Fredda's video was full of unnecessary ad-homs.
But pax video was so short it didn't really cover everything in that much detail.
I'm going to go with pax, though.
His thesis makes more sense, if he (or someone else) expanded it it would be great.

>>16527565
I don't know how a modern person with a shred of empathy can read the first-hand accounts of crusades written by the crusaders themselves, detailing all of the slaughter they committed and say: yeah, it was totally awesome! even if the campaign itself was arguably justified, clearly there was no reason to kill civilians

>>16527565
Both videos are very inconsistant and surface level for the sake of pushing a modern day political narrative, neither of them actually cares about the crusades or the geopolitical stage they were set in.

>>16527565
I actually used to like video essays before they got popular

>>16527589
>detailing all of the slaughter they committed
Very possible it was mostly all an hyperbole, and while it's true they murdered a lot of civilians i do not see people seethe to the same extent for the massacre of the latins, the siege of bagdhad (which was far more disastrous fo the muslim world than the crusades) or the level of oppression muslims subjected the christians in the levant and north africa.

>>16527565
>Bands of western negro adventures terrorizing the Levant, litteraly they're just to kill and loot because they never had the means or conviction to effectively conquer the region and form a power base there
>ends in litteraly every crusader and Westerner being enslaved or killed in the region (LOL)
>irrelevant past the terrorizing they caused, didn't even inhibit the Islamic powers, as later a Turkish state (one of the Muslims there were supposedly there to beat back fir christendom(lol) would Rise and push deeper into Europe than any other Islamic caliphate
>this despite the Christian menace rallying with pagan mongol hordes
>this was a success, actually an underrated one

Litteraly only lauded by ignorant retards and fantasy fans, though that might be redundant.

>>16527616
>>16527589
>>16527565
They were not awesome nor horrible, they’re just history. History has been nothing but savage wars for as pong as humanity has existed.
And anyones who look at history from the lens of empathy, morality or “the poor civillians” as if the common man ever mattered is an idiot.

>>16527651
Yes but for some reason people lose their shit in particular when it comes to the crusades, people really just start clutching their pearls like there's no tomorrow when they're brought up. That's what doesn't make sense to me, they didn't do anything that literally any other group hadn't done.

imagine the world where all niggers sandniggers poos chinks and other shit-colored animals wiped out by christian missionaries
the sole fact it didn't happen proves rabbi yeshua isn't a real god and mary the whore was raped by a roman soldier

>>16527616
this is just whataboutism though. just because some other people had heinous war conduct as well doesn't excuse the heinous war conduct of the crusaders. pax's video ascribes positive moral judgment to the crusades, but I see no convincing arguments for it. in the end: lots of people on both sides died and the crusaders didn't achieve anything consequential (the levant is almost entirely muslim or jewish nowadays). it would have been better if they just stayed home, no matter how you look at it. but that's not as cool, I suppose. it's not like there wasn't stuff for them to do in europe. you know, some of the commanders had sizeable realms that fell into ruin while they were gone.

>>16527629
You're right. Anons don't know how hypocritical it makes them look for complaining about "muh evil shitskins" while defending one of the most retarded series of wars in history which just ended with the crusaders running away to go murder a bunch of Snow monkeys in the North because they were less technologically advanced than Arabs and easier to mass murder because of it.

>>16527668
I guess savagery in the name of money, power are more understandble to people than savagery in the name of religion.
Though at the end of the day even wars fought in the name of religion are on the down low about money and power.

Also a lot of svagery happened in the crusades on both sides and it last for two hundred years and is very well documented.

>>16527651
someone who gets it
wars in the past was not a matter of "victims vs aggressors" or "good guys vs bad guys;" it was simply winners and losers

>>16527724
>Also a lot of svagery happened in the crusades
As opposed to other wars? Again, I don't get the pearl clutching when it comes to the crusades when all wars are like that.

>>16527709
>this is just whataboutism though. just because some other people had heinous war conduct as well doesn't excuse the heinous war conduct of the crusaders.
I think it's important the same standard is applied across the board when looking at historical events, persononally i believe it is stupid to look at historical events through 21st century morals, but if someone believes this not to be the case then they should look at all of history in this way, but this does not happen, as they are not trying to understand the historical event and its context but rather they go in with an agenda and intend to get out of it with arguments to push their pre conceived ideas, making for inconsistant recalling of events (which is what happened in both of those videos). People complaining about the crusades are often biased and hypocritical. The crusades should simply be seen as a historical event that occurred due to various factors, full stop, no need to impose a moral judgement.
>lots of people on both sides died and the crusaders didn't achieve anything consequential
Those events happened centuries ago, no shit things change, The first crusade succeeded in terms of establishing christian kingdoms, later crusades might have failed or partially succeeded in their aims, and with time the crusader states were dissolved, this doesn't matter though, geopolitical shifts occur, that doesn't mean the crusades were inconsequential.
>it would have been better if they just stayed home, no matter how you look at it.
Why would this be the case? How do you define "better", that is what is good and bad in history according to you?

>>16527651
This. A lot of it is from people letting their modern sensibilities get in the way. Nothing they did was unique for the time. It’s often a double standard too, as if Muslims were doing the same thing elsewhere on top of abducting people from European coastlines and selling them into slavery, including sexual slavery.

>>16527651
What a retarded take. Too stupid to even be a moral relativist which actually makes sense, just instead going old thing not bad because old. I can say Ghengis Khan's conquests were not evil, because from his peoples morality and the morality of the people he was surrounded by it wasn't evil. It wouldn't be considered evil for almost a thousand years in the moral zeitgeist. Lots of the losers were butt hurt, but they didn't consider themselves evil when the shoe was on their foot, so it's just cope. You just drool and go old thing not evil because old. What a little bitch.

>>16527691
Jesus was a brown person retard.

>>16527691
>imagine the world if Christians committed a series of impossible genocides
>the fact they didn't means the Talmud is right about Jesus
Strange take.

>>16527763
>that is what is good and bad in history according to you?
fewer people dying violent deaths is better

>>16527589
Islam took 2/3rds of Christendom. A micro retaliation as the Crusades is nothing.

>>16527827
Shalom!

>>16527881
But you baselessly assume that the crusaders (and their leaders especially) cared about 'Christendom' as a concept. And the reality of it is that they were often just as happy to sack Christian cities as they were to sack Muslim ones.

>>16527887
You have to be very specific when you say "they". They who? The first crusade? They didn't do that. I suspect you're talking about the fourth crusade, at which case they did so because they were quite literally stranded in the mediterranean and had no way of going back home, and a lot of them just chose to leave and return home on their own however they could rather than attacking a fellow Christian city, if you're talking about Constantinople, they didn't even consider them to be Christians. I see the fourth crusade as basically Spec Ops: The Line but IRL.

>>16527565

>Paxtube
To the guillottine it goes

File: 1688489119935[1].jpg (53 KB, 750x563)

53 KB JPG

>From the confines of Jerusalem and the city of Constantinople a horrible tale has gone forth and very frequently has been brought to our ears, namely, that the kingdom of the Persians has invaded the lands of those Christians and has depopulated them by the sword, pillage and fire; it has led away a part of the captives into its own country, and a part it has destroyed by cruel tortures; it has either entirely destroyed the churches of God or appropriated them for the rites of its own religion.

>When they wish to torture people by a base death, they perforate their navels, and dragging forth the extremity of the intestines, bind it to a stake; then with flogging they lead the victim around until the viscera having gushed forth the victim falls prostrate upon the ground. Others they bind to a post and pierce with arrows. Others they compel to extend their necks and then, attacking them with naked swords, attempt to cut through the neck with a single blow. What shall I say of the abominable rape of the women? To speak of it is worse than to be silent.

>The kingdom of the Greeks is now dismembered by them and deprived of territory so vast in extent that it cannot be traversed in a march of two months. On whom therefore is the labor of avenging these wrongs and of recovering this territory incumbent, if not upon you? You, upon whom above other nations God has conferred remarkable glory in arms, great courage, bodily activity, and strength to humble the hairy scalp of those who resist you.

>Today you murder one another, wage war, and frequently you perish by mutual wounds. Let therefore hatred depart from among you, let your quarrels end, let wars cease, and let all dissensions and controversies slumber. Enter upon the road to the Holy Sepulcher; wrest that land from the wicked.

>>16527565
Based on their cadence of speaking, it’s clear pax has the bigger dick

>>16527763
>The crusades should simply be seen as a historical event that occurred due to various factors, full stop, no need to impose a moral judgement.
Nah, this is bad faith as fuck. You want to keep the question open as to whether it was good or bad so that christian zealots have a leg to stand on when they make a case for why violent warfare over control for some backward, desert shithole is actually not such a bad thing after all.
The fact of the matter is that there is simply no reason not to cast moral judgements on historical events, especially when the parties involved in those historical events are still around today and believe similar things to what they believed back then.

>>16527914
>Nah, this is bad faith as fuck.
How the fuck is it bad faith?
>You want to keep the question open as to whether it was good or bad so that christian zealots have a leg to stand on when they make a case for why violent warfare over control for some backward, desert shithole is actually not such a bad thing after all.
This is the literal definition of bad faith. You're assuming the absolute worst thing about the other person.
>The fact of the matter is that there is simply no reason not to cast moral judgements on historical events
You can if you want, but everyone else will do the same to you. The reason we don't do it is because it doesn't make any sense to judge people from the past for their actions when they had a completely different set of morality than ours, it would be just as retarded for people a thousand years in the future judging us for our actions and our morals.
>especially when the parties involved in those historical events are still around today and believe similar things to what they believed back then.
How many Christians do you see calling for Christians to go and wage war on the levant and establish a Christian kingdom there and taking Jerusalem? The fight then was between Muslims and Christians, the fight now is between Jews and Muslims.

>>16527589
>there was no reason to kill civilians
That's how wars were fought retards. Armies need logistics, and civilians provide such logistics. You kill the civilians and the enemy army cant eat or get fresh equipment.

