Why did crusades failed?
>>73054003
Because of you.
>>73054003
What's your theory, Roach?
>>73054003
But they took the holy land, that was the goal
>>73054003
Crusades didn't fail. They put a halt to muslim aggression which was the goal all along.
Muslims had been raiding and attacking for hundreds of years.
>>73054003
probabbly something about euros bickering amongst each other again
No organisation amongst the crusading army. Crusaders were mostly interested in getting rich via pillaging shit rather than liberating the holy lands. Most crusaders were peasants.
>>73054003
because hardly any was gonna send men down there since that would give an opputunity for your rival to strike
>>73054003
Infighting. Also lack of organisation. A lack of clear goals. Long logistical chains to support the "troops". No clear hierarchy.
I haven't looked at the actual battle side of things but I would suspect they could have done a lot better than they did with the right leadership.
Crusades failed when europeans fight and steal territory at the byzantins.
>>73054003
you do realize there were 7 of these things alone for jerusalem, not counting the others, right?
some failed, others didnt. each one with a unique reason as to why or why not
>>73054003
depends on what you see their ultimate goal as. They held onto the holy land and allowed the byzantines to recover a bit under the Komenei. The Crusades were not quite as unified as you think. Just look at the fourth crusade, which started as an effort to save the Byzantines, but ended up stabbing them in the back and sacking the city worse than the turks did and probably spelled out the ultimate doom of the empire.
The latter of the Crusades were half-hearted attempts at Crusading. Like armies of peasants getting marched off and destroyed before even reaching the Holy Land.
I'm guessing OP's question is probably bait. The number of different successful crusades from parts of the Reconquista, destroying catharism, the Teutons, the first crusade, the mixed results of the second and third crusades. OP's question is to simple for a such a complex question
>>73054003
they didn't. they kept our enemies in check. see now, no crusade, many problem.
>>73054003
Because no Slavs were involved.
Also,you cant send an army to some shit hole across the world without any real logistics,supply lines and expect it to win anything. Another thing...Arabs back then were humans and pretty based. Had their own culture and developed arts. Nothing like today.
>>73054003
>>73055036
>>73054146
>1204
