| Author |
Message |
Roger Hooper
|
 Posted: Wed 03 Mar, 2004 11:53 am Post subject: |
 |
|
My view is that the Crusades started for 3 reasons:
A genuine desire to recover Jerusalem for Christendom
Stop the Christian kingdoms from fighting each other, and give them a more (in the Pope's view) appropriate heathen target.
A strong desire among landless people to get their own fief. (or get a better one than you already had) Owning your own land with your own peasants to work it, and passing it on to your descendants was just about the highest goal for the Medieval population.
|
|
  |
 |
Alexi Goranov
myArmoury Alumni
|
| Posted: Wed 03 Mar, 2004 12:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi roger,
I do I gree with the 3 reasons you mention, but I will downplay the importance of the first. Or may be blatant enough and ignore it.
The reason I say that is because the crusaders invaded places that should not have been touched, if the point was to simply to take lands away from the muslims. Example: in the fourth crusade the mostly Florentine crusaders took over the byzantine empire (mostly christian). If that were not enough they even decided to move north into Bulgaria (again christians). That was a mistake as on the 16th of may 1260 (year may be wrong) the Bulgarian tzar Kaloyan defeated the "knightly" army of the Latins by Adrianopole.
Gaining wealth, political power, and land sounds more plausible as reasons for the crusades considering the historical facts.
You should bear in mind that I am no expert in the area, just an opinionated judge of human character.
Alexi
|
|
|
|
|
Roger Hooper
|
| Posted: Wed 03 Mar, 2004 1:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Also, if you went on Crusade, some of the barricades on the way to Heaven were cleared.
Alexi, you seem to be saying that going on a spiritual quest and making out well materially on the way are incompatible. It may well seem so to the modern West, but I don't think the Medieval mind in general had much of a problem with it. Kill or drive out the heathen or schismatic, take over his land, bring in Latin clergy, build a castle and sow the fields - sounds great.
|
|
|
|
|
Alexi Goranov
myArmoury Alumni
|
| Posted: Wed 03 Mar, 2004 1:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am not disputing the way the crusaders felt about what they were doing. The question is why the powerful or power seeking kings and popes started the quests. And their reasons, I seriously doubt, have much to do with spiritual enlightenment .
Allan nicely explained the pope's agenda.
And I also doubt that attacking fellow Christians which mind their business in their territory, clears many barricades on the way to Heaven or wherever people at the time thought they were headed.
At any rate, trying to understand the motives of others is close to impossible. There are the records and observations (which in this case are never first hand) and then there are our are our own conclusions and opinions and interpretations. Of course these will vary as every interpretation is bent through the prism of how the individual sees the world. That is the reason many modern historians and philosophers are wary of the word TRUTH, even in the context of historical records. There are no truths, just interpretations some may say, and I will tend to agree.
All this is to say that I may have different interpretation than you, but in no way do I mean that you are wrong.
Cheers,
Alexi
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allan Senefelder
Industry Professional
|
| Posted: Wed 03 Mar, 2004 1:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Fourth Crusade was actually made up of a variety of Europeans as most of the Crusades were but was "taken over "
if you will by the Venetians and thier Doge a fellow by the name of Dandello . The Crusaders show up to book ships
for the Holy Land , the Venetians ever the bussinessmen see these folks loaded with capital and reason that
they might be better at spending that money than the Crusaders so three of four months and alot of winning and dinning
later the Crusaders are not just broke but now in debt to the Doge and Venice so the Venetians take over the
Crusade and go off with thier new army to sack the richest city in the world at that time . Alot of the stuff taken
from Constantinople is still to be seen in Venetian museums and churches.
The idea of war as a pentential act was at the core of the crusading pitch and not at all unreconcilable . Afterall
they weren't going to kill off to kill Christians( or at least when they left home that wasn't the plan but always seemed
to end up that way ) they were killing the infidel "for god " . By killing the folks who took the Holy Land they were being told
they would be absolved of thier sins thus any conflict that might have arisen was solved and the wide range of bad
behaviors these folks performed were free of guilt .
|
|
 |
|
Roger Hooper
|
| Posted: Wed 03 Mar, 2004 2:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Alexi Goranov wrote: |
And I also doubt that attacking fellow Christians which mind their business in their territory, clears many barricades on the way to Heaven or wherever people at the time thought they were headed.
Alexi |
Those Christians that were attacked, were members of the Eastern Church. While killing them may not have made you heavenworthy, it certainly wasn't as bad as killing a fellow membere of the Western Church.
Franks and Greeks seldom got along. The Feudal way of doing things clashed with the cosmopolitan Byzantine culture. In some ways the crusaders were closer to the Turks than they were to to heirs of the Eastern Roman Empire.
|
|
|
|
|
Alexi Goranov
myArmoury Alumni
|
| Posted: Wed 03 Mar, 2004 2:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, I am aware of the differences between the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches, me being a bulgarian and all. Mostly the differences in teaching are minor and skin deep. But the fact that we do not recognize the power of the pope.................yep, that apparently did it.
Alexi
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allan Senefelder
Industry Professional
|
| Posted: Wed 03 Mar, 2004 3:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
They didn't mind chopping up Western christians either . Two words Albrigensian Crusade ( okay possibly misspelled
but still two words ) .
|
|
|
|
|
Robert Zamoida
|
| Posted: Wed 03 Mar, 2004 4:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A couple of books that I'm currently reading and/or just picked up might help here:
1. The Templars, by Piers Paul Read. The books tends to focus more on the overall history of the Holy Lands and the Crusades and doesn't get into too many specifics about the Templars, but helps to paint a good picture of the world the Templars fit in and sheds some very good light on the circumstances of their downfall.
2. Knight Hospitaller (1) 1100-1306 Warrior 33 from Osprey Publishing, by David Nicolle and Christa Hook. The color plates show two very good diagrams of the arms, armour, equipment and clothing of the the Hospitallers. It also shows the construction method of a type od hybrid polearm from the Maciejewski Bible  .
Rob Zamoida
"When your life is on the line, you want to make use of all your tools. No warrior should be willing to die with his swords at his sides, without having made use of his tools."
-Miyamoto Mushashi, Gorin no Sho
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allan Senefelder
Industry Professional
|
| Posted: Wed 03 Mar, 2004 6:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hey Rob . If we're listing books Dungeon,Fire and Sword is another really good one . It covers the history of the Templars
start to finish ( even tells you why friday the 13th is bad luck . its the day all the templars were rounded up and disbanded )
and is a great read . Also " The Crusades " a four part series that ran on Public Television by Terry Gilliam of Monty Python
in the early 90's is a great watch and loaded with info .
|
|
|
|
|
Robert Zamoida
|
| Posted: Thu 04 Mar, 2004 4:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
You know, I think I actually saw that series when it aired 
Another really good book is The Crusades Through Arab Eyes, unfortunately I can't remember the author's name but I first read it in college, and if you'll forgive the pun it was a real eye opener.
Rob Zamoida
"When your life is on the line, you want to make use of all your tools. No warrior should be willing to die with his swords at his sides, without having made use of his tools."
-Miyamoto Mushashi, Gorin no Sho
|
|
|
|
|
|
Russ Ellis
Industry Professional
|
| Posted: Thu 04 Mar, 2004 5:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think making broad generalizations about motivations for the Crusades is difficult. We can be pretty certain about the motivations of various major players, the Pope of the moment, Peter the Hermit, Richard III, Frederick II, Louis IV etc. However I suspect that there were as many mixes of motivations as there were crusaders. Were some in it for primarily religious reasons? Of course. Were some in it for pesonal gain? Absolutely! Was politics a major factor? Undoubtedly. It's a fascinating chapter in human history.
TRITONWORKS Custom Scabbards
|
|
|
|
|
|
Josh S.
|
| Posted: Fri 05 Mar, 2004 11:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Actually its due to power politicing by the Pope that there were Crusades . The Turks had taken the HolyLand and it
took the Emperor Alexi a while to get an army together to take it back . While he's doing this he send the Pope
in a letter asking for assistance... |
Allen's got it exactly right. Whereas the individual warriors that fought in the crusades may have had their own motivations, the reason the First Crusade began at all was because the Turks were knocking on Mr. Alexis'(sp?) door, and he needed troops. Who better to ask than the one and only power in medieval Europe who could actually unify the various warring states?
"The accomplishment of man has been to remain fractured, by cause of which we are strong."
-Jerome Santus Perriere
|
|
 |
|
Roger Hooper
|
| Posted: Fri 05 Mar, 2004 1:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Josh S. wrote: | | Allen's got it exactly right. Whereas the individual warriors that fought in the crusades may have had their own motivations, the reason the First Crusade began at all was because the Turks were knocking on Mr. Alexis'(sp?) door, and he needed troops. Who better to ask than the one and only power in medieval Europe who could actually unify the various warring states? |
When the Crusaders showed up at Constantinople, Alexias wasn't overjoyed with the situation, mainly because they were not about to be controlled by him. He did give them a certain amount of assistence while they were still in Anatolia, but once the Crusaders got to Antioch, there was no more help from Alexias. One problem - Alexias considered Antioch to be his property, and the Crusaders, especially Bohemund, thought otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Josh S.
|
| Posted: Mon 08 Mar, 2004 9:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm certainly not trying to say that the crusading warriors and Byzantines got along, as that's obviously far removed from reality. I was merely pointing out the inspiration for the First Crusade(which naturally led to the other Crusades) was not as purely religious as popular belief would like to show.
