>the only truly successful Crusades were those directed against the Cathars and the Bogomils
Truly, the best example of the failures that the Crusades were: able to concentrate effort into killing fellow Euros, but unable to hold on the Levant for long enough to leave so much as a significant cultural footprint
What an obscure measurement for success
by what measure of success did the crusades succeed?
>exterminating Cathars and Bogomils such that to this day we will probably never know what they really believed in thanks to Christcuck fanaticism
You don't belong on Veeky Forums
Taking Jerusalem?
that didn't last long
And? The Crusades were still a failure, since they were only able to hold Jerusalem for two centuries before getting ousted, and for all those two centuries were worth, the Crusaders left hardly any cultural or even religious imprint on the area they had directly controlled. They weakened the Eastern Roman Empire to an extent that the Ottomans were able to advance into the Balkans, and their own in-fighting and inability to administer their own territories properly meant that they left no mark on the population of the area. While one can still see the impact of the Eastern Romans on the culture of Russia, the Balkans, and even parts of Turkey (Byzantinism), no such impact can be seen from the Franks.
The Crusades were a complete failure.
The Teutonic Crusade was also somewhat successful.
Fuck scared those Lithuanians into Jebus.
>since they were only able to hold Jerusalem for two centuries
>200 years
>failure
By this logic the only metric for success is holding the land indefinitely, which history suggests is impossible
The Ottomans held on to Jerusalem for 700 years. Their (Islamic) influence was much more notable and impactful on the Holy Land, such that to this day, the majority population in the Levant is Islamic and the culture overhwelmingly bears the mark of Arabic/Ottomanic influence and tradition.
Now that is success. Contrast to the Crusaders: controlled the land for 200 years, left no mark on the land or people they controlled. No evidence of Frankish heritage in the Levant, no traces of Frankish influence on local cuisine or customs, and even among the few Christians in the Levant, Catholics continued (and still are) to be a tiny minority, as most continued to adhere to their respective Orthodox Christianity.
Mongol empire. Truly a gigantic failure.
who cares what they believed? They were wrong anyway
I don't understand what the point of this thread is
> What were the Northern Crusades
>what are Maronites
>even among the few Christians in the Levant, Catholics continued (and still are) to be a tiny minority, as most continued to adhere to their respective Orthodox Christianity.
They kept the muslims busy for a few centuries. Before and after the crusades, Europe had to deal with muslim invasions.
The goal of the crusades was to protect the pilgrims and to allow them to travel to Jerusalem, knowing that the pilgrims can travel to Jerusalem, they can be considered successful.
Also, the Crusades aren't limited to the middle east, all christian wars where the christians take the cross like the reconquista or the holy leagues were called crusades.
The goal was to open the Holy Land back up to Christian pilgrimage, which they did, and which continues to be the case to this very day. How is that not a success?
>what is reading comprehension?
>Northern Crusades
>succesful
You mean those places that accepted Protestantism from the get-go and easily discarded Catholicism just two centuries later?
Holy shit you're such a dense retard
What the FUCK was the Sixth and Baron's Crusades?
Why were the Ayyubids so retarded?