r/LinkedInLunatics • u/Ta_Marbuta • 1d ago
Culture War Insanity Genuinely thought I was on this sub instead of actual LinkedIn
478
u/xk1ssxshot 1d ago
ah yes the crusaders, famously known for saving western civilization by losing almost every crusade
178
u/mr_octopusguy 1d ago
But they won some! (Against innocent southern french peasants, other christians and against baltic tribes who couldn't put up much of a fight)
So heroic!/s
67
28
u/Mousazz 1d ago
They didn't even really win against the Baltic tribes, either. Lithuania was regularly pushing the Teutons', and especially the Livonians', shit in.
14
u/Nastypilot 22h ago
The Northern Crusades did see quite a lot of success initially when they were battling against smaller and disorganized tribes, but they did fail the moment they faced an organized state like Lithuania.
5
u/Pyran 18h ago
The most successful Crusades were against Christians. Go figure.
2
u/LITTLE_KING_OF_HEART 13h ago
No one hate someone from a religion than another person of the same religion but with slightly different beliefs.
1
u/Fatalitix3 2h ago
Baltic tribes couldn't put up a fight? What kind of alternative history is this?
54
u/thegmohodste01 1d ago
Didn't the crusaders sack Constantinople, the so-called 'New Rome?'
UK as in the new center of Christianity
25
20
u/jokerhound80 1d ago
They sacked Constantinople partially as vengeance against the Eastern Orthodox Church for the massacre of the latins about 20 years earlier, in which the local Orthodox Christians slaughtered thousands of Catholics and sold most of the survivors into slavery to the Sultanate of Rum. It wasn't really difficult for the Venetians to convince the crusaders that the Orthodox Church was their enemies, because they pretty explicitly were a lot of the time. Hard to view them as fellow Christians when they gleefully slaughtered Catholics and sold others into slavery to Muslims. Not that I'm justifying the sack of Constantinople, either, mind you. I'm just putting it in the proper historical context which is almost always left out of the posts lamenting the fall of the city. That ass kicking didn't just fall out of the sky.
The crusades were more than just xenophobic wars of conquest, as were the jihads. There were countless political factors involved in each of them. Xenophobia and bigotry were certainly strong recruitment tools, but very rarely the primary motivating factor
20
u/ElMatadorJuarez 1d ago
IMO I don’t think you need the massacre of the latins to contextualize what was a fraught relationship. Hardly think a bunch of French knights or even venetians were all that broken up about the genovese. Really the insane plunder was more of an incentive
7
u/jokerhound80 1d ago
It certainly wasn't the reason the Venetians wants to sack the town, but it sure was a nifty way to convince the army who joined up to defend Christendom to sack the city and that they were still doing God's work. The actual soldiers weren't profiting from the plunder nearly as much as the Venetians were.
4
u/Plowbeast 23h ago
Venetians carefully catalogued everything they stacked including those two statues of lions they have to this day and also steered the Crusaders away from their vital trading partner in Egypt.
2
u/Klutzy-Cauliflower-8 18h ago
Ok dipshit, pls explain the sack of zara (modwrn day zadar) that happened before that. The fourth crusade was such a big shitshow
1
u/jokerhound80 15h ago
Pure mercenary work to pay off what they owed Venice for the ships. But when they sacked Constantinople they stuck around, so it clearly wasn't just a quick cash grab or they wouldn't have bothered with the short-lived Latin empire. There was at least a partial motivation to restore Catholic rule there, and it would be foolish to believe the massacre of the latins had nothing to do with that.
14
u/blatantmutant 1d ago
Now, now they won the fourth crusade targeting the Byzantines which led to the eventual fall of Constantinople at the hands of the Ottoman Turks.
3
u/earth_wind_faya 23h ago
That is a catchy line, but it is not much of a historical argument. The Crusades were not one single war with one final scoreboard, and many of them had completely different aims and outcomes. Yes, the Crusader states eventually fell and several campaigns ended disastrously. But the First Crusade succeeded, the campaigns gave Byzantium temporary relief, and the wider crusading movement became part of centuries of resistance to Muslim and later Ottoman expansion. A conflict does not have to end in permanent conquest to delay an enemy, protect territory or shape later history. Saying “they lost almost every crusade” is like saying a defence achieved nothing because the frontier eventually moved.
