Was religion the sole factor for the Crusades? Where there, by any chance, other reasons to seize this Holy Land?
>>919859
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLBws-4kzG8
not really, people going on crusades took a gigantic risk of fucking up abroad (ie.dying) or getting fucked at home (losing their lands in the case of nobles, getting cuck't in the case of your average peasant/foot soldier)
all for a strip of land in the near east
>>919859
I believe people fail to underestimate the 'boredom' factor. While life in that time wasn't "bad" at all, it was certainly boring in the sense that most people did not travel very far. Thus they jumped at the opportunity to see the Holy Land, an exotic place to them.
>>919859
>Where there,
Were there reasons
>>920177
you understood his meaning, don't be a twat
Yeah.
Are you asking if the Jews did it?
>>920088
his voice and mannerisms are terrible to listen to
>>920124
well, if you're the fifth born son of a nobleman with no chance of getting any inheritance from your father than it might be a good chance to show your chops and get some booty in return
also DEUS VULT
>>920189
his english was incorrect
>>920232
abloo bloo
Look at the leaders of the Crusades. They were all rich, powerful men to begin with. Kings and princes in some cases. Why would they risk it all in return for arid wasteland that is worthless except as a religious symbol?
>>920238
>rich
Not as rich as you think, many of them were heavily indebted and with financial troubles and saw the Crusades as a mean to gain prestige and acquire titles and gain access to the spice trade.
They were initially, and generally always meant to be a power play by the pope to further strengthen his grip over european political affairs.
It was generally always about the Pope trying to force himself into power, although sometimes it was due to Muslim aggression into "the holy land"
>>920124
>>920143
>>920211
>>920241
One of the most bizarre things about how ignorant most are of the Crusades is that many think it was this great opportunity to get rich or go on vacation. They often sold everything they owned to finance their trip and if they made it back the were usually penniless.
Learn Real Crusades History, stupid plebes.
>>920265
They didn't expect to come back penniless, Christcuck. And they absolutely thought it would be a vacation: they thought God was going to magically wipe out the Saracens. Hence why the Crusaders were terrible at crusading, for the most part.
>>920265
And sometimes it was packaged as a literal safari adventure, complete with tours of local religious sites, for many aristocrats in both the Baltic and the Levant.
Read more books, less internet vlogs that market themselves as """"Real"""""
>>919859
Religion was not the sole factor. It was very important for very many people, but other interests were also involved. The ERE had its diplomatic and internal security issues that attracted papal and Frankish aristocratic interests in the east.
Religion shouldn't be downplayed, but neither should it become the sole defining factor either.
>>920088
>"""""""""""""""Real""""""""""""""" Crusade History
>>920201
>christians and muslims dying
of course they were
>>920295
muhammed pls
>>920407
Hulk pls
They didn't go for material gains.
Crusading was expensive (many of them sold most of their possessions to Crusade), extremely dangerous compared to what they were used to, in land that were far away from their base. Also, most Crusaders that managed to survive and successfully Crusade came back to Europe without new titles. This was a weakness in the Crusader states. The Crusaders would fight for a while and then come back to Europe, meaning that the Kingdom of Jerusalem lacked manpower.
If they wanted material gains, they could have that easier in Europe, be it against neighbors or in Spain. If they really wanted material gains out of Europe, Tunisia and Egypt would be much better targets than Jerusalem. Jerusalem was not as rich as those two lands.
Actually, the Normans eventually did conquer Tunisia for a while, but not in a Crusade, just a normal conquest.
>>920211
No one who seriously studied the Crusades believes in this explanation anymore. I don't understand how anyone could think this is a valid explanation, when you look at WHO went to the Crusades. The ones that went to the Crusades were the nobles themselves.
>>920241
The Count of Flanders was the richest man in Western Europe. The Count of Toulouse was incredibly rich, as well. Also, they were not traders. Saying they wanted to gain access to the spice trade is anachronistic.
>>920274
>They didn't expect to come back penniless
That's true, but in the sense that most of them expected to die while Crusading, so they didn't really expect to return. Also, Crusaders mostly came back without new riches after doing their fighting.
>>919859
>Where there
Where their reasons
>>920485
their reasons?
where?
>>919859
What was buried in Solomon's Temple?
Why would the church, a kingdom, or a knightly order want it?
>>919859
To seize the holy land?
