History teacher mentions crusades as one of the great embarrassments of Western civilization

What a stupid bitch
What a stupid post

It was a failure.

>duh kroosades was abou tacingn bak geroosuhlam and not about land money and power

>destroying the Roman empire
>not an embarrassment

>people believing in magical jewish zombies
>not embarrassing

>History teacher acts like the African slave trade was the only example of large scale slavery in history because muh nignogs

I left /pol/ to get away from this idiocy but it seems to follow me everywhere
Roman empire was destroyed by itself with the help of Germanic barbarians
>muh Jew zombies
Imma cut down you sacred tree faggot

>trees
>relevant to me

>implying i'm not a glorious hellenic neoplatonist

The Roman Empire was destroyed because cuckstantine decided his jewish death cult was better than the traditional roman religion which led Rome to greatness in the first place.

>Edward Gibbon
>idoicy
Try again christ cuck

Hey, that's only half true!

...

>the crusades were one person

>in teh midel ags nooone was aksyuly reglious tehy was all laprers

He’s right, for the wrong reason.

>being this assblasted over Christianity
Nobody cares what you are or what history revisionism you like, faggit
>Edward gobbling
>not idiocy

>taking bait

>traditional roman religion which led Rome to greatness in the first place.
What?

christians have been shit on for the last 2000 years. Why do you think its still a good idea to be a blasphemous pagan whore?

Weren't they? Even if you think the cause was righteous, the execution was abominable and led to all sort of deaths of innocent people.

Thank god I graduated high school before this shit started.

>he doesn’t know Constantine was one of many warlords fighting for control over a collapsed empire

Constantine united it under Christianity and essentially saved it through the Byzantine Empire for another 1000 years.

Hadn’t it been Constantine it’d be something else, probably some barbarian fuck. The Empire was non existent when he won the Civil war. He restored it for another 100 years.

Don’t be a retard. Christianty didn’t kill it, it was dead already.

>"lol stupid racist! history is too eurocentric!"

>*proceeds to teach history that makes the persecution of african-americans in the early 20th century the center of history

> islamic
> civilization

>surely the only reason you would fight back against this uninterrupted, unprovoked, 1000 year assault on western civilization by hyper violent barbarians is because you're greedy

>traditional greek religion which led Rome to greatness in the first place.

Not him, but early Christians were nigger tier destroying many old pagan/Hellenistic knowledge and temples. The only reason why stuff like Plato's work survived was because it supported Christianity with God being a separate but objective existence while other works were destroyed. Pagans also thought themselves to be the backbone of the Roman empire's prosperity and they regularly filled the scholarly class while Christians filled the poor. When the Christians took over, many places went through a bump with people even forgetting basic stuff like hygiene. They killed massive amounts of pagans and caused massive amounts of civil unrest in the beginning. Constantine may have unified people through religion, but it also allowed for the mass persecution and unrest toward pagans and the loss of many works.

youtube.com/watch?v=Abh5_EhkUjU

all the hellenic platonists converted to christianity
also plato is to greeks what the prophets were to the jews

It litteraly was
>set off with the bros
>get drunk, fight, pillage and shit
> be put down
>by other christians
>still on christian land
>never actually reached Muslim world, let alone Holy Land

talk about a fucking mess

>le 4h crusade represents all the crusades

meme

It wasn't uninterrupted. The conquest had lost most of its steam well before 1099. Hell by that point nine of the people of countries that participated in the mass conquest were even alive. The first crusade was not a response to general Muslim aggression. It was a response to one particular instance if Muslim aggression which was the Seljuq Invasion. Byzantine Emperor asked for help and the pope saw it as an opportunity to both fight back the turks and reassert dominance over the recently divided church. However they ended up fighting the Fatimids at Jerusalem instead (who themselves were also fighting the turks) who hadn't really been exceptionally aggressive towards any Christian countries. They fought other Muslims more often than they did Christians. In the end it's wrong to say it was ONLY greed, but there were definitely ulterior motives at work.

The northern crusaders are undefendable though. That shit was straight up genocide.

>defending against foreign aggression is wrong
when did this meme start?

Only Catholic shills like Rodney Stark are proud of the crusades.

t. gayreek

there's literally nothing correct about this post

the only uninterrupted, unprovoked 1000 year assault was that of the Fr*nks and other germs on Mediterranean civilization.

>Islamic conquests succeed in making Islam a major world religion
>Crusades lead to temporary Christian states in the Eastern Mediterranean and the weakening of the Byzantines

I don't think the teacher thought it was an embarrassment because it was unsuccessful. Or maybe he does, fuck man I don't know.

>attack people across the sea for minor reasons while shouting that god wills it at every possible moment
>get destroyed
>huh seems like god didn’t will it
Sure sounds like an embarrassment to me

the northern crusades and the reconquista were a lot more successful in the long term, but managing to take and hold Jerusalem for a very long time against a unified arab world pre-mongol buttfucking is a nice acomplishment.

Dumb frogposter posts frog

tips fedora

>DEUS VULT
>"nah no thanks senpai"

Did you even read any of that? I never said that defending against foreign aggression was wrong. I said that the kind of foreign aggression that the first crusade was defending against was not every single Muslim country on earth, but one specific one. The problem arose specifically because they started fighting against the Fatimids, who were not the aggressors the crusaders had set out to fight.

>amerishart the post

>wasting time, money and people on reconquereing a worthless desert just to get kicked out later
>not an embarrassment
Deusvultboos are just dumb kids that fell for the "crusades were cool" meme.

The problem is not Deusvultboos. The problem is retards like teachers in OP who have no idea what they're talking about and are retrospectively applying their 21st C morals on 11th to 14th C without any kind of analysis or cursory level of scholarship, just pop culture cancer that they are reinforcing with their pedagogical authority.

