>responsible for the decline of shia islam >turks got stronger

>>2962165
Crusaders were just angry, poor peasants looking for an excuse to go rape and pillage in far away lands. They weren't real Christians in any sense of the word.

>>2962169

Typical uneducated response I've come to expect from this board.

>>2962169
>b-but doos vult
>muh based templars

>>2962174
It's true though

>>2962201

It isn't though. You're just spouting typical mainstream American atheist ideas

>>2962165
The Fourth Crusade pretty much guaranteed they would be handing over Constantinople all of Greece to the Turks, it also made it abundantly clear they didn't care for any sort of Christian brotherhood or unity.

>>2962165
No, because Crusading ideology was mostly interested in establishing the superiority of Frankish, Latin Christianity over all others, and the Shia and Arabs were simply the weak targets alongside Orthodoxy and Judaism for their expansion.

The Turks just happened to have their own sort of militant faith ideal, a Persianate Sunni Islam that spread west around the same time the Franks were expanding east. The Slavs and Arabs were again just caught in the middle of it.