Notwithstanding the numerous potential motivators, enough evidences exist to show that the core motivation to the call of crusading was their quest for salvation that was expressed as remission and forgiveness by the church and provided as an indulgence. It is indicated that Pope allowed the passage of peasants into Europe so that they may play a role in the Crusade with the sole objective of conquering and reclaiming the new territories. Conversely, Christians asserted that the Crusades were part of controlling the Holy land after the Muslims had waged war and control over the lands earlier occupied by Muslims. References Adam Knobler, "Holy Wars, Empires, and the Portability of the Past: the Modern Uses of Medieval Crusades." Comparative Studies in Society and History 2006 48(2): 293-325 Madden, Thomas F, and Thomas F. Madden.
Body Paragraph #2: Reason #2 and Evidence Supporting Sentences: Using the structure: “Evidence, Elaborate, Explain, Examples” Cite from any 2 documents and explain why this evidence shows that the results of the Crusades were more positive or negative. Introduction Sentence: The Crusades were not only just fighting, they also had goals and trade routes. One of the trade routes traded sugar, cotton, rice, and muslim, which were borrowed from Arabie. Document 8 states that Although the Crusades failed the Holy Land, they had a lasting outcome on the way the Europeans lived. This is (important/interesting/relevant) because When the Crusaders returned they Europe they had brought back spices, sugar, and silk; many nobles and merchants enjoyed the new products and wanted more of them Document 2 states that Merchants in Venice and other northern Italian cities built large fleets to carry crusaders to the Holy Land.
The southerners thought northerners were crude, arrogant, uncultured, and aggressive. Differences in these cultures would cause that war to be long and harsh. However, for the men who would join this crusade, distance and time would be a large motivation for contributing in the war. The Pope was allowing for crusaders to fight for the forty days to receive some form of penitence. Many would see this as a large opportunity to help fight for the Pope and not have to go completely overseas.
Alexander’s successes were numerous, and he had only faced extreme resistance a handful of times before he met the Scythians. This group challenged him immensely and declared victory over him in one of their early engagements. After this, the Scythians were basically taunting Alexander and it forced him to go against his advisors and attack them yet again. This time around, he was victorious as he caused the Scythians to retreat. The real reason that Alexander wanted to conquer the Persian Empire was not only retaliation or revenge, but also as a test of his true abilities.
TITLE OF THE STUDY The Third Crusade and the tale of how three Kings set about to reclaim the city of Jerusalem from the Islamic forces of Saladin. OUTLINE PLAN I would like to understand the reasons for the Crusade. I would like to get a better understanding of the Islamic faith and Catholic faith pitted against one another. I would like to learn if the tensions are warranted or just needless violence in the name of religion. I would like to learn why there were so many of these Crusades and if they were necessary.
What were the Crusades? According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, 1 the Crusades were a series of holy wars called by popes with the promise of indulgences for those who fought in them and directed against external and internal enemies of Christendom for the recovery of Christian property or in defense of the Church or Christian people. This essay is going to outline the main events, and explain the reasons for, the first three crusades, by giving the timeline of main events that took place and telling as to why the Crusades happened. The First Crusade was initiated in November 1095 by Pope Urban II in the town of Clermont in France. It took place in Anatolia, also known as Asia Minor, and Levant.
This created the opportunities for wealthy men, who can naturally become authoritative and leaders due to the wealth and prestige they carried, as they had control of the resources. Furthermore, when Denmark become a kingdom, competition increased in Scandinavia, leading to the creation of three kingdoms. Bagge continues to argue that ‘Christianity had served as an instrument in the monopolization of power’, therefore centralizing the powers onto one figure and defining the kingdoms. With this in mind, the conversion of those three kingdoms gave two significant advantages to the kings of those kingdoms as it had allowed them, to remove paganism and therefore rid of competitors who may have pose a threat to the throne, as kings had dominance over bishops, hence being able to selectively pick and choose who would be bishop, and so minimize the threat to their throne. This power had a huge advantage which was not necessarily practiced in the Viking power system, therefore the opportunity to strengthen one position with cunning measures was not available to the Vikings.
Thomas F. Madden’s The Concise History of the Crusades focuses on the Holy Land between 1095 and 1291. In the foreword, Madden explains that, “the heightened public interest in the Crusades since 9/11 has created a market for popular histories (Madden, viii).” This is important to note, as his previous editions of the book were not as focused on the idea of present day relations between the Islamic and Western world. While Madden answers the question of what the relationship is between the medieval Crusades and the problems of modern Israel, his argument throughout the monograph follows a traditionalist account that of the Crusades as being tied to Jerusalem as a destination. However, it can be understood by the reader that Madden’s main argument answers the question, what were the motivations of the Crusades, and how have the Crusades contributed to Islamic rage and terrorism today? While many accounts of the Crusades focus on the raping and sacking of cities, Madden defends and explains the Crusades motivations throughout the text as a response to Muslim advances.
On the other hand, the loss of Muslims, Jews and other non-Christians throughout Europe and the Middle East was devastating (History.com staff 2010). There is no exact number, but death toll estimates range from two to six million. Provided that this is true, the justification for the Crusades themselves is open for debate since it was a clear act of human rights violation, given that a massacre targeted only people of a certain religion. In theory, the Crusaders believed they were being authorized by God himself through holy leaders like the Pope and that war was completely unavoidable (Khan Academy, 2018). They claimed their motivation was Christian love, not anger or hatred, and that their main goal was to help liberate the oppressed Christians that supposedly were being injured by their
The scramble for the African colonies was essentially like Kennedy said, “a championship chess match between the British grand master and its brash European challengers. Nationalist rivalries certainly played an important part in the drive to acquire colonial territory…” Evidently when Britain went into upper Burma in 1885 they prevented possible French invasion and the occupation of Egypt in 1882 secured Britain the Suez Canal, which gave faster passage into Asia. However, it is not certain that the outcomes of the examples happened as phrased. The undertakings in Africa cannot be stated as definitive facts rather reasonable assumptions based on facts . Africa had gained Britain’s attention in the previous centuries which was the reason