What is the True Reasons of the Crusades?

[Anarion]

"Reynald de Chatillon" actually tried to burn down Mecca and was interested in the downfall of Islam. I wouldn't say that Jerusalem was everything the Crusaders tried to get their hands on.

[Konstantin Alexander]

"Reynald de Chatillon" actually tried to burn down Mecca and was interested in the downfall of Islam. I wouldn't say that Jerusalem was everything the Crusaders tried to get their hands on.

I wonder, if we didn´t already agree on religious zealotism and material gain being non-excluding motivation factors. That the crusades didn´t concentrate on the regions, which were, by far, closer than the holy land is, in my eyes, evidence enough, that religion played the major role for most crusaders, even leaving all the factors aside, that were already mentioned above, by those numerous and in-depth posts.

Besides, wanting to burn down the centre of the opposing faith is hardly a proof for religion being only of secondary importance, in fact it is only the logical consequence. If, during fullfilling your "spiritual duty" there is a chance for gaining power and wealth and the people gladly jumped at the chance that doesn´t mean that religion was less important.

Were the Crusades justified? In my view, the first crusade certainly was, and for the most part it was justified because it was succesful.

While i agree to most points of your post, i would be careful to make statements about events which happened almost 1000 ago being justified or not. As we are currently discussing the reasons for it and will do so for another 100 years for sure, i think our knowledge is too limited to judge. For modern people any war fought about religion (or loot by the way) is largely considered as unjustified, but that is the whole point, isn´t it? Modern mindsets do not apply and will always fail to explain historical events. This further aggravates the difficulty to make any appropriate statements about the justice of wars fought a millenium ago to up the point, that i consider it as impossible.
The part about success justifying anything i do not understand. I do suppose that you are aware of the fallacies of positivism and just expressed yourself a bit strange.

However, their enemies aren't the ones who should alow themselves to cry 'fowl'.

So far noone in this thread did cry "fowl" or argued for the crusades being evil and the Jihads being righteous. I wonder why you even brought it up and continue to explain that muslim armies proofed as whimps when outnumbered. What is this supposed to proof?

[VOP2288]

From my understanding...the Crusades were a just a good excuse to stop the Christian western powers from killing one another in Europe. The Pope saw all these western powers going at each other and nobles were killing nobles and such so the Crusades were just a way of him telling all of them to "get the hell out!" and go kill someone else who wasn't Christian...

This is an extremely simplistic view but I think there's some truth in it...it kind of makes a little sense even if there are other more important factors built into it that have already been mentioned here.

[Konstantin Alexander]

From my understanding...the Crusades were a just a good excuse to stop the Christian western powers from killing one another in Europe.

This was definately one of the factors that motivated the scions of the peace of god movement to support the crusade movement. Especially as often the unprotected monasteries were a ripe plum for any warring nobles and a good target for raids by normal soldiers due to the high amount of gold and silver paraphernalia. I am sure that there were some members of the clergy who saw the crusades as a mean to "tame" or "civilize" the european warrior caste.

But i doubt that it was a major motivating factor for those who actually undertook the crusade. Not that they were completely unaware of the fact, that, from a christian point of view, it was better not to kill brothers in faith (1) and infildels instead and i suppose there were even some "idealists" (if you can call people like that, which were looking forward to kill other people), but this alone could never explain the huge response the call to arms by Urban and his successors achieved. But, considering, that even an idea came up, that a crusade made by pure souls without sin, by children, could achieve anything by nothing but virtue shows, that there were indeed "idealistic" motives. Their relevance is another question.

(1) Actually this point is further supported by the huge effort medieval people put into proofing that their enemies were wrongdoers. The legalism shown in countless examples make it evident, that they, at least from a public relations point of view, had serious restraints to openly act as unjust. They had to make sure that legally and spiritually their warfare was backep up with arguments, however thin they might be. There are even sources who proclaim a fight against certain christians as an act of love. By making them pay for their crimes/sins (which were almost synonyms back then) they hereby reduce the punishment those heretics/criminals would receive in the afterlife.

