 |
Truce between Christians and Saracens.
Matthew Paris, Chronica Maiora, Parker MS 16II, f.139v.
|
-
- Review of God's War by Jonathan Phillips in The Telegraph, September 2006.
- Review of God's War by J.L. Nelson in the London Review of Books, 2007.
- Interview with Christopher Tyerman about his book God's War.
 |
| Urban II preaching at Clermont |
In this interview, Tyerman talks about how it is misleading and ahistorical to draw direct connections between modern wars in the Middle East and the medieval crusading movement. I agree with him on this point, and it brings me to a general matter I forgot to mention in class, which is: while modern parallels and experiences can be useful tools for helping us think about the past, we should never confuse them with historical argument itself, which always has to be based in the evidence and context of the period. I'm sure you knew this - but especially following our discussions about ANZAC cove and Canterbury it seemed a good time to remind ourselves of this point...
 |
| Urban II preaching the crusade |
But back to the Crusades! The Institute for Historical Research in London runs a monthly seminar about the Crusades, so clearly there's no shortage of opinion and debate on the topic.
Post your thoughts and responses to these readings below by Monday evening. Then we'll be moving on to St Francis and Co.!
29 comments:
I find the crusades fascinating! I love how religion started these wars yet war goes against many religious beliefs. Although the Crusades were about claiming back Holy Land and converting Pagans which is very religious it seems they choose the most violent way to do so. Yes the church claimed back Jerusalem in 1095 which has great religious meaning as Jesus grew up here, however many people lost their lives due to the battles. Many Jews and Moslem were dead, massacred by the First Crusades. I also find it intriguing how many people joined the crusades for the remission of sins which Monks and Bishops promised would happen yet they really cannot promise such a thing and surely killing more people would be another sin. Just some thoughts I had on the Crusades.
(Stephanie Dumble)
To pick up on your last point, Steph, I personally found it quite interesting and significant that, as Tyreman points out in the chapter for this week, earlier forms of religiously sanctioned warfare had still expected fighters to attone for their vioent actions afterward. According to his argument, the crusade movement seems to be the first time that the act of violence itself was considered part of the religious practice. I wonder why...?
I found the first article extremely interesting. I liked the line that that violent Europe created the crusades and not the other way around. I think that follows on from our understanding that medieval Europe was an aggressive, violent place and that the crusades were merely an extension or another means of expressing that fact. I thought the way the Papacy and ecclesiastical powers used the crusades as a means to expand their monopoly and stronghold on Europe and then to extend their land and borders particularly corrupt. It becomes increasingly difficult to understand their actions as men of god when peace and poverty are ideals they are supposed to pursue (apparently not though). The remission of sins again lends to the obvious corruption and manipulation by the church. The fact that they allowed cash payments or dowries to be compensation for actual crusade attendance and then as a means to achieve sin remission is unbelievable. It seems the “will of god” was an easy party line that could be adopted to excuse any war waged, for whatever reason. I think that may be why there was no concrete legal definition of the crusade, when they happened so frequently and for so many reasons. The crusades as a means of persecution is obvious throughout the readings but I thought it was an interesting paradox of crusaders who mistrusted outsiders but still enjoyed their plunder. The varying interpretations of Urban’s call to arms I found also very emotive and stirring. The man obviously knew how to excite a crowd, even though his messages of peace by war I felt made his arguments distorted.
Looking forward to reading everyone else’s thoughts
-Tom Crowe
I also really appreciated the line that violent Europe created the crusades, rather than the crusades creating a violent Europe. It sort of seems like the clergy/ambitious laity used religion and arguably a misinterpretation of Christianity to justify their own desires. I definitely agree with Tom, in that it's hard to see the clergy as being men of God when they continued to endorse and establish violence against people. It definitely demonstrates the ways in which those educated in Christianity manipulated the laypeople, who would have probably taken the clergy at their word, into committing 'Holy pillage'. I found it really interesting/messed up that eventually people began to crusade against other Christians, who objected to the running of the church/posed a threat to papal interests. It seems that the church was incredibly power hungry, and was able to manipulate the word of God to justify and endorse intense violence.
