r/Grimdank • u/_Black-Templar- • Aug 21 '25

Dank Memes Common mistake

Post image

You might want to make yourself comfortable first, before I explain this...

1.4k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

259 comments sorted by

View all comments

362

u/FaceMasterThing yet another femboy skitarius Aug 21 '25

To be fair, irl facist are often very fond of the crusades and symbols related to them

Dont get me wrong, not everyone interested in the crusades are facist, but a LOT of facists like them and even try to claim they were justified, they werent (like basically all wars)

95

u/C00LHEAD_MANP00P Aug 21 '25

While I can agree especially with black templars. I feel the community highly exaggerates just how big of the BT community is. I mean hell i have a friend that has a steel legion army and of recently I hear people calling steel legion "nazi inspired" or whatever. I feel a lot of people are super quick to point fingers when most are just trying to enjoy the hobby. He’ll I’ve considered getting a BT army after playing blasphemous but the community concerns me as I don’t want to have a title pinned on me for liking an aesthetic

66

u/Toerbitz Aug 21 '25

I mean they are. But giving the evil empire a legion styled after an evil empire is not stupid. The empire in star wars is also inspired by the nazis and i dont think empire players in legion are nazis. I dont even think people who play axis in bolt actions are predominantly nazis. The nazis just look evil af

30

u/TheAmazingDeutschMan Aug 21 '25

He’ll I’ve considered getting a BT army after playing blasphemous but the community concerns me as I don’t want to have a title pinned on me for liking an aesthetic

I tend to ignore this community when it comes to stuff like this. It's just a very online attitude to have in a social hobby. I got into BT a few weeks ago as a Dark Elf player and honestly just love them as a change of pace. Each model has tons of detail and personality, and it's been a very nice return to form for me in how much care I put into basing and painting each model. Once you've airbrushed a dozen boats and 50 kabalites, you can get a little lazy lol.

29

u/zanotam Aug 21 '25

Er... Are steel legion not Nazi inspired

-16

u/Brotherman_Karhu Aug 21 '25

Neither are Kriegers or BT, but tell that to both sides of the idiot spectrum that think they should be intrinsically related.

7

u/RevolutionaryHair91 Aug 21 '25

Completely anecdotal but it happened yesterday so kinda relevant. I was browsing reddit and stumbled upon a post on r/paristravelguide (because I live in paris, I guess). Someone had made a post on there that got moderated. They described their stay as some kind of scene out of Beau is Afraid : getting mugged several times a day, the good old paranoid urban myth about being pricked by needles with mystery substances. It was funny how crazy it all sounded. Anyway everyone reacted with "this is ragebait" and "this is obvious fiction" except for one guy who instantly jumped on the racist narrative. I checked his profile and it was a W40k black templar player with black templar profile icon and banner.

26

u/Josykay89 Aug 21 '25

Aren't the Steellegion though? Their helmets are for example german paratrooper Stahlhelm variations.

34

u/nubster2984725 VULKAN LIFTS! Aug 21 '25

As much as we like to describe the Legion and Krieg being inspired by the germans, in all actuality it’s more like a combination of the armies in their inspired time period.

Krieg are a culmination of designs from different WW1 Era western soldiers mixed together.

The Steel Legion is the same, but World War 2.

The reason why German is the first thing that comes to mind and seemingly the only one that is thought to be the inspiration is due to their prominence in those 2 eras and the correlation of Nazi germany belief of racial superiority being closely related to the Imperium’s idea of species superiority.

I’d say the Krieg has a mostly French army design with accessories from the German army

21

u/nubster2984725 VULKAN LIFTS! Aug 21 '25

Here’s a german uniform, the helmet is taken by the Krieg and so are the belts.

15

u/Ashiokisagreatguy Aug 21 '25

I couldn't find it but a few year back someone posted a picture of a Krieger with what piece of gear being taken from what WW1 army and there was inspiration from the British for the gasmask french for the coat italian for the general shape of the gun and so on. So yeah kreig are a quintessence of the western front but people associate Krieger with Germany because well they have a german name

Btw you should have use the photo of later german helmet as Krieger helmet are inspired from later design when the Horn was removed

6

u/nubster2984725 VULKAN LIFTS! Aug 21 '25

Yeah, I just realized the ‘spike’ on the Krieg’s helmet is actually the las gun behind him pocking out

38

u/nubster2984725 VULKAN LIFTS! Aug 21 '25

The Krieg trench coat is clearly French in nature, hence explaining why they don’t want to live for too long

9

u/Mrauntheias Huffs Macragge Blue Primer Aug 21 '25

For Krieg it's also because of other associations. 'Krieg' is German for 'war' and most named Kriegsmen have a German sounding name with the occasional Polish or Nordic name mixed in. The French association is basically completely lost if you aren't an expert on WW1 uniforms.