"The accomplishment of man has been to remain fractured, by cause of which we are strong."
-Jerome Santus Perriere
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joel Whitmore
Location: Simmesport, LA Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 342
|
| Posted: Mon 08 Mar, 2004 2:55 pm Post subject: One must be careful about intentions of the Crusaders |
|
|
| Josh S. wrote: | | I'm certainly not trying to say that the crusading warriors and Byzantines got along, as that's obviously far removed from reality. I was merely pointing out the inspiration for the First Crusade(which naturally led to the other Crusades) was not as purely religious as popular belief would like to show. |
I think one needs to be careful here. There were those, especially the ones in power, who viewed the Crusades as a way to gain land and territory. However, for there common soldier there were both feudal obligations AND religous motivations for going on crusade. If one does not think that religous motivations were a powerful force, wittness the People's Crusade. What else would cause some 100,000 commoners to uproot and travel thousands of miles but religous fervor. I believe that one cannnot compare the motivations of latter Crusades wholly with the motivations of the first. Crusading later became a way to increase lands, titles and money and took on a rather different meaningby the time the 4th and 5th Crusades rolled around. There had been floods and disease in 1094 in many parts of Europe followed by a drought and famine in 1095. In April, 1095 a large shower of meteorites caused Bishop Gislebert of Lisieux to say this was a portense of a great mass migration of people. People were told that apocolyptic signs were all around them because of the infidel defilement of Christendom's Holiest places. Of the political machinations along the way, one may have to consider the character and culture of the European peoples at this point in history. Attacking kingdoms, plundering and claiming lands by force was simply "the way things were done". So one has to be careful to totally rule out any religous feelings on the parts of even the highest nobles who went ont eh crusades.
|
|
 |
|
|
Josh S.
|
| Posted: Wed 10 Mar, 2004 11:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
As I said: | Quote: | | ...the individual warriors that fought in the crusades may have had their own motivations... |
One cannot overestimate the importance of the First Crusade -there would not have been any other Crusades if not for the first to set them off.
"The accomplishment of man has been to remain fractured, by cause of which we are strong."
-Jerome Santus Perriere
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jeanry Chandler
Location: New Orleans, Louisiana Joined: 07 Feb 2004
Posts: 62
|
| Posted: Fri 12 Mar, 2004 2:20 pm Post subject: Re: One must be careful about intentions of the Crusaders |
|
|
| Quote: | | What else would cause some 100,000 commoners to uproot and travel thousands of miles but religous fervor. I . |
From my reading of the reality of life during the period of the first Crusade, the majority of the pesants were even less religious, or at least less Christian, than than the (for the most part) extremely cynical nobility. There were a few notable religoious zealots, like Bernard de Clairvaux, but the peasantry and the bulk of the infantry and lower ranked knights would tend to have been basically still pagans at that point.
The etymology of this is instructive. The word heathen and pagan are both drawn from terms referring to the peasantry (heathen meant "of the heath", i.e. a peasant, and the Italian vernacular "pagani" meant peasant, like the term "paisan")
Those who did have religion were often considered extreme heretics, ala the Cathars (victims of a crusade conducted agaisnt virtually the entire population of the South of France) The peasantry was not really pushed into the Christianity until the period of the Inquisition , which picked on Jewish converts mostly and especially the Witch -Trials.
I think a lot of people went on crusade because of the generally miserable conditions in Europe at that time and the lack of opportunity at home. Aristocrats who were not the first born, peasants, soldiers and many others had literally no prospects in Europe. The opportunity of capturing new land was irresistable.
I think only a minority were actually convinced of the propaganda about the "defilement of the saracens`" at Jerusalem, especially since it was common knowlege that Pilgrims could and did regularly visit Jerusalem under the saracen administration and there was even an Italian monastary with an outpost there.
Jeanry Chandler
"A strong people do not ned a strong leader."
