Use the comments section to hold a debate on the following Question:
Should the Crusades be considered a Holy War?
Reading: Crusades Taking Sides
Use evidence from the reading linked below to engage your fellow students over whether the Crusades were a religious war or an economic/political event. You must comment AT LEAST twice: once by Tuesday night and once by Wednesday night by midnight. Participation will be graded on quality of comments. Provide new evidence and analysis. USE THE READING!
Also, utilize the "Reply" function so that we can follow conversations. Create a new comment when you are making a new point.
I suggest drafting your comments in a word/google doc file and then copy/pasting it into Blogger. Sometimes, the comments don't save and I'd hate for your to lose your work.
I don't believe the Crusades should be considered a Holy War. Attempting to identify the basis of a war from so long ago is impractical. The cultural, political, and economic conditions at the time all added to the motives of the crusaders. As Phillips states, “Although the religious motivation of the First Crusaders should be emphasized, it would be naïve to argue that other interests were absent” (166). Italian merchants desired greater prominence in trade, and pilgrims/families required safety on their traditional pilgrimages to the Holy Land. Also, many men participated to strengthen ties of allegiance and loyalty through the army. Some took part in attempt to gain land or make money. Many people were left poor after droughts and bad harvests of the time which would increase their likelihood of seeking money through the crusades. Although the Crusades had religious merit, it seems that many who participated did so purely for personal gain. Therefore, they should not be considered a Christian Holy War.
ReplyDeleteI agree. The Crusades should not be considered a Holy War for the reasons you listed above. Although the crusaders had many different motives, I believe that most were motivated by personal gain. For instance, as Phillip states, “The need to repay debts incurred in paying for the expedition, coupled with poor economic conditions suggests that the desire for money may have been a priority for the crusaders” (167). In addition, the Crusade, itself, was rigorous and let to a lack of resources. This is significant because the acts of greed were usually a response to the need to survive. Lastly, the want for land was another motivate for some of the crusaders. Hence, the Crusades should not be considered a Holy War because the desire for personal gain was a strong motivation for many of them.
DeleteI agree with both Nikki and Mari in that the Crusades should not be considered a Holy War. This is because people of the time period associated religion as being “pilgrimage and monastic life flourished, and donations to ecclesiastical institutions were increasingly commonplace” (Phillips 164). Also, crusaders joined the movement to find a gateway to heaven, not with intention to spread Christianity. In addition, many crusaders joined simply because their ancestors were involved with the Crusades, not because they have strong beliefs of Christianity. The Crusades should not be considered to be a Holy War because many of the crusaders joined without intention of spreading Christianity and just looked for a gateway into heaven after death, or because their ancestors were involved.
DeleteI also agree that the crusades should not be considered a holy war. When Pope Urban II called on the first crusade in 1095, the intent was to recover land from the successful Muslim conquests and restore the property under Christian control. They were the product of the clashing of civilizations during a time of "all transforming change that [would produce] Western European civilization." (156) Both Christianity and Islam were developed to be very public religions, and when Islam had taken hold of the choice providences such as Syria, Egypt, North Africa, and Liberia the leading Christians chose to combat this with war. The crusades were purely a dispute over territory, even if the land did not belong to individuals, but the individuals of different core religions.
DeleteAlthough the debate over the Crusades is ongoing, I believe that it should be considered a Holy War that sparked a political and social fight. The debate that started the Crusades was all about holy land that was taken into Muslim conquest that caused Jerusalem to be recaptured. This is what caused the Christians to make their journey in hopes to regain the sacred city. Arthur Jones’ passage clearly states opinions of many that describe Islam and Christianity to be “…very public religions….” and “…a very public force, a very public reality” (157). Without these two religions fighting for dominance, there wouldn’t be any practical reason to start a war that had large economic effects on the area. The religions can almost be seen as the instigator of the Crusades that caused the people to get greatly involved. The people of the time took their religions very seriously and would do almost anything to make their religion prominent.
ReplyDelete-Hailey Rosenfield
While there most likely were many men who went on the Crusades for religious reasons, the vast majority of evidence makes me believe that most people went on the Crusades for non-holy reasons which make the Crusades a non-holy war. First, there was a reward for going on a crusade. Surely most people would find getting into heaven to be a sufficient reward in itself, but the fact that there were other incentives to join the crusades shows that the crusades were fueled by greed and self-interest. Only 60,000 out of 20 million went on the first Crusade which shows that the vast majority of people did not value the holy land enough to fight for it. In addition, it is not fair to look for a single motivation for war. There were most likely people who fought the war solely in the name of Jesus, but there will always be people who would fight a war for money, land, or status. This is evident in the fact that "some men...were explicit in their intention to never return to the West" which shows that they only wanted to fight the war to get more land and never return (Phillips 166). Also, there was the promise of more wealth in the form of relics which led many people to fight the war solely for that reason. Lastly, it was considered noble to go on a crusade so many men would simply partake in one just for the status and the family honor that came with the idea of fighting for religion whether or not they actually valued the religion or not. Therefore, I believe the Crusades were mostly for non-holy reasons, while there most likely were some people simply fighting for religion.
