They were Christian military expeditions to recapture what they regarded as the Holy Land.
They were the first of its kind too. Never before, in Christianity's 1000 year history prior, was there ever a "Christian" army assembled. That in itself just goes to show how awkward this event was for Christianity. It was an act of desperation and self defense.
The Crusades began shortly before 1100 A.D. and lasted until almost 1300.It’s a period of time only a little shorter than there has been a United States.
The crusades were ineffective and sporadic. The most successful crusade was the first one. On the whole, however, the crusades proved effective because it bought Europe time. Eventually Islam's enemies to the east would divert its attention and its forces.
The Crusades were aroused primarily by Christianity.
What a stupid comment. "Christainity" is a religion. The Byzantine kings, who had been defeated left and right by Islam'c forces, pleaded with the Pope for support. This, coupled with reports about the atrocities committed upon Christians in Jerusalem, prompted the Pope to make a call for volunteers. That's right, the Crusades were comprised of
volunteers from all over the continent, most of whom sacrificed all that they had in the process. The response was enormous, but it was highly disorganized. Again, the idea of a Christian army was so foreign to Christianity that this was akin to Amway calling all its representatives to volunteer in an invasion on Walmart. Most of the people would have no military training whatsoever. Their motive was one of good will, to defend the defenseless and to insure the survival of Christainity which had been eaten away by Islamic conquests for many centuries prior.
The expeditions combined religion as part of the larger effort by Europeans to increase power, territory and riches.
This is a myth propagated by the ignorant like JAK. Here is what one Crusade historian had to say about this:
"Historians used to believe that a rise in Europe’s population led to a crisis of too many noble “second sons,” those who were trained in chivalric warfare but who had no feudal lands to inherit. The Crusades, therefore, were seen as a safety valve, sending these belligerent men far from Europe where they could carve out lands for themselves at someone else’s expense. Modern scholarship, assisted by the advent of computer databases, has exploded this myth. We now know that it was the “first sons” of Europe that answered the pope’s call in 1095, as well as in subsequent Crusades. Crusading was an enormously expensive operation. Lords were forced to sell off or mortgage their lands to gather the necessary funds.
They were also not interested in an overseas kingdom. Much like a soldier today, the medieval Crusader was proud to do his duty but longed to return home. After the spectacular successes of the First Crusade, with Jerusalem and much of Palestine in Crusader hands, virtually all of the Crusaders went home. Only a tiny handful remained behind to consolidate and govern the newly won territories. Booty was also scarce. In fact, although Crusaders no doubt dreamed of vast wealth in opulent Eastern cities, virtually none of them ever even recouped their expenses. But money and land were not the reasons that they went on Crusade in the first place. They went to atone for their sins and to win salvation by doing good works in a faraway land."
The Crusades were a bloody, deadly business of the Christian religion.
That's one biased and ignorant way of looking at it.
Previously documented in other posts, the Crusades were of major importance to the perpetuation of the religion Christianity.
For its "survival" is the better word.
The Children’s Crusade consisted of boys and girls impacted by religious fervor to go to the Holy Land. Many were less than 12 years old. (Dangers of Religion). There were two armies of them, one from France and one from Germany. None of the children reached the Holy Land. Many died of hunger, cold and disease on their long march sough to the Mediterranean Sea. Others were drowned in storms at sea or sold as slaves to Muslims. Few of the young crusaders ever returned to their homes.
This is an example of JAK's inability to produce facts in a straightforward, balanced manner. He begins to speak of two groups of children crusading, but what he doesn't tell you is that only with the smaller group is it
speculated that "few returned home" and others suffered and died. There are no hard facts or figures about this, just speculation based on one's best guess. Further, he doesn't mention the much larger group of 30,000, most of whom returned home at the behest of the French King. He also doesn't tell you that many among the smaller group were beggars and theives who attached themselves to the movement as it traveled through village after village. So it wasn't as if their life expectancy was great even before marching across the continent.
The expeditions of the Crusades prepared Europe for expansion into America.
What an idiot. The only reason America was discovered was because Europe was trying to find new trade routes to India which had been blocked off by Islam. After 1493 the Muslims controlled Constantinople, which was the most important trading center between the east and west. Trades were permitted on Muslim terms only, so this was costing Europe in more ways than one since goods would trade hands several times before reaching the end user.
At this point we see a socio-economic agenda at work. Merchants thought they could find routes to the Orient that would prove profitable so Queen Isabella eventually agreed to fund the expedition that led to the discovery of America. To say there is some connection with this an the Crusades is absurd. It sounds like the Muslim argument that the crusades were just another product of colonialism. It seems clear JAK is merely browsing teh links he provided and cutting and pasting various points he takes for granted. He doesn't care much for critical thinking or independent research.
Studies of the importance and impact of the Crusades are generally found in university courses of study which include them as part of the curriculum.
Which Universities? Which course? Taught by whom? What do they say? If you know, then why cite Muslims and atheists like Farrell Till?
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein