Were Templars really le evil medieval SS like in Kingdom of Heaven?

Waging war in the name of religion is stupid and backward.
Sure, crusaders were the product of their time and it is not really fair to measure them by modern day standards. That doesn't mean whe should glorify them though

Some could be bros with Muslims.

The Arab conquerors? Not really, as most of them didn't bother doing things like converting churches into mosques to dominate sacred geography, and most of their own sources on the conquests play up their personal/tribal valor and discipline over a religious mission. The Crusaders were more like the Turkish ghazis of their era.

Anyone know of any good reading materials on the Outremer culture of the late crusader states?

This. Anyone glorifying crusaders is no better than muzzies glorifying ISIS these days.

They gave them too much credit. They were mostly poor and stupid drunken peasants who understood no Christian theology, aside from the leaders who were mostly made up of nobility.

chill Ahmed

Kingdom of Heaven is retarded and Jewish to the core. It being watched by all of us at 15 when it ca n be out did lasting damage.

The movie was made after 911 and Iraq and was from the get go an attempt to attack the idea of Christianity and promote islaM and atheism.

>The bad guys are the religious Templar and Humphrey the Patriarch
>Guy de Chatillon is reduced to a war monger fat coward
>Saladin is a good boi who dindu nothing
>they dont show him killing muzzies left and right for power
They dont show him laughing and smiling sending in scholars and peasants and children with knives and clubs to murder captured Christians
>thry don't show him enslaving the poor Christians who couldn't pay a ransom for their own lives
>they dont show him attacking Crusaders constantly to appease his mud horde, he was a good bo who had no choice
>they show him setting the cross upright instead of melting and looting every church because religious tolerance is what the muzzies are all about
>The only good westerners are atheists who don't believe in god or superstition and just want the Muslims to win over the evil Christians so peace will be restored.
>bad guys yell "god wills it"
>good guys say peace be with you

Its literally the Jew rewriting history to create the nu-male view of religion and the crusades

Saladin freed them right after he "enslaved" them though
And the Baldwin IV and Knight Hospitalier guy were clearly Christians

Also >Jewish

>>Saladin is a good boi who dindu nothing
he kinda was though
richard the lionheart literally proposed to intermarry their dynasties

Hollywood propaganda

Does anyone know a good book about crusades that doesnt suck christian or muslim dick?

Huh, source?

No, they were actually tolerant towards muslims. Most of what is told about them are lies created by the catholic church.

If only Richard seeded his wife instead of boipussi, his heir would be King of England, Ireland and France and his grandsons would be Kings of England, Ireland, France, Syria and Egypt, maybe also Jerusalem, Navarre and Scotland.

>stupid and backward
Nigger, shut the fuck up. Crusaders are glorified because they were willing to abandon their lives to venture out into the unknown and die for a higher purpose.

Pretty sure he's referring to an episode during the negotiations between Saladin and Richard, which involved a lot of chivalric displays of honor and such, where Richard proposed Saladin's brother the future sultan Saphadin marry Joan, Richard's sister.

>Crusaders are glorified because they were willing to abandon their lives to venture out into the unknown and die for a higher purpose.

So did fanatical SS troops. Only thing that differentiates them from crusaders is that less retards glorify them.

>literally a movement formed after continuous raiding from mudpeople in east.
>isis

hmm... i guess isis isn't so bad after all.

That's not how you use literally, and that's still wrong.

Bitch please, crusaders are glorified because they killed Muslims. Don't even pretend otherwise.

They was good bois and dindu nuffin

they only sacked Constantinople once

I've never heard of this. He literally enslaved thousands after jerusalem and moved them all over his realm.

well J-dar is down or you would be in for a shock.,

The pendulum of propaganda tends to swing from one extreme to the other, glorifying, then vilifying.

Never does it settle on the reasonable conclusion "they were human beings, but also ideologues, protecting what they saw as their own best interests."

But don't listen to me. Listen to the Deus Vulters and the hollywood propagandists. They prove my statement more than I do.

>MUH NAZIS
wtf I hate heroic martyrism now!

Relax cletus

There must be war

God wills it

Voice of reason.

Reynaud de Chatillon wasn't a templar, he was an upjumped pauper knight, and the Templars and Hospitallers disagreed with him in almost everything, but only marched to death at Hattin because of "muh honor." In reality the templars protected pilgrims of every faith, including moslems, which outraged fob crusaders to no end.

>tfw provided hospitals and aid to pilgrims regardless of creed, now compared to SS

>media showing white Christian men as evil

Well colour me surprised.

Multiculturalism after the first crusade was actually pretty good. Crusaders recognised that the holy lands had significance to other religious groups and allowed others to worship. Tension was often caused by pilgrims from the west. There's an account of a much respected Muslim noble who had been confronted by a western pilgrim whom told him that he was praying in the the wrong direction. The Templars removed the westerner and apologised to the Muslim noble. I forget details. Franks had integrated with those in the kingdom of Jerusalem. Muslims didn't like it and it took 80 years and saladin to unite rivals to defeat the Franks.

