Christian armies got BTFO by Muslims in 6 out of 7 Crusades

Christian armies got BTFO by Muslims in 6 out of 7 Crusades.

Why?

Attached: saladin-vs-criusaders.jpg (1080x640, 129K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=qFYhtbDeRik
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_La_Forbie
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dorylaeum_(1097)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Damascus_(1148)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Civetot
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ephesus_(1147)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Lisbon
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Meander
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Acre_(1189–1191)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Arsuf
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Iconium_(1190)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Philomelion_(1190)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Antioch
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Lake_of_Antioch
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(1099)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Ma'arra
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Nicaea
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Al-Sannabra
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Now they're all getting dunked on by Israel.
What now?

So it's Jews >>> Muslims >>> Europeans? is this your final answer?

No, it's just

Muh dick >>> Your slut of a mother.

Retarded Pope sent west Christians to attack Byzantine and East/real Christians,no wonder they lost some battles.

It's in european blood to want to kill another european so when facing a foreigner they wanted to suck their dick

Home advantage.

Muslims were very strong back then and had powerful polities and massive armies right in that region. Crusader states relied on volunteers, donors and had to be supplied via sea.

People project XVIII-XX cent western superiority over the muslims on entire history and wonder why XIII cent Frenchmen did not just "BTFO sandniggers", whereas it was only with the industrial revolution and huge colonial empire that Western Europe had a decisive advantage and could win like Napoleon in Egypt

Attached: GOYIM.jpg (1242x1221, 412K)

long-distance logistics for a fighting force are a bitch even now
large scale preindustrial military action is only possible when the ability to ravage the land to support your troops exists, or supply lines are short and secure

Enemy territory, so longer for reinforcements to arrive, and supply lines needed plus enemy has numerical superiority and doesn't has these constraints. Plus a lot of the later crusaders were just simple farmers who were riled up by the pope to conquer the holy land not professional/veteran soldiers. And muslims at that time were not as retarded as they are now as they still had some remnants of their original culture.

This most of their lost fights were at least 12-1 in deep enemy territory.

I would guess because "God willed it" but I guess he didn't

alienated local population and non viable sea routes to sustain latin Christianity kingdoms in a very hostile environment

Jew worshiping. Centuries later when Europeans got more secular, they started doing better.

The fact that they lasted as long in deep shit with a lot of logistics against them do make me respect their devotion.

Their victories out of Europe were against terrible odds heck even their loses were fucking heroics against impossible odds.

It was literally venice (((merchants)))

fpbp

youtube.com/watch?v=qFYhtbDeRik

You forgot the most important factor: Retarded leaders. Barbarossa drowning was a strategic failure.
"Real Crusades" is a farce. They cherry-pick historians and treat them as some sort of prophets, without describing any historical evidence to support those historians because, most of the time, there aren't any.
>Siege of Malta
That siege wasn't even part of the Crusades. You can't even name an example of the Crusades. All you can do is repeat things you've heard without any understanding.
>The Crusades was just one elite force
Imagine being this ignorant. Crusades was varied when it came to quality of the armies. Though they were typically lead by retards since Europe lacked intelligent leaders for centuries. Richard Lionheart was an exception to the general rule.
>But they still never lost a battle unless they were outnumbered
You're talking out of your ass: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_La_Forbie
There's also other examples involve turkics fighting against Crusaders near Anatolia.
>many crusader victories which were so utterly important for Europe's survivial.
There wasn't a single one. Even the example of Malta wouldn't have mattered anyway. Malta is an island close to North Africa. Even if it fell under Muslim rule, as it's been before, it could have been captured by Christians later. And Malta is very overrated. It's not at the center of anything.
>And the general effects the crusades gave was tremendously positive.
It literally led to the sacking of Constantinople, the greatest Christianity city of the time and arguably there may not have been a conquest by Ottomans later. You're a fool.

