 |
Truce between Christians and Saracens.
Matthew Paris, Chronica Maiora, Parker MS 16II, f.139v.
|
-
- Review of God's War by Jonathan Phillips in The Telegraph, September 2006.
- Review of God's War by J.L. Nelson in the London Review of Books, 2007.
- Interview with Christopher Tyerman about his book God's War.
 |
| Urban II preaching at Clermont |
In this interview, Tyerman talks about how it is misleading and ahistorical to draw direct connections between modern wars in the Middle East and the medieval crusading movement. I agree with him on this point, and it brings me to a general matter I forgot to mention in class, which is: while modern parallels and experiences can be useful tools for helping us think about the past, we should never confuse them with historical argument itself, which always has to be based in the evidence and context of the period. I'm sure you knew this - but especially following our discussions about ANZAC cove and Canterbury it seemed a good time to remind ourselves of this point...
 |
| Urban II preaching the crusade |
But back to the Crusades! The Institute for Historical Research in London runs a monthly seminar about the Crusades, so clearly there's no shortage of opinion and debate on the topic.
Post your thoughts and responses to these readings below by Monday evening. Then we'll be moving on to St Francis and Co.!
22 comments:
Hi Kathleen, i've gotten a bit confused about when i should submit the blog postings. I'm doing the essay on the crusades!
Thanks.
Jonathan Riley-Smith (‘Oxford Illustrated History of the Crusades’) points out that the eyewitness accounts of the outdoor rally and Pope Urban’s speech that launched what we call the First Crusade “were written later and were colored by the triumph that was to follow”. So I find very interesting the one document that this doesn’t apply to --- the December 1095 letter from Urban to crusaders assembled at Flanders ahead of departure. It is a kind of bon voyage card, short and to the point. All the fervid talking has done its work and throughout Europe upwards of 50,000 people are ready to take ship or march off the save the Christian East. Urban’s short letter sets out the reasons for and aims of the exercise: “barbaric fury” has assailed and subjected churches in East, even Jerusalem sanctified by Christ. Urban recalls urging princes to lead the fight and free the East. Bishop Ademar is the leader. Departure is on the feast of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary.
Of the five versions of Urban’s speech, Kay Slocum (‘Medieval Civilisation’) relies most on the account by Robert, a monk of Reims, saying “his words probably preserve the essential spirit of the papal exhortation.” It is addressed to the Franks. After stirring up hatred of Muslims, he evokes the fighting past of the Franks, even summoning up the deeds of Charlemagne. Fulcher of Chartres addresses the bishops (unexpected at a church council) urging reform. Reading between the lines they must have been a motley bunch ---- falling short a shepherds, they need reminding of hell, church law must be obeyed, simony is a worry and so are bishops behind in (church) taxes. Balderic of Dol sees Urban’s speech as a direct appeal to fighting men, with Christ presented as a warrior, Christ the Commander “who lacks neither might nor wealth with which to reward you”. Guibert de Nugent takes the escatological view, with the crusaders locked in battle with the antichrist in the fullness of time with the end of the world already at hand. Heady stuff!
When the crusades occurred, I agree that they completely stemmed from the devotion to Christianity and penance, however, what did killings have to do with anything? Where did the slaughtering of inhabitants of the land fit into their revival of the christian holy land? in many stories of the crusades, it says they arrived bloody and covered in blood...why did it have to be like that? I do think they were on a bit of a power trip, as if it were purely for Christianity, murder would not have taken part and did NOT have to take part. im confused as to where the justice in killings fit in.
I found the readings this week on the crusades very interesting. What I found most fascinating was that Christopher Tyerman said that ‘crusading didn’t make western Europe a violent place; violent Europe created crusading.’ I thought this was a very interesting point, because I guess there is the inclination to believe that the crusades were solely responsible for the bloodshed during this time, but I guess what Tyerman is saying is that the Church took advantage of this violence and used it. It really does show the power and influence of the Church during this time.
In response to Cody's questions, I think, in a way, the crusades had to be violent. Religion has been causing wars for years and years, and wars are violent. In the case of the crusades, they set out on 'pilgrimages' to reclaim the 'Holy Land'. They believed they were God's chosen people. They resented the fact that their holy sites weren't controlled by them, and so I guess this made it very easy for them to hate and kill the Muslims... and they could justify it because they were doing God's work in spreading Christianity.