Heinrich actually based the SS off the templar and Teutonic order style and rituals. Except both are good nit bad.

Why would a southerner defend a Catholic holy order?

Ridley Scott really hates templars for some reason. Watch this instead, History Channel is making a pro-Templar show this fall.

youtube.com/watch?v=F9dtepkeR0I

Eeeh. Standards were different then, but yes? I mean, the comparison isn't really fair since the SS were equal to the Wehrmact, whereas the Templars were sort of a semi-state in and of themselves (considering the various states established in Malta and the Baltic by other Orders)

I can't quite remember where they "settled", though

Because muh mooselimbs

So it will be biased for a different faction? That isnt good either

It's more than in the context of feudalism there's nothing weird with a private owner holding rights that today we consider to belong to states. Therefore an association of people can own them too. Malta was given to the hospitallers by the kings of Spain.

>western series
>pro-anything christian related

>history channel
LMAO

The goal was to protect pilgrims who were being killed by bandits that the Eastern potentates were taking no steps to deal with. The men who went had pretty much nothing to gain except absolution or the promise of another life and everything materially to lose by leaving their homes, generally. Pretty embarrassing seeing lesser men attack them today for convoluted reasons.

There was 8 crusades, pretty sure you can't paint all crusaders with a broad brush

Pretty much this. They were also accused of being closet Muslims at their trial: Baphomet whom they supposedly worshipped is just a Frankish rendition of Mahomet/Muhammad. And obviously since the court knew little about Muslim theology they had to make shit up, like the goat's head etc.

Territory is a higher purpose?

What do they gain by having sandland territory surrounded by enemies?
Most got fuck all as compensation anyway.

>inb4 butthurt jews and arabs with muh fertile palestina here look at this roman coin with a palm tree

Yes, if it's more territory for a higher cause rather than yourself.

are you referring to the present crusade, because the real crusade was made up knight and personal soldiers

>moose limbs

?

Arabs were elitist as fuck back in the day. They didn't want converts because Islam was 'an Arab religion for Arabs.' It wasn't really until the Turks that the religion really started wanting converts.

Some Muslims even helped the crusaders (as some Christians helped the Muslims) because they were different sects.

ideology, as we call it, was prevalent in medieval societies. as much as we bicker about bullshit ideologies going on today, the medieval folks were living them constantly and typically without question or resistance (obviously because you would then be deemed a heretic, criminal, or put to death). i am sure some scholars at that time wrote inquiries about the way it is and the way they want it to be, but they were surely few and far between. never really making an impact until much later after grander historical events at the end of the medieval period.

so what i am saying is yes, they gained territory, they gained riches, they gained favor and expanded fiefs, but they did so with higher intentions. to please god, save the holy land, and terminate heathens and heretics. the medieval ages were a silly time indeed but that is what makes it so fun to learn about from our point of view in 2017.

Why does the media like to falsely portray the crusades as an unprovoked war of aggression,?

I don't know. Maybe it's me but land/riches/pussy/power always felt like a more meaningful reason for war since you get an obvious earthly reward out of it. People call war for those reasons overly aggressive and unacceptable today but that makes WAY more sense to me as a legitimate reason over patriotism.

Kinda hard to declare yourself as being in the right when your reason for fighting is "you have nice shit, I'm gonna take it"

Prior to Napoleon attacking half of Europe, that was perfectly justified under Right of Conquest.

Self defense.
The Middle East used to be the center of the Christendom.

This

no of course not, an order of religious fanatics whose job it was to murder people were all saints like in fairytales, any other depiction is a kosher lie! shadilay brother! watch as I try and steer the argument to why the muslims were totally worse even though that's not what we were talking about at all! the crusades were self defense or something! I just read that from a /pol/ infographic I actually have no idea what I'm talking about! I'm sure if I could go back in time and meet the knights templar they would be awesome and cool guys not like my stupid athiest dad! they were christian so that means I have to endlessly defend their actions from some evil revisionist conspiracy that I just made up in my head in order to give my life purpose out of some weird misplaced sense of contrarianism! #gamergate!

>never has or ever will be an argument

No. And muslims threatened with suicide bombing if they present Saladin as a bad guy. Go figure

this honestly

It makes me feel sad that people used religion to justify murder and rape.. But then again that's humans

>B-BUT THE MUSLIMS WERE WORSE!
Hahahaha STILL in fucking damage control after a 1000 years hahahahahaha *starts wheezing*

Superior autism est in ego.Ego non tolere autism in exego.

>Christianity
Catholicism*

>Prussia, Lithuania, Livonia, and Estonia
>true europeans

My sides, you are going to have to try better than that Jamal.

