Were the Crusades a success?

Were the Crusades a success?

a 1-1 draw for the visitor team

Yes, the middle east is 100% Christian to this day.

Dear God no.

Yes, there are no muslims within a hundred miles of Jerusalem.

Oh, wait.

To judge "the Crusades" as a whole is rather odd imo.
We're talking a century-spanning 'movement' that saw interest and desinterest. Huge investments and solid organization one time and sloppy raids and stunted invasions another time.

Also, which Crusades? The one in the Mid East? The Baltics? Iberia? Languedoc? The latter 3, most definitely.

The First Crusade was also a success.

>Byzantine emperor asks for help
>"Sure, dude whatever. btw we're going to reconquer Jerusalem while we're in the neighbourhood"
>Byzantine empire and Jerusalem are now under muslim control
Great success

I really think questions as "was this a success" when looking at the entire span of time, seems rather silly.

Nothing is a success in an impermanent world. All empires fall. And if they still remain, the dynasty in charge now is not the one it had previously.

>Nope

Well they were succesful in making way for the Ottoman Empire at least.

the crusades were initially successful, and even with the fourth crusade considered, they probably bought the Byzantine Empire an extra 200 years of life, as the Turks were preparing to cross the Hellespont into Europe by the time Alexios was in power and driven out of Anatolia.

So I'll place it under Limited success, they captured the territory they sought after, but only held it for 200 years before being driven out, which is a fucking long time when you think about it.

remove kebab

The original crusades were a failure but crusades 2.0 were a resounding success

Well, the crusades was a way for the European warrior class bored to hell in a relatively peaceful period to do some murdering they were preparing for their entire lives. They had a marvellous time and did plenty of murdering, so I guess it was.

iraq and afghanistan were failures for the us

>iraq and afghanistan were failures for the us
Meh, they were bigger failures for the middle east

no they ended in failures
>holy land not taken back
>piracy and slave raids still happened
>Muslim advance not halted
the crusades did bring a few things back though so it wasn't a complete waste of time.

>murder
>implying it is unlawful to kill heathens
Spotted the muslim.

Never said it was a bad thing. It was still going somewhere else with no other intention to kill someone and take their shit. Romanticize it all you want.

Yes besides in North Africa and the Levant which were temporary victories

Spain was reconquered though

Without the Crusades we wouldn't rediscover our ancient arts and sciences and got out of the Dark Ages and the beginning of the Renaissance. So in short it was a massive success in terms of cultural and scientific terms as well as religion and trade.

Only in Iberia, crusaders in the Middle East regularly embarrassed themselves, not to mention the fourth crusade was one of the biggest fuckups of all time.

This.

Militarily the Crusades were a complete failure. But it brought a lot to Europe and History.

>mfw islam is retaking Europe

>Byzantine "Empire"

If the byzantines were so strong why did they get cucked by smlly turks?

>"Re"taking

Not really. There's 3/4 billion people in Europe. Sure the mussies breed fast but that doesn't mean Christians are not breeding at all.

And besides, this will lead to bloody fighting years form now, another great religious war. Why be upset, it'll be a good time to prove our worth and trying to breed out almost a billion people isn't going to cut it.

It'll be bloody for both sides... or it could ebb out like all conflicts do and a détente may be reached like in Northern Ireland after a few decades.

Either way, it should be welcomed. Western males need something to fight for otherwise we'll just keep getting more and more feeble.

"Western males need something to fight for otherwise we'll just keep getting more and more feeble."

Blame the treacherous Venetians for the 4th Crusade.

We should blame the Venetians for Constantinople not being able to defend their own lands?

>There's 3/4 billion people in Europe

Hahahahahah

No, by leading the crusaders towards Constantinople instead of, oh I don't know, maybe the Holy Land?

Yeah that was kind of a dick move though what was up with that.

The Crusades in Iberia, the arguably more important region, were a resounding succes

+1

Yes, they completely halted Muslim expansion into Europe.

Somewhere in the world a Balkanshit just cried out in pain and doesn't know why.

I love this picture. Really ought to be in history books one day.

>he cant even into basic division
Jesus christ, what country are you from?

Considering that Islam continues to grow with a population well over 1billion I would say no

Exactly but people fail to see the bigger picture of it.

There were crusades, but the Reconquista, as a whole process, wasn't a Crusade.

There was just as much infighting among the christian kingdoms as there was among the muslim kingdom. Only when the North African Empires hopped in and cucked the spanish muslims kingdoms there was a clear divide in two camps.

Because steppe tactics rekt shit when used right.

There are 500 million people in europe mate and like 10 percent or so is muslim.

508 million in the EU (3.8% muslim)

742 million in Europe (6.0% muslim)

...

The guy in OPs picture browses Veeky Forums, right?

It was meant to announce the success of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Not of the occupation.

But man it sure does make for great anti-Bush propaganda.

ye, he told us not to use that pic and posted a few others with the same helmet a while ago
surprised anyone else remembers