Use the comments section to hold a debate on the following Question:
Should the Crusades be considered a Holy War?
Use
evidence from the reading linked below to engage your fellow students
over whether the Crusades were a religious war or an economic/political
event. You must comment AT LEAST twice: once by Tuesday night and once by Thursday night. Participation will be graded on quality of comments. Provide new evidence and analysis. USE THE READING!
Also, utilize the "Reply" function so that we can follow conversations. Create a new comment when you are making a new point.
I suggest drafting your comments in a word/google doc file and then copy/pasting it into Blogger. Sometimes, the comments don't save and I'd hate for your to lose your work.
Link: Crusades Reading
Total Points: 30
Although many would side with Jonathon Phillip’s failure to classify the crusades as a holy war due to the multitude of backgrounds of Pope Urban II’s followers, the quest for land, and the benefits that accompanied it, I would agree with Arthur Jones that the crusades could be considered a Christian holy war. From the Christians perspective, the crusades were a holy war because they ultimately revolved around religious beliefs and fighting for Christianity. The argument introduced by Philips merely names the secondary motivations that made people easier to convince, but the war itself wasn’t founded or reliant on the people’s inner motives, but the cause of the conflict. Jones argues that these battles can be seen as a “Christian counteroffensive” (154) in attempts to reclaim the holy land that had been occupied by the Muslim invaders. The crusades can be considered holy wars because they ultimately formed two sides with people aligning themselves with one religion over the other, and although they may have differed in their reasons for actively participating, they still had a joint cause aimed at the restoration of holy property.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jen that the Crusades should be considered Christian holy wars. Phillip’s arguments, that say the Crusades were wars to gain power and land, are only based off of what some people might have chosen to participate in the crusades for. The reason the First Crusade began was when “Pope Urban II… called on the factious European kings and princes to band together and recover the Holy Sepulcher from the Muslim Seljuk Turks” (161). The original reason for the First Crusade was, as Jen said, for the Christians to restore holy property. The crusades were wars of religion that were caused by the differences in Christianity and Islam, not wars for the gain of power, land, or money.
DeleteI agree with Jen.
DeleteThe Crusades in the post-classical Mediterranean can and should be classified as a holy war for Christianity. When evaluating a topic like this one, the big picture should dominate over the small side plots of the event. The fact is that the Crusades were organized and motivated by a group of Christians that felt the war was in the best interest of their sacred religion. They felt that they needed to reclaim holy land and push the spread of their ideals. Maybe there were questionable side motives and behaviors that were wrong and maybe even outside of the teachings of the bible. But that doesn’t change the main force and drive behind the crusades… Christianity. In response to opposing arguments concerning alternate motives or unsavory behavior, it is war. War is never pretty, so any brutality or cruelty can’t be counted against the holiness of the war. Any ideas that depict expansion as proof against holiness have to be relooked. It is in the best interest of all religions to expand: If that means war to expand a religiously backed empire, that is valid basis for a crusade. Christianity was so entangled and motivational in the crusades that it seems to me that the forces would have fallen apart without it. Because of this, it is my opinion that the crusades were holy wars.
Matt brought up a good point that both groups of people thought they were doing the right thing by defending and spreading the beliefs and ideas of their religion. Christians believed that the Crusades were "a new path to Heaven" and if they participate in these crusades they would "experience 'full and complete satisfaction'" (155-156). This would give the Christians motive to participate and do anything they could to reach the peaceful paradise of Heaven. Also, both religions were "foundations of empires" and "bases of entire cultural outlooks”; therefore, the want to expand and take over territory was already ingrained into the minds of the leaders of these empires (156). Thus, when the empire expanded so did the religion creating a greater following for both the empire and the religion. In addition, both religions are "public force[s]" that want their beliefs to be heard over others creating tension of wanting to come out on top between the two religions (157). The Crusades should be considered “holy wars” because of the close relationship with religion and the purpose of those participating in the Crusades.
DeleteI agree with Jen, the crusades were definitely a holy war. The crusades come at a time when Christian Europe had regained power from previously hard times. The time from the fall of Western Rome, to the feudal, kingdom-run Europe had been a bad time for European Christians. From around 330 CE until 900 CE Europe did not progress. But once the population began to rise and kingdoms became city-states or empires in around 1000 CE, the Europeans believed it was time to get back what the had lost to Islam. During Christianity’s hardship, Islam was able to grow substantially claiming much of the previously Christian land and its followers. Christians had to take their land and churches back by any means necessary, ”Even as the potential first crusaders were looking into strategy and logistics, peasants in France heard the papal call. Less worried about tactics and supplies, several thousand started marching (161)”. This devotion to the holy war comes after Europe’s newfound confidence as it once again began to grow hand in hand with its dominant religion, Christianity.
DeleteI also agree with Jen, and specifically with what Matt said. The priest-chaplain of the first crusade said that "those who undertook in the holy war would experience forgiveness of sins" (154). The war was seen to be as a "new path to Heaven" (155). Like Matt said, the big picture was that the Christians were taking part in the war for their religion. The Christians put their religious beliefs and the Holy Land over power. They were trying to gain back their holy land and their churches, and that was basically it. Crusade after crusade, the christians were rarely successful (only twice in a total of nine crusades), but due to their deep devotion to their religion, they continued to attempt to gain back their property. Also, the fact that they negotiated two ties with the Muslims shows that they were more interested in simply gaining back their land than in fighting and death. This shows their intentions in being involved in the Crusades were primarily for their Holy Land and religious beliefs. So yes, I believe the Crusades were a Holy War.
