In the Deeds of the Franks and the Alexiad, the ideal qualities of a leader during the late 1000’s to early 1100’s differ from the Franks and the Byzantines when it comes to qualities, during the Latin Christian World in 1096 to 1099, expressed devotion and quality management is what helps them become good leaders and warriors. The difference that can be seen in the Byzantine empire is how they expressed great confidence, inspired others, and were disciplined. Both sources explain the Latin Christian world and the Byzantine Empire, regarding their fight for Muslim ruled territories. We can see in the Alexiad by Anna Comenos in the Byzantine Empire and Deeds of the Franks in Jerusalem, during 1083 to late 1100’s, that the Byzantines and Latin Christian World portrayed a similarity of devotion towards God in Deeds of the Franks, and devotion towards the Byzantine Empire in Alexiad.
In the Byzantine Empire, according Anna Comenos in Alexiad, the Byzantines valued confidence, inspiration, and discipline from leaders. According to Alexiad, the Emperor expressed great confidence as he hurled his spear into the chest of the “barbarian,” this act portrayed great confidence, but also inspired the “Roman ranks.” The Byzantines also valued discipline from a leader, in the Alexiad, it
…show more content…
In the Latin Christian World their devotion to give up worldly possessions and cling to God. In their pilgrimage to Jerusalem, the leader of the Franks believed that if you left your worldly possessions you would be doing the Lords promise. A good leader during this time accrording the Latin Christian world valued quality management. In the Deeds of the Franks, we can see how the prince had foreseen upcoming issues and he bound his men and created a team-work amongst his men. He got them all to agree to swear an oath and work together to capture it by force or
Foss explains, “What Urban needed was an enterprise, clearly virtuous in serving the ends of Christiandome… in these moments of reflection, the popes mind turned towards Jerusalem.” Urban II reflects back on the first taking of the Holy City after the defeat of the Byzantine Empire in 1071, and begins to question what his people know about the Turkish race and really the ideology of Islamic thought. Foss goes on to examine the ignorance of westerners and needed to be “reminded [by the pope] of the infamous heathens, their cruelty and hatred of Christians,” hoping this would justify the first Holy Crusade. However, Foss identifies the creativity of the Pope’s language to persuade the knights and army of the people to embark on the Holy Crusade based on the Muslims cruel actions turned onto their fellow Christians. Claiming the Muslims “Killed captives by torture…poor captives were whipped…and others were bound to the post and used as a target for arrows.” Foss examines the Popes words as an effective effort of persuasion in creating an army of crusaders to help clean “…Holy places, which are now treated with ignominy and polluted with Filthiness” and any sacrifice in Jerusalem is a “promise of a spiritual reward… and death for
Aligning with Anna Comnena’s overall bias, the details in The Alexiad harbor a great deal of disdain for crusaders. The East versus West mentality is evident in the narrative through Comnena’s description of the Crusaders. She uses the names “Celt” and “Norman()” as derogatory describing the Crusaders as uncultured and “riotous().” With Byzantine bias she singles out the Normans especially with respect to Nicea where they “behaved the most cruelly to all (251).” Alexius, himself is written to fear their “unstable and mobile character (248)” which reiterates battles against Normans earlier in his life.
What we do know is that this lack of intellectual integrity is the opposite of the behavior that is required of an ethical leader (CF03SG, 2013, p. 7). Most assuredly, his actions confused his team of warriors, and affected their view of his professional character, especially since non-Roman captives had been released to their respective countries. You just found out that the bully in the hood is coming to reclaim the marbles he gave you last week. This happens to be the same bully that stole the little guy’s lunch money last week; and oh, by the way, you’ve had a sincere dislike for him ever since you were “knee-high to a grass hopper”.... ...
The First Crusade was a widely appealing armed pilgrimage, and mobilized a vast conquering force at a time when the Christian Church was moving towards centralization and greater political influence in Europe. The Church gained a wider audience more accepting of its leadership, benefitted economically, and developed its own militarily force. These outcomes, along with the Church’s documented ambition to expand and its reversal of prior teachings, support the idea that the First Crusade was a deliberate political maneuver, intended to to expand and consolidate the authority of the
In document 1 by Pope Urban II, he stated that the Christians in the west should defend their fellow brethren in the east. He went on to state that Romania had been conquered and had to be taken back from the Turks and Arabs. The subjects had to fight for the land that they stand on to continue being good Christians. If you died fighting for this, you would get instant remission of sins, meaning you would be forgiven for all of their sins. He was the Pope; therefore, he stood on a different level than his subjects, and did not know how they felt about this matter. He had absolute power over everyone as the leader of their religion. In document 2 by Ekkehard in his book Hierosolymita, he praises the speech that Pope Urban gave in 1095 and told of how it le...
Urban’s decision to begin the Crusade was based on more than just the idea that he was doing the Lord’s will. The Christian idealism was mind over m...