Really not. It was a shitty piece of territory all around.
>>920537
write their next too you
>>919859
Crusading was born out of piety. It continued to be mostly about piety, but chivalry and simple ambition and greed became more prevalent as time went on
>>919859
No, Pope Urban saw it as an opportunity to 1) unify the European kingdoms into a theological empire 2) expand the control of this theological empire into Anatolia and, eventually, beyond. Religion was, however, the sold justification of the Crusades.
Control of the silk road, and the new slave trafic. Jerusalem was at the heart of a few trade routes. Africa, China and India.
>>920693
This kind of theory is so silly. This is the problem with taking Marxism too seriously. When you have a hammer everything is a nail.
>>920693
Wrong. Jerusalem was specifically outside the heart of the trade routes (for which not the least reason is that it doesn't have a port), it's one reason the Kingdom of Jerusalem had so much trouble. They didn't have the manpower to impose themselves on a large enough territory to make that money come to them, the Muslims just steered a ton of it around the city because it was no change to the overall route.
>>920286
>The ERE had its diplomatic and internal security issues that attracted papal and Frankish aristocratic interests in the east.
Isn't this essentially why the fourth crusade played out the way it did?
>>920693
>>920704
The route in question is the Syrian trade route, btw, of which the most important cities in the region were Damascus and Tyre. When the Principality of Antioch and Edessa were going, it was possible for the Crusaders to direct the trade favourably, with the help of the Italians, but Jerusalem was never the economic heart of those caravan routes.
>>919859
Christians in the Holy Land were reduced to the level of dhimmis when they were under Muslim rule. They were not allowed to build new churches, and had to pay a hefty tax for being Christian. The Muslims on a few occasions burned down some of their churches. It's very possible that the first crusade conquered the Holy Land to free Christians of this oppression.
Also, don't forget that jerusalem was mainly fought over as holy ground, as it was obviously very much a holy site for the christians, but also one for the Muslims, as they are an Abrahamic religion
Jerusalems importance had hardly anything to do with trade
>>920693
No it wasn't.
And because if there is anything medieval lords cared about was the welfare of their merchants. You can totally expect a 11th century high lord to spend a lot of his own money, risk his life in a far away land where he would likely die of dysentery in the desert for his merchants.
>>920715
More or less. It's even how the First Crusade and the rise of the Seljuks of Rum happened the way that they did. These factors were drowned out by Christian and Muslim chronicles that promoted a religious and dynastic view of the history of the Crusader States and Turkish Beyliks, and missed out on by the Romantic and Marxist focus of the past two centuries of Crusades studies.
>>919859
So basically you're asking: what is Jerusalem worth?
Because that would be nothing.
Political capital
Being know as 'the king who reclaimed the holy land' was a mighty prestigious title
Free loot
Stealing from heretics is always a plus. Which includes all the Jews and Byzantines along the march to Jerusalem.
Free titles
People were sure to be given new fiefs after the holy land was conquered so it was a great way for nobles outside the line of succession to grab landed titles.
And yes, plenty of people probably did they for genuine religious reasons.
>>920818
>Bouillon
>expensive
How are you fucking up that badly? It's a cheap staple of every kitchen.
Religion and political power. They were kind of synonymous at first during the Middle Ages. I mean if you had a kind of weak claim on your throne, but the Pope told you he'd throw his weight behind you if you went on a quest to the Holy Land, then hey, it's an easy choice. Same if you're the Pope, if you can get King so and so to do your bidding, maybe he'll help you out when you need it.
I think as the years wore on and they saw all the cool shit the Muslims had, it became more about trade. You got people at home interested in spices and silk and mathematics and all that jazz. A couple hundred years later, and you've got the Pope blessing your trade routes and your merchant ships instead of your armored cavalry.
>>920745
>>920746
this
anything else is just /pol/ tier bullshit
>>920921
Crusading is a pretty bad idea if you have a weak claim. It just makes the life of your enemies easier.
Other than the Duke of Aquitaine, pretty much the entire high French nobility went to the Crusade. They were not weak.
Trade likely didn't affect the decisions of French and German nobles. They would not risk their precious lives for this.
Not everything is done for money and power.
>>920088
/pol/ please get the fuck out
>>921088
Have you actually watched the guys videos or do you just immediately write him off simply because he takes a pro crusader stance?
Also, this idea of calling someone /pol/ is getting really old, because if you've ever been on /pol/ you'd realize most people there have no academic curiosity. All they care about is shitposting. At least this guy makes a coherent argument in his videos
If you look at the peers of France, the greatest and richest nobles of France:
Duke of Normandy = Went to the First Crusade. After the Crusade was successful, came back without any money.
Duke of Aquitaine = Went to the Crusade of 1101. After Crusading, came back without any advantage. Lost Toulouse so he could Crusade.
Duke of Burgundy = Went to the Crusade of 1101. After Crusading, came back without any advantage.
Count of Flanders = Went to the First Crusade. After the Crusade was successful, came back without any advantage.
Count of Champagne = Went to the First Crusade AND the Crusade of 1101. Fled in the First Crusade and came back without money. Wife was mad with his lack of valor in the First Crusade and made him return again.
Count of Toulouse = Went to the First Crusade. His neighbor decided to invade his County while he was there. Decided to stay in Tripoli. Toulouse was better than Tripoli...
>>921109
That's because his videos are a complete load of bullshit, you little faggot.
>>921134
Could you explain where he is wrong?
>>921134
Wow, nice argument
>>921139
Not him, but he's not wrong the way John Green isn't wrong. They're both selectively promoting two opposing, politically motivated narratives and skirting around any inconveniences that question those narratives.
if only this """'saint"""" didn't get BTFO in Egypt
>>921133
>Duke of Normandy = Went to the First Crusade. After the Crusade was successful, came back without any money.
He had to hurry back to secure his place in the succession of the English crown I believe, and he wasn't very rich to start off with.
>Count of Toulouse = Went to the First Crusade. His neighbor decided to invade his County while he was there. Decided to stay in Tripoli. Toulouse was better than Tripoli...
If that was true, his son who the Duke of Aquitaine sold Toulouse back to to finance his 1101 campaign would have stayed in Toulouse rather than sail immediately for Tripoli and rule there directly.
>>920729
You can't used the modern definition of "christian" and apply it to the 11th century, as far as the Catholic Church was concerned, any non Catholic (Orthodox, Cathar, Arian) was a heretic and was free game to kill and steal from
>>921262
>He had to hurry back to secure his place in the succession of the English crown I believe, and he wasn't very rich to start off with.
The First Crusade already ended when his brother died. And he came back without more money than he left, even with his success in the Crusade,
>If that was true, his son who the Duke of Aquitaine sold Toulouse back to to finance his 1101 campaign would have stayed in Toulouse rather than sail immediately for Tripoli and rule there directly.
Not everything is done for material reasons. Toulouse was very rich.
>>921308
>I don't know what I'm talking about
>>921325
>The First Crusade already ended when his brother died
Not for Robert, who continued following Raymond and Robert of Flanders on further campaigns in Syria and Cyprus.
>Not everything is done for material reasons. Toulouse was very rich.
That's really the point here. People are arguing spiritual vs material motivations by reducing the matter to a numbers game with tax and treasure revenue. Relics, prestige, egotism, all that and more was in play when Crusaders made their decisions. I doubt for instance the Count of Flanders would have said he returned without any advantage when he brought back the arm of a saint and began building new churches in commemoration.
>>921415
>Not for Robert, who continued following Raymond and Robert of Flanders on further campaigns in Syria and Cyprus.
IIRC, he was already returning to Normandy when he heard his brother died. That just made him go back faster.
>That's really the point here. People are arguing spiritual vs material motivations by reducing the matter to a numbers game with tax and treasure revenue. Relics, prestige, egotism, all that and more was in play when Crusaders made their decisions. I doubt for instance the Count of Flanders would have said he returned without any advantage when he brought back the arm of a saint and began building new churches in commemoration.
I was arguing against the point of material motivations. Yes, the Count of Flanders likely felt it was worth to Crusade.
>>921358
I know you don't. Separate your ego from historical discussions or else go back to /pol/
>>921088
>Everytime someone says something on /his/ that would get them banned from reddit (having any right wing orientation at all), someone always comes along to say "hur dur pol get out". I wonder if it's the same person.
>>921510
>go back to /pol/
Great argument dipshit
>>920826
>0.50 euro cents for less than 50 grams
>100 euro each kg
>not expensive
thats cocaine level prices
