Why did the Crusades fail?

The first 3 crusades all had some significant successes.

After the farce of the 4th crusade, East-West coöperation was impossible.

1. The rise of consolidated monarchies made sending out kings the only logical solution for a crusade after the 11th century. However this in turn was bad because these kings either refused to put their position in jeopardy after the disasters of St Louis and Richard getting fucking captured while gone.
2. The loss of Hattin was a huge psychological blow to the morale of the Europeans. They won in near impossible odds in god's favor, so the fact they lost the city is also a huge problem
3. The sacking of Constantinople absolutely bolstered the Turks in the long term, and made troop transport that much more difficult
4. Genoa and Venice found it much more practical to be in commerce with Muslims than killing them
5. The threat of the Crusaders effectively bolstered Muslim resolve and unity. Admittedly the civil wars of the Ayyubids were tough, but the rise of the Mamlukes and Ottoman Turks really proved to be antagonistic
5. The degradation of the term "crusade", as it became more cynical (in the case of the pope trying to prevent the Hoestaffen Fredrick Barbarossa from acquiring too much power) or turning it on local Europeans like the Cathars or the Albigensian crusades
6. Jerusalem stopped being the center of the world for European eyes, and they began to expand more broadly into other directions.
7. Transporting troops across the desert is really, really hard.

>Crusades were one of the biggest reasons why the maritime republics grew so much since everyone and their mother wanted those new exotic goods like silk and sugar, not to mention the need for ships to transport troops
>nah but its wrong

Because Saladin was just too much for lil' Dick to handle.

It's not.

The rise of Italian trade in the Mediterranean starts before the First Crusade, expanding throughout the Mediterranean independently, and mostly involving transportation and seasonal flotillas to trading ports, of which the greatest were Constantinople and Alexandria that the Crusades interrupted more than fostered.

The Byzantines were not under pressure, just politically unstable due to their own internal affairs that were keeping them from capitalizing on their diplomatic victories against the various Turkish beyliks of the Aegean coast.

Muslim raiding had been in decline throughout the Mediterranean due to the collapse of Muslim Mediterranean sea trade and shipping in the 11th century and the declining empires of the Fatimids and Seljuks which offered would-be adventurers better financial and personal glory looking inwards versus outwards. The First Crusade's affect in offering a nearby frontier for ghazi military culture (along with the Mongols) is what helped revive it.

>greatest were Constantinople and Alexandria that the Crusades interrupted more than fostered.
The collapse of Byzantine power was beneficial to Genoa and Venice though. Merely getting access to top-docks in byzantine ports after the restoration of Constantinople was great in of itself, but they also achieved hegemony of the Black Sea, something the Byzzies held a monopoly onto for huge profits. They also got colonies out of it to boot.

>Ayyubids
>Umayyads

>Ayyyyyyubids
>UMADyads
What's the deal with grand Muslim dynasties having meme names?

The maritime republics had been growing since the 10th century, with Venice and Genoa already striking into North Africa and the Aegean years before the First Crusade was ever called. The Crusades won them some cultural artifacts for their churches, but actual coin came from activities they took on their own that more often than not involved negotiating with Muslim and Orthodox powers.

At which point we are no longer dealing with the First Crusade, and discussing something that runs completely counter to the initial claim that it was a success because of how it benefited the Byzantines. Finally, the sacking of Constantinople and domination of the Black Sea were events that didn't require any crusade to begin with had any other attempt to conquer the city succeeded before or after, while the Black Sea became immensely profitable because of the Mongols and Byzantine concessions decades after the Fourth Crusade.

Everything Catholic fails everyone always.

Good rule of thumb.

>not to mention the need for ships to transport troops
Which would usually ground a city's trade to a halt. If the army hiring them didn't pay up, it wasn't certain there would be enough treasure captured to make up the difference.

War was costly for the maritime republics, and usually undertaken for reasons of pride and religiosity first and foremost, and not for too long before striking a deal to get back to trading.

supply lines and lack of Christian unity I imagine

The Christian god wasn't strong enough to defeat the Muslim god

>First one opened up trade
This is the same kind of mistake that makes people think the Mongol Invasions opened up trade with China. Trade never stopped or needed opening up in the first place, and it actually saw better growth after the fall of the Crusader States than before.

What was actually happening was that the Crusader States being desperate for transport and the Mongols not knowing any better about Mediterranean trade gave Venice, Genoa, and Pisa better bargaining power to settle merchant colonies with low tariffs and a lot of special privileges. Most of their profits came from places like Egypt or the Black Sea which the First Crusade didn't target.

And we owned Spain for more than 600, still own Anatolia, Epirus, Bosnia and France

>France

And i hope you don't die in our next bombing against your shitholes achmed

We pretty much failed Lybia and Mali, but believe me the next mudslim country that we will bomb will not be able to stand up again

>get there
>erect cross
>ave Maria
>return home
>Muslims tear down cross
>come back
etc. etc.

Many Crusades succeeded in the long-term, like the conversion of Lithuania.

God Did not favor the fake Christians and he only protected those who truly represented the faith.

IE Knights like Bohemond I
Richard Lion Heart
Orlando Bloom
And Peter the hermit

>let's create tiny states in some of the most coveted land deep in hostile territory while we fight amongst ourselves
hmmmmm i wonder

this

i'm surprised they even held it as long as they did the first time

A few points I think should be taken into consideration:

-it was a logistical nightmare, thousands of people died just getting from Europe to the Levant
-they were a minority, even when the first crusader states were established the ruling elite were a minority of frankish nobles, most of the population were of other cultures and religions (LOTS - greeks, turks, arabs, africans, far easterners etc) so they were already alienating the locals
-the franks were very suspicious of non-catholics despite being the minority and ruled their lands with intolerancy when they could do so
-saladin and similar muslim rulers were respected and seen as heroes compared to the franks. When saladin took jersualem, people cheered, and he invited back the Coptics who were exiled by the catholics

don't take this as 'CHRISTIANS = BAD MUSLIMS = GOOD', it's just that within the incredibly complicated interchange of societies happening at the time, the Crusaders were seen as a colonizing threat, even by the Byzantines, who'd originally invited them over.

is theory about second sons of nobles wanting own feud (colonization) in Middle east valid or was it just Marxism meme?

See pic, the Knights were stabbed in the back by Protestant Muslim sympathizers in Europe.

because they were interested in personal gains and wealth instead of reclaiming the holy land

or to be precise, the holy land for themselfs, no noble can stand against a hostile neighbouring kingdom alone

Germans then the French

>if it wasn't for protestants Constantinople would be Christian

why do they have to ruin everything

Mongol military technology shifted the balance towards land-based powers.

Constantinople was given the choice of allowing catholic supremacy in order to stay alive several times. They, being actual Christians and not papists, hated the pope so much that the refrain in the final days was: "I would rather see a Turkish turban in the midst of the City than the Latin mitre."

All the deus vult larping over Constantinople is extremely ironic. It was the Crusaders that pulled the rug out from under the Byzantine Empire. Many of the deus vult larpers even defend the sack of Constantinople today citing the violence against Latins in the city when in actual history that crusade was excommunicated by the pope the moment they attacked their first Christians in Serbia.

>Catholics aren't Christians
If being Christian entails worshipping the gods of Coca Cola and McDonald's then I'm fine being excluded

t. Protestant whore