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.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI think that the Crusades should be considered a Christian Holy War. As Jones argues, the Christians are trying to reclaim their territories and the Holy Land. Phillips points out that there were many people who joined the crusades with intentions that did not align with these main Christian goals of taking back religious holy property. However, these personal motives, such as “promise of salvation, the lure of wealth, and family traditions of pilgrimage,” (154) are trivial in comparison to the big picture. Fulcher of Chartres, a priest-chaplain on the First Crusade explains that the crusade was a “novum salutis genus, ‘a new path to heaven’” (155). The people of the Crusades had a very spiritual and religious connection with their mission. For these reasons, the Crusades are a Christian Holy War.
ReplyDeleteI agree. The Crusades should be considered a holy war due to the reasons listed above, as well as more facts that would support the idea that the purpose of The Crusades was one of religion. As seen in this document, the name ‘The Crusades’ originated from the crosses that Pope Urban II handed out to his people in order to “band together and recover the Holy Sepulcher from the Muslim Seljuk Turks” (161). Hence, it is clear that The Crusades were fought for religious reasons, so they are a religious war. Another strong reason to support the idea that The Crusades were a religious war is that many people believed that fighting in the war would give them a new entrance to heaven. So, although the original purpose to fight for some people may not have been religious, the war carried on for the religious purpose of finding a new way into heaven.
DeleteI disagree, “although the religious motivation of the First Crusaders should be emphasized, it would be naïve to argue that other interests were absent” (166). With that being said, the Crusades did have a religious motive, but I believe the Crusades should not be considered a Holy War. The people of this time sought benefits for themselves. The cultural, political, and economic conditions contributed to crusaders’ motives. Pilgrims and families required safety on their pilgrimages to the Holy Land. Also, many men tried to improve loyalty in their army. Some people participated merely for an increasing amount of land and money. In addition, many people underwent rough times of drought and famine which would lead to them turning towards the crusades for money. Therefore based on the public’s desire for personal gain the Crusades should not be considered a Christian Holy War.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI also agree that the Crusades should be considered a Christian holy war. Fulcher of Chartres said that anyone who joined the Crusaders “would experience ‘forgiveness of sins’” (154). He also described the Frist Crusade as “a new path to heaven” (154). Both of these quotes show that there were religious motives for people to join the Crusades. Also the intent of the Crusades was to reclaim their Holy Lands. The 6th Crusade resulted in partial “Christian control over the holy sites” (162). The war resulted in some control of the holy land, which was the main motivation for the war. This reason, along with the religious motivations, is why the Crusades should be considered a holy war.
DeleteI disagree and believe that the Crusades could in no form be called a “Holy War.” First, Christianity strongly encourages its followers to “turn the other check and repay good with evil.” Thus, by fighting in a war it goes against one of Christianity’s most prominent principles of non-violence. However, it is not right to blame all of the people that fought as they were told by the Pope that if they fought and completed a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, then they would be rewarded as they would achieve salvation. Therefore, due to the Pope’s ability to convince the people to fight contradicts one of Christianity’s main beliefs and thus puts them in a bad situation where their morals are compromised. Unfortunately, the Pope’s convincing caused over 60,000 people to take on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land and eventually led to the crusades that affected the lives of millions. I feel that the Crusades were not motivated by religious reasons, but out of people’s personal gains including wealth, safety, and in some ways out of pure greed. Overall, although the Pope strongly encouraged and supported the idea of people going to fight, Christianity strongly believes that violence, fighting, and harm are not the ways to resolve problems in any way, therefore not making the crusades a “Holy War.”
DeleteI would argue that there was actually very little "Holiness" about the crusades as a whole. I think that it was more of a cover-up for aggressive political expansion. To substantiate this claim, let us consider the following points:
Delete1.) There was an obvious power struggle between the pope and the emperor of the Byzantine empire, and conquering Jerusalem would be a major political victory that could upset this struggle in Pope Urban II's favor.
2.) Christianity cannot and will not condone an act of violence, which means that the pope had no justification for claiming that it would lead the troops to salvation.
So it seems to me that Pope Urban II had no basis to start a war as a religious figure, and it was a gross overreach of his power to do so. Also, props to John Green for some great info:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0zudTQelzI
I agree that the Crusades should be considered a Christian holy war. Fulcher of Chartres wrote that “those who undertook this “holy war” would experience “forgiveness of sins”” (154). The people who joined the crusade would be “blessed” by God. Based on the first quote, it is apparent that religion was an influential factor in deciding whether or not to join the Crusades. Also, the development of the Crusades was “designed to take back their conquered territories” (154). By taking back their conquered territories, The “Holy Land” would be reclaimed. The Muslims responded. The 2nd Crusade “failed to recapture cities taken by the Turks” (161). As stated earlier, the objective was to have control of the Holy Land. Retaliation is a motivation for many wars. Religious influence along with this reason supports why the Crusades should be seen as a holy war.
DeleteI agree that the Crusades should be considered a Holy War. As mentioned above, those participating in the crusades were promised “’forgiveness of sins,’” so many of the crusaders were fighting for their salvation. The Crusades incorporated Christian values such as pilgrimages and the primary goal of the Crusades was to take back the Holy Land.
