The arguments raised in favor of the crusades reveal the extent to which Christians were ready to go in their justification of war, making it a Christian Jihad. This is primarily because Pope Urban II and prominent leaders capitalized on the peoples need for forgiveness and urged them to destroy the Muslim Turks from the Byzantine Emperor to advance their faith. The use of violence against Muslims to spread Christianity in the crusades denotes a Christian Jihad.
The Conflict
The conflict witnessed between the papacy, the empire, and secular leaders rose from the attempt of the leaders to define written customs and rules aimed at bringing the people under one leadership. This made the church officials and the rulers to dispute regarding how European society would be governed. The papacys attempt to centralize all legitimate power led to an intensified conflict with the nobles. It raised the empire to a deeper understanding of the role of religion in leadership. The papacy succeeded mainly due to the establishment of the Concordat of Worms and Magna Carta, which empowered the people to the extent that the king had to consult church leaders to raise taxes.
Secular rules sought independence from papal control by establishing alternative institutions of government, such as the royal courts, and new ways of financial management, which enabled them to exert authority over the population. They justified their goals by citing the divine right, representing the perception that God established the monarchy to represent him on earth. The rulers campaigns introduced new controversies with the papacy that led to undermining the feudal or church courts. Consequently, the papacy lost its supremacy and control over the people.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the conflict between the papacy and the empire entailed a series of struggles for domination. The crusades aimed at spreading the Christian faith across the territories can be termed as Christian Jihad because the Pope encouraged war against Muslims to gain control of the regions forcefully. The papacy gained power through the Concordat of Worms and Magna Carta, although the secular leaders later established alternative institutions and reduced the supremacy of the church.
In history since 1096 until 1254 (Stewart, 1968), there was seven crusades and there were several different reasons for the crusades. In some cases, the reason for the crusade was similar whether it was religious, economical and also political motives. The crusades happen because of the Holy land and it was between the Christian and the Muslims. The first crusade which was in between 1096-1099 and it was called for the reason of the pilgrims’ problems and it was between the Christians and the Muslims for the Holy land and it was a military success because the crusader succeeds in capturing Jerusalem and the Holy land (Stewart, 1968). Over the next six centuries after the first crusade there were many more wars for the Holy land. It was both a victory and a disappointment in some wars. Jesus was born in Jerusalem, lived his life until his death and also arouse from his death after that Jesus stayed on earth for forty days all happened in Jerusalem. To represent the Catholic Church and its mission today, the crusades may or may not be beneficial. According to this book by Nicolle (2001), the crusades were basically a competition between more than three different groups of people including Christians from Western Europe, Muslims, and Orthodox Christians.
The first crusade was called by pope Urban II in 1095 and met the other leaders in south-eastern France at Clermont to do the conversation about the war and the service they need provide for God, “this war is for the service of God” (Nicholson, 2004). Pope Urban II also states that this conflict is to help the Christian people who live in the east with the barbarous Muslims. The holy land was ruled by the Muslims in Jerusalem before the first crusade. In contrast, the Christians wanted to take back Holy land because Jesus was born in Jerusalem and lived his life until his death and had reincarnation. For example, The Holy land means a lot to the Muslims as well as to the Christians the only difference between these two religions was that the Muslims look at Jesus as their prophet but for the Christians Jesus is their God. Pope Urban II introduce to fact that the people who will join this war they are doing this for their God not for money and there is nothing to be guilty about and God will forgive them. According to the book by Nicholson the crusades happen because of the Christians negative thinking about the Muslims “Christians believed that Islam was a false religion, inspired by devil rather than by God, and they feared that it would conquer the whole of Christendom and destroy the Christian faith” (Nicholson, 2004, p. 2). The first crusade was a blessing for the Christians because they were victorious in every war, they were able to take back Jerusalem in 1099 from the Muslims and before that they won so many other battels as well.
According to the book by Nicholson (2004), The second and the third Crusade has started in 1146 and end in 1192 and it was a total failure in the holy land due to lack of adequate planning. The crusaders went to Constantinople and they had argument with the emperor and their ending was by the Turks they were all slaughter to death. After the second crusade no large expeditions went to the east. (p.12). the third crusade was also an unfortunate time for the crusaders because the leaders were having rivalry problems. The third crusade happen after the occupation of Saladin’s empire in Jerusalem in 1187 (p.12). Even though the crusaders didn’t capture the holy land because they were not that powerful in that time to hold the land against the Islam. Generally, the normal people participated in the third crusade and that also involves the women’s and the women were not afraid, “a women pretending to be a man…terrified, but I pretended not to be afraid” (Nicholson, 2004. P. 119)
The essential histories of the crusades by Nicolle (2001), stated in this book about the fourth crusade which was a success for the Christian because after the second and third crusade the holy land in Jerusalem was still in Muslims power. The fourth crusade was between the Christians because they were fighting with each other. In this book by Nicolle (2001), the fourth crusade which happens because they attacked Constantinople, the appoint time was now come and the knights went on board the transport ships with their war-horses. they were fully armed, with their helmets laced on while the horses were saddled. The people who were less important they were in the larger ships. On the other side Alexius (III) was waiting for them with army they were well prepared. But in order to reach the other side is thorough the transport ships. They had good archers and crossbowmen who were distributed in each ship. The Greeks were the one who turned their back when there was a meeting called of spears. The fourth crusade brings change to Constantinople and also led to the creation of “Latin Empire” (Nicolle, 2001. P. 39) and the Latin states in Greece and also the emergence of Byzantine in successors states in Nicaea, Epirus and Trebizond (p.39). after that effective military co-operation between Latin and orthodox, western and Eastern Christian became separate states. The leader of the crusaders told Pope Innocent III who has control over Constantinople that Innocent III will help them to cross the river t o reach to the Holy land in Jerusalem (Nicholson, 2004). However, the fourth crusade was not a success because they became greedy and they wanted to fight against the most powerful Islamic territory which was in Egypt. The crusaders remain in Constantinople and never went to Jerusalem to capture the holy land.
In this book by D’Costa (2014), it is stated that the Christian and the Muslims were devoted toward the same God. D’Costa (2014), clams in Lumen Gentium 16C (p. 160) that Muslims and Catholics believe in the same God and the church teaching about Islam is theological “worship with us the same God” (D’Costa, 2014.p.160). They believed that at the end of the day God the Almighty will be the one who will Judge human through humanity. In Nostra aetate 3 it is also mentioned that the creator of this world is God the almighty and the creator of Heaven and Hell. This council of the Muslims worshiping the same God which brings a “Radical Change” (D’Costa, 2014.p.161) in the catholic view of Islam. God is the creator of this universe as well as the human beings. The Muslims revere Jesus as a prophet not God. In Islam Jesus was a prophet who was sent by God into the womb of Virgin Mary and it is also believed in Islam that Jesus will be the only prophet after all prophet who will come to this earth before the end of the world. Jesus was doing the work that he was assigned it was for God. For example, in India it was banned for the Muslims to buy cow and the people who brought the cow they were killed and after that the people in india who were hindus they started to buy cow with the Muslims and they also eat the cow mean which is forbidden in their religion. But, talking about religion the humanity comes first. The people in India now doing protest because so many innocent people were killed and for that reason the prime minister is at blame. The crusades which last for about 200 years was because of the Holy land which was ruled by the Muslims and the Christians who wanted to reactivate it from the Muslims and the reason was that Jesus was born their and in history it was a disastrous war between Christian and Muslims. So many people were killed in that time the people were mostly illiterate what they see or what they heard or what they were told to do they did that by putting their head down.
Reference
Nicholson, H. (2004). The Crusades Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press.
Nicolle, D. (2001). The Crusades (Essential histories (Osprey Publishing); 1). Oxford: Osprey.
Heng, G. (2011). Holy War Redux: The Crusades, Futures of the Past, and Strategic Logic in the ‘Clash’ of Religions. PMLA, 126(2), 422-431
Petkov, K. (1997). The rotten apple and the good apples: Orthodox, Catholics, and Turks in Philippe de Mézières’ crusading propaganda. Journal of Medieval History, 23(3), 255-270.
Gada, M. (2017). Muslim Responses to the Crusades: A Brief Survey of Selected Literature. Mediterranean Quarterly, 28(1), 117-129.doi: 10.1215/10474552-3882830
Jotischky, A. (2017). Greek Orthodox monasteries in the Holy Land and their liturgies in the period of the crusades. Journal of Medieval History, 43(4), 438-454.
