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
I think it is pretty much impossible to say that the intentions of the Crusaders were solely religious (or political for that matter). Even Jones concedes there were political and economic influences. Jones pointed out that no one killed in the name of Jesus before Constantine, which makes it very likely that Constantine just strategically used religion to gain support for his political agenda, much like politicians today. But at the same time, I’d hate to suggest that Constantine is a scum of the earth manipulator; he was surely religiously invested as well. The people too have their own reasons. They should be way more religious than nobility as they need more guidance in life, but they also have more desperate monetary necessities than the nobility. Phillips mentioned that they weren’t in the best economy before the Crusades, which reminds me of the influx of American men who enlisted in the army during WWII to escape the Great Depression.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree, particularly b/c it was very costly to go crusading, "some estimates suggest over four years' annual income." During economic hardship, four years' annual income is something you save, not spend on some war unless you truly believe in the cause. Some may have expected to gain wealth from the first or second crusades, but it's noted that few actually gained any riches, so the idea of acquiring wealth would've died out after the first few. I think the most prominent factor in the popularity of the crusades was the allure of atonement. That's appealing to people of all classes and economic situations, which results in the massive and varied appeal we see.
DeleteI agree with Josh with the fact that economics wasn't a true reason. I believe that the crusades were mainly political and that since they were Muslim it help persuaded people joining their cause. I think the possibility of this economic gain initially attracted many people but the underlying factor was ultimately that the upper and royalty classes in Europe wanted to feel secure about their lives.
DeleteI believe that economics can be considered a valid reason as to why the crusades occurred. Jonathan Phillips mentions that during the crusades, some of the crusaders had mentioned possibly settling down in the east, and many others had began ransacking places. This could suggest that, though they spent a great deal of money to go on the crusades, they believed they could get a larger amount back from staying or ransacking.
DeleteI gotta hand it to you, Josh. You made a pretty good argument for the soldiers, which does make me believe more that they were mostly fighting for religious reasons. And in response to Matt, I think it would be very difficult to say that politics are a reason while economics aren’t as they are so intertwined. But even if the lower class was more into spreading Christianity I still think that the leaders were primarily invested politically.
DeleteI kinda view the church as a political rather than religious force. The initial motives are certainly sincere, but there’s nothing that isn’t corrupted with the introduction of power. The Popes fought with the Byzantine and Holy Roman emperors for more political influence plenty of times. The Pope couldn’t even get help from the Holy Roman Empire during the First Crusade due to conflict.
Also on a fundamental level, Islam came from Christianity, and both are very similar. The conflict here is which group has political control over the land. The group that controls the Holy Land is the superior group and holds more influence over the world. If all Christians and Muslims were only concerned with religion, we’d probably be Zoroastrian today.
Dan I really like what you had to say especially about the political nature of both Islamic and Christian religions, around the time of the crusades. Again I think at least in the Christian side there was more of a selfish reasoning to crusade because they were offered absolvation of their sins and at the time, the people were very sinful, according to Philips. Also just the fact that the original crusades began because the church wanted to regain holy land serves to show that it wasn't all just for religion but rather for position. Like you said dan, had both the Muslims and Christians been solely thinking on religion, they wouldn't have been so inclined to wage bloody war over land which they both deemed holy. Both Islam and Christianity are faiths diverging off of the "book" and if they were truly only concerned with holiness and religion, I doubt that waging war would've been the wisest course of action.
DeleteI agree with Jonathan Phillips in saying that the Crusades were not a Holy War. Although, their overall goal was to restore Christianity (or at least that's what it was said to be): I find it hard to believe with all the economic and political turmoil current in this time that the Crusades were fought primarily for religious purposes. We can never fully understand the crusaders' mindset and intentions, but Phillips points out that "[t]he 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” (164). Thus proving the crusades were fought over several factors; it was not soley a Holy War.
ReplyDeleteOnce the Crusades started, other problems arose, such as high expenses from fighting and dropping demographics from several causes (disease and enslavement), causing the war to then be upset over different issues and possibly alter their overall motives.
I agree with Rachel in the sense that the Church's overall goal cannot be ignored; they were trying to regain land that was religiously important to them. However, the political and economical factors are too important to declare the Crusades a Holy War. For example, during the First Crusade, french peasants joined the movement with litte interest in religious recovery of land: "They resupplied themselves by sacking Belgrade." A more economically specific example can be seen during the Fourth Crusade, where the so-called religious fighters "got bogged down in the more profitable venture of fighting Venice, sacking Constantinople, [and] crushing the Byzantine Empire."