DeleteI agree with the argument of the crusades being Holy Wars. Brian quoted the Priest-Chaplain about “forgiveness of sins” and the holy war being a “new path to heaven.” I agree with both of those examples because it gives the Christians a religious reason for the crusade even though the “early christians would have no part in war.” During the seventh crusade, the women walking the street with water and fire is another example of a religious backing for the crusades. One should not fight to be rewarded with paradise or steered away from hell, “but solely out of love for god” (154). Although the original christians were taught to turn the other cheek, I believe all three of these examples are showing how the people are defending/expanding their religious beliefs and what they stand for, making religion a big part of these Crusades. Thus, I believe Crusades should indeed be considered Holy Wars.
DeleteI agree with Brian A., as though the major effects and motivations for the beginning of the war seemed to be for political and economic gain, the people who actually fought the war did it for religious reasons. As stated in our textbook, crusade is derived “from the Latin word crux, meaning ‘cross’” (Bentley 532). The actual people fighting the war did it in the name of the Church, in the name of Christianity. The people fought for the salvation in their religion. They did not fight so that the Pope could gain economic or political power. They fought because the Pope promised “a spiritual reward of remarkable magnitude” (Phillips 163). Thus, the beginning of the wars may have been motivated by political greed of the pope, they were wars fought for the church.
DeleteContinuing your point Matt, the Crusaders held a strong desire to support and spread their religion, providing a foundation for the Crusades themselves. The Crusaders would not have spent up to “four years' annual income" on certain equipment and supplies for the battles if they did not truly believe in their religious cause (Jones 165). The men really put their full efforts into these extremely expensive and laborious battles, which proved especially impressive during a fairly weak time in European history. In Europe, Christianity was the light in the middle of the “Dark Ages” as they were called; so, inhabitants did nearly everything they could to praise and honor their deity, such as taking back the land that they believed was rightfully theirs. Thus, with this mindset and will to fight for their beliefs, the Crusades can be considered Holy Wars.
DeleteI believe that the Crusades were not part of a religious war. The Crusades were a way for the Pope to assert dominance and gain power. The Pope became the leader of an organized people, much like a king or emperor, but he obtained this power by creating the illusion of a “religious war” so that he wouldn’t look like a dictator. He wanted more power and he wanted more land. Originally, as stated by Phillips, the Crusades were started to help France, but once France was seen as a vulnerable government, or an easy target, the knights that were sent to help came together to create the Christian Army. This army was then manipulated by the Pope so he could get what he wanted. The Crusades were not part of a religious war; they were part of the Pope’s greed and desire for control. If you think about it the Crusades started in 1095 only a few years after the Schism (1054) when the Pope’s power was questioned.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Julia that the Crusades were not ‘holy’ and were truly put in place to validate and gain power for the Pope. The support for the Crusades came from the religious art and sermons saying that people needed to atone for the sins of daily life and that the Crusades would help them do that, not necessarily from their pure devotion. The culture of the time also encouraged people to go, as Phillips says, “Christian Europe was also one of the most guilt-ridden societies in history.” This gave the Pope and religion power over people. Originally, the Pope didn’t even look for people devoted to their cause- he just wanted trained knights that could effectively win more power for him. The Pope fought when other people tried to join the Crusades that couldn’t necessarily fight, and he doesn’t even acknowledge them in records. The Crusades, as well as showing the power of the Church, would also help it, as men trying to raise money to crusade would sell their land to the church. Others would sell or leave their lands to monasteries, which would make the Church look richer and improve their image. It all goes back to earning more power or showing more power for the church and the Pope.
DeleteI agree with Julia, I think that it was a power-play by the Pope. After the Pope's kingdom started to fall due to the fall of Rome, the Schism, and the more isolated world of the middle ages, the Pope probably realized he was losing what was once all belonging to him. By bringing so many varieties of people together in a "holy war" he was better able to look after his followers and add new ones to the collection. I also agree with what Lauren says about how the Pope only gets his followers through a sort of corruption; fight and you'll be forgiven. However, it's not part of the religion and has never been the way that Christians have ever been forgiven of sin. The Pope probably knows that the people will take this "easy way out" rather than actually being a good Christian. Because it was founded more on politics, I do not think it can be considered a 'holy war'.
DeleteI agree that the Pope did gain immense political and economic power by starting a crusade against the Muslims, but that is no justification for not classifying the crusades as holy. The Pope not only represented Christianity, but also Western Philosophy. By tying Western philosophy to Christianity and a different philosophy/culture to Islam, the Pope started the crusades, a fact agreed upon by both historians, motivated by and justified by cultural and therefore religious differences, making the crusades holy wars.