[Leopoldk]

ThiudareksGunthigg wrote:

"Amen to that. If the “they were only after land and loot” idea is one bad modern misinterpretation of the Crusades, the “they were just reconquering land occupied by the wicked Muslims” one is almost as bad. Partly because it’s generally motivated by the current wave of kneejerk, redneck Islamophobia."

Well, Raymond of Aguilers clearly states in his account of the 1st crusade that Bohemond wanted Antioch for himself and that he resorted to trickery to get the other frankish dukes to respect his wish, which implies that there indeed were other nobles among the Franks who wanted to rule over a region in the Holy Lands (not trying to argue with the valid fact that you've established before that there were also crusaders who went home after doing their bit). But, as Konstantin Alexander wisely percieved, this was in no way contradicting their religious motives. It was only the logical next step to establish a Christian kingdom in the newly conquered territories. Someone had to rule over the conquered territories, organize the defence and further offensive operatons etc.


Konstantin Alexander wrote:

"While i agree to most points of your post, i would be careful to make statements about events which happened almost 1000 ago being justified or not. As we are currently discussing the reasons for it and will do so for another 100 years for sure, i think our knowledge is too limited to judge. For modern people any....

...So far noone in this thread did cry "fowl" or argued for the crusades being evil and the Jihads being righteous. I wonder why you even brought it up and continue to explain that muslim armies proofed as whimps when outnumbered. What is this supposed to proof?"

The truth is that I have been lurking around for quite a while, and never got around to posting in other threads conserning this matter (some of those threads predate the day of my joining this forum). In that regard, the last paragraph of my post is the answer to the opinions stated in these other threads. I do realise that I didn't explain my views suficiently. I'll try to do that now, point by point.



- Mindset of a crusader:

This subject has been thoroughly avoided by most posters. I dont see why, as this is an internet forum. It is not as dangerous to be percieved as uninformed or biased here as when writing a textbook. So let us experiment alittle. I do believe that it is possible for a contemporary man to get close to the mindset of a medieval knight, but it takes time and effort. The experiment would consist of practicing an unarmed combat art during a period of about five years. Include with this a jog of four miles every morning and perfecting the technique alone during the evenings when there are no training sessions. The choice of the art should be confined to the arts that involve hitting (Boxing, Karate,...), as these arts develop aggression to a greater extent then the arts that involve grappling or throwing. Arts of armed combat such as fencing will not do, as there's no possibility of situational training because people dont carry swords around in this day and age. If one persists, one should at the end of the mentioned period feel the strong urge to get a second job as a bouncer, or something similar, just to test onesself. This urge needs to be strongly resisted as there are guys out there who have done this all their lives because they think its fun. However, one thing should be completely clear to a person who undertook such effort: medieval knights were not nice sensitive guys. The more obedient among them didn't pick fights just for the heck of it, but fighting was after all their trade, purpose and means of progressing in their world. The most renowned among them were certainly the most vicious killers. How did this get along witht their religious beliefs?

The question if the crusaders were properly religious people deserves another thread, to say the least. They certainly tried to be, to the best of their knowledge and abilities. There's a story about Tancred, Bohemunds nephew, who robbed the gold and gems from a Christian Church after the conquest of Jerusalem. After he learnt that he actually robbed a Christian Church he returned the goods. This paints the picture of a man who was violent and rash, but who also honestly tried to be pieous.


- The "wimps" qualification and the "cry fowl" argument:

The way I remember it, when the Bulgars arived on the battlefield during the 2nd siege of Constantinople, Arab forces still outnumbered both the Bulgars and the defenders of Constantinople. To my knowledge, it was the tactical position that denied the besiegers the use of their superior numbers. Instead of doing something about it, they let the constant skirmishes launched by the Byzantines and the Bulgars, hunger and disease eat away at their strenghth and numbers until they realised it was time to go home. In sharp contrast to their behaviour crusaders, when besieged in Antioch by superior forces of Kreboga, decided to march out, gave battle and won the day. Now both crusaders and jihadists must have known very well that they were attacking an oponent that has long been established in the regions they were trying to conquer. None of them had reason to doubt that, should they fail to overcome the defenders, they would be treated roughly. Shortly put, both parties knew very well what they were getting into. That is why I think that the Muslim forces during the 2nd siege of Constantinople were wimps, while the crusaders were badasses. Even when the forces of the Kingdom of Jerusalem were broken by a superior strategist as well as a superior politician, Salah-al-Din, during the final phaze of the battle of Hattin, the Franks showed unrelenting courage.