Eh.

>Worthless desert
>He doesn't know that the crusader kingdoms all got shit rich trading

>History teacher mentions crusades as one of the great embarrassments of Western civilization

All human sacrifice for any "god" much less a false god is an embarrassment for western civilization.

youtube.com/watch?v=8A0ZIc6-0Pg

Fuck yeah this again.

let me guess the civil war wasn't about slavery right?

The third was an embarasment?

>Deus Vult!!!!1
>Crusaders BTFO MOOSELIMBS XD

It was the less embarrassing compared to the others, but it was nothing compared to the unprecedented success of the first crusade.

first crusade was a stunning success
second was a valiant effort but unfortunately unsuccessful
third was reasonably successful but ultimately didn't achieve its main goal of capturing jerusalem

most of the others were pretty embarrassing

The crusades happened 400 years after Jerusalem had been taken by Muslims you fucking retard

There's no excuse for random French people to invade that place and make it their own kingdom

Amidst a shitload of infighting and victories that came pretty much out of sheer dumb luck. The miracle isn't Jerusalem being recaptured (as if they had rights to it in the first place), but rather anything got done in the first place.

>jerusalem is no longer christian
>400 years go by
>hey, you know what would be fucking baller? If Jeresualem was christian again
>You know what, that actually sounds pretty sweet
>crusade ensues to retake Jereusalem
Is that really so far-fetched?

> "we failed to kill musmilms

Yeah, pretty sure they did a fuckload of that part buddy.

> defend the Kingdom of Jerusalem" part

Eh, it lasted for 200 years, a pretty good run.

Fucking kek with that meme, half of those are just minor skirmishes.

BTFO'd my ass;

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Iconium_(1190)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Azaz_(1125)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Meander

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cerami

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Artah

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Yibneh

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Sarmin

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Arsuf

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Montgisard

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ascalon

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ramla_(1101)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ramla_(1105)

>Fuck yeah this again.

I'll never bow to false gods or prophets.

youtube.com/watch?v=D0qaQOXxpZc

>dumb luck
lmao

Yes because that's not how it fucking happened at all. Do you really think people just decided one day to do that. They literally had 400 years of opportunity, and you think they just randomly chose that all of a sudden, it was an issue that needed addressing ASAP? That's not how reality works friend.

The Crusades were a response to the Seljuq Turks, not just Muslims in general

Also,
>jerusalem is no longer christian
is a misconception. The Rashidun and Umayyad caliphates generally didn't bother converting people. Mass conversion started happening over a century after the initial conquests, and was mostly done by choice to avoid the Jizya. The image of a bloodthirsty bedouin with his scimitar at your throat forcing you to become Muslim rarely happened.

Because it was. You did more harm than good.

> They literally had 400 years of opportunity

No, they didn't, because before the 11th century the Christian world was not even in a situation to call a crusade even if they wanted to.

The reason the crusades happened when they did was because of the Normans showing the pope that you can just waltz in and take infidel land and that the caliphate is so fucked now that holding said land just became a reality.

The battle of Cerami cemented this reality for the first time since Charlemagne marched into Iberia.

> The Crusades were a response to the Seljuq Turks, not just Muslims in general

But which religion were the Seljuk Turks ffs?

> The image of a bloodthirsty bedouin with his scimitar at your throat forcing you to become Muslim rarely happened.

It did happened a lot during the insanity of the 10th and 11th century Islam.

After the collapse of the Abbassids everything went to shit, the Quaramantians even sacked Mecca ffs, the Banu Hilal burned most of north Africa to the ground and Maghreb received a fanatical Almoravid movement.

All these resulted in both Christians and Jews in all those lands being fubar for decades.

Even if you sideline literally all of this, the crusades still were definitely a response to the Seljuk conquests, which then just ties itself back to Muslim conquests, because the Seljuks were Muslim, so the argument just turns itself in the same exact fucking manner;

a response to Muslim aggression

Tell me how the 4th crusade wasn't an embarrassment.

ottoman empire?

>No, they didn't, because before the 11th century the Christian world was not even in a situation to call a crusade even if they wanted to.

Yeah, just ignore the reconquista that'd been going on for centuries

>that the caliphate is so fucked now that holding said land just became a reality.

Which caliphate are you talking about here? By the time of Cerami there hadn't been an all encompassing caliphate for over 100 years.

>But which religion were the Seljuk Turks ffs?

Oh shit, I didn't realize that the actions of a single Muslim polity now represented all of them all of a sudden. Guess that means we can blame the Portuguese for the Northern Crusades then, right?

>It did happened a lot during the insanity of the 10th and 11th century Islam.

Exceptions to the general rule. I didn't say that forced conversion never happened. Just that it wasn't usual overall. Kind of like how the Saxon wars aren't typical examples of how Christianity was spread.

>a response to Muslim aggression
>a response to aggression from a particular Muslim country

FTFY. Muslims are not some kind of grand hive mind. Seljuk=/=Muslim. Especially when they fought the other Muslims around them just like they did the Christians. The crusades were not some kind of Muslim-Christian cold war, and when you make broad statements like "a response to Muslim aggression" you're implying far more unity among Muslims than there actually was at the time.

>western civilization
>eastern roman empire

>Muh victimrollin'

>Fighting over the imperial throne when you instead could grow some lovely cabbage.

I don't think OP was there user.

Religion as an institution was an invaluable method of political, social, and economic organization

> Yeah, just ignore the reconquista that'd been going on for centuries

He is obviously talking about the Levant here.

Is that so? Then I have to wonder why he said:

>The battle of Cerami cemented this reality for the first time since Charlemagne marched into Iberia