Asbridge, T. (2004). The first crusade: A new history: [the roots of conflict between Christianity and Islam]. New York: Oxford University Press.
D’Costa, G. (2014). Vatican II: Catholic doctrines on Jews and Muslims (First ed.).
The Holy Wars, also known as the Crusades have been long debated amongst historians as to what the pure motivation is to be. The commencement of the Crusades began with Pope Urban II calling the people to arms with his sermon at Clermont. The motives with the speech pointed towards the Holy Land, where many had found refuge over the years. There is a preconceived notion that the Crusades were enacted to obtain the Holy Land and to protect the faith, however, the ploy that is the Holy Wars challenges the Ten Commandments as the Christians fight to gain power and land.
Beginning on November 27th, 1095, Pope Urban II presided over his people as the Speech of Clermont was presented. Pope Urban II was not only promoting the reform and working towards removing any lay control , but was calling the people to take up arms to defend 1 their faith. A main focal point within his speech was to gain control and settlement in the Holy Land. During the seventh century, the Muslims had taken over the region, but allowed for the Christians to continue their pilgrimages through the land. What most do not know is that the 2 Turks in the present time of 1095 had taken over the land and were committing a multitude of sacrilegious acts and crimes. As they plundered the Holy Land, the Turks destroyed the churches and altars, when the circumcisions were over they would smear the blood over the baptismal fonts as well as altars, killing people, and the morbid list continues on. This created the first 3 glimpse of urgency amongst Pope Urban II and his people, for the army began to grow; made up of followers, clergy, servants, and soldiers. Although this fight did not begin at the hands of Pope Urban II, but it was simply him carrying out the unspoken plans of Pope Gregory VII. Going further back into history, Pope Gregory VII was in search of soldiers that had faith in God. Due to the war between the Romans and the Turks, Pope Gregory VII was looking to create an alliance with the Byzantines. A goal after the hopeful defeat of the Turks was to visit the 5 Holy Land. As the war was progressing, Pope Gregory VII feared the negative relations between the Christians of the East and West, but hoped this quarrel would settle the papal authority. With 6 tensions rising, Pope Gregory VII issued a decree towards the lay investiture clergy, which is later on known as the Investiture Controversy, 1075-1122. Fast-forwarding back to Pope Urban II, he gathered the goals and plans of Pope Gregory VII and carried on what he could not finish.
The Crusades lasted for roughly two hundred years; throughout this time period there was a power struggle amongst the several parties involved. Beginning in the year 1096, Pope Urban II called upon the armies to go into battle with the Turkish forces. With the four armies, they were led by Raymond of Saint-Gilles, Godfrey of Bouillon, Hugh of Vermandois, and Bohemond of Taranto. A major recruiter for the Crusader forces was Peter the Hermit, who 8 preached and according to The New Concise History of the Crusaders, explains that he possessed a letter from God saying to attack the Turks in order for Him to take vengeance. Through Peter’s strong influence with the French and Germans, the following base grew exponentially, which brought many different classes and backgrounds together. The four armies all gathered together at Constantinople. This particular Crusade was a costly one and the Christians could not afford to lose this battle. Emperor Alexius, in turn, went to the Byzantine Emperor, Hugh Vermandois, to form an alliance. Due to this decision Emperor Alexius made, both the Christians and the 10 Byzantines were able to advance on Nicea and regain the land from the Turks. In addition to 11 the victory in Nicea, they as well gained power in Antioch in 1098. This allowed for the Crusaders to attack Jerusalem in 1099, once more gaining power over the land. These victories 12 established the four states of the Crusaders, Jerusalem, Edessa, Antioch, and Tribol.
However, in 1130, the Muslims regained control and in 1144, the Seljuk general Zangi, captures Edessa. 13 This shocked the Christians as well as authorities in the West, hence lead to the call of the Second Crusade in 1144. This war was led by both King Louis VII of France and King Conrad III of Germany as they annihilated the Muslim forces and attained another victory for the Crusaders. Proceeding into the Third Crusade, the Crusaders had set their next expedition to conquer land in Egypt. However, they were stopped in their tracks when Nur al-Din’s forces led by Shirkuh had captured Cairo in 1169 further leading the Crusaders to evacuate. In 1187 Shirkuh’s nephew, Saladin, commenced a campaign against the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem, while his troops destroyed the Christian troops and regaining a majority of the land. With the many looming defeats hanging over the Crusaders, the Third Crusade was set into motion as it was led by rulers Emperor Frederick Barbarossa, King Philip II of France, and King Richard I of England. In 1191, Saladin’s army was defeated by none other than King Richard I, allowing for him to restore Christian control over part of the region.A year later in 1192, King Richard I and Saladin had signed a peace treaty that reestablished the Kingdom of Jerusalem, hence bringing a close to the Third Crusade.
The Fourth Crusade sets up for a grand finale in the major crusades with the fall of Constantinople. In 1198, Pope Innocent III called the Fourth Crusade with the power struggle between Byzantine and Europe. This changed the motives and directions of the Crusaders as they followed the method of divide and conquer to overthrow the Byzantine Emperor, Alexius III. 17 The new Emperor was working to submit the Byzantine Church to Rome, although there was great resistance further leading the Crusaders to call war upon Constantinople. The end of the final major Crusade was completed with the fall of Constantinople. The last major Crusade 18 may have come to a close, but the Crusades carried on for many more years with the minor Crusades.
Two notable minor Crusades were the Fifth and Frederick Crusade that happened during the time period of 1208 to 1271. The Fifth Crusade, in 1216 which Pope Innocent III called had a new outlook upon their motives. The goal was not to annihilate the Turks or Muslims forces, 19 but rather to ward off any enemies who posed a threat against the faith. The Crusaders headed into Egypt as they attacked from both land and sea, but surrendered to the Muslims in 1221. 20 Following, the Frederick Crusade led by King Frederick II, was able to attain a civil return of Jerusalem to Christian control through the negotiation with the Muslim leader Al-Kamil to sign a treaty. This lasted for a decade until the Muslim army regained control of the land. The Cross 21 was taken up for roughly fifty years more until this era was laid to rest. The motivations of the Crusades must be examined from several different areas as there are an array of elements that comprise the main focal point on the Holy Wars; the Popes and the Crusaders. Pope Urban II, is a driving force in regard to the motivations behind the Crusades. He heavily supported the church’s reform and politically knew that he was strong enough to advocate and speak on behalf of the Crusades due to the “decline in the fortunes of the anti-pope and the western Emperor and the increasing prestige of the reform papacy becoming apparent to all.” Urban not only believed that the Holy Wars against the Muslims in the East were just, but 22 as well as supported many other wars happening throughout the region. Looking further into his point of view, they similarly aligned with St. Augustine’s, “violence was justified in response to injury” and Urban’s response formed as the “War of Liberation.” With this mentality, there 23 were two goals in mind. The first was to free the church of Jerusalem and the eastern churches, while the second was to free Jerusalem in its entirety. Jerusalem is an important location during this period in history, since it was the Holy Land and center point of the Christian faith.
Furthermore, God had selected this particular city to redeem His people, Jesus was baptized in the Jordan, died in Golgotha, buried in Holy Sepulchre, and had risen. This location was the 24 history of the Christian faith, which formed a sense of urgency to gain control and protect it at all cost. This mindset in particular was directed at the Muslim forces who were seen as “enemies of the cross,” which further encapsolates a verse in Matthew, “If any man will come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.” The Crusades, in Urban’s eyes were 25 seen as a form of merit and led to the path of salvation, since the followers were following God’s authority. These Wars were seen as a way to honor God and what they believed was carrying out His will.
The theme of trusting in God carries on further to the outlook and motivation of the Crusaders themselves. Through the difficult times of war, the Crusaders had put their life, well-being, and faith on the line in order to reach the ultimate goal for “God wills this.” It was 26 believed through their time in battle the victories were due to fulfilling God’s intentions and being a part of His works. The Crusaders saw God as their general, defender, leader, helper, co-traveler, and coworker as well as feeling under divine leadership as they fought in battle. 27 The immense sacrifices that were made by these warriors of faith was with the mindset of fighting for the expansion of Christianity. As the well-known saying goes, with great success, 28 comes with great sacrifice.
