Crusader

The First Crusade. Justification of Muslims. The First Crusade is the first out of a few crusades that took place in High Middle Ages. The Byzantine Empire asked Pope Urban Ⅱ for help to defend itself against the Turks. Instead of a defensive army Christian Pope sent a conquering one which consisted of well-trained knights as well as of common people. Their goal was to conquer the Holy Land from Muslims and return all the Turkish land to the Byzantine Empire. Which party was justified in its

Nicolo Machiavelli said of the prince, “Everyone sees what you appear to be, few experience what you really are.” That is precisely what is happening in today’s society with certain modern governments. There is a great difference between the philosophy of modern governments and kingdoms in the Renaissance. Machiavelli explains certain traits that every single ruler should have to maintain his rule over his subjects. Modern day governments have exhibited certain forms of Machiavellianism. Even though

Document four states, “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”(Unknown Writer 1). This is important because the author is describing the impact the 4th Crusade had on the Catholic Church. Document six states, “Arriving in Constantinople in 1204, the Venetians, who had been hired to transport the crusaders, and the knights agreed to attack the Byzantine

Europe.  Crusaders were greatly influenced by the Catholic Church as they fought for the benefit of being forgiven of their sins and free of debt and taxes.

In a very difficult taken over the Crusaders were able to regain control the Holy Land . The Second Crusade In 1146, the Turks conquered and obtained the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem. The fall of the city of Edessa

more distinct and geared towards organization and structure of the crusade. He offered the typical pardoning of sins, protection of land, and no interest on loans. He goes a step further with multiple levels of remittance of people’s sins. If crusaders who personally and at their expense were involved, then all their sins would be forgiven and inherit a larger portion of eternal wages. Those who paid someone to go on their behalf, served for two years or died during the crusade, where give plenary

prejudice makes people feel unwelcome because their beliefs are discriminated against. It makes them feel the need to assimilate to dominant cultures. Another religious intolerance was when the Crusaders mass killed others. When the Crusaders invaded places it made people go into a state of fear. The Crusaders slaughtered several people to stop Muslim from spreading. The religious prejudice in world can destroy lives because it leads to one group wanting to ethnic cleanse others to be the only one.

A big reason that crusaders were fighting was because the land was sacred and they were trying to get it back from nonbelievers of their religion. The Pope was telling everyone about the holiness of the city when he said: ”This royal city, therefore, situated at the centre

The Crusades were European Christians who wanted to take back Jerusalem. The Crusades killed many people along the way. Which leads us to a question. Were the results of the Crusades more positive or Negative? I believe it was more negative because killing people was never always the way to go. Although the crusades did have a world impact, their legacy will forever be the same. One reason that it is a negative result is that they are the negative result in their legacy between the Muslims

afford to travel to Jerusalem. The Crusade gave them the chance to make the pilgrimage and so they could, “take the cross and make the journey to the Holy Sepulchre, the tomb in which Christ was placed and from which he rose”. By doing this, the crusader was also absolved of their sins which was an important part of the