ReplyDelete~David Kadysh
I agree with David in that I believe that it is impractical to say there was a single motivation for this war due to the fact that the vast majority of people that joined the Crusades did so out of motivation for personal gain and other non-holy reasons. Like David mentioned, it is specifically stated within the article that people had various reasons for joining the Crusades. For example, the lure of wealth is one of the main reasons that may have prompted men to engage in the war. In addition, fighting would ensure transcendence to heaven after the battle. Next, the nobility that would come along with the decision to fight is also another factor that influenced the support. This could enhance the honor and status of the family in which this man belonged to. Further, I think it is important to point something out that is included in the reading. An old woman wandered the streets with a dish of fire and a bowl of water to burn up Paradise and with the water, put out the fires of Hell. She said she did this because she wanted “no one to do good in order to receive the reward of Paradise, or from fear of Hell; but solely out of love of God” (154). I believe this is interesting because it shows that people were in fact joining this fight for reasons other than religious encouragement. Why would a woman do all of these things if people weren’t joining simply for their own personal gain? Therefore, I agree with David, stating that the Crusades were not entirely a Christian Holy War.
Delete-Matt Hand
It is difficult to determine one motivating factor in a major conflict like this. The Crusades happened over different time periods and under different leaders so the motivations of each are different. I believe that as a whole the Crusades cannot be considered Holy Wars by Christians, although they might be by Muslims. Still I believe that the first Crusade was in fact mostly motivated by religion. Christian Europe, at the time, was “one of the most guilt-ridden societies in history” (Phillips 164). This extreme power of fear by the church made a religious war possible as it gave the Knights motivation to fight as a source of salvation. Also the first crusade has a unique aspect in that it did not include kings of Europe. The first Crusade, led by Urban, was considered a “papally-directed enterprise” (Phillips 164). Urban even described the crusade as an effort to help the Byzantines and march to the Holy Land.
DeleteAlthough I believe the first crusade began with mostly religious intentions, I believe that the later crusades were driven by leaders looking for fame and political and economic power. The victory of the first crusade, I believe, unintentionally opened the door for economic and political gains that was thereafter sought for by later rulers. These rulers saw the opportunity of political and economic gains through the masking of a religious fight in order to gain support. Overall, the Crusades from the offensive Christian viewpoint may not be considered Holy Wars, although I believe the first crusade was.
-James
The evidence presented by Arthur Jones proves that the Crusades were a religious holy war. To begin, the crusades consisted of two main groups fighting, the Muslims and the Christians. To claim there was no religious affiliation is deemed invalid. To further explain, the history between the Christians and Muslims explains the backbone for the hatred. The Muslim expansion into, “Syria, Egypt, North Africa, and Iberia” (159) threatened the Roman Catholic leaders who were looking to expand the religion’s power. Also, the early Christian persecution made them fearful of becoming another minority of their time. Due to these reasons, the war to protect and promote Christianity ensued.
ReplyDeleteEvidence on the contrary claims that these crusades had economic pursuits rather than religious ones. However, it holds no merit to claim that the Children’s Crusade of 2012 had an economic pursuit rather than a religious one. These children were not on a voyage for money, and probably barely even understood the concept of money, but they did know the importance of maintaining their religion. For this reason, the Children’s Crusade’s purpose was to expand its religion and prevent them from becoming a minority.
The Crusades from 1095-1272 were seen as a Holy War with religious motives. The war enabled for the Christians to maintain their dominance in society as well as spread their religion. It was motivated by the foreboding threat of Islamic expansion into other territories. The Crusaders in the Children’s Crusade as well fought not for economic motives but rather religious ones. The war set out Christians against Muslims for dominance in society and is therefore considered to have religious influences.
I disagree with what Brian has said, and believe that the Crusades were not a holy war. Although the intention of some of the original crusaders may have been for religious reasons, the focus of the later crusades was more on the wealth that they could obtain rather than the reconquering of the Holy Land. Even the first crusade, which probably had the most religious purpose, occurred due to ulterior motvies, like greed, as well. The Children Crusades, which supposedly occurred in 1202 (not 2012), do not really factor into the discussion about the purpose of the crusades. The reason the Children Crusades is not really relevant is because it did not accurately represent the significance of the real crusades. Instead of trained knights going to fight against Islamic warriors, the Children Crusades was a bunch of kids who foolishly thought they could make a difference in a very expensive and dangerous war. The fact that many nobles went to the Holy land only to get land and relics further shows why the Crusades should not be considered a holy war. As Jonathon Philips points out, “Crusading was extremely expensive,” so the knights that fought should not have been expected to do it for free, and even if they were, the natural greed of man would have caused them to want to accumulate wealth from the lavish lands of the middle east anyway (165). When the idea of the crusades was initially created it had religion in mind, but even before the first wave of Crusaders had died, the Christians were fighting for more than just their religion.
DeleteBilly I like your points but unfortunately, I disagree with you. To begin, I’d like to address my typo of 2012 rather than 1202, thanks for pointing it out. Also, the purpose of the Children’s Crusade actually was solely a religious one, which clearly demonstrates the religious influence on the crusades. To claim that these crusades are irrelevant, however, is incorrect. The argument consists of all of the crusades including the Children’s one, which verifies its relevance. Furthermore, when you claim that there was no religious aspect to nobles traveling to the Holy land to collect religious relics, that is itself contradicted, for there were obvious religious intents by the nobles. You also mention how the Knights had to be paid for crusading was extremely expensive and attribute this to greed of the crusades. I do not disagree that there was greed, but I do believe that the overall greed was religion bound. To further explain, I think we could both agree that the purpose of the crusades was not to pay the salary of the Knights but rather a more important goal. This goal, as mentioned in my previous post, involved the Christians feeling threatened by the growth of Islam and their retaliation in an effort to maintain and spread their religion. There is no discrepancy that the war was between the Muslims and the Christians; so to say that religion did not play a role does not hold any merit.
Delete-Brian Goldstein
I must once again disagree with you Brian, but thanks for admitting your typo. Concerning the Children’s Crusades, I think that it is unfair to base any part of your argument –- however small that part may be –- on the idea that a bunch of kids unwisely trying to make a difference in the Middle East, accurately represents what the Crusades stood for. While I understand the likelihood that the children’s crusade did in fact occur and that the children did not attempt to go to the Holy Land for selfish reasons, I still find it unfathomable that you believe that this one (or possible two) event(s) shows what all nine of the crusades stood for. The other crusades, which included adults fighting other adults, are a better representation of what the crusades were really about. Concerning your point about the relics, I see the merit in that the relics had religious significance and they were highly prized in the west, however, I feel it would be naïve to say that many knights went to fight for the holy land only out of the goodness of their hearts and without ulterior motives. I think it is also important to acknowledge that many of the knights went on this expedition for a type of religious pardon, rather than for actual physical wealth, but in doing so these knights were not fighting for the greater good of their religion, but rather for what they felt was best for them. I will also concede that the pope and other religious leaders felt threatened by the expansion of the Islamic states’ power, however, that was only the agenda of the religious figures. Of course the leaders of the church are going to want to make the crusades out to be a religious war, but the knights that were actually fighting, plundering, and dying in the crusades clearly had another itinerary other than just stopping the spread of Islam. Just because a war is between two different religions does not mean that the sole, main purpose of the war is based in religion, while tensions between Christianity and Islam were certainly present, it was not the most important factor that lead to the crusades.
DeleteI agree with both of you in some ways. I agree with Brian in that the Children’s Crusade was important. Even though it wasn’t really a crusade, the fact that kids were motivated enough to travel to fight a war shows that the crusades had a reputation that was more than just for profit. I also agree with Brian in that one aspect of the crusades was the expansion and fear of Islam. Also, it is hard to say that a war fought with both sides completely separated by religion is not a holy war. Still, I agree with Billy that there were other motivations that drove these people to battle and the inclusion of well-off knights may give support to his argument. Finally, I agree with Billy that the first crusade was much more motivated by religion and then the later crusades were more motivated by greed and fame.
DeleteArthur Jones provides excpetional support that the crusades had alterior motives than just being solely a holy war. First of all, if you take the state of the relations between the Pope and the regional kingdoms during the 11th century that were in his domain of christianity into consideration of the motives of Pope Urban II to call for a crusade against Islam, it can be argued that the Pope wanted to legitimize his power and make christianity superior to the other powerful faith of Islam. Arthur jones even states that the crusades were a "new means of attaining salvation" (163). This only asserts the widespread support for the crusades that would make one seem holy if they were to embark on the crusade. By getting widespread support of even the common man it makes the Pope seem more legitimate and powerful in his attempt to quell the power of the competing Islamic powers in the region. By calling it a "holy war" it gives the Pope absolute authority to make claims on powerful trading cities such as Constantinople. Although the first 3 crusades were primarly focused on retaining the holy land of jerusalem, the fact that the 4th crusade is described in the "fighting of vence, sacking constantinople, crushing the Byzantine empire, and establishing the Latin empire of Constantinople"(Jones 161) shows the alterior motives of the Pope or representation of the interests of christendom had to reinforce christianity's power.
ReplyDeleteYup
DeleteAlthough a select handful of people during the Middle Ages may have viewed their actions as Holy and supported by god, it seems as if the vast majority of people who were fighting in the Crusades were doing it for economic or personal reasons. To begin, the Crusades offered an opportunity to gain money for many of its participants. Rather than being motivated by religion, many Crusaders decided to join the war effort as a way to break their debt or even earn money as Europe’s economy began to explode. It is quite possible that the authorities who organized followings to participate in a Crusade had religious intentions, but on the contrary, a majority of the followers had a financial goal in site. How can anything be considered “holy” or religiously sparked, if money is the primary purpose? Although Arthur Jones believes that the Crusades were holy, he mentions that the Crusades offered an opportunity for merchants to establish themselves in eastern land (161). Odds are that these merchants wanted to make a profit, and therefore went on a Crusade. Also, the sack of Constantinople by Crusaders is often overlooked. There was no religious reason to destroy Constantinople, which means that there had to be an alternative motive for the sack of the city. The two most likely reasons are political and economic, further supporting the fact that the Crusades were not primarily a religious cause. Jonathan Phillips brings up a great point that “The need for all people-whether rich or poor, nobles or laborers- to atone for their actions helps to explain the level of enthusiasm for the First Crusade”(164). Phillips suggests that people desired personal salvation and the Crusades offered a way to achieve it. The Crusades acted as a scapegoat for people to escape their own guilt and wrongdoings, demonstrating that the Crusades were endured for personal benefit, rather than a distinctive effort to enforce Christianity. –Jake Horbal
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jake in that the majority of the people who fought in the Crusades were doing it for economic or personal reasons. The reason I believe this to be true is because if this had truly been a Holy War, the Christians would have desired to overtake the land that had fallen under the influence of Islam. However, this is proven to be false due to the fact that in the Fertile Crescent, as stated in the article, Christians and Muslims lived together in a civilized manner. Therefore, I side with Arthur Jones in that the Crusades could not possibly have been for the sole purpose of recapturing the land for religious reasons. In other words, these crusades took place in order to recapture this land for individual success and personal gain of those who fought in the war. Also, I believe that it is important to point out that the Crusades acted as a scapegoat like Jake already mentioned because these people that fought in the war were thought to have been wiped clean of all their mishaps and wrongdoings that occurred prior to joining. Of course, this is solely the mindset of the people that joined the Crusades not outsiders looking in. All in all, I believe there is a great deal of evidence supporting that the Crusaders were not a Holy War.
