Several centuries after they ended, the Crusades are remembered as wars that were fought and lost in the name of God. The efforts and means utilized and maintained to continue to wage a battle for more than one hundred years is memorable nonetheless. While we say that these wars were fought in the name of God, it is simply not that easy to define. The causes for the Crusades cannot be traced to an isolated event but rather several factors that operated together to create a climate of religious fervor to fight for the name of God. Power, piety, zeal, determination are words we can use to define some of the reasons that drove men to establish a war with another race of people, in which little was known. The Crusades are a story as much about the nature of man as they are the nature of politics and religion. The religious reasons led to social and economic ramifications that changed the political landscape forever. We see the Crusades as religious wars but a closer inspection reveals that they were fought for various reasons with
Europe’s political, social, and economic order was facing a positive turnaround in at the turn of the century. Expansion was prevalent and, as a result, the economy was improving greatly from the turmoil it had experienced in 900. While all of this sounds good and was good to a certain extent, things were still fragile. Strength and the power of the unknown paved the way for the crusades. Land, expansion, adventure, zeal, soldiers, and powerful papal leadership were the essential ingredients for crusading, which became “popular social movement” (Noble 416). No one could have imagined what the Crusades meant from the first to the last. Peter Charanis notes that the motivating factors that promp...
... middle of paper ...
...do not have to look far back into history. Reasons why seem to become secondary as the fighting wages on.
Works Cited
Charanis, Peter. “Aims of the Medieval Crusades and How They Were Viewed by Byzantium.”
Church History. 21. 2. (1952) JSTOR Resource Database. Information Retrieved March 5, 2009.
Craig, Albert, et al. The Heritage of the World. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. (2000)
Mansbridge, John Marjorie Rowling, Life in Medieval Times. New York: Perigree. (1973)
Maurios, André. The Miracle of England. New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers. (1937) 95
Noble, Thomas, et al. Western Civilization: The Continuing Experience. Vol. II. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. (1994)
Palmer, Alan. The Kings and Queens of England. London: Octopus Books Limited. (1976) 9
Smith, Henry. The Historians’ History of the World. New York: Hooper and Jackson, Ltd. (1909)
Thomas F. Madden’s The New Concise History of the Crusades is an invaluable account of the crusades that bases its arguments off of factual evidence and draws from historical accounts. Although his arguments may be flawed because of preconceived biases, Madden is still able to present the history of the crusades in an interesting and professional manner. The themes he addresses accurately portray the crusades as both a religious and territorial endeavor. Overall, Madden successfully summarizes and analyzes the crusades in his historical review, infusing his own ideologies in the text while still maintaining a professional voice.
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.
In 1095 Pope urban II call all Christians to take part in what would become the world’s greatest Holy War in all of history. Urban’s called Christians to take up arms and help fight to take the Holy Land of Jerusalem back from the accursed Muslims. During this time of war the whole world changed. Land boundaries shifted, men gained and lost and gained power again, and bonds were forged and broken. The Crusades had a great impact on the world that will last forever. There were many major social, political, religious and economic changes that occurred during the crusades. But first, a brief history to give backbone to these reasons.
The eminent historian Jonathan Riley-Smith defines ‘crusade’ as “holy war fought against those perceived to be the external or internal foes of Christendom for the recovery of Christian property”. This would suggest that the Crusades were primarily an endeavour intended to promote Christian expansionism through the acquisition of both territory and religious converts. However the Crusades can also be interpreted as a means for independent Christian rulers to demonstrate their piety, amass wealth through loot and enhance their prestige; all of which would be beneficial to the rule of their own territories. In addition to this, the Crusades were intended as a defensive measure in
The Crusades were the first tactical mission by Western Christianity in order to recapture the Muslim conquered Holy Lands. Several people have been accredited with the launch of the crusades including Peter the Hermit however it is now understood that this responsibility rested primarily with Pope Urban II . The main goal of the Crusades was the results of an appeal from Alexius II, who had pleaded for Western Volunteers help with the prevention of any further invasions. The Pope’s actions are viewed as him answering the pleas of help of another in need, fulfilling his Christian right. However, from reading the documents it is apparent that Pope Urban had ulterior motives for encouraging engagement in the war against the Turks. The documents and supporting arguments now highlight that the Pope not only sought to recruit soldiers to help but also to challenge those who had harmed the Christians community and annihilate the Muslims. He put forth the idea that failure to recapture this lands would anger God and that by participating, God would redeem them of their previous sins.in a time of deep devoutness, it is clear this would have been a huge enticement for men to engage in the battle. Whether his motives were clear or not to his people, Pope Urban’s speeches claiming that “Deus vult!” (God wills it) encouraged many Christians to participate and take the cross.
