stay classy Byzaboos edition
So what was the deal with the whole cannibalism thing?
>>852282
> It's a "Bohemond ruins everything" episode
> It's a "Raymond of Toulouse is a really petty guy" episode
> It's a "Godfrey was an overrated cunt who got his funding for the crusade from blackmailing jews" episode
> It's a "Count Emicho drops all pretense of fulfilling his vows and simply goes around murdering Jews" episode
> It's a "strip the local Christian's land of resources and murder the inhabitants because the commanders are incapable of controlling their forces, or they just don't care" episode
> It's a betray the Byzantine authorities after you vowed to hand over the eastern lands as protectorates, which is effectively a betrayal of the Christian ethos" episode
> It's a "don't even get me started on the People's Crusade" episode
I will say, however, that despite some moments of outright savagery Baldwin I comes out of this comparatively well
>>852381
I think there was more than one case
>>852418
The crusades were such a clusterfuck
It's almost cartoonish
>>852418
>Bohemond
>ruining anything
>not convincing the Crusaders to keep what they had won with blood and sweat by right, instead of handing it over to couch potato
>betray Byzantine authorities
>there is anything wrong with betraying the ultimate betrayers
Literally "Changing the Tire of a Guy Who Can't Be Fucked to Learn How": The Religious War
>>852430
And this one was considered to be the "successful" crusade. And for everyone on this board who derides Alexius Comnenus, just remember that he wasn't asking for a holy War, just a couple of mercenaries from the west. He didn't expect half of Western Europe to arrive on his doorstep and expect him to baby them. Considering all the times that the crusader armies initially began by openly fighting the Byzantine police forces in small, cowardly attacks, one can only conclude that Alexius had the patience of a saint.
> All of the Emperor's tact and many gifts were needed to persuade their leaders to take the oath of allegiance. When at last they consented, Alexius enhanced the solemnity of the occasion by bringing over Godfrey and Baldwin to witness the ceremony. The Western lords were grudging and unruly. One of them sat himself down on the Emperor's throne: whereupon Baldwin sharply reproved him, reminding him he had just become the Emperor's vassal and telling him to observe the customs of the country. The Westerner angrily muttered that it was boorish of the Emperor to sit when so many valiant captains were standing. Alexius, who overheard the remark and had it translated for him, asked to speak with the knight: and when the latter began to boast of his unbeaten prowess in single combat, Alexius gently advised him to try other tactics when fighting the Turks.
>>852440
Who do you think had been fighting them for five hundred years?
>>852477
Dudes who hardly retook an inch of land, let alone a great city such as Antioch.
>>852440
It had taken years for the schism between the two Churches, which had come as a result of the machinations of Bohemond's father Robert the Weasel, to be mended. And yes, Bohemond was a really dodgy guy who tended to play the other leaders of the crusade against each other. It was wrong to throw out his vows, to manipulate the spear of Antioch situation to his own ends, to try and conquer Byzantium after the crusade had ended, and to go against the vows he was forced to take after Alexius spared his life when he was inevitably defeated.
>>852501
They did retake Antioch. The yellow is land that was retaken up until the invasion of the Seljuks.
>yo pope, my dog, can you send me like 600 crossbowmen to put on my walls, you know, just in case?
>OH GOD WHAT THE FUCK WHO ARE ALL THESE MEN I CANT FEED THEM WHAT THE COCK I ASKED FOR A FEW BODYGUARDS NOT THIS TRUCKLOAD OF GARBAGE
>>852418
Bohemund was based as fuck.
>Be Hitler's wet dream, blonde haired, blue eyed, tall and strong as fuck desu (nicknamed after a fucking giant).
>Dad really wants to appease the local Lombards so divorces my mum and marries some bitchy Lombard woman, bastardizing me after I was born.
>My weakling half brother, Roger Borsa, is a weakling. After dad dies, I fucking attack him immediately.
>Capture some territories, but not enough, and the war's not going anywhere. Call some of my uncles and cousins to back me up.
>Eventually, they all think this is not really in their best interest. Church says I should be granted Taranto and titled Prince.
>FTS senpai this some fucking bullshit
>Some guys say they're gonna go over to the Holy Land and crusade the shit out of some mudslimes
>deusvult.jpg
>Pretend to swear an oath to the Byzantine Emperor to return any captured lands
>Fuck outta here senpai
>We make it to Antioch
>Pretty strong place, strong garrison, tall walls, and sealed up like Alexios Komnenos's wallet
>Convince all the other Crusaders that if I cap the flag, I keep the castle
>They laugh.
>Bribe a shitskin to let me and my boys in. We massacre the garrison.
>Godfrey and Raymond suddenly get their panties in a twist.
>lolwat
>Let those other stupid bastards go on their dumb crusade and die like cucks while Hugh is banging their wives back in France or Germany
>Live like a king for a while
The military order of the Templars, who occupied the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, allowed Muslims to pray individually in the al-Aqsa mosque,and while even in the heat of battle a knight might be allowed the dignity of answering a quiet call of nature before returning to the fray.
>>852282
Daily reminder that the first crusade was a counter attack to the centuries of Saracen aggressiveness.
Also, bring back Charles The Hammer. Battle of Tours should be celebrated every year in every western country.
>>853157
>Death of Muhammad 632
>New Battle
>Old Battle
Shit pic
>>853157
How beta are whites?
I know literally nothing about Medieval history.
What the hell were they even crusading for?
>>853177
It depends on the time and place.
>After raids on several Muslim ports along the east African coast, da Gama began a campaign of terror against Muslim shipping off the Malabar Coast. Here he captured the Meri, a ship with 200 Muslim pilgrims on the return journey from Mecca, and set it alight. With some 400 men, women and children aboard, da Gama fuelled the fires for four days until all had died. He then moved on to Calicut, where he captured and dismembered 30 fishermen and let their bodies float in with the tide for their families to find.
>>853050
>later strips antioch of all its money and valuables and deserts, leaving an actually decent ruler to clean up his mess
>>853175
>Muslims are stoped by Odo of Aquitaine
>Martell keeps atacking Odo
>As he cannot fight in two fronts Odo is forced to ally with someone
>He finally foughts Muslims once more in Tours
>People keep fapping to Charles Martell
>>853157
>doesn't show inter-crusade battles and sieges
>>853157
hehe
>>853189
Damn
The First Crusade (1096-1099) spawned horrors the likes of which none of the crusaders had ever experienced. And they were horrors of their own making. Of the massacre in Jerusalem, a contemporary observed, “The knights could hardly bear it, working as executioners and breathing out clouds of hot blood.”
Particularly during the sieges of Antioch, Ma’arra, and Jerusalem, whose populations were brutally massacred, the First Crusaders themselves believed that they had exceeded all the norms of medieval warfare, and the evidence supports them. Even the most brutal sieges of the day ended in mass enslavement of city populations, not in mass murder.
The observation is simple enough, but for modern, Western audiences, it inevitably raises a question (one I have gotten several times on these very pages, in fact): What about Muslim atrocities? Weren’t the Muslims just as bad? After all, the Holy Land had once been thoroughly Christianized. What became of those Christians? Surely the Muslim conquests were just as brutal as the crusades?
The short answer is, “No.” But, let me explain:
>>853227
The spread of Islam in the seventh and eighth centuries C.E. is one of the most astonishing events in history. What started in 622 C.E. (year 1 of the Muslim calendar) as an obscure desert religion on the Arabian Peninsula, 150 years later had established its rule over 5,000,000 square miles of earth. They termed these conquests “jihad,” which we often translate as “holy war,” though “struggle” would be a more accurate rendering.
Most of these conquests occurred at the expense of two great empires: the Perisan Empire to the east of the Arabian deserts, and the Byzantine (or Eastern Roman) Empire to the west. Not coincidentally, these two powers had been engaged in a long and brutal series of wars against one another. Jerusalem, the eventual target of the crusade, changed hands twice during these conflicts.
The importance of the Byzantine-Persian wars in connection with Islam is twofold. First, at the time of the Islamic expansion Byzantium and Persia were hardly at the height of their powers. Their conquest proved much easier than otherwise would have been the case. Second, given the incredible instability that these two great empires had generated, their subjects had very little reason to be loyal to them. Islam might even bring to these lands greater stability—which, in fact, it did.
