Well, really there isn't a particular reason, if indeed this is a colloquial reference for the Third Crusade that I'm not aware of then it is probably, as a previous person answered,"Because the kind of England Richard the Lion Heart (Richard the III) lead his army himself during the holy crusades."However, I think you may be getting confused; I would reference the Second Crusade as the Kings' Crusade because this was the first time that royalty had been on crusade - partially due to the king of France - Philip I - having been excommunicated shortly before the events of the First Crusade.Hope that helps!
Well, really there isn't a particular reason, if indeed this is a colloquial reference for the Third Crusade that I'm not aware of then it is probably, as a previous person answered,"Because the kind of England Richard the Lion Heart (Richard I) lead his army himself during the holy crusades."However, I think you may be getting confused; I would reference the Second Crusade as the Kings' Crusade because this was the first time that royalty had been on crusade - partially due to the king of France - Philip I - having been excommunicated shortly before the events of the First Crusade.Hope that helps!
Well, really there isn't a particular reason, if indeed this is a colloquial reference for the Third Crusade that I'm not aware of then it is probably, as a previous person answered,"Because the kind of England Richard the Lion Heart (Richard the III) lead his army himself during the holy crusades."However, I think you may be getting confused; I would reference the Second Crusade as the Kings' Crusade because this was the first time that royalty had been on crusade - partially due to the king of France - Philip I - having been excommunicated shortly before the events of the First Crusade.Hope that helps!
The crusade effected the economy by, Not having enough money No holy land Lots of debts and [ taxes go up ]
They permanently turned the tables. The crusades followed 400 years of Islamic conquest, in which 2/3 of the traditional Christian territories were taken over by Muslim rulers. The Christians were terrified, and the Muslims were confident of taking over the whole of Christendom eventually. In the 200 years of crusading, the Christians won some of the battles. They realised that it was not inevitable that Islam would take over the world, and they had a decent chance of driving back the aggressor. The Muslims also became somewhat frightened of the Christians, as they realised that their victory was not certain. By the time the crusades ended, there was a mutual bitterness between the two faiths. Each side exaggerated the cruelties inflicted by the other and taught their children that the other group was murderous, dangerous, untrustworthy, etc. The events of the next 800 years did little to allay anyone's suspicions. The Spaniards finally drove the Muslims out of Spain by about 1500, by which time the Muslims had lived there so long that they felt it was their home and that the Spanish bloodbath was completely unjustified. The Muslims made further efforts to conquer parts of Europe; although they were unsuccessful, the Europeans inferred they had a permanent conquest agenda.
Christians and Jews have always been permitted to practise their faiths in Muslim countries. Until recent emigration depleted their ranks, Christians formed around 13 percent of the Palestinian population and continue to form a large proportion of the Lebanese population. In the twentieth century, Christians and Jews have sometimes even risen to high political office in several Muslim countries. Having said that, in earlier times Christians and Jews were subjected to higher taxes than Muslim citizens. And persecution sometimes occurs in individual countries, depending on the views of the regime in power. The crusades are perhaps an extreme example of the former differences in attitude to other religions. In 1099, the Christians of the First Crusade took Jerusalem and massacred the mainly Muslim population. In 1187, Saladin recaptured Jerusalem but spared the Christians who had settled there.
Many historians place the the first and third crusades as the most significant. The reasons are as follows: 1. The First Crusade in 1096 because it was a well organized military expedition under the leadership of Godfrey of Bouillon. This crusade drove the Moslems from part of Palestine and established a Christian kingdom in the Holy Land and gained control of Jerusalem; and 2. The Third Crusade that began in 1189. This crusade was led by three kings. They were Frederich Barbarossa, Philip Augustus of France, and Richard the Lion Hearted of England. Although this crusade failed to capture Jerusalem, King Richard persuaded the Muslim leader Saladi to grant safe passage to Jerusalem.
by having a poo
To defend Christianity from Islamic army attacks in the middle east and Europe.Roman Catholic AnswerThe beleaguered Christians in the Holy Land had been petitioning Rome for aid for centuries as they were butchered by the Muslims, but Rome, and Europe, in general, were having their own problems with invasions by barbarians and they were unable to send aid to the Holy Land. By the eleventh century, the Pope was finally able to muster help for the Christians in the Holy Land and the First Crusade was started. He was trying to rescue those who have survived the massacres, and liberate them from the oppression they lived with under Islam. He was also trying to save the Churches and Holy Places that the Muslims were destroying. See Seven Lies About Catholic History, chapter 3 for more information (listed below).
