umm...Muslims?

[Alamss]

There are MANY very well educated men who advocate and publish nonsense, not because they don't know better, but because they have an agenda. And since you are the one who are presenting a contrary view to what is historically understood as the motivation for the crusades, please feel free to let us know of your so called sources that tell you that the crusades in general were primarily fought for trade routes. Though there was a lot of plunder by the crusading knights as they went down the mediteranian, if that is what you consider finding trade routes? And logically why would they send waves of massive armies to "find trade routes"? wouldn't that be a more diplomatic mission?

I am not saying there were no religious overtones, but would Western European countries commit their forces to fight for Christianity?  I was taught European history by a very well educated man, and I will go by what he said and what I have read.

The first crusades, the farmer with pitch forks may have been motivated by religion, but these people were slaughtered.

[Xony]

yeah.. you're right..people do advocate and publish nonsense..heck, 1/2 the american public still believes we're in iraq 'cuz of WMDs.

[hilljack]

This is a very mature discussion.

[Xony]

I'm sorry.. I ruined it.  i started pushing my own anti-war agenda.. my bad

[hilljack]

As much as I would love to take some random people I don't know at their word, do any of you know of an unbiased book or other work on the Crusades.  A friend of mine who is anything but a Christian told me that the religion-motivated Crusades explanation was shortsighted at best and propaganda at worst.  He is a history major and I don't see why he would defend Christians, him not being one and all.

[Alamss]

your suggesting this whole thing about the crusades being for 'trade routes' yet as I search christian sources, non-christian sources, historical sources, nowhere do they say yes, the crusades were fought for trade routes.

And you are telling us that people have told you this, or are telling you this, wouldn't it be a good idea to do your own research and then back your assertion by saying, here, see they did do it for trade routes. If there are alternative explanations of the crusades as 'trade route hunts' then they must not have much credence with the historical community because I cannot find it. And what the crusaders did also does not follow with actions for the purpose of establishing trade routes.
were they planning to just kill the people in the Middle East and trade amongst themselves? Even if someone knows nothing about the crusades, just logically, the actions of the crusaders do not match that of an expedition that was going out to find trading partners and routes to people they could trade with.

[hilljack]

I didn't say hunting trade routes

[Alamss]

lol I didn't say 'hunting trade routes' either...I said trade route hunts, meaning trade route expeditions

[SH]

ANY MUSLIMS AROUND!??!?!  

[Alamss]

lol SH what are you doing with the 'any Muslims around' in every few instances??