First of all, we can underline how Madden emphasizes the fact that the Crusades were driven by religious reasons: “A crusade army was a curious mix of rich and poor, saints and sinners, motivated by every kind of pious and selfish desire, yet it could not have come into being without the pious idealism that led men to risk all to liberate the lands of Christ” (Madden, 13). The First Crusade occurred after Pope Urban II preached a sermon to liberate Jerusalem and the Holy Land. Madden expresses regrets about what he calls a “mistaken view”, that says that “religion was not an impetus but a diversion” (11). He definitely assumes a point of view that is diffe...
The Crusades were one of the most prominent events in Western European history; they were not discrete and unimportant pilgrimages, but a continuous stream of marching Western armies (Crusaders) into the Muslim world, terminating in the creation and eventually the fall of the Islamic Kingdoms. The Crusades were a Holy War of Roman Christianity against Islam, but was it really a “holy war” or was it Western Europe fighting for more land and power? Through Pope Urban II and the Roman Catholic Church’s actions, their proposed motivations seem unclear, and even unchristian. Prior to the Crusades, Urban encouraged that Western Europe fight for their religion but throughout the crusades the real motivations shone though; the Crusaders were power hungry, land coveting people who fought with non Christian ideals and Morales.
The First Crusade from 1095 to 1099 has been seen as a successful crusade. The First Crusaders carefully planned out their attacks to help promote religion throughout the lands. As the First Crusade set the example of what a successful crusade should do, the following crusades failed to maintain control of the Holy Land. Crusades following after the First Crusade weren’t as fortunate with maintaining the Holy Land due united forces of Muslims, lack of organization, and lack of religious focus.
The First Crusade was called by Pope Urban II in November 1095. Urban made a simple proposal to his people: “Whoever for devotion alone, but not to gain honor or money, goes to Jerusalem to liberate the Church of God can substitute this journey for all penance.” This proposal sounded very appealing to many. There were several motivations behind the Church calling for the Crusades. Some of these motivations helped persuade the knights to take up arms and help reclaim the Holy Land. Urban figured that it was a win win situation. The violent knights could become “good” again. They would be forgiven for all their sins and they would be saved. They could cease their violent lives and instead do something productive, such as help recover the holy
1. The Crusades are probably the greatest symbol of the religious enthusiasm of the age. What were the goals of the Crusades? Targets? What motivated people to go on crusade besides religious zeal? How do we account for their general failure? How were the Crusades viewed by the Muslims, as indicated by the evidence from “Listening to the Past”? What lasting impact did they have?
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
The Three Crusades There were three Crusades and they all took different routes from western Europe to Palestine. THE FIRST CRUSADE - The first crusade began in A.D. 1095.
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 ...
In 1095, Pope Urban II called the first crusade. Happening between 1096 and 1099, the first crusade was both a military expedition and a mass movement of people with the simple goal of reclaiming the Holy Lands taken by the Muslims in their conquests of the Levant. The crusade ended with the capture of Jerusalem in July 1099. However, there has been much debate about whether the First Crusade can be considered an ‘armed pilgrimage’ or whether it has to be considered as a holy war. This view is complicated due to the ways in which the Crusade was presented and how the penitential nature of it changed throughout the course of the Crusade.
Membership of the Catholic Church was somewhat steady at the time of the Crusades. Many members felt there was something lacking from their religion, and the Crusades gave something for the members to believe in. “The Crusade brought peace to Christendom and at the same time provided unity.” 1 This quote gives information on peace being a part of their religion now and it was due to the Crusades. The presence of the Crusades also increased some enthusiasm with the unification of its members. “In the first place the preaching of the crusades aroused great religious enthusiasm and led many sinners to reform.” 2 This describes the Crusades as being the ones who attracted people who have fallen away from the faith and gave something for the current members to be excited about.