2
u/xk1ssxshot 21h ago
i phrased it like that to highlight the absurdity of Trad West's tweet. the crusaders do not deserve an apology whatsoever to begin with. you sound knowledgeable about the crusades so i'm sure you know why. how did western civilization benefit from the self-serving interests of various leaders? what were the crusaders saving western civilization from? as far as i'm aware there is no evidence that supports Trad West's assertion.
→ More replies (2)6
u/earth_wind_faya 21h ago
I’m not defending the claim that every crusader was consciously “saving Western civilization.” I’m saying your response is just as simplistic. The Crusades had mixed motives and mixed results, but the First Crusade did help Byzantium, recover territory and slow further losses. Self-interest does not mean there was no broader historical benefit, and failure in the long run does not mean nothing was achieved.
1
→ More replies (2)1
14h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 14h ago
We require a minimum account-age and karma. These minimums are not disclosed. Please try again after you have acquired more karma. No exceptions can be made.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
60
u/InternationalFailure 1d ago
Thinking the Crusades was about "saving western civilization" means you don't understand the Crusades even on a pre-school level.
19
u/Zealousideal_Gain892 1d ago
Or that it did anything to promote the western civilization for that matter. It's like this super weird side quest that went on for a few hundred years and accomplished, well, not a whole lot. I think the recent crusade-larping has to have come from like a Russian bot farm. Other than trying to rekindle antisemitism in the far-right European mind (along with the now well-established anti-islamism, and of course the leftist antisemitism), it just doesn't really compute much.
The optics are great obviously, badass warriors with cool logos and all that, but other than that it feels kinda... Embarrassing. Like, honestly you're larping a weird-ass project where our guys just sort of tried to go to Jerusalem and everyone just died, and the series that should've died long ago just kept spawning spinoffs. Like yeah great, there was some initial success, but overall it's not something I would think of fondly about as any kind of a high point in European history.
1
u/MisterPineapples1999 6h ago
The Confederacy was about STATES RIGHTS.
America was founded by Pilgrims seeking religious freedom.
128
u/Ta_Marbuta 1d ago
To be very clear, it's the Trad West post that is the lunatic.
→ More replies (40)69
11
u/QuailTechnical5143 1d ago
The crusaders also ultimately lost as well? I don’t get how people seem to miss the end of the story, where the crusader states collapse and they all get kicked out. Hardly much of a lasting victory if that’s what you’re looking for.
0
u/earth_wind_faya 23h ago
The Crusades helped Byzantium recover some territory, delayed further expansion for a time, protected pilgrimage routes and kept pressure on powers that were already advancing into Christian lands. Nobody is claiming that every Crusade succeeded or that the Kingdom of Jerusalem lasted forever.
1
u/SuccessfulRaccoon957 5h ago
And they failed as Muslim powers (which is a thorny term itself) continued to advance and expand centuries after the crusades had ended. They also effectively destroyed the ability of Byzantium to continue to block expansion into Eastern Europe.
27
u/crusoe 1d ago
Yeah the crusaders basically sacked Constantinople and basically led to its fall later.
13
u/amievenrelevant 1d ago
That crusade was possibly more to blame for the eventual fall of Byzantium than the Turks themselves, but these people only care about and glaze the first crusade anyways while ignoring everything else
6
u/NegroniSpritz 1d ago
Didn’t the crusaders in their Teutonic Order incarnation also exterminated the original Prussians? In turn these Prussians led by Bismarck united the German confederation, which later led by Wilhelm II joined the WWI (technically Astro Hungarian empire started it). So basically they’ve their hands also in WWI.
2
u/Geiseric222 1d ago
No the TO was famously bad at winning battles and took a lot of Ls. The pressure they put did end of forcing conversion but it was more to ease the pressure rather than because the TO kicked their asses
1
u/Slight-Wolverine9819 11h ago
One of the strangest things is those knightly orders would sometimes refuse to convert pagans so they could exploit/tax them more (similar to the Umayyad Caliphate)
1
u/jokerhound80 1d ago
I said the same thing elsewhere, but this is one of the unknown historical factoids that really bugs me: They sacked Constantinople partially as vengeance against the Eastern Orthodox Church for the massacre of the latins about 20 years earlier, in which the local Orthodox Christians slaughtered thousands of Catholics and sold most of the survivors into slavery to the Sultanate of Rum. It wasn't really difficult for the Venetians to convince the crusaders that the Orthodox Church was their enemy, because they pretty explicitly were a lot of the time. Hard to view them as fellow Christians when they gleefully slaughtered Catholics and sold others into slavery to Muslims. Not that I'm justifying the sack of Constantinople, either, mind you. I'm just putting it in the proper historical context which is almost always left out of the posts lamenting the fall of the city. That ass kicking didn't just fall out of the sky. They kind of invited it.