Delete- Matt Hand
I agree that the Crusades were not a “Holy War.” First, war contradicts the beliefs of Christianity. Christians are supposed to never become violent, because acts of fighting go against their religion. Although the Pope approved of the war and promised “a spiritual reward of remarkable magnitude” (163), it does not mean that all the motives behind the crusaders were considered “holy.” In reality, the motives of the crusaders, due to the political and economic events at the time, outweighed any religious affiliation: ”Urban regarded the crusade as a papally-directed enterprise and had not explicitly invited the secular monarchs to become involved" (164). This quote just further shows that rather than having a religious war, it was simply for economics. People joined the Crusades in order to try and spread Christianity, yet the main factor in many peoples reasoning was the money and land gain they would get. Another reason the Crusades should be considered economical and political rather than a Holy War is because many people used the pilgrimage as an advantage to their social status. If one was able to return home alive, they would be considered loyal with their vow completed. Lastly, it is clear that "few crusaders chose to remain in the Levant and become settlers" (166). This explains that many of the people were indifferent whether the Holy Land was conquered, but instead were focused on their own political and economical factors. Due to these numerous factors, the Crusades should not be considered a Holy War.
DeleteAlso, the crusades were not only a political event to obtain economic power in cities with immense power such as Constantinople, but also had motives within the political sphere of Europe itself. First of all, the Pope forbid the involvment of regional kings in the crusades (164). By giving all power and control to the Pope himself it only further makes him the central ruler of christendom as a whole. Tensions of church and state relations were already esclatating quickly as Popes like Urban II when at the time Henry IV of Germany "was the papacy's principal opponent in the supremacy of lay versus sacral power" (164). By calling for a crusade it makes his divinity and authority seem much more sacred and important than an imposer such as Henry IV. In a way, the crusades helped unify christianity for one common purpose further legitimizing the Pope's power and authority at the time. If kings such as Henry gained enough power to be seen as superior to the word of the church it would ultimately greatly reduce the legitimacy and power of the Pope as a whole. Therefore, the crusades contained a mix of a political event in association with a religious war as a justification to assert dominance over the economically powerful Islamic state, as well as the reassertion of the power of the church and specifically the Pope.
ReplyDeleteI agree that politics had a large influence on Crusades. I just do not believe that the Crusades could be considered a Holy War. I believe that this war was just that, a war. It can be seen that the original purpose of the first crusade was not even religiously centered when Phillips states: “The pope’s original conception of the crusade was for a compact contingent of knights to assist Emperor Alexius of Byzantium in his struggle against the Seljuk Turks of Asia Minor before marching on to the Holy Land” (164). Reclaiming the holy land was not even the pope’s primary concern. He was more interested in the political conflicts between Christianity and Islam, rather than the religious ones. The extreme amount of power that the Pope had can be clearly seen through these crusades. He had enough influence to send thousands and thousands of people to war. Yet if the Pope sent those people to holy land in a religious fashion, there would have been a more peaceful approach to obtaining that land. Therefore, the violent approach to the crusades shows that they were done for political, rather than religious regions.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI believe that although many crusades initially started out with religious motives, various situations caused a shift in purpose on these crusades, making them far from holy. As people trekked on to the Holy Land, “duration and rigour of the campaign exhausted the resources of the vast majority” (167). People, out of desperation and panic, end up focusing on surviving. In order to survive, they had no other option but to seek money. Relics brought back from the Holy Land may have been sold to gain monetary prospects. Additionally, military purposes and hardships led crusades to obtain a different purpose. The original purpose of the crusades was to support Emperor Alexius of Byzantium in a feud against the Seljuk Turks. “The crusade may have been one way to channel this violence elsewhere”, leading people to neglect religious objectives. Essentially, crusades ended up having various intentions not related to religion, making them unable to be considered a Christian Holy War.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sarah in that many of the crusaders joined the Crusades with religious intentions, but as the wars progressed, their motives changed. I also agree that the Crusades became centered around economics and trade as the crusaders became desperate for money to survive. Using the same quote as above, the crusaders lacked food, and thus relied of trade to acquire food, especially trading the relics. I also agree that the Crusades should not be considered a Holy War because although many crusaders joined with religious intentions, many joined due to family lineage or for the purpose of trade. Therefore, the Crusades should not be considered a Holy War because those of who fought with religious intentions lost their motives, but many of the crusaders never had religious motives to begin with.
DeleteI agree with the main basis of both of your arguments. The war as it progressed definitely became less religiously motivated, and definitely less holy as an effect of that. The other motives were power. Like the economic power as Dani states that comes from the increase in trade as people move through unfamiliar lands with limited resources. This could also be because of individual religious power. The people who went on the crusades saw it as a way to further their holiness or make God see them as better Christians. It could somewhat be considered a holy war, in my opinion, because of the original intentions, but in the end overall it was not because of the focus of the crusaders on themselves in a religious, economic and social stand point.
DeleteAlthough the Crusades first began as expeditions to take back Holy Lands, the overall motives of the people and final results of the wars were secular and therefore, the Crusades should not be considered holy wars. The beginnings of the Crusades may be considered the most holy, as when Pope Urban II first drew up the idea of a holy expedition to take back the lands of Jesus, he used motives of atonement and guilt to attract knights into joining the fight. However, Urban was surprised to be met with the eagerness of the lower classes into joining the crusades. Some may have joined because of the religious motives described by Urban II, but most were drawn by personal goals. For example, Jonathan Phillips states that many of the crusaders joined looking for relics, treasures, or other financial gains, “Muslim graves were dug up and the bodies slit open to check if any treasure had been swallowed” (167). Others joined because family reasons, such the long-standing traditions of the pilgrimage to the Holy Lands, the opportunity to strengthen alliances through the military, or even to force death to receive a family member’s will. So, although the Crusades began with religious intent, the motives of the individuals that joined only for personal benefit go against the belief that the Crusades were fought solely as Holy Wars.
ReplyDeleteThe Crusades should definitely be considered a Holy War because there was evidently a lot of violence, specifically between two empires- two cultures, Christianity and Islam. Obviously, the Christians who took part in the Crusades had several motives and were part of the “geo-political, socio-economic and religious shifts underway at the time” (Jones 156). However, rather than transforming into a war motivated by traditions or economical benefits, the Crusades were simply a “product of . . . change that produced Western European civilization.” Basically, people inherently had political and economic motives of participating in the Crusades because they had the mindset of a shifting and progressing Western Europe, but the holy expedition to the lands of Jesus was a major and an initiative point of the Crusades. Yes, the Crusades were political and economic, but the religious motives- to “recover the Holy Sepulchar from the Seljuk Turks”- should not be overlooked (161). Not considering the Crusades a Holy War would almost be disregarding its beginning. Also, the Muslims showed mercy towards their attackers, the Crusaders, and even acknowledged the religious importance of the Holy Land to Christians by granting them access to it. If those who suffered the violence of the Crusaders and sharply remembered “historic grievances” could recognize the holiness and the religious significance of the pilgrimages, others should also be able to recognize the Crusades as Holy Wars. (155).
DeleteI agree that religious motives were involved in the creation of the Crusades. However, I do not believe that religion was the true reason that they were created. Many people went on the crusades, not to claim the land for Christianity, but to gain some kind of economic wealth. In some cases, people dug up Muslim deceased and “slit [the bodies] open to check if any treasure had been swallowed” (Phillips 167). The act of violating the dead in their place of eternal rest is highly immoral. A person who does this type of sin probably had no intention of claiming the Holy Land solely for the sake of his/her fellow Christian. This person would look only for some economic benefit, not a religious one. Also, not everyone who went on the Crusades went there by choice. Some people, like the nobles’ household, would be required to accompany their lord on his journey. Some of these simpler people, like servants, might not have had desire to reclaim this land. For these reasons, I believe that the religion was a part, but not the focus of the Crusades, and therefore they cannot be considered Holy Wars.
Delete-Joe Segel
Again, I agree that even though the Crusades were first created as Holy Wars, they should not be considered overall as "holy" because of the people who participated. In addition to those who joined simply looking for economic gain, a lot of women and children who were incapable of fighting at all joined the crusades as a form of protection on their traditional pilgrimages and therefore a huge portion of the people, "perished through starvation or disease, deserted, or were enslaved" (Phillips 165). Knights also joined for their own benefit to increase their statuses of nobility and show loyalty to the papacy. Legacies of the knights live on through the legends, such as Hugh the Berserk who, "single-handedly defended a tower for an entire day against Turkish attacks" (Phillips 165). So, even though the crusades had religious intentions, they should not be considered Holy Wars because of the amount of individuals who joined for their own personal and usually secular motivations.
DeleteWhile I maintain my original opinion that the Crusades should be considered a Holy War, I understand why Joe believes otherwise. Jonathan Phillips does mention “frequent reports of the crusaders seeking booty,” but the explanation for this brutality was that money was needed to continue the journey (167). While actions like violating and looting a dead body are simply disrespectful, Crusaders were likely seeking money to continue the expedition to the holy land. Therefore, there was a religious purpose even behind the Crusaders’ immoral deeds. Also, Phillips points out that Christian Europe was a guilt-ridden society, and people were motivated to join the First Crusade to atone for their sinful actions. Pope Urban II regarded the First Crusade as a “papally-directed enterprise” clearly excluding the involvement of secular monarchs, so from the start the Pope tried to keep the Crusades a holy cause (Phillips 164). I agree that people definitely joined for their own economical benefits and other secular reasons, but the fact that the Pope tried to prevent this by purposefully not involving secular monarchs emphasizes that the main focus of the Crusades is supposed to be religion. Their main focus is supposed to be a holy cause, so I consider the Crusades to be a Holy War.
