Category: Crusades

Introduction

The Pope’s sermon preached at Urban II in 1095 is believed to have sparked the military campaigns to seize the land and set it free from Muslim control. At that time, the Muslim and Christian groups were said to be divinely divided through brutal battles commonly referred to as Crusades. Although the active practice of war seemed to work significantly for God’s people, crusades were considered the first reasons to start with, and this continued for a considerable period. As much as the battle aimed at recovering land from Muslims, most participants did not have the same focus. The move brought a significant debate on why people got involved in the Crusades. This paper describes the reasons why people were involved in the crusades, such as money, power, and faith. The three factors significantly influenced the start and the spread of the Crusades. Most of the critical participants joined the movement with the push of their religious beliefs before changing their focus to their conquest’s need for power and wealth.

People initiated crusades with the aid of Pope II, who aimed to answer the call from Alexios Comnenos and the Byzantine Emperor. Initially, Alexios informed the Pope through a letter requesting him to help recover what a Byzantine land was. During this period, the Pope pursued his missions differently from assisting Alexios to regain its territory¹. Pope believed this presented an excellent chance to resolve his issues in Western Europe. He aimed to stop Europeans from attacking each other and focused on a common adversary, the Muslims.

Moreover, Pope’s primary focus was to start a desirable relationship with the new emperor and repair the broken Orthodox Church, which had been slit. He decided to spread the need for crusades for these reasons and other intentions. The move was supported by various themes like damage to the holy places set for Christians, Muslim hostility against Christians, and the anguish of Christians revolting for their survival alongside the familiar promise that participants in the crusades maintain whatever they captured.

Faith Reasons for Crusades

Pope authorized the continuity of Christian warfare in the name of the crusades due to the belief that it was their mandate to safeguard to protect their land, people, and properties against Muslims who were during this time considered non-believers. Most of the ordinary citizens in medieval took vows to continue in battle with the promise that their sins would be forgiven hence attaining free access to heaven.

In several instances, the churchmen were heard encouraging crusade participants to contemplate the material gains resulting from their engagement in the activity. Crusade preachers were often heard complaining about the miserable challenges associated with the crusading; the expected expenses by those who wished to join the movement². This indicated that most Christians first thought about their wealth rather than their spiritual health before deciding to start the campaign. However, it is essential to realize that not every crusader got rich, as others were killed or lost their property due to the significant expenses involved in the journey.

Power Reasons for Crusades

The first crusade brought about a massive attack on Jewish communities across Germany and France, almost eradicating most of them. During this period, crusaders offered serious Jewish choices to either convert or die. As a result, most of the Jewish were converted to Muslim, and others left the state for their safety while many resisted the push and died from torture. However, it is also evident that the first crusade rescued Jerusalem from the cruel treatment of Muslims because this met them by surprise at their frailest time. During this period, crusaders were deriving their power from attacking and killing their enemies alongside taking over their possessions. This was justified by a claim that the practice was God’s will and a way of ensuring justice among the saints. The meetings clearly indicated a combination of money, power, and faith, which gave the reasons to continue campaigning for crusades. Crusaders had already controlled significant cities like Tripoli, Edessa, and Jerusalem³. Such central lands would not be left in the hands of Muslims at any cost, making Jewish remain united until the occupants got tired.

Most of the subsequent crusades reported a severe defeat of Jewish by Muslims. In this case, serious generals like Zengi and Saladin led the Muslim army in recovering lands that the crusaders had already taken. The fall of the Edessa state marked the beginning of the second crusade movement in 1147⁴. The crumble of Jerusalem to Saladin influenced the start of the third religious meeting in 1189. Although most of the crusade organizations started as spiritual matters, the whole mission was changed as this ended as a war where most of the participants’ lives were lost. The battle issue seemed to fail the priority and goal of the movement, which aimed at protecting the holy land. Another responded to each crusade in Europe after the Muslim occupation of the land.

Moreover, crusading activities aimed at creating power resulted from increased European development. This would not be realized in the absence of the major cities already under Muslim powers’ control. Therefore, the movements focused on militarizing the western church and sustaining its power over any critic. The practice had a significant impact in helping solidify the control of the Pope over the church. In this case, various government bodies started partly to cater to the current logical need of the movement. This ensured its growth due to continued protection by both the participants and the state.

Wealth as a Reason for Crusades

The possibility of financial gains remained one of the primary motivators for most of the crusaders. Crusading was known to have a significant role in European nations’ territorial expansion due to forming central crusade states in places like the Levant, which were initially under Muslim control. Crusading in the Mediterranean Sea resulted in the colonization and conquest of several islands, which ensured the Christian acquisition of various routes.

Although the crusades led to the defeat of most of the European aims, the movement resulted in the increased spread of western civilization and Christianity. The church experienced an immense increase in power and wealth during the consecutive crusade periods⁵. There was also a reported increase in trade activities alongside transportation due to the crusades throughout Europe. Due to the increased human massacre resulting from campaigns, Islam regarded the movement as bloody, immoral, and savage. The persistent human killings of Christians and Muslims led to bitter resentment that continued for several years.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the crusade movement started as a peaceful movement before losing its initial goal, which led it to end as a long-fought battle. What was introduced as a friendly move to redeem the holy land from the hands of Muslims finally resulted in a war over which group would be in control of the city. During this period, participants were murdered, some crusades societies were eradicated, and most members from the two sides suffered from the outcomes. Therefore, the start of the crusade movement is viewed as a means of Christian’s attempts to acquire wealth and lands from Muslims. Christian armies knew the practice was not in accordance with God’s will; instead, it portrayed an immense need for money and power instead of believing it was God’s doing.

Today, there are many reasons for crusades held by various regions, with most of them holding to the need of their faith to spread the gospel. Campaign participants are said to have unshaken belief in the Almighty and Allah, hence the need to spread the gospel to woo non-believers to join their movement. This is done to make one’s religion dominant among others in the world. Some of the crusaders today believe that continued participation in the activity would create room for them to reach heaven. During this practice, children are excited and encouraged to join the movement to impact religious beliefs at their early stages. In the same manner, the socio-economic factors are also known to be responsible for the continued increase in crusaders. Poverty leads people to join crusades due to increased offerings and other collections resulting from the participants. However, it is essential to note that there is no case of human killings resulting from crusades as witnessed in the past.