This. The movie doesn't mention at the end how after they surrendered the city all the lower class were murdered and the rich were enslaved.

t. doesn't know history

I bet you think the US is ebil for bombing Japan even though it was Japan that bombed the US first. I know you moral relativist think that someone who shoots a man in self defense is just as guilty as a murder, but to anyone who isn't retarded thinks otherwise. Tell me, how would you deal with a fanatical people who ethnically cleansed your people over the course of centuries? A people which had no intention of living peacefully or converting to your way of life? How are you going to reconquer your land without killing most of the enemy? We can't even manage this feat with modern technology, so how would you go about doing it with medieval tech?

>Not really, as most of them didn't bother doing things like converting churches into mosques to dominate sacred geography

Except they actually did, especially in Spain and Italy. You must be the shillest of shills to call a people who conquered all of north africa and large parts of Europe as not being actual conquerors. Even ISIS isn't this blind.

Balts are genetically more European than literally anyone else on that continent.

You should take back that part about Charlemagne, because nothing he did was bad. The Saxon Wars conquered inner Germania, bringing it into the Christian sphere forever, even though it had eluded Rome. Also, Charlemagne had many, many successful campaigns in Spain against Muslim aggressors, including capturing what would become modern Catalonia, and helped set up preventative measures against Moorish raids in Normandy.
Charlemagne created modern Europe.

This. Unfortunately this board is filled with fedora tipping redditors who will gladly take a movie over researching the actual historical facts as long as it reaffirms their ignorance.

>implying

You aren't fooling anyone Mohamed. If it wasn't for the crusades then we would all already be shit skins speaking arabic like you.

[citation needed]

Using this logic I take it hirohito also dindu nothing either since MacArthur not only let him live but kept him as emperor? Political maneuverings out of necessity are not what determines if someone is right or wrong moron.

ISIS is movement which was formed after continuous raiding of Muslim lands by Westerners

>They didn't want converts because Islam was 'an Arab religion for Arabs.' It wasn't really until the Turks that the religion really started wanting converts.

That's absolute nonsense

eh may as well post it here

Was Jerusalem ever NOT a point of contention?

Most Muslims who (falsely) think that Islam permits suicide bombings also think that Saladin was a heretic

He's right, but way off on the timeframe. Islam stopped being Arabcentric immediately after the Rashidun Caliphate, possibly because it would mean only like .5% of the capital would actually be ethnically Arab.

Because the first crusade took place centuries after the first Muslim conquests.

really the ((byzantines)) are the true enemy

t. Enrico

b-b-but he shed the blood of 4000 saxon men

they're literally the only good guys in the cluster fuck that was the crusades

Nevertheless, they were simply retaking lands that had been brutally conquered in the Muslim conquests.

retaking ex christian lands had nothing to do with it, Muslims were still in sicily, even holding some places in italy, and they were still in spain, why crusaders moved all the way to Middle east instead of retaking land right below their nose?

Moreover both in Italy and in Spain muslims were in disarray, so there is literally no deterrent to not attack them.

The reason Crusaders went to ME is due to Holyness of Jerusalem, they didn't give a flying fuck about retaking sicily and spain because they were not Jerusalem.

You are pushing your 21st century EVROPA against Mudslime Hordes romanticism into history which is bad sport. None of the crusaders were thinknig about "we are defending ourselves" they were thinking about how holy Jerusalem was holy their sins would be forgiven, how they would go to a pilgrimage etc, in other words religious reasons not political.

If taking back clay was a priority, Spain and Sicily would be targetted first

The motive of the Crusades is irrelevant in this particular point of discussion. What I am saying is that popular portrayal of the crusades likes to present the "Holy Land" as orginally Muslim, rather than originally Christian. There are certainly no Films or TV shows that I know of that portray, or even include, the brutal Arabic conquests.

>implying literally everyone didn't rape or murder if they had the means to do so back then

>rather than originally Christian.
It can also be portrayed as originally Jewish, or Pagan. Just saying. You are throwing rocks from a glass house if you complain about "original muslim" portrayal while claiming that land to be "originally Christian"

and historically most brutal and vile conquests of muslims were done in India, since they lacked the protection of the "people of the book" status that Christians and Jews had. The agressions were far more brutal due to that. But I don't see poo in the loos complaining about the evil movie industry like you do.

and the reason crusaders get attention and sandniggers do not is due to the fact crusaders have european origins and sandniggers or poointheloos don't have european background.

Thats why 12 years a slave occurs in Murrica and not in barbary. Blame Arabs for not managing to form their proper film industry. If they had one I'm sure you would see self critical movies alongside reactionary movies

But those were still middle easterners living in middle eastern land

>sandnigger

Thats not how you should call jesus

HERESY!

Twice. Once during the peasant's crusade and again by Godfrey of Bouillon.