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
First comment~
ReplyDeleteA crusade is an organized campaign against a social, religious, or political issue. A holy war (as self-explanatory the phrase is) is a war declared in support of a religious cause. Sure, at the time, the crusades probably most likely had the guise of a “holy war”; however, it appears that the crusades were more of a power struggle than anything else. In the reading, Phillips wrote “[s]piritual concerns were a prominent factor governing people’s lives”, so the whole concept of the crusades could’ve been just some aristocrats who wanted to seize power while claiming it was in the name of God. Likewise, on page 164, Phillips wrote “[t]he pope’s original conception of the crusades was for a compact contingent of knights to assist Emperor Alexius of Byzantium in his struggle against the Seljuk Turks”. Granted, the original purpose could’ve been with good intents, but when you look at the demographics of the people directly involved with crusades, they were wealthy families who could pay monasteries to voice their support for the crusades. This opens up the chance for corruption. Just because they’re monks/nuns/priests/ect doesn't make them resistant to greed.
The way I see it, the crusades weren’t exactly a “holy war”. The crusades could’ve started out with the same concept of starting a holy war. Therefore, the crusades could’ve been similar to a holy war. However, there are too many discrepancies about the purpose of the crusades for me to confidently say that the crusades were a holy war.
I agree completely with Janna's point. I think, also, that it is made clear through Jonathan Phillips' account of Achard of Montmerle, Raymond of Saint-Gilles, and other men like them disproves the possibility of the Crusades being a Holy War. Men saw the opportunity to expand Eastward and develop a more successful life after the "poor economic conditions" of the West (Phillips 166). They were able to achieve this by fighting under the guise of The Crusades being a "Holy War". Although they went along with the Religious aspect of the battles, they likely only participated for the hopes of claiming the newly war-stricken land.
DeleteWas the entire intent of The Crusades for economic gain? No, however the entire debacle cannot be considered a "Holy War" because it is clear that throughout there was evidence of corrupted desire for economic gain.
I have to disagree with the idea that many people participated in the Crusades for economic gain, especially on the personal level. Phillips pointed out that crusaders wrote charters when leaving their homes, and many charters only detailed financial arrangements only if the crusader died. This means that these crusaders had the intentions of coming home, not claiming new conquered land. In fact, the Crusader States were heavily “undermanned,” indicating that very few crusaders chose to become settlers.
DeleteFurthermore, Phillips also says that “there is remarkably little evidence of people returning from the crusade with newfound riches.” Some people did come back with relics, many of which were bequeathed to local churches.
It is unfair to say that piety was not the driving force of crusaders.
They risked a lot of personal wealth to go on long voyages to fight in the holy wars, and they did not return with much more than they left with.
Yeah, they risked a lot to go on the crusades, but that doesn't mean that the crusades were holy wars. It still appears to me that the crusaders could've started with the intent to fight a holy war, but the economic struggle that comes along with going on a crusade can easily change that. Instead of focusing on the original religious motives for going on a crusade, the crusaders could've easily became overwhelmed by the financial struggles. Jenn, like you pointed out, most of them didn't make a profit when (or if) they returned to their homes.
DeleteI still feel like the crusades was a political struggle more than a religious one because it's more of religious leaders trying to gain more influence over people, thus changing the religious affiliations of larger areas and gaining political power.
comment 1
ReplyDeleteI don’t believe the Crusades were purely based on religion and therefore cannot be considered a “holy war”. Beginning with some reasons for joining the crusades stated on page 154 (to gain salvation, wealth, and uphold family traditions of the pilgrimage), proves an economic and social intent rather than just a religious one. I agree with Phillips in that the Crusades cannot be considered a holy war because the 60,000 people who joined were just following the Pope who’s main goal was to help out in the fight against the Seljuk Turks, a political problem. Killing was not a part of the Christian religion, which ended up being like propaganda rather than the true religion with Constantine. Pertaining to Islam, I agree with Fredericks, who stated that religious nationalism also comes with economic competition, also proving that the crusaders were not solely concerned with religion. Although the Christians were fighting for the holy land because of its history, they were still breaking Jesus’s original idea of non-violence in order to do so. Also, like Janna said, the crusaders were mostly led by wealthy families who were able to voice their opinions and pay the monasteries, which led to even more focus on economic/social status. While the Crusades may have started with a religious intent, economic and social greed turn them into political events.
I definitely agree with Kayce that the Crusades shouldn't be considered a "holy war". Social, economic, and political realities all took place during this time, it was not strictly religion. This war began and was influenced by the church in efforts to gain power across Europe. "The Crusades can be viewed as a Christian counteroffensive, designed to take back their conquered territories and reclaim the Holy Land, the site of Jesus's ministry, death and burial" (page 154). Additionally, trade also increased and the economy was improving, which doesn't make this a "holy war". As Kayce mentioned, although this may have started with religious intent, the result of the Crusades wasn't what would have been expected from a "holy war."
DeleteI agree with Kayce and also have some evidence to add to her argument. Much of the motive for these wars was economic as Kayce mentioned. Many merchants in the west were looking for "trade outlets" ( page 161) in the Muslim-controlled East which had many important goods. Also, many crusaders were looking for new land and riches which gave them impetus to embark on this journey although they did end up unsuccessful.
