Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Crusade and its effects on civilization
Short note about crusades
World history 02.03 the crusades
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Crusade and its effects on civilization
In Thomas F. Madden’s The New Concise History of the Crusades, he is able to effectively give an accurate depiction of the Crusades in a story-like manner. The expansive and convoluted history of the Crusades has been marred by myths and misconceptions about the true nature of these “holy wars”. In his history, Madden seeks to correct these maladies that plague the Crusades by using concrete evidence to support his claims. Although Madden does an excellent job in condensing the history of the Crusades into 225 pages, there are some improvements that he could have made in his history in order to make it less opinionated and more critical. This paper will criticize the effectiveness of Madden’s arguments and presentation of themes. The doctrine of “holy war”, the place of military leadership and rivalry, and the response of Muslim states and military leaders are all important themes addressed in The New Concise History of the Crusades that will be analyzed to extract Madden’s true intentions, concerns, and assumptions.
Aside from telling the history of the Crusades, Madden also seeks to establish his opinion on the issue by subtly introducing his intentions for the book. As previously mentioned, Madden is concerned about how the Crusades are portrayed by myths and mass media and seeks to set the history straight. He addresses how historians oversimplified the Crusades by only counting the “numbered crusades” which only counted the peaks in history where they were the strongest. Madden also claims that Crusade history fails to address Crusades that transcend pilgrimages to the Holy Land:
If one accepts that the crusading movement transcends the conquest of the Holy Land, then there is no reason its history should abruptly end i...
... middle of paper ...
...uccessfully view Islam in an objective light, but instead seems to side with Christianity rather than Islam on this matter. He could have made his historical summary more effective by viewing Christianity and Islam through a similar lens.
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.
Rubenstein goes heavy into the details of the background to the crusade. Rubenstein does this because many of the things that inspired the crusade and many of the events and actions in which the crusade was based upon are critical events and ideologies that are important to understand in order to fully understand the real reasoning and justifications of the crusades. This is one of the ways in which Rubenstein varies from the Madden textbook, where as it starts at the council at Claremont. Madden does not give any background information that is key to having a full insight on the
The Crusades were a number of military expeditions by Europeans of the Christian faith attempting to recover the Holy Land, Jerusalem, which was then controlled by the powerful Muslim Empire. In his book People of The First Crusade, Michael Foss an independent historian tells the story of the first Crusade in vivid detail illustrating the motives behind this historic event, and what had really occurred towards the end of the eleventh century. The Christian lands of Western Europe were slowly deteriorating from invasions of the North, and the passing of corrupt laws from within the clergy and the high lords. However, these were not the only challenges those of European Christian faith had to face. Islam strengthened after the conversion of the
The first crusade was held only in order to fulfill desire of the Christians of the recapturing the center of the Christian faith-Jerusalem, which has been controlled by the Muslim nation for more than 400 years. This military campaign was followed with severe cruelty and harsh actions against Muslims which cannot be justified with anything but religious and material interest.
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
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
It is useful to examine the past in order to craft salient policy and effective strategy today. Once a state determines that more is to be gained by “going to war than by remaining at peace,” the resulting war is shaped by the goals of the states involved, the constraints with which they must contend, and their strategic options available. However, as both the First Crusade and the Spanish Empire’s failed invasion of England in 1588 demonstrate, a war’s outcome is as subject to chance as it is to rational statecraft and the enmity that sparked the conflict.
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.
This topic is interesting to me because the Crusades actually held great importance at the time. With the Crusades, Christianity was spread across Europe, expanded many territories of Europe, increased trade, spread knowledge, and, although not positive, sparked an era of persecution and war against non-Christians, which became a prominent theme in Europe for years to come. It is also interesting to take a look at how the Crusades have become romanticized and misconstrued throughout history and how the truth of these excursions are being fully