>Now they've cucked Israel so badly that it won't go to war with them and the US does it instead.
ftfy

If you read about the first crusade it’s honeslty a miracle they pulled it off. At so many points they should have been completely fucked but managed to pull through. It’s no wonder the rest didn’t succeed.

Attached: DBB14F99-1439-4E45-B337-FE99B45E93B0.jpg (480x399, 21K)

>fighting in a desert with full armour
>little to no reinforcements
>unknown and hostile land the crusaders have never been to
>limited supplies and rations for the journey
>members were just ordinary people, few of them were actual war veterans
Just a couple I can think of.

Muslim factions and dynasties lasted far longer in Europe than European Catholic ones did in the Middle East. Much of Iberia was under Muslim rule for 700 years. The Crusaders were incompetent in political affairs and rule. Muslims followed a derived Persian model of ruling over communities, which is proven to be more effective than the post-Roman Barbarian kingdom inspired way of doing things.

see Vietnam

Crusaders didn't have full armor during the early Crusades and arguably even in the late ones. That whole "Crusaders in full plate armor" is a dumb meme. Those armors weren't even common among knights of the 11th to 14th centuries.
>little to no reinforcements
This is not a good excuse, it's just evidence of lack of strategic depth found in Crusades.
>limited supplies and rations for the journey
The Middle East had rations after their seizing of towns and cities. It's not like they lost most of their men due to famine on the way there anyway.
>members were just ordinary people, few of them were actual war veterans
England initially wrecked havoc in France with a bunch of sheep fuckers from Wales who knew how to use a bow.
Speaking of the English, they were the only good thing out of the crusades. Lionheart fought well and wasn't a complete retard. Franks were weak, Germans were retarded. He used the fact that he had a small force to his advantage: mobility, cohesion and rapid strikes.

i would assume it had a lot to do with muslims being closer to their supply lines and christians believing they literally can't lose because god wants them to win

Well Muslims were fighting and spending lots of resources against each other. The Turkics were on a roll and fought everyone else, including themselves. Crusaders could have kept that advantage in their favor after the first Crusade.

>Speaking of the English, they were the only good thing out of the crusades.
Godefroy de Boulogne would disagree

>"Real Crusades" is a farce
"Anything I dont like is a farce". Feel free to point out something theyve said that is false.
>That siege wasn't even part of the Crusades.
Uh yeah, it was. It was a crusader order that defended it.
>Crusades was varied when it came to quality of the armies
Not really. The knights were the best warriors in Europe (perhaps the world) at that time. The casual templars (aka. the peasents) were extraordinary trained by the knight templars regarding tactics, battle formations, sword/sprear/bow practice etc. Virtually everything they did was military practice, eating and praying. The crusader army qucikly became very powerful in terms of value per man, and became the most powerful army in all of Europe (and perhaps the world), when we judge by effectiveness % per man. The problem was was their few numbers and the fact that they fought in foreign, unknown lands. They also had 0 chance to be supplied/reinforced.
>You're talking out of your ass
No, you are, with your shitt cherry picked examples. 90%+ of the battles were won even despite being outnumbered. That speaks volumes by itself. Even when they were outnumbered against garrisoned muslims they still won. Look at the siege of Antioch f.ex: less than 35.000 crusaders against 60-70.000 heavily garrisoned muslim troops. They should NEVER have won that, but they still won with relatively few losses. And countless more such examples. Virtually every battle the crusaders fought in general was fought despite being heavily outnumbered. I bet youre just a butthurt muslim
>Even the example of Malta wouldn't have mattered anyway.
This is something only a mutt or a leaf would say. youre literally the white niggers of the white race. The siege of malta was one of the most important battles in our history you dumb fuck, along with the battle of lepanto. It denied the entire muslim navy to roam free and eventually invade Italy. Youre fucking retarded.

Attached: (((YOU))).png (211x239, 4K)

He's overrated and was mythified because of an easy victory of what was considered a very important city to Christians. The Franks won in the siege of Jerusalem because the Fatimids already got pummeled by the Seluks before hand, drawing away important forces from the south Levant. Fatimids have been getting their ass kicked every since by everyone and lost Egypt to the Turkics.

