How Successful Was The Crusades Dbq

The Crusades were an unpleasant event that happened for many reasons. It was established in 1096 and thankfully ended in 1291. The cause for why the Crusades had a more negative result is because most people died from participating or majorly hurt. This is because Document 6 states “The city was savagely taken with many lives lost” meaning that people had died. So, the continued fighting that took place because of the Crusades had a huge negative impact on the many people that lost their lives. In addition, Document 1 states “In Europe, crusaders sometimes turned their fury against Jews, massacring entire communities.” Which meant that full families including children were slaughtered, killed and destroyed because the crusaders were mad at

Throughout the entirety of the Crusades, there were a multitude of goals that each combatant from the Christian, Muslim, and Judaism were trying to achieve. There is a lurking question, and that is: were the Crusades a success for anyone? Some historians will lecture that the Crusades were an overall success, some believe that they were only partially successful in conveying they’re overall message. Then there’s the historians that will lecture that the Crusades were a complete failure.

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 Pope had all of the power and that led to mass amounts of people going to war for the Pope. In document 4 by the Islamic leader, Saladin, he states that his people should try to retake Jerusalem to get back their holy land and to please God. The people are trying to please their gods and to give their homage to their god. That would show a religious view for the Crusades and their brethren. Document 5 by the Jewish chronicler, Solomon bar Samson, shows that there was a religious aspect to the Crusades, mind it be extremism. The crusaders would see a pack of Jews on the way to the Holy Land and they would give the Jews two choices: 1. they could kill them to avenge the death of Jesus Christ or 2. They could incorporate them into their faith and acknowledge the offspring of promiscuity. Document 7, an excerpt from “In Praise of the New Knighthood” by St. Bernard of Clairvaux, tells of the two-fold war that was being fought by the Knights Templar and the Knights Hospitallers. It was a normal killing people war, and it was a spiritual war. You are protected by the armor of faith and an armor of steel. Next, I would have liked a document from Pope Nicholas IV about how the Crusades had to stop. That would have filled in the ending to the story of the Crusades.

One negative result of the Crusades was the bitter relationship between the Christians and the Muslims. Document 5 states that “...the example of persecution set by Christian kings and prelates (bishops) left an inheritance of deep bitterness” (unknown source Document 5). This is important because the religious persecution between

The Papacy in Rome sanctioned the First Crusade and Pope Urban II preached for a great Christian expedition to capture Jerusalem, the Holy Lands from the Muslims. During this time religion permeated every aspect of life. The Christian kings and peasants believed that every human being was judged in death and one way to absolve oneself of sin was to die in the name of the Lord, therefore dying in the Crusades would purify the soul allowing them to go straight to heaven. Consequently, “thousands of laymen and clergy took up the cross and younger sons of the upper-class had military advantages to become Crusaders” (Fiero, 2017). At this particular time, the church acknowledged and vindicated fighting and killing in the name of God, resulting in the Crusaders slaughtering all enemies of Christ; hundreds of men, women, and children plus the “entire Jewish populations of Cologne and Mainz became victims” (Fiero, 2017). The First Crusade set a dangerous precedent, the rise of organized anti-Jewish persecution and each subsequent Crusade resulted in renewed attacks on the Jews. The persecution of Jews reached a climax during the Crusades.

“Thus, in April 1204, the crusaders and Venetians stormed Constantinople, sacked the city, destroying its magnificent library, and grabbed thousands of relics that were later sold in Europe…” This is important because they don't care of what religion the others are in. They want everyone to be part of their religion. If they do surrender and try to join their religion, the crusaders will sometimes just kill them. This states that the crusades were a negative influence on the civilians and different religions by slaughtering them and destroying their most valuable, precious items and where they lived, left in

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 a fight for the Holy Land between Christians , Muslims and Jews. The Crusade left a very negative legacy because of the hatred and how they left all the land. The result of the Crusade came out more negative because how much land and historical things were destroyed. Document 4 states that a library and relics were destroyed in Constantinople.

Hoping that the Pope would accede to his wishes, Alexius looked to rectify the Turkish invasions. November of 1095 Urban II consented to Alexius' request and called all to aid of their fellow Christians who had been attacked by the Turks. Perhaps having various other reasons for aiding Alexius, the sole reason that seems to stand out is that of healing relations between the Eastern and Western Church which had been severed after the Great Schism. To what extent the Crusades were successful is debatable. Ultimately, however, the Crusades did not manage to heal the split between the Eastern and Western Church, but did manage to strengthen the Roman Catholic Church and simultaneously accelerated trade and gave huge economic gains to Western Europe. In other words, the Crusades were a successful failure.

It was the Europeans who backstabbed those who they vowed to defend, there is vastly more evidence of the Europeans doing horrible things, and it would not be fair to blame the Muslims for self-defense. One of the especially barbaric deeds of the Europeans is that they attacked the same people who they swore to protect. It all started with the conflict just before Pope Urban II sparked the Crusades with a passionate sermon: the Battle of Manzikert, in 1071. This battle was fought between the Seljuk Turks and the Byzantines, and the Byzantines lost decisively. The Byzantine emperor at the time was, understandably, upset, and begged Pope Urban II for help.

While The Crusades may have begun with a noble intention, or set out with objectives that sought to relieve the suffering of fellow Christians, those original ideas were perverted and twisted until The Crusades were not at all noble or justified. This is particularly obvious in retrospect when we can look at history from various perspectives and draw conclusions, but it seems that even at the time it might have been obvious that the original intent had been misused in order to advance the personal aspirations of many people taking part.

They condemned the crusaders as violent psychopaths in search of nothing more than land and wealth and the First Crusade provided a perfect opportunity for such ambitions. Muslims could be killed without suffering the consequence of sin and their land confiscated for the greater good of Christendom. In more recent times, historians have backed away from the condemnatory tone of their

There is always two sides to every story and when in comes to war people always pass the blame to the other side. When going through “The Muslim Reaction” by Ibn al-Athir the goal was to discover which people were responsible for what different events, which led up to the conquering of Jerusalem by the Franks. There is always more player behind the scenes and more stories than are told in the broad histories. There are questions that have to be answered first is why do the Franks go to Jerusalem, second which of their own failures the Muslims are actually responsible for, and lastly what happens in Jerusalem.