were the crusades an example of western imperialism?

Question

and why?

Answer 1

No, they were trying to get the Muslims out of what they considered their land. They weren't trying to take over someone else's land for profit.

Answer 2

You could say so. Pope Urban II called the first crusade in response to request from the Byzantine emperor for help, he wanted mercenaries but got much more than he wanted. The first crusade called around 1090 was mostly a French (norman) and German adventure. Most of the players on the Christian side were B level nobility knights and second sons that had no chance of inheritance or advancement at home so went to the holy lands with the intent to carve out a place for themselves and to keep it, look up outremer and the crusader states. The crusaders did much more then just take Jerusalem, by the way when they took the city they slaughtered all of the inhabitants Muslim and Christian. So they went for personal gain and to expand their holdings, land = wealth which would count as an early form of imperialism if you ask me. Especially since the holy lands hadn't been christian in a long time and were never totally christian and weren't part of a "European Nation" since the fall of rome.
There are plenty of good sites to look this up and if knowing accurate history makes you a liberal so be it, better liberal then ignorant.

Answer 3

Only if you are "politically correct".
The truth is a little different. If you want a real picture of the situation, you have to back up a little in time. All the lands around the Mediteranean were Christian lands (this includes Turkey, Syria, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco)- until they were conquered by muslim invaders. In many cases it meant the physical extermination of the local inhabitants (for example we know from Roman history that the inhabitants of Libya and Tunisia were black- and they vanish within a few years of muslim conquest)
This muslim invasion went (in its western front) as far as Spain and southern France- where they were stopped by Charles Martel. For a time muslims occupied Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica and half of Italy.
On the Eastern front, the muslims conquered Persia and attacked Christian Syria. There they defeated the Byzantine army and occupied the holy land. After this they concentrated on expansion east- towards Baghdad, Samarkand, and the trade routes with China
Byzantium (Orthodox) was no friend to Catholic western europe. Also, west europe was no monolith, but a loose, quarrelsome group of states bound together by a common religion. So long as the muslims allowed pilgrims free access to the holy sites- nobody minded. Problems started when muslim clerics started to incite violence against "unbeliever" pilgrims (despite the fact that they were already at war with christianity for a couple hundred years, usually religious pilgrims were allowed to go unmolested). The reaction was a bit like today would be at news of shooting Red Cross ambulances- outrage. However in those times people were made of sterner stuff- so following the outrage went a Crusade- to secure the free road to the pilgrims.
If you look at the history of the Crusades, they did just that- secured Jerusalem and nothing more. The city was of no importance to muslims (the story of it being the "third city of ISlam" is made up by Saladin a hundred years later for propaganda purposes).
To sum up- the Jerusalem crusades were a last ditch attempt of Christian self defense against a constant muslim invasion.
The lands recovered during the Crusades are completely insignificant when compared to the christian lands lost to muslim agression. Before discussing "crusader imperialism" please consider "islamic imperialism"
Also consider the effect of Mongol invasions- which wiped out islamic cultural centres in Baghdad, Persia, etc- in fact everything east of Jerusalem.

Of course, if your teacher is a "liberal", you should never ever tell him/her any of the above. To many "liberal historians" the only evil people are christians of european origin.

Answer 4

The Crusades were not exactly what you could call western Imperialism since it was indeed the English who were fighting this war. It was a total Religious endeavor. During this time period the Muslims and the Christians were fighting over who had claims to the Holy Lands, and of course as History has shown us the Christian Faith has gone to war or even gone as far as Enslaving those who did share in the beliefs of Archdiocese or Christian Hierarchy. I am not against Religion as a whole but when you look at its History more people have died and been killed over it then any other reason.

Answer 5

hmm not so much imperalism as much as religious intolerance. the muslims took jerusalem and the western catholic european nations reaacted as incited by the pope at the time (boniface VII?) imperalism implies taking control of a land area and attmpting to assimilate the locals to your idelas for financial and territirial gain