Has there ever been a bigger underdog than the crusaders? From Jerusalem to Malta to the Baltics to Constantinopel, they would not quit.
>>2771729
>Underdog.
Nope.jpg
The Muslim world was literally in a state of turmoil following the Seljuk Invasion and the Fatimid Revolution. The Abbasid Caliphate existed in paper but their writ now barely extended past Baghdad/Iraq. The Middle East was split into competing powers between the declining Abbasids, the Seljuks (most prominent in Iraq and the Rum), and the Fatimids in Egypt. In the middle of all this was Syria and the Levant, whose Emirs were virtually independent city-states backing some of the three or going independent. Add to this shitpot are the continuous streams of Central Asian invaders and Byzantium's never-ending war with the Seljuks in Anatolia.
There was no unified force resisting the Crusaders. Really the difficulty that they had was they were in hostile and inhospitable territory.
Arguably, bolsheviks.
>>2771729
>Baltic Crusade.
>Crusaders were underdpfffahahahahaha!
>>2771729
Greece vs Persia.
France 1792-1802.
Steamships vs Clippers.
>>2771729
Muslims.
Seriously before they even conquered Arabia then Muhammad was a target for most of the other Arab tribes and most of his early followers were slaves that got beaten/killed by their masters for following him.
I dreamt i was with my ex again
wew
>>2771756
But they weren't in a hostile and inhospitable territory. There was a massive population of native Christians and willing Muslim allies, along with access to Italian dominated sea lanes and Byzantine contact, and their lands were rich with farm and trade revenue.
>>2771905
wew wrong thread as well, gotta drink coffee before i post
>>2771729
I can never understand why the Crusaders fought so badly and were defeated so easily.
Can someone explain it to me?
>>2771907
There was that bit when they were approaching jerusalem that they were diseased and starving.