Why do /pol/, stormfront, autistic teenagers, etc fetishize the crusades if they were largely an abject failure?

Why do /pol/, stormfront, autistic teenagers, etc fetishize the crusades if they were largely an abject failure?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=cMjUFBYEzqQ
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(1099)
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Because muh deus vult

Ask /pol/

It's my understanding everybody generally had a good time at the crusades

Doesn't sound like a failure to me

they'll just call him a cuck faggot

They don't know they were abject failure. It's the same reasoning behind why certain lefties didn't think Cambodia was all that bad.

so you're saying that no one in /pol/ supports the crusades?

You have the logic of a fratboy

/pol/ is a whole bunch of morons.

Most of them don't read up enough to know that it was a failure. They just fap to depictions of the armor and the idea of killing mudslimes, even though the islamic world was a lot less backwards than europe in this time period.

I guess the broader explanation is that stormfag types don't appreciate that europeans haven't always been on top since forever and tend to tune out explanations of this.

Tldr they literally dont know and will ignore it if you tell them

Not the Byzantines

nor the Muslim but most of the reason wasn't because of the crusades (mostly it was due to in-fighting, sectarian warfare, Turkish conquest, and Mongols).

Pretty sure the crusaders didn't like the Second Crusade all that much, or the People's crusade, or the Children's crusade

>Not the Byzantines
b-b-but restore byzantium! deus vult! greeks were white (just not today)!

Because the crusades are glorified as a war with meaning, plus race is involved. For some people who lack something within themselves they find attachments to these kinds of concepts. Race, War, Race wars, etc etc. Makes them feel like they're apart of something or could be apart of something because again, they feel like they're lacking something.

It's a niche, for attachment.

I don't know why do Catholics fetishize St. Louis if he failed in both of his attempted Crusades?

It is not about the outcome, it is about the fact that the Christian world fought to secure the right of passage for pilgrims and alleviate the suffering of their brethren in the Orient, something that could never happen today. Nowadays defending yourself is an act of racism.

And in the case of the most celebrated figures like St. Louis, Richard Coeur-de-Lion and Guy de Lusignan, it is often about their personal character as well. Their heroism, defiance, piety and kindness (especially in the case of St. Louis) are emphasized.

You admire them in the same way you admire the protagonist of a tragedy: their failure and misfortune does not undermine their character.

That, and /pol/ is probably nostalgic for a time where bravery and heroism were praised rather than demonized. Medieval man saw piety and virtue as the highest values. Modern man? Relativism and tolerance. A society that considers tolerance its core value is one literally unable to defend itself.

Because they're a bunch of 15 year olds obsessed with the idea of a race war to validate themselves, and now they're slowly finding out that the crusades happened and were almost kind of a race war if you wanna see them that way

First Crusade got them the time to rebuild, but the fourth raped them and left them (more) vulnerable to the Ottomans

Where was your crusades then Europe? Where was your Deus Vult when Turks entered Europe? crusades were worthless (though they did end Europe's isolationism which lead to the Renaissance).

They weren't a failure though. Only the first one really mattered, and it succeeded, the rest were purely political.

>be a French farmer or something
>married to a shrew of a wife and have six awful children
>fantasize about setting fire to your house and then slashing your own throat
>the Pope says something about how Christendom needs to go fight the enemies of Christ or something
>you don't even know what a Muslim is, but whatever, anything's better than this monotonous nightmare
>grab a scythe and some shitty boots
>set off on a long journey across an entire continent
>half of you die of some awful plague in northern italy
>your friend gets eaten by wolves in the Balkans
>get some disease from a Greek whore
>don't understand any languages
>can't even understand half of the other French subjects crusading with you
>have to eat weird food
>finally get to the Levant
>fight Saracens
>get stabbed
>get wound full of sand
>suffer agonizing and horrible declining health while a priest prays over you and waves icons in your face
>die
>get buried in a shallow grave in the middle of a desert
>a jackal digs you up and eats your face

Sounds like a blast.

>First Crusade
>not political

>And thus the mighty crusaders shouted Deus Vult and banished the vile Muslims from Jerusalem ensuring the purity of Christian Europe for all time!

>first crusade
>success

It was almost purely a religiously motivated war

>What is the Rhineland massacre?

Where are they now?

Yes Turkey, well done...
HOWEVER

this literally never happened. nice made-up fantasy

>married to a shrew of a wife and have six awful children
That's bad
>set off on a long journey across an entire continent
At least you get to see something of the world
>half of you die of some awful plague in northern italy
You didn't, count your lucky stars
>your friend gets eaten by wolves in the Balkans
Yeah, but did you see that guy from Toulouse fucking PILEDRIVE that wolf until his neck broke? Shit was awesome!
>get some disease from a Greek whore
Should've brought your sheep's stomach
>can't even understand half of the other French subjects crusading with you
Now you have a reason to act smug and snooty
>have to eat weird food
You get to experience new, exotic flavors
>fight Saracens
FUCK YEAH
>get stabbed
Sucks
>die
At least you died a hero, instead of dying of the plague while your shrew of a wife whines that you need to get back to the farm to feed her ungrateful as.
>a jackal digs you up and eats your face
Who cares? You're dead.

10/10, would go crusading with.

>abject failure
Where do people get this shit? How many butthurt muslims are on this board? They were incredible endeavours that ought to be marveled at the extent at which they did exceed. Turks and muslims had home advantage and still lost in the first. The second crusade is the only one anyone can legitimately call a failure. The third is hilarious because despite all the cock sucking Saladin got, he was beat back and forth by Richard I, and that was after Fredrick had drowned and the French left.

>inb4 le jerusalem
Fuck off and read the actual speech from the Council of Clermont, nothing about Jerusalem, just aid to fellow Christians.

>just ignore the northern crusade and the reconquista
>and the fact that it's a logistic nightmare
>and the fact that christians were outnumbered in nearly every battle and after the first crusade, most kings and people returned to their homes because no one wants to be in the middle east

yeah getting btfo 9 times in a row by mudslimes when your greatest victory is setting up the defeat of the roman empire, they are a total failure

open a book nigger

>he was beat back and forth by Richard I
Lel

>Goal of the third crusade: Reconquer Jerusalem
>Outcome of the third crusade: Jerusalem lost

Because there are mostly christians here user of course christians will romanticize their conquest.

>except the Muslims, the Latins, the Byzantines, the German Jews and the entire populations of the cities of Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople and Zadar

The more interesting question would be, why do muslims get so buttblasted about them when they didn't prevent them doing fuckever they wanted in the middle east?

>changing the point
Still butthurt about Arsuf? Jaffa?

More like:
>Outcome of the third crusade: Mutually beneficial treaty and apt solution to a continuing issue
The sentiment to hold the land was lost, issues at home matter more. But deny that and claim "victory" if you want

Because they hate Islam and think Christianity is all about killing Muslims. Summed up it's due to historical and religious ignorance.

Actually The Crusades only became an Important subject among them because of 19th Century Western Historians telling them it was important

No really look it up

Muslims don't give a fuck about the Crusades, it's only Western leftards and fedoras that whine about them.

Thank protestants shattering Christendom and making Christians care more about killing each other over heathens.

Yeah I'm sure that's why the leaders took detours to carve out their own personal kingdoms rather than bee line to Jerusalem.

Muslims didn't care about the Crusades up until the rise of Arab nationalism

Because historical events and movements are complicated, both in causes and legacy, and people with political axes to grind will turn any event one way or another.

People's Crusades were a thing

They retreat into fantasy because society doesn't offer them anything.

In the past tight knit communities were stuck with each other and had to learn to get along, but in the modern world people frequently interact with complete strangers on a daily basis. The mass media and increasingly the internet have created a set of "identities" that everyone is familiar with and you need to adopt if you don't want social acceptance to become a struggle, some people can't or didn't do this (it can take years to cultivate an entirely new personality) for various reasons and not necessarily due to some moral fault.

You see it on /pol/ when they complain about "cucked numales" etcetera, they didn't need to become racist in response to their social alienation and that is their moral fault, however it wasn't a crime for them to reject liberalism.

>imposing modern morality on history
There were good eggs and bad eggs in every large group, including "bad guys" like nazis, confederates, conquistadores and "good guys" like soviets, native americans. The average illiterate peasant who lacked the knowledge about the world and what is really right and wrong probably wasn't a bad guy and the fact he was willing to risk his life is to his merit.

The thing is, they could have not been

>even though they failed to accomplish their main goal, they still won!

This is like when people say that the US won the Vietnam War because we negotiated a 'peace' then took our ball and went home before the south actually fell.

Religion is almost if not always politics though.

If he words it in a way that isn't obviously bait they may not.

There were several attempts to fight off the turks, and projects that were never started due to infighting in western Europe (fucking thanks Luther).

Band of Brothers united by religion fighting for their own survival

Or a weeaboo NEET basement-dweller working (maybe) to make pennies

WELL SHIT SHERLOCK THAT'S AN EASY FUCKING CHOICE

>Be Richard I
>Get Angevin Empire by bullying your good guy dad
>immediately go to crusade when King
>fail
>on way home get captured by Germans and held for Ransom
>Each Englishman has to pay 1/4 of his yearly earnings to free you
>Get to France
>Get killed by a French peasant child
>Empire goes to John
>Collapses
Yeah good fucking job Dickhard

Because they want to cannibalise Muslims like some of the crusaders did.

They would have been before if it wasn't for the Crusades. The only reason the Crusades even started is because greeks were completely unable to defend themselves against the turk.

>not Russia

I can't help but feel the world would be so much better without the crusades.

Less Christian-Muslim tension would have been better for all.

>conquistadores
>>"Bad Guys"
Fuck the Black Legend

I don't think it would have made a huge difference for modern relations. Muslims don't go around blowing up Mongolians over a 13th century grudge.

Why did the germans capture him?

I do.

because the crusaders killed muslims (sometimes...actuallly they killed everyone...)

Okay, to be fair to Richard, he did set up a council that was made up of his dad's advisors. He was bad at being a king, yeah, and he knew it.

Also no mention where he gets absolutely schooled by his dad's superloyal retainer. He could have killed him and had the right to, seeing as how he rebelled against his dad and all, but instead, Richard got dehorsed and humiliated and he was apparently cool with that.

Because they love to ERP. All of /pol/'s Christian circlejerking is play pretend for adults.

Eh, modern colonialism is more of the problem

The autism going on in the Middle East known as Salafism originated far later than the Crusades.

>Eh, modern colonialism is more of the problem
*Bear in mind I said "more of the problem" compared to the Crusades, I'm not saying modern colonialism is the root cause of all problems in the ME

>An abejct failure
>The islamic civilization was destroyed

The caliphate was destroyed and the muslim world is now irrelevant, this is a victory.

Non sequitur

>Before crusades: Turks in Anatolia and holy land
>After crusades: Various brands of mongol invasions, Ottoman Empire rises in the vacuum

Now, I'll agree that the Ottoman Empire wasn't really your typical arabic caliphate, but wasn't the whole point about it to stop the turks from encroaching Anatolia?

youtube.com/watch?v=cMjUFBYEzqQ

watch this, OP

They could join the anti-ISIS foreign legion which would give them the challenge they supposedly want, but the reality is less appealing than the fantasy.

Imagine an illiterate soldier under Cortez who has always lived in poverty and was raised from infancy into the christian faith, who watches him gain an alliance with the Tlaxcalans and marches with them to Tenochtitlan, hearing about the human sacrifices etcetera... You could impose modern morality on him and scold him for being part of a brutal conquest, but he never knew any better.

