Causes of the First Crusade 1095 and 1099

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
West’s reasons for launching the crusade
Middle East response to the crusades
Lasting effects on relations
References

Introduction

There were at least eight crusades in all but four of them were the major ones. The crusades started in the year 1095 with the appeal of Pope Urban II to the European Christians and ended in the year 1291 with the downfall of Acre. Pope Urban II appealed to the people of France to invade Jerusalem and set it free from the clutches of the Muslims (Phillips, 2009).

The crusades are portrayed as being wars that had religious intentions but there were several other reasons such as political and economic that led to the crusades. This paper will discuss the first crusade that was fought between 1095 and 1099.

West’s reasons for launching the crusade

Jerusalem was controlled by Muslims since centuries but they never interfered with the Christian pilgrims due to the reason that they gave them business. The problem crept in when the Turks conquered the holy city (in addition to the adjacent areas) in 1971.

The Turks were also Muslims but they ill-treated the Christian pilgrims without knowing the economic benefits that were being reaped due to them. The Turks also invaded Europe many times and even intimidated the Byzantine Empire (Keko, 2010).

Considering the grave threat, Pope Urban II appealed to the European Christian community to rise against the invaders and free Jerusalem from the Muslim rule.

The profound enthusiasm induced by Pope Urban II served to rouse the exceptional conclusion of the First Crusade. The objectives of the crusade were to recover Jerusalem, support the Byzantine East, and to bring all of Europe under one roof for a respectable cause.

The initial Crusades were able to bring together Western Europe for a united cause. The Western society was influenced with the Eastern contemplation and as a result, fresh trade opportunities were perceived between Europe and the eastern Mediterranean.

In any case the Crusades eventually ended up being a paradigm of an intellectual nature that faced deceit from personal temperament. Ensuing campaigns were controlled by aristocrats (engaged in wars), knights, and priests who battled for control, territory, and wealth. These crusades, especially the fourth one, demonstrated devastating results.

One intriguing point is that, while the documentation of incidents for the initial three Crusades were moderately unswerving all around the literature, numerous contradictory descriptions can be found for the fourth and the subsequent Crusades.

Is it possible that the historians were not interested any more in the crusades or did the crusades prove to be some dejected episodes?

The continuous and vigorous crusades could bring in only interim success. This statement is proved by the fact that the crusades lasted for almost 195 years but Christians were able to establish their authority over Jerusalem for just 88 years.

Middle East response to the crusades

Muslims of the Middle East were probably enticed to participate in the crusade by the religious sermon of the chief Qazi of Damascus.

The Qazi tried to include emotional aspects in his sermon by informing the listeners that their brothers in Syria had no homes left (Irwin, 1997). The listeners included refugees from Syria and Palestine.

The Muslim reaction to the advent of Crusaders at the close of the eleventh century was established by the disarray of the Muslim world during that period.

There was an element of jihad (Islamic religious war) in the proposed reaction of Muslims. There were certain diplomatic reasons as well for the Muslims’ response to the crusades. The economic inferences cannot be ruled out as one of the reasons.

The idea of jihad (during the crusades) can be considered as a perfect example of amalgamation of religious thoughts and political ambitions. Jihad is actually an appeal (mentioned in Quran) that urges all Muslims to safeguard the interests of all Muslims. But the rulers (Caliphs) used it as a disguise to expand their territories.

But anyhow, the Muslims did respond to the call for jihad and got involved in the crusade wars. But it seems that the Syrian leaders paid no heed to the call for jihad by some Ulaimas (religious leaders of Islam) such as Al-Sulami and the concept of jihad was buried in their thoughts.

In Islamic philosophy and law jihad had never been a static idea but, on the contrary, it became the idea of the Ulaimas who had control over the policies of the Muslim world. During the period from 1099 to 1291, the military responses were influenced by the preaching of such Ulaimas.

The starting Muslim reaction to the Crusaders was signified by apathy. The absence of a coordinated military reaction by the Muslims to the attacks could be clarified by the environment that greeted the crusaders. The Crusaders couldn’t have a better opportunity to invade.

The area was in chaos and disorder because of the demise of Malikshah (Seljuk’s sultan). The sultan’s two sons were engaged in a war of succession. This instability of the region was probably one of the main reasons for the success of the first Crusade.

Nur-Al-Din’s reign witnessed a resurgence in the people’s views that can be considered being communal as well as religious. The views of the people were obviously anti-Christian and against the Crusaders. The significance of this was that jihad started being considered as a way of fortifying Islam’s popularity rather than defending Islam.

This particular concept suggests that there was a close affiliation between the Ulaimas and the rulers. It was in this setting that Saladin’s reactions to the Crusaders ought to be assessed.

Among all the people who were considered to be war heroes during the crusades, Saladin is probably the most significant whose legacy is still remembered by the Muslims. The purpose behind this legacy is a direct result of incredible victory Saladin had as both an extraordinary disseminator and an incredible executioner of jihad.

When Saladin had attained Muslim solidarity and his energy base in Egypt was secure, Jerusalem was retaken in the name of Islam. The Muslims viewed this victory of Jerusalem as huge because it related to various battles that were fought in the past (in the name of jihad).

Saladin’s victories were being specifically connected to the most regarded and revered time of Islamic history, to the heroics of Khalid ibn Walid.

Assuming that we take the proof of Muslim researchers and disseminators to be reflective of the Umma (followers of Mohammed PBUH) in general, the Muslim reaction to the happening of the Crusades might be seen as stirring the memory of the incredible Arab successes for Muslims.

Lasting effects on relations

Both Christians and Muslims became against each other due to the Crusades. The combative Turkish Ottoman Empire, which once controlled the territory starting from the Balkans all around the Middle East, also acted as a catalyst for the straining of the relations between Christians and Muslims.

Later, the Battle of Lepanto (1571) proved to be detrimental for the Turk’s aggression into Europe. The Christians living in the Middle East started migrating to America due to harassment by Muslims; this happened during the Syrian Civil War (1860). Jerusalem was governed by the Ottomans between 1516 and 1917.

In 1917, towards the end of World War I, General Edmund Allenby invaded Jerusalem and freed it from the Ottoman rule. This mission of General Edmund Allenby is termed as the Last Crusade. This particular mission concurred with the Balfour Declaration. The divergence between Christians and Muslims is prevalent even today.

The current global scenario seems to be very relevant when compared to the situation during the crusades. It might be predictable about the times to come.

In recent times, Jerusalem has witnessed only flimsy peaceful atmosphere. The current strained relations between Israel and Palestine suggest that both the countries are still gripped with the feelings of the crusades.

Both the countries are engaged in astringent and never-ending efforts to ascertain their respective boundaries. On the other hand, American troops can still be seen interfering in the internal affairs of Iraq and Afghanistan.

The global community is trying its best to reduce the tensions and ill-feelings created by the crusades. It is a point to ponder whether war is the only solution to problems and differences among nations. Also, can wars be termed as being just?

The relation between Christians and Muslims has been an issue since the advent and expansion of Islam; it has been more than fourteen hundred years. Since the start of the strained relations, there have been two different dimensions to the problem.

The first relates to the people of the two religions living together and the second relates to the religious beliefs of both the sides. Such dimensions also include questions about self-dignity and freedom of speech with regard to Islam and at the same time appreciating the importance of the preaching. All such issues have haunted Christians through the ages.

The relation between Christians and Muslims has always been affected by competition, enmity, and jealousy. But unfortunately, people from both the sects forget that there were times when people of both the religions once lived together happily (before the crusades).

Even today, people forget the importance and significance of mutual cooperation and usefulness of living together. One of the bitter experiences of history has been the overshadowing of the pleasant memories by the sourness of wars.

All such situations are further aggravated by the theological polemics who suppress the good things that happened between the two sects (World Council of Churches, 1992).

The last couple of decades have witnessed constructive efforts towards normalizing the relations between Christians and Muslims but unfortunately, the political (and otherwise) ambitions of a couple of people might prove disastrous that may aggravate the tensions.

So it’s high time that the world community should rise and falter the efforts of such people. Our thoughts and actions should be built on the past experiences. We should concentrate on the long-term benefits of having good relations (understanding and trust) with each other rather than pondering over petty issues.

Previous experiences prove that unless we have the intention, mere dialogues cannot improve the relation between people of the two religions.

References

Irwin, R. (1997). Muslim responses to the crusades. Web.

Keko, D. (2010). Causes of the first crusade. Web.

Phillips, J. (2009). The call of the crusades. Web.

World Council of Churches (1992). Issues in Christian-Muslim relations: Ecumenical considerations. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!