In her Letters to a Young Beguine, Hadewijch opens with a rather vague warning. A modern-day reader might dismiss the elusive plea, but to a woman living in thirteenth century Europe, however, her words included a whole different meaning: “I assure you that this is one of the worst sicknesses which prevail today, and sickness there are in plenty” (Hadewijch 189). Such a sickness could be referring to multiple sins, but in a time where religious warfare dominated the Christian landscape, Hadewijch is likely referring to Christian pride, and in a sense, Christian ignorance. Why would violence, a mortal sin, be justified during warfare intent on capturing cities for Christendom? She continues the warning, heeding:
What does it matter to us, if
…show more content…
(189-90)
It is clear that Hadewijch did not adopt the same positive view of Holy War that many of her contemporaries seem to favor. Her words allude to the tensions between Christianity and Islam in the Latin East, specifically, during the Second and Third Crusades. If humans cannot live together peacefully, she fears, there will be constant bloodshed. Ironically, Hadewijch’s advice, largely ignored, illuminates truths in the struggle to recapture the Holy Cities across the Mediterranean. Other letters penned by Hadewijch seem to both respond directly to and refute the call made by Bernard of Clairvaux in the twelfth century. In his letters In Praise of the New Knighthood, Bernard openly praises the murder of the “Other”, justifying such actions as the defense of the faith: “Yet this is not to say that the pagans are to be slaughtered when there is any other way of preventing them from harassing and persecuting the faithful; but only that it now seems better to destroy them than to allow the rod of sinners to continue to be raised” (129). From Bernard’s perspective, Crusaders have no choice but to destroy
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
All in all, this short selection of Usama’s writings does much to further the understanding of the effects on the crusades on many Muslims during this period, though since this was written by an affluent elite it does not describe much of the general populous’ experience. It also provides a good overview of the interactions between Muslims themselves. This was a time fraught with danger and division but Usama’s work shows that a common thread kept many together and preserved a civilization that still exists to this very day.
'I also didn 't have anything against Communism and all that [...] ' (p. 44). Does Plenzdorf 's text support or attack the GDR?
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
This was enough to convince about 60,000 Europeans, many of them peasants to start on the First Crusade to the Holy Land ("THE CRUSADES TO THE HOLY LAND”). Many of the soldiers who went on the Crusades also hoped to acquire land and riches and return a war hero. This was the first time the Catholic Church had seen penitential warfare- “warfare in the service and defense of the Church for the ‘remission of your sins’”("THE CRUSADES TO THE HOLY LAND”). The whole mentality of the Crusades was to destroy any other beliefs including paganism and Judaism, which lead to all kinds of violence and persecution, with Jews becoming a common target, even entire Jewish communities were slaughtered ("How Christianity Rose to Dominate Europe."). Even the Christians were not safe, as many were killed in settlements along the way. Pope Urban was the one who brought out this idea that it was okay to kill non-Christians, and, even beyond that, IF you went to the Holy Land on a Crusade, you received a free ticket to heaven even if you died there. Does this sound a little bit familiar? Perhaps a little like those who truly believe that they’re gaining salvation by blowing up a group of innocent people along with themselves? Or flying a plane full of passengers into building full of people? Well, the First Crusaders marched to Jerusalem leaving death and
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...
Since this paper is my reflection, I will be honest by stating that I am nineteen years old, white, a male, and have been raised in a Catholic family just outside of Louisville, Kentucky. Now why is this important? This is important because the only viewpoint of the crusades that I have studied, prior to my experience with Maalouf, has been from the Christian point of view. Until now, I have yet to place myself in the shoes of those on the opposite end of the sword, shields, and Jihad. History is a touchy subject for me because I have come to learn there is always another side of the story to learn from. This fact leads to the first main thesis of Maalouf’s adventure.
God’s Battalions: The Case for the Crusades by Rodney Stark, will cause readers to question much of what they know about the Crusades, the Crusaders themselves, and the formidable Muslim forces they encountered along the way in liberation of the Holy Land. Stark gives compelling reasons for the Crusades, and argues that readers should not be too quick in following the lead of historians who cast the Crusaders in less than positive light. Stark makes his case supported by evidence that vindicates the valiant struggles of the Crusaders who accomplished the task of keeping Christianity alive through troubled times.
In his De Laude Novae Militiae (1128 - 1131), Bernard of Clairvaux exhorted young Christian knights to take up the calling of spiritual chivalry and fight pagans without fear of eternal damnation since when he kills an evildoer, he is not a homicide, but ...a malicide, and it is plainly Christ's vengeance on those who work evil. Though Bernard's words served as a precursor to the Second Crusade they are important when examining the life of Saladin, for in his life and actions this man, destined to become the greatest of the aforementioned pagans, would exemplify none of the traits one would expect of a horrible infidel. Rather, one could say that, aside from religion, Saladin embodied many of the ideals held dear by the chivalric Christian warrior of the age.
The religious tension between Christians and Jews can only be describes as potent and toxic in the eleventh century. The emergence of Jewish ritual murder, or blood libel, was just one of the ingredients involved in the messy upheaval of Jewish life, culminated by the Crusades. The Life and Passion of William of Norwich by Thomas of Monmouth is considered the founding texts that document a blood libel. Thomas of Monmouth chronicles the events leading to William’s murder, as well as all the supposed miracles that occurred afterward. John McCulloh’s article, Jewish Ritual Murder: William of Norwich, Thomas of Monmouth, and the Early Dissemination of the Myth, he analyzes not only Thomas of Monmouth’s text, but also the surrounding circumstance.
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.
During The First Crusade peasants and knights alike fought for God and glory travelling east towards Jerusalem. In 1099 Christian forces reached Jerusalem and prepared for recapture. The western crusaders attacked the city and gained control of it. During the capture of Jerusalem, the crusading forces massacred not only Muslims, but Jews and even other Christians. Men women and children alike, no one was safe from these crusaders who did what they wanted. They butchered Jerusalem’s inhabitants in the streets, without care of what God might think (which is ironic considering this w...
By it’s end, over 8,000,000 europeans had been killed in the conflict. Most of these death were Germans making the Thirty Years’ War the deadliest German conflict in history until World War II. Perhaps 20 percent of Germany’s total population perished during the war, with losses of up to 50 percent along a corridor running from Pomerania in the Baltic to the Black Forest. Villages suffered worse than towns, but many towns and cities also saw their populations, manufacture, and trade decline substantially (Cowley and Parker, 1996). Most countries waged war between 1618 and 1648 with financial resources that were grossly inadequate. I the end, the result of the war was not worth the price. However, some good came out of the War. European’s for the first time have come together and agreed that fighting wars of religion are stupid and that it’s time that Europe moves pass the Protestant Reformation. This make the Thirty Years’ War the last major religious war in Europe (Richey, 2014).
At the start of the Second Crusade, it had been four decades since the First Crusade had taken place and the stories from the first expedition had become legends. However, these legends soon began to unravel: Edessa, once a Christian held city from the First Crusade, fell to the Muslims under the forces of Zengi. After the fall of the city of Edessa, "the Christian aura of invincibility was shattered" and they were overcome with panic because this was the first time they recognized the invading Muslims as a threat (Madden 50). This fear was precisely what ignited the Second Crusade. Although Pope Eugenius III called upon the Second Crusade, it was technically considered Bernard of Clairvaux’s crusade. Bernard was a French abbot who was appointed to his position by the Pope in order to preach about the crusade. Bernard regarded the Second Crusade "as a means of redemption" and preached across Northern France and Germany in hopes of rallying civilians to stand by his side in the name of Christ (Madden 52).