A similar observation might be made about Muslim expansion into Visigothic Spain, plagued by civil wars in the decades preceding the advent of Islam in 711 C.E.
What became of all the Christians in the conquered territories? For the most part, they stayed put. The Muslims established themselves as governmental leaders, but did not try to forcibly convert their subjects, particularly the Christians and Jews who, in Muslim eyes, had received elements of the same monotheistic revelation that had inspired their faith.
Christians and Jews also paid a public head tax from which Muslims were exempt. Thus from a purely mercenary perspective, Muslim rulers had an actual disincentive to try to convert them—let alone kill them. Christians and Jews, the dhimmi as they were known, provided valuable revenue. Conversion to Islam eventually did occur, but it was a gradual process, not as rapid as the growth of Islamic government.
In other words, the spread of Islam was a very different affair from the crusades. The crusaders aimed to recapture a sacred place from a religion that they barely understood and that they viewed as fundamentally evil. Muslims built an empire.
That is what made the crusaders and their scorched-earth piety so shocking. Here were Christian armies who heedlessly slaughtered entire populations, not in spite of their religion but because of it. After the First Crusade ended, and once the Christians began trying to build settlements in the Middle East, their attitudes necessarily changed. But the crusade itself had introduced into the region a sort of total religious warfare that had not been seen since Old Testament days.
And the Muslims did not forget. In 1187, the Muslim general Saladin seriously considered refusing an offer of surrender from Jerusalem. The reason? He wished to apply the same rough injustice to the Christians there that they had meted out to Islam in 1099. He showed mercy only after the Franks threatened to massacre all of their prisoners and to destroy the city’s Islamic holy sites.
The earliest stories of Muslim atrocities committed against Christians, comparable to the First Crusade, in fact, did not occur until the end of the thirteenth century. At that time, the Mamluks (a warrior slave class who became rulers of Egypt) drove the crusaders out of the Middle East, destroying their world one city at a time.
>>853229
Contemporary descriptions of the 1291 fall of Acre (“Akko” in modern Israel) easily rival any of the horrors of the First Crusade. The Mamelukes made grisly displays of prisoners’ severed heads. They won offers of surrender from thousands of the besieged and then reneged on their promises—beheading the men and enslaving the women and children. Eventually they destroyed the city altogether, its ruins still being dug out today from beneath the Bedouin city that grew up its place. With an unrelenting and merciless savagery, driven by a fanatical sense of religious mission, the Mamluks sought to purge the Holy Land of all Christians.
tl;dr: crusaders were just a bunch of niggers
So everyone just fucked off after the crusades right? No one thought to defend the place?
>>854325
The ones who settled.
But more people keep arriving to kill muslims, not matter if the the Muslims were actually allied to the settlers.
>>853232
> crusaders were a bunch of niggers
'No'
Not all of them but Islam is a religion literally built on the premise, and success, of foreign conquest.
The Crusades were a counter attack so your Wikipedia tier rebuttal can just piss off.
Tell me how did Christianity take land from Rome compared to Islam?
>>853229
>And the Muslims did not forget. In 1187, the Muslim general Saladin seriously considered refusing an offer of surrender from Jerusalem. The reason? He wished to apply the same rough injustice to the Christians there that they had meted out to Islam in 1099. He showed mercy only after the Franks threatened to massacre all of their prisoners and to destroy the city’s Islamic holy sites.
Bullshit. No way Saladin would have refused the offer of surrender, his whole campaign against the Kingdom of Jerusalem was predicated on very quick sieges, offering generous terms of surrender and honouring them. He knew that if he didn't, then no Christian fortress would surrender again. And that was a problem, as Muslim armies at the time sucked at sieges and heavily relied on momentum. A long, protracted siege would fuck them in this regard.
>>853050
Hey man Robert Guiscard's Lombard wife was cool as fuck. She was a tall, muscly, Christian version of Lagertha from Vikings, WHO literally went into battle with her husband. Metal as fuck
>>853227
deus vult
>>853157
>ctrl+f
>reconquista
>0 results
