Killbot

I tried including the footnotes to this, but they kept getting deleted. If you are curious about sources of this essay, pm me and I can send you the essay as an attachment with the footnotes.

The Crusades and their Objectives:

Of the many events that took place during the Medieval Ages in Christendom and the Mediterranean world, the Crusades are perhaps a major characteristic of that period. Indeed, they were a phenomenon that lasted for 200 years, the repercussions of which are still present in our world today. Yet the goals of the Crusaders were many and ambiguous, in fact the very results of these expeditions had arguably minimally benefited Latin Christendom‘s development. It is important, therefore, to examine various aspects of the Crusades in order to grasp the true motivations of the many Christians of Europe who took up arms to travel to the Holy Land in the name of Christ. The very name of “Crusades” attributed to these phenomena implies, incorrectly, a primarily religious manifestation, one of the many misperceptions that can be brushed aside if other, perhaps more important factors are taken into consideration, notably: the state of Christendom in the 11th century, the role of the Papacy in organizing the Crusades, the conduct of the Crusaders and their motivations, the state of the Byzantine Empire, the religious divide between the Christian and Muslim world and their rivalry over the Holy Lands, and the economical incentives for conquering the Holy Land. These factors are imperative in understanding the dynamics behind each of the seven Crusades; observing them through the lens of only one is not sufficient to grasp these events in a critical, objective perspective favourable to analyzing the multitude of motives behind these armed expeditions.

Understanding the state of Christendom in the 11th century prior to the Papacy’s call for an expedition to the Holy Land may explain certain motives for the Crusades. With the schism of the Orthodox and Catholic Church in 1054, the Byzantine empire was locked in a doomed struggle with the Seljuk Turks and Mongols, leaving the Latin Church free to assert its dominance over Europe. The contemporary society of the 11th century was one of feudal estates, endemic warfare and dispersed cities, each with its own political and ideological creed. The new urban centers were host to a growing bourgeoisie, who benefited from the well established but few trade routes present. As such, with the rise of the Latin Church and the desire of feudal nobles to expand their holdings, it is no surprise that the two would grow hand in hand. For example, Pope Nicholas II in 1059 granted Robert Guiscard the Duchy of Apulia and Calabria, as well as the Duchy of Sicily, while in 1066 William the Bastard, Duke of Normany, conquered the British isles with the banner of Saint Peter, courtesy of Rome, at the famed Battle of Hastings. With the Dictatus Papae of Pope Gregory VII in 1075, henceforth all temporal as well as spiritual authority was subject to ecclesiastical approval, further strengthening Rome‘s grip on the newly conquered lands. It can be argued then, that the Church’s success in uniting the non-Orthodox world under its banner could now allow itself to expand towards Byzantium’s former territories in Asia minor, thus establishing its superiority over Constantinople, and gaining new trade routes as well. However, with the rivalries present among the various kingdoms and feudal lords, such a task could not be carried out. The Crusades, therefore, would provide the perfect incentive for establishing “The Truce of God”, enabling Rome to initiate the conquest of the Holy Land.

The dire situation of the Byzantine Empire provided the impetus for the Latin West’s expedition into Asia Minor. Pope Urban II policy of reconciliation with the Byzantine Patriarch in 1095, and Constantinople’s plea for aid against the Turkish onslaught provided Rome with the pretext for invading Jerusalem and the surrounding cities. The resulting Crusades however, would further deepen the divide between East and West, thanks largely in part, but not limited to the deplorable conduct of the Crusaders, and the sack of Constantinople in 1203, “The Great Betrayal”, by Doge Enrico Dandolo of Venice and King Philip of Swabia, the former taking the opportunity to establish a Latin empire in Byzantium. Arguably, the Crusaders weren’t interested in defending Constantinople’s territories or for solely religious reasons; a large part of the crusading pilgrims were people seeking escape from the drudgery of everyday medieval life, having been promised as well by the Pope with a reward of "mass apotheosis. Above all, they reinforced the barriers between Christianity and Islam, poisoning relations in which Westerners were cast in the role both of aggressors and of losers."

None of these events could have taken place, however, without the feeble status of the Byzantine empire at the time. Which brings the focus of the religious divide between Islam and Christianity into play. The situation can be summed up in the words of Pope Urban II:

"[A] race [the Persians] utterly alienated from God, a generation forsooth which has not directed it heart and has not entrusted its spirit to God, has invaded the lands of those Christians and has depopulated them by the sword, pillage and fire;…[…] On whom therefore is the labour of avenging these wrongs and of recovering this territory incumbent, if not upon you? You, upon who above other nations God has conferred remarkable glory in arms, great courage, bodily activity, and strength to humble the hairy scalp of those who resist you."

With the Moors established in Spain and the advances of the Seljuk Turks forcing their way through Asia Minor, eliminating Rome’s main rival, and occupying the Holy city of Jerusalem, the Muslims may have been perceived as an obstacle to the Roman Catholic Church’s supremacy. After all, the idea of the Crusades bore fruit from Urban II speech; the Papacy had its hand in these affairs as well. Yet the reasons may have been masked in religious pretexts. “In reality, the Latin Church was rather more influential in high politics than in the lives of ordinary men and women”. As was previously mentioned, the majority of Crusaders were common people, not nobility or clergy. What can be argued then, is perhaps the Latin Church attempted to dissuade the growing restiveness of common society, stemming partly from waves of famine, overpopulation, plague, and religious disillusionment, by encouraging the colonization of the Holy Land under religious pretexts, leaving the nobles free to consolidate their feudal holdings and the bishops to establish their religious authority in society, as well as wage a religious war against Latin Christendom’s main obstacle to controlling the eastern Mediterranean: Islam.

