Were the crusades a last resort, defensive war?
Let's settle this once and for all.
>>877526
Some of the later crusades were motivated by the need to reinforce the KoJ. But the first was just a war of (re-)conquest.
>>877526
>invade faraway lands and people who are barely even aware you exist
>last resort, defensive war
Even invading Afghanistan was more justified than the Crusades.
>>877526
No. At best they were humanitarian interventions. Crusades were highly organized projections of power by stable kingdoms with the resources to spare.
No, the only real concerns Latin Europe had at that time with the Muslim world were pirates and slavers and those were hardly existential threats
>>877573
The first and second crusades were very disorganized and I'm pretty sure no Kings participated in the first one
>>877584
Plus, they had been mostly expunged by a century of raids and conquests prior to the First Crusade. Up until the Black Death Spanish and Italian ships dominated the Mediterranean becoming the pirates and slavers themselves
>>877599
Tthe First and Second crusade were very organized for their time. The haphazard narrative is only true from the point of view of a religious Latin chronicler, and actively ignores the diplomatic and logistical framework that guided the expeditions from the Papal and Byzantine side.
The First Crusade only became disorganized due to infighting and personal ambitions blowing up at Antioch.
>>877573
>with the resources to spare
Well relatively. Didn't Richard I basically suck Britain dry to pay for his crusade?
>>877599
While it's true that no kings participated in the First Crusade the 5 crusading expeditionary forces were professional armies that were officially "lead" by the papal legate Adhemar
The only unorganized participant was the failed People's Crusade which wasn't an official part of the First Crusade
>>877630
No, he just took a lot and people weren't happy about it. Obviously if he had drained the island completely he wouldn't have been ransomed from the HRE on his way back.
Why did the crusades happen? From a political standpoint.
>>877653
The prestige associated was huge, as well as the opportunity to gain lands in an important region.
They weren't a defensive war per say, but they were sort of a "counter attack". I like to think about the conflicts between Christians and Muslims like we today think of the 100 years war. Not a continuous war but a period of conflicts. This time the Christians who had been largely defending, took the offensive.
>>877653
The Seljuk Sultan died. He was the ally of the Byzantine Emperor and they helped each other keep rebellious vassals in check. Then the emperor's eastern governor-general died, and his son and many of the other governors of Anatolia and Syria took their chance to revolt. The son, a Turk, declared independence in his seat at Nicaea while another Turkish governor on the coast started raiding shipping lanes and islands, cutting off the emperor from Anatolia. Unable to leave his city out of fear of a coup and already fighting Pecheneg raiders, Serbian rebels, and Norman invaders, the emperor appealed to the Pope and wrote to various Frankish barons of the horrors he faced and the gratitude he'd shower on them if they came to his court and became vassals.
>>877653
>East-West Schism
>moral dilemma of Latin knights
>Seljuk Invasion of Byzantine lands
>no unity in Latin Christianity
>>877653
Despite modern memes, it was largely religious without a lot of political aspects. Most of the people who joined the first crusade lost a lot of money and had to give up their holdings in Europe, it was obviously a net loss. And after their victory they got what exactly? A destabilized piece of land with every bordering nation being hostile and potential allies far away. In hindsight for every count, duke etc who took up the first crusade it would have been better to just stay in their European holdings.
>>877697
It was religious for W-Europeans i mean. Komnenos obviously wanted to weaken the muslims.
Im reading a book called 'Wine of Satan' by Laverne Gay. Its about Bohemond de Hautville and the First Crusade.
Bought it thinking it was going to be about battles and wars and killing saraceans.
Its about a love triangle.
Dammit, Laverne.
>>877653
to gain 50 prestige and 25 piety
My wife's son told me that it was about some murderous white christians during the dark ages who attacked muslims because they wanted their gold just like they did with the natives in america.
>>877663
>Invading Afghanistan was 100% justified.
How?
>>877760
3/10 is the best i can do.
apply yourself
>>877573
>Humanitarian interventions
>MUH CRUSADERS DINDU NUFFIN THEY WERE NOBLE AN RIGHTEOUS DEUS BULT
>>877545
>Faraway lands and people who are barely aware you exist
>The Eastern Roman Empire
>Not knowing about Rome
There are only offensive wars.
>>878468
t. Rasheed
>>878506
He's saying the people of Eastern Rome and Syria would have barely known much at all about the Franks.
>>878554
You've obviously never met a Polish person if you think only muslims have a problem with "muh glorious nuble kroosaders"
>>878564
>the evil white man strikes again
>>877526
>Let's settle this once and for all.
Yeah, til the next Redditor finds this board. Then we'll get to settle it for a 2498032472399814th time.
>>878468
That's mostly less Christianity, more brutal dark ages politics
>>878468
>Christiniaty almost destroyed Europe
>There being a Europe to begin with before Christianity
The crusades would be equivalent to Native Americans attacking the modern USA because "muh land I ain't had in 400 years"
I say this as a muslim hater
>>877545
They started it.
>>877526
It was defensive, don't trust the leftist that says that crusades were attacks to innocent people. There were a war between muslims and christians, but muslims started it conquering half Europe. So yeah, we can say that it was a defensive "ofensive".
>>878468
>Teutonic Knights went to the Baltics to stop pagan raiders/rapists/murderers. They never enslaved them.
>Same as above. When someone says "the Crusades" they're not talking about the Northern Crusades, it's seperate from the Levant Crusades.
>In the Fourth Crusade, the Byzantine Emperor was murdered and usurped by an anti-Crusade Emperor and the Crusaders were basically forced to fight their way out. A lot of people don't know how dysfunctional the Byzantine office was at this point, many Emperors, including Alexios, let their armies pillage Byzantine lands freely. This was the main reason for the Manzikert disaster.
>There were several Islamic invasions from its conception until the 17th century. The First Crusade (1090), Third (1190), and Baghdad (1258) all put a halt to Islamic conquests.
>Enemies fight. It's reality.
>The Crusades were done entirely after the 14th century, after 1500 Europe began fighting amongst itself more and more. And all credible historians agree the Thirty Years War wasn't a religious conflict.
>Not Crusades again. And there was no great massacre of Saxons. It was a war, and war involves killing. Saxons did the same. The Franks weren't Visigoths and had to obligation to take Iberia.
>>878875
>The First Crusade (1090), Third (1190), and Baghdad (1258) all put a halt to Islamic conquests.
Then how do you explain the Siege of Vienna?
>>878886
That too. As I said,
>There were several Islamic invasions from its conception until the 17th century.
>>878564
Slavs should be exterminated like Muslims
>>878886
Islam is a religion founded by a military leader based on a military code. As long as Muslims or infidels exist, there will always be Jihad.
>>877526
In theory, yes, the first one was supposed to be a defensive war against the turks. In execution, not at all because it ended up being against the Fatimids.
>>878569
Is this the new reverse "youre a fucking white male" thing? White man dindu nuffin?
>>878827
Dude... The geopraphical Europe.
>>878916
Judaism is a religion founded by a military leader based on a military code. As long as Jews or goyim exist, there will always be shoah.
>>878916
Christianity is a religion founded by a heretic based on a heresy. As long as Christians or pagans exist, there will always be heresy.
>>878990
>geographical Europe
Never heard of it. Did you mean Eurasia?
>>879018
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Europe
>>878875
>And all credible historians agree the Thirty Years War wasn't a religious conflict.
>>879058
>Physiographically, it is the northwestern peninsula of the larger landmass known as Eurasia
There is no Europe separate from the concept of Christendom. To claim that the Church "ruined" what it actually gave birth to in the first place is beyond ridiculous.
>>878468
>Cathars
>Christian
Christ. Even "muh muslim invaders never did anything wrong" liberals wouldn't be that dumb.
>>879721
All there is, sadly. Not nearly enough Medieval/Crusades themed animu lewd out there, and 99% of all Assassin's Creed stuff is fujoshibait.
