Week 10: Courtly Culture and Crusaders

INTRODUCTION
We all know the popularised image of the mediæval crusader, portrayed through various forms of entertainment media and often associated with open fields filled with grown men and women brandishing polystyrene swords; but how accurate are they at representing the crusaders and their aspirations? And what has been their lasting impact of the crusades in modern societies today? The mediæval crusades still hold political, religious and cultural significance in contemporary society, often becoming a comparative reference to modern wars. 

 

The War on Terror for example was compared to the act of crusading by the former U.S president George W. Bush in his statement upon the South Lawn of the White House: “This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while.” Similarly, ’Usāmah ibn Lādin has previously described the decade-long conflict with the Middle East as a “Zionist crusader-war against Islam.” Granted, this has slightly different connotations to its mediæval counterpart, but the terminology still insights reference to these former events. It is interesting then to compare the contexts of these two speakers, and how their references to these mediæval events confer different interpretations of the crusades. Within Ibn Lādin’s statement he portrays the act of crusading as a method of oppression, whereas President Bush (in contrast) refers to the act as a pursuit of justice. This leads to a pertinent question regarding the interpretation of the crusades, and whether they should be perceived as an act of love—as depicted by Riley-Smith—or an act of unrestricted greed, violence and miscommunication. When answering this week’s Blog Question, try to incorporate different historical perspectives, such as how you may have perceived the crusades in 1096 CE as opposed to now. What follows is a deconstruction of the crusades, from each of its significant events to its context, in both religious and societal terms. A brief summary of the set readings are also included to provide historiography in relation to the events and an initial introduction to the different perspectives developed around the crusades.

~ Jake Scott

WHAT IS A CRUSADE?

The term ‘Crusade’ was the title given to the Holy Wars that occurred between the 11th and 13th centuries in Mediæval Europe. It is derivative from the French word croisade, which literally means ‘marking with the cross’ or ‘taking the cross’. In essence, the crusades were religious expeditionary wars conducted on behalf of Christendom to defend the ‘Byzantine’ Roman Empire and recapture the Holy Land in Palestine from Türco-Muslim forces.

Subsequent to the proclamation by Pope Urban II for the first Crusade in 1095, a series of nine Crusades occurred:

1096-1099 CE – First Crusade (led by Count Raymond IV of Toulouse)

1144-1155 CE – Second Crusade (led by Holy Roman Emperor Conrad III and King Louis VII of France)

1187-1192 CE – Third Crusade (led by Richard the Lionheart of England, Philip II of France, and Holy Roman Emperor Frederick I)

1202-1204 CE – Fourth Crusade (led by Fulk of Neuil; Latin conquest of Constantinople)

1212 CE – The Children's Crusade (led by a French peasant boy, Stephen of Cloyes)

1217-1221 CE – Fifth Crusade (led by King Andrew II of Hungary, Duke Leopold VI of Austria, and John of Brienne)

1228-1229 CE – Sixth Crusade (led by Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II)

1248-1254 CE – Seventh Crusade (led by Louis IX of France)

1270 CE – Eighth Crusade (led by Louis IX)

1271-1272 CE – Ninth Crusade (led by Prince Edward (later Edward I) of England)

~ Micheline Erbes

WHAT WAS THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT? 

11th Century Western Europe was characterized by expansion and organization, as the growing population of the Continent cleared forests and drained marshlands in order make way for cultivation and agriculture, spurred in turn by the growth of towns and urban environments. Although the majority of the denizens of Western Europe were serfs and peasants (many of whom were living under Feudalism), the 11th Century saw the rapid growth of trade and industry. This was particularly the case in the Italian Peninsula, where mercantile city-states such as Genoa and Pisa were systematically eradicating the predatory presence of Barbary-Muslim corsairs from the Western Mediterranean. Arab-Muslim forces were also being driven out of Sicily by Norman expeditions from Northern France, who had also conquered England and established an independent Norman kingdom on the island. France proper was under the domination of the Capetian Dynasty, whilst Germany was loosely controlled by the so-called Holy Roman Empire. Further east, the Magyars of Hungary had been unified into a single, coherent Kingdom and converted to Latin Christianity, whilst the ‘Byzantine’ Romans annexed the Bulgar Empire and reasserted their supremacy over the Balkan Peninsula.

 

Unlike Western Europe (which was experiencing growth and expansion militarily, economically, commercially, etc), the Near East was in a state of anarchy and decline. By the Late 11th Century CE, the Levant was a “vast war zone” torn between the Fātimid Imāmate of Egypt and the crumbling remnants of the Selçūkid Sultānate, now divided amongst petty Türkish warlords. In a sense, the Levant was a reflection of the political situation surrounding the religion of Islām, and a microcosm of the Middle East as a whole:  The Fātimids were Shī‘ites whilst the Türks were Sunnīs, two distinct sects of Islām with a long history of violence and animosity towards each other. The once dominant Selçūkid Sultānate had now fallen apart, its former territories ruled by minor Türkish dynasties fighting with each other as they had following the decline of the Arab-Muslim Empire several centuries earlier.

Thusly, by 1096, Western Europe was characterized by economic growth, population growth, increased urbanization, agricultural expansion and military expansion; the Levant, however, was in a state of chaos, as religious (Shī‘a-Sunnī) and political (Türco-Fātimid) sectarianism tore the region asunder.

