shorthand summaries of the "four" crusades? (really more)

1) the successful one,
2) the boring one,
3) Richard the Lionheart, and
4) the crazy one.

Do you generally agree with this and/or would you like to improve upon this?

=======

And as some of the posts below get into, the case can easily be made that there were more than four.
 
Last edited:
1. The 'too-good-to-be-true'
2. The misfire
3. The one everyone knows about
4. The mistake

This is fun.
 
The commoners' viewpoint
1. ??
2. ???
3. Kingdom of Heaven?
4.????

Or: How I realized my knowledge of the time isn't as good as I thought.
1. The one that worked
2. Er..
3. .....Kingdom of Heaven
4. A solid alternative for marking the end of the Roman empire. What a mess.
 

TinyTartar

Banned
Why only four Crusades? What about the rest of them?

The Fifth one failed, the Sixth one was successful (I think Jerusalem was retaken by the Holy Roman Emperor), the Children's one failed, the Iberian ones succeeded, the Baltic ones sort of succeeded, the one against the Cathar heresy succeeded, the Nicopolis one failed, the Louis IX ones failed, the Ninth I think succeeded like the Sixth in ensuring temporary victory for the Kingdom of Jerusalem, the Balaeric one was an utter victory, the Nicopolis and Smyrnite ones were failures, the Hussite ones succeeded, and beyond that, I don't know.
 

TinyTartar

Banned
From the Byzantine perspective:

1.)WTF is this shit?
2.) Again...?
3.) Getting tiresome
4.) We should have seen this coming.

I was thinking more along the lines of:

1.) Huh, its about damn time... wait, no, what the fuck are you doing?
2.) Well that was anticlimactic
3.) Please drown in someone else's river next time
4.) Dick move, bro
 
I was thinking more along the lines of:

1.) Huh, its about damn time... wait, no, what the fuck are you doing?
2.) Well that was anticlimactic
3.) Please drown in someone else's river next time
4.) Dick move, bro

1. Dude
2. Pls
3. No
4. ......
 

Saphroneth

Banned
1) "If you're going to kill people, at least do it to Saracens."
2) same.
3) same.
4) "Oh you even lost the plot there."
 
1. The one that worked
2. Nothing happened
3. Don't drown in a river next time
4. You went the wrong way
 
1. The One that Succeeded
2. The One We Don't Talk About
3. The One Reason why Kings don't make good Crusaders
4. The One Where Venetian Gold > Fighting Infidels
 
1. The One that Succeeded
2. The One We Don't Talk About
3. The One Reason why Kings don't make good Crusaders
4. The One Where Venetian Gold > Fighting Infidels

Kings make -great- crusaders, you kidding? Richard was a freakin boss when it came to crusading. It's Phillip, that weak little butt-wipe, who contracted dysentery or something and pulled his entire army out.

Barbarossa probably got heat stroke or something, poor guy, he too was most boss.

And let's not forget the other 'crusader-king'...Saladin. You saying he's not a good crusader?
 
Kings make -great- crusaders, you kidding? Richard was a freakin boss when it came to crusading. It's Phillip, that weak little butt-wipe, who contracted dysentery or something and pulled his entire army out.

Barbarossa probably got heat stroke or something, poor guy, he too was most boss.

And let's not forget the other 'crusader-king'...Saladin. You saying he's not a good crusader?

Barbarossa drowned, Philip contracted dysentery (though something tells me he may have faked it so he can go home and steal his rival's lands in a style that would make Bowser look like a swell guy), Richard got captured, and Saladin isn't a Crusader.
 
Why only four Crusades? What about the rest of them?

1. The successful one
2. The one where not much happens
3. The exciting one
4. Some sort of weird Venetian revenge fantasy
5. The one that went to Egypt for a bit
6. The one that was mostly negotiations and diplomacy
7. Egypt again but even less successful this time
8. The Tunisian holiday one where everyone got sick
9. The one where Europe realized the weather is much nicer in France than Palestine and went home to work on the Renaissance
 
Barbarossa drowned, Philip contracted dysentery (though something tells me he may have faked it so he can go home and steal his rival's lands in a style that would make Bowser look like a swell guy), Richard got captured, and Saladin isn't a Crusader.

Barbarossa, if he hadn't been so stubborn and been honest with himself about his age, could have led a successful campaign by delegating command and directing from the rear like a proper fucking emperor.

Phillip is a twit, no comment there.

Richard was a boss-ass-bitch until he was, you know, captured. But until then he was a BOSS.

Saladin -was- a crusader. He waged holy war against enemies of the faith. A rose by another name...

And let's not forget the Crusader Kingdoms---Baldwin IV and his dad were extremely able kings (the latter's ability has been exaggerated in Kingdom of Heaven, but he did defeat Saladin at Montgisard at age 16!!), and Guy de Lusignan -could- have been a decent king if he hadn't been corrupted by Reynauld de Chatillon (and not been so damned foolhardy).


1. The successful one
2. The one where not much happens
3. The exciting one
4. Some sort of weird Venetian revenge fantasy
5. The one that went to Egypt for a bit
6. The one that was mostly negotiations and diplomacy
7. Egypt again but even less successful this time
8. The Tunisian holiday one where everyone got sick
9. The one where Europe realized the weather is much nicer in France than Palestine and went home to work on the Renaissance

Pretty sure Enrico Dandolo was Quentin Tarantino's ancestor...
 
Barbarossa, if he hadn't been so stubborn and been honest with himself about his age, could have led a successful campaign by delegating command and directing from the rear like a proper fucking emperor.

Phillip is a twit, no comment there.

Richard was a boss-ass-bitch until he was, you know, captured. But until then he was a BOSS.

Saladin -was- a crusader. He waged holy war against enemies of the faith. A rose by another name...

And let's not forget the Crusader Kingdoms---Baldwin IV and his dad were extremely able kings (the latter's ability has been exaggerated in Kingdom of Heaven, but he did defeat Saladin at Montgisard at age 16!!), and Guy de Lusignan -could- have been a decent king if he hadn't been corrupted by Reynauld de Chatillon (and not been so damned foolhardy).

Personally, a lot of the events that led to the Third Crusade probably could've been dealt with if someone just up and killed Reynauld. If Philip was a twit, then Reynauld must be the big bad of the Crusades.

Also Baldwin IV was the Leper King who defeated Saladin and Mongisard. His dad was Amalric, who tried but failed to conquer Egypt from the Fatimids.
 
Personally, a lot of the events that led to the Third Crusade probably could've been dealt with if someone just up and killed Reynauld. If Philip was a twit, then Reynauld must be the big bad of the Crusades.

Also Baldwin IV was the Leper King who defeated Saladin and Mongisard. His dad was Amalric, who tried but failed to conquer Egypt from the Fatimids.

If he's killed earlier, at Montgisard, or dies in captivity at Aleppo, then much of the mess that led to the Third Crusade can be avoided, yes. He wasn't the -only- antagonist, but he was the biggest and loudest of them. If he goes, I doubt there's anyone bold or brash enough to fill his shoes.

That's actually a -really- good TL idea.
 
Top