DeleteWhile there were political benefits for the Pope to initiate the Crusades, the fact that religion and politics were so closely tied during this time cannot be ignored. Yes, the Pope would gain power but that power would add to his position as a religious figure for the Holy Roman Empire.
Also, the economic benefits some would receive “would come into force only if the crusader died during the expedition” (166), showing that many Crusaders joined to spread Christianity rather than to simply gain money and were willing to risk their lives to accomplish this goal. It should also be taken into account that these were brutal trips that many did not survive. Religion was obviously a strong motivator for recruiting the Crusaders.
I agree with Lisa that there are various economic motives (I didn't mention these because I didn't want to monologue), but I can't see how that strengthens the religious war argument. If anything, I would think that it helps my argument that the crusades weren't a religious war because it suggests that there were other motives for starting the war other than religion. I agree that religion was a factor for some people, but you have to accept that the pope had a reason to frame it so that the people would accept the war as a religious action and not a political one.
DeleteI agree, I believe that it was a holy war. Fulcher of Chartres, who was the priest Chaplin of the First Crusade, promised those who took on this war that their sins would be forgiven. So, forcing that idea on people, gives them a religious reason to fight, making it a holy war. As the people would rally behind the priests, the crusaders would fight with God in mind, striding to get closer to Him. So, the intentions of the wars were highly religious, although going against many Christian beliefs, and gave them the title of "Holy Wars". As long as the war is defined from the inspiration, these are considered religious wars.
DeleteRegarding Jake’s statement, I sort of disagree. You have to look at it from a broad point of view. The people believed that this is what God wanted them to do and thus joined the Crusades believing they were acting in the name of God. As with most situations, there were some people who joined for selfish reasons and greed; however, for many, the Crusades were seen as a way to achieve salvation. The overall purpose of the Crusades was a religious mission to take back Jerusalem. Phillips explains that “spiritual concerns were a prominent factor governing people’s lives in the late eleventh century” (164). However, Jake and Yash do bring up good points about the contradiction of violence with Christian morals and also how the hunger for expansion soon devoured the Christianity behind the Crusades. The Crusades are not black and white; they originated with holy intentions but changed. Over time, the motives of the Crusades start to revolve around expansion, power, and victory rather than simply righting the wrong and taking back the holy land. Overall, the Crusades are holy wars because they originated and carried on as holy until the end.
DeleteIn response to Yash's statement, I believe the economic perspective strengthens the religious argument because the Crusaders themselves would not benefit from the rewards. Perhaps their families would, but the Crusaders only had the purpose of fighting to spread Christianity. They were also not fighting in easy conditions considering many died along the Crusades.
DeleteI can agree that it is possible the Pope used the Crusades as a chance to gain more power. The politics and religion in the Holy Roman Empire were so closely tied that it is difficult to affect one without it affecting the other. While the Pope may have gained politically, I still believe the main reason for the Crusades was a holy one. Jones wrote in his article that many Christians wanted Christianity to be a public faith and wanted to spread it. So while the Pope benefits, many Christian followers believed in joining the Crusades to spread their religion.
I agree that the crusade was a Holy War. Jones states how the Christians want to regain their land. In fact few wars have ever been fought because of religion. There is a difference between causes and reasons. Causes is what actually launches a conflict whereas reason is the motive given to the population. In the case of the Crusades, the reason was religion. There were political and social factors for the war. One the Pope would have been happy to gain more land and spreading Christianity. Speaking of land, the then Roman Empire (also known as Byzantine) wanted to regain Asia Minor and Levant which the had lost over the course of the early Middle Ages. So Byzantine lobbied to get support for a reconquest, however the rest of Europe had other plans in mind. The Pope was quite content for a Crusade because it would calm the knights down by a couple of notches. At the time knights were constantly quarreling amongst themselves, not very Christian-like of them. So launching a Crusade would unify knights to fight a common enemy instead of themselves. Basically what happened Byzantine wanted her land back and it asked for assistance, wishing that every city gained would be immediately returned under Byzantine control. The Pope wanted to unify knights and of course greed got in the way, made obvious by the fact that Byzantine did not really get the end of the bargain. This is Sneha Singh
DeleteThough the Crusades were called a Holy War, there was nothing holy about the war. War contradicts the beliefs of Christianity, which teaches that Christians should “never become violent”; the act of fighting would go against the teachings of the religion (160). Therefore, it was wrong of Pope Urban II to promise a “spiritual reward of remarkable magnitude” to individuals because they would be directly going against the principles that were primarily taught to achieve salvation (163). The practice of violence in the name of Christianity only began when emperor Constantine begins to “kill people in the name of Jesus,” which shows that violence was not something inherent to the religion at its creation (160). Just because the pope approved the war and promised salvation for those who fought does not mean that it should considered holy, for the original beliefs of Christianity state that violence is not the answer in life.
ReplyDeleteAfter reviewing the article, I agree with your statement. The Crusades should be considered a war but it definitely was not holy. “Early Christians would have no part of war” (153). Since Christians were so opposed to war as a result of their faith, they never should have engaged in a war- and especially shouldn’t have called it holy. As Christians, they were taught to “’turn the other cheek’ and repay evil with good” but by provoking conflict with the Muslims they turned against these beliefs (153). The Christian belief system should not have been a cover-up for the violent methods that the Christians were using to gain back the holy land.
DeleteI also agree with Julia and Elissa, by no means should The Crusades be thought of as a holy war. The Crusades are sometimes "viewed as a Christian counteroffensive, designed to take back their conquered territories and reclaim the Holy Land", but this is but a guise (154). This 'holy pilgrimage' is one of violence, and ultimately, hypocritical beliefs. If early Christians would not partake in war, then why in the fourth century was it acceptable for Constantine to dive into battle hiding the deceit by means of a red cross spread across his shield?
DeleteI have to disagree with you on this. While it is certainly true that violence goes against Christian values, reality must be taken into account here. As stated by Scott Bartchy, despite the earliest Christians refraining from spilling blood, this changed under Constantine, who introduced the idea of "killing people in the name of Jesus" (Jones 160). This was a war between people of the Christian religion, who fought to reclaim holy land in the name of their religion, by the request of the religious leader of one of the world's largest religions, and people of the Islamic religion, who fought to retain the holy land that was also central to their religion. While the amount of times I said 'religion' in the last sentence may have been somewhat obnoxious, I believe that it shows the importance of religion in this situation.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDespite whether the crusaders had ulterior motives or even contradicted themselves in their purpose, the title "Holy War" remains applicable. According to Google's online dictionary, Holy is defined as "dedicated or consecrated to God or a religious purpose; sacred." Yet it is true that the crusaders seemingly contradicted their sacred purpose, such acts were out of dedication for what they believed that their religious obligations were. Their faith to the pope was unwavering and since Pope Urban II promised a “spiritual reward of remarkable magnitude” for fighting, they did so without hesitation (163). Jonathan Philips states in argumentation against the holiness of the war, that "the need for all people... to atone for their actions helps to explain the level of enthusiasm for the First Crusade" (164). He describes the war as an opportunity for people to gain salvation by going against even some of the most basic Christian principles. Although this would make the Crusades seem unholy or even immoral, I disagree. I feel that instead such actions would make it ever more moral and holy. Morals are simply what a groups deems to be standard or proper. At such a time, the Pope's call to crusade was the dictum and ultimately the definition of what was moral and therefore holy. Viewed from a contemporary perspective, waging war -especially with financial motives- is generally an immoral thing to do. It is undeniable that there were motives other than just religious sanctity. I do however believe that the war was "Holy" just misguided. Even in the modern day there are different people, places, things, etc. that are considered holy despite their hypocritical nature or apparent immorality based on a modern perspective. For this reason, considering something holy becomes somewhat subjective and based on the values of the observer. To be as objective as possible, the word holy must be viewed from its most clear definition- Google's to be exact. According to that definition it is clear that the war was "HOLY".
ReplyDeleteI disagree slightly. The pope promised “forgiveness of sins” and a “spiritual reward of enormous magnitude” as an impetus for people to help him with his “original conception of the crusade [to use] a compact contingent of knights to assist Emperor Alexius of Byzantium in his struggle against the Selijuk Turks of Asia Minor, before marching on to the Holy Land” (145, 163, 164). Please remember that at this point, Christianity, and especially Islam, were both political, as well as religious powers. Many of the people who joined the Crusade Armies did so because they wanted to be saved (forgiveness of sins). In my opinion, fighting in order to be personally saved is neither “sacred,” nor “dedicated to God or a religious purpose” (unless one defines personal religious gain as a religious “purpose”). Though the people in the war may have fought for religious salvation, they did not fight for a “holy” purpose. The overall purpose of the war (excluding the part about helping in Byzantium against the military threat of the Turks) was to recapture the Holy Lands, which were part of the dar-al-Islam. That lens of history may fit the criteria of holiness. However, most of the reasons the pope used to encourage people to fight involved personal salvation, not the goal of a Holy War.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteHere the difference really lies in personal opinion. We both agree that there were evident personal goals (political, financial, religious gain) however the distinction as you mentioned is whether one considers fighting to be personally saved as a "sacred" or "religious purpose. It may just be that I have a relatively cynical view of religious pursuits or the concept of holiness, but I would argue that personal religious gain has been and will continue to be "religious purpose." Therefore even if the goals of the crusaders were seemingly immoral or ulterior, they still qualify as holy. The war itself was, as you said, one fought over the "Holy Lands" and inherently such a war will be centered on religious devotion. This devotion, despite its apparent immorality or correctness, is undeniably "dedication to a religious purpose" or "holy."
DeleteI agree with Madeleine. The zeal with which Europeans respond to the crusades shows that the crusades were a religious war. Though many crusaders took up the cross in order to gain wealth or prestige, many other people joined the crusades as a way to achieve “ a new means of salvation” (Philips 163). Pope Urban did not intend for the crusades to occur in the way that they did, instead he meant for “ a compact contingency of knights” to assist the Byzantine emperor against the Turks (Philips 164). However, since religious views were entrenched with an overpowering Catholic guilt, many others felt that they needed to atone for their sins by fighting in the name of God. This zeal is also shown through the noncombatants who were too old, young, or unwell to actually join the crusades, but who followed the crusaders to the holy land anyway. This eagerness to lay down their lives would not have occurred without the promise that the action would appease God.
Delete"This eagerness to lay down their lives would not have occurred without the promise that the action would appease God." This clearly supports the argument that it was a "holy" or "religiously motivated" war.
