Reading about the Crusades

This era is so filled with
>vgh.... what covld have been....
Moments that it hurts. So many things went wrong at every possible turn, it's sad that the Europeans really could have achieved a reconquest of the Middle East and a strengthening of Christendom had they been able to put aside their differences for literally 5 seconds.

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Moments that it hurts. So many things went wrong at every possible turn, it's sad that the Europeans really could have achieved a reconquest of the Middle East and a strengthening of Christendom had they been able to put aside their differences for literally 5 seconds.
    what are you talking about? Europeans did do this. It's just the the Islamic world was unified and thus the project became unsustainable. The crusaders conquered and spread christianity in the baltics and aided the Iberian Kingdoms against the Taifas. Cyprus and a few other Island holding would under Latin rule for centuries only falling to the Ottomans

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      I'm mainly referring to the middle eastern crusades in the Outremer, not the teutonics and the reconquista.
      The Islamic world was not unified for a large part of the crusades, hence why the first crusade was so successful and why Jerusalem was bargained bargained for on the table for the third, fifth, and sixth crusades because the Muslim leaders had problems at home and at their borders.
      Not to mention the Ismaili Hashashins assassinating Muslims throughout the twelfth century too causing more inheritance chaos and civil disputes

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >I'm mainly referring to the middle eastern crusades in the Outremer
        this was worthless compared to the Baltic Crusades honestly. Cyprus was a decent conquest but that was taken from the greeks so it hardly counts. Greeks were incompetent af though so if they still controlled Cyprus it probably would have been conquered sooner

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          From the perspective of the latins the Greeks were nearly as foreign and hostile as the saracens, so it was still considered a win for Catholic Christendom that they took Cyprus in the third and Constantinople in the fourth crusade. The byzantines and crusaders were constantly squabbling and distrustful of each other which is part of the reason there were so many "le wrong timeline" moments where things went wrong.
          And I would argue the holy land was worth a lot more than the Baltics. It appears the baltics are worth more now because we have the hindsight of seeing them develop into mighty Christian kingdoms, but a European history where they would have controlled the levant (and Egypt by necessity since they needed to control it to protect Jerusalem against reinvasion) would have been very different and likely more powerful. It probably also would have completely changed how the New World was discovered but that's far enough into the future to not really be able to say for certain what would have happened.

  2. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    I unironically enjoy reading about the Northern Crusades, Germans behaving like snowBlack folk lmao

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Recommend me some good books on this

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Eric christiansen and william urban

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Looks like he has a lot of good books

  3. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    If the Latin Empire held out for 10 more years we would have had a reconciliation between them and the Niceans joining the two together.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      The claimant that they disposed Constantinople for in the fourth crusade originally promised he would permanently reconcile the orthodox and unite them with the Catholics if they instated him as emperor.

  4. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    The Third Crusade was the real killer. So many what ifs.

    Goes anyone have semi-reliable demographic statistics comparing the Christian world to the Arab world at this time?

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >The Third Crusade was the real killer. So many what ifs.
      Really?
      Apart from Barbarossa surviving (longer) there is very little that could had gone different

      Both the French and Germans would have gone home either way once Acre was saved, Richard Lionheart gaining Jerusalem in some way would have grown his own legend but made no difference at all, as the remaining crusader remnants were too weak to hold on to it against the Ayyubids once they had united Egypt and the Levant.

      I guess a couple of towns more could have been gained with more sustained crusading efforts and the Ayyubids fricking it up somewhere, but I cant see the Kingdom of Jerusalem being rebuild to its former degree, it would still be internally split, without a clear ruling dynasty and population wise hopelessly outclassed by the surrounding islamic nations.

      I would argue that the 2nd Crusade is the one that could have made a difference if it would have managed to cross Anatolia unscathed. It had the numbers, the political leadership and general popular enthusiasm behind it to make some real gains, especially with the muslim world still split, the Komnenians still around and doing well and no major political differences between the main european kingdoms or the papacy (and the possibility of the Norman Kingdom of Sicily or the Byzantine Empire joining the effort)

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        During the Third the Crusaders had the numbers and the unified coalition (on paper at least) to retake the Holy Land and reverse Saladin's gains. There was misfortune (Barbarossa) and political infighting (why would the French and Germans just leave after Acre, you're there to take Jerusalem, do your feckin job and leave politics to one side)

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          >why would the French and Germans just leave after Acre, you're there to take Jerusalem, do your feckin job and leave politics to one side
          The flemish succession that caused the french king to turn around would have happened in any way and Philip Augustus was the kind of real politician that would not have fricked around in the Levant when he was urgently needed at home.

          For the Holy Roman Empire, the prospect of conquering the Kingdom of Sicily would have taken precedent and everyone would have turned around on the news. Nevermind the return of Henry the Lion and the renewed staufen-welf contention in the north.

          A crusade -when done by the great monarchs not random noblemen- was always intended as a short campaign not a multi year war, as the medieval feudal kingdom needed the personal presence of their sovereign to function, and the crusader states were in no shape during that time for a quick and short campaign. There were not even the harbours available anymore to resupply those massive armies by Italy or Sicily for any longer amount of time

  5. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    The Baltic crusades were so sad
    German Black folk spreading the "good news" of jesus christ through mass murder, converted christBlack folk betraying and wiping out their neighbours, just sheer horror all around. RIP Prussians.

  6. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Europeans could've retaken the region a thousand times over again if not for the fact that the French King invaded the HRE every time the Holy League started a war. Every. Fricking. Time.

  7. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    OP you are moronic

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      You're a homosexual

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        OK swarthoid

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          thats mean

  8. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    fgs

  9. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    wydm it was a series of failed wars (exempting the first) that lead into the formation of the first multinational corporations. After they killed Christians like Hussites and Cathars, killed "pagans" to the north (actually gnostic Christians), burned knights templar at the stake, then lost almost all of the Balkans. All of this because of the Investiture controversy and their unwillingness to overturn it. I'm glad they lost too, what kind of organization loses a war and burns its own soldiers on false charges to cancel debts then moves all the money into the Portuguese Order of Jesus. If you thought "VGH" at any point you're illiterate.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >After they killed Christians like... Cathars
      Stopped reading there.

  10. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    The biggest vgh for me is Bohemond not giving up Antioch and the potential conversion to Christianity of Seljuks

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *