Claorica wrote:
Not to mention most of the crusaders were there under the belief that it was a retaliatory action (it was) against centuries of violent Muslim conquests, and that it also was standard for attackers to slaughter and massacre cities that refused to discuss terms at the beginning of a siege, as urban combat was dangerous, bloody, and brought hardship on everyone.
All fair points, to which i wholeheartedly agree
My ancestors were crusaders who fought the muslims, and received generous lands in Europe for victories against the scourge
However as nobles, we fought strictly for secular defensive purposes, and never for religious conviction.
Defense against Ottomans and Islam was a matter of survival not a question of faith for europeans.
Allah wants slavery and death? Fight Ibrahim and Mohamed to death. Simple. Secular. Sexy.
If anything it was the religious who sought appeasement and reconciliation with Islam. Instead of funding the Crusades, the Church begged for money from nobles, weakening our defense effectiveness over time.
I don't hate the crusades. Only the religious mentality that took advantage of and credit for them
Byzantine Orthodox Church deserved the Fourth Crusade against Constantinople for their Inquisition against the Cathar-Bogomil "heresy"