What was the true intention of the crusades?
Did the Templars find some relic?
Do you like cute girls?
>What was the true intention of the crusades?
Liberating the holy land from savage barbarians worshiping a false God
>Did the Templars find some relic?
Doubtful
>Do you like cute girls?
Yes.
They were started by the Templars who were looking for the Apple of Eden.
>>457022
>Cannibalism during the siege of Ma'arra
>Peter the Hermit ruining everything
>Pointless murder, rape and looting of the European countryside because the entire thing was so unorganized
>Muh holy war
>>457016
The Templar originally consisted of around eight knights who protected pilgrims on their voyage to the Holy Land. I believe the crusades were initially started over the want to claim Jerusalem, with Jesus being crucified there and whatnot. But the later crusades were waged over money, and property.
>>457027
The Templar order was't founded until after the first crusade. So how could they have started them?
>>457091
Because of muh assassin's
>>457016
>What was the true intention of the crusades?
For the western christian powers to seize control of the Holy Land due to its location in the middle east, making it a valuable trade partner for the Kingdoms of the West, all under the guise of protecting their fellow Christians in the Byzantine Empire - despite the less than cordial relations between the Orthodox and Catholic churches - even if all those in the Holy Land had been Orthodox Christians
For the average crusader though, it was the whole liberating the holy land from savage barbarians, etc, etc, but for the actual kings and lords behind it, the reasoning was benefits to their kingdom.
>Did the Templars find some relic?
no
>Do you like cute girls
Yes, but this is /his/
>>457102
I like the games, I wish there were more from the Crusades time period.
This has to stop. Christposting has to stop.
>>457111
>but for the actual kings and lords behind it, the reasoning was benefits to their kingdom.
What a load of crap. There were no monetary benefits from holding the holy land.
>>457111
>For the average crusader though, it was the whole liberating the holy land from savage barbarians
Saying the Crusades would pardon your sins also attracted a lot of people for selfish reasons, many being the types the Church didn't want.
>>457187
>One of the holiest sites in the world to 3 religions
>No economic benefit
You realize Muslims extorting Christians with admission fees was part of the reason they got pissed off? Not to mention looting pays money and land is a finite and valuable resource.
>>457181
>This has to stop. Truthposting has to stop
No, anon
>>457187
Christians charged Muslims a tax to practice their rligion.
>>457202
We've got countless records of noble families ruining themselves for the crusades, where are the ones that got rich?
>>457220
>losing your money in a shitty investment means you weren't trying to get rich
Wew lad
>Let's just pretend losing 8/9 of the Crusades had nothing to do with it
The Fourth Crusade was one of the biggest fuck ups of all time.
>>457187
>Gives access to Middle Eastern goods due to location
>Easier to trade with the Middle Eastern Arabic powers due to its position
>Perfect location for Mediterranean trade
>Holding it would both weaken the Byzantine Empire and the Muslim Caliphates
>Muslim powers already using its status to charge Christians on pilgrimages
It may hurt your feelings, but a lot of the great nobles weren't motivated by muh religous conviction, muh holy land, muh god; though some of course were, and I've conceded that the average peasant volunteer was there fighting for religous reasons, believing their holy land had been overrun by the infidel, but the reason Kings went to fight was for the benefit, knowing well they could hopefully have one of their own on the throne of a Kingdom of Jerusalem
Much of the crusades came down to the economic benefits, and the politics of the time, just look at the 4th Crusade, and don't forget the French constantly tried to forge an alliance with the even more heretical Mongols against the more closer spiritually Muslims during the crusades.
>>457220
Have you forgotten the House of Flanders was a thing?
>>457236
Your only argument is they fucking taxed the locals. Duh of course those kraks weren't gonna build themselves. Point is money never flew back to Yurope. If their motivation was cash they would have stayed in the crusader states to exploit the land to the bone, didn't happen.
>>457244
>It may hurt your feelings
lel
It may hurt your modern sensibility, but the Crusades were motivated by religious reasons.
Nobody knew that the Byzantines would give up, and that there would still be a mass mobilization from catholics who would eventually seize the land themselves.
I don't give a fuck about your "concessions". I'm talking about noble families, not peasants. It never brought them any financial benefits and yet they continued sending sons after sons for generations.
>>457248
>Your only argument is they fucking taxed the locals. Duh of course those kraks weren't gonna build themselves.
