How accurate is this?

>Whats wrong with the first? It seems to corespond truthfully with what happened at the First Crusade.
It treats it as though it was undertaken for entirely wholesome reasons. It wasn't started like that and most of the people who went to the Holy Land didn't feel that way either. Some did though, that's why the guy you're responding to said neither is true: people actually involved in the Crusades weren't all good or all bad.

It's just untrue to say that the Crusades didn't keep back the Muslims and that it was really the Mongols. Beyond that, the bottom half of that pic really jumps around trying to find justifications for its position. If you have to start talking about the thirty years war in order to make your point about the crusades, it's probably time to start wondering whether you may be wrong.

...

>no true scotsman DISCREDITED :D

t. Varg

Good god that picture is dumb. just the first point critique (100% truth but also forgets ... towards hating eachother)

Totally misses the point.The picture he is referring to talks about the first crusade not fighting the Seljuks in turkey but instead fighting in modern Israel while the commentary talks about the 4th crusade and it's origin.

In the second point about the mongols he tries to refer to Hulagu as a fellow christian while he would have been seen by crusaders as a dirty heretic like the cathars and the albigensians from his 3rd point. And no, the mongols did not convert because of the crusades.

Not gonna do the rest but only the bottom critique is true.

this, pagancucks BTFO

not really discredited since the pic agreed with most of it

most of the arguments is "b-but they aren't good guys either!"

Reminder that Crusades killed more Christians than muslims.
and that Crusaders lost more crusades than won.

not the best "Christian vs. Muslim" narratives in history and there's so many actually good ones that you can be using
Reconquista
Battle of Vienna
Venice's BTFOing the Ottoman fleet
Barbary wars
English occupation of Jerusalem in WWI where they actually did get and keep the holy land (before selling it to the jews)
Crimean war
Spain and Portugal making sure the Ottomans did not participate in Age of Discovery
Mongol's sacking of Baghdad (sure Mongols aren't Christians but if you truly hated Muslims I don't know why you don't thank them and Tamerlane for raping them so thoroughly that they are still recovering to this day)

>Whats wrong with the first? It seems to corespond truthfully with what happened at the First Crusade.
It's not though. While raids happened, they came from every direction, including their own neighbors and overlords, and were also directed outwards against pagans and Muslims. The period between the 8th and 11th centuries saw a definite increase in naval trade and general wealth throughout Western Europe. Southern France and Italy in the 11th century were two of the most powerful states in Europe at the time and secure enough for their dukes and counts to lead thousands of knights on the First Crusade - and Byzantium was calling for help against Southern Italy as much as it was against the Seljuks or the Slavs and Pechenegs. The call was only made to the nobility, and the rest of society joined in on their own, with the actual aim of serving the ERE with the expectation of securing a one-time pilgrimage to Jerusalem along the trip. The First Crusade didn't involve selling land but freezing disputes and putting estates in trust with the Church or with family, and people in a position to sell land already had arms and armor. And the chronicles, graves, and churches that honor the first crusade are some of the most popular local and national monuments throughout Europe.

>think crusaders look cool and the numerous crusades are intriguing events
>they've been completely and utterly ruined by LARPing faggots who roleplay as Christians

Wikipedia contains sources in their articles though. If not it says it needs a citation.

I don't know about you, but most of those are middle school tier information and should just be common knowledge. They're not some weird hidden things only niche scholars know about.

Accurate, the Crusades were a shitshow and a total failure in achieving their primary goal (preserving the Byzantine Empire).

remember , turn the other cheek and be a cuck.

Ps: Salvation comes from the jews!

nice dad joke
i laughed

>The massacre of the latins
gee I wonder why the Byzantines hated so much the catholics, maybe it has something to do with what the crusaders did in the Balkans during the 2nd crusade.
Don't kid yourself, the relations between East and West Churches were already ruined long before the 4th crusade
>Nestorian christian
The crusades were a catholic offensive, what did nestorianism, who was considered as heretic by the church back then, have anything to do with it?

necessary

Most of the military campaigns inspired by Christianity were a net negative for civilization.

A lot of the civil campaigns (eliminating polygamy and concubinage, eliminating human sacrifice, keeping Christians from enslaving other Christians, reducing consanguineous marriage, creating a system of education and health care, creating a system of international communication and diplomacy) that the church did were good, and helped lay the groundwork for Europe's eventual dominance.

It's even more lazy to dismiss something outright because the person cited wikipedia then to cite wikipedia.

Yeah anyone with half a brain should at the very least cite the source wikipedia cited, but it takes top tier delusion to act like a contrarian about anything someone sourced from wikipedia as if the entire website only publishes falsehood.

Crusaders were a meme, Europe's version of cowboys or samurai.