English people took part in the Crusa-

>English people took part in the Crusa-

>Templars and Hospitalers Grandmasters were the only crusaders

is that what is taught in anglo schools?

Most normies in the English speaking world associate the Crusdes with England

I guess it's mostly because the current English flag resembles crusader attires (although England adopted it centuries after the end of the Crusades)

Ha french no wonder why they lost they lost jerusalem

>1509 church of england

Fuck my english is bad

I blame Richard le Lionheart, that baguette munching french faggot

At least they got there and took it instead of being invaded by Normans

No, the crusades aren't taught in school in depth at all, so people tend to associate "the crusades" with Robin hood and naturally that leads on to associating it with Richard the Lionheart. It's not at all like "hurrr we won duh crusades" it doesn't even appear within our syllabus -because- we had little part of it.

>At least they got there and took it
Only took it once with help from the anglos

The normans that took jerusalem.

>Only took it once with help from the anglos
Top kek
Jerusalem was taken in the First Crusade, which was almost entirely French
The only Crusade to feature a few Anglos was the Third one, and well, you know how it went

>The normans that took jerusalem.
Oh, so that's what you meant by "Anglos"?
French speaking nords?

The normans are a part of our history

Not as bad the fourth crusades

As the. Fucking hate when i miss shit like that

>Most normies in the English speaking world associate the Crusdes with England
First I've heard of that.

correction, here in Angland, most people have no fucking clue about anything to do with the Crusades and simply associate it with bloodthirsty random acts of violence by Christians, it's taught only slightly in some A level courses (the period just prior to university) but outside of that you either study it at university, or are most likely completely ignorant of them.

first post best post.
Of course the Grand Masters are going to be all of the same ethnicity, that's how it worked.

Nah tard
There was no rule that said every Grand Master had to be French or something

95% of Templar Grand Masters were French simply because Templars were a mainly French order
That's the reason why the French king could destroy it so easily
Had it been some international order like some people meme it to be, it would have survived king Phillip's purge

>The normans that took jerusalem.
Except they didn't

>95% of Templar Grand Masters were French simply because Templars were a mainly French order
That's exactly what I'm saying. Don't call me a tard.

Still, the point that Anglos werent relevant in the crusades still stands

The three main orders were:
-Templars (French)
-Hopitallers (Franco-Italian)
-Teutonics (German)

the English did take part in the Crusades but they had a reputation of being cowards and weak. That's also why the English later adopted the flag of the French crusaders because the French gathered much more glory and prestige

>mfw its actually true

I learn new things everyday on Veeky Forums

This is comedically wrong. The English were instrumental in the 3rd crusade but the 1st crusade (you know, the one that actually took Jerusalem) was led almost entirely by French nobles. The only other crusade to gain Jerusalem was the 6th, and that was solely the Holy Roman Empire

> Richard the lionheart and his contingent
> weak and cowardly

This is your brain on memes. I'm impressed by how imbecilic you are to make such a claim

He said the English
Richard was Angevin (French) and his knights were Normans (Franco-Danish)

Richard I will concede was not very English. But his force was raised primarily in England, the bulk of it would be English

Moreover without any sort of source about cowardice it's just conjecture

>But his force was raised primarily in England, the bulk of it would be English

Knights were nobility, and most nobility in England in that era was Norman French
Now maybe he had a few archers that would come from the Anglo-Saxon peasants stock

As for the cowardice thing, the other guy was just meming

Most English Crusaders where Norman nobles so they where more French in a way yet most Crusaders during all crusades where in fact French.

> only knights and a few archers

Wew mate what the fuck are you talking about? There were a lot of foot soldiers too. The nobility would be anglo-normans but not the majority of the force. Besides yeomanry were all English, the class beneath knights and there was some overlap. Especially in later centuries.

But then, aren't French nobles descended from Germanic tribes?

>Godefroy de Bouillon (Belgium)
>Raymond de Toulouse
>Bohémond de Taranto
>Robert de Flandre
>Robert de Normandie

The ''''anglos'''' that conquered Jerusalem in the 1st Crusade

>The Crusading orders were the only crusaders.
>The Crusades was a "national" thing.

Dumbass Frogposter.

Well if we decide to not count any members of the peasantry who volunteered to go I guess they didn't