That comes from http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=I_To-cV94Bo. Majority of the places crucades happened was where they were invaded by the moors and there wasn't as many offensive battles as retaking land. Wether you think it was necessary is your opinion.
deleteddeletedabout 10 years ago
lol this was funny
deleteddeletedabout 10 years ago
i was merely stating fact, there was nothing critical in it. peta talked me back down into the same insanity tbqh lol
deleteddeletedabout 10 years ago
I'm morally bankrupt, atleaSt my online persona is. I'm just so gosh dang angry at the world.
deleteddeletedabout 10 years ago
I just found out what that was recently, they're a funny read, for all the backwards statistics they'll come up with.
I assume you're trolling but there's nothing defensive about the painstaking amassment of a checkered military coalition with the intent of capturing a holy city on the other side of a very large body of water in a preindustrial feudal epoch when nation-states didn't even exist and lords could barely keep their vassals in line.
It was such a butt-frustrating campaign that when the crusaders finally got to Jerusalem they just killed the heck out of pretty much anyone they could find.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Antioch The Turks were inflicting many casualties, including Adhemar's standard-bearer, and Kerbogha set fire to the grass between his position and the crusaders, but this did not deter them: they had visions of three saints riding along with them: St. George, St. Demetrius, and St. Maurice. The battle was brief and disastrous for the Turks.
Poll
