The Actual Crusades

Why are Christians so horribly misinformed about them?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/channel/UCpiumHmUE5EZeLTftxv9qGw
youtube.com/watch?v=X2KiF5TmSps
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Christians aren't at all misinformed about them. I don't think i've ever met a Christian that condones the crusades.
If anything, the Orthodox Christians completely despise the Catholics and the Crusades for utterly betraying them in Constantinople. Thinking about it now, i'm realizing that most Christians i associate with are Orthodox so i suppose i'm somewhat unaware of how Catholics talk about them

>comparing modern-day Christians to medieval Christians

>almost destroyed
Mate, what? There's a reason you'ðre made fun of when you talk about history.

They did murder and pillage, but were terribly misinformed by the bible that they couldnt and werent allowed to read, they got all of their info by warmongering priests and popes.

The crusades were pretty evil yes, but without them we would now be muslim, I for one am happy they happened even in the way that they did.

Muslims did a lot more conquering, raping and pillaging anyway, Christians didnt have the manpower to do the same.

>What is massacre of the Latins

>Catherism Massacre and Albigensian Crusade is the massacre of fellow Christians peasants
>fellow Christians
>peasants
>Thirty years war has anything to do with Crusades' era

If Protestants had been treated like the Cathares, the 30 years war wouldn't have happened.

Maybe because we can read old german and old italian, thanks to HEMA, and the old manuscripts don't lie.

Wikipedia is not a source. This post breaks the rules. Have fun with your ban you fucking kike.

HEMA?

>defensive wars against hundreds of years of muslim occupation of europe is 'destroying europe'

Does anyone know of any books I can read on the Crusades? Preferably ones that are impartial.

what of it. life is struggle, war is nature, get over it.

All that stuff happened, in both halves. Posting the second half does not refute the first.

Just wars against a hostile outsider don't cease to be just when you have internal conflict.

>attacking "true" Europeans and converting pagans as a negative when they were far worse than Muslims and raped, razed and pillaged everything in their sight

>Byzantium as a negative when twenty years prior they massacred 60,000 Catholic civilians, not to mention it was the Venetians and excommunicated crusaders who did it anyway in response to Greeks slaughtering resident Latins again and looting their quarters

>unironically thinking one siege beat the Muslims when their armies were too busy dealing with the West, allowing the mongols to attack them, also not bothering to mention that a large Christian force participated in the siege

>not knowing the Cathars were the epitome of all things degenerate (devil worship, human sacrifice, cannibalism, incest, homosexuality), and they opposed marriage because of the sexual aspect but were okay with fornication since it was behind closed doors, refused to take oaths making them useless to countries, and started it themselves by murdering a Catholic emissary

>thinking the Thirty Years' War was about religion when the French fought on the Protestant side and over time countries entered just to gain land and power

>not mentioning it was because of Christian coalitions that the Turks were defeated and the Balkans were given the chance to break free in the first place

The image ranges from the time of Charlemagne, long before the Crusades even began, all the way up to the Thirty Years' War, long after the crusades were over, which just goes to show how desperate the creator is in their attempt to slander.

>muh christians were all bad, the ruin europe
Fuck off Amhed... You are taking a few quotes in Wikipedia to argument a false statement

>he doesn't know about realcrusadeshistory
>implying pagans can just be left alone

> Sources from Wikipedia
Not even good bait

...

This jewtube channel is very good on the Crusades.

youtube.com/channel/UCpiumHmUE5EZeLTftxv9qGw

Video related on books

youtube.com/watch?v=X2KiF5TmSps

>They did murder and pillage, but were terribly misinformed by the bible that they couldnt and werent allowed to read, they got all of their info by warmongering priests and popes.
Gee, that sounds very familiar!

how are those two pictures mutually exclusive?

assuming all of the points in both of those pictures are correct, neither refutes the other. Why did you bother

>1 post by this ID

Oh I see.

...

i would take you seriously but you use wikimemia as a source
frankly pleb

The Northern Crusaders were justified though, those barbarians were raiding monasteries in neighboring lands (Poland) for ages and then after they got their shit rekt'd by the Teutonic Knights its been five whole centuries of dinduism

>Believing Jewish propaganda that is purely there to demonize the west and the heroic crusaders

Fuck off you cunt.

>only source is Wikipedia
OP confirmed for having failed high school.

the bible itself is jewish propoganda

Taking demonisation of the West to the next level it seems

>What Were the Crusades? Jonathan Riley-Smith 3rd edition
There is a 4th editon, would you reccomend that?

Why are you misinformed about the muslim conquests?

Afghanistan used to be Buddhist
Destroyed India
Attacked Chinese troops in Tibet
Attacked Genghis Khan's caravan and his retaliation by sacking Bagdad
Kidnapping and killing people from coastal villages all around the Mediterranean

If that is true then why do jews hate it?

bump

it exposes them as the synagogue of satan

Anything the Christians do, the Muslims will always top in terms of evil

SUBVERSION
REWRITING HISTORY

SENTENCE
DEATH

THEY
WERE
FREEING
SLAVES
CAPTURED
BY
MUSLIMS
READ
THE
FUCKING
HISTORY
BOOKS
NOT
WIKIPEDIA
YOU
DEGENERATE
MUSLIM
SUBVERSIONISTS