Could the Crusaders have conquered the whole middle-east or dare I even say the whole world if it wasn't for the...

Could the Crusaders have conquered the whole middle-east or dare I even say the whole world if it wasn't for the Byzantine Greeks holding them back with their betrayals and lack of will?

They feared the Kurdish warrior.

Yes.

>crusaders conquer the whole middle east
>ALRIGHT, WE DID IT GU-

They probably could easily have conquered the middle East if they had been a centralised force and had both coherent supply lines and more importantly settlers from Europe to occupy the area.

I mean the reality is that they would have needed a strategy to defeat and annex the Seljuk's and then Egypt.

The first crusade wasn't really about that though. Just the nobles in charge ended up competing and vying for power and carving out petty kingdoms for themselves.

>Mongoloids
After the reconquering of Spain, Christians conquered the whole new world.

Byzantine Greeks lost Egypt since the 600s.
They are weak and lacked will.

The Crusades were a fuck up because they had no real long term contingency plans. Originally, the Eastern Romans just wanted Anatolia back, but the Crusaders gave up on retaking it all in Armenian Cilicia and after Antioch, just kept these recaptured territories for themselves, massively pissing of the Romans.
As the Crusades were won with sheer brute strength (heavy armour vs light armour cavalry of the Saracens) and force of numbers (it was a bloodbath on both sides), they'd need to be constantly re-enforced with new soldiers from the West. However, once Jerusalem fell, most of these Crusaders simply returned home, their war/pilgrimage finished, when what was really needed was a population replacement over a long period, where Muslims would eventually convert to Christianity, creating a loyal local population (basically the reverse of what happened in the initial Islamic invasions).
What should have happened?
Anatolia (including Antioch) should have been returned to Roman control. They were the only ones with the manpower in the region to hold them, autism like the County of Edessa or Antioch were doomed to fail because of the distance, not to mention keeping these tiny fractured counties held would, like I said, require constant reinforcements. The Levant should've either been given to the Eastern Romans (there were already lots of Greek Christians living there, especially in Tripolis) or made an independent kingdom, and used as sort of a beacon of unity between East and West (the Pope originally set out hoping to heal relations between Catholics and Orthodox), the Muslims should've been kicked out or forcibly converted, Latins should've been settled in the region, not just fucked off back to Poisson when the initial fighting calmed down, leaving a skeleten crew and a pissed off Byzantium unwilling to protect territories that weren't really theirs.
Result:
>Churches re-unite/friendlier
>no Fourth Crusade
>Christian Crusader Egypt

Yeah idk man. Byzantine empire is one of the more successful empires actually.

1000 year Reich and all that.

But yeah it wasn't happening for them at that point. I mean we'll never know but without the schism the entire middle east may well be a part of Europe to this day.

Crusaders went down all the way to Jerusalem something the Byzantine Greeks could never accomplish despite being a Wealthy Empire.

Adding to my comment, see pic related.
Notice the absolutely retardedley massive front line, backed onto porous desert the Saracen was highly accustomed to? That's the biggest problem.
The Taurus Mountains needed to be the natural boundary, expelling the Turks from Cappadocia should've been the number one priority if longevity is what you're looking for.
Deprived of these natural front lines, the Romans were stuck dealing with raids and clashes within Anatolia itself, threatening major cities like Smyrna and Nicomedia. This meant the Romans couldn't have helped the Crusaders even if they had wanted to. Anatolia needed to be made a fortress that could then be used as a launching pad into the Middle East.

1000 years with half of those being a small irrelevant rump state that was such a shithole after hundreds of coup and revolts in constantinople nobody bothered to finish them

What's even dumber is all they needed to do was outlast the Seljuk Empire, which was inherently unstable and would've collapsed within a few decades, leaving the Mideast easy pickings for a combined Roman-Crusader effort. They wouldn't face another threat of that magnitude until the Mongols show up (200+ years to consolidate their holdings).

Idiot the Kingdom of Jerusalem was a Wealthy Trade state.
The Byzantine Greeks were getting jealous of the Latins for constantly gaining more wealth.

Holy fuck that border's stupid.
Seljuks could've easily flanked their shit from Asia Minor. What were they thinking?

Siege warfare probably. Hostile land and populace. Not real great

No it wasn't. Trade flowed into the Mediterranean through two main ports: Alexandria in Egypt (going through the Red Sea from India) and Constantinople itself (going overland through Asia Minor and Persia).
The Kingdom of Jerusalem was the only Crusader state that should've existed, the other three should've either become part of Jerusalem, or be given back to the Romans. They were dead weight (the county of Edessa especially controlled the paths into Anatolia through the Taurus).
Jerusalem wasn't an economically important city, unlike Antioch or Aleppo or even Damascus, it was a holy site and the secondary motive of the Crusades.

This is how it should've been administered.

This sort of thinking feels like armchair generalship of the highest order, based on an understanding of Near Eastern geography derived entirely from looking at a flat political map. The Anatolian interior was far more difficult to access, hold, and defend than the Levant. You can far more easily resupply by sea than you can a harsh, mountainous overland route.

That's not how that works. You can't just 'flank' hundreds of miles especially over mountains controlled by hostile tribes.

>Holding them back with their betrayals and lack of will
>The byzantines literally funded the first crusade
>The crusaders fucked off with the byzantine gold and didn't meet their promises of giving back byzantine lands they conquered
>The Byzantines had to sneak into Nicaea first to prevent the crusading chimps from plundering and looting their former city

The crusaders would realize this later but so long as their enemies held onto the extremely prosperous Nile region and the Tigris/Euphrates they will never be dislodged.

They could literally spawn army after army.

There was a point where some muslim ruler offered Jerusalem to them just so they'd just stop being annoying.

Also, the first first crusade (peoples crusade) began pillaging, killing, and sacking local populations almost as soon as they had crossed the bosphorus, a lot of their victims were eastern christians.
People need to remember that the crusaders were, for in large, not logical or rational. They were fanatical zealots from violent feudal societies. The closest modern day equivalent we have is, ironically, ISIS.

>wishing for a one world religion
fuck off globalist scum

The existence of the Crusader States turned the Levant into a vibrant trading hub, especially for the Italian city states.

No. In fact it's a miracle they managed to do what they did do. I can't help but think they had divine protection because there's no way those absolute retards could of gotten to Jerusalem otherwise.