The Cusades

[ukanonymous]

Are there any historians on here who know much about the great crusades and why they happened. Many say they were to save Europe from the clutches of Islam and others say it that they occured just becasue of the dislike of Islam. I have read it was Muslims who were in the slave trade market primarily in Spain and once they had to fulfil and order of 3000 blonde women. I have also read that Islam is a religion of peace and the west just felt like starting a war out of spite and hatred. Can anyone enlighten me?

[delboy3]

I thought it was primarily about who controlled Jerusalem?

[ukanonymous]

delboy yes that was part of it the fact that Jerusalem was taken over by Islam I read.

[jno]

the holy places of Christianity - Jerusalem, mainly - had come under Muslim rule and the pope wanted to get them back. That was the first crusade, anyway, and the most successful of them. Later ones had more mixed motives, which is why some crusaders ended up attacking and looting a Christian city (Constantinople).

[shoota]

Same as DB - I understood that the crusaders aim was to prevent sites of religious significance to christians falling foul of the territorial ambitions of muslims.

[bert_h]

After all this time, anyone with an axe to grind against either - or any - of the factions involved can make it sound very plausible by emphasing some facts and ignoring others. I doubt if any version of the events is free of bias, so it's up to you to read enough different books and articles, then make your own judgment by allowing for their one-sidedness.

[SirOracle]

If you seriously want to know something about the crusades,I would suggest that you go to your library and obtain books on the subject.
There are plenty of them.
This is a subject that is pretty complicated and is perhaps rather too complex for a site such as this.
Happy reading!!

[Clanad]

There are few periods of history that are more complex than the two hundred years of at least 9 "major" Crusades... from 1095 to maybe 1274.

The causes of the First Crusade depends on a person's bias in the study of history. Many historians would say the immediate cause for the launching of this disatrous (for the Crusaders) campaign was one indisputable fact though; the capture in 1065, of Jerusalem by the Turks who slaughtered 3000 Christians. Technically, the Turkish conquerors were of Persian descent, but were seen as "infidels" by Europeans due, primarily to the Moslem conquest of Spain in the early 700's, who were only defeated, finally in France in the mid-700's and forced to abandon Spain.

The First Crusade was also called the "People's Crusade" and led to the deaths of 10's of thousands of poor, common people whipped into a frenzy by an obsucre historical figure... a monk named "Peter the Hermit", supported by many Noblemen of mainland Europe.

Althought the First Crusade did result in the capture of Jerusalem, it also decimated both the commoners as well as the knights that participated and set somewhat of a pattern for the remaining eight Crusades.

It appears to me that most significant result of the Crusades led to the impowerment of the Catholic Chruch which lasted until the Reformation...

[Clanad]

Strange... not one entry when I punched "Enter"... and only serious disagreement is with friend jno... First Crusade did, as stated, result in capture of Jerusalem but at a cost from which Europe did not recover for hundreds of years...

[jake-the-peg]

Certain areas are facts other areas are conjecture.

Pope Urban II gave an emotional call to arms after an appeal from the Byzantine Emperor to help repell invading Turks

The recapture was in 1099 - the lands (including Jerusalem) were lost in 634

I think it's hard to see the first crusde as a 'response' to anything in Jerusalem

You have to put yourself in the mindset of medieval Christians - it was a great woe that the Holiest city of the 'true' religion was in the hands of infidel muslims and I have little doubt that the Pope thought he would gain great merit with God in recapturing it.

I'm also sure all the Christian Kings thought they would absolve themselves of all their many sins by doing this too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Urban_II#Crusades (Urban's call to arms)

It's hard for us to think what was in these people's minds - it's tempting to think of them as cunning manipulating the religion ofthe common people for their own ends.

But they really believed this stuff - in hell and damnation and Salvation and infidels and miracles and witches - they were very superstitious and you cant exclude that from their motivations.

[jno]

Clanad, I think as in most buying and selling, the "cost" of something is the price you're prepared to pay for it. I don't think anyone in Europe, even centuries afterward, thought that cost had been too high - though much much further down the line we may do so - and indeed, they kept on doing it.

My own favourite crusader was Frederick II, who negotiated a treaty with the Saracens in 1228 under which the Christians took control of the Holy Land for 10 years. Just what all crusaders wanted, and not a drop of blood spilt... which so annoyed the pope that he tried to preach a crusade against Frederick instead, but nobody was interested.

[heathfield]

The Crusades weren't only about the Holy Land. There's Pope Innocent III's crusade against the Cathars of southern France in 1209.

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

[jno]

there were some in northern Europe as well

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

[playersdigger]

Perhaps the asker makes it over complicated ? There were several Crusades over several centuries,even a childrens crusade. The aim was to try and keep the Holy land for the use of Christians.

It was Arabs who were into slavery,more so than white people. (not just Muslims)

Blond women (white)have never been taken as slaves.They captured slaves in Africa because the people were big and strong and good workers.