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 …show more content…
Most notoriously, the People’s Crusade, led by Peter the Hermit, was a good example of how these biases against each other led to a popular movement to destroy the “Muslim invaders,” or so Pope Urban II claimed. The People’s Crusade, despite being a popular movement, was not successful in it’s goals. It does show, however, that many European common folk were interested in taking vengeance even if they weren’t well organized. In the Illuminated Manuscript created to illustrate the People’s Crusade, it is clear that there isn’t a lot of organization, what with the large mass of people moving forth in a messy way. Either way, the motives behind said Crusade show just how intent the Franks were in accomplishing the wishes of the …show more content…
For example, Ekkehard of Aurach wrote of the intentions of European crusaders, saying “The West Franks were easily induced to leave their fields, since France had, during several years, been terribly visited by civil war, now by famine, and again by sickness. Others confessed that they had been induced to pledge themselves by some misfortune.” Overall, this signals that because of the poor conditions, many might wish to escape to do something more enjoyable, like conquering, since in numerous cases that was reserved for those who were specially trained. More, the lack of wealth within European households and families could be remedied if only they could find a source of wealth or land to take from. Indeed, this is supported in a letter coming from a Crusader back to his family. More specifically, Court Stephen of Blois to his wife. He writes, “that of gold, silver and many other kinds of riches I now have twice as much as your love had assigned me when I left you.” In many cases, this kind of story occurred. Families got richer, and gained more land from their conquests. Overall, the mindset resonated with the poor, hungry, and desperate Europeans and set them off to attempt a
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 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
Throughout the duration of the crusades real motivations shone though on behalf of the Crusaders. Not only did they lack a religious purpose for fighting, but they made the Muslim’s lives complicated and valueless. They were power hungry, land coveting people who fought with non Christian ideals and Morales. It should be clear to anyone and everyone that the prime motivation behind the Crusader’s fighting was power and land which would eventually lead to wealth.
How could the Christian church, which bases itself off kindness and peace, allow the Crusades to happen? The religion known to be loving of all was the cause of the most catastrophic occurrence in the late eleventh and late thirteenth centuries because of misconceptions and avarice of the pope. Of all of the religious wars fought, this was the one with the highest level of ridiculousness. Members of the church fought for all of the wrong reasons and the outcome was poor because of it. Even though the Crusades were justified by the false philosophies of both parties, they were overall beneficial economically. Before one can analyze the thoughts of the people, he or she must know what came about to make them think like this.
The Third Crusade The third crusade consisted of the major religions Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. The Muslim population over ran every other religion in the holy city of Jerusalem. They began to attack the infidels or Christians they could have attack the Jewish people too however what I have it doesn’t say they did now going back the first crusade the crusade is the counter attack the Christian people did to the Muslims because the constant attack they did on Christians the Christians got sick of it and called for Brittan to help.
Its purpose was to examine the events of the crusades in their own light, as opposed to traps historians often fall into. One being that the people of history are inferior in every way. This view does nothing but assures the observer while unrightfully degrading the past. The other pitfall is to have the idea that everything that happens today is a reflection of a historical event. This book was written to look at history without either of these distracting ideas in mind.
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.
A main cause of the Crusades was the treatment of Christian pilgrims. They were robbed, beaten, and then sold. The main group of Turks, the Seljuk Turks, were threatening and growing in power. The Byzantine Emperor, Alexus I, began to become worried and sent out an urgent plea to Pope Urban II, in Rome. He requested for Christian knights to help him fight the Turks. Pope Urban II did agree to his appeal although Byzantine Emperors and Roman Popes were longtime rivals. He also did agree with Alexus I, in fearing that the Turks were expanding. Pope Urban encouraged French and German Bishops and Nobles to also take part in this. “ An accused race has violently invaded the lands of those Christians and had depopulated them by pillage and fire.” This is when Pope Urban II called for a crusade to free the Holy Land. Urban did agree to this having some of his own motives in mind. He was hoping his power would grow in ...
The crusades started because of Pope Urban II in the year 1095 it's called the Crusades so he could free the holy the holy land. The first crusade started in the year 1096 and ended in the year 1099. THe Crusades took control of jerusalem. In the second Crusade the Crusaders lost control of jerusalem. In the third crusade the Crusades recaptured Arce and agreed to treaty with the Muslims leader In the 4th crusade, which is know as the “Trader Crusade”,the Crusades never reached the holy land so they attacked Constantinople instead.
During the time of the Crusades Muslims and Christians attempted to observe and describe their experience of each other’s personal virtues and religious practices. Historical documents gathered during the period of the Crusades depict the various views held by these opposing groups. Although the encounters between these two groups of people often illustrate that they found each other to be strange or inappropriate, they also give some evidence of approval to certain virtues or practices. The tendency for each religious group to glorify itself and degrade each other’s character is also evident. Analyzing the historical documents from Christians and Muslims during the Crusades provides wonderful insight concerning how they viewed
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.
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.
In 1095 Pope Urban II called all Christians to take part in what would become the world’s greatest Holy War in all of history. Urban’s called on 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.
To begin with, Pope Urban promised crusaders a place in heaven if they went to battle ( Speech by Pope Urabn II ). This motivated people to go fight since they will be granted a place in heaven because of it. By 1096, thousands of knights were on their way to the Holy Land to fight (Ellis 216). Although many of them said they were fighting for religion, their true motive was land and wealth. Many of the knights hope to win wealth and land because of fighting. Some crusaders even fought just to escape troubles at home, and others left for adventure. This proves how the motives behind the crusader was not just simply religion. The Pope, himself had several motives. “ Urban hoped to increase his power in Europe and perhaps heal the schism, or split, between the Roman and Byzantine churches” (Ellis 216). His motives were not only to protect their brothers based on religion , but were also to get land and wealth. Lastly, the crusaders were motivated more on land and wealth then they were on