Why do Deus Vultards love celebrating the greatest defeat of Europeans by Arabs?

You forgot to put ' XD ' at the end of your post.

It doesn't matter that the crusaders failed to hold Jerusalem. The crusades are positive in the minds of some white people because they shifted the momentum away from the arabs and put them on the defensive.

The arabs were steadily pushed out of Spain, Sicily was reconquered, and besides the regular slave raids and piracy in the Mediterranean Europe was never seriously threatened by the Arab caliphates again.

>was never seriously threatened by the Arab caliphates again
That's because we took over the show and pushed even further into Europe than they managed, friend.

>Blaberidae
Know your place, aussie

>calling me a aussie
poofter cunt

> they shifted the momentum away from the arabs and put them on the defensive
On the eve of the first crusade the borders between Christianity and Islam were roughly the same as they were in the year 750. Arab expansion had long run out of steam. The crusaders were (originally) called against a relatively new threat, the Turks. Ironically they ended up aiding the spread of Islam into Europe by weakening the Byzantine empire.

What is reconquesta for 200$ Alex? BTW They stopped muslim incursions in Europe, bringing the tide of war in middle east, muslim-christian relationship didn't start with crusades

good one

>we

welcome back

The last part of your trip literally means large Roach. Nice try Aussie.

yer bogans wont just let off

You forgot to attach your ID, passport or a driving license.

>The last part of your trip literally means large Roach
?

Thats because The Arab actually didn't care about Western Europe, For example the battle of Tour wasn't that important compared to the defeat against the Byzantines in Instanbul and Indian Kingdoms and Even the Beber Revolt

True. OP is just creating strawmen to trivialize the entire thing, and completely ignores all the ways Europe benefited from the crusades, especially the first three. Not to mention the spiritual significance as well.

Defeat doesn't always happen in vain. That's why people like Leonidas are still considered heroes, even if they lost the battle.

Ironically, the Fourth Crusade is one of the main reasons why the Ottomans ever managed to get into Europe. That one really did fuck everything up for us. And I'm just going pretend the Eighth Crusade never happened.

I only mention it because my family made a lot of money off of it. Until the whole Templar thing... like fell.

>Russian ambassador to Turkey was just shot
>tfw this "DEUS VULT" LARPing might come true after all
>tfw internet blocking soon in full swing
welp

>It's better to submit than to fight and risk defeat

It was just some random alahuboomboom, nothing that might damage the relationship between the two roach clans.

The guy was part of the security detail and he was acting like your average backwards arab.

It's a fucking disgrace, friend.

>Implying Veeky Forums knows shit about history

And he didnt even killed him

Allah truly is not sending his best

>gets BTFO at Tours
>proceeds to get expelled from Iberia and Sicily
But yeeeeeah we didn't really care about Europe. Amirite guys?

When you send 50'000 troops, you send them to invade a invade a kingdom, not to a loot a fucking church. Also, who's to say the Caliphate wouldn't have tried to invade Western Europe again if Tours never happened, especially considering the fact that it benefited the Spanish since it weakened the Caliphate's position in Europe.

The ottomams already were in europe before the conquest of istanbul.

>goes on about "muh syria and muh aleppo"
>doesn't realize he not only brings on more russian heat in syria but undermines our position as a nation
he might aswell be a falseflagging k*rd cause of the sheer stupidity involved in his "master plan"

It kept them from expanding further into Europe.

this board is full of roleplayers and shitty trolling rather than interesting discussions

people would rather insult each other, make baseless claims, and post unfunny memes than have an actual conversation

>we

yes, is there a problem friend?

True, but I meant the crusader sack of Constantinople in 1204, not the Ottoman conquest.

The Fourth Crusade weakened the Christian position in Asia Minor, allowing the Ottomans to expand into Europe.

what do you want to talk about friend? how about the Islamic besiegement of Europe for over 700 years?

why is the Norwegian Crusade so underrated?
>Sigurd Jorsalsfar (Sigurd the Crusader)
>first king to crusade to the Holy Lands
>never loses a battle
>defeats pirates, Muslims, Berbes and other scum along the way
>help Baldwin take Sidon in Syria

Because it's going to happen again and this time we'll take everything there is, from sea to sea and to the ends of the earth.

Don't forget the crusaders eating people

The Reconquista was a completely separate event...

Next you'll be claiming that Crusaders decisively stopped Muslim incursions at the Siege of Vienna in 1529

Technically you are correct, but there was a lot of holy orders involved, among them even the templars. And I was always wondering, why nobody on topics about crusades never talks about reasons why it happened, like conquest of Sicily or siege of Rome by Muslims?? It's always hur dur bad Christians

> Ironically they ended up aiding the spread of Islam into Europe by weakening the Byzantine empire

This lol. They fucked themselves.