DeleteThe crusades should be considered a Christian Holy War mostly because the reasoning for starting such quests was in response to the prolonged battles between the Islamic and Christian faith. With understanding of the contradiction between contemporary Christian values and violent action, the retaliation of the crusades was a step in defending the values of Christian belief. For those of you who question my wording – yes, I do mean retaliation. The Islamic group was pushing into European territories such as Italy and even France. The Islamic threat was deadly to the Christian faith, and in order to preserve the Christian religion, force needed to be taken. When asked where or not the Islamic threat was real, my good friend Paul Chevedden answered, “You betcha” (Jones 159). Although there is no Biblical justification for conquering lands and destroying cities in the name of Jesus Christ, Islamic faith was also not the most innocent of religions either. The actions taken may be viewed as morally wrong in some standards, but to the Christian’s, their actions were merely in defense of their own religion. Thus, it is evident that the crusades should be considered a Christian Holy War since they defended their own religion in the face of another dominating and threatening religion: Islam.
ReplyDeleteI certainly agree with your argument. The "Islamic threat" you mention is also shown by the conquest that "had taken from Christendom its choiset province- Syria, Egypt,North Africa, and Iberia" (159). According to their Holy purpose, the crusaders had to use force in order to preserve the Christian religion. Their cause was holy (to preserve Christianity) and in accordance with their morals at the time. I especially agree with your argument that "to the Christians, their actions were merely in defense of their own religion" (ArtyV). I think this perspective is the most objective and a logical reason for considering it the "Holy War," despite any contradictions or financial motives crusaders may have had.
DeleteJordan and Arthur I disagree with both of you in that the Crusades should not be considered a holy war. First, the individual’s motives behind all of the attacks were out of personal gains, not out of saving the Christian faith. Also, as you said Arthur, “the crusades was a step in defending the values of Christian belief” (By the way it’s the crusades “were,” not “was”). But, that statement contradicts itself in that Christianity supports the idea of looking towards other alternatives when it comes to evil and violence. So by them fighting in order to defend “the values of Christian belief” contradicts itself because by fighting in order to protect their values it goes against their most important value. Since the Christian belief supports nonviolence and being able to “turn the other cheek” how does fighting help instill that belief? Therefore, this shows that the incentives behind these crusades were not caused by devotion to Christianity, but out of the hope in achieving personal rewards from participating, thus not making the crusades a holy war.
DeleteI agree with Jake in that the crusades should not be considered a Holy war. Although many crusades started out with religious motives, several situations skewed the participants’ motives. The participants “campaign [to the Holy land] exhausted the resources of the vast majority” (167). Therefore people solely focused on their survival, and for their survival money was necessary. Jonathan Phillips states that many of the crusaders were looking for relics, treasures, or other objects that may have been sold to gain wealth. Phillips states that "the desire for money may have been a priority for the crusaders” (167).Additionally, political purposes led to participation in the crusades. The original purpose of the crusades was to support Emperor Alexius of Byzantium in a battle against the Seljuk Turks. This was a feud waged due to the political conflicts between Christianity and Islam as opposed to the religious problems. Thus I believe the Crusades should not be considered a Holy war due to its non-holy elements.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI think it would be fair to say the wars started with the intention of religious fulfillment, but then later morphed into a way to better their own lives, away from religion. In the beginning most people went into them trying to gain a better their relation with God, but later realized the potential and started to take advantage of the fact that people would follow with the "the promise of salvation". This participation gave more reasons from a political stand point to gain power, thus feeding into the "Holy Wars".
DeleteI believe that the series of Crusades was a “Christian holy war” because the primary goal of the Crusades was to defend Christianity against the advancement of Islam. In the context of the time period, the pope was the main religious figure in the Holy Roman Empire during this “intensely religious age [in which] pilgrimage and monastic life flourished” (Phillips 164). Because religion was such a central part of life in Europe, the pope was the main authority on all things holy. Therefore, Europeans believed in the holiness of the crusades when the pope promised salvation and declared that violence was papally-sanctioned. Because the crusaders primarily fought for causes that they considered to be holy, the Crusades themselves can be considered a “holy war.”
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI believe that the Crusades were not fought to vindicate Christianity or to suppress Islam, thus they should not be considered a Holy War. One of the main reasons for battling was due to the Arab empires’ seizing of Byzantine and European lands. After the Arabs took the Levant, the Franks sought to reconquer the region, which is proven by Phillips: “In the course of the crusade and afterwards, the Franks [...] established a series of states in the Levant” (168). This fact suggests that Europe’s goal was to retake their land. Phillips goes on to say that this Frankish involvement prompted more crusaders to aid in the effort since the Franks “needed military and financial help” (168). The fact that the Franks, a very powerful influence in Europe at the time of the crusades, wanted to fight ensured that other European powers would help. This reason communicates that the crusades were fought to retake land from the Arab empires and not to enforce Christianity on them.
