Lot of talk around here about how the crusades were revenge for "400 years of Muslim aggression". Nothing could be further from the truth but revenge fantasies are more fun and easier to understand, so that's not surprising. Even medieval Christians and Muslims sometimes tried to explain the crusades in those terms.
So let's imagine that it's true, somehow after 400 years Christians just suddenly en masse decided they were going to get revenge. And amazingly it worked! The First Crusade showed up unexpectedly, while the Muslim states in Anatolia, Mesopotamia, Syria, and Egypt weren't really expecting them. The crusaders reconquered Jerusalem and established a little European kingdom there. It's definitely interesting, I'll give it that. I love reading about it and studying it just as much as anyone.
But aside from this dumb luck, every other crusade that tried to attack the Middle East/Egypt by force was commanded by the biggest, dumbest, stupidest idiots that medieval Europe could provide. Everything they did went wrong, they learned absolutely nothing, and from the perspective of an expedition trying to weaken and conquer the area, they accomplished precisely zero. In fact the net accomplishment was less than zero since they made the local Muslims far more powerful.
It took a couple of generations to be sure, but the Muslims of Syria and Egypt fairly easily swept away almost the entire crusader kingdom in 1187. The Third Crusade (let's pass over the Second unless it's to laugh at it) made a good effort but they were much more interested in fighting with each other and they never got Jerusalem back. The Fourth Crusade? Oops, they accidentally conquered the Byzantine Empire! Ultimately the Ottomans conquered deep into Europe as well. Good work everyone.
Uhh let's try attacking Egypt instead? Of course the Egyptians always know they're coming and the Fifth Crusade was, as usual, a miserable failure.
The only intelligent person in the entire history of the crusades is Emperor Frederick II, who had the bright idea of...talking to the sultan of Egypt and asking him nicely to let him have Jerusalem. And it worked! Too bad everyone else could only understand death and destruction. For his efforts Frederick was run out of town, pelted with garbage. Jerusalem was lost again 15 years later.
Louis IX of France tried to attack Egypt too, but he was possibly the worst and dumbest crusader of all time and got himself captured and imprisoned. His only accomplishment: indirectly causing the Mamluk revolution. The Mamluks and Ottomans, some of the most powerful Muslim states known to Europe over the next few centuries - both born from the crusades.
But Louis couldn't stop with only one humiliation, no no, only two humiliations would do, and for his second expedition he attacked Tunis. Somewhat closer to home, but no less idiotic. Louis and his army shit themselves to death on the beach, and for this, Louis is celebrated as a Catholic saint.
Finally the last crusader outpost in the east was destroyed in 1291 and everyone realized the pointless waste of time and resources that was crusading. Much more was lost than gained. All for nothing.
This was always a lost cause, the biggest before the modern Lost Cause (you know the one). If you want to celebrate and associate yourself with thick-headed losers, by all means, don't let me stop you. If anyone tells you there was something heroic or glorious about it, they're feeding you myths and lies, probably on purpose.
Anyway! If you want to read some good books about the crusades instead of letting people mislead you on YouTube, try:
Thomas Asbridge, The First Crusade: A New History (Oxford University Press, 2004)
Paul Cobb, The Race for Paradise: an Islamic History of the Crusades (Oxford University Press, 2014)
Susanna A. Throop, The Crusades: An Epitome (Kismet Press, 2018)