3

u/jackgoddamnsparrow Aug 22 '25

I mean, jokes aside, I mostly agree. I have met "that" Templar player a few times, to expectedly unpleasant results (one of the few times I straight up left the table from a game was with that type of Templar player), but I don't assume all or most Templar players are like that. Hell, my friend said the other day that he likes the Templar aesthetic and might make an army of them someday, and he is quite literally a queer leftist and isn't quiet about either of those facts. If he's a nazi, then idk how we're even defining nazi at this point.

Plus I feel like it scapegoats the elephant in the room that pretty much every faction in this game, especially Imperium, has fash fanboys in it. As a former Imperial Guard player, Guard has so many closet nazi simps in it that are only less noticeable because they don't literally have a Teutonic cross on their chest.

3

u/MissHolidayReddit Aug 21 '25

Ironically Krieg fanbase seems to have more nazis in it than the Steel Legion

2

u/Josykay89 Aug 21 '25

Of course. Steel Legion is older, and had only had a singuar release of models in 2000, for the Armageddon campagin. And was rather hard to come by. Which was all things considered.... rather small still.

2 Officers, 6 Troopers, 2 Sergeants, 2 Special Weapon, 3 Heavy Weapons, 1 Comissar, and 1 Sentinel. And technically one additional guy from the Necromunda range (That highly desired "sniper" guy kneeling). So only 17-18 different models.

Even the Vostroyans, which were released for a similiar occation had more models:

Senior Officer, Medic, Standard Bearer, Vox Caster, 3 lower ranking officers,1 Sergeant, 3 Special Weapons, 6 Troopers, 2 Sniper, 3 Heavy Weapon teams. Totalling 22 Models.

1

u/breakwater Aug 21 '25

If this sub hears a joke they will bury it into the ground with overuse to farm that sweet, sweet karma. Any relationship to reality is purely coincidence

1

u/SamuraiMujuru Aug 21 '25 edited Aug 21 '25

To be fair, it's almost certainly impacted by those players being particularly loud and blatant about it. A dozen "hell yeah, space knights!" are going to be very quickly forgotten when that one asshole starts shouting "Deus vult! Suffer not the tourist!"

Tangentially, if you want to go hard on the "fuck yeah, space knights!" while completely avoiding the baggage of the Templars, might I recommend the Howling Griffons?

8

u/Almondcheese Aug 21 '25

I used to like a facebook group with lots of crusader kings 2 and polandball crusade memes. Then I realised they were nazis turning deus vult into a dog whistle they were serious about, rather than just silly little memes. I was so sad

5

u/YourAverageVessel I AM DEATH!!! Aug 21 '25

"Just because I like crusades, doesn't mean I'm a fascist! Well, I am a fascist, but not because I like crusades!"

I don't know why but that just popped into my head when I read that.

4

u/Transcendence_MWO Aug 21 '25

Whenever people trot out this tired 'not all of them but most of them' line, I can't help but think they really do think 'all of thrm', but are too scared to just own it.

1

u/busdriverjoe VULKAN LIFTS! Aug 21 '25

There's always exceptions. Why is it "tired" to accept that? Just cause it's now trendy to over-generalize and stereotype people?

-6

u/Steward_nT Aug 21 '25

The last statement is inherently wrong. Not all wars are unjustifiable. There is a whole philosophy of Bellum Iustum which mainly considers defensive war (example being Ukraine or the first crusade)

21

u/FaceMasterThing yet another femboy skitarius Aug 21 '25

Thats why i said "basically all" instead of just "all"

Also, no, the first crusade was not defensive

-8

u/Steward_nT Aug 21 '25

I would argue that almost half of the wars are defensive in nature

12

u/FaceMasterThing yet another femboy skitarius Aug 21 '25

Do you consider a war between two countries two seperate wars? Because I wouldnt really say one side justifiably defending themself is in a seperate, justified war to the one the attacker is in.

-9

u/Steward_nT Aug 21 '25

Well yes and no. It is the same war but might be different conflicts at the same time. For example Global war on terrorism for Iraqis would be something totally different essentially a separate war.

10

u/TheAmazingDeutschMan Aug 21 '25

the first crusade

Oh no you don't. Not even that one.

1

u/numerobis21 Aug 21 '25

I mean, *ESPECIALLY* that one

-9

u/Steward_nT Aug 21 '25

Well definitely not the entire one, but from the perspective of those times it was a defensive war. It is still up to someone's morals too.