File: baldwin_becomes_king_of_j(...).png (48 KB, 716x206)

48 KB PNG

>>16527893
>they were quite literally stranded in the mediterranean and had no way of going back home, and a lot of them just chose to leave and return home on their own however they could rather than attacking a fellow Christian city
But many didn't.
>if you're talking about Constantinople, they didn't even consider them to be Christians.
The person I was replying to was mostly talking about Byzantine territories when they said "Islam took 2/3rds of Christendom". What had Muslims conquered that had been Christian but not Orthodox at the time of the crusades? Spain? Not much when you compare it to all of Syria, Egypt, Carthage, Sicily (well, the last one was already Catholic at the time of crusades) and some parts of Anatolia. And Spain was in the other direction! Also: the fact they didn't want to consider them Christian, doesn't mean they weren't. What serious doctrinal differences were there between Catholicism and Orthodoxy at the time?
>I see the fourth crusade as basically Spec Ops: The Line but IRL.
But the objective truth is that it ruined a Christian state. Which makes me naturally questions the motivations of previous crusaders during the previous crusades as well. You know how County of Edessa came to be, right? Baldwin basically decided to settle in Cilician Armenia and then let his adoptive father get murdered just so that he could take over. Why would he do that if he cared about Christianity or Jesus? Why wouldn't he want to go to Jerusalem instead? Jesus didn't teach in Edessa, that's for sure. The easiest explanation is that he joined the crusade to seek worldly power in the first place. I know he'd help the rest of the crusaders later on. But did he do that because of any spiritual reason, or just because he thought an ally in the region would be good to have? And he later became a King of Jerusalem himself, but maybe he just did it because ruling Jerusalem came with more prestige than ruling some backwater.

>only occupy strips of coastline
>give up and start attacking slightly different europeans (Cathars) and the remaining pagans in the northern europe
dumb christcucks. The loss of life from the intra european crusades surpassed anything done in the middle east
>>16527893
retard they attacked a catholic city for the venetians first.

>>16527926
>Armies need logistics, and civilians provide such logistics. You kill the civilians and the enemy army cant eat or get fresh equipment.
Wut? Why would you do that after capturing a city when they can only provide food and equipment for YOU then? Most civilian death happened after sieges, not as some sort of scorched earth tactic. It was clearly just mindless and misguided retaliation driven by wrath and nothing else.

>>16527947
ignore that dude. The crusaders always messed up due to their bloodlust. The major fail was when they invaded the fatimid caliphate and wiped out a christian city which led to the christians in egypt turning against them which was one of the reasons the invasion failed. Like come on at least have the self control to only kill muslim civilians

>>16527565
theyre both retarded but in this point fredda at the very least does not come off as an autistic manchild whose entire world view is built off of paradox video games and twitter posts.
the question of whether the crusades were “justified” is a rather nonsensical one based on modern sensibilities of what exactly “just” war is. the normans went out and conquered plenty of kingdoms across europe and we dont really question much whether they were justified (with the exception of some asshurt anglos) its the concept of a christian west vs a muslim east that draws so much critical review.
the obvious conclusion is normally that, yeah, war is le bad, and in an ideal world it wouldnt exist. alot of christians at the time recognized that, unfortunately that’s not enough to stop people from killing each other

>>16527943
>But many didn't.
Yes, because they saw it as a better option to get paid to attack a Christian city so that they could go on with the crusade (for which the Pope excommunicated them, actually), not because they didn't give a shit about religion.
>Not much when you compare it to all of Syria, Egypt, Carthage, Sicily (well, the last one was already Catholic at the time of crusades) and some parts of Anatolia.
Remember that the Great Schism had just happened a couple of decades back, so the separation between East and West hadn't solidified in people's minds, plus there there still Latin Christians in the Levant.
>And Spain was in the other direction! Also: the fact they didn't want to consider them Christian, doesn't mean they weren't.
Whose perspective are we talking about? Yours or theirs? Last time I checked you weren't there, they were.
>What serious doctrinal differences were there between Catholicism and Orthodoxy at the time?
The Primacy of the Papacy, Filioque.
>But the objective truth is that it ruined a Christian state.
Again, for Catholics in the Middle Ages Orthodox Christians were not even Christians at all, why do you think so many military orders went to Eastern Europe to fight Russians?
>Which makes me naturally questions the motivations of previous crusaders during the previous crusades as well.
Fucking why? The people who fought in the fourth crusade are not the same as the ones who went to the other three. You need to stop seeing them as one united event and start seeing each crusade individually.
>But did he do that because of any spiritual reason, or just because he thought an ally in the region would be good to have?
I'm really having a hard time understanding why is it so difficult for you to see that people have multiple motivations for doing things and that one does not exculde or negate the other.
>>16527946
>retard they attacked a catholic city for the venetians first.
I literally addressed that in the post you're replying to.

>>16527920
>This is the literal definition of bad faith. You're assuming the absolute worst thing about the other person.
I'm not assuming anything, I'm pointing out the only reasonable justification for your bizarre "we can never judge any aspect of history ever, otherwise people might judge our actions, and that's bad because.... uh, because stop asking questions?"
Things only improve when you can take discrete instances of morally dubious conduct and repeatedly scrutinize it, that's why in the US legal system, cases can get appealed multiple times.
To say "oh, well, people thought differently back then, so I guess it's just whatever. You can't really judge people by their actions, because people back in the day thought evil actions were good and good actions were evil." isn't sufficient. You're just equivocating like a pussy because you don't want people to drill down to asking the question of WHY people back then thought objectively evil acts were acceptable so that maybe we can readjust our own society to ensure that evil doesn't become normalized.
I mean, to use a really ridiculous hypothetical, do you think we should just not attempt to morally judge the nazis for their actions because "oh, pssh, you know, yeah they killed a whole bunch of people but, like, you know, c'mon, they were acting under color of law!"
In equivocating and saying that our modern morals really aren't any better or worse than those of the crusaders, you're leaving the door open for someone to, like I said, make the case that what the crusaders did was actually good, like whoever the faggot eceleb in the OP is. I have to assume that you don't actually believe that you can critique bad moral decisions from history, because no one applies that insane principle to everything (unless you wanna argue that we can't judge Hitler and Pol Pot), which reveals that it's just a charade to advance your own repugnant beliefs.

>>16527976
>I'm not assuming anything

>You want to keep the question open as to whether it was good or bad so that christian zealots have a leg to stand on when they make a case for why violent warfare over control for some backward, desert shithole is actually not such a bad thing after all.

>I know this for a fact.

>>16527964
>Yes, because they saw it as a better option to get paid to attack a Christian city so that they could go on with the crusade (for which the Pope excommunicated them, actually), not because they didn't give a shit about religion.
And they broke at least three commandments by doing that.
6th: "Thou shalt not kill."
8th: "Thou shalt not steal."
New commandment: "That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another."
Also that's the cardinal sin of pride when you consider yourself and your crusade so important that sacking a Christian city is acceptable.
>the Great Schism had just happened a couple of decades back
The Great Schism is a meme. It was a stupid quarrel between the Catholic Pope and the Byzantine Emperor, that's what it was.
>The Primacy of the Papacy, Filioque.
First one just concerns the struggle over temporary power. And Filioque is an incredibly stupid argument. It's an addition so minor and insignificant that it could have only spiraled into conflict because the people involved were retards.
>Whose perspective are we talking about? Yours or theirs? Last time I checked you weren't there, they were.
Christian perspective. God didn't suddenly change his mind between the modern times and 13th century.
>Again, for Catholics in the Middle Ages Orthodox Christians were not even Christians at all, why do you think so many military orders went to Eastern Europe to fight Russians?
First: they didn't come there specifically to fight Russians, they started fighting them after the pagan Baltic tribes were conquered. Oh, and that wasn't morally right either.

>>16527964
>>16527990
>Fucking why? The people who fought in the fourth crusade are not the same as the ones who went to the other three. You need to stop seeing them as one united event and start seeing each crusade individually.
Fourth is just the worst one. Doesn't mean the previous ones were good.
>I'm really having a hard time understanding why is it so difficult for you to see that people have multiple motivations for doing things and that one does not exculde or negate the other.
My point is that we should maaaybe, possibly stop considering crusaders some sort of paragons of Christian virtue. They were sinners, and pretty bad ones at that.

>>16527990
>And they broke at least three commandments by doing that.
Ok? Yes no Christian follows the religion to the letter? I thought we all knew this, does that immediately erases the fact that they're Christian? I know Muslims who eat pork but are still very much Muslims.
>The Great Schism is a meme. It was a stupid quarrel between the Catholic Pope and the Byzantine Emperor, that's what it was.
To you, maybe.
>First one just concerns the struggle over temporary power. And Filioque is an incredibly stupid argument. It's an addition so minor and insignificant that it could have only spiraled into conflict because the people involved were retards.
Look faggot I don't give a shit how stupid you think these issues are, they weren't for the Catholic and Orthodox Church, so much so that they parted way and they haven't reconciliated to this day. Stop putting yourself at the center of these topics, you don't matter.
>Christian perspective.
Great, so why don't we listen to the records of the Christians who actually fought in those wars and how they understood them in the light of their religion?
>First: they didn't come there specifically to fight Russians,
I know, they went to fight Orthodox Christians (aka "heretics")
>Oh, and that wasn't morally right either.
This is history, faggot. Nobody cares what you find moral or not.

>>16527994
>My point is that we
Fucker who the fuck is "we"? Westerners? Westerners today absolutely loathe religious conflics, from the Western perspective any war fought on religious grounds is immediately seen as invalid, why do you think so mane people are scared shitless of Islam and jihad? The crusades are seen as unanimously negative, the people who argue otherwise are going against the established mainstream consensus.

>>16528001
Wait, are you that JW faggot?

>>16527914
>You want to keep the question open as to whether it was good or bad so that christian zealots have a leg to stand on when they make a case for why violent warfare over control for some backward, desert shithole is actually not such a bad thing after all.
You are acting as if people arguing the morality of historical events will end up with people having a uniform idea of wheter what happened was good or not, those 2 videos are good examples of why that wouldn't be the case. People would just cherry pick what fits their agenda and create a narrative for that. The same thing happened when anti theists, to push their ideas, portrayed the middle ages as entirely bad and backwards, ruining the reputation of millenia in european history, colonization was justified in a similar manner, and it can be used to justify a variety of political actions in the modern day.
The key issue i have here is simple: none of the parties give a single fuck about the facts, one wants to paint a very bad past to reinforce anti theist beliefs and the other wants to go against that to support their religion, neither of them have any interest in giving an accurate recalling of the history, but history isn't that black and white, and spreading half assed information to push 21st century agendas is revolting.

>You want to keep the question open
I do not want the question to be open, that is what you want as no answer will ever be uniformely accepted by all of society as moral. I'm arguing so that there is no moral question in the first place, just a proper analysis of the events based on what the driving factors of the time would have been, nothing more.

Anyone who thinks the Reconquista was unjustified is ultra-retarded.

>>16527979
>>I know this for a fact.
yes, there's no other good reason to equivocate on this, that's my point.

>>16528041
christcucks winning ever is unjustified.

>>16528041
it was justified but the world would unironically be a better place had it never happened

>>16528057
How?

