The Crusades - Political cause, not religion!

[Dirty Commie]

I was wondering if anyone other than my self thought that the religous excuse for the crusades is just like bush saying weapons of mass destruction were the cause of the Iraq war. That they were fought over

I believe that the crusades were fought over:

a) Trade routes-the entire region was full of valuable ore mines, spices, and trade with Egypt+Far East

B) Neo-religous property- If christian Europe controlled the Holy land, allowing people-Muslim and Christian- to make pilgrimages would be profitable...)This isn't entirly religous, more of profiteering.

Any thoughts?

(Edited by Dirty Commie at 1:16 pm on May 23, 2003)

[GCusack]

I think the first one was mainly religious with a hinden agenda but after that I think they were all Polictical because if they had succeeded it would make European influence in trade in that region more substantial.

[Dirty Commie]

I think every one was usng the cover of religion to make war for trade with the east, or siple conquest...
If you look at the two largest fighting Christian armies (Italy+France) They were building vast empires in that time.

Alexander the great conquered everything between Sicily and Afghanistan, because he was hell bent on building an empire of his own.

Italy and France both were contemporary empires that controlled much of what the Roman Empire gave up, they were tryoinmg to model their empires after Rome, the king and parliaments mirrored caeser and the senate, they went for what the Romans had, the middle east, but left much of europe untouched...why? because northern europe and the british islands were fiercly defended and relativly little was know to manland europe about them. The east, however, was well known to have valuable trade routes, mines, natural resources, etc.

Controlling the east, would control the economy of the rest of europe... The one mistae rome made in doing this was overextending its reach... They had to keep much of britain and as far as Palestine to control. Their had more than thye could control, ultimatly being a cause to the fall of the empire.

[GCusack]

By the time of the first crusade, 12th century, England was set up as a thrieving Norman settlement. Many English were part of the 2nd crusade. The First crusade was led by 2 well meaning men, Peter the Hernitt and Walter the Penniless but they never reached Palestine. That was the only religious crusade and there intention was to get the pilgrims the freedom they had had to travel before the Seljuk Turks arrived and prevented them moving around!
I think the reason they left Britain alone was because the Romans had hated it so much and had spoken of tales of wat the Picts had done to their men on Hadrians wall (not pritty tales). Pope Urban called the first crusade to rid the land of the Infidels. After that the other 9 were not religious offairs called by French or Itallian Popes under the influence of the Kings of the Holy Roman Empire.

[GCusack]

Correction, there was one other religious crusade, the Children's crusade. But only because the Children were innocent and believed in wat the Pope told them about the evil Infidel, who was more advanced (they left that bit out)!

[Dirty Commie]

The children crusade, how could I forget... the children were told they would fight for the regular army but some one double crossed them and sold many into slavery for the Turks.

I heard an alternative explanation... the ships were caught in a storm and they were picked up by Turkish tradeships, then some escaped, others were sold into slavery.

[Blibblob]

Um, not really. There were no trade routes between Europe and the Middle East then. No reason, they hadn't discovered anything over there. During the Crusades they found the spices and silk. They had very little polical reason until then, which was near the end of the Crusades.

Children's Crusades. Most died before reaching the Middle East. Also, they went on their "own free will"(basically no one specifically told them to go, brainwashing did it). They had no planed transportation, most walked, and they all died before reaching the Middle East.

I don't see how the earlier Crusades were for political reasons, other than land. The later ones, possibly after they discovered what was over there.

[Kurai Tsuki]

I also think that the crusades happened because of political and religious reasons. The Middle East during Europe's Dark Ages was actually much richer than Europe, naturally the European authorities would want to gain some of this wealth.

<edit>Notice that I did a search for threads on the Crusades rather than forming a new one on the same subject *hint*hint*

[Invader Zim]

Of course, only idiots think that religion really causes war. Its bollocks, the desire for power causes wars, religion is usually a tool to gain either support, or an excuse.

[The Sloth]

The Crusades occurred for political purposes against the backdrop of religion.

[praxis1966]

The truth is that they were probably a combination of the two. I&#39;m sure the perception of the common soldier was that they were engaging in a holy war, endorsed by a Christian god. The popes who ordered the crusades, however, were nobility in their own right and probably as concerned with the spoils of war as much as any ambitious king. The clergy at the time of the crusades was even more of a "god mafia" than it is now, and the pope had nothing to lose by sanctioning the Crusades, except perhaps some wealth they didn&#39;t already posess.

[PRC-UTE]

a major reason that has been suggested for the crusades is that it released pressure on europe. The fuedelism of europe caused almost constant war and the pope wanted to channel it away.

During the crusades the christian warriors often stole loot from other christians - then as today the talk of god and country is just to motivate the troops.

[Pawn Power]

Of course, only idiots think that religion really causes war. Its bollocks, the desire for power causes wars, religion is usually a tool to gain either support, or an excuse.

yes, religion is a tool to get the support of the poor and the ignorant

[Rasta Sapian]

Originally posted by Brooklyn&#045;[email protected] 21 2004, 02:31 PM
The Crusades occurred for political purposes against the backdrop of religion.
I agree, the only thing that is different today is the technology and the headstones.

[redstar2000]

I think some of the posts in this thread dismiss the role of religion in the crusades a little too quickly.

The "interplay" between the material causes of an imperial adventure and the "ideological justification" for that adventure is complex.

For example, there was a good deal of "religious ferment" in Europe in the period leading up to the crusades...pious fanatics who were rebelling against the wealth and privilege of the clergy, landless peasants and runaways from serfdom, a surplus of knights with not much to do besides "disturb the peace", etc.

A crusade to "free the Holy Land" from the Muslim "infidel" served many purposes, both material and theological.

But I don&#39;t think any useful purpose is served by forgetting that both Christianity and Islam were/are imperial religions...conquest and conversion were/are considered "godly works" in and of themselves.

The loot was usually considered a "divine bonus".

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[encore]

I think religion IS/WAS politics. There was no differentiation between the two at the time.. maybe there is now, it&#39;s hard to tell.

[abigratsass]

first of all yes plenty had been discovered there , and yes there was a trade rout over there&#33;

first of all im sure religion had a huge part and influence on the simple masses that actually faught (sp?) in the crusades but i also think that in genrale caused by the economic conditions in europe which was crap bascially in comparison to a the east which was doing a lot better at the time even though it wasnt the highest economically it reached.

a piece of eveidence although im not a hundred percent sure of ( my source was a book published by the egyption gov&#33;) that the first few crusades were paid for and fiananced by italian merchants in exchange for previaliges for passing into the conqered countries and the goods that are found there ( species , silk,rugs...)

plus you cant exactly seperate the church at that time specailly and economic reasons&#33; &#33;&#33; that would be like seperating i dont know.....church and jesus or something.

anyhow i look more into cause i actually had to study the crusades

[suffianr]

A crusade to "free the Holy Land" from the Muslim "infidel" served many purposes, both material and theological.

True, the Crusades united "Christendom" (something that was, as yet, non-existent) against the Bogeymen with the spices, who mastered the trade routes and were beginning to get a little too geographically frisky for their own good.

The Crusades were just waiting to happen.

[Dio]

This only happens in the most religiously fundamentalist countries in the world. Like the islamic Jihad, which is used like the Crusades to rally troops to fight.

I remember reading some article about how the United States is the most religiously fundamentalist country in the world, so therefore when Reagan or Bush II say we must rid this world of the "evil scourge" of terrorism, the U.S. masses rally underhim to obey.

In the first "war on terrorism" the U.S. set up some nice neo-colonies which have made the elites a ton of cash.

Same for the "jihad" which generates about 80-100 billion dollars a year, which either sponsors religious groups(regardles if theyre "terrorist" or not), but most of the time the money goes off-shore to fund reconstruction, in other countries.