The Crusades

is that alberto barbosa second to the far right?

Such a fucking waste of invaluable manpower, time, and treasure. Those men should've fought in Spain instead. Or liberate all of Anatolia (not just the portions they passed through) so that Byzantium could regain its defense in depth and bulwark of its horses, recruitment, cattle, and grain.

The first one? Byzantines were the good guys. Seljuks and crusaders were objectively evil.

t. mohammad

Dude, the Crusades should've been directed to expelling the Moors of Iberia or the Seljuks & Turcomans of Anatolia instead. Those would've been far more realistic and having better aftermaths in the long-run than trying to cling onto coastal fiefs in a sea of Islamists.

>Byzantines were the good guys

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Latins

Byzantine's were actually targets of some armed pilgrims. Those who passed through the empire and who had enough man power looted what they could. Though it was more so they could fund their trip since going on Crusade was basically more of a waste of cash than using Tax money to fund a Wall for Mexico and the US.

None the less though I wouldn't say it was a waste, While the Byzantine Empire's capital was always the end game for the saracens and Turks, Jerusalem held a lot of Importance to the Three Religions. While the Muslims focused on the Crusaders, it held back the fall of Constantinople for a few hundred years.

>Who were the good goys?

The crusades were a rothschild backed conspiracy.

>Claim 'Holiness'
>Proceed to kill, loot and pillage the holy city without any diplomatic discussions with the people you're fighting.

>Catholics
>good guys

The Byzantines

[citation needed]

Every fucking time this shit is brought up like clockwork. I don't even like the Byzantines that much, but while I agree this was a major asshole move from Constantinople's inhabitants, it doesn't justify crippling the epicenter of the Orthodox creed and weakening an invaluable bulwark against Muslim invaders.

Byzantium's diplomacy was duplicitous because they were surrounded on all fronts by enemies. They couldn't afford to constantly be at war with them so they used whatever means to ensure political survival whether bribing people to attack, undermining a rival with alliances, or whatnot.

If the Byzantines and the First Crusaders and the ill-fated 1101 Crusaders managed to get their shit together, the Rum Seljuks and the Danishmends would've been pushed back to Persia. 1096 to 1101 wasn't too late for a Reconquest of Asia Minor, but by Manuel's time, it was.

Nice false flag JIDF.

>Rhineland Massacre
>Slaughter of Jerusalem

the Latin Massacre was just enough. Fuckin Roman Catholics in Constantinople were being Jewish and besides the fact that the church was trying to seize the Byzantine Throne was just enough to consider it an act of war.

Not to mention Catholics had been looting Byzantine land for centuries at that point from the past crusaders on their way to the Holy land.

It's actually Alexios Komennos' damned fault for giving Venice all those trading privileges which undermined Byzantium's revenues. He never should've given those concessions to the Italian city-states because Byzantine merchants were being outbid in their own markets. Once John and Manuel realized how this was a detriment to imperial power, the Venetians, Genoese, and Pisans reacted violently because they would lose out on their profits.

You think too little of the Seljuks they would have done what Russia did to Napoleon on his way to Mascow... Avoid conflict and watch the Crusaders drop like flys as they march through the desert. Seljuks were notorious for poisoning water supplies as well as Guerrilla warfare.

>trying to survive obliteration makes you a crime syndicate

hmmmm

Debatable, but since I know too little to argue I'll give that to you. Just a small counter argument though. Alexios came to power at the worst time possible. He may have fucked that up but as apposed to the better of what he did in the Restoration, it goes without saying that his mistake is minor to what could have been the Fall of the Byzantine Empire as soon as 1110.

And yes I am implying that Alexios saved the Empire.

Actually I have a fair amount of respect for the Great Seljuks and their Rum offshoots. I'm well aware that's exactly what they did in the First, 1101, and Second Crusades. However, they CAN be beaten if the opposing army has good discipline, supplies, and recon. There's as much Byzantine/Crusader victories against the Seljuks as much as losses.

What Byzantium needed to do is a gradual but grinding process in recapturing Anatolia. They thwart off any hostile forces while fortifying key points. John I Komnenos' strategy proved well. His only drawback was at Niksar which couldn't be helped since the weather was against him.

If Byzantium offered the Crusaders land and religious autonomy in Anatolia in exchange for defending against the Seljuks, that'd would've worked well. All those thousands of pilgrims settling Anatolia along with Greeks returning to their homes would've been better in the long-run. In time, I'm wiling to bet many if not most of the Crusaders would accept Orthodoxy and Greek culture as many others have done in the past.