>>16528025
>that is what you want as no answer will ever be uniformely accepted by all of society as moral.
it doesn't matter that probably a couple of small enclaves of pyscho catholics in the modern west think religious warfare is acceptable. It's not about strict uniformity of thought, and I don't even know where you got this impression from that that's what I want. What ultimately matters is that most westerners agree that religious warfare is unjustified and unacceptable, a position they enforce through the separation of church and state.

>>16527589
Literally every historical war has involved the slaughter of civilians and the rape of women. And you think the muslims never did the same? Fuck off.

>>16527589
You seem to be under a wrongful impression that peasants (foreign peasants at that) country as people.

>>16527565
Justifying the crusades because the arab invasions that happened centuries prior is just retarded.

>>16528086
>Justifying the crusades because the arab invasions that happened centuries prior
That Arab invasion never stopped, it just kept going and going.

>>16527579
Breadtubers really struggle to not use excessive ad hominem and well-poisoning when critiquing more right-wing videos. Probably because they have society’s backing as the “right side” of the argument so they know that a lot of people will be convinced by the ad hominem. For my part it just makes their videos unwatchable when they end up being 95% retarded insults and 5% legitimate criticism. You get fit married fathers with careers that do youtube basically as a hobby getting called incels by 5’ transgenders who derive their entire income from their tiny youtube channel.

>le youtubers
The amount of 'history' youtubers that even cite sources can be counted on one hand. Just read a fucking book

>>16528075
>And you think the muslims never did the same? Fuck off.
And how did you get that impression from my post?

>>16528078
People living in cities aren't peasants. Most of them are commoners, but that's not the same. And those crusaders wouldn't agree with you, at least ostensibly.

>>16528096
I feel like Historia Civilis and Kings and Generals (only battle videos, "lore" videos suck) are pretty good about this, all things considered. The latter's videos about the crusades bring up primary sources quite often.

>>16528062
Good job on reading 1 sentence off of my reply and disregarding all the rest. I don't understand what you are arguing for here, i clearly said that if we look at history without applying our own 21st century world view we will be more detatched from it, therefore the common historical narratives will be more accurate as they wouldn't be as biased and we wouldn't use historical precedents as justification for contemporary ideas or events, what is it you disagree with?

>>16528119
>Kings and Generals
Eh, they're okay. But their format makes them leave out a lot of information.

Truly there is nothing that beats reading books on your own.

>>16528156
But I can’t read while playing Victoria 2

>>16528146
>what is it you disagree with?
you're gesturing towards a couple of irrelevant retards on the internet saying dumb shit and concluding "well, this is just what happens when you bring morality into history," as if in the event that these retards didn't bring their own morality into the discussion, then their shitty clickbait videos would actually have substance, but that doesn't follow and so it's just a complete non sequitur.
After WW2, the field of legal philosophy was greatly changed (I'm sure other fields were completely changed as well, it's just that I'm mostly only familiar with post-WW2 ethical innovations from a legal perspective) specifically because various of the major schools of legal philosophy got to see their own beliefs applied writ large in nazi germany. One of the big faces of legal positivism, H.L.A. Hart, basically had a fucking breakdown trying to rationalize his beliefs with what happened and was unable to do so. This, perhaps more than anything else, is what lead to the "death" of legal positivism, and consensus in the field turning to what's called "legal realism." This was only possible because academics imposed moral judgements on history.
I don't care that some eceleb faggots aren't capable of undergoing debate and resynthesis in their irrationally-held (insofar as they are based on nothing but emotion) beliefs. Actual society will go ahead and get things done without them.

>>16528167
Audiobooks.

>>16528167
>>16528175
Or ASMR history videos.

>>16528175
>>16528178
They don't do Matthew Paris in video's or audiobooks though

>>16528094
>You get fit married fathers with careers that do youtube basically as a hobby getting called incels
The Golden One?

File: Jonathan_Riley_Smith.jpg (28 KB, 165x200)

28 KB JPG

>>16527565
The true answer is neither really, both sacrifice the historical nuance of this deeply complex topic on the altar of idealogy, probably like the people in this thread, I already know that they are spewing their ignorant false history though one person is a little less wrong about the truth of it. You can tell that both Fredda and Pax haven't really deeply studied neither Medieval societies nor the crusades beyond, both are definitely not medievalists, probably, not more than 2-4 books were read in their "research" for these videos, it really shows.

>“In the light of the evidence it is hard to believe that most crusaders were motivated by crude materialism. Given their knowledge and expectations and the economic climate in which they lived, the disposal of assets to invest in the fairly remote possibility of settlement in the East would have been a stupid gamble. It makes much more sense to suppose, in so far as one can generalize about them, that they were moved by an idealism which must have inspired not only them but their families. Parents, brothers and sisters, wives and children had to face a long absence and must have worried about them: in 1098 Countess Ida of Boulogne made an endowment to the abbey of St Bertin 'for the safety of her sons, Godfrey and Baldwin, who have gone to Jerusalem'. And they and more distant relatives — cousins, uncles and nephews - were prepared to endow them out of the patrimonial lands. It is hard to avoid concluding that they were fired by the opportunity presented to a relative not only of making a penitential pilgrimage to Jerusalem but also of fighting in a holy cause."

I went to Fredda first and boy that was a mistake. He's drowning in meme culture but hates it all. It's just him throwing up in a snarky spiteful tone. I don't know how this guy got 15k likes. Algorithms are definitely carrying this guy.

>>16527589
Rape and slaughter is fun. Cope and seethe basedboy

>>16527947
There was a tactical point to it
>>16527953
Wrong

File: 5 sir.jpg (81 KB, 1125x633)

81 KB JPG

>NOOOOO WHITE CHRISTIANS SHOULD NEVER GO TO WAR PEOPLE GET HURT IN WARS
>YOU SHOULD JUST LET BROWN MUSLIMS GENOCIDE YOU AND NEVER RETALIATE
the crusades absolutely were justified lol, I don't see anyone crying over the countless massacred during the Muslim invasions

>>16527822
on the bright side, genghis khan's massacres reduced carbon emissions

>>16528275
If he's white it's genocide, if he's brown it's environmentalism. If he had a best friend he's gay and trans friendly.

>>16528270
I think it originally stems from New Atheism and their obsession about the Crusades because it makes Christianity look le bad

>>16528270
You're so retarded. The crusades did more damage to europeans (cathars, baltics, and byzantines) than to menoids.

>>16528367
Cathars were literal government insurrectionists. They weren't actually theologically motivated they just wanted to be sovereign citizens.

>>16528367
NTA. This seems Ignorant of the cultural exchange, theological refinement that happened because of the crusades. Cathars were heretics, Baltics were pagan, this isn't about "Europeans" in that sort of way.

>>16527565
These zoomer chud jak gigachad epic meme “redeemed” Youtubers are a cancer worse than reddit atheists or Facebook muslims

>>16527589
>All these seething replies going "I'm actually sweaty killing random people is Le based and red pilled besides the other side did bad thing so therefore I can do bad thing

>>16527610
Mike Stoklassa and his consequences have been a disaster for the human race

>>16527651
what does pong have to do with this?

>>16527895
>Fredda
Gas chamber is down the train tracks and to the left.

>>16527914
your morality is all made up bullshit for you to control people. Fuck you and fuck your beliefs lol

>>16529003
>your morality is all made up bullshit for you to control people
All morality is made up to control people...

>>16529022
Morality is innate, ethics is an agreement between morals. If you don't have morals you aren't really sentient, lacking qualia.

>>16529032
>Morality is innate
Source?

>>16529035
My inmate morals told me. Yours would too if you had them.

>>16529032
Are you that sperg who keeps posting those “morality is objective” threads that only you care about

>>16529042
No I antagonize him. (My morals tell me to)

You're going to be spending a lot of time with Ricky Gervais btw

>>16529041
So it was revealed to you in a dream?

>>16529064
No. Were you paying attention? From my morals, stemming from a hegemonikon. You don't have a hegemonikon because you're subhuman. Basically an animal. But even some animals have one(ravens, elephants, dogs, etc).

>>16527976
>I'm pointing out the only reasonable justification for your bizarre "we can never judge any aspect of history ever
This has literally been considered standard practice for most historiography from the 20th century onward.
Bizzarre my ass.

>>16528384
>>16528638
Cathars were not rebels. They just living doing their thing. They only became heretics due to the major church reforms that happened at the time.
>this isn't about "Europeans" in that sort of way.
and in this thread people are going on about how its okay for europeans to attack brownoids. You can't have it both ways. I spit on christcucks for killing millions of europeans for no good reason

>>16529116
>Cathars were not rebels. They just living doing their thing. They only became heretics due to the major church reforms that happened at the time.
Not even remotely the case. They used that verse in the Bible that said that they shall take no oaths to try to wriggle out of land contracts - threatening the entire social order of southern France. They would take out debts and contracts then reneg saying that oath didn't count because they say the verse nulled all of their debts. Literal cretins. It had nothing to do with Catholicism or conservatism in the church.

>and in this thread people are going on about how its okay for europeans to attack brownoids

As a matter of defense and survival it is.

>>16529045
Better than with you in creepy heaven anyways. Enjoy being a slave for the rest of eternity. Even time to think about the fact I had the courage to be a master of my own fate - even if just for a finite time-, whereas you have always been and will always be a coward that is scared into serfdom by what essentially amounts to cosmic blackmail.

File: pope_innocent_iii.jpg (795 KB, 1200x1483)

795 KB JPG

>>16529116
The Cathars were most definitely not "just living doing their thing". Now, it is debated whether an actual Cathar church existed or if it was just a vaguely associated arrangement of sects, but regardless they were extremely socially disruptive and thriving. The view of many reputable clergyman from the time was that the Cathars were threatening to rupture "Christendom" itself and the crusade called against them was after a murder of the papal legate Peter of Castelnau. The Church repressed the Cathars violently only after decades of peaceful preaching dozens of debates and diplomacy had failed.

>>16529172
They were exclusive to southern france. They were not disruptive. It was the crusaders who were disruptive and launched one of the most brutal military invasions. Like I mentioned Cathars only became heretics after the major church reforms which they ignored which is how a massive population of heretics suddenly sprung up
>The Church repressed the Cathars violently only after decades of peaceful preaching dozens of debates and diplomacy had failed.
Catholic delusions

>>16527827
>>16527886
god is white and romans are white too so he was a mulatto like obama in any case
>>16527839
if yahweh is real then he is the enemy of humanity
the cube has to be blown up and each kike hunted down and crucified like yeshua

>>16529195
nobody was fucking niggers before christcuck semites

It was the catholic church that changed due to the gregorian reforms while what would eventually be the cathars ignored them. Clerical celibacy only became law at that time. So horrified accounts of cathar priests being married by catholics are laughable.

