What led to the First Crusade?

[Michie]

What happened in the 11th century that compelled European Christians to campaign into the Holy Land?​

Much has been written about the military exploits of the crusaders, the clash of cultures, and the unfortunate massacres following their sometimes unexpected victories. However, before we embark on the origin of the First Crusade in the late 11th century, we will address its interpretation by modern-day writers and media. What is it that the modern world thinks of the First Crusade?

The common misconceptions are as follows:

• The crusades were an excuse for the indiscriminate destruction of Muslims and Jews, led by bloodthirsty Catholic prelates and dukes.
• The crusades were purely politically motivated in order to curb the advance of Islamic influence in the Mediterranean.
• The crusades were simply an economic endeavor by greedy Italian merchants.
• The majority of the knights who embarked on crusade were not really Christian, because true Christian would not embark on such a campaign.

In summary: the First Crusade of 1096 AD is depicted as frenzied, fanatic European Christians seeking to destroy innocent Jews and Muslims on a whim. Movies about the crusades almost always features a few valiant knights lost in a herd of foolish lemmings, indiscriminately stampeding through Middle Eastern villages and cities.

Continued below.

What led to the First Crusade

What happened in the 11th century that compelled European Christians to campaign into the Holy Land?

maintainingrealm.substack.com

 

[chevyontheriver]

What happened in the 11th century that compelled European Christians to campaign into the Holy Land?​

Much has been written about the military exploits of the crusaders, the clash of cultures, and the unfortunate massacres following their sometimes unexpected victories. However, before we embark on the origin of the First Crusade in the late 11th century, we will address its interpretation by modern-day writers and media. What is it that the modern world thinks of the First Crusade?

The common misconceptions are as follows:

• The crusades were an excuse for the indiscriminate destruction of Muslims and Jews, led by bloodthirsty Catholic prelates and dukes.
• The crusades were purely politically motivated in order to curb the advance of Islamic influence in the Mediterranean.
• The crusades were simply an economic endeavor by greedy Italian merchants.
• The majority of the knights who embarked on crusade were not really Christian, because true Christian would not embark on such a campaign.

In summary: the First Crusade of 1096 AD is depicted as frenzied, fanatic European Christians seeking to destroy innocent Jews and Muslims on a whim. Movies about the crusades almost always features a few valiant knights lost in a herd of foolish lemmings, indiscriminately stampeding through Middle Eastern villages and cities.

Continued below.

What led to the First Crusade

What happened in the 11th century that compelled European Christians to campaign into the Holy Land?

maintainingrealm.substack.com

We need good histories of the Crusades like this one to counteract the various interests (Protestant, Orthodox, Muslim, and Secularist) that have decided to be against every last aspect of the Crusades. The real history shows a much more complex and interesting picture with Islam being far more complex than we get taught, and the schism between Christians being far more complex that we get taught.

 

[Michie]

Exactly. Instead people choose what they believe and are spoon fed to believe. I have presented facts so many times and people do not even attempt to read or discuss them. The Jerusalem Cross comes to mind…

Under those conditions there can be no honest discourse. They are married to their ideologies. And judging historical events by todays standards in unfair and unrealistic imo.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Exactly. Instead people choose what they believe and are spoon fed to believe. I have presented facts so many times and people do not even attempt to read or discuss them. The Jerusalem Cross comes to mind…

Under those conditions there can be no honest discourse. They are married to their ideologies. And judging historical events by todays standards in unfair and unrealistic imo.

History, being usually written by the victor, usually has a propagandistic value. Consider what is now coming out about the 'reformation' of Henry VIII. It now comes out it was a land grab by Henry to pay off expectant noblemen (ever wonder how the likes of the fictional Downton's got their 'abbey'?). It wasn't to solve any religious problem as there wasn't much of one in England at the time. Same with the history of the Crusades where the Anglosphere has Anglican versions of history, the Orthosphere has Orthodox versions of history, the Islamosphere has Islamic versions of history, and the Secularists have the dominant version of history, supplemented by the Woksphere version since October 7 2023. Truth sometimes wins out but it takes a while.

 

[o_mlly]

We need good histories of the Crusades like this one to counteract the various interests (Protestant, Orthodox, Muslim, and Secularist) that have decided to be against every last aspect of the Crusades

Agree.

Another one that corrects the errors of other historians in recounting the crusades is: Crusaders and Historians | Thomas F. Madden

Or for those who prefer to listen, from Modern Scholar: (The free download may no longer be available from Overdrive depending on your library.)

God Wills It!

For over 400 years, crusaders ("those signed by the cross"), out of Christian zeal, a declared love for their fellow man, and, in many cases, a simple desire for fortune, glory, and heavenly reward, marched to the Holy Land to battle both a real a...

www.overdrive.com