No but that event led to the decline and later exploitation and improper partition and meddling of the ME which led to ISIS
For fun basically, so they could ransom him but a shit load of cash. They weren't even at war or anything.
He basically just adopted his dads council, the fact that the Angevin empire held together while he was away crusading is a testament to the administration his dad had set up.

John I > Richard I

Although

Henry II > All

Literally best king of England

yeah but not because of the crusaders

>want Christian vs Muslim powerfantasy
>choose the one where the Christians mostly got their asses kicked

>Not the song of Roland
>Not the Reconquista
>Not the Battle of Vienna
>Not the British colonial expansion in WWI

How were the crusades a failure? Crusader states managed to stay afloat for hundreds of years.

>didnt own Jerusalem for most of the time
>and then failed
>after becoming totally arabised

Was Roman empire also a failure because it doesn't exist anymore? Was WW2 a failure for the Russians because the USSR collapsed a few decades later? Think before you post.

Children aren't allowed on Veeky Forums

Don't be stupid. The crusades had specific goals which they failed in doing.

and yes the USSR was a failure

If you had to choose between the Crusader States and The Andalus who was more succesful?

>they failed

Their goal was to take Jerusalem and the Christian pilgrim cities. They accomplished that.

The Crusades, because Al Andalus only managed to conquer irrelevant shit land nobody cared about. Iberia was on the periphery of civilization at best for most of history.

>It's my understanding everybody generally had a good time at the crusades

Open a book timmy

Really I don't know why you guys find the crusades to glorious

They wanted Jerusalem, they didn't get Jerusalem
Muslims defeated them in more battles than were defeated
Most of the casualties were fellow Christians
All the profit the Byzantines got from the first crusade got reversed by the fouth
Muslims mostly treated it as a minor annoyance compared to most of the shit that was happening at the time; Europe treated it like a field trip after awhile
In the end Turks still controlled Jerusalem, destroyed Byzantium, and raped Europe.

Knights Hospitallers were pretty based though

>They wanted Jerusalem, they didn't get Jerusalem

Huh?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(1099)

After the whole crusade fad was over, Jerusalem was definitely not in christian hands

But the Crusaders did capture Jerusalem, stop backpedaling.

>BUT THEY ONLY HELD IT FOR A HUNDRED YEARS !!!

Doesn't matter, they still managed to capture it. And hundred years is a long ass time.

I think people fundamentally misunderstand what the crusades even were.

In that they might think it was some drive the infidel away, and convert the rest, only Christians here now' kind of thing, rather than some Christian warlords replacing some Muslim warlords and collecting taxes from the still Muslim peasantry and townsfolk. Hell, after some time, the crusader states became rather accommodating and comfortable with Muslims.

Oh, and making sure christian tourists have safe passage and won't get molested on the way. Which is what the Muslims were doing anyways, just that the Turks were dumb shits who didn't know that attacking tourists drives away money.

Oh, and the Crusaders built a hospital.

That's about it.

>BUT MUH ISIS

>Christian warlords replacing some Muslim warlords
this pretty much

Americans are obsessed with race and imagine the crusaders as KKK or the muslims as ISIS when in reality they were both more akin to the mafia in their motives and behavior.

>Americans

Stop this.

>Islamic world was more advanced.
Scientifically? Yes because they inherited and did well with a bunch of stuff, which was great.

Culturally? They were set up for decay, external factors only helped to speed it up.

So why don't you leave?
Except they didn't.

They didn't what?

The objective was to hold it not capture it and lose it again. Your pathetic grasping at straws isn't working.
I bet you think Hitler was a success because at one point he controlled most of europe. Forget that he lost it ,that's just backpeddling amirite?

Keep Jerusalem, keep it safe for pilgrims

They managed to do it for 100 years.

I will when I stop seeing the bulk of race related shenanigans coming from the US.

The Khmer Rouge did nothing wrong.

You only need to go to /int/ or /pol/ to see the majority of people deus vulting and masturbating to crusades are Europeans. Even Breivik was from Norway.

And then they failed

That doesn't change the fact they TOOK JERUSALEM.

because they're stupid?