>>16529200
semites were fucking niggers since ever so they're all quadroons don't you agree?

>>16529206
jews have no nigger blood
egypians had no nigger blood
it's a christian and muslim thing to fuck your slaves

>>16527589
Modern soldier kill civilians too, people justify It just the same. Shits fucked.

>>16529213
>jews have no nigger blood
lmfao is this bait, Lasalle?

>>16529213
kek it's always the best way to spoil a larping brown animal
kys subhuman dirty streetshitter

File: file.png (171 KB, 797x246)

171 KB PNG

>>16529243

>>16528060
spain wouldn't have done a globohomo

>>16529257
Sample sizes? Sample dates? Sample locations?

>>16529349
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15694

>>16529352
We were talking about neo-rabs, not Egyptians. I baited, you switched.

File: burning_at_montsegur.jpg (72 KB, 300x506)

72 KB JPG

>>16529188
I'm not a Catholic.
>"Simultaneously, however, there were continued attempts to engage the heretics directly in the form of public debates, an activity which had never been seen as incompatible with the strident language of the papal chancery
and the ecclesiastical councils. William of Tudela thought they were futile. At Carcassonne in 1204 there was a formal confrontation between them, led by Berengar of Pomas, the bishop, and Peter II, King of Aragon, the overlord of the region, and 'the Bulgars', but the king soon abandoned the debate once he heard what the heretics had to say. They
kept trying, however: 'Led by Brother Arnald, Abbot of Citeaux, friend of God, the preachers travelled on foot and on horseback among the wicked and misbelieving heretics, arguing with them and vigorously challenging
their errors, but these fools paid no attention and despised everything they said. Yet, despite a long string of disappointments, debates had been taking place since at least 1165, nearly half a century before, when a meeting had
been convened at Lombers before assessors chosen by both sides. This was certainly taken seriously by the Catholic Church."

We have chroniclers describing arguments between papal legates like the Dominicans who sought to revive regular practices in the area and the stubborn Cathars who rejected their authority. They rejected communion, marriage, and normal funeral rites, refused to pay tithes, many of them also believed for all matter of creation to be of evil origin. Which is why they refuses to consume animal products, and why many serious believers would not have children, though this of course seemed to have been more of an "ideal" they strove towards. The belief that the world they lived in was purely evil had some pretty heavy implications. This is surface level knowledge, in what manner or way were these practises not incredibly disruptive?

>>16529380
>This is surface level knowledge
it's bullshit

>>16529374
?you're saying the 3000 modern genomes published in that paper are made up?

>>16529428
No I'm saying I asked you about neo-rabs and you posted about a completely different group. I get that rabbinics aren't known for being intellectuals but you're a little too stupid.

>>16529399
Are you familiar with any of the dozens of chronicles from the period and have read any of the modern scholarship on the topic? or even the old?

>>16529438
New histories state that the cathars were a construction of the catholic church and never actually existed as they are commonly understood. Swallowing church chronicles wholesale is pretty dumb

>>16529435
1. nobody in levant and adjacent regions had any nigger admixture before 1 AD
2. now they're all 15-20% ape
2. modern jews have almost no nigger admixture especially compared to the general population of the country that they live in/lived in
idk what you're even claming, that proto jews fucked niggers and they aren't part of the faith anymore?

>>16529455
kikes arabs pajeets gooks niggers latinos are all of the same brown animal stock none of you are actually human you're disgusting worms bugs meant to be slaughter
did you understand the point you dumb rat?

>>16529467
so why do you worship a dead kike?

>>16528678
Yes.
"Ironically" being a faggot to bait still makes you a faggot by the way.

>>16529453
What "new histories"? There is a big difference between these sects maybe existing in a different manner than understood, which I have mentioned before and just denying that they existed at all and that there was no social upheaval brought upon Languedoc by them. There was definitely a connection to Bogomilism.

>>16529470
He's Roman and Jewish. Neo rabs are kikels.

>>16529485
>There was definitely a connection to Bogomilism.
The papacy seething over a large group of christians ignoring the gregorian reforms is more reasonable than some supposed balkan connection

>>16529470
the argument literally strated from the claim that the kike on a stick isn't my god if he doesn't encourage and support mass killings of dirty shitskin streetshitters like you imbecile rat

>>16527565
The crusades were dumb as shit
>Muh Muslim aggression
>We need to stop the Turks by attacking a completely different country

>Muh badass crusaders defeating all of Islam
>They took a sliver of the Levant and primarily waged war against Egypt whether as the Fatimids, Ayyubids, or Mamluks

>Muh protecting Christian pilgrims
>The most successful crusades at protecting pilgrims were negotiated after military means had failed

You only saw major success against Islamic states when the justification was largely areligious. The British didn’t want to liberate Jerusalem and put it in Christian hands when they drove the Ottomans out, the French weren’t halting the unstoppable Islamic juggernaut when they conquered North Africa.

File: ACEF9FD4-BDF2-4D8A-BD1E-B(...).png (79 KB, 458x130)

79 KB PNG

>>16528210
Trvke

>>16529399
Get off this board and never come back

>>16527718
Scandinavia had already converted to Christianity by the time the first crusade roled around, what are you talking about?

>>16527616
The massacres after the Siege of Jerusalem (during the 1st Crusade) were exaggerated, but there are many first and second hand accounts of atrocities committed by both the Christians and Muslims. Many cities were butchered

>>16530287
>Dumbass doesn't know about the Northern Crusades
Average Christcuck knowledge of history.

>>16529507
>>We need to stop the Turks by attacking a completely different country
They were first set out to regain the territory that the Byzantine Empire had lost, which included the Levant, and the Byzantines did indeed regain some territory from the Turks.
>>They took a sliver of the Levant
That was their target, retard. They never set to take Baghdad or some shit.
>and primarily waged war against Egypt whether as the Fatimids, Ayyubids, or Mamluks
Last time I checked they were Muslims.
>>The most successful crusades at protecting pilgrims were negotiated after military means had failed
Ok? And this is a failure? Did they manage to ensure the safety of the pilgrims yes or no? Or in your head it only counts as a win if its done militarily for some stupid reason?

>>16530297
The Northern Crusades targetted the Baltics, not fucking Scandinavia you massive retard.

>>16530305
I said the North you dumb faggot. I never said Scandinavian. Average Christcuck reading comprehension.

>>16530306
>I said the North you dumb faggot.
No you didn't, you never said "the North".
>I never said Scandinavian.
You were answering another anon who referenced Scandinavia, and then you brought up the Northern Crusades which targetted the Baltics, so you're fucking wrong.

Both sides believe[d] in Jew PsyOp religions where they replaced their peoples gods with Rabbi Yeshua and Merchant Muhammad

>>16530302
>They were first set out to regain the territory that the Byzantine Empire had lost,
Byzantines gave away their own territory to gain mercenaries to fight their civil wars. Hardly a matter worth a massive chimpout like the crusades
>That was their target, retard. They never set to take Baghdad or some shit.
Their target was anatolia which you stated above as well.
>Last time I checked they were Muslims
He means they only ever fought inconclusive battles against egypt
>Ok? And this is a failure? Did they manage to ensure the safety of the pilgrims yes or no? Or in your head it only counts as a win if its done militarily for some stupid reason?
Crusaders themselves thought so as they shat on frederick II for it. He was one of the most hated figures in crusader states

>>16530333
>Hardly a matter worth a massive chimpout like the crusades
Who the fuck are you to judge that though?
>Their target was anatolia
No, the target was Jerusalem, are you high?
>He means they only ever fought inconclusive battles against egypt
No? They took Jerusalem and succesfully drove off a contingent coming from Egypt.
>Crusaders themselves thought-
I'm asking you, not the Crusaders.

>>16530310
My very first post:
>16527718
>ended with the crusaders running away to go murder a bunch of Snow monkeys in the North because they were less technologically advanced than Arabs and easier to mass murder because of it.
And the one I was replying to doesn't even mention Scandinavia. Man, I hate bots, you better not be a real person being this stupid because that's pathetic.

>>16530341
>And the one I was replying to doesn't even mention Scandinavia.
>>16530287
Scandinavia had already converted to Christianity by the time the first crusade roled around, what are you talking about?
>Scandinavia

>>16530343
Are you dumb.
>>16527629
This is the post he was replying to

>>16530343
Holy shit you are a bot. My first post was referencing the northern crusades, you replied with that, I corrected you, and you proceeded to chimo out about not knowing about the Baltic Crusades, ran to go search it up, and have been on a life raft trying to save face ever since. The post I quoted is not responding to that one. Your dumbass assumed I was talking about Scandinavia because you don't know enough about History to know about the Northern Crusades, which are the only event I could possibly be talking about. This is your last bump by the way, next time get thread engagement by being honest retard.

>>16528217 This post single-handedly offers a better answer and perspective into the topic than both videos combined. Well done anon.

>>16530333
>Hardly a matter worth a massive chimpout like the crusades
Last time I checked the "matter" that caused the Crusades was Alexios worried that the Seljuks would be able to reach Constantinople after Manzikert. A likely attack on you capital and the downfall of what's left of your empire after centuries of territorial losses seems like a big deal to me.

>>16530348
He also replied to this post:>>16530287
Which is the one I'm talking about.
>>16530350
> you replied with that
I'm not that anon.
This is my first post:>>16530305

>>16530355
He cpuld have just not noticed scandinavia. It's not like he was the first to mention it.

>>16530359
>h-he could have just not read it!!
I fail to see how that's my problem.

>>16530352
That was his own fault. It certainly doesn't justify muh crusades which just exacerbated this continuing. Perhaps if he had focused on fixing his retarded government(which was so embarrassingly fucking stupid people still use it to refer to bad bureaucracy), he wouldn't have been in danger of losing his entire empire to random Turko-Mongol dickheads. A thing that was only possible because Romanos got betrayed by that very same dysfunctional dickhead government and it's leaders.

>>16527565
Pax Tube has a blacked fetish btw

>>16530352
>Last time I checked the "matter" that caused the Crusades was Alexios worried that the Seljuks would be able to reach Constantinople after Manzikert. A likely attack on you capital and the downfall of what's left of your empire after centuries of territorial losses seems like a big deal to me
This is irrelevent. The turks went to go fight the fatimids and were in eastern anatolia and armenia. They gained the rest of anatolia because the generals fighting the post manzikery civil wars would give away territory to gain mercenaries which I mentioned. This included cities some of whom were gained back in the first crusade. The byzantines did it to themselves i have no sympathy so yeah hardly worth a chimpout

>>16530364
>That was his own fault.
>Your empire losing territory for centuries before you've taken the throne or even be born is your fault!
wat.

>>16530355
It seems like I lied, I'll give you one last response, I replied to that post correcting his belief that I was talking about Scandinavia by telling him I was referring to the Northern Crusades here >16530297 in literally the first reply because his dumbass didn't know what the Northern Crusades were. What exactly do you get by pretending to be a retard who can't read? This is why I don't believe you're a different anon.

>>16530364
>>16530369
>This is irrelevent. The turks went to go fight the fatimids and were in eastern anatolia and armenia.
Whose territory was Anatolia again?

Holy shit guys just why are you bending over backwars so hard to not put a shred of blame or even responsibility on the Muslims? Are you THAT desperate for brown cock?

>>16530370
It was literally his own fault. Byzantine cuckfuckery is infamous to this day to the point that normies who don't even know that it was a Roman state use it as an insult. Instead of fixing this he invited foreign powers who he was just as antagonistic towards and who he didn't have a guarantee of behavior or control over to invade his enemies which provided the destruction of his entire empire because it became common practice, and it literally got sacked by these same foreign powers.
>Empire is losing territory because of betraying generals, civil wars, usurping faggots and infamously bad bureaucracy
>No it's totally not my fault for literally playing Crusader Kings instead of fixing the foundation of my fucking state and only requesting aid upon further invasion to make the goal clear that the defense of Constantinople is the only goal and nothing else.

>>16530371
>I replied to that post correcting his belief that I was talking about Scandinavia
You engaged with his post which mentioned Scandinanvia, you then brought up the Northen Crusades which targetted the Baltics, so no matter how you slice that's a fault on you.
Jesus man just take the L with some dignity, is not even that big of a deal.

>>16530352
>Alexios worried that the Seljuks would be able to reach Constantinople after Manzikert
Dude the only reason they were close to constaninople after manzikert was because the byzantines would give turks cities and territory to garrison in exchange for troops. Manzikert is on the edge of anatolia. After manzikert the seljuks went to fight the fatimids leaving the turkic tribes who did as they pleased and raided byzantine settlements but were still contained to eastern anatolia. After manzikert a civil war started with multiple claimaints and these claimaints would give away territory and when the dust settled with Alexios coming out on top the byzantines could not do anything to the turks

>>16530380
>Whose territory was Anatolia again?
Worthless game to play.
>Holy shit guys just why are you bending over backwars so hard to not put a shred of blame or even responsibility on the Muslims? Are you THAT desperate for brown cock?
It's called not being a retarded byzaboo. Crusades were a complete waste of time and thankfully most of europe wised up to that fact within a century

>>16530384
The best part was when the normans showed to his court for the crusade when just not too long ago the very same normans invaded the balkans. All Alexios could do was make them swear an oath. Dude was a moron who got lucky

>>16530380
Because they are just as much to blame for being turko mongolic monkeys as the Byzantines are for being invading Roman faggots that cut the dicks off men. They are all just as guilty of the same bullshit, but in terms of being intelligent, the Byzantines who had hundreds of years of history somehow managed to be dumber than a bunch of horsefucking nomads in terms of running their state by provoking a multi-nation religious war because of their own failures which lost them that land literally because of their own incompetence and self betrayal. You keep ignoring the fact that the Turks were only so successful because the Byzantines were complete fucking retards who didn't have the self preservation necessary to put aside their dumbass conflicts for 20 minutes and win a battle. This doesn't mean they aren't justified for attacking Turks, they'd be just as justified as any other nation engaging in war, it means the CRUSADES weren't justified on the grounds of self defense because not only did the Byzantines not give a fuck about defending themselves, but they were no longer under immediate threat and chose to forego fixing the problems that made their self defense fail(showing their complete and utter lack of fucks to give about that) by inviting hostile foreign powers into their land who presented a danger to their citizens.

File: 34764747646.png (74 KB, 703x631)

74 KB PNG

>>16530371
>This is why I don't believe you're a different anon.
Just......take the L man......for your own good.

>>16530387
To correct his belief that the Northern Crusades, a word and event known to have nothing to do with Scandinavia, is not talking about Scandinavia. I talked about a crusade in the North, which never occured in Scandinavia, and the only known one was the Northern Crusades in the Baltic, I 100% know you're that anon now because you expect me to believe that two people at the same time somehow believe that anyone could be referring to any other event because you don't know enough about History to know there was literally nothing else I could have been talking about.

I would insult you, but you're too stupid to read basic shit so I'm not even going to bother, this time you've succeeded in farming your dumbass (You)s while revealing you were "pretending" to be stupid, I hope the 9 words and 6 parentheses were worth acting like a clown.

>In 1078, theByzantineemperorMichael VIIsought the help of Suleiman againstNicephorus Botaneiates, the commander of theAnatolic Theme, who had challenged the emperor for the throne. Suleiman intercepted Botaneiates' small force betweenCotyaeumandNicaea, whereupon the usurper persuaded Suleiman and Mansur[4]to join his rebellion by offering him incentives superior to those of the emperor.[5]Nicephorus' bid for power was successful, and in return for their support Suleiman's Turkmen were allowed to settle on the Asiatic side of theBosphorus, nearConstantinopleitself. Two years later, Suleiman lent his support to anotherpretender,Nicephorus Melissenus.[6]It was the latter Nicephorus who opened the gates ofNicaeato the Turkmen, allowing Suleiman to establish a permanent base.[7]AllBithyniawas soon under Suleiman's control, a circumstance which allowed him to restrict communication between Constantinople and the former Byzantine subjects inAnatolia.

>>16530400
>>16530390
>>16530388
>>16530384
>THOSE FUCKING BYZANTINE FUCKS, HOW DARE THEY HAVE UPS AND DOWNS LIKE ANY OTHER EMPIRE. THEY SHOULD BE PERFECT ALWAYS AND NEVER EVER HAVE MOMENTS OF INTERNAL STRIFE AND WEAKNESS. THIS 100 JUSTIFIES THEM GETTING ATTACKED CONSTANTLY BY THE MUSLIMS YES THOSE FUCKS DESERVED IT.

>>16530410
>give away nicaea to the turks
>cry to the west about wanting it back
Do they really?

>>16530408
>I talked about a crusade in the North
No, you specifically mentioned the Northern Crusades.
>I 100% know you're that anon now
See:>>16530402

>>16530412
There's a difference between having ups and downs and doing retarded shit like letting turks settle right beside your captial and open the gates of majaor cities for them all to help you win a civil war. It was multiple byzantine claimaints who were all competing over who could suck off the turks the most. Manzikert to the start of Alexios' reign was a mere ten years and for many of those years the turks were in eastern anatolia and did not move west yet.

>>16530412
Why do shitposters like you even act like this? Genuinely, what do you gain by ruining discussions people want to have? You know whatever affection you're seeking will never come from this right? Your father will never love you, and etc... you're literally wasting your precious moments on earth pretending to be a retard and for some reason you think the people who are being genuine lose by simply acting like themselves? Bro you're a clown, I hope you didn't hit post thinking you actually won anything by learning to put on clown makeup and get a degree in clownery, you're not a fake clown, you're a circus attraction, you couldn't get this attention naturally so all you can do is clown around like a fool.
>>16530402
>Took you 12 minutes to edit that
Pathetic.
>>16530418
>Floundering this bad
I like how you've stopped pretending you had a point and are just vaguely shitposting about the Northern Crusades or something. You're incomprehensible even to yourself, have you considered suicide yet or is that just something you haven't acknowledged? You can't be in a good place if you're acting like this just for some replies.

>>16530412
the byzaboo has started chimping out

>>16530412
The byzantines made agreements with the turks. They would get auxiliaries for their armies and the turks would get land. They broke the agreement which is a scummy move. They would later break another agreement with the crusaders during the siege of antioch. A very scummy people

>>16530425
I'm not even a Byzaboo, I came here to talk about the Crusades, not the fucking Byzantine Empire, I just didn't realize that I would've had to defend it from bad faith retards like you.

>>16530424
>you're literally wasting your precious moments on earth pretending to be a retard and for some reason you think the people who are being genuine lose by simply acting like themselves?
You're the one who thinks I wasted 12 fucking minutes editing a screenshot. Holy shit man you're a sad case, even for 4chan.

>>16530428
>The byzantines made agreements with the turks.
Did they made that agreement voluntarily or did the circumstances force them to?

>>16530429
>hey turk can you lend me some soldiers I'll cede land and cities to you so I can engage in my retarded civil war as my empire shrinks around me
>okay
>AIEEEEEEEE POPE HELP ME THE TURKS ARE NEAR MY CAPITAL
Play stupid games win stupid prizes
>I came here to talk about the Crusades, not the fucking Byzantine Empire
That's the most retarded statement in this thread. The crusades and the byzantine empire are tied together

>>16530438
Did you just read one sentence of my post?

File: BlP6StFCQAAmgU7.jpg (80 KB, 332x610)

80 KB JPG

>>16530435
Because you did. You're clearly just one guy, or two max pretending to be retarded for engagement. Notice how you've constantly dropped every point you've made before as you got BTFO? That's because you're a lying little shithead. No matter how sad I could be for 4chan in your eyes I'm a giant among men when compared to you because I don't run around on a message board ruining good discussions because of a virulent need to seek attention.

>>16530441
>>hey turk can you lend me some soldiers
Did they ask for those soldiers just beause they felt like it or because they were in trouble and needed them?
>I'll cede land and cities to you
Did that include Manzikert?
>so I can engage in my retarded civil war
As opposed to.......non-retarded civil wars?
>as my empire shrinks around me
Which group has been eating away the Byzantine Empire's territory for centuries again?
>>AIEEEEEEEE POPE HELP ME THE TURKS ARE NEAR MY CAPITAL
Did Alexios lend them Manzikert too?
>The crusades and the byzantine empire are tied together
The first one yeah, the other ones couldn't have given less of a shit about Byzantium.

The byzaboos ITT are better off pretending the turks gained anatolia after an epic clash or something. The truth is embarrasing. Popular history is people assuming the turks conquered anatolia immediately in a coordinated effort. Pope Urban thought so.

>>16530447
>Because you did. You're clearly just one guy, or two max pretending to be retarded for engagement.
>I KNOW THIS FOR A FACT, I KNOW IT. IT COULDN'T POSSIBLY BE THAT I JUST FUCKED UP AND THOUGH THE SAME ANON POSTED THOSE TWO REPLIES, IMPOSSIBLE, ABSOLUTELY FUCKING IMPOSSIBLE. I KNOW IN MY HEART THAT YOU EDITED THAT SCREENSHOT, I KNOW IT.
>No matter how sad I could be for 4chan in your eyes I'm a giant among men when compared to you because I don't run around on a message board ruining good discussions because of a virulent need to seek attention.
Dude, chill.