DeleteI also agree with Julia. When the Pope began the crusades he said that anyone who joined this “holy” war and helped to seize the holy land would be promised salvation. I don’t really see how fighting and violence could lead to salvation at all. I’m pretty sure that salvation is where one is saved from harm, and if people like the Christian knights are harming others I don’t really see how any of them could achieve salvation as the Pope told them. As Julia said, the Pope called the crusades a holy war in order to hide the fact that he was like a dictator. He gathered all this power and support from the people, simply because he announced that this was a fight to protect and maintain Christianity. It seems to me that the reason why the Pope continued with the crusades despite the fact that eventually the crusaders were able to take back Palestine was that he wanted to extend his rule and power throughout Western Europe. However, with the different groups of religions around in Western Europe no one from those groups would really follow the rule of the Pope. By fighting "heretics" to the Christian faith and killing them none of the other groups would oppose the Pope. So, the crusades were more towards political expansion and power rather than religion. xD
DeleteI agree with Julia that the Crusades weren’t a holy war. Although religion is undeniably a contributing factor to the Crusades, I think the main motivation of Pope Urban II’s wasn’t religion, but power and land. This means that the Crusades weren’t really a holy war. The Pope was motivated by a desire to prove that the Roman Catholic Church, and by extension himself, once again had power, because the Papacy’s authority was questioned recently at that point, he wanted to reassert control over land that they had once controlled without question. In particular, he wanted to take control of the Holy Lands that were the birthplace of Christianity. It was coincidental that these lands were controlled by another religion. These motivations were largely based on the power he wanted for himself, and he just used the fact that the lands were religious and the differences between Christianity and Islam to gain support and a better chance of obtaining the power he wanted.
DeleteI also agree with the economic based war effort. While the crusades were presented under the guise of a religious war, the underlying motives were for the Pope’s greed for power. In order to unite so many people under a single cause, there is no better option to unite upon than Christianity, which was spreading rapidly throughout Europe. Given the Pope’s position, he could easily build a force strong enough to gain the power and land he desired. He utilized many tactics such as guilt and providing incentives to encourage or force Christians to join in his army. He only promoted it under the pretense of gaining more followers and justifying the war effort to them. The real reason for starting the war however, was to gain power and land.
DeleteI agree with Julia that the Crusades, although presented as holy wars, were tools that Pope Urban II used to expand his power through the abuse of his spiritual position. The holy war gimmick was simply used as a ploy to bring the people to action having been incentivized with the promise that “their actions would receive a spiritual reward of remarkable magnitude” (Phillips 163). The Pope, being in this position of spiritual power, could be trusted, as the Pope’s word is said to be infallible, thus, he could bend those who followed Christianity to his will under the ruse that it is God’s will. Those who were strong in the religion would face anything to which they were asked, including almost certain death, if it meant great reward in their eternal afterlives. Those who sought redemption could become martyrs of sorts for the Pope to use to gain the power that he so desired.
DeleteI agree with Julia that the Crusades was not a holy war. Phillips wrote in his essay that in the beginning the pope needed to control some wayward knights because of the already weak central government. He saw the opportunity to unite those knights by giving them the opportunity to go to war, and what better way is there to unite people if not with a common enemy? It seems that the pope just found a good excuse to get into a war that would fix his problems.I also agree with Destinee that getting into a war to gain salvation would be a little contradictory. I doubt that the Christians would blindly murder people for the sake of salvation. War for the “forgiveness of sins” doesn’t really make sense especially since one of the ten commandments states that one should not kill.
DeleteI agree with Julia H that the crusades should not be considered holy wars as the main motive for their conception was not religious: “The pope’s original conception of the crusade was for a compact contingent of knights to assist Emperor Alexius of Byzantium in his struggle again the Seljuk Turks of Asia Minor” (Phillips 164). The pope was not aiming to spread religious salvation for all; he just used the promise of spiritual rewards to entice people into joining the war. If a teacher told people that they would get A’s if they vandalized another school, would it be considered educational? Also, the pope “actively discouraged” (Phillips 167) people from the Iberian Peninsula so that people were not taken from conquering Spain. This action clearly shows the political motives of the Pope. Furthermore, a majority of crusaders did not go for religious reasons. The group of retainers that accompanied the knights or nobles on this journey probably made up a large percentage of the number of people who went to fight in Palestine. Thus, they were just brought along by their superiors; they did not want to go, but their duty forced them to. In addition, “the need to repay debts” and “poor economic conditions” in Europe implies a financial motive that probably drove most crusaders to make the pilgrimage.
DeleteIn response to Brian, I understand that the Crusades tied Western Philosophy to Christianity but I do not believe that was the main reason that the Pope started the Crusades. The Pope wanted power and he knew he could get it if he claimed it with a religious reason; doing things for the benefit of Christianity is his job. In addition, none of the Crusades were successful. If it was a true war centered on Christianity the Crusades would have continued and people would have kept fighting in order to spread Christianity. Also, as in most other wars or campaigns throughout history, the cultures of the civilizations involved in the war spread and even fused naturally. This was because the civilizations were so often in contact with one another; prisoners were taken captive and put into civilizations where everything was different. They were exposed to these other cultures so they changed, or if they didn’t want to they became more indulgent in their own religion. They did not need to make the war about Christianity or religion for religions to spread or change. People are stubborn and will do what makes them happy, and forcing a religion down someone’s throat will not make them happy.