I don't follow? care to explain why Saracens are compares to a world wide crime organization instead of an aggressor fighting a religious war?

No arguments there. Everyone agrees that Alexios did a great job in restore Byzantine fortunes after that retarded civil war AFTER Manzikert.

It's a real pity that his uncle Issac's health was so shitty that he couldn't remain emperor. Had Issac Komnenos (the only Basileus in-between Basil II and Romanus IV Diogenes that was a serious military commander) remained as Emperor, Anatolia's defenses and army wouldn't have wasted away. The Seljuks and the Turcoman raiders could've been curbed.

While strategically it might seem like a just enough reason and in the long run a good investment of man power. I think its hard to argue this. Sure it seems highly logical to us because we have had hundreds of years to analysis this, but from what I've read and know of, After Ascalon, Many of the Crusaders returned home. In turn the kingdoms of the Crusaders states were established not by Kings themselves but High Nobles of Royal Blood lines. even then they wanted out of the Holy land and relied heavy on western support. placed like Edessa fell because the lack of support and man power as well as its poor strategic position. The only thing that allowed it to hold for so long during the siege was the high walls. Baldwin III even tried to retake Edessa but instead failed and went on a rage quit fury and burned all the Olive trees there.

Look I'm not saying it was impossible I just dont think that at the time it was in the cards for the Crusaders. Perhaps if the Second Crusader actually focused on retaking Anatolia instead of creating new enemies they would have succeeded. But to reiterate what i was saying, at that time, Anatolia was just out of the question.

that I completely agree with. Makes you wonder what Greece would look like today if Anatolia was reconquered.

The Third Crusade actually pushed the Seljuk frontier farther than anyone else did. Frederick Barbarossa's veteran army managed to take Konya, the Rum capital; something Alexios, John, and Manuel were unable to do. Even Godfrey of Bouillon briefly did in 1097 while on the way to Jerusalem.

So that was TWO instances where the Byzantines failed to capitalize on securing Konya. Had they done so, that would've been an excellent forward operating base. Too bad Manuel's son couldn't get a shot or a loyal commander to the Komenos dynasty taken the opportunity to join Barbarossa and avenge Myriokephalon.

...Resulting in the decline of the Seljuks and of course what would become the Ottomans. But to be fair we can thank the Mongols for that too.

Byzantines had it rough. If only Islam hadn't been created.

The Jews and the Druze

Well, there's still the Mongols to worry about as well as the influx of Turkic refugees from Central Asia. The Ottomans themselves were pushed into Anatolia because of the Mongol onslaughts. If the Byzantines aren't weakened for whatever reason, their best bet is to use diplomacy and pay tribute rather than fight it out.

The real butterfly effects are the Renaissance and the Age of Exploration. The Portuguese and other maritime powers would still set off for Asia even if Constantinople were still in Greek hands, but it might have been earlier or later. The Renaissance is a toss-up since there'd probably be Greek scholars that would still emigrate West.

And then there's the Reformation up until WW2. Imagine the Greeks maintaining modern-day Greece, Turkey, and Cyprus from the High Middle Ages all the way up until 1945.

>trying to cling onto coastal fiefs in a sea of Islamists.

yeah but the mongols came and went. I could probably see some diplomatic solutions. But during the age of exploration id say Greece might had become a major player as a colonial Power? Probably would had colonies in African before anyone else and possibly India seeing that the Empire would have might have spread well into Persia.
No doubt the Constantinople wouldnt have fallen in this alt, but still Greece as a colonial power would still probably have to brawl with the West until they got kicked out holding only minor colonial possessions around Ethiopia maybe. Their borders would probably consist of most of Anatolia up to the Euphrates only going into some of Northern Mesopotamia.
As for their Role in WWI and II, its hard to say.

>But during the age of exploration id say Greece might had become a major player as a colonial Power? Probably would had colonies in African before anyone else and possibly India seeing that the Empire would have might have spread well into Persia.
Possibly. But I don't think they could afford to send settlers and soldiers overseas when they have enemies at the gates. They still have to contend with Russia whose the other major Orthodox power in Europe as well as whatever Arabs, Kurds, Turkics, and Persians nearby. Not to mention Italians, Hungarians, the Germans (from the HRE), and any others that would contend with Byzantine's orbit in the eastern Mediterranean, the Balkans, and the Black Sea.

If the Greeks DID go colonial, their best bet would be North Africa (barring Egypt because the British would call dibs on that for the Suez Canal) like the French, Spanish, and Italians did.