DeleteThough the Crusades may have been sanctioned as a war against Islam, we must not forego the alternative motives that many of the Crusaders had in mind when entering the war. There was a large drive for personal gain in regards to the “holy war,” whether it may have been economically or socially. There was a prominent “desire for money” as well as a prolific “search for salvation” (166,167). In fact, it should be considered whether the enlisted Europeans even cared about the cause of the war; a substantial amount enrolled solely with their own gains in mind. Furthermore, having a cause that is “papally sanctioned” does not make a promise that it is holy. There have been various cases in the past of popes that have been corrupt or misguided; these instances serve as reminders to us that popes are human, and popes are just as fallible as any other human would be. Just because the pope approves the violence, does that mean it is truly considered holy in the ways of Christianity? Think of the Holy Roman Empire, which was “neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire.” In comparison, the Crusades may have been called “holy,” yet titles do not always reflect what things truly are.
DeleteI do not think the Crusades should be considered a holy war mainly because people during this time period were extremely concerned with religion as “pilgrimage and monastic life flourished, and donations to ecclesiastical institutions were increasingly commonplace” (Phillips 164). In addition, Christian Europe was among the “most guilt-ridden societies in history” (Phillips 164). In other words, crusaders wanted religious assurance and peace in the afterlife, not to spread Christianity/suppress Islam. In addition, the family tradition (if a crusader's father or grandfather went) played a big part of who fought. Seeking to strengthen the loyalty from squires, servants, etc also encouraged crusaders to fight. Other factor were their desire for wealth, land, relics, etc.
DeleteMelody and Julia, I agree with you both and want to elaborate on Melody’s point of family tradition playing a part in the crusades. While many can argue that these family traditions, or “family ties” as Phillips calls them, were strongly influenced by a family’s ancestral and continued Christian views, others, like myself and Phillips, may contest that such family ties and traditions of crusading were simply pursued by descendants of former crusaders in order to please their families. Such crusaders probably felt that they needed to prove their devotion to their ancestors, and the most accessible way to do this was by following their lead in the crusades. Also, ancestral crusading resulted in the spread of the family name to regions under contention during the first crusades, and descendant felt obligated to return to such regions where they could continue this example.
DeleteWill D
ReplyDeleteI also believe that the Crusades should be considered a “Holy War” for the reasons listed in the passage. Even though war contradicts proper Christian morality that violence is never the solution to an issue, the reason the war emerged in the first place was due to the bitter rivalry between Christianity and the Islam. The crusades were a step to preserve basic Christian beliefs and protect the culture. By defending the religion, participants were awarded “forgiveness of sins,” “a new path to heaven,” and personal salvation. These motives drove people to protect their own religious beliefs and prevent another religion such as Islam from infiltrating into their lives. In addition, The Crusades arose from the crosses that Pope Urban II distributed to his people in order for them to “band together and recover the Holy Sepulcher from the Muslim Seljuk Turks” (161). The Crusades were clearly not fought by the Christians just to be violent and the motive for participating was not land or a higher social position in society. The Crusades were strictly to preserve basic Christian beliefs and fight off another threatening belief system. Furthermore, the rewards that Pope Urban II granted for participating in the “Holy War” were based on religion as well. This can be seen through the author’s statement about forgiveness of sins and a path to heaven. Even though war the majority of the time is not considered “holy” be any means, it is clear that the Crusades would definitely classify as a “Holy War” because every part of it was based on religion.
I also believe that the Crusades were not a holy war, even though many aspects of the Crusades regarded religion. One of the main aspects of Christianity is maintaining true Christian morals, which include not being greedy and being gracious. However, many of the 60,000 Christians that joined the Crusades were motivated by perks they would receive after the wars, not by the pure love and devotion to their religion. Since many of the fighters were promised salvation and wealth, this shows that the Church even knew that it could not solely rely on the devotion and dedication of its followers, they had to bribe people. So, by persuading people to join the fight with petty motives, the Church contradicts itself by not practicing what it preaches. Therefore, even though religion was one of the biggest reasons for the crusades, in no way was it a holy war.
ReplyDeleteI agree; although their original purpose was to defend Christianity, the alternative motives for the crusades outweigh the intended purpose. The promise of gaining wealth alongside the search for salvation proved to be easily manipulated into catering to the selfish needs of the individual. Even Phillips notes the “potential for abuse in this connection” (167). Although those going on crusades in search of wealth were most often disappointed, narrative reports show reoccurring accounts of “crusaders seeking booty,” indicating that they have lost touch with the original purpose of defending Christianity (Phillips 167).
DeleteI'd like to point out that during the time of the Crusades many resources were being depleted which led to inflation and loss of horses and equipment. So for most the "acts of greed were usually initiated in response to the need to survive, rather than the long-term motivation to accumulate treasure" (167). Yes, greed goes against Christian morals but many could overlook that because they were fighting to spread Christianity.
DeleteI somewhat disagree with your statement. The Crusades should be considered a holy war because their initial motivation was not to start war but they considered it a “noble effort to reclaim the central sites of their faith…an unfortunate but long-forgotten chapter in world history” (153). In the beginning, the Christians were motivated by their goal to take the holy land back. This could have blurred their method of reclamation and made it more violent than necessary. So the initial intentions of the Christians were not to have war since “early Christians would have no part of war,” but simply to gain back control of the holy lands (153). You said “Christians were only motivated by the perks that they would receive after wars, not by the pure love and devotion to their religion.” Well for many of those Christians, the perk was a “promise of salvation” which could represent their love and devotion for the religion (154).
