What do you think of the Crusades?

[LionQ]

Since the opinion of lots of people are different about the Crusades, I thought: "Let's discuss that on CivFanatics!". So here is the question: What do you think of the Crusades? A hell of a nightmare or a justified military campaign???

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

Regardless of the official motivations, which were predomominate in the "peasant's crusades". The real cmapaings were motivated more by land grab and population imbalance. The black death had reduced peasant population much more than aristocrats, and there were not enough peaseant workers to support the nobility in the manner that they wanted, So they went to acquire more peasants, along with more land, in the middle east.

 

[Michiel de Ruyter]

I think the black death (1340's) was much later than the crusades (1st crusade: about 1100).

In the end it was an utter failure that, during the fifth I think targeted Constantinople, which only hastened the fall of the Byzantine empire. Ironic if you realize that the crusades were started to help that empire against the muslims in the first place.

 

[Panda]

My memory is a bit a hazy on this subject, but I'll give it a shot:

When the Arabs brought the area under their rule, they still allowed trade caravans through the Holy Land and were contend with taxing them. Europeans were happy with this, as long as they got their spices from China and India. Land trade was in those days the only option as a sea route hadn't been discovered yet.

A change in Arab policy occured in the 11th century, and caravans weren't let through anymore. This, combined with the pope's ambition to increase the Catholic Church's influence over the Orthodox Church's (the split had occured in 1047, IIRC), laid a fertile foundation for the crusades.

The participants of the crusades were - in the first crusade - mostly younger sons of English and French aristocrats, and not until later Germans and Eastern Europeans. Being a younger son in those days meant that you would inherit basically nothing - a crusade was the perfect opportunity for a young knight to make a future for himself in the form of glory, loot and a possible position in the occupying forces.

Despite all the materalistic cosiderations, one shouldn't overlook the spiritual aspects. People believed firmly in God, and would be considered fanatics by today's standards. There were, no doubt, many participants who wanted to secure their place in heaven. I don't feel a comparison with jihad is too far-fetched.

Justified cause or nightmare? The records praise how, during the 'liberation' of Jerusalem, the crusaders wallowed up too their ankles in muslim blood. While that is most likely an exaggeration, it does give you a picture of the attitude of the crusaders. Pretty much every non-Christian was put to the sword. Which is, by modern standards, rather nightmarish. Of course, pretty much everything in those days was by today's standards nightmarish.

I'm tempted to add more, but won't since it would result in thread-jacking.

 

[Kennelly]

Many crusaders had to make a lot of debts to be able to pay for the transfer.Far more important were,as Panda said,the spiritual aspects of the crusades.At least similarities between modern Jihad-fighters and Christian crusaders are clearly visible,as the crusaders mostly didn't travel to the Holy Land for Money,but for God.

 

[hbdragon88]

The Crusades were dumb.

The first two were mostly all peasants (IIRC from 7th grade hisory) and they were out to take over a city under false information given. It was a religion-sparked war in which they believed it.

The fourth one was by far the worst, they pillaged Constanipole and left it to later be seized by the Turks. Or some other country. That was two years ago, I remember learning...

 

[Vrylakas]

The historian and Islamic specialist Bernard Lewis describes the Crusades as a Christian retaliatory Holy War, responding to the initial Islamic Holy War. The Moslems burst out of Arabia in the mid 7th century and conquered much of the old Mediterranean world including several Christian kingdoms. Iberia was attacked and overrun in 711, and while the Moslems were turned back at Tours eventually they still maintained a presence on the Rhone River for a century afterward. Southern Italy was attacked, Rome itself was sacked by Arab armies, Sicily was conquered by the Moslems, while Byzantium and Khazaria in the east came under Moslem assault. Pope Stephen's secret journey to the Franks for aid in the 8th century was motivated by a fear of both the Lombards and the Moslems.

The first Islamic empire began a slide into disintegration right about the time the First Crusade was launched - witness the lack of aid other Moslem lands lent the Levante states for the first several Crusades - and had finally stopped expanding. In the meantime since the initial Moslem attacks on Europe, states had begun to evolve out of the barbarian tribal morass and a formal Church structure had been established. By 1100 Europe, entrenched in its Christian identity and still materially poorer than the Moslem world, had organized itself and was accutely aware of the loss of the older Christian areas of the eastern and southern Mediterranean. Lewis posits that while there was a single incident (Moslem defacement of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem) that led to the call for the Crusades, the real religious zeal behind the Crusaders was motivated by their desire to "recover" Christian Syria, Egypt, North Africa, and the Lebanon. This doesn't mean that many of the Crusaders weren't motivated by the usual greed for land, wealth, booty, etc., but that there was a very fundamental difference between the motivations for Crusaders in 1100 and, say, the French of 1798 who invaded Egypt. very different indeed, though some choose not to distinguish.