The idea of going out on a crusade and spreading Christianity/killing off people of other religions was how indulgences began. The Church advocated that if you did this you would have your sins redeemed. As Tyerman explains, this spread into society as well, so that even people who couldn't become crusaders could pay money to the Church and also have their sins redeemed. I find the whole concept of indulgences very interesting, and again, it just illustrates how much power the Church had.
What I really liked about the Tyerman article, was how he explained the impact of the crusades on society. He highlights that it impacted Europe in three ways:
directly, on the actual crusaders and their families.
indirectly, on the wider community, who had to pay taxes to support the crusades, and
destructively, on the victims of the crusaders.
I think this really supports his statement that 'crusading was not a monolithic movement'; it was not a movement that just affected one aspect of society, but it all aspects.
Frances I really enjoyed your post.. I also found Tyerman's article, particularly with regards to the crusades that occurred within Western Europe very interesting as I wasn't aware that some wars were actually 'crusades'.
When reading the different versions of Pope Urban II there seemed a reoccurring theme of Urban denouncing the fighting and bloodshed among neighbours and inciting the channelling of this towards a 'holy' cause in far off lands. The crusades seemed a win win situation for the church, more money, renewed and stronger faith in the church, more power and less fighting in Western Europe.
On a different note can someone please tell me if we are supposed to go to lecture and tute tomorrow? In unit reader it says there's no lecture or tute?!
Hey Stacey, that's right, there is no physical lecture or tutorial tomorrow - I think we are having a 'virtual tutorial' on the blog this week becuase of Anzac day, so you don't need to go in for these classes.
The phenomenon of the Crusades was inherently a political device, constituted and perpetrated as a means of territorial expansion, justified by the notion of Christendom. Under the promise of remission of sin and that of salvation, the Papacy were able to successfully recruit individuals to serve in an alleged ‘holy war’, through the use of propaganda. Irrespective of the theological justifications of the Crusades, Christian doctrine did not constitute the foundation for such wars. Instead, with the combined authority of the State and the church, the crusades were conceived in an already violent medieval society in which both legitimized centers of power collectively desired the expansion of Western Christendom’s frontiers. As Christopher Tyerman describes ‘violent Europe created crusading’, solidifying this concept that the crusades were a product of the violent nature of medieval Europe, employed as a political weapon to achieve geographical expansion.
Another point I found noteworthy was how payment was required to partake in the Crusades in exchange for remission of sin. Particularly how the spiritual rewards received by those who served in the ‘holy war’ was calculated based on the ‘wealth of the recipient’, indicating that individuals of higher social standing would receive greater spiritual benefits for their monetary contribution than those lower in the societal hierarchy. This concept of payment for divine reward seems to contradict the very principles of Christianity, signifying the corruption of the Church and it’s foundations in this period of time.
I didn't realise that the crusades were so closely related to the Reformation in the 16th century. Reading the Tyerman article I was surprise to discover that the concept of indulgences - buying redemption - started in the 11th century! Similarly, I didn't realise there were Christians that were 'anti-pope' so early in History. The reformation was when the Protestants broke away from the Catholic church, but the article indicates that these sentiments were developing for centuries before.
In saying this I find it interesting that in the article it says that the Holy wars would have been fought regardless of what justification was given... so was the hatred of 'anti-pope' people a real issue during this period, or was it just used to justify the violence?
Hi Cody, I think it has to do with the difference between a ‘just war’ and a ‘holy war’. In his interview, Tyerman distinguishes them as ‘just war is a legal form of war that excuses war, but admits that war is an evil. Holy war says that the war engaged in is a holy act in itself. The actual killing and fighting is in accordance with God's will’.
Based on the reviews that Kathleen provided the links to, it appears that Tyerman had tried to take a more holistic view of the crusades. Rather than just focusing on the battles and the men who fought them, such as in Sir Steven Runciman's A History of the Crusades, he has looked at how it affected the people left behind and those who bore the brunt of crusading or as Nelson points out, ‘is it just because the viewpoint is Western European, or because the evidence for masculine elites is so overwhelmingly plentiful, that some people seem much easier to sympathise with than others, such as Muslims, Byzantines, women?’ which links back with what Frances has written about the impact on Europe, although probably leaning more towards indirect and destructive effects.
