Why do people get so upset at the Crusades when they were largely defensive wars to recapture land from Islam?

Question

"The Crusades originally had the goal of recapturing Jerusalem and the sacred "Holy Land" from Muslim rule and were 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."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

Why aren't people more upset about the Muslim Jihad (Holy War) that caused the crusades and that continues to this day?

Wow. It's sad how people dismiss Wikipedia when it presents them information that doesn't fit into their stereotypes. I challenge you to pick up the history textbook or encyclopedia of your choice and verify what I am saying...

Answer 1

There is a lot of ignorance being spewed here, a great deal. The history of the ownership of the "Holy Land" obviously is completely unknown to a large number of people who have strong opinions on the matter.

Originally, it belonged to non-Jewish, pagan semitic tribes. These were displaced by the Jewish tribes, who then were conquered by various entities. Ultimately, the area was ruled by Persia (a pagan country), until it was conquered by Alexander (a pagan Hellenist). It then was ruled by Alexander's successors until the Hasmoneans re-established a native Jewish state.

This Hasmonean Jewish kingdom was conquered by Rome, which ruled the area even AFTER Rome converted to Christianity. Muslim invasion of the area only occurred after the rulers and dominant religion of the area had been Christian for a few centuries.

Now, that being said, the Crusades were a result of some very non-defensive politicking. What had happened is that the Christian Empire (mistakenly called "Byzantine" in the West) was at war with the Turks, again, so the Emperor sent a message west, to the Bishop of Rome, asking to hire some Ferengi (Frankish--Western European) mercenaries. The Bishop of Rome decided to parley this into a gigantic effort, which he called a "Crusade".

When the "Crusaders" got to Constantinople, the Emperor just about messed himself. An entire independent barbarian (albeit technically Christian) army was NOT what he was wanting. So he diverted the Crusaders elsewhere, pointing them towards some previously-Byzantine lands to the south. However, the Crusaders turned on him and claimed those lands for themselves.

However, that being said, the Muslims were every bit as much aggressors and usurpers as any Ferengi army. Any claims they might have on the land are actually inferior in history to any Christian claims, which are inferior in history to Jewish claims, which are inferior in history to the claims of Og Ug Ugg Ug Ug Ugga, who live by rock next to cave with stream, ook!

Answer 2

To the guy saying "which guy was home and which guy had to travel to get there?"

The Muslims conquered the Holy Land from the Byzantines. It was Christian and Jewish before that. So the Muslims did travel and did conquer.

The Holy Land was part of Byzantium for 1,000 years before the Muslim conquests. And the Muslims blew right past Constantinople and into the Balkans and as far as Vienna! They swept over North Africa and into Spain and Portugal and even souther France. If it wasn't for Charles Martel at Tours, we'd all be Muslim.

The Byzantines were trying to get the Muslims out of the Holy land for decades before the the first Crusade. And the Byzantine Emperor invited the westerners as allies to come and help them.

Answer 3

You have a good point. It's true that many of the Christians did have to take the battle to the enemy. That makes it appear to be imperialism, but it's true that many Christians native to the Middle East were in need of defense from a group that was invading as well. In this respect, I see the Crusades as being less of an issue of Christian violence and having much more to do with a cultural battle.

Answer 4

No one dismisses Wikipedia because it "presents information that doesn't fit into their stereotypes." We dismiss it because anyone can put anything there and it does not have to be verified or accurate.

Try reading a different, unbiased, source for the real story of the Crusades.

Answer 5

Ask that of the descendants of the people the Crusaders murdered and raped. The Crusaders SACKED the CHRISTIAN CITY of CONSTANTINOPLE, stole the belongings of the people there including objects belonging to the Cathedral of Hagia Sophia and hired a prostitute to perform lewd acts on the cathedral altar in order to DESECRATE the church.......

At least when the Moslem Turks finally over-ran the Byzantine empire, they did not desecrate the churches and allowed the Orthodox Christians to KEEP their religion.....

Answer 6

Because, while the the impetus for the Crusades was defensive, in practice, the Crusaders couldn't wait to get to the middle east to liberate Jerusalem, therefore, they fulfilled their blood lust massacring Jews, pagans and even Byzantine christians all along the way.

If they had just stuck to their given mission, they'd be considered heroic instead of evil.

Answer 7

Unfortunately, a decision was made to fight "fire with fire" instead of realizing that the battle was spiritual. If there had been a concerted prayer effort against Islam instead of crusades, islam might not even exist any more, or if it did it would be a very minor religion. But trust me, a prayer effort and evangelism is coming to the islamic world, look for some big surprises...

Answer 8

The problem with starting with a worthy goal is to continue and maintain that goal.
The crusading campaigns, poorly organized, badly-led and full of inter-kingdom power struggles, all eventually turned into exercises in creative genocide, pillage of any area they traveled through (Christian or Moslem) and attempts at geographic one-upmanship.
Sure they briefly re-captured Jerusalem, but they pretty much slaughtered anyone in their way, so that, in the words of one contemporary chonicler, "they waded knee deep in the blood of the fallen".
Call it crusade, call it holy war, call it jihad, it's still war.

Answer 9

Probably because they are not aware of what really happened. Sadly, much history has been censored from school curriculum because of political correctness. Even when I was in school, not much was said to us about the huge role the church had played in history, and the Crusades were touched on for only a short time, and not in depth.

Answer 10

Because regardless of the original territorial intent, the wars were always given a religious slant. In any case, "recapturing" Jerusalem implies that the Europeans had a legitimate claim to it in the first place.