References

Cassidy-Welch, Megan. War and Memory at the Time of the Fifth Crusade. Penn State Press, 2019.

Dray, Philip. Yours for justice, Ida B. Wells: The daring life of a crusading journalist. Holiday House, 2020.

Harwood, Sophie. “‘I Will Lead You to the River’: Women, Water, and Warfare in the Roman de Thèbes, Roman de Troie, and Early Chronicles of the First Crusade.” Open Library of Humanities 4, no. 2 (2018).

Nyamnjoh, Henrietta. “Using ICTs to be here and not here: African migrants and religious transnationalism.” Research Handbook on International Migration and Digital Technology, pp. 195-206. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2021.

Stoller, Matt. Goliath: the 100-year war between monopoly power and democracy. Simon & Schuster, 2019.

Footnotes

1. Nyamnjoh, Henrietta. “Using ICTs to be here and not here: African migrants and religious transnationalism.” Research Handbook on International Migration and Digital Technology, pp. 195-206. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2021.
2. Stoller, Matt. Goliath: the 100-year war between monopoly power and democracy. Simon & Schuster, 2019.
3. Dray, Philip. Yours for justice, Ida B. Wells: The daring life of a crusading journalist. Holiday House, 2020.
4. Cassidy-Welch, Megan. War and Memory at the Time of the Fifth Crusade. Penn State Press, 2019.
5. Harwood, Sophie. “‘I Will Lead You to the River’: Women, Water, and Warfare in the Roman de Thèbes, Roman de Troie, and Early Chronicles of the First Crusade.” Open Library of Humanities 4, no. 2 (2018).

Introduction

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 people’s 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 papacy’s 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.

The period of the Crusades is one of the most controversial times in Medieval History because this period was the era of many dramatic wars based on religious and political fundament. The wars between the Christians and Muslims for the Holy Land led to changing the relations between the religious groups and nations, and the period of the long-term religious confrontation started. The First Crusade of 1096-1099 was developed as the reaction of Pope Urban II to the appeal of Alexius Comnenus, the Byzantine emperor, for help in the Middle East. The Muslims took Jerusalem in the 11^th century, and the development of Byzantine was at risk because of the Seljuk Turks’ active attacks.

Thus, Alexius Comnenus asked Pope Urban II for assistance in fighting the Turks and for protecting the Holy Land from the Muslim impact (Chevedden, 2013, p. 1-5). To analyze the role of the First Crusade in shaping the further relations of the Christians and Muslims, it is necessary to discuss the event from both perspectives. Although the Europeans started the First Crusade in order to respond to the religious goal of freeing the Holy Land from the Muslims, the actions of the crusaders were also influenced by the economic and political factors, and the Muslims’ response to the crusade was based on the nature of the political situation in the region during the 11^th century.

The Reasons of the West for Starting the First Crusade

In 1095, Pope Urban II asked the Christians to unite in order to help Byzantine in fighting the enemy who could conquer the Holy Land and control numerous religious shrines. The obvious threat to the Holy Land was the stated reason for starting the First Crusade. In addition, pointing at the significant religious goal, Pope Urban II also stated that God could provide salvation and a lot of other rewards for the crusaders because of their holy actions (Kostick, 2013, p. 36-38). As a result, the first wave of the crusade was characterized by the marches of many poor European peasants and knights who aimed to gain new territories, to receive the high social status and title, and to find gold and recognition.

Referring to the proclamation of Pope Urban II to go to Byzantine and protect the Holy Land, the European Christians focused not only on the opportunity to protect the religious values but also on the chance to improve their social and financial state because of the obvious poverty and social instability in Europe during the 11^th century. The First Crusade of 1096-1099 is known as the People’s Crusade because hundreds of the Europeans discussed the crusade as the opportunity to free the Holy Land from the Muslim and to gain new territories and wealth (Chevedden, 2013, p. 18; Hillenbrand, 2000, p. 10-14). Thus, the economic reason behind the First Crusade was associated with the chance to stabilize the European economy with the help of gaining new resources and areas located in the Middle East.

The second wave of the First Crusade was more organized because noting the desire and power of the knights to fight the Muslims and gain more benefits, Pope Urban II concentrated on consolidating the power of the Christian Church and on discussing the Crusades as the way to improve the European position and stability. The crusade could unite the European peoples round the Christian Church to influence the prosperity of the papacy. In spite of the fact that the First Crusade was launched to help Byzantine in opposing the Muslims, the Byzantine emperor could not control the progress of the papacy’s impact in the region (Riley-Smith, 2013, p. 44-59). From this perspective, the political reason was in improving the impact of the papacy in the religious and political world.

The Muslims’ Response to the First Crusade

The Christians proved their domination in the Middle Eastern region in 1099, but the success of the First Crusade was not the result of the Christians’ religious or military power because it was the consequence of the Muslims’ political weakness during the period of the wars. This position is supported by Hillenbrand, who states that the Muslims rather passively reacted to the Christians’ crusade because the political climate in the region during the 11^th century prevented them from the discussion of the crusade as the real threat. Thus, according to Hillenbrand, “the warriors of the First Crusade succeeded because of Muslim disunity and weakness. Had the First Crusade arrived even ten years earlier, it would have met strong, unified resistance from the state then ruled by Malikshah” (Hillenbrand, 2000, p. 33).

The crusaders came to the Holy Land to state their religious power and to gain more economic and political benefits, but the Muslims were more involved in the opposition between the Sunni Muslims of Iraq and Syria and Shiite Muslims of Egypt. Furthermore, the Great Seljuk Empire was divided into many small states which opposed each other. The confrontation between the rulers of Aleppo and Damascus could not contribute to increasing the Muslims’ power while opposing the coming Christians (Hillenbrand, 2000, p. 33-38). As a result, the First Crusade was not perceived by the Muslims as the real threat to their lands and stability, and the focus of the Muslims on their own political confrontations led to their defeat in 1099.