Wow, it's almost like conquering and place and taxing the locals provides income and valuable land.
>Point is money never flew back to Yurope.
Do you not understand that failing to make money and not wanting to make money are two separate things? I never said economic gain was the sole motivation, but it wasn't absent.
>If their motivation was cash they would have stayed in the crusader states to exploit the land to the bone, didn't happen.
Because they got rekt.
>>457262
>I'm talking about noble families, not peasants. It never brought them any financial benefits and yet they continued sending sons after sons for generations.
Do you think they invaded knowing they'd lose? Jesus christ.
>>457244
>heretical Mongols
this meme needs to die.
>>457265
>Because they got rekt.
Nope.
The reason the outremer kingdoms failed is they were always undermanned. Strangely, all those adventurer noble who, according to you, were here to seize all the riches they could, in reality returned home when they felt they had done enough. They never managed to retain enough nobles.
>>457273
You seem to be confused. They didn't set out to "invade" anything, they set out to help the Byzantines. Byzantines gave up, and only then the Christians seized the holy land themselves.
>>457210
>___posting
A synonym for shitposting, without exception.
>>457262
Can you not read at all?
I accepted their was a religious motive, I mean the Papacy wouldn't just call a crusade for no reason, for the banter. But the truth is, even back then the average noble would not act out of just religious devotion, there had to be some sort of benefit to them from these crusades, and their was, there was the chance of rising above the rest, liberating the holy cities, and gaining power for you or your family in the holy land and Levant, outwith that there was simply the respect of being a Crusader, bringing a level of prestige to your name in future dealings, yes there will have been some fighting based on religious conviction alone, but absolutely not the majority of them.
>I'm talking about noble families, not peasants
So am I, which is why I mentioned the House of Flanders, have you forgotten that already?
>>457294
>I mentioned the House of Flanders
And that's supposed to be an argument?
>But the truth is, even back then the average noble would not act out of just religious devotion, there had to be some sort of benefit to them from these crusades
The "truth" doesn't need to be supported by evidence I suppose? The overwhelming majority of nobles served their time in Outremer and went home. There was no benefit to gain.
>>457294
Read up on the work Christopher Tyerman did: going on crusade would more likely end up in bankrupting a family than bringing them any monetary benefit. And don't tell me "but they didn't know!", the Crusades lasted a while, they knew.
>>457275
>undermanned
A common reason for getting rekt. Slaughtering indiscriminately also kinda got them fucked in the ass, y'know.
>Strangely, all those adventurer noble who, according to you, were here to seize all the riches they could, in reality returned home when they felt they had done enough.
Yeah, they left everything as it was and didn't bring home any goodies, sure. Slaves were a huge economic gain and several trade routes passed through Jerusalem.
>>457279
>responding to the Turkish threat mean they didn't invade anything
>>457016
Intentions of the crusading folk:
>conquer Jerusalem
>do a pilgrimage to the Holy Land
Intentions of the leader of the crusading armies
>create if a possible a claim to the Holy Lands
>as well as a pilgirmage
Intention of the pope
>spead his influence eastwards
>unite Latin Christianity
>help the byzantines
Intention of the byzantine emperor
>reconquer lands lost to the seljuks
>>457301
Nobles were interconnected throughout Europe, any political control of Christians in the Middle East would benefit their wealth via trade routes.
>>457294
>i know every crusader-lord personally, so i can make any claim about their motives without any reasonable evidence besides "muh common sense"
get off your high horse, you know nothing. just because you cant imagine doing something out of pure faith, doesnt mean "the majority" is just like you.
>>457301
>And that's supposed to be an argument?
The fact that a noble house went out and established themselves as Kings of Jerusalem and Latin Emperors during the crusades?
No of course not
>The "truth" doesn't need to be supported by evidence I suppose? The overwhelming majority of nobles served their time in Outremer and went home. There was no benefit to gain.
Just because you didn't benefit in the end, does not necessarily mean there was no benefit to be gained
"The Italians joined WWI for a laugh, there was never any territories with Italian minorities to be annexed from the Austro-Hungarian Empire anyway, because Italy failed to get them at the negotiation table"
>>457310
Like I just said, for many it did bankrupt them and for obvious reasons, however going out there, they knew there was the chance of gaining riches, power, and fortune.
