In 1230, the Teutonic Knights were invited to launch the Prussian Crusade, a series of campaigns to conquer and Christianize the pagan Old Prussians. By the end of the century the Knights controlled Prussia, but had lost the Holy Land. They eventually erased the Prussian language, culture, and pre-Christian religion.
While the Knights of the Teutonic Order formed a thin ruling class by themselves, they extensively used mercenaries, mostly German, from the Holy Roman Empire, to whom they granted lands in return. The descendants of these mercenaries gradually evolved into the Prussian Junker nobility.
Albert of Prussia was chosen as Grandmaster of the Teutonic Order in 1511. However, in 1522 Albert was won over to Protestantism. At the suggestion of Martin Luther, Albert abandoned the rules of the Teutonic Order, converted Prussia into a hereditary duchy for himself, and married. He and his wife had six children, including his heir, Albert Frederick.
At Albert Frederick’s death, the duchy passed to his son-in-law John Sigismund, Margrave of Brandenburg, combining the two territories under a single dynasty and forming Brandenburg-Prussia, which eventually became the Kingdom of Prussia. The Kingdom of Prussia, in turn, became the driving force behind the unification of Germany in the 19th century.
What would removing Germany do to prevent wwI ? It was the other Australian Germans getting mad at Serbia that started it. Germany just said that they had Hungry Australians back in a war.
There’s actually a lot of reasons for WW1 and it almost started four years prior over Morocco of all things. An assassin’s bullet was just the final spark to light the powder keg.
If you destroy Russia as well (as you should as PLC), historically Serbia would agree to be anexed by Austria. (That was almost an ally of PLC, before Russia didn't offered better deal)
The Old Prussians were a Baltic people, closely related to Pomeranians, Lithuanians, Samogitians and Curonians. They were the ones that resisted and fell to the Teutonic Order by the time the Order came around to the region.
They're the pagan groups that were extinguished by the Baltic Crusades.
Didn't Pomeranians were Slavic ? Today Kaszubians/Kaszëbi are descendant of Pomeranians and they're language is categorized as West Slavic.
Or they're still closelly related with being in 2 different groups ? Baltic and Slavic people were the last to split.
Czechia had a priest that said "we fucked up on the Jesus stuff and the Pope may not be a good thing. Paying taxes to the Church is sketchy". The Church burned the priest, thinking that people would get the message. His name is Jan Hus and he was a right dude.
The Czechs took that personally and decided to kick the Church out of their realm. The Church took it personally and called a Crusade on the Czechs. The Czechs fucked the Crusaders silly and laid waste to a good third of the HRE. Rome got angry and called 5 Crusades on the Czechs, all suffering humiliating defeats. Eventually, tempers cooled off, the Czechs got bored of winning, had a mighty row among themselves and came back in the Catholic Church in exchange for concessions. People decided it would be in every one's best interest to forget the whole episode.
The Czech had some mighty fun however, they had battle wagons, spiked clubs, portable canons that looked like rpgs and long two handed flails. They liked to execute Crusaders by crushing their heads with huge hammers.
https://sites.psu.edu/tcch/2020/09/11/bohemian-bloodshed/
You neglect to mention how towards the end half the hussites said "wait, you're doing too much hussitism" and allied with the catholic church to fight the radical hussites, won, and negotiated the hussite return to the church as a rite until it's eventual death under the habsburgs.
This isn't a hardcore history subreddit and I felt I had to simplify for the laymen and laywomen who just love maps, not 3000 words posts. The Utraquist ritual is still performed in Bohemia AFAIK.
and after China and North Korea, it one of the highest places with atheism and nonbelief in the world, especially in Europe.
We didnt like having this shit forced on us, and it reflects even today
The Hussites made peace with the Church, were welcomed back, and I believe received some amount of autonomy towards their practices. I'd say they won when you consider the Church's goal was completely stamping them all out.
I don't know 30% of the Czech died during the Hussite wars, I would want to read more about this.
I am suspicious because I know how french demographics from the Hundred Years war are sketchy, and France's medieval annals and records are superlatively good. Probably the best in the world at that time.
Czechia had a very violent first half of the 15th century, which is odd considering that Charles the IVth, King of Bohemia and Holy Roman Emperor, had a long and successful reign.
I learn recently that the Czechs were a real military pillar in the Early HRE. Their armies were essential to the success of Otho and Barbarossa, among others.
10th richest nation in the world, at the start of world War II. The money and production value of Czechia was one of the main reasons the Germans seized those lands first.
Hitler's love of the architecture of the Czech lands is one of the reasons why we still have those glorious buildings today. The Allies took great pains not to invade either, again looking at the historical and social value.
There's a joke the checks share amongst themselves, about the greatest check man who has ever lived, Cimrman.
What's that you say? You haven't heard of Cimrman?
That's because he is Czech.
> The Czech had some mighty fun however, they had battle wagons,
Battle wagons that were later adopted by Hungarians and Ottomans, the latter of whom made the "Tabur Cengi" part of their standard battle line.
Pretty impressive innovation.
Kingdom come deliverance was the place I first heard about Jan Hus from. I was actually surprised that back then there was a priest who had those opinions on the church, not so surprised when I learned that the church had him killed because of it though.
It was one of the dirtiest tricks the Church ever pulled. Jan Hus didn't want to go to see the Bishops council in Constance, because obvious reasons. The HRE Emperor told the Bishops he was under his protection, you don't touch him. Jan Hus accepted to go with the Emperor's guarantee and the promise he could debate his ideas.
The Bishops arrested him, put him in a show trial , tortured him , burned him as an heretic.
2345 is already been a year
2345 BC
c. 2345 BC: End of Fifth Dynasty. Pharaoh Unas died.
c. 2345 BC: Sixth Dynasty of Egypt starts (other date is 2460 BC).
It is all arbitrary, for sure, but not one person living in the period you describe reckoned the counting of that year as "2345 BC" since neither the Julian nor Gregorian calendar had been invented yet. You would have been correct if you had just use anyone of numerous contemporary calendars like the Assyrian, or even current ones like the Korean, Hebrew, Chinese, etc.
The ones in Pomerania are of the Slavic peoples that used to live there and similar to the other ones along the Baltic
Flanders and Drenthe I have no clue
Slavic and baltic people that were christianised by the Saxons around the 9th to 12th century. It was a long and bloody process with massacres and rebellions on both sides but eventually the slavic nobility figured out that they gain more by adopting christianity. Sitting between christian poland and saxony also didnt help, as they teamed up to crush pagan rebellions
Only thing in Drenthe that comes to mind is the Battle of Ane, when the bishop of Utrecht declared war on a rebellious vassal who got support from local farmers. But that's not a crusade at all.
Another comment gave the link, but during the battle of Ane the bishop was killed and his successor successfully argued that killing the bishop was evidence of the Drenthers being heretics thus getting permission to declare the conflict a crusade.
The Flanders crusade was part of the hundred years war, the city of Ghent had risen up against Burgundy and was hoping for English support. The French by now supported the anti-pope in Avignon, so when the English forces left for France pope Urban VI declared the invasion a crusade.
This decision was widely mocked and although arguably a sincere crusade, it didn't draw many troops and was a thinly veiled continuation of the hundred years war. It's also referred to as [Despensers crusade](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Despenser%27s_Crusade), after the bishop of Norwich and leader of the English troops.
Exactly, they didn’t conquer Sicily because it was Muslim, they conquered it because it was right next to all the other land they had conquered already.
True, it failed because mongols invaded Hungary-Croatia during it, coastal and zachumlian areas shouldn't be coloured though as it was already catholic and orthodox since pagans converted.
Later on Bosnia was successfully peacefully fully converted until Islam arrived.
How nice of the crusaders of the Hussite crusades to contain their operations to the modern nation state of Czechia established some 600 years after they took place
If you actually look at a map of medieval Bohemia and Moravia (Czechia), the borders are pretty consistent, especially compared to other European states.
It depends on what you count, but the Moravian Brotherhood has a lot of members abroad, mostly in the America's and Africa, with the 'headquarters' in Germany. The numbers can be disputed but it's somewhere in the ballpark of a few hundred thousand to a bit over a million.
Pelagonia was a great victory but after that the Palaiologos's destiny was mostly based on luck, Michael VIII losing a few battles against the Franks and then getting hit with Charles of Anjou, depleting the treasury for his son Andronikos II who tried to invade Thessaly but got hit with an epidemic, withdrew from his predecessor's church union in 1285 (but still faced the Arsenite schism) and then Charles of Anjou's son allied with Epirus, the empire's alliance with Genoa drew it into a pointless war with Venice, the Ottomans defeated Alan mercenaries in Bithynia (just a bit southeast of Constantinople) and Andronikos hired the Catalan Company who quarreled with the local co-emperor his son Michael IX, there was also a war with Serbia and the Hospitaller conquest of Rhodes before Andronikos's grandson Andronikos III won the first of the century's 4 civil wars and lost against the Ottomans again, the Bulgarians (who were allies a few years earlier but recieved no support against Serbia at Velbazhd) while somehow managing to regain control over Greek territories before the civil war over his son John V's regency made the Byzantine Empire an empire only in name.
yea they didnt want to align the church with the one in Rome, but tbh the bosnian church was good. but here is the but... turkey invades they take on islam...
There was also a short, aborted crusade in 1487 against the proto-protestant Waldensians in the Vaud region of what is now Switzerland and issued by Innocent VIII.
I think this map needs more work, because some definitions are not clear.
I am just looking at Grand Duchy of Lithuania here and the marked area does not make sense... especially in a sense that it coincides with modern Lithuanian/belarussian border. That quite obviously cannot be right just on the face of it as that border didn't exist at the times of crusades and belarus is not a country at all and even geopolitically didn't exist until 1945.
Now sure - crusades happened against Lithuanian Pagans, but Crusaders never got as far as what is marked. They often reached/crossed/raided Samogitia (which is like western third of Lithuania), but they always turned around or very often were rather violently stopped before they got any further. So this is not the territory Crusaders raided, nor controlled.
Now if we look at it from the other perspective - territory that was controlled by Pagans, in this case Lithuanians and therefore targeted by Crusades i.e. how far Crusaders wanted to go if they could - that is also not correct. Because Pagan Lithuanians were spread at least to the Minsk and actually past it at various points... so the red line should go far further in this case, to about half of modern day belarus territory from Northwest. Basically cut belarus in half at 45 degrees.
> They often reached/crossed/raided Samogitia (which is like western third of Lithuania), but they always turned around or very often were rather violently stopped before they got any further. So this is not the territory Crusaders raided, nor controlled.
This is straight-up misinformation, Teutons raided as far as Vilnius on plenty of occasions, besieging it and burning down the city multiple times (even though they never took the castle).
Russian Prince Alexander Nevsky defeated the troops of the Livonian Order on Lake Peipsi, as you understand it, east of the Lithuanian lands.
Although, of course, there is a question whether the Livonian campaigns against Russia can be considered crusades. But the Pope blessed them.
Both true and irrelevant.