DeleteI agree with Kayce that the Crusades were not based solely off of religion. There were many other underlying factors and motive that evolved during the war, as everyone has already stated (social, economic, political, etc.). Also, Jones cited in his argument that both Christianity and Islam wanted to be public religions, and these conflicting desires brought in many other parts of society. I think that many wars do not just impact one part of society, such as religion, but eventually affects many other parts of society, as economics and trade changed. I think the Crusades started with the desire for religious expansion or control, and as Kayce said with religious intent, but the societies were very powerful in many facets, causing the Crusades to become more than just a "holy war".
DeleteWhile clearly the Crusades had strong religious undertones, the term “Holy War” leads to a superficial understanding of the conflict as a war between the Christians and Muslims over ideology. A better interpretation of the Crusades is seen by looking at the politics and traditions that allowed the power struggle known as the Crusades to occur. Urban II was able to assert his political and religious power by igniting a fight for the Holy Land, a cause he knew Crusaders could rally around. Also wealthy Crusaders were likely able to validate their political power by aligning themselves with a seemingly religious cause. Also traditions, in the form loyalty to their religion and “an existing tradition of pilgrimage to the Holy Land” further undermine the Crusades as a Holy War. Even Jones concedes his argument when he cites a source that states: “[N]ever once during this period is anybody killed in the name of Jesus “ (160). Fighting, as Jones adds, occurred due to more material reasons notably, those political and economic. Pilgrims as well as traders needed to protect themselves and their goods from robbers along established trade routes. Politically, fighting was a way for both the Turkish Muslims who had recently acquired power and European nobility, including the Pope, to assert their dominance which further supports the Crusades as more of a power grab than a Holy War. Overall, rather an Holy War, the Crusades had their origin in political and religious power, tradition and trade instead of religious ideology.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this analysis wholeheartedly. The Crusades was not a conflict exclusively focused on the religious ideologies of two prominent, conflicting religions. Rather, the conflict was for political power, and subsequently, economic success. It would be foolish to deny the presence of religious impetus in the Crusades; however, leaders of the Crusades were far more concerned with acquiring land, wealth, and power. Seemingly undermining his argument, Jones explains that relics were often brought back from the Crusades, becoming items of great fortune. To even address the concept of economically profitable endeavors as a result of the Crusades undermines this “Holy War,” that I believe to be a misnomer. To add to Eric’s point that Jones concedes his argument by acknowledging the fact that Jesus, a truly religious purpose, was not the cause of any death during the Crusades, I would like to note the point of view of Arthur Jones. Jones is an author for the National Catholic Reporter. With relative certainty, I can say that this fact would make Jones himself a Christian. This inevitably leads me to question Jones true motive for writing. Is it to accurately, but persuasively retell of the “Holy War” of The Crusades? Or is it to assert emotions of Christian superiority over other religious peoples? I tend to believe the latter, as Jones makes it a point to include a quote that sites Christianity as the “center of culture.” As it seems, the Crusades was a political conflict infused with religious undertones in order to gain support for a power movement that no one would have otherwise supported.
DeleteBefore delving into the article, I took note of both authors and their backgrounds as listed on the top of the first page. I immediately found something that led me to be skeptical about one point of view. Arthur Jones is a "National Catholic Reporter." This bit of information made me question the way he would approach the argument considering the bias he would already have towards the topic (in regard to his job).
ReplyDeleteWhen reading Jones's perspective, I noticed that all of his arguments were centered around religion. Obviously, something will seem like a religious topic if all one discusses is religion. Jones went on to quote Phillips's argument, explaining that side of the debate. However, he never says that Phillips is wrong. He doesn't do anything in regard to Phillips's answer... He instead continues to go on about religion being the cause of the Crusades.
I do not think the Crusades should be considered a holy war and I do not think they should be considered a non-religious war. There were obviously many factors that came into play and reasons why the Crusades were fought, as Phillips mentioned: "The promise of salvation, the lure of wealth, and family traditions of pilgrimage" (154). The mix of religious reasons and the reasons previously stated made the Crusades, the Crusades. Honestly, who cares if it was a "holy" war or not? It happened, there were reasons for it, and it can be interpreted by anyone.
Nice catch, Rachel!
DeleteI just noticed this when I reread the first page intro! There is definitely a biased perspective here in Jones' argument. You're right, Jones never says Phillips is wrong. This is why I think Phillips had the best argument. The economic factors, while acknowledged to exist in Jones' argument, are made most clear in Phillips' piece. Phillips does a great job of putting religious fervor into a more balanced perspective.
DeleteI do not think either of these arguments really pose the question of Jihads. They are mentioned briefly, but we do not really get a Muslim point of view in these two pieces of writing. It would be very interesting to see Muslim bias, and at least a greater mention of jihads. It deserves more than a few lines of coverage. Why haven't we talked about their actions more? I would like to see some other bloggers comment on what they have learned of the Muslim perspective, not just the Christian Crusades as the holy war.
REMEMBER everyone, that the ties between Christianity and Islam are real. They share many key figures. Therefore, the Levant and Jerusalem are sacred to both religions. It is really important to get both perspectives.
I agree with Justin that a Muslim point of view would add depth to the argument. Jones briefly discusses views of violence in both Muslim and Christian culture. As Christianity emerged, a philosophy of nonviolence was communicated. Muslims, on the other hand, never renounced violence. They only believed that all violence should be defensive. The Holy Land was holy to both religious groups, so one saw itself as defending what was rightfully theirs and the other saw itself as sacrificing a belief for the greater good, reconquering a place that rightfully belonged to them. There were religious incentives to fighting on both sides.
DeleteRegardless, I agree with the point that Jones’ bias kept him from commenting on other possible reasoning behind the crusades. As many others before have stated, there could be a difference in motivation to fight between Pope Urban and the higher class and the people that were actually fighting the war.
I believe that an individual could consider that the Crusades was a Holy War. During the eleventh century, religion was a huge influence in many lives. Because religion was so important during the eleventh century, many people, whether rich or poor, were attracted to the Crusades. As Jones said, “Sin was ubiquitous in everyday life and the images of fire and torture so frequently depicted on churches reinforced the fear of eternal damnation” (164). Many people sinned so much that in order to escape the eternal damnation, they joined the Crusades to atone for their sins. The Church used lots of propaganda, such as depicting the images of fire and torture, causing people to fear dying and ending up in Hell. Therefore, religion was a major factor of why people joined the Crusades, thus leading to the conclusion that the Crusades could be considered as a Holy War.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you nick totally. The crusades were in essence a holy war. Though many have said that it was fought for social, political, and economic gain, and I do agree to some extent, I feel stronger on the matter that the crusades were a holy war. As obvious as it sounds, the two groups fighting in these wars were the christians and muslims. The quote you mentioned which Jones clarifies, couldn't sum up the matter better. Sin was ubiquitous in everyday life and the images of fire and torture so frequently depicted on churches reinforced the fear of eternal damnation” (164). People whether christian, muslim, or a member from another religion were sining everyday. It's commonplace. It's human nature and its what we do. As a way to atone for all of the sins that had been committed, people joined the war so that when their last breath came they would not be damned to hell but rather granted a pass to heaven. Religious expansion was huge during this time. Religion permeated the lives of many. And so as people with separate beliefs lived in the same quarters tensions began to rise. The seljuk turks had taken over country after country and as a result placed them under islamic rule. Christians felt the need to rise up and reclaim the lost land. So the crusades erupted. Christians took up the cross to fight to regain the holy land which was thought to renew them not only spiritually but physically. While Phillips does make a multitude of good points, I do have to disagree and support the idea that the crusades were a series of holy wars.
DeleteI concur with both Nick and Connor. Though the people behind the Crusades like Pope Urban II may have had several ulterior motives involving political or economic advancement, I would say that the Crusades were wars fueled majorly by religion. As Connor stated, Jonathan Phillips did indeed make a couple of good points about the misnomer of the Crusades being “Holy Wars”. However, also agree with Connor that those points were not strong enough. For example, though Phillips did make a couple of examples of participants in the Crusades that may not have had fully religious motives, those people were most likely rare. I find it hard to believe even more than a quarter of the “almost 60,000 people [who] set out for the Holy Land” would have joined the Crusades for only monetary reasons (Philips 163). The Crusades were stark, and as Phillips pointed out himself, costly, so ventures for wealth were not worth the journey. Consequently, those people who joined the Crusades were not participating for their own self gain, but for their beliefs. In fact, as both Arthur Jones and Phillips stated, Urban did not promote the Crusades in any other way but religion. Urban handed out crosses, and even verbally stated that one should go on these Crusades for religious devotion alone. The participants in the Crusades were mostly motivated by religious purposes, and so the Crusades could be considered “Holy Wars”.
DeleteI disagree with Nick and Connor’s argument. The new Oxford Dictionary defines holy war as "a war declared or waged in support of a religious cause.” While religion played a major role in persuading individuals to join the Crusade, the wars were not waged primarily in the support of a religious cause. Rather an underlying desire by both Urban, and the Christians in general, to assert their authority was a major cause for war. Looking at the motivation of the the leaders such as Urban provides greater insight into the true nature of the wars rather than looking at the motivation of the common man who may have simply followed the guidance of his leaders. Also I do not believe the economic, social and political reasons mentioned by Dan should be understated; a myriad of reasons other than religious motivation could have prompted an individual to join Urban’s call. The stimuli behind the Crusades are just to varied for them to be labeled simply as a Holy War.
DeleteEric, I disagree you. The Crusades could be considered as a Holy War because when George Bush declared a crusade on terrorism, many Muslims reacted in an uproar. As Jones said “[…] Muslims actually believe America had declared a ‘Holy War’ against them” (155). The Muslims felt threatened because they believed that the declaration was a war on their religion, Islam. In the article, Jones talks about how a contemporary writer described the Crusades as “ ‘a new means of attaining salvation’ ” (163). Following the declaration of the Crusades, about 60,000 people set out on the Crusades. This means that the people were motivated to join the Crusades because they wanted to attain salvation and go to heaven. Their will and motivation was purely religion based. Also, the new Oxford Dictionary’s definition of a holy war further supports my claim of the Crusades being a Holy War. The Crusades was a war declared and waged in support of Christianity and its principles. Therefore, the Crusades could be considered as a Holy War.