Because that which is greatest in life is not to merely succeed, but instead to try with all the might of one's heart and the resolve of one's soul, and the greatest measure of a man can only be made when he is made free from the ignoble maquerade that is life without effort?

sounds like losers' talk

Which fucking siege of Rome? The last one prior to the first Crusade was like 350 years before it and was by a fucking Lombard.

You fucking shit-heads always pull crap like this, bringing up unrelated events well before the fact as proof that the Crusades were a completely justified military action to stop some looming threat of Muslim aggression. Islamic expansion had largely ceased by the time the Crusades were launched, and they did fuck all to turn back Islamic expansion.

It wasn't a siege, more of a partially successful raid. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_raid_against_Rome

>Islamic expansion had largely ceased by the time the Crusades were launched
Are you fucking serious?

>relatively small expanse of territory over 140 years

Wow, am impressed. Very big menace to Europe. Much saved by Crusaders.

If they broke through Greece exactly who was going to stop them? The Balkans and Hungary were still backwaters that would have been overrun with little to no effort, the only Christian power that could have stood up to them was the HRE and their southernmost border was in Austria.

>If they broke through Greece exactly who was going to stop them?

Basic logistics.

Explain. I fail to see how the Seljuks wouldn't have been able to do what the Ottomans did even if it was a few centuries before the historic invasions.

For one the Byzantine empire was absolutely nothing by the time the Ottomans started rising to power. you know who's fault that was? the crusaders "protecting" christendom according to you.

The Seljuks weren't the organized threat the Ottomans were and didn't have the benefit of already dismantling most of Greece for combat experience (or the benefit of Constantinople having been sacked silly on their side). The comparatively minor expansion in Anatolia isn't really worth note.

>greatest defeat of Europeans by Arabs?
Defeat by Turks not Arabs, read urbans speech against TURKISH POWER not ayyrap.

Bullshit. Everything that happened to Byzantium was their own damn fault. If they didn't chimp out on Latin merchants and regularly stab the Crusaders in the back (Barbarossa's march through Byzantine land for example) then they would have been fine, but instead they got greedy and continued to make the same preventable mistakes which cost them their empire.

Those aren't Arabs, those are Turkish people.

>d threat the Ottomans were and didn't have the benefit of already dismantling most of Greece for combat experience (or the benefit of Constantinople having been sacked silly on their side). The comparatively minor expansion in Anatolia isn't really worth note.
>>>
>Anonymous 12/19/16(Mon)23:42:06
ayyraps could get fucked up by literally any power in Europe and reguarly did, Turkish Empire was the power that threatened Europe.

The zigrids a Turkish state is what beat the Crusaders, the abbassids were fucked up by them.

youtube.com/watch?v=PjbC1fWX6Yk

Yes, Turkish Muslims.

MAKE ANATOLIA GREEK AGAIN

Turkish people not Arabs.

How is that relevant? This entire thread outside of the OP has been about muslims, not Arabs.

Not once were Arabs even mentioned nor of any concern to Europe, only Turkish people conquered Rome and were at the gates of Vienna.

youtube.com/watch?v=aULM7vv8llk

Turkish Islam is not same thing as Arab Islam.

Theological differences are irrelevant for the discussion at hand. We're talking about muslim expansion as a whole, not just a particular type of it.

OP says Arabs when Arabs were completely irrelevant.

Muslims are not a people nor were "muslims" relevant since 1,000ad only Turkish people.

youtube.com/watch?v=JqFNIdxHYYY

How about the fact that the crusaders didn't expel the Muslims either, just used them as subjects.

Asides from the savagery of the first crusade, the crusader states were just a change of warlords. New management, not some genocide against Arabs or a huge forced conversion campaign.

I'm convinced /pol/ actually does not know what the crusades actually were.

The Arab-Berber force at Tours wasn't there to conquer Tours, but to raid it and conquer Aquitaine - a region Charles Martel had himself invaded, weakened, and was preparing to invade. The Arabs would have spent the next few years consolidating and infighting amongst themselves while Martel prepared to invade the south later, so unless things went badly for him everything would have turned out the same - including the parts where southern French bishops allied with Arab mercenaries to resist both Martel and his son for decades.

>Are you fucking serious?
It's actually true, as the only region that actually saw Islamic expansion in the late 11th century was as you point out Anatolia. Everywhere else Christian states had been on the offensive conquering large swathes of territory in the Western Mediterranean. Also, Anatolia leading up to the First Crusade wasn't so much Islamic expansionism as it was Turkish (and Norman, Greek, and Armenian) rebellion, and it's actually during the First Crusade that the Seljuks really form a sultanate that consolidated Central Anatolia as distinctly non-Byzantine and Islamic territory.