Saracens were neither aggressive nor waging a religious war. Jerusalem had been held by Muslims for four centuries and Manzikert was well over a decade before the first crusade was called.

>good guys

Stop trying to turn medieval history into a morality play.

Islamists are largely allied with Israel, except for Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah

The real threat are the secular Arab nationalists

>Slaughtered Jews and Christians in Jerusalem prior to First Crusade
>Called for Jihad which is a religious war
>who is nuradin?
>who is Saladin?

sorry bud, but I don't think that sounds right. Perhaps you've received a bit of poor information.

Better than Arabs/muslims who were trying to steal their land.

The concessions didn't actually undermind the Imperial economy.

News flash: The imperial economy was agriculturally based. Merchants were important in mobilising the resources, but outside of that? They didn't matter that much.

As long as someone was the merchant, it didn't matter if they were Rus, Venetian, Genoese, Pisan or native.

Eh, the real devastation of losing Manzikert wasn't losing the Anatolian Plateau, that place was pretty worthless for anything other than map aesthetics.

The problem was the disastrous and pointless civil war afterwoods. Seljuk power waned very quickly. They should've extended the county of Edessa so as to cut off Rum from the rest of the now Turk-dominated Islamic world, then the Byzantines could've had their own reconquista.

No one. Religion drives people to do inhumane and insane things. The world would be a much better place without Islam, Christianity, etc.

The only good thing to come from religion (mostly Christianity) are some of the lessons and morals they teach so that we live a decent life such as "love they neighbor". But humans are imperfect and we often forget what is important. The institution of religion will always keep human progress at a halt.

>inb4 fedora and neckbeard pics/comments

Are you sure that here were no good guys between honest pilgrims and native Arabs? Can't be that all of them murder each other all day long.

You're absolutely correct that it's more than likely there were good people on all sides. But from a holistic view, there was no perfect "good guy" during the crusades.

Lol your understanding of religion and history is high-schooler tier. Read more

Pope was good for trying to stop the schism, and stopping internal wars, but bad for not directing all forces to Hispania, which was both fertile and rich

Godefroy de Bouillon

>Fertile and rich
HA. no.

>The predominance of the Italian merchants caused economic and social upheaval in Byzantium: it accelerated the decline of the independent native merchants in favour of big exporters, who became tied to the landed aristocracy, who in turn increasingly amassed large estates.[1] Together with the perceived arrogance of the Italians, it fueled popular resentment amongst the middle and lower classes both in the countryside and in the cities.[1]

>The religious differences between the two sides, who viewed each other as schismatics, further exacerbated the problem. The Italians proved uncontrollable by imperial authority: in 1162, for instance, the Pisans together with a few Venetians raided the Genoese quarter in Constantinople, causing much damage.[1] Emperor Manuel subsequently expelled most of the Genoese and Pisans from the city, thus giving the Venetians a free hand for several years.[7]

>In early 1171, however, when the Venetians attacked and largely destroyed the Genoese quarter in Constantinople, the Emperor retaliated by ordering the mass arrest of all Venetians throughout the Empire and the confiscation of their property.[1] A subsequent Venetian expedition in the Aegean failed: a direct assault was impossible due to the strength of the imperial forces, and the Venetians agreed to negotiations, which the Emperor stalled intentionally. As talks dragged on through the winter, the Venetian fleet waited at Chios, until an outbreak of the plague forced them to withdraw.[8]
latins were good boys they didnu nuffin

Crusaders were fighting ISIS of their time.

The Knights Hospitaller
Practically the only monastic order that didn't act like fucking Space Marines around peasants.
Also their flag is GOAT

HAHHAHAHA!

ISIS wishes they were the Jihads of the Crusader times.

Lmao. thanks for that laugh. but no The likes of the Muslim aggressors fighting the crusaders were much more threatening than ISIS will ever be.

That guy is on Islam's side. He wuz jihadist and shiet.

I take back my Byzantine answer..
Knights Hospitaller and the eastern alliance were actually the good guys.

...

I liked Bohemond better.

>is seizing Amalfi
>Sees a large band of travels passing by.