DeleteThere are some points in both Eric’s argument and Nick’s response that I agree and disagree with. Eric stated that the common man who participated in the Crusades could have been following Pope Urban’s manipulative guidance instead of participating for religious reasons. The problem with this statement is that Pope Urban did not seem to promote the Crusades in any other way but religiously and therefore did not misguide the common man. In fact, according to Arthur Jones, the Crusades were started by Urban calling upon the “factious European kings and princes to band together and recover the Holy Sepulcher”, which seems like a pretty religious cause for the declaration of a war (Jones 161). Also, when promoting the Crusades, he promised people religious salvation for the fallen in the wars. So, there would be no way for commoners to misconstrue his words for joining the Crusades for non-religious reasons, which means that most of the people joined “in support of a religious cause” as a result of Urban’s declaring the Crusades as for a religious cause. However, I do agree that maybe some people had a “myriad of reasons other than religious motivation” for joining, which brings me to my disagreement of Nick’s stating that all 60,000 original crusaders were had will and motivation that “was purely religion based”. Even so, I still maintain my belief that not many of the crusaders could have had those other reasons for joining after the Crusades being promoted as purely religious wars. The Crusades were mostly religious based, and they were declared, even if it was just on the surface, in support of a religious cause, making them “Holy Wars”.
DeleteDan I disagree with your disagreement towards Eric. Yes, Pope Urban did promote the Crusades only religiously. It is also possible that the people that joined the Crusades did it only for religious reasons. However, the Pope could have very easily had many more motives for himself other than religious ones that he did not display to the public, and by persuading tons of people to join him in the thought that they would achieve salvation, he could make them do anything.
DeleteFurthermore, I believe the real reasons of the Pope for the Crusades was to simply gain power and status. You can persuade anyone if you target something that means everything to them, in this case salvation. By persuading them, you can influence everything they do in your favor. It has happened a countless number of times throughout history and is a technique that has clearly proven quite successful.
DeleteMike, I partially agree with your analysis, however we cannot overlook the possibility that the Pope's motives were not always for economic expansion. As the first response hinted at, any real "takeover" did not occur until after the strong opposition to Christians imposing their religion. Therefore, I think the case can be made that Pope Urban truly only had religious intentions in mind and any economic gain and increase in power was exclusively a (very predictable) aftermath of an otherwise "Holy War"
DeleteDue to the differences in Christianity and Islam, I believe that these were, in fact, holy wars and not Crusades. For example, on page 156 it states that "'Christianity has made its peace-an uneasy truce-with secular culture." However, Muslims do not belive in the same cause as Christians: "'But secularism-with all the immorality that comes with it-isn't going to cut it for [Muslims]. [Muslims] [aren't] that kind of people. We want to be an Islamic state" (157). The idea that the Christians want to show their point-of-view through means of war prove that these wars were just "holy wars." Although Christans eventually fight for land, giving the idea of a Crusade viability, the fact that they were also fighting in order to instill Christian beliefs and ideals into the Muslims shows that they were mostly fighting "holy wars."
ReplyDeleteWhat do you mean holy wars and not crusades? I believe one of the articles suggests the meaning of crusade to many Muslims is the incursion of Europeans into the Holy Land. Isn't crusade the same word, then, as holy war? Just as jihad is basically holy war in arabic? And for the Arabic Empires in conflict with the crusaders, isn't their defense of the Holy Land a crusade of their own?
DeleteDavid, I agree with your point that the Crusades were originally religious wars although, I do not believe that the Christians were trying to "instill their beliefs and ideas into the Muslims" because their main purpose was to reconquer holy sites of their religion. It is too much of a generalization to say that they were mostly fighting holy wars because there were many other important contributing factors. The Christian Europeans were looking to improve their trade with these regions and also selfish individuals, as Corinne pointed out in a previous post, wanted to increase their personal fortunes. A lot of the drive behind the crusades and for the people who participated was economic (and also political) so I think it would be inappropriate to deem The Crusades as "mostly" religious wars.
DeleteDavid- I disagree with your statement that the crusades were just “holy wars.” Yes, they started with religious purposes but they didn’t strive throughout the years solely on religion. In my post from yesterday I made my statement that the crusades were not appropriately deemed “holy wars” because they are not just religion-based conflicts. I stand by that argument because religion sparked the invasions/wars but economic and political interference instigated more conflict which prolonged the crusades. I agree with your point that the crusades were mostly fought for religious reasons but I believe that you put too much of a spot light on that one topic.
DeleteEmma- I liked the way your phrased your perspective that there were “too many contributing factors” to call the crusades “holy wars.” My thoughts were kind of jumbled but you put it perfectly and I completely agree. Politics and economics should not simply be dismissed as small side factors. Changes in the political sphere and economy have tremendous effects on regions as a whole and no war is complete without the interference of the two.
While there were political and economic motives associated with the Crusades, they are ultimately a result of religious intentions and should therefore be considered a Holy War. At their very essence, “the Crusades were a clash of religions” (156). As the two religions grew, becoming more powerful and influential, there came a point where it was uncertain who would be the more powerful of the two faiths. Neither group wanted to be subjected to the power of the other: “‘Christianity wants to be a very public religion’…. The same statement, [Fredricks] said, can be made about Islam” (157). Because both religions were trying to avoid being subjected to the other, fighting over a land that was important symbol of power and was therefore desired by both religious groups. The Crusades did have political undertones, but at their very essence, they were Holy Wars.
ReplyDeleteI agree completely good job.
DeleteMitch, I regretfully say that i disagree with your response. Although the crusades had the guise of a Holy War against the Muslims, the intent of the followers and fighters of the crusade was what really defined what it was; an attempt at political unification by diversion.
DeletePope Urban II's original intent of the crusade was possibly a diversion of for the feudalistic knights of his home of France "endemic lawlessness which was often initiated by the knights themselves" (Phillips 164). He reached out to these knights to allow the return of governmental power to the regions of feudalism and also to give quest to the knights who otherwise had no peacekeeping jobs.
A second validation for my claim is the main body of participants in the First Crusade; different groups of regular people from western Europe. During this time, Western Europe was a sin-plagued area, and many were looking for a cheap, easy way to save themselves from eternal damnation. Many of the followers of the crusade did not believe wholeheartedly with its ideals, but were looking for a scapegoat for all of the misdeeds they had done throughout their lives.
Boom.
Schlag, as much as I hate to disagree with your disagreement of my previous argument, especially since you were "boom"-ing with good information, I have to do it. Your argument is simply not sufficient. Yes, there were political motives that played huge roles in the Crusades, but that's war. When it comes down to it, very few times in history will you see wars fought completely with the absence of political influence. Pope Urban II was just as much a political leader as he was a religious leader, so I do understand your confusion concerning his role and motives in the Crusades. Because of the duality of his roles, many people (just like you, Schlag) confuse what are essentially religious actions with actions that are simply political moves. This is wrong. Even in the most political of situations, the Pope will default to his religious convictions when ruling his people. So, although there were political upsides to fighting the Crusades, the Pope was ultimately motivated by his devotion to his religion.
DeleteYour second "validation" involving the Crusades is actually an argument in my favor, so thanks man, you really know how to help a guy out. Western Europe was a sin-plagued area! Participants in the Crusades were trying to save themselves from eternal damnation! John Phillips describes them as being "one of the most guilt-ridden societies in history" (154). Their participation in the Crusades in attempt to reconcile for their sins absolutely shows how these wars were Holy Wars. If any political interference can be argued in the Pope's case, it is completely invalid to say that the peasants of Western Europe traveled thousands of miles for "an attempt at political unification."
Schlag I didn't want to do it, but you didn't really give me a choice. You're a great guy; I hope we're still pals and all. See you in school tomorrow guy.
The Crusades should not be considered holy wars because there were too many factors other than religion contributing to them. First of all, Pope Urban II started the Crusades to channel violence from France and to assist Byzantium with the Seljuk Turks. Only after this, did the Pope want Crusaders to move on to the 'Holy Land." Also, many Crusaders were drawn to this adventure because of poor economic conditions. Droughts and bad harvests killed crops and farmers thought that somehow through these Crusades they could accumulate wealth, even though that usually wasn't the case. Although Islam was a threat to these Christians (it pushed all the way up to Italy and France) the Crusades can't be considered purely a "Holy War" because there were too many other political and economic factors.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the Crusades should not be considered holy wars because of the multitude of non-religious motivations that pushed it. In addition to Joe's examples, another important factor in the Crusades was the threat of the growth of Islam. The Crusades were not so much to promote Christianity but more to stifle the growth of Muslim influence. As pointed out by Chevedden, "Islamic conquest had taken from Christendom its choicest province- Syria, Egypt, North Africa and Iberia [Spain and Portugal]." Therefore, the threat of Muslim power and influence in previously Christian territory was unacceptable and pushed the Pope to go on the offensive to reclaim influence. Because the Crusades were a politically motivated power struggle, they should not be considered holy wars.
DeleteI completely agree Joe. For example, on page 217 the author speaks of crusaders slicing open buried Muslims in search of treasure. Not only are the crusaders clearly searching for financial gains, but they are also desecrating the graves of dead humans. This is not exactly a common practice of a devout Christian. Phillips also talks about the infighting between different contingents of the crusaders on page 168. Clearly the "religious wars" were not so religious if they were easily overcome by greed. This leads me to believe that the crusades were economic wars, not religious wars.
DeleteI agree with Kate and Joe in that the Crusades had many nonreligious purposes behind it. Beside the examples other people already mentioned, one example can be seen on page 164 when Phillips talks about how the knights at that time were creating anarchy and "the crusade may have been one way to channel [the] violence elsewhere." This shows another political purpose crusade served. All the nonreligious motives were not the only reason why I don't think the crusades should be considered holy. There are very many components of the crusades that keeps it from being a "holy war." First is that the pope tried to keep people like women, children, poor, old, etc. If the crusades really were based on religious reasons, they should have let the weak fight since they are fighting for one reason. However the fact that they limited the weak shows that they had intentions of winning not just for their religion but also for political and economic reasons. Another detail that shows how the crusades were "unholy" is the cruelty the crusaders showed during their journey. Phillips states on page 167 that some crusaders dug up bodies of Muslims from their graves and even opened their bodies up to see if there were any valuables they could use. Yes, this is from the lack of money to keep the journey going, but if it really was to be a "holy war," such brutal actions should have not been done no matter what.
