Crusades Myths Debunked
niggerfaggot
If it doesn't name the jew's involvement and how they and the (((catholic church))) played both sides of the conflict, it's not a worthwhile source.
Wow, there are people who do not like the Crusades? Some of this most epic moments of history happened right there! Have you ladies hear of the 'Battle of Lake Antioch'? Bohemond led seven hundred mounted knights against an army ranging from 12,000 to 35,000 Turks. Many of his knights did not even ride horses; many had already been eaten, and it has been recorded that at least some rode upon oxen and packmules. On seeing the approach of Radwan and his huge army, Bohemond would take his cavalry and just charge straight into them. 700 vs 12,000 (or perhaps up to 35,000). Some riding oxes, some riding donkeys. And what happened? Decisive Crusader victory.
Deus vult.
As opposed to kike approved authorities on history?
We already know academia has a narrative to uphold, i do not trust officially approved good goys.
For every good fight the crusades did, you can find 5 more where they destroyed, pillaged and raped Europe instead of the muslims. The crusades were one of the worst thing to happen to Pagans, and non kosher christians.
en.wikipedia.org
Remember when there were Protestants before Protestantism? Beginning with John Wycliffe in England, inspiring Jan Hus of Bohemia, and then Luther finally making nailing his 95 theses and establishing 'Germanic Christianity' in its rawest form. But let's go back to Mr Hus.
Jan Hus, like Wycliffe before him, criticsed the Church for their corruption and perversion. He and Wycliffe were both hated for their nationalist sympathies and the fact that they sought to translate the Bible into the native tongues of their people. England being on the fringes of decent society was largely ignored (although Wycliffe was posthumously dug up and burned), but Jan Hus was causing a stir in the heart of Europe and that could not be. Invited to a supposedly fair trial, he was instead executed via burning. The results were that the many proto-Protestants he inspired rose up in rage.
Enter Jan Zizka. One of the few generals in history who was NEVER defeated. Jan Zizka primarily fought battles with miniscules armies comprised of peasants and women. He only had one eye for the entirety of his time representing the Hussites, and lost the other one later in a battle - and he continued to win decisive battles despite being ENTIRELY BLIND.
There was more Crusades against these proto-Protestants than against the muslims. They held off 5 Crusades winning ridiculous engagements all along the way. Some of the most famous battles include the en.wikipedia.org
No matter your view of the religions involved, the Crusades involve some of the most incredible fighting performed by Europeans ever and should instill us with a sense of pride, and the knowledge that the odds and numbers do not matter so long as we have faith and the will to fight.
God bless you all.
So if an historical event that started as the reconquering of christian lands can be judged by their later corrupted meaning to battle other religions in Europe, can we judge everything based on their corrupted goals rather than their intended one? Its like judging cars being killer machines when their purpose is to move you around.
By that logic we shouldn't judge the kikes because the first tribes were good slaves who served Sumeria.
Why not just post Shapiro, Petterson and Sargon videos while you're at it