Were the Crusades worthwhile for the people of Europe? WHY?

Question

THANKS

Answer 1

I would say that the first crusade was indeed needed and worthwhile for the people of Europe as they found themselves expanded upon by the muslim empires that had arisen which got into Europe itself, as far as Spain. This continual expantion was a risk to European peoples as they found their cultures, customs and very way of life during the time changed drastically due to the enforcement of taxation, laws, and religious differences so different that it degraded if not destroyed the socio-norms of the European way of life itself. This was because of the time period in which the crusades occured. Everything during that time period revolved around the church and Christianity was ingrained deeply into the everyday affairs of medieval Europe.



The second and third crusades were worthwhile in that the European securement of the holy land provided pilgrims with safer travel to and from Christian holy sites and more importantly it opened up safer trade routes for merchants to use. It opened up new and greater quantities of items for trade that had been before, extremely hard to obtain such as spices, myrrh, and silk.



There was also the intermixture of cultures and languages as well as different arts exchanged between Europe and the Middle Eastern cultures. Europe brought back to its shores and culture the music, mathematics, science, and medical practices from the Middle East. So in this light, the crusades benefitted Europe and its peoples greatly for without them the Reniassance period may never have come about to be what it was.



With the acception of the fourth crusade, which lead to the sacking of Constantinople, there was plenty of crusading to be done under the church's rule within Europe and Eastern Europe after the sacking of Acre in the third crusade. Due to this, the latter crusading movements saw no reason for the crusades to have to reach all the way down to the Middle East to obtain the purpose for which crusading was then fought for. All of this contributed to the downfall and eventual unpopularity of crusading as the internal fighting in Europe and crusades on European and Eastern European soil served no purpose of constructive value. From the latter crusades attempt at subversion of the Orthodox Christians, and other Christian doctrines declared as heretical and excommunicate, we then see the beginnings of what formed into the Inquisitions of France and Spain up through to the Renaissance period.



In fact it is easy to draw the conclusion that if it was not for that first three crusades then Europe would not be what it is today, nor for that matter would the Americas or any of the countries that were later touched by European settlement and colonization when the various European empires brought trade and industry to much of the known world.

Answer 2

Prior to the Crusades though, much of the more important Moslem/Christian interactions actually came from the Norman (yes, Viking) ruled island of Sicily and the heterogeneous intellectuals of Spain. Both Jewish and Moslem scholars had already been translating Greek and Arabic literature from Iberia into Latin and Romance languages for commentary and criticism, and the important Scholastic movement had existed before Jerusalem's 'reconquest' was even considered. This is not to say that the seizure of Classical material was completely beneficial. The manner in which intellectuals of the day held onto Ptolemy, Aristotle, Plato and Hippocrates well into the Renaissance caused many problems, and the latter half of the Middle Ages owed more to original and critical philosophies such as Humanism. Keep in mind that ancient Greeks had a very poor understanding of medicine, but also keep in mind that this did not stop Medieval doctors from bleeding their patients to balance the non-existent humors of their patients all the same.



Though the period saw a surge of Classical interest, many of the Europeans had very little idea what the Roman Empire really was (for instance, often ignoring the fact that the Empire was actually in Constantinople), and many tended to exaggerate how much they actually owed to the Romans and Greeks. Medieval Europe had a larger population, and boasted original accomplishments in established sailors, superb theological universities and superior metal-smiths whereas the Roman Empire did not have any of these. That they also fanatically held onto Geocentrism simply because Ptolemy promoted it, however, is very telling.



Even with the Crusades, the actual importance of Jerusalem to culture is also exaggerated. The metropolises of Alexandria, Baghdad and Cordoba were far more valuable as a whole, and Alexandria in particular had been the true scientific capital of the world since the Greek Ptolemaic dynasty was established in Egypt. Thankfully for early Medieval Christian philosophers, however, much of the Middle Eastern works had been widely circulated westward thanks to the Moslem love of libraries. To put that in proper context, even a single book was very opulent when they all had to be written by hand; a whole library full being quite priceless



The attempted conquest of the Middle East was mostly a religious venture in any event, and the long term, practical benefits of seizing Jerusalem were non-existant. Indeed, going on Crusade often meant most participants would endure irrecoverable poverty and the risk of dying en route (the most common cause of death, perhaps). The reality of the Crusades rang particularly true after the Italians' lost their trading ventures and were overshadowed by the economies of Northern Europe and unified Spain. Arab and Orthodox Christians remained hostile to a Catholic presence all the same, and both Balkan Pagan and Jewish communities domestic and abroad endured relentless atrocities. The Crusades had the opposite effect of securing the Holy Land in the end: The sack of Constantinople permanently weakened the Roman Empire and prepared the region for eventual Ottoman conquest.

Answer 3

It was somewhat worthwhile and somewhat not. They wasted manpower and resources that pretty much ultimately accomplished nothing except to sow the seeds of animosity in the Middle East that continue bearing poisoned fruit to this day.



But, in the end, Europeans begin to experience new cultures, and collect ancient manuscripts from the Roman and Greek times in the Middle East. Many important ancient manuscripts where destroyed by European barbarians, like the Goths, Huns, Vandals, Alans, and Suevi. The Arabics traveled to European and collect any remaining texts such as medicine, mathematics, science, and philosophy. Math, science, and medicine were blooming. Learning from the manuscripts changed new ideas in the Middle East, especially religion. In the Middle Ages, only the monks of the Church were educated people. When the Europeans collected the ancient manuscripts in the Middle East, everybody in Europe were well educated. Both and Arabians and the Europeans learn a lot from the Crusades.



Because of this, the Renaissance sparked and bloomed in Europe right after the Crusades.

Answer 4

It's true that the "seeds of animosity" were sown, but I don't think that poisoned fruit really outweighed the benefits for very many people in Europe for a long time. Europe gained a lot from the Crusades, and I would argue (being a verrry pragmatic person) that the loss of population was not a sign of failure as a good part of the reason for the first Crusade was to do something about all these younger sons of nobility with too little land to inherit and nothing much to occupy them except destructive squabbling. There were too many people in Europe for a pre-industrial economy.



The amount of trade that opened up as a result of the Crusades was huge, and major cities boomed. Even when trade was cut off at Constantinople ('cause I'm not just pragmatic, I'm also glass-half-full), the Europeans indirectly benefited, because it led to a period of really significant exploration, that they also profited from. Also, in terms of political development, the Crusades helped bring about the end of feudalism, as nobles' increasing debts led to selling serfs their freedom.



Of course, there's all the intellectual stuff Europe gained from the scholars of the east, as someone else has mentioned.



I think ordinary people suffered at the time, for sure. But in terms of significant gains that had a lasting impact - there were lots of those.

Answer 5

They best win the primary crusades. They killed Jews, Muslim and EVEN JERUSALEM CHRISTIANS after triumph over the town. Then, they made % with Salahuddin, however after the king lifeless, the succedded kings rape Salahuddin sister that are living in Jerusalam and kill Salahuddin messanger. (that is what cassandra known as as protective Christianity) They later been expelled by means of Salahuddin Al-Ayubi. Crusaders fail within the others 6 crusades. For Cassandra: Actually, every person recognize that "an attacker" is are not able to be a defender. Crusades begins while Patriarch Ecumene of Constantinople calling Pope of Rome to aid him avert Muslim enlargement to Turkey. During that point, Pope be given Patriarch Ecumene strategies to assault Jerusalem. "would not guard Christian pilgrims from Muslims within the Holy Land". You will have to have in mind that Christian pilgrims when you consider that seven hundred AD did not desire a safety from Muslims due to the fact Muslim guard them doing pilgrimage (Muahad %). You strategies sounds foolish... And to your expertise, now not best Jerusalem used to be attacked, however just about all southern facet of Turkey, Antioch till Jerusalam used to be attacked by means of Crusaders. Are those known as as protection? And excuse me, Muslim conquest did not contain "pressured to Islam". The Christian natives of the lands be given Islam because the signal of rejection of Western Church and Trinitarian Church. I do not feel calling France persons to guard Jerusalem from their natives is "a protection" And Egypt used to be the final item of crusaders, now not Jerusalem, due to the fact "Egypt" is wealthy. Crusaders assume that Middle East could welcome them, however definitely they are not. They truthfully been promised with wealthy land (that they assume conveniently to get). That's why many European go away their homeland. (Like the at the present time Jews that go away their nation and anticipated to stick peacefully at stolen land) =)

Answer 6

Yes. The Eastern cultures were far advanced in medicine, mathematics,science, engineering and personal hygiene and these things were bought back by the Crusaders and this helped western cultures progress far ahead of the eastern cultures that because of its dominant religion held that progress down.

Answer 7

Pretty much exactly what Will said. There was no point for them to begin with, and in the end it was still extremely pointless and they were a complete failure. That is one reason why people of the Middle East have had a deep-rooted dislike of the West.



By the way, this sounds like a homework question. Do your own work and stop asking others to do it for you because you are too lazy to do a little research. If it is in fact homework, that is.

Answer 8

Yes it stopped (temporarily) the rise of Islam and its threat to Europe.



http://nationscrier.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=20:myth-if-th-first-crusade&Itemid=2

Answer 9

No, in retrospect they were a spectacular waste of time, manpower and resources that ultimately accomplished nothing except to sow the seeds of animosity in the Middle East that continue bearing poisoned fruit to this day.