Pros And Cons Of The Crusades

1018 Words5 Pages
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. The Crusades involved not only knights and warriors, but also commoners of both genders. Helping the Byzantine emperor Alexios meant protecting the citizens of Constantinople from falling under Muslim rule. Jihad, often thought of as a synonym for terrorism - recurrently thought of as acting in the name of Allah, means an internal moral struggle. Like a Jihad, the Crusades were postulant expeditions in the name of God, to protect the Holy Land from the Arab Muslims.
Later on, the Crusades became a substantial excuse for Christians to fight anyone who was supposedly a threat for their religion. The crusaders looted every city they passed, compiling anything that could be of economic interest to them. Adding to that, even
…show more content…
The geographical limits are the countries involved in the Crusades. More specifically the Kingdom of England, the Holy Roman Empire, the Kingdom of France, and Jerusalem. The socio-political limit, referring to the political leaders and powers. Therefore, the role of Middle-Age Kingdoms and Empires in the causation and outcomes of the Crusades. The time which will be discussed, is specifically the First and Third Crusades, from 1095 to 1099, and from 1187 to 1192. In spite of that time-frame, the relations between the Middle-Age Empires and the Roman Catholic Church prior to the
Open Document