Bohemond: Hey Uncle Roger... who are those people passing by??
Roger I: those are Crusaders marching to retake Jerusalem in the name of Christ to renounce their sins. They are walking martyrs.
Bohemond: HOLY FUCK THATS METAL AS SHIT! MEN!!!!! PACK YOUR SHIT! WE'RE GOING TO JERUSALEM!

dude literally just packed his shit, mid attack and got ready to leave for the holy land.

this, knights hospitaller were based

fuck off mahommad

Did the Muslims fuck it up like they did to native Arabia?
>breaks window in
'Catholic or Protestant !'
>not the Europeans who perfected the credit system without Jewish or Chinese influence

>Detailed Documentary Exposing Catholic Church (8 hours)
youtube.com/watch?v=5bVEXZ38Vs8

>The Real History of the evil Roman Catholic Church
youtube.com/watch?v=LClaSilFlA8

>The Jesuit Agenda Exposed
youtube.com/watch?v=oTo2wbfvT9E

>The Real Bible Version Issue
youtube.com/watch?v=KHcf3E8qOqA

>The Catholic and Islamic Connection
youtube.com/watch?v=ll0otULYzms

>Detailed Documentary Exposing Islam (3 hours)
youtube.com/watch?v=qk_VwZxN9bA

>Muhammad the World's Most Evil Man?
youtube.com/watch?v=efRRknDAuHc

>Evidence Muhammad was Demon Possessed
youtube.com/watch?v=FywOhaY-GEA

>Original Sources Koran Stole its Stories From
youtube.com/watch?v=ZhaLDYo0Kl8

>Allah = Satan
youtube.com/watch?v=qTi1FZkoEsM
youtube.com/watch?v=86PL9wueH-s
youtube.com/watch?v=TLoUq8vybzY

>Why We Are Afraid, A 1400 Year Secret
youtube.com/watch?v=t_Qpy0mXg8Y

To make his own realm because he was a bastard and so not fit to inherit

Nice to see this spam bot is still active

Facts don't care about your feelings.

just about. yeah.

but did he do it better than William the conqueror?
that is the real question.

But Ben Shapiro likes Catholics?
But William was already duke of Normandy before he prepared the English invasion AFTER ASKING THE POPE FOR PERMISSION

The Teutonic Knights, since they're the most badass faction in Medieval 2.

The Imperial economy did indeed rely on agriculture, but it was largely in the hands of magnates. But don't discount how much gold that customs revenue provided Constantinople, Thessalonica, and other cities. The 12th century Renaissance was fueled partly by the increase of trade thanks to the Italians and Crusaders. Remember, Imperial policy dictated that farming would get low interest which discouraged Greeks from competing effectively in overseas trade.

When Alexius Komnenos bought Venetian aid against the Normans, he willingly allowed the Italians to make deeper inroads within Byzantium. Because of those trade agreements, the Venetians could purchase anything from Byzantine's markets without being taxed. Venetian, Genoese, and Pisan networks replaced the existing Byzantine channels of commerce to the detriment of the Greek merchant communities.

As mentioned, these advantages didn't go unnoticed by the Komnenian emperors or the populace. However there was no way they could dislodge the Italians from their cemented position without causing a massive clusterfuck. John I tried and even he had to backpedal.

The Anatolian plateau is vital for defense of the fertile lands in the western rim. An enemy that's dug in there is difficult to dislodge and Turkic nomads excelled in the ambush environments that it provided. This is why Manuel Komnenos sent an expedition to overtake Iconium, the Seljukid capital because the Byzantine-Turkic frontier was much too exposed from raiders.

The Byzantines were in no shape to secure Konya when Godfrey captured it in 1097. They were at the limits of their manpower and it was a miracle that they even secured western Anatolia.

If Manuel had delayed his Myriokephalon campaign to 1190 when Barbarossa captured Konya, Byzantium reconquest would be all but ensured. Manuel's health broke down after Myriokephalon's failure which is why he passed away in 1182.

The custom revenue wasn't that large.
The original (e.g. pre 992) gain would have been around 255 solidi pre-ship. It was reduced down to 17 solidi in 992. The abandonment of it in the 1080s wasn't really that much of a loss.

In exchange for tightening the bonds between the Empire and Venice + naval support? The loss of that minor amount of income was worth it.

And again, you're assuming the elites give a fuck about the Greek merchant communities. They don't. The elites (e.g. landed aristoracy) looked down on them. There wasn't any 'we've gotta dislodge them because they are outcompeting our merchants!'

John (and later Manuel) tried it because they were upset with the behaviour of the Italians (attacking each other). The issue is that the rights granted are an /Imperial/ right. e.g. the Emperor has the right to grant or take it away.

They gave the same thing to the Rus before, gave them total exemption from customs, allowances and their own quarter. Then took it away when the Rus displeased the Emperor.

The issue with the Latins is that 1)It was too much hassle to fully get rid of them (Since Venice just fucks off back to their Island and raids a bit) 2)You can replace one group of latins with another.

