How much of this is true/false

Hyperbole, but true. Least more so than the original image.

How did the sack of Baghdad put a stop to Islamic Invasions? Who were the Baghdadis invading?

>but it also killed 20,000 largely innocent people
And a king of Aragon who was hailed as a crusader for his victory over the Moors.

Yeah but it was kind of Peter II's own fault for getting involved. I realize his possessions in France like Toulouse were getting pillaged but he could have just held on to Aragon and his life if he would have realized the strength of the crusaders. He would die and Toulouse would be added to France. A very poor ending for him.

Christianity did destroy europe... It would havr been much better if it stayed Roman Hellenic

The punchline to the joke, btw, is "Kill Them All: Let God Find His Own."

Partly true. Crusaders was killing other Christians for petty theological differences. Way to go for the fellow Europeans.

>Muh greek/roman gods
Kill yourself like honestly Europe during those times had things like Pedophilia and casual sex run rampant and far worse and Christianity united Europe as one which made it far less harder to conquer. Basically Europe would have been some bullshit tribal region much like South America where they only had a couple empires but it would quickly devolve into tribal bullshit much like it was in western Europe after the fall of Rome and would just stagnate into some pisshole to be conquered.

>Christianity united Europe

Are you implying it didn't? Kill yourself.

It's hilarious, probably written by a butthurt muslim.

Europe has never been, nor will it ever be united.

> made it far less harder to conquer
Nice joke. Arabs never conquered anything from the romans but take many lands from Christians.

>T. Pope Pius XI
Yes....Rome united Europe

>Yes....Rome united Europe
You mean the Catholic Church united it, and the protestants broke it up.

>>buttpained christard
>implying christianity did anything to stop pedophilia
>implying, seriously fucking implying that christianity united europe I mean seriously wtf man?
>implying euro polytheists couldn't create strong states, kingdoms, empires etc, I mean seriously dude you do know that is blatantly dumb yeah?

I'm sure those castles the dotted the country side were just for tea parties

Please do us a favor and kill yourself... Im so sick of retarded christians on here who think they did everything and everyone else did nothing

This. Fucking heretics.

You mean they ONLY conquered land from the Romans

The Mongols posed a threat to the turks and mamluks so they had to direct their attentions away from the crusaders and byzantium for a while.

Spot the Parthian

>>Spain was never conquered by arabs
>>Southeast Europe was never conquered by the ottomans
Are you fucking retarded?

The only thing that unified Europe was colonialism of lesser nations. Try to name even one moment of teamwork from all European powers. Chances that they are tried to split African clay or bully Chinese. When there was nothing left to colonize The Great War started and destroyed Europe forever.

>posting Varg the literal cuckold of Europe who supports burning Churches but not Mosques because that's too edgy
>said the pagan larping

Im an atheist m8

>crusader larper
>accusing others of larping

Never gets old

The crusade were a series events that happened over the course of 3-4 centuries with different people involved and under different circumstances.
That image is bait

>>posting Varg the literal cuckold of Europe who supports burning Churches but not Mosques because that's too edgy
Oh look, irrelevant statements. How convincing. Besides, Varg is an old man with a family to look after, he can't afford going to prison again.

This isn't /pol/.
>Varg is an old man with a family to look after
So he's a pussy.

>This isn't /pol/.

This also isn't the 1950's anymore. Your version of religious fundamentalism is a marginalized fringe group now

>This also isn't the 1950's anymore
It was good to be a Catholic during the fiddies? When it's all WASP shit? Yeah no.

1st, 2nd, an 3rd points are lies. And the last one about the Saxoncaust as well; the Franks killed thousands who didn't accept forced conversion.

>And the last one about the Saxoncaust as well; the Franks killed thousands who didn't accept forced conversion.
>implying this makes what they did any better
You just don't "get" this religious liberty thing.

In any case, your flavor of papist zealotry isn't even accepted in your own church anymore. People like you have been made utterly irrelevant by the easy access of information, something we didn't even have until a few decades ago, and your probable ideas that the world will soon return to a medieval, Aristotelian utopia led by a conclave of the faithful only shows how fucking delusional you are and how much you live in your own world.

Your ideas, which are probably best described as utopian Catholicism, have in the past utterly failed to capture the imagination of the public, will do so this time around and will never be dominant

>So he's a pussy.

>This isn't /pol/.
Oh look, you refuted yourself.

>Battle of Manzikert happened nearly two centuries before sack of Constantinople...

I swear to god this board is filled with more shit every day. If you don't know history nor care for it, atleast not enough to leave your ideological shitty perspective behind, why are you here?

>Your ideas, which are probably best described as utopian Catholicism, have in the past utterly failed to capture the imagination of the public, will do so this time around and will never be dominant
But I never stated my ideas you fag.
>calling someone a pussy is /pol/

> Calling someone /pol/ is a refutation now.

I don't know which one of you faggots started it, but by god one of you needs to end this meme.

>telling someone that this isn't /pol/ is a refutation
It isn't.

If you're a 'Catholic' from Veeky Forums, your ideas are very easy to guess. I'm also willing to bet that your version of Catholicism is a heavily Americanized, literalist and obsessively moralizing version of Catholicism, which is again completely detached from even the mainstream of your own church, never mind the general public.

All of this makes your claims about others 'larping' all the more hilarious, since you're probably far more detached and disconnected from mainstream society than any 'larper' ever could be.

Face it, you're probably a complete pariah. You probably never mention your beliefs to any of your peers, and probably have this obsession with others 'larping' in order to project your own disconnect from society onto others. Now back to /pol/ for another round of convincing yourself and your echochamber that Aristotelian analytic philosophy is 'totally making a comeback right now guys!'