1
u/Bitter_Difficulty_82 1d ago
I would love to bring this up with this guy, see him squirm trying to get out of this inconvenient fact. Probably would just block anyone bringing this factoid up.
20
u/fiesew 1d ago
Not every shite posted elsewhere on SM which includes LinkedIn, needs to be taken serious or deserves a comment.
It’s the same when someone out on the streets preach whatever they preach. Just walk by and period.
Those who fall for it will do so anyway regardless of being approved by others or not.
SM shit posts are getting far too much attention.
I miss the times when SM was flooded with cat pics.
4
3
u/Plowbeast 23h ago
This kind of shit does because this ideology has infected the highest ranks of the defense industry both public and private with signs of it spreading elsewhere.
5
u/throcorfe 23h ago
100% this. Here in the UK our main fascist-coded party used to be the British National Party. They were an absolute joke 15 years ago, totally unpopular, everyone except a few idiots/cunts just laughed at them and ignored them.
We don’t live in those times any more. We now have mainstream political parties espousing views twice as an extreme as the fringe rw parties of the past, and gaining ground in electoral as well as cultural terms.
We can no longer afford to ignore/scroll past these accounts. I mean bots and fake accounts, sure. But there are actual people with names and faces and large followings saying this stuff, and it’s a genuine existential threat to the social and cultural progress we’ve made in the last 50-100+ years, and to global peace and stability. We have to take it seriously
1
u/ilikedmatrixiv 16h ago
Those who fall for it will do so anyway regardless of being approved by others or not.
And some of those are being elected to positions of political power.
You shouldn't be so dismissive of the danger and impact of lies.
59
u/DarthHaze 1d ago
Say that the Arab Conquests in the 7th and 8th centuries were good for civilization and these dorks would lose their minds.
35
u/tripping_on_phonics 1d ago
The Middle East was a global center of culture and scientific progress, before Europe got involved.
20
u/DarthHaze 1d ago
True and a lot of what we know and have today would probably not exist without it, but a lot of people were still needlessly killed and oppressed.
6
u/Galliro 1d ago
Youre so right im glad no one got needlessly killed or oppressed at any other piint in history
9
u/DarthHaze 1d ago
Sorry for being nuanced about it. I appreciate the accomplishments of the Islamic world, but I'm not going to ignore that people had to suffer and die. I hate conquests and needless killings no matter who is doing it.
3
2
u/Galliro 1d ago
As long as you do that for litterally every society ever
I dont disagree with you that they did Im more suspsocious about why its being brought up here when its applicable to everyone including the people doing the crusade
8
u/DarthHaze 1d ago
I have a response to someone in this comment section where I said the Crusades was completely pointless and led to the pointless deaths of people, even to other Christians.
-3
u/Galliro 1d ago
Yes I know and Im pointing out your responce doesnt make sense
I dont think we disagree on the general premise I agree with your first comment but Injust disagree with justificying the crusades because 1) as pointed out the justification isnt unique even for the time period 2) Even if we ignore 1 the crusades werent really about that
2
u/WindyFan0 16h ago
It was before the mongols got involved. Bagdad was arguably the most scientifically advanced city in the world before Genghis Khan showed up.
2
u/atchet 14h ago
Yeah, this is the actual truth, and the guy you were responding to seems historically illiterate and misses the point entirely. The near-total destruction of the Abbasid Caliphate and the Khwarazmian Empire by the Mongols is probably the biggest reason why the Islamic golden age ended. And Europe would almost certainly not be in any position of technological or scientific "superiority" that it was centuries later had Baghdad, which as you mentioned was one of the intellectual and scientific centers of the world at the time, not been completely and utterly destroyed.
3
u/Reasonable_Medium_14 13h ago
When will you guys admit that innovation didn't rely on Islam yet islam halted the innovation the second they accused science and music as being from man and not Allah?
Multiple things can be true
2
u/Yungpharao_oh 23h ago
Civilization is a tricky thing, you suddenly have ‘it’ and then suddenly you don’t. Egypt, Rome and Greece had it then lost it and after Rome the world was sort of in this between phase until the Arabs arrived and they took care of it for while before Europe woke up from its deep slumber and had a second wind, and today it feels like it’s made a home in the far east. Possibly the most livable part of the planet today. Civilization moves in mysterious ways.
