This is my blood

Actually the pope election was still a problematic decision. The cardinals got to decide, but they had to take in the due consideration the desires of the main monastic powers (Cluny for exemple), of the people in Rome and, of course of the Emperor. The struggle for the investiture is still going on during the Urban II's papacy, after all.

As for the Crusades, you should remember that was largely an accident and not a premeditated decision. We have only three relations of the Clermont speech, which started the Crusades and all of them were written al least twenty years later, so they are not completely reliable. The enthusiam for this idea caught completely off balance the church (not to mention the Basileus, which was expecting mercenaries, not zealots). The proper expedition was actually preceded by a rabble of fanatics, who get slaughtered by the turks.
So we can say that the times were ripe for something like the crusades to happen...

Many of the nobles who joined the first crusade searched for an oppurtunity to gain wealth and possibly lands outside West Europe. If you butterfly away the mission in the Holy Land, they could have joined the Reconquista in Spain, or partecipated to the christian expansion in the Baltic area.

Finally, it's interisting to note that the crusade activetly stirred a slumbering islam. With no crusades, the history of the Middle East changes drastically. Maybe the energies used against the Franks by the sunnite emirates could have been used against the ismailites of Persia and Egypt, leading to a deeper division among these religious currents.
 
Top