Why was the First Crusade a Crusade?

Holy wars had been conducted previously to the expedition of 1095, and is it simply the case that the success of the Crusade caused it to be retrospectively refferred to as one? Had it not achieved so much would it have merely been another holy war, or sending of troops to Byzantine aid.

The Violence of the Crusades

Even though the violence of the crusades was generally accepted and rationalised, was there any christian outrage at what happened?

How could christians justify such violence when Jesus said ‘love your enemies’?

Were there many fundamental differences between the 3 crusades?

If all the crusades were sponsored by the Papacy and had the same aims to reclaim the holy land and expell the infidels, then were there any differences in motives for the crusades?

Was Urban entirely motivated by piety when he called for a crusade?

In his speech of the Council of Clermont, Urban seems passionately motivated about crusading in order to save fellow Christians from the infidels and Islam. He explains what a disaster it would be if a devout race, faithful to God were to be overcome by a race enslaved by demons. He also states that participating in the crusade would be an act of penance and would help more people to salvation. However, were religious considerations the only thing behind his speech? Is there evidence to suggest that Urban had political considerations on his mind, such as mere territorial conquest for power, or to gain more control over the Byzantine empire by using a facade of ’saving them’? There was a lot of material wealth in the east; is it possible that Urban was motivated by this?

How could convivencia exist while the Spanish were attempting to reclaim Muslim lands?

Convivencia

Was convivencia just tolerance of other religions, or interaction between jews, muslims and christians? How often was there conversion due to contact with other beliefs?

Was Charlemagne partly able to hold together an empire due to having seen the Merovingians be overthrown?

Did the history of the Carolingian overthrow of the Merovingian dynasty still echo in the mind of Charlemagne, making him less likely to make the same mistakes again, and therefore be better ruler? Or did his lack of planning for after his death doom the Empire to be divided?