DeleteI agree with Rachel that the Crusades were not solely a religiously geared movement because it resulted in numerous political and economic effects. The pope originally organized these expeditions in order to reconquer the Holy Land (Jerusalem) and spread Christianity. But by calling them a holy war signifies that the Crusades were just a violent conflict between Christianity and Islam solely based on religion. Although the original cause and motive of the crusades was to spread Christianity, some people joined the Crusades to make economic profit and to receive land gain. People also joined the Crusades to boost their political reputations. There was a great deal of expenses at the time because the crusades were very costly and there were a “series of droughts and bad harvests [which][…] suggests that the desire for money may have been a priority for the crusaders” (Phillips 167). I think the desire for money became a greater concern than people's religious motives in the crusades.
DeleteI feel as though you are contradicting yourself Aditya. These wars were between the Christians and Muslims for the spread of both Islam and Christianity and even if there are economic and political problems that accompany the incedent, it began with religion. Dhruv brings up a valid point by stating that "the sole intent of the wars was for Christians to win back their Holy Land" (155). Okay, maybe Dhruv didn't say that firsthand, but it makes a good point. Clearly this is not strictly religious. For a war to occur, there need to be either political and economic instability, however, the intent on winning back the land for religious reasons was the deciding factor. It is stated that "Islam had the Holy Land, and the pope wanted it back" (159). This was a clash of religions and is definitely a Holy War.
DeleteI understand your point Drew; however, I feel that the idea of fighting for the holy land was just an excuse to initiate the crusades. They experienced poor drought making their "desire for money ... a priority" promoting the idea that the crusaders went on the crusade not for any religious reasons but for their personal wealth (Phillips 167). This idea would make the crusades not a religious war but more of an economic war. In addition, Phillips states that it became an action of pride for some chivalrous knights who wanted to conquer and prove themselves which is not religious. For these reasons, I don't agree that the crusades were a holy war.
DeleteI agree with Aditya and Julia in the sense that the crusades were initiated with a bigger goal in mind than simply reconquering the holy land. The economic and political reasons behind the crusades have been much underplayed. The conflict between Islam and Christianity had mostly been political; the religions have similar core beliefs, yet different power sources. If Constantine had not adopted Christianity as the Byzantium Empire’s religion, the pope probably would not have started the crusades for his power lies with the empire. Taking Jerusalem also would represent and expand the power of the pope. Therefore, describing the crusades as a holy war would be misleading, for the crusades were not only based on religious reasoning.
DeleteDrew, don't you find it hard to believe the crusades were fought primarily over religion??? Most of, if not all of the conflicts we've learned about have had many factors coming together to trigger the war/disagreement. For example, the constant arguments over iconoclasm, monasticism, and casearopian eventually triggered the scism between the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church. What I am trying to say is that a lot of things built up over time to cause the Crusades, not just a desire to spread Christianity. Like you said yourself, there has to be political and economic instability for wars like these to take place. Thus proving that several factors influenced the crusades.
DeleteMore specifically I think the Pope wanted to gain power through spreading Christianity, turning this into a political factor. Like I mentioned before, the Scism(1054) was only a few years before (1095) the crusades which makes me wonder if he was worried about his power being questioned, making him want to fight the crusades for power and political reasons. What are your thoughts on that?
rachel rachel rachel...I see what you're trying to prove, however i also feel like your proof is helping the other side of the argument! Iconoclasm and caesaropapism are religious factors that contributed to the schism between the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic church. They highlight religious events such as ruling over the pope (a religious figure) or the destruction of icons, also used in religion. These wars were Holy Wars and there isn't much else to say about that. The pope was attempting to recapture land taken by people from the Islamic religion. Therefore, religion versus religion is the main factor in these wars. People will go to extremes for any manner when there is chaos and i feel like the retaliation of each religious group was sparked over ideas. Even if these ideas were not strictly "religious" when one group of people fight another group of people, belonging to different religious groups, that makes it a religious war.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteCouldn't the Seljuq Turks in 1071 be a possible factor that caused the Pope to want to regain more POWER not spread religion since this was shortly before the Crusades and could've easily triggered them.