~ Joshua Little

WHEN DID THEY BEGIN AND END? 

The Crusades were initiated by a speech given at the Cathedral of Clermont in the Auvergne, France, in 1095. Pope Urban II spoke outside the cathedral to a large crowd of knights, men, archbishops, bishops and abbots, to persuade them on the notion that the ‘Byzantine’ Roman Empire needed to be defended, and Jerusalem needed to be reclaimed from the Türco-Muslims occupying the Holy Land. 

  The crowd was so inspired by Urban II’s speech that soon after this, the First Crusade was launched. During the Crusades, there were some Crusading activities that were not condoned by the church, and committed in religious passion, such as attacks on Jews led by Peter the Hermit. Therefore, the first official Crusader armies did not leave for battle until 1096, and arrived in Constantinople in 1097. They then moved on to Nicaea where the first siege took place in June 1097, followed by the siege of Antioch from October 1097 to June 1098, with the armies finally reaching Jerusalem in June 1099. 

 In July, the Crusaders attacked Jerusalem and took the city. The Christians created a military base in the city, whereupon—their mission complete—most of the soldiers returned home. However, the end date of the Crusades was not until nearly two-hundred years later.

These many decades of conflict saw the capturing and recapturing of cities and land in battles between the Muslims and the Christians until the 13th Century, when the Crusades had transformed into a major war. After a continuation of more battles throughout the 13th Century, the Crusades came to an end after Mamlūk-Muslim forces defeated the Christians in the city of Acre in 1291. After seeing that victory was impossible, the Christians tried to escape the city, which was then destroyed by the Muslims. Following the disaster at Acre, the Christians left all other cities on Muslim land which they had previously occupied. Thusly, after August 1291, the Christians had failed in their cause, Muslims once again owned Jerusalem and the Holy Lands, and the Crusades had come to an end.

~ Sanja Stapar

READINGS SUMMARY:

Crusading as an Act of Love – Jonathan S. C. Riley-Smith:

Jonathan Riley-Smith describes crusading as an “act of love.” Much of the propaganda from the time used the same message to legitimize the crusades. Riley-Smith examines how the scholars of the time justified it and how accurately the statement could be interpreted. His examinations of Pope Urban II and Alexander III reveal a one-dimensional view of love as motivation for the crusades. Further examination reveals that scholars like St Augustine had far more reasoned and in-depth analysis of the idea of love in relation to crusading. Rather than just loving the Christians in the east as was being propagated at the time, Augustine claimed that death was preferable to sin and crusaders were ultimately helping those they killed. Riley-Smith concludes that, even though the major popes and cardinals preaching for the crusades knew about these superior arguments for crusading as an act of love, they still chose to preach a one dimensional argument of loving God, retrieving his land, loving other Christians and saving them from Muslims. The final reasoning for this choice was—in the opinion of Riley-Smith—that these were far more relatable circumstances, and that it was easier to convince a crowd of would-be crusaders with these simple justifications of love rather than with the deep, philosophical arguments of scholars and theologians.

Byzantium and the Crusades – Steven Runciman:

Steven Runciman’s essay examines the history of Byzantium throughout the period of the crusades. He begins with its initial alliance with the pope and the call for help in defending it against the Selçūkid Türks. He positions himself and the reader in a position of sympathy for Byzantium, the misunderstanding with the first crusaders, the gradual loss of trade and property to Venetian merchants and the numerous attacks on the city by various factions. The essay details many accounts of political failings and military mistakes, and Runciman summarizes the problems that beset the city as “embarrassment and worry caused to Byzantium”. Most of this was due to the Pope, who set out with noble intentions and goodwill but misunderstood a great deal of what was required of him, which led to a whole chain of unfortunate blunders.

The Crusades: A Reader – Sarah J. Allen and Emilie Amt:

The selected passages outline three separate recounts of events during the crusades.

The first is the recount of Pope Innocent III announcing the Fourth Crusade, and the related tax increases that would accompany the costs of funding said crusade. He is stated as having described the charity of paying the new tax as a sort of tribute to God, and the sins of those who payed would be absolved in light of their new services the church and its representative warriors.

The second recount outlines the debt crisis that the Fourth Crusade’s participants entered into when they entreated the Venetian Doge to assist them in transporting their army. By requesting the transportation of far more troops than they could afford, they ended up irreconcilably in debt to the Doge. Eventually, in order to settle some of this debt, they resorted to attacking the nearby city of Zara. Zara was a rival trade city, so in order to remove their competition the Venetians took advantage of the power they had over the Crusader armies, forcing them to take the city in their name.

The final passage refers to the sacking of Constantinople by the same army that attacked Zara. After having been excommunicated by Innocent III following the conquest of Zara (at Venetian behest), the sacking of Constantinople bought the crusaders back into favour with the Pope. The only lamentable part of the attack (as stated by a Greek historian from the period) was that the army was overly violent in their attack, ransacking churches and stealing a number of relics. This violence was undertaken by many of the crusaders, but the success of the attack on Constantinople overshadowed the shame of the fighters themselves.

~ James Smallridge

BLOG COMMENT QUESTION:  

Were the intentions behind the Crusades ‘good’ or ‘bad’? Also, were the practical occurrences and outcomes of the Crusades ‘good’ or ‘bad’?