Why did The Crusades Fail?
video description
P. S. The comment section is also hilarious. (referring to comments leaving by muslims) Considering there is no education in muslim countries, that doesnt surprise me at all. -
Especially the ignorant turk fools who never look into any history books in their lives. All their knowledge is based on the internet and false historical TV shows in turkey. These retards brag about the Peoples Crusade &1101 Crusade. They have no clue about the fact that the Crusaders were far from being an army in these expeditions. In these campaigns, the Crusaders were more of an undisciplined crowd than an army. (An irregular crowd consisted of peasants, pilgrims, and lower-class mercenaries led by monks and petty nobles who had no idea what went up against with) Not to mention the seljuk turks had easily resupplied, reinforced their armies, easily outnumbered Crusaders, and lured them into the ambush with cowardly horse archery tactics. The seljuk turks were never able to defeat the Kingdom of Jerusalem aswell. The last battle between seljuks and the Kingdom took place in 1163, named -al-Buqaia- which ended with Crusader victory. They just won some battles against weak crusader states Principality of Antioch and County of Edessa, and these crusader states ravaged by the plagues had depleted each other with civil internal conflicts.\r\n
Date: 2023-12-16
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 29
-Angelscorr
Mighty Crusader Bohemond utterly crushed the turks at battle of the lake of Antioch in 1098 (700 crusaders versus 12, 000 turks) and founded the Crusader state named Principality of Antioch. He was the biggest reason for the success of the First Crusade. HRE Barbarossa utterly crushed the turks Battle of Iconium at the third crusade. That was another great decisive crusader victory. After the battle seljuk sultan bent on his knees, submitted to crusader terms. (65, 000 turks versus 40, 000 HRE soldiers) Reference, Arnold Buhler -The Crusade of Friedrich Barbarossa-. Richard the lionheart utterly crushed the Saladin at Acre 1189, Arsus 1191, and Jaffa 1192. Again in all of these battles, muslims had more men and undeniable superiority. Furthermore, The muslim clowns had united under Saladin's banner at Mongtisard 1177, Belvoir Castle 1182, Siege of Kerak 1183. As I said, Saladin had overwhelming superiority in terms of manpower, supplies, and munitions. Despite the dire situation the Crusaders faced, they managed to defeat him and his Muslim allies. The reason for the Saladin capture of Jerusalem was, King Baldwin IV, lost his life because of leprosy. Baldwin crushed the Saladin and his Muslim followers at Montgisard 1177 even at the height of his illness. Baldwin's great victory at Montgisard is also proof that seljuk turks victory at the second crusade was insignificant. The kingdom did not affect badly by the outcome of that crusade, maintained its strength, and managed to kick muslim ass in countless battles, skirmishes. The second, fifth, seventh, and eighth crusader expeditions were doomed to failure from the start. Mostly because of incompetent and arrogant French leadership. If all crusades had been led by leaders like Bohemond, Friedrich Barbarossa, and Richard the lionheart all of them have been succeeded. I'd like to redefine some terms here aswell about crusaders aswell. I-ve seen constant misconceptions on the internet that the goal of the Crusades was -to prevent Muslim expansion into Western Europe- or something. This is not so. The First Crusade-s stated aim was to aid Eastern Christians, primarily the Greek Orthodox Byzantine Empire. After the First Crusade, the subsequent Crusades aimed to preserve Roman Catholic rule in the Holy Land, especially Jerusalem. This was the stated goal of the Crusades and since the last vestige of Roman Catholic rule in the Holy Land fell in 1291, which is why people say the Crusades failed. This is also wrong, The first, third, and sixth crusades succeeded. -
P. S. The comment section is also hilarious. (referring to comments leaving by muslims) Considering there is no education in muslim countries, that doesn't surprise me at all. -
Especially the ignorant turk fools who never look into any history books in their lives. All their knowledge is based on the internet and false historical TV shows in turkey. These retards brag about the People's Crusade &1101 Crusade. They have no clue about the fact that the Crusaders were far from being an army in these expeditions. In these campaigns, the Crusaders were more of an undisciplined crowd than an army. (An irregular crowd consisted of peasants, pilgrims, and lower-class mercenaries led by monks and petty nobles who had no idea what went up against with) Not to mention the seljuk turks had easily resupplied, reinforced their armies, easily outnumbered Crusaders, and lured them into the ambush with cowardly horse archery tactics. The seljuk turks were never able to defeat the Kingdom of Jerusalem aswell. The last battle between seljuks and the Kingdom took place in 1163, named -al-Buqaia- which ended with Crusader victory. They just won some battles against weak crusader states Principality of Antioch and County of Edessa, and these crusader states ravaged by the plagues had depleted each other with civil internal conflicts.
