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.
The Crusades were not a Holy War. They were more of a political and economic stunt. The first reason as to why I would think this, is because if the goal was to recover the Holy Sepulcher from the Turks. Then wouldn’t it make sense that after the goal was reached, the Crusades would evidently be no more, since the Sepulcher would have been recovered. During the Third Crusade, Saladin of the Muslims decreed that the Christians could have access to the Holy Sepulcher. The goal had been reached, why would there need to be 9 total crusades, if the Holy Sepulcher was obtained after the Third Crusade. The reason is because the Crusades were an economic/political ploy. The following Crusades (after the third one) were just done in order to gain more territory and hopefully make a profit out of the people’s false belief in a religious goal. Since The Crusades were believed to be strictly for religious reasons, the King and government could run with that idea and make people falsely believe in a fake war because it had religion as its core and religion was a huge part of society at the time. The fact that the times leading up to the Crusades were not very prosperous would suggest that the Crusades were just a way to for people to make profit or repay their debts. A series of droughts and bad harvests marked the early 1090s; this meant that farmers, and the common man since they bought food from farmers, were not in the best position because harvests were very poor. Thus, the desire for money was a pressing issue. The Crusades were the best excuse to travel to new lands in hopes of coming back with a profit. Another reason as to why the Crusades were not a Holy War was because the people carrying out these crusades were not qualified. The fact that you are fighting for a symbol of your religion, a topic that was taken very seriously throughout society at the time, wouldn’t you want your best men out there to fight for the cause and retake the Sepulchral, then why would you allow women, children, the old, and the poor into the army and allow them to fight when all they would do was hinder the army. If this was truly for religious reasons and nothing else, then the army would be strictly knights and people who were trained, not noncombatants taken right off the street. The final reason as to why the Crusades were for economic/political gain is because the Kings almost never participated in them. The Kings were the ones sending the troops out and making the decisions, however, they were rarely present at the battles. If they truly believed in the cause to regain the Holy Sepulcher and the Holy Land, then they would have shown some eagerness and care to actually be present during the Crusades. This would show an alternative motive, since they are not actively participating in something they say they truly believe in. Even though The Crusades were said to be a Holy War, I believe they were an economic/political stunt with a religious paint job.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Vince to a certain extent. It is tough to assert that any one action had one motivating factor. Obviously something of the pure magnitude of the Crusades had to have been the result of several motives. One reason would not be sound enough to warrant such an escapade. I believe that the initial Crusades were primarily parts of a greater Holy War, but once it became clear that there was a great potential for profits and economic gain, the direction of the Crusades began to shift. The notion that the Christians were not experiencing prosperity only furthers the fact that the primary goal was in the arena of finances. The holy motivation that served as the catalyst for the Crusades only turned into hypocritical and overwhelming cynicism marked by the overly extended and intrusive actions of the Christians, which conflicts with the religion they were originally attempting to spread. It was a hollow ploy as Vince stated that was fronted with the cover of a Holy War, but was truly an economic campaign of sorts.
DeleteI agree with Alex. While the Crusade may have been started as a "Holy War," it shifted away from a religiously motivated war and more toward an economically and politically motivated war. I believe that we must keep in mind that the church was largely involved in the political and economic systems of the time. Keeping this in mind, some could consider the crusades a holy war, but the fact that the wars were sanctioned by the church does not automatically deem the crusades to be “holy.” To be holy, the motives for conducting the war should only be religious. I do not believe that the actions taken within the crusades, such as mass killings, fall within the confines of what is holy. I believe that if the crusades were truly holy, then the crusaders would not have accepted the monetary benefits, and they would also not need a promise to ensure their ascent to heaven.
DeleteThat's very true. The overlap of Church and State in conjunction with the Pope's power and obligation to oversee or at least advise in the political arena would lend itself to a monetary based campaign that is not as holy or as devout as it is said to be.
DeleteI disagree with both Alex and Alex on this, as you are saying that an exception to the purpose of warring for religion by also having the incentive of wealth negates the original faith-based reasoning for beginning the Crusades. That would be the equivalent of saying that, because the Mongols spared certain peoples and intellectuals, they were not very barbaric or violent overall. An entirely altruistic motivation was not present in all of the Crusades, but that does not mean that their intentions were not "holy." I believe that the focus on the wealth and power that could be obtained from the holy lands that "belonged" to the Christians was only present after the First Crusade successfully conquered the areas in the name of Christianity and lost them again. Not only did the church pronounce the war holy, but the people supported it as holy as well.
DeleteLooking at the question through a modern lens, I agree with Vincent. It would be ignorant to believe that a country would go to war strictly on a religious deities request with purely moral intentions. However, to truly analyze the motives of the crusade, you have to put yourself into the shoes of those who lived through the time period. It's important to remember that religion back then was completely different from what religion is today. Back then, a person's faith and relationship with God was not a private matter. Religion served as a unifier. A unified country is a stable one. Christianity not only allowed the countries that will form modern Europe to survive, but to also thrive and rise to power. Therefore, religion back then was almost what we would think today as a country's nationalism. Jones supports the position that the Crusades were the result of a religious fervor that materialized into a holy war against the Muslims. He describes the current tensions between Christians and Muslims and how it is evidence of the ongoing holy war. Christianity was a religion that adapted quickly to the pressures of an emerging secular society. Christianity, in many ways, has allowed a secular society to define the culture. Islam, on the other hand, remains inseparable from the society and culture.