DeleteI disagree with Matt Aronson’s argument that the pope was not aiming to spread religious salvation through the crusades. The whole purpose of the First Crusade was to retrieve the Holy Sepulcher from the Seljuk Turks because the Christians believed it was rightfully theirs. This shows that Pope Urban II had religious intentions for the First Crusade. I think the crusades following the first one were examples of the religions clashing, especially over land. “The clash between Christendom and Islam was a 1, 000- year struggle” (160) and even though these clashes did involve fighting over land, that was because the land was considered holy to both religions. The holiness of the land was the reason it was so important to both religions and why there were continuous wars over it.
DeleteDestinee, I agree that salvation should not involve violence and harm to anyone, but I do not think that was the salvation the Pope was referring to. The Christian people believed that in order to make a place for them in Heaven they must confess and clear all of their sins, but also they had to do good deeds in the world. Therefore, the Pope provided them with an alternate route to Heaven by participating in the Crusades. To the Christians, they believed they were doing right by God by fighting in these wars and spreading the growing religion. In a sense, the Christians were saving themselves from the fear of not getting into Heaven.
DeleteI still agree with Julia that the crusades were not holy wars. However, I do see what Sam’s point is. Depending on a person’s perspective salvation can be obtain through one’s devotion to God by fighting in the crusades or by following the commandments of God, which states that one shall do no harm. Phillips mentioned that due to the terrible economic conditions and climate conditions like droughts “the desire for money may have been a priority for the crusaders” (167). Some people joined the crusades in order to improve their financial status, because they couldn’t earn money through normal means like farming. Not everyone joined the crusades because they had pure motives like destroying God’s enemies or protecting Christianity.
DeleteAlthough there might be different opinions over whether or not the crusades were holy wars, no one can really be sure unless he or she was actually the Pope, who ordered for these crusades to happen in the first place.
In addition to what I said yesterday, Jonathan Phillips also points out that some of the crusaders themselves had ulterior motives. He points out how some crusaders participated in the Crusades for financial gain. Although I don’t think that there were a lot that fit under this category, I think it should still be thought about when discussing whether the motive of the Crusades were in fact categorized as a holy war.
DeleteI'd like to further defend the argument that the crusades were fought not for spreading and defending Christianity, but for gaining political power and economic prosperity. When the pope first decided to help the Byzantines from the Seljuk Turks, he did so to gain their favor, like making him their pope again and therefore increasing his political influence on them. The pope wanted to expand his influence, and he knew that the best way to unite people was to give them a common enemy, the initial being the Turks and later expanding to other threatening nations. He realized that no one would be willing to fight for him if his only reason for invading and killing foreign peoples was to gain more power for himself, so he concealed it behind the "holy war."
DeleteI agree with Julia. I think that the Crusades are best described as publicity stunts masked with the illusion of holy cause. My best argument lies with the crusaders themselves, who "were explicit in their intention never to return to the West and clearly planned to carve out new territories for themselves in the East"(166). I mean, what better opportunity to travel East than for "religious defense", especially when the East had far greater social, economic, and political connections than the West. For example, on page 167, Phillips elaborates that people were searching for instant wealth, raiding graves and stealing relics in the hopes of gaining economic prosperity. That does not sound holy at all. The Crusades and the pretend motivation it used for its insertion into the East was just a very good excuse to get rich quick, or simply pay off debts for many people. I say this because at the time of the Crusades, Western Europe was still in a recovery state and had a very weak economy, and the call of Eastern economic prowess was just too great to resist.
DeleteA holy war is defined as a war motivated or justified by differences in religion. Therefore, the Crusades were holy wars as they fit the above definition. Both historians agree that the Crusades pitted Christians against Muslims, categorizing the belligerents by their religion, not by region or ethnicity. While Phillips identifies Pope Leo's desire to assist the Byzantines as a major factor, his justification for doing so was religion, specifically the differences between Islam and Christianity. In doing so he made the Crusades fulfill the definition of a holy war.
ReplyDeleteTo add, both cultures were strongly built around religion, as Jones points out, so wars due to differences in culture are also justifiably wars due to differences in religion. Also, to support my statement about categorization of the belligerents, Jones remarks that the crusades encapsulates the Reconquista, a war in Spain between Christians and a Muslim culture possesing differences with both Christian/Western and Middle-Eastern/Muslim cultures
DeleteBrian I agree with you that the Crusades were clearly affiliated with religion, but that was not the main reason for the crusades and thus they should not be classified as a Holy War. The wars had major political, social, and economic impacts. Just as you stated the Pope’s true intent of sending the 60,000 people was to help the Byzantine Empire fight against the Seljuk Turks. I believe the intent of aiding the Byzantine Empire was not one of religion though, but of politics because of the power the Pope was trying to gain. Although the Pope may have stated he was trying to take back the Holy Land for religious reasons, the fact of how much power he was trying to gain politically cannot be ignored. Also, the economics effects the Crusade had are explicit and add to the point that the crusades main purpose was not religion. The merchants heading out west were even looking for trade outlets, so it was no accident that the Crusades had huge economic consequences. There were way too many factors outside of religion to consider this solely a Holy War.
DeleteI agree with Brian Buhr that the Crusades should be considered holy wars. The Crusades fit the definition that he provided of what a holy war is. While not every person involved was doing it solely because of their religion, many of them were lured in by the promise of the "forgiveness of their sins". In participating in these crusades, most people thought that they would be brought closer to god. The original purpose of the crusades was said to be for the Christians to "take back their conquered territories and reclaim the Holy land." This common goal is what caused many people to become interested and take part in the crusades. There were obviously other motives that caused people to join, "Urban's offer was so attractive that almost all elements of society were represented on the crusade." Some of these elements were more strongly fought for than others, but all people were striving toward a goal centered around religion. Religion was always the underlying cause of the Crusades. The involved peoples were all trying to honor their religion to the best of their ability.
DeleteI concur Brian. While the battles had some political and economic intentions, the underlying theme seemed to have been religion. On page 159, Jones mentions that the Nine Crusades were “a counteroffensive by Christians against Muslims occupying the Holy Land". The Christian Crusaders initiated their attack on Muslims in order to conquer the land sacred to their religious foundations; thus, possibly bringing them closer to their deity. Christians felt the need to pursue the spread of their own religion as their empire, based off of Christianity, expanded. The Christians believed they deserved possession of Jerusalem whereas the Muslims justified their ownership of the land. Thus, the Crusades can be considered “Holy Wars” as they were motivated by differences in religion, a.k.a. control of a hallowed land.
DeleteI agree with Brian that by definition the way Phillips and Jones talk about the crusades they are describing a holy war. Emily made a good point that even if a decent amount of people were going into the crusades for other reasons than faith it was still the belief Christianity or Islam that made the majority fight. Because of the time period the crusades begin the Pope could very easily be trying to regain his power and manipulate people but that does not change the fact he trying to spread Christianity even if he was twisted in doing so. Also the two religions share the same birthplace, Jerusalem. They would both want Jerusalem because those having control of the city would show that god favors those people more and wants that religion to be the one to control the sacred city. There are other perks with having Jerusalem, like the diverse economy, but Phillips arguments don’t take away the fact that the crusades are based on two different religions fighting for control and instead just shows other benefits that would make people more motivated to fight.
DeleteI agree with Emily that the crusades were at first holy wars. The original intent of the crusades were to seize and take back the holy lands. Pope Urban II promised salvation for those who fell during battle and made it seem that the crusades were a completely religious campaign. As the crusades progress I begin to question weather or not they still fit the title of a holy war. Killing thousands of people and destroying towns is far from anything holy. Leaders of the crusades soon turned them into ways of expanding political and economic influence. People joined the crusades to trade with Muslim merchants and exchange ideas with their counterparts. This goes against people's motives to join in the beginning which was to find religious salvation. The social, economic, commercial and political effects that the crusades have make it less of a holy war. The original intent was to be a holy war, but it soon turned into an outlet for leaders and high class citizens to gain power and wealth. Due to how people strayed away from their original religious intent, I would not classify the crusades as a holy way due to the changes they underwent.
DeleteI agree with Brian that the crusades are to be considered a holy war because of the influences of the religions in motivating conflict. The Christians were largely motivated to the idea of taking back the Holy Land (Jerusalem primarily). The underlying theme to this, in my opinion, is that the philosophical and moral values of Christianity and Islam differ to the point of an "Either with us or against us" conflict of ideas, as Arthur Jones stated. Both Christianity and Islam are public religions that are open to new coverts. Both of these religions became intertwined in the culture of each religions supporting empires. Christian and Islamic values are at the center of these cultures. The motivation to go to war was a feeling that only one can survive to influence a regions culture and way of thinking. This is why the differences between Western philosophy and Eastern philosophy emerged. Mr. Jones used Indonesia as an example of this. Indonesia, an Islamic state, flat-out stated they did not want to be a secular Western state, but only a modern Islamic state. Even today we see this conflict emerge, especially in Sweden, because truly only one can dominate and shape a countries culture, values, and philosophies. The Christians went on offense to spread their Christian based philosophies back to the Holy Land.
DeleteI disagree with Brian's statement that "both cultures were strongly built around religion, as Jones points out, so wars due to differences in culture are also justifiably wars due to differences in religion."
DeleteCommon Christian culture was more based on offshoots of Christian culture than Christianity itself. Ceremonies, sacraments, the idea of papal-condoned violence, symbolism of damnation, and donation as a method of reaching heaven were far removed from the traditional role of religion. These offshoots of Christianity were what was observed, but these offshoots fulfilled more the role of tax-collector or law-maker than spiritual-advisor. The west European culture was based on ceremonies based on religion; claiming that culture was strongly built around religion is like claiming American culture is strongly based on Celtic practices because we celebrate Halloween.
Additionally, only the western European crusaders were motivated by their “faith” to partake in these religious wars. Islamic doctrine strongly discourages fighting other monotheistic faiths, as Christianity and Judaism were at the root of Islam. Hostility towards Catholicism at that time was based on the results of physical attack rather than ideological opposition, though the ideological opposition did follow in time.
