A summary of Sir Steven Runciman's view of the crusades and Byzantium
There has been much debate about the nature of the crusades. As my fellow team members will summarise, Jonathan Riley- Smith sees the crusades as an act of love, however, on the other side of the debate, Sir Steven Runciman believes the crusades to be:
“nothing more than a long act of intolerance in the name of God.”
 |
| Urban II |
Importantly, Runciman acknowledged the divisive nature of the crusades which he believed tore the Christian East and West further apart in the quest to rescue Byzantium from Turkish invasion. Moreover, despite a relatively negative perspective of the crusades, Runciman views Pope Urban II’s motives, which drove him to preach the Crusade at Clermont, to stem from a longing to help Eastern Christendom and to strengthen ties between the West and Byzantium. The Pope wished to send armies to aid the Christians of the East and once this was successful, to continue on to establish Christian rule in Palestine. Although he acknowledges the sincerity of the Pope's motives, Runciman believes that the pope is to be held responsible for the ensuing misunderstandings which undermined his initial ideas.
In context of this first crusade, Sir Steven Runciman focuses on the reaction of Byzantium to the movement initiated by the Pope. That Pope Urban II wished to establish Christian rule in Palestine after aiding Byzantine speak of the differences between himself and Emperor Alexius I Comnenus. The emperor was focused on Anatolia and employed the tactic of keeping the Muslim princes at ends with each other, in order to discourage any sort of united effort against him. Urban's plan, however, had the potential to undermine this tactic and provoke a reaction which could be detrimental to Alexius' situation. The tenuous relationship between Byzantium and the West disintegrated rapidly as the first crusaders arrived and, affected subsequent crusades thereafter. Runciman cites that Byzantium was
“thus embarrassed by the appearance of the crusading armies and not wholly in sympathy with their aims”
In accepting the Pope's good intentions, Runciman blames instead the differences between the “sophisticated culture of Byzantium and the simple people of Europe” and suggests that the height of such division is to be found in the Fourth conquest of Constantinople in 1204.
--Charlotte
The Crusades and the Idea of Love Thy Neighbour
Jonathan Riley-Smith's article Crusading as an act of Love deals with two key issues. Firstly, the Christian love of God. Secondly, the Christian love of the neighbour. Focusing upon the latter, Riley-Smith asserts that in Crusading propoganda this love applied only to Christian neighbours (namely the Byzantine Christians being threatened by the Muslims). In his sermon at Clermont, Pope Urban II proclaimed that "it is charity to lay down lives for friends". The Knights Templar and the Hospitallers were seen as the epitome of this fraternal love as they were able to emulate the ultimate Christian warrior who could at once be a soldier and a monk. However, as Riley-Smith states, controversy arose when Pope Alexander III along with Hugh of St. Victor worried that both orders would be lead into sin due to the fact that war sprang from hatred and greed therefore rendering war and monasticism incompatible. This is in direct contrast with the propoganda of the Crusades, which emphasised Crusading violence as springing from fraternal love of neighbouring Christians. In conclusion, Riley-Smith details the one dimensional love of Crusading rhetoric and propoganda which is at odds with the Christian doctrine of loving ALL mankind as Christ instructed. Propoganda instead directed Crusaders to smite the enemy in honour of God rather than corresponding to the Christian notion of punishment as aid to teach sinners the Christian truths and thereby save their souls out of fraternal love instead of hatred and vengeance.
--Stacey S.
The Crusades an as Act of Love for God
In his article ‘Crusading as an Act of Love’ Jonathan Riley-Smith suggests that during the Medieval period crusading could be seen as an expression of love for God and for neighbour. How could a ‘love of God’ provide motivation for the crusades?
As we have seen throughout our study of Medieval Europe, the Church was the centre and authority of society. It is important to remember that medieval society was fixated on living a holy life in order to ensure a place in heaven – it was their main priority. Popes and bishops constantly affirmed this notion ensuring that society remained aware of their commitment to God and the Church. Jonathan Riley-Smith suggests that crusading was called on in ‘an act of love’. Many historians have debated the reasons for crusading so keep in mind that Riley-Smith’s opinion is just one of many.
Crusading:
Jesus and God were at the very centre of crusading. The word ‘crusade’ literally means ‘going to the cross’ and following Christ. Becoming a crusade was a personal choice to take up the cross, spread the word of God, save your Christian brothers and reclaim God’s rightful and Holy Land in the East. Crusading was therefore also a form of pilgrimage.
An act of ‘love for God’?
In becoming a crusade the Church advocated that one was fulfilling Jesus’ message in the Bible:
‘Whoever doth not carry his cross and come after me cannot be my disciple.’
(Luke xiv 27).
‘Who would refuse to die for him, who made for us obedient unto death, a death indeed on the cross?’
Riley-Smith suggests that the way in which popes and bishops expressed crusading as a love of God was significant. He argues that they addressed their audiences ‘in terms which were real to them’ (36). For example, they likened the relationship and loyalty to God to those of lords and vassals, where Jesus was the Lord and the crusaders were the vassals, fulfilling their duty as His subjects and fighting for the recovery and defence of His rightful land.
However, the violence of the crusades goes against the Christian concept of tolerance. How do you think crusading for the love of God helped to justify this violence?
While Riley-Smith describes crusading as ‘an act of love’, other historians have almost the opposite opinion. Thomas Madden, for example, argues that love for God was only a cover for other intentions, and that the crusades was a ‘defensive war’ in direct response to the aggression of the Muslims. Similarly, Susanna Throop has written a book titled ‘Crusading as an Act of Vengeance.’
To what extent do you think it’s possible for all three descriptions above to be accurate motivations for crusading, or are they mutually exclusive?
-- Frances
Context helps understand the readings for week 10.
The first reading is from Geoffrey Villeharduin, a veteran of the Third Crusade who had spent four years a prisoner of the Muslims. Organisers of the Fourth Crusade chose him as ambassador to arrange sea transport. Addressing the Venetian doge Enrico Dandalo, he says the aim of the crusade is to reconquer Jerusalem, but secretly spoke of Cairo. The deal was done for boats to carry an army of about 36,000.
The story is taken up by Robert of Clari, a Piccardy knight in the Crusader army now in barracks on a Venetian island. Money worries threaten the crusade and relations between Venice and the crusaders, who can stump only about 60 per cent of the money owed. The impasse is broken when the doge does a deal, letting the crusaders have transport so long as they repay with booty from their first conquests. The doge enlists them first to help seize the Adriatic city of Zara.
Villeharduin takes up the story again. After unfruitful diplomatic moves, the combined Venetian-Crusader force takes Zara and shares the spoils.
Robert de Clari then says the combined forces decide to winter at Zara. The Crusaders are mostly keen to get on with their sworn mission, but are deflected from it by the Venetians who have long had their eye on monopoly trade in the eastern Mediterranean at the expense of Genoa and Pisa. The Venetians get a pretext to take Constantinople in the shape of Alexis Angelus, pretender (with little pretence) to the Byzantine throne. “We now have sufficient excuse,” says the doge. The Crusaders are won over when Alexis offers huge sums of money to take them into another year of crusading and pledges to end the split between the Latin church and what we now call the Greek Orthodox church..
When Villeharduin appears again, representatives of the Venice-Crusade alliance are seeking without success to bring Constantinople to heel by diplomacy.
Robert de Clari says that not even direct negotiations between emperor and doge can solve the issue. The bishops side with the Venice-Crusader force, extending the indulgence to all who join the coming battle.
Villeharduin rounds out the preparations for war with a top-level meeting on how the spoils would be divided.
The accounts of destruction, rape and pillage need no explanation. Niketa Choniates tells the story from the side of the vanquished and Gunther of Pairis, speaking for the conquerer, tells of plunder “which was theirs by right of conquest”. Choniates had been head of the Byzantine public service. In exile he wrote a 21-volume “History of the Times”, dealing largely with the third and fourth crusades. Gunther of Pairis (not Paris, but Pairis, a town near Basel) was a Cistercian monk, who was obviously fascinated by the wealth of plundered relics.
--Rod
12 comments:
Hey everyone. I know you already have a lot to read and think about this week, but if you can, please try and have a look at the practice exam on Blackboard. If we get time, I'd like to do an exercise using this on Monday, and it will be more effective if you are already prepped.
I find Stacey’s topic of great interest. So it would appear that on the crusades the crusaders were meant to have love God and love thy neighbour—but only those neighbours whom are Christian like you. This is one clear example of conditional love. What happened to the idea of “Opposites attract”? Not to mention “love thy enemies”. Riley-Smith argues that the crusaders legitimized their actions in light of the “love thy enemies” rule in the form of mercy—“Correction was an attribute of mercy” and they believed that “the wicked could be forced to goodness” (47).