And he played a minor role in the taking of Nicaea. In Jerusalem, Fatimids were left with just a garrison and few hundreds of Calvary.
>"Anything I dont like is a farce"
Your seflie matches your mindset. You're incapable of reading, which is why you need dimwits on Youtube to "educate" you about history.
>Feel free to point out something theyve said that is false.
There's plenty. They claimed Ibn Khaldun was half Visigoth when there's zero evidence to suggest so, during the videos on Christian Iberia.
>Uh yeah, it was. It was a crusader order that defended it.
It wasn't part of the Crusades. The Pope didn't call on the Knights there to take Malta or to fight against Muslims. Though he wouldn't have disagreed, Crusades are offensives against heathen and Saracen owned territory.
>The knights were the best warriors in Europe (perhaps the world) at that time.
Which is why thousands of them ran way after their king died? You're dumb.
>they were the best!
>extraordinary!
>became very powerful!
Yet they performed vastly differently in each Crusades. You're not making any sense. Most of the Crusades happened in foreign land, that part of the equation doesn't change. Yet the performance varied widely, which suggest many Crusaders were quite frankly either incompetent, lead by idiots or both.
>with your shitt cherry picked examples
You made an absolute claim. All I needed was one example. Learn not to make dumb claims.
>90%+ of the battles were won even despite being outnumbered.
Citation needed about "90%+".

>They should NEVER have won that, but they still won with relatively few losses
They fought against divided forces (The Turkics had internal political rivalries) and won a Pyrrhic victory. They suffered heavy casualties.
>I bet youre just a butthurt muslim
>hurr durr anyone who questions my bullshit claims must be a Muslim! Those Muslims are so much smarter than me being so skeptical!
Your mentality says a lot about you.
>hurr durr siege of Malta was the most important! Because I've heard other people say so, I can't think for myself!
Again, you're a Zombie who can only repeat things. Or perhaps Golem is a better word? It explains why your kind is so subservient to Israel.
Malta was irrelevant. When North Muslims captured before, it didn't magically make them capable of conquering Europe. The same was true for Ottomans, you retard.

>along with the battle of lepanto
So you're equating the battle of Lepanto which severely limited Ottoman naval dominance in the Mediterranean to siege of Malta? The battle of Lepanto literally happened at their doorsteps. You don't just fail at history, you fail at basic geography. Next you're going to say Africa is a country.
>It denied the entire muslim navy to roam free and eventually invade Italy.
Muslims conquered Sicily before Malta before. Again you're an absolute retard who doesn't understand the simple fact that Sicily and other parts of Italy can be invaded in different directions. Malta wasn't the center of anything, except of your dumb mind at this moment.
Here's another selfie of you.

Attached: 1531343247739.png (550x543, 50K)

>Crusaders didn't outnumber their opponents many times!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dorylaeum_(1097)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Damascus_(1148)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Civetot
But of course the idiots thinks contrary evidence is "cherrypicking". You argue exactly how Hitler described how Jewish elites in Europe argued.

>Your seflie matches your mindset.
In other words, you have no argument.
>Ibn Khaldun was half Visigoth
lmfao, holy shit bro. You completely btfo RCH for all eternity right there.. yeah give a real example regarding the CRUSADES which actually have some value in the work that they do, faggot.
>It wasn't part of the Crusades.
It wasnt a part of a single force that tried to take holy land no, but It was a part of the crusaders league in the sense that it was a crusader order. It was literally a crusader HQ.
>Citation needed about "90%+".
An educated guess. The absolute vast majority of their battles/sieges were won. (and thats not even counting the countless indivdual sieges held crusaders, such as the siege of malta).
There were also several other, less known crusades such as the Norwegian Crusade which won every single battle.
heres the majority of the 1st-3rd crusades battles:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ephesus_(1147)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Lisbon
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Meander
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Acre_(1189–1191)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Arsuf
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Iconium_(1190)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Philomelion_(1190)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Antioch
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Lake_of_Antioch
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dorylaeum_(1097)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(1099)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Ma'arra
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Nicaea
>Which is why thousands of them ran way after their king died?
I guess this is the kind of arguments brainlets falls back on after theyve lost

Why?