The long debated motives behind the Crusades is soon to be unveiled through of driving forces of not only Pope Urban II, but the Crusaders in addition. The Crusades are seen as noble wars that the followers of God fought in order to defend their faith and the Holy Land, although what is not exhumed is the fact that these leaders and Crusaders are breaking a variety of the Lord’s Commandments, such as killing, lying, and coveting their neighbor’s goods. As mentioned before the Crusaders believed that they were upholding God’s intentions since it was “His will” for all of the wars to happen, but in 1096, roughly eight hundred innocent Jews were killed by Crusaders heading to the Holy Land. The massacres that were happening placed the 29 Jewish community in a state of fear; this specific event highlights the gruesome example of the Crusaders breaking God’s law of not killing. During this time, the Churches began hiding the Jews when the Crusaders were passing through to get to the Holy Land. “The road to the Holy land ran through what Jews come to describe as the first Holocaust.” Where most thought the 30 Holocaust was beginning in the twentieth century, it was sadly history repeating itself once more.
Furthermore, the trend of going against God’s Commandments did not stop there. As Urban is preaching about the First Crusade he began labeling it as a pilgrimage. This tactic was ployed in order to recruit, healthwise, more suitable people for the cause, since an epidemic of ergotism was spreading throughout Western Europe. In addition, Urban saw the Crusades as 31 another gateway to salvation for the people. If God’s followers are to take up the cross, then they are to be promised everlasting life with Him. This is seen as a quote on quote marketing scheme to recruit more of a military force for the wars. “And so they are not forced to abandon secular affairs completely by choosing the monastic life or any religious profession, as used to be the custom, but can attain in pursuing their own careers with liberty in the dress to which they are accustomed.” Urban is able to alter the motives so it appeals to the people so it is seen as a way 32 to be with God rather than simply fighting wars to gain land.
The Holy Land is a highly sought after region during the time of the Crusades. With the backing of Pope Urban II and the many followers of Christ, the initial idea being spread was to defend the Holy Land. However, that particular location was not in their control and was possessed by the Muslims in the First Crusade. Taking the same approach, one can direct this 33 situation as coveting their neighbor’s goods, because they went after it even when pilgrimages were being permitted by the Muslim community. This adds yet another point of disobedience 34 from the people of faith as another Commandment is broken. The Crusades may have been put into a martyrdom light, but truly when unveiled they are regressing in their actions. The true motives are seen as not only gaining dominance in Europe, but as well gaining more land and people of faith.
Examined in a new light, the Crusades are deemed as a cover up story for the greed of the Christians. Thoroughly breaking down them major and looking at each key individual who had a part in the wars has unveiled more than what has been presented at the surface. Pope Urban II presented the Crusades as a noble way of gaining a man’s salvation and carrying out the will of God, but truly their actions were going against the Commandments in order to gain the Holy Land. The Crusades may have been to take up the cross, but in the end it only diminished the entirety of that sacred symbol.
Bibliography
Billings, Malcolm. The Cross & The Crescent A History of the Crusades. 1st Edition. Two Park Avenue, New York, NY: Sterling Publishing Co., Inc., 1987.
Madden, Thomas F. the New Concise History of the Crusades Updated Student Edition. Updated Student Edition. Lanham, Maryland: Rowan & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2006.
Riley-Smith, Jonathan. The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading. 2nd Edition. United States of America: the University of Pennsylvania Press, 1986.
Riley-Smith, Jonathan. The Oxford Illustrated History of the Crusades. 2nd Edition. United States: Oxford University Press, 1995.
Nicaea was a heavily fortified city located fifty miles from Constantinople, one of the cities targeted by Crusaders after Pope Urban II (1088-1099) gave one of the most influential speeches in the Middle Ages of what has befallen fellow Christians in the Holy Land under the aggression of Moslems (The Christian Crusades para. 1).
Even though Moslems had taken command of Constantinople and Jerusalem since 638, the Seljuk Turks took control over the two cities and prevented Christian pilgrims from visiting Jerusalem at a time when the number and frequency of pilgrimages to the city was rising (The Christian Crusades para. 1).
To gain access to the mainland route through Asia Minor to Syria from where Christians could be liberated the from the massacres perpetrated by the Turks in Constantinople and Jerusalem, the Crusaders had to first capture Nicaea, previously a city under Byzantine but which had fallen into the hands of the Seljuk Turks under the leadership of Kilij Arslan 1, the ruler of Seljuk (Halsall para. 1).
Nicaea was sturdily defended by four miles of walls, and its location on a lake side complicated matters further for the Crusaders. As luck would have it, the Crusaders, led by Bohemund, Alemanni and the Bishop of Puy reached Nicaea at a time when Arslan had left behind his wealth and family to join in the war against the Danishmends in central Anatolia.
On May 21 1097, Bohemund commenced the siege of Nicaea from the north, Alemanni from the east, and the Bishop of Puy from the middle, attacking the city so bravely and so ferociously that they even undermined and destroyed one of its walls (Halsall para. 8).
However, the Turks hastily built it the same night to curtail entry. Although attempts to seize the city had occasioned heavy losses from both sides, it was the walls and the lake that presented challenges to the Crusaders as they could neither launch direct attacks into the city due to the walls nor cut off the Turks from getting the much needed supplies and assistance using the lake (Halsall para. 5).
It was at this juncture when the leaders of the Crusaders counseled and undertook to send people to the Emperor of Constantinople to have ships and oxen brought to the fort of Covitote, from where the oxen were to be used to drag the ships over the mountainous ridges until they were in close proximity to the lake (Halsall para. 5).
The ships together with Turcopoles and arms dispatched by the Emperor were launched on the lake under the guise of darkness in readiness to attack the city at daybreak. At first, the Turks marveled upon seeing the ships since they could not tell whether they were manned by the own men or the Emperor’s, but they soon chickened out after realizing the ships were ferrying enemy forces (Halsall para. 5).
Surrounded from all fronts and unable to receive any more suppliers and assistance using the lake, the Turks sent a message to the Emperor that they would willingly surrender if permitted to go away with their families and belongings (Halsall para. 6). The Emperor instead ordered them to be brought to Constantinople and on June 19 1097, the Turks in the city surrendered to an army of Alexius.
The crusades refer to the chain of religious wars, fought in the Levant and Asia Minor between the years 1095 and 1291. During the wars, Western European nations engaged the locals, in response to propaganda related to religious expansion. The first crusade was ordered by Pope Urban II, who was acting as an agent of the Roman Catholic. The aim of the crusade was to restore Christian control of the holy lands at Jerusalem and the surrounding areas.
The cause for the crusades could be traced to the times of the Siljug-Byzantine and Arab-Byzantine wars, which ended in the conclusive defeat of Byzantine forces in 1701.
After the decisive defeat, the Emperor, Alexios I appealed to Christian nations to fight the common enemy (Muslims), thus requested for their participation in the armed conflict. As a result, Pope Urban II agreed to the request, and committed western leaders to the course of reclaiming the Holy lands. The crusaders’ forces were made up of Catholic armies that had come in from Western Europe. However, the forces were never under the same unit of command; the different teams were commanded by different leaders.
The first crusades were successful. However, those that followed thereafter failed, leading to the defeat of the crusaders. After the defeat, the Crusaders were forced to return to their countries. Most of the soldiers were French. Thus, they were referred as Franks.
This was the name used by the Muslim fighters during the duration of the war. On the other hand, the Europeans commonly referred to the people of the Holy Lands as Saracens. The name was used in a negative manner and was used throughout the crusades and after, including the 20th century. The crusades were characterized by alliances, including that between Christians and Sultanate of Rum, during the time of the fifth crusade.
The crusades had major economic, political and social effects on Western Europe, including the considerable weakening of the Christian-Byzantine kingdom, which was later conquered by Muslim Turks.
The factors that led to the failure of the Crusades
The failure of the crusades resulted from a number of factors, including the weakening of the rule of the leaders of the war at their home countries. They came to the realization that their continued stay at Middle East undermined the rule and the peace at their home countries: the authority and the powers of the leaders of the crusades were threatened at their countries.
One of such cases was that of Richard I of England, who realized that the brother that he had left in charge of the throne at England was no longer willing to allow him, take the throne upon his return. As a result, the threat to the rule of the leaders of the crusaders forces resulted in their departure from the Middle East, so that they could regain their previous rule and the control of their nations. As a consequence, the forces of the Crusaders continued to weaken, which resulted in their inability to handle the fighting capacity of the Muslim forces.
Further, the divided attention of the crusaders between focusing their attention on the war, and returning to their countries, so they could continue their activities weakened their resolve to continue the crusades. The crusades failed, as a result of the conflicts between the leaders of the different crusaders’ teams. Some of the conflicts resulted from the lack of a common center of command, while others resulted from differences in the priorities of the different leaders.
