Originally posted by Maharbbal
There are a few factors that haven't been mentioned:
The "Holy land" was caught in the midst of several wars during the 11th c., access to it WAS difficult. Little wonder the Christians wented to restore a form of security for their pilgrims.
It is also well known that many turned back to Europe after 1099. Does that say that those who stayed were greedy politicians and those who left holy warriors? No, but it indicates that there were several reasons and ways to go to the crusades.
Ultimately I found the all fuss a bit pointless: Is a religious war more honorable than a political one? Isn't religion strictly embedded in politics when it deals with hundreds of individuals? Where is the problem with the crusades? Couldn't they be seen as one of these nomadic groups who every once in a while invade the region (the great Morrocan writer Ibn Khaldun did so in the 14th c. when he included them in the cyclical process called Muqaddimah).
|
All fair considerations, the cursades or the mongols, makes no difference the effect was the same.
A religious war could be based on morals, but a political war is usually based solely on more pragmatic secular needs of statecraft. The Gladstones versus the Disarelis.