One word. Logistics.

And the muslims were pretty good at desert warfare. But 90% logistics.

You know, amateurs talk tactics when discussing battle plans. Pros talk logistics.

>They fought against divided forces
yeah, that makes a good excuse for still losing despite outnumbering them while garrisoned.
>Malta was irrelevant.
It was literally the most celebrated victory in the 16th century europe. The fact that you say Malta is irrelevant immeditely strips you of any credibility.
It was the most important battle as the muslims needed it to make a navy based attack on Italy.
>So you're equating the battle of Lepanto which severely limited Ottoman naval dominance in the Mediterranean to siege of Malta?
im equating them in the sense that they were both extremely important in holding Europe. Are you even trying to make sense anymore?

Also this battle had sides with relatively similar size.
>In other words, you have no argument.
Says the retard that started his post with a projection.
>o. You completely btfo RCH for all eternity right there..
Exactly so. The fact that RCH (Retarded cuckolds of History) made such an easily defeatable statement shows they know NOTHING of what they're talking about. Zilch.
Retarded Cucks (Or Christians, same thing really) of History also stated Crusades helped unite Europe for centuries. That's false since Crusades led to more wars of Christians against Christians and more division within Catholic kingdoms.

Again, EVERYTHING they've stated is false. everything.
>some value in the work
>work
BWAHAHAHAHAHA. So apologetics and historical revisionism is now work, huh? Retarded Christcucks are incapable of doing any intellectual work, unless you count lying and plagiarism to be work.
>It wasnt a part of a single force that tried to take holy land no,
So you admit you're wrong. Next.
>An educated guess.
It's not educated if you can't back it up with an an academic citation. Learn what "educated" means, though it seems you lack the synapses to read a dictionary as well.
>vast majority of their battles/sieges were won
And sometimes they were of similar size. At other times, they were outnumbered their opponents.
>. (and thats not even counting the countless indivdual sieges held crusaders, such as the siege of malta).
It's very easy to inflate the numbers when you add battles that were not part of the Crusades, retard.
>heres the majority of the 1st-3rd crusades battles:
>ignores the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th crusades.
It's interesting you ignore most of the Crusades which had most of the examples of Crusaders getting completely humiliated. 5th Crusade had a large Christian force that got DESTROYED by Muslim Ayyubids.

>I guess this is the kind of arguments brainlets
You made the claim they were elite troops. Elite warriors don't end up running away at the first sign of strife. A brainlet like you is of course incapable of knowing what an argument is.
Also some of your examples are bogus
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Meander
>unknown
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Lisbon
>Christians outnumbered Muslim
You can't even come up with accurate examples. Your whole ideology, mentality and way of life is founded on myths and idiocies.
>yeah, that makes a good excuse for still losing despite outnumbering them while garrisoned.
When there's no united front, a division renders defense impossible.
>It was literally the most celebrated victory in the 16th century europe.
That's not a strategic or geopolitical benefit. The battle over the Nazis in Western and Northern France was celebrated all over America as well, but it was the Russians who really gave it to the Germans. Celebration is not evidence of fact, it's evidence of opinion you subhuman troglodyte.
>The fact that you say Malta is irrelevant immeditely strips you of any credibility.
This reads like a Reddit reply, or better yet they way how NPCs argue against Trump supporters: "OMG I can't believe you just said that! You're totally wrong because I say so!"
>muslims needed it to make a navy based attack on Italy.
There wasn't any need. Muslims previously conquered Sicily before Malta. What part of historical precedence does your dimwitted programming not understand?
>im equating them in the sense that they were both extremely important in holding Europe
And I refute your silly use of Malta as an example. Lepanto limited Ottoman naval presence throughout all of the Mediterranean. Not Malta. Italy could have been invaded in other spots. The Ottomans were going for what they thought was an easy victory to satisfy their Sultan. They likely wouldn't have invaded Italy even after taking Malta.