Emiliano Zapata
|
|
|
|
|
David McElrea
|
| Posted: Fri 12 Mar, 2004 3:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | From my reading of the reality of life during the period of the first Crusade, the majority of the pesants were even less religious, or at least less Christian, than than the (for the most part) extremely cynical nobility. There were a few notable religoious zealots, like Bernard de Clairvaux, but the peasantry and the bulk of the infantry and lower ranked knights would tend to have been basically still pagans at that point. |
I am sorry Jeanry, I am going to have to disagree with much of this. The peasantry of this particular time were deeply religious. A peasant army had reached Constantinople well ahead of the first real "crusaders", and they were their because of their deeply held beliefs. One can criticise their understanding of the Christian gospel, by all means (how else could they have left a swathe of destruction behind them as they did), but there should be no doubt that they were a devout rabble. Many of them went without shoes-- not because footwear was unavailable but because the crusade was seen as a pilgrimage, and they made their way as penitents seeking God's mercy. As a side-note, things were not much better with Eastern Christians at the time. There is a reason that the word "Byzantine" has become synonymous with confusing and scheming-- and it is not solely based on the art form associated with Constantinople and its surrounding environs. The Emperor was considered co-equal with the apostles and was not opposed to dirtying his hands with the blood of priests for the sake of power. Sadly, many priests were equally willing to plot, murder and steal. These were bad times all around.
You claim that the bulk of the peasants and lesser nobility would still have been pagan at this point. Although their were areas of Europe (including Prussia and Lithuania) that were still essentially pagan, this was not true of most of Europe. You have noted the etymology of the word "pagan", and you are partly right. Pagan did come from "pagani" which could mean "countryman"-- it also meant "civilian" and most scholars understood the word to have carried the latter meaning rather than the former when it was used by Christians. Christians were "soldiers" fighting on behalf of the kingdom (and this was not understood to be physical fighting but rather a spiritual battling against spiritual forces of darkness). Those who had not yet bowed the knee to Christ were still civilians (pagani), whether they be in the country or the city. A second point relating to this: the term "pagan", if used as a referent to countryfolk who were still largely "unchristian" would have been used in that manner in the second and third centuries-- a long time before the era of the crusades. I think it would be fair to assume that a great many things had changed in 800 years even if we didn't have written records describing the beliefs of the "crusade-era" Europeans.
| Quote: | | Those who did have religion were often considered extreme heretics, ala the Cathars (victims of a crusade conducted agaisnt virtually the entire population of the South of France) The peasantry was not really pushed into the Christianity until the period of the Inquisition , which picked on Jewish converts mostly and especially the Witch -Trials. |
Again, as you might have gathered from what I have already said, I cannot agree. Almost everybody "had religion". If we think otherwise we are reading our own post-enlightenment worldview back into history and imposing it on a people who simply didn't see the world the way we do. While there were at varied times atheists and agnostics, most people saw the world itself in religious terms-- there was no sacred/secular divide. While some pagan concepts and practices lingered in medieval Christianity, it cannot be said that the peasantry were, thereby, pagans. Europe was Christian long before the Inquisition-- the Inquisition itself was first formed at the time of the crusades to reconvert the Spanish from Islam to Christianity, although it would later become something completely different.
The Cathars were heretics (in saying that I am in no way condoning the crusade carried out against them... it is simply a statement based on their divergence from every "orthodox" tradition, wheter Eastern or Western), yes, but it is an exaggeration, I think, to portray the whole of the South of France as Cathari-- although much of the South suffered due to the crusade.
| Quote: | I think a lot of people went on crusade because of the generally miserable conditions in Europe at that time and the lack of opportunity at home. Aristocrats who were not the first born, peasants, soldiers and many others had literally no prospects in Europe. The opportunity of capturing new land was irresistable.
|
Again, these were additional ingredients that "sweetened" the call to crusade. This idea of new land for younger sons was actually in the popes rallying speech, along with the idea of redemption of the Holy Land and the "pilgrims" who sought to win it back. This does not mean it was the "real" reason-- it was one aspect of the reason for the war (we mustn't forget that the forces of Islam were perceived as a real threat. They had taken Spain and threatened France some time before this. There were political motives as well, like self-preservation).
I'm sorry for being contrary, but it seems to me that many of the newer offerings in book stores are more than a little revisionist, especially when dealing with the complexities of faith issues in the Middle Ages. Those ideas end up being circulated and become taken as fact.
Yours,
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
Russ Ellis
Industry Professional
|
| Posted: Sat 13 Mar, 2004 8:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Have to agree with David on this one. There seems to be a tendency currently to want to emphasize the remnants of pagan tradition and make them more prominent then they truly were at this late date.
As David mentions by the time of the crusades paganism had been relegated to the fringes of the "civilized" world. Within western Europe (and most of Eastern too) almost without exception everyone was one brand of Christian or another. From a relgious standpoint things were just about as homongenous as they have ever been.
TRITONWORKS Custom Scabbards
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic