The Strategy of the Crusades, 1096-1291 

hahaha

Especially after...uh...1204...cuz that happened...

Is this some kind of joke I'm not getting?

@@rosalind1635 The Byzantine empire was such a Christian power. The 4th Crusade dealt it a blow from which it could never recover.

@@michaelhenman4887 LOL. I'm slow 😵🥴

Cyprus was important as a way station for the Italian war galleys: a typical galley with supplies for c.1 week and without reliable navigation on the open sea was heavily dependent on a system of naval bases (Crete/Greece/Rhodes etc etc) in order to make the Italy-Holy Land route. But its importance was still based on the availability of suitable bases/harbors in the Levant. After Baibars destroyed the Levantine harbors, Cyprus could only be a Crusader holdout/pirate haven, with no hope of retaking the Holy Land. This status was reinforced further once Baibars successfully redirected Italian trade to Alexandria.

@@StrategyStuff Please, produce new videos ... They are awesome!

Muslims at the time were even more divided then crusaders. With invasions from turks and later mongols and also some massive revolutionary style rebellions in iraq. All these wrecked the muslim world. Its only a miracle that islam was turned into a minor religion like judaism.

Yes, it was divided. But the Crusades were incredible undertakings based on sheer logistics alone. Just getting to the Middle East was a huge task, before you even had to fight for it.

But at the end of the day, the Crusaders, formidable as they were, could only take a small amount of territory. Muslims, although divided, kept the Crusaders hemmed in, and if Crusading armies dared venture further inland, they were halted by powerful Muslim armies. Contrast this to the Mongols, hailing from a land materially poorer and much less populated than Europe, yet they conquered almost all of Eurasia.

valar nah just thank venice for the logistics, also lot of islamic rulers helped them, belive or not Seljuks werent really conserned about islam. and Normans who represented the third of crusaders were used to move armies by ships throughout seas, Viking style.

Your comment partly reinforces mine because the Normans and Venetians were both Crusader forces at varying times, and therefore count as contributing enormously to the effort. And it wasn't easy for either of them. Yes, the Seljuk Turks weren't initially overly concerned with expanding Islam like the Arabs had been and only periodically expressed the same zeal for jihad. And the divisions in the Muslim world and alliances sought with the Crusaders absolutely helped the latter's successes. Interestingly, the last point would be true in reverse of former Crusaders and descendants of the Seljuks later on. Tamerlane was furious with the Venetians for transporting the Ottoman army to safety across the Bosporus after his victory over the Ottomans at Ankara in 1402, but Venice preferred the enemy it knew to one that it didn't.

It shows that even 800 years ago muslims and catholics could get along perfectly fine. All crusades were very pointless. Less about protecting christians than conquering muslims.

Frederick II was a coward who dodged his responsibility of committing to the crusade multiple times. He dodged the 5th crusade which ultimately saw the crusaders lose Dameitta. His constant stalling and dodging his duty damaged the crusaders efforts. The promise of the crown of Jerusalem is the reason he signed the treaty. He even agreed in the treaty to not intervene in any conflict between the Muslims and the Christians of Tripoli and Antioch. If Frederick II had actually showed up at the siege of Dameitta Egypt could have been under the control of the Crusaders. Even if he arrived earlier during the 6th crusade he would have restored much of Jerusalem. But his lack of interest in the movement and his personal greed ruined the affair. In other words. F*** that guy.

@@aksmex2576 No! It was more about restoring the holy lands to Christendom and less about conquering Muslims.

@@slipperyturk5080 I don't think it's that simple.

@@slipperyturk5080 Nah it was about acquiring lands. You do realize majority of the crusaders, the normans were raiding the christian lands like italy and balkan? Talks about irony here man. The Emperor Alexios was so scared meeting with one of the leader of crusader, Behemond because this guy was just raid byzantine coast with his father not a decade ago.

He is talking about the Crusader States of Outremer not those of Greece and Minor Asia.

read video description

What the religious orders were able to accomplish despite the odds is pretty remarkable regardless. The legends surrounding them got built up for real reasons, not just the stuff that now fuels conspiracy theories.

yeah. but this could have been solved by actually forcing people to convert to Christianity in the area, thus creating the seed for future generations of Christians who would be loyal to Jerusalem. this sadly was not the reason nor the crusaders goal. They didn't envision it as a means to conquer and convert masses of people - unlike what the Muslims had done in the past and would do continuously each time they conquered new lands - but a return of the holy places to Christendom. the Christian concept of a holy war isn't/wasn't as sophisticated or flexible as the Muslim Jihad.

and that's what the zionists learned ...

