Social Consequences Of The Crusades

The Crusades

Multiple years after they were fought, the Crusades are remembered as wars in which were battled for the name of God. While I state that these wars were fought in the name of God, it is simply difficult to define. The causes for the Crusades cannot be placed to an isolated event but instead several factors that coexisted together to create a climate of religious fervor, at that time, to fight for the name of God. The Crusades are mainly a story as much about the essence of people as well as they are about the nature of politics and religion. The religious reasons led to social and economic consequences that changed the political outlook forever. We see the Crusades as religious wars but after closer examination reveals that they

The First Crusade was considered a success in that the Holy Land was recovered and pilgrim routes became passable. This might be where the positive effects of the Crusades ends. Many critics agree that the Crusades were little more than vicious. Henry Smith claims that no other wars have been as destructive as the Crusades. He claims that on principles, morals, and politics, the Crusades “cannot be justified” (Smith 1909, 468). War was a “sacred duty” (468) and, as a result, the Crusades “encouraged the most horrible violences of fanaticism” (468). Politically, the Crusades were “hostile to the advancement of knowledge and liberty” (469). As a consequence, there was literally no improvement in the social conditions of the kingdoms. Smith asserts that the pope was the “only monarch who mixed politics with his piety” (469). The political changes that occurred in England cannot be attributed to the Crusades, in Smith’s opinion, and the “great political circumstance’ (470) of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries had very little to do with the Crusades. Smith goes on to claim that on in Italy is there any “indisputable influence” (471) of the Crusades. Trade increased dramatically. Charanis agrees with the notion that the Crusades left behind more damage than they did anything good. He does admit the “crusading, as a historical phenomenon, was a significant movement” (Charanis 1952, 131). Along

While attempting to salvage and protect Christianity, the Crusades seemed to be like the overbearing parent and push it farther away until it became totally out of reach. Having recognized this, we can look at the circumstances and see that some positive things did emerge from the mess the Crusades made. Almost all critics agree that one of the most positive results of the Crusades is the broadening of knowledge. East meets West and, as a result, all men’s minds were broadened. In addition to this, the Crusades did stimulate western trade and “cultural interaction” (344) with the east with merchants in Venice, Pisa, and Genoa becoming lucrative markets. In addition, the need to resupply Christian settlements in the east reopened old trade routes that had been closed by Arab domination and opened new trades routes. It is safe to say that the most significant positive result of the Crusades was economic. What the Crusades did in the name of trade is significant and could have never been predicted. It is the law of unintended consequences in the positive as the effects were felt across the Atlantic as Spain sought out trade route to India and beyond. Other positive outcomes from the Crusades include the institution of free cities. Of course, this was not an intended outcome; it was an incidental resulting from so many towns disengaging from lords. The ability to own and dispose of property also resulted from the Crusades