Crying 'fowl' indeed didn't occur in this thread, but I have read opinions in other threads that state the cursaders to be barbarous and cruel. I think I have given enough examples to prove that their oponents weren't better during their conquests.


- 1st Crusade justified or not?

There's hardly justice in any war. As for the 1st crusade, it was called by pope Urban after Alexios asked him for help in defending the eastern empire. As a result, the Kingdom of Jerusalem was formed and the preassure on the eastern borders of Byzantine Empire was aleviated. In other words, as long as the Kingdom of Jerusalem stood free, Constantinople and Europe were safe. The way I see it, this fact alone justifies the 1st Crusade. Determining if a war was just or not always posed a big moral dilemma. Judging by the Doctrine of the Just War of St Augustine, 1st Crusade qualifies as a just war.

[hellheaven1987]

1st Crusade justified or not?

There's hardly justice in any war. As for the 1st crusade, it was called by pope Urban after Alexios asked him for help in defending the eastern empire. As a result, the Kingdom of Jerusalem was formed and the preassure on the eastern borders of Byzantine Empire was aleviated. In other words, as long as the Kingdom of Jerusalem stood free, Constantinople and Europe were safe. The way I see it, this fact alone justifies the 1st Crusade. Determining if a war was just or not always posed a big moral dilemma. Judging by the Doctrine of the Just War of St Augustine, 1st Crusade qualifies as a just war.

The problem is, did Urban II want to set up a King of Jerusalm at beginning?? I doubt that. Besides, Pope never asked the Crusader rooted and murdered in Holy Land...

[Leopoldk]

Frankly I don't think that neither Urban nor Alexios expected the crusaders to reach Jerusalem, but let me start from the beginning. Alexios asked for military help in the form of a limited number of professional troops. Urban, not having the money or not wishing to spend it, went for the cheeper solution of calling Christians to liberate the Holy Lands from infidels (it should be noted at this point that he didn't say openly that the Eastern Roman Empire was badly in need of help). The first big surprise was the number of individuals who took the cross, and the second their actual conquest of Jerusalem. Forming a kingdom was the only logical consequence of a succesfull conquest in those days. At this point, the Pope could only go with the flow. He certainly wasnt in a situation to tell the crusaders to abandon their conquest and come home even if he wanted to, which I think he didnt.

As for the slaughter of the population of Jerusalem, I had the opportunity to read that some people think it was a necessery measure taken to enhance the security of crusader rule in the city. The account of Raymond of Aguilers doesn't reflect that. What said account does reveal is that crusaders were hungry, outnumbered by the cities garrison and majorly pissed off by the defenders who placed crosses on the walls of Jerusalem and mocked said crosses as well as the crusaders. Someone percieved the situation as advantageous (a priest I think, but I don't remember clearly anymore) and ordered fasting (what did they have to eat anyway?) and a barefeet procession around the walls of Jerusalem. Now Imagine you were a hungry pissed off crusader, intimidated by the numerous garison and made to walk barefoot three times around the city walls while the defenders spit on you, mock you, and whats worse mock the Holy Cross. Wouldnt you feel a strong urge to get up there and show them? Thats exactly what happened, only the "You're not so tough now are you" phase lasted too long for any of the inhabitants to survive. At the time the Pope was quite irrelevant as he was far far away.

Finally, I don't think that the question if the Pope ordered them to commit murders in the Holy Land is the right question to ask. In my opinion the right questions to ask would be the following: how many of the crusaders were literate? How many of them had access to the Holy Bible or recieved proper religious instruction? Were they told that their enemies are human beings for whom Christ also died, or were they told that these "infidels" were no better then animals?