-Chelsea Dullard
I think people sometimes don’t consider crusading as being a part of the context of the violent Europe as you guys have pointed out. I think its hard then for people to judge the crusaded by todays standards as they are so different to what they were back then. To the crusaders, it we not just highly moral but had a deep spiritual meaning to go on crusades. It is interesting having read these pieces to consider what were the motivations for going to war. This particularly can be seen in the various accounts of Urban’s speech. Given I am a little biased given it is my essay topic, what do people think were the true motivations for going on crusades that comes out of this weeks readings. I guess we touched on a few already with forgiveness of sins, pilgrimage, and free Jerusalem etc. What can other people think of? Linked to this is the awesome power of the papacy at the time form Tyreman’s article. Does anyone think the Pope may have used his power to command crusades immorally and is there any examples of this?
I strongly agree with what Tom posted.
Unfortunately, as fascinating as the Crusades were, I often feel slightly put-off, due to the religious propaganda that was used at the time to 'justify' it all. As the first article says; "Crusades against the Christian enemies of the Papacy became the most characteristic ... form of crusading in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries."
The religious motivation that was emphasised through Pop Innocent and Urban's involvement, I feel, shows the early corruption in the church, and mixed with this condoning of violence was really just setting the stage for the Reformation.
Hi all, in the reading pack J Phillips quotes Runcimans in calling the crusades 'the greatest human folly' this statement explains to me the tragedy of it all. Tyerman takes a neutral approach to his work and calls it 'an account and not a judgement' and it seems that the crusades started with the Christian problems and of the political manoeuvring of ambitious popes. A mixture of securing their Christian faith in the holy city, gaining relics, and not averse to making a buck on the side, oh yes, less time spent in purgatory. The 'new way of attaining salvation' killing was in 'Gods will'. For the cross clad knights this was a devotional practice a 'holy act' gaining spiritual benefits for the future and a pilgrimage to the relic of all relics Jerusalem and the holy land itself. J Nelson adds that Urban speech summons the people to a 'radical vision' of renewal, public ritual to sign up and wear the uniform of the cross displaying suffering and redemption, all in the name of political indulgence. The range of observers and their different versions of Urban speech, all 5 quoted; although one is anonymous seem to have charismatic qualities that could entice a mob to fight for a common cause. Fulcher of Chartres, calls it holy pilgrimage, destroy the pagans, all who die get immediate remission of sins and wearers of the uniformed cross. [which if they took the cross off and decided to go home would be put to death for it, I know were not to relate stuff to today, but, hmm]. Robert the Monk uses scare tactics, rape, dragged by your intestines etc. The Gesta Version, spoken in the area of France said if you want to save your soul, and don’t worry if you don’t have the money you will get some, that the people should endure suffering poverty illness etc, because your reward is greatness in heaven. Balderic of Dol uses the Christians abuse, desecration of holy relics by the Muslims, bringing in ancient history stories. Guibert de Nogent was an eyewitness to the speech and call Urban a most excellent man. He uses the term Christian soldiers, speaks of the people who have already gone to the holy land and have paid with their lives. I never really knew much about the crusades before these readings but what a template into our future and problems we still confront. Makes Anzac dawn service next week a little more special to witness. Sorry for all the ramblings. Rosslyn
Hi everyone, Kellie here,
I was really interested in how different the five versions of Urban’s speech were. Each writer seemed to have a very different take on how to market the crusade. Fulcher of Chartres really focuses on assisting their Christian brethren. Robert the Monk appeals more to the Knight’s sense of honour than faith, inciting them to avenge wrongs and recover territory. The Gesta Version relies more on scriptural arguments and the need to suffer. Balderic of Dol tries to use a mixture of shaming the knights and tempting them with promises of treasure as well as salvation. Guibert de Nogent seems quite fixated with being ready for the coming of the Antichrist, but recognises that may not rouse the less religious knights and so encourages them with gruesome stories, to feel compassion for pilgrims who have been misused by the Saracens. Urban II’s letter is a very businesslike document that focuses on establishing the authority of the Bishop of Puy to lead the crusade. His reasons for calling the crusade and the rewards to those who follow seem almost perfunctory. One theme that was quite consistent throughout was that the ruling elite were constantly fighting amongst themselves and the Church really wanted to refocus their energies, or at least get them out of the way. The crusades were really a stroke of genius in the Churches efforts to gain greater control over one of the most destabilising forces in the West, at the same time increasing the power and prestige of Church.