@@hugowebs6479 Though in large part I agree with you that religion makes for a potent tool in both; the cause of a Casus Belli, and after the conquest, the consolidation of gained territory through hearts and minds, I doubt that it ever ocured to the medieval European nobility to expand christendom toward the middle east. It simply server as a convenient dumping ground for second and third born sons to win their spurss before entering into either military service as a somewhat renowned knight or in rare cases winning a piece of land for themselves to look after and work for in one of the Crusader kingdoms. The main issue in expanding those kingdoms was that a well armed European Knight takes up a huge swath of area to equip, maintain and most importantly keep loyal to his liege lord. A liege lord might be able to entertain the territorial and social ambitions of a score of knights maybe even a hundred. but after that There is no real political unity. Kings would bargain away their taxed wealth and credibility to ensure the support of nobles that had collected sufficient numbers of retainers. But I digress. The muslim community in the area entertained a similar system of feudal vassalage to the newborn crusader kingdoms. Only that the local military elite or "Sipahis" were more numerous by far, for the simple fact that there was more developed land to grant them and thus maintain their numbers.

@@mohamedaboelenein7727 Israel's demographics are fucking awful.

Why let that stuff ruin a GOOD CRUSADE ?

and THAT is why the US army today ONLY invades and occupies and regime change a foreign nation when they HAVE THE RESOURCES to fund this endavour after succes; oil, oil, oil. the crusades tought them that. Iraq yesterday..venezuela tomorrow. (and n Korea has noooooooooooooooooooothing...no oil, no exclusive mining...).

Absolute Grass well they tried

1204 was a mistake

@@Hussar-bt8sv And we're still paying the price for it.

Well it's more like the Muslim world keeps dividing itself. Even under Netanyahu, whose policies one assumes would at least cause all Muslims to deepen hostility towards Israel, Muslims and Muslim Arabs have continued to divide themselves over Iran and the results of the Arab Spring. Hard to see a new Ayyubid conquest coming about under the existing international framework.

I thought Outremer best emphasized that I was talking about the Crusader regions (NOT just Jerusalem) and the Crusader point of view.

Outremer directly translates to Overseas. in spanish, this is called Ultramar

@rajat mehndiratta well if you call crusaders as overseas men, though usually ultramarino would be described for overseas products but im not a native spanish speaker to fully answer that

no myth

Philip attack only after Richard was out of Holy land

Richard did not attack, because he knew the attack would fail unless the source of reinforcements from Egypt was shut down. In the absence of this, Richard withdrew.

Well there were so many overlapping motivations for the crusades: Byzantines wanted help vs Turks, Pope wanted to mend the Great Schism under Catholic leadership, second sons in feudal Europe looking for land, the Italian republics wanting a better trade base, the inherent weakness of the Near East due to the Fatimid-Seljuk struggle...

It's hardly any wander what the motivation was. Aside from all the strategic, political, and personal piety components, you have a set of medieval civilisations with Christianity being the only thing uniting them, and another group with a strange new religion conquers most Christian lands; the motivation to take them back for Christianity is self evident

For the Byzantines maybe--not for Europeans.

All the Crusades were different. Talking about them, collectively, as the Crusades actually serves as a form of tunnel vision. A popular view by the first crusaders arose from the Pax Dei movement. Channeling their martial skills into something better than fighting each other. Sometime around the fall of Jerusalem in 1071, there was an end to pilgrimages from Europe, though the city changed hands a number of times. For most of these participants the pilgrimage was the overriding factor--the Normans were another matter. And of number of these were heads and heirs of great fortunes in Europe--not "second sons." Not sure where that myth comes from--possibly Runciman. The success of the First Crusade served as a template for future rulers, kings, popes to motivate potential followers and channel their beliefs, desires, fears into a weapon. Most of the participants of the first crusade departed as soon as Jerusalem was secured, which proves what their overriding priority was all along. What happened after that was up to a different set of actors.

Yep just like that! Easy.

Except nobody had any interest in creating another power in an unified, christian Spain centuries earlier than it happened IRL.

​@@anon_148 3 Things: 1-) Yeah. You know who does not want a strong power in Spain ? Arabs. 2-) When "Holy Land" was captured there was no single kingdom, there were multiple ones, each were independent from each other. If desired so, after liberation Spain could also be separated into liberating forces' different Kingdoms. 3-) It was very much in the interest of "Western" peoples to have strong powers at geographical choke points and reclaiming the lands that were lost. Just remember this: 2/3 or around 60 percent of old Western ( or Christian) lands (roughly the Roman Empire territory) are lost to Muslim people's today... Let that sink in.

@@maverikmiller6746 Christians didn't hate Islam that much, remember that a few years later France and the ottomans became best buddies against fellow Christian states. The monarchs cared about their own power, and giving away free land to rival Christian states using the blood of their own soldiers is not going to help them much. Also I think it would've taken many campaigns to liberate the Iberian peninsula, and without a goal to unite everyone like liberating the holiest city in Christianity it would've never happened.

Lol

A funny anecdote is how Muslim lances grew longer and longer throughout the Crusades, almost like they were trying to keep the Franks as far away as possible!

@@StrategyStuff This is funny, longer lances were to increase momentum and kinetic energy, also to defeat the infantry spearmen reach advantage. Yet this is ridiculized while 7 feet lance of Polish hussar that so long you need special sling to the armpit get praised.