Forgot to quote battle in first sentence: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Al-Sannabra

Let's see those other articles you idiotically cited to see if the barbarian kike worshipers were really outnumbered:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ephesus_(1147)
>no mention of size
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Meander
>no mention of size
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Iconium_(1190)
Though it states other side was larger, it doesn't claim it doubled the size unlike what you've been stating
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Acre_(1189–1191)
>Same size force
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dorylaeum_(1097)
>Crusaders had MORE combatants, more than 3 times the size
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(1099)
>Crusaders had a LARGER size
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Nicaea
>Crusaders had a LARGER size
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Ma'arra
>unknown
So only two examples. That's not 90% of cases. Upon further examination, it looks like Crusaders were the orcs and in some cases had orc-like elites. I have to use this example since this is how your drug addled mind operates. Your view of Muslim forces are completely wrong. It's a projection of how Crusaders often were.
It's no wonder you follow Retarded Christcucks of History knowing. You can't properly cite and, when you try, you end up bringing up examples that prove you wrong.

>Who do you think has owned the US since the 30's.
Isreal is truly cucked...
>Yes, I know it didn't really exist yet in the 1930's

Also. This is only 1st to 3rd Crusades. If the others are taken into account, Crusaders have even less victories as a % and the victories which has them being outnumbered drops as well. The most favorable Crusades to make Crusaders look like capable niggers doesn't even show a clear picture of their supposed prowess.

>Exactly so.
lmfao, you cant provide a single argument regarding the crusades that RCH provided that is false. If your only argument is regarding the ethnicity of some dude then youve already lost. And you havent even provided a proper counter-argument against that either. lmao.
>Retarded Christcucks are incapable of doing any intellectual work
is this what you white niggers falls back on when you can provide an actual argument? The fact that youre a leaf makes no surprise though. Im glad youre being bred out of existance soon (no huge loss for the white race). Youre literally the white niggers of the white race anyway.
>So you admit you're wrong.
No, I think you need to re-read what Ive said.
>It's not educated if you can't back it up with an an academic citation
An educated guess is taking the battles/sieges that were fought and their wins/losses and make a guess out of these statistics, brainlet.
>It's very easy to inflate the numbers when you add battles that were not part of the Crusades
Are you having a hard time reading what I even say? lmfao
>It's interesting you ignore most of the Crusades
the rest of the crusades werent even "crusades" compared to the first 3. But if I had counted their battles it wouldnt have made much of a difference. The 9th crusade f.ex. wasnt huge but they still won the absolute majority of their battles
>You made the claim they were elite troops.
They were elite troops in the sense that they were training 15+ hours a day. The fact that you even deny the knights were elite troops screws your credibility even harder. You make a cherry picked examples of "knights running away" (which is not even true) and generalize all of them throughout history? What kind of a fucking nigger are you?
>You can't even come up with accurate examples.
I listed the majority of the battles. The fact that you can only cherry pick a couple that were won as a heavier force speaks volumes by itself.

>When there's no united front, a division renders defense impossible.
They were very much unified under the siege, and they even had plenty of relief forces which still didnt help them. The mere fact that you try to take away this massive accomplishment by saying they werent "unified" tells me how much a traitor you are to your ancestors, or perhaps youre just a muslim (which is probably even more likely at this point in cucknada).
>That's not a strategic or geopolitical benefit.
Youve already lost, bro. The fact that you even deny the siege of malta as a crucial battles literally strips you from any credibilty what so ever. Virtually any historian or any intellctual with a basic sense of history knows how much Malta was worth at that point. I obviously dont expect much from you leaf-niggers anyway though. Youre a fucking disgrace when you try to argue about european history.
>There wasn't any need
Yes, there was a huge fucking need you dense fuck. The muslim navy was the absolute strongest in the world at that time and all they needed was a navy base near italy in order to invade it. Holy fuck youre so retarded. even for a fucking leaf.
>And I refute your silly use of Malta as an example
You havent refuted shit, mongrel. Malta limited ottoman naval presence as well. The battle of lepanto and the siege of malta were both extremely important in the sense of limiting naval presence. The siege of malta saw an estimate up to 35.000 ottoman deaths, including most of their crucial ships. And it completely shut down any threat of ottoman naval presence there again. The battle of lepanto just a few years later was the final blow on the ottoman fleet, and they never rose a new fleet that could ever threaten the Christian navy again. Learn some history you inbred muslim dicksucker