reply
Mighty Crusader Bohemond utterly crushed the turks at battle of the lake of Antioch in 1098 (700 crusaders versus 12, 000 turks) and founded the Crusader state named Principality of Antioch. He was the biggest reason for the success of the First Crusade. HRE Barbarossa utterly crushed the turks Battle of Iconium at the third crusade. That was another great decisive crusader victory. After the battle seljuk sultan bent on his knees, submitted to crusader terms. (65, 000 turks versus 40, 000 HRE soldiers) Reference, Arnold Buhler -The Crusade of Friedrich Barbarossa-. Richard the lionheart utterly crushed the Saladin at Acre 1189, Arsus 1191, and Jaffa 1192. Again in all of these battles, muslims had more men and undeniable superiority. Furthermore, The muslim clowns had united under Saladin's banner at Mongtisard 1177, Belvoir Castle 1182, Siege of Kerak 1183. As I said, Saladin had overwhelming superiority in terms of manpower, supplies, and munitions. Despite the dire situation the Crusaders faced, they managed to defeat him and his Muslim allies. The reason for the Saladin capture of Jerusalem was, King Baldwin IV, lost his life because of leprosy. Baldwin crushed the Saladin and his Muslim followers at Montgisard 1177 even at the height of his illness. Baldwin's great victory at Montgisard is also proof that seljuk turks victory at the second crusade was insignificant. The kingdom did not affect badly by the outcome of that crusade, maintained its strength, and managed to kick muslim ass in countless battles, skirmishes. The second, fifth, seventh, and eighth crusader expeditions were doomed to failure from the start. Mostly because of incompetent and arrogant French leadership. If all crusades had been led by leaders like Bohemond, Friedrich Barbarossa, and Richard the lionheart all of them have been succeeded. I'd like to redefine some terms here aswell about crusaders aswell. I-ve seen constant misconceptions on the internet that the goal of the Crusades was -to prevent Muslim expansion into Western Europe- or something. This is not so. The First Crusade-s stated aim was to aid Eastern Christians, primarily the Greek Orthodox Byzantine Empire. After the First Crusade, the subsequent Crusades aimed to preserve Roman Catholic rule in the Holy Land, especially Jerusalem. This was the stated goal of the Crusades and since the last vestige of Roman Catholic rule in the Holy Land fell in 1291, which is why people say the Crusades failed. This is also wrong, The first, third, and sixth crusades succeeded. -
P. S. The comment section is also hilarious. (referring to comments leaving by muslims) Considering there is no education in muslim countries, that doesn't surprise me at all. -
Especially the ignorant turk fools who never look into any history books in their lives. All their knowledge is based on the internet and false historical TV shows in turkey. These retards brag about the People's Crusade &1101 Crusade. They have no clue about the fact that the Crusaders were far from being an army in these expeditions. In these campaigns, the Crusaders were more of an undisciplined crowd than an army. (An irregular crowd consisted of peasants, pilgrims, and lower-class mercenaries led by monks and petty nobles who had no idea what went up against with) Not to mention the seljuk turks had easily resupplied, reinforced their armies, easily outnumbered Crusaders, and lured them into the ambush with cowardly horse archery tactics. The seljuk turks were never able to defeat the Kingdom of Jerusalem aswell. The last battle between seljuks and the Kingdom took place in 1163, named -al-Buqaia- which ended with Crusader victory. They just won some battles against weak crusader states Principality of Antioch and County of Edessa, and these crusader states ravaged by the plagues had depleted each other with civil internal conflicts.