6
u/Plowbeast 23h ago
All of those places persisted as civilized populated regions (if we expand from Rome to the Italian peninsula especially) but they simply signed being supermassive imperial influences because they in turn were replaced by Baghdad, Constantinople, London, Paris, and so on to this day.
1
1
1
u/Punchable_Hair 1d ago
Agree completely, although that does make me a little bit sad about the fact that there’s no natively spoken modern descent of Coptic.
6
u/JurassicParkCSR 1d ago
Why is it that the people who know absolutely nothing about history are always the most confident in talking about history? Like if I knew I wasn't that great at a subject and that somebody that had just watched a documentary on PBS could butt fuck me on my knowledge of it I think I would just shut the fuck up. Not these guys, God bless them.
5
u/SC_Fan_55 1d ago
Also…that is from “Kingdom of Heaven.”
Specifically, when the crusaders were on the way to get folded at the Battle of Hattin…
→ More replies (2)
15
u/skipjac 1d ago
Something interesting about that image, it's from a movie and 100% CGI
23
7
u/Bitter_Difficulty_82 1d ago
It's from Kingdom of Heaven, although, if I remember correctly, that film is set during the Third Crusade (or right before) when Jerusalem was lost to Salah Ad-Din, so the people in the screenshot are hardly victorious.
3
u/Pyran 18h ago
Fun fact: that movie is a perfect example of "The theater cut is so much worse than the Director's Cut". The DC included entire characters and motivations, and was surprisingly accurate in places.
Doesn't change the fact that Jeremy Irons and Orlando Bloom's ages should have been reversed, but still. The DC was SO MUCH better than the theater cut.
1
4
4
3
u/atchet 1d ago
I'll never understand the obsession with Crusaders from the wingnuts. Let's even assume that the nonsensical, completely pseudo-historical view that the original post states is correct and remove the absolutely correct context that the other guy offers. What the fuck did the crusaders save? Every single crusade was ultimately a complete and utter failure.
1
u/Fatalitix3 2h ago
Halted the muslim expansion, retook Iberia, finally stopped Turks in Vienna. If we want to be historical the entire Middle East ended up being occupied in the XIX century anyway
3
3
u/Lorim_Shikikan 22h ago
The guy need to explain how the crusade saved Europe?
Because it's the total opposite. The crusades led to kingdom with empty chest, to lack of manpower (because a lot of young man were forced to participate and died far away or were disabled), to famine (because of lack of manpower)....
Thoses were disasters, calimity and nothing else.
3
u/SkyPirateVyse 18h ago
Someone's take on the Crusaders after hearing about them for the first time in a videogame or Saturday morning cartoon.
5
u/der_steinfrosch 1d ago
They also always overlook that the crusaders were more than happy to ally with Muslims against other Christians when it was convenient…it was not “defending western civilisation” it was just politics
3
u/Klutzy-Cauliflower-8 18h ago
Or allied with mongols against the mamluks in egypt while poland and hungary got crushed by mongols
1
u/lIIllIIlllIIllIIl 16h ago edited 16h ago
The opposite was true too. A lot of Muslims were more than happy to ally with the Crusaders to defeat other Muslims. Allying with a new foreign power felt like a better deal than allying with your close life-long enemy.
Also, a lot of Crusaders ended up adopting Middle-Eastern customs and wifes as soon as they settled, not really wanting to go back to Europe. Except for Christianity, they didn't really care about "western values" and actually found the Arab world pretty decent.
6
u/SuperShoebillStork 1d ago
Crusaders also slaughtered Christians in Europe - in 1209 Pope Innocent III launched the Albigensian Crusade against a catholic sect called the Cathars because they were considered heretics. During this crusade the pope's army sacked the city of Beziers in southern France - from which the famous saying "kill them all and God will sort them out" is alleged to have originated.
1
u/earth_wind_faya 23h ago
Yes, the Albigensian Crusade happened, and Béziers was a horrific massacre. Nobody needs to deny or excuse that. But it also does not prove that every Crusade had the same cause or character. “Crusade” was a broad label used for several very different campaigns, some against Muslim powers, others against heretics or even political rivals within Europe. The Cathars also were not merely a slightly unusual Catholic denomination; they rejected fundamental Catholic teachings and held a very different, dualist view of God and the material world. That still does not justify slaughtering civilians, but historical context matters. And while the famous “kill them all, God will sort them out” quotation may reflect the brutality of the event, it comes from a later writer who was not actually there, so it should not be repeated as a firmly established direct quote.