DeleteI believe that the crusades were a "Holy War". Although people eventually began to crusade due to other motives, the Crusades were originally centered around religion. The intent of the Crusades was to assist the Byzantine Emperor in fighting the Seljuk Turks. This is a " holy" cause. The Western Europeans were supporting Christians. It could also be considered holy because the majority of the people who took part in the Crusades were trying to atone for their sins and fulfill their vows by going to the holiest place on Earth. This in itself shows that the original crusaders had religious motives. Also, Others who "crusaded" had a tradition of pilgrimage to the holy lands. Filched of Chartres exclaims that the Crusades were, "a new path to heaven" and that those who experienced it would experience "forgiveness of sin" (154). It is evident that the original intention of the war was holy. In addition, the Christians were fighting for holy land. Although some of the battles may have been bloody and fierce, the Christian were trying to gain their holy land back from the Muslims.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI am in agreement with Jared that the Crusades are to be considered a Holy War. However, I would be even more specific and classify this as a Christian Holy War. During this period of transformation, “the Crusades were a clash of religions” (156) between the Christians and the Muslims. Religious motives were present in the battles. For example, many Christians saw this as an opportunity for a “quest for God” (154) because they thought that “they would be blessed” (154). Also, as Jared stated, Fulcher of Chartres, a priest who lived during the First Crusade, brought religious motives to the table. This first hand account from a Christian priest exhibits the true motives of many in the Christian population. Finally, the main goal of these crusades evinces the holiness in the battles: “Pope Urban II… [wanted to] recover the Holy Sepulcher from the Muslim Seljuk Turks” (161). The Muslims wanted to retain this holy land as well. Arthur Jones is able to accurately depict why The Crusades should be considered a Holy War.
DeleteI agree with both of you that at least the first crusade and possibly the second crusade can be considered "Holy Wars". Pope Urban II certainly had more to gain when he called his fellow Christians to arms. For example, this created the possibility of uniting all of Europe once again by creating a common enemy or by assisting the Byzantines he furthered his chances of gaining powers of all Christendom. So it is clear that he had more to gain but the reward he offered up was almost irresistible. Knowing that "if people fought God's enemies on earth and completed a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, they actions would receive rewards of remarkable magnitude"(Phillips 163). To a person from the 21st century, who grew up in a time where receiving God's salvation is not as prominent, this will not seem so enticing. But this is where historical empathy is required. People of this time probably jumped at the thought of being abbsolved of all sin. It is true that the number of people that participated was not a staggering amount from Europe's population but war, even for a "holy" purpose, is terrifying to most and the thought of their demise was most likely a con that far outweighed the pros. Also, as it has been stated before, it is nearly impossible to pin down the cause of a war to one simple motive. It is far likely that many people in the crusades participated because of the opportunity for plunder. Also, it is probably factual that the Pope called people to arms for more than just their religious duty and that as crusades continued they began to eschew away from their original goal. However, it is evident that fighting "God's war" was the first and overriding rationale for the crusaders.
DeleteI agree with all three of you that the Crusades began as a holy war. Specifically, the first Crusade was indubitably intended fought for religious purposes. Even the later sixth Crusade returns to its holy intentions when Emperor Frederic II manages to gain an amount of Christian control over the holy sites through negotiation. However, within the large span of time in which the Crusades were fought, their meaning was lost due to a lack of fidelity to the purpose of the Crusades. This lack of fidelity is demonstrated clearly through the fourth Crusade that “got bogged down in the more profitable venture of fighting Venice, sacking Constantinople, crushing the Byzantine Empire and establishing the Latin Empire of Constantinople” (161). The usage of the word “profitable” in this quote demonstrates how the Crusades strayed from their original purpose of seeking to take back the holy land for ventures that would aid them economically and politically. Specifically, the sack of the city of Constantinople, an incredibly wealthy city and the capitol of the Byzantine Empire is a strong representation of how the crusades became sidetracked in their quest to take back the holy land. This sack gained the crusaders a great deal of wealth and also toppled the Byzantine Empire, allowing for the conquering of this territory by the crusaders. While I agree that the Crusades began with the intention of being a holy war, I do not believe that it actually was a holy war.
DeleteI disagree that the crusades should be considered a holy war because other motives were extremely influential during the time. Although religion may have been a very prominent reason in the beginning, the meaning changed over time and therefore considering it a holy war is unfitting and does not reflect the whole meaning of the crusades. It is appropriate to recognize the influence religion had, but going so far as to call it holy disregards the many other important aspects contributing to the crusades. These include the cultural, political, and social conditions of the time. As Phillips states, "the desire for money may have been a priority for the crusaders” (167). Many would participate for reasons with no religious ties including gaining wealth. In order to avoid the false assumption that the crusades were entirely based on religious circumstances they should not be considered a holy war.
