The Crusades Dbq

The Crusades of the High Middle Ages (a.d. 1050-1300) was a period of conquest or rather, reconquest, of Christian lands taken from Muslims in the early Middle Ages. It is an era romanticized by fervent Christians as the time when Christianity secured its honorable status as the true religion of the world. The affect of the Crusades is still with us today. It sailed from Spain and Portugal to the Americas in the fifthteenth century aboard sailing ships carrying conquistadors who sought new territory and rich resources. They used the shield and sword of Christianity to justify a swift conquest of mass territory and the subjugation of the indigenous peoples; a mentality learned, indeed,

This historian can see that from Islam’s point of view, perhaps the Crusades were a miserable failure because their ancestors were not able to come out on top in the Conflicts that would have ensured the overall victory of the Holy Wars. It is a good possibility that the Islamic and Arab nations consider the Crusades a great failure since they were not able to expand throughout Europe.

The impact of the crusades were more negative because In document 1 states that they left a religious hatred behind them because they were very hard on them.Also because they had bad reasons and fought too much and the crusades still wanted to fight and attack each other.Many lives were lost because they fought for a while and they were destroying a lot of Muslims. In document 5 it states that Islam and Christians struggled and Muslims,christian,and

The Crusades was a horrific time. Many people had lost their lives, friends, even family. The Crusades were a battle over the holy land, Jerusalem. The Crusaders, people who had fought in the Crusades, were Christians. They wanted the holy land because they believe that’s where Jesus had died and rose. They had fought against the Muslims who were defending themselves against the Crusaders. The Crusades had its positive outcomes as well as its negative results. Some may wonder, were the results of the Crusades more Positive or Negative? I strongly believe the outcome was mostly negative mainly because the Crusaders didn’t win the holy land, lots of lands were destroyed, and so many people lost their lives in the battle of the Crusades.

There were both positive and negative effects of The Crusades, although the positives did outweigh the negatives. The two major negative effects were anti-Semitism and the orchestrated attacks by Venice. Many Crusaders in Europe were so religiously fuming, that they turned their anger towards the Jews. They would at times massacre a whole community as a result of their religious rage. During the fourth crusade, crusaders began fighting Christians instead of Muslims. After helping Venetian merchants defeat their Byzantine trade rivals in 1204, the crusaders captured and looted Constantinople. They actually ransacked the capital of the Byzantine Empire, the empire in which they began to fight for, not against. There also were many positive effects of The Crusades, one being the increase of trade. Even before the Crusades, merchants began to enjoy some of the luxury goods that were brought from the Byzantine Empire. The crusaders that

According to an article published in 2009, it is believed that there were a numerous effects of crusades:

One reason why the Crusades were more negative than positive was because they worsen their own relationship with the Jews and Muslims, or religious hatred, even tho they were bad anyways. Document 5 states that ”First, the long struggle between Islam and Christendom and the example of persecution set by Christian kings and prelates (bishops) left an inheritance of deep bitterness; relations between Muslims and their Christian and Jewish subjects worsened.” (description of some of the effects of the Crusades).This is (important/interesting/relevant) because even if the Christian and Muslims relationship was bad already the Crusades made it worse by the bitterness left and even the Jews now are in it because when the Crusades lost, they took their fury against the Jews and would slaughter and destroy their cities even though the lost against the Muslims. Document 10 states that “...which one of the Franks

The Crusades were more negative rather beneficial because of the religious hatred that they left behind and that they turned onto jews. Document one states,”...massacring entire communities,” meaning many people died because of the bitter legacy of the hatred of the religious.This is important because religious hatred is a legacy that was left by the crusades when they also failed in their chief

The Crusades were a bad place in that time because of all the blood and gore that developed upon the religions. This was the worst event to occur in religion history. These humans that were fighting for their religion never seemed to live a long, healthy life. Citizens fighted for their religion and brought random tools as weapons, like a farmer or a merchant. The Crusades killed a lot of innocent people and did not care, they even killed people surrendering. They stole and did a lot of bad things just because someone wants to bow down and pray doesn't have to start a war. This is the crusaders being a negative effect in general.Document 1 states that they take out their hatred on innocent people of their different religion but they won't hurt or kill the people of their religion. Ex. Christianity will kill Jews and Muslims, but not Christians. This is important because with this info you can obviously tell that they did not care about anyone or anything by them slaughtering, destroying, and terrorizing the cities of Constantinople and many others. Document 4 states that

Introduction Sentence: Trade was one of the positive things in the crusades because with trade still going around the people of the city could still purchase things that they needed. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________. Document 2 states that  trade built up in these places starting at the muslim empire _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________.

The Christian mind had a tough decision to make in medieval Europe when asked by the church to crusade. Economic advantages and religious gains were just two of the contributing factors to fight, in which religious gains were highly influenced by the papacy. The word of the church was the bridge between Christians and the word of God. Today, the Christian mind may be able to create a disconnect between religion and political influence, but medieval Christians thought and acted much differently to the church’s influence. It is true that Christians fought in the Crusades for multiple reasons including economic advantages, but the greatest influence to fight came from their religious and church motivations.

The Franks were initially successful during the Crusades but eventually succumbed and were defeated by the Middle East. Their advances in the First and Second Crusade were not exclusively because of the Frank’s fortitude, instead it was the Middle East’s political instability that allowed them to prosper. Once the tables turned and Muslim countries unified, the Europeans became increasingly inefficient until they were unable to continue their crusade.

At the close of the XIth century, the Crusades launched by Europe's kingdoms, headed by the papacy, had reached the height of their zeal. The people overwhelmingly came out in support of them, pledging their swords to the capture of the holy city of Jerusalem along with the entirety of the Holy Land. This enthusiasm, after all, was not without precedent; although it had failed in its ultimate objective of reclaiming Jerusalem from Arab forces, the Third Crusade succeeded in a multitude of other areas, and bolstered the resolve of the Christian world; or rather, it would have were it not for the increasingly great divide forming in a previously unified Christendom. The tensions between the Latin west and the Greek east had been present for

The Crusades were not an early example of European colonization even if they did create some kingdoms there for a while. (“The Crusades”). It has been argued that the knights who went adventuring in the Crusades were the second and third sons of nobles who, because of European inheritance rules, had little to look forward by staying in Europe. However, most of the people who responded to the call to Crusade weren’t knights at all; they were poor people. Secondly, most of nobles who did go crusading were lords of grand estates. (“Crusades”.) This analysis of people of the Crusades ignores religious motivations. History has approached religions as occurrences. For instance, the unpredictable environments of Mesopotamia and Egypt led to a belief in various types of Gods- which would help solve each of their problems. However, just as the world shape religion, religious

The Crusades were a series of military conflicts in which European Christians went to the Near East to reclaim territories lost by the Byzantine Empire to Islamic Caliphates. An historical debate arising from this period is what motivated the Crusaders to attempt this undertaking. Some view the Crusades as religious wars motivated by the differences between Christianity and Islam, particularly with regards to the control of sites and cities sacred in both religions. Others have seen the Crusades as a war for territorial expansion that merely employed the rhetoric of religious conflict. This paper will examine this historical debate with reference to two opposing academic articles. It will argue that the motivations that led to the Crusades