BF2S Forums Did the Crusader states ever really have a chance?

Keeping those states would have been like trying to take a city on a coastal hill stacked with defenders directly from a stack of transport boats in Sid Meier's Civilisation IV. No chance.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2010-08-24 16:36:44)

eleven bravo wrote:

no they were created by the crusaders.  fake proxy kingdoms

What? They were founded by Crusaders yes, but they were autonomous kingdoms with their own line of monarchs.

Last edited by Macbeth (2010-08-24 16:38:10)

technically they werent states either.  this is pre weshpalia stuff.

The rulers were foreigners yes, but the population they controlled was a mix of Arab Muslims, and Arab Christians. Their military wasn't 100% European and the people farming their food, and producing their weapons and etc. weren't all Europeans. As the Crusades went on less and less support was coming from Europe, that's why I said

If heavy European support continued

So like I said in the OP, if Euro support continued do you think the Ottomans and the Ayyubid would have still managed to destroy the Crusader states due to have a large production and population base?

yes.  the ottomans werent really around that time.  they were the seljuks

There's no way they could've ever maintained a large enough population to hold what they took. The only reason the invasion was successful is because the large part of the force was trained warriors. You can't maintain a large host of warriors on the backs of the few peasants that would've tilled the land there. And even if you could maintain the funding necessary, there isn't a soldier in the world that fights better as a mercenary than he does in support of his own home.

Doomed from the start.

Crusades campaign sucked tbh. By the time the Mongols arrive you're already dominant and have enough money to throw stacks at them or have enough experienced men to beat them in field and siege battles. Also Venice is barely enough of a threat that the Byzantine Empire is an easy campaign of getting your finances together and over running the enemy with large amounts of men.

Really the Turks are split into two groups so all you have to do is take the northern group, start building up your cities to make a lot of money and then start spamming armies from Cyprus. Antioch only threat is the southern Turks after that they can help KOJ destroy Egypt. KOJ can just push right on through Egypt easy.

It's an unbalanced campaign for anyone but the Turks.

Last edited by Macbeth (2010-08-24 17:14:18)

JohnG@lt wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Crusades campaign sucked tbh. By the time the Mongols arrive you're already dominant and have enough money to throw stacks at them or have enough experienced men to beat them in field and siege battles. Also Venice is barely enough of a threat that the Byzantine Empire is an easy campaign of getting your finances together and over running the enemy with large amounts of men.

Really the Turks are split into two groups so all you have to do is take the northern group, start building up your cities to make a lot of money and then start spamming armies from Cyprus. Antioch only threat is the southern Turks after that they can help KOJ destroy Egypt. KOJ can just push right on through Egypt easy.

It's an unbalanced campaign for anyone but the Turks.

I bought the expansion packs but never played them The only one that interested me was the England one.

The British was okay. It's pretty balanced with the English faction having constant rebellions so you never had to worry about them using their large starting force to steamroll anyone.

Anyway this is the Crusades map from MTW2.

Easy for everyone cept the Turks.

Last edited by Macbeth (2010-08-24 17:30:21)

JohnG@lt wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

youve been playing too much m2:tw

Crusades campaign ftw

It really was the best kingdoms campaign.

Antioch was my favorite.

ATG wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Do you think the Crusader states ever really had a chance of survival?
http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/cru … states.jpg
The County of Tripoli, County of Edessa, Principality of Antioch, and Kingdom Of Jerusalem. Do you think they ever had a chance of surviving and being a dominant power in the middle east or do you think that their fate was sealed as soon as they began to exist?

It seems the Crusaders were at best morally confused and lacking in Ethical standards.
The Christian crusaders were also ransacking Christian churches, stealing everything of value. Constantinople was the greatest Christians city in Europe, and it was defeated not by Muslims, but by the Crusaders.

So the primary problem you have with the Crusades is that Christians were attacking Christians? It wasn't the entire concept of invading other people and attempting to forcibly convert them to their religion that you have a problem with? If they hadn't sacked Constantinople it would've been a giant win in your book?

JohnG@lt wrote:

It wasn't the entire concept of invading other people and attempting to forcibly convert them to their religion that you have a problem with?

That, um, wasn't why the Crusades happened.

Those pesky Muslims were doing what they do best; being terrorist.


Whatever it turned into, the crusades began when Byzantine Emperor Alexios I Komnenos requested that western volunteers come to his aid and help to repel the invading Seljuk Turks from Anatolia, which were Muslims.



Again John, DST. Try to read up just a little on a subject. You will not look like such an ass, trying to find a racist under every rock.

ATG wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

It wasn't the entire concept of invading other people and attempting to forcibly convert them to their religion that you have a problem with?

That, um, wasn't why the Crusades happened.

Those pesky Muslims were doing what they do best; being terrorist.


Whatever it turned into, the crusades began when Byzantine Emperor Alexios I Komnenos requested that western volunteers come to his aid and help to repel the invading Seljuk Turks from Anatolia, which were Muslims.



Again John, DST. Try to read up just a little on a subject. You will not look like such an ass, trying to find a racist under every rock.

Read up on the subject? So any enemy combatants, in your eyes, are terrorists? The Seljuk's were waging a war of conquest, yes, but it had been going on for the previous century at least. Their religion was irrelevant, they weren't fighting a religious war. During this time period England was invaded by the Normans which was followed by the Hundred Years War a few centuries later. In short, wars of conquest were normal, as they have been throughout human history with the exception being modern times where the status quo is paramount.

Alexios requested money. He didn't request the Crusades. Pope Urban II took it upon himself to call for a holy war because it would not only enrich the Catholic church, but take a large portion of the nobility of western Europe, who were enmeshed in almost endless wars with each other, and send them off to fight elsewhere. No one gave a fig for the Byzantines. It was just a convenient cover for rallying the troops. Considering that all the crusaders did was pass through Anatolia on their way to Jerusalem (because defending the Byzantine Empire was never the cause for the crusades), I'd say this has been born out to be the truth, now wouldn't you?

So again I ask, you're ok with unsolicited invasions as long as they choose the right people to attack? Who are the right people? People unlike yourself? In the modern world, we call unsolicited attacks like the crusades, in which hundreds of thousands of innocent people were killed, murder.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-08-24 23:51:04)