I was interested to read that Simon de Montfort, the man who would later play a leading role in the slaughter of Catharist heretics during the Albigensian Crusade, refused to partake in the sack of Zara during the Fourth Crusade, as he deemed the city’s populace to be faithful Christians. I believe that this further exemplifies the conviction that the Latin Church held for religious uniformity, as the life of a Christian who pronounced heresies was held forfeit, in contrast to the love and compassion that was supposed to exist between the faithful. Furthermore, Pope Innocent III’s differing attitudes in regard to heresy and the Eastern Churches suggests that it was not the difference in religious practice or belief, but the threat of a schism resulting within Western Christendom, that resulted in the numerous purges, inquisitions and ‘crusades’ against heresy that took place in Europe during the mediaeval period. This may also explain why it is that some religious movements which professed beliefs that conflicted with those held by the Latin Church were allowed to exist, albeit under the guidance of the Papacy, whilst movements deemed heretical tended to be evangelist movements whose leadership refused the overlordship of the Latin Church, but whose religious beliefs did not necessarily differ any greater than those held by the non-heretical religious movements or by the Eastern Churches. It seems to me that Christian fraternity, as preached by the crusader Popes, only extended so far as to benefit the Latin Church, spreading and solidifying its authority in the secular world. Does anybody else have a different interpretation?
Nathaniel Shirley
I found the readings interesting, especially as I'd never really studied or thought much about the crusades before (other than in the context of Robin Hood stories!).
I found the crusades to be quite paradoxical, even sometimes going against what seem to be fairly basic teachings of Christianity. Especially the indulgences, with the promise of remission of sins as incentive to, in a way, sin by killing others. Was there any historical precedent for total remission of sins? The Crusades themselves didn't exactly help spread peace and tolerance and the ideal of 'love thy neighbour'...however perhaps this is explained in that, as Tyerman says, 'crusading did not make western Europe a violent place; violent Europe created crusading.'
Also it was interesting how, as time went on, people could pay to reap the benefits of crusading, instead of physically 'taking up the cross' - another way of the rich gaining easier access to heaven.
In the variations on Pope Urban's speech I found it intriguing that in at least two he vaguely points towards the Holy Land as a place the crusaders could settle once it was conquered, and I'm curious to know if there was ever a long-term plan to that effect?
~ Sian Trudinger
Georgia adds: “I think it’s really interesting to note the way that Tyerman talks about how at this point in time “war and religion were inseparable”, so the idea and implementation of the Crusades fit right in. It’s fascinating to read just how much the church depended on the military and the same vice versa. The idea of a holy war was completely accepted by the Church, and the fighting was considered act enough to remit the “entire penalties of all the crusader’s confessed sins”. The reading mentions that in some places the importance of crusading was not ranked very highly, but I was wondering whether there was any sort of protest against it? Whether there were any Churches or villages/cities that were opposed to the idea of a ‘holy’ war and could not accept it to be justified?”
From Steph K:
"I really liked the readings this week, especially because I have never studied the crusades before. In particular, I was interested in the discussion about the crusades not being a "monolithic" movement. It is clear that the crusdaes involved vast numbers of people across a huge expanse of territory, so in some ways it is not surprising that there was variation in the consistency of the crusades. I think it is particularly fascinating how Tyerman discusses the changing vocabulary used to describe the crusdades over time. The fact that the word most heavily associated with the crusades was "pilgrimage" suggests that the medieval Christian mind must have come to associate war with holiness and vice versa. I think it's also worth noticing that the other words used to describe the crusdaes at the time had little or no violent connotations - "holy businness...holy passage, voyage, journey". Rather, all suggested some form of courageous adventure. I wonder if using these words were a tactic employed by advocates of the crusades to encourage men to take up arms, and whether the same number of people would have embarked on the crusades if other, more violent language had been used?"
