Crusades

>>2600435
Poor planning and decision making

Janissaries

>>2600435
Because at first the Muslims were all infighting and then weren't

>>2600435
first crusade happened at an extremely opportune time for a crusade to happen, and had an absolutely absurd amount of luck to boot. run that one again and it probably doesn't succeed.

even though they did succeed, the crusaders had a fundamental problem they never could resolve: manpower. a crusade is essentially a heavily armed pilgrimage where you kill infidels along the way. what do you do at the end of a pilgrimage? you pack up and go home. so many soldiers just went home, and made it hard for them to have a lot of staying power, though they did compensate for this with an interesting fortress strategy and the military religious orders.

there was also the problem of a crusade itself. the first one had a clear goal: jerusalem. they got that, then what? hard to convince people to march all the way to the middle east to fight on behalf of largely temporal goals(as in the 2nd crusade). also crusaders were super costly endevours that only the wealthy could afford, and it is hard as a count/duke/king/emperor to justify spending years away from your lands to campaign in the middle east while risking defeat there, your enemies at home taking advantage of your absence, and god knows what else. papal guilt only goes so far.

what brought about the end was a couple of things. one was figuring out how to brake the fortress strategy, and the other was uniting all the muslim lands surrounding the crusader states under the ayyubids. this was made easier due to the crusaders themselves being a reason for the muslims to unite against them, as nothing like foreign invader does. add to that a few civil wars in the crusader states, a decline in byzantine power, and a decline in european interest in crusading, and that was all she wrote.

>>2600435
Lack of manpower
Islamic unity
Lack of Christian unity
ERE not being powerful enough
Saladin
Venice trading with Muslims rather than funding the Templars

Honestly it was stupid and Iberia should have been conquered instead

You really want to know the truth from an informed theological perspective?

God switched sides. Both the Muslims and the Christians were competing for God's covenant.

What is a covenant? It is the agreement made with God. As long as you obey his Laws he will protect you from harm.

The Jews lost their covenant with God and it was passed to the followed of Christ.

But the Christians bungled it too. And so God made a new covenant. With Mohammad and the people who follow him

>>2600435
Because there was no central effort to keep the Crusader states alive and without one their position was untenable.

The real surprise is that they lasted 200 years at all while surrounded by large and powerful Muslim empires.

>>2600684
Islam is a satanic crypto-pagan religion that has nothing to do with the true Judeo-Christian faith.

>Detailed Documentary Exposing Islam (3 hours)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qk_VwZxN9bA

>Muhammad the World's Most Evil Man?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efRRknDAuHc

>Evidence Muhammad was Demon Possessed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FywOhaY-GEA

>Original Sources Koran Stole its Stories From
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhaLDYo0Kl8

>Allah = Satan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTi1FZkoEsM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86PL9wueH-s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLoUq8vybzY

>Why the Quran Was Revealed in Arabic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rigMARKrNDw

>Why We Are Afraid, A 1400 Year Secret
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_Qpy0mXg8Y

>>2600695
You just don't get it.

The Crusaders went to KILL God's creatures.

Thou Shalt Not Kill. Killing humans is a mortal sin.

The entire Church went to War and that meant God dismissed them and allowed their downfall.

The Catholic Church broke the Covenant with God.

Trust me

>>2600727
>Thou Shalt Not Kill
>Killing humans is a mortal sin.
>But Muslims killed people so its OK.

Schizo.

>>2600736
Read the Muslim covenant.

God literally sent Mohammad to make humanity submit. That's what Islam is translated into.

Submit.

This is why Mohammad was so wildly successful and Islam has spread across the 4 corners of the Earth and BTFO Christians wherever they meet.

God switched sides because Christians broke their covenant.

>>2600753
thats some religious bullshit , we want factual stuff not some hooky spooky

>>2600814
Good point.

/his/ isn't the place for Theological arguments. Though, decidedly the Theological has played a critical role in historical events.

File: Heretics.png (274KB, 2760x1280px) Image search: [Google]

274KB, 2760x1280px

>>2600727


Killing of the Heretics is allowed by the Church and muslims aren't humans evenless God's creatures

File: Turcopole,_12th_century.jpg (169KB, 640x960px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 640x960px

>>2600435
Local support was wanting. They ever relied on foreign knights continuously coming in from the west and swearing loyalty to some Outremer noble or another.

However, they did have an auxiliary force of sorts from Christian arabs & turks who provided sorely needed light cavalry support.

