>Western Europe despite it's superior military training and organization, superior equipment and superior numbers lost every crusade.
>and Western nations are still losing in military conflicts against Arabic nations today
Why is this? The whole reasons why Columbus discovered America in the first place is because the western merchants couldn't get past the Muslim Ottoman empire so they had to find another way into the far east. This shows how much the west has failed in dealing with the Islamic world. But why?
The crusaders were definitely not superior. You gotta remember it's most of them are peasants and brigands and other barely trained people out for plunder. Add to that an enormous wearying journey, no experience with desert warfare and your army starts sucking pretty hard. These guys got crushed by a bunch of tribals with a bow and arrow on a horse too.
As in every war the greatest men go off and die while the pussies and women are left behind to rule in their stead.
And people are surprised why the world has been on a decline since man first stepped outside the caves and decided to fashion himself a spear.
Don't be a simpleton retard and divide the world into two teams - west and islam.
The reason why the 'west' hasn't dealt with islam is because we've had a lot of infighting.
Shit we barely managed to put an army of knights together to face the mongol hords. Even then we we're ill prepared and outnumbered and got our shit pushed in (Legnica). If it wasn't for the mongols own infighting and powerstruggle after their khan died, they wouldn't have left Europe.
Though there are examples of us uniting and being victorious against muslims too. Battle of Vienna (biggest cavalry charge in the history) and the first crusade.
>The crusades were a back and forth of victories and losses, neither side was clearly better.
The difference being that the western European armies failed to establish foothold ultimately and yet the Muslims managed to defend their territory AS WELL as expand into Europe (Constantinople, Balkans).
>The difference being that the western European armies failed to establish foothold ultimately and yet the Muslims managed to defend their territory
Because their holy land got snatched from before their nose. If muslims would've conquered Rome you can be sure Europeans would've united under one cause and would've won aswell.
> AS WELL as expand into Europe (Constantinople, Balkans)
Yeah which was Byzantium.
Catholics never really gave a shit about the byzantines. I mean we were the ones who first sacked Constantinople in a crusade lol.
>playing Medieval 2 Crusades
>manage to secure most of anatolia, removing kebab as fuck
>six full-stack armies within dick-swinging distance of constantinople
>western nations still losing military conflicts against arabic nations
Didn't the US attain complete and total victory over Iraq in like a month? Furthermore, militaristically speaking the "arabic nations" are no more than a bunch of tribal apes constantly killing each other off and sporadically having western nations speed up that process when politics brings them there.
>Didn't the US attain complete and total victory over Iraq in like a month?
US won the battle but lost the war.
Their armies got tied down in the region and spent trillions of dollars just to have soldiers stationed there. Meanwhile the Arabs can start an insurgency every month with next to no money.
Yeah the Venetians were the jews then. Basically you can say that about all northern Italy.
They're the ones who profited from the crusades the most, and the ones who orchestrated the crusade against Byzantium. They also got the most from the conquered Byzantine lands.
From the Barbary wars to the latest war in Iraq, the Western forces would have no trouble defeating the ruling power and assuming control, at least nominally.
The problem comes later, with insurgencies and rebellions. It may seem like Islam repelling invaders or something like that, but the truth is that every single country in that region suffers the same things to various degrees. And sometimes, those regimes actually lose and get replaced by other regimes which suffer the same shit from the remaining and emerging opposition groups.
So it's not really the West failing to deal with the Islamic world, it's the Islamic world failing to achieve stability, no matter who's in power.
>The problem comes later, with insurgencies and rebellions. It may seem like Islam repelling invaders or something like that, but the truth is that every single country in that region suffers the same things to various degrees. And sometimes, those regimes actually lose and get replaced by other regimes which suffer the same shit from the remaining and emerging opposition groups.
But this way, they can always keep foreign powers out and solidify their culture and religion.
One of the most important, untouchable aspect of every Muslim's life is their faith. They literally can give up anything for their faith.
That's power right there, incorruptible, pure and morale strengthening power.
Except the US is here to stay.
There is a long time plan for US dominance in the region and they are not getting the upper hand now considering how things turned out in Libya, Syria and Iraq.
They didn't lose the war you utter retard.
Their goal was never to occupy Iraq. It was only to topple Saddam and get rid of the threat he posed to the petrodollar. They succeeded.
All these retards talking about geopolitics with no idea of what's going on. Is this /pol/?
