Reconquista wasnt a crusade though.

It was

Crusades were basically using religion as an excuse to conquer.

No it wasnt.

sanctioned by the pope

It's a crusade against infidels, a holy war, literally a crusade

but you can pretend it wasnt

same thing can be said about jihad.

So was the crusade against the nordic pagans

The crusades were not in self defense

were though

byzantium got analed by Turks for hundreds of years

Byzantium owned everything down to egypt

their fault for losing wars.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Yep

btw if ur jew then ur not muslim

come at me

i'm not a jew.

fuck

well ok then ill just conquer anyone and say its their fault cause u lost

so you lose a war and you fuck over the neighbor?

not great logic

Tbh, Byzantium also got sacked by crusaders 😃

that's the logic that people followed back then.

byzantium got sacked when it was a shell of its former self

Well under that logic then the left is right to blame the whites for the colonism

Not when it was a true empire

the empires fall thats the nature of society

Still, that puts the whole "holy war" into question, when christian crusaders sack a christian city

they werent holy tho

They were an excuse to invade

Catholic crusader sacked an orthodox city

I'd say both. Since they were sanctioned by the pope, they were holy in essence

But economic in practice

It was viewed as retaliation for byzantium massacring roman catholics in 1182

i wonder is the crusaders got PTSD after raping muslim women

i don't thing PTSD was a thing back then.

they didn't invent PTSD until the first world war

@momoneymoproblems I bet the Jihads were perfectly reasonable and justifiable to the muslims as well.

And venice basically financed that crusade