I agree with Brian that by definition the Crusades were holy wars. Yes there were other motives and down the line the original motives may have been misconstrued, but the intent of Urban II was to take back the holy lands and the reason that most of the original soldiers enlisted was the promise of salvation. As Jones points out, even today the term for defense against crusaders in all Muslim languages is "the war against the cross." This translation helps prove that the wars were religious based as the Muslims did not call it the war against the west or the war against the Europeans but the war against the *cross*. When a war lasts as long as the Crusades did (nearly 200 years) the original intent is going to be exploited and twisted at some point as different rulers have different methods and motives but that doesn't change the original intent.
DeleteI disagree with Jaclyn's point about how by Brian's logic America is celtic because of Halloween. The Islamic territory was essentially a theocracy (some of it still is today) with taxes and laws built around the Quran. Yes Christians and Jews were allowed to practice openly but this was because they were "The People of the Book" which is still religious. In Europe the religious presence was not as strong but it is safe to say that especially after the Edict of Milan Christianity became an important part of Europe. Also if the offshoots of Christianity influenced laws and taxes then clearly they greatly affected the culture as taxes and laws are two integral aspect of any society.
I agree with Brian that the crusades were holy wars, although some crusaders did take advantage of them. The first crusaders were people from all levels of society that genuinely believed that the crusaders had spiritual ties. Phillips writes, “If people fought God’s enemies on earth and completed a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, their actions would receive a spiritual reward of remarkable magnitude,” and that people saw the crusades “as a new means of attaining salvation” (163). Christians from all different social classes and societies were bound together by their common belief in their religion. This is not to say that the crusades were not home to hidden agendas. “The desire for land was a further motive, but it did not apply to all the crusaders,” also “many charters contain clauses detailing financial arrangements...” (166). These hidden agendas were motivation for some to join the crusades but definitely not all. Overall, I believe the crusades were a primarily holy event.
DeleteJaclyn, I do agree with you that European cultures were influenced by Christian features "far removed from the traditional role of religion," yet religion was still pervasive throughout the culture. Although Christianity's influence differed between regions and "offshoots" were observed, that is expected due to acculturation and the religion still had significant influence on many aspects of life, meaning it affected the culture as a whole. The fact that religion played a role as "tax-collector or law-maker" only further proves how it strongly influenced European culture. Similarly, Islam affects Middle-Eastern cultures by performing the same roles regarding taxes and law. Additionally, my statement was not as far-fetched as claiming, "American culture is strongly based on Celtic practices because we celebrate Halloween." Halloween, a seasonal holiday, is nowhere as pervasive throughout American culture as Christianity, a religion practiced over a lifetime, was in European life during the Crusades. Finally, I agree that Islamic doctrine discourages religious war, and I do understand figures such as Saladin conformed with such doctrine, yet like the Pope, Saladin's predecessor Nur al-Din was only able to unify the Islamic World in opposition of the crusaders’ invasion by utlizing their shared faith, Islam.
DeleteI can see that the Crusades were, by definition, a holy war, so in a way I agree with Brian and see where he is coming from. But the religious overlay of the Crusades was more a way to gain support from various groups that the actual focus. In practice, the Crusades were not a war driven by religion, as there were more non-religious motivations that gained the Crusades more men. Society was very religious already, with donations to monasteries becoming increasingly common, showing the popularity within the culture to show just how pious you really were. By making the Crusades a ‘holy war,’ many people would go out and fight because it was the fashionable thing to do. Eventually, it would become family tradition to go on a Crusade, supporting family ties rather than religious. The knight culture was one of the most violent of the time, and that the Crusades could have been a way to channel that violence. When the Crusaders were actual out traveling, most of the people who couldn’t fight but came for the religious benefit, like women and children, died from things like starvation or desertion- none of which are very ‘holy.’ The economy, stimulated due to the enormous amount of money going into preparing for the Crusades, benefited. More people were out buying and trading, to the point of huge amounts of inflation. The Crusades did have a religious context- to reclaim the holy land- but in reality, the culture of both the society and the Crusades were not really focused on the religious aspect.
DeleteI agree that there was definitely a religious motivation behind the Crusades. However, I don’t think it was the main motivation behind them. I think the Pope had ulterior motives. Pope Urban II wanted more power after the Schism, which was bringing his power into question. Although he clearly had religious motives to start the Crusades, I think he was more concerned with his own power, which makes me believe that the Crusades weren’t truly a holy war. While some commentators point out that the war was a religious war between Christians and Muslims that is not definitive proof that it is a holy war. It could have been coincidental. The question is one of motive. Pope Urban II could have invaded Jerusalem to retake the birthplace of Christianity to control a very important part of his religion's history. The fact that it was controlled by Muslims would have been irrelevant to the reasons why the invasion took place. Had the region been controlled by non-Roman Catholic Christians would people have called it a holy war? Thus you must look toward the motivations for the war, not just who were the combatants.