>Their goal was never to occupy Iraq.
Which is why they ended up occupying Iraq, setting up a puppet government, send many American advisers, corporations, diplomats into Iraq in an effort to westernize, or Americanize the new Iraq reigme and it's society?
Yeah because they were supposed to install a democracy there. That's what the public knew. Also they wanted to make sure Iraq was stable enough to not fall under Iranian influence.
Think about all the profit they made through expanding their economy into Iraq by sending there corporations.
Ofcourse now with the ISIS thing going on US is kind of fucked since it's their own allies - the saudis - who are financing them. Now you may see US better its relations with Iran, to make sure that dealing with saudis won't be as painful.
Shit son go read a book.
>send many American advisers, corporations, diplomats into Iraq
>send many corporations to Iraq
What did they airdrop Apple's HQ into Baghdad?
Also good to see you're drinking the usual liberal bullshit cocktail. How's your liberal arts degree coming?
Arabs won this one, they had a fairly consistent leadership while the Crusader leaders couldn't wait to get back home and declare war on each other.
Both sides had well trained soldiers. The Crusaders were using mass amounts of criminals saying that they would get 'salvation'.
>Equipment in general.
Arabs won this one too, one of the greatest struggles the crusaders faced was a lack of suitable weaponry.
Arabs won this by a huge margin. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.
That's where we disagree.
I don't believe there is one culture or one religion. Take a supposedly single country like Iraq, and it's torn up into different ethnic and religious groups, and those groups are in turn torn into extended families or clans, and those clans are where people's allegiance lies.
When Saddam was in power, he had a few clans on his side, and he brutally suppressed others. When the Coalition came in, they had some clans on their side, and they suffered attacks from the others.
These days, when ISIS, the Kurds and the new Iraqi regime are in power, each one of those has its alliances and its enemies, and a different set of cultural and religious values they'd like to maintain or possibly project outwards.
The Muslims are fighting their biggest war in several generations right now, and not a single "foreign invader" in sight. And a few more Islamic regimes are about to join the great big pile of Islamic regimes defeated in Islamic countries since Colonialism left the region to its own devices starting in the 40's.
You missed my point.
My point is that Americans are trying to turn Iraq into their playground. But they spent 100 times more resources than the Muslim insurgencies on controlling the region.
And when the US turn their attention to something else, Iraq is just gonna go full allahu snackbar again. Exact same situation in Libya and Afghanistan as well.
>>Equipment in general.
>Arabs won this one too, one of the greatest struggles the crusaders faced was a lack of suitable weaponry.
Don't these two contradict eachother?
Also I wouldn't say arab equipment was inferior. They had their own reasons to wear what they wore and use what they used. Their equipment was suitable for hot climate and desert combat.
>a million other construction companies that were granted contracts to build shit at 300% the estimated price.
Were you sleeping during OIF?
>What did they airdrop Apple's HQ into Baghdad?
Go look at northern Iraq, it's pretty much Arab-speaking Texas.
>Also good to see you're drinking the usual liberal bullshit cocktail. How's your liberal arts degree coming?
You don't get it do you? I want to see the Islamic caliphate put down. But the west unfortunately is just not doing that.
Considering the crusaders regularly mopped the floor with the Muslims without massive tactical failures or being outnumbered 10-1 I will stick with the equipment being superior.
They didn't have enough of it however, so the two are not contradictory (and only barely related).
The whole region has been minimally governed from the fall of the Roman Empire to the start of Colonialism. 200 years under this dynasty or the other just means that the various savage clans were left to their own devices as the ruling dynasty controlled some key point and nothing more.
What passed for ruling a country back in the Caliphate days way having a few fortified cities under your control, while keeping raids on major roads to an acceptable level and collecting some tolls and taxes in the territory you actually hold.
If that's your standard for stability, then Iraq is doing swimmingly even today.
And you missed mine.
What I said is that it never really was a US goal to retain the full control over Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan.
They're getting rid of Russian and Iranian allies. Securing their hegemony.
Stop over simplifying things by thinking who is directly controlling what country. Take a more open look towards the situation. US has been successful in every war you mentioned eventhough at first it may not seem like it. That's because the media will never state the real goals of anyone. There's a smokescreen for every political decision.
Western equipment was generally much better than Muslim equipment. Its not like they could just buy each others weapons and realistically it takes years of training to wear and use arms and armor. Most Muslim men were not built heavily enough to actually wear heavy armor even if they got their hands on it.