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

ThiudareksGunthigg wrote:

"Amen to that. If the “they were only after land and loot” idea is one bad modern misinterpretation of the Crusades, the “they were just reconquering land occupied by the wicked Muslims” one is almost as bad. Partly because it’s generally motivated by the current wave of kneejerk, redneck Islamophobia."

Well, Raymond of Aguilers clearly states in his account of the 1st crusade that Bohemond wanted Antioch for himself.

As I think has been acknowledged at least once on this thread, Bohemond was an exception to this and a number of other rules that actually hold fairly true about the bulk of those who took the cross. There's no doubt what Bohemond's primary motivation was and - in his case - it was not religion.

[Leopoldk]

I completely agree that Bohemonds motivation wasn't as pure as that of other nobles who took part in the 1st Crusade (Raymond of Touluse for instance). But he was still liked as we can see from the Gesta (Bohemond is portrayed as the frankish Luke Skywalker, while Alexios is referred to as the Evil Emperor, literally). The man must have posessed the qualities of a hamster eating rock star.

Although I dont wish to be a Bohemond apologist, there are a few points that I'd like to make:

- Just for the record, only a part of my sentence is quoted. Bohemond wasn't the only crusader who wanted to rule over a piece of conquered territory. Also, this does not neceserily mean that the motives of such persons werent religious as well: Muslims are the enemies of Christ => fight them and conquer their territories => enemies of Christ are beaten and weak while his champions enjoy their just reward. Excuse the simplicity.

- While describing transit of the Crusaders through byzantine territories, Ana Comnena uses some odd language: bending the Franks to her fathers purpose, barbarians, people without noble birth etc. There's also the matter of not supplying the crusaders with food until they swore to give conquered lands to Byzantium. Now, these were the guys who took the trouble of a cross- continent journey to fight the enemies of the Byzantine Empire. Wouldn't setting up logistical support, treating them with respect and fighting alongside them be more in order? It is said in the Alexiad that Alexios ransomed some frankish dukes that were taken captive by the Turks. I sure hope thats the truth.

- If Bohemond only wanted to grab some lands for himself he wouldn't have taken the cross. He would have waited for the crusaders to start fighting in Asia Minor and for Alexios to move in behind them and sieze the lands previosly controlled by the Turks (that move sure wasnt hard to guess) and then he would have sieged Durazzo at his leisure. Instead, he travelled across Asia Minor and picked his fight with the Muslims.

- Bohemonds ruse got the crusaders inside the walls of Antioch just a little while before Kreboga arrived with his army. If that diddn't happen, the crusaders would have found themselves fighting the garrison of Antioch and Krebogas army. Even if they prevailed in such a fight, which is doubtful, it is a big question if enough of them would have remained alive to attempt capturing Jerusalem.

[Odovacar]

Bohemund was what he was, ruthless, ambitious, adventurer, etc. but without him the crusaders could never succeed.

[hellheaven1987]

Personally I do not want to enter this big mess, but as a good relaxing way for my test, I would just enter the fire of debate.

All right, now I would summarize the reasons. There are several big areas with smaller factors.

Political reasons:

1. To prevent the fall of Byzantium. It was possible that Urban II thought it was better for Byzantine Empire to be remained instead occupied by Muslims and Pagan. After all, Byzantine Empire was like a stonewall stopping all kinds of invasions from the East.

2. To shift the focus of the local Catholics conflict. One most important feature around this period is the constant war between each lords, especially in France. Urban II might see the Crusade as an opportunity to stop this time of "Catholics killed Catholics" situation, which was disapproved by Church but they could do little thing to stop it. After all, why the Catholics should waste life and resource on their own war when other infielders occupied the most rich land??

3. To gain a land belonging to yourself. It is important to note that during that time only the first son could success the family, while the rest were sent to be monks or whatever important jobs without land. Therefore, it forced many second sons with desire to seek their own land. However, since Europe has only so much land, a new territory was necessary. Unfortunately Middle East became the target (and later America) because its wealth and other reasons...

I would add somemore when I come back...

[Jackbob]

The most important reason behind the crusades to the Holy Land was of course religious fanatism. I'm totally convinced. I don't see why people nowdays can't accept that people back then were able to travel hundred of miles and risk their life just for their faith. It's quite common since the decades after WW2, when colonialism became something bad in the eyes of the public, that people try to explain the crusades with greed, power hunger etc.