April 1204 never forget
>>878999
It's all feudalism, crusades were feudal wars like all Eurowars for the last 1000 years, different Abrahamic factions being the only difference
>>879085
So, you're saying Ancient Rome, Greece, Celts, and Germanic peoples weren't European?
And somehow Ethiopia is?
>>878468
>What's the massacre of the Latins
>>877526
A great deal of it was about controlling Jerusalem because there are biblical passages that says whoever controls that is the king of the world. It was a tiny city of no economic or strategic importance what so ever.
>>880139
Do italians look european to you?
>>877526
>bunch of franks and germs travel all the way to modern day turkey
>"last resort"
>"defensive"
>>877663
>Invading Afghanistan was 100% justified.
>they still believe this
>>877599
Robert of Flanders
>>878916
>slam is a religion founded by a military leader
I thought Mohammed was a merchant
>>877545
>far away
>islam was creeping into europe via spain and turkey
>tried conquering france before crusades were called for
Yeah there totally was no reason why christians would dislike the muslims.
>>880139
Rome, the Celts or the Germans didn't define Europe. Christianity did.
>>881027
>Rome
>didn't define Europe
Except every few decades you've had people who tried to LARP Rome in one way or another.
I can't see why the question whether the crusades were defensive or not managed to become such an important question.
These were the middle ages. So what if European kingdoms decide to conquer some Islamic sultanates? Good on them. Projecting 21st century morality on the past is non sensical.
>>880829
Most of "Europe" cared very little about Spanish reconquista (most Spanish "Christians" were more than willing to fight each other than the emirate), the Germanic states of the Holy Roman Empire had eyes on the lands held by pagan slavs while the Byzantines were more or less considered heretics by Catholics. The early crusades solves several problems that were prevalent at the time. It gave an outlet for a restless militarized class that was beginning to become increasingly irrelevant is a more stable and centralized France while providing opportunities for those younger sons of nobles who had little in ways or inheritance. A lesser noble fighting for lands, titles and honors in a faraway land is less likely to cause civil unrest back at home and if the crusade was successful. the kings' power was thus extending over the lucrative trading routes to the East.
>>880298
>implying the educated elite of the middle ages acted solely on religious fanaticism.
Controlling Jerusalem would give a Christian ruler at the time tremendous political power back at home as well has influence over the Church (the politics of the medieval catholic church were very different than that of today). To be able to control Jerusalem also meant that you had control of the strategic of Edessa, Antioch and Tyre and thus were able to project your power over Jerusalem and the trade routes that went through the area
>>877616
>and actively ignores the diplomatic and logistical framework that guided the expeditions from the Papal and Byzantine side.
You mean looting and pillaging?
>>879074
DO NOT SEXUALISE CRUSADER-CHAN
>Catholics are Christians
Can we stop this meme?
The Papacy/RCC is an antichrist counterfeit church meant to combat true Christianity.
They tortured and burned millions of Christians, literally genocide and massacres because people owned Bibles and believed in Jesus alone.
Catholicism and Islam are both equally dangerous and violent.
>>878875
>Teutonic Knights went to the Baltics to stop pagan raiders/rapists/murderers. They never enslaved them.
I don't think you are familiar at all with Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian history at all. Please stop talking about things that you've no clue.
>defensive war?
I can't believe people legitimately believe this, unless of course they are christfags, in which case they are deluded in any case.
The Byzantines knew the moment the crusaders arrived that they were nothing but opportunist crusading for land and gold, and that they would never give the old byzantine territories back to them.
Read the Alexiad, Anna doesn't say anything good about the Latin crusaders.
>>877697
Religious "politics" always follows material bases and causes.
True in hindsight it wasn't rational to invade such a hostile territory, but Christianity has almost always spread through conquest, if not of arms then the Christians would colonize the heathens through the imposition of clerics and missionaries. The crusader leadership legitimately believed that they would be able to conquer Palestine,Lebanon and Syria through inter Latin/Frankish colonization. This is corroborated by the fact that Crusader would have been impossible without Venice and Genoa and their trading networks/transportation.
