Why did the West just give up on Crusades and let the Muslims win?

File: Claude Rains The Adventures of Robin Hood.png (1MB, 857x642px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 857x642px

>>132799043
>Why Richard, I had no idea that you had come back from the crusades.
>By all means, take back this throne I've been enjoying while you were gone.

File: the_last_supper_by_wjsolha.jpg (142KB, 888x348px)

142KB, 888x348px

>>132799043
because they realized the ME is a worthless desert and not worth the effort.

sage

>>132799043
Because the Crusades were more or less heresy and east Europe was a fucking meme in terms of capital and still is. .

>>132799043
At the 3Rd one
>4th crusade was about Venetians meming the Crusader force into destroying Zadar and Constantinople
>5th crusade was Pope meming children to be sold as calamites to Africans

>>132799043
because in reality it was just about money and when they already sacked every city they could they just didn't care anymore

>>132800472
Why did they keep getting btfo after the 1st?
Seems like all they did was consolidate islam to a common goal making them stronger before they resorted to killing eachother again

black death

>>132800936
2nd**

>>132799043
Conquering a large area far away from your "base" is very hard.
That was not helped by the fact that most of the Crusaders would go back to Europe as soon as they succeeded, so they always had a shortage of men.

>>132800795
>because in reality it was just about money
It was not.

>>132800936
The 3rd Crusade was successful.

>>132801349
But the 4th and 5th were worse than half the things muslims did... And I mean worse for Europe itself

>>132801233
>It was not.
butthurt that the reality wasn't so noble and pure as you want to think? prove that it wasn't about money MOSTLY

>>132801349
Except for regaining Jerusalem

>>132799043
Last I checked we still occupy Jerusalem ... so who said the muslims won

>>132799043
Because there was no point. The crusades were about freeing Christian majority lands from Turkish control. the Muslims destroyed eddessa, Antioch, tyre, Jerusalem, and shoah'd the Greeks living in Anatolia.

>>132801512

Crusading was very expensive. Most nobles would spend a lot of money in order to Crusade. And most Crusaders who lived, returned to Europe without any new wealth.
And Crusading was very dangerous, with very high mortality rates due to disease.

The Count of Flanders was the richest man in France. He went very far away from his home for years with plenty of his troops. He faced plenty of diseases. And the only thing he came back with were saint relics. No material profit. Yet, if you asked him if it was worth it to fight in the Crusade, he would say "obviously yes".

>>132799043

The didn't "let them win" they got BTFO and ran out of blood & treasure.

>>132799043
Regular people didn't want to live in the hot shitty foreign disease-filled middle east. After the 1st Crusade, most of the rank and file went the fuck back home.

>>132799043
Funny things is some Arabs in Middle East initially welcomed the crusades, because the rulers of Jerusalem at the time were Seljuk Turks that were cruel and not loved by the population be it Muslim or Christian.
Egypt at the time was shia muslim and they even wanted to make some alliance with crusades, but crusaders behaved even worse than Seljuks by plundering and making viking style raid attacks against Egypt until they got desperate and called Saladin for help and the rest is history