ITT: We post things that trigger Deus Vultards

File: maxresdefault454564645646[1].jpg (190KB, 1200x931px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 1200x931px

Reminder that the Crusaders were all failures that only succeeded when they caught a few feuding turkish factions off guard, but when the saracens united, the crusaders got their shit pushed in

>>2035864
Agreed, honestly reading about how poorly planned and performed the first crusade was it is a minor miracle they were able to achieve so much. Also I think it is somewhat impressive how long some of these states lasted in completely hostile territory.

Crusades were shit & pointless; they caused more harm than good for the Christians in the areas they touched and ended up only enabling kebab.

File: medieval-europe-lesson-5-the-crusades-6-638.jpg (45KB, 638x479px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 638x479px

Enough said.

>>2035879
Sounds like a succes desu

Also Venetians dindunuffin dey a good boi

File: cvchg.jpg (125KB, 1000x630px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 1000x630px

Despite being surrounded and facing overwhelming odds they accomplished their objectives and maintained a presence in the eastern Mediterranean until the Mongols changed the world again. They halted the expansion of the enormous Seljuk Empire and contributed to its breakdown, it wouldn't be until the Ottomans that the Turks would resume their progress.

The modern humanist is shocked by the superstition and brutality, modern liberals are triggered by the idea of Christians attacking Muslims, however it is a fact that this level of brutality was the same across the world and Muslims had no issue attacking Christians either. Singling the crusaders out as exceptionally evil is misguided. Had the crusades never happened muslim warlords would have taxed their peasants into the ground and warred with each other much the same.

The crusades were motivated by people willing to risk their lives for their faith, Kings and commoners alike. Were they interested solely in loot and land they would have been better off targeting somewhere a little less vulnerable and closer to home, they are an outlier in a world where most wars are motivated by realpolitik. What could they have accomplished if their motives were more rational?

>>2035991
Then how do you explain types like Bohemund?

File: 1480013573532.jpg (33KB, 710x540px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 710x540px

>>2035991

Muslims were horrified at how savage the crusaders were. Crusaders started to EAT Muslims ffs.

>>2035991
No sane individual would think thay they were evil, that's just how the world worked back then.

They really weren't the brightest candles on the cake and most of the retarded and degenerated lowlives think of hem as the holy squad of god who punished the bad nonbelievers/wrongbelievers.
They do that while bashing on every other religion without actually trying to see the whole picture instead of trying to look for informations which are validating their opinions and labelling everything else as bullshit.And they fail to realize that they're behaving just like the idiots and hardliners on the other side of the fence.
Such flawed logic is the reason why most people who actually think like humans (or think at all) are associating them with the present idiots we're stuck with, because most people who are ignoring every bad aspect of something and idolizing every good part of it tend to be idiots.

>>2036003
Bullocks

>>2036015
is the term for castrated male bovine animals of any age

>>2035870
Didn't the Crusader States actually come to negotiate with their Muslim neighbors, and it was fresh crusaders from the west, naive to the situation, arrived that shit his the fan?

>>2036042
*hit

File: hmm.jpg (23KB, 514x544px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 514x544px

would you burn your head wearing one of those metal helmets in the desert at 40C?

>>2036000
He couldn't have used spooked fanatics to conquer Antioch if there were no spooked fanatics.
>>2036003
Most likely due to lack of supply, a frequent problem in war. Before the crusades there was a lot of war and brutality between muslims, the rivalry between the Fatimids and Abbasids and different Islamic sects for example.
>>2036009
>they fail to realize that they're behaving just like the idiots and hardliners on the other side of the fence
This is true for both sides.

Likewise I suppose there were muslims who were just as determined as the crusaders, though I don't know of any examples as conspicuous as the crusades. The Islamic conquests extended existing territory while crusaders travelled 1000s of miles to an isolated territory.

>>2036003
Actually, there is no muslim record of cannibalism.

>>2035864
>all failures
>except when they weren't

>>2035879
1. Pilgrimage was secured.
2. Lmao what the fuck does that even mean?
3. Sort of I guess. Im pretty sure it was insignificant as he still dominated European affairs and the Reconquista brought him his most loyal kingdom. The northern crusades were massive successes and extended his influence.
4. True

>>2036156
Someone fucked up an image quite good for they are trying to portray reconquista spain.

>>2036156
>tiny ceremonial axe
>plate armor

>>2036230
I am >>2036225 and I was talking about the Crusaders armour.

The muslim armour is correct but more of a 15th and 16th century thing.