ReplyDeleteNo, I believe that the Crusades were not primarily a holy war because there were many ulterior motives for the war besides spirituality. The Crusades were fueled by greed. Specifically, the Crusades were motivated by the prospect of economic gains for the crusaders. Crusaders allegedly searched for relics and other assorted treasures in Israel and throughout their journey which they could then sell in order to become wealthy. The Crusaders were also primarily fueled by greed because the act of making a pilgrimage to the holy land was viewed as another way to achieve spiritual salvation, and the sinful Crusaders jumped at the opportunity to gain entrance to heaven without actually changing their lifestyles. Viewing the Crusades as a war based solely on religion doesn’t acknowledge any of the multiple other facets that caused such a monumental event in world history.
ReplyDeleteI’m going to have to disagree with you here; I believe that the Crusades were a holy war. It is foolish to say that the Crusades did not have an ulterior motive to being a holy war, but yet again, it is foolish to say that any act has only one motive. Yet, calling the Crusaders greedy would imply that they joined the crusades to gain money or entrance to heaven as you say. Lord Riou of Loheac was a crusader who returned from the Crusades with a fragment of the True Cross and instead of selling it he left it to the church. He did not keep it for his monetary greed as he would have if the Crusades were truly all he felt he needed to be forgiven for his sins. I would say that he did change his lifestyle because of the Crusade and if he was already a very benevolent person before the Crusades then this shows that the Crusades attracted people who were true to god and lived the lives of good Christians. Between 1096 and 1099 about 60,000 people embarked on the Crusades. 60,000 people were not all sinners looking for an “easy” way into heaven; especially consider how cruel and horrible the crusades were for the Crusaders. The Crusades should be considered a holy war because those crusaders chose a difficult path that usually ended in death as they strived to follow the pope who is anointed by god (and he’s pretty holy).
DeleteSorry Ben, going to agree with Preston. Even though you make points about the Crusades as an act of greed, what is not to say that the original Muslim conquests were not acts of greed upon themselves? Perhaps these Crusades were to challenge the ideas of the Muslims and to show that Christianity can have its own pilgrimage. It also invigorates and reinstates the religious agenda in such lands. Also, to say that these Crusaders are "greedy" is a statement that contradicts the cost it normally cost for a normal Crusader, which such objects as the chain mail they wore or the horses they rode during this holy war. Some of these Crusades did not come out with economical benefits, such as the Seventh and the Eighth. If these were truly conquests of greed, would a Ninth Crusade be led by King Edward? Even though there could have been self made interests, the main idea of these Crusades was a religious one, one pointed out by Preston. Pope Urban II's intent was one for the holy war, yet a few Crusaders could seek out these Crusades for economical benefits (where I can see your point come out Ben). The church was looking for a religious drive, not an economical uphold. All in all, the greater cause of the church overrides the causes for the lesser individual desires, and is seen as a religious purge by embarking on these quests (a thirst for religion rather than a greed for economic/political gain).
DeleteIn the eyes of European Christians, the Muslim advance needed to be repelled. Pope Urban used the Muslim expansion as justification for the war against Islam and the call to reclaim the holy land. People’s greed and the lust for battle made them easier to convince. This is evidence of the delicate balance and partnership between the church and rulers within the HRE. The interests of both groups shared mutual benefits. That's not to say that secular factors didn't persuade them to go.The droughts in the late eleventh century prompted people to seek fortunes in the Middle East. Some Europeans hoped to acquire new lands while others brought back relics and treasures. Coupled with the Pope’s promise of guaranteed salvation, Christians no doubt saw the opportunity to serve as beneficial. It's the last part that is key to helping analyze this question. The state of the immortal soul was a crucial concern for people living during the Middle Ages, which the catalyst for participation of people partaking in and supporting them.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree. The idea of the crusades masked the true motives of the king, as well as his the kings true intent to gain political and economic power through the possession of the holy lands. The holy sites that were conquered give whoever has control of the sites a very powerful position in the religious and social world. Also, the pilgrimages revealed the want for physical instead of spiritual wealth, further invalidating the idea that the crusades could have been holy wars. The whole concept of the crusades contradicts itself because the people are giving into sin by allowing greed to dictate their actions and even kill in order to gain the prize of salvation that has been promised to them. The journey to salvation has been made easier through these crusades, but the ideas of what was moral regarding the Christian religion and the corruption taking place definitely disprove the idea that the crusades were holy wars.
DeleteI have to disagree. How can the crusades not be a part of the holy war when there are countless stories of brave knights fighting so passionately for a cause? Hugh the Beserk for example defended a tower alone against Turkish attacks during the siege of Antioch. This would not have happened if he was fighting for political and military power and expansion alone. It was the direct result of being so driven to serve his faith and earn salvation, especially in a time where “images of fire and torture so frequently depicted on churches reinforced the fear of eternal damnation” (164). Even if faith alone wasn’t strong enough to make the knights fight so bravely, fear of damnation was. Another reason why the crusades had to have been part of the holy war is because of the monks and priest who joined even through, militarily, they would be of no use. They joined for the dedication to their faith and many times died on the harsh expeditions. Why would those who are the most spiritually involved risk so much just for monetary or political gain?
DeleteI agree with Bryn, while the motivations for starting the Crusades may have extended beyond religious ones, the actions of the crusaders themselves confirm the holy nature of these wars. When the time period is taken into account, the highly religious atmosphere better explains the bravery, recklessness (and foolishness) of the crusaders. Their belief in salvation through battle explains their determination. Had the soldiers been solely focused on gaining money and power through the crusades, they would not have risked their necks to defend a cause they felt no connection towards. The Crusades can be classified as a holy war because the people who were involved in it believed it to be for a holy cause.