DeleteI disagree with Brian as the Crusades were simply a means for centralization and were not initiated for the sake of the faith itself, but rather the faith was used to connect these people under one power, the Pope. The Pope was looking for strong warriors, but let the weak fight if they so wanted, to keep the façade that he was sending people for a religious purpose and that God was on their side. The Pope does not even mention the weak masses that were slaughtered, let alone call them the martyrs that he ensured them that they would be. Furthermore, the Church was gaining massive amounts of land from those who wished to raise money for the Crusades, giving the Pope the power that he so desired. Also, the claim that the lands were hallowed gave cause to the people that fought underneath him, giving more false reasoning to his claim that the Crusades were holy acts.
DeleteAustin (Le), I agree that these crusades did have political, social, and economic impacts but I believe it is safe to say that almost all wars will have an impact in the three of those areas. Because of that, I still hold true to my early argument on Jen’s post that the true underlying reasons for these crusades were indeed Holy reasons. The Christians realized that the “Islamic conquest had taken from Christendom its choicest province-Syria, Egypt, North Africa and Iberia” (159). The Crusades were protecting what is true to their religion and not allowing it to be taken by Islam. So while the economical, social, and political aspects of the war are affected by the crusades, the true reason is to protect the holy lands and Christianity as a whole.
DeleteI agree with Emily's comment about the initial intent of the crusades being to take back the holy land they had lost to the Muslims. However, It is also easy to understand the opposing argument about the crusades being a political battle between the expanding European empire and the present Seljuk Turks. After some initial success by the Christians that Pope Urban II sent, 8 other crusades followed. Including ones like the 4th crusade, which, “got bogged down in the more profitable venture of fighting Venice, sacking Constantinople, crushing the Byzantine Empire…”(Jones 161). Fighting Venice, Constantinople, and the Byzantine Empire is not the intent with which Pope Urban II called on troops for one hundred years earlier. This time the “good” Christians fighting in the Crusades were not fighting Muslims, but were instead attacking other Christians, for obviously selfish reasons. Venice and Constantinople were both thriving cities with a lot of wealth that the holy warriors were taking advantage of. So to go back to Brian Buhr’s comment, by definition the crusades are holy wars, but quickly turned into a fight for political or even self benefit.
DeleteAustin (Hayes), I understand your point of there being religious affiliations with the crusade, but I still disagree that Pope Urban’s intentions were religious. I believed he took advantage of the people’s religious dedication to gain his own political and economic power. We are arguing over a man’s intent. We will clearly never know his intent and that is what makes this topic controversial. A reason I believe his intent was corrupt is the crusades go against so many Christian beliefs. He was promoting violence, something that Christ never advocated. Also (as James McMullen pointed out in another post), the children’s crusade was against everything Christian and it was such a corrupt endeavor I can’t see how the Popes intentions were religious.
DeleteAustin (Le) the Children's Crusade is a completely separate event from the other crusades. It was an independent army not led by the Pope but by young men (probably around our age actually). So I disagree that the children's crusade shows that it wasn't a Christian War. And also it was nothing against Christian views. According to the original story a bunch of boys tried to peacefully march into Islamic territory to convert Muslims to Christianity. Peacefully. What is unchristian about that? Now we will never know how much of the story is fabricated but still. The children's crusade must be disregarded when discussing this topic. I would sooner agree with Willy when he said the Crusades were at first Holy Wars but were warped into political wars. The rulers after Urban II had to prove why they were better than their opponent to make the war worth fighting still. Religious superiority was not enough to justify the war so it became about diplomacy and politics in general.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI strongly disagree with many people who are posing the argument that the Pope organized a group of Christians and launched the Crusades for his own political gain. The fact that the Pope gained political and economic power out of the Crusades was a side note that came as a result of his influence among the Christian community. He did not trick or deceive the followers into joining the cause, but they instead supported him for being a figurehead and an embodiment of their religion. People ultimately made the choice themselves to join the cause. Even though he promised that they would “receive a spiritual reward of remarkable magnitude” (Phillips 163), we have to remember that Christians of the time did have some common sense. They knew that the Pope was not capable of granting them eternal salvation, but they joined in hopes that they could build a connection with god and then find possible forgiveness. And isn’t the basis of any religion the want for a divine connection. The Crusades were not driven by the Popes promises but by the people’s beliefs and hopes for the future of Christianity or of their personal spirituality.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you when you say that the Crusaders were motivated to fight by religion, but the Pope did not organize all of the Crusades. Phillips mentions a Crusade organized and executed by children. This shows that the people fighting, or most of them, believed that they were engaged in a religious war and fought for their religion. But I believe that since the Pope did not take part in all of the Crusades that they cannot be considered a holy war. If it had been a holy war the Pope would have been the man behind it from start to finish and he wouldn't have backed down. Unfortunately though, the Crusades were not solely organized by the Pope and they lost most of the Crusades. It is because of the Pope's actions that I believe they were not a holy war.
DeleteThe Crusades were a series of battles fought by people seeking religious advantages in the afterlife for a bunch of greedy politicians.
I do not disagree that many of the facts in the reading and the fact the Pope had just lost power because of the schism make it extremely possible that the Pope was starting the crusades for his own personal gain. However, a majority of the people actually fighting in the wars were doing so because of their faith and without the people there would have been no battles. Also, Julia pointed out the fact that the Pope was not a part of all the crusades. People were fighting for their religion and reconquer the Holy Land even without the Pope’s encouragement which makes me still believe the crusades could be considered a Holy War. It is undeniable that the Pope plays a key role in all of the crusades because he is the one that started them, but the fact that people were fighting for their faiths shouldn't be ignored. We have to look at all the crusades as a whole and not just the beginning. If the crusades had been mostly political people would have given up once the Muslims were winning the majority of the battles.
