I know very little about Crusades, Templars and similar stuff. Where should I start? What sources?
Kingdom of Heaven - Extended director's cut.
Bill Cooper's "Behold A Pale Horse".
tl;dr: templars were degenerate satan worshippers
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpiumHmUE5EZeLTftxv9qGw
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades
Go to Amazon and pick up some books on the subject.
>>1129555
The Crusades
(c) 1966 by Zoe Oldenbourg
>>1129555
https://www.youtube.com/user/RealCrusadeHistory
First Crusade = Try to take Jerusalem; they won (accompanying priest say they can do without the atrocities though)
Second Crusade = muslims counterattack, Crusaders counter-counterattacked; Crusaders weren't successful
Third Crusade = Three kings crusade. One drowned, one bailed, one was awesome but was defeated by Saladin. Saladin builds an empire afterwards.
Fourth Crusade = didn't even go the the holy land, destroyed Byzantium and set it up for eventual rape by the Ottomans
Peasants Crusade = neither a joke nor out of context, went as well as you expect
Children's Crusade = also neither a joke or out of context, also went as well as you expect
Baron's Crusade = actually successful
There's also a bunch of mini-crusades that happened in Europe, Crusader kingdoms that had a big history onto itself (one of them may or may not have created Germany), and the Reconquista which I find to be the best crusade.
>>1130363
>didn't even go the the holy land, destroyed Byzantium and set it up for eventual rape by the Ottomans
A good deal of crusaders actually did reach the holy land. Also top kek at destroying byzantium, the empire had gone to shit through the 12th century, saying the 4th crusade killed it is like saying Alaric destroyed the WRE.
>>1130396
>saying the 4th crusade killed it is like saying Alaric destroyed the WRE.
neither really helped though
>>1130363
I don't think Richard the Lionheart was ever defeated in battle by Saladin, as a matter of fact he consistently BTFO'd Saladin, but Richard eventually had to return back home because his brothers or something like that were plotting against him
>>1130404
then he got captured and ransomed back to England by the HRE
Germans ruin everything after all
>>1129561
>Secular humanist Crusaders
Even as bait, no.
>>1130018
>>1129608
>>1129566
>>1129561
Avoid pop history books, Youtube vlogs, and Hollywood movies if you ever want more than meme history. Acquire a JSTOR account, subscribe to Crusades history journals, and pick up books published by a university press, written by a Crusades historian, or a translation of primary source text.
>>1130404
>his brother
What the fuck was his problem?
>>1130544
he was a cunt
>>1129566
Woah I didn't know the king of france posted on 4chan
Don't you have some nation to bankrupt or something?
>>1130363
>one was awesome but was defeated by Saladin. Saladin builds an empire afterwards.
Nope, Richard defeated Saladin in every encounter despite having much fewer men. Saladin built an empire before the Third Crusade. Richard reversed almost all of his Levant conquests. And after Saladin died his empire fell apart. So you were wrong in every possible way.
I suggest "crusades as seen by the arabs" by Amin Maalouf. Short book, it's on point and don't drown you in european irrelevant stuff.
As for Richard, he wasn't really good, couldn't do a thing against Saladin and just negociated a peace while Philippe bailed out and HRE was defeated by a small amount of water. Honestly crusades were already over at this point.
>>1130643
>As for Richard, he wasn't really good, couldn't do a thing against Saladin and just negociated a peace
pls don't talk about things you know nothing about.
Richard was the best military leader of his time. He completely humiliated Saladin at Jaffa with only a handful of men. Saladin's men were too afraid to attack. Richard even rode out into the middle of the field alone and they still did nothing. The "just negociated a peace" took away almost all the land Saladin took and forced him to let Christians come to Jerusalem.
>>1130700
Yeah no you're talking out of your ass. Richard was a decent leader at best but was shit at strategy. He could have won the while thing several time but took bad decisions like killing hostages at Acre or rebuilding Jaffa, preventing him from taking Jérusalem. His peace was complète shit and just a smokescreen so he could stop the crusades. In the end the latin states ended up weaker than before the crusade despite the huge crusaders armies.
>>1130756
>Richard was a decent leader at best but was shit at strategy.
He was unsurpassed at strategy and organization, he wouldn't have won with a small army otherwise.
>bad decisions like killing hostages
He wanted to trade POWs with Saladin because he couldn't afford to feed his prisoners. He offered Saladin a month to agree to the deal but Saladin intentionally delayed because the prisoners were more of use to him as a bargining chip to delay Richard; Saladin didn't give a shit about the lives of his men. Richard ended up giving Saladin 7 weeks and was forced to execute them so he wouldn't be perceived as weak. Then Saladin used it as propaganda and also murdered the Christian POVs.
>preventing him from taking Jérusalem.
He simply never had enough men to try. Although he did do a lot more with what he had than most leaders could.
If you dont want to read the podcast "The History of the Crusades" is good
>>1129555
Start anywhere and everywhere until you get a picture. Then see what sources are similar and share the same story and you will have a better idea. You can then go higher and get expert level stuff about it.
