Seems like the morons who hate on the crusades are just the anti-theists/fagans who are still butthurt from when the crusaders blitzkrieged the baltics. >sure, the 4th crusade (which sacked and plundered) was a failure, but it doesn't speak for the first 3. >The first 3 saved Europe, thats a fact - even though they mostly fought outside of Europe. "The best defence is a good offence". >They killed countless of mudslimes and kikes, held important sieges (like the siege of Malta), and shattered muslim armies. - but most importantly, they gave Europe time - a lot of time. >The Reconquista also saved Europe, and that was defined as a crusade
Respect to the crusaders who paid the ultimate price to save Europe, so that you edgy Sup Forums basements dwellers have the freedom to sit around and bash them, while watching your countries fall apart around you
they killed too many brave european men so that the catholic church can claim their spoils of war and make a central banking system out of it.
You insipid moronic cunt
Josiah King
Repost but still true
Bentley Walker
Shut it Trudeau u commie lesbo fuck
Angel Rodriguez
You refer to the baltic crusades? >reminder that the baltic pagan tribes had literally raided, plundered and murdered christian lands for centuries before the first baltic crusade even took place
Wyatt Edwards
Oh fuck off, the fact that Sweden and Denmark shat at the sight of Latvian and Estonian raiders isn't our fault, you commie fuck.
Easton Bennett
>>The first 3 saved Europe, thats a fact They really didn't.
>The Eastern Roman Empire is under attack how can we help them? >Lets attack a completely different Muslim kingdom than the one fighting the Eastern Roman Empire >Should we have the conquests swear fealty to the Eastern Roman Empire providing a potential staging ground for future campaigns? >No, but lets tell them we will swear fealty to the Eastern Roman Empire before stabbing them in the back
>The Reconquista also saved Europe It really didn't. It might have "saved" Spain, but by the time of the reconquista the threat of a Muslim invasion of Hispania was long since passed.
>shat at the sight of Latvian and Estonian raiders
Whatever helps you sleep at night
Alexander Price
I'm referring to the eventual betrayal of the knights by the french king when he charged the order with heresy. Why did this happen? Were they not all men of God and Christ? But when you look into incorporation, a funny Roman concept, you'll learn about how all their property and gold came under the control of the people the knights singed their contract to, the holy fucking catholic church. Fast forward to today and mountain jews are laughing because their cross is the inverted version of the shield their King of Jews once carried as Bauer's but now known as Rothschild.
Luke Lopez
>They really didn't. uh yea, they did. If it wasnt for the first 3, the muslims wouldve just invaded Europe and picked off one country after another as the balkans was weak as fuck at that time. Ultimately, the muslims had to fight the crusades instead of invading Europe, they got completely shattered and had to wait for centuries longer before trying to invade the balkans.
Do you honestly think that the east was the only part being attacked? It wouldnt be long before the muds had attacked through the balkans, it was only a mattter time - but it never happened because of the crusades. Watch the videos I linked u retard. Every one of them uses legit sources and explanations.
>The Reconquista also saved Europe >It really didn't. Literally retaking Europe didnt save Europe? You're obviously a nigger because your IQ is definitely not high
Ethan Martinez
>a church in Denmark with literally an engraving on it saying >God save us from plague, famine and the Curonians
Crosscuck
Jack Peterson
>If it wasnt for the first 3, the muslims wouldve just invaded Europe The threat of Muslim conquest of Europe proper had passed by the time of the first crusade, the Eastern Roman Empire had begun to stabilize under Alexios Komnenos and Alp Arslan had died over 20 years before the start of the crusade.
>Ultimately, the muslims had to fight the crusades instead of invading Europe Not the Rummites or Seljuks who were the ones actually invading and threatening the Eastern Roman Empire. The first crusade targeted the Levant, under the rule of the Fatimids who had been warring with the Seljuks. If anything the first crusade helped prolong the Seljuk empire by crippling their main rival.
>It wouldnt be long before the muds had attacked through the balkans And that time would be a long time later. If the crusaders wanted to protect the Balkans they should have attacked the people threatening the Balkans, ie. the Sultanate of Rum.
Camden Nguyen
>Literally retaking Europe didnt save Europe? It might have saved Hispania but Europe proper was safe from Muslim invasion and had been long before the Reconquista. Also the Reconquista was almost entirely carried out by states within Hispania and would have happened regardless of the common opinion of other Europeans on the matter.
Chase Lee
>Peddling false history to an amateur historian You're gonna have to do better than that, honorary nigger
Charles Anderson
Literally nothing wrong with anti-Muslim crusades. t. heathen
John Lopez
God bless the teutons, my ancestors would have been f*gans if they didnt do their holy crusades.
Grayson Cruz
>be crusadercuck >decide to fuck up the Balkans and the Byzantines >thinks he saved Europe
LMAO go kiss nigger feet
Justin Ortiz
You truly are an armature historian if you don't know your own history
Adrian Fisher
>Muh 4th Crusade Pretty much anybody who talks about the 4th Crusade and lambaste the ones who partook in it are ignorant beyond believe as to how things turned out the way they did.
The Crusades saved Europe and I'm not gonna let some Turkic mongoloid say otherwise
Joshua Collins
It’s mostly people who have no knowledge of the crusades other than: >muh ebil Christians genocided the poor defenseless Muslims living in peace in their own lands. Most people are honestly shocked if you explain that the Middle East hasn’t always been Muslim. It’s largely edgy fedora fags who just want to shit on Christianity
Connor Johnson
Not an argument
Brandon Smith
>The threat of Muslim conquest of Europe proper had passed by the time of the first crusade The fact that you even think this just makes my brain fucking melt. So I guess the countless crucial wars/sieges held by christians into Europe after the crusades took place, (like the siege of Malta/battle of vienna/The grenada war/Crusade of Valencia/The great turkish war etc.) didnt matter because the "muslim threat had already passed"? I'm so fucking triggered by the stupidity of some people. But then again, you might be a troll. Go live in the middle east you murrimutt, because thats where you would live if it wasnt for the crusades.
The fatmids wasnt the main rivals of the Seljuks. The crusades was a main objective for both of those empires. They had to focus on the crusades in order to safely target the balkans, and even when they won the wars against the crusades, their armies remained crippled and was forced to wait for decades/centuries before trying to rebuild enough strenght to launch an attack on Europe. Which ultimately didnt happen before Europe was strong enough to defend itself (ex. the battle of vienna). If the battle of vienna had happened a couple of centuries before (which it would if it wasnt for the crusades) they wouldve lost by a large margin, and Euope itself wouldve most likely have fallen. Which is why I said in my main post: "but most importantly, they gave Europe time, a lot of time". You seem too ignorant to understand this.