>>16530456(You)
Here, I gave you two to help your addiction calm down. You're clearly breaking down due to lack of engagement, and beginning to imagine words that don't exist in my post.

>>16530428
Alexios was told and fervently urged to not go to Antioch by Stephen of Blois, because at that point things were not looking good during the siege. Alexios did seem to have a "see where wind blows" approach but he can hardly be called "scummy" in light of the vital support he gave up until Antioch was taken.

>>16530428
>>16530446
>They would later break another agreement with the crusaders during the siege of antioch. A very scummy people
Okay now I know for a fact that you're completely full of shit. Alexios thought that the crusade had been defeated in Antioch so he ordered his soldiers to return home. The crusaders later misinterpret this and though Alexios had betrayed them, so from then on they refused to give him any of the land they acquired.

>>16530462
>Here, I gave you two to help your addiction calm down. You're clearly breaking down due to lack of engagement
I'm having a discussion with the other anons just fine, don't you see? Please leave, I've lost all interest in you.

>>16530453
>Did they ask for those soldiers just beause they felt like it or because they were in trouble and needed them?
Are you retarded. How many times do I have to say they were fighting a civil war to see who would claim the empire
>Did that include Manzikert?
Manzikert was the location of a battlefield. It was located at the edge of anatolia.
>As opposed to.......non-retarded civil wars?
Civil wars happen but there's a pretty big difference when you cede the beating heart of your empire to recruit troops. Anatolia was the core of the byzantine empire.
>Which group has been eating away the Byzantine Empire's territory for centuries again?
Turks just arrived. Yes they were invaders but the most important part was that their sultan left after manzikert to fight his other enemies. The sole reason they were able to take anatolia was because of byzantine stupidity which makes it hard to feel sorry for them. That's why them crying about their lost territory rings hollow.
>Did Alexios lend them Manzikert too?
Not even worth a response
>The first one yeah, the other ones couldn't have given less of a shit about Byzantium
Way to reveal you nothing about a subject.

>>16530367
Source:Fredda.

>>16530464
That's byzantine copium. Alexios literally made deals with the turks behind the crusaders backs even though they were doing the fighting for him.

>>16530454
Oh did he? The impression I got is that he was worried of the many Turkmen raiders, effectively being totally free to pillage former Greek lands while also harming and exhorting the Christian pilgrims along the roads to Jerusalem and at the holy sites.

>>16530367
?

>>16530466
>Alexios thought that the crusade had been defeated in Antioch so he ordered his soldiers to return home
Retard. He could have easily sent a scouting party to confirm the situation
These guys literally came a long distance and he couldn't be assed to even do that
>The crusaders later misinterpret this and though Alexios had betrayed them, so from then on they refused to give him any of the land they acquired.
They didn't misinterpet anything.

>>16530476
Yeah, deals that benefitted him and by extension the empire.

>>16530477
>The impression I got is that he was worried of the many Turkmen raiders, effectively being totally free to pillage former Greek lands while also harming and exhorting the Christian pilgrims along the roads to Jerusalem and at the holy sites
No in his speech he was talking about the kingdom of the persians conquering land from the christians

>>16530483
>Yeah, deals that benefitted him and by extension the empire.
So you just admitted he was a duplictious piece of shit. I accept your concession. Case closed.
>b-but it was his empire
Then do your own fighting

>>16530474
>Are you retarded. How many times do I have to say they were fighting a civil war to see who would claim the empire
I know faggot that's my point. They lended those cities in exchange for soldiers in a time of crisis, so you can't hold that against them, they wouldn't have given them the cities otherwise. They did it because they had to, no because they wanted to.
>Manzikert was the location of a battlefield
So no.
>Civil wars happen but there's a pretty big difference when you cede the beating heart of your empire to recruit troops.
Again, it was a move done out of desperation in a time of crisis, they weren't retards, their actions make sense.
>Turks just arrived.
Wrong answer, Muslims.
>Yes they were invaders but the most important part was that their sultan left after manzikert to fight his other enemies.
How could have Alexios know that he wouldn't come back, after he was so close to Constantinple it's completely reasonable that he responded when such a vulnerable point had been opened.
>The sole reason they were able to take anatolia was because of byzantine stupidity
If another civl war broke out in the US, would that give the right to China to come and take it over?
>Not even worth a response
Your silece is all I need.
>Way to reveal you nothing about a subject.
Not even the first crusade gave a shit about Byzantium all thoughout. After Antioch they collecivelly told Alexios to fuck off and kept their aquired territory for themselves even though they had pledged to give it back.

>>16530481
>Retard. He could have easily sent a scouting party to confirm the situation
Yeah, because communication was sooooooo quick back then.
>These guys literally came a long distance and he couldn't be assed to even do that
You're seriously blaming Alexios for staying in Constantinple after multiple attacks by the Turks and putting himself in danger of dying during the crusade, thus leaving Byzantium without an emperor in an already unstable situation?
>They didn't misinterpet anything.
Do you just hate Alexios for some reason? Be honest.

>>16530487
>So you just admitted he was a duplictious piece of shit.
>How dare he look out for his own country and ensure that his people will be safe it the situation changes like any moderately competent statesman would, he should be like Aragorn and have a retarded hyperidealistic sense of morality and what it means to be a ruler.

Kino argument going on in here

>>16530490
>so you can't hold that against them
You can hold it against them. Turks would never have become the threat they become without these actions.
>Again, it was a move done out of desperation in a time of crisis, they weren't retards, their actions make sense.
No they were retards and so are you. I hope you never get into a position of responsibility
>Wrong answer, Muslims.
Arabs have no relevance to the events in question.
>How could have Alexios know that he wouldn't come back, after he was so close to Constantinple it's completely reasonable that he responded when such a vulnerable point had been opened.
He was fighting the fatimids. So they knew. Why are you only mentioning alexios. He was emperor until years later. You're skipping and mixing so many things together.
>If another civl war broke out in the US, would that give the right to China to come and take it over?
If US generals started giving away states to china for resources then sure.
>Not even the first crusade gave a shit about Byzantium all thoughout. After Antioch they collecivelly told Alexios to fuck off and kept their aquired territory for themselves even though they had pledged to give it back.
They had to pass through byzantine territory in other crusades. The soured relations were why some chose to go to the crusader states by ship while others followed the path of the first crusade like frederick. The byzantines were heavily involved in crusader state politics. And the tension that started in the frist crusade built up until it was unleashed during the fourth crusade. It's amazing how you can say stupid shitike the byzantines were irrelevent to the crusades with a straight face.

>>16527651
>>16527747
The fuck? Why give a shit about anything in that case. Everything will be history one day, I guess Hitler wasn't a bad guy because in his time there was just "winners and losers"

>>16530507
Hitler was a literal prophet.

>>16530471(You)
Here's two more. Hopefully you'll take the hint and fuck off. And no you aren't, every other discussion in this thread is confrontational bullshit with one or two other anons acting like dishonest retards. So either you're lying, or you're him.

>>16530492
>because communication was sooooooo quick back then.
Pigeons are fast. And the siege of antioch was a very long siege so it would have been simpme to check the status of the crusaders
>You're seriously blaming Alexios for staying in Constantinple after multiple attacks by the Turks and putting himself in danger of dying during the crusade, thus leaving Byzantium without an emperor in an already unstable situation?
You're literally making shit up. The seljuk sultan was is no position to do anything after he lost nicaea which was his capital and had flee to central anatolia to try to salvage his situation
And the other muslim emirs distrusted each other which was one of the reasons antioch was eventually successful
>Do you just hate Alexios for some reason? Be honest.
You're the one reaching deep into ass to try and defend him and the byzantines. I just think they were retarded.
>>16530499
And that's how you get your capital sacked

>>16530499
And so were the vrusader sin yhe 4th crusade they needed to psy their debts to the venetians

>>16530517
That's what I call booty

>>16530517
You're responding to a shitposter who has no knowledge of history. If he did he wouldn't constantly be making shit up and would have just as much of a coherent and thought out position which he would point specific evidence to instead of just saying vague shit.

>>16530504
Alright this will be my last reply, I'm bored of this shit-flinging.

>Turks would never have become the threat they become without these actions.
>You deserved to be raped, this woud've never happened if you hadn't taken the action of dressing like a slut!
>Arabs have no relevance to the events in question.
Well good thing that I said "Muslims", not Arabs.
>He was fighting the fatimids.
And this negates that he could have come back and couldn't be certain that his forces would've replenished by then because......
>Why are you only mentioning alexios.
Because you're shitting on him particularly.
>If US generals started giving away states to china for resources then sure.
>The people deserved to be conquered because their leaders are traitors.
Get off my country you seditious piece of shit.
>They had to pass through byzantine territory in other crusades.
None of them even bothered to pledge to return any land, they went to take things for their own, they didn't give a shit about Byzantium.
>It's amazing how you can say stupid shitike the byzantines were irrelevent to the crusades with a straight face.
I say this because the original deal of returing the land to Byzantium was abandoned even before the first crusade had ended. From then on they were following their own objectives, what Byzantium wanted didn't matter to them from then on.
>>16530507
Yes, eventually people will stop giving a shit about even Hitler, just like how no one cares about Julius Caesar genociding the Gauls today.

>>16530499
>begs for help
>help arrives
>dont do shit
>make deals with the enemies you vried about to the pope
>leave when things get rough
>seethe when the crusaders are victorious and just ignore you
>the bad relations with your "fellow" christians that you started eventually sour to the point where they end up sacking your capital and destroying your empire
Alexios thought he was clever but he was just another byzantine fool hyped up over his own schemes.

Clearly theres some sexual tension between the two anons, would they admire eachother on a sunny day on the beach, if not for this scholarly and intellectually vigorous debate??!

>>16527668
It's because it features religion and religitards believe the same drivel they did 1.000 years ago. Same reason muslims get assblasted when fictive medieval mosques get burned down. Depicting them poorly in the past is like depicting them poorly in the presence.

>>16530525
Hey, I'm not defending the 4th crusade, but I can understand that they were in deep shit.