DeleteWhile I still think that the crusades were a holy war, there definitely were some more factors playing into it than just religious reasons. Those who are religious fear damnation and crave salvation because it is human nature to selfishly want those things. It is also in human nature to selfishly want power and money. And although the Pope surely wanted to expand the holy land for those reasons, the religious aspect again is the main component. This new power would allow him to spread Christianity, and therefore have more unity in the growing Roman Empire.
DeleteThe Crusades should definitely be considered a “Holy War,” especially if one considers the time period and intense influence that religion had in society: “Spiritual concerns were a prominent factor governing the people’ lives in the late eleventh century. It was an intensely religious age” (164). The purpose of the establishment of the Crusades was to provide a counteroffensive by Christians against Muslims, considering both Christianity and Islam wanted to be very public and widely accepted religions. I understand money becomes an important factor for any society, but the cost of even instituting the Crusades would take most of the money that would be gained and any money collected would most likely be used for a grander purpose, not simply giving it to individual families in the lowest class, who would be struggling the most during this time. The Crusades were a “Holy War” because religion was prominent in the life of every individual living in the societies, regardless of his or her financial situation. If the articles state that religion was the driving force for a lot of decisions made in society and the lives of the people, it makes sense that the people fighting in the Crusades would feel it would be their duty to protect something most valuable to them. The reason for battles back then cannot be compared to the wars we have today through an economical lens because the I feel the roles are reversed with regards to the influence of money and religion in every day lives. We live in a world where many religions are accepted regardless of popularity, but money becomes a constant and repeated issue. Back during the time of the Crusades, money didn’t play that same role, but religion did. Overall I believe the Crusades were a “Holy War” by the sheer fact that the religion played an extremely vital part in the lives of many during that time period.
ReplyDeleteMicayla, I hate to be that guy but I’m going to have to disagree with you on this one. You are completely correct that during the time of the Crusades religion was a huge factor in the lives of most people. However, when most people went on the Crusades they either went out of greed for money, or more importantly (in my opinion) they went for salvation. In this time period there was nothing worse for a religious person than sinning: ““Sin was ubiquitous in everyday life and the images of fire and torture so frequently depicted on the churches reinforced the fear of eternal damnation”. Therefore, many participants in the Crusades only joined for religious salvation because of the fact that they had sinned and wanted to be saved. In my opinion, this cannot be considered holy even though it is religious. In conclusion the Crusades cannot be considered a holy war since the participants joined out of material and moral greed instead of virtue and righteousness, the actual elements of holiness. Thank you for your time and enjoy your evening.
DeleteI believe that the Crusades were holy wars when you take into account the "intensely religious" culture at the time period (Phillips 164). The majority of citizens identified with their religion and considered the Pope to be their leader. While there may have been additional factors that motivated the Pope to start the Crusades, the main reason remains salvation as declared by the church. Furthermore, "[c]rusading was extremely expensive" those who participated in the war did not lack wealth (Philips 165). Their religious motive in defending their religion far outpaced their monetary ones. The massive amount of support and fervor gained by the crusades would not have occured if the crusaders had not believed that their cause was holy.
ReplyDeleteAngela, I agree with you that salvation was one key factor in causing the voluntary enlistment of so many Christians. However, I believe that their intentions were to benefit themselves, not the church or religion as a whole. The crusaders were concerned with their own personal salvation, which is why I think the war was more greedy than holy. Also, I think that the appeal of self-profits coming from the crusades was more of an influence in causing the massive support then you made it out to be. The self-interests definitely outweighed the support of Christianity during the crusades.
DeleteI am going to have to disagree with you here. The Crusades were definitely not a "Holy War". Throughout the Crusades, people would frequently rip open and loot Graves in order to obtain riches. I have a hard time believing that Christians would agree with the desecration of graves in order to gain money. The Crusades might have started off with a religious goal, however, as more and more people supported the Crusades, natural human greed took over. It just so happens that the Muslims were settling on “Christian lands”, this gave an the excuse to the Crusaders that they were fighting for the regaining of The Holy Land, when in reality they were fighting for their own expansion and power. Just because the Pope was at the head of organizing the Crusades, does not necessarily mean that they were for religious reasons. It ultimately comes down to the people physically fighting the war, and in the case of the Crusades, the soldiers were more focused on their personal gain, than the actual goal of regaining the Holy Land.
DeleteThe Crusades should not be considered a Holy War because of all of the other motives that drove them. The main focus of the Crusades was in fact monetary gain rather than religious faith. The Crusaders dug through graves of the conquered and pillaged all they could. Pillaging is not a form of spreading religion, which, if the Crusades were to be thought of as a “Holy War,” would not have occurred in such large numbers as they did. The Crusades were driven by selfish motives- both economically, as already stated, and spiritually. The Crusaders raided other holy lands and joined the Crusades in order to purify and consecrate themselves and to erase their sins. The definition of a Holy War is a war that is mainly centered around religion, whether that is spreading that religion or fighting against another group whose beliefs clashes with your own. Overall, the Crusades were just a way for Europeans to fulfill their selfish motives and entertain themselves; the religious motive was all a pretense in order to do so.
ReplyDeleteA lot of reasoning here is accurate, but I think that some of the reasoning given can actually prove the opposite, that The Crusades was a Holy War. For example, there was a lot of accurate background information stated in the articles and Anupama's comment about the selfish motives of the Crusaders. But I believe that this very selfishness can define a Holy War. As Anupama said, "the definition of a Holy War is a war that is mainly centered around religion, whether that is spreading that religion or fighting against another group whose beliefs clashes with your own". Isn't there some selfishness within the basic definition of Holy War? Engaging in a Holy War is selfish in its own way in the fact that it can be fighting a group just because that group's religious view is considered inferior to a different group. It is selfish to state another religion inferior, and is therefore selfish to engage in a Holy War, based on the definition of that term. Therefore, the selfish Crusaders were "driven by spiritually motives", which proves within in its definition that selfishness is actually an underlying aspect of a Holy War, and the Crusades in particular.
DeleteI absolutely agree with Anupama because the Crusades were not a “Holy War” in the truest sense of the word. The definition of “holy” is something done with moral or spiritual excellence and with absolute devotion to God. Since there were so many hidden motivations behind the Crusades, the conflicts definitely did not have purely religious intentions. As Anupama discussed, there were some economic factors involved in the Crusades. Many knights who embarked on this journey were swayed to participate because the “wish to accumulate wealth predominated” (Phillips 167). There were undeniable instances of utter greed and economic motivations, such as the search and desire of new land and the disrespect and mistreatment of supposedly “holy” artifacts. However, looking at the overall series of conflicts from a global and impersonal standpoint, I believe that the political motivations for the Crusades definitely overpowered the economic motivations. Beginning with Pope Urban II, the Crusades were launched as a powerful initiative to reconquer previously Christian land in Europe where the Muslims began to gain control and prestige. The Crusades were a “papally-directed enterprise” because the popes throughout the time period wished to regain control of Christian Europe (Phillips 164). Although I agree with Anupama in that the Crusades were not a completely “holy” war, I believe that it is blind to claim that there were no religious purposes involved in the Crusades. The pope convinced devout followers of Christianity that they were given a rare opportunity to gain penance from their sins. Thus, the true European force behind the Crusades was not economically or politically motivated but religiously motivated. In fact, many Crusaders endured “terrible suffering” and would not have embarked on the venture simply for an “easy profit” (Phillips 169). Thus, although the Crusades were definitely not a “holy” war in the truest sense of the word, the religious aspects and motivations behind the conflicts cannot be ignored.
DeleteI agree with Jenn's arguement that although there were some aspects of religion that played a role in the crusaders' motivation, religion was not the only factor and the acts committed to succeed were unholy. With the pressure of other areas expanding and obtaining the lands of the crusaders, the crusaders felt obliged to regain their territory. Fighting for the land back may be religious, but is not holy. The journey to salvation is beneficial for personal reassurance, therefore the journey is flawed. In order to acheive the reassurance, many lives of the crusader's families were suffered, and many graves were looted in order to support the crusades. These acts are "unholy". For those who were not as concerned about the religion as others were concerned, they were concerned for the chance of obtaining great wealth and political advantage over the pressuring and surrounding areas. These people most likely persuaded some crusaders by masking their greed with the image of the "holy war". Therefore, the war was not a "holy war", but a war of political and economical greed.
DeleteI do in fact believe that the Crusades were a holy war. It was being fought "by Christians against Muslims occupying the Holy Land." The main motive of the Christians were to restore their control over the Holy Land, and although there may have been some other ulterior motives, such as financial gain, I would personally say that it is human nature for these things to exist. The verb form of crusade is defined as "to lead or take part in an energetic and organized campaign concerning a social, political, or religious issue" and as for the Crusades, the religious issue of things was more emphasized and supported over the other issues, even though those other ones, as I said before, may still be there. Both sides of the issue have compelling arguments from what I've read from the article and the comments on here, and the opinion that you develop all depends on the perspective you analyze these wars. If you look at it from the perspective of a Christian at the time, you would develop the views that it was a holy war to reclaim the Holy Land. However, if you look at it from the perspective of a Muslim living in the Middle East, it is easy to see how the Crusades would have been considered battles for political/economic reasons, as at the time, and throughout history in general, more land equates to more power.
ReplyDeleteWalid, although you are correct about the religious aspects related to the war, such as the fact that Christians fought for the Holy Land against Muslims, I have to disagree with you. Just because something is religious does not mean that it is holy. Something that is holy is done in connection with God and virtue. Neither of these aspects was included in the Crusades, with actions such as digging up graves and looting them as an example. I do appreciate the fact that you looked at both sides of the arguments in your post, and I completely agree with you regarding how the Crusades eventually developed into a more political war.
DeleteWalid, I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. The Crusades were not mainly fueled by religion, even though each separate warring party represented a different religious viewpoint. The church and multiple countries that took part in the Crusades marketed their efforts as valiant attempts to stand up for their faith and to reclaim the holy land, but on an individual level people mostly crusaded in order to gain wealth. As Noah pointed out, the Crusaders ransacked Muslim burial sites in an attempt to steal assorted treasures from their graves. This is a prime example of the crusaders' motivation for financial gain. I believe the prospect of getting wealthy was the highest priority for most people who participated in the Crusades, and representing their faith was mostly just an added perk.
DeleteSimilarly as the previous comments have stated, the Crusades’ true motive was something quite contrary to religion and would not qualify it to be titled as a “holy war”. Although they started with the focus to unify the Holy Roman Empire’s surrounding area under Christianity as the Dar of Islam spread into its realm, greed became the actual motivation. The Crusades were successful at spreading Christianity, but by no means were the crusaders actions justified by their religion. The morale of Christianity never condones the use of violence to spread God's message. The title of "holy war" is self-contrary as the message of Christianity is to be a moral person under God to reach salvation, not to go on the offense and kill people. However, these people thought they were doing the right thing because they were fighting to spread their religion. To some, the crusades were an act of honor, when the very concept of a “holy war” runs contrary to their belief. For the most part, however, something much deeper than religion sparked the Crusades. The true purpose of the Crusades was to gain/regain political and economic authority in the empire and its surrounding entities. To prove this, lands invaded by the crusaders were plundered for relics and had to give political control to the Holy Roman Empire, which could benefit greatly from the conquered lands’ goods, technologies, and political advantages. Adding on to what someone previously stated, the crusaders regained the Holy Sepulcher during the fifth crusade; however there were nine crusades-four more after they regained the land they had wanted for religious regions. The only explanation is that the crusaders wanted to continue to spread their political influence. Therefore, it can be said that greed drove the crusades, whereas religion justified them.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Gabby. In order for the Crusades to even be considered a "holy war" would be if they prioritized the spread or defense of their own religion. The Crusades, while they may have been thought of as a "holy" and religious endeavor, were clearly not as evidenced by the accounts of pillaging and looting the cities they raided. They also desired land and religious sanction, which explains as to why they bothered to conquer and continue their efforts when they had no real motive and the economic cost was staggering (what with all the equipment and cavalry necessary to finance the Crusades). Overall, I believe that despite alleged good intentions, the entire effort of the Crusades was solely focused on their own selfish interests which does not classify the Crusades as a holy war.
DeleteAlthough the Crusades could be described as a holy war in some respects, the true motivations and origins behind the conflict were political in nature. Previous to the eleventh century, Muslims had begun to encroach into Western Europe and occupy many regions previously deemed to be Christian land. Muslims had conquered Spain, Portugal, North Africa, and sections of Italy and France. Since the papacy at the time had a close connection to the political sphere of Western Europe, Pope Urban II most likely launched the Crusades in order to prevent the dominance of Muslims in “Christian” Europe. The Islamic presence was real and threatening, and the pope wanted to regain Christian control in Western Europe. As articulated by Arthur Jones, “Islamic conquest had taken from Christiandom its choicest province—Syria, Egypt, North Africa and Iberia” (159). Although the political motivations were shown clearly in the papacy, it is undeniable that there was a strong religious impetus for the participation of common people in the Holy Crusades. The Christian population of Western Europe feared going to hell for the sins that they had committed, so they believed and were encouraged by the clergy that participation in the Crusades, or “killing people in the name of Jesus,” would win them salvation (Jones 160). Throughout the nine Crusades, the papacy of Christian Europe wished to prevent the encroachment of Muslim influence and presence into European territory previously controlled by and home to the Christian people. However, the pope manipulated the lay people with the belief that the Crusades were a holy war intended for devout followers of Christianity and an opportunity to gain penance from their sins. Thus, the Crusades could be viewed both as a political and strategic maneuver as well as a holy war depending upon the audience.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that the Crusades should be considered a “Holy War” since there were many more factors that went into its development along with the factor of religion, the main one being financial gain. Religion was obviously a prominent reason for the start of the Crusades, however, it doesn’t complete the picture. The idea of gaining money also attracted many people to join in: “pious men took the cross also hoping to improve their financial and material prospects” (Phillips 167). The author describes how, frequently, crusaders would venture just to seek for treasure. There have been records of Christians digging up Muslim graves in order to take any gold kept with the dead bodies. We see how ensuring financial stability for the crusaders was a huge factor in creating their greed due to the rough times. The inflation, famine, and the exhausting of resources caused a need for survival and venturing on a crusade in hopes for bringing back relics and treasures was one idea the people could put their faith in. Also, the idea of this war being considered holy is in itself false since these acts of violence negate Christian beliefs. Thus, in my opinion, I believe that the Crusades should not be considered a Holy War.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Darshana and believe that the crusades shouldn't be considered a Holy War. Even though there were definitely religious motives to start the Crusades, as Darshana says, "it doesn't complete the picture." There were many other motives that similarly drove the crusades. One of them being greed. The people were greedy to acquire new land and money which goes against the fact that the crusades were a Holy War. Obviously religion was also important during the crusades, but the fact that other motives were also in play, shows that the crusades cannot be truly considered a "Holy War." Additionally, Pope Urban's original goal was "to assist the Byzantine Emperor Alexius in his struggle against the Seljuk Turks and Asia Minor" (154). This goal proves that the Pope wanted to just aid the Byzantine Empire showing the crusades were not started for religious and holy purposes. These examples and more show that the saying a Holy War was motivation for joining the crusades neglects the other prominent motives that drove many people to join the crusades.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe Crusades were not a "Holy War". To say that the Crusades were influenced strictly by religious beliefs would be disregarding an entirely separate population of crusaders: those searching for power and riches. It is also impossible to say that these Crusades were not at all fueled by religion, as shown in the numerous crusaders who “brought back relics from the holy land” (167) and Pope Urban’s calling “on the factious European kings and princes to recover the Holy Sepulcher from the Muslim Seljuk Turks”(161). The influence of religion only acted as a mere catalyst for the Crusades, as Pope Urban tried to rally people from all over in order to Spread and maintain Christianity. However, once the fighting actually commenced, the Crusades became about more than just taking over religious land. Many different types of people decided to join in on the Crusades, and most did not have religion in mind. The knightly class in France often initiated chaos and lawlessness, and Pope Urban could have used the Crusades “to channel this violence elsewhere” and give the knights “an opportunity of salvation” (164). The knights were not looking to fight Muslims and regain holy land, they were just looking for a chance to go into battle with whoever was up for the challenge, and maybe gain spiritual reawrds. Also, the desire for money was an evident appeal for most crusaders because “a series of droughts and bad harvests had marked the early 1090’s” (167). The horrible drought caused many people to lose their land and source of income, and thus caused them to lose their wealth and power. In order to fix their social and economic standing, many decided to join in the crusade and try to gain riches through fighting and stealing throughout the conquests. Although religion certainly influenced the Crusades, to refer to its entirety as a “Holy War” would be an exaggeration and discredits the many other reasons that people had for joining the Crusades.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Patrick in that a faction of the crusaders was only involved for the monetary gain, whether it was in land or riches, and that the religious aspect could be looked at as merely a cover for many crusaders’ true goals of helping themselves. By making the crusades look like they were solely focused on retaking the holy land, all of the theft and usurpation of land seemed justified because they were warring for their religious beliefs. Another factor beneath the veil of the “holy war” that definitely motivated the crusades besides their pecuniary greed was their morale greed in regards to their own salvation. Many joined the crusades not because they wanted to spread Christianity’s influence, but because they wanted to right there own sins. Since the Christians convinced themselves that they were doing the right thing, many of them may have truly believed the crusades to be holy. However, from a Muslim’s point of view, it looks like their valuables were being taken away in exchange for blood. So even though the Christians crusaders may have justified their actions to themselves, the main focus of their intentions remained on their personal benefit fiscally and spiritually, not to aid the church or its influence.
