Crusades were not a mistake

Dear friends,

I got this text from a friend of Facebook:
"Stained glass window of Godfrey of Bouillon in the Belfry of Boulogne-sur-Mer, France.
Godfrey of Bouillon (c. 1060 – 18 July 1100) was the first ruler of the Kingdom of Jerusalem and one of the main leaders of the First Crusade. He was a second son, born in an area now France and then part of the Holy Roman Empire. When Urban II preached the crusade, Godfrey and his brothers, Eustace and Baldwin, decided to gather armies and march for the Holy Land.

Godfrey played minor but consistent roles in the battles of the First Crusade. He was present at the siege of Nicaea and the battle of Dorylaeum and at the capturing of Antioch. Meanwhile, Godfrey’s landless younger brother Baldwin was making a name for himself by becoming Count of Edessa.

Godfrey of Bouillon became a crusading legend when he was one of the first over the walls at the taking of Jerusalem in 1099.".

The Crusades (1095-1272) were not a mistake. I remember that August 26, 1171, the Seljuk Turks of Sultan Alp Arslan conquered Anatolia and removed the Eastern Roman Empire. In the same period, the Turks took the place of the Arabs in the control of Jerusalem. The Arabs were more tolerant of the Turks, as the pilgrimages of Christians led gains. The Turks, however, were much more fanatical Arabs and began to persecute the Christians. With the seizure of Anatolia, the Turks threatened Constantinople. Thus, the Church and Europe reacted with the Crusades. The Crusades were a sacrosanct defensive action against the Islamic threat. Of course, in the Crusades there were unworthy acts, like the one to us is known as "Crusade of the Germans" (1096) in which the Jews were massacred in Mainz and Rhineland, and the Fourth Crusade ( 1202-1204) in which it was sacked Constantinople. These actions had nothing to do with the fight against Islamist threat. But if it were not for the Crusades Europe's history would be very different. The Islamists have done damage. I end with the finding that the failure of one of the main objectives of the Crusades, the return of Jerusalem in Christian hands, it was due to the fact that Christian principles have not gotten along. So, despite the errors, the Crusades were not a mistake. 

Sincerely.
Italian:

Le Crociate (1095-1272) non furono un errore.
Ricordo che il 26 agosto 1171, i Turchi Selgiuchidi del sultano Alp Arslan conquistarono l'Anatolia e la tolsero all'Impero Romano d'Oriente.
Nelle stesso periodo, i Turchi si sostituirono agli Arabi nel controllo di Gerusalemme.
Gli Arabi erano più tolleranti dei Turchi, in quanto i pellegrinaggi dei cristiani portavano guadagni.
I Turchi, invece, erano assai più fanatici degli Arabi e iniziarono a perseguitare i cristiani.
Con la presa dell'Anatolia, i Turchi minacciarono Costantinopoli.
Quindi, la Chiesa e l'Europa reagirono con le Crociate.
Le Crociate furono una sacrosanta azione difensiva contro la minaccia islamica.
Certo, nelle Crociate ci furono azioni indegne, come quella che a noi è nota come "Crociata dei Tedeschi" (1096) in cui furono massacrati gli ebrei a Magonza e in Renania, e la IV Crociata (1202-1204) in cui fu saccheggiata Costantinopoli.
Queste azioni non c'entravano con la lotta alla minaccia islamica.
Però, se non ci fossero state le Crociate la storia dell'Europa sarebbe stata molto diversa.
Gli islamici avrebbero fatto danni.
Termino con la constatazione del fatto che il fallimento di uno dei principali obiettivi delle Crociate, il ritorno di Gerusalemme in mani cristiane, sia stato dovuto al fatto che i principi cristiani non siano andati d'accordo.
Quindi, pur con degli errori, le Crociate non furono un errore.
Cordiali saluti.