Since they kinda all hate each other. Kick the Venetians out (1171), bring in the Genonese and the Pisians.

Kick those out? (1181), bring the Venetians back in.

Oh and while I'm here: The massacre of the Latins was less a 'REEE REMOVE THESE GREEDY FOREIGN MERCHANTS' more 'Hey, these guys supported the other side in the civil war. Might as well let the army unload on them'.

>implying the Imperial economy cares about native merchants.
Yeah how about you stop looking at this from a modern 'muh state controlled trade and merchants' view
>religion
No one really cared till 1204 divided it in too and made the Orthodox angry as fuck.

(*solidi per ship)

More so than this, the 'Latins undermining the economy' idea is kinda based on the old idea that the Imperial economy collapsed in this period.

It didn't. New findings have shown that for the 11th to 12th centuries, the Imperial economy (mainly in the European side) had continuous growth. Growth that the cheaper trading and agricultural movement provided by Latins only served to increase.

Normans sacked the shit out of Thebes, but a generation or so later, with the aid of Venetian traders who stopped off there (the Chrysobull allowed them to trade there), it was thriving again.

>If Manuel had delayed his Myriokephalon campaign to 1190 when Barbarossa captured Konya, Byzantium reconquest would be all but ensured. Manuel's health broke down after Myriokephalon's failure which is why he passed away in 1182.
That's a great What If. Barbarossa had problems with the Byzantines, but if Manuel was still around, they'd probably smooth things out like with Conrad in the 2nd Crusade. Barbarossa was only 4 years younger than Manuel so this joint campaign would be their last, but they were both fine commanders. Not to mention Manuel's son and heir would be 21 and of age. There'd be no regency of Maria and pro-Western intrigues in the original timeline. So even if Manuel dies on march, his son can swoop in as the new Basileus.

There's no doubt that the Byzantine-German army would not only take Konya, Saladin would be shitting in his pants at the thought of the 2 emperors of Christendom bearing down on him. Throw in Philip II and Richard, we have some serious ripples in the timeline.

The Normans of southern Italy and Sicily were way better in my opinion. They captured a dazzling piece of real estate that made them very rich and powerful. The combined Norman-Lombard-Arab-Greek culture made it the envy of Christian Europe. Too bad the Hauteville dynasty couldn't last long though their Hohenstaufen successors were pretty based too. Frederick II is arguably one of the greatest monarchs of the High Middle Ages along with his forebears Frederick Barbarossa and Roger II.

>ignoring the conflict between Manuel and the German Emperor in Italy.

You think Barba is gonna forgive Manuel helping support the Lombard league and Venetians against him?

Not to mention the arguements between the two over the Norman Kingdom of Sicily (Which Manuel, post his failed invasion, ended up recognising as a legitimate thing and not just rebels holding Imperial lands)

I'm not saying they're going to buddy-up, but even rivals like Richard and Philip II put aside their differences for the Crusade. Manuel knows that once Frederick's army enters the Balkans, he has to either fight that massive force or play diplomacy. He's obviously going to try the more peaceful card because it's in his and Frederick's best interests.

>Slaughtered Jews and Christians in Jerusalem prior to First Crusade

This is some Boston 'massacre' tier propaganda.

the question is what can we learn from all this so we dont repeat the same mistakes?

kill the muslims

The men of the West

this guy gets it.

But they actually did under convert or die. Those who could flee did and those who could pay to be able to live did. Not to mention the attempted destruction of the holy sepulcher.

kek
I bet you think Saladin let all the Christians and Jews in Jerusalem out safe and sound without a question or scratch after the reconquest of Jerusalem to Muslim control too?

Didn't he enslave those who couldn't pay ransom

>mudslims invade your land
>you do nothing because you're tolerant and kind people
>mudslims rape your people
>you do nothing because you're tolerant and kind people
>muslims enslave your people
>you do nothing because you're tolerant and kind people
>muslims kill your people
>you do nothing because you're tolerant and kind people
>muslims destroy your chuches
>you do nothing because you're tolerant and kind people
>muslims destroy your dearest Church, the one where your Lord and Savior died who died
>insulting your God, your Faith, and your People
>You stand up
>You kill every subhumans and avenge your God
>centuries later
>Some cucks claim that you were evil

The Christians obviously

Deus Vult

kek

wot

Is that even a question?

The Christians.

Jews were caught in the middle

The Christians

No one.
Everyone.

Enrico Dandolo

Saladin seemed like a pretty cool dude.

>>
The Saracens