Some of the conflicts among European forces included the rivalry between Innocent IV and Fredrick II. Fredrick II believed that Innocent IV was spreading a campaign against him. At the same time of the rivalry between Fredrick II and Innocent IV, Louis IX of France was planning the seventh crusade, which was not supported by many of the other leaders.
Later, Louis IX attempted to reconcile the conflict of interest between the two, to no avail, which increased the rivalry between the crusaders forces. The continued conflict of interest and the rivalry between the Crusaders’ forces weakened their combined effort, as well as well as their strategic approach to the wars.
Further, the weakening resolve decreased the ability of the crusaders to match the fighting abilities of the Muslims, which led to their unexpected defeat. The failure of the crusades resulted from the double-crossing of the Greeks. It was considered so, after the military allies of the pope lost their trust in the loyalty of the church. They lost faith in the church after the Greek Orthodox Church gave money to the authorities of the church, so that the church could help install Alexius to power.
The strategy of buying the placement of Alexius to power seemed to the military allies, as an effort that went contrary to the values of the Greeks. As a result, the misunderstanding between the church and the military allies led to a continued withdrawal of the support offered by the allies of the pope.
The withdrawal of the support of the allies of the Pope led to a reduction in the military capacity of the crusaders’ forces. The withdrawal of the support offered to the Crusades also resulted from the increasing incidences of corruption and political dissension among the partners in the war.
With the decreasing cooperation between the different parties, towards winning the war, the Muslims were on the other hand, improving their cooperative effort and shared participation. As a result, the crusaders were overpowered by the increasing efforts of the Muslims, which forced them to concede defeat.
The failure of the crusades was caused by the relatively few soldiers in the crusaders forces, compared to those from the Muslim side. The crusaders benefited from the superiority of their war technology and skills, which offered them an edge ahead of the Muslim forces.
As a result, the first attacks were successful, but as time went on, the Muslims mastered their skills. Therefore, they were able to avoid defeat. Further, the western armies arrived in the Middle East after a long journey, which would leave them tired, weakened by diseases and also the attacks that they met on their way there.
As a result, their fighting abilities would be greatly reduced by the factors mentioned, which made them not to compete with the Muslims at their optimal war capacity. Also, after conquered a certain area in the Middle East, some members of the crusaders forces would leave for their home countries.
As a result, the remaining troops would have few soldiers to continue with the war, as well as those to ensure that the conquered areas were not reclaimed. The impact of the continual return of the Crusaders forces was worsened by the fact that the soldiers that left for their home countries would take more than decades to return, or send other soldiers to take their place in the war.
The failure of the crusades was caused by the expensive nature of the war attempts. Some groups believed that the crusades were staged by the Europeans, so they could acquire wealth and riches. However, contrary from this view, the nations involved in the crusades scrapped, borrowed and imposed great taxes on their citizens so that they would afford sustaining the crusades.
The funds raised through the increased taxation levels, and the borrowing was channeled towards paying the armies, equipping the forces and feeding the soldiers at the base. The difference between the conquest of the Middle East and other areas where they had previously captured was that the land there was not a revenue-producing.
Therefore, compared to their European farm lands, the Crusaders felt that they were not gaining from the captured. As a result, the home nations of the Crusaders continued to carry the burden of the war, which left them no choice, other than to accept that the crusades were not viable in the long term.
Further, most of the exhaustible resources that were available to the crusaders as well as the supplies that they received from their nations started running out after years of fighting. The continued reduction of European resources discouraged some of the nations, which resulted in a continuous withdrawal of their forces from the Middle East. As a consequence, the forces left at Middle East continued weakening and reducing, which resulted in their defeat by the Muslim soldiers.
The failure of the crusades resulted from the lack of support from the Byzantines, despite the fact that they had promised to offer the Europeans support throughout the crusading period. As a result, the Crusaders continued to wait for the help of the Byzantines, which led to a weaker resolve to engage in the crusades without them.
Their expectation of getting help from the Byzantines was solidified by their knowledge that the Comnenus lineage of rulers had requested for the help of the pope, which marked the beginning of the Crusades. As a result, the lack of support from the Byzantines demoralized the crusaders, and weakened the ground they had gained in the Middle East.
The failure of the crusades was caused by the lack of a proper channel for transporting more people from Europe to the Middle East, so that the new recruits could offer support to the soldiers that had arrived earlier. The European groups willing to participate in the war lacked the channel of arriving in the Middle East.
In this regard, their valuable input would have helped maintain the dominion of the earlier armies, which is evident from the success of the first crusades. One example of such a failed attempt to transport more people to the Middle East was that led by a German youth called Nicholas in 1212.
Nicholas announced that he had been commissioned by God to voyage to the holy land, and spread the message that he would take more people to participate in the crusades. From his campaigns about the voyage to the holy land, he gathered the following of 30,000 hopefuls who were willing to go with him to the holy land. However, after the leaving Cologne for the Middle East, many of the people died of disease and hunger along the way, while some were eaten by wild animals like wolves.
Additionally, thieves attacked them and stole their clothing and food, leaving them without the resources to keep them going. Upon the arrival of the many hopefuls in Genoa, they were dismissed to go back to their homes as there were no ships to transport them to the Middle East.
The impossible nature of transporting people in the Middle East stopped many groups, which could help the troops that had arrived there earlier, so that they could win the wars. There was another case of a group in France, which sought its way to the Middle East to participate in the crusades.
The group led by Stephen comprised of more than 20,000 people. Stephen had promised that the sea would give way for the group to cross to Palestine. However, the seas did not give way, forcing them to seek an alternative means of transport. While at the shore, some ship owners offered to take them across to the holy land.
Unfortunately, some of the ships wrecked while at sea, and those that arrived at the other side were attacked by forces ordered by Fredrick II. The travelers in the ships including the children were taken as slaves. This difficulty in the transportation of more people in the Middle East shows the difficulty that the Europeans experienced, when trying to increase the forces participating in the Crusades.
As a result, the rate of replacing the soldiers that died and those that went back to their homeland was slow, which weakened the ability of the crusaders forces, leading to their defeat.
The failure of the crusades was fueled by the bloody attacks of the Muslim forces, including the raid that took place after the departure of Louis. Immediately after the departure, a civil war started between the Genoese and the Venetians.
At the same time, the Baibars took the opportunity to strike, and marched across the coast of the region, capturing different towns, previously controlled by Christians, one after another. Some of the towns captured during the raid include Antioch, Jaffa, Safad, and Caesarea.
During the raid, many Christians and crusaders were enslaved, and others slaughtered, which greatly weakened the power of the Crusaders’ forces in areas like Antioch to an irreparable extent. The massive attack weakened the ability of the crusaders in countering Muslim forces, and also demoralized the remaining forces, which drove them towards accepting defeat.
The forces of the Crusaders were also affected by a lack of communication, which resulted, partly from the unfriendly relations between the leaders of the different nations or teams. The lack of communication between the different teams was worsened by the language barriers that existed between them.
Some of the teams used Latin while others used French. However, among the soldiers, the problem was worse, as most of them could not understand one another, which widened the rivalry between different teams. As a result, there was a prevalent lack of common resolve and unit of command, which widened their inability to counter Muslim forces.
The relations between the groups were also characterized by an inherent lack of proper planning due to the rivalry between the different groups. This was with regard to the resources required and the avenues to use during the crusades.
The failure of the Crusaders’ forces was perpetuated by the European style of fighting, as the crusaders relied on heavy armor and large horses. They also relied on a few bowmen, which was not enough to counter the experienced fighting style of the Muslims.
The Muslims, on the other hand, used camels and fast horses, which allowed them to move across the desert-war-front very fast. The Muslims also had innumerable bowmen. Therefore, they could attack the Europeans from a far distance, which increased their advantage in defeating them.
The fighting strategies of the Muslims left the Crusaders helpless, whenever the Muslims decided to strike. Therefore, this shows that the fundamental war style between the Crusaders and the Muslims increased the potential of the Muslim forces, which led to the unsuccessful nature of the crusades.
Conclusion
The crusades refer to the chain of religious wars, fought between Muslim and European forces at Levant and Asian minor. The crusades started after Alexios appealed for the help of the Pope. Thus, the church could help the Byzantines at restoring the Holy Land to Christian rule. The crusaders were made up of armies from Western Europe.
