If the Crusades were sanctified by God why did the crusaders fight so badly get defeated so easily?

So no lasting territorial gains then.

Just a whole load of crusader's women sold off in slave markets after minor territorial gains were reversed.

>So no lasting territorial gains then.
Crusader states existed until the XIV century and if they recieved European help like in the ninth crusade they would be still existing

>sanctified by God

>Crusader states existed until the XIV century

Such as?

Please give us all a good laugh at your pitiful answer.

Where's the fedora?

>Such as?
>Please give us all a good laugh at your pitiful answer.
The kingdom of Jerusalem felt in 1291.The last crusade was in 1272. Then the knights of Rhodes and the kingdom of Cyprus lasted until the XVI century.You just know shit about the topic and are a dumb goat rapist

The Mameluks didn't achieve any lasting territorial gains either.

>Then the knights of Rhodes and the kingdom of Cyprus lasted until the XVI century.

That's it?

That's your entire point?

That the Knights of Rhodes and the Kingdom of Cyrus lasted until 1571.

I just feel bad for you at this point.

Because the Crusades were really just a way to get an unpopular and marauding military caste (knights) who had outlived their societal purpose (defense from invaders) and become a nuisance to everyone else (infighting and being gloriously armored faggots) to fuck off out of Europe.

>sanctified by God
>number of times crusading is mentioned in bible: 0

Get ya facts straight.

When they discovered, from the admissions of some of them, that there were Catholics mingled with the heretics they said to the abbot “Sir, what shall we do, for we cannot distinguish between the faithful and the heretics.” The abbot, like the others, was afraid that many, in fear of death, would pretend to be Catholics, and after their departure, would return to their heresy, and is said to have replied “Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius - Kill them all for the Lord knoweth them that are His” (2 Tim. ii. 19)

>Fourth Crusade
>Christian Victory

Nu male Redditor

The post

this

yeah why didnt they write of the crusades in the bible? where they stupid or something?? :D:D

>number of times crusading is mentioned in bible: 0
>number of crusades before the bible was written: 0

>b-b-but muh territorial gains
Wew

Yes it was.

I don't know dude, the sacking of the christian gate to the middle east doesn't sound like a christian victory.

>sanctified by God
>books that are word of God: 1

>attacking and looting a Catholic and an Orthodox city
>being excommunicated
>ruining the relations of Western and Eastern Christiantiy for centuries to follow and making sure that the Schism never ends
>making it easier for Ottomans to enter Europe
>most of the troops don't even reach the intended goal and got assraped by Muslims once they got there
>christian victory
Wew.

>The Fourth Crusade (1202–04) was a Western European armed expedition called by Pope Innocent III, originally intended to conquer Muslim-controlled Jerusalem by means of an invasion through Egypt. Instead, a sequence of events culminated in the Crusaders sacking the city of Constantinople, the capital of the Christian-controlled Byzantine Empire.

Sounds like a victory to me.

DAYOOS VAULT BROS

>memey postmodernist """"explanation""""

>number of times crusading is mentioned in bible: 0
Holy wars are mentioned plenty of times.

>memey postmodernist

Church was trying to ban tournaments at the same time you dumb coon. Knights were cunts, just like your shitty parents.

Are you really stupid or you are just 12 and base all your knowledge on Wikipedia articles and crash course videos?

>Things don' count because mah feelings :)

You can't win the war and lose the peace in real life. Sure the Crusaders achieved their aims (not as nearly as often as you claimed they did but still) but the fact they had to launch successive Crusades to recapture the Holy Land or reopen it to Christian pilgrims (which failed after Saladin's death) shows that they lost again and again. It's like America in Vietnam.

>t. people who gained their understanding of the bible from constantine tier larpers' infographs

>but still) but the fact they had to launch successive Crusades to recapture the Holy Land or reopen it to Christian pilgrims (which failed after Saladin's death) shows that they lost again and again
>Muslims break the peace treaty
>A new crusade is called.
It doesn't mean that the previous one failed.

>he fact they had to launch successive Crusades to recapture the Holy Land or reopen it to Christian pilgrims (which failed after Saladin's death) shows that they lost again and again
No. Not at all. It just means that their victories weren't long lasting and their grip on the land wasn't very strong.

>christianity is just the bible
retard.
> who had outlived their societal purpose (defense from invaders) and become a nuisance to everyone else (infighting and being gloriously armored faggots)
Ah, that's why knights existed for 400 years after and still went to war

Because a war can never be holy, but it can be just

This

And the Oriental Crusades weren't the only Crusades, the Reconquista, the battle of Lepanto, and the Northern Crusades also succeeded.

...

>pronouncing "deus vult" as "dayoos vault"
ISHYGDDT

Because god's dead.

What about God and G–d?