The first Crusade was started to help the Byzantines to deal with invading Seljuk Turks in modern Turkey. However an additional goal, reconquering Jerusalem and the Holy Land, soon became the primary purpose of the Crusade.
Not having sex before marriage
Roman Catholic AnswerThe Holy Father did not use emotion to try to persuade Christians to participate in the First Crusade, he used truth. He told them that the Christians in the Holy Land had been brutally overrun in unprovoked aggression by the Muslims. They had been murdered, their holy places burned or destroyed, and those that survived were subjected to unbelievable discrimmation and harsh conditions, plus a tax for not being Muslim This has been going on for centuries but the Pope and the rest of Europe were also having problems of their own and had been unable to respond to the Christians call for help in the Holy Land. In 1067 a group of seven thousand peaceful German pilgrims lost two-thirds of their number to Muslim assaults, but it was not until Pope Urban's address at Clermont in France in 1095 that finally some Knights responded with help. These were Christians and Christian Holy Places, there was no need for emotion.
Roman Catholic AnswerThe Holy Father did not use emotion to try to persuade Christians to participate in the First Crusade, he used truth. He told them that the Christians in the Holy Land had been brutally overrun in unprovoked aggression by the Muslims. They had been murdered, their holy places burned or destroyed, and those that survived were subjected to unbelievable discrimmation and harsh conditions, plus a tax for not being Muslim This has been going on for centuries but the Pope and the rest of Europe were also having problems of their own and had been unable to respond to the Christians call for help in the Holy Land. In 1067 a group of seven thousand peaceful German pilgrims lost two-thirds of their number to Muslim assaults, but it was not until Pope Urban's address at Clermont in France in 1095 that finally some Knights responded with help. These were Christians and Christian Holy Places, there was no need for emotion.
The Romans were okay with the Jewish nation, but as for Christians, they killed as many as they could, by way of having a lion eat them in a Roman Colosseum, or by having them hanged or burned at the stake, etc.
Well, really there isn't a particular reason, if indeed this is a colloquial reference for the Third Crusade that I'm not aware of then it is probably, as a previous person answered,"Because the kind of England Richard the Lion Heart (Richard the III) lead his army himself during the holy crusades."However, I think you may be getting confused; I would reference the Second Crusade as the Kings' Crusade because this was the first time that royalty had been on crusade - partially due to the king of France - Philip I - having been excommunicated shortly before the events of the First Crusade.Hope that helps!
Well, really there isn't a particular reason, if indeed this is a colloquial reference for the Third Crusade that I'm not aware of then it is probably, as a previous person answered,"Because the kind of England Richard the Lion Heart (Richard I) lead his army himself during the holy crusades."However, I think you may be getting confused; I would reference the Second Crusade as the Kings' Crusade because this was the first time that royalty had been on crusade - partially due to the king of France - Philip I - having been excommunicated shortly before the events of the First Crusade.Hope that helps!
Well, really there isn't a particular reason, if indeed this is a colloquial reference for the Third Crusade that I'm not aware of then it is probably, as a previous person answered,"Because the kind of England Richard the Lion Heart (Richard the III) lead his army himself during the holy crusades."However, I think you may be getting confused; I would reference the Second Crusade as the Kings' Crusade because this was the first time that royalty had been on crusade - partially due to the king of France - Philip I - having been excommunicated shortly before the events of the First Crusade.Hope that helps!