i don't think ncfc4life was reffing it

you should ask the ref. Of the many reasons for the failure of the crusades, four require special consideration. In the first place, there was the inability of eastern and western Europe to cooperate in supporting the holy wars. A united Christendom might well have been invincible. But the bitter antagonism between the Greek and Roman churches effectually prevented all unity of action. The emperors at Constantinople, after the First Crusade, rarely assisted the crusaders and often secretly hindered them. In the second place, the lack of sea-power, as seen in the earlier crusades, worked against their success. Instead of being able to go by water directly to Syria, it was necessary to follow the long, overland route from France or Germany through Hungary, Bulgaria, the territory of the Roman Empire in the East, and the deserts and mountains of Asia Minor. The armies that reached their destination after this toilsome march were in no condition for effective campaigning. In the third place, the crusaders were never numerous enough to colonize so large a country as Syria and absorb its Moslem population. They conquered part of Syria in the First Crusade, but could not hold it permanently in the face of determined resistance.
And finally, they didn't ask the ref.

Posted By: Tombs, Mar 1, 12:09:28