Can we have a discussion about the Crusades?
I am almost completely ignorant on this topic. For YEARS all through my public education I was taught the crusades were a bunch of crazy Christians who wanted to wipe out all other religions, and the failed miserably. Now that my powerlevel is increasing thanks to /pol/, I am sure there must be more to this story than that.
Redpill me on crusades /pol/
>>56757379
bumping for truth
>>56757379
No one /deusvult/ here?
Only good thing to come from Christianity.
Every single sandnigger except Sarah Haider needs to die.
>>56757379
They were defensive wars.
Alexius II Comnenus asked Pope Urban II for help against the encroachment of the Seljuq Turks, who had been raiding and harassing Anatolia and kidnapping Christian pilgrims to sell into slavery. In addition, the Holy Land had been conquered by Muslims a few centuries before, and the Christians there were being pressured to convert through social stigmatism and high taxes.
When the First Crusade (mostly) succeeded, it set off a chain reaction, where the Seljuqs, and later Egyptian-centered states like the Fatimids and Ayyubids, tried to reconquer the territory.
Europe lost ultimately because of poor coordination, infighting, mismanagement, and general lack of foresight.
>>56758983
I was just looking at a time line of for several hundred years before the first crusade and damn yes they seem to be justified. Any truth to this "Child crusade" that supposedly happened.
>>56757379
It was a series of military expeditions funded by nobles and their private armies (as it was the standard back then). It wasn't even the full force of what the kingdoms could have mustered. More or less military adventurism to try to gain more glory, money, and status.
>>56759217
>children
>organized
![CRUS0142-IslamSpreadTo750[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/NT4AxW9.jpg "CRUS0142-IslamSpreadTo750[1].jpg")
>>56757379
I can't find that list of expansion and sacking from Muslim forces, but this has some of a gist.
>>56759217
Yea, the Child Crusade was a thing. And a Peasant Crusade. Just people and kids who thought they were doing something good, but ended up getting slaughtered because they weren't equipped to deal with it.
>>56757379
they went for money. they sacked constantinople. jerusalem. fought against turks, kurds, arabs. established principalities. then left because they absolutely hated desert and sand.
>>56757379
Christians were not the aggressors and anyone who thinks they were is a retard
>>56759920
I thought they retook Constantinople?
>>56760006
Nah, they 4th crusade ended up going after fellow christians and fuccking up the byzantine empire. Disgraceful.
But please go filthy turk
>>56759968
I just realized how ironic it is we are allowing them to conquer our lands (well, more so Europe) without even putting up a fight. Literally letting them walk through the front gates.
>>56759968
desu the mongols and cossacks were the real crusaders
>>56760006
Nope. The fourth crusade was financed by Jews, who did so by tricking the leaders into paying for way more boats than they'd need, and thus the only way to pay for them (because they didn't have enough support, really) was to agree to sack Constantinople. This was because the Doge of Venice was blinded and exiled by the Byzantines years before, and wanted vengeance.
Very clever, but very Jewish.
Is there recommended reading on this subject?
>>56757379
The lands that the Muslims were overtaking and occupying were still apart of the Roman (Byzantine) Empire.
Rome called upon its Western half to (Alexius I to Urban II) send reinforcements to aid the Empire (Byzantines) in the recapture of their rightful lands and the protection of those who were considered religiously Roman (Roman Catholic or Orthodox).
Concerning Religion.
Both Alexius I and Urban II remembered a united Roman church before the great Schism, so they knew the importance of unity.
The Muslims (Arabs) made incursions into Europe.
>Tours (the most famous)
>Sicily
>Corsica
>Sardinia
>Spain (Africa beings at the Pyrenees if you ask me)
>Southern Frankia raided by Muslim Pirates/Slavers who got free passage in Muslim ports
The Crusades were conducted by Noblemen outraged at the destruction and utter disdain of Christendom.
They gathered their armies and rallied under the Cross of the West, they marched forth.
Not to kill or spread the word in the name of Christ, but to protect, to break down the barriers Islam constructed, so that peaceful evangelism could ensure without the fear of violent Muslim intervention or retaliation.
Defensive?
Considering the multiple systemic incursions into Europe I'd say yes.
Deus Vult.
The sword was not to spread the faith, but to protect those who were faithful.
The sword was raised in Christendom to protect their right to evangelize whereas in the Muslim world the sword was raised in the name of Violent conversion evangelism itself.
>>56757379
>I was taught the crusades were a bunch of crazy Christians
They had dozens of reasons for the Crusades, but for the masses like peasantry, it was strictly religious in tone.
>>56760176
what is this disgusting animal doing on my board, why don't we have a firewall yet?
![Hilaire_Belloc_Portrait[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/3SqcbuL.jpg "Hilaire_Belloc_Portrait[1].jpg")
Just read this guy, OP.
>>56759217
The Children's Crusade was a thing, but it was a thing that basically just happened, with no Church or Crown sanctioning at all. The kid who led it was charismatic af, and was able to get a bunch of other kids to follow him. Even priests they passed told them to go home.
>>56760006
what others say. by that time, great schism already happened and there was enough religious justification to sack it.
>>56760543
Yeah sounds like you're correct. Still hope you guys get glassed by Putin tho.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOFrB743PgE
Just watch this series if you want an idea of the liberal version of the crusades vs reality.
anyone seen this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_Qpy0mXg8Y
>>56760886
That's... pretty popular here. But hey, props to you for going out and finding it.
Do enjoy.