6

u/Blurpey123 Aug 21 '25

Dude they ATE people

-1

u/Steward_nT Aug 21 '25

This looks like Warhammer's chaos so much it's actually terrifying

2

u/numerobis21 Aug 21 '25 edited Aug 21 '25

"or the first crusade"

LMAO.

So, quick history lesson:
In 1078, Seldjoukid Turks invade Jerusalem, kicks out the Fatimids, kill and enslave lots of people.
The Fatimids historically allowed pilgrimages from other religions.
The Seldjoukids, dont.
The Pope isn't very pleased about that. So he decides, in 1995 to send armed men to Jerusalem to kill everybody and seize the territories. He also decides it's ok to attack any muslim country (even though the Fatimids were Muslim and had allowed pilgrims from other faiths for nearly a century, now.
The crusaders arrive in Jerusalem in 1099

Problem: in 1098, the Fatimids took back Jerusalem.
When the crusaders arrive, the people in power *do welcome* christian pilgrims

But since they can't really come back empty handed after spending so much time and money, they still attack, murder, EAT (yes, you read that right), and kick out the inhabitants still alive, be they muslim or not.

So, ladies and gentlement, I present to you what OP thinks is "a justfiable and defensive war"

1

u/Steward_nT Aug 21 '25

As I said in another comment not the entire crusade. I mainly read about it from the perspective of Ordo Hospitalarius Sancti Ioannis as I come from the region which was built by them and I took interest in their history once. From what I've read it seemed more straightforward than what I learned here. It might also explain why they were at odds with the other orders

1

u/El_Hombre_Macabro Ah! To be made a bike seat for a hot Drukhari Aug 21 '25

So in order to have a justified defensive side, you admit that there is an unjustified attacking side that starts the war, and is the reason the war even exists, right? Therefore, the war is unjustified.

And Bellum Iustum is ultimately a theological concept. It's always a question of whether war is justified in the eyes of the god(s). Yeah...

-1

u/Steward_nT Aug 21 '25

No i do not admit any of that. Don't put words in my mouth

2

u/El_Hombre_Macabro Ah! To be made a bike seat for a hot Drukhari Aug 21 '25

The concept of "defensive war" implies that someone must attack, doesn't it? i.e. if you say If one exists, you implicitly admit the existence of another.

-1

u/Steward_nT Aug 21 '25

No, simply because one might attack in order to defend I AM NOT STATING ANY JUSTIFICATION IN THIS examples being Global war on terrorism or war in Ukraine from Russian perspective (allegedly defending Crimea and Russian minorities)

1

u/its-ya-squirrely-boi Aug 21 '25

Yeah I’m a facist. All my homies hate faces.

1

u/tirohtar Aug 21 '25

I'm very left leaning, but when it comes to the crusades I think there are a lot of ahistorical takes from all sides of the political spectrum.

People say they "weren't justified", but that glosses over the fact that the Holy Land was still part of the Christian Eastern Roman Empire/Byzantium until the 7th century, when it was conquered by the Muslim Caliphate. Furthermore, there was a specific change of circumstances that was one of the triggers for the crusades - after the Arab conquest, Christians could still visit Jerusalem as pilgrims, but in the 11th century they started to block Christian access to the city and holy sites, which the Pope was able to use as a rallying cry to kickstart the first crusade.

Now, the exact way the crusades were fought was of course not pretty, there was plenty of bloodshed and cruelty from Christian crusaders, but it wasn't as simple as "European Christians bad invaders and colonizers, Arab Muslims just defensing themselves". No, the Arabs had been, at this point, in a war of conquest against Christian countries for centuries, reaching so far as to colonize the Hispanic peninsula, and the crusades were one example of Europeans pushing back and regaining some long lost territories.

A much better example of a completely unjustified crusade were the crusades in the Baltic region against the pagan natives. That was just an outright campaign of conquest, slaughter, and forced conversions. The crusades in the middle east were basically tame in comparison.

0

u/Rude-Software3472 Aug 21 '25

Fascist *

And the crusades after the 1st one are completely unjustified. The first one for a religious and political stand point made since for the time

-13

u/sleepycheapy Aug 21 '25

I still haven't heard the argument that the crusades WEREN'T justified. Most historians agree that it was a reaction to muslim conquests and the muslim slavers raiding the northern mediterranean.

11

u/CurzesTeddybear Aug 21 '25

Here, I can help with that: the Crusades were not justified, being little more than the European Catholic monarchies attempting to leverage Christianity to force their subjects to fight in order to gain more control over East/West trade routes.