>>16530531
I'm more tired than you since your points are retarded
>Well good thing that I said "Muslims", not Arabs
Arabs and turks are the only relevsnt muslims relevant to the byzantines and arabs were irrelevent in the events of the 11th century so yes it was turks. If you're trying to do the shield of europe crap shove it up your ass.
>And this negates that he could have come back and couldn't be certain that his forces would've replenished by then because
They were his main enemy and he wanted to eliminate them ao his abbasid puppet would be the sole l
Caliph. He could have easily invaded the byzantines but he just left even though he had a good oppurtunity.
>Because you're shitting on him particularly
I mentioned byzantine generals. Later some idiot maybe you tried to defend him so I responded with the truth of the matter
>Get off my country you seditious piece of shit.
Stupid mutt.
>None of them even bothered to pledge to return any land, they went to take things for their own, they didn't give a shit about Byzantium.
And why would they after the first crusade?
> say this because the original deal of returing the land to Byzantium was abandoned even before the first crusade had ended. From then on they were following their own objectives, what Byzantium wanted didn't matter to them from then on
After Alexios started making deals with the turks their fucking enemy behind their back and abandoning them in antioch. Of course they're not going to honor the original agreement. Why do you expect people to roll pver for the byzantines?

>>16530531
You bring up a good point here, yes, the Byzantine aristocracy allowed the Turks into Anatolia, this doesn't undo the atrocities commited by the Turks to the local peasants, priests, even bishops and travellers, clearly the news of these events would've been deeply disturbing news back in the West.

>>16530564
NTA anon, but we are not justifying the Turks, we are denying the idea that the CRUSADES could be justified using this as rhetoric. The Byzantines were guilty of the Turks being capable of as much as they were, and guilty of much the same before and after this including to their own citizenry. This was basic shit to everyone, especially the same powers who watched the Harrowing of England happen and didn't give a fuck.

>>16530554
>And why would they after the first crusade?
So we agree that what Byzantium wanted was no longer relevant to the crusaders after the first crusade. Good. Like I said, Byzantium no longer mattered after the first crusade.

>>16530573
>we are denying the idea that the CRUSADES could be justified using this as rhetoric.
The Byzantine empire was in dire need of military help, whether their wounds were self-inflicted or not is wholly irrelevant.
Thus he asked for help to the only ally they had at the moment, thus, the crusades.
Pretty simple. You're losing your shit trying to blame the Byzantines for existing when that is completely inconsequential to the justification for the crusades.

IMO the crusades were justified since the nanosecond Muslims got out of Arabia and started attackingh Christian land. If the Muslims had taken even as little as a square metter of land, a crusade would've been justified to take back that one square metter.

>>16529076
Meds

>>16530576
Nta. There was an alliance between Byzantium and the Kingdom of Jerusalem later on though, which nearly led to joint invasion of Egypt.

>>16527565
Arguing over whether or not the Crusades were "good or bad" is quite representative of how awful the political video "essay" scene is on YouTube right now. Treating the Crusaders as either completely virtuous heroes or as completely evil white devils is utterly stupid, and ultimately a disservice to the people of the Middle Ages. Fuck both of these faggots.

File: 1615913713015.jpg (1.08 MB, 984x985)

1.08 MB JPG

>>16530584
>If the Muslims had taken even as little as a square metter of land, a crusade would've been justified to take back that one square metter.

>>16530611
Wow you're so neutral and above it all.

>>16530618
>Moralizing about history actually makes me REALLY intelligent and not a seething libtard FAGGOT

>>16530621
Passive aggressive. Yes, I have morals. The fact you have a problem with that indicates you are a psychopath.

>>16530641
>Yes, I have morals.
So did the crusaders, just different from yours.

File: 4d3.gif (2.09 MB, 720x404)

2.09 MB GIF

>>16530641

Can't you idiots learn to disagree over something that's mostly irrelevant without resorting to childish name immediately ? Try to be gentlemen and a scholar, it makes for much more productive discourse.

>>16530647
Obviously. They were good people on the whole.

>>16530531
>no one cares about Julius Caesar genociding the Gauls today.
pagan conflicts
Crusades were a clash of the two largest religions today
They will always be remembered because the universe is ontologically Abrahamic

based thread I've actually learned some stuff
love it when mentally ill people are baited into arguing about things they both know a good deal about

>>16530704
>the universe is ontologically Abrahamic
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight...........

>>16530584
Then you have to be fine with the Arabs attacking Christian lands using that logic. It's indefensible, it's an infinite regress of bullshit which is why we're not saying they're right, we're saying the crusaders weren't justified, we're not judging Christians for warring, we're judging retards like you who keep going "b-b-but they HAD to do it, it was justified unlike every other war in history!!" because that's patently false. You cannot pretend you haven't read the rest of the thread, we have all debunked the idea that anyone participating gave a fuck about Byzantium, and that Byzantium itself through massive incompetence, did not give a fuck about Byzantium. unless you're uneducated about the subject, you cannot expect anyone here to forget that it's been established that Crusaders ultimately led to the final doom of Constantinople by sacking it, and then didn't even aid them when these same Turks finally conquered them.
>muh if the Muslims had taken even a square inch of land it's le hecking justified to take it back!
Just be honest about being tribalistic and stop pretending your arguments are based on morality or sense. By this logic all of Anatolia should belong to the original inhabitants and the Byzantines deserve to be slaughtered for being Roman invaders that took it from the Greeks, who took it from the Persians, who deserve to be slaughtered for taking it from Medians and etc.... you won't apply this equal standard because you're a hypocrite and you think admitting that is impressive for some reason.

>>16527565
A Vietnamese catholicuck or a Norwegian gay race communist. Neither.

>>16530611
No one is doing the latter. Everyone is just pointing out that saying they're totally justified is a complete fucking lie. There's no "two sides" to this, there was the original understanding that the Crusades were a largely immoral war like every single war in human history barring a startling few, and the retards who started larping as crusaders in 2015 to feel cool who never grew out of it and actually believe they were right so they feel the need to defend their reality fanfiction.

Pretending like there's two sides who are equally wrong is giving undue legitimacy to the former retards, because at best the latter only exists in circles who have such hate for historical accuracy they are the same as the former except they just have different opinions.
>>16530613
I'm not trying to shift blame, I'm destroying your gay cope that muh precious Byzantines dindu nuffin and that the Crusades were HECKING necessary because the retarded Turks failing to beat back a bunch of eunuch retards until they started stabbing each other in the back, and who were killing each other during said conflict were an existential threat to all of Europe which conveniently had a collective unified identity in your mind despite sitting back and watching the Normans Harry and rape the shit out of England and Italy for fun.

>>16530668
>One side acts like a completely childish piece of shit
>Completely dishonest, goalpost shifting, insulting, abandons the argument several times to shitpost
>"MUH WHATS WRONG WITH ALL OF YOU GUYS!!???! WHY CAN'T YOU JUST GET ALONG!!!!?!???!"
This is why people hate fence sitters.

>>16530786
>This is why people hate fence sitters.
Reply to what was actually written, retard. I never said do not debate or argue.

>>16527589
People will be saying the same thing about the Allies in WW2 soon

File: LittleGreenMenInBlack.jpg (306 KB, 900x864)

306 KB JPG

The YT channel PaxTube is a glow-in-the-dark nagger.

>>16530850
Yet you're pretending like both sides are acting like dishonest pieces of shit. Only one side is doing that, and if you had actually read the discussion you'd know that. So you're just a fence sitting faggot who doesn't even know enough to read what has been said to see who's acting childish and who isn't. Thats why I called you a fence sitter, by painting everyone with the same stroke you've already shown you don't even know enough about the people discussing and their conduct, so you're undeserving of commentary.

I just like calling the crusades war crimes because it makes pencil neck tradlarpers seethe

>>16530887
>Yet you're pretending like both sides are acting like dishonest pieces of shit.
There are good arguments to be made BOTH for and against the crusades. Why don't you make one instead of calling me a faggot.

>>16530993
Yet only one side is acting like a monkey. When someone sees a monkey clawing out a humans face and goes "what did you do?" Anyone with a brain will call him a faggot for not helping or calling for help. I've already made my arguments, the bitch responding to me literally ignored it because it was undeniable, and yet lo and behold we have Mr "can't even read the thread enough to know this" commenting on how he totally knows what conduct should be derised. You're a dumb monkey faggot and I will insult you until you fuck off because you've made yourself even more infuriating than the childish retards I've been discussing with by pretending to know enough about a thread you haven't read to viably fence sit.

Faggot.

>>16530783
Wow, some libtard faggot from the year of our lord 2024 thinks that the Crusaders 1000 years ago were not "justified" in their conquests. Really deep dude! You're a real historian!

>>16531067
Aww, mad? Gonna cry and piss and shit yourself? Make an argument against what I said or kill yourself.

>>16530775
The crusades were for the holy land and the injustices christians faced at the hands of muslims
:)

>>16530783
>there was the original understanding that the Crusades were a largely immoral war
what the fuck are you talking about? You had a consensus in your bubble and feel threatened that it never actually existed?
>existential threat to all of Europe which conveniently had a collective unified identity in your mind despite sitting back and watching the Normans Harry and rape the shit out of England and Italy for fun.
oh yeah nevermind. this is terminal retardation. post hand brownoid

>>16531218
That's so cool.
>>16531230
The historical consensus among anyone who isn't a retard is that
>__ religious war, regardless of what the retards who dickride it say, is immoral
No matter the conflict, no matter the country, no one is dumb enough to try and justify the actions of a bunch of ancient dickheads except in extreme circumstances because as time goes on our morals will always change and be opposite to them. This is basic common sense.
>Muh the existential threat to Europe that required Byzantines backstabbing themselves to actually win, and only had final victory because those same Europeans had fun rampaging through their capital
Please don't pretend you haven't read the rest of the thread, please just fuck off and die if you want to keep having the same conversation over and over again.

Taking any christian’s opinion on the crusades seriously is stupid. Imagine rolling up to the biggest weeb in existence and asking him what he thinks of Japan in WW2.

File: hhsep18p.jpg (40 KB, 615x350)

40 KB JPG

>>16527827
>jesus was a bro-ACK!
Levantines have never and never will be brown. Stop coping amerimutt.

>>16531265
Unironically man I didn't read this thread. I clicked through a few parts mainly pertaining to byzantine incompetence and how they lost land even tho that wasn't the original premise.
>The historical consensus among anyone who isn't a retard is that
Lmao, literally just "I made up the consensus." Nice
Anyway you write the opinion of a leftist or westernized muslim
>>16531287
Dude half of them disavow the crusades. They are the only ones you even would discuss the morality of their conquests with. Muslims don't hand-wring over conquering everything from Morocco to Indonedisia. They don't even give it a second thought

>>16531287
The weeb has a better chance of being honest about Imperial Japan.
>>16531410
>Posting a Syrian
>To say a bethlemite was white because of it
... Are you retarded?
>>16531424
>Doesn't understand basic historiography
>Doesn't even read what he's talking about
>Still wants to talk like he's an authority
Hey there bro, have you considered Home Depot? They sell ropes there.