I agree with Cody in that surely the violence and incessant murder which occured during the Crusades couldn't be in accordance with God's will, as Tyerman argues. Nonetheless, however much I disagree with that viewpoint, I too found the way in which he discusses the impact of the Crusades from the point of view of those who remained home, not just those who went on 'pilgrimage', very insightful. I also find it so intriguing how the Church has, in a mere 800-1000 years managed to completely move from the original messages of Jesus about how to get into heaven, sharing with neighbours and spreading peace. The wars between the popes and kings for power and the selling of indulgences (especially granting a larger remission of sins for those who can pay more!) goes completely against the original messages(see http://www.bartleby.com/108/42/21.html Luke 21:1-4). It's surely not a "holy" war if it counteracts most of the principles on which the Church was supposed to stand?
I've been in Canberra for a wedding all weekend, so I'm very happy to see you all getting on with the discussion in my absence! A few responses over a few comments so I don't bust the word limit:
To Rod - regarding your interpretation of Fulcher of Chartres, how literally do you think we ought to take his polemic about clerical behaviour, or this this more a symptom of a rhetoric of reform?
In response to Cody and some others - we might not agree that a Christian message is compatible with killing, but I think we need to recognise that the Bible (and other Christian teachings like writings of Church Fathers) are complex texts open to many interpretations and emphases. As Clare noted in the lecture, the late Antique Christ was a majestic ruler, whereas in the high middle ages, he was often seen as a suffering man. These days, perhaps the emphasis is on Christ as a benign friend, full of forgiveness. Each age has made its own 'reading' of the message, and understood slightly different things by it. So while 'thou shalt not kill' might seem unambigous, there's actually a whole lot more going on in any Christian society. None of that is supposed to mean that we should say it actually was OK for people to kill unorthodox Christians or members of other faiths, but that we have to try not to use that value judgement too much as we think about the history of the phenomenon. In the 11th century, the image of a suffering Christ may have moved some to anger at those who made him suffer (metaphorically through attacking the contemporary faith or believers; or 'physically', as the Jews were erooneously believed to have done). This might have been one way that the devout saw crusading as justifiable.
Another motive for the preaching of crusade, which didn't come though that strongly in the lecture or the readings, but which was once very common, was the Peace and Truce of God movement. This is essentially related to what Stacey posted. In a nutshell it was a movement to try and contain the violent behaviour of knights, which the church (in its reforming zeal) had decided was getting out of hand locally (e.g. in France). The argument is tied to the development of knighthood, and assumes that because of this institution (not an uncomplicated assumption!) and of the development of primogeniture, Europe was awash with militarised younger sons with nothing much to do, who tended to go about pillaging. Or at least, that's what some of the contemporary sermons want us to think... (but see my comment to Rod, above!) In this logical framework, the crusade was as much about ridding Europe of a disruptive element as it was about what they actually did when they got there. Does anyone buy this? Or want to show where and what the problems are?
Sarah's post made me think about our assumptions about money. We tend to see corruption pretty much everywhere that money was present. It certainly created temptation and opportunity. But I think we should be careful of attributing a one-to-one relationship. For example, expecting crusaders to have cash was pretty reasonable, if the alternative was that they ended up starving, dying, or just being a burden on their fellows in a foreign and dangerous world. And if there were people who were actually pretty good at fighting but couldn't afford it, it might be equally reasonable for others to contribute cash to support the fighters rather than making a hash job of it themselves. Once the reality and difficulty of the task set in, I think any good administrator would probably have come to a similar conclusion. The issue would be that once the authorities saw how relatively easy it was to make cash this way - and with their growing power and related increase in bureaucracy and costs - they could quickly have become greedy, and tried to get more and more. Or individuals lower down the system might have begun posing as collectors in order to gather it into their own pockets. Now that I would call corruption, and no doubt so did people at the time!
People certainly resented some of the papal taxation of the period, but on the other hand, a massive institution like that, managing the whole of Christendom, doesn't operate for free. Running costs had to come from somewhere. In fact, there was even a set cost to obtain a papal letter ratifying certain grants. (In theory it covered the cost of the parchment, ink, and the scribe's time, etc.) We are coming up agaisnt that old difficulty: the clash between practicality and ideals.
