to defend their continent after almost 500 years of enduring muslims agressions.
None of those visions are real. Because there were many Crusades, and you simply can't compare a Crusade made by Kings (Like the IIIrd) with a more humble Crusade made by poor pilgrims.
Eventually, most arab leaders didn't care about the Crusades. Some were in fact very happy it happened, and there were indeed alliances between some Outremer states and local emirs at times.
The Crusades were a complete military failure, and some of them managed to fuck extremly bad when they actually had a lot of options ; It is mostly because the christians leaders were often in conflict between each other. Even the military orders were at stake (Hospitaliers vs Templars).
>>1298163
>despite all of them failing
By the end of the Near Eastern Crusades, Christians could go on pilgrimage to the Holy Land. That doesn't sound like failing to me.
>>1298247
You left out crusaders eating people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Ma'arra
Crusaders destroyed Christianity by created evil Muslims instead of friendly Gonden Age one and by sacking Constantinople and killing peaceful Cathars. Shame on crusaders and their evil doings.
>>1297968
>war going on between Muslims, Persians, and Byzantines, all of them against each other
>Muslims easily conquer Arab territory that is not Roman, as well as Byzantine's North African and Mediterranean colonies due to it being so far away from the capital and resenting the ceasers's harsh rule
>Persia is rekt, Byzantines and new Arab caliphate make peace
>crusaders come out of nowhere
>goto war with both the Byzantines and Arabs
>sack Constantinople
>lose both wars due to lack of strategy and simply being barbarians
>self defense
>go crusade in Scandinavia
>>1298006
Lel no, most Muslims I know blame the mongols
>>1298219
Gods War by Christopher Tyreman
>>1298247
t. Butthurt Greco-t*rkshit
>>1298247
This is idiotic, The Crusaders were neither genocidal blood lusting murderers or shining paladins, both of those are childish, simplistic portrayals of a very large group of sub-factions spanning several centuries.
The most important thing to remember is that after the period of the Crusades themselves, the Crusader States basically became a permanent part of Levant until they were evicted by the 13th century's end. During these times of peace the Crusades and Muslims bled into each other, slowly adopting each other's ways and fusing a bit culturally. Knights would convert to Islam, marry a muslim girl, and move east, and Muslims would convert to Christianity and move west. Trade boomed especially, and it's thanks to the Crusades that eastern markets were re-opened to the West, with goods from India, China, Persia, etc pouring into Europe once more after the re-introduction.
>>1298399
>crusaders dindu nuffin, they good bois they go to church
>>1298515
This, between the periods of muslim/crusader war there were a lot of periods of peace
>>1298515
>This is idiotic, The Crusaders were neither genocidal blood lusting murderers or shining paladins...
I disagree. On 15 & 16 June of 1099 they were both. The Leaders of the 1st Crusade were among the worst that humanity has ever had to offer. 40,000 dead in one day. Virtually no quarter given. Knights, soaked in blood, on their knees at the Holy Sites while children were being gleefully slaughtered in the streets.
The actions of the Knights of the First Crusade upon sacking Jerusalem that day in mid June in 1099 can not be defended.
>>1298781
Yeah they killed muslims and Jews. Which are you
We've turned away from God. And so he punishes us! Sends hordes of heathen warriors to gather at our gates! But God is also merciful! And our past misdeeds may be forgotten! All we need do is ask! And so, I say to you, repent! Lay down before Him and confess your sins! He will forgive. Such is his nature. And beg forgiveness we must, for only when our hearts and minds are cleansed can victory be assured!
Be not afraid. Fear and doubt are the weapons of our enemies! Do not listen to their lies! Poisonous words meant to sow the seeds of confusion! If you find yourself tempted, go and pray! Ask God for direction! If your heart is pure, He will surely answer!
A plague upon Saladin! A plague upon his people! We came in peace to the Holy Land to spread the message of our Lord, but they turned away! They refused to accept Him as their savior! These men hold evil in their hearts, and so blessed Richard, King and savior, now stands against them, defending us from their wicked ways!
The Saracens are routed at every turn! We cast them out of Acre, and pushed them from the countryside! Now, they retreat to the south, begging Saladin to save them! But he will not succeed, for none can withstand the might of King Richard's army! He is graced by God! It is only a matter of time, friends, before all the land is ours once more, just as it was meant to be!
