Tell me something /k/... Why do mouth-breathers keep mentioning

>>32812181
something something sandniggers

File: tard.gif (2MB, 300x234px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 300x234px

>>32812214
>crusaders fleeing the background

>>32812181
Certain groups love to jerk off to the idea of killing brown people

>>32812181
They were successful in killing out the morons in western civilization and making great leaders out of the warfare. Thus the western world developed faster than most.
As my hypothesis.

To be fair, they did hold the holy land for a considerable amount of time, it wasn't like they attacked and were beaten back. They held Jerusalem for like 200 years

>>32812181
>Tell me something /k/... Why do mouth-breathers keep mentioning the Crusades as if it they were successful or positive in any way?

Well they did free Spain and Portugal.

>>32812181
>think that glorifying the Crusades somehow offends muslims?

Beats me... I mean, wouldn't you have to know something about history to even know what the Crusades were? Your average Johnny Jihadi probably hasn't ever even seen a globe.

File: 1458459945969.gif (688KB, 664x714px) Image search: [Google]

688KB, 664x714px

>>32812181
for me it's just that I like the crusaders, they are the epitome of what I think a warrior should be like.

>>32812181
It's the counter-Jihad psuedo tough guy crowd

Real Europeans worship the old gods

Crusades were a rather rare event of when bands of people were okayed to militarize, with lots of peasants being encouraged to go.
Actually somewhat natural that violence positive / friendly people would find it appealing as it was acts of sanctioned violence which are quite rare.

>>32812181
>all of the crusades
>a failure

first one literally achieved its main objective and more


Of course the byzantines were not happy with the 4th crusade but thats the fault of perfidious venice

>>32812514
What the fuck are you talking about, tell us. You know that most crusaders were starving and disease-ridden right? A lot of crusaders that returned got burned at the stake for heresy.

Disposable people get sent to war.

>>32812635
what fucking crusaders are you talking about? the poor peasants?

>>32812181
>historians in charge of deciding military victory

>>32812376

200 yrs? Such a short amount of time. Did they just come in and say "Dibs" on that shit? It's like they didn't even put up a fight to keep it.

I cam here expecting to see a bunch of dirty goat-fucking Islamists excusing their pedo death cult, and I can tell I won't be disappointed.

I miss old /k/

>>32813124
Let me guess, it's all a jewish conspiracy. and in the alternate (reality) the crusaders were really super successful military campaigns

>>32813846
not sure what's most embarrassing. ISIS-internetwarriors or counterjihad edgelords who think they're badass.

>>32813966
The most annouing are retarded pussies like you who pretend that nothing matters or that things that are clearly dichtomic aren't

File: bacon_linda.jpg (21KB, 175x228px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 175x228px

>>32814196
How's life in the filter bubble?

>>32812181
I think you misunderstand. There are few, if any, people who proclaim that the crusades were successful in the long term.

Rather, what you are hearing is a backlash against the conventional wisdom that the crusades were evil europeans being mean to innocent brown people (again). When people bring up the crusades, it's to point out that they were a defense of Christian kingdoms and a retaking of Christian lands from a vicious invader. Even Muslim chroniclers of the time remark that Muslim peasants in the Crusader kingdoms were treated better than in their own (go ahead, look it up).

The positive view of the Crusades is that they were a reaction to invasion. The Crusades, combined with the Mongol invasions, did a lot to slow down the Muslim tide, buying Europe time enough to arm and organize for defense.

I just find early medieval arms and armor to be sexy as fuck

The first Crusade was actually very successful and justified. They chased the Muslims out of Southern Europe. The Muslims in Spain and around Italy were not exactly nice people and were killing off Europeans and taking others as slaves.


And they held Jerusalem after that for a while. And holding Jersusalem for any period of time back then was totally worth it, as it was a major trade hub.

The second Crusade and those after it were more of a shitfest.

>>32813966

>Being against pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality, mass rape, pillaging, and slavery of infidels is being an edgelord.

Well if that's the new definition let me also warn you that I eat my chicken wings with a knife and fork and check my fortune without eating the cookie halves.

Don't cross me pussy.

File: OttomanEmpireIn1683.png (339KB, 1966x1850px) Image search: [Google]

339KB, 1966x1850px

Would would Europe look like if European states did not unite to fight off muslim caliphates?

>>32814323
>conventional wisdom that the crusades were evil europeans being mean to innocent brown people (again).
But that is not conventional wisdom. Why do you always want to play victim?

>>32814549
>The second Crusade and those after it were more of a shitfest.
and usually the fault of the europeans themselves

File: 1484978276981m.jpg (155KB, 788x1024px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 788x1024px

>>32815898
What its starting to look like now

>>32813876
While he's pretty much full of shit, there is an unfortunate and undeniable trend among historians today to attempt to downplay refute western history.

>tfw people actually launched a big study to prove Ben Franklin didn't invent bifocals
>turns out there's evidence he invented them decades earlier than everyone thought