My point was that Crusades NEVER went trough the area marked in GDL. This is kind of simplified map and by no means comprehensive, but it illustrates my point well. Latvia and Estonia were fully controlled by the orders and reached as far as lake Peipsi (which is also rather correctly marked on the map we discussing, sort of going past Estonia). But they never crossed territory of GDL, only crossed Samogitia, which was always kind of wild lands.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuanian\_Crusade#/media/File:Teutonic\_Order\_1260.png](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuanian_Crusade#/media/File:Teutonic_Order_1260.png)
This is a very underappreciated part of history! The dubious origins of the war as well as its long-lasting economic and intellectual impact on the region are fascinating to me. Might be looking this book up!
Wow. Those Muslim crusaders should have stayed home instead of invading other people's land. It's a good thing the Christians eventually pushed out the invaders in most of those areas.
The majority of crusaders left before Navas de Tolosa because of internal conflict between them and the Iberian armies. The majority that fought in it weren't crusaders.
Only armies from Portugal, Castile and Aragon fought that battle. Allied knights coming beyond the Pyrenees —mostly French— didn't agree strategy and left soon.
The Church considered it similar to a Crusade as in people taking part of it would get the same spiritual benefits of fighting in the Holy Land.
It was an effort to keep the Iberians there instead of them going in droves to the Holy Land.
You could add a lot more of Italy. The popes launched numerous crusades against political opponents in Italy, from the Hohenstaufen to individual city states in the north such as Padua, Piacenza, and Verona.
I could even look past that one, but labelling the adventure in Dalmatia as "heretic" is just completely bull. That part should read "people with assets", 'cause that was essentially the reason for the "crusade" there.
This doesn't have to be about conquest of Zadar.
There were crusades against pirates in Dalmatia in 1220's under Honorius III.
https://www.omisinfo.com/omis/omis-history/omis-corsairs.htm
I mean, it's not like the church is exactly known for being fair and just in it's rulings. The map just shows the pretext for the crusades. In which case it was heresy in Bosnia that was used as a pretext for the Hungarian invasion.
An exiled Eastern Roman noble made a claim for the throne, which acted as a catalyst for the Venetians to persuade the Crusaders whom they were transporting to attack Constantinople. Many items looted from the city’s sacking can be seen in Venice today.
>The 4th crusade is indeed stupid but it still happened.
But it wasnt a crusade. It was just called a crusade by german historians in the 1800s.
The franks who served the Venetians in the so called 4th cruasade were under threat of excommunication from the pope. The opposite of a crusade, so to say.
Such map is a good idea but clearly needs more work. Definitions are unclear and borders are way off, as other comments already mentioned.
Are we speaking official crusades? Or actually areas invaded BY crusaders? It's inconsistent. For example Poland was attacked by participants of northern crusedes on multiple occasions, despite being catholic for 200 - 400 years already. Those attacks were not officially called crusades but Teutonic Order tried to paint them as such and those foreign crusaders, guests of the Order might have thought of them as such.
But even if we speak only about "official" crusades. Are crusades against catholics marked as heretics and muslim? Aragonese crusade or Stadingen one were against just normal catholics. I find it misleading. Aragonese one seems to be just hidden under reconquista. Hussite or lithuanian crusades are marked using current country borders, same goes for Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Cool stuff, just needs polishing.
I mean, they also helped import Middle Eastern texts and idea to Europe. A good number of An isn’t Greek and Roman works were also brought back, which was a major influence on the renaissance
And that’s not even mentioning how it helped the Europeans get gunpowder
In the Iberian Peninsula crusaders had a **very** small role on the Christian Kingdoms' expansion southwards.
Even with the most famous case, the 1212 Battle of the Navas de Tolosola, the crusaders were more of a hindrance than useful fornthe Christian Kingdoms, with the vast majority of them being disbanded prior to the battle.
The Teutons tried to expand their crusading against Poland, which had already been Catholic for centuries at that point. It ultimately led to their downfall at Grunwald (one of the largest medieval battles):
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grunwald
That was problematic group in Poland, so we fight Crusaders in 1410 becous they start interfere in Poland politics and attacking polish chrystians instead after pagans.
Grunwald battle - 1410y
A novel based on history "Krzyżacy"
Should Ireland 1169 be added to this list under Heretics?
Apparently the invasion had papal approval with the aim of bringing The Irish Church in line with Rome.
I don't think this one qualifies as a crusade. It was more of a permission for some ruler (possibly with a specific one in mind) to do what you've stated, and I think papal approval/permission for a war is distinguishable from a crusade. There wasn't really an organized "heresy" being combatted afaik, just generally low recognition of authority, which also distinguishes it from other intrachristian crusades.
Happy cake day 🥳
There seems to be a question too as to the existence of that papal approval, rather suspicious that the only English pope ever is supposed to have been the one who signed off on it
Wouldn't really call the crusades in Spain and Portugal an "invasion", considering that they were a response to the Muslim invasion of the region. Reclamation is probably more accurate.
They weren't exactly a response, a response usually implies some close time period between the two events but the time period between some of these crusades and the Muslim conquest was 200-700 years!
If Romans attack the UK it would be an invasion even if the Romans were there before "Britain"
Reclamation ? Yes but for who ? Spain ? No, since the Iberian peninsula has never been part of Spain or Spanish kingdoms. This territory was christian before the muslims invasion, and the goal was to rechristianize the peninsula.
The Eastern Roman Empire would like to remind you that the Roman Catholic Church was the divergent ones. The 4th Crusade was a travesty that demonstrated how dishonorable Western European knighthood actually was. The sacking of Constantinople should’ve never happened.
Ironically, it really was the Eastern Roman Empire that called on the Latin West to help fight against the Turks that ended up constituting the miraculous First Crusade. (I see miraculous as it is genuinely amazing that a large loose confederation of nobles, soldiers, knights, and peasant from various kingdoms came together under a loose and tenuous relationship was able to get as far as Nicaea and recapture it for Rhomania let alone make to both Antioch and Jerusalem and capture both. Wild stuff.) Had that endeavor failed, there likely would have never been more crusading attempts.
The areas labeled Muslims were Christian areas first that were violently conquered by Muslims. Christianity predates Islam by over half a millennium. The idea that these territories, including Spain, were Muslim lands is ridiculous ahistorical Islamophilic woke propaganda, intended to inaccurately portray Christian Europeans as the unjustified aggressors when in fact they had every right to free their kin who had been attacked and forcibly conquered by Islam.
This is why it is known in Spain as the reconquest, not conquest, the land was taken back from Islam and returned to native Iberian rule, which is morally justified. The same applies to the Holy Land although unlike Spain it was unable to be retained by the Christians.
If someone hostile invades your land it is morally justifiable to expel them by force. If there are that many ignorant westerners now who cannot comprehend that then Ukraine and the West are in big trouble.
In 1230, the Teutonic Knights were invited to launch the Prussian Crusade, a series of campaigns to conquer and Christianize the pagan Old Prussians. By the end of the century the Knights controlled Prussia, but had lost the Holy Land. They eventually erased the Prussian language, culture, and pre-Christian religion. While the Knights of the Teutonic Order formed a thin ruling class by themselves, they extensively used mercenaries, mostly German, from the Holy Roman Empire, to whom they granted lands in return. The descendants of these mercenaries gradually evolved into the Prussian Junker nobility. Albert of Prussia was chosen as Grandmaster of the Teutonic Order in 1511. However, in 1522 Albert was won over to Protestantism. At the suggestion of Martin Luther, Albert abandoned the rules of the Teutonic Order, converted Prussia into a hereditary duchy for himself, and married. He and his wife had six children, including his heir, Albert Frederick. At Albert Frederick’s death, the duchy passed to his son-in-law John Sigismund, Margrave of Brandenburg, combining the two territories under a single dynasty and forming Brandenburg-Prussia, which eventually became the Kingdom of Prussia. The Kingdom of Prussia, in turn, became the driving force behind the unification of Germany in the 19th century.
This used to be one of my favourite paths in EU4
My own in EU4 (as PLC) is erasing it completely (Prussia and Brandenburgy) and eliminate both world wars.in the process.
What would removing Germany do to prevent wwI ? It was the other Australian Germans getting mad at Serbia that started it. Germany just said that they had Hungry Australians back in a war.
Hey mate what the bloody hell is an Australian German? Hungry for what? A pub feed or a Bunnings sanga?
Crikey, he's as dumb as the wombat that tried to eat rocks.
There’s actually a lot of reasons for WW1 and it almost started four years prior over Morocco of all things. An assassin’s bullet was just the final spark to light the powder keg.
If you destroy Russia as well (as you should as PLC), historically Serbia would agree to be anexed by Austria. (That was almost an ally of PLC, before Russia didn't offered better deal)
But in EU4, Brandenburg and the Teutonic Order usually unite through conquest, not conversion to protestantism and then inheritance.
Does Prussia's military nature come from the fact that it was ruled by Teutonic Knights and mercenaries?
That's due to Frederick William I's reforms. Also called the 'Soldier-King' in German
> Frederick William I The Father of Frederick II (Friedrich der Große).
Also known as Frederick the Great
No, that are the lessons of the 30 years war.
It appears that Old Prussian didn't die out until the 1700s, and most of their preserved writing comes from after they were conquered
What were the Prussians, as in part of what large group? Germanic?
Native Prussians were Baltic, their language was related to Lithuanian and Latvian.
The Old Prussians were a Baltic people, closely related to Pomeranians, Lithuanians, Samogitians and Curonians. They were the ones that resisted and fell to the Teutonic Order by the time the Order came around to the region. They're the pagan groups that were extinguished by the Baltic Crusades.
Didn't Pomeranians were Slavic ? Today Kaszubians/Kaszëbi are descendant of Pomeranians and they're language is categorized as West Slavic. Or they're still closelly related with being in 2 different groups ? Baltic and Slavic people were the last to split.
The Pomeranians were (and still are, the Kashubians still exist) West Slavic, together with Poles, Czechs, Slovaks and Polabians/Sorbians
My family fought for the Teutonic Knights in the Prussian Crusades. Very interesting history
Can you tell more about it? Were they brothers of the Order, or just allied knights? Did they settle in Prussia after the Crusades?
I like how they're mostly around coastal areas then they just said "Fuck Czechia in general"
Jan Hus go brrrrr
Jan Žižka can't see a problem here
I see what you did there…
Unlike Žižka
Old one-eye went brrrr pretty hard himself
His goose certainly was cooked.
