Why did the crusades all fail?
>>365896
First was a success and Third was a draw.
>>365906
This
Plus can you really say the fourth failed?
The Muslims were fighting in their backyard, the Europeans were fighting at the very edge of their reach.
Still, they succeeded in being pretty entertaining, and if I'm remembering things properly, the ensuing debt led to the First Baron's War and the Magna Carta.
the first being succesful was pretty shocking desu, how did they do it?
>>367428
It was God's Will (and Seljuk infighting)
>>365906
Third was a victory IMO.
Saladin got roflstomped by Richard and knew his days were numbered and so sued for peace.
Imagine if the HRE and his army hadn't drowned.Shit would have ended then and there.Saladin would get BTFO and New Kingdom of Jerusalem would have been formed
No one would have dared to fuck with Jerusalem from there on out
>>367428
Fatimids and Seljuk hated eachother and the Fatidimids helped the Crusaders in the beginning (until they realized the crusade was for Jerusalem and not Anatolia). The concept of Jihad wasn't really thought of before. The Seljuk Sultan was also a bit too far from the action and didn't commit much.
>>369210
Saladin and his armies weren't the only muslims around at the time, you still had the delhi sultanate, the arabs, abbasids and the khwarezmians.
Some of them would try to attack Jerusalem again.
>>370241
>Delhi sultanate
>>370278
>The Third Crusade (1189–1192)
>Quṭb al-Dīn Aibak, Aibak also spelled Aybak (1150–1210) was the founder of Turkish dominion in India. He was born of Turkic parents in Turkistan. He ruled Northwest India. He was the founder of Mamluk Dynasty (in Delhi). He was an able general of Muʿizz al-Dīn Muḥammad (also known as Muhammad of Ghor). He also built the Quwwat-ul-Islam mosque in Delhi and the Adhai-Din-Ka-Jhonpra mosque in Ajmer. He started the construction of Qutb Minar in memory of sufi saint Qutbuddin Bakhtiar Kaki which was completed by his successor, Iltutmish.
>>370287
So? I know that, but what are they gonna do to jerusalem? send two bands of raiders every year?
>Anything but this
It has a black helmet. It has a motherfucking tie. All else is inferior.
>>370333
Fuck, wrong thread.
>>369234
>The concept of Jihad wasn't really thought of before
>>370352
I meant like the 'opposite' of a crusade. The Seljuk Sultan didn't care too much about Jerusalem, and while there were preachers shouting for a joint muslim campaign against Jerusalem, it wasn't popular.
>>370379
You realize how the middle East was islamized? Through jihad against the persians and byzantines
>>370406
Ok, I retract some of my statements. The muslims of course counquered all of MENA and jihad is a term from the Quran, but in the 11th century it was largely forgotten about. My point is that the muslims didn't care too much about Jerusalem during the time period. Not until Saladin and such.
>>365896
The northern crusades are crusades. The crusades in the context of the reconquista are crusades. The albigesian crusade is a crusade.
>>370579
> northern crusades are crusades
You mean those that failed?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grunwald
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_on_the_Ice
>>365896
Considering the retaking of Lisbon later spawned the greatest christian empire of all times, sending priests all over the world to convert pagans, I would say the second crusade was nothing but success
>riding into battle with the True Cross and still losing
>>365896
The Crusades were a logistical nightmare, especially with 1100's technology, but it's amazing that the Christians accomplished as much as they did at the time.
First is recruiting hundreds of thousands of men for the job, then there's arming them, feeding them, training them to be battle ready and to march across the continent across mountains and deserts in climates they never experienced in their lives.
the various Turk and Egyptian states had the intrinsic advantage of being on defense, but mutual distrust and infighting ruined their ability to fight a well organized force.
The First Crusade with nothing short of a miracle with the Christians actually making the full journey and establishing Crusader kingdoms that would hold up for the next 200 years.
but the heavy price of keeping the Crusader kingdom's defended that far away from any Christian population center was an immense challenge at best, forcing people to make the journey across Anatolia time and time again, a frontier that the Byzantines had a harder time defending as time went on.
in short; what the Christian armies accomplished was amazing for the time, taking the entire Holy Land and establishing long-lasting kingdom's to defend it for 2 centuries was nothing short of inspiring for being on very fringe of Christian influence and surrounded by enemies. But plain old time and distance caught up to them until the Kingdom of Jerusalem and Acre were reconquered by the Muslims in 1291.
To say that 200 years of defense against greater numbers in your enemy's heartland is a total failure is not enough credit. Most states in that situation would not even survive a 20 year war, let alone 200.
>>370733
It's not amazing at all when you consider how much fighting there was between Muslims themselves. It was not a Muslims vs Christians thing, otherwise the Muslims would have ROLFstomped even more than they did.