The factors that led to the failure of the Crusades include the unskilled nature of the crusaders forces, which were not able to counter the war techniques of the Muslims. The failure of the crusades resulted from the rivalry that existed between the different leaders and the double-crossing of the Greeks by the church, which reduced the support offered to the crusades.
The failure was caused by other factors, including the limited number of the soldiers that made up the crusaders forces, the high costs required to sustain the crusades and the lack of the support promised by the Byzantine forces.
Other factors included the lack of effective transport networks in the Middle East and the bloody attacks by Muslim forces, which demoralized the crusaders. Lack of communication among the crusaders teams and the experienced fighting style of the Muslims also perpetuated the failure of the crusades.
Bibliography
Bull, Marcus and Norman, Housley (eds). The Experience of Crusading Volume 1, Western Approaches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003: 307.
Cartlidge, Cherese. The Crusades: Failed Holy Wars. San Diego: Lucent Books, 2002
Constable, Giles. “The Historiography of the Crusades” in Angeliki E. Laiou, ed. The Crusades from the Perspective of Byzantium and the Muslim World. Washington, DC: Dumarton Oaks, 2001. 77.
Edbury, Peter and Jonathan Phillips (eds). The Experience of Crusading Volume 2, Defining the Crusader Kingdom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003: 326.
Edgington, Susan and Sarah Lambert (eds). Gendering the Crusades. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2002.
Florean, Dana. “East Meets West: Cultural Confrontation and Exchange after the First Crusade.” Language & Intercultural Communication, 7. 2 (2007): 150–151.
Folda, Jaroslav. Crusader Art in the Holy Land, From the Third Crusade to the Fall of Acre. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
Harris, Jonathan. Byzantium and the Crusades. New York: Continuum International Publishing, 2003: 276.
Hodgson, Natasha. Women, Crusading and the Holy Land in Historical Narrative. Woodbridge: Boydell, 2007.
Housley, Norman. The Later Crusades, 1274-1580: From Lyons to Alcazar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992.
James, Douglas. “Christians and the First Crusade.” History Review, 53 (2005): 34-38.
Kagay, Donald and Andrew Villalon (eds). Crusaders, Condottieri, and Cannon: Medieval Warfare in Societies around the Mediterranean. Leiden: Brill Academic Publisher, 2003.
Madden, Thomas (ed). The Crusades: The Essential Readings. New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell, 2002.
For nearly four centuries, the state system ushered by the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648AD gave way to a new era of socio-economic and political dispensation determined by the diplomatic relations among the states.1 Under the terms of the treaty, the three-decade-long war of the 17th Century Europe was summarized, leading to the recognition of the territorial sovereignty of the states that made up the Holy Roman Empire. The pact saw 300 of the Roman Empires’ princes become entirely sovereign within their spheres of influence. The golden era of the ancient Roman Empire renaissance diplomacy settled with the French inversion of Italy in 1494.2
This renaissance era was characterized by the struggle for dominion among the sovereign powers of Europe and the Hapsburg Empire. The failure by the Catholic Church to influence its own reform agenda manured the field for the regrouping of the protestant ideology. The first pinch was felt in 1534 against the whims of the papal power when King Henry VIII instituted a separationist movement under the banner of the Anglican Church. This move came about after the Catholic Church strongly opposed his highly publicized divorce with Catherine of Aragon.3 Following these developments, a widespread movement begun in Germany and was led by Martin Luther had the backing of many aristocrats and rulers of the time – the majority of whom were from Northern Europe. This conflict of interest sparked off a rebellion leading to the Thirty Year’s War. After the treaty of Westphalia, religious leaders took center stage to spearhead a long-lasting peace process that would not let the states to degenerate into another war with such catastrophic magnitude.
From the experiences and the memoirs of the English diplomatic representation of the 17th century, it was conspicuously established that the role that religion is capable of playing in foreign policy is second to no other concept reached upon in history.4 Much of this conviction was informed by their ability to cushion conflict into a cessation of hostilities, much of which was realized with preferential ease.5
William Godolphin, Henry Saville, and William Trumbull were categorically instrumental in these processes owing to their potentiality to the task and their positioning between diplomacy and religion. To ascertain their centrality to the contribution of these diplomatic ties, their respective taskforces were extensively distributed for a religious course under diplomacy. The diplomatic consciousness that informed the early church made all these key figures to be dispersed in most of the Catholic nation-states during the 17th century, while in these states, they positioned themselves in intermediate social ranks acting as a bridge between the church and the state. However, what mattered then was familiarity with the concept of parliamentary politics, and indeed this made these religious leaders go easily in-between the state and the masses.6 On the other hand, these religious leaders were restricted by virtue of their positions to issue their positioning openly on various issues of politics of the state and the people.
At the height of the 17th century AD, the Christian Commonwealth Empire had disintegrated, leading to vestiges in forms of autonomous states.7 With not many functions attributable to the Roman Catholic Pope and the Roman Empire as the sole mediators of the regional conflicts, conceptual gaps were evinced in the international conflict management and diplomatic representation. Having seen the impending trouble, the Dutch philosopher at the time, Hugo Grotius volunteered a most comprehensive theory that he opined and hoped would be useful as part of the endearing process that might fill these gaps and end the inevitability of any future wars.8
Accordingly, he instituted the schools of natural law, arguing that it is through these platforms that international law could be realized. The philosopher categorically insinuated that individuals must first possess natural rights for them to be protected against external aggression. In defending his claim, the philosopher pointed out that humanity is entitled to these natural laws by virtues ordained by God. Under these schemes of things, Grotius aimed to inspire the people to nurture a minimum moral unanimity capable of making the society to reach out to full stature and to overcome the divisions emanating from the religious interest groupings.9
Following Grotius’s assessment of humanity, other like-minded religious thinkers began to explore his ideology with the conception that whenever individual people are empowered by natural rights, they posthumously become sovereign entities. Grotius, in his work, saw the need for humanity to be more empowered, thereby coming up with the theory of international law that would guarantee the basis of going to war and setting the peace process.10 Under his assumptions, he opined that nation, just as individual people, have to be bound by certain established natural law. These natural laws, he opined, would safeguard individual rights and nurture order in the opinion of the masses. Through Grotius’ teachings, diplomatic sanity was influenced throughout Westphalia and beyond.
Essentially the Treaty of the Westphalia amicably settled the religious tussle that was evidenced in vast territorial Germany. It was, however, the last attempt seen largely by observers as an effort by the Catholic Hapsburgs to arrest Protestantism.11 The treaty also confirmed the centrality of the Catholicism dynasty in the south while Protestantism got its footing in the north, German certainly became sharply divided along ideological lines. It was also an attestation to the fact that the Catholic and the Lutheran princes, as seen in the Augsburg accord, had the ability to determine the type of religion prevailing in their territories, as a consequence, Princes were empowered to choose Calvinism.12
This never pointed to anything close to the freedom of religion, though it was widely perceived as a major breakthrough towards religious liberalism. In addition, before the treaty of Westphalia was instituted, there were other competing forces – most remarkably were those of the international religious groupings like the Ecclesiastical Catholic faith-led organizations. In Europe, religious passion moderated greatly after the ratification of the Westphalia Treaty. In other words, religious rhetoric was subsequently toned down, leading to the versatility of the church. The competing factions never quit their demand for a complete revolution, though, and the enthusiasm to dynamism by the orthodoxy forces continued to wage sporadic revolts.13
War across Europe was essentially not abandoned in its entirety, but religion ended up becoming a less contributory factor in the subsequent wars. It must, however, be reiterated that as much as the religion was a major contributor in sparking off the Thirty Years War, it was equally a major factor in the mediation process that saw the diplomatic signing of the Treaty of the Westphalia and the eventful ceasing of hostilities.14
The interplay of religion and politics in the Westphalia oligarchy has been quintessential of a more complex yet conventional theory that provokes wisdom. More than anything, the seeming religious conflicts recorded from the ancient governmental establishment to the current times could be interpreted in terms of conflicts of interests. These conflicts have been played upon by religious prejudice, whose main interpretation of religious ethics has been to inspire a greater zeal through sacrifice and offertory from the masses. This point of view often suggests that the archetypical balance of power in the Westphalia was not necessarily the direct opposite of Christian dominion.15 Rather, the most candid expression to it would be the religious conflicts that heralded it into a full-blown war. The pedigrees and the consequences of the apparent conflicts in these wars were, by extension, a farce and instigation of religious embodiment.