Following the discussions of the Arab historians related to the First Crusade, it is important to note that historians paid more attention to the description of the battles and dates rather than to the reasons for the fight and effects of the defeat on the Muslim world. That is why, it is possible to state that the Muslims rejected to perceive the first Christian crusade as the statement of the Christian domination or power in the region (Gabrieli, 2009, p. 58-64). If the Christians were more focused on supporting their economic and religious ideals, the Muslims discussed the event mainly from the political perspective while assessing the impact of the crusade on the development of the Muslim states. The changes in the Muslims visions of the crusades were characteristic for the next centuries when the Christians tried to repeat their attempts in freeing the Holy Land from the Muslims.

The Effect of the First Crusade on the Modern Views of the Christians and Muslims toward Each Other

In spite of the fact that the Muslims’ reaction to the First Crusade is discussed by many historians as rather passive, the events of 1099 made the Muslims change their vision of the Christian crusades’ threat, and the further opposition between the Muslims and Christians was based on the principles of the holy war for the religious values and ideals. The risk of being defeated by the Christians one more time made the Muslims consolidate their forces and proclaim the principles of jihad against the crusaders (Gabrieli, 2009, p. 58-64). The First Crusade can be discussed as the trigger for starting the period of the prolonged religious opposition between the Christians and Muslims, which is based on the discussion of both sides’ rights on certain Middle Eastern territories.

The Crusade of 1096-1099 became one of the first steps in the religious and political opposition between the Christians and Muslims because both sides discussed their rights on the Holy Lands as supported by the historical events and cultural development. However, the basic motivations of the Christians and Muslims were different because the Christians proclaimed the religious ideals, but strived for the economic benefits, and the Muslims protected the political and territorial interests with developing the religious war against the crusaders (Hillenbrand, 2000, p. 58-60). This opposition in the Christians and Muslims’ visions and approaches to regulating the conflicts and controversial questions are also observed today, and both the Christians and Muslims are rather suspicious today in relation to each other because their visions are opposite.

Conclusion

The First Crusade is one of the important events in the history of the Christian and Muslim worlds because it was the start of multiple wars for political and religious domination at the territories of the Middle East. Although the First Crusade is the most disorganized operation of the European military forces, the crusaders succeeded in their attempt to gain control over the Holy Lands in 1099 because the Muslims were not prepared for the attacks on a religious basis.

The First Crusade resulted in the Christians in putting the economic and political goals behind the religious idea, and this crusade also resulted in the Muslims in discussing the religious war against the Christians as the main goal for the military conflict, with few references to the obvious political and economic benefits. The religious motivations of the Christians served as the shield for hiding their obvious focus on the economic and political benefits. On the contrary, the religious aspects played a more important role for the Muslims who began to discuss the war against the Christians as the holy one since the defeat after the First Crusade.

References

Chevedden, P. (2013). Crusade creationism versus Pope Urban II’s conceptualization of the Crusades. The Historian, 75(1), 1–46. Web.

Gabrieli, F. (2009). Arab historians of the Crusades. USA: Routledge. Web.

Hillenbrand, C. (2000). The Crusades: Islamic perspectives. USA: Psychology Press. Web.

Kostick, C. (2013). Courage and cowardice on the First Crusade, 1096–1099. War in History, 20(1) 32–49. Web.

Riley-Smith, J. (2013). The Crusades, Christianity, and Islam. USA: Columbia University Press. Web.

The Armies of Heaven book by Rubenstein presents a wide range of legends and writings from the period of Christian crusaders’ march towards Jerusalem. The author claims that they were motivated by the desire to observe the execution of Apocalypse prophecy. In particular, the collision between Christ and Antichrist who would decide the fate of the world in an effort to achieve salvation served as the paramount driver for crusaders. In his book, Rubenstein avoids empirically verifiable facts providing a persuasive insight into the thoughts of people of the 1096-1099 period (15). At that, he describes various representatives of that time beginning from militants to supplicants and pilgrims. The book covers such themes as the apocalyptic fervor of crusaders, violence between Christians and Muslims, massacre, and several others. Describing that period through actions and feelings of Peter the Hermit and Emperor Alexius as well as of others, the author shows atrocities of both sides and provides some food for thought to consider relationships with the Middle East through the prism of thousand years.

The methodology of the author might be considered as a narrative of adventure. Rubenstein creates a considerable canvas of events composed of various stories, characters, and details. It should be emphasized that this approach to the explanation of the First Crusade is uncommon among scholars. The latter tend to believe that greed or a pope were a driving force of march to Jerusalem. In turn, Rubenstein applies an apocalyptic mindset to tell the story of the First Crusade. The author focuses on the human factor, namely, on motifs, thoughts, and concerns of people that lived in this period. This makes the book more understandable and interesting for the readers.

To design his fascinating adventure, the author unites seemingly different narratives into one book. He uses various myths and legends persuading the reader by the diversity of the source material. Rubenstein takes other historians’ thoughts as a basis for his work. For example, he agrees with anonymous Gesta Francorum as well as with works by Raymond of Aguilers and Albert of Aachen (333). Both of them state that the crusade stories are especially significant to realize the core of the events occurred between 1096 and 1099. On the contrary, Rubenstein stresses his mistrust to the historians’ view related to the early twelfth-century narratives. Although these works were written relatively late, they are also should be considered with great attention and trust, states the author (Rubenstein 334). Thus, Rubenstein offers a much more persuasive story of the First Crusade taking into account not only facts but also visions and motivation faced by crusaders.

At the same time, Rubenstein is quite critical to his prose. More to the point, he tries to relate the events and characters discussed in the book to the modern world. This promotes the accessibility and clarity of the book. The reader can easily understand both the purpose and ideas the author tried to convey. One might note the absence of outdated words and phrases that also contributes to the accessibility of the work. Furthermore, plenty of endnotes helps the reader understand any complicated issues related to the topic. Finally, Rubenstein provides a great variety of vivid and comprehensive pictures helping to understand the key personalities and objects better. All in all, the exposition of the book looks quite attractive for both academic and average readers.

Work Cited

Rubenstein, Jay. Armies of Heaven: The First Crusade and the Quest for Apocalypse. New York: Basic Books, 2011. Print.

Introduction

The history of crusades is complex and hard to evaluate. Although there is much literature on the topic, different pieces of evidence provide facts that are sometimes contradictory. The reasons for the crusades were reviewed over time, and the modern approach offers an opinion that they had mostly the spiritual function rather than the purpose of obtaining wealth. Various documentaries reveal the changing perspective on the topic.

Analysis

The Crusades: A Timewatch Guide documentary by Edward Hart, though being a representative collection of the XX century films about the crusades, lacks some crucial elements, which characterize that period. For instance, nothing is said about the amount of Muslims living in Southern Europe at that time. The interesting fact is that Spanish was quite used to Muslims living in their southern territories and thus did not favor their slaughter as much as French did. This cultural mixture is neglected in Hart’s film, although it does mention the peaceful co-existence of nations in Jerusalem.

Due to the changed realities of the modern world, the images of the crusades’ savagery and manslaughter are persistent. Various European shreds of evidence show that the knights were incredibly cruel towards their enemies, even to the extent of cannibalism. All of the non-Christians suffered from their deeds, including women and children. However, the Muslim records do not seem to have these facts captured, or at least they do not possess such vivid imagery. This gives historians a reason to believe that the European records were exaggerated on purpose to underline the devotion, with which the crusaders had fought in the name of God, as it is mentioned in Hart’s documentary. Nevertheless, the ideas of knights ruthlessly killing civilians seem harsh in the nowadays realities.

The film’s message is similar to the historical viewpoint presented in scholarly books. It relies heavily on the idea that the primary purpose of the crusades was, indeed, spiritual. Knights really believed that they waged a holy war and would be granted a place in heaven for their service. It was not hard to fall under the pressure of propaganda coming from the Church that Christians were being killed by Muslims in foreign countries. The film also mentions the concept of pilgrimage, which, according to Jotischky and Hull, was combined with a fight, and thus created a unique face of a holy war.

However, the documentary does not agree with the scholarly representations of the crusades as a way of gaining wealth. The film argues that the religious wars were waged by landlords who did not experience a lack of property and finances, thus wealth could not be their reasoning. Nevertheless, Andrew Jotischky provides the evidence in his book that crusaders believed their sacrifice had to be rewarded not only by God. Moreover, the book mentions the laws of Latin Europe, by which only the eldest son in a family inherited all the lands. Thus, the crusade campaign could be the only chance for the younger ones to improve their financial situation.

There has been a changing trend in understanding the crusades over the past 60 years, shifting from the ideas of colonialism to the concepts of genuine spiritual reasoning. The documentaries of the past used to link the crusades to the colonial politics of the USA in Vietnam. They implied that the main purpose of those holy wars had been the expansion and the spread of the pope’s influence, just like it was with America trying to strengthen its positions in Asia.

However, today this reasoning does not sound adequate, as more and more historians come to the idea that the crusaders were genuinely interested in serving God. Various facts of hardships experienced by the knights on their way to Jerusalem only prove this point.

After the events of 9/11 in the US, George W. Bush announced a war against terrorism and called it to be a crusade. It was not the correct term to use for a series of reasons. One of them lies in the fact that Latin Europe had not experienced any major attacks from Muslims. In fact, people of both religions had managed to live peacefully with each other. While linking terrorism to Jihad, which is a concept of Islam, is a reasonable thought, there should not be any confusion with the US campaign in Iraq. Americans were defending themselves from the attacks, but they did not promote Christianity in the enemies’ countries.

The popular culture offers the image of brave knights fighting the holy war for their beliefs, which seems to be accurate as compared to the historical evidence. Although media often overlooks the chances of the crusades to be a way to achieve prosperity, the idea of defending the Christian values prevails in media. The in-depth study of the topic has reinforced this image, supporting it with the overview of how the understanding of the crusades was changing over the years.

Works Cited

Jotischky, Andrew, and Caroline Hull. The Penguin Historical Atlas of the Medieval World. Penguin Books, 2005.

Jotischky, Andrew. Crusading and the Crusader States. Longman, 2004.

The Crusades: A Timewatch Guide. Directed by Edward Hart. Produced by Edward Hart, performance by Thomas Asbridge, 360 Production, BBC, 2016. Web.

The purpose of this paper is to develop an in-depth analysis of the article by Dana Munro. Published in 1916, the article attempts to develop an understanding of the role that the catholic popes played during the crusades era. It refers to the work of the popes and crusaders during the middle ages, which lasted between 1095 and 1300s.

As more and more people took part in the crusades during the spread of the Christendom, the popes became the major force behind the movements. In fact, the author argues that the popes made major decisions regarding the activities, including allowing (or disallowing) individuals to participate. They used religion to threaten those who failed to take roles or those who took roles without their consent¹. However, the exact reasons for the popes’ interest in the crusades are not well understood. According to the Munro, few scholars have successfully provided an adequate analysis of this topic. Therefore, the author’s thesis is “why did the papacy take a leading role in these crusades and what did it hope to achieve in general?”²

The author explains that a number of scholars have shown that the major interest of the popes in the crusades was to bring the Greek Church under their control. It is worth noting that the papacy operated from its headquarters in the Vatican, yet the majority of the church’s force was in Greece. There was evidence that the Romans were threatened by the idea of making Greece the headquarters of Christianity. Certainly, the popes hoped that the crusades and the work of the crusaders would bring the church under the Roman control. Accordingly, their major interest was political gains for the Roman church rather than spreading Christianity.

According to the author, a number of other scholars have argued that the Popes wanted to ensure that Europe was under Christian control. They feared that any attempt to leave the church less effective in the continent would result into a weak church and a weak empire³. The political interest of the popes was to ensure that the Roman Empire, as the Greek empire before it, was in control of the populous continent⁴. The popes believed that they would gain significant political and social power if the church controlled the entire region. They used evidences from the bible to convince people that Christianity was the only righteous way, which gave hope to the populations.

For instance, they used the evidence of Jesus and his disciples as well as the activities of other people like Paul to convince the population that the religion had the capacity to perform miracles. For instance, it had the power to return husbands and wives to their partners, bring wealth, and a good life. Therefore, many people accepted to convert to the new religion, which gave the church and the popes a lot of political power. Thus, religious enthusiasm emerged in Europe, with most people willingly joining the crusades.

With the presence of relatively weak monarchs in Western Europe and the increasing number of converts, it was evident that the popes were becoming politically and socially strong. They wanted to control these kingdoms through spiritual and political awakening, even in cases where no force was needed. In fact, the monarchs were forced to accept the new religion in their kingdoms because more and more people were willing to convert and the increasing power of the crusaders.

To increase the power of crusaders, the popes determined those who were going to pay (or not pay) debts. Obedient crusaders, especially their leaders, were given special attention by the popes. They were assured of power and credit for their good work. Therefore, many people were willing to join the movement. In fact, since most of the creditors were Jews, the debtors readily accepted the new religion in order to avoid paying their debts, considering that the Jews were against the new religion⁵.

In addition, the author argues that the popes wanted to gain wealth for the church. They wanted the church to control the financial systems in most European monarchs and states, thus giving them outright political and economic powers over the weak monarchs.

Moreover, the author argues that the spread of the Muhammad’s religion in Europe was a major threat to the Roman Church. The popes were aware that most societies in Western Europe were not religious, which exposed them to Islam. Therefore, it was necessary to use any force at their disposal to prevent the spread of Islam⁶.

In conclusion, Munroe has attempted to develop an in-depth but brief analysis of the popes’ interest during the crusades. Contrary to the common notion that the church was interested in spreading the Good News, this article argues that papacy wanted to gain political, social and material wealth for the church. They wanted to develop a unique empire that controlled most of the monarchs and states in Europe. In addition, they were afraid of the Islamic advance to Europe, which would have weakened the Romans.

This article is important in developing basic knowledge of the history of the church as well as the role of the church in Europe. It provides an adequate basis for additional research. In fact, the article leaves a number of questions answered, which is an important ground for further studies.

Bibliography

Asbridge, Thomas. The Crusades: The Authoritative History of the War for the Holy Land. New York: HarperCollins, 2011.

Munro, Dana. “The Popes and the Crusaders.” Proceedings of the American philosophical society, 55 no. 5, (1916): 348-356.

Footnotes

1. Dana Munro, “The Popes and the Crusaders,” Proceedings of the American philosophical society, 55 no. 5, (1916): 348.
2. Munro, 348.
3. Thomas Asbridge, The Crusades: The Authoritative History of the War for the Holy Land (New York: HarperCollins, 2011), 234.
4. Munro, 349.
5. Munro, 351.
6. Asbridge, 234.

The religious, political, and economic changes of the Middle Ages were connected with the event known as the Investiture Controversy and the growth of the movements known as the Crusades. Though many rules tried to prevent the masses organizing collective actions without the approval of the state (Crone71), these two movements became exceptions. In the first lecture about the Investiture Controversy, Caraher said that people were divided into those who had to fight, work, and pray. The Investiture Controversy and the Crusades were engaged in by the representatives of the third group, and its roles remained crucial throughout the history and development of international relations. Those two “case studies” in medieval politics had a number of similarities, including the promotion of the struggle for power that took place between the rising authority of the Pope and the representatives of the ruling political system; however, there were also differences, including the establishment of the goals and the role of pilgrimage as the possibility to ask for forgiveness.

For example, in the speech of St Bernard of Clairvaux, Eugenius III’s Summons to a Crusade, 1146, it was said that “we exhort therefore all of you in God, we ask and command, and for the remission of sins enjoin… freed from their tyranny” (The Crusades). People were ready to use all their political powers just to be sure that their sins could be forgiven. The scope of such prayer was impressive indeed. The facts stated in the first lecture on the Investiture Controversy by Caraher made clear the Church’s intentions to expand its powers and the kings’ manipulations designed to win as many political and military allies in the greater European region as possible. In other words, the similarities of both “case studies” include the use of religion as a powerful instrument to cover the majority of political needs.

At the same time, it is necessary to note the differences that existed between the Investiture Controversy and the Crusades. The causes of the Investiture Controversy included the struggle between Gregory VII, who said that the Pope was the only person to “depose or reinstate bishops” in his Dictates of the Pope, 1075, and Henry IV, who believed that no one could dispose him “for any crime unless, which God forbid” as stated in his Letter to Gregory VII, Jan 24 1076. The Crusaders sought to improve the economic situation of the region and focused on the development of the commercial contacts with the East (Caraher, The Crusades).

Those two approaches were different. However, both of them were appropriate due to the materialist view of religion when economic, social, and political relations had to be taken into consideration (Crone 138). The Crusaders believed that their intentions to ask for forgiveness and use their power in order to stabilize economic relationships could be approved by God. Focusing attention on pilgrims and their relation to holy sites is another significant goal that the Crusaders wanted to achieve – a complex phenomenon that touched upon the economic and religious aspects of the religious wars. Still, I would add that all these discussions may be considerably improved if the relative powers of the Pope and the king were compared thoroughly.

Works Cited

Caraher, William. Western Civilization: The Crusades. (Lecture).

Caraher, William. Western Civilization: The Investiture Controversy. (Lecture).

Crone, Patricia. Pre-Industrial Societies: Anatomy of the Pre-Modern World. Oneworld Publications, 2003.

The Crusades (primary source).

The Investiture Controversy (primary source).

The Crusades are usually discussed in terms of key religious events in the Middle Ages because of their significance in politics, dynamism, and impact on the development of European countries during the period under discussion. In comparing the Crusades to the Investiture Controversy, it is possible to state that the similarities between these two historical phenomena are found in their relationship with both the religious and political development of European nations. Discussing the relationship between religion and politics that was “sometimes harmonious and sometimes stormy,” Crone has stated that “religious and political leaders were both concerned with the organization and management of people in the here and now, they could not ignore each other for long” (132).

