Why did crusaders completely chimp out every time they entered Byzantine lands?

Crusaders passing through the Byzantine Empire were weirded the fuck out by the country's bizarre mix of western and eastern culture, and the contrast between Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

I was going to refute a few of your "what really happened" points, but they're pretty much all factually dead wrong or misleading. You are clearly being disingenuine.

And you're clearly being Æutistic

The eternal Venetian demanded it.

I dont agree with the point of the 30 Years War: looks a bit out of context to me.

Most of the crusaders openly disliked the Byzantines or were viewing them as their main rivals. It could even be discussed that Crusades secondary goals was simply to replace and pushed away the Byzantines of the Levant.

30 Years War happened long after the Ottomans conquered the Balkans.

That's just what happens in that part of the world. The longer you're there, the more the bloodlust induction weakens. Going there for the first time will awaken some absolutely Bronze Age tendencies in anyone.

Different user, I'd like to see it disproven

I can confirm the first three parts. I think the thirty year war was started by conflicts that began with the Caesar who split Rome. They were fighting long before the crusades.

Insecurity. They could respect Muslims even as they fought them for being heathen because you can simply dismiss a heathen as a heathen. But a guy who claims to be the true patriarch of Christ's church in direct opposition to your own patriarch? That undermines your entire belief structure.

It's almost like anyone fighting in a self proclaimed religious war tends to think they can get away with just about anything because"muh paradise awaits", at least in abrahamitic religions. Big YHWH is weird like that

A ton of the lower half is wrong or purposely misleading.

So it's just like the top half.

>It's another /pol/ vs /leftypol/ episode

The Byzantines deserved it. Probably even more than the Arabs did.

The Franks had been raised with a culture and a religion that was ultimately incompatible with that of the Byzantine Greeks. The Byzantines saw themselves as Roman citizens of an Imperial Republic where holiness and religious authority was conferred on them by ancient institutions and education. The Franks however over the course of centuries began to distance themselves from the concept of Romanitas and instead adopt a view of themselves as a lost tribe of Israel, a group who claimed moral authority by their valor and love of (and from) God by their acts of devotion. You can see this most clearly with the craze over the relic trade in the years leading up to and immediately following the First Crusade.

So basically the Byzantine emperor was not seen as valorous, as legitimate, because he wielded temporal and moral authority not through his bloodline or his valor or his magnanimity, but through ritual, bureaucracy, and tradition. This kind of divide filtered down to the most basic levels of society to the point where the Latin pilgrims were mocked for how much they preferred itinerant mendicants for religious leadership over educated bishops, or where they'd steal away relics from eastern churches out of a belief that their current owners could not be trusted and were not loved enough to protect them.

The Crusades is a chimpout.

In a couple of ways it was. The First Crusade might have been obsessed with an end-times prophesy. After that it was more chivalry but still could drum up a lot of fervor.

So basically the western Catholics were nog-tier retards?

Sounds more like they were Trump supporters while the Byzantines were Democrats.

OP these weren't armies of the post-napoleonic/Industrial era. Most European states (if they can even be called that) lacked the financial underpinnings for a standing army, let alone sustainable economies to maintain levied troops that would have to travel hundreds of miles to their destination. As a result, the crusader armies did what most armies of the time had to do: 1. They either quartered in local villages and towns or 2. Razed the local villages and towns because *spoiler* modern supply logistics didn't exist back then, and raiding/looting was common practice for armies to stay supplies. When the Byzantines denied the crusaders support they had promised, you can guess how that went.

I'm not an expert on crusader history, but I'd love someone to refute this stupid meme once and for all.

DEUS LO VULT

As opposed to the /pol/ version having no sources at all?

I'd honestly prefer no source to a wiki link.
At least if they don't provide a link you spend time educating yourself on the matter.

No shit, the crusaders turned up a year early for the first crusade and the byzantines could see they would rape and pillage if they were allowed in the gates. Why would they trust them after that?

>at least you spend some time educating yourself

Maybe you do, but 99% of people like have already settled on their conclusion that the crusaders dindu nuffin and are too intellectually lazy to challenge it or accept a more nuanced view. /pol/ just wants to be spoonfed /pol/ shit. At least wiki has secondary sources, it's not always reliable but for entry level shit its better than muh unsourced greentext

Alexios expected a core group of disciplined frankish knights that would help him retake the lost territory, he would supply them during this campaign, pay them and once it was all over they would be on their way. Alexious did not expect a bunch of fanatics and pilgrims that raided his territories under the excuse that they could do so because they were the true christians, he also didnt expect the knights to come looking for land of their own so far away from home. Basically Alexios expected the knights to behave like any other group of mercenaries, instead he got a bunch of soldiers paired with a ragtag army of camp followers hellbent on marching on Jerusalem.

Massacre of Latins?

Reiterate? I think you're arguing a straw-man right now.
I was merely giving OP the basic context of the situation, no need to present your "argument" (if that's what its called) along with condescending remarks.

Post Alexios's reaction when he saw the crusader army

>Pope calls crusade to assist Christians in the East reclaim lost Christian territory in the Holy Land
>20,000 unwashed peasants immediately answer the call and start following a crazy priest and a goose
>they get confused in Hungary and get btfo by their fellow catholics after starting a ruckus by looting and pillaging
>enter Byzantium and continue to chimp out
>emperor ferries these idiots as soon as he can to Asia Minor just to get them the hell out of Byzantium
>they land and almost immediately get completely wiped out by the Seljuks
>some European princes come by with slightly more well behaved soldiers
>assist them in the condition they return any land they capture back to the Byzantines
>they break their promises upon capturing the cities and proceed to get massacred by the Seljuks after a few years of barely holding on to their possessions
>another huge crusade is called a few decades later and the Holy Roman Emperor arrives with a huge force in Byzantium that begins to chimp out again
>Byzantines wipe the floor with the ill disciplined Crusaders
>Emperor offers the HRE an alliance and full support for their campaign if he vows to give all land recaptured back to the Byzantines
>"LOL fuck you senpai, just sail me to Asia Minor "
>they sail to Asia minor and immediately get massacred by the Seljuks again
>hfw this shit continues over and over and over throughout history

...

Because they deserved it.

...

...

...

>Saxon Wars
>772–804
>Crusade
This pic is fucking retarded and I am not even /pol/. Pro tip: Crusades needed the Landfrieden.

this desu

it's called the 'proximate other'
it's easier to find common ground with people you perceive as infidels than people you perceive as heretics

>Alexious did not expect a bunch of fanatics and pilgrims that raided his territories under the excuse that they could do so because they were the true christians, he also didnt expect the knights to come looking for land of their own so far away from home.

You're exaggerating the amount of raiding and pillaging that went on in Byzantine territory. Most of the pillaging was done by the inexperienced rabble of the Peasants Crusade under Walter Sans Avoir and Peter's command. The main Crusaders were kept in check by the Princes and they passed through Hungary and Byzantine territory without many incidents. There were hostilities early on between Godfrey of Bouillon and Alexios but they made amends quickly enough, oaths were sworn and they were ferried across to Anatolia.

You claim that Alexios didn't expect them to seek land in the east which isn't true at all. Alexios knew of their ambition, just a decade earlier he had fought a war against the Normans under Robert Guiscard, and now his son Bohemond was one of the leading Crusaders. He was very aware of his desires for an eastern principality. That's why he tried so hard to extract oaths of fealty from the princes and placate them with supplies and naval support.

And keep in mind the Byzantines withdrew their army and refused to alleviate the Crusaders in the almost disastrous siege of Antioch. Why would the Crusaders hand it over to Alexios after his betrayal? Bohemond was well within his rights to claim the city as his own.

compared to eastern roman citizens, 'franks' were northern Africans both in culture and education.

>'franks' were northern Africans both in culture and education.

In the 7th and 8th century perhaps. A post-Carolingian 11th century France was absolutely not "northern African" in terms of culture and education.

Norwegian Crusade. After the Norwegian prince finishes up in the Holy Land he goes to Byzantium and has a huge party with the emperor where they supposedly used walnuts for kindling because all the firewood was bought out. A lot of his men stay in Byzantium, can't remember if he gives the emperor all his gold or a sliver of the true cross. He hoofs it home where he goes insane as an old man.

T.Norwegian saga that probably plays this guy up a little

he gifted all the ships he had to Byzantium

> the Byzantines were Democrats.

idiots that due to corruption and and lust for power seats single handedly gave half of their empire to Muslims?

sounds about right.

The only Crusading army that didn't behave like savages were the Normans under Bohemund. Mostly because the latter wasn't a complete retard and knew that without Byzantine guides and support they were going to get raped by Turks.

Franks behaved like savages. Germans too.

Germanics are violent, subhuman apes.

Because the Byzantines were cunts to them at every possible opportunity and even went to war with them rather than just give them passage through the empire

This is some Anna Comnene level delusion

...

That is an extremely disingenuous description of what actually happened. You're an autistic Byzantine apologist with an extremely shallow understanding of the Crusades.

I doubt you've read any of the books by Christopher Tyerman or Jonathan Riley Smith.

>byzantine gives passage
>crusaders pillage and rape
>byzantine get mad and dump them to turks

i-it's the byzantines fault

who started being a dick?

>The bottom part doesn't even refute the top
What is the point of posting this?

Neat.
Any more info on this?

>Alexious did not expect a bunch of fanatics and pilgrims
He did get the professional Frankish armies he expected, you fucking retard, what he didn't expected was poorly organized non-sanctioned People's Crusade

We slavs will never really forget that shit, you know. Alexander Nevskiy's our national hero, you know.

If the emperor hadn't gone crying to the Pope about muh Manzikert then there would have been no Council of Clermont, as fucking usual it was all the Greeks' fault

>image.jpeg
Why do all leftypol SJWs have this in common?