Reply #69: for some historical context: [View All]

[bhikkhu]

The Byzantines ruled Palestine, relatively the same as previous Roman rule. The Arab Islamic expansion took it from them in the 7th century AD. For 400 years Palestine was under Muslim rule and tolerance seems to have been the norm - Christians, Jews, and Muslims living in relative peace. European pilgrims to the Holy Land were common and travelled freely. The Seljuk Turk, a group from central Asia which converted to Islam at some early point, moved in and conquered large areas of the Arab Islamic Empire, including Palestine in 1071. The imperial ambitions of the Seljuks threatened the Byzantine Empire, which had been expanding for 200 years at the expense of the Arabs. The Byzantines appealed to Western christianity for military aide. Adding to the appeal – Christian pilgrims to the Holy Land were beginning to be harrassed by the new more restricive Seljuk policies.

My point – there is no simple “Islam vs Christianity” narrative to the crusades that paints a unitary Islam as agressor and Christianity as defender. The Seljuks were far more a tribal power milaristically expanding their own interests, and most of their conquests were at the expense of the declining Arab Islamic Empire. The Byzantines were primarily offended that their recent conquests might be lost, and the crusades were something of a diversionary tactic. The Seljuks themselves were soon swept aside by the Mongols, another central asian people with motives similar to their own, only they had not converted to Islam. After which things become even more complicated, and less relevant.

So I would agree with you, if the statement were changed to "the first crusade was fought because of Imperial Seljuk threats", and note that these threats chiefly were against imperial Byzantine forces.