I might argue that Mamluks are pretty much equal if not better than European knights. Theser were the armies that regularly beat mongols at their game and also receive very strict training. Ever heard crusader knights doing swimming, diving practise to increase endurance? Ever heard crusader knights doing polo game to increase horsemanship skill? Jousting in circular formation? Practising lancing while covered with burning candle just to train coordination? Who beat mongols cavalry by doing feigned retreat and ambushing them, while western knight need their stone fortification just to be successful against mongols onslaught? You had no idea what you are talking about.

@@cool06alt The Mongols lost almost every time they fought the knights of Central Europe. Their defeat of Hungary at Mohi was only due to Hungary's lack of modernization and the lack of the heavy armor and weapons used by knights in Western Europe. When the Mongols attacked Hungary a second time, they were beaten with ease, thanks to the upgraded Hungarian weapons and tactics, adopted from Western Europe. As for the other stuff you mentioned, the Mamluks took centuries to defeat a tiny number of European knights occupying a tiny strip of land clinging to the Eastern Mediterranean. If they were more than a match for a knight one-on-one, their greater numbers would have destroyed the crusaders kingdoms far, far sooner. Most of that other stuff you mentioned (like swimming) is nice, but it doesn't do much to improve prowess in combat. In short, you are the one who doesn't know what he is talking about. Even the Muslims of the time held the European knights in high regard, at least in terms of their combat prowess.

@@cool06alt wow..swimming....how come the young turks living in western europe suck at swimming then ? every summer dozens of turkish immigrant kids drown in swimming pools and in shallow lakes.. (heavy cavalry riders doing swimming sounds as stupid and ineffective (swimming in anatolia ??? mountainous region ??) as pretending they learned mathematics and navigation by the stars..all, and each Mamluk.....). You have no proof.

We will retake Jerusalem!!!

😂😂 die by your rage The mamluk soldiers start training from a very early age this why no one can match them And this is why the destroyed the mongols cavalry in ain-jalout

@@FS-cu9uj European knights began training as a page at age seven. They also had better weapons, armor, and tactics. Even the Muslims of the day deliberately avoided engaging them unless they had at least a 3-to-1 superiority in numbers, or something close to that.

@@Nonamearisto this is absolutely bullshit In battle of alyarmok caliphate destroyed the Eastern roman empire though they were heavy armored The muslims were around 70k The romans 200k Also another example is the battle of Al-mansora in Egypt in the nine crusade French knight got destroyed by the mamaluk Even king Louise the ninth got captured and imprisoned in ibn-lqman dar His large paid tribute to free him

@@FS-cu9uj Those numbers are gross exaggerations. The entire Eastern Roman military didn't have that many at any time! That account was garbage.

@@FS-cu9uj Bullshit, take your muslim lies elsewhere

I have to agree with this. Crusades were a geopolitical calculation, given the Turkish conquest of western Anatolia. We can't understand this today, but Nicaea was one of the richest regions in Europe at the time, and untill then it had NEVER fallen to an occupying force. To put things into perspective, imagine if some hostile non-european power managed to conquer London or New York today, just giving you some perspective. The strategy thus was this: if Asia Minor has fallen, Europe will soon follow suit. What was to be done: reconquer Anatolia for the Empire and create a buffer zone (Outremer) and Eastern Anatolia which will prevent further Muslim incursions

@@averinus7706 I wish crusade was to renconquer anatolia instead of jerusalem too

@@Hussar-bt8sv I understand, but there are some things to consider. The heart of the Christian faith was under Muslim occupation, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Lebanon, etc were **majority Christian** And as OP mentioned, important trade routes passed trough the area. It's a good question whether so many soldiers would answer the call to arms if the target was anything other than the Jerusalem itself

Yes, I tend to agree. They were not a random act of misplaced piety, although that might have motivated / propagandised some of the participants some of the time. Factors include a desire to reunite eastern and western christendom following a request for support by the former to the latter (that didn't go well, especially in the 4th Crusade), diverting the frequent fighting (mostly for plunder) that was common in Europe to an external foe, a misty desire for 'liberating' the 'Holy Land' for pilgrims, and (underpinning much of it) a desire for adventure, glory and treasure by participants in far flung lands. More controversial are (i) the concepts of an adaptation / continuation / refocusing of the expeditionary Viking / Norman culture that had, by then become Christianised and permeated several key parts of Europe; and (ii) the effects of the Medieval Warm period which increased the population growth, prompted greater urbanisation, favoured younger demographics (more angry young men looking for trouble) and made travel (and the logistics of expeditionary warfare) somewhat easier. The colder times that followed ended the era, notably through dramatically lowering the population courtesy of the Black Death, and creating an oversupply of infrastructure and shortage of labour that effectively ended feudalism. By then the seeds had also been sown for the renaissance, the enlightenment, the spread of universities and rediscovery / development of scientific method; partly through the rediscovery of the Greek classics (notably Aristotle) largely lost in the West, but still preserved in parts of the Islamic world.

Brother Judas none of these places were mostly Christian at all. They had Christians *minorities* but nothing near a majority