The Crusaders did not care for plunder, nor for the protection of "Christians" but for there own salvation via glorious death in battle. The ultimate wish of a man on a crusade to the holy land is to die to Turkish arrows, as a final act of courage.
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
sorry but marxist history has disproved this
What do you mean?
Marxists actually agree with this.
They just intentionally interpret the Crusaders as "evil" but they still recognize their faith.
Marxists come up with weird ad-hoc explanations how the crusaders were about a land grab or controling spice trade or something else materially tangible rather than European kings and nobles wasting large sums of money for purely religious ends
I've read some marxist histography and on the crusades it's always something like that
The Crusaders were material in the sense that it was the end of material existence for the crusaders
"Crusades" were started by viking normans who wanted to avenge their ancestors by desecrating the remains of Rome.
The nords also descend from Gerda,- Magdalene's daughter with the chieftain of Isle of Man (Mannasseh tintrader outpost) who the nords refer to as Njordr (Male version of Nerthus), because his heritage was of mediterranean oceangoer origin.
tldr;
Vikings were literally more christian than romans from the getgo.
moron. The Italian martime republics began their total domination of the mediterranean in this era
>italian merchants getting to make bank is what motivated Franks to go on a quest to the holy land
All of Europe made bank as a result
But those aren't Crusaders
moron. The Knights Templar were the richest organization in Europe
>white culture is about committing suicide
Grim
Better to embrace death with open arms than to live in fear of destiny, never to live life to it's fullest.
>abrahamism
>white
Martyrdom is primarily an Islamic concept though
>Martyrdom is primarily a persian/shia concept though
ftfy
Loser cope
What does it mean to "lose"?
Crusaders lost majority of the crusades if not all of them beside the first
But those knights achieved the true goal of salvation through death
While killing innocent Christians
So who really "lost"? The crusaders, or the "innocent Christians"?
Can you name me one piece of scholarship that supports that this was a intentional goal of the crusades? The Crusades would not have been possible without the Christians living the Orient, Armenians playing a pivotal role in the success of the First Crusade; the Armenians would in later days also make up a majority of the rank and file of the Crusader armies like at Montgisard or Hattin and the Frankish aristocracy frequently intermarried with that of the Armenians. The Maronites went into communion with the Catholic Church during this time period and most Oriental Christians and even Muslims generally favoured Frankish rule, which was less oppressive.
The Crusaders destroyed a christian town during their invasion of Egypt that ironically slowed them down and resulted in the invasion ultimately being a failure as the egyptian christians grew to fear them. Ironic since taking Egypt would have been a gamechanger. And the in long term the crusades were a disaster for the local christians as the muslim unleased their chud rage against the local christians as the western christians simply went back home.
>The armenians
They weren't locals. They were refugees fleeing the destruction of Armenia by the Seljuks and took Cilicia from the Byzantines. For the armenians the new force of the crusaders was their only real ally because the byzantines were pissed off at both of them
Even after Baibars had purged the Nestorian Christians and his successors finished his policy of turning the Levantine coast into a backwater, there is estimates that Christians still made up a quarter or more of the population of Egypt.
The annihilation of Oriental Christian peoples, a long process, starting over a thousand years ago and is still ongoing, saw some of its final acts happening during the lifetimes of people who are still with us.
>Nestorian Christians
>levant
The Nestorians were purged from Egypt, and the Levantine coast desolated so as to make it unprofitable and impossible to reconquer by any Christian force. I'm aware that Egypt is not part of the Levant.
bro your post covers this area...
The crusades were a misses opportunity. The Middle East still had a large Christian population at this time.
And when they died, the muslim won and even went on to conquer even more Christian Lands
Also this
Like the 4th crusade
Many a Muslim Turk or Mamluk died as well. Did they lose?
Yes because they managed to kick out the christians out of muslim lands, then other muslims went on to conquer Christian byzantium, the Christian balkans and were constantly raiding and enslaving millions of christians
They lost because they kicked out the Christians?
No i meant they won
My bad
Sometimes I wonder how different Christianity would be if the knights Templar became so powerful that they took over as the dominate force in Christianity, even becoming a new formation of Christianity based upon the esoteric aspects of being a crusader.
>"In the light of the evidence it is hard to believe that most crusaders were motivated by crude materialism. Given their knowledge and expectations and the economic climate in which they lived, the disposal of assets to invest in the fairly remote possibility of settlement in the East would have been a stupid gamble. It makes much more sense to suppose, that they were moved by an idealism which must have inspired not only them but their families. Parents, brothers and sisters, wives and children had to face a long absence and must have worried about them: in 1098 Countess Ida of Boulogne made an endowment to the abbey of St Bertin 'for the safety of her sons, Godfrey and Baldwin, who have gone to Jerusalem. And they and more distant relatives — cousins, uncles and nephews - were prepared to endow them out of the patrimonial lands. I have already stressed that no one can treat the phenomenal growth of monasticism in this period without taking into account not only those who entered the communities to be professed, but also the lay men and women who were prepared to endow new religious houses with lands and rents. The same is true of the crusading movement. Behind many crusaders stood a large body of men and women who were prepared to sacrifice interest to help them go. It is hard to avoid concluding that they were fired by the opportunity presented to a relative not only of making a penitential pilgrimage to Jerusalem but also of fighting in a holy cause. For almost a century great lords, castellans and knights had been subjected to abuse by the Church. Wilting under the torrent of invective and responding to the attempts of churchmen to reform their way of life in terms they could understand, they had become perceptibly more pious. Now they were presented by a pope who knew them intimately with the chance of performing a meritorious act which exactly fitted their upbringing and devotional needs and they seized it eagerly."
It's very telling that the crusades failed to expand past the coastal levant. Anatolia at this stage was at least 80% Christian. How the frick do you fail to appeal to a hellenized christian population and allow them to turkified while you watch for centuries. Mind you, the blame for this lies more on the byzantines than crusaders since the Christians in the turkish emirates were literally byzantines. I will never understand why the byzantines focused on europe and the balkans over Anatolia which was the sole reason the empire was able to function.
>Be byzantines
>only ally with crusades when they're threatening you
>gleefully team up with muslims whenever you can
Gee I wonder why the 4th crusade happened.