 

[willemvanoranje]

I think you shouldn't forget that the later crusade's, say after the third, weren't that much about spiritual things. The fourth was originally, but changed to an all-profit thingy because of Venice. The later crusades didn't even land in Palestina but went to Egypt (ok, to defend te holy land) and Tunis. The later crusades that did land in palestina were too weak anyway.

 

[LionQ]

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
Regardless of the official motivations, which were predomominate in the "peasant's crusades". The real cmapaings were motivated more by land grab and population imbalance. The black death had reduced peasant population much more than aristocrats, and there were not enough peaseant workers to support the nobility in the manner that they wanted, So they went to acquire more peasants, along with more land, in the middle east.

"Getting peasants" has never been the reason for the Crusades, besides: the Black Death was around 1350 and around 1300 were the Crusades drived back to Europe out of the HolyLand.

Originally posted by Panda
When the Arabs brought the area under their rule, they still allowed trade caravans through the Holy Land and were contend with taxing them. Europeans were happy with this, as long as they got their spices from China and India. Land trade was in those days the only option as a sea route hadn't been discovered yet.

A change in Arab policy occured in the 11th century, and caravans weren't let through anymore. This, combined with the pope's ambition to increase the Catholic Church's influence over the Orthodox Church's (the split had occured in 1047, IIRC), laid a fertile foundation for the crusades.

You're absolutely right, Panda. Two of the lots of reasons were that caravans weren't let through anymore. Just like in Civ III the people became unhappy because there weren't any luxuries anymore. Also the Pope wanted to expand the influence of the Church. So very right, Panda.

Originally posted by Panda
Despite all the materalistic cosiderations, one shouldn't overlook the spiritual aspects. People believed firmly in God, and would be considered fanatics by today's standards. There were, no doubt, many participants who wanted to secure their place in heaven. I don't feel a comparison with jihad is too far-fetched.

Also right, Panda. You could look to the Crusades like they are some Christian form of Jihad.

Originally posted by Vrylakas
The historian and Islamic specialist Bernard Lewis describes the Crusades as a Christian retaliatory Holy War, responding to the initial Islamic Holy War. The Moslems burst out of Arabia in the mid 7th century and conquered much of the old Mediterranean world including several Christian kingdoms. Iberia was attacked and overrun in 711, and while the Moslems were turned back at Tours eventually they still maintained a presence on the Rhone River for a century afterward. Southern Italy was attacked, Rome itself was sacked by Arab armies, Sicily was conquered by the Moslems, while Byzantium and Khazaria in the east came under Moslem assault. Pope Stephen's secret journey to the Franks for aid in the 8th century was motivated by a fear of both the Lombards and the Moslems.

The first Islamic empire began a slide into disintegration right about the time the First Crusade was launched - witness the lack of aid other Moslem lands lent the Levante states for the first several Crusades - and had finally stopped expanding. In the meantime since the initial Moslem attacks on Europe, states had begun to evolve out of the barbarian tribal morass and a formal Church structure had been established. By 1100 Europe, entrenched in its Christian identity and still materially poorer than the Moslem world, had organized itself and was accutely aware of the loss of the older Christian areas of the eastern and southern Mediterranean. Lewis posits that while there was a single incident (Moslem defacement of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem) that led to the call for the Crusades, the real religious zeal behind the Crusaders was motivated by their desire to "recover" Christian Syria, Egypt, North Africa, and the Lebanon. This doesn't mean that many of the Crusaders weren't motivated by the usual greed for land, wealth, booty, etc., but that there was a very fundamental difference between the motivations for Crusaders in 1100 and, say, the French of 1798 who invaded Egypt. very different indeed, though some choose not to distinguish.

Well, I've never heard of Bernard Lewis, but he's right. willemvanoranje is also right: the first Crusades were meant as Holy Campaign, although the soldiers/peasants believed that. But after the 3rd, it was just about the Holy Land it's self, glory, richdom, new territory, crushing Muslems, mongering war, but the religious part of the Crusades was semi-forgotten then.