What was the real cause of the Crusades?

Question:As kids we are told that it was all to reclaim the holy lands from the heathen Arabs. As you get older and look more into it you can start seeing new threads and deeper causes.

What is your opinion?

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker: As kids we are told that it was all to reclaim the holy lands from the heathen Arabs. As you get older and look more into it you can start seeing new threads and deeper causes.

What is your opinion?

I believe that the 1st 2 (or possibly 3) Crusades had their roots in genuine religious feeling. After all, like so many other religions, Christianity considered itself the True Faith, therefore the lands where it all started, where the Savior walked, were theirs by right, and so they had to throw out the "infidels".
The Byzantine Emperor asked for help in repelling the Turks, and btw, let's free Jerusalem. It's said 2 Byzantine observers when the Pope made his speech fainted when the massed European knights cheered "Deus le volt!" (God wills it). That might have something to do with the relative levels of cleanliness...
Anyway, his request was framed along the lines of help us & you save Christianity in the east.

But people being people, there were plenty of human motives as well--greed for land, wealth, & power being the top ones.
King Louis VII of France was probably a genuine pilgrim type--let us free the Holy Lands--while his wife (Eleanor of Aquitaine) was along for the adventure (2nd Crusade?). The Venetians, as has been pointed out, hijacked the 4th Crusade to sack Constantinople. I haven't figured out Richard Lionheart's true reasons, but I think at least some of those who joined him were only doing so to protect their lands; a Crusader's lands & property were to remain untouched by others.

My opinion is that by the end, religion was pretty much just an excuse to go out & trash someone. Only problem was that the Christians were the ones getting trashed--knights apparently didn't think too fast back then, or they might have quit sooner.
And I am mostly talking about the ones in Muslim lands--I know that there were Crusaders in the Scandinavian & Teutonic lands as well. But I'm not very familar with them.

It was part of the opportunity for the RCC to maintain control.

Think about it, Europe had a lot of nations with competing desires and the capacity to do a lot of harm to each other. It was far more beneficial for the RCC if they could unify them in purpose and attain their desires by using those nations.

Also, who are the biggest threats to any established system? The young men have always been either the strength of or the problems for systems. It has been a method of ruling that has been around for thousands of years to find something "constructive" for those people to do, like fight a war elsewhere. That way they can work out their aggressions on others and not cause trouble for the system.

There have been many interpretations. Here is an quick overview:

1. It was a reaction to the rise of the Seljoeks and their immediate threat to the Byzantine empire and Europa if Constantinopel would fall.
2. It was a product of the reform devolpments within the church
3. It was a way to channel the fighting urge of the knight class to greater purpose instead of unleashing it upon each other
4. It was an economical enterprise
5. and in my opinion the crusades where a combination of many intersests: spirtual for some (a crusader was granted liberation of al previous sins), worldly ambitiouns for others (Richrad Lionheard and his frensh rival monarch) and economical motives for yet others (like the Venetian raid on Constantiopel)

But i am not an expert on the subject so there might be more explanations

well the main cause was still reclaiming the holy lands but there were several other reasons behind the crusades - the main one control of trade routes (to India and China)

the first one (1095-1099) was an answer to Byzantine which needed help against the invading turks and succeeded to conquer Jerusalem starting the kingdom of Jerusalem - so the cause was to help fellow Christians

the second crusade was more in the west and north - not much happened in the holy land

in the north the Wends were attacked (to days Poland and Baltic nations)
in the west Lisbon was reconquered

so the reason was to enlarge territory

the third (1187–1192) was an unsuccessful attempt to recapture Jerusalem but led to the conquest of Cyprus from the Byzantines

that was more political as the differences between Byzanz and the Pope increased - Cyprus was also a new staging point for new invasions into the holy land

the fourth (1202–1204) was used by Venice to get rid of a trade opponent (Byzanz) - Constantinople was sacked in 1204 and most of the art you can see in todays Venice is actually loot from that crusade

the 5th was a disaster (1217–1221) - an attack on Cairo failed miserably (the crusaders wanted to split the mameluk countries in north africa by taking the capital)

the 6th (1228–1229) gave control of Jerusalem back to the crusaders with a first allowing both religions to worship there from the west (Nur al Din or Saladin already allowed that when he reconquered Jerusalem and even left churches untouched

in this case Emperor Frederick II was excommunicated and tried the crusade to be at peace with the pope

the 7th (1248–1254) was a try of the french to get control over Egypt and failed (see trade route)

the 8 th (1271–1272) was an alliance with the mongols but the mameluks won and all christians land in the area were lost
reason - get control back

other crusades were more land orientated (to the east by the teutonic order) or to clean out heresy (Albigensian Crusade) in 1209

dates and info are from the link - I mixed in my oppinion

religion was the surface issue

deeper issues: religious intolerance, desire for power and wealth and fame