No movie will depict Crusaders as who they really were. A bunch of rapists and murderers...

No movie will depict Crusaders as who they really were. A bunch of rapists and murderers, who killed many innocent muslims, even children.

Attached: EFF1F12D-9D9C-45EC-B430-436046740F45.jpg (1920x1080, 184.56K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=gM05LAffHJ0
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Cid#Moorish_service
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Crusade
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Latins
youtube.com/watch?v=yH5ccW1_DUg&list=LLwuztLk6e_snj2cVH2IJmLA&index=38&t=0s
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>who killed many innocent muslims, even children
It's not like it wasn't common practice to kill your enemies' wives back then.

>innocent
>muslims

>innocent muslims
>innocent
>muslims

Attached: 1493801994206.png (576x507, 59.1K)

>innocent muslims

Attached: 5A9017C9-306B-4D32-9981-A47708990E9B.jpg (1680x1050, 128.73K)

This scene might be interesting to you. Not the crusades but the Vikings.

youtube.com/watch?v=gM05LAffHJ0

Notice the happy upbeat music intertwined with the screams of women being raped. Truly the golden era hollywood

Fuck Muslims, niggers, and YOU op

I'll bet they didn't like sand.

lmao
>mass rape scene
>portrayal of indolent eastern culture
>numerous homophobic jokes
>all set to a jolly tune

Things really have changed

>Innocent
>Muslims

Attached: 1579315518156.jpg (327x303, 47K)

>A bunch of rapists and murderers, who killed many innocent Christians, even children.
Fixed that for you.

>In this temple 10,000 were killed. Indeed, if you had been there you would have seen our feet coloured to our ankles with the blood of the slain. But what more shall I relate? None of them were left alive; neither women nor children were spared.

The sooner people realize that there were villains and heroes on both sides the better we will all be.

Crusaders were pretty based. Show up in a new place, kill people you don't like. Occupy their lands for generations and steal their wealth. Not a bad way to live

>innocent
>muslims

Pick one and ONLY one, you complete and utter fuckwit.

But Kingdom of Heaven did just that and crusader LARPers are still buttblasted about it and based Salahadin.

Attached: v3augmhsaw931.png (720x1160, 1.5M)

Just think what would have happened if no one harassed pilgrims traveling to the holy land, or if no one invaded anatolia

I have a feeling it's only a matter of time, actually. People nowadays don't really feel any urge to defend the crusades.
I could see Tarantino making a movie that's basically Inglorious Basterds set in the Crusader kingdoms.

makes sense tarantino would defend a child rapist religion

The guy in your pic would most likely disagree with you considering they sided with the Muslims. Then again you're an underage tourist.

>No movie will depict Muslims as who they really were. A bunch of rapists and murderers, who killed many innocent muslims, even children.

Quite plainly villains and heroes dont exist.
Both sides believed themselves to be in the right. Both committed atrocities. It happens in every war. Can we really judge them if we live in a world entirely unlike theirs? What could any modern atheist historian know of a life-time raised in religion? Of praying towards Mecca five times a day every day for their entire life. Of sacrificing so much to travel miles away from home to lands unlike anything they'd seen in their life so they may fight for Jesus Christ?
It is a mindset that can be found today only among terrorists. Can we really judge these people who may as well be alien?

>muslims
>innocent
lmao
there were barely any muslims in those lands anyway, as it was before they got islamized

You confused Crusaders with Muslims.

I think it is hilarious that people forget that the Christian "Hero" El Cid was a mercenary who at one point worked for the Muslims and destroyed a fellow Christian army.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Cid#Moorish_service

imagine dying in some worthless patch of desert over who worships jew-god correctly lmao

Noticeably based
Judging past figures according to ever changing goalposts of heroism or villainy is unattestable, there's no sufficient ground to say what right now may be "good" will be good in a hundred years or a thousand. Winston Churchill may be as bad as Hitler in 2060's textbooks, but may also be as flush as Christ in 2090.

Sometimes politics matters more than religion.

It is actually quite amazing what faith can compel men to do. it goes against reason, yes, but it is miraculous in a manner.

>innocent
>muslims

Attached: 1587861356589.jpg (600x768, 156.64K)

>What could any modern atheist historian know of a life-time raised in religion?
Wut? Many people became Athiest because they were raised in a hostile religion.

>Can we really judge these people who may as well be alien?
Yes. Killing Children is Wrong. You don't need religion to know that.

Just finished an audiobook on the first crusade. Yea this is pretty accurate

Don't give him ideas.

Winston Churchill is a good example.
He's a big hero but he was also an imperialist that saw no problem with the British Empire subjugating millions and a racist and didnt care that a famine killed millions in India. But he still saved Britain from German invasion. Does that mean he didnt sanction human right abuses? Of course not. We are complicated people and no one does completely good or completely bad by whatever definition of good or bad people invent for themselves. But why shouldnt the British people celebrate him if he saved them?
However, ultimately its best to rely on your own judgement instead of making up heroes.

DeMille's movie about the Third Crusade is uploaded on YouTube

Attached: image.jpg (500x746, 89.78K)

>inb4 Churchill was evil because he didn't let Hitler sperg out

you might learn about the crusades to correct your rather plebeian understanding

>the Crusades weren't about religion
Interesting interpretation.

My God you're retarded. Just fuck off, you're a presumptive brainlet.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Crusade

>Lets retake the Holy Land
>But first lets attack Zara and Constantinople (THE BASTION OF CHRISTIONDOM AGAINST THE MUSLIM HORDES), our fellow Christians and loot them
>Oh shit we are rich now from all this loot why the fuck would we go to Jerusalem?
>The Crusaders all go home
> Orthodox Christians now HATE Roman Catholics increasing division
>Byzantine empire is now crippled
>Constantinople is conquered a 50 years later by the Ottoman Empire.

What. The. Fuck.

>who killed many muslims
based

The crusaders killed other Christians for the loot. Because that's what it was about, loot and land.

You think these events came out of nowhere? scroll up in the historical record my pedestrian zoomer.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Latins

stop being a stupid american

youtube.com/watch?v=yH5ccW1_DUg&list=LLwuztLk6e_snj2cVH2IJmLA&index=38&t=0s
pay your debt, Alexios

>innocent muslims
?

It started out like that, but it's like an episode of Trailer Park Boys. That shit immediately got forgotten when someone inevitable stood up around the Balkans and said "Those saracens probably have shit tons of gold" (and saracens included fellow christians living in the area too). Then all hell broke loose with a big disorganized rabble of hungry, exhausted plebians marched towards the Levant with the intent of looting everything to be found. Christ was only a side quest by then.