The Crusades were the first attempt by the Europeans at colonizing non-Europeans.
So why did it fail?
The crusaders were unable to really colonize because they were bound by a very loose Christian alliance (this is confirmed by the fact that faith meant very little for the christian leadership as the pope would burn at the stake the Templar knights in 1312).
Secondly the Muslims already were a monotheistic, Abrahamic derived religion with their own traditions, priestly class, which was able to mobilize far better against the "invaders" as Islam was far more egalitarian and flexible than western Christianity at the time (look into the fanatic Ghazi warriors, or the ghulams).
Finally the crusader forces did not have developed mercantilist or early industrial base/mindset that could enforce their imperial ambitions. They were basically feudal lords that extended feudalism to a traditionally iqta territory, in such a way they were not enforcers of a new economic model that would be more dynamic in taking over the resources of the Outremer, unlike with how the colonization of the Americas proceeded.
>>881450
the pope condemned the fourth crusade though, after the crusade was diverted to Zara the crusaders were excommunicated multiple times and it wasn't until after the second siege and the establishment of the Latin empire that the pope gave up trying to censure things
>Innocent had also become aware of the Latins' terrible defeat at Adrianople, yet instead of lamenting the death of some many great knights he described the episode as one of Divine Retribution for the crusaders' deeds..."
>[letter from February 1203 while the crusaders were at Zara]"although you bore the Cross of Christ, you later turned your arms against Him. And you, who should have attacked the land of the Saracens, occupied Christian Zara"
>Innocent questioned why the Greek Church might wish to express its devotion to the papacy- as the crusaders so proudly claimed that it would - when it was in the Latins "nothing except an example of the affliction and the works of Hell, so that now it rightly detests them more than dogs", "staining with blood Christian swords that should have been used on pagans"
whoever made your picture obviously had an agenda
as for Anna Comnena I'd be inclined to agree with Gibbon in claiming her narrative is an example of female vanity, but Gibbon is a known fedoralord so its probably not all too right
considering Anna wrote her narrative while under house arrest as an old woman after a failed rebellion she'd be rather embittered
>>881555
>as for Anna Comnena I'd be inclined to agree with Gibbon in claiming her narrative is an example of female vanity, but Gibbon is a known fedoralord so its probably not all too right considering Anna wrote her narrative while under house arrest as an old woman after a failed rebellion she'd be rather embittered
She was embittered against teh Byzantine nobility, not against the Franks fro personal reasons.
Considering the fact that she never lived to see the 4th crusade, I'd say her remarks about them are pretty prescient.
>>881563
of course she was embittered against the Franks since she categorized them all as barbarians at a time when the ERE was getting their shit pushed in on all fronts
The Crusades
The lands around Jerusalem were controlled by Europeans for 1000 years...under Alexander the Great (and the empires that succeeded his)...and then the Romans.
In the mid-7th century CE, Islamic armies conquered this "Holy Land," and other religions...when they invaded the Byzantine Empire (formerly the eastern half of the old Roman Empire.)
By the 11th century, Muslims had held the area for almost 500 years, as part of their large empire.
Also by that time, western Europe was just emerging from its Dark Ages...and was only now able to "go on offense" after centuries of fending off invaders.
They were given a target, when the Pope was asked by the Byzantine Emperor to help deal with new Muslim invaders (the Seljuk Turks)...and also help protect the safety of Christian pilgrims to Jerusalem (who were being seized and sold into slavery).
Jerusalem's Church of the Holy Sepulchre was believed to have been built on the site of Jesus' Resurrection...many thus thought of it as the holiest place in Christianity.
Its destruction by the Muslim ruler of the city earlier in the century was a further emotional impetus for many Europeans to go on this "endeavour of the cross"...or "Crusade."
All these things (plus desire for wealth and power, of course) sent European armies east.
They took Jerusalem in 1099...and set up feudal states to protect it.
The Crusades were as much about "this was our land...and you took it" as they were about religion.