Heretics on my board...DEUS VULT

>That's why people like Leonidas are still considered heroes, even if they lost the battle.
Irrelevant in this case because the Greeks won that war.

Because the First (and Third if you're English) have been romanticized to such an insane degree that they themselves launched every other crusade and dominated popular perception for centuries. It makes sense if you think about the Crusades as really just the First Crusade, with all other crusades just attempts to recapture the glory of the true, first attempt. Add to that the romantic and gothic revival movements of the Victorian era and you get people conflating it with then current colonial domination.

Like someone said with Leonidas, it's not so much the outcome that mattered as the popularity of the book chronicling the event. It didn't matter if Jerusalem got conquered by the Mamluks, or if the Spartans lost, or if Alexander's or Genghis Khan's conquests were split up upon their deaths, or if Harun al-Rashid's or Charlemagne's realms would crumble within a century of their deaths, or if the Jin would eventually overrun the legacies of Wei, Wu, and Shu, or if Nobunaga's ambitions amounted to nothing as his retainers took Japan for themselves. What matters is the story that got written and passed on for centuries about that one moment of glory.

>If they broke through Greece exactly who was going to stop them?
The Byzan- oh wait, the crusaders fucked them too. Whoops ;^)

>If they didn't chimp out on Latin merchants and regularly stab the Crusaders in the back
Pretty sure your retarded Crusaders started that trend by breaking pretty much every promise made to the Byzantines before the start of the 1st.

I don't think you understand, the Balkans and Hungary being backwaters makes them extremely unlikely invasion routes even if Greece was conquered by an Arab/Turkish state. The Byzantines had trouble holding it, and the Ottomans utilizing technology nearly a century more advanced could barely reach Vienna without crazy logistical barriers in their way - and that's after the region had been far more developed than it was and with Central Europe actually being more than endless forested mountains like it would have been in the early middle ages.

Europe in the age of the early Crusades was very much France, Spain, Italy, Western Germany, and bits and pieces of the British Isles and Scandinavia, and in all of these places you had rising powers that were not only strong enough to humble various Muslim neighboring states but strong enough to contribute to a large army that crossed the Mediterranean and conquered territory from said Seljuks.

Well you still have assholes like Reynald who was despised by both sides that I'm sure /pol/ views as a hero.

what are the mongols for $100?

I don't like christianity, but they did save my country from becoming an arab colony.

Ya sois moros toalleros

islam didn't matter only you were being conquered by arabs.

>mfw i see orthodox people shout deus vult at turks online
Seriously? First of all it's Latin, second of all 4th crusade, how retarded can you be?

Are you dense? Sack of Baghdad happened in 1258

>Thats because The Arab actually didn't care about Western Europe
Charlemagne spent half of his career keeping the Umayyads out of his kingdom

>half of his career
>a couple of months btfo moorniggers
>back to saxony and italy

>eight crusade, french king dies, his diseased army surrenders
i remember this, they boilled the king's corpse to bring it back

Common enemy desu. people should look at the crusades like a reactionary movement after 2/3 of Christian world was conquered. Alexandria, Antidoch, Jerusalem and later Constantinople fell to Muslim hands.

You're retarded

Not him. Sure, that is why his son launched a second invasion of France.

wat

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umayyad_invasion_of_Gaul

JUST

Not him but
>and later Constantinople fell to Muslim hands.
Constantinople was conquered long after the era of crusades, also it's funny that you mention this city because it's common knowledge that it was in fact the sack of Constantinople(4th crusade) that set up the byzantines on the road of decadence that eventually led to the fall of constantinople.
Also
>Common enemy desu
Historically speaking the Catholics have been a worse ennemy to the Orthodox than the muslims were.

Catholics always ruin everything

1. True 2. Yes, especially how west cucked the Russians after Turkey-russian war, when they wanted to reclaim Constantinople. Btw I was answering his question, why this is happening today and that is the only reason I could get. I am talking from my point of view:I have more things in common with someone orthodox then I will ever have with some Muslim. You can call it faith, culture, history or whatever you want, but that is a fact. Or to simplify things: with who would you rather share a trench , with ruskie and his best friend vodka or with some Muslim who shouts Allahu ackbar 20x per minute?

More like eternal Anglo and muh balance of power

Which is absurd since to the historical Byzantine they apparently felt closer to the Muslims than the Latins, and all involved historical groups would feel completely separated from both modern Russians, Muslims, and Westerners.

You don't choose who you share a trench with, you just end up in one and hope your fellow isn't a coward or a treasonous scumbag. Otherwise you can just make up hypothetical scenarios that only serve to trick yourself into confirming your biases. That Russian could just as well be the type to glass you with his vodka bottle while the Aloha Snackbar guy takes a bullet for you.