DeleteYes, there could be hundreds of factors that led to this. I never said that religion is the ONLY factor that led to this war. I just feel as though through the popes desire to spread christianity, especially after being overtaken by Islam, is a crucial part to this argument. If at one time you had something, and then lost it to a big bad bully, you'd want it back. Just like the pope wants his land back. But he's fighting on behalf of the Christians. He is permanently associated with them and forever will be defending their case and helping me prove my point that this is a holy war. Don't get me wrong, I'm a Jew and I don't know much about Christianity, but if I were a pope who got his land taken by Muslims, I'd want my land back ASAP. It was a war, rachel. People fight for many reasons in war. I just think that religion is the primary reason.
DeleteYou're still wrong
Deleteprove it, i dare you.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI am ashamed to say i agree with you, Andrew. You proved very valid arguments and i now can see how the main factor driving the crusades was the spreading of religion. I like your point on how the Pope just wants his land back. I think that other factors were not as influential as religion. And like i was trying to argue, the Pope may have wanted to gain power; however, he wanted to do this through spreading Christianity.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI understand what Drew is saying. I agree that religious conflict was the inspiration behind the crusades. However, the conflict between Islam and Christianity may have been the inspiration for people to join the crusades in the beginning but their motives changed immediately after the Christians conquered the Holy Land. Most people joined to boost their political status and to gain wealth. I think that if the Crusades had ONLY been over religious conflict, it could be considered a "holy war". However, since it only began as a conflict over religion, I do not believe that it is appropriate to call the Crusades a holy war.
Deleteso...if it's a war between 2 different religions, over the "Holy Land" (which is an insanely religious area that the pope and muslim people were both fighting for) why is it not a Holy War? It began as a religious conflict, then escalated into an even larger religious conflict. Everyone loves wealth, it's a desire in life, but that doesn't mean that this isn't a holy war. The pope used to sit on a golden throne, and throughout history we see him as an incredibly wealthy man. I understand that the peasants also desire wealth, but i do not think that they were fighting for that reason. It was the spread of two conflicting religions that caused this war.
DeleteThe Crusades were a Holy War. According to Jones, the name of the Crusade War came from Pope Urban II's crosses. His distribution of the crosses were to get the European Kings to "recover the Holy Sepulcher from the Muslim Seljuk Turks" (161). From the textbook reading, we know that many of the people in the war were fighting to reconquer their Holy Land, which was taken over by the Muslims. The people of the Christian church fought for their belief that Muslims took their original and holy property. However, just because some people in the Church were corrupted does not mean that the war itself was not Holy.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Will that Crusades were a Holy War. In the reading it states that "... Muslims and Christians had lived together for centuries before the First Crusade- in mutual toleration, if not friendship" (154). If this were true then there obviously would have to be some other rationale besides just religion for the Crusades. Calling the Crusades a "Holy War" just provided justification for the many less than holy motives people had for fighting against the Muslims such as gaining land and acquiring a financial gain. The Pope just called it a Holy War in order to win the support of people who wanted to be forgiven of their sins; with this support he was able to gain so much more power than he had before. Although there were some people that fought purely for religious reasons, a war led by a corrupted leader and fought with a semi-corrupted army can in no way be considered a Holy War.
DeleteI agree with Will that the Crusades were a holy war, referring to his statement that Urban's "distribution of the crosses were to get the European Kings to recover the Holy Sepulcher from the Muslim Seljuk Turks" (161). In a few pages we also learn 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" (164). Despite the fact that this information comes from Phillips, I believe it supports Jones's idea that the name of the war came from the crosses of Pope Urban, which is considered a religious aspect in the holy war. Although economics and politics do come into play, the war began with religion and appeared to always come back to it in some sense.
DeleteI believe that the section on page 164 explaining that the first crusade was to help Byzantium with the Seljuk Turks shows that it was not an actual holy war. It instead shows that the pope wanted to get on the east's good side. Simply getting the east to like him, perhaps even rejoin him, does not qualify the war as a holy war. Also, on page 166-167, Phillips explains that the poor economy and droughts they had might have been a main factor in the crusades. Political and monetary gain seems to be the makings of a normal war, not a holy one.
DeleteI agree with Gigi and disagree with Alycia. I believe that the Crusades was not a holy war (because having the same opinion is boring). Based on the article by Phillips, who interprets the Crusades as as a non-holy, one can conclude that with the exception of some people and popes including Urban II wanting to reclaim the holy land, other took the Crusades as an opportunity to gain plain land and power. "In order to finance the crusade it was often necessary to mortgage or sell lands and rights to the church." Due to the poor economic conditions of the time, people leaned towards war in order to expand, and gain land and wealth. Not everyone who joined the Crusades joined purely for religious purposes. Because the Crusades contained people who joined religiously and in order to gain wealth, one can go either way on whether the the war was Holy or not. However, I choose view it as non-holy because many people joined for the sake of acquiring wealth and other such things not related to religion.
