Why were the crusades such failures?

But we already answered if Hitler did anything wrong and if Egyptians were black.

Is there anything else to discuss?

Crusaders were not even Christian, they were little more than savage rapists and pillagers. They knew nothing of actual Christian theology and teachings.

Fuck, 2 of the three chapters of history already answered? Board is finished. Exterminate it now.

Probably a good thing, given that Christian theology and teachings are incoherent and fundamentally evil.

How came the Muslims on their turn managed to invade and hold (for a time) Andalusia, Anatolia, Southern Italy?

>Didn't Christians have more advanced technology?
lol no

different goals, it was more of a genuine attempt at empire building than crusades.

They never really fully 'colonized' the east. It was like 5% Franks ruling over 95% native Muslims and Christians who provided very little military assistance. Most Crusaders returned home. When they made alliances and played opponents against each other they were safe but standing on thin-ice. Once the Islamic states of the levant unified under Saladin, and they themselves broke up politically, they were made very vulnerable. If you compare the state of the Islamic east during the First Crusade and Third Crusade it's a completely different picture. Also the manpower was so low that once the army for Hattin was mustered, most of the major cities were left virtually ungarrisoned, so when they lost their army at Hattin Saladin swept over most of the cities with ease.

First crusade.

Norwegian crusade.

Venetian crusade.

Third Crusade.

Crusade of 1197

Sixth Crusade - when Muslims were so afraid of a German army that landed in the levant that they literally just gave up without a fight.

>Why were the crusades such failures?
They weren't. Christians managed to establish a kingdom in hostile territory and keep it for quite some time.

>Didn't Christians have more advanced technology?
No, not yet.

>All things considered the Crusadses were very successful had not petty politics and poor strategy gotten in the way.
>Things would've gone good if they didn't go bad

They conquered gradually, building up their supply lines for each invasion, so that instead of navigating the entire mediterranian sea they just had to cross some straits. Also good timing, as europe and byzantium in the respective times of conquest were stable as a pig on iceskates.

The grand strategy and logistics behind them were nearly perfect. The movement as a whole failed though because whenever they would finally settle in to govern the petty lords would squabble amongst themselves instead of uniting a preparing a unified defense.

Again my comment on the strategy is referring to tactical decision made in Egypt at al mansurah where Robert of Artois made a charge on a whim without consent of leaders into a trap and ruined the whole crusade that was shaping up to be a big success.

Lol you guys are so much softer on euros

it wasn't as simple as Christian vs Muslim. The christians where just one faction of many vying for power in the area. so more like Christian vs Muslim vs Muslim etc. also they where a faction that traveled far from the west and amassed armies on a largely voluntary basis. in the grand scheme of things christian kings held Jerusalem just as long as any other king who held it at the time.