The Crusades, a defensive war?

[CarpentersApprentice]

Thomas F. Madden, Professor of History and Director of the Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies at Saint Louis University, believes that the Crusades were a defensive war. He comes to this conclusion because the Moslems took over much of what used to be the Roman Empire (Palestine, North Africa, and some of Spain) and, at least one motivation for the Crusades, was to recover the lost territory.

Some of his writings on this subject are:

These articles from his web site.
and
The Real History of the Crusades
and
Crusaders and Historians

Your thoughs?

CA

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Thomas F. Madden, Professor of History and Director of the Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies at Saint Louis University, believes that the Crusades were a defensive war. He comes to this conclusion because the Moslems took over much of what used to be the Roman Empire (Palestine, North Africa, and some of Spain) and, at least one motivation for the Crusades, was to recover the lost territory.

Some of his writings on this subject are:

These articles from his web site.
and
The Real History of the Crusades
and
Crusaders and Historians

Your thoughs?

CA

I didn't read those articles, however, there is some truth to this. It also was an economic war. Moslems had been harrasing the trade routes with taxes and were on the door step of Contantanople. The greatest city of the Day and defender of Western Europe. In order to support the eastern Christians, slow down and stop the progress of Islam into Europe and free up trade routes for the Venicians were all reasons for the crusades.

 

[Matt Black]

The Seljuks were indeed in danger of overrunning Constantinople in the late 11th century. The irony is that the Crusaders, not really having that motive in mind but rather being hungry for land and trade, ended up hastening the end of the Byzantine Empire (Fourth Crusade etc). So, if it was as simple as: Byzantium threatened by Turks, appeals to the West, Western Christians come and help them defeat the Turks and recapture Anatolia for them, then, yes, the Crusades would have been purely defensive and I'd agree with the quote in the OP. But it wasn't as simple as that....

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The Seljuks were indeed in danger of overrunning Constantinople in the late 11th century. The irony is that the Crusaders, not really having that motive in mind but rather being hungry for land and trade, ended up hastening the end of the Byzantine Empire (Fourth Crusade etc). So, if it was as simple as: Byzantium threatened by Turks, appeals to the West, Western Christians come and help them defeat the Turks and recapture Anatolia for them, then, yes, the Crusades would have been purely defensive and I'd agree with the quote in the OP. But it wasn't as simple as that....

Unfortunately, it never is. Troy was probably more about economics or wealth than Hellen.