DeleteI also have to disagree that the crusades should be considered a Holy War. To believe that they were based solely off of religious purposes can be considered naive. If Christians were to be truly devoted, “early Christians would have no part of war”, proving the fact that the Crusades simply cannot be categorized as a Holy War (153). Initial intentions always start out innocent and then end up having some kind of loophole, just as the Crusades had. Wealth, a dynamic matter that makes the world run, was an obvious factor to this situation. Economical, political, and cultural aspects are all elements that add to the popularity and increase of these journeys to the Holy Land.
DeleteI believe that the Crusade was not a Holy War. The pope may or may not have intended it that way, but the actual people who made up the crusaders were motivated for different reasons than the spread of the holiness of Christianity. The culture at the time was extremely religious and guilt ridden. “Sin was ubiquitous in everyday life and the images of fire and torture so frequently depicted on churches reinforced the fear of eternal damnation” (164). What was so powerful about what the pope offered by becoming a crusader was the chance to relieve oneself of sin, because he said going on the crusades was a substitute for all penance. So, many of the initial crusaders just wanted to absolve themselves of sin. In addition, because of the way society was set up, if a noble joined the crusade, he was accompanied by knights and servants from his household who were interested in staying in the nobleman’s favor, rather than their interest in the actual crusade. Therefore, even if the pope’s original goal was a holy war, the vast majority of people in the crusade were not there for holy reasons at all, rather for their own self-interest.
ReplyDelete-Hannah Wolfenson
I completely agree with you that the Pope wanted it to be a Holy War, but the people that joined the Crusades did not keep it that way. The real impetus for them, like you said, was more selfish than fighting for his God and his religion, it was to absolve themselves from sin and become right in the eyes of God again. The thought that "if people fought God's enemies on earth and completed a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, they actions would receive rewards of remarkable magnitude"(Phillips 163) created a large percentage of the people thinking totally about themselves when they were doing the crusades so it could not possibly be Holy.
DeleteI also agree with the argument that both of you are making. The founders of the Crusades may have had a religious intent in mind, but a majority of their followers most likely had different intentions. Motivation that led to support of the Crusades could easily range from political, economic, or personal reasons rather than a religious one. Furthermore, I believe that many Crusaders were simply following an authoritative figure. For example, “When a noble embarked upon the crusade it was inevitable that he would be accompanied by his household retainers” (Phillips 166). Although the noble who founded support for the crusade may have a religious motivation to do so, it seems highly unlikely that all his followers had the same motivation. Crusaders could have easily went out of lust for money or simply because their leader went, thus making their expeditions non-Holy.
DeleteThe crusades did not have a goal of religious dominance, but one of political and economic dominance. The people were united under a christian banner led by the pope is fact, but the predicted result was to control the lands between the silk roads and the red sea. Saying that the war is to control the land of religious roots was a way to influence kings to support the effort without knowing the truth. The pope has access to more information than many other leaders in Europe, so he is able to start military conquests that is holy to these people under the pope that are oddly centered near trade. Jerusalem has also been developed ever since King Solomon and was booming with trade during the post-classical period. As we see in history the pope gets very upset when he loses power over the christian people, wether it be in land or in a schism the pope is never supportive of this. During this time, south of the papal states, The Muslim rule controls the italian pennisula showing a threat of religious, political, and economic dominance right in the pope's face. This allowed the pope's detestation of the greek orthodox to be ignored and take over parts of the muslim empire. Also if he were to gain this territory (Modern day Turkey), his empire would allow him to with the eastern world before it reaches the byzantine empire, which would increase economic prosperity and wide political control. Also, this is a conquest for the land of Jesus, and during this time knights were descendants of nobles, whom worshipped saints more than jesus because jesus was a symbol for the poor and sick. In the end the holy roman wars were really just conquests to gain political and economic prosperity.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with what Joe has said. First off, I believe that the heart of the crusades is religious dominance. To see this you have to look at the two warring sides. Both are religions that have vast followings and much power. Also, both religions are not intolerant, per say, but certainly believe that the only way for salvation is through the worship of their respective beliefs. As Jones explains, “Islam wants of its very character to be the basis of society” (157). Christianity has a reputation for being the exact same way. So by their very nature it is not surprising that these two powerful entities would clash in the proverbial state of the unstoppable force and the immovable object. Yes, it is in fact true that the conquering of the "Holy Land" would economically benefit the European Christians but that was most likely an after thought to what their true goal was: recapturing what they believed to be rightfully theirs. Also, you say that the Pope used the idea of God to influence kings to fight so that they would not discover his anterior motives. Well in essence, the fact that those fighting believed they were fighting for God does make it a holy war. Furthermore, the Pope had no real lust for the economic prosperity that would result from trade seeing how one of the seven deadly sins of Christianity is in fact greed. If anything his goals were simply the injury to Islam that would result from obtaining the holy land and not the trade or land he would gain control of. So if the people fighting are not doing it for money (at least for the most part) and if Pope Urban II did not start the crusades for money than basically the point of trade being at the heart of the crusades is rendered null. While they may have evolved into being more about the pecuniary benefits they did not begin because of them. The last point you make is that knights fought for saints and not Jesus because the chosen people of Jesus were the poor. While this seems to be true, the majority people who participated in the crusades were in fact peasants and not nobles. So by your very own definition, that makes the crusades a holy war because most of the people were fighting in a "conquest for the land of Jesus".
