 | |
| Pope Urban II arriving and preaching at the Clermont Council from http://www.traditioninaction.org/History/A_012_FirstCrusade_Urban.htm |
The remaining questions address the work of Christopher Tyerman in his contribution to The Medieval World, "What the Crusades meant to Europe".Tyerman has a number of books on the Crusades and has shown particular interest in relating the 11th century events of the Crusade to 20th century politics. While you should keep all the questions posed on p.185 of the reader in mind while you are doing the secondary reading, the question which I think summarises the reading and which I think it would be of benefit to address here is the last one "Tyerman says that the effect of the crusades on Europe and Europeans tended to be of 3 sorts, what were they?"
Two of Tyerman's books on the crusades are:
I think the differences in Pope Urban II’s supposed speeches are pretty staggering, and also interesting. From the readings, it seems Fulcher of Chartres’ is the first one that connects the Crusades to the state of Europe currently, and also does sound more like a war cry to protect fellow Christians. Robert the Monk’s version, however, is much more nationalistic and exhortatory, speaking more of the reward of heaven and the importance of Jerusalem. The Gesta Version links the Crusades directly to Christianity itself in ‘suffering in the name of Christ’ and makes the primary idea of the Crusades to save the crusader’s soul rather than necessarily to help fellow Christians/repel the Arabs. Balderic of Dol’s version is almost a hectoring designed to make Christians ashamed and go on to the Crusades to repent, as it outlines and focuses on Jerusalem and ‘the Holy Land’ and holy warfare. Guibert de Nogent’s version focuses again on just wars, hectoring people fighting inconsequential fights aside from the Crusades, and even adds a apocalyptic twist to it by speaking of the antichrist and the end times. Finally, Urban II’s letter of instruction to the Crusaders seems to focus most on freeing the Churches of the East and speaks more about the blasphemy of them falling.
ReplyDeleteThese differences are many and varied, and I’d wager the reasons for them depended on location and who wanted to hear what. I’d also argue hearsay exaggerated further Pope Urban’s message, cherrypicking particularly exciting and inflammatory comments against the Arabs, Jerusalem, and salvation to pass on.
In terms of Tyerman’s work, the three effects of the crusades on Europe and Europeans were thus: direct, on the crusaders and their families; indirect, on the wider community economically as they paid taxes and gave donations to the cause and subsumed the Crusades into popular spirituality; and finally destructive, on all the victims of the Crusades including non-Roman Christian Europeans.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think Tyerman says himself in his article that the Crusades just made an already bloody situation worse, and it can be seen as an expression of a society in tumult. After all, the First Crusade was in response to a Byzantine call for help against the encroachment of the Islamic Empire, which suggests there was already a fair amount of fighting there as well.
DeleteI agree that we should be careful about common perceptions of the Crusades, which were probably mired in the local mindset at the time.
Firstly, I found the account of Robert the Monk quite confronting in his descrption of the Persians and that they did "perforate thier [Christian] navels, and dragging forth the extremities of the intestines, bind it to a stake; then with flogging...". All the articles beg sympathy of its audience but this was an especially vivid image. I agree with Joshua that perhaps the accounts of Robert and Balderic may be slightly exagerrated because of their extreme imagery and rhetoric.
ReplyDeleteIt was definitely interesting that each account be so different. But several elements held constant including the desription of a blood-thirsty, inhumane enemy (e.g. "vile race", "an accurced race, a race utterly alienated from God") and an appeal to some sort of devotional duty to save the "Holy Land". To this, Pope Urban offered the ultimate reward; forgiveness and eternal salvation but emphasised that this must be done in the Christian spirit i.e. not for the sake of violence, death and desruction but to recapture Jerusalem.
Tyerman's three effects of the crusades were [1] the direct efforts of soldiers who could have died, been tortured or injured during battle and their families left at home with a worry they would never see these people again, [2] the indirect effect on the community to meet the demand for military supplies such as armour, weaponry and ships and funds either volunarily donated or compulsary in the raising of taxes as well as the excessive preaching and awareness activities and [3] the desruction of the enemy who were people with lives and families of their own.
Sorry about the late response — I've been having trouble connecting to the internet at home, and couldn't make it in to uni until today because of the public holiday.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Taylor, above. What I found particularly striking here was the was the recurrence of anti-Eastern rhetoric in both the first version of Urban II's speech, and in those versions that draw upon the broader Gesta account. As some people have noted, the Gesta account stands out in both its brevity and the focus it places on Christian duty rather than an external enemy: rather than regaled with derogatory descriptions of the perceived "Arab" enemy, the audience is called upon to consider their reward in Heaven as a bid to instill military fervour. I think, however — as Joshua noted — that it is possible to assume that the Gesta account is truncated, and Urban's actual speech likely contained some degree of the polemic, (potentially violent), racially focused element that characterises both the version of Fulcher of Chartres, and other versions that followed. As Tyerman notes, it was not the Crusades that bred xenophobia or anti-Semitism, nor was this the first time violence was sanctioned by the Church for a righteous cause: the Crusades "[reflected], rather than [shaped] cultural, political and religious trends", so it is easy to understand how Urban's speech, even before the Crusades took place, would have contained such ideas.
Tyerman divides the effects of the Crusades into three categories. Firstly, the direct impact they had upon those who became crusaders and the families they may have left behind. Secondly, the indirect impact they had on wider communities, both in the sense of the material demands the endeavours placed on populations, and in the impact the crusades and surrounding rhetoric had on both popular conceptions of spirituality and ecclesiastic practice (for instance, the trend of granting indulgence). Thirdly, they had a destructive impact: "in the fate of the victims of the exercise".
The three major effects that Tyerman describes in regards to the Crusades and Europe/Europeans are as follows:
ReplyDelete1. The impact the crusades had on the crusaders themselves, considering the horrors of war, especially of that scale, as well as their families that were left behind.
2. The material demands on the wider communites to pay taxes and provide support for the armies, and the impact on conceptions of sprituality caused by the excessive preaching of the time.
3. The destructive impact of the war on the victims, including those of non-Christian backgrounds.
Further on from the three major effects Maia clearly explained above; Tyerman also recognised that the Crusades caused greater division between Western Europeans and their surrounding nations; increasing their ignorance of the other religions and cultures, and inevitably encouraging the endorsement of further Crusading. Tyerman illustrates how the notion of salvation through Crusading inspired the establishment of more religious orders like the Templars and Teutonic Knights etc.
ReplyDeleteAs for the accounts on Urban's speech, I agree with Erica that the location and audience may have effected to a degree the reasons as to why each account was so diverse. Tyerman mentions the inspiring preaching that took place in efforts to spark emotion and enthusiasm. Much of that is evident in all the accounts of Urban's speech, despite the differences.
The three sorts of effects are -
ReplyDelete1. The crusaders faced loss of life and limb, whilst their families most probably would been anxious wondering what the reality of the situation would be.
2. The community would have been involved in the logistics of supplying the crusaders – food and equipment, etc. They paid taxes to raise funds. Chests placed in churches for voluntary donations, and bequests of money or goods regarded as spiritually praiseworthy. The church preached on spiritual benefits of crusading.
3. The negative results of what happened to the crusaders had to be faced. Also there was a negative impact on other religions such as Greek Christians, Jewish communities in Europe and Moslems in Spain and Sicily, and pagans near the Baltic.