reply
-tdg9756
The overall goal of the crusades was to push back the muslims from Europe and fight them on their own land because there had been so many attempts from them to invade Europe even though their pirates were already raiding european coasts
By reclaiming Jerusalem the Christians forced them to stay out of Europe and even though they didn't reclaim it by the end of the last crusade, the objective was still fullfiled and Christians would eventually reclaim it a few centuries later with an overwhelming technological advantage
So we can say that the last crusade was a great success
reply
The overall goal of the crusades was to push back the muslims from Europe and fight them on their own land because there had been so many attempts from them to invade Europe even though their pirates were already raiding european coasts
By reclaiming Jerusalem the Christians forced them to stay out of Europe and even though they didn't reclaim it by the end of the last crusade, the objective was still fullfiled and Christians would eventually reclaim it a few centuries later with an overwhelming technological advantage
So we can say that the last crusade was a great success
reply
-christianm6947
Military is all about resources,
The Muslims at least know not to waste time and energy on sending a force to Paris France or even Marseille during that time period because it would be the same result. Geographically far and difficult to manage Food, and all the items for an army have to be correctly planned.
That once they conquered a city, they obviously lost troops. And since the Papal States didn-t really provide any post planning after capturing Jer. It would always fail.
reply
Military is all about resources,
The Muslims at least know not to waste time and energy on sending a force to Paris France or even Marseille during that time period because it would be the same result. Geographically far and difficult to manage Food, and all the items for an army have to be correctly planned.
That once they conquered a city, they obviously lost troops. And since the Papal States didn-t really provide any post planning after capturing Jer. It would always fail.
reply
-chaselee86
The crusades didn't all fail. If you count the reconquista of Spain and Portugal as part of the crusade, then it was very successful. Catholics have retaken the Iberian Peninsula from the muslims. They have also successfully stopped muslims in invading France in the battle of Tours, expelled them from southern Italy and Sicily, and defended Budapest and Vienna from Ottoman Empire later. It just depends on whether you include these as part of the crusades.
reply
The crusades didn't all fail. If you count the reconquista of Spain and Portugal as part of the crusade, then it was very successful. Catholics have retaken the Iberian Peninsula from the muslims. They have also successfully stopped muslims in invading France in the battle of Tours, expelled them from southern Italy and Sicily, and defended Budapest and Vienna from Ottoman Empire later. It just depends on whether you include these as part of the crusades.
reply
-lucasdamotta2931
Most of the people here don't realize the geopolitical situation involving the crusades was not nearly as simple as Crusaders x Muslims.
In many cases nobles and leaders in both parties were allies according to personal interests. Christian crusaders were NEVER unified as people would think today. For a more realistic and non-romantic view of the crusades i suggest you to check Kings and Generals series on the topic.
reply
Most of the people here don't realize the geopolitical situation involving the crusades was not nearly as simple as Crusaders x Muslims.
In many cases nobles and leaders in both parties were allies according to personal interests. Christian crusaders were NEVER unified as people would think today. For a more realistic and non-romantic view of the crusades i suggest you to check Kings and Generals series on the topic.
reply
-Meserbee
Very simple. You cannot pillage knowledge and forget what happened yesterday? Sorry. Intelligence does not support lying and hiding to take the lead. The Middle East is for Middle Easterners. Just marry an Arab or a Jew and stop acting like others should take notice? I blame systems that do not integrate all faiths. This us against them stuff is for the birds. Look at yourself if you want to see the problem.
reply
Very simple. You cannot pillage knowledge and forget what happened yesterday? Sorry. Intelligence does not support lying and hiding to take the lead. The Middle East is for Middle Easterners. Just marry an Arab or a Jew and stop acting like others should take notice? I blame systems that do not integrate all faiths. This us against them stuff is for the birds. Look at yourself if you want to see the problem.