DeleteI agree with Jen in that the Pope's motives for the crusades were not for personal gain. The Pope stood as mostly just a figurehead in my opinion. He encouraged people to join the crusades so that they may be saved and reach salvation. I don't think he was attempting to con anyone to gain power, but that he actually truly believed this. The Pope is generally completely faithful and it would be unreligious for him to lead the crusades if it were not for the benefit of other people. The people who joined the crusades were not brainwashed, but just faithful and wishful of salvation. Not everyone who joined, joined because of religion but many people took interest because it was being marked as a religious effort. The Pope's personal gains were just a side effect of the crusades themselves. The fact that the Pope was seen as the head of the crusades makes this a holy war. A religious official leading a fight for his religion means that obviously it is a holy war. Even though the crusades definitely adapted into a fight for many other things, there origin was religious and therefore they are undoubtedly a holy war.
DeleteI just realized this but I encourage everyone to also take a look at the point of view of the authors. Arthur Jones is a National Catholic Reporter, which could pose a slight inclination to focus solely on the religious supporting. But I still understand that he displays very effective arguments on behalf of the “Holy Wars”.
ReplyDeleteTo add to Jen's comments about Jones, Jonathon Phillips has dedicated a majority of his career on studying the Crusades and is currently a Professor of Crusading history and also authored books on the crusades. With years of having researched the topic Phillips obviously has a very advanced knowledge of the crusades. However, with this knowledge Phillips would have a lot more to write about that would support his ideas and could have left out any facts that went against his argument.
DeleteI am still of the mindset that the crusades were in fact a holy war. However, I can see the argument for the other side. I think the reason why this debate is so controversial is due to the strong connection between politics and religion. Throughout history we see examples of this in ideas like cesaropapism, mandate of heaven, and divine right. Specifically in Europe, the pope has strong ties to the kings and emperors. Because of this blending of state and spirituality, I believe it is hard if even possible to distinctly separate the two in order to classify the crusades as just a political or religious war.
ReplyDeleteOnce again I agree with Matt. I see where the other side of the argument is coming from with politics being involved, but I think this war should be decided on the original motives. The crusades were not meant to be military wars. In fact, they were pilgrimages which Christians believed were not the same as regular fighting wars. They thought these pilgrimages could get you into Heaven. The Crusaders were attacking the Hoy Land in an attempt to protect christ's kingdom. People like Peter the hermit preached about how the crusades were for God, and so the crusaders were known to shout "God wills it!" Most people won't look at the religious motives as much, but I believe it is what defines the crusades as a Holy War.
DeleteI agree with Brian that we need to look at the original intent of the crusades. Pope Urban II intended on recapturing the holy land solely for religious reasons. Although he may have wanted to gain power by defeating the Muslims, there is no evidence to support that other factors contributed to the start of the crusades. By observing the beginnings of the crusades the argument is clearly sided towards them being a holy war.
DeleteAlthough I think it's merited to look at the origins of the crusades, you can't forget that there was more than one. Pope Urban may have started them as a holy war, but throughout time people have been known to take advantage of opportunities to make money or gain power. As we all know, not all church officials at this time were as pious as one hopes they would be. To say that every single one of the crusades was a holy war I think is a little bit far-fetched due to the politics of the time. Politics is all about getting power and maintaining it, but the priests sometimes took advantage of their highly ranked place in society to climb the social ladder.
DeleteI feel that both sides have very strong arguments, so I'm not so strong on my stance that the Crusades was a holy war. However, I don't think that we should focus on the original intent, that the pope wanted to gain holy land, because the Crusades got so complex and it involved so many different people. The first plan was religious, but you can't say all nine crusades were holy especially the Children's Crusade where children were being starved and sold.
DeleteThe 1202 Children’s Crusade, led by Stephen in France and Nicolas in Germany, causes me to stray away from saying that the crusades were a holy war. Arthur Jones points out that, ”Stephen in France and Nicolas in Germany led several thousand children out of their homelands and into starvation” (161). To call this act holy and religious is something I would not support. Although these children may have been promised salvation, they were obviously being lead to their death. Leading thousands of children to their death is not something holy.
ReplyDeleteI agree with James that the 1202 Children’s Crusade was the farthest thing from holy, but I do not think that this crusade should be the example by which we judge all of the crusades. I believe that the early crusaders, no matter the true intentions of the pope, fully believed that they were fighting for their religion. Like Phillips says, “Spiritual concerns were a prominent factor governing people’s lives in the late eleventh century” (164). As the crusades continued, the crusaders started to deviate from their original motives, and this is where you see the crusades straying from a holy war. The first three crusades (1096-1191) were all focused on the ‘holy land’ and religion, but the next four were all focused on expansionism or economics. In the beginning the crusades were a holy war, but time caused people to forget their original reasoning and turn the crusades into wars used for personal gain.
Delete