What happens if there are no crusades?

[Einar Matveinen]

Originally posted by Tambourmajor
I guess there are still other possibilities to expand the Christian world with fure and sword. Take for example the Iberian peninsula, or the Baltics.

OTOH, you're right, the idea of the Crusades evolved from the speech of Pope Urban (?) on behalf of the (Eastern) Roman Emperor...

But gamewise, I don't think that would make a difference. There should always be a reason to massacre Muslims on the way to Jerusalem.
Remember the target for the crusaders was the Holy Land, and not to help some Emperor to regain Anatolia.

I've to say that the main goal of the first crusade was the defeat of the seljuk turks that have defeated the byzantine army at Manzinkert. But after conquering the Anatolia peninsula, the crusaders decided to continue advancing east and liberate Edessa (Baldwin of Bolonia), Antioch (Bohemund of Altaville) and Jerusalem (Godfred of Bouillon). These feudal lords became kings, dukes, Princes, etc. Some of them was very pious like Godfred of Bouillon and some of them like Bohemund or Baldwin were ambitious lords with the only motivation of anexioning lands and became lords.

 

[Vandelay]

I also doubt that the Spanish lords would like some Frenchies or Germans coming to fight on their behalf, only to ask for rewards later...

There were plenty of Norman, French and Burgundian knights (and their retainers) participating in the Iberian armies some of whom no doubt would have received grants of land (or a shallow grave depending on how things would have turned out...).

By the 11th century Europe was a very dynamic society where new lands were put under the plow and towns founded at an ever accelarating pace. If not Outremer they would have directed their energy elsewhere - a heavier focus on Iberia, the Baltic and North Africa than what happened IRL seems plausible.

If nothing else you could always go off and kill some Orthodox schismatics - the Lord does not quibble

Cheers,
Vandelay

 

[Elias Tarfarius]

Yet, it was the crusades to the Levant that brought about the rapid development of the High Middle Age. Everything from food to fashion would be VERY different without the conquest of the Outremer.

 

[HolisticGod]

Elias,

Yes, but then again there'd be less blood in its soil.

I think a game without Christian/Mulsim blood-letting in the East would be interesting enough in its development and consequences, and taking up the task, as the Roman Emperor, of actively preventing them a comparable source of tension and conflict.

What I really want to know is whether or not I'll be able to convert to secularism and then call a holy war/crusade/jihad.

 

[Idiotboy]

Originally posted by Einar Matveinen
I've to say that the main goal of the first crusade was the defeat of the seljuk turks that have defeated the byzantine army at Manzinkert. But after conquering the Anatolia peninsula, the crusaders decided to continue advancing east and liberate Edessa (Baldwin of Bolonia), Antioch (Bohemund of Altaville) and Jerusalem (Godfred of Bouillon). These feudal lords became kings, dukes, Princes, etc. Some of them was very pious like Godfred of Bouillon and some of them like Bohemund or Baldwin were ambitious lords with the only motivation of anexioning lands and became lords.

The crusaders conquered anatolia? Not in my history books. They helped take Nicaea and smashed the turkish armies at Dorylaeum but they didn´t try told hold much. More passed through than anything.

 

[unmerged(11206)]

Originally posted by Idiotboy
The crusaders conquered anatolia? Not in my history books. They helped take Nicaea and smashed the turkish armies at Dorylaeum but they didn´t try told hold much. More passed through than anything.

And by 1101, even Dorylaeum didnt matter. In fact all it did was draw other crusader armies into the deadly trap of attempting the same route.

Until Frederick I handed the Turks their ass and sacked Iconium, that is.

 

[Einar Matveinen]

Originally posted by Idiotboy
The crusaders conquered anatolia? Not in my history books. They helped take Nicaea and smashed the turkish armies at Dorylaeum but they didn´t try told hold much. More passed through than anything.

Well, not conquered but yes liberated. These lands were for the Byzantines, the original owners. But Armenia, Antioch, Siria, Palestine, all this lands were anexionated by the crusaders.

 

[Razgovory]

Well since the Crusades did indirectly unify Northern Europe in to something closer to modern nations and weakened the power of Church. I think a world with out the crusades would result Greeks never being completly conquered by the turks and the Italian city states retaining their economic power. The Holy Roman Empire might retain it's strength but France and England would remain backwaters. Spain would still rise though, perhaps Occitan would unify into a nation disticint from Norman France. With out the contact with the muslim east Italy may never see the Reniassene or it might happen somewhere else like Spain! Sadly the fate of the muslims would remain the same though... Nothing could stop the Mongols, they would reduce the nations of Islam with or with out the Crusades.

 

[Norgesvenn]

How did the crusades indirectly unify Northern Europe? By 1099, state building was already well on its way in England, Norway, Denmark, France...

 

[unmerged(15453)]

First, to the suggestion that the Crusades helped to unify northern Europe, I find little evidence to support this contention. The crusader armies were always hampered by disputes between various nationalities (Normans, French, Germans, English, etc.).

As for the original question, some scholars see the crusades as a part of a much longer conflict between Christianity and Islam in the Mediterranean. The Muslim conquest of Spain in 711 and the Battle of Poitiers/Tours in 732 were the first wars, and from the 9th to 11th centuries, Muslim piracy greatly damaged Italy. There were several fronts on which the Christians fought against the Muslims - Spain, Sicily, Balearic Islands - so I think a conflict in the Eastern Mediterranean was somewhat inevitable.

One also must consider that Islam and Christianity are religions that have a lot of missionary zeal in them, and believe that they have a certain mandate/command to go out and convert the world (compare this to Judaism, Buddhism, etc. which are not bent on converting the world). Back in the Middle Ages, it would be very hard for these two religions to live harmoniously with each other.

 

[Razgovory]

Well The King of France picked up the Southern France after the crusade against the Cathars. Many nobles who would have warred on one another went to carve out territory in holyland. The Crusades also tied the church very closely to France, weaking it's credibility. A weaker church meant that kings could build stronger nations with out interference.

 

[unmerged(15453)]

The Albigensian Crusade against the Cathars did benefit the French kings, but I think other factors played a far bigger role in the rise of the French crown:

1. Philip Augustus, who ruled during the late 12th/early 13th centuries set up a strong government and ruled quite well. Under his reign, royal revenues increased greatly.

2. He was able to take control of Normandy away from King John of England.

3. At the battle of Bouvines in 1214, he defeated many of his enemies, especially the count of Flanders. Through this he got a lot of control over Flanders and other parts of what is now the Low Countries.


Involvement in crusaders can often have a very negative impact on states. The most obvious example is that the task of crusading often distracted various rulers from their own jobs. King Richard is a good example of this, since his crusade ended with his capture and ransom, leaving his territories poorer, and for a time leaderless. The Third Crusade also saw the death of the German emperor, and other crusades were costly failures for European kings (the Second Crusade was an utter disaster for Louis VII and Conrad III).

 

[Aetius]

I believe that peterkonieczny is right about the role of trade in early "crusades" against muslims. This also made conflict in the form of Crusades inevitable. The elimination of Muslim pirate bases on Balearics, Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica must have played a big part in the economic upswing in the area. Of course they were Muslims so there was a religious background to it as well.