It is interesting to note the leaders of these expeditions: barons Godfroi de Bouillon, Raymond de St-Gilles (First Crusade), Louis VII of France (Second Crusade), Emperor Frederick Barbarossa (Third Crusade); all men of high politics. The Crusades provided the perfect opportunity for such nobles and merchants to acquire financial assets and engage in trade. Although it has been argued that “the only fruit of the Crusades kept by the Christians was the apricot,” several cities did benefit considerably, particularly Venice, through the “Great Betrayal”, and Genoa through the re-opening of the eastern Mediterranean to travel and trade. Even the various military orders established in the Holy Land, the likes of the “Poor Knights of Christ and the Temple of Solomon," "diversified into banking and real estate, growing immensely rich from properties all over Christendom." Slavery on the Muslim model was still commonly practised; wars offer an abundance of such resources. Although only a minority of cities did benefit from the Crusades, those who did gained tremendous wealth and power. Arguably, the central role played by the Italian city states in the Renaissance and the rise of powerful families along the lines of the Medici bankers, can claim their origins partly from the economic consequences of the Crusades.

In summary, the objective of the Crusades manifested itself in a legion of ways. The rise of the Latin Church within the events of Christendom in the 11th century, notably the declining power of the Byzantine empire and the rise of the Seljuk Turks, provided a perfect opportunity for the Papacy to overshadow its formal rival, as well as quell endemic warfare and dissenting elements of society by encouraging the aggressive colonization of the Holy Lands in return for spiritual reward. The door would then be open for the clergy to assert its authority in medieval society thanks to the Church’s new found power and influence. In return for Crusading on behalf of Rome, kings, nobles and merchants stood to gain great financial wealth from the prospect of opening new trades routes from the east and establishing trading empires in rich lands. Strategically, the Crusades, along with the Reconquista and the northern crusades in the Baltic, was another move, albeit a failure, in Christendom’s religious and bloody war against Islam and pagan religions. Needless to say, the repercussions of the Crusades have created waves in the sea of history that are still visible to this day. For many Muslims, the contemporary war in the Middle East is nothing more than an encore of the painful events of 1096-1291.

DreamWeaver

Oh dear.

Another economic gains and colonisation for crusades thread.

Have you read much of the last 30 years of literature on the Crusades?


That the Crusades were for some economic benefit as opposed to a religious one is one of the great misrepresntations of history that shcloarship has done away with over the course of recent years. To remove religion and spirituality is to remove them from their chronological paradigm.

Yet your focus is heavily upon the First Crusade and the events prior to it.

The objectives of the First Crusade are not those of the others, their objective are different and based upon the political/military situation upon their genesis. You do not take them int account.

This seems very much the grand sweeping all encompasin narrative of Runciman where general gaols and objectives are generically dished out for the entire movement. A stance scholarship has moved away from.

Killbot

I wrote this five years ago for an introductory European history class, and I have to admit that I'm not exactly well versed in this period of history (I'm into modern Eastern European history), so any comments are welcome. If it gets people talking, I'm happy.

DreamWeaver

Deabte is always good, the Crusades are perhaps one of the most mis understood and mis represented events in European history. Anything that helps to cast aside the shroud of ignorance.

Killbot

If only debate was used more in academia. I can only remember two instances during my undergrad when an essay of mine was thoroughly criticized. I always felt (and still do) that the lack of a forum for debate at the university level defeated the purpose of essays and research papers, at least at the undergrad level.

laketahoejwb

The Crusaders were Pillagers, Plunders, and barbarians even to their own Christian villagers.

http://www.historum.com/medieval-byz...?postcount=251

Lake .....

BrowniesRule

laketahoejoe; WE KNOW

Stop poisoning every Crusades thread with your protestant-born-and-raised monologue. You're an old guy who read one book about the Crusades and god knows you're not anywhere near changing your stubborn mind about the subject. Go make a fool of yourself in some other parts of this forum.

laketahoejwb

brow

I am only laying on the facts for new members here and everywhere. If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. Name calling is childish. ......
Lake

BrowniesRule

If only they were facts, lake. And if only you could back them up with real data other than ''what you think''. The only contribution you've ever brought to any thread about the Crusades was to say that Crusaders were pillagers, plunderers, and barbarians, which is what seems to be ''name-calling'' by your own standards.

laketahoejwb

brow, my good friend:

SIR, .... I am neither a Protestant nor a newbie on the Crusades. No matter how you cut it, the Crusades were a scourge to Christendom, our relations to Islam even to today; a scourge on the Moors and even to Jerusalem. No matter how much perfume you pour on the Crusades, you cannot rid it from being the dung of history and Christianity. I bring only reality and truth to the Crusade conversations and shall not consider them as caviler Christian Soldiers fighting infidels for Christian valor under the ilegitimate command of the Papacy.

No high level conversations should ignore this. We all must recoginized the above, and must preceed and be Summerized buy the above.

You need to settle down a bit and face a brusing truthful discussion as has been the challenge on the many other threads.

BTW the OP seems to be on this track so don't try to steal it as others have tried to do before on other Chrusader Threads.

Lake ......