The Crusades started in 1095 when Pope Urban II wanted to take back Jerusalem. I think the results of the Crusades was more positive than negative than positive since people lost interest in them. Not only that, they killed and abused many innocents. One of the reasons the Crusades were more negative is because people lost interest in them. For example, in Document 6, it states that they “-didn’t get the support expected.” It also says in the Fourth Crusade, that they attacked Byzantine Empire. Although they won, “-crusading lost much of its appeal to most Europeans.” “Jerusalem stayed under Muslim control.” This is important to know since this helps understand how horrible the Crusades were. The Crusaders were known to be a group of knights …show more content…
“They also left a bitter legacy of religious hatred behind them.” This reputation shows them to be gruesome knights. The Crusaders also “-sometimes turn their fury to Jews…” This is important because it supports the fact that they lost attention. They fought for their religion, but was blinded by fury. Their fury turned into victims that shouldn’t be abused. Like Document one said, they attacked Jews. Jews wasn’t part of their plan to take back Jerusalem. People won’t sign up for a group that will fight because of just anger. Crusaders did many inappropriate things that lost people’s interest like being sidetracked and doing unnecessary things. Even with this reputation, it’s not the only thing they did wrong. A different reason why the Crusades were negative is because they would kill the innocent. In Document 7, it states, “-the crusading knights were often abused and co,,ottoes atrocities against Eastern Orthodox Christians, Jews and Muslims in the areas through which they passed.” This “-made them hated by all groups throughout the region. This is important due to the fact that they’re killing innocents. They killed those who were bystanders. They hurt many along the way just because they’re passing
He also evaluates the pope’s speech declaring the crusades in depth, which he explains that the crusaders truly believed that they were fighting for god; they were fighting in “God’s battalions”. A major point Stark wants the reader to take away by the end of the monograph is that the Muslims did not hold a grudge on the Westerns because of the crusades. There was originally no hatred for the Christians and Westerners after the crusades; the hatred did not develop until later on. He provides examples from many historians saying that the Muslims hate Western Christians countries because of the crusades. Starks explains that the Muslims did not seem to pay much attention to the crusades when they were occurring and for centuries after.
Document 9 states that “In 1240,the Christian Crusaders sacked Constantinople, leaving the city in Ruins and plundering wealth.” This is relevant because It shows us that the violence and atrocities all of the Crusades clearly outweighed the positive and religious points of view that they say they were fighting for. Another example is that in document 10 it states that “ One day I entered the Mosaic, repeated the first Formula, ‘ Allah is great’, and stood up in the act of praying, upon which one of the Franks rushed on me got hold of me and turned my face East words saying “This is the way you should pray!” a group of Templars hastened to him seized him and pushed him away from me. I went back to my prayer.
The crusades was also a very sad and depressing time. Many people who didn 't even fight in the crusades had lost their lives because of the religion they believed in. If they were not the ones to lose their lives then they had lost someone important to them. Document 3 states that the crusades sometimes happened because christians were trying to take back their land from muslims. Some were only looking to fight for their religion but others had done it for fun.
So were the Crusades a failure? The First Crusade was the only one successful in recapturing their Holy Land from the Muslims, and it was then quickly recaptured by the Egyptians. So, to answer that question, the Crusades failed miserably at completing its original goal of recapturing Jerusalem. However, it extended the reach of Christianity, increased the wealth of the Roman Catholic Church, and brought Europe together against a common enemy. The crusaders also played a part in shaping Europe into what it has become today by expanding European territory, increasing trade, weakening serfdom,
Introduction: Provide background information on the Crusades, restate the DBQ question, state thesis with reasons. (include academic vocabulary and underline) The results of the Crusades was probably more negative than positive. In “Doc 4”, It states that “Moreover, the assault of one Christian people on another, when one of the goals of the Fourth Crusade was reunion of Greek and Latin churches, made the split between the Greek and Latin churches permanent.” The Crusades had a lot of hatred to the religions, and by 1204 the Crusaders had lost some of their appeal because the knights agreed to attack the Byzantine Capital instead.
This contributed to the shame of the event. Many inspired Christians “often pursued violence against other non-Christians”, they were brutal and left many for dead (Document #2, “The Crusades Assignment”). Crusaders were merciless and it was just shameful that they treated other religions this way. Along with violence their emotions they felt towards their actions were shameful. After reaching their goal, Jerusalem, they were filled with “mad with joy” and after killing many Muslims and Jews to get their they were also “full of happiness and weeping with joy” (Document #3, “The Crusades Assignment”).
These are the first two negative explams on why the Crusades were so negative, and why you shouldn’t join them because all they cause is hatred, fighting, and killing people who don’t want to be apart of the Crusades or not even apart of any of it. Also they would kill people who weren’t apart of it just for fun.
Pope Urban II’s speech at Clermont in 1095 was a call to crusade given outdoors to the nobles, commoners and church leaders of the Western European Christians (the Franks). The people were moved by this speech and it changed history, launching the first crusade to capture Jerusalem from the Muslim Turks. After hearing Pope Urban II’s speech, thousands of Western European Christians were moved to embark on the dangerous journey and fight in the crusade. I believe the main reasons they were moved and persuaded to fight was; 1) they felt it was their Christian duty, 2) Pope Urban promised them absolution for their sins and 3) they felt compelled to defend Christianity, their holy land and the Eastern Christians.
The crusade was typically made up of peasants due to the numbers of soldiers. Even though the peasants weren’t very skilled, it still the job because in 1099 the Christians beat the Turks and took over the Holy Lands. This was a very important crusade because it slowed down the Muslims for a decent amount of time, it brought Christians together, and it changed the lifestyle of many people throughout that time. Victory was
A lot of crusaders didn 't even return home, one out of twenty crusaders returned. These are many things that happened in the crusades.
The Crusades were successful failures because they did not meet many of their goals, but left lasting effects. The Crusades was an attempt by the Roman Catholic Church to regain the Holy Lands from the Muslims. They believed they were fighting for god and all sins would be forgiven and defend the Byzantine Empire from the Turks. The first Crusade (1096 -1099) was successful for the Christians because they had a clear and organized religious based purpose. Crusaders the Christian armies were able to hold Jerusalem and in the process led to a massacre of Jews.
The Muslim people were the ones being attacked and had opposing viewpoints of what was going on. The views of the crusades were vastly different from two of the largest religious groups of their time, the Christians and the Muslims. The Christians looked at the crusade as their religious and personal mission and duty. After all, the Christians were the ones who were leading the crusades and they were the ones who were the biggest advocates of them.
The Crusades were expeditions done by the Roman Catholic Church in alliance with Middle-Age Kingdoms and Empires. There were a total of nine Crusades during the period of 1095 to 1291, led by Saladin, Richard I "the Lionheart" of England, Pope Urban II, Frederick I the Holy Roman Emperor, etc. At first, the Crusades were a way to fight back the Muslims for their conquest of Jerusalem. The idea of the Crusade was a very good marketing strategy by Pope Urban II. It was told that any Crusader would be rewarded a place in heaven, and forgiven their sins.
Professor John France 's article, "Crusading Warfare and Its Adaptation to Eastern Conditions in the Twelfth Century" provides a detailed account of the alterations European and Muslim crusaders conducted to their styles of combat throughout the twelfth century to adapt to Eastern conditions. The article offers ___________________________. France primarily argues that the role of cavalry during the twelfth century has been amplified by previous historical accounts. ____(how author makes his point) ___________
The Crusades were more negative than positive and here are some reasons why. Document 5 states that Christian Kings and their prelates (bishops) left bitter relations between Muslims and their Christian and Jewish subjects. This is important because it shows that because of the Crusades that then and later on their would be a problem between religions because of the Crusades. Document 9 shows that there was a lot of death and destruction because of the Crusades. This is important because it shows that the Crusades were negative because of the fact that cities were ruined and people died.