eh, Hungary literally led their own crusade ( “The Kingdom of Hungary led several crusades, campaigns and carried out several defence battles and sieges against the Ottomans”. ). and literally enlisted EMPIRES ( Byzantine, Bulgarian, amongst many other international allies ) to lend them aid against the Ottomans.
.
and the Reconquista wasn’t started by the Iberians, it was started by the French. particularly Pepin the Short and Charlemagne and remained a widely international effort throughout. “Afonso Henriques and his successors, aided by Crusaders and the military monastic orders the Knights Templar, the Order of Aviz or the Order of Saint James, pushed the Moors to the Algarve on the southern coast of Portugal.”
and further, the Reconquista was very international and messy with fraternal infighting all over the place on both the Christian and Muslim sides, with both Christians fighting against Christians in service of Muslims ( how El Cid got his start ), and Muslims fighting against Muslims in service of Christian kingdoms. and, of course, there was multi-centuries of aid coordinated by the Roman Catholic Church in this. just as Hungary received aid from both the Catholic and Byzantine churches and kingdoms.

You’ll notice in both of these, national and tribal movements drove Islam out and secured the land for posterity.

The crusades were church coordinated multi national efforts to conquer the “holy land” and aid the Byzantine who, being Byzantine betrayed everyone.

One of these matches the biblical pattern of nations prospering best when faithful to God and developing their own families. One of these matches the clown world strategy of multi national “let’s you and him fight”

“One pushed Islam back from some territory for a few centuries.”
.
that’s a weird way to characterize the Reconquista.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconquista
.
the last i looked, Spain and Portugal were still not under Islam ( although the new Satanic Atheism is doing it’s best to reverse that ). Eastern Europe also had a great deal of success. but you have to remember, it’s not just a question of freeing territories which Islam had conquered by the sword, much of Europe NEVER FELL to the caliphates. and that was a direct consequence of the military response of the time. Islam certainly didn’t stop because they got bored.
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hunyadi

The reasons to defend the crusades are myriad, but they do not involve the teachings of Jesus nor his direct apostles.

Net positive for Europe despite the Byzantine betrayals.

It presents lessons for further growth of the church to learn from. In the lens of her preparing herself as the Bride of Christ, they represent a temper tantrum of adolescence rather then the mature decisions of a wise woman.

You see in this post which is more effective at expanding the Kingdom of Heaven on this earth.

Even as agnostic I must defend the crusades…their failure was not do to being an “unbiblical solution”. Their failure was due entirely to being repeatedly backstabbed by their own “allies”. Notice that the Byzantines chose to play internal politics (and fraternize with Muslims) rather than support the allies they had called upon to save them. No matter how strong you may be you will not last long against an enemy at your front when your “friends” are stabbing you in the back.

Jesus says the one who lives by the sword, dies by the sword.

Now you see a 4gw response by the church to Islam. Not the sword of steel but the sword of the Spirit delivered in truth.

One pushed Islam back from some territory for a few centuries. The other will wreck the entire system by the end of this century and see millions of souls find their way to the Father.

Jesus Wins.