>>457324
That's a bit of a weak argument, considering the opposing argument here is using the exact same logic, just from the other direction. I appreciate the assumption about my faith too, really adds to the debate.
>>457244
>don't forget the French constantly tried to forge an alliance with the even more heretical Mongols against the more closer spiritually Muslims during the crusades.
A lot of Mongols were Nestorian Christians. Even if the Great Khan had to be a Tengriist, the Christians often held a lot of sway on his court.
Not to mention the Mongol invasion of Levant, which was explicitly brokered by the Christian king of Cilician Armenia, Hethum, aimed against Muslims for the benefit of Christians and headed by a Nestorian Mongol general Kitbuqa.
>>457324
>Can you not read at all?
>I accepted their was a religious motive
What are you even arguing? He accepted that there was a religious motive
>Atheists arguing all crusaders were money grabbing opportunists
>Christians arguing all crusaders were holy warriors of faith willing to die in the name of their god
Why not both?
>>457324
You know, he never said all the lords were in it for the gold?
>>457317
>Yeah, they left everything as it was and didn't bring home any goodies, sure.
Sure. There weren't that many goodies to take anyway.
As for taxation, it remained in the crusader states, they weren't tributary to European kingdoms.
>>457332
>The Italians joined WWI for a laugh
But they lost. The crusades succeeded for a long time, and yet wealth did not flow back to Europe. This was never the plan.
>they knew there was the chance of gaining riches, power, and fortune.
They knew it would most likely fail. If they were after money they would have stopped sending sons after the first ruinous generation. And yet the continued doing so.
>>457351
>it remained in the crusader states, they weren't tributary to European kingdoms
the gold went to the the rulers of the states, and their families, the majority who held land land in the Kingdom of France, and the Holy Roman Empire, who would be paying their feudal obligations to their lieges
>>457332
>considering the opposing argument here is using the exact same logic
I'm not using the exact same logic, I'm basing my claims on evidence, rather than going DUDE REALPOLITIK LMAO
>>457332
>>457337
>>457340
but he said "the majority" werent in it for the faith, while there is no evidence to support such a claim.
im not arguing with any side, i just think its pretty ignorant to show some diffuse majority in a certain light, just because it suits your modern understanding of values.
>>457357
>and yet wealth did not flow back to Europe
The Genoese certainly did establish trading posts in the Latin territories
>>457357
>But they lost. The crusades succeeded for a long time, and yet wealth did not flow back to Europe. This was never the plan.
I'm sorry? Last time I checked the Italians were on the winning side of WWI, are you maybe getting your world wars mixed up. The Italians were on the side of the winning entente, but lost out at the peace negotiations, not gaining nearly what they had hoped too, they made a poor financial investment.
>>457358
The gold went to supporting the war effort in the crusader states, it didn't find its way back. Jerusalem was backed by European powers, not the other way around.
>>457369
>Read Tyerman of Jhonatan Riley-Smith i
>Read a piece by a member of the Knights Hospitalier
>>457373
>but lost out at the peace negotiations
Das the point, they didn't get anything. The crusades were successful for a while in getting land, that didn't make money for the huge majority of noble houses.
>>457016
>Armed pilgrimage
>Probably
>Yes
European lords wanted land. Especially land right in the middle of the wealthiest trade route in history.
>>457016
>What was the true intention of the crusades?
For several Frankish and Norman nobles answering a call from the Pope and Emperor Alexius for an organized campaign against Turkic and rebel Greek/Armenian/Serb governors to found principalities in Anatolia as Byzantine vassals or independent powers if they could get away with it. The masses that followed them wanted to complete a pilgrimage to Jerusalem where many believed the end of the world was nigh. The masses forced the hand of the remaining nobles who failed to acquire land in Antioch, Edessa, or elsewhere, and after a direct march on Jerusalem they started to spread out and conquer their principalities for themselves. After a few years of Norman Antiochene propaganda spread in Western Europe against the Byzantines in preparation for an ultimately failed conquest of the empire, the Crusader States became the main focus of attention for generations of Europeans who mythologized the first campaign as legendary.
>Did the Templars find some relic?
Sure. Everyone did. Relics flooded the market during the Crusades.
>Do you like cute girls?
Needs more lewd.
>>457084
I don't understand why these wenches aren't binding their breasts for combat
What kind of fucking autistic janitor deletes all the pics of cute girls in Templar armor?
>>458963
He does it for free