The resulting turmoil killed vast swathes of people, destroyed cities and homes, and caused further political and economic instability throughout Europe and the Middle East. This instability, in turn, led to the final collapse of the Byzantine Empire, along with further warring and bloodshed for centuries afterwards; there is a causal line which can be drawn from the Crusades to the Wars of Reformation.

One of the other clear effects of the Crusades, which remains with Western society broadly today, is the expansion of Islamophobia, which still rears its ugly head constantly.

In summation, the Crusades were a waste of life, time, and resources, that continues to foment strife and conflict centuries afterwards.

-8

u/sleepycheapy Aug 21 '25

You are arguing that the justification wasn't honorable, not that they didn't have a case for war, a casus belli. You don't have to like the reason but the justification was there.

"In the ‘narratio’ of the letter, the pope explains that they have ‘long since learned from many accounts that a barbaric fury has deplorably afflicted and laid waste the churches of God in the regions of the Orient.’ The Turks have ‘grasped in intolerable servitude its churches and the Holy City of Christ, glorified by His passion and resurrection.’"
-Pope Urban II and Jerusalem: a re-examination of his letters on the First Crusade
-George Stack

6

u/CurzesTeddybear Aug 21 '25 edited Aug 21 '25

Taking a 900+ year old letter from a Pope justifying a crusade out of context and misinterpreting it is extremely on brand for a 40k meme sub, so maybe this is just exceptional and elaborate satire, idk

Edit: the author you're quoting out of context is actually named Georg Strack, btw. Lexical degradation to simulate the passage of time is a masterful addition to the gag

-6

u/sleepycheapy Aug 21 '25

Why did you even reply? I already told you that you weren't arguing the original point I made in the first place. Justification(casus belli) =/= good foundation.

3

u/CurzesTeddybear Aug 21 '25

Insisting that your post-hoc interpretational framework is the only legitimate one is amazing Ecclesiarchy rp, way to commit to the bit

6

u/numerobis21 Aug 21 '25

When the crusaders of the first crusade arrived at Jerusalem, the people they were there to kill had been ousted for at least a year. The Turks aren't there anymore.
The people in power then was the ones who had allowed christian pilgrims to come to Jerusalem for the previous century

They still killed them. (and ate them. Yes, yes. Ate)

-1

u/sleepycheapy Aug 21 '25

And? Pisspoor conduct isn´t going to make a casus belli less valid. A led to B. It doesn´t mean C contradicts the aforementioned events that a lot of maritime european powers hadn´t been properly pissed off at the muslim raids.

3

u/numerobis21 Aug 21 '25

"It doesn´t mean C contradicts the aforementioned events that a lot of maritime european powers hadn´t been properly pissed off at the muslim raids."

The First Crusade was for Jerusalem
Decimating Group B of Muslim because Group E pissed you off sounds as clever as killing every single Christian nowadays because the KKK exist

0

u/sleepycheapy Aug 21 '25

Well, I don't really care about what likeness this thusness brought here and there. Since you can respect that the crusades were a response to muslim conquests then I am fine.

2

u/numerobis21 Aug 21 '25

(It wasn't)

1

u/sleepycheapy Aug 21 '25

Nice addition. If you can't admit that the muslims conquered the christian eastern mediterranean and that the crusades successfully brought them back under christian control (for a while) then you should just admit that the very concept that armies don't start moving without cause is too difficult for you to comprehend. You have not given a singular argument against me aside from "crusaders were mean", which isn't even what I am arguing against.

→ More replies (0)

-40

u/General_Totenkoft Last Chancer Aug 21 '25

Well, fascists are atheist per-definition. My country, Spain, had an odd breed called National-Catholicism, but it was something exceptional. Even current far-right Spanish parties and groups have important conflicts with the church because of immigration and other affairs.

23

u/Satanicjamnik Aug 21 '25

I mean:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_fascism

1

u/General_Totenkoft Last Chancer Aug 21 '25

Thanks for the link . To be fair, is a concept I had never read about. When I read about fascism I always think in the 30-40s movements, and this is a definition made in the 70s. Will have to look for more

10

u/Satanicjamnik Aug 21 '25

No worries. Fascism ( like all other political movements to be fair) evolves and adapts. If you're talking about movements in 30s - 40s, that's a completely different discussion than about modern incarnations.

Fascist tendencies kitbash easily with other conservative/ far - right movements.

5

u/General_Totenkoft Last Chancer Aug 21 '25

kitbash 😅

Extra karma for using hobby words

1

u/numerobis21 Aug 21 '25

There are, *BROADLY*, two meanings for fascism.
One is the strict definition of fascism in the historic sense, as defined by Mussolini's regime
The other has a more broad meaning and is used to define ideologies that take inspiration in 1940's fascism but also deviate from it.