The crusades were one way of harnessing the violence in Europe. Instead of having Christians fighting amongst themselves, they had a common enemy; the barbarians. Suddenly they had a purpose to fight that surpassed their own petty feuds—a religious purpose, sanctioned by the Church. If the Church said it was right to fight the barbarians, but it was not right to fright their brother Christians, then the Crusades could have been seen as a God sent truce maker within the Christian communities of Europe.
Everyone was encouraged to go on crusade (if they could afford to do so). Even criminals were allowed on crusade! Would you say that this was because the Church was encouraging the redemption of sinners? Or was it just that they needed as many men as possible to fight in the crusades? Was it the concerns of religion or of military power that drove the crusades?
I also thought that “Pilgrimage” is such a nice way of calling “invading another land and killing the barbarian natives who happen to live in the sacred site of our religious beliefs”. But ever since kings like Charlemagne stated using Christianity to legitimise their kingship, converting “pagans” to Christianity, by force or by replacing them with people who were Christian, became a common unifying power grabbing exercise.
One thing more, which I thought was noteworthy, is that the men who fought in the first crusade had to enact penance for killing, whereas for the crusades afterwards the entire venture—including the acts of violence—was considered an act of penance in itself.
Tyreman's chapter said that crusading "wasn't a compulsory religious excercise" and that it was a "minority activity". Despite this, I was wondering if there were some implications if a person of means and ability publically denounced the crusades and their participation? I guess if a crusade was believed to be the path to spiritual redemption and a religious act sanctioned by God, i was wondering if this ever happened? If one stood against crusading and if so, was it viewed as going against God's will and was it heresy and punished?
Also, Kathleen's comment about the money side of crusading really made me understand why they didn't allow those without means to participate. At first I thought it was strange to deny someone participation, because of the religious aspect and because i assumed that they would desire large numbers. I suppose, however, on top of the reasons already given that seeing masses of people starving because they set off without a way of supporting themselves wouldn't be the best way to inspire motivation and lead an effective campaign. Also i guess it would be hard to believe that their actions are supposedly approved by God, if many of the crusaders were dying of starvation.
Reading about the crusades is always very interesting. i think what is quite amazing about the history of the crusades is that your not only learning about medieval europe but also the near east so your learning about the circumstances of different countries that help you develop an image of not only medieval europe but other parts of the world.
I find Charlotte's comment interesting on whether people ever denounced the crusades and their involvement. As the crusades were a way to excersise your faithfulness, i can't imagine it would be wise to anounce you are against them. I would assume you would be considered an outsider and even excluded in a way.
While doing the readings, i found it interesting to see the possitive effects of the crusades. For one, they showed co-operation. Different groups realised they had similar idealogies and worked together. For example, the co-operation between the Greeks and Latins during the first crusade. They also helped change western Europe politically, economically and culturally.
I really liked this i found in the text "Crusading did not make western Europe a violent place; violent Europe created crusading."
I loved how Tyerman critically analysed the aspects and meaning of the crusades and really focused on what brought them about. The idea of Holy War and the church becoming militarised, easily reflects the Pope's desires to develop an army to fight his wars. I can understand how easily the medieval society adjusted and accepted the crusades for the symbolism and purpose of becoming a Christian warrior; and of course the promise of years being taking of your time in purgatory must have been a good motivator..
I found Tyerman’s contention really interesting as something of an inversion of the conception of the Crusades, that is that ‘Crusading did not make western Europe a violent place; violent Europe created crusading’. I think he has a point from what we’ve learnt about earlier medieval Europe after the collapse of the Roman Empire and outside from the Carolingian renaissance in how much instability there was from the waves of invasions, lack of economy and so on. But I would also argue that despite western Europe already being violent, the Crusades did make it more violent because of the huge armies amassed to fight in the Holy Land, which I question would have been fought without the Muslim threat or religious fervour that the Crusades incited to a new level, and the trail of destruction that they left in their path. I guess this feeds into the idea of considering where a historian is coming from in that it prompts me to wonder how much of his opinion comes from his research and how much comes from his own unconscious bias. There’s his personal definition of medieval and his own image of this period to consider which could be distorted or exaggerated, as well as the modern setting, especially, as he discusses in that interview, the relationship between the medieval Crusades and the modern Middle Eastern crisis which some modern media sources seem determined to repeatedly refer to.
Post a Comment