The Crusades didn't come out of nowhere. Is it not true that the Muslims spread Islam by the sword and that the Crusades were a response to that expansion?
2007-01-25 02:29:13 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
The Crusades were a series of military campaigns with the goal of recapturing Jerusalem and the sacred "Holy Land" from Muslim rule and originally launched in response to a call from the Eastern Orthodox Byzantine Empire for help against the expansion of the Muslim Seljuq dynasty into Anatolia. The origins of the crusades lie in developments in Western Europe earlier in the Middle Ages, as well as the deteriorating situation of the Byzantine Empire in the east caused by a new wave of Turkish Muslim attacks.
2007-01-25 02:44:45 · answer #1 · answered by Allison 3 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Unfortunately for an event that far back in time, and told by one biased person or another, it is difficult to get the true story. Some say yes it was, others claim that "spreading Islam by the sword was the biggest myth." I have only read the tip of the iceberg on this subject, and plan to read Runciman's volumes soon. In any case, if it were a response to aggression, the Crusaders failed by their own use of aggression and poor leadership - especially after the First Crusade (1095-1099).
2007-01-25 10:56:43 · answer #2 · answered by WMD 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The prime and original motive for the Crusades was as a response to the expansion of the Muslims into territories that had been part of the Byzantine Empire.
The First Crusade came about when Alexius I of Byzantium asked for assistance from Pope Urban II. The pope's response was to call for a crusade not only to recover the lost Byzantine territories, but to recapture Jerusalem as well.
Say what you like about Wikipedia, but its entries on the Crusades are quite good as a starting point.
........and following on from the responses above. I don't believe that the Crusades started as a means of spreading Christianity, although it did end up as one of the motives. And, yes, Jerusalem was exceptionally tolerant (as were the Muslims) of alternative religions and cultures - its a pity the Crusaders didn't show the same tolerance when they butchered the inhabitants of Jerusalem and Byzantium (Christians included).
2007-01-25 10:43:16 · answer #3 · answered by the_lipsiot 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
The centuries of struggling for control of the "holy lands" was among three parties: Christians, Muslims, and Jews. The Crusades was an attempt on the part of Christians, headed by the support of the Pope, to regain the holy lands for Christianity. At the time, the lands were under the control of the Muslims. It is, therefore, the Christians who were the aggressors, not the Muslims.
Chow!!
Chow!!
2007-01-25 11:59:42 · answer #4 · answered by No one 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is an example of how propaganda can survive centuries.
At the time of the Crusades, Jerusalem was a fairly accepting community, with different sections of the city inhabited by those of different faiths. For example, there was a Christian Quarter, Jewish Quarter, Muslim Quarter, etc. There was no need for the Holy Land to be 'liberated' as the people there were actually living together in relative harmony.
What I find MOST telling about the Crusades is that when the Crusaders began sweeping across Europe, they slaughtered ANYONE of a differing faith; this was the first mass anti-Semitic action of it's kind. In addition, when they made it to Jerusalem, they butchered everyone with dark skin, Christian, Jew, and Muslim alike.
2007-01-25 10:42:20 · answer #5 · answered by bcs_boadicea 2 · 0⤊ 3⤋
No, the crusades had a political and financial background within Christianity. To save Jerusalem from the Muslim was only a pretext, an excuse. Pope John Paul II has admitted that.
2007-01-25 10:47:09 · answer #6 · answered by corleone 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋
OF COURSE.
And as for those imputing lower motives to the Crusaders, don't forget that the Koran specifically promises the property of the Infidels to the Muslims.
2007-01-25 11:25:15 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think you've got it backwards. The Christrian's were the ones doing the invading each time, and we just wanted to take away the holy lands (which are sacred to both religons). The chrisitans are the ones who spread thier religon through conquest. For instance, take a look at South America and Mexico. The Spanish muscled their way in their and forced christianity on the people, and it stuck (Latin Americans are very religous). Also take a look at the 1880-1910 period of American history were we saw ourselves as the superior white race that needed to spread civilization to the "savages". As far as I know the muslims didn't really do anything that violent, except of course the whole terrorism thing, which is just a bunch of wacko's and can't be used to judge the muslim community as a whole.
2007-01-25 10:36:56 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 4⤋
No, the Crusades were a faulty way to spread Christianity..
2007-01-25 10:56:25 · answer #9 · answered by paloma 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
The Muslims were denying Christians to their Holy Sites and burying them denying that Christianity was even real.
(Sound famliar?)
Yet the PC police have a different view of it now.
They believe that Christians were the bad guys and the Muslims were the good guys.
2007-01-25 10:55:07 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