DeleteIn addition to Lisa's and Elissa’s comments, the Crusades should be considered to a Holy War. The primary purpose for the beginning of the Crusades was to protect and defend Christianity. In any case there are other motives for going into a war, and I acknowledge the fact that some people may have went in search of wealth or were bribed to do so. However, the fact that the Crusades took place during a difficult time in Europe, as Lisa mentioned, allows them to be considered a Holy War. Many people can argue that there was nothing “holy” about the Crusades, but due to the intention of defending Christianity, the Crusades should be considered a Holy War.
DeleteLisa and Elissa bring up some good points. Even though at the end of the day, I don't view the Crusades as holy due to the fact that many Christians went against the main morals and values that are pertinent to their religion, it is important to recognize that the first intentions for starting the war were religious. In the beginning, Christians wanted to claim back their holy land, and feel a stronger connection with their religion and their god. In addition to this, Lisa pointed out that many were suffering from poverty and the lack of resources. Many times when times are rough, people develop a greater dependence on religion and are desperate to reach salvation in order to balance their difficult lives on Earth. Sadly, along the way, their true, original intentions got blurred and many were influenced by the motives stated in my original post. Even with this additional information, I do not view the Crusades as a holy war, however, there were holy intentions present.
DeleteRachel, I mostly agree with the points you made, however, considering the perspective of the Christians, these motives were neither petty nor selfish. The main driving force behind the Christians who joined the Crusades, as described by Fulcher of Chartres, was the idea of "a new path to heaven" and the "forgiveness of sins" (154). Salvation is no mere form of bribery; it is the epitome of success for any Christian, and in order to achieve this one must be completely selfless. Crusades put their life on the line in order to advance their religion into the holy territory. Therefore, taking risks and joining the Crusades was actually an altruistic act rather than only a selfish desire of salvation.
DeleteClearly there was religious motivation for the Crusades. The Crusades came during a difficult time in Europe because many people felt as though they were not worthy of going to Heaven. The Crusades offered people an opportunity to redeem themselves. There was a promise of salvation from going on a crusade. However, people did not always go for religious reasons. Some people went because they were greedy and others went due to a family tradition. I do not think it’s fair to say that the Crusades should not be considered a Holy War because there were other motivations for going on these journeys; but the Crusades were intended to defend Christianity. The violence that occurred during the Crusades was papally-sanctioned because the holiest of figures, Pope Urban II, approved of such actions. The Crusades should be considered a Christian Holy War because the original purpose of the Crusades was to defend a religion.
ReplyDeleteIt is also important to remember that Pope Urban II initially called for “ a compact contingency of knights” to fight, not every peasant in Europe (Philips 164). Plus, I think there was a large economic factor as well. Feudalism is finally starting to become productive in Europe, which may have caused them to want to flex their muscles a bit, especially considering the threat they felt due to the substantial amount of land "Islamic conquest had taken from Christendom" (Joens 159). Although the crusades were certainly religiously motivated, I think that the economic factors cannot be ignored.
DeleteI essentially agree with your point. It is ignorant of us to think that there were no economic and political factors in play, but it really still boils down to an issue of religious pride and power. The Crusades ultimately lost focus and were a debacle for the Christians, but it is important to note that they were started for religious reasons. Christianity, by nature, or at least how it evolved from the original faith, was a religion that required a large following. Pope Urban II, like you said, sanctioned these wars which made them a matter of religion of principle. Again, I agree with your point that people went on the Crusades because of tradition and greed, but many liked the promise of salvation as well. Defending Christianity and warding off Islam were the main reasons that they took place, although maybe it would have been wise for the Christians to stop after the first couple of Crusades due to their major losses, the religious principle of the wars was still present. The Crusades were started due to a battle over religious supremacy with Islam, and should be considered a Holy War, although, like many others have stated, unholy ulterior motives were also in play.
DeleteAlthough many different motives can be attributed to the crusades, the Christians primarily acted out of devotion to their god, thereby justifying the term “holy war”. Not only had Islam taken over Christianity’s “choicest province” but it also threatened to enter Europe through Spain (159). Thus, in order to preserve their religion, the Christians had no other options but too fight back. To Christians, reclaiming the holy lands also meant to reclaim the important cities that defined and shaped the religion. They truly felt that the right to the lands was theirs and had every right to think so. In addition, there were many religious motives for joining the crusades such as salvation and “forgiveness of sins” (154). The crusades sought to reclaim the holy lands and stop the Juggernaut force of Islam all in the name of god, thereby making them by definition, holy.
ReplyDeleteJust some points i thought i should add about why I do not think that the Crusades should be considered a Holy War. Just to put everything into context a little, the Crusades in started in 1095 and the schism between the Byzantine patriarchs and Roman popes occurred in 1054. In other words, the Pope’s authority was being questioned. This fact supports my belief that Pope Urban II started the crusades in the name of a “Holy war” just so that he could gain power and support, which, might I add, he succeeded in. Also, he could have wanted to enact the crusades because he wanted to “channel [knight] violence elsewhere” (Phillips 164) as “weak central authority and endemic lawlessness” (Phillips 164) was common in France.
