In what ways did the Crusades benefit the world?

Seems like he's hinting at 4th Crusade, which isn't even West's fault in the slightest.
The Byzantines themselves are the reason of 4th Crusade.

Along with the Bubonic Plague, created renaissance Italy and gave birth to the secular intellectualism that'd all but died with Rome.

>t. Venetian/French apologist.

It moreso benefited the Turks and then it benefited the Western Europeans that found the Americas.

Their failure ended god forever and along with the christian dark ages

>Blaming the West for 4th Crusade
How could you be so fucking stupid? If the Greeks just payed Dandolo or even didn't hire the Crusaders 1204 or possibly 1453 wouldn't happen.

>t. stupid Greek
Blame Angelos for 1204. He's the one who overpromised, underdelivered to the Venetians after all.

They showed Muslim dominance of that era

>who is Doge Dandolo
Angelos is the 1204 equivalent of Rafid Ahmed Alwan (aka Curveball). Venetians could easily verify what Angelos was claiming, do you really think they had no-one in Constantinople to give them intel?

b8

What the fuck are you talking about? Angelos paid the Crusaders to put him and his father back on throne. Realized midway that it's a stupid idea and can't fulfill his promise. Rest is history.

If the Crusades didn't happen, we would be living under Sharia Law.

I am very thankful for the Crusades.
Christianity > Islam

I thought they were soldiers of god? Fucking kebabs most of confused them with their shitskin moon magic

Your underasting of the events is simplistic to say the least. I suggest Wikipedia as a starting point

You want a full write up? Here it is. (credits to original user)

Crusaders showed up in too little numbers to pay for the Venetian fleet so they agreed to help Venice retake their Adriatic colonies to pay off their debt. Then an exiled Byzantine nobleman said he'd give them money to pay their debt, and convert the Orthodox Greeks to Roman Catholicism if they put him on the throne of Byzantium. Crusaders did it, then he got kicked out. The Byzantines refused to pay the crusaders, set their fleet on fire, and then tired to starve them out. So they sacked Constantinople.

#
Your underasting of the events is simplistic to say the least. I suggest Wikipedia as a starting point

>Byzantines were oblidged to pay money promised by a failed pretender that no one liked to the people who attacked them in the first place
You're a fucking idiot.

>underasting

besides that, You're not really contributing to the discussion, just implying that I'm not doing my homework, in which I did. Oh well

>Without the crusades we would all be living in desert caves fiddling with our 9 year old wives.

So it's Bohemond of Toulouse's fault that /v/ doesn't have loli waifus?

You really think Dandolo would just go home empty-handed because some Greek didn't feel like paying? No, that would disastrous and even possible to turn the Crusaders against the Venetians.
It's simple math and you fucking failed to add up. If there's an idiot here, it's you.

Venice had been planning to attack Byzantium ever since the massacre of the Latins. This was in addition to Frederick the 1st, the Pope and numerous other Western European figures who wanted to attack Byzantium. However one could say that the true tipping point was when the French showed up in far smaller numbers than expected thus threatening to bankrupt Venice. Angelos was just meant to be used as a way of getting their money with the least effort possible, when that failed they attacked, but Constantinople was always the true intended target.

Can you explain more about the Banking.

Crusades couldn't dream of penetrating deep into the heartland of the Caliphate, the Mongols did that. Also Baghdad is a worthless city in my opinion at that point. You might crush the advancement of science in Muslim lands but the real political leaders existed in other cities.

>be peasant
>decide to join crusade
>go to your local Templar/Teutonic office
>give them all your gold
>they give you a piece of paper
>on that paper it is written how much money you had
>they give you safe passage, food water etc to the holy land
>upon arrival you hand in your paper
>get most of your gold back minus some to pay for voyage and provisions

>massacred the latins
>somehow mad that they sacked my city
Well that just proves my point, then. Byzantine doomed itself. It's entirely possible that 1204 been avoided if Angelos didn't get involved in the Crusading business, but then he did. Latins aren't the only ones to blame like what some idiots are doing.

I would watch a movie about a peasant crusader. I can see the images in my head right now, cold winter in Northern France, the call to Crusade, arrival in the hot humid Jerusalem and war. In fact the character could be a mercenary taking his adventure all the way to China and also witnessing the Mongol invasions and at the end he goes back to the cold winter in his hometown returning as a veteran.

You're still insisting that Angelos is somehow the key to all this. A large scale attack on Constantinople would have eventually happened with Angelos or without him, I'm going to stop arguing with you because you clearly don't get it.

Yeah, me too. The only good Crusade movie I've seen is Kingdom of Heaven, but not quite fit the description.
Plus I have a thing for peasants and peasant life, like that peasant girl in The Name of the Rose lol

Europe was culturally enriched by Muslims.

Peasantry represents commoner and starting from the bottom up.

>Latins acted like ungrateful dicks towards the locals
>REMEMBER THE 6 GORRILION LATINS
not to say that the massacre was justified but the Latins brought it on themselves

Science and culture in Muslim world were stagnating since 11th century. The sack of Baghdad changed nothing.