I found it interesting how Tyerman stresses how crusading was not uniform across regions and time. He explores this through showing how crusades were mot always sanctioned by the pope, even if legal authority lay with the Papacy. He takes this further by illustrating how crusading was not defined in law, canon or secular. This is significant because it demonstrates a lack of consciousness in the medieval world about what defined a crusade, thus reinforcing the idea that crusading was a product of the cultural milieu of Western Christendom. Tyerman goes on to make an important point about the inception of the crusades, highlighting how the cultural milieu of Western Europe created the circumstances for crusading to occur, yet Pope Urban II’s speech instigated them through sanctioning killing as a penitential act.
For Steph D - when you say they can't really promise this kind of thing, I assume you mean they can't actually forgive sins? Would you say it is kind of a modern interpretation of priestly power, rather than a medieval one? After all, the pope declared the crusades - and only the pope, technically, can do so and only he can authorise indulgences to be granted. The pope was (is!) understood to have the power of 'binding and loosing'. This handy catchphrase (from Matthew 16:19 where Jesus names Simon, Peter: Petros was Greek for 'the Rock' so he was the rock on which Jesus would build his church) is actually a very complex theological and philosophical issue, but in a nutshell, it means that the pope had complete control over the salvation of human souls, or, more specifically, their entry into heaven. (Hence Peter's - and through him, the popes' - symbol of the keys to heaven.) So in this way the pope's ability to offer indulgence was completely compatible with a contemporary legal/theological understanding of his power, even if it seems a bit distasteful to us!
Tom - certainly I think the 'will of God' was (and is) a pretty overused justification, and one open to misuse, but do note that a lot of debate actually took place about whether and when war was holy, just, or wrong. This was why the lawyers and theologians spent so much time coming up with the definitions Megan introduced us to briefly a few weeks ago: it actually mattered in a significant way.
Because we live in an age where our leaders have tried to justify wars which have been seen by most people as problematic at best, and we are all very sensitised to the falseness of political language, I think modern readers tend to be much more sceptical towards these sentiments than, for example, readers in 1940s Europe might have been. To what extend does our context affect what we see or focus on when we read this kind of document? Does that matter? And what, if anything, should we do about that? What do you guys think?
Nathaniel raised some key issues about the anxiety of medieval Europe about religious orthodoxy. It had reached fever pitch from the 11th century probably because of the schism from the Eastern (a.k.a. Greek orthodox) Church in 1058. So this wasn't only an issue about the papacy trying cynically to shore up its power, although doubtless political motives were part of the story. Remember that if adherence to the true religion (i.e. of the pope in Rome) was central to salvation - an idea that was forming although not yet firmly articulated in exactly this way - then it wasn't merely an act of political greed or corruption to try to stamp out unorthodox beliefs, or to rescue the lands of 'true' Christians from the rule of unbelievers. It was also a vital matter of salvation. Again, we have to try and consider the rational bases on which contemporaries were making their arguments, as well as coming to our own opinions in the present.
I think Nathaniel is right to draw attention to the issue of how the West, the popes, the crusaders, or other interested parties defined notions like Christendom, humankind, etc. If Christian law only extended rationally to those who were acceptably Christian (by whatever definition), then killing others might no longer be 'wrong'. In this way killing heretics was as justifiable as killing Muslims. A frightening concept, perhaps, but one with its own internal and inexorable logic...
Sian - yes, the crusaders did establish a kind of permanent settlement - the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, or 'Crusader States' - but the permanent residents were never very numerous. Most people seemed to feel once they'd done their bit, they'd like to go home. I've put a link to a map of these states on the map page, above.
On the issue of whether crusades were contrary to Christian teaching, we might not agree that a Christian message is compatible with killing, but I think we need to recognise that the Bible (and other Christian teachings like writings of Church Fathers) are complex texts open to many interpretations and emphases. As Clare noted in the lecture, the late Antique Christ was a majestic ruler, whereas in the high middle ages, he was often seen as a suffering man. These days, perhaps the emphasis is on Christ as a benign friend, full of forgiveness. Each age has made its own 'reading' of the message, and understood slightly different things by it. So while 'thou shalt not kill' might seem unambigous, there's actually a whole lot more going on in any Christian society. None of that is supposed to mean that we should say it actually was OK for people to kill unorthodox Christians or members of other faiths, but that we have to try not to use that value judgement too much as we think about the history of the phenomenon. In the 11th century, the image of a suffering Christ may have moved some to anger at those who made him suffer (metaphorically through attacking the contemporary faith or believers; or 'physically', as the Jews were erooneously believed to have done). This might have been one way that the devout saw crusading as justifiable.