ReplyDeleteAlso, because of the fact that we focused on arguments from 1 source for each side, I think it is necessary to consider their Point of Views. While Arthur Jones is an editor, Jonathan Phillips is a professor of Crusading History at Royal Holloway University (according to www.Historytoday.com). This already gives his side a little more credibility (though I’m not saying that he automatically wins or anything because of this) as he teaches and researches this material.
I disagree with the above point of view. Although one of pope’s motivations for the crusades may have been to gain more support, this support was used to rally crusaders for a religious cause – to fight against the Islamic threat. This threat was very real, as the “’Islamic conquest had taken from Christendom its choicest province – Syria, Egypt, North Africa and Iberia’” (Jones 159). Also, I might add that one primary objective of the pope was also to “[give] the knights an opportunity for salvation” (Phillips 164). Even Jonathan Phillips agreed with this fact. Therefore, although the pope may have had ulterior motives, the primary reason for the crusades was to fight what the knights and pope considered to be “holy.” The interpretation of “holiness” can vary from person to person, thus if the pope and the crusaders considered the crusades to be holy, then the crusades can be considered a “holy” war.
DeleteI think that, from the crusaders' points of views, salvation was an impetus that would save them from sin or misfortune in the afterlife, not so much to stop the spread of Islam. Thus, i do not think this fact should make it a holy war as it was more for their personal gain than to defend or stop a religion. And even though the pope wanted to give "the knights an opportunity for salvation" (Phillips 164), we cannot ignore the fact that he also wanted to stop the violence the knights were causing among themselves and sent them on the crusades for that reason. In addition, we cannot ignore the highly likely possibility that he wanted to gain support after the schism. Moreover, as Julia pointed out earlier, Christian beliefs did not support the violence of the crusades. Nevertheless, it is also important to recognize that whatever the Urban's motives were, many of the crusaders fought for personal reasons like tradition, gaining land, gaining loyalty from their serfs or squires, salvation, etc.
DeleteJust to address your last argument there Sophia, even if the crusaders and the pope "considered" the crusades to be a holy war, that doesn't mean it is. What I mean by this is, the pope had reason to call it a holy war by name so that he could gain support and look righteous doing it. In addition the crusaders might have called it a holy war because they wanted to hide their actual motives by the just title of a "holy war"
DeleteI think that one’s opinion on whether or not the Crusades are to be considered a “Holy” war depends on if you look at the purpose of the war, or what incited the war. Though the purpose of the war was to take the Holy Lands, a religious and possibly “holy” ideal, there were political reasons for the start of the war. For example, as Melody said, the pope may have been feeling as though his authority was being threatened from the schism in 1054 and from the many kings throughout Europe, so he wanted to rally the people behind him and take more power. The fact that Christians and Muslims had been in contact before the Crusades, and Christians were able to travel to the Holy Land implies that there were other causes to the war. Though the purpose of the war could be considered “Holy,” the impetus for the conflict may not have been.
DeleteThe Crusades were most definitely a Holy War. First off, Fultcher of Charles, a priest chaplain on the first crusade, writes that Christians beloved they would achieve "full and complete satisfaction" as well as a "forgiveness of sins" if they fought (156). This is an example of the fact that mostly anyone directly involved in the war viewed the crusades as having major religious implications. Many people went as far as to believe that fighting would give them access to heaven after their short lives had run their course. Lastly, Bukhari mentions the fact that the west represented Christianity while the Muslim world represents Islam. He points out how these religions served as the basis mor empires and civilizations at the time, unlike other religions. For these reasons and many more, the Crusades shall be here on out referred to as a Holy War.
ReplyDeleteIn my point of view, the Crusades were one of the largest examples of Holy Wars. There are a plethora of aspects of the Crusades that revolve around religion. Firstly, the name 'Crusade' comes from the Old English word 'croisade' meaning marked by the cross. Also, the First Crusade was not only supported, but actually created under the guidance of the Pope at the time, Pope Urban II. The ultimate goal of the Crusades was to reclaim in the name of Christianity land that was occupied by the Muslim people, such as the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. The entire war itself was fought between Muslims and Christians.These are only several of the many reasons as to why the Crusades were definitely a Holy War.
ReplyDeleteThe most common argument against the view of the Crusades as a Holy War is that there were other factors besides religion involved in its inception. In response to that I ask of you: Can you name a single major war that had solely one cause? The answer to that is no. True, the Crusades were also fought for economic and political reasons, but restricting the description of the war by not considering the Crusades a Holy War is quite an inaccurate depiction of this event.
I agree with Reno in that the Crusades did not have a sole cause, and the quest to regain the Holy Land was, perhaps, the greatest reason for the creation of the war. Since both the Christians and Muslims centered their societies around religion, it would be most appropriate to look at a religious clash as the spark of the war. Although this clash was not the only reason, it was the most prominent. For example, people looked to the wars as a way to achieve "forgiveness of sin" (154). So, the main impetus for the war was definitely religious. However, it would be unfair to say that religion was the only reason.
DeleteI also agree with Reno’s points. Though there is no doubt that the crusades may have had some political and economic motives, religion was the main driving force. At a time when Islam posed such a threat to Christianity, Christians had to allow a “religious nationalism” to unite them and fight for their holy land (157). Obviously this was difficult because of the warring European nobles, so Pope had to assume plenary authority to form a unifying force on the principles of Christianity. I think the main reason that there is doubt over whether the crusades were a holy war is because of the fact that people took advantage of the different opportunities that the crusades provided. For example many people “planned to carve out new territories for themselves in the east “(166). It can be argued that these were simply bonuses because the only way people could achieve this was to bear the cross, suggesting that even those who were in it for land, had some religious ties. Therefore, just because there were other ulterior motives does not negate the fact that the religious motivation was the underlying cause that started it all.