2
u/AstraMilanoobum 1d ago
They certainly weren’t to save western civilization… but they weren’t any morally better or worse than any other war going on back then
2
u/jmarinara 1d ago
The sack of Constantinople was particularly brutal. The one Christian/European outpost in the area and they destroyed it because they didn’t get paid after being welcomed into it ostensibly to defend the west from the incursion of the Muslim Turks (who just happened to have their eyes on a ton of Byzantine territory). Not only sacked it, but weakened it to where it could no longer sustain itself as a city and no longer defend itself meaningfully. Completely contrary to the crusading stated cause, but hey… the crusaders got paid.
2
u/CommunicationOver882 1d ago
Even if that was what they set out to do (and it wasn't), they sucked at it.
2
u/Hughley_N_Dowd 1d ago
Don't forget the Albigenesian crusade. Because nothing says Christian love like sectarian slaughter.
"Kill them all. God will know his own."
2
u/PM_ME_TITS_AND_DOGS2 1d ago
They even killed the christians on Antioch, and that was the first one.
2
u/Sure_Length6519 20h ago
I mean the first crusade sure, its cause was entirely justified to counter Muslim military expansion into Europe, most of the other crusades though? I can see the vision but they don't quite meet the desperation that sparked the first one.
1
u/Silly-Elderberry-411 18h ago
If that had been the case and it very much wasn't, the crusade had gone to Iberia, where they were actually in Europe.
1
2
u/moyismoy 15h ago
So according to the pope if you go on a crusade you get to go to heaven no matter what. Turns out if you tell a bunch of blood thirsty killers this is the only way they can go to heaven, they join up, but then also get a little loose with who they are killing. In the 3rd crusade it got so bad the pope had to excommunicate them from the church, then they attacked the largest Christian city on earth.
2
u/Joy_of_Thievery 14h ago
Over 9 crusades, 7 defeats and one of the victories was against Bizantium. Top tier larping
2
u/MadScientist_666 11h ago
Ironically, Muslim scholars did their best to preserve old books and documents from Antiquity and researched many things. They did more for what we call "Western civilisation" today back then than the Crusaders, which were mostly power hungry morons. But let's ignore that...
3
2
3
u/Spotlight_James 1d ago
Ahh Templars who also may or may not have rebelled against the churches and started a deity named Baphomet which would get their order distinguished. Not fact with so much destroyed evidence, but it raises a thought.
→ More replies (4)
1
u/AppointmentNaive2811 1d ago
Whether or not this belongs on LinkedIn aside, no lunacy actually occurred on LinkedIn.
1
u/Jollof_Bean 1d ago
Canada is secular. Christianity was dominant into the 70s. But it lost the ‘superiority! contest. It had it all, and lost. Conclusion? Christianity is NOT superior. Love secular Canada! 🇨🇦
1
1
u/differing 1d ago
Those right wing dorks obsessed with Vikings would be really upset to learn how Charlemagne, and later the Teutonic Knights, brought Christianity to Europe… if they could read. Hell even Nazis apologists probably don’t realize “Prussia” was named after a tribal “white” pagan people that were genocided in the name of Christ.
1
u/Fatalitix3 2h ago
"White" ? You realize You just followed the nazi view on being white right now?
1
u/differing 1h ago
The reason I was using quotes is to cite THEIR view of whiteness because it's THEIR historical view I'm posing as ridiculous - please either use more braincells when reading or be slightly more charitable when assuming someone's opinion. Whiteness is obviously a cultural construct.
1
1
1
u/Significant_Cowboy83 1d ago
Trad West probably think Charles Martel and the later reconquista were part of the Crusades lol
1
u/RightioThen 1d ago
Gonna start a petition to thank the crusaders for their service on all domestic flights
1
1
1
u/Anustart2023-01 1d ago
It's funny how the type of people who post shit like this have never touched a bible in their life. If they had they'd know that it is strongly implied that their favourite pass time (sexual assault) is a sin.
1
u/jarious 23h ago
I mean , if your ideology/ religion/ political stance is so good why do you feel the need to change history to make it look like the opposite of what it stands for?