From Bronwyn...
"I agree with the first part of Tom's post, about how Tyerman continually emphasises 'that violent Europe created the crusades and not the other way around'. Tyerman repeats it at least 3-4 times in the article, maybe more, so he really seemed to feel strongly about that.
I thought his comparison of the crusades to a cancer, and then his amendment that they were more like a parasite was an interesting viewpoint. And yet again here he emphasised the needs of society driving the crusades not the reverse.
As with last week our responses seem to be one sided, and not surprisingly i guess, as by all accounts I’ve read and heard, the crusades weren't pretty, or always as glorious as they were intended or whatever.
Based on both of the readings the things that stood out for me the most were the parts describing the society as it was at the time. It seemed to be that people were waging wars against their neighbours over petty things, which are listed in one of the speeches (or a few of them really ie in #3 'the gesta version' page 206, last paragraph and #1 ‘ fulcher of chartres’ page 204, 3rd paragraph from the top beginning “let those who…have been robbers…”) and there were a few theoretical outcomes of the crusades that made sense to me in a weird kinda way (if one was to solely see it from the western view and not think too much about the consequences for the victims): such as People were killing and being stupid anyway, so why not point them somewhere else where people were being tortured by having their guts spread out over the ground until they died, or being stuck with arrows or raped or whatever (#2 ‘Robert the monk’, page 204, 2nd paragraph), and get them to ‘rescue them’. At least they leave their own people alone… Wars were happening and were apparently going to happen anyway, maybe because it was all focused in one place, directed by a religious group, made a big deal of, and it’s a common cultural thing in our society to go against authority or trash powerful institutions- ‘tall poppy syndrome…’, it was seen as a worse crime than what might have been.
I felt that part of what was happening was that people were being reunited together with a common focus and goal (I'm not saying it was a fair or good one but merely observing it). In previous tutes we praised rulers for bringing about unity, and observed that it was an important if not essential requirement for governing a nation/country/empire. We didn't particularly judge them in the same way we do the crusades, ie Charlemagne wiping out people who wouldn't come under his rule etc, sure we said it was dodgy, but we were much more lenient because he was so successful (or rather probably more due to the prettier accounts written because of the propaganda at the time).
Ok I’ll stop there, I kinda rambled on and I think I forgot half my points as I was writing so all of the above might not make sense or be very well supported or anything but yeah… I just wanted to try and offer an alternate view, not sure if I succeeded…"
Yeah - great points once again, Bronwyn. Modern (Western) responses to the crusades often have two characteristics: scepticism about the devotional sincerity of the organisers and the crusaders themselves; and, where the native inhabitants of the east are explicitly noticed, an uncritical kind of sympathy afforded to 'victims' who are not granted their own perspective.
If anyone is serious about trying to consider other aspects of their response more deeply, try looking up Gabrieli's Arab Historians of the Crusades; or, secondly, going back to the sources and trying to thin khow they would interpret them if they had an unwavering faith in the statements of religious authorities.
There is an interesting tendency among modern readers, perhaps especially practising Christians, to see crusade as fundamentally incompatible with Christian teaching, and I think we need to reflect on that. For me it raises an important issue in the history of Christianity in general, which is that while it presents (and understands) itself as eternal and unchanging, it can't help being embedded in history, and that means that it does, has and will change over time. So, as Clare noted in the lecture, the late Antique Christ was a majestic ruler, whereas in the high middle ages, he was often seen as a suffering man. These days, perhaps the emphasis is on Christ as a benign friend, full of forgiveness. Each age has made its own 'reading' of the message, and understood slightly different things by it. So while 'thou shalt not kill' might seem unambigous, there's actually a whole lot more going on in any Christian society. After all, the Bible and other Christian teachings are very complicated texts, containing contradictions (as Abelard pointed out, none too subtly) and open to various interpretations and emphases.