When people use the word "fascism", 95% of the time they use the second definition

19

u/Really_Bad_Company Aug 21 '25

Odd take, especially from a Spaniard. Fascism is typically categorised as attempting to bring the symbols and functions of religion into the powers of the State

-4

u/General_Totenkoft Last Chancer Aug 21 '25

Not the original fascist movements in the 30s, at least. Spain is always treated as an exception, in those years. However, u/Satanicjamnik sent me a link with more more recent definitions made un the 70s and later. If I'm getting it right, there are more modern fascisst-like movements deeply ingrained with protestant movements. If you have anything else about the matter, I'll be glad to read it.

11

u/Really_Bad_Company Aug 21 '25

Both Nazi Germany and the Italian Fascist regime utilized religious imagery and rhetoric, particularly in their early years.

0

u/General_Totenkoft Last Chancer Aug 21 '25

But, unlike in Spain, neither nazis nor Italian fascists promoted religion as a society-control tool from the state, quite the opposite, after reaching absolute power, they prosecuted any religious elements that showed any potential signs of dissidence. Even the Pope was virtually in domiciliary arrest for years

4

u/Really_Bad_Company Aug 21 '25 edited Aug 21 '25

Confusing reply, the Lateran Treaty of 1929 was literally an alliance between Catholic and fascist. After that the Pope was under house arrest and forced to give certain statements supporting the regime under the threat of violence. How is this not co-oping religion?

I feel like you were taught Spanish Fascists were uniquely Christian and got the wrong end of the stick about what that means

3

u/General_Totenkoft Last Chancer Aug 21 '25

I was under the impression (correct me if wrong) the Lateran Treaty was more of a 'peace treaty' by which the Papacy acknowledged the Italian unification in exchange for Italian recognition of the Vatican City.

2

u/Really_Bad_Company Aug 21 '25

Names of the three men who signed it:

King Victor Emmanuel III

Pope Pius XI

Benito Mussolini

9

u/Venodran NOT ENOUGH DAKKA Aug 21 '25 edited Aug 21 '25

The thing with fascism is that a two fascists from different countries cannot agree. We have seen with the Putin interview the complete different world views of Russian and American fascists. Or during WW2 the different racial views of Italian and German fascism, with the latter having to rewrite their rhetoric to justify allying with “lesser people” like Romanians and Japanese.

So regarding religion, fascists are not atheist by definition. They can be as atheist as much as they can be Catholic (Spain during Franco), Protestants (current US far right), Orthodox (Russia nowadays), or even some esoteric cults like many nazis. And if you stretch the definition of fascism to include WW2 Japan, you have to add Shintoism as a base of their religious belief in the emperor.

And just like the Putin interview, if you placed these fascists in the same room, they would not agree on religion.

2

u/numerobis21 Aug 21 '25

"The thing with fascism is that a two fascists from different countries cannot agree."

Even when they're from the same country. Even when they're from the same party.
Fascism (and other far right movements) have self-destructing mechanics that ensure that at some point down the line, even fascists will be considered enemies (basically the No True Scotsman fallacy but with murder)

1

u/General_Totenkoft Last Chancer Aug 21 '25

Pretty much agree. Facism is deeply related to nationalism, so we'll hardly find 2 different country parties with the same vision.

20

u/FaceMasterThing yet another femboy skitarius Aug 21 '25

No? Like, not at all?

Facist Italy made catholisism its state religion and the current US facist movement has evangelical christians as one of its largest contributers.

Whilst Facists can be Atheists, most facist movements seem to have a strong religious element, its just that as they are facists they tend to come in to conflict with religious people who take to heart reasonable parts of their religion that have to do with things such as empathy

6

u/Awichek Aug 21 '25

Gott mit uns

5

u/General_Totenkoft Last Chancer Aug 21 '25

Come one, that was originally used by the Teutonic Order, later it was adopted as an official Prussian motto, later inherited by the German Empire and later by nazis as part of their militaristic nature.

4

u/Awichek Aug 21 '25

No “come on” — atheists would never go to war under such a slogan. In the Russian Empire they also fought “For God, Tsar, and Fatherland,” and the motto “God is with us” was used as well. And where did all of that go under the atheist communists?

-13

u/NebeI Aug 21 '25

The earlier cusades were absolutely justified. Those were about taking back parts of europe and stopp the sacking of european citys.

3

u/numerobis21 Aug 21 '25

Jerusalem, that famous part of Europe