Westphalia is perhaps among the most referenced historical nation-states in ancient international diplomatic relations16. This is because the sovereignty of the nation-states was established with the states enjoying their dominion as autonomous political units. After the treaty of Westphalia was institutionalized, the dominion of the Roman Catholic Empire under the stewardship of the Pope was replaced by a system of independent states. Observers reckon that the Westphalia treaty was a turning point in the life of the ancient Roman Empire and which marked the beginning of the modern-day autonomous nation-states. After the exhaustive three-decade war that saw the destruction upon the land, the Westphalia negotiations took shape as all the warring factions felt the need to draw a ceasefire.17
The resultant compromised reached upon never satisfied all the factions involved in the truce; this is because it was perceived that the basis of an all-round compromise, which was after all the bone of contention throughout the negotiations, had not been reached either. However, the peace deal that ushered the negotiations was because of the extensive negotiations that took another five years to accomplish.18 The diplomatic crescendo was structured and orchestrated, with the first six months having entirely been dedicated to reaching out for the consensus of procedure that, in fact, proved contentious as the participants held various personal, yet strategic interests based on their different states.
The 17th century Westphalia Treaty succeeded mainly in the light of the religious policy of protection and direct public concern aimed at building sovereign nation-states presided upon by a religious cardinal.19
The rudimental cardinal policy of natural law was the basis of liberty from political and economic want. With the signing of the peace treaty in Westphalia, the principle of forgiveness became a duty that was preached all over Europe. Under these considerations, it was widely seen that in the concept of religious forgiveness, there would be a mutual benefactor in the realization of economic growth as well as political maturity. Seen from a religious standpoint, the concept of the treaty was a model that viewed real or perceived enemies from the benefit of the other, a principle that endeared nation-states to one another virtually capitalizing on the shared benefits rather than the differing factors.20 Moreover, while the confessional allegiances remained vital, it was enough with the states, and for the better part of the 17th century, religious wars were a forgone experience in the Roman Empire.21
As concerns the political settlement, the peace process was remarkably a legalistic and conservative act.22 Under these considerations, the treaty was intended to be a restatement of old rights that would safeguard the nation-states from degenerating into conflicts of such magnitude. Much of the accentuation had been given to the princess who had by then become autonomous by law.
This did not entirely mean that all doors of innovation were shut. In fact, the expansion of the empire into numerous electorates was the beginning of the reform process, and the subsequent increment of the number of imperial electors was seen as a move to make a representation of the state to be expansive. In the culminating series of events, the several smaller imperial states created by the new trends in leadership created a feeling that these states were too insignificant to exploit fullness of the privileges and freedoms they had been granted, majority of these smaller states had favored the protectorate of the Holy Roman Empire. Consequently, they looked upon the empire and frequently sought protection from the empire, given that he was no longer seen as a predator.23 Due to these facts, the Franco-Swedish efforts to maul the imperial institutions were amicably resisted, and the states became more inclined to the imperial throne.
While religion has always been the decisive aspect in domestic politics, its effect on diplomatic relations is still being debated in international fora to ascertain this presumption. Observers of the Westphalia diplomatic efforts opine that one of the major effects of the reformation process was to empower the sovereign states to fasten their grip on matters of religion and politics of the church. The peace process in the Westphalia passed out as a fundamental step in these processes. Whenever the diplomatic circumstances prevailed upon, the European princes became very instrumental in the processes that resulted in the amicable solution of war. Under these developments, the princesses were empowered to pick their allies in the concept of the peace process whenever there is a need to do so.
Bibliography
Engle, Eric. “The transformation of the international legal system: the post-Westphalia legal order.” The Quarterly Review of Literature 23, no. 23 (2004): 23-45. Web.
Holsti, Kenneth. “From states systems to a society of states: The evolution of international relations.” International Relations Journal 1, no. 2 (2010): 1-9. Web.
Kurbalija, Jovan. Golden age of diplomacy and technology. 2013. Web.
McDougall, Walter. Religion in diplomatic history. 2010. Web.
Onnekink, David. War and religion after the Westphalia, 1648-1713. London: Ashgate Publishing Ltd, 2009. Web.
Vaughan, Michael. After Westphalia, whither the nation state, its people and its Governmental institutions? Brisbane: The University of Queensland, 2011. Web.
Footnotes
Michael Vaughan. After Westphalia, whither the nation-state, its people, and its Governmental institutions? Brisbane: The University of Queensland, 2011. Web.
Jovan Kurbalija. The golden age of diplomacy and technology. Web.
Ibid.
David Onnekink. War and religion after the Westphalia, 1648-1713. London: Ashgate Publishing Ltd, 2009. Web.
Ibid.
Jovan Kurbalija. The golden age of diplomacy and technology. p. 2.
Jovan Kurbalija. The golden age of diplomacy and technology. p. 2.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Kenneth Holsti. “From state systems to a society of states: The evolution of international relations.” International Relations Journal 1, no. 2 (2010): 1-9. Web.
Walter McDougall. Religion in diplomatic history. Web.
Ibid.
Eric Engle. “The transformation of the international legal system: the post-Westphalia legal order.” The Quarterly Review of Literature 23, no. 23 (2004): 23-45.
Walter McDougall. Religion in diplomatic history. Web.
Ibid.
Ndey Jeng. Why Has the Westphalia State Failed to Function Effectively in Africa? Web.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Michael Vaughan. After Westphalia, whither the nation-state, its people, and its Governmental institutions? Brisbane: The University of Queensland, 2011. Web.
Ibid.
Eric Engle. “The transformation of the international legal system: the post-Westphalia legal order.” The Quarterly Review of Literature 23, no. 23 (2004): 23-45. Web.
Ndey Jeng, Why Has the Westphalia State Failed to Function Effectively in Africa? Web.
The reasons for the First Crusade go much farther than religion. The medieval European society was experiencing a period of instability which caused outbreaks of violence, and a split of the Christian church into West and East factions. A variety of economic and political reasons led to the start of the First Crusade. This paper will address the violence of the period, the differences between the churches, and the reasons for the First Crusade.
The violence of the Period
One of the precursors to the First Crusade was the conflict between European Christians and Muslims over the region of Spain. The struggle itself would go on for centuries after the last crusade, but its prolonged length and lack of foreseeable outcome have created a culture of animosity towards the longstanding Muslim opponent. The active involvement of the French Knights and nobles in the Spanish conflict could explain their dedication to the first crusade (O’Callaghan 137).
Aside from the Spanish conflict, the lack of unity between knights and lords led to various private wars which had a majorly negative effect on society. Violence became commonplace, with the church doing little to contain it.
Differences Between Churches and Their Perspectives
The Western church and its society differed from the church of the East. The West was represented by Pope Urban II who was situated in France at the time. France was a fragmented society of loosely connected lands ruled by lords and knights, with the King not having much more power than them. He was not able to pass laws, and could not have a great effect on the country. The hierarchical system of feudalism was governing the regions with oaths being used to conduct political activities. Peasants had the least power and often were not considered free people (Bloch 311).
For Pope Urban II, the First Crusade had to happen for a number of reasons. The religious zeal caused by the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre could be exploited to gather a large army. Political and economic opportunity of having positive relations with the Eastern Church of Byzantine was another factor. Despite the Byzantine Empire instating their own Pope, a plea for help from the area was seen as an opportunity to create a politically fruitful relationship, as well as possibly unite the churches (Tyerman 243).
The initial goal of the official crusade was to push back the Seljuk Turks from the Holy Land. With time, however, the goal changed to retaking Jerusalem as it would make the Crusade a religious pilgrimage and would focus the forces on one historically and religiously significant goal (Spencer 57).
The Byzantine Empire had a different society than Europe. The society was a combination of Christian, Islamic, and Jewish cultures, with a stable governmental leader and religious people following patriarchs instead of the Pope. Even during a downturn in its history, the Byzantine Empire was famous for its scientific advancement, high artistry, as well as economic and intellectual level.
However, the Byzantine Empire was slowly losing its land to the Muslim armies, and the Emperor was had to call for help from the European Christians. His perspective was largely motivated by the goal of returning the lands he previously lost, which can be seen in his insistence on having the European leaders of the armies to take an oath that was supposed to guarantee this. Therefore the First Crusade was seen as a solution for domestic problems of both Churches. The Pope wanted Byzantine as a political ally and to unite the fragmented society under one goal. The Byzantine Emperor sought the return of the lands he lost to Muslims, and the European Nobles thought they could capitalize on the war by capturing the lands for themselves (Kaldellis 353).
