[redgolum]

Quite right. The Crusades were not a colonizing movement. The majority of people on Crusade had two goals.

1. Liberate Jerusalem for Christianity.
2. Return home after that.

In fact, the recurring theme through the Crusading period was that an army would come, take or hold Jerusalem, then every one would pack up and go home. There was little effort to consolidate the holdings. True, there were some who went for gold and fame, or to start over, but for most it was a holy duty. And an unpleasant one at that.

The end came more because of this lack of consolidation than anything else.

[AlbionGirl]

What you write is almost in direct opposition to what Paul Johnson writes, unless I'm misunderstanding you. He certainly isn't infallible, but it seems he doesn't agree with you, and I'm afraid I'm going to have to give him the nod here. I don't mean any disrespect by that, by any means though, so I hope you don't take offense. I can't actually do the research myself. I can't access the information sources he can, and my own experience with the Church is one that comports more easily with his explication of events than yours.

Again, I don't mean to imply that you are not smart or capable or anything of the kind.

[RobbyS]

The Muslim conquest of Palestine, Syria, Irak, and Egypt was a colonizing movement. The Arabs came in and imposed their rule over a largely Christian population. They then forbade taxed them to death, and made free exercise of their faith impossible. Most of the vaunted achievements of the "Arab golden age" were actually those of the oppressed Christian Assyrian populations. As they converted to Islam, the glory faded.