[Bill Tsafa]

It is interesting how the West today accepts the Reconquest of Spain as a noble deed but looks down on the attempted reconquest of Byzantine lands as opportunistic. How are these different? It seems to me the Arabian conquest of Egypt, Turkey, Italy, Palestine and Spain were all part of the same movement. The Byzantines had made numerous attempts to gain back their lands but failed. While the Crusades are linked more directly to Papal direction, I think the pope was just following a growing trend in thought.

It is my observation that as European population growth stagnated after the collapse of Roman dominance and the Arabs filled that vacuum. When European population began to grow after 1000 AD, the Europeans set out to reclaim their lands that the lost in the Muslim expansion that started around 650 AD. The crusades lost momentum for the same reason they started. After the Black Plague in the 1340's they lost a quarter of their population and they no longer needed more land. By the time their population recovered it seems that better land was found in the America's and the European expansion took a detour.

I am not advocating some sort of redistribution of land in this post. I am only trying to give a different prospective of history.

[Tomas Kringen]

Even though the crusades were a response to the attack on christian pilgrims to Jerusalem, I think the crusades have a bad reputation due to how it all got out of hand. French and English crusaders sacked and plundered Constantinople, and all in all it perhaps changed the perception of crusaders. The children crusade also might have had something to do with it.

Just my personal opinion.

[John Cooksey]

Personally, I would say that neither event had any special aspect of nobility to it, however noble the intentions or actions of individuals involved might have been.

In my opinion, attacks on Christian pilgrims in "The Holy Land" had much less to do with the origin of the First Crusade than did the disastrous mismanagement of Roman "foreign policy" and military administration following the battle of Manzikert.

The Romans actually had gained much of their territory in Syria back from the Arabs (under Basil II). Unfortunately, the Ghuzz were pushing into Anatolia and Syria in the 11th century, the most successful clan of which became the Seljuks.

There was never an Arab conquest of Turkey (Anatolia)--southern Anatolia/Cilicia/Northern Syria was a disputed border zone for most of the Arab-Byzantine wars. The Seljuks, however, were able to take advantage of Roman political infighting to make significant territorial gains in Asia Minor and points southward.

[Nathan Keysor]

The negativity about the Crusades comes in large part from post WWII historians. The Crusades saved western civilization. They stalled the advance of Islam which had reached France, Italy, Sicily and Spain and would have continued. Control of the mediterranean became the provence of the Genoese and Venetians. After the fall of Acre there is even more in fighting among Christians so no real Crusades. The the Black Death etc... The plagues shook everyone up but then you see Christianity losing ground again (Constantinople falls...Hungary is threatened. The trade routes are now in muslim hands. Ferdinand and Isabella take Grenada and Spain is back in Christian hands. Crusades are contemplated. Portugal finances voyages of discovery down the coast of Africa to the Indian Ocean bypassing a muslim lock on trade. There is also the Canary Island conquests and soon after the New World. The mediterranean had been the center of the world as far as trade goes. That orbit sort of shifted to the Atlantic and Christianity wins out economically.

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

[Bill Tsafa]

[Tomas Kringen]

[Jean Thibodeau]

[Bill Tsafa]

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

[Jean Thibodeau]

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

[Bruno Giordan]

[Nathan Keysor]

To quote Jean

"Well there is the " Battle of Vienna " in 1683 where the Turks where stopped in their invasion of Europe. "

This was after the fall of Constantinople in 1453 and it wasn't the only incursion. The Byzantine Empire was a buffer for Europe. After its fall the buffer was gone.
Prior to the Crusades, Sicily was under Muslim control. They had ports in Italy, most of Spain and had made forays into France. The Byzantine Empire was contracting. Major land trade routes were in Muslim hands along with the wealth that went along with them. They had control of the mediterranean. During the Crusades maritime Italy took control of the mediterranean. Now, it can be argued that later Crusades were difficult because they didn't want to disrupt their trade connections with Muslim powers and the land routes were basically closed.
The Crusades did save Western Civilization by preserving the buffer for long enough for ship building technology to allow Europe to bypass the Muslim held land trade routes and reach India and China (and eventually the New World) independently. This allowed Europe to prosper and not export more and more wealth into Muslim hands which would then be used to outfit more campaigns into Europe.
There were big time failures in the Crusades and attrocities committed by Crusaders. The motivation of many of them can be debated. But, prior to the Crusades, Christendom was under attack. Around a hundred years after the advent of Islam they were already in France. Some would like to think that, prior to the Crusades, the Muslims were singing koombaya and holding hands. They were not. They were on the offensive. There is the House of Islam and the House of War. If you are not in the House of Islam you are, by default, in the house of war. They are not allowed a truce lasting longer than 10 years with non Muslim neighbors. Under "Gaza" which is the term for gaining territory for Islam they must further the faith.
To be counterfactual for a moment:
Now, if it hadn't been for the Crusades and The Reconquista (which could be considered a Crusade since Papal Indulgences were issued for it) shipping in the mediterranean would have been under Muslim control. Also, the ship building resources of Spain would have been at theri disposal. Sorry, Columbus, no ships for your voyage or De Gama or Magellan. Europe becomes an Island with less and less world influence. The New World is eventually discovered by someone with an Arab surname.

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

[Nathan Keysor]

Yes there were great commentaries on Aristotle written by Muslim authors and other cultural exchange. Spain, however, wasn't under complete Islamic control. Also, due to a split in Islam, the Caliphate in Spain was separated politically from that in Baghdad. There were alliances of Christians and Muslims vs other Muslims too.
Christians were often allowed to stay in Muslim lands because the local rulers collected a tax called the Jiz'yah (spelling probably incorrect on that) and they liked the money. Now these Christians were second class citizens and couldn't bear arms or ride a horse. Eventually they would, for the most part, convert. There was also cultural exchange between the Byzantines and the Turks but that didn't stop the Turks from conquering them.
Now, none of this should be construed as suggesting that one culture is "good" and the other "bad". This depends on point of view. For Christendom the expansion of Islam is "bad" and for Islam it is "good". Since I'm a fan of Western Civilization I'm glad the expansion was halted (or slowed down).

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

Regardless of such values, I have trouble with the idea of some Islamic empire taking and holding Western Europe without the Crusades. Can you imagine such a force attempting to invade the British Isles? Sending armies thousands of miles strikes me as an odd way to limit expansion. Particularly when we're talking about the Ottomans, it's my understanding that the Eastern European powers limited their advance. I don't see how the lack of those 12th- and 13th-century campaigns would have prevented this.

[Bruno Giordan]

[Bill Tsafa]

[Werner Stiegler]