As such, the brutal actions and only marginal motivation by religion classify the crusades as a negative time in history because of their negative impact and suffering of many innocent people. By killing thousands of innocent people who did not deserve to die nor needed to during the crusades, the crusaders show themselves as heinous and vicious, not the type of people that they intended to be. And by looting, pillaging, and attempting to expand one's power over a group that, in the first place, asked for the help of the crusaders, the crusades show themselves as not being a war of religion but a war of brutality, a quest for power and a mission to amount as much wealth as one can. This was mostly due to the fact that pope Urban II allowed …show more content…
They suggest that people have always found ways to cheat systems imposed by authority in order to benefit on a personal and interpersonal level. The crusades show this because pillaging, usually considered a sin, was allowed under pope Urban II if one joined and fought in the crusades. People were able to use this for their own benefit, regardless of if it hurt others due to the fact that they would not be punished. Additionally, historical revisionism was used to attempt to justify the actions of the crusaders such as killing thousands of Jews and taking Muslim women and children prisoner. This shows that the crusades were a negative time in history because of the fact that they were covered up so many times through it. If the merits of the crusades were good, then there would be no need to cover them up and thus, the revision of history during the crusades would not be as prevalent. On a more modern note however, the crusades beg the question: is it ok for one group to be thought of as inherently better than another? And vise versa: is it ok for one group thought of as inherently worse than
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,
Besides having the Crusades being negative based on dying and losing their main objective, another example as to why the Crusades ended so negatively, is that many lands were demolished and robbed. In addition, in document 4 it indicates “ … the crusaders and the Venetians stormed Constantinople,, sacked the city, destroying its magnificent library, and grabbed thousands of relics that were later sold in Europe. From destruction, the Byzantine Empire as a political unit never recovered.” This is pertinent because it is clearly stated that they had destroyed buildings and when things are destroyed it’s rarely a good thing. Another thing that shows negativity is that after the Byzantine Empire was sacked, it never repaired. When something is damaged, it’s really bad for the people who have a relation to it. So when they had destroyed the Byzantine Empire, it must’ve hurt many people to see their city ruined. Furthermore in document B is states “Jerusalem was taken from the north on the morning of July 15, 1099. The population was put to the sword by the Franks, who pillaged the area for a week.
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 more negative than positive because there were many innocent people were killed because of their religion. In document 1 it states In Europe, crusaders sometimes turned their fury against jews, massacring entire communities. They would do this just because they were
Examples that the Crusades were more negative are going to be stated in the following reasons.Document 1 states that “ In the middle east,both Christians and Muslims committed appalling atrocities in name of religion.”Also in Europe the crusaders sometimes turned their madness towards the Jews and massacring entire communities.This is because important because it shows that the crusades was
The Crusades were a bloody war that the church deemed holy and necessary for salvation of the knights soul. The Crusades are a highly controversial and very dark stain on the Catholic church and Hierarchies past. The war was brought to the church from there Roman allies who they had tense dealings with. The where seeking aid in the fight against the muslim turks. The church decreed there act holy and justified. The people who were under the churches thumb had no objections to the slaughter that their beloved God had suposably justified.
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
The crusade had a negative effect on both the christians and the muslims. The negative impact it had was it killed innocent jews who were not a part of the crusade they would kill them because they were mad and did not trust any religion but their own.
The crusades did nothing but leave religious hate. Document 1 states that “They also left a bitter legacy of religious hatred behind them. In the Middle East, both Christians and Muslims committed appalling atrocities in the name of religion. In Europe, crusaders sometimes turned their fury against Jews, massacring entire communities.
The crusades were multiple religious wars between the muslims and the christians. The wars were very violent and they also destroyed and ruined many things. Were the results of the crusades more positive or negative.The crusades fought violent, bloody wars that were against that christians and the muslims. Document 1 states that the crusades were bitter because of the hatred to certain religions .This is (important) because the main part of the crusades was that they all started to take back jerusalem and they were also very racist. Document 7 states that crusade kingdoms were hard to manage because the crusading knights would abuse and commit other atrocities on other christians.This is relevant because they were hard to maintain because
In the “Impact of the Crusades DBQ” essay it explains how the results of the Crusades were more negative than positive. Document 1 states that “They also left bitter legacy of religious hatred behind them.” This is relevant because
The crusades had both a positive and negative impact on the Eastern and Western worlds that were involved in the conflicts. The crusades were a series of nine wars between the muslims and christians. In the year 1095 Pope Urban II calls for a crusade to free the Holy Land from “Infidels.” The question on document 1: is “Why does the author of this document call the legacy of the crusades a bitter one?.” It states that they left hatred behind them.
The Crusades were an important part of history, and it had a major impact to the people and the Church. There were a total of nine crusades, but only a few were successful. The Church asked helped from people, and succeeded in influencing them to join by telling them how their sins would be removed. Many people believed in the Pope and the Church at first, but after many Crusades it was later questioned. The Crusades started by the Church to capture The Holy Land was caused primarily by religious devotion and not by political and economic gains.
In the DBQ historical context, it states that “Between the end of the eleventh century and into the thirteenth century, European Christians, at the urging of the church, conducted a series of nine wars that have come to be known as the Crusades. Many people have wondered were the results of the Crusades more positive or negative? The results of the Crusades were more negative because they would massacre communities and empires, and they had very low patience.