>What passed for ruling a country back in the Caliphate days way having a few fortified cities under your control, while keeping raids on major roads to an acceptable level and collecting some tolls and taxes in the territory you actually hold.
So just like everywhere during medieval times?
Also you forgot the Persian Empire, the Sassanid Empire, the Ottoman Empire. I don't even remember the very old (and first in human history) empires.
Face it - Middle East has had its own fair share of great countries. You're just stuck in the modern situation and are assuming that's how it was like since forever.
>They're getting rid of Russian and Iranian allies. Securing their hegemony.
And where does American hegemony come from? Being in control of the region. Have a few tricks up their sleeves when dealing with the local governments. Having socially and culturally infiltrated themselves in the region.
>That's a virtue.
They went there and raped, pillaged etc.
Now don't get me wrong, sandniggers and peasant farmers killing each other is fine by me. But they weren't good people for what they did.
Although I will respect that they're willing to die for it.
Your view comes from the post-modernism view of history that every country was pretty shitty before the modern era.
And that's quite incorrect. Just about every region on earth has had a golden age of development, stability, peace and human social progression. Some regions had several golden ages. The world really wasn't that dark back then. Sure, modern society is great but for people living in their respective times they had their own proud and evolutionary moments.
Also a daily reminder that the medieval times are portrayed much shittier than they really were. People lived to over 60 on average (assuming they didn't die during their first years).
The level of government that went on in any of the examples you mentioned was okay for the region and the time, but it's not up to today's standards. That's why 20th century Arab regimes rarely last more than two generations.
They attempt to reach a level of government where they can dictate the law and collect taxes everywhere, and the local population hates it and goes to war to stop it.
You could try and return to the older style of rule, the same style that worked for the Sassanids et al, and leave most of the territory as a practically ungoverned frontier.
But these days the only result of that would be that the powerful groups in that frontier would be bought out by foreign powers and used to usurp your power. That's what the British did with the Arab Revolt, and that's the exact thing that's waiting for anyone who'll stake a claim to a piece of land that he doesn't fully control.
Iraq is suffering the results of this incomplete rule, and Egypt is having a great deal of trouble in Sinai for the same reason.
We have a TV series here about farming in different time periods "tales from the green valley" and "tudor monastery farm" are my favorite ones, its basically a group of historians completely living as people would have done in certain time periods, it really shows how smart people used to be, they didn't necessarily understand the science of why things worked but the average joes were doing tasks that even 90% of people today wouldn't be able to do without their beloved technology and google.
>That's why 20th century Arab regimes rarely last more than two generations.
You never gave an explanation.
Read about history. Please.
Saudi Arabia? United Arab Emirates? Iran? Turkey? Are you fucking retarded?
Most of the instability you see is the direct result of US politics and the problems left from the British Empire.
You can't honestly think that an imperialistic power that drew borders in a rush and then fucked off, after which another imperialistic power started taking advantage of that same region would somehow not affect it's stability?
I would say the average Joe has always stayed average. Back then we used to know how to do some shit ourselves. Now, since that's unnecessary, we know how to do shit with technology instead. In the future we'll do some other weird shit and not know how what we know right now. Most knowledge becomes irrelevant and lost over time anyway.
So why can't Islamists put together a stable state? I suspect Islam is like Communism. Superficially attractive, sells well to the masses, but fundamentally flawed in ways that you can't fix no matter how many corpses you pile on.
>hurr durr murica is teh evil empire destabilizing the pooor little arabs who were so prosperous before
no you stupid fucks. Get out of your baby strollers and put down you little bottles filled with liberal bullshit formula and discover reality. Their conflict is blistering hot and very internal. The strife between sunni and shiite is old as fuck. The arabs fuck themselves all the time without any help from us. Notice how the only slightly stable nations (UAE, Turkey) are allied with the US. Don't be a bitch
>That's because the media will never state the real goals of anyone.
The media doesn't know the real goals. That shit is deeply classified by everybody and protected with lethal force.
