[Finny]

The author states, "I have no doubt that had there been no Crusades at all that western Europe would have been conquered by Muslims in much same fashion as southeastern Europe was."

And there were still crusades as recently as 435 years ago.

No mother country supported the Crusades. Rather they were funded and undertaken by individuals across Christendom for the benefit of their souls and their co-religionists overseas. The governments in the Crusaders States were independent, with no direct ties to any European countries. And the Europeans had no policy of colonization or exploitation in the East. Rather, the overriding purpose of the Kingdom of Jerusalem was to safeguard the Holy Places and the lives of Christian pilgrims coming to visit them.

And people are worried about global warming! *sigh* I believe in history repeating itself a lot more than I do global warming.

[Biggirl]

Have you ever heard of Robert Spencer? He wrote a book about both the true history of Islam and the crusades. The truth is that the Muslims were and are the aggressors in these types of wars. Thank-you for your posting.

[Alex Murphy]

We now know that crusading was almost never profitable. Crusaders often impoverished themselves and their families in order to pay for their expeditions. Whatever booty they received (and the Crusades were notoriously bad for plunder) was more than offset by their expenses.

Ping for reference