The Crusaders Influence
Inversely, the effects seen on religious groups and cities allow for the change into to current state of the Christian Church, Islamic religion, and the Holy Land itself. Impacted by the Crusades, the Christian Catholic Church witnessed the temporary power of the papacy and wealth of the Church, while allowing unbiblical doctrines to seep into practices of the Church. As the need and interest for the Crusades grew, likewise, the head of command for the Crusade, the papacy also grew in power. Looked up to by the peasants and volunteers for the holy war cause, as Bollinger notes, “they [the papacy] were able to extend their powers in both secular and sacred matters” (200). Similar to years before with the European kings, the papacy readily went
…show more content…
Albeit, the Crusaders left a memorable architectural imprint on the Holy Land. Compared to the rest of the Land, the Crusaders left a more minor effect on Jerusalem. Meinhardt describes the renewal of the Dome of the Rock, symbolic to both the Jews and the Muslims as the rock where Abraham sacrificed Isaac and where Muhammad saw heaven: “they later covered the massive rock inside the building with elaborate marble casing, to serve as an altar; they also filled the building’s niches with sacred carvings, erected an intricate iron grille around the building’s inner octagon, and placed an iron cross on top of the dome.” Among other works, Crusaders built a covered market, a city gate, and a hospital, along with various other buildings (“When Crusader Kings Ruled Jerusalem”). One also views the growth of Jerusalem into a crossroads for learning. It allowed the Crusaders to come into contact with the profoundly advanced intellectual culture of the Middle East. In fact, one might suggest that because of Jerusalem, Crusaders quickly came into contact with other civilizations, setting up Europe for the Renaissance. Jerusalem, nestled in much of the combat, while allowing for the wealth of Europe, ultimately suffered as a result of the Crusades. A far-reaching aspect of the Crusades’ effect on Jerusalem remains in the minds of individuals of the modern day and age: the massacre of the city in 1099. After reading a modern account of Jewish historians, one might still sense understandable bias and unsettlement towards the Crusaders. As stated by Riley-Smith, “the fact is that holy war, whatever the religion involved, has the tendency to turn in on the society that has bred it” (25). In this case, it seems that modern opinions turn against the depicted brutal and greedy Christians. The
Albeit, the Crusaders left a memorable architectural imprint on the Holy Land. Compared to the rest of the Land, the Crusaders left a more minor effect on Jerusalem. Meinhardt describes the renewal of the Dome of the Rock, symbolic to both the Jews and the Muslims as the rock where Abraham sacrificed Isaac and where Muhammad saw heaven: “they later covered the massive rock inside the building with elaborate marble casing, to serve as an altar; they also filled the building’s niches with sacred carvings, erected an intricate iron grille around the building’s inner octagon, and placed an iron cross on top of the dome.” Among other works, Crusaders built a covered market, a city gate, and a hospital, along with various other buildings (“When Crusader Kings Ruled Jerusalem”). One also views the growth of Jerusalem into a crossroads for learning. It allowed the Crusaders to come into contact with the profoundly advanced intellectual culture of the Middle East. In fact, one might suggest that because of Jerusalem, Crusaders quickly came into contact with other civilizations, setting up Europe for the Renaissance. Jerusalem, nestled in much of the combat, while allowing for the wealth of Europe, ultimately suffered as a result of the Crusades. A far-reaching aspect of the Crusades’ effect on Jerusalem remains in the minds of individuals of the modern day and age: the massacre of the city in 1099. After reading a modern account of Jewish historians, one might still sense understandable bias and unsettlement towards the Crusaders. As stated by Riley-Smith, “the fact is that holy war, whatever the religion involved, has the tendency to turn in on the society that has bred it” (25). In this case, it seems that modern opinions turn against the depicted brutal and greedy Christians. The