Why are the crusaders glorified here when they were basically ISIS-tier fundamentalists who didn't achieve anything...

People like the armor, probably because of Dark Souls.
PRAISE THE SUN XD became DEUS VULT

That's bad, and they shouldn't do that.

>ISIS-tier
ISIS are not Christians fighting for the liberation of Christian lands.

>fundies
Meaningless buzzword.

>didn't achieve anything
Held the Holy Land for 200 years, built and rebuilt churches and monasteries, changed the way Christians were treated afterwards.

>muh Constantinople
That army was excommunicated after Zadar, they were no longer on a crusade by the time they reached Constantinople.

>travel halfway across the world
>experience immense hardship
>fight a localized and entrenched enemy
>conquer Jerusalem
>conquer Jaffa, Acre, Tripoli, Antioch, Edessa, etc.
>import Western civilization to the Holy Land
>live in a state of constant warfare for roughly 200 years

>have faggots on Veeky Forums say you achieved nothing

>Catholics
>Uncivilised barbarians
What a surprise

To be fair, at that time period Catholic or Orthodox were the only choices.

psssh...nothin personnel...kid...

The Pope originally praised their taking of Constantinople, he only ex'd them when he found out just how horrific they were, but then he later lifted that anyway.

The Crusader were a bunch of rats (although it was their CLERGY who ultimately spurred and led the attack), even the roaches didn't treat the Orthodox as bad. They destroyed the Byzantine Empire, and the Pope caused the great schism with his mendacious "Donation of Constantine". There was no "massacre of the Latins, " either, contemporary Genoese and Venetian sources only mention merchants and usurers being expelled; the story of a "massacre" doesn't appear until William of Tyr penned it, and he was devoted to polemic against the Byzantines

>un-ironically copy-pasting Wikipedia entries
Wtf has this board come to?

>The Pope originally praised their taking of Constantinople,
I assume you have a source for the bullshit you're spouting?

>Why are the crusaders glorified here when they were basically ISIS-tier fundamentalists

Because despite the fact that they were human filth, they were the ONLY ones who fought back against the mudscum tide.

If it wasn't for the crusades Europe would be poor as fuck and probanly wouldn't colonize the New World

>fighting back
>invading countries that were muslim for centuries

Where were the Crusaders when the Arabs conquered the Levant?

400 years is a pretty delayed reaction.

ancientfaith.com/podcasts/paradiseutopia/papal_supremacy_and_the_parting_of_the_ways_i

Furthermore, the Pope went on to support a Latin clergy replacing all the locals, and the Crusaders having rule over the newly formed Latin Empire

Freedom ain't free

>source requested
>user posts a Orthodox podcast

Is this what passes for objectivity now?

A podcast by a history professor who frequently covers his sources

Also wouldn't be the last time a crusade attacked the Orthodox. Alexander Nevsky defeated another one sent by the Pope

>Living in a constant state of warfare for 200 years, looting and pillaging
>Import Christianity into the Middle East when it already existed there
>Completely wiped out by the 13th century.

Yep. Nothing of value was accomplished. Instead, the Byzantine Empire who were actually successuly doing what the Crusaders should have been doing, were crippled.

The crusades were an example of Christendom crushing its testicles between the door and frame of a car.

If someone so brazenly spat in the face of Jesus Christ every second of every day the way C*tholics do, especially in a time period when divine favour and national security were indistinguishable, I'd probably do the same.

The regions they reconquered were majority Christian.

>crusaders are isis tier
>fighting literally isis

These to be quiet frank.

Yes, fighting back. It took a while, sure, but you don't lose the right to self defense if you fail to defend yourself for a while when someone starts attacking you.

So if I beat your whore mother to death and it takes you moths to find me, you can't take revenge because "HURR you didn't react instantly :^)"

do you lose the right do attack a man whos grand-grand-grand-grand-father attacked your grand-grand-grand-grand-father?