DeleteI especially agree with what Gigi said about the Pope using the "Holy" War to garner more power. It was quite a clever move to pin the people's fear of hell against them. By offering redemption for anyone who joins the Crusade, Pope Urban not only increases the strength of the Crusading army, he also further legitimatizes himself as the Christian Leader. Obviously one is going to deeply respect the only person who can save you from eternal suffering. However, Pope Urban had even more to gain by responding to Byzantium's cry for help. The Pope had been having power troubles in the East ever since the patriarch of Constantinople started stealing away his religious power, so by defending Byzantine Christians from the Muslims, Pope Urban hopes to reinstate his supremacy as universal Christian leader. Since the leader of the Crusades had very obvious ulterior motives, I do not think the Crusades can be considered "Holy" by any means.
DeleteRegardless of the political and economic effects of the Holy Wars, the underlying motive behind all of the Crusades was religious. With its “bloody [incursions]” on the Holy Land, the Papacy originally fought with the sole intent of winning back their Holy Land (155). The political outbursts began to phase the original, underlying motives of the Crusades. The Pope ordered raids on the Holy Land which led to the political and economic involvements; however, throughout the entire period of time “pilgrimage and monastic life flourished, and donations to ecclesiastical institutions were increasingly commonplace” (164). The Crusaders joined because they gave the “knights an opportunity of salvation” (164). Despite the “sins” they commit (sins being involving politics), the Crusaders still remained firm in their strive for ultimate salvation.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Dhruv. Although there may have been economic and political ties to the Crusades, the ultimate goal was based on religion: to recapture the holy lands of Palestine and Jerusalem. The beginning impetus for the entire endeavor was based on a religious desire to spread Roman Christianity and reclaim that land. Even though politics and economics eventually became involved, they were not the original links to Pope Urban II’s attempt. Jonathan Phillips shows Pope Urban II’s true objective by stating his original declaration: “Whoever, for devotion alone, not to gain honour or money, goes to Jerusalem to liberate the Church of God can substitute this journey for all penance.” His decree demonstrates his true intention of the Crusades, and proves that they were in fact a Holy War.
DeleteI agree with Dhruv's argument in the sense that the main motivation for people to become crusaders was religion. I believe that the original intentions of these wars were completely religious. However, I also believe that as the wars progressed, there were most likely other motives that eventually became present. In Phillips’ argument he addresses the fact that the monks were discouraged to join the crusades. He says that since these men have abandoned the rest of the world they should not join in this war. I think that the reason for this was because people knew that these wars would eventually turn into more than just Holy Wars. They knew that eventually there would be political and economic motives and they did not want the monks to fight for something they didn’t believe in. So I believe the wars were started to defend religion but political and economic benefits were discovered once the war began. Also, in response to Josh’s argument from earlier, I do believe that economic advancement was an underlying motive in these wars. Even though it might have been expensive for a man to join the crusades, the amount of supplies needed may have created more of a demand for goods and sparked the economy of an empire as a whole. Overall, I believe that even though the original intentions of the Crusades were religious, there were alternative motives present. I found Philips’ argument to be more persuasive which leads me to believe that these wars could not have been fought for entirely religious purposes.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI agree with Dhruv and Jenna. The Crusades can be considered a Holy War, despite the political and economic effects, because the initial intention of the Crusades was to reclaim the holy lands of Jerusalem and Palestine. The desire to take back the holy lands and to spread Christianity catalyzed the Crusades, exposing the religious intentions. The political and economic effects were never part of the Pope’s strategy to reclaim the holy lands; these effects were purely the result of the religious endeavors. Even when the political and economic effects swayed some people to abandon the original plan, many people continued to adhere to it because of their strong devotion and desire to receive “forgiveness [for their] sins” (156). The expectancy for salvation was used as a justification to commit sins in order to reclaim the holy lands and discover the “new path to heaven” (155).
DeleteI also agree that the Crusades are Holy Wars because of the fact that many fought in the Crusades were convinced that fighting it was a "new path to heaven" (155). Also, the Christians fought the war with the main intention of regaining control of the holy land. This means that the two greatest incentives of the Crusades were almost completely religious, which makes them Holy Wars. Though some people were able to gain some wealth during the Crusades, I doubt people joined the Crusades in order to