Among some of the largest conflicts in the world stand the Crusades; a brutal conflict that lasted over 200 years and was debatably one of the largest armed religious conflicts in the history of humankind. Since this is so clearly an event of importance, historians have searched vigorously for the true answer as to why the crusades began. Ultimately, because of accusatory views on both the sides of the Christians and of the Muslims, the two groups grew in such hatred of each other that they began to act in deep discrimination of each other. Moreover, Christian motives seemed to be driven mostly by the capture of Jerusalem, the dark ages of Europe and the common-folks desperation for land, wealth, and a spot in heaven. What seems to be continually
In the little kingdoms or principalities, the lands over which a King ruled were regarded as no different from other property. Among the Franks, all sons were entitled to a share. Therefore, when a King died, each son became a King over his own little kingdom. Thus, many political units became small so there were no uniform laws or policies. This lack of unity made them vulnerable to enemies as well as conflict from within. Bullough points out that the loyalty of a warrior or subject to his chosen leader was not a light matter. The author does not contrast that concept of loyalty however, with our present ideas of loyalty to the homeland or institution.
Both the Crusaders and the Muslims wanted power. In contradiction the church wanted to reunite Constantinople and the Byzantine Empire with the Roman Catholic Empire giving the Church extra power. Baldwin of Boulogne is a key example in portraying the Crusader’s quest for power; splitting off from the rest of the army and traveling east until he reached Armenian where he would establish himself as ruler. Like Boulogne, Bohemond of Taranto also abandoned the majority to better his own personal status—he took over as Prince of Antioch. Through these two prominent figures we see that power was a necessity to the leaders of this era; and unfortunately the people look up to their leaders and do likewise. However, if these Crusaders were fighting for “religious factors” then they would recognize that God holds the ultimate power and they are nothing without him. But these power hungry individuals obviously lacked humility...
With the decline of the Western Roman empire Western Europe was a disjointed land that had no true unifying structure till the rise of Christianity. In Roman antiquity people used the State or empire of Rome to define themselves and give them a sense of unity despite having a diverse group of people within the empire. When Western Rome fell this belief based on a Roman cultural identity disappeared and no longer were people able to identify themselves with any particular group as they once have. The Christian religion was able to fill this vacuum by having the people associate themselves to a religion instead of a given state or cultural group. During Medieval Europe Christianity became the unifying force that would define what it meant to be European. Christianity gave political leaders legitimacy by showing that they have been favored by the gods. The clergyman that recorded the histories surrounding the kings of the Medieval Europe also provided a link to the Roman Empire to give the Kings a link to Roman empire of antiquity. Christianity became the center of the cultural life in western Europe and created a new social elite in Europe which would dominate literacy and knowledge within Europe for centuries. Christianity provided Europe with an escape from the disorder of the Medieval ages and give them a spiritual outlet for their fears and desires for a better life, whether in the physical life or in the spiritual world after death.
The single most important aspect of European empires, beginning just prior to the fall of Rome, is the spread of Christianity to all areas of the continent in as little as a few hundred years. Many theologians state that Christianities spread is the indirect influence of God and the adoration of people to one true faith. Though it is true that Christianity has brought about people that even atheists could call saints, it is unquestionable that Christianity was so monumental because it united larger groups of people and its spread is contributed to adherence to local customs and its lack of new ideas in comparison to other religions of the day.
In order for the crusades to begin, the Christians needed to gather an army to travel and fight the forces of Muslims. With all the power being held by monarchies at this time, the church needed to be cleaver in order to gain troops to put their lives on the line. To gain the support of these warriors and dedication of men, Pope Urban II (1088-1099) challenged those morals of men by telling them to grab their weapons and join the holy war to recover the land of Jerusalem. It was not the challenge that convinced men to take part in this war. The promise of “immediate remission of sins” attracted the men to stand up for their religion and beliefs while at the same time, promising them a trip to heaven when life comes to an end. With this statement, men instantly prepared for battle which in a very short period of time gave the church power which has been held by the monarchies. Men of rich and poor prepared for battle, some wearing ...
Contrary to many commonly held notions about the first crusade, in his book, The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading, Jonathan Riley-Smith sets out to explain how the idea of crusading thought evolved in the first crusade. In his book, Riley-Smith sets out five main arguments to show how these ideas of crusading evolved. Firstly, he argues that Pope Urban’s original message was conventional, secondly that a more positive reaction was drawn from the laity (due to the ideas surrounding Jerusalem), thirdly, that the original message of crusading had changed because of the horrible experiences of the first crusaders, fourth, that due to these experiences the crusaders developed their own concept of what a crusade was, and lastly, that these ideas were refined by (religious) writers and turned into an acceptable form of theology. Riley-Smith makes excellent points about the crusade; however, before one can delve directly into his argument, one must first understand the background surrounding the rise of the first crusade.
With all the events which were occurring in the world, Urban had successfully chosen to launch the crusade at a time when the Christian West was ready to put a stop to the fighting in the East by eliminating all opposition to the Christians. It was also the perfect time for the Pope’s message of ‘guiltless, meritorious violence’. To an audience bred on fighting but fearful of hell the promise of an Indulgence was irresistible.
Since the Crusaders attracted many newcomers and ones who have fallen away from the faith, to continue such unity, they needed to find ways to inspire the ones who ha...