I found the link that medieval ‘popes and preachers’ drew between a peasant’s relationship with their lord and a Christian’s relationship with God really interesting. If I understood it right, people were, in part at least, drawn to fight in the Holy Land out of love and loyalty for God because this land was seen to be God’s ‘inheritance’ and this is what they would have been obliged to do had it been a similar situation for their lord. What I’m really quite curious about in all of this (because Riley-Smith limits himself to Crusades to the Holy Land), was this same principle, or a similar one, used in preaching to enlist Crusaders to go to, for example, Spain, the Balkans or Southern France? It’s just that I can’t see how they could really argue this was God’s inheritance in the same way as in the Middle East, so was the same ‘love of God’ principle applied?
Great blog! I find it so ironic that "love thy neighbour" is a motive for some. If one was to "love thy neighbour" of any class or rule, what the christians were doing to the muslims was definitely not an obedience of the rule. I think its quite contradicting to say love thy neighbour is a motive in the first place!
I agree, the crusades seem to be more concerned with the repression of anti-Christianity sentiment than the liberation of Christianity. Clerical encouragement to exemplify devotion to God through violence seems to be a manipulation of the faith of medieval Europeans to achieve political aims, such as Pope Urban II's desire to unify Byzantium and Western Europe. Throughout this period, the concept of "love thy neighbour" was evidently subtly altered to be inclusive of Christians only and an attitude that then anyone who was not a Christian posed a threat to "thy neighbour" arose. This seems to be a major cause of the piety attributed to acts of bloodshed in crusading.
I thought this Blog post was really a fascinating read! the reasons for setting out on a crusade are truely astounding, particularly the one concerning love thy neighbour!I find this point particularly contradictary to set out against the Muslims in warefare, in a sense to save them.
Good job on the blog guys; they’re a good read and interesting. The fact that the crusades were advertised to the people as a way of expressing ones love to God, especially by the most powerful religious authority (the Pope), was surprising to me at first, considering the deaths, violence and atrocities which were a natural part of crusades. As Frances pointed out in her blog, I guess that reason crusades were supported so widely was due to Luke’s statement being taken so literally. If this was true, I find it hard to believe the Church could still allow the crusades, considering that committing murder was against one of God’s Ten Commandments.
It's interesting reading Riley-Smith when he argues that crusading was a true physical aspect in literally following God. As acknowledged, that idea of participating in crusading was an essential element within the Medieval society and that by not participating, this suggested that one did not love God and could not be ensured salvation. Frances's question regarding violence, to me, seems that the violence of the crusades could almost be excused as its context was a holy and spiritual purpose?
Given the nature of the Crusades, the motive of ‘Love for God’ seems yet another contradiction to the ideology of Christianity and thus the message preached by Christ himself. As mentioned above, the Crusades, although fighting against antichristian groups, seemed to be more of a political device - employed for territorial expansion and unification as opposed to ‘love for God’. It does appear that the ‘fighting for God’ concept was an ideal disseminated by the Church, as a justification for alternative purposes.
I thought that Frances' question at the end of her post was really thought provoking. It seems to me that, given how many people were involved in the crusades over such as long period of time, it would be natural for there to be a combination of justifications for the crusades. Given the religious nature of the time, there probably were people who took part because of genuine faith, others like the Venetians for baser gains, and xenophobia both of the Greek Christians and the Muslims amongst others. I think for such a big undertaking, there is probably not going to be one motivation but rather a combination.
Following on from what Catherine said, I think that there were definitely multiple motivations/justifications when looking at reasons for the crusades. I think that because religion was so important to the lives of so many people at this time, that the leaders took advantage of this. I'm sure they did honesty believe they were fulfilling God's wishes and the gospels, but I think they also creating an 'religious umbrella' which covered up other ulterior motivations, such as hatred of the Muslims.
I find what Michelle commented to be interesting - how the lords and leaders promoted the religious aspects of the Crusades to as to manipulate the lower people's reliance on religion. I would just add that maybe the lords were also so dependent on religion that they may have come to believe the statements of Luke's gospel with the propaganda of the Church officials.
As landlocked lords, it is perhaps likely that not many of the Anglo lords and knights had come into contact with too many of the "infidels" and so to "love thy neighbour" was literally to love their neighbours - those in their immediate vicinity.
Post a Comment