The Crusaders fought to defend Christianity from the Muslims who had conquered and subjugated Christian lands in the Levant and Palestine, as well as North Africa, Spain and Asia Minor

and ISIS are fighting to defend Muslims from Crusaders who have conquered and subjugated Muslim land

No.

>Muslim land

No such thing. Islam is a disease, it can't rightfully occupy land, only temporarily infest it.

It's more like my great grandfather killed your neighbor's great grandfather, then a hundred years later you come over to smash the windows on my house while yellling "the south will rise again, revenge for the war of northern aggression".

edgy

Historically, Christians did that as well.

Still justified. When a nigger raises its hand to a human, its whole lineage is condemned.

>t.mudscum filth

Opinion disregarded :^)

Why do you faggots always use a modern lens to compare modern events with past ones? The reason people dig vikings and templars is because they look cool and are fascinating and their behaviour was more understandable for the time they lived in. Of course had they lived today they would be just as reviled as the christians who are still burning witches in africa are reviled.
This isis comparison is so shit.

...

Weak bait desu

if you have cancer for years and finally someone tries to treat you, you should be thankful :^)

>frequently
and into the trash it goes

that is not what they say. They fight against the corruption of western society, not christianity

forgetting that most of the land they conquered back was majority christian land in the middle east like anatolia, antioch, eddessa, and lebanon.

o fuck the edge

ISIS is only killing other muslims, almost exclusively.

>Why are the crusaders glorified here

It's just pol leaking here

I don't know, they were not even real Christians

>t.nigger

Crusades were [at least intended to be] a response to Muslim aggression into the Christian sphere. The first crusade only took cities important to various denominations of christendom, and land surrounding it, so that they would link up, for obvious military reasons. The rest of them either didn't succeed, or ended up being exploited for monetary gain.

But we're asking for a source here. A history professor in a podcast is close but no dice you have to have actual records for us to accept the kind of shit you're putting down.

>Pilgrims
>ISIS

>Area conquered by Crusades
Versus
>Area conquered by Jihad

Never forget

Requesting that illustration of the angry Templar walking

God, you fucking heretic, thout shalt not kill.

>islam started a war by persecuting religious minorities and expanding their territory, smething christendom has never done apart from all the times it did
>sacking byzantium and stealing anything that wasn't nailed down wasn't an example of blatant greed
>the first crusade is the only crusade
Who the fuck says the crusaders didn't believe their own propaganda? Doubts lie in whether the crusade was called for religious reasons, (rather unlikely as islamic countries held the holy land for a pretty long time) or some more politcally pressing matters like attempting to beat back some expansion from the islamic world or in order to gain some territory in the form of crusader states, or a different kind of non religious factor.
Who the fuck says taht the crusades caused islamic hatred of the west? At best i've seen it used as an example of how the relationship between christians and islamisists was historically strained, people looking for an exmplanation of why there's islamic hatred of the west only need to look into the internventionism in the middle east.

this

*Cries in Byzantine*

delet this

>localized entrenched enemy

Only the first 3 crusades are canon. All subsequent crusades after the Original Trilogy aren't worth looking at. Venetians were terrible directors. Completely ruined the rest of the series and made the protagonists seem like the villains. Maybe they were trying to challenge the audience with this change of direction but it was a terrible reboot

Who thought an entire movie with only child actors that ends with them all being sold into slavery was a good idea?

Uhh...

Crusades were a response to Muslim aggression. Before you say I'm a biased christfag, the Viking raids were a response to christfag aggression in the same way and are thusly justified depending on your ethics.

>that image
Get off this board, please. Veeky Forums doesn't need idiots like you.

They're glorified because they're a meme.
In all honesty crusaders were a bunch of raping pillaging murderers that didn't even care about this God or that God, they just wanted loot, land and pussy. They painted a cross on their shields and went to war with the pretext of fighting for God while the muslims painted some arabic writing and said the same thing. It was never about God, it was never about Jerusalen, one poor city in the middle of the desert, it was about what all wars are about - money, land, power you get the idea.

