“As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable.” 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. Before addressing the strategic choices of these conflicts, it is interesting to note the number of similar contexts despite the 500 years that separate them. The social structure of late 11th century Western Europe had a great …show more content…
Contrary to the Crusades, however, there was no Spanish strategic supervision outside of Philip II himself. He suffered from severe cognitive dissonance and was inexperienced at every level of strategy, and therefore was unable to change with the shifting needs of the war. When faced with inconsistent plans and a delay that would push the invasion into winter, he chose rather to amalgamate the plans disjointedly and leave the weather to God. The military leaders were forced to follow tactical-level edicts without clear timelines, military objectives, or alternative options. Philip II’s armada had neither a clear strategy nor a military objective and set sail with only an operational plan to meet up with the Flanders army and invade England. By the time he attempted the invasion, Philip II’s inability to prioritize his conflicts in a failing economic state stretched his commitments to three simultaneous fronts, including the Netherlands and the Ottoman
The First Crusade is often cited as one of the most damnable consequences of religious fanaticism. A careful inspection of the circumstances and outcomes, however, will reveal a resultant political restructuring of Europe under the banner of Christendom. The purpose of this investigation is to investigate Pope Urban II’s motives in initiating the First Crusade, with a particular focus on the consolidation of the Western Church’s influence in Europe. Among the primary sources that will be consulted are the letter sent by Patriach Alexios of Constantinople to Urban, and an account of Urban’s speech at Clermont. Relevant excerpts from both of these primary sources, as well as contextual evidence and a wide array of historiography, will be taken
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
Vasquez, John A. "The Probability of War, 1816-1992. Presidential Address to the International Studies Association, March 25, 2002, New Orleans." International Studies Quarterly 48.1 (2004): 1-27. Print.
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.
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.
The war strategies of Carl von Clausewitz and Antoine Henri de Jomini are not mutually exclusive philosophies. Clausewitz’s “Trinity of War”, “war as an extension of politics”, and the “unpredictability of war” speak more so to the upper, strategic and political ranges of war. Jomini addresses the operational and tactical levels in the lower ranges of war with his definition of strategy and his “Fundamental Principle of War”. So if one views their work collectively rather than as competitors, the two philosophies complement each other by addressing different segments of the spectrum of war.
The crusades, were not only barbaric, but they were unsuccessful at achieving their ultimate goal which was to preserving the holy land for generations to come.
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 1095, the conflict between the Christians and the Muslims started a crusade (a military campaign in defense of Christianity) for the battle of Jerusalem. This crusade involved people of other religions besides Christianity such as the Jews but they did not play a major role during this time. The Crusades lasted almost two decades and consisted of eight different crusades. With all of the events and actions that took during the Crusades, it led too many effects throughout years. There were short term effects and long term effects from the crusades that effected people of all different cultures. Two places which have had many effects from the Crusades are Europe and Islam. The Crusades has had short term and long term effects on power, economic and classical knowledge throughout Europe and Islam.
Current military leadership should comprehend the nature of war in which they are engaged within a given political frame in order to develop plans that are coherent with the desired political end state. According to Clausewitz, war is an act of politics that forces an enemy to comply with certain conditions or to destroy him through the use of violence. A nation determines its vital interests, which drives national strategy to obtain or protect those interests. A country achieves those goals though the execution of one of the four elements of power, which are diplomatic, informational, military and economical means. The use of military force...
The crusades in the middle ages were a long-lasting series of vigorous wars between Christians and Muslims over the Holy Land, Jerusalem. The crusades lasted for almost two hundred years. They began in 1099 and approximately ended in 1291. (What were the motives, and causes of these gruesome wars?) is the first question one might ask. To properly answer this question, I am about to analyze the first four crusades that had began in 1099 and ended in 1212.
World War I was a conflict that claimed over 10 million peoples’ lives, ravaged all of Europe and engineered modern warfare, as it is know today. The Great War has been scrutinized and examined through many complex theories in order to understand how such a conflict escalated to one of the most epic wars in history. This essay, like many works before it, looks to examine WWI and determine its causes through two distinct levels of analysis, individual and systemic. The individual level of analysis locates the cause of conflicts in individual leaders or decision makers within a particular country, focusing on the characteristics of human decision-making. The systemic level of analysis explains the causation of a conflict from a system wide level that includes all states, taking in to account the distribution of power and the interaction of states in the international system.
The purpose of this essay is to inform on the similarities and differences between systemic and domestic causes of war. According to World Politics by Jeffry Frieden, David Lake, and Kenneth Schultz, systemic causes deal with states that are unitary actors and their interactions with one another. It can deal with a state’s position within international organizations and also their relationships with other states. In contract, domestic causes of war pertain specifically to what goes on internally and factors within a state that may lead to war. Wars that occur between two or more states due to systemic and domestic causes are referred to as interstate wars.
The Crusades were the type of person who demanded many things, if not everything. They used their power and the backing of the Catholic Church to advance their movements and take control of cities. Many may believe the Crusades were mean, dangerous people who did not care about others and only wanted control. This, however, was only one view and many do not see how the Crusades benefited the church, help unite its members, and enabled the church to evolve in certain areas.
If you ask someone if they ever heard of the Crusades the answer will most likely be yes. Does that mean that they know what the Crusades are? No. Many Jewish people who don’t know much about the Crusades assume it was merely targeted against the Jews and it resulted in the death of countless Jews. Other than that they are oblivious to the true facts. So what were the Crusades?