Skip to main content

What were the religious, political, and economic motivations behind the Crusades?

The religious motivation for the Crusades is the one most people know about: Europe was predominantly Christian and ruled by Christian governments while the Middle East was predominantly Muslim and ruled by Muslim governments. People in each religion believed (as many still do today) that their religion is the one true religion and everyone else's religion is wrong; furthermore, a substantial proportion believed that those who do not believe the right religion should suffer or even be put to death. Thus, there were a large number of Christians willing to kill Muslims simply because they were Muslims, and conversely a large number of Muslims willing to kill Christians simply because they were Christians.

But that is not the whole story of the Crusades.


There was also a substantial political motivation; European governments found that by launching wars and conquering territory in the Middle East they could strengthen their own power at home. In particular, the Catholic Church used the Crusades as a means of uniting all Christians in Europe under one banner and solidifying the authority of the Church in public life. There were strategic reasons to establish military footholds in the Middle East, particularly as a bulwark against the rise of Turkey.


Finally, there were economic motivations. The Middle East has always been a region very rich in natural resources (today we think in terms of oil, but back then petroleum was basically useless; they were more interested in precious metals like gold and silver, as well as simply rich farmland and comfortable living space). European governments reasoned that by capturing territory in the Middle East they could secure access to these natural resources and thereby make themselves wealthier. To some extent this was true, though they probably would have actually made more wealth by trading peacefully with Middle Eastern cultures rather than going to war to conquer them.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more