None of that is supposed to mean that we should say it actually was OK for people to kill unorthodox Christians or members of other faiths, but rather that we have to try not to use that value judgement too much as we think about the history of the phenomenon. For example, in the 11th century, the image of a suffering Christ may not have been a symbol evoking pity for the suffering state of all men (including non-Christians) but instead have moved people to extreme anger at those who had made him suffer (either metaphorically through attacking the contemporary faith or believers; or 'physically', as the Jews were erroneously believed to have done). This might have been one way that the devout saw crusading as justifiable in their context, even though modern devout Christians might not agree.
Like mentioned above in some of the other comments, I too found the nature of crusades to be interesting. I thought it was intriguing how these expeditions were often waged in the name of religiosity despite the fact that there isn't much virtue in warfare. Furthermore, it seems bazaar that the pope and bishops would support such campaigns that would only result in bloodshed. It is hard to come to terms with this notion though I thought it was a great point that Kathleen mentioned about how the rationality of such acts would have been justifiable to those who were acceptablly Christian (by whatever definition that may encompass.
I found the readings this week quite interesting. I feel that the idea of not using violent words to describe the crusade such as 'pilgrimage' or 'holy business' as a tactic to spread propaganda is probably a bit out of context. I think it may be rather cynical to imagine a bunch of bishops sitting around a table and going 'hmm how can we manipulate everyone into killing muslims?' I think when you put it into the context of the time, as it was said that the crusades were a result of an already violent and fearful society, it could be argued that almost everyone felt a perceived threat from something, whether it be from vikings or muslims or whatever. It is unfortunate that the solution to soothing the perception of being threatened culminated in the way it did but the idea that you could do something or go somewhere to relieve the that feeling of hopelessness and find a solution, especially at a time where it seems everyone were wound up so tight, just trying to find their footing and a feeling of peace in the world may be very appealing to some. In hindsight whether end justifies the means seems obvious but I think at the time, one would be doing all they can to get a taste of stability or excitement or adventure, even if they thought fighting for it was the path to that destination. It's hard to judge the rightness or wrongness of a situation, especially since our society today dictates standards that are very different from back then. To me it's all a matter of perception and understanding. I think in a way it was perhaps well-meaning but a very misguided to bring peace to the world. Perhaps the Muslims felt the same kind of threat from the Christians which perhaps in itself was a result of violence already present in their society? I'm not sure. Anyway, that's just my two cents on the topic :)
I found it very interesting how indulgences came about and how much money the church could manipulate from all kinds of people in exchange for the remission of their sins. How the church couldencourage murder for a cash payment is ludicrous. Consequently, sinful people were drawn towards the crusades as they had more to be gain from payments. It astounds me how this went on for centuries until good old Martin Luther pointed out the outstanding flaws of the church.
I have always been under the impression that the violence of the crusades was largely responsible for the violence of the middle ages but as Tyerman suggests, it was in fact the other way around.
Hi all,
Having only briefly studied the Crusades in the past it was refreshing to gain a much better understanding of their fruition in the readings this week.
In particular, the first reading (Tyreman) seems to establish that the Crusades were the result of centuries of conflict, not just for "material status." Parallel to this he notes that "Crusading did not make western Europe a violent place; violent Europe created crusading."
A recurring theme in our comments is obviously the irony of the "Christian Holy War." I found that the concept of the crusade as "tests of the spiritual health" quite amusing...
And yet, I wanted to make the note the fact that legal authority for a 'Holy War' to be waged needed consent from a pope - a 'law' which doesn't seem to be obliged by, given the vast number of self-proclaimed "just" wars.
Although it is a very minor point, could this show a break in the loyalty to christendom which had spread so far over western Europe?
This article was fascinating, I find the crusades extremely interesting. As its been said before, it is quite contradictory that whilst the Crusades are supposed to be about being on a quest for God, the Crusaders found the absolutely most violent way to do so. Even after all this they were forgiven for all their sins. This seemed to be a very good way of enticing people to join the crusades, almost blackmail in a way. And I wonder how many people actually went for the ourpose of the Crusade and how many went just so they could be forgiven for their sins.