Peasants’ Crusade
The pope used the violent culture of medieval Europe as well as its religious zeal to rally a large army and set a date by which they must start the Crusade. Unfortunately, the call for the crusade was not only taken up by nobles but also peasants from various regions of Europe. People led by such leaders as Peter, the Hermit, and Walter Sans-Avoir, amassed large groups of peasants with an aim to retake Jerusalem because they saw it as the heavenly Jerusalem of the Bible (Nicolle 64).
These groups were terribly mismanaged and lacked strong leadership. This “Peasants’ Crusade’ led to thousands of dead civilians from pillaging that occurred throughout the journey and anti-Semitic actions of the peasant group from the Rhineland. Mass persecutions of Jews were committed by this group, leading to thousands of dead, and whole cities ransacked (Cohen 31).
Conclusion
The reasons and events that led to the First Crusade are numerous. The fragmentation of Western Europe and the loss of land by the Byzantine created the conditions that allowed for the Crusade to happen. However, the violent society of western Europe led to the Crusade causing thousands of civilian deaths, through both the Peasant crusade and the Prices’ Crusade.
Works Cited
Cohen, Jeremy. Sanctifying the Name of God: Jewish Martyrs and Jewish Memories of the First Crusade. University Of Pennsylvania Press, 2013.
Kaldellis, Anthony. Streams of Gold, Rivers of Blood: The Rise and Fall of Byzantium, 955 A.D. to the First Crusade. Oxford University Press, 2017.
Bloch, Marc. Feudal Society. Taylor and Francis, 2014.
Tyerman, Christopher. How to Plan a Crusade. Penguin Books, 2015.
Spencer, Stephen J. “The Emotional Rhetoric of Crusader Spirituality in the Narratives of the First Crusade.” Nottingham Medieval Studies, vol. 58, 2014, pp. 57-86.
Nicolle, David. The Crusades. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2014.
O’Callaghan, Joseph F. A History of Medieval Spain. Cornell University Press, 2013.
Aaron Swartz, a person with outstanding abilities in the field of technology and a political activist, advocated for an open and free Internet. When he tried to release the data from the scientific site, the authorities reacted with unjustified brutality. Swartz was threatened with a fine of $ 1 million and 35 years in prison. This young man solved the problem in his own way – he lost his life.
The film The Internet’s Own Boy tells about Aaron Schwarz’s participation in the development of the World Wide Web (Internet) and the subsequent harassment by the US government agencies, which led to the tragedy. Aaron has been considered a child prodigy: at the age of 14, he worked under the leadership of Tim Bernes-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web, and participated in many significant projects. The key idea of Swartz was to eliminate inequality in access to information, thus allowing everyone to acquire relevant knowledge and skills.
This genius wanted users to have no restrictions on access to information and saw the goal of his life in making the Internet closer to people. Aaron entered Stanford University, but he studied there for only a year since he was unable to endure the framework of university education. Swartz noted that only university staff and students could receive open access to information of databases, which means that the study in the context of higher education is the only way to learn through scientific articles (Reynolds 105).
This violated the opportunity of self-education, which Aaron regarded as the most productive form of learning. He was sure that the world would be better if he would promote free access to the Internet at the maximum and fought for it to show the generative potential of the Internet. One may state that his actions were consistent with the First Amendment that implies freedom of the press, copyright regulations, and access to places where people can speak and listen.
After leaving Stanford, Swartz founded his own company called Infogami, soon after which he merged it with the Reddit portal. It was an entertainment social news site where users could openly share links to any information they like on the Internet. Aaron’s colleagues emphasized his contribution to the development of the business: everything that the programmer tried to improve became better. Reddit was sold to Condé Nast Publishing House, and Schwartz invested money received from the sale of the resource into the development of the Watchdog service, where all the available information about American politicians was systematized.
In addition, he was a co-founder of Creative Commons, the website integrating information from the Global Community based on collaboration, remix, reuse, and sharing. At this point in his life, Aaron began to take decisive action against restrictions on the Internet.
To understand the controversial nature of Swartz’s actions and views, it is essential to pay attention to the main document clarifying information distribution on the Internet. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is the main regulatory legal paper establishing criminal liability for illegal actions in the field of computer information. It establishes responsibility for several basic offenses, including computer espionage, committed use of computer technology, unauthorized access to information, deliberate and negligent damage to protected computers, and so on. Currently, the US Congress is introducing a new cybersecurity bill, which provides for tougher penalties for cybercrime and the actual equalization of the definitions of their public danger with real crimes.
The Internet activists believe that since government documents are free of copyright, they should be available to everyone for free. Carl Malamud, the founder of the Public.Resource.org organization, came up with a method for this, and Swartz supported his idea. It turned out that in seventeen public libraries in the United States, visitors were provided free trial access to the PACER database.
Malamud encouraged all concerned users to visit these libraries, download as many documents as possible, and send them to him for display on the web (Constant 241). Schwartz responded to the call and, being an excellent programmer, wrote several scripts that allowed him to download 20 million pages of documents, which was equal to 20 percent of the entire PACER database. It was the first time when Aaron was sued for illegal activities on the Internet.
Aaron Schwartz, known as one of the prominent Internet activists, was faced with a number of corporations profiting from the sale and access to information that should belong to the society because it is paid at the expense of taxpayers (da Silveira 7).
In 2011, a criminal case was opened against Schwarz, accusing him of illegally downloading files from the JSTOR online library (Peters 196). Even though the latter withdrew the lawsuit, the court decided to arrange an indicative trial, threatening with imprisonment for a term of 35 to 50 years and a fine of $ 1 million for downloading files. It seems that as a protest to such a response from the government, Swartz committed suicide and showed the world that changes are possible.
It is important to emphasize that Aaron saw the unlimited potential for self-education on the Internet-based on online scholarly articles, books, and many others sources. He was inspired by the fact that he destroys the boundaries that impede the free flow of information. At the same time, it is not clear what exactly Swartz planned to do with the articles further. He could make them accessible to all Internet users by following the fundamental principles of freedom of information, analyze the data given in the articles, or, at least, demonstrate that this is commonly possible.
From my point of view, the efforts of Swartz were justified as he presented the very possibility of making information free. Indeed, today, only students of universities and staff have access to the scholarly literature, while people with low income, living in remote areas, and having other problems are deprived of the opportunity to obtain new knowledge from online databases. However, I consider that new policies on the federal level should be implemented to resolve the issue with open access to relevant information on the Internet, which fits the First Amendment. Until there are acts and policies that declare free access unauthorized, the actions of programmers similar to those of Swartz would be illegal.
Even though he was considered a criminal by the government, people still value his great contribution to the creation of Creative Commons and information sharing. Personally, I agree with the fact that the existing law on the restriction of copyright and access to information is outdated and needs to be improved. In the context of globalization, the generative potential of the Internet allows making people closer to important knowledge, while it is unfair to limit the access of people who have no money to purchase articles. Thus, the efforts of Swartz were effective and thought-provoking as they made many people ponder over their rights on the Internet.
Works Cited
Constant, Sarah A. “The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act: A Prosecutor’s Dream and a Hacker’s Worst Nightmare – The Case Against Aaron Swartz and the Need to Reform the CFAA.” Tulane Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property, vol. 16, 2013, pp. 231-250.
The Internet’s Own Boy. Directed by Brian Knappenberger, performance by Aaron Swartz, FilmBuff and Participant Media, 2014.
Peters, Justin. The Idealist: Aaron Swartz and the Rise of Free Culture on the Internet. Simon and Schuster, 2016.
Reynolds, Glenn Harlan. “Ham Sandwich Nation: Due Process When Everything Is a Crime.” Columbia Law Review Sidebar, vol. 113, 2013, pp. 102-109.
da Silveira, Sérgio Amadeu. “Aaron Swartz and the Battles for Freedom of Knowledge.” SUR – International Journal on Human Rights, vol. 18, 2013, p. 7.
The Crusades were military outfits that were related to Christians who engaged other religions and rival Christians in violent wars in the name of spreading the Christianity faith. Most of the battles were blessed by the Pope of medieval times. The battles were mostly concerned with the spreading of the Christianity faith and also the acquiring of holy sites. Most of the Crusade’s battle was directed at the Muslims but there were also the victims like the Jews, Orthodox Christians, and other minor religions. The Crusades were mainly located in the Middle East and Europe. Most of the modern times violences that are related to religion can be rooted in the Crusades (Stearns, p. 195).
Thesis statement
This paper will focus on what the Crusades revealed about the medieval major religion that being the Muslims and the Christians. The Paper will also focus on the effects of the Crusades and how they have shaped modern religious trends.