>>2600836
>knighthood

Mein bro Jesus never told his followers to make an armed militia and kill anyone who didn't follow the Covenant.

He said the exact opposite in fact.

>>2600849
The pope decides who goes to heaven or hell so it is fine. He will give them a pass due to extenuating circumstances.

>>2600862
One must repent mortal sin.

The Pope has no liscence to wave it away or justify it and in such ways the Covenant was broken.

It would be as if the Pope sanctioned widespread adultery.

>>2600684
>You really want to know the truth from an informed theological perspective?
literally no such thing

>>2600889
I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that I have an informed theological perspective.

File: Heretics.png (585KB, 2804x1882px)

585KB, 2804x1882px

>>2600849
Jesus sanctified roman soldiers, and thus sanctified the Army

>>2601001
That's not how any of this works.

>>2600435
Because it wasn't 'the Muslims' vs 'the Christians' but the combined armies of several powerful dukes and counts versus some minor emirs of peripheral cities and territories who weren't at all united at first, then it became the combined armies of an expansive empire from Mesopotamia to the Nile versus some minor Syrian counts who no one cared for any longer.

>>2600661
Iberia was conquered. Quite a few crusaders stopped on their way there. Although agree with the rest of your points and >>2600540

>>2600435
I'll try to explain it with an actual historical reason instead of what these plebs have been shitposting about.

So first off, the Crusades is a huge topic and if youre interested in learning more about it, I'd suggest picking up a few books or if youre not quite the reader but enjoy some good brain food, check out some podcasts or youtube videos. Theyre are some good and bad ones. I like to listen to Real Crusades History on youtube. they have scholars and read from well renowned books on crusades.

NOW.

So the first thing to understand is that there are many events that lead to the crusades. The Egyptian dynasities of the new kingdom, the conquest of Alexander the Great and of course the fall of the Roman Empire.

So to start you should look at how Europe was shaped, and I mean that with a sense of borders as well as what was then called Christendom. Europe had never reunited after the fall of Rome and i mean that with the sense of Europe Proper was the only places where Rome had influence. But since the fall of Rome Europe warred on itself constantly. This was because after Rome feel we see many Kingdoms rise and fall before we are finally established with the staples that was England, France and the HRE. Some minor kingdoms were of course Hungary, Castille, Normandy to an extent, and eventually we see the Crusader kingdoms. Because there was no Empire to hold control over these lands and to settle deputes, There was a different power that rose. I'm talking of course about the Roman Catholic Church and to an extent the Orthodox Church which held some significant power over the Byzantine Empire to the East of the Italian Peninsula.

The Roman Catholic Church/ Chuch for short or simply the RCC, was in itself new Rome in a way. They held power over Europe where the Pope was above the Kings or Monarchy. This didnt happen as soon as Rome fell as of fact the Church was in great threat for sometime until Charlemagne's conquest.

(1/3)

>>2600435
After The creation of the Holy Roman Empire, (which was much more different looking than the HRE that we see in the 16th, 17th and 18th century where it eventually fell to Napoleon I,) The Church began a rather fast incline of power where it centeralized Europe. With it's influnce spreading from the Iberian, across modern day France and the modern day UK, all across central Europe, Down the Italian Peninsula, and into the Balkans to an extent where power of the Church was overshadowed by the Orthodox and Byzantine Empire. While The church began to increase in Power, a very significant series of events happened in the Middle East. as well as in the Islam influnced areas of the Iberian.
Places where Christianity has once been tolerated where increasing becomin intolerable. While The Modern Day Spain had been a target for Christians to retake for sometime, The souring relationships with Christians in Muslim controlled spain had been turned to full on conflict. In some events Christians were being slaughtered where they had the freedom to practice prior to the now agressive Islam controlled spain. This Agression in spain towards Christains as well as the desire to regain The Iberian, leads to what is now called the reconquista of Spain. This event coinsides with The power of the Church centeralizing as well as for what happens next.
In a similar circumstance Christians in the middle east (specifically Jerusalem where Christians made pillgrimage to see the tomb of christ,) were also being ill treated. Where the agressive islamic influnce in spain differs in from Jerusalem and the middleeast, We also see similar styles where Christians were being killed by Muslims. These events also tie to the Destruction of the Holy Sepulchre in 1009 where Christ's Tomb was and was at the time considered the Most holy place for Christians. While some reconstruction had been done to rebuild, Europe now influncened by the Church was becoming agitated.

