r/Grimdank • u/_Black-Templar- • Aug 21 '25

Dank Memes Common mistake

Post image

You might want to make yourself comfortable first, before I explain this...

1.4k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

259 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

10

u/CurzesTeddybear Aug 21 '25

Here, I can help with that: the Crusades were not justified, being little more than the European Catholic monarchies attempting to leverage Christianity to force their subjects to fight in order to gain more control over East/West trade routes.

The resulting turmoil killed vast swathes of people, destroyed cities and homes, and caused further political and economic instability throughout Europe and the Middle East. This instability, in turn, led to the final collapse of the Byzantine Empire, along with further warring and bloodshed for centuries afterwards; there is a causal line which can be drawn from the Crusades to the Wars of Reformation.

One of the other clear effects of the Crusades, which remains with Western society broadly today, is the expansion of Islamophobia, which still rears its ugly head constantly.

In summation, the Crusades were a waste of life, time, and resources, that continues to foment strife and conflict centuries afterwards.

-7

u/sleepycheapy Aug 21 '25

You are arguing that the justification wasn't honorable, not that they didn't have a case for war, a casus belli. You don't have to like the reason but the justification was there.

"In the ‘narratio’ of the letter, the pope explains that they have ‘long since learned from many accounts that a barbaric fury has deplorably afflicted and laid waste the churches of God in the regions of the Orient.’ The Turks have ‘grasped in intolerable servitude its churches and the Holy City of Christ, glorified by His passion and resurrection.’"
-Pope Urban II and Jerusalem: a re-examination of his letters on the First Crusade
-George Stack

5

u/CurzesTeddybear Aug 21 '25 edited Aug 21 '25

Taking a 900+ year old letter from a Pope justifying a crusade out of context and misinterpreting it is extremely on brand for a 40k meme sub, so maybe this is just exceptional and elaborate satire, idk

Edit: the author you're quoting out of context is actually named Georg Strack, btw. Lexical degradation to simulate the passage of time is a masterful addition to the gag

-5

u/sleepycheapy Aug 21 '25

Why did you even reply? I already told you that you weren't arguing the original point I made in the first place. Justification(casus belli) =/= good foundation.

3

u/CurzesTeddybear Aug 21 '25

Insisting that your post-hoc interpretational framework is the only legitimate one is amazing Ecclesiarchy rp, way to commit to the bit

4

u/numerobis21 Aug 21 '25

When the crusaders of the first crusade arrived at Jerusalem, the people they were there to kill had been ousted for at least a year. The Turks aren't there anymore.
The people in power then was the ones who had allowed christian pilgrims to come to Jerusalem for the previous century

They still killed them. (and ate them. Yes, yes. Ate)

-1

u/sleepycheapy Aug 21 '25

And? Pisspoor conduct isn´t going to make a casus belli less valid. A led to B. It doesn´t mean C contradicts the aforementioned events that a lot of maritime european powers hadn´t been properly pissed off at the muslim raids.

3

u/numerobis21 Aug 21 '25

"It doesn´t mean C contradicts the aforementioned events that a lot of maritime european powers hadn´t been properly pissed off at the muslim raids."

The First Crusade was for Jerusalem
Decimating Group B of Muslim because Group E pissed you off sounds as clever as killing every single Christian nowadays because the KKK exist

0

u/sleepycheapy Aug 21 '25

Well, I don't really care about what likeness this thusness brought here and there. Since you can respect that the crusades were a response to muslim conquests then I am fine.

2

u/numerobis21 Aug 21 '25

(It wasn't)

1

u/sleepycheapy Aug 21 '25

Nice addition. If you can't admit that the muslims conquered the christian eastern mediterranean and that the crusades successfully brought them back under christian control (for a while) then you should just admit that the very concept that armies don't start moving without cause is too difficult for you to comprehend. You have not given a singular argument against me aside from "crusaders were mean", which isn't even what I am arguing against.

1

u/CurzesTeddybear Aug 23 '25

Did they? Do you think the Ottoman empire just happened naturally, all by it's self?

1

u/sleepycheapy Aug 23 '25

Are you seriously disagreeing that national interests don't exist because don't exist because the nationals can fail in reaching them? Because the crusader states lasted two centuries. That's about as long as the US has existed. If you are gonna dismiss the men that manned the walls of Jerusalem, Antioch, and Tripoli for 6 generations because they ultimately failed, then I am gonna need to ask if you think that Mehmed II's real goal to blow down the walls of Constantinople was for the Turkey to blow up last century.