File: conquista-1170x680.jpg (173 KB, 1170x680)

173 KB JPG

>>16527565
The Reconquista was a decolonial movement! It was completely justified

>>16531509
Nice deflections lmao. Sorry I didn't read ur whole thread
So you're muslim?

>>16527589
You sound like a faggot, i mean, nowadays modern redditors are justifying Gaza's massacres because they are good goys.

>>16527718
>ended with the crusaders running away to go murder a bunch of Snow monkeys in the North because they were less technologically advanced than Arabs and easier to mass murder because of it
What is this retarded narrative? The Baltic crusades started well before the crusades in the middle east ended. And it wasn’t like the crusaders all left the levant to go to latvia or whatever, it was just a subset of crusaders that went to the baltic instead of the middle east, mostly operating under the umbrella of the teutonics and livonians. Not to mention, the northern crusades had a reason, baltic pagan raids into catholic lands were becoming too frequent to ignore.
Honestly what you’re saying is about as retarded as claiming that the reconquista was every crusader running away to fight in spain instead of the middle east.

>>16530775
>Then you have to be fine with the Arabs attacking Christians lands.
Uuuuhhh, No.

"until the Turks finally conquered them" Well, this is ignorant the two hundred years of history after the 1204 sack and even hundreds of years before from the Taking of Egypt, which cut the vital gran supply of Egypt from Constantinople to various nomand invasions in the 11th centuries. "The failure of Byzantium to uphold its territorial integrity from 1180 or defend itself 1203-1204 did not suggest it could necessarily have presented much of a bastion against the later Turkish invasion, however unpleasant the fourth crusade did not lead to the triumph of the Ottoman Turk."

>>16532363
grain*

>>16527565
fredda’s just another breadtuber with nothing to add aside from relying on “experts” without knowing how they came to their conclusions, let alone knowing why said methods should even be considered “valid”

>>16531728
This narrative is easily more acceptable than "muh Crusades were justified" which is why it's even more retarded that people keep sucking off muh crusades.
>>16531760
Not a single deflection, and it's funny you say that by deflecting to claim I'm a M*slim.
>>16532363
This post has nothing to do with what I said. You're such a faggot you didn't even quote that second part because it has nothing to do with what I was actually saying. Do you just enjoy cutting arguments up and then making up what someone else is saying? I said that the Christians literally didn't aid Constantinople when the Turks finally conquered them, not that the conquest was an inevitability.

You're actually too annoying to bother responding to anymore, you completely ignored my whole point about the infinite regress about getting mad at everyone occupying that land except native anatolians because you know I'm right. At this point why even bother replying? Just reply to yourself in silence and your arguments will be as connected to reality as they are now.

>>16532224
The crusade was literally preceded by them getting absolutely fucking BTFO out of Egypt right before that. Why do you keep we wuzzing when it's a fact that the Christians had been doing that as well and forcefully baptizing the denizens? The HRE was attacking the Wendish even before that had happened. Is it just your new favorite strategy to lie about every event to try and we wuz while pretending to be different people?

Every war is justified, period.

>Muslims conquer huge amount of territory from Persians and Romans while committing some atrocities but also effectively ruling the provinces afterwards.
>"It's just how people acted in late antiquity. They couldn't have been expected to act any better. Don't project modern sensibilities onto people who died 1500 years ago, etc."
>Latin Christians reconquer parts of this territory and establish christian kingdoms, committing some atrocities but effectively ruling the provinces afterwards.
>"This is different because... um... uh... t-the women and children uh..."

>>16533196
nobody said this moron.

>>16533256
He is right though, you see to only shit on the crusaders and not hold anyone else accountable for their actions, you completely look away when Muslims attack Christians, but lose their shit whenever Christians fight back.

>>16533270
most of this thread is people having an argument on the byzantines. Making up strawmans in your mind is pretty pathetic

>>16533304
>most of this thread is people having an argument on the byzantines.
So not everyone? Got it.

>>16533318
>still making up shit

>>16532473
>The crusade was literally preceded by them getting absolutely fucking BTFO out of Egypt right before that
It wasn't "literally preceded" by that. It was literally preceded by centuries of conflict between the catholic scandinavians, poles, and germans and the pagan balts and slavs. It wasn't some change in strategy to redirect the crusader effort to the baltic instead of the middle east, as you claim, it was an evolution of a regional situation that remained a regional situation.
>The HRE was attacking the Wendish even before that had happened
Oh so you knew that, I can't quite grasp your point then. You say that the baltic crusades were some kind of redirection of the crusades to save face, but you also admit that this kind of conflict was ongoing long before the crusades. Do you have any actual argument, or are you just seething here?
>Why do you keep we wuzzing
What are you even talking about? Where did I "we wuzz"? I'm not some crusader fanboy, I just don't like the goofy and inconsistent narrative about the baltic and main crusades that you're pushing.
>Is it just your new favorite strategy to lie about every event to try and we wuz while pretending to be different people?
Do you just assume that everyone that disagrees with you is the same person? I don't know what the hell else you've said in this thread. I just saw a dumbass post and wanted to deboonk it.

>>16530475
>>16530479
He's requested blacked art of Gawr Gura before

>>16534175
Source: Fredda

isnt the paxtube guy the person on twitter who was asking around begging people for information on whether his favorite vtuber had sex with a black guy or not

>>16529507
Yeah the 4th crusade was against Christians. It means saying all of the crusades or the crusades in general were anti-Islam is objectively wrong. Those in power had other, more nuanced motivations.

>>16534965
>one crusade getting derailed from its initial mission means that the crusades in general weren't anti-islam
This is the kind of retardation that I come to /his/ for lmao

File: 1693382288851682.png (277 KB, 1270x1700)

277 KB PNG

>>16529200
>1. nobody in levant and adjacent regions had any nigger admixture before 1 AD
Do you have a source about the first african (female/sex) slaves being traded? I'm curious.
Also curious when African trade troutes started to become active and interconnected with the silk road. Wikipedia says the Silk road started around 110 BC, yet we've found celtic remains in central asia dating from 1000 BC and other european remains from 2000 BC, so there is some schemery going on here and these trade routes were active way before historians claim they started. So I wouldn't be surprised if female Africans were trades across these routes (for the purpose of sex/breeding) well before 1AD, even if that trade wasn't really significant/substantial number wise.

>>16527691
What the fuck is wrong with you people?

File: 1708331610379305.png (964 KB, 905x1490)

964 KB PNG

>>16534994
Stated mission*
Either way, the crusades, which took place over a period of 200 years, together, is probably either a mistake or misdirection. 4th crusade just makes the stated narrative fall apart. Once you realize that the Basileus held exclusive rights to European/Christian gold coinage until the sacking of Constantinople in 1203-1204, and that the ships used for the crusades were Venetian, and that the Venetians generated massive profit from trading gold and silver, the real motivations (at least for the 4th crusade) are revealed. Of course "historians" conveniently forget to mention these facts.

>>16535003
moses invented fucking niggers

>>16535046
Missed a word: lumping the crusades together*

>>16535048
Are you sure?

>>16535051
tocharians were not selling niggers to the chinese

>>16527565
>Pax Tube, right-wing kike
>Fredda, left-wing kike
Jupiter, I love to see kike civil wars.

>>16530367
Not surprising. Usually the most loud about how based and Christ pilled they are are the most degenerate.

>>16534175
He asked for a clip of gura talking about having sex with black guys, this was for his video where he criticizes vtubers

>>16527565
I remember watching this dudes video about the french revolution after watching Ashe Logos's one about the topic, and there was such gap in quality despite them both having the same broad stance on the subject and bring up some similar points. Also Pax comes across as Jesuit indoctrinated.

File: Untitled.png (1.12 MB, 1113x939)

1.12 MB PNG

>Mogs your video with nearly zero effort

>>16537533
And such a clip never existed (except in his puritan repressed homoerotic mind)

>>16534197
Hello Paxtuber my redpilled brother! Christ is King, based!

Greetins, you # 1 fan Redditmeer Zoomer

>>16527565
Pax because i hate breadtubers more than i hate annoying tradcaths

>>16527565
any good videos about the Crusades?

No matter how much they try to deny it, the relations between Christian and Muslim states were not going to be peaceful in any way. I don't know why they try so hard to say that the crusaders would have stayed in Europe instead of invading the holy land, I mean its not like if the Muslim expansion and the fall of Constantinople were not going to happen if they did not go there.

> was a stupid wars

Unfortunately, personal evaluations are useless and do not in any way detract from its impact on history for much of the known world.

Now, for some reason many want to insert their 21st century opinions and morals into events from the 11th or 12th century. This is simply stupid. because it does not allow us to understand the context in which the events were developed and reducing history into a kind of story about good and bad people or about how we are "superior" for living in the era in which we live.

>It was the fault of the Byzantines

The area they controlled became a place that was too coveted by their neighbors, they held out as long as they could.

>>16527579
>decide to watch these videos
>Fredda is almost crying at the end explaining how Pax should never have peace because he's almost responsible for some people dying in Norway
Wow, these videos really encapsulate 2 different forms of retards.

>>16539877
>he's almost responsible for some people dying in Norway
Tl;dw?

>>16539913
He used the same blog as a source as the guy in Norway who killed those leftist kids so he hopes Pax never finds peace and goes to hell soon.

Yes it's that retarded.

>>16528001
>Ok? Yes no Christian follows the religion to the letter?
Not even the 10 Commandants? I have less respect for Christians in general now.

>>16538909
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sY05MMZ_hiM

>>16527629
>literally a few thousand guys carve out centuries long military states in the middle of the islamic world
>only are defeated when they have so much sex their descendants are half basal ape and now able to be overwhelmed by the numerically superior muslims.

LOOOOOOOOOOL
HAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAAHHAAHHAHAHA

exposed by the French, exposed by the mongols, exposed by the English, exposed by the ashkenazim 50yboys, and fat Americans LMFAO, can these basal chimps do anything right?
now what, youre going to bitch to the mods I called you a stupid animal? I dont even know who the fuck you are lmfao.
but you sure are stupid and what I do know is the entirety of West asia is filled with weak, cowardly, and ever increasingly westernized individuals.

trading post religion for a bunch of sand eating retards who couldnt leave the middle ages despite being ruled by advanced foreigners for thousands of years LOOOOOOOOOL

>>16527651
Modern individuals can not internalize the fact that there really isnt a reason anyone should be alive.
They dont like killing , they dont like warfare, but they can not articulate, if it could even be articulated, as to why these are "le bad".
the entire notion of morality was developed for group cohesion so that you can present a strongeer united front in a war.

>>16530854
this