>Both the Axis Powers and Crusaders failed miserably

>>3166101
>Crusaders failed miserably
no, they were a major success for Europe because they slowed down the Islamic rape train on the entire Mediterranean long enough to develop circumnavigation.

these two are not comparable

please end yourself

>>3166121

>pol believes this

>>3166140
Beyond that, it allowed trade routes that had previously been inaccessible to be utilized again.

Are you seriously telling me you think Europe would have been better off if the Crusades hadn't happened? You're delusional.

>>3166157

>pol being desperate

>>3166170
>strawman in the face of superior literacy
To say nothing of the unifying effect it had on continental Europe. People tend to forget that the Catholic Church was the only real common ground between the various European peoples at the time. It's no coincidence that European progress accelerated again after the First Crusade.

your thread is garbage because your agenda precludes actual discussion.

>>3166121
Not really, no

>>3166214
sure thing kiddo

File: nice job faggots.jpg (72KB, 770x437px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 770x437px

>>3166233
The Crusaders were indirectly responsible for the Ottoman Empire and Islam gaining a permanent presence on the European Continent

>>3166278
>Crusaders were indirectly responsible for the Ottoman Empire
then they are also indirectly responsible for the settlement of the New World. Are you implying the Ottoman Empire was bad for Europe?

>muh sack

Because we are told from childhood to believe that they are both the epitome of evil
The people telling us that end up being giant fags
It is natural to admire a struggle against the odds

>>3166301
>Are you implying the Ottoman Empire was bad for Europe?
No I'm outright stating the Ottomans were muslims who invaded and conquered much of the European Continent for centuries and left a legacy of muslim presence which continues in the Balkans to this day.
How was picking away at the main force holding back the Turks from from expanding into Europe slowing down the Islamic rape train?

>>3166121
The Islamic Mediterranean basin was so dysfunctional by the 11th century that the Crusades were actually a boon for the rise of mercenary and tribal kings who carved out their own principalities on the prestige that fighting the crusaders gave them. Before the Crusades the Umayyad, Abbasid, and Fatimid caliphates were all collapsing with Italian city-states, Asturian kings, Byzantine usurpers, Norman adventurers, and Armenian lords constantly on the offensive, not to mention the short-lived nature of both the Seljuks and the Almoravids. After the Crusades we got Mamluk Egypt, the Ottomans, and the Almohads.

>>3166157
Trade routes had not only been accessible for centuries to European trade, but things became even more restricted after the Crusades as the Ottomans dominated the Black Sea and Constantinople while the Mamluks (and later the Ottomans) preferred to strike exclusive deals with Venice and few others.

>>3166527
thanks