From this viewpoint, religion could influence the authorities’ military decisions. According to Crone, “God may tell you to conquer, kill and loot, or in other words to practice holy war” (132). This practice was followed by popes and monarchs to promote their power outside their countries. Thus, the Crusades were initiated with reference to religious goals similar to many other political events of that time. The pilgrimage to “sacred lands” or the “holy site,” as it was described by the religious leaders, was considered important to protect the Christians’ faith and interest in the region (lecture). As a result, religious events reflected prevailing tendencies in politics and accentuated the necessity of developing relations with other countries. The First Crusade was aimed at providing support to the Byzantine Empire, and it opened new prospects for the Roman Catholic Church to develop trade and establish political contacts in the Eastern Mediterranean.

However, it is important to note that the Crusades and the Investiture Controversy represented different phenomena that should be discussed in detail. Although both events are associated with religious conflicts and wars, the Crusades were oriented toward the war against Islamic invaders in the Eastern Mediterranean, and the Investiture Controversy represented the conflict between popes and monarchs in European countries. From this point of view, the purposes and effects of these events were different. Thus, the Crusades emphasized the opposition between Christianity and Islam in the global arena, and the decisions of the Roman Catholic Church regarding the Crusades significantly affected politics in the Eastern Mediterranean region.

The Christians should have accepted the call to war in order to protect their faith and sacred lands. Speaking to the public, Robert the Monk claimed: “Enter upon the road to the Holy Sepulcher, wrest that land from the wicked race, and subject it to yourselves” (Robert the Monk, Urban II’s Speech at Clermont in 1095). In contrast, during the Investiture Controversy, religious and political leaders were more interested in resolving their domestic power issues. Thus, Pope Gregory VII declared: “That of the pope alone all princes shall kiss the feet” (Pope Gregory VII, The Dictates of the Pope), while the goal of monarchs was to prevent this monocracy in Catholic countries. From this perspective, the Crusades can be discussed as a more complex historical phenomenon than the Investiture Controversy because this holy war determined the course of development of politics and international relations in the world for many years to follow. Therefore, it is possible to agree with Student A’s ideas regarding important trade relationships associated with the Crusades’ outcomes and Student B’s ideas regarding the role of religion in the discussed political events.

Introduction

The story of the First Crusade is connected deeply with the authority of Pope Urban Two (Asbridge, 2005). Religion is known to have been the driving force behind the first and even subsequent Crusades and has long been the main reason for the existing division between the West and the East, and this division was a driving force behind the foreign policy between the two sides (Mastnak, 2002).

For centuries now, the topic of the Crusades, majorly the first Crusade, has received a lot of attention from academicians and historians both from the West and East (Asbridge, 2005). This paper will be a careful comparative analysis of both the Middle Eastern and the Western views of what happened during the first crusade. Mainly, the paper will explain the political, economic and religious motivations that created the energy for the Crusade.

First Crusade

The economic Reasons

There were a number of reasons that explain the occurrence of the first crusade. The Middle East had a lot of silk and had many spice trade routes that attracted the Crusaders (Asbridge, 2005). That is, after people who profess Islam had invaded core centres of trade, which included Persia, Syria as well as Egypt, the trade routes were blocked or were cut off. In addition, those goods that were allowed to pass through the blocked routes were charged highly in terms of taxes (Asbridge, 2005). To support this fact, attacks had been made by Muslims on Jerusalem soon after it had gained access to the seaport of Aqaba. This port was a direct link by the sea not just to India, but China as well.

In addition, by attacking parts of Asia and Africa that previously were dominated by Christians, Muslims had intentions to stop the thriving slave trade. Slave trade was highly practised by the Europeans, and its stoppage would have deprived some parts of southern Europe of their major sources of income (Asbridge, 2005). Practically, this aspect negatively affected the economy of not just southern Europe, but also of those countries that relied on the slave trade.

Political Reasons

The origin of the First Crusade was in Western Europe (Kostick, 2008). However, according to scholars from the West, the First Crusade was provoked by the Easterners (Nicolle & Hook, 2001). Different from what is known, it was not inspired by Alexios one of the Byzantine Empire or Eastern Roman Empire and not Pope Urban two (Nicolle & Hook, 2001). The Eastern Roman Empire had survived the collapse of Rome, which was expanding in the eastern states (Asbridge, 2005).

It all started in the eleventh century when the Byzantine Empire, also referred to as the Eastern Roman Empire in Asia Minor, came under the territorial pressure from the Turks (Asbridge, 2005). At this point, the Turks were considered as masters of entire central Asia and the Middle East (Abels, 2009). The Turks allegedly attacked the Byzantine Empire. However, this story is still debatable as most written works from past scholars allege that relations between Muslim Turks and Christians in the Byzantine Empire were good (Mastnak, 2002).

At the beginning of the 1090s, however, the situation between the two religious divides changed radically (Nicolle & Hook, 2001). First, when the sultan of Baghdad passed on, a number of local Turks captured some part of the Byzantine Empire (Asbridge, 2005). The seized part was the most precious and sensitive territory, an aspect that risked the capital of the Byzantine Empire. As the pressure kept increasing, close friends of Alexios prevailed on him to seek help across Western Europe (Kostick, 2008). One of the persons, who offered to give assistance, was Pope Urban two, although on the condition that the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church would be united.

With this, what followed was more of a war to defend and protect the Holy Land instead of helping the Byzantine Empire to take back their land (Mastnak, 2002). Some of the cities that had been captured by the Turks included Antioch and Nicaea (Nicolle & Hook, 2001).

Historically, these were places where first Christians dwelt; they still carried the significance for Christianity at the time they were seized (Asbridge, 2005). When the Crusaders were sent to fight with the Turks, they were under the control of Alexios, not the Pope. They also swore allegiance to Alexios and promised that they would hand over all things, including cities captured (Frankopan, 2012).

