Why was it that the Europeans saw it fit to spend over 700 years retaking the Iberian peninsula, but made minimal or no effort to take back, say, Egypt?
After all, Egypt was just as much a part of Christendom as Spain or Portugal before the Muslim conquests. Was it purely for geographical reasons? Was it because the people of Iberia largely did not convert to Islam, and if so why was that the case?
>inb4 the crusades
The Crusades were only a response to Muslims not allowing Christian pilgrims into Jerusalem; if the Seljuks had not concurred Jerusalem from the Egyptians, the crusaders would not have gone straight for the Holy Land.
Option A: Spend a fortune on building up a large enough army to sustain an oversee invasion and defend home country.
Spend another fortune building a navy to defend and transport your invasion army.
Option B: Invade neighbors and take their land for yourself.
>You do realize that Europe and Asia are geographically connected, right?
No matter what way you choose to enter Asia, you're going to be confronted with hundreds of miles of swamps, deserts, mountainous regions, and Islamic civilizations where either there will be little to no forage and potable water along the way, or people will try to kill you, so I really don't understand the point you're trying to make.
Well look at it more like this one was on the edge of Islamic power and near the center of Christian power and the other was near the center of Islamic power and probably either the most or second most important center of power in islam
Most Europeans saw it as a non-important problem. France and England weren't going to waste time on something that concerned Poland and Hungary more.
The Reconqista worked because it was a "In your face" problem. Muslims dominating Iberia threatens France and England.
Muslims owning Egpty or Jerusalem? Not a problem.
European nations cared more about themselves than some distant lands they had little connection to. Yes, Chritianity started in the Middle East, but France didn't.
Because the Reconquista was not really about retaking lost Christian land. That's how it was romanticized and mythologized, but the day-to-day process that transferred territory from Muslim to Christian aristocracies was tied to border raiding culture and demographics. This didn't exist on the borders with Egypt except during the Crusader States era.
The people of Egypt did not largely convert to Islam either. Egypt was much further away than Spain.
>The Crusades were only a response to Muslims not allowing Christian pilgrims into Jerusalem
They were a bit more complex than that, and I have my doubts about the pilgrim theory. They went to the Levant because they could support the venture through the Eastern Christian border in Anatolia. Egypt could only be targeted afterwards, but as others have said the Egyptians were much stronger.
Europe was not unified.
Iberia, like Egypt was not exactly special to the Europeans. But obviously, Iberian nobles would try to reconquer it. I don't think Germans and most French thought about Iberia more than they thought about other areas, except the father of the first Count of Portugal, of course.
The Crusades were about conquering and keeping Jerusalem safe, in Christian hands.
If they were about to try to conquer Egypt, it would be mostly for its resources and to keep Jerusalem safe.
The Normans conquered Tunisia for a while, but I don't think it was considered a Crusade.