Why did The Crusades Fail?

If one examines the facts without any bias, one will find that Salah Uddin was a just, courageous and fair man. While King Richard executed some 3, 000 unarmed prisoners, Salah Uddin allowed his captives to be freed. He allowed Richard to return home when in reality he was in a position to annihilate whatever was left of Richard’s army. Furthermore, he allowed unarmed Christians to enter Jerusalem as a gesture of good will.

Author — Truth Seeker

Historians: you lost

Crusaders: I didn’t lose, I simply failed to win

Author — Maxwell Campbell-Lotonuu

Saladin is certainly famous, but I wouldn't call him infamous. He was widely respected.

Author — browsingfloor62

Short answer. Going on Crusade was too costly and time consuming, and it was very risky for European monarchs to travel hundreds of miles or more to fight strangers in far away lands when their immediate neighbors or rebellious nobles might take advantage of their absence.

Author — Tommykey07

Bible said : "Love your enemies.."
Crusaders :"Not before the 9th invasion. "

Author — KEMAL ABE

I am from Mansoura, in my city. The Crusaders were defeated in the Seventh Crusade, and the house in which Louis IX lived during his captivity is still present today.

Author — Ahmed Sobh

I dont think it was right to have called Saladin infamous, because, if you read about his life, he was probably one of the most generous person and kind-hearted and well respected ruler of that time.

Author — Zuhair Hisham

Philip II didn’t die in the Third Crusade, although he did return to France after the siege of Tyre. In fact, he both outlived Richard I and paved the way for France as we know it today by crushing both England and the Holy Roman Empire in 1214 during the Anglo-French War. He was given the title Augustus for his exceptional rule.

Author — CommanderJam Gaming

3rd Crusade: "Man, what a disaster! We need a new plan of attack."
4th Crusade: "I got an idea..."

Author — dtice

I love how you’re leaving out all the civilians being slaughtered by the Crusaders and making it seem like they’re just battles between armies.

Author — None Ya

I still.feel.that it was very tough for the crusaders to pull this against the mighty Muslims in those days...Muslims were prior victorious in those days only Mongols were able to put them away but again Muslims were very quick on their feet to regain what they lost it was their nature of somewhat never giving up

Author — Zubair Ali

“Fate and history conspired to make me what I am today.” - Saladin

Author — Jeff_yourMusic

The ironic part ist that the raiding of Constantinople weakened the Byzantine Empire so much that it wasn't able to hold Anatolia anymore which led to the downfall of its empire and the rising of the Ottoman Empire a few hundred years later. The Ottomans later invaded Eastern Europe, reached Vienna and threatened all of Christendom before they were struck back by the united efforts of the remaining Christian countries.

Author — JackoBanon1

I read in a book once that a main reason the crusaders lost was because they muslim cavalry was so great it wiped out most of the main troops, this influenced a lot of European countries reinforcing their cavalries and infantries.

Author — Awesome Sauce

I had also read that some of the first crusades, whıch choose the land path through anatolia, were drastically weakened by the guerilla tactics driven by small groups of horseback archer turcomans. highly armored crusades are extremely slow, whereas horseback archers are indeed quite fast. european armies are typically infantary, whereas nomadic armies are always mounted. and yes, their high-tech bows and arrows can pierce armor.

Author — hicgerekyoktu

It also failed because of the sheer distance between Jerusalem and Europe. The amount of coordination in logistics, armies and many other components. Also, the Crudaders were fighting in unfamiliar lands.

Author — Soel Joeles

Fun fact: there is a town in Belgium called "Turkish Village". This name given them cause they never send soldiers to crusades.

Author — Caligula

As with most military adventurers, the jihadi Crusaders were brave when they set about slaughtering unarmed civilians, farmers and nomads. They were markedly less so when they encountered comparatively well trained, armed opposition. Those pretty uniforms and pious symbols covered quite a few structural, organizational and motivational deficits. Not that the opposition was much better, but it was, slightly, for a while. Nothing, no advantage, lasts forever

Author — Riaz Hassan

Wait a second, you didn’t mention the crusades against the Ottomans, which by the way ended up in disastrous failures to

Author — Niccolo Caramori

In short: "Crusades" became a by-word for "Church politics practiced with the sword", resulting in multiple military campaigns that had no clear objective or competent leadership, none of which accomplished virtually nothing of substance or durability (beyond a fairly large body count).

Author — YankeePendragon