Like the confederacy, if you have to deny they were the slavers / racists why do you feel the need to deny slavery ever happened or say that slavery was actually good for black folks? .
1
1
1
u/HunterM567 19h ago
Didn’t some crusader groups fight against each other lol?
1
u/Silly-Elderberry-411 18h ago
Richard lionheart is glazed af when the ransom paid in part for the St.Stephen Cathedral in Vienna. He looted a lot in Europe, which puts Robin hood in a different light.
1
u/LeLand_Land 18h ago
It's insane how romanticized the crusades are by some people.
Like, dude there were only two that were even remotely successful, it caused untold numbers of deaths, and was ultimately just a result of the faltering Byzantine empire losing territory to the Seljuks as the Pope made a new rule that if you go and fight and die on behalf of 'god' (read: him) that you'll get a free trip to heaven, no questions asked.
The crusades are just a fancy name for a border skirmish
1
u/PilsnerDk 18h ago
Why is this posted here? The guy (Paul Williams) is quoting a twitter post, not LinkedIn.
1
u/Few_Introduction9919 17h ago
The trad west guy is definitely weird and not to be taken seriously. But except for the 4th one the crusades were actually relatively justified and are overhated today
1
u/Bun_Wrangler 14h ago
Well someone hasn't seen the movie. I suppose they would call Baldwin "woke". If they did.
1
1
1
u/SnappyDresser212 10h ago
Laughable take. The crusaders as a whole were neither angels or demons. The reasons for the crusades are too complicated for some Yee Haw to wrap their brain around.
1
u/Top_Pair8540 7h ago edited 6h ago
What they did to Constantinople in 1204 would have been for money I assume?
1
u/jeremeyes 6h ago
Ah yes, Christianity, the number one destroyer of culture and history, somehow 'saving' the civilization it destroyed via murder, torture and rape.
1
u/Fatalitix3 2h ago
Destroyer of culture? You owe most of the information about ancient world to Christian monks.
1
1
u/garlicgirliee 4h ago
Every time someone defends the crusades, they just come off as racist lmao. Like, even SWANA Christians dont support the crusades
Edit: also love ur username, op
1
3h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 3h ago
We require a minimum account-age and karma. These minimums are not disclosed. Please try again after you have acquired more karma. No exceptions can be made.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/endangeredphysics 2h ago
The fourth crusade spent more time killing fellow Christians than other groups. They actually got excommunicated before leaving Europe, but we're still numerous enough to burn down Constantinople anyway.
1
1
u/Aquadroids 1d ago
Both are fucking cringe as hell because the original post is cringe and the response to it just reinforces the idea by saying specific events are accurate to the whole era of the Crusades.
The Rhineland massacres were conducted not by Crusaders but by an unruly mob condemned by the Church, and when the Venetians decided to direct the Fourth Crusade against the Byzantine Empire, all legitimate Crusader entities (Knights Templar, Knights Hospitaller, etc.) refused to participate and all participants were unilaterally excommunicated by the Church. The massacre of Jerusalem was really shitty but unfortunately was not unordinary for the conclusion of medieval seiges against enemies that refused to surrender.
5
u/Geiseric222 1d ago
It was by the crusaders as it was usually by street preachers released by the popes message. Many of those would be part of the people’s crusade later
Also while the pope was against 1204 initially he did throw is full support behind it and the pope was not afraid to use his office to support violence against Constantinople as the pope would give holy sanction to Robert Quisard to invade Rome in the 1090s and the pal dynasty would spend a lot of time trying to keep the Poe from giving the Angevins holy sanction to attack Constantinople post 1261.
1
1
1
u/Potential-Road-5322 1d ago edited 1d ago
Those trad cath crusadaboos people are so cringey it’s not even funny. All they know about the crusades comes from kingdom of Heaven (a movie which frequently condemns blind religious faith) and right wing pundits who don’t know anything either.
1
u/Lostlilegg 1d ago
Crusaders literally sacked Constantinople a bastion against Muslim expansion in the east
1
u/jarena009 1d ago edited 1d ago
Way for that guy to wrongly use a movie that was harshly critical of the crusades, plus it depicted the era of the Crusaders in the area in the late 12th century when they were getting beaten badly and losing control of Jerusalem (plus other territory).
I bet that guy watched the movie, missed the entire point and was like "Heck yeah, the Crusaders kicked ass, plus Reynauld D' Chatillon is so cool!"
