PTT, it would be more accurate to say that the first Crusade, or even the first three, were the Eastward Reconquista. Re-establishing that part of the world into Christendom, which it had been for a few centuries before Islam took the effort to make it part of the Ummah. Mind you, the Westward Reconquista began a bit after Charles Martel stopped the Muslims/Umayyads at Tours/Poiters.
The Mohammadens had began in the 7th century to spread their culture and faith by the sword, and by a bit of subterfuge, and by commerce, both east and west. (A find digression into how Islam morphed a bit when it went east and into Persia is fascinating history, by the way).
By the time of the crusades, you can see that for three hundred years the West and Christendom had already been fighting to take back parts of Christendom from the Muslims. (France and Spain) Seems logical to do that in the East as well, given that the cradle of Christendom is in the Levant: Jerusalem, and for that matter, Alexandria, one of the most important cities of Rome, and then for Christians, during the formative centuries of Christianity.
Take a look at the Roman Empire, Circa 320 AD. About the time of Constantine, about 10% of that part of the World was Christian. Fifty years later, Theodosius established Christianity as the official Roman Empire Religion. For the next three centuries, give or take some Vandals and the general breakdown of Occidental Imperial coherence, Christendom could be associated with what you demark as the boundaries of the Roman Empire.
The Western Reconquista took Seven Hundred bloody years to complete, when at long last Granada was rid of the last emir.
The Turk run Caliphate tried to expand and conquer West over the sea yet again, less than a hundred years later, to be snubbed a Lepanto, thanks once again to a King of Spain and HRE at the time.
The Turk Caliphate got as far as Vienna in the 16th and 17 centuries ... or hadn't you remembered that? The Caliphate as run by the Turks was a plundering, invading, murderous empire, among other things.
Your cherry picking "who came after who" makes you come off as a bit of an Islamic apologist, which I don't think you intended.
Cooper is more right than you allow for.