I have heard that for some of the leaders in various crusades, they were more of an opportunity to gain land in Palestine, or some other profit, rather than a religious war. Is there any truth to this?
hi! there's lots of room for discussion on this, so not discouraging any respondents, but you may be interested the FAQ section on the Crusades, particularly the first post, Who started the Crusades? (Each one) with response by /u/Ambarenya
The economic motive for the First Crusade was summed up by Pope Urban himself,
'Do not let anything hold you back... because the land that you are residing in now, which is surrounded by sea and mountain tops, is too small for its many inhabitants. It cannot supply them with enough food... Jerusalem is a land without equal in its produce; a veritable paradise of delights.'
Famine, war and poverty were massive reasons for Princes and peasants alike to go to the Holy Land. They sought to find better farming ground, more land to take and war-booty to loot. War caused land to be scarce for Princes to rule, and the famine and poverty and promises of rich, fertile lands of paradise enamoured many peasants seeking a better life. Famine and plague struck France a few years before the conquest of Jerusalem by the Crusaders, and the fact that the French were the leading trumpeters for the Crusades can be at least in part attributed to this.
The number of Italian, particularly Venetian merchants who made huge profits off transporting and supplying crusading troops as they went by land and sea to the Holy Land also shows the economic incentives. They would sign contracts with the Crusader Lords of the East in terms of supply and transport, and establish their own markets in Antioch, Jerusalem and even Alexandria in Egypt.
Some historians argue that religious motives were the least of concerns for the Crusaders, but rather social, economic and political reasons were far greater.