(2/3)

>>2600435
What is probably the most significant reason for the Cursades to start was the improved relationship with the Orthodox Church and the Byzantine Empire in the late 1000's. Turkish agressors where growing dangerously close to taking the entire region of Anatolia (modern day turkey.) The Byzantines fears that they could someday destroy their Empire (which of course we know they were right to do since the Turks eventually do take Constantinople, hence Turkey being called Turkey today.)
While The Emperor of the Byzantines sent help for the Pope to rally troops and have them come help retake Byzantine lands (which at one point had expanded across all of the Med Sea) There was a lot of other conflicts going on in the middle east and northern Africa. These were not Christian conflicts though Christians still sesided here, but conflicts with Muslims. A Division similar to the Catholic vs Orthodox division where Islam was divided into Shia and sunni. Though Islam had once conquered all of North Africa and even well into Europe, the now divided faith was in danger of losing much of its most significant land to Christendom that would eventually launch the First Crusade to Retake the Holy land.

The First Crusade is arguably the most sucessful and most influencial. It started a new Age for Europe and all of Christendom for that matter. Where many Kingdoms put their differences aside and launched what soldiers they could spare and left, traveling by land and sea thousands of miles to Constantinople and eventually Jerusalem and Ascolon.
What was a time of certain division for the Muslims in the middleast was rather a time of great unity for the Crusaders of Christendom both under the Catholic Chruch and the Orthodox church. Jerusalem fell rather simply and it was for nearly 100 years that they held the muslim off.

(3/3)

>>2601117

Kilij Arslan was a sultan. I wouldn't call Kerbogha a minor emir. Nor would I call Mosul a minor place to be emir of. After fighting the turks all the way through asia minor, Jerusalem was actually held by the Fatimid Caliphate an unfought enemy, while the crusaders were weak from constant battle and disease. None of these are minor players.

The problem with the Kingdom of Jerusalem, is that it is founded on an uninterrupted string of military successes. It was always one defeat away from total collapse. That happened at Hattin, a death march through the desert which was totally unadvisable, except the knights refused to abandon a Frankish lady whom Saladin had besieged. They lost the moment they adopted chivalry. They fell for their own meme. Israel has learned from this mistake.

Basically the first crusade was successful because the muslims were divided and then the muslims made a comeback because the christians were divided

Christianity is heresy. A carpenter accidentally convinced everyone he was a messiah and got the world all in a tizzy, and God got pissed off and sent Muhammad to fix all the shit Jesus caused

Brian: I am NOT the Messiah!
Arthur: I say you are Lord, and I should know. I've followed a few.

I wear this crown of thorns
Upon my liar's chair
Full of broken thoughts
I cannot repair
Beneath the stains of time
The feelings disappear
You are someone else
I am still right here

No turning water into wine
No learning while you're in the line
I'll take you to the broken sign
You see these lights are blue

File: battles.jpg (132KB, 1584x1584px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 1584x1584px

REMOVE KEBAB

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_R8viSgLTVM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b11-37Me_a4

>>2601148
Kilij Arslan was a minor pretender to the title of Seljuk Sultan who fled to Anatolia to avoid the major dynastic civil war between his more powerful kin in Iran. He was little more than the bey of Nicaea

Kerbogha was so inconsequential that we hear nothing about him whatsoever in the major Seljuk civil war, and Mosul only rose to prominence under the Zengids who turned it into a capital.

The First Crusade only fought Kilij Arslan in Asia Minor, and saw little resistance after defeating him in the west from anyone else until they reached Antioch.

Finally, the Fatimids were not fresh enemies, but had just conquered Jerusalem themselves months earlier from a drawn out war with the Seljuks. Furthermore, Jerusalem was a minor settlement compared to the likes of Ascalon, which they put more effort into defending successfully for decades after the First Crusade. Lastly, this was not the same Fatimid Caliphate that conquered North Africa, but a state whose last caliph was disavowed by nearly every Shi'a congregation beyond the Nile River and a barely stable sick man of the region.

>>2601805
>Finally, the Fatimids were not fresh enemies
Funny too that the Fatimid vizier and Roman Emperor were pretty much friends, and they assumed that since the Franks were technically working for the Byzantines that they were all allies, and were taken by surprise when the crusaders began to march south from Antioch.

File: shitpost.jpg (101KB, 600x1728px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 600x1728px

>>2601421
that pic is cringe worthy.

almost as shit post as pic related