It’s clear to me that the Crusades affected history in many ways. Many of them are listed here.
But what isn’t clear to me is whether these same developments would have likely happened had there been no decision to launch the Crusades. There were both interactions and tensions between Christians and Muslims before the Crusades, and they would have likely continued in one form or another, perhaps leading to similar results.
Politically, there weren’t dramatic changes in the map of the region (at least on the macro level - the Muslims were in control before, and gained control again later).
So is there anything significant that simply would not have occurred had the pope not made that call?
To oversimplify in return, how would you feel if the natives of Siberia invaded to drive us out of North and South America? They’re more closely related than we are to the aboriginal population of the Americas.
Not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that the Arabic armies that conquered Spain, Portugal and parts of south eastern France were closer to the ‘aboriginal population’ of those regions than, well, the Spanish, Portuguese and French that already lived there?? Or, for that matter, that they were more closely related to the melange of populations living in northern coastal Africa, the ME, Baltic and Black Sea regions AND Iraq, Iran, Pakistan and western India? Were they ethnically related to all that??
And even if they were, so what? There were people living in all those regions that were brought under Muslim control mostly by the sword. I’m not sure how our feelings about natives in Siberia invading north and south America plays into any of this.
Some modern people in the region claim they are the descendants of the Philistines, who were arguably the original inhabitants of the region. So they feel that they were there first and everyone else: Babylonians, Jews, Egyptians, Hittites, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Turks, Crusaders, British, French, etc has invaded their country.
I think one big legacy of the Crusades was it started the idea of European imperialism. There had been other empires in Europe but those were mostly one country conquering a neighbouring country. And there had been occasions when Europe had been the target of invasions. But the Crusades were the real start of Europeans sailing off and conquering some overseas territory and claiming it as a colony.
I wouldn’t class the Roman Empire as “one country conquering a neighbouring country”. European imperialism goes back at least that far - hell, the origin of the term is Latin…
The Canaanites (and also, thus, largely the Jews) are likely the people with the oldest indigenous ancestry. The Philistines, though adopting Canaanite language, not so much.
It was an example (albeit not a great one) of vague connections of associated populations over time and distance being given overmuch weight in the overall analysis. “Muslim” and “Christian” are overbroad terms and the Christian and Muslim populations in one era/location bore significantly altered connection to the Christian and Muslim populations in later times/locations.
Actually, the modern people in the region are almost certainly descended from all of those, and Canaanites too. Palestine is nothing if not a melting pot. H.G. Wells once compared the ancient Hebrews/Israelites/Jews to “a man who insists on living in the middle of a busy highway.”
There was no long-term resentement at all.
The whole “hating the Crusaders” is a very modern feeling, more connected to British and French colonialism in the 19th and century.
They affected the Byzantine Empire so badly that when they got Constantinople back after the 4th Crusade, they nver were able to recover. So, another long-term effect were the Turkish invasion of Southeatern Europe, especillay the Balkans.
But the Roman Empire was essentially contiguous around the Mediterranean, while the crusades were arguably the start of imperialism in the sense of a clearly demarcated ‘home’ country controlling faraway territories.
The largest permanent effects of the Crusades is probably bringing North Eastern Europe and Spain into the Christian orbit. Prior to the Northern Crusades, much of the Baltic sea area was pagan, and much of Spain controlled by Muslims.
I’m not sure the Crusades to the Holy Land really had much of an effect. The Outremer was kind of a historical blip, and while it allowed for some cross-cultural exchange between Muslims and Europeans, there are plenty of other places where those two cultures were interacting.
People from both sides sometimes point to the Crusades as a source of modern anti-Western terrorism, but I’m not really sure its really a factor, so much as just something to throw onto a list of much more recent grievances.
Similarily, I think pointing to it as the beginning of Western Imperialism is a stretch. The Outremer was linked to Europe, but it wasn’t really an imperial territory. The Kingdom of Jerusalem was a sovereign feudal state. And it died several hundred years before the big European overseas empires.
The eastern-Asian invasions that followed – the Mongols and Tamerlane – pretty much overwhelmed any lasting historical influence from the crusades.
It’s vaguely like talking about the long-term effects of the wars between the Aztecs and their neighbors. Once the Spanish showed up, all of that was rendered much less meaningful.
What exactly are you talking about here? Because that doesn’t really accurately describe the government of the lands in the Levant captured by European Crusaders or the lands in Europe, Africa and Asia conquered by Ancient Rome.
The Crusaders created new states in the Levant which they for the most part ruled locally, calling themselves King of Jerusalem, Count of Edessa, Prince of Antioch etc.
Whereas the Roman Empire (for much of its history, especially if you’re counting the Republic Era as well) did operate as a clearly demarcated home country controlling faraway territories.