DeleteI agree with Joe completely. First off, I believe that they happened out of retaliation to Muslim conquests. As Kate said, the Muslims gained vast amounts of previously Christian influence, spreading as far as "north into Italy...Monte Cassino, St. Benedict's monastery, then moved into eastern Switzerland"(159). Islam had spread right into the current stomping ground of Christianity. I believe that the Crusades occurred to quell a full scale Muslim takeover in the rest of Europe, as Islam had already conquered much of Christianity's former territory. Also, I believe that after the first Crusades, they became less of a religious issue and more an economic and political one. The Christians used their religious ties to the Holy Land as an excuse to invade in the later Crusades, as the Holy Land was in a much more influential and prosperous place than any of Europe. Phillips said it best: "Although the religious motivation of the First Crusaders should be emphasized, it would be naive to argue that other interests were absent"(166). So although the Crusades started as a "holy war", it quickly became a war of greed and desire, with political and economic affluence replacing religious motives.
DeleteI agree with Joe as well, however, I focused more on the economic piece of the Crusades. Before I read this article, I always considered the Crusades as “holy wars”, because it was Christians versus Muslims. However, by the end of Jonathon Phillips section, I was convinced that there were a myriad of other major factors, which played a role in the Crusades. At first the Crusades consisted of knights, however Pope Urban II’s message also struck the more common people, and eventually the crusades were joined by noncombatants, who needed to be fed and protected (165). In addition, nobles also joined the Crusades for allegiance and loyalty, yet “the desire for land was a further motive” (166). Some men were so determined to settle in the new territories in the East that they vowed to never return to Europe, or the West (166). One reason that they wanted to move away from the West were the poor economic conditions that were caused by droughts and bad harvests (166). As a result, these people viewed the Crusades as a way to escape. In addition, many of the people participating in the Crusades sought newfound riches, yet “there is little evidence of people returning from the crusade with new-found riches” (167). Therefore, I view the Crusades as more of an economic war rather than a “holy war” against the Muslims.
DeleteAllan's paradigm shift is quite similar to mine! Joe is right, too.
DeleteAllan: I, too, originally considered the Crusades a holy war. However, i believe that Jones' piece of comparison is weak. The modern situation is deeply rooted in more current events. Osama Bin Laden's money comes from a construction firm, a modern business, and the comparisons of Qu'ran text to his actions in helping orphans and poor is interesting but irrelevant. I believe Bin Laden was most likely just another wealthy man influencing others with his views. Jones should not try to compare a modern event with different causation to a medieval event where anti-Western sentiments did not really exist yet.
Ranting about Jones' argument aside, I was really intrigued by the widespread analysis inherent in Phillips' argument. The political and economic factors behind the Crusades are quite important. Pope Urban II's political hopes and aspirations on page 164 suggest anterior motives in calling the First Crusade. Phillips continues his sound analysis of economic motives on page 166. Many crusaders were influenced to take the cross by ancestors. Pilgrimmage in Christianity was common among the wealthier classes, as they could afford it. Therefore, the Crusades offered opportunity for another pilgrimage. Phillips elaborates on this familial background by explaining that when crusaders arrived in the Levant, they were economically spent and several crusaders remained there out of necessity. The land they seized was a bartering tool for them, and economic method of survival in a foreign world. When nobles brought along their retinues, many of the squires and their families died because of economic hardship. Thus, the economic implications of the Crusades were indeed an important part of the whole conflict.
Calling the Crusades a Holy War leaves an impression that the Crusades were entirely and solely a religious conflict between Christianity and Islam. I do not believe that there were not other motives besides religious ones. I agree with Jonathan Phillips that the Crusades are not a Holy War. I believe the only reason it is even possibly considered a Holy War is to mask the immoral and violent acts that were trying to be achieved economically and politically. The Pope utilized the false name of “Holy War” in order to gain support of the wide variety of people who ultimately wanted to achieve salvation, giving the Pope much more power and expressing the power of the Roman Catholic Church. The Pope promised the Knights of the army that fighting was “an opportunity of salvation” (164). This concept totally contradicts the meaning of salvation! Not only this, but the reading clearly states that people joined the Crusades solely to reap land (economically) and political power.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Mike in that the name “holy war” was just propaganda to try to get people to join the crusades. The promise of wealth and salvation attracted many people. Another point of evidence that supports his ideas on Islam is on page 157, when Fredricks explained that originally Islam was meant to just be a submission to Allah and was meant to renounce any sinful and violent culture. If the crusades were purely based on religion, the followers of Christianity and Islam would have put the original teachings of the Bible and the Quran before economic and political benefits. Recognizing that there should be a “universal humanity and morality” (157) was clearly overlooked in the so-called “holy war.”
DeleteKayce, I think you brought up a really important point. "Holy war" is such a powerful and emotionally triggering phrase. It is likely that the term was used to encourage any religious person to join the fight.
DeletePropaganda has been used countless times throughout history to persuade people to become part of an argument that is pretty weak. For example, Hitler's use of propaganda showed people that Jews weren't human beings with rights, which is ridiculous and obviously inaccurate. I think the use of propaganda to gain support is used most often to back up a weak fight.