Revelations of the Crusades
The Crusades had a lasting impact on both religions. The Crusades revealed that Christians from Europe were opportunistic and that they were engaged in the Crusades just because of the economic gains that were accrued to the Crusades. The Muslims developed an acute hatred of the Christians especially those from the continent of Europe. Although the first Crusade may have been genuinely based on faith, the following crusades were fueled by greed for the expansion of the territory. The Christians who were involved in the Crusades had their blessings from the Pope himself and this leaves a lot of doubt on whether the Christian faith was really based on the principles of Jesus Christ on issues concerning stealing, love of your neighbor, and honesty (Stearns, p. 216).
The Crusades also revealed that although the Muslims seemed to be United in faith, they were not united politically. There were a lot of civil wars and assassinations involved in the Islam communities that were involved in the Crusades. This lack of Unity made the Muslims feel threatened from all corners and hence they adopted the policy of turning in on to themselves. This created a culture of sensitivity and defensive attitude which has continued to manifest itself with time. This culture has also evolved as the world evolved and hence the modern state of affairs in the Muslim countries, where these countries are considered very defensive and overly sensitive to international matters (Wallbank, p. 396).
Effects of the Crusades
One of the effects of the Crusades was the initiation of a rival culture between the two major religions in the world. The Muslims could not trust the Christians in any way and hence developed a hostile attitude towards them. The Muslims are justified in their stand because the Christians were mainly fueled by greed and the need to expand their territories (Wallbank, p. 426).
On the positive side, the Crusades opened up new avenues of trade and also created the basis on which the foundation of nation-states was initiated in the European continent. Trade rose because the need to transport the armies across the continent necessitated the initiation of trade with other communities in the continent of Europe and hence there was developed a thriving trading ground (Stearns, p. 254).
Conclusion
Whether the Crusades were right or wrong is a matter of opinion but it is important to note that they had adverse effects on the major religions of the world. It is negative in the light that many lives were lost and there was gross exploitation by the Christians to other religions especially the Muslims. They are also responsible for the acute rivalry that is witnessed between the two religions even in modern times. However, the Crusades opened up new doors of development and trade and these have been the hallmarks of modern civilization. So in the real sense, the positivity or negativity of the Crusades is a matter of personal opinion (Wallbank, p. 456).
Works cited
Stearns, P. (1987) Documents in World History Vol. 1: The Great Traditions – From Ancient Times to 1500. New York, Harper and Row.
Wallbank, Walter & Taylor, Alastair M. (1949). Civilization: Past and Present Vol. 1. From the beginning of civilization through the discovery and conquest of the New World, Paleolithic Era to 1650 AD. Chicago, Scott, Foresman.
Crusades take a significant part of human history and until nowadays there are disputes about their true motives and goals. The First Crusade was organized in 1096 by pope Urban II according to the request of the Byzantine Emperor Alexios I. The seek for aid was sent primarily because of Asia Minor lands taken from him by Seljuq Turks. First, the pope asked French knights for a force union, but the crusade quickly turned into a big-scale military campaign attaching all the governments in Western Europe. The mutual idea of rescuing the saint city of Jerusalem was bonding the troops and leading them to the fight. As a result, in 1099, crusaders freed Jerusalem from Turks. In the modern historical overviews, it is oftentimes mentioned that the crusaders were led with hatred against Muslims. However, these opinions might be mostly based on subjective perceptions of the XI century’s events. Nicholas Morton provides a convincing statement that the First Crusade was not the reason to express hate towards Muslims, it was an action towards Turks’ religious beliefs and a consequence of a different perception of the enemy.
Morton proves that the true motive of the crusaders was to reconquest the Holy Land, and they were religious and perceived the road to Jerusalem as a pilgrimage. Indeed, strong belief in religion and the wish to help their brethren were leading factors of the First Crusade. In Urban II’s speech to the crusaders, it is seen that the pope brings up the topics of peace and unity in Christendom, respect to the church, and the importance of providing aid to their brothers in need. Urban II invokes: “O Sons of God, you have promised more firmly than ever to keep the peace among yourselves and to preserve the rights of the church.” That highlights the deep motives of the war as the leader was using the above-mentioned arguments to motivate the crusaders and unite them. Moreover, Urban II’s speech contains essential words that express the attitude of Christians towards hate: “If anyone hates peace, how can he make others peaceable.” If the initial purpose of these troops was hatred towards Muslims, the speech of Urban II would focus on the disparities between the religions and possible ways of despising them. However, Urban II applies to God and the call of Duty, the respect to the sacred, and the significance of supporting the common belief of humans. In crusader letters, it is also visible that the enemy is called Turks as the group of the population without any religious context and referring to Islam. For example, in one of the letters, no evil emotions are expressed to the competitor, crusaders narrate about past events, their succeeds and failures and ask to pray for the departed ones and peaceful life. Thus, the union of Christian believers was major in the motivation of the crusaders, not the hatred towards Islam.
Moreover, the First Crusade did not know enough about Muslims and could not develop hate towards them without any knowledge. Morton proves this argument by providing data about distance factors influencing this acquaintance as the frontier of Muslim countries that were located far from Britain, France, and Germany, and the information back in the days traveled slowly. Christian side indeed was struggling to understand the character and the ways of behavior of Seljuq Turks. In crusader letters, the unpredictable movements of the opponent are described such as pretending fair and setting traps that were not forecast by the Christians. The latter had to study the personalia, habits, and behavior models of the competitor during the war as they have never experienced getting to know Turks close enough. Morton also highlights the mixed ethnic groups participating in the First Crusade, for instance, Muslim troopers from the lands of Sicily. Some of the troops received more data about the Islam representatives; still, not many Christians knew the specialties of their culture, religion, rules, and life. Even though the biased attitude towards the enemy follows historical papers, nothing specific with regards to Turk’s customs, traditions, and religion can be found. Crusaders sometimes call the opponent a pagan and criticize their peace disturbance. However, no signs of blame or hate can be read in historical data used as primary sources for this assignment. Therefore, it might be hard to develop hatred for some ethnic groups people were barely contacting with. War with an anti-muslimism mood has to take roots from previous acquaintance with the enemy and focus on the disparities and mutual disagreement with the opponent’s customs.
Despite the mentioned above argument, Turks at the First Crusade’s period represented a rapidly changing culture with flexible customs due to their lifestyle. Turks were influenced by various cultures and religions along with the new land occupation leading a stepper way of existence. Without clear notice, their Islamic religion was absorbing a lot of features from the faith of the Near East. Even Arabs fighting with Turks alongside hated them more than Christians as Arabs believed Turks have major control over their population. Although the letters of the crusaders do not express judgment towards Turks or Islam, the majority of the letters highlight Christianity and trust in God’s will. Possibly, Christians did not develop a great hatred towards Turks because they did not remain a clear example of Islam. With constantly changing rules and flexibility to the new exceptions to the rules, Turks form an up-to-date culture standing in the middle of all religions.
However, it is hard to estimate the possible hatred towards Muslims, even if there was one when the crusaders did not always follow Bible principles showing cruelty at wars. The majority of sources claim that the crusaders were rescuing their brothers and fighting for Christendom. Nevertheless, there is no biblical excuse for conquering new lands, killing innocent people, and destroying cities for the sake of religion, Christendom. This argument is binary as it was hard to live without a fight back in the days, and during the war, it is almost impossible to distinguish innocent people from guilty ones. Crusaders can hardly be judged about their actions following the Bible as they lived in a time when war and bravery in the fight were deciding the most.
Hence, Morton in the article provides persuading arguments claiming the First Crusade was not the reason to express hatred towards Muslims. Crusaders were aiming to rescue their confederates, save the Holy Land of Jerusalem, and achieve peace believing in God’s will. It is evident from primary sources such as the speech of Urban II to the crusaders in 1095 and the evidence gathered from crusader letters. Christians perceived war from religious sides, and they could not develop hatred towards Muslims as they also did not possess vast knowledge about them. Also, Turks themselves represented a very flexible and rapidly changing culture becoming at the times of the First Order not a classical representative of Islam.
References
Morton, Nicholas. “Was the First Crusade Really a War Against Islam?” History Today 67, no. 3 (2017): 11-16.
Munro, Dana C. Letters of the Crusaders. Translations and Reprints from the Original Sources of European History. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1896.
Thatcher, Oliver J., and McNeal, Edgar Holmes, eds. A Source Book for Medieval History. New York: Scribners, 1905.