What does John Green mean when he says the Crusades have been “romanticized”?

The Crusades have been romanticized as groups of "Christians" who bear the cross to liberate the Holy Land from the "demonic" enemies, but in reality, those quote-&-quote Christians were far from what they truly were. While the first few Crusades may have tried to complete their overarching objectives of establishing a route for Christian pilgrims to be able to access the Holy Land, many of the latter ones fail in even the simplest tasks. The Crusades are romanticized as the Christian West's dying wish to retain the Promise Land, but in reality, it was marred with falsified beliefs spewed from the Roman Catholic Church, gory battles that fail to accomplish their objectives, The destruction of the very things they swore to protect (on both sides), and the failure of the West to create a lasting presence for centuries to come. However, that is not to say that the Crusades did not have positive impacts. The first (and arguably the second) Crusades were able to achieve their goals, and "both worlds" were able to bring home different ideas, science & technological informations, as well as practices that helped better both world's in a positive way.

The Crusades are not cut through as what is popularly believed, as the forces of light defeating the forces of darkness, but neither are they the worst wars to ever be fought. Instead, it is simply a clash of two world cultures, two world believes, even two whole worlds that does not see each other eye to eye (the European world vs the Asianic world). In the end, it is simply another war that may not have the same players or reasons as other wars, but still meets the requirements to be one.

the answer is a) james madison.

d

step-by-step explanation:

look at the x and y axis