However, they did not live up to their promise. They did not hand over what they had captured back to Alexios (Kostick, 2008). With this, Alexios lost control of his empire. What the Crusaders had conquered or captured included much of the eastern part of the Mediterranean, which also belonged to Alexios (Asbridge, 2005). With this, Alexios, together with his Byzantine Empire, was completely taken over by the Crusaders, whilst Pope Urban two remained intact. This is based on the fact that, although Crusaders swore allegiance to Alexios, they were highly inspired by the invigorating call by the leader of the Catholic church at Clermont (Kostick, 2008).

This event took place almost four or five years before the Crusaders embarked on a journey to recapture the Holy Land from Turks, who were Muslims. The process was not a peaceful one. As historians indicate, the recapture of the Jerusalem Temple was horrific, people walked almost to their knees through a stream of the blood of the unbelievers (Mastnak, 2002). Unbelievers, in this case, are the Muslim Turks. According to past historians, the conquest of the Crusaders had proved that God loved Western Europe and that Rome had authority over the earth.

Religious Reasons

From the views of both the West and East, it can be seen that the Crusade was inspired by both political and religious reasons. During this time, particularly in Western Europe, religion was highly respected, as it was an important part of the lives of people (Asbridge, 2005). It dictated what people should do and what they should not do. Religion was to be involved at any given point in human life from birth to death. The other thing is that fear was also preconceived in the religious system. This is based on the fact that the threat as well as fear of sin were a collective responsibility amongst the ancient believers. They believed that those who had sinned would only gain entry into heaven through purification of their souls.

On the contrary, those who failed to purify their souls would burn in eternal fires of hell when time comes. In other words, this collective obsession, ascribed to by all people, shaped all regulations, morality, customs and even laws (Mastnak, 2002).

Taking into consideration that most people at this time were illiterate, especially in Western Europe, religious art was actually used to show what would become of those who did not lead a righteous life, or would fail to live up to any religious call (Mastnak, 2002). With this, one way of purifying one’s sin was to die in the Lord. That is, those who died trying to recapture the Holy Land would automatically be absolved of their sins. It was for this reason that most Christians participated in the Crusade.

In addition, the church had managed to reconcile the church sermons with the brutality of ancient conflict, by encouraging and promoting conflicts as a way of showing devotion to the religious call. Generally, people justified what they were engaging in with the preaching of the Church. The Church at that time recognized killing as long as it was done with the purpose of gaining spiritual sanctity or to promote the Cause of God.

Middle East

Political situation

The condition of the Byzantine Empire in the Middle Ages had deteriorated a lot. This was worsened further by the collapse of the Carolingian Empire and the relative stability of European boundaries. Many communities, such as the Magyar, Viking and Slav, had converted into Christianity. Therefore, this meant that what was left behind was a class of warriors whose main work was to fight all the time as well as terrorize the civilians who were mostly peasants. With this, the church had attempted to stem the violence, but only for some time, as trained militias always sought for some ways to initiate violence.

The first Crusade had some terrible impact on the Jewish and Muslims living in Middle East. For instance, during the First Crusade followers of the two religions (Jewish and Muslims) worked together in defense of major cities, such as Jerusalem and Antioch, from the Crusaders (Asbridge, 2005). In fact, it was for this reason that the Christians targeted both the Jewish and Muslims. According to the scholars from Middle East, it was a horrifying thing to see religious people who were armed to teeth approaching to attack other people (Mastnak, 2002). In fact, the people of Middle East saw these armed religious persons as aggravators and not as a big threat.

At the time of the attack, Muslims were dominating the world in terms of education, culture and even trade (Mastnak, 2002). Arabs traders were dominating international trade. Scholars from Middle East had managed to translate the discoveries from ancient Greece, such as Medicine, to invent highly advanced medical tools that were used to treat people (Nicolle & Hook, 2001). They had also managed to translate the discoveries from Asia to improve subjects such as astronomy. So, they were seen as people who were a threat to the West.

Europe was a region that had been badly damaged by wars, disagreements over supremacy, and shaped in ignorance and superstitious activities (Kostick, 2008). According to the Middle Eastern scholars, one of the main reasons that compelled the leader of the Roman Catholic Church to initiate the First Crusade was to divert the attention from endless fighting amongst European Christians and the best way was to create a common enemy for them all (Kostick, 2008). The enemy was the Muslims who were living in the land that was considered holly by Christians.

After the first Crusade, Christians from Europe initiated other Crusades, but they were not as successful or victorious as the First Crusade (Asbridge, 2005). In fact, what the Crusades were doing was just creating a new conqueror in Middle East: the sultan of Syria, who at later times recaptured Jerusalem from Christians (Mastnak, 2002). One notable thing about the sultan of Syria is that instead of killing Christians the way the Crusaders had done at the temple of Solomon, he just let them go unhurt.

In other words, he forgave what they had done to his fellow Muslims. In addition, the Crusade did not change much of the Middle East, but it was Europe that was changed by the Crusades (Kostick, 2008). The Crusaders took with them foreign products and commodities, initiating European demand for Asian and Arab commodities.

The Crusaders also managed to acquire new ideas such as scientific ideas, medical information, and an understanding about the backgrounds of other religions, such as Islam and Jewish religion (Mastnak, 2002). According to Middle East scholars, it is Middle East that helped in shaping their armies in preparation for a global invasion. In the end, it was the renewal and growth that ultimately generated a Crusader impact in the entire Islamic world (Mastnak, 2002).

How it has helped to mold the views of both sides

As scholars from Europe indicated, Europe had managed to force all Muslims into an inferior position. This is the point that sparked resentment in some Middle Eastern regions (Kostick, 2008). In the present day, the Crusades actually make up a major gripe for a good number of people in the Islamic world, particularly when it comes to relations with the West. It must be recognized that that attitude towards the West is not out of order (Mastnak, 2002). In any case, European Christians out of nothing but political and religious reasons launched unprovoked attacks on the Islamic world.

Following the terror attack on twin towers in New York, the president of the United States was quick to comment that the Crusade that had started would take a while to end. The use of the word “Crusade” opened wounds that have not healed for many years since the medieval era. The president had provoked the Islamic world and attracted the supporters from Europe. The president of United States decided to launch another Crusade, the war on Iraq.

The interesting thing is that Iraq had nothing to do with the terror attacks in the United States (Mastnak, 2002). Just like the previous unprovoked Crusades, this Crusade by the United States claimed the lives of innocent people in Middle East. It also served to continue the cycle of distrust that had previously developed between the Christian and Muslim worlds since the time the leader of the Roman Catholic Church called on Christians at Clermont in order to defend their holly land.

Conclusion

Many factors contributed to the declaration of the Crusade, some of these were political, economic and social. However, religion was the underlying factor. During the eleventh century, most people highly regarded religion, especially when doing any cause in the Lord’s name. It meant a lot to both Christians and Muslims. Reforms in Rome also had some impact on the first Crusade. That is, the regaining of papal fame under Pope Urban two. The church during this time had managed to find the way of reconciling the church sermons with the brutality of ancient conflict, by encouraging and promoting conflicts as a way of showing devotion to the religious call.

This created the unfounded fear that sinners would burn in eternal fire if they failed to absolve their sins through dedicating themselves to the call of the Lord. As it has been seen, there were various views on Crusades, depending on the side the views are emanating from. As for Westerners, it was the Turks who invited trouble by attacking the region which do not belong to them. They also hold that Christians were able to emerge victorious, because there were some divisions and weakness in the Islamic world or Middle East.

References

Abels, R. (2009). Timeline for the Crusades and Christian Holy War to c.1350. Web.

Asbridge, T. (2005). The First Crusade: A New History. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster Press.

Frankopan, P. (2012). Go East, Young Knight. Web.

Kostick, C. (2008). The social structure of the First Crusade. Leiden, UK: Brill.

Mastnak, T. (2002). Crusading Peace: Christendom, the Muslim World, and Western Political Order. Berkeley, Calif: University of California Press.

Nicolle, D., & Hook, C. (2001). Nicopolis 1196 : the Crusades. Oxford, UK: Osprey Military.

Inspiring the Tenth Crusade

Launching the Tenth Crusade could become a perfect means for an imaginary ambitious European aristocrat to strengthen his position in the hierarchy. However, to trigger the new warfare, he would have to consider the reasons for failure in the previous Crusades, as well as the current situation, including the condition of the resources and the public mood.

Reasons of Crusades’ Failure

The most obvious reason for the failure in the Crusades was feudal division and disunity in actions while the military operations. To succeed in the struggle against the Muslims, it was necessary to provide concerted actions. However, the vassalage of the crusaders’ lands was rather weak and did not give the Jerusalem king all the necessary power. This led to the next reason, which consists of the egoistic interests of the governors of the crusaders’ territories (Nicolle, 81-86).

Besides, the confrontation with the Byzantium Empire was becoming persistent, which led to the exhaustion of both sides. At the same time, Popes and emperors were also in permanent confrontation, which caused disunity in actions and contradiction of interests.

It is important to mention, that the crusaders’ territories were rather small: they occupied only a narrow coastal zone. The main “power source” for the crusades was Western Europe; besides, the crusaders were unwilling to move to new places and often returned home after the warfare. Moreover, the neighboring of the crusaders and the natives also was not so allied, as they had different denominations.

Motivating the Top

To motivate the top and provide concerted effort, it would be necessary to analyze their interests, considering the after-Crusade condition.

The motivation for the monarchs would have several aspects. Firstly, the strengthening of the Muslim world’s position was a long-term threat for the whole of Europe in every way. Thus, it was necessary to go on struggling against the contender. Secondly, the territories and resources of the Byzantine Empire also remained a tasty morsel for Europe. If not to squander energy and to plan the attack properly, both the Holy Land and the Byzantine territory could be conquered.

Besides, it would be necessary to take into account the difference between the monarchies’ current condition and interests. For example, the French monarchical system was at the edge of failure after the Crusades. The spirit of rising consciousness and liberation was in the air, and the monarch could use the new Crusade for his aims. At the same time, Italy was considered to have an economic interest in the Crusade. It provided food and ammunition, earning substantial capital (Riley-Smith, 175). This could be a good motivator for launching a new Crusade.

In general, the state of feudalism in Europe was the following: having visited the Eastern territories, the feudal lords got used to luxury and became exacting, which led to fierce exploitation of people and activation of the class struggle. The new Crusade could draw people’s attention away from the issues of self-liberation.

As for the governors of the Crusaders’ territories, it would be reasonable to promise a strong hierarchical position, awards et al to reconcile their interests to that general.

All these arguments would be used by an imaginative aristocrat while initiating a new Crusade.

Involving People

As the Crusades ended with failure, it would be difficult to expect the willingness of the Crusaders to go East with the new attack. Moral and physical resources were exhausted, and people tended to find a job closer to their native place. Thus, for an imaginary initiator of the Tenth Crusade, it would be necessary to develop a system of measures that will both motivate and coerce people to participate in the new warfare.

In 1315 a 3-year catastrophic famine began, bringing misery, epidemics, and death (Jordan 7). This situation could be perfect for the needs of the imaginary aristocrat. It is necessary to remember that people in Europe stayed rather religious, and the famine could be interpreted to people as God’s punishment for failure in the previous Crusades. Through active propaganda on different levels, including the Pope, the idea of the necessity for the further struggle in the name of the Cross could impact people’s mood rather strongly, as no one wanted to suffer from God’s punishment further.

At the same time, the misery of starving Europe could be also a good motivator. People would receive the opportunity to leave the devastated motherland and move to the East.

Thus, a strategy for a Crusader initiator would be based on considering the interests of all the sides taking part in it.

Bibliography

Jordan, William C. The Great Famine: Northern Europe In the Early Fourteenth Century. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1996. Print.

Nicolle, David. The Crusades. Oxford: Osprey, 2001. Print.

Riley-Smith, Jonathan S. The Crusades: A History. London: Continuum, 2005. Print.