Do you know what is even more impressive? Conquering an area three times the Roman empire, in about 200 years, from within Christian and Zoroastrian lands.
The biggest reason was that unlike what Runciman said, the Crusades were not for material gain and the majority of Crusaders that didn't die went back to Europe after conquering whatever they wanted to.
The Crusader states lacked a population.
>>370733
>not just sailing
>>370758
>Do you know what is even more impressive? Conquering an area three times the Roman empire, in about 200 years, from within Christian and Zoroastrian lands.
Do you know that your statement is 10x more flawed than his? You can easily play down the Muslim conquests as only succeeding due to the fact the persians and Byzantines had torn each other apart(which is true)
>>370787
Which is a dumb meme spouted by retarded Westerners.
Look up any of the early battles between Muslim forces and Byzantine/Sassanid forces. The Muslims were always outnumbered.
Fact of the matter is that hardened (nomadic) people from the deserts and steppes always BTFO sedentary fucks in those times. Huns did it, Arabs did it, Mongols did it.
>>370804
>Which is a dumb meme spouted by retarded Westerners.
And you're just a dumb meme spouting retarded Arab
They were more just a WAAAGH than an organized campaign. Everyone just got that war feeling in their gut and just started marching in the same general direction.
>>370804
>m-muh steppe heritage
MEHMET MY SON
MY
SON
>>365896
They didn't. Spain and the Baltics were the important ones, Jerusalem and friends were vanity projects.
>>370804
>hardened (nomadic) people from the deserts and steppes
That list of 1 hardened nomadic people from the desert
>>365896
The were corporately/privately funded and when the money ran out all but the most fervently devoted lost interest.
>>370595
But the crusade against the pagans was over and finished succesfully when all that happened? Last time I checked, there was no pagans in the Baltic.
>>365896
cause your mommy was a whore
>>365896
moslems had the wealth, numbers and a comparable tech level.
I always forgot the crusades against the pagans
>>372082
They're pretty funny IMO, especially when they just went and fucked up their pagan Slav cousins
Spain isn't Muslim now
>>370524
This, during the First Crusade the Turkish nobles were more interested in their local political squabbles rather than uniting to defeat the Frankish invaders.
>>370804
>Huns did it
Yeah, it's not like General Aetius won the battle of the Catalaunian plains or anything....
peasant's crusade was pretty interesting.
>>370406
Jihad as a concept was developed halfway through the Umayyad dynasty as a frontier lifestyle. Even when co-opted now and then by the Umayyad and Abbasid caliphs its purpose was almost always a raid to maintain control over the Syrian-Anatolian border. The conquest of North Africa, Mesopotamia, and Persia, however, predates this.
The other anon is right however in that Jihad as a counter Crusade, the purpose of which is to dominate sacred space, came about in this period or soon after. This is why it wasn't until much later that the Egyptian and Syrian response to the Crusader States changed from defense of the border to reconquest.
Either way, the idea disappeared with the last Crusader state (though it's now returned in modern fundamentalism) and was overtaken by the Ghazi ideal.
>>370733
It really wasn't such a miracle as everyone thinks. It only appears so based upon more modern demographics than the situation in the 12th and 13th century. The Crusades had ample logistics from both Byzantine and Italian trade networks, there were plenty of local Christian and heterodox/independent Muslim military and economic powers to rely upon, and a sizable native population of Christians. It's only with the Mamluks that the region saw a significant decline in all of the above.
>>365896
It really comes down to the fact that the First Crusade was a once in an era opportunity. The material and political conditions in Europe and the Holy Land were just right to favor the Europeans (Muslims were decentralized and squabbling amongst themselves, the Pope had finally cemented his clout over Europe's monarchs), and massive changes in the religious culture of Europe (emphasis on Christ's humanity leading people to want to visit the places he lived, common people wanting to take greater control of their own spiritual lives) in the period leading up to the Crusade created an upswelling of religious zeal that was simply impossible to replicate.
Reconquista wasn't a failure, tho.
muh baltic crusade
>>365896
Sadly they didn't
>tfw no medieval estonian kingdom
>>367402
cheekyprawn
>>370733
If they had conquered Alexandria or Baghdad, that would have been an amazing accomplishment. Conquering Jerusalem because the Muslims were fighting each other really isn't that amazing.
>>365896
Europe was still behind Asia. Making permanent inroads against a more advanced civilization was never going to be easy. The fact Christian Jerusalem lasted as long as it did is itself pretty impressive.
>>370804
Yeah right, it was Gods will wasn't it you goatfucking muslim. Numbers don't matter, the Arabs wouldn't be able to do shit if either the Sassanids or the Byzantines were at their pre war strength. Both empires were exhausted from wars.