Stay strong, citizens! Remain fixed in your beliefs! Though the road is long and your trials many, know that God watches over you, it is his hand that guides our warriors to victory! First in Acre, soon in Jaffa!
Be strong, stand firm! Do not give up! Without our support, Richard and his men cannot hope to free the Holy Land! We must do all we can to aid them in their cause! Tend to your fields. Provide aid to the wounded. Pray for those who sacrificed in service to the Lord. We must all do our part!
>>1298830 they killed Christians too. I am a Christian Lay Speaker who has preached this sermon in church (What we do in the name of God).
So... What is your point regarding my religious affiliation?
>>1298855
That you sound like a Muslim our a Jew that used some exaggerated numbers. Or some orthodox Christian who acts like the Byzantine empire didn't do anything wrong but betrayed the crusaders during the first battle
>>1298869
You are a simple person and you have my sympathies (I'm Methodist.). Whether the number is 25K or 40K, the fact remains, only 200 citizens of Jerusalem survived. The Crusaders gave no quarter. On 15 & 16 June, 1099 the streets RAN WITH BLOOD. Why can't you get your head around that?
>>1298898
You act like i care. Both muslims and Jews at that point were responsible for massacres of Christians. The Jews literally did the same thing in Jerusalem in the early 600's. That kind of behavior was common during that time and was seen as simple revenge
>>1298911
>denies Christians would do such a thing
>gets proven wrong
>"oh like I care!"
That damage control lmao
Take your politicised view of history and shove it up your arse.
>>1298917
I didn't deny anything but the number. And the people i mentioned are known for making up numbers and making events seem bigger than what they were
>>1298911
>Both muslims and Jews at that point were responsible for massacres of Christians. The Jews literally did the same thing in Jerusalem in the early 600's.
[citation needed]
Present your case. Cite any single event between Masada and 1099 in the Levant which comes remotely close to the sack of Jerusalem.
THE STREETS RAN WITH BLOOD.
Read "The Crusades" (1965) Zoe Oldenbourg [pic in >>1297984 related]
>>1298952
When the Persians captured Jerusalem in 617 They had a column of Jews following them killing christians as they went. The jews were then given the city to rule over while being under Persian control. The Jews made living there so bad the people revolted and the jew/Persian army slaughtered the citizens after a long siege
>>1298781
What about the enslavement of thessalonica by muslims? What about the tens of thousands of women enslaved after the fall of jerusalem? what about the centures of conquests, enslavement, forced conversion and genocide by muslims before the first crusade was called?
No, the crusaders are not the beasts here
>>1298976
Excellent response. Thanks. Pretty cool. Please provide the name of an authoritative book (pre 2000) so I can read up on it.
Doesn't change the unholy nature and religious frenzy of the actions of the first Crusaders. Some questions:
1. Was the initial siege by Persia in 617 politically, territorially or religiously motivated?
2. What percentage of the population of the city was killed and what are the demographics of the slaughter?
In 1099 > 99% of the population was killed regardless of age, sex, race or religion. (No quarter - THE STREETS RAN WITH BLOOD)
>>1299020
Man that slaughter was one of the reasons jews were hated for hundreds of years. You don't know history do you
>>1299012
Enslavement is not slaughter.
Be specific regarding your events.
AND YES. THE THREAD IS ABOUT THE CRUSADES so yes, the 1st Crusaders are the Beasts. They were unholy baby killers marching in the name of Jesus.
>>1299025
Not him but i don't get your point,how does the action of jews justify genociding the whole city including muslim civillians in a god damn HOLY war,if you're going to use the jews slaughter of christians in jerusalem as an excuse then every horrible action done by muslims after that massacre of jerusalem is justified.
>>1299032
Enslavement is worse, at least slaughter is death and not perpetual abuse and degradation of people and their offspring
>>1299025
The thread is about the Crusades. My answers reference the original OP. The actions of others at other times does not excuse or lessen the appalling nature of the 1st Crusader and the sack of Jerusalem.
>>1299037
I told you at this time it was seen as simple revenge. I'm not looking at this through a modern perspective. And the muslims horrible things to Christians as well.
>>1299060
>I told you at this time it was seen as simple revenge
[citation needed]
Anyone who hates on the crusades, I welcome you to look at the map of europe as early as the 8th century. Why is anyone surprised that a phenomenon like the crusades happened? If anything people should be baffled why they didn't happen earlier
>>1299060
Like what,historically speaking the christians appreciated the muslim rule a lot more than the byzantine rule at the very least.
>>1297968
Can someone red Pill on the sixth and Baron's crusade?
What the fuck where the Ayyubids thinking?
>>1299070
Dynastic sultanates like the Ayyubids were a collection of emirs who were all related, but who only worked with each other as long as they liked each other.
>>1299067
>Why is anyone surprised that a phenomenon like the crusades happened? If anything people should be baffled why they didn't happen earlier
Mostly because we know better than to buy into the revisionist 'the crusades were a counterattack!' meme some snake oil salesman in a bowtie is selling.
>>1299070
al-kamil and frederick both was an absolute madman, the diplomatic mission probably goes something along like this "anyone who likes birds is an alright dude in my book here take jerusalem and some of my other cities"
>>1299122
t. abdul hakeem al-shebabi
>>1299067
>If anything people should be baffled why they didn't happen earlier
Precisely this.
The narrative that it was a "Christian Counterattack" falls flat on its face when you realize that for quite a long time """"""Christians""""""" (as if that was ever a united front) did not care.
Its right up there with believing "Byzantines protected Europe."
>>1299151
Post the muslim list of deeds
>>1299068
The sejulks. That's what also made the jewish attack on Christians worse because the Christians in the Levant didn't like the Byzantines
>>1299135
also the 6th is my favorite one overall frederic managed to both reclaim jerusalem and and mend relations with the ayyubids at the same, all of this with diplomacy
>>1299154
It's irrelevant. What's relevant is that the Crusades have harmed Christianity more than helped it.
>>1299163
the crusades certainly benefited europe in the long run though
>>1299163
You would be speaking turkish right now if it weren't for the crusades
>>1299168
>Implying there would be so many people in Europe and Asia Minor speaking Turkish if it wasn't precisely for the Crusades
>>1299174
You can stop now
>this butthurt byzzieboos shitting on every crusade thread
maybe the situation wouldnt be as bad as it did if the retard byzantines treated their subjects right
>>1299165
>>1299168
That's beyond the point,the crusaders ignored any proper human war treatment almost every fucking time they won a siege,they immediatly forced the population to either convert or die or outright die without the option of converting which more or less was asking the muslims to attack way more aggressively.
here is a prime example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Ma%27arra
>>1299192
Just like muslims offer conversion or execution and enslavement
whoa...
Just shut the fuck up already, you're clearly a biased muslim
>>1299197
>Just like muslims offer conversion or execution and enslavement
literally never happened my friend :)
cite your sources
>>1299197
>Just like muslims offer conversion or execution and enslavement
Nice source faggot you totally got me.
>>1299067
> I welcome you to look at the map of europe as early as the 8th century.
too bad the map and Warner are both full of shit
>>1299200
The Koran
>>1299208
>>1299210
Well i'm glad you gave up in the most hilarious way.
>>1299218
Keep feigning ignorance, it gets you nowhere
Again, it would be more productive for you to just admit you're a mudshit
>>1299210
nice citation and sources you got there senpai :^)
>>1299225
>Keep feigning ignorance, it gets you nowhere
>Coming from a guy who would rather die than cite a source for his arguement
>Your whole arguement is literally MUH FEELS
Oh im laffin.
>>1299228
mashallah friend mashallah
>>1299233
>conversion or exection/enslavement didn't happen because I need a source on something that's common knowledge
Clearly you haven't even read the books you claim you have read to begin with so... ma'al-salamah, friend
>>1299122
The first Crusade quite literally was. It was the result of the Byzantines begrudgingly asking the Vatican for help because they had lost so much ground to Muslims and needed some Christian backup. The Pope figured it was a great oppertunity to bolster the power of the Catholic church and possibly influence the Orthodox called for a Crusade, basically stating for the first time that killing shit as a Christian was the shit when you killed infidels and contributing to the Crusade would offer salvation, which to the medieval Christian Euopean was a hot commodity. So naturally fucking everyone and their moms went. Nobody had expected anything more than a bunch of ambitious nobles gathering their dudes and heading off, but instead they got a fucking mass pilgrimage of peasants, large groups of which tear assed through Europe on their way to Constantinople, creating havoc as they went. Their first victims once they actually got to kebabistan were Christians too, but sand Christians, so nobody could tell the difference, then they got wrecked. After them came the actual armies, motivated by a mix of faith, greed and ambition, and once they got to kebabistan they tear assed through the place, won some crazy victories, ate a town, annexed Muslim and Christian towns alike and finally wrecked Jerusalem until Saladin retook it a good while later. The bloodbath in Jerusalem while horrible, honestly shouldn't come as any surprise. Back then, taking a city was never pretty, and neither was the aftermath, looting, pillaging, raping and killing was par for course when you captured anything back then, then add religious fanaticism to the mix and you're gonna see some shit, especially from people who had just been on one hell of a trip through the middle east.
tl;dr: Constantinople was scared, so the Pope told the Europeans to take Jerusalem and they actually did it, what aboslute madmen.
Am I the only one who thinks the Crusades are an absolute hilarious bit of history?
>>1299300
>Am I the only one who thinks the Crusades are an absolute hilarious bit of history?
youre not alone, the fourth and the sixth crusade in particular was a comedy gold
>MUH JERUSALEM MASSACRE
whoa just like every other fucking sack of any other city in europe and elsewhere
>>1297968
that picture is from the capture of Constantinople, not Jerusalem
also
>9gag
>>1297968
-It was a colossal failure
-Most of the atrocities that the liberals whine about were cited by the crusaders own priest (priest were the ye olde liberals)
-It wasn't about territorial acquisition, sure some people made a few small kingdoms here and there, but no intelligent person would travel thousands of kilometers/miles to a place filled with enemies just to gain land they have no intelligence of, they were serious about the holy land
-Crusades were the least of the Muslim's problems by the time it occurred the golden ages were pretty much done and everything pretty much went wrong in the muslim world all at once. From Turkish takeover, to sectarian bullshit, to dynastic in-fighting, to dealing with the resurgence of Byzantium, and after the crusades, Mongols
-Byzantium and the people of Eastern Europe probably shouldn't support the crusades since they were more the victims of it than the Muslims, and probably wouldn't have been later taken over by the Ottomans and suffer centuries of Muslim rule if not for them (though that's just alt his nonsense, they were probably destined for rape).
>>1299300
>The first Crusade quite literally was.
Far from it. All of that is the outdated story. What happened was that the Byzantine Emperor faced a series of revolts in Anatolia that crippled his manpower and income. With Pecheneg raids and Serbian rebellions on his Balkan flank and having just narrowly avoided a coup from within his own camp, he was effectively trapped in Constantinople. The loss of Anatolia wasn't the result of a Muslim invasion, but the connivance of Turkish, Greek, Frank, and Armenian vassals, and it just so happened that the most dangerous of these rebels were the Muslim emirs of Nicaea and Smyrna, who began raiding the rich lands and monasteries of the Aegean coast while cutting off Constantinople from the east. The First Crusade was called to recruit mercenaries and potential vassals for the emperor to uproot and replace all of the above.
It just so happened that the call coincided with a rising fervor in Europe that the end times were nigh, exacerbated by the recent violence of the Turkish Byzantine vassals (and not any Seljuk invasion) which made their way into Western Europe by the emperor's own letters attracting Northern French and German barons to his court over the years. Around Antioch this frenzy overtook the Crusader army and forced it on a direct march to Jerusalem.
This was why the sack of Jerusalem was so bloody, even for the times. The orgy of violence was meant to precipitate the end of days, which of course never came as always.
>>1299344
>thats_the_joke.jpg
>>1299337
>>MUH JERUSALEM MASSACRE
It's about the Constantinople massacre and crusaders even raping nuns.
>>1299067
Why should not ALL MEN hate the Crusades and revile the leaders of the 1st Crusade? It's justification by any means notwithstanding, the events of June 1099 can only be hated by all humans. We may study the logic and events which brought down the Walls of Jerusalem by whatever means we choose, but we can not excuse or otherwise forgive the River of Blood which flowed on that day in June.
>>>1299197 You attempt to justify baby killing. How? Revenge. An eye for an eye making the whole world blind.
>>1299300 what evil grips you that you find humor in the slaughter of the innocent.
>>1299337
>like every other fucking sack of any other city in europe and elsewhere
Not even close. What don't you understand about no quarter. Rivers of Blood in the 'Holiest' City of the Planet.
>>1299383
>it was a colossal failure
Well shit, I didn't know that I couldn't go on pilgrimage to Jerusalem today if I wanted to. Thanks for informing me on this.
>>>1299583
well you can
you just have to pay your jewish overlords
>>1298781
....So? Killing 40,000 people is par for the fucking course in the middle ages. All wars of conquest result in mountains of corpses, it's just par for the course. No different than the shit that was going down in France during the Hundred Years War or William I's harrying of the north.
>>1299043
Who gives a fuck. Mass slaughter was a common thing in Classical Warfare or Medieval Warfare. Fuck it's still pretty common in the modern day. Hell we did the exact same thing to Berlin and Japan with the firebombings slaughter massive amounts of civilians.
It's war, civilians die en masse. Get over it.
>>1297968
>Popes says "hurr durr let's invade the Middle East guys"
>French nobles, German nobles and French nobles living in England (nowdays refered as "English" to avoid confusion with those from France) accept
>They initially fuck muslim's shit up
>And then lose
>1000 years later, Bush read about it and decides "hurr durr let's invade the Middle East guys"
>>1298144
nigga, the jesuits formed in the 16th century
>>1299955
>Killing 40,000 people is par for the fucking course in the middle ages
pls read a book
summary: leaders in art, architecture, math, science, hygiene, overrun by smelly greasy bearded heathens
>>1300043
Funny how we've sort of switched places now
>>1299060
>implying provincial christians in one of the more economically isolated parts of the world in the early millenium would know about a massacre in jerusalem from 400 years prior, by persians no less.
>>1300028
An order of assassins who murdered Christians, and Jews, and still do to this day.
An oathbreaking Black Pope is seated in the Vatican.
Pure evil.
>>1299012
Give me a source about genocide done by muslims before the crusades same for forced conversion.
>>1299225
>everyone who disagrees with me is a muslim XDDDD
this is you
>>1300075
Even if all of that were true (which it isn't), the Jesuits formed long after the "main" Crusades had ended
>>1300097
The Jesuits were not ordained to murder muslims in the Crusades.
They were ordained to murder Christians in the Counter-Reformation.
The list of murdered dead behind the Vatican is endless.
>>1297968
>Redpill me
Fucking kill yourself.
>>1300051
Such is the way of the world.
>>1300036
I have, and killing 40,000 people is not remotely remarkable? The Harrying of the North by William I killed 100,000 people. Cities and villages were frequently slaughtered wholesale at the conclusion of sieges or when the sieging Lord was sufficiently pissed off at the enemy for putting up a hard fight. The only difference is the sheer number, as cities in the east were larger than the usual european city.
>>1298247
>Never effectively halted the advance of Islam.
Yeah, because we all now that Spain is still Muslim now, right?
>>1300274
>Anglos
>people
Pick one
The Frenchman did nothing wrong
>>1300274
>The Harrying of the North by William I killed 100,000 people.
Those figures were likely exaggerated. And although they didn't minimize the calamity of the campaign, the deaths likely occurred from famine and the deaths accumulated over several years. So if we're to take the other anon's estimation that the crusaders killed 40,000 people in a single day, it would be incomparable to the harrying of the North, which was probably unprecedented at the time anyway. To give further perspective, bloodshed of the scale of Jerusalem in such a short time would not have been matched by the Thirty Years' War (the sack of Madgeburg killed 15,000-25,000 iirc) or the Great Terror during which 100,000 people died over the course of a year of which perhaps 15,000 people were guillotined in Paris.
>>1298006
actually, muslims believe that the mongols fucked everything up
I was taught that even in my government-mandated public school history course in Egypt.
ITT: plebbit apologists who suck John Green's cuck cock
>the crusades
Pretty dumb desu
>>1298898
The RAN WITH BLOOD thing is a meme. That doesn't even make sense, they say that "the blood was up to their horses knees" and that's impossible.
The crusades were mostly anti-Turk rather than anti-Muslims. Muslims took the holy land centuries before the crusades, the Christian world had an agreement with the Arab rulers that pilgrims and Christians there would be safe. The Turks came down from Hades (aka the steppe) and changed the rules of the game so Pope responded with war.
>>1302250
Have the Turks ever not fucked things up?