I meant 90% of battles were won, not that all of them were won whilst being outnumbered. Mightve been poor choice of words but a literate monkey would know what I meant.

European coalition of traditionally rival nations successfully captured the Holy Land and established the Kingdom of Jerusalem which lasted for longer than the United States has been a country. At the same time Christian forces were successfully retaking the Iberian peninsula and removing Islamic powers from western Europe and still control this land to this day.
While Christians eventually lost the Holy Land they ultimately walked away from the Crusades in a stronger position with a strong control of Western Europe and the remains of the Byzantine Empire to act as a buffer preventing Islamic agression coming from Eastern Europe, and having reestablished naval superiority in the Mediterranean during the crusades Islamic invasion by sea was virtually impossible. Islam would not pose a threat to Europe again until the fall of Constantinople and the rise of the Ottomans.
Christians lost the Holy lands but certainly won the Crusades.

Attached: cc7bb737ddc49db2e1b8f905a18af9c2.jpg (1400x1904, 322K)

Logistics

also I wouldn't call the 3rd Crusade a BTFO. Lionheart whooped plenty of Muzzie ass

Attached: 1541658509479.webm (800x450, 2.83M)

Because whites suck at war.

How many of these threads are you going to make tonight? It's Friday don't you have a shift at the kebab shop?

>the remains of the Byzantine Empire to act as a buffer preventing Islamic agression coming from Eastern Europe

Nope, weakened Byzantines with stunts like the fourth cursade and lead to the Turks walking over them.

>The Crusades ended in 1291
>Constantinople fell in 1453
Thats over a century that Islam could not even touch Europe. And even when the Ottomans did reach Europe they still were repelled at Vienna in both in 1529 and again in 1683. Preventing the Ottomans from ever reaching the core of Western Europe. Had the Crusades and Reconquista never happened Europe would have found itself in a two front war with Islamic forces pushing up from Iberia as well as from Eastern Europe and the west would likely have fallen to Islam by the 1600s.

Bogdan i noticed you post the same shit in several threads.
>i love black dick
>whites suck at war
stop being a faggot lol

>let’s secure muh Jerusalem which has no strategic value instead of taking acre, crossroads of the holy land
Yes they did eventually take acre but it’s decisions like this plus euro infighting that make for a bad campaign
Also the logistics of supporting a medieval army thousands of miles away is tricky

You March hundreds of miles and fight in a fucking desert against the locals

Because Catholics are pagans who larp as Christians.

By Europeans you mean Christians, right?!

Sounds like you don't actually understand the breadth of the crusades.

Based!!

superior numbers, home field advantage, defenders advantage.

I am not Bogdan and its the truth every time whites fought an enemy which is equal to them in terms of technology or army size they get destroyed.

Byzantines were the bulwark for christian europe, do not kid yourself. Once they fell Roaches quickly spread across the balkans, reaching Vienna twice.
There is a reason Islam during its initial expansion did not come up through the balkans but went the long way around to Iberia.

Same reason evil wins at other times

Fucking jews

Still, a small group of Northwestern Europeans making kingdoms for two centuries in the heartland of Middle East when muslims were supposed to be far more advanced and powerful is a great rare feat and unprecedented in history

Attached: C02FF27D-4091-496B-A167-515B479F9E47.png (300x413, 70K)

the purpose of the crusades was to retake Jerusalem from the Muslims, not taking Jerusalem=fail.