In my opinion, the Crusades were not a "holy war," in fact, they shouldn't have even been a war. The simple issue of believing in two different ideas and wanting a city that doesn't belong to you should not have to become a bloodbath in order to be resolved. Get over yourselves and just talk it out. There's no need to use propaganda to trick tons of people into leaving their families to fight for a ridiculous cause.
I agree with both Mike and Kayce that to call the Crusades a "holy war" should mean that there were only religious motives. Trying to attract attention by naming this a "holy war" was just a way for others become a part of the Crusades. "The peace isn't total, and opposition to the peace does not just come from Christian reactionaries, traditionalists, and conservatives” (157). This statement goes against the idea of everything being about religion. Also in the reading, people joined the Crusades for their own benefits in trade and economy, as Mike mentioned.
DeleteI believe the Crusades was a series of conflicts that originated with religious motives but also instigated economic and political motives. It’s not solely a “yes” or “no” question because there were many factors that went into the Crusades. For example, the sole purpose of these conflicts was to regain “Holy Land” in Jerusalem and spread Christianity. The oppressors were Muslims that wanted to spread the Islamic religion. In the article, it is stated that “Islam had the Holy Land, and the pope wanted it back” which proves that the catalyst of the Crusades was completely religion based (159). However, as time went on and the conflict evolved, motives swayed. The wars were also supported by people who desired wealth and a stronger political representation or reputation. Also, as Constantine began raiding the Holy Land, political and economic involvement by the Muslims was necessary for them to stand up for themselves. Another motive was personal satisfaction. People fought side-by-side knights and gained a noble reputation, boosting their political stature. Lastly, people fought to control Jerusalem, gain land, and strengthen their empire. These selfish motives were derived from the original religious motive which leads me to presume that the Crusades was a “holy war.” However, the term “holy war” is not completely appropriate. I agree with some of my classmates’ previous posts about the political and economic contributions not allowing us to consider the Crusades singularly a “holy war.” On page 164, it says that “the pope's original conception of the crusade was for a compact contingent of knights to assist Emperor Alexius of Byzantium in his struggle against the Seljuk Turks” and from this we can infer that the war was backed by various motives. The reason why the war was fought and continued to be fought was religion. Like every event in history, there is not one definite purpose for conflict but there is a main purpose; in this case, the purpose was religious motives. Ultimately, the supporters of the Crusades longed for a religious victory. Therefore I am going to say that, yes, the Crusades should be deemed a holy war.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Corinne in that the Crusades started as a "counteroffensive by Christians against Muslims occupying the Holy Land" (159). I can see how the Muslims religiously pressured the Christians through their missionary activities and their appealing to a big range of people. However, I think just the religious threat of the Muslims wasn't enough for so many Christians to go on that extensive of a journey. I think it was more of way to gain political, social, and economical power and position, since fighting for God seemed very holy and honoring for the Christians during that time period. Also, if it really was a holy war to gain control of the Holy land, they should have tried to keep their Christian integrity as much as possible, but they did show very immoral and inhumane actions. Therefore, the Crusades do not qualify as a "holy war."
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete*Accidentally posted in period 4-5... The Crusades are to be considered a holy war because of the influences of the religions on culture, philosophies and values, which conflicted and motivated 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, and the Islamic Arabs in the Holy Land saw this as an attack to Islam's culture, philosophies and values.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, I believe to understand the argument of the Holy War and the crusades, you need to define what a Holy War really is. In basic definition, a Holy War is a war declared or waged in support of a religious cause. So technically, by definition, the crusades were a Holy War because of their allocation b Pope Urban II. But it's not that simple.
ReplyDeleteBecause of economic pressures and grasps for power, "ties of alliegence and loyalty should be advanced as a further reason for taking the cross"(Phillips 166). Phillips is trying to explain that most of the armies involved in the Crusades were lead by nobles who were only in it for the power and money involved with this mass pilgrimage.
In muslim defintioin, a holy War is a war waged in protection of Islamic religion and culture. This truly is a war in protection of religion, unlike the Christian crusaders who were the aggressors in the case.The crusaders were not exactly defedning against an explicit aggressor to their culture or religion, but rather the expansion of the Mulsims at the time.
That is why there is not a simple yes or no answer to this question. If I did have to lean to one sid of the argument, I would support the side that the crusades were not a Holy War.
I support your reasoning to an extent. While i do feel that the Crusades had actions of both a religious war and nonreligious war, I do have to side with the idea that the crusades were a holy war. You mentioned that it was a more political and economical conflict and that i would agree to an extent. While a majority of the evidence that Phillips presents claims that the crusades were to expand the empire and take back land that was lost by the seljuk turks or other islamic groups. Phillips explains that to join a crusade it was expensive. This does make a lot of sense. However i tend to side more with Jones. In an earlier comment I mentioned a quote by jones which stated "Sin was ubiquitous in everyday life and the images of fire and torture so frequently depicted on churches reinforced the fear of eternal damnation” (164). This idea that one was to be damned to Hell, woke people to their senses. As a result people took up the cross to fight for jesus and to renew themselves physically and in spirit. No one was forced to fight these wars. But the dedicated christians took up the cross to fight and to reclaim the holy land that had so wrongly been taken from them. So while it could have been seen as a political tactic, it seems to me that it was more of cultural tactic to not only reclaim christianity in those lost lands but also to spread the word of god to areas that hadn't really yet experienced. So while the evidence you presented makes since, I tend to side more on the idea that the crusades were a holy war.