First off, the theory that crusaders were driven by thirst of riches and wealth is totally wrong I think. Most crusaders had to sell almost all of their possesions to even afford going on a crusade. Whole families could be ruined if a member decided to go. Even powerful lords, like the count of Toulouse, sold their possesions. They expected that they would die in combat and didn't even plan to return. If one wanted to become rich, then it was far easier to just loot a country nearby. It could be done in the name of religion too, if one wanted it so.

More common than the theory above is the one that suggests that the crusaders' primary goal was to counquer land for themselves. Arguments for this point of view can be, for example, that many crusaders were younger sons with no hope of inherit land at home, so for that reason they sailed to the Holy Land, hoping to gain territory there. I think that again, if you wanted to get land without inheriting it, there were easier options then going to the Holy Land. And secondly, younger sons with no chance of inheriting often chose the spiritual path, becoming monks or priests or bishops. I think that the same can be said for their reasons on going on a crusade.
My strongest argument against the land hunger theory is the fact that the crusaders of the first crusade didn't even expect to gan any land at all. Initially, the lands to be conquered were intended to be restored under Byzantine rule and since the Byzantine Empire was a centrilzed state, the crusaders had no hope of ruling independently under the emperors protection.
The emperor abondoned the project though, that's why the lands got under direct Latin control.

So I'm utterly convinced that the reason was religious fanatism. Not even a combination of the above, but religious fanatism almost all the time. There are exceptions of course, but they are few in number. Bohemund of Taranto for intance might have had territorial ambitions due to several personal reasons. The emperor Friedrich II, in some sources said to be an unbeliever, conducted a crusade because he was expected too, as an emperor. He was raised on Sicily, so he had been very influenced by the more sofisticated Islamic culture, and he spoke arabic. He manage to negotiate Jerusalem to christians possesion for a couple of decades because of his growing friendship with the Egyptian sultan.

Observe though, that the reasons behind crusades in Iberia and the Baltics have different reasons, with more practical goals like wealth and land since they were regular conquests first, and crusades second. I'm talking about the Holy Land only in this post.

[Konstantin Alexander]

@ Leopoldk

I had already posted a more detailled post, but then the database error screwed it. I do not know if anyone participating in this thread has read it, perhaps i will elaborate on the other points i mentioned in it, when i have the time and feellike it. But i wanted to repeat this single answer:

The way I see it, this fact alone justifies the 1st Crusade. Determining if a war was just or not always posed a big moral dilemma. Judging by the Doctrine of the Just War of St Augustine, 1st Crusade qualifies as a just war.

If you put it like this i completely agree with you. From the viewpoint of medieval ideology the war against the muslim states was more than justified.

@ Jackbob

My strongest argument against the land hunger theory is the fact that the crusaders of the first crusade didn't even expect to gan any land at all. Initially, the lands to be conquered were intended to be restored under Byzantine rule and since the Byzantine Empire was a centrilzed state, the crusaders had no hope of ruling independently under the emperors protection.
The emperor abondoned the project though, that's why the lands got under direct Latin control.

I´d like to add another argument. Still one could argue, that the prospect of gaining territory to rule may not have played a role in the first crusade, but in those afterwards, as they could have withnessed the latin kingdoms forming and would have been convinced, that it could work. Given, some few people might have thought that. But, as soon as the second crusade started the latin kingdoms were already established and would not have tolerated a new player on the game board, that would act independtly from them, so to speak. Additionally there was not much land left, that could have been distributed and the most valuable parts were already the property of some Frank.
Now, it would be interesting how much the participants of the second crusade and those after it knew about it. But considering, that a good part of those who took the cross during the first crusade returned to their homelands and would have been asked for advice, i doubt that a considerable amount of successive crusaders were just stupid. "They were plain stupid" is in fact a very common, but evidently misleading explanation of actions of people in history.

[Carach]

defence of byzantine and ultimately christendom.
land
wealth
something to distract people from the poverty that had gripped europe during this period (famines, disease and so forth)
to beat back violent invading jihadists - to retake what was rightfully christian.

[Holger Danske]

As always it was a struggle for power... All wars are a struggle for power, in one way or the other.

[Manuel Komnenos]

The main reason was the grow of papal power in the west, and diverting of large aggresive warrior groups to the east, with aim to secure peace in catholic Europe. Letter of Alexius I Komnenus was only some kind of motive, cause for war.
And then all hell breaks loose.

[Jackbob]

@ Leopoldk
@ Jackbob


I´d like to add another argument. Still one could argue, that the prospect of gaining territory to rule may not have played a role in the first crusade, but in those afterwards, as they could have withnessed the latin kingdoms forming and would have been convinced, that it could work. Given, some few people might have thought that. But, as soon as the second crusade started the latin kingdoms were already established and would not have tolerated a new player on the game board, that would act independtly from them, so to speak. Additionally there was not much land left, that could have been distributed and the most valuable parts were already the property of some Frank.
Now, it would be interesting how much the participants of the second crusade and those after it knew about it. But considering, that a good part of those who took the cross during the first crusade returned to their homelands and would have been asked for advice, i doubt that a considerable amount of successive crusaders were just stupid. "They were plain stupid" is in fact a very common, but evidently misleading explanation of actions of people in history.

A nobleman who wanted land could always attack some weaker fiefs nearby his own homeland or attack the moors of Spain or the Pagans of the east, both easier (well, the eastern Saracens were easier than the moors during the first crusade due to lack of unity) and closer targets.
And I agree that judging people as stupid just because they are religious fanatcis is wrong, they had a different perspective on thing back then and not the same values at all.

defence of byzantine and ultimately christendom.
land
wealth
something to distract people from the poverty that had gripped europe during this period (famines, disease and so forth)
to beat back violent invading jihadists - to retake what was rightfully christian.

The land and wealth are, as I've explained in my previous post, most unlikely reasons in my point of view. But I can understand why people think like that. But what do you mean with the proverty of the period??? The crusading era (1095- ca 1300) was in the middle of the high medieval period, when Europe just grew more and more prosperous until the arrival of the Plague and late medieval times with rebellions and famine. The crusading era was the best era during medieval times, with huge advances in architecture, agriculture, arts etc.
And that last thing about violent invading jihadists, are you serious? The Islamic rule was much, much, much more tolerant toward different religious groups and the muslims possesed a much more developed culture. And what made those lands rightfully christian? You know that the christians of the east had more in common with the muslims (the most of them didn't believe in the Trinity teachings) than with their pre-Islam Byzantine lords.

[hellheaven1987]

And that last thing about violent invading jihadists, are you serious? The Islamic rule was much, much, much more tolerant toward different religious groups and the muslims possesed a much more developed culture. And what made those lands rightfully christian? You know that the christians of the east had more in common with the muslims (the most of them didn't believe in the Trinity teachings) than with their pre-Islam Byzantine lords.

Well, I am not sure whether Pope Urban II said "lets go and wipe up Muslims!!!". In fact, I believe the Catholic church did not see Muslims but rather assumed all of them were Heretics or Pagans, and you know, Vantican loved to convert all of them.

Besides, it was not the concern of Middle-East churchs that made Urban II launched a Crusade. In fact, I doubt Catholic church loved and trusted any of Middle-East Christian sects. However, the block of Jerusalm was really a big problem for Catholic church, and actually it was one of big reasons of Crusade. Therefore, I would rather say Urban II wanted a "free access" to Jerusalm rather than saved any other Christians in Middle-East.

About the rightfulness of the land, no one actually have right to claim "Jerusalm is mine!!".

[Konstantin Alexander]

The main reason was the grow of papal power in the west, and diverting of large aggresive warrior groups to the east, with aim to secure peace in catholic Europe.

If you read the thread, or at least this page, you will notice, that this point was already discussed and in regard to several people´s arguments (my own above including) rebutted as the "main reason" as you say. If you know it better, then please elaborate on this point and proof the above arguments wrong. I think most people in this thread are honestly interested in developing a more detailled and correct few of history. But simply insisting on a point without backing it with arguments is no proper way to discuss.