The media gets fed morsels of the official story, seasoned with odd bits of out of context bullshit and sprinkled with obvious attempts at disinfo to make it seem legit. They then draw their own conclusions, which are broadcast to pacify the public
If you actually read this thread you will notice which are my posts. You will also notice that none of what I said had anything to do with liberalism, the fun label you can put on everyone you disagree with. After this one of the following will happen:
>you realize that you might be wrong
>you will research the stuff I said and find out all of it is true
>now with your new knowledge everything will become easy to understand and will start making sense
>you will read through my posts, confused and feeling discomfort over the fact that your overly simplistic views are put under scrutiny
>you may even feel cognitive dissonance for a split second
>you will immediately stop reading my posts or continue but mentally blocking out every ounce of it
>after which you return back to your bubble and eat up whatever the media of [insert one of the countless smokescreen political views] will feed you while shitposting on /pol/ about "lol mudslimes"
>That shit is deeply classified by everybody and protected with lethal force
It's not classified. It's actually surprising how all the info is out there. Shit I've even seen documentaries about it. Anyone with brains could easily figure out what's going on after a small amount of research.
It's just that it's much easier to subscribe to a certain political view and gobble up what you're being told. This way you'll easily find people to circlejerk with and have an illusion that you have it all figured out.
>They fought for what they believe. Religion was what ideologies were a hundred years ago. It's people fighting and prepared to die for what they believe in. That's a virtue.
Yeah, like ISIS now...
What I was referring to was the genuine realpolitik motivators that drive our actions. That shit is classified for a variety of reasons, national security being only 1 and not always the primary. Mostly it's because the general public would be outraged if they knew what their government was doing on their behalf every day. Look at the Iran-Contra scandal or Gitmo for examples.
I'm not doing tinfoil conspiracy theory shit, I'm fully aware that most decisions at that level are made with inadequate or flawed information. Sometimes the decision works, other times it doesn't but now we're committed because of inertia.
The information you're talking about, yes, some of it is out there. If you spend 40 hours a week ferreting through hundreds of different sources you could probably make some pretty accurate guesses. You'd still be always missing a few pieces of every puzzle, which is irrelevant unless you have the autism really bad.
modern warfare isnt about fighting nations you idiot, the purpose of going into iraq and Afghanistan was to get bin laden and Hussein, then gwb went full retard and changed the goal post into bringing them democracy.
The iraqi army was defeated in a week.
Sand niggers always lose in proper military battles see the 6 day war when like all the arab armies lost to some jews with bb guns.
What dune coons are good at is hiding and suicide bombing like the cowards they are.
I was more talking about geopolitics in general which isn't really hard to get an understanding of, if you're committed (most people fail here). But yeah the specific details of how some things are done will mostly be hidden from the public.
This, however, does not in any way make it impossible to educate yourself enough to see past the obvious bullshit.
If we were allowed to engage in actual old school warfare we could raze the shit out of their entire shitty country and turn it into a strip mall in less than a month.
But COIN doesn't allow such things...
What the fuck?
>Western Europe despite it's superior military training and organization, superior equipment and superior numbers lost every crusade.
They did not lose every crusade in fact they won quite a few, yes it could be said that some of them like the knights had superior training and equipment but they were often outnumbered and often terribly organised. That is the real reason that they were pushed out, towards the end they were so poorly organised that they had no chance of winning a war.
>yfw the second foreigners aren't in the middle east, the muslims go back to slitting each others throats over 1000 year old tribal disputes and minute differences in their "uniting" faith
>Yfw a major problem of the iraq and afgan "wars" is the fact that sand niggers keep reporting each other as terrorists to get the USA to drone some yurt over a goat his ancestor had stolen in the 17th century... or to him, the 10th century.
>plz come to our country dirty sandniggers!
>we'll give you tons of free stuff and say nothing as you staunchly refuse to integrate into our society
>plz attempt to lie cheat and steal, afterall it is what your infallable and above ridicule religion tells you is ok because we are the infidel
The US strictly regulates immigration for a reason
I'd say the Reconquista was hugely successful
Any success from the crusades were from muslim infighting and crusaders managing to put petty conflicts aside long enough to capitalize.
In actual fact, the Crusades were marred by personal power struggles and lack of trust between crusaders as well as near suicidal attack plans. Christians were the minority in the region and got suckered into wasting their limited strength in open battle.
The muslims had vast empires in the vicinity while crusaders were islands of castles with few manpower or regional allies.
Its really not difficult to see why
>Not constantly fighting amongst themselves
>not killing each other over tribal squabbles since Prehistory
>not killing each other over doctrinal differences while muhammad's body was still warm
Israel is the new kingdom of Jerusalem. Look how well kebab is at fighting the west