reply
-TheRiskcan
Crusade is a continuation of western colonisation of the Arab land. Control the religion, change it n continue colonisation of a another land for resources. U can still see it now French continued exploitation of African countries for uranium at cheap prices, Syrian war for oil. Asians, arabs, Africans are getting more clever now.
reply
Crusade is a continuation of western colonisation of the Arab land. Control the religion, change it n continue colonisation of a another land for resources. U can still see it now French continued exploitation of African countries for uranium at cheap prices, Syrian war for oil. Asians, arabs, Africans are getting more clever now.
reply
-baykaraca1
In 1453, Fatih Sultan Mehmet conquered Byzantium, but did not touch the civilian population, they lived their faith, language and culture freely. The Greeks still blame the Turks for taking Constantinople. However, it was the Crusader army that burned down Byzantium, massacred the civilian population and raped women.
reply
In 1453, Fatih Sultan Mehmet conquered Byzantium, but did not touch the civilian population, they lived their faith, language and culture freely. The Greeks still blame the Turks for taking Constantinople. However, it was the Crusader army that burned down Byzantium, massacred the civilian population and raped women.
reply
-hakeemkh4749
Perhaps the reason is also that Muslims are very strong because they have a real and just cause and they respect their religion and beliefs-
Unlike the Crusades, which were covered by the cross and the Christian religion, but had expansionist and purely economic goals.
reply
Perhaps the reason is also that Muslims are very strong because they have a real and just cause and they respect their religion and beliefs-
Unlike the Crusades, which were covered by the cross and the Christian religion, but had expansionist and purely economic goals.
reply
-user-ov7ty1wd3c
(First crusade) 1: 16
(Second crusade) 2: 45
(Third crusade) 3: 40
(Fourth crusade) 5: 04
(Fith crusade) 7: 38
(Sixth crusade) 8: 26
(Seventh crusade) 9: 45
(Eighth crusade) 10: 32
(Ninth crusade) 11: 43
reply
(First crusade) 1: 16
(Second crusade) 2: 45
(Third crusade) 3: 40
(Fourth crusade) 5: 04
(Fith crusade) 7: 38
(Sixth crusade) 8: 26
(Seventh crusade) 9: 45
(Eighth crusade) 10: 32
(Ninth crusade) 11: 43
reply
-DAMHANE. 0al
No man, the only reason for the failure of the crusades is that they were fighting a meaningless war, soldiers didn't have a good reason to risk their lives for, even with good planning they were fighting only to survive not to conquer.
reply
No man, the only reason for the failure of the crusades is that they were fighting a meaningless war, soldiers didn't have a good reason to risk their lives for, even with good planning they were fighting only to survive not to conquer.
reply
-novagas1788
I stopped watching the video when you said: -the infamous Muslim ruler Saladin- --
That -infamous- ruler had more honour and dignity than the entire crusaders military and religious leadership combined!
reply
I stopped watching the video when you said: -the infamous Muslim ruler Saladin- --
That -infamous- ruler had more honour and dignity than the entire crusaders military and religious leadership combined!
reply
-257nothing
The first wasn't a failure in my eyes. To make a Kingdom that lasted close to a hundred years in the heart of your enemy territory whilst being surrounded out supplied and out numbered is a great success.
reply
The first wasn't a failure in my eyes. To make a Kingdom that lasted close to a hundred years in the heart of your enemy territory whilst being surrounded out supplied and out numbered is a great success.
reply
-Endwankery
I would question the idea that they did fail. True, they failed to hold the holy lands they retook but they did stop the incursions of the Muslims into Europe for quite a few centuries
reply
I would question the idea that they did fail. True, they failed to hold the holy lands they retook but they did stop the incursions of the Muslims into Europe for quite a few centuries
reply
knowledgia
It was unattainable target from the start, you just can't hold a city in the heart of an enemy land. Without the sea all these cities were easy to isolate and take one by one.