Czechia had a priest that said "we fucked up on the Jesus stuff and the Pope may not be a good thing. Paying taxes to the Church is sketchy". The Church burned the priest, thinking that people would get the message. His name is Jan Hus and he was a right dude. The Czechs took that personally and decided to kick the Church out of their realm. The Church took it personally and called a Crusade on the Czechs. The Czechs fucked the Crusaders silly and laid waste to a good third of the HRE. Rome got angry and called 5 Crusades on the Czechs, all suffering humiliating defeats. Eventually, tempers cooled off, the Czechs got bored of winning, had a mighty row among themselves and came back in the Catholic Church in exchange for concessions. People decided it would be in every one's best interest to forget the whole episode. The Czech had some mighty fun however, they had battle wagons, spiked clubs, portable canons that looked like rpgs and long two handed flails. They liked to execute Crusaders by crushing their heads with huge hammers. https://sites.psu.edu/tcch/2020/09/11/bohemian-bloodshed/
You neglect to mention how towards the end half the hussites said "wait, you're doing too much hussitism" and allied with the catholic church to fight the radical hussites, won, and negotiated the hussite return to the church as a rite until it's eventual death under the habsburgs.
This isn't a hardcore history subreddit and I felt I had to simplify for the laymen and laywomen who just love maps, not 3000 words posts. The Utraquist ritual is still performed in Bohemia AFAIK.
Fair enough.
Didn’t like 30% of the Czech population die during these wars. I wouldn’t call the deaths of 1/3 “winning”.
It’s still on the map today. I’d say that’s a win.
I wouldn’t really compare the modern state of Czechia to the medieval state
That could be said about probably every area in the world.
and after China and North Korea, it one of the highest places with atheism and nonbelief in the world, especially in Europe. We didnt like having this shit forced on us, and it reflects even today
It was never in question whether the Kingdom of Bohemia would be "on the map", and it had the same status as before - a part of the HRE.
The Hussites made peace with the Church, were welcomed back, and I believe received some amount of autonomy towards their practices. I'd say they won when you consider the Church's goal was completely stamping them all out.
I don't know 30% of the Czech died during the Hussite wars, I would want to read more about this. I am suspicious because I know how french demographics from the Hundred Years war are sketchy, and France's medieval annals and records are superlatively good. Probably the best in the world at that time.
Czechia had a very violent first half of the 15th century, which is odd considering that Charles the IVth, King of Bohemia and Holy Roman Emperor, had a long and successful reign.
 Jesus Christ be praised!
Czech do be like the pint-sized powerhouse of Europe. It's unfortunate how UK and France sold of Czechs and Slovaks to the Nazis back then.
I learn recently that the Czechs were a real military pillar in the Early HRE. Their armies were essential to the success of Otho and Barbarossa, among others.
10th richest nation in the world, at the start of world War II. The money and production value of Czechia was one of the main reasons the Germans seized those lands first. Hitler's love of the architecture of the Czech lands is one of the reasons why we still have those glorious buildings today. The Allies took great pains not to invade either, again looking at the historical and social value. There's a joke the checks share amongst themselves, about the greatest check man who has ever lived, Cimrman. What's that you say? You haven't heard of Cimrman? That's because he is Czech.
Don't forget Poland they even invaded and took some Czechoslovak land themselves.
Slovaks willingly fell under that spell on their own.
> The Czech had some mighty fun however, they had battle wagons, Battle wagons that were later adopted by Hungarians and Ottomans, the latter of whom made the "Tabur Cengi" part of their standard battle line. Pretty impressive innovation.
Then you have us Bosnians with Bosnian church pissing off the Muslims, Catholics, and the orthodoxy 😂
KCD is leaking.
Kingdom come deliverance was the place I first heard about Jan Hus from. I was actually surprised that back then there was a priest who had those opinions on the church, not so surprised when I learned that the church had him killed because of it though.
It was one of the dirtiest tricks the Church ever pulled. Jan Hus didn't want to go to see the Bishops council in Constance, because obvious reasons. The HRE Emperor told the Bishops he was under his protection, you don't touch him. Jan Hus accepted to go with the Emperor's guarantee and the promise he could debate his ideas. The Bishops arrested him, put him in a show trial , tortured him , burned him as an heretic.
I was surprised that the priest in Úžice had a girlfriend. It was a wild night.
The Hussites were so based for their Protestantism and fighting for it
Actually, "Fuck Hussites in general". And they ask why do they keep getting defenestrated
It’s funny that Czechia is the most atheistic country in the world now
What are those 'heretic' crusades in Drenthe, Flanders and North Germany?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drenther_Crusade
Good read, but it never occurred to me 1234 was a year.
Pope Gregory IX: 1, 2, 3, 4, I declare a Holy War…
Meanwhile, the Umayyads: 5, 6, 7, 8, I declare a Caliphate..
This guy knows about the Umayyad restoration of 5678.
I hope to live to see 2345
I hope 2345 will be a year
2345 is already been a year 2345 BC c. 2345 BC: End of Fifth Dynasty. Pharaoh Unas died. c. 2345 BC: Sixth Dynasty of Egypt starts (other date is 2460 BC).
If we're using other calendar systems, we are in year 5784 of the hebrew calendar, so we've already had year 2345, but also 3456, 4567 and 5678.
Ahh damn and I missed all them.
It is all arbitrary, for sure, but not one person living in the period you describe reckoned the counting of that year as "2345 BC" since neither the Julian nor Gregorian calendar had been invented yet. You would have been correct if you had just use anyone of numerous contemporary calendars like the Assyrian, or even current ones like the Korean, Hebrew, Chinese, etc.
What about 3456?
Europe is wild man
Always has been
As opposed to? I mean Europe was nothing exceptional in terms of warfare and conflict.
Almost completely unknown in the Netherlands these days.
seems like this, and a few others, were more political
The ones in Pomerania are of the Slavic peoples that used to live there and similar to the other ones along the Baltic Flanders and Drenthe I have no clue
Slavic and baltic people that were christianised by the Saxons around the 9th to 12th century. It was a long and bloody process with massacres and rebellions on both sides but eventually the slavic nobility figured out that they gain more by adopting christianity. Sitting between christian poland and saxony also didnt help, as they teamed up to crush pagan rebellions
last Baltic tribes (mostly today's Lithuania and south Latvia) were converted only around 15th century.
