Ok, question- Were Crusade's a response to Islamic aggression or the other way around? I think that the constant raiding of Islamic armies on Europe provoked "war on their lands". Not to mention the slaughter of pilgrims and severe taxation and abuse of Christians and Jews with the "dhimma" status. Point out all the cases of Crusaders killing Jews and other Christians if you feel like it.
The crusades were full of misguided men following power hungy leaders using "God" to reach what they wanted. So to answer your question it was "Christians" killing Muslims.
The way I describe the Crusades is "The Original War in the Middle East". Meaning Western World vs Easrtern. See the Crusades were more of a power grab for the Vatican. The common enemy allowed the Catholic church to literally dominate Europe. Also, pay enough money and you were free from sins for life (go to heaven free card) and didn't have to fight.
Yeah, the whole money-to-the-church in-large-amounts-makes-you-a-saint thing is NOT a good part about the Catholic Church back then. Along with supporting slavery. But power grab? More like "we found excuse to go take the 'Holy Land' back! The Muslims are killing thousands of Catholic Pilgrims there!" At least, thats what every book I read about it basically states in 100-600 pages of descriptive history and baseless opinions.
... Remember how the Christians have those 13 stations and stuff? Some liked going to where they actually were... And where Christ was born. And where he died. You know, HOLY Land...
... Remember how the Christians have those 13 stations and stuff? Some liked going to where they actually were... And where Christ was born. And where he died. You know, HOLY Land...
Either way it's no excuse for the terrible acts that were committed; it could be one of the worst acts in the history of Christianity.
It depends on which crusade you are talking about. There are some important motivational differences. Essentially though, with the 1st and 2nd, it was norman dominated europe which was the aggressor. At the time, the normans were militarily immensely powerful and held sway in the vatican. They brought with them from scandanavia a lust for plunder and wealth, and of course used the classic excuse of religion to demonise their enemies and justify r*pe and pillage.
Well, during that time (First Crusade) was situation was already near the breaking point, with the Seljuk Turks threatening the Byzantines. Apparently, the first was the only one to be successful. All the others either resulted in defeat or stalemate. The Fourth Crusade resulted in the sacking of Constantinople! By Crusaders who were meant to be protecting it.
So in response to the title, I say that it was expansionist Islam, which triggered the Crusades. They didn't intend to recapture Jerusalem in the first place. They just decided to when they were there.
But this does not mean that the Crusaders didn't have any wrongdoings. Remember the killing of the Jews.
IMO, the later crusades were motivated more out of greed. Especially the fourth. The first really was a reaction to a threat, which became something of a conquest.
The Crusades did do something good in the end. It opened up trade with the East once again.