DeleteAlthough the Crusades had some religious motivation, especially the first one, I believe that the crusades were more political than religious as mentioned in some comments above. Money would have been a major issue during the 1090s. The poor economic conditions, droughts, and poor harvests would have all contributed to the need for money in order to survive. The severe debt upon taking the journey would have also motivated the need for money. Severe brutal acts help support this factor as after the Siege of Ma'arrat an Nu'man in 1098, Muslim graves were dug up in order to check if any treasure had been swallowed. Many other acts of similar nature occurred as well. Crusader's also encountered a lack of resources on events such as the march across Asia Minor. Inflation and loss of equipment caused greed to become a big factor. Greed was evident among people as seen through those who chose to abandon the army as the journey was too harsh. Loyal subjects would have endured to far greater capacities. I also agree with the previous comments above that the Pope most likely launched the Crusades as a way to prevent Muslims from becoming the dominant force. I also agree that the Pope would have wanted the holy lands back from the Muslims.
ReplyDeleteThe Crusades should be regarded as a Holy War because it is commonly connected to the idea of a religious conquest or more specifically a Christian conquest. An unrivaled point of view to provide insight on the topic would be derived from someone who could provide a first-hand account of the Crusades. Fulcher of Chartres was a priest-chaplain of the First Crusade and he explicitly says “that those who undertook this ‘holy war’ would experience ‘forgiveness of sins’” (154). Surely one who held a position in the church could offer an unadulterated reasoning for why the Crusades were taken on by Christians in the first place. He also tells that going along with the Crusades was a way of repenting ones turpitudes as if it was the will of God for them to wage this war. A different perspective showing why the Crusades were a Holy War is that “the Crusades can be viewed as a Christian counteroffensive, designed to take back their conquered territories and reclaim the Holy Land” (154). If Christians at the time justified their Crusades as taking back hallowed property, it should be most evident that they are doing it out of religious duty. Also, directly identifying the Crusades as Christian puts heavy emphasis on the fact that it was greatly associated with religion and therefore holiness. Even in the modern day Islamic world, the word ‘crusade’ can be translated to “‘the war of those signed with the cross,’ and ‘the holy religious war of the Christians’” (155). The ideology of what ‘crusade’ means to Muslim people still persists today as a religion-based conflict that is clearly identified as being led by people of the Christian Faith. From Christians and Muslims alike, the Crusades can be viewed as a Holy War.
ReplyDeleteI hate to disagree with you, Josh, but I think the evidence of the solid relationship among Christians and Muslims in the Fertile Crescent suggests that neither party would have a strong desire to engage in a Holy War if not for the possibility of benefiting finanicially from the conquests. It is tough to say that any one factor served as the sole motivation for the Crusades, but I think it is evident that because the Christians were not experiencing prosperity, they acted in a way to advance financially. Aside from money, it is likely that the conflicts were fueled by the conflicting religions, but I do not think that the term Holy War is a misnomer.
Delete:,(
DeleteAfter further consideration of your rational, which calls more than religion into the picture, I have reformed my original statement to agree with you. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems as if you regard the Christian justification for waging war as a superficial ruse to cover up their genuine intentions. These legitimate purposes for the Crusades include garnering $dolla-bills$, attracting attention to the church in order to gain new members, and securing the position of the king. Thank you Alex for enlightening me on the true driving forces behind the Crusades. With this said, the Crusades should not be considered a Holy War. c]:{
DeleteI agree with your reformed thoughts J-Nasty. Although it has already been stated numerous times, the Crusades were not a "Holy War". We all understand that religion was certainly a driving factor, but it was not the only factor. After reading everyone else's comments it is hard to muster up an original response, but i would say that to further support the idea that the Crusades were not a Holy War would be Urban's statements regarding monks joining the Crusades: "we do not want those who have abandoned the world and vowed themselves to spiritual warfare either to bear arms or go on this journey" (164). If this was truly a strictly religious war, the Pope would want all of the major driving forces in Christianity to join in the cause and reclaim Holy land with them in order to gain religious support and increase the "Holy-ness" of this conquest. Also, another reason that people decided to join in the fight was the forever important idea of loyalty. When nobles joined the fight, they essentially brought along a whole group with them that consisted of their "knights, squires, and servants" (166). Although certain squires did not feel too strongly about reclaiming Holy Land, they were drawn into battle because they had to be loyal to their employers. A large portion of the Crusaders were people who were not going into war in order to improve their religious power, but instead were just performing their duties of servitude.
DeleteI agree with you; the Crusades cannot be merely thought of as a religiously driven war. There are deeper political influences that need to be taken into account to fully understand the depth of the Crusades. While political disagreements formed the basis of the war, religious disputes provided the emotions necessary to fuel the fire. The encroaching Islamic empire proved to be a formidable threat to the powerful European Christian Empire. The initial tension between the two groups can be seen as a result of political affairs. The Christians felt the need to “reclaim the central sites of their faith” (Jones 153). The Muslim’s dominance of “holy land” caused the Christians to feel violated politically and religiously. In an effort to stop the Muslim’s reign, various Christians chose to venture on a series of crusades. It is necessary to realize that the Muslims and Christians were able to live peacefully together centuries before the crusades. The religious differences then were not able to drive both sides into a bloody war against one another. This is because there was no instigation that would drive the people to war. The Crusades provided an ideal scenario in which political tensions were set in place along with already existing religious differences. The political arguments became the catalyst in starting the Crusades. Both Muslims and Christians were highly devoted in that time period and would go to extreme lengths in order to protect their faith.
ReplyDeleteI think you make an interesting point, Marissa. Christians and Muslims had been in contact with each other long before the crusades, and they were able to tolerate each other’s religious differences, even barely, so clearly there were motivations other than religious ones. A holy war is defined as a war declared or waged in support of a religious cause. The fact that Muslims were fighting Christians does not automatically qualify the struggle as “holy.” Though Muslims and Christians are mostly unalike because of their religious differences, one cannot forget that both the Islamic Empire and the Holy Roman Empire were political entities that wished to gain political and economic power. Because these empires had motives outside of religious reasons, the crusades should not be considered a holy war.
DeleteI agree with both of your statements about the war not being considered as "holy" due to their political and economic motives instigating the Crusades. As Marissa said, Muslims and Christians never had huge religious tensions like this beforehand, thus, making it hard for the main purpose of the Crusades to be entirely religious. To expand further, in the Christian faith, any act of violence is seen as unholy. This shows how the Christian religion actually contrasts the belief of this war being a holy one, making it seem that the idea of religion being the sole purpose of the Crusades is impossible. From the perspective of a Muslim, we can also see how this war is considered more of one that exhibits political and economic greed since they probably just saw Christians invading their land and taking their wealth. Especially with the well-known desire of the European Christian empire to gain land and money, Muslims could’ve definitely interpreted this war as one solely based off of their hunger for power. Thus, many reasons contribute to the fact that the Crusades were not to be considered a holy war.
DeleteSince many of the people were driven by motives and interests to join the Crusades, the Crusades shouldn’t be considered a Holy War. For example, Urban II ultimately said that if “people fought God’s enemies on earth and completed a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, their actions would receive a spiritual reward of remarkable magnitude” (163). This promise for a huge spiritual reward appealed to the people and made many people join the crusades. Others motives included families having a tradition of Pilgrimage to the Holy Land. This tradition made more people join the crusades to keep the tradition alive. Similarly, many people were motivated to join due to a hope of more possessions. Whether it was land or riches, the people were motivated by the hope of returning with lots of wealth. Even though there is “little evidence of people returning from the crusade with new-found riches,” many people still joined because of the chance of gaining money or even land (167). These examples show there were many different motives driving people to join the crusades explaining why the crusades shouldn’t be considered a Holy War.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with you Logan because their motives and interests to join the Crusades were for salvation. It does not matter if they were the motives of the Pope who started the Crusades to deem if the Crusades can be called a holy war or not. All that matters is those people that actually took part in the Crusades. Also, if little evidence has been found showing that the Crusaders returned with treasure then how exactly can we say that people joined the Crusades for more money or land? Especially when many people actually did not settle in new lands. The Crusades should be considered a holy war even if the reason that the Crusades started and the reasons that they were performed are different, all the reasons are for a religious purpose.
DeleteThe crusaders primarily fought due economical and political greed. The crusaders often looted graves in order to furthur themselves in the expedition and increase the chance of obtaining great wealth. War is rarely ever soley based off of religious reasons. There are often underlying motivations. The crusaders fought to regain the land that they believed was rightfully theirs. Regaining this land would provide wealth and political power for the pope and the government. Regaining the land would also eliminate enemy political and economic threats. Even if some really did fight for God, the journey for the success would require unholy deeds such as looting graves.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, you bring up a good point in saying that war is rarely only religious based. Although it may have been the initiating cause for them to go to battle, the main point of it is skewed and ultimately overtaken by the other leading factors for two states of power to go to war. We see something similar to this today with the Palestine-Israeli conflict. The intents are eventually lost and ends up being about the control over the land of the area (the same area as the Crusades) for both sides, and the gaining of more power over another group of people (Christians and Muslims during the Crusades, and Jews and Muslims in the present day conflict). However, the intents of a government entity do not entirely dictate the reasons that individual soldiers may be fighting for, and they may have entered the wars for separate reasons than what their overarching government believes (whether it be religious, political, economic, there are various reasons two groups of people would go to war).
DeleteI’m going to have to disagree with both of you on the topic of the reason for the start of and motive of the Crusades. If the Crusades were to be formed because of sheer economic control, the intense presence of religion wouldn’t have remained a factor that convinced many to support this form of warfare. Although I do see both of your points about the Crusades shifting from a religious motive to a prominent economical one, as time continued to move forward with the Crusades, it is clearly evident that the state of economic stability and importance of money in the societies changed as well. Having said that, I still don’t think that modifies the principal motive for the Crusades, which were strictly for religious purposes.
DeleteIn addition to what I said earlier in response to Vince's comment, I very strongly think that the Crusades were not a Holy War. The justification of a Holy War would be that the Christians desired to overtake land that had fallen under the influence of Islam. This call to action is contradicted by the fact that within the Fertile Crescent, Christians and Muslims lived together in harmony. If they truly had such a mutually beneficial relationship, why then would the Christians feel the need to lead a crusade to recapture the land if not for monetary gain?
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your train of thought that the initiative to start a crusade was contradicted by the actual actions of the two groups. It is easy to see why the two religions acted harmoniously in the Fertile Crescent. Both Christianity and Islam are salvation religions, and Islam recognizes Jesus as a prophet in addition to its prophet Mohammed, who is the final prophet. Therefore, it makes sense why they accepted each other when together. In addition to their other similarities, neither religion promoted violence to obtain material goods such as land.The crusades were started by Christians to regain the land that was once owned by Christians and was later owned by Muslims, land that they could make monetary gains off of. They rejected the morals of their religion (killing for materialistic things such as land and relics) to gain goods. Once the Christians saw the benefits of regaining land that they could plunder and tax, they continued to crusade. This is marked by greed and power, not religion.
DeleteI have to disagree with you here Mr. Gore. As mentioned in the YES article, "Islam pushed its way north into Italy until it captured Monte Cassino, St. Benedict's monastery, then moved into eastern Switzerland. On the Great St. Bernard Pass, Muslims even captured the abbot of Cluny, France" (159). The Christians realized the threat of Islam, and did indeed fight to overtake this land that had fallen under the influence of Islam. Based on your justifications of a Holy War, the Crusaders were definitely involved in a Holy War because they were religiously obligated to regain land (not just the Holy Land of the Fertile Crescent) that had fallen to Islam. Although there were many other motivations, a religous motive was noticeably present.
DeleteI agree with Jackson in the idea that because religion and salvation were the initiating cause of the Crusades, the later incentives would not negate that they were Holy Wars. As stated in the YES article, the Christian and Islamic groups that lived together in the Middle East shared the holy land, but people who lived further west did not share the same contentedness with the Islamic faith occupying what was considered Christian holy land. They fought for the land that had come under Islamic control with religious purposes in the forefront of their minds, instead of economic greed. The response of the Islamic empire also reinforced the concept that the Crusades were a Holy War. The Islamic empire retaliated to regain religious grounds, rather than what became a quest for salvation and wealth for the Christians towards the later Crusades. No matter the underlying purposes that one group or another had for the Crusades and the Holy Wars, the unifying factor for those who chose to fight was the emblem of the Christian faith, including those fighting against it.
DeleteJackson, the quote you chose does not define the Islamic infringement as a religious threat. So it stands to reason that Islam “pushing its way north into Italy” could have been an economic threat, as though there were no religious conflict at all. Christianity and Islam coexisted previously suggesting that their conflict was not religious. But why not just retake infringed land rather than go for the Holy Land? The Holy Land was located in a much more economically advantageous position for long distance trade and prosperity. Regardless of the fact that the church was making loads of money from the crusaders themselves, the very nature of going on a “counter offensive” was to secure more prosperous land, and Urban II could use the religious importance of the area to call crusaders to arms.
DeleteTo further back my previous comment that the Crusades was not a holy war, claiming back the land from the Muslims would have allowed for an improvement in economics and power. I would agree with Rob in saying that many joined the Crusades to relieve their own sins. Christian Europe was "also one of the most guilt ridden societies in history" (Phillips 165). Many people would have feared for their own futures, and would have wanted to relieve themselves. This aspect is another sense of greed. A truly "holy" war would have been driven far more by devotion than by personal welfare. The pope saw that people were in a time of need and needed a sense of redemption. He therefore channeled this energy into helping getting back the holy lands to increase political and economic power. He also used the knights of France, since they were brutal in creating lawlessness, to help during the Crusades because he knew that this energy would help re-claim the lands. In the end people needed salvation and the pope used this fact to help boost political and economic power.
ReplyDeleteToday I decided to take the other side of the debate: to disagree with the idea that the Crusades was a holy war. Even though Pope Urban II's intentions were most likely that of a holy cause, the kings that he consulted this idea were more likely for the intention of strengthening their empire and increasing their empire's economics (alongside with the kings that led the later Crusades, alongside with the one prince). The Crusaders' armor and preparation also did not represent a holy cause. If they truly wished to take a quest for a pilgrimage, such over-preparation was unnecessary. The common belief in Christianity was against violence, yet the Crusades were clothed with violent actions. The first 4 Crusades are a great example of this violence, and an example that perhaps these Crusades were more than a holy cause as occasional land was taken over. Some may have embarked on the Crusades for a holy reason, yet the majority were perhaps self centered for their own benefits (and this belief is strengthened furthermore as more Crusaders joined on later Crusades, probably hearing of the rewards that can be reaped from such Crusades).
ReplyDelete