>If you're a 'Catholic' from Veeky Forums, your ideas are very easy to guess.
Don't pull the air quotes at me, I've been a Catholic since birth.
>bet that your version of Catholicism is a heavily Americanized, literalist and obsessively moralizing version of Catholicism, which is again completely detached from even the mainstream of your own church, never mind the general public.
Nope. All I want is the borders to be more secured, illegals out, better looking Latina, and maybe, just maybe, the Pope dying so that a better one can be put in power and can end his nonsense Jesuit bullshit.

> being Veeky Forums from the birth

No? I've been a Catholic before I've ever been on Veeky Forums.

To be a NEET you gotta be born a NEET.

>what wants you think vs what tumbrl wants you think

>All I want is the borders to be more secured, illegals out, better looking Latina, and maybe, just maybe, the Pope dying so that a better one can be put in power and can end his nonsense Jesuit bullshit.

Or in other words, pretty much all the things I thought you were. Thanks for confirming my suspicion.

By the way, you do know that wishing death on the Pope by default makes you a heretic, right?

>By the way, you do know that wishing death on the Pope by default makes you a heretic, right?
I don't wish death for him, I don't support him.

It is literally the same, nice excuses here.

>I don't support the pope
>I-I'm not a Heretic I swear
Sure thing, lad.

So saying "I honestly think this Pope and I disagree with what he does" is a heresy? It isn't.

It is according to the church you belong to

No it's not. I still believe he's the Pope, I don't agree with his view points, but he's still my Pope.

You disagree with the representative of Christ on Earth. You disagree with Christ. You're a literal heretic.

Mongols did more harm to Muslim world than European ever did.
And when you think about it, there has been very few religious wars between Muslims and Christians. Even Crusades could be though as political way for Pope trying to regain more political power/fame against rising kings/emperors of Europe (France, German nations). Ottoman was just another big player in European history and the wars had nothing to do with religion. Reconquesta maybe could thought as one, but even that is more important for Europeans than to Muslims.

But by god have Christians slain each other much and Muslims have done the same.

I disagree with his actions.

>battle of manzikert occured 133 years before the sack of constantinople by the crusaders in 1204
>apparently sack was the main reason for it
>usurped by an anti-Crusade Emperor and the Crusaders were basically forced to fight their way out
jesus this brutal revisionism
they put Alexios on the throne, this was the entire reason for the diversion to Constantinople, but he didn't give them the obviously outrageous things they had demanded beforehand - namely his subjection to the papacy, a large fleet and army to be sent to egypt, and enough money to pay back the Venetians
the last "anti-Crusade" Emperor was from the previous Komnenoi dynasty nearly 22 years before, the Crusaders weren't ignorant babarians who were unaware of this yet they and many LARPers on Veeky Forums use it as an excuse for the sack
if he really wanted to justify the Crusade he could've brought up the Pope's excommunication of the Crusaders as soon as they attacked Zara and his denouncement of them after he found about the sack

> Crusaders didnd du nuffing
> They only wanted to protect Christendom from evil Muslims and Pagans
This is not how they are remembered here.

Isn't he a nordicist neopagan?
Doesn't his religion say that he needs to die in battle so he can go to Vallhalla?

there'd have been another excuse to conquer the Baltic in the absence of the holy wars there, that region along with Finland seems to be under the habit of being dominated by something else throughout history

Yet the fact that they choose Crusader banner to go plunder, rape and conquer Baltic and had no problems with attacking other Christians speaks a lot about the "Crusader idea" and the people who joined Crusaders.

>go plunder, rape and conquer Baltic and had no problems with attacking other pagans
Sounds a lot like pagan Lithuanians, tbqh.

And this one.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Žvelgaitis

>In 1205, Žvelgaitis led several thousand horsemen northward, from Lithuania through Riga, on the way to attack and plunder Estonia. Returning from Estonia mid-winter, with booty and Estonian slaves, his troops were caught unaware and attacked while crossing through waist-high snowdrifts. He was attacked by the Livonian and German citizens of Riga, under the leadership of Vester, ruler of Semigallians, coordinating the attack from a sleigh. Žvelgaitis was killed by a javelin thrown by German Theodore Schilling. 1,200 Lithuanian knights perished; the Estonian slaves were slaughtered as well, in retribution for "past crimes" against the Livonians.
Long live Baltic co-operation.

Also:
>In Lithuania, the return of Žvelgaitis was missed, and it is said that as many as fifty wives of the Lithuanian soldiers killed themselves in grief, hoping to be all the sooner at the sides of their slain husbands.
The memes are real.

Well yeah to a degree. Of course whatever /pol/ believes on crusades is going to be total bullshit. This idea that the crusades were some glorious defence against Muslim aggression is total bullshit. The crusades were just something for bored Knights to go off and do. Go and read any medieval accounts of Europe at the time, the crusades are never anything more than a way to get rid of annoying Barons or for bored ones to go off and feel holy. There's nothing to do with defending Europe in it at all.

were the crusaders really 2D women?

That's an even dumber opinion than the /pol/cuck one.
Grats, m8.

No it's not, I've spent the last 3 months reading about medieval England and "France" if you can call it that. The crusades are presented by writers of the time as nothing but that.

> This guys were pretty bad, their actions were pretty hypocritical and didn't live up to their proclaimed ideals
> But these other guys were even worse!
Lithuanians were tribal pagans, they just did that all tribal people did, they didn't pretend to bring the good news to the poor Baltic people or protecting the Pagandom from the Christian menace.