Were the Crusades a defensive action or just an excuse to raid and plunder?
>>17982100They were a reactionary offensive action inspired by sincere fanaticism and extreme emotion, to the extent that it's hard for nihilist modern zoomers to understand.
>>17982100Considering the only long-lasting impact was the looting and destruction of the largest christian city in the world and crippling of the empire that was the bulwark against muslim invasions for a thousand years im going to guess the latter
>>17982100It was take the holy land from subhuman scum (kikes and mudslimes) for God's true chosen people, Christians.
>>17982102You mean they didn't have television
>reconquring territory under muslim control for 600 years >defensive action
>>17982100They were offensive slaughters justified under God's command.
>>17982102The narrative that they were cynical colonizers was popular with millennials first.
>>17982161they also had more second sons than land and since attacking other Christians was frowned upon by the Church (not that any feudal lord cared) the Crusading movement served to offload some of them where they were actually needed given the Turkic onslaught that disrupted pilgrimage routes and probably desecrated some holy sites as well
>>17982184As far as Byzantines or any Mediterranean Christians were concerned it was defensive action. Muslims were fighting Christians on and off between Anatolia and Iberia. You should be aware of the fact that the Crusades were triggered by the Roman Empire and the Komninoi were as involved as any of the Western lords until madlad Bohemond decided to make himself prince and told the emperor to suck it
>>17982394people made crusade comparisons when Allenby marched into Jerusalem, the association goes back to the colonial era itself
Anyone who defends the latter crusades needs to be doxxed and exposed for the subhuman they are
>>17982100Crusaders were all bunch of goy cattle fags.
>>17982100Maybe a large percentage initially did it out of faith but the fact that templar guilds exploded in wealth shortly after is pretty telling of true intentions.
as with most thingsa little of both
alright byzzies we promise to return your land once we take it :)CRUSADER STATES BABYYYY LETS FUCKING GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Reminder that the crusades wouldn't have been a thing if it wasn't for the barbaric actons of the Islamic conquests.
>>17982697Correct action given how retarded history proved the byzantines to be.
>>17982697might have been in the byzantines best interest to actually supply the crusaders instead of scheming behind their backs at every possible moment.
>>17982626your father must be so proud of you!
>>17982100Write this down because it's going to be on the test:>the crusades were self-defense against the Islamic hordes.
>>17983035Crusades discourse be like:>Musulims what's that?>Oh nooo muh templars are rapist colonizerz!!!!
>>17983035explain how the fourth crusade fits into this narrative
>>17982100Initially organised as a form of defence of Anatolia from the Turks and to help Byzantium (and hopefully get the Emperor to acknowledge the Pope as the head of the church) and it sort of just started to roll into something greater for Jerusalem instead as propagandists found it a better line and the Papacy ran with it>>17982963>might have been in the byzantines best interest to actually supply the crusadersThey did though. The continued to supply them by ship even during the siege of Antioch.
Byzantranies weren't worth saving and the chrusaders did them a favor by mercy killing them.
>>17982100both probably but definitely defense by using offensive measures.
>>17982100>Were the Crusades a defensive actionYES
>>17982100The Crusades were a defensive action. Muslims had stolen Jerusalem and the Christians decided to reclaim it.
The first few were defensive, the rest were excuses to brutally massacre.
>>17982100Yes.
>>17982100They were just retards who wanted an excuse to rape and plunder, just like most people who join the military today.
>>17982100They were a defensive excuse to rape and plunder, and I'm not even joking
>>17982113Based Byzaboo
>>17982100>Be Byzantine magnate in Anatolia>Turks invade your land and the emperor leads an army against them>Emperor loses battle against Turks and gets captured >Elites depose the emperor and murder him>Fight a civil war because that's what Romans do best>Hand over your cities to Turks so you can fight civil war >The Turks will surely give me my cities back >Turks decide to keep the Anatolian cities >Dear Pope, please help us
They were ungodly from top to bottomt. Protestant
>>17982100both.
>>17982626>t. assmad jew who got slaughtered during 1st Crusade's siege of Jerusalem
>>17982100The initial push was in reaction to Seljuk expansion. But it immediately morphed into the most successful land-grab and plunder operation in medieval history. They sacked Christian Constantinople for crying out loud! Calling it purely defensive is a massive whitewash of the chaotic greed that fueled it.