In fact, each side could equally say:
1) this is (or was) ours...and you've stolen it (or are trying to)
2) wealth and power come with controlling this region
3) this land is sacred to our religion
The Crusades were a European military response to Muslim invasions (both ongoing at that time and also from centuries before)...
>>881590
for that to be true you'd have to transfer the globalized pan-europeanism of today to those times, where an affront or loss of territory for one European people is considered an affront or loss of territory for the whole of the European peoples
bit strange that the Franks would feel the need to "reclaim" land lost by the Romans
>>878853
No
>>877526
>Were the crusades a last resort, defensive war?
No, it was very much an offensive war. The church was hoping to stop bloodshed in Europe between fellow Christians by channeling it against a common enemy.
Which to be fair, the Muslims waged aggressive war against Christendom for hundreds of years, and probably 2/3rds of the prior Christian world was lost before even the first crusade began.
But they weren't facing an immediate threat like in 732 or 846. Their manpower may've been better used in taking back Spain, resecurring Southern France and Italy, destroying the North African pirates routinely enslaving Christians along the European coast, or dominating the Mediterranean.
But then again they sincerely believed in the piousness of what they were doing. More than I can say for the Christ-posters shitting up this board.
>>880822
Abraham was a merchant.
>>881440
I certainly know more than you. Neither the Teutonics or Baltics were "good guys" fighting "bad guys" despite what they'd have you believe.
>>881792
>No, it was very much an offensive war. The church was hoping to stop bloodshed in Europe between fellow Christians by channeling it against a common enemy.
Europe was relatively peaceful at the time. In fact war in Europe was the reason the Crusades couldn't have been launched sooner.
>But they weren't facing an immediate threat like in 732 or 846.
Greece was.
>>877526
>Defensive war
Last time I checked, sending millions of peasants half way across the known world to rape, pillage ans loot the land in that area isn't exactly a "defensive" war.
>>881849
how so
if someone does so to your land is it not defensive to do so to his in turn?
not to say I agree or disagree but your argument is flawed
Who fought this war?
>>881450
>>878468
This meme is ridiculous. It jumps from everywhere to the conversion of the Saxons to the Reformation. Any scholar knows that you can't attempt to draw a connection with two such fundamentally different periods, unless you have ample evidence. Wikipedia doesn't count.
>>881435
>this guy again
>>881510
And this is why I hate Marxists and materialists. Explicitly religious wars are not fought because of underlying economic reasons. You do historical persons a great disservice form trying to understand them in their own words. If the primary impulses behind the Crusades were religious (as the sources tell us), we should take their word for it. Not "lol it was all for money senpai."
Christianity was not "almost always spread through conquest." In late antiquity and into the early Middle Ages (which I assume you're referring to when you say "colonizing the heathens"), Christianity was generally spread by bishops, monks, and other missionaries converting local rulers, who then gradually converted the rest of the population. Who is conquering who? Before the Carolingians, there is nothing even close to a centralized state who could develop an empire from which you can make the "conversion by conquest" argument. The papacy wasn't strong in a secular sense up until the 11th century either, so I don't know who is spreading what by conquest.
Also, "colonize" is an anachronistic term in this context. There are no "colonies" in the modern sense of the world in the Middle Ages.
This is why Marxists are so stupid in any historical study except for maybe labor relations .
>>881181
This is pretty much accurate
>>881816
Relatively peaceful isn't peaceful. Europe was just as blood-stained as the Muslim states, even in the "high" medieval period later on. Also you're forgetting 1054, and the 4th crusade to come. Western Christians were just as much a threat to Constantinople
>>882137
Relatively peaceful was as good as it gets. So many people say "lol 4th crusade" and are too caught up in the pophistory summarization that they don't bother to examine in more closely. The Byzantine Emperor was murdered and usurped by an anti-Western noble who prevented them from leaving, they didn't just sack the city for the lawlz.
>>881590
lol all wrong
It was just an economical war as anyother, between to factions being lead by psycopaths and degenerates.