DeleteI too agree with Reno. While the Crusades were not soley a religious war, there is little to no doubt that the war was centered primarily around the topic. Almost each Christian involved in the war believed that fighting would allow them to enter heaven after death. How can one argue that the crusades were not holy when the people fighting in it believed that their participation had a direct effect on their religious obligations and beliefs?
DeleteI agree, but I also think that the wars could also be veiwed as not holy becuause they went against thier beliefs when fighting. The Christians are supposed to "'turn the other cheek' and repay evil with good" (153). I think that starting a war is not turning the other cheek or repaying evil with good. Therefore, I agree that the war could be considered holy, but there are reasons to consider it not a holy war.
DeleteNo.The Crusades actually got started because Constantinople was being beset by the Seljuk Turks. The Emperor Alexius saw he was in a heap of trouble so he wanted to get help from Europe since their days would also be numbered because of that onslaught. He realized that the European Kings were little more than a bunch of quarrelsome robber barons at the best of times so he appealed to the Pope to mediate and try and get their help since the Pope had the king's ear. Now concurrently then the Seljuk Turks had taken the Holy land. The Muslims (Arabs) had been in control of it for over 300 years and there were no big issues. However that same year about 7000 Christian pilgrims came back saying that whilst the Arab overlords had been not bad chaps to deal with, these new Seljuk master were awful SOB's who gave them a rough time. This helped influence the Pope to start doing something. I think as things got started and more and more military manpower was needed, the Pope brought in the religious card and objective to motivate Christians to go much like Abe Lincoln did 700 years later in the Emancipation Proclamation to give Northerners a better reason to fight in that war which had nothing much to do with slavery initially.
ReplyDeleteThe Crusades should be primarily considered Holy Wars. It would be foolish to ignore the ulterior motives of the Crusades, but the religious aspect was the main driving force that started the Crusades. It is important to analyze the characteristics of both religions involved, which in turn shaped the conflict. Both Christianity and Islam rely on a large following, power, and converts. Jones states, “Islam wants of its very character to be the basis of society” (157). This is true of Christianity as well, and this battle over religious power set up and inevitable clash of titans. Also the threat of Muslim expansion scared Pope Urban II and the Christian community. The Christians did not want to lose potential areas of influence to Islam, and this battle over religious supremacy ultimately led to a Holy War. There was definitely a shift in motives as the Crusades dragged on, but ultimately the Crusaders bore a cross and were fighting in the name of the power-hungry yet fearful Christian faith. This shift can be seen with the economic interests that were pursued in the later Crusades, such as the pursuit of Venice (161). It is impossible to ignore the political and economic factors in a series of wars of such magnitude, but the main fight was initially of a religious nature, therefore the Crusades can be classified as Holy Wars.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your ideas. Not only were the Crusades done for the spread of Christianity, but they were done in retaliation to the pressing Islamic forces. I am sure that if Christianity kept on its tacks without Islamic pressures, the expansion would unquestionably have the label of “holy”. Since there were Islamic pressures and these pressures clearly were threatening Christian belief, the Christian faith needed to take action. Were the Christian peoples supposed to solve issues diplomatically or even worse, not fight at all with a group of invaders? Of course not; it was essential to take action. Therefore, the Christian faith, in response to the Islamic threat, set out on a “noble effort to reclaim the central sites of their faith” (Jones 153). The reclaiming of land should not be thought of as unholy just because of the supposed contradictions to the faith. The fact of the matter is that the Christian peoples needed to act and they did in preservation of their faith.
DeleteI also agree with the ideas you guys have put forth. While some people may argue that the wars could not have been holy because violence contradicts the basic morality of Christian practices, there are several factors that would outweigh this concern and make the Crusades classify as holy. First off, one of the main reasons for the war was to recover the crosses (direct symbols of the Christian faith) that Pope Urban the II had previously distributed to them. In addition, the Crusades were completely a response to the threat of Islamic expansion. When Islam began to spread rapidly, the Christians became fearful that it would begin to overtake their own religious beliefs. As a result, there was definitely a strong need for the Christians to take action in order to preserve their religious practices and prevent an overpowering Islamic empire. If the Christians decided not to participate in the Crusades and stand up for their beliefs, there is a chance Christianity could be far less prominent today.
DeleteI also agree with your ideas. Arthur brings up a solid point about how it was essential for the Christian people to take action. The Christians really had no other logical choice as they were being pressured by Islamic authority. Sure there were other approaches, but the bottom line is that the right one was made. When your faith is in jeopardy of being broken apart by something (Islamic forces in this case), the correct thing to do is protect it at all costs. Engaging in a fight was not the first preference of the Christian people, but having their faith squandered was certainly not either. With that being said, the land being reclaimed shouldn’t be seen as unholy just because it was thought that there were deviations regarding Christianity. The Christians acted accordingly to defend their beliefs/faith.
ReplyDelete