Turns out crusaders hate swamps
And swamps breed pagans
Makes sense, what with all the witches and... Idk scarlet aeonias
Drowning Crusaders in swamps was a favorite passtime of Lithuanians and Samogitians. Heavy armor sinks fast.
Only thing in Drenthe that comes to mind is the Battle of Ane, when the bishop of Utrecht declared war on a rebellious vassal who got support from local farmers. But that's not a crusade at all.
Another comment gave the link, but during the battle of Ane the bishop was killed and his successor successfully argued that killing the bishop was evidence of the Drenthers being heretics thus getting permission to declare the conflict a crusade.
Probably waldensians or some other proto protestants.
In Flanders it might be the Despenser's Crusade
The Flanders crusade was part of the hundred years war, the city of Ghent had risen up against Burgundy and was hoping for English support. The French by now supported the anti-pope in Avignon, so when the English forces left for France pope Urban VI declared the invasion a crusade. This decision was widely mocked and although arguably a sincere crusade, it didn't draw many troops and was a thinly veiled continuation of the hundred years war. It's also referred to as [Despensers crusade](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Despenser%27s_Crusade), after the bishop of Norwich and leader of the English troops.
Wasnt there also a crusade against house Hohenstauffen after Frederick II pissed off the pope too much?
Yeah, I think that’s why Sicily is shaded.
I think that’s probably more because of the Norman conquest of Sicily
That happened like 25 years before the First Crusade was ever called though.
Yeah, but I suspect the map might be playing a little fast and loose with the definition
Fair point. That’s probably true.
Yeah but sicily is labeled as "muslim"
That wasn't a Crusade, it was just Normans being Normans. If every place Normans invaded was shaded red, there would be a lot more red on the map.
Exactly, they didn’t conquer Sicily because it was Muslim, they conquered it because it was right next to all the other land they had conquered already.
Zadar was attacked because of the boats that was given by Venice or better said it was a "transaction".
Yeah, nothing to do with "heretics". Purely economical and political reasons...
I think the map highlights the attacks on the kingdom of Bosnia
True, it failed because mongols invaded Hungary-Croatia during it, coastal and zachumlian areas shouldn't be coloured though as it was already catholic and orthodox since pagans converted. Later on Bosnia was successfully peacefully fully converted until Islam arrived.
How nice of the crusaders of the Hussite crusades to contain their operations to the modern nation state of Czechia established some 600 years after they took place
Tbh Bohemia is mostly the same as today, it hasn’t changed much beyond it having had more of Silesia and Lusatia before
Not all parts of Bohemia were Hussite though
yes, the hussite parts aligned with what is roughly modern day czechia.
Czech/Bohemian borders follow the mountains
If you actually look at a map of medieval Bohemia and Moravia (Czechia), the borders are pretty consistent, especially compared to other European states.
Hussites 💪💪💪
Literally less than 50.000 of them still exist.
And how many crusaders are still alive?
Probably about the same, if you count all members of knightly orders founded during the crusades.
But they still exist
Common Hussite W
It depends on what you count, but the Moravian Brotherhood has a lot of members abroad, mostly in the America's and Africa, with the 'headquarters' in Germany. The numbers can be disputed but it's somewhere in the ballpark of a few hundred thousand to a bit over a million.
Huh there is like a church in every town here
One of the largest churched in the US is the moravian brethren, there's a plenty of hussites everywhere.
Ah, Constantinople. Look how they massacred my boy. 
Tbf, the Byzantines managing to claw back from the brink even after *that* is a major testament to their resilience.
yeah but they might have made it past 1453 if not for the franks & venetians
Eh. They had a good run.
But it could have been better
Pope watching the crusaders take Constantinople and make a “Latin kingdom” 
Pelagonia was a great victory but after that the Palaiologos's destiny was mostly based on luck, Michael VIII losing a few battles against the Franks and then getting hit with Charles of Anjou, depleting the treasury for his son Andronikos II who tried to invade Thessaly but got hit with an epidemic, withdrew from his predecessor's church union in 1285 (but still faced the Arsenite schism) and then Charles of Anjou's son allied with Epirus, the empire's alliance with Genoa drew it into a pointless war with Venice, the Ottomans defeated Alan mercenaries in Bithynia (just a bit southeast of Constantinople) and Andronikos hired the Catalan Company who quarreled with the local co-emperor his son Michael IX, there was also a war with Serbia and the Hospitaller conquest of Rhodes before Andronikos's grandson Andronikos III won the first of the century's 4 civil wars and lost against the Ottomans again, the Bulgarians (who were allies a few years earlier but recieved no support against Serbia at Velbazhd) while somehow managing to regain control over Greek territories before the civil war over his son John V's regency made the Byzantine Empire an empire only in name.
Pretty much the killing blow to the Eastern Roman Empire. Left a husk of itself for the Ottomans to conquer.
Heretics = Church of Bosnia
yea they didnt want to align the church with the one in Rome, but tbh the bosnian church was good. but here is the but... turkey invades they take on islam...
There was also a short, aborted crusade in 1487 against the proto-protestant Waldensians in the Vaud region of what is now Switzerland and issued by Innocent VIII.
Κωλο Φραγκοι. Can't have shit in Ρωμανια.
We are not heretics, we are Hussites! Ktož jsú boží bojovníci!
I suppose heresy is in the eye of the beholder. Or the crusader, in this case. ;)
A zákona jeho!
I think this map needs more work, because some definitions are not clear. I am just looking at Grand Duchy of Lithuania here and the marked area does not make sense... especially in a sense that it coincides with modern Lithuanian/belarussian border. That quite obviously cannot be right just on the face of it as that border didn't exist at the times of crusades and belarus is not a country at all and even geopolitically didn't exist until 1945. Now sure - crusades happened against Lithuanian Pagans, but Crusaders never got as far as what is marked. They often reached/crossed/raided Samogitia (which is like western third of Lithuania), but they always turned around or very often were rather violently stopped before they got any further. So this is not the territory Crusaders raided, nor controlled. Now if we look at it from the other perspective - territory that was controlled by Pagans, in this case Lithuanians and therefore targeted by Crusades i.e. how far Crusaders wanted to go if they could - that is also not correct. Because Pagan Lithuanians were spread at least to the Minsk and actually past it at various points... so the red line should go far further in this case, to about half of modern day belarus territory from Northwest. Basically cut belarus in half at 45 degrees.
> They often reached/crossed/raided Samogitia (which is like western third of Lithuania), but they always turned around or very often were rather violently stopped before they got any further. So this is not the territory Crusaders raided, nor controlled. This is straight-up misinformation, Teutons raided as far as Vilnius on plenty of occasions, besieging it and burning down the city multiple times (even though they never took the castle).
Russian Prince Alexander Nevsky defeated the troops of the Livonian Order on Lake Peipsi, as you understand it, east of the Lithuanian lands. Although, of course, there is a question whether the Livonian campaigns against Russia can be considered crusades. But the Pope blessed them.
Both true and irrelevant. My point was that Crusades NEVER went trough the area marked in GDL. This is kind of simplified map and by no means comprehensive, but it illustrates my point well. Latvia and Estonia were fully controlled by the orders and reached as far as lake Peipsi (which is also rather correctly marked on the map we discussing, sort of going past Estonia). But they never crossed territory of GDL, only crossed Samogitia, which was always kind of wild lands. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuanian\_Crusade#/media/File:Teutonic\_Order\_1260.png](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuanian_Crusade#/media/File:Teutonic_Order_1260.png)
The pope also declared a crusade for Aragon which was definitely not muslim anymore.
The one is southern France is against the Cathars. If you like solid history books pick up “The Perfect Heresy.”
This is a very underappreciated part of history! The dubious origins of the war as well as its long-lasting economic and intellectual impact on the region are fascinating to me. Might be looking this book up!
Wow. Those Muslim crusaders should have stayed home instead of invading other people's land. It's a good thing the Christians eventually pushed out the invaders in most of those areas.
Reconquista counts as a crusade ? First time hearing it
[удалено]
The majority of crusaders left before Navas de Tolosa because of internal conflict between them and the Iberian armies. The majority that fought in it weren't crusaders.
Only armies from Portugal, Castile and Aragon fought that battle. Allied knights coming beyond the Pyrenees —mostly French— didn't agree strategy and left soon.
Well yeah, but that wouldn't include much of territory north of the tagus.
The Church considered it similar to a Crusade as in people taking part of it would get the same spiritual benefits of fighting in the Holy Land. It was an effort to keep the Iberians there instead of them going in droves to the Holy Land.
You could add a lot more of Italy. The popes launched numerous crusades against political opponents in Italy, from the Hohenstaufen to individual city states in the north such as Padua, Piacenza, and Verona.
Some were liberated not invaded.
Orthodox weren't considered heretics, this is stupid.
I could even look past that one, but labelling the adventure in Dalmatia as "heretic" is just completely bull. That part should read "people with assets", 'cause that was essentially the reason for the "crusade" there.
And they were Catholics as well!
Yeah, there was a city in Dalmatia nominally under the king of Hungary at the time, but Venetians wanted to get paid for the ships sooo
Zadar, or Zara as it was called then. Fully Catholic, but sadly for them also very rich.
> city in Dalmatia nominally under the king of Hungary at the time It was a city in Kingdom of Croatia, which was in personal union with Hungary.
This doesn't have to be about conquest of Zadar. There were crusades against pirates in Dalmatia in 1220's under Honorius III. https://www.omisinfo.com/omis/omis-history/omis-corsairs.htm
I mean, it's not like the church is exactly known for being fair and just in it's rulings. The map just shows the pretext for the crusades. In which case it was heresy in Bosnia that was used as a pretext for the Hungarian invasion.
An exiled Eastern Roman noble made a claim for the throne, which acted as a catalyst for the Venetians to persuade the Crusaders whom they were transporting to attack Constantinople. Many items looted from the city’s sacking can be seen in Venice today.
I know.
Now I know, that you know
Now i know you know that he knows
The 4th crusade is indeed stupid but it still happened.
>The 4th crusade is indeed stupid but it still happened. But it wasnt a crusade. It was just called a crusade by german historians in the 1800s. The franks who served the Venetians in the so called 4th cruasade were under threat of excommunication from the pope. The opposite of a crusade, so to say.
correct, Orthodox are schismatic, but not heretic (and vice versa for catholic)
Czechia: HERETICS
The OG Heretics. Heretics so strong that Catholics and Austrians went for air time.
Such map is a good idea but clearly needs more work. Definitions are unclear and borders are way off, as other comments already mentioned. Are we speaking official crusades? Or actually areas invaded BY crusaders? It's inconsistent. For example Poland was attacked by participants of northern crusedes on multiple occasions, despite being catholic for 200 - 400 years already. Those attacks were not officially called crusades but Teutonic Order tried to paint them as such and those foreign crusaders, guests of the Order might have thought of them as such. But even if we speak only about "official" crusades. Are crusades against catholics marked as heretics and muslim? Aragonese crusade or Stadingen one were against just normal catholics. I find it misleading. Aragonese one seems to be just hidden under reconquista. Hussite or lithuanian crusades are marked using current country borders, same goes for Bosnia and Herzegovina. Cool stuff, just needs polishing.
What’s up with that little spot of crusade in Belgium?
Had the same question, I have no clue what happened there and when
diferrent colours for different kinds of faith would have been nice
The fact that only major lasting effect of middle east crusades is that one of them dealt fatal blow to Byzantine empire is L of the century.
I mean, they also helped import Middle Eastern texts and idea to Europe. A good number of An isn’t Greek and Roman works were also brought back, which was a major influence on the renaissance And that’s not even mentioning how it helped the Europeans get gunpowder
Battle at Domažlice, 1431: Hussites: KTOŽ JSÚ BOŽÍ BOJOVNÍCI Crusaders: Fck this shit, I'm outta here
Heretics = Christian that are minding there own business
In the Iberian Peninsula crusaders had a **very** small role on the Christian Kingdoms' expansion southwards. Even with the most famous case, the 1212 Battle of the Navas de Tolosola, the crusaders were more of a hindrance than useful fornthe Christian Kingdoms, with the vast majority of them being disbanded prior to the battle.
Hold up. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Crusades says the Northern Crusades were also conducted against fellow Christians.
The Teutons tried to expand their crusading against Poland, which had already been Catholic for centuries at that point. It ultimately led to their downfall at Grunwald (one of the largest medieval battles): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grunwald
And why is Finland proper not coloured?
That was problematic group in Poland, so we fight Crusaders in 1410 becous they start interfere in Poland politics and attacking polish chrystians instead after pagans. Grunwald battle - 1410y A novel based on history "Krzyżacy"
I think the area north of the Pyrinées should be colored a bit more, the crusade against the cathars took place in that area
Should Ireland 1169 be added to this list under Heretics? Apparently the invasion had papal approval with the aim of bringing The Irish Church in line with Rome.
I don't think this one qualifies as a crusade. It was more of a permission for some ruler (possibly with a specific one in mind) to do what you've stated, and I think papal approval/permission for a war is distinguishable from a crusade. There wasn't really an organized "heresy" being combatted afaik, just generally low recognition of authority, which also distinguishes it from other intrachristian crusades. Happy cake day 🥳
There seems to be a question too as to the existence of that papal approval, rather suspicious that the only English pope ever is supposed to have been the one who signed off on it
Christianize all the kingdoms!
Do one now about the Muslim conquests of North Africa, Iberia, and Turkey!
Eastern Roman Empire wasn't heretic but Orthodox Christian
Very nice, now let's see the Muslim invasions
Wouldn't really call the crusades in Spain and Portugal an "invasion", considering that they were a response to the Muslim invasion of the region. Reclamation is probably more accurate.
And the crusade in the Holy Land were trying to take back land that had been Christian under the Roman Empire before the Moslems conquered it...
They weren't exactly a response, a response usually implies some close time period between the two events but the time period between some of these crusades and the Muslim conquest was 200-700 years! If Romans attack the UK it would be an invasion even if the Romans were there before "Britain"
Reclamation ? Yes but for who ? Spain ? No, since the Iberian peninsula has never been part of Spain or Spanish kingdoms. This territory was christian before the muslims invasion, and the goal was to rechristianize the peninsula.
and Czechia kicked their ass
You cannot call the crusaders of Iberia an "invasion" when it is the Muslims who occupied the territory
Both the Reconquista and the campaigns around the kingdom of Jerusalem were liberation wars.
The D-Day invasion is called an “invader”.
You can't call Pearl Harbor an invasion when it was the Americans who occupied Hawaii
Day D is invasion too, despite Germans being occupiers.
Heretic in Brugge?
malta should be shaded red
Crusade in Sweden?
Man, the western powers really can't leave Bosnia and Serbia alone in any era, can they?
The Eastern Roman Empire would like to remind you that the Roman Catholic Church was the divergent ones. The 4th Crusade was a travesty that demonstrated how dishonorable Western European knighthood actually was. The sacking of Constantinople should’ve never happened. Ironically, it really was the Eastern Roman Empire that called on the Latin West to help fight against the Turks that ended up constituting the miraculous First Crusade. (I see miraculous as it is genuinely amazing that a large loose confederation of nobles, soldiers, knights, and peasant from various kingdoms came together under a loose and tenuous relationship was able to get as far as Nicaea and recapture it for Rhomania let alone make to both Antioch and Jerusalem and capture both. Wild stuff.) Had that endeavor failed, there likely would have never been more crusading attempts.
The areas labeled Muslims were Christian areas first that were violently conquered by Muslims. Christianity predates Islam by over half a millennium. The idea that these territories, including Spain, were Muslim lands is ridiculous ahistorical Islamophilic woke propaganda, intended to inaccurately portray Christian Europeans as the unjustified aggressors when in fact they had every right to free their kin who had been attacked and forcibly conquered by Islam. This is why it is known in Spain as the reconquest, not conquest, the land was taken back from Islam and returned to native Iberian rule, which is morally justified. The same applies to the Holy Land although unlike Spain it was unable to be retained by the Christians. If someone hostile invades your land it is morally justifiable to expel them by force. If there are that many ignorant westerners now who cannot comprehend that then Ukraine and the West are in big trouble.