Saladin's words at the end of Kingdom of Heaven have a lot of meaning behind them.
youtube.com/watch?v=u6aPgA5549g

lolol alt-right bait

I think that's simplifying their mindset, it's not like you can't believe that fighting in a Crusade will get you a spot in heaven while also being motivated by desire for loot and land.
Crusaders were motivated by both material rewards and their religion, but that doesn't change the fact they were a raping, pillaging murderers. Just like the Arabs were before them, and the Romans before the Arabs, and the Romans before the Arabs, and the Romans before the Greeks before the Persians etc etc etc.

You could also reserve a spot in heaven by being a dutiful pious peasant - plow your fields and wife, do backbreaking work for your lord your entire life, raise your children to do the same and die as a poor sad man who might spend an eternity in heaven. That is if heaven exists, or if God finds you worthy, there were skeptics back then just like there are now.

My point is, you could live that life or you could get on a ship and fight for more. The men that got land and titles in Jerusalem were regular solders, former peasants and piss poor craftsmen suddenly became royalty. I can't blame the people that chose to kill and pillage in the past because their conditions where much different than ours. You can't judge them with today's morals when you live an incredibly easier life and have access to nearly everything.

>>>>the crusades were one event

>You can't judge them with today's morals when you live an incredibly easier life and have access to nearly everything.
Why not? They were informed by the same set of values that I am, so I should be able to hold them to Judeo-Christian morality.

It's the same as sunnis killing and sacking Shiite cities

But how many of those values were exposed to you growing up and how sheltered were you from poverty and violence?

God says: Thou shall not steal. It's very easy to follow that law when your dad can buy food for you, but if your dad was killed by bandits and you're cold and hungry during a rough winter you might choose to dismiss that law so that you can survive. Why follow religious values and your lord's laws when you could break them and live without fear of dying of hunger.
You also have to take into account your way of researching on those values. You can read the bible anytime but back then your average peasant was illiterate and had to listen to the local priest.
The only way you can judge them by 21st century morals is to not be empathetic in the slightest.

You do realise that was meant for the Fourth Crusade, right?

Fantastic post

This thread is proof that all Abrahamic pigdogs are no different from one another.

I see what you did there.jpg

>import Western civilization to the Holy Land
>Implying Crusaders and their descendants didnt adapt to the eastern ways since they were miles ahead of the west in terms of civilization

>it's a butthurt Byzaboo episode
Should've paid denbts.

spatial-temporal coherence

>teleports into acre
>"psssh nuthin personell saladman"

>implying jihad would not have gone further then Vienna if not for the crusades and the orders of knights they birthed

wew

this is not true?

explain

He's calling you a moron because you cherry-picked two separate events with very distinct context and bounds in an attempt to downplay violent Christian expansion against violent Muslim expansion.

they aren't even good muslim killers

>kill more Christians than Muslims
>fuck muslims

the answer is LARPing

Because their opponents were also ISIS-tier fundamentalists. Also, "didn't achieve anything" is a meme, the first, third, sixth and ninth crusades were all rather successful.

They wouldn't have, no.
>400 years after founding of Islam, Muslim Spain collapsing, Muslim SIcily being overrun, Muslim ports constantly raided, Fatimids, Abbasids, Umayyads, and Seljuks falling apart.
>400 years after founding of the Templars, Ottomans advancing into Central Europe, Christian demographic collapse in Middle East, Constantinople gone to boot.

They did nothing right.

/pol/ envies ISIS for being allowed to kill all they don't like while having sympathizers.

In the civilized western world they can't do the shit that ISIS does without being shat on for obvious reasons so they at least try to imagine a time where a person like them can do it and would be celebrated.

>implying they would've even went to Vienna if the crusaders didn't rape Constantinople

>It is 100 years since our children left
;_;

People glorify them because they were a bunch of Europeans who went on some pretty cool adventures in the holy land.

> Crusade Battles
> No cross over Constantinople