Q's regarding crusades, #1: Were the crusades unavoidable?

I'm not going to bother with exposition this time- Were the crusades unavoidable? Could they have been prevented? Had they not happened, what would result?
 
I'm not going to bother with exposition this time- Were the crusades unavoidable? Could they have been prevented? Had they not happened, what would result?
The motif for the crusades was the Turkish behaviour in the Holy Land, which was pretty bad for Christians over there and didn't allow European Christians to go on a pelerinage to Jerusalem.
Remove the kebab, (or the untolerant leader) and you get no crusades.
 
The motif for the crusades was the Turkish behaviour in the Holy Land, which was pretty bad for Christians over there and didn't allow European Christians to go on a pelerinage to Jerusalem.
Remove the kebab, (or the untolerant leader) and you get no crusades.

Kebab decides to be less abrasive.

who were the leaders in question?
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
You probably need a couple of things

1) Less Turkish issues

2) More stable Christendom.

3) More stable Roman Empire

- ---

1) Less issues with the turks provides fewer justifications for Crusade

2) More stable Christendom means the Pope doesn't seek a way to stop the fighting

3) More stable Roman Empire means that Alexios doesn't ask for help.

Fail to account for any of these factors, and something is still going to happen.

For example, if 3 stops being an issue, the Pope will encourage Crusader action in Spain - which was already a thing - they still need the help. In fact, he had to actively prevent the Spanish from joining the Crusades. I actually think that this would be more successful, with the Crusaders taking over Spain, and maybe even Africa - without the problem of extant Muslim powers wanting to re-invade.

Miss out 2 and a similar scenario may take place.

Miss out 1 and the Pope may well endorse Alexios' request, rather than make it about the Holy Land.

Now, I'll include the caveat of individual actors and persuasion, but those are the three big acts to cause the Crusade.
 
I'm not going to bother with exposition this time- Were the crusades unavoidable? Could they have been prevented? Had they not happened, what would result?

Depends on how tightly you define "crusades". Once you had Christian states you were going to have at least some wars where Christianity was a contributing factor/justification. The idea of getting indulgences for fighting was also likely to crop up sooner or later. OTOH, the idea of marching straight to the Holy Land (as opposed to fighting to defend or expand the borders of Christendom closer to home) was quite novel, and was by no means guaranteed to take off. Even once the First Crusade had actually started, if it had been defeated I doubt there'd be any great desire to launch another one, as defeat would just be taken as a sign that the proposed venture was too ambitious/not favoured by God.
 
The Holy Land had been in muslim hands for centuries at this point. The Byzantines certainly wanted some help getting it back but you can blame the pope for wanting to stiff the Byzantines.

By calling a massive crusade in the name of Christendom, it gave a good excuse to answer Byzantium's call while still not actually helping them. Truly an historical feat of trolling.
 
Absolutely avoidable.

You could:

Butterfly Manzikert or have it go the other way, thereby avoiding Alexius asking for help

Butterfly al-Hakim Fatimid being a total cunt to Christians, Jews and other religious minorities
 
Top