It has kind of only just occurred to me to mention this, but since we've been talking so much about violence being perpetrated by Christians, it seems relevant to point out that the crusades that saw the greatest successes tended to do so by truce and treaty rather than outright military victory. This was true of the Third Crusade (the one in which Richard the Lionheart fought) - pictured in an illustration by the famous English monk, Matthew Paris, at the top of this blog post; and of the Sixth, in which the Holy Roman Emperor, Frederick II - even though he was excommunicate at the time - managed to negotiate the return (albeit temporary) of Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Nazareth, and some other territories. I think one thing this shows is that the men who went on crusade weren't always raving berserkers who just wanted to spill 'heathen' blood. At least some actually did want the Holy Land to be under Christian dominion, partly so that pilgrim routes from Europe could be safely maintained and controlled, and they were open to any practical means of doing so, even coming to terms with Muslim leaders. This wasn't necessarily the most popular action on the home front, where the practicalities were only loosely understood and the ideal of heroic chivalry assumed the nobility of fighting for victory. It could be (and was sometimes) construed as a kind of cowardice by those unacquainted with the realities of the Levant - as the Middle East was known in the late medieval period. An exception was the respect accorded to Saladin - the Arab leader during the Third Crusade - by king Richard himself as well as contemporary commentators: they saw him as a kind of chivalric ideal Muslim, but definitely as an exception to the rule, and they were somewhat surprised at how justly regal and merciful his behaviour was (given their somewhat skewed expectations of the East in general).
Here you can find a primary source about Richard and Saladin making peace. (Of course, this isn't to say Richard was necessarily a great bloke. He did later massacre Muslim prisoners, after all.)
As many have noted the crusades are odd, in that they are supposed to be a call to arms in Gods name but at the same time undermine basic principles of the Church. This rather obvious contradiction makes me wonder if the crusades actually came from religious grounds at all or if the hidden purpose was concealed behind this guise (no surprises for guessing my essay topic). The Church may have their reasons for calling a crusade but what about the people who went on them? In my reading I have come across examples of people going on a crusade for a sense of adventure, purifying themselves of sin or an obligation to their lord. I often see many sources emphasise forgiveness of sin and promise of salvation as something that will benefit those who undertake a crusade and does anyone else can't help but feel this was a major reason the people of the time went on a crusade? I don't see many examples of people going on it purely for the belief and passion in their faith and the desire to fight for it on these grounds.
In the blog post it is noted that we must be careful in drawing comparisons between then and now but a few years ago I saw an interesting documentary that discussed the invasion of Iraq and War and Terror in relation to the crusades (and I would assume that this is what is being referred to by Tyreman). In a speech George Bush gave on the War and Terror he inadvertently (or purposely, we will never know) called it a crusade. While there are reasons why this comparison is misleading, which this particular documentary noted the mere use of the word crusade caused some in the Muslim world to treat it as if it were a continuation of the Medieval Crusades. While this is not strictly true I thought it was interesting that the word holds such power and the legacy of the crusade is still strong in some minds.
Also when we think of crusades we think of the Middle Eastern crusades and never really look at the Spanish crusades or the crusades in the north. Anyone have any reasons why this is?
On the note of Urban II speech and the five different versions on it, I find it very interesting how one event has many different recounts and interpretation. Really makes you wonder about the rest of history
As long as I've been invoked—and thankyou for the recommendation!—I might take the chance to say two things, firstly that I have a (non-peer-reviewed, but referenced) piece exactly about the First Crusade and why people went, hanging off the blog here, which you might find interesting; and secondly, a copy-editor's tic but I can't help it, Professor Tyerman is spelt thus, not `Tyreman', and that may help you with getting his work out of library catalogues etc.
Thankyou for the correction - and welcome to our little discussion! K
Following up on a point above, I just came upon this interesting article about the Biblical model of the story of the Maccabees' martyrdom in defence of Jerusalem as a piece of thoroughly Christian and Biblical Crusade justification. You guys might also find it useful, or just plain fascinating!
Post a Comment