reply
It was unattainable target from the start, you just can't hold a city in the heart of an enemy land. Without the sea all these cities were easy to isolate and take one by one.
reply
-luqmanuk
They failed because of their love for this world and hate for death while their enemies were people who had no desire for this world and had a love for death and martyrdom
reply
They failed because of their love for this world and hate for death while their enemies were people who had no desire for this world and had a love for death and martyrdom
reply
-kuchenkoren4051
European Christians fought so hard and lost millions souls to conquer Jerusalem.
Centuries after, when the region finally conquered, they gave it to Jewish --
reply
European Christians fought so hard and lost millions souls to conquer Jerusalem.
Centuries after, when the region finally conquered, they gave it to Jewish --
reply
knowledgia
one reason is its far away unlike muslim they can go there easily Jerusalem is middle east nation. and its always outnumbered by muslim horde are more in numbers
reply
one reason is its far away unlike muslim they can go there easily Jerusalem is middle east nation. and its always outnumbered by muslim horde are more in numbers
reply
-alperenborklu4005
Shorter answer: We as Turks come here for good but it took about 1000 years to the Westerners to get that, unfortunately, some of them still not get it.
reply
Shorter answer: We as Turks come here for good but it took about 1000 years to the Westerners to get that, unfortunately, some of them still not get it.
reply
knowledgia
They were squabbling with each other so to were their Muslim foes just shows that the notion of all of one faith uniting against all of another is impossible!
reply
They were squabbling with each other so to were their Muslim foes just shows that the notion of all of one faith uniting against all of another is impossible!
reply
-Ahmad_Mahammad
Louise the ninth and Margrete
history in school when I was 15
the most beautiful days
Now Israel bombs our primary school with vantom 4
reply
Louise the ninth and Margrete
history in school when I was 15
the most beautiful days
Now Israel bombs our primary school with vantom 4
reply
-tituslabienus01
Because The Byzantine Didn't Support Catholics The Way They Should Have There Were Times The Byzantine Allied With Muslims To Attack Catholics
reply
Because The Byzantine Didn't Support Catholics The Way They Should Have There Were Times The Byzantine Allied With Muslims To Attack Catholics
reply
-user-ot2ys9pv5m
Saladin was a good, sophisticated, pious, and just person, and not as his enemies claim, that he was a monster and bad and These words.
reply
Saladin was a good, sophisticated, pious, and just person, and not as his enemies claim, that he was a monster and bad and These words.
reply
-kennethtyree4770
They were not properly trained and equipped for desert warfare. Happens all the time. Been a long time since Alexander the Great.
reply
They were not properly trained and equipped for desert warfare. Happens all the time. Been a long time since Alexander the Great.
reply
-sup494
First crusade didn't fail because it was purely motivated by faith rest of crudes was motivated by wealth and fame that's why they failed
reply
First crusade didn't fail because it was purely motivated by faith rest of crudes was motivated by wealth and fame that's why they failed
reply
-mujahidmeister
Sultan Salauddin Ayubbi Showed mercy respect and courage to the losing army by giving safe passage to their countries back.
reply
Sultan Salauddin Ayubbi Showed mercy respect and courage to the losing army by giving safe passage to their countries back.
reply
-nazzawirockful
Short answer: the crusaders had a false cause and god was on the muslims side and always will be until judgement day
reply
Short answer: the crusaders had a false cause and god was on the muslims side and always will be until judgement day
reply
-pivanv23
jerusalem was surrounded by muslim countries, that alone was a huge disadvantage, getting backups, resources was too far
reply
jerusalem was surrounded by muslim countries, that alone was a huge disadvantage, getting backups, resources was too far
reply
knowledgia
not fail they go there to loot kill as worrier never settle down lay family root n slowly got weaker till expulse
reply
not fail they go there to loot kill as worrier never settle down lay family root n slowly got weaker till expulse
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