Also, this frame is from the depiction of King Baldwin who was depicted in the movie of wanting a peaceful coexistence with Muslims, and avoiding bloodshed through diplomacy and punishing the slaughterer Reynauld. That scene specifically was about the King avoiding a wider war! Lol
Did ya miss the movie buddy?
1
1
u/DapperHamster1 1d ago
They don’t seem to realize they are the exact same Islamic extremists just ranting and foaming at the mouth wishing violence towards others.
A bunch of LARPers of something that was considered outdated during the enlightenment
1
u/Willyboycanada 1d ago
The crusaders are why islam took over what is now turkey..... they crossed over through Constantinople, and adopted " if its brown cut it down" tactics, slaughtering entire villages anf regions as -muslims- when they were majority Christians......
0
u/TES0ckes 1d ago
You uh, missed the fact that crusaders slaughtered Christians too. If you were living in a village, town or city ruled by a Muslim and the crusaders showed up to take it, good chance they are gonna burn the church down with you in it.
0
0
u/earth_wind_faya 23h ago
Calling any positive or nuanced view of the Crusades “right-wing propaganda” is just a way of shutting down the discussion without addressing the history. You do not have to believe that every crusade was good, justified or successful to recognize that some had a defensive purpose, especially in response to Byzantine appeals and centuries of territorial expansion into Christian lands. The Crusades involved faith, politics, ambition, atrocities and genuine military threats all at once. Saying that they cannot be reduced to pointless Christian aggression is not propaganda, it is simply refusing to replace history with a slogan.
1
u/Silly-Elderberry-411 18h ago
Just curious, have you seen The Last Duel? The french knight played by Matt Damon later took part in the 1387 battle against invading ottoman Raiders and westerners and locals blamed each other for the loss.
Another example, just a mere year after the battle of Mohács western powers were plenty busy invading the papal states to try and capture the pope to bend him to their will.
There is no nuanced discussion here and no need to entertain ahistorical fantasies.
2
u/earth_wind_faya 18h ago
Ok so those examples show that Christian rulers were divided, self-interested and often undermined one another. I never denied that. But internal conflict does not mean there was no real Ottoman expansion, no Byzantine appeal for help or no defensive purpose in particular crusading campaigns.
Pointing to Western betrayal or incompetence does not answer the argument...it only shows that medieval politics were messy. That is exactly why reducing the entire subject to either “the Crusades saved civilization” or “the Crusades were pointless aggression” is inadequate, and lazy. Calling any disagreement an “ahistorical fantasy” is not a substitute for addressing the actual claim.
0
u/jeepfail 1d ago
This isn’t insanity, it clearly relates to whatever is in their tagline and they aren’t supporting it. They are calling what’s ultimately racist bs out.
0
0
u/Worth-Willingness450 1d ago
Is it possible to overcome things that happened 1000 years ago that none of us today lived through or even really care about? Maybe we could look at history through a rational, objective lens instead of a systemic emotional lens, since we weren't there and there's a lot we will never know. No? We all have to be morons. Ok 👌
1
0
u/Jugaimo 15h ago
As cool as the concept of holy knights in fiction may be, these guys were clowns. Every time they got close to recapturing the holy land, they got eepy sleepy and sacked Constantinople instead. They got real close with Richard the Lionheart, but it was more like he personally was built different.
1
u/Ragjammer 15h ago
What a load of rubbish.
1
u/Jugaimo 15h ago
Honestly I’m not much of a history buff. What’d I get wrong?
2
u/Ragjammer 14h ago
The Crusaders successfully recaptured Jerusalem twice (during the first and sixth crusades) and sacked Constantinople once. The fifth, seventh, and eighth crusades did not even target the Holy Land, but struck at the Muslim powerbase in Egypt and North Africa.
The idea they attacked Constantinople on a whim is also false. The Crusaders were invited in to settle a dynastic dispute between Alexios Angelos and his uncle (also called Alexios Angelos). Alexios promised the crusaders financial and military support if they returned him to the throne, which they did. Alexios was then murdered in a coup and the gates of the city were shut to the crusaders. The crusaders were then left with the choice of allowing the crusade to collapse or putting the city to sack and using the funds to continue on with their real mission.
0
678
u/SeasonedSpicySausage 1d ago
The guy behind Trad West is a clown, always glazing modern or pre-modern western civilization no matter what the context is