DeleteI disagree with both of you. While religion was definitely a part of the Crusades, it was not a large enough component to allow us to call them holy wars. First of all, there were other political and economic factors, but I already talked about those in my comment above. Another thing to look at is the actions of the men in the Crusades. They were "seriously undermanned" and few chose to remain in the "Holy Land" and become settlers according to Phillips. These don't sound like the kind of men that are really adamant about advancing their religion. Additionally, monks, women, and children were forbidden to go. Now obviously they would be a burden when it came to fighting, but, if you were planning on taking and securing the "Holy Land" you would need women and children to settle the area and monks to help spread the religion. Religion did play a big part in the Crusades, but there were too many components that show that these weren't true "Holy Wars."
DeleteI agree with Drew that the Crusades really weren't that simple to call a "holy war". I do think that the wars were based off of religious incentives as both Christianity and Islam were trying to expand. But I also think that the wars extended to more parts of society as more people got involved. I don't think that it's entirely possible to have a war based solely off of religion, especially as people and society become more complex. So the first intentions of the Crusades might have been for religious gains, earning the name "holy war", but as more people joined the war I think that the term "holy war" was used more as propaganda, as others stated/commented a couple of posts above. As more people started to join the wars, they began to take advantage of religious loyalty and used the term "holy war" to guilt or persuade others to join.
DeleteI agree with Joe on this one. Sure, the pope used the guise of a "holy war" to encourage support. In addition to the multitude of social and economic factors that driving the Crusades, the fact that there was no true commitment to religiously securing the land after the Crusades were won shows that religion was only a small piece of the puzzle. The Crusades were more of a political move than "holy war".
DeleteI do not believe the crusades could be considered a holy war because “the pope’s original conception of the crusade” was to help Emperor Alexius of Byzantium against the Seljuk Turks before heading to the “Holy Land” (164). In addition, these knights were looking for action and conquest (161) and as a result, the original crusade became an attempt to move the violence that the knights were causing in a weak region in France to another place rather than just retake the “Holy Land”. However, on page 163, “The crusade therefore appealed to people from almost every level of society right across Christian Europe”. This means that there must have been an incentive for why people would fight among violent knights and risk their lives. It was to escape their past and begin a new life with all of the financial problems gone. More importantly, because both religions, Christianity and Islam, are public religions, they became a threat to each other. Therefore, when “the West got the technological edge in military stuff” they began to push onto the “Holy Land” (160). Finally, on page 167, many people became deserters leaving the army unstable. I take this statement as a supporting detail that the participants of the crusades were more in for the individual prize than fighting for Christianity. In the end, I believe that the crusades were a political move for the Pope, and leaders (Prince Edward who became King Edward I after launching the final crusade), and an economic war for all levels of society in Europe.
DeleteThe Crusades were pilgrimages, plain and simple. John Green thinks so, and so do I. During the first Crusade in 1096, Christians attempted to regain the holy land of Jerusalem from the Muslims. Although this idea of regaining land in order to have more holy ground seemed good to the Christians, the fact that it took 350 years after the creation of Islam for a person, Pope Urban II, to mount a crusade questions the true intent of these “holy wars.” On page 161, it states that pilgrims traveling along the trade routes would often be attacked, and the crusades wanted to allow these traders to feel safer along these trading networks. This idea of having Crusades for trade does not make the Crusades “holy wars.” If the Seljuk Turks never came along to destroy Anatolia, Pope Urban II may have never attempted to launch the Crusades; the idea of helping the Byzantine emperor, though, was a main cause for the beginning of the Crusades, proving that the Crusades were not “holy wars.”
ReplyDeleteDavid I agree that the Crusades were a pilgrimage of Christians, but the Seljuk Turks attacked the Christians because they viewed the spread of Christian philosophies and values as a threat to their own Islamic values and philosophies. A reoccurring theme over time is that both Christianity and Islam cannot coexist equally. Arthur Jones's stated the conflict as 'Either with us or against us" (157). The conflicting ideals of Christianity and Islam make the relationship either with or against. By being a Christian, some Christian ideal values are already conflicting against the ideals of Islamic values. Both religions societies differ greatly because of this. To conclude on the idea, The Crusades were pilgrimages but the pilgrimages brought a conflict between the two religions philosophies, values and ideals, which made the Seljuk Turks feel threatened and influenced them to attack.
DeleteI think it is very interesting to point out the struggle between Christianity and Islam throughout history. You are correct, in this time, there was a great struggle for religious power between the two groups. However, I believe that this struggle is largely due to economic and political reasons. For example, merchants would convert to Islam in order do business in trade more effectively, while Christianity became obsessed with relics and their economic value. Not to say that religion is never purely religious believes, but throughout history and certainly currently, leaders have used religion to inspire great political change. It is through faith that they can garner the hope, belief, and support of the people they need to execute their plan for economic and political power. This is precisely what I believe that Crusades was. Christianity was tired of feeling threatened, and often, second in importance to Islam. As a result, a series of wars intended to regain the power of religion (with all of its economic advantages) took place.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete