This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
SW-User
They didn’t. It was a complete failure with the Middle East in almost entirely Muslim hands until the formation of Israel in the 20th century. If anything the Crusades united the Muslim world against the West for the first time.
Abrienda · 26-30, F
@SW-User Which shows you only get your facts from youtube videos or hour documentaries by the BBC.
The "Moslem world" was not "united" for "the first time" against the West by the Crusades. The "Moslem world" was and is at war with ALL religions at ALL times. While it is attacking the Europe Islam is also raping and pillaging its way through India which as I hope you know is Hindu and not part of the West.
During the Crusades parts of the "united Moslem world" happily fought WITH the Crusader kingdoms AGAINST other Moslem states. Now that is a historical FACT you seem not to know about and makes rubbish out of what you think you know. And to further show your ignorance, the "Moslem world" was not "united" against the West. Obviously you never heard of Sunni and Shia Islam which has been fighting each other since 700 AD with BOTH SIDES seeking and getting help against each other from the West you claim they were united against.
So much ignorance and so little time to cure it, Try reading some serious books on the subject and not rely on 44:12 long youtube videos for your education. Good luck.
The "Moslem world" was not "united" for "the first time" against the West by the Crusades. The "Moslem world" was and is at war with ALL religions at ALL times. While it is attacking the Europe Islam is also raping and pillaging its way through India which as I hope you know is Hindu and not part of the West.
During the Crusades parts of the "united Moslem world" happily fought WITH the Crusader kingdoms AGAINST other Moslem states. Now that is a historical FACT you seem not to know about and makes rubbish out of what you think you know. And to further show your ignorance, the "Moslem world" was not "united" against the West. Obviously you never heard of Sunni and Shia Islam which has been fighting each other since 700 AD with BOTH SIDES seeking and getting help against each other from the West you claim they were united against.
So much ignorance and so little time to cure it, Try reading some serious books on the subject and not rely on 44:12 long youtube videos for your education. Good luck.
SW-User
@Abrienda
Of course I understand that not every single Muslim united against the Crusaders, but part of the reason the First Crusade was a success was because the Muslim world was so divided. That changed afterward and helped unite formerly warring factions against the Crusaders. That doesn't mean it was completely successful and it doesn't mean they didn't go back to fighting each other once the Crusades were over.
Of course I understand that not every single Muslim united against the Crusaders, but part of the reason the First Crusade was a success was because the Muslim world was so divided. That changed afterward and helped unite formerly warring factions against the Crusaders. That doesn't mean it was completely successful and it doesn't mean they didn't go back to fighting each other once the Crusades were over.
Abrienda · 26-30, F
@SW-User I just explained to you Moslem states allied with the Crusader states while they were there and in existence.
As for you snarky little comment about the time the Crusades delayed an attack on parts of Europe which they began attacking as soon as the Crusader kingdoms were destroyed, I have dealt with that with all the respect you deserved by making it.
Thus it was not a "complete failure" as anything that exists for 200 years, or saves parts of the world from conquest, can be called. You sound like that boob Sean Hannity who keeps using the word "literally" with the same accuracy as you use "complete".
As for you snarky little comment about the time the Crusades delayed an attack on parts of Europe which they began attacking as soon as the Crusader kingdoms were destroyed, I have dealt with that with all the respect you deserved by making it.
Thus it was not a "complete failure" as anything that exists for 200 years, or saves parts of the world from conquest, can be called. You sound like that boob Sean Hannity who keeps using the word "literally" with the same accuracy as you use "complete".
SW-User
@Abrienda And I didn't deny that. I'm not sure what you mean by "snarky little comment", I've made no "snarky little comment". Perhaps you should learn how to read because you obviously lack even the most basic reading comprehension skills. If you need advice on how to comprehend what people who disagree with you write, you can ask me for advice.
It was a failure in its long-term objectives, which were to retake the Holy Land for Christians and it failed to do so as Outremer was eventually taken over by Muslim forces, what little they did take over was under constant attack and no part of could be considered stable.
It was a failure in its long-term objectives, which were to retake the Holy Land for Christians and it failed to do so as Outremer was eventually taken over by Muslim forces, what little they did take over was under constant attack and no part of could be considered stable.