DeleteI also disagree with you Joe Gaul. I take the stance of Sam on this argument. The main focus of both religious societies is to have religious control over a group of people. In the very end of the article, Jones uses a first hand account from Pope Eugenius III. For example, this man states: "When Count Thierry took the cross in 1146 he was perpetuating a well-established line of involvement with the Holy Land" (168). At this time in 1146, the Second Crusade was occurring. This Pope is stating that when Count Thierry came into the ongoing crusades, he realized that there was already involvement for the holy land. He was not the only one searching for the holy land. The majority if not all of the Christians were aiming to reattain this important religious aspect of society. This claim for holy land in itself can solely justify that these crusades were holy wars. Both the Muslims and Christians were fighting over the land of Jesus. This interpretation validates the point that the wars were holy. Any economic ,social, or political motives discovered in this war were causes of the holy motives, not a direct cause of the war.
DeleteI believe that while the Crusades were originally intended to be a “holy war,” they strayed from this motive almost immediately. The Crusades began as a “holy war” as shown by their original purpose to take back holy lands. However, the moment that people began banding together to fight, the true motive was lost. This loss of motive is because very few people were fighting to take back the holy lands. Many people were simply trying to purge their souls of their sins, as the pope promised salvation to those who participated in the war. This is supported by the fact that “women, children, the old, the infirm and the poor” joined the crusades (165). These people could have no real intention of fighting to regain the holy land, yet they joined the pilgrimage as noncombatants in hopes of gaining salvation. Additionally, many people sought to get land and wealth from their participation in the crusades. This is supported by primary sources explaining people’s intentions to settle eastern lands and the fact that many people were being left destitute as a result of droughts and bad harvests. The usage of the Crusades for personal gain by the crusaders makes the war unholy, regardless of its original intentions.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Jess has said. The motivation was pretty obvious for the first Crusade. Pope Urban II simply wanted the holy land to be placed in the possession of the Christians. Besides the fact that starting a war over land is not very morally correct, the intention of the first Crusade was not very malicious. However, after several Crusades, the meaning of the Crusades was lost. There are only so many times you can attempt to take the holy land before people lose their motivation and focus their attention on to other things (e.g. wealth, land, status, etc). This loss of meaning can even be seen in the present day. For example, the war on terror used to be about protecting our country from terrorism, but there have not been even any verbal threats from the Middle East in over 10 years which shows how easy it is for a war to lose its meaning. I believe the moment the crusades lost their meaning was during the reign of Pope Eugenius III. He “drew attention to the crusading ancestory” which made it seem like the Crusades were all about nobility instead of holiness (168). This made many people simply want to fight just for the honor and nobility that the crusades brought to their family name, which is a pretty unholy motivation. Overall, the motivations of the crusades seemed to shift and lose focus throughout time which made the idea of the Crusades being holy seem improbable.
Delete~David Kadysh
I agree with what Jess is saying. The crusades did first start with the intentions of being a holy war, but it quickly strayed from those intentions. Jonathan Philips says, “Christian Europe was also one of the most guilt ridden societies in history” (164). There is no coincidence here that this was an extremely guilt ridden society and that when people found out that if they joined the crusades their sins would be absolved, everyone wanted to join. This quickly became a way people could get rid of their guilt and sins, and became less of a holy war that had the pope’s intentions. More than anything, it became more of a selfish act to become a part of the crusades because they only joined for their own benevolence, rather than for the larger idea of Christianity.
Delete-Hannah Wolfenson
I disagree with Jess. Any war clearly has political and economic issues, however, the cause of the Crusades was religious. If the Crusades are not considered religious wars, than religious wars do not exist. Not to mention, some of the evidence that Jess used to prove the Crusades were not religious wars actually proves that they were religious wars. That fact that women, children, the elderly, and the sick were involved shows that they were religious wars. There were no young children fighting in wars such as World War II or the Vietnam War which were political and economic wars. Also, people "crusaded" to purge their soul of sins in order to obtain salvation. Various Christians believed that the Crusades were, "a quest to god" and that they, "would be blessed" (154). This proves that crusaders had religious motives. Additionally, the purpose of the Crusades was to take back the holy lands which furthers the argument that the Crusades were holy wars. The fact that the pope was involved in the war also proves that it was a religious war. I understand that the Pope yielded some political power, however, it was suppressed by feudal lords and kings.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteEven if the crusades were originally deemed as a holy war, the quick development into an apparent political and economic battle proved that there were mostly unholy origins. The intention was for a "just" war, but since a crusade is the only form of violence deemed right in the Christian faith, this great act of prosecution shows fault in the mindset of the participants. Whether or not this Christ is concerned with the political order of man can be debated, but as the crusades were generally to reclaim or recover Christian property they should be considered as a gain of wealth and political stature. The practicing of a religion is not necessarily dictated by the amount of land it controls. Therefore, the crusades were purely "economically competitive" and sought to provide "basic social services" to the loyally serving Christians. (157)
ReplyDelete-Ava