I will quote what i have written above, so you do not have to search for it.

Quote:
From my understanding...the Crusades were a just a good excuse to stop the Christian western powers from killing one another in Europe.

This was definately one of the factors that motivated the scions of the peace of god movement to support the crusade movement. Especially as often the unprotected monasteries were a ripe plum for any warring nobles and a good target for raids by normal soldiers due to the high amount of gold and silver paraphernalia. I am sure that there were some members of the clergy who saw the crusades as a mean to "tame" or "civilize" the european warrior caste.

But i doubt that it was a major motivating factor for those who actually undertook the crusade. Not that they were completely unaware of the fact, that, from a christian point of view, it was better not to kill brothers in faith (1) and infildels instead and i suppose there were even some "idealists" (if you can call people like that, which were looking forward to kill other people), but this alone could never explain the huge response the call to arms by Urban and his successors achieved. But, considering, that even an idea came up, that a crusade made by pure souls without sin, by children, could achieve anything by nothing but virtue shows, that there were indeed "idealistic" motives. Their relevance is another question.

(1) Actually this point is further supported by the huge effort medieval people put into proofing that their enemies were wrongdoers. The legalism shown in countless examples make it evident, that they, at least from a public relations point of view, had serious restraints to openly act as unjust. They had to make sure that legally and spiritually their warfare was backep up with arguments, however thin they might be. There are even sources who proclaim a fight against certain christians as an act of love. By making them pay for their crimes/sins (which were almost synonyms back then) they hereby reduce the punishment those heretics/criminals would receive in the afterlife.

Further on i would add, that the fear of an eternity in purgatory, judgement day and hell was a real one back then, however silly it may seem to us now. Those people actually believed in it. And when they were promised, by the highest spiritual authority imaginable (from -their- point of view, not mine) the Pope himself, that they would be spared this suffering and saved from the end of the world, then, indeed, that is a strong motivation. Bernhard of Clairvaux (Saint Bernhard) wrote in the Regle du Temple (spelling?) on behalf of the Templars, who were from the point of religious law, on constant crusade:
"Rejoice mighty warrior when you live and triumph in God! (= in God´s name) But exult even more und pride yourself, if you die and become one with the lord!"

The most widely used expression for fallen crusaders in the later period was not, that they "died." The authors wrote, that those people "were crowned with death" and they meant it.

The clergy did its best to motivate the crusaders and to give them the feeling of absolute security. Whatever happens, they will fullfill God´s will and gain spiritual benefits for themselves. That indeed it was the clergy´s aim to "tame" the nobility and bring peace to catholizism while fighting the "hostilis tyrannis" (infidelship) in the "domus diabolicae".(devil´s house) But only the clergy´s aim and their tactic. The crusaders himself were pursuing their own salvation though, not the peace of catholic europe. (see above quote)

Ironically, even in this, obviously selfish, effort by the clergy, which wanted to extend its own power and the more educated noble minority, who honestly would like to see catholizism unified peacefully, the crusades had a positive and even morale intention. (Again, from THEIR point of view, i am no apologist) Bringing peace to the good ones (christians in their eyes) and exporting the aggression of the european warrior caste to the evil ones (Saracens) was ethical. (i am repetetive, but i have to stress: from their point of view!) An excellent example is the children crusade. The most positive, most ethical values of christianity should win the day, or so they thought.

More like many other events in history the crusades are a sad and fitting example of the proverb:

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[Carach]

And that last thing about violent invading jihadists, are you serious? The Islamic rule was much, much, much more tolerant toward different religious groups and the muslims possesed a much more developed culture. And what made those lands rightfully christian? You know that the christians of the east had more in common with the muslims (the most of them didn't believe in the Trinity teachings) than with their pre-Islam Byzantine lords.

the last point should of been more a quotation.. a war of religion it was promoted as after all.

as for lands being rightfully christian; they were overwhelmingly christian for starters, secondly they were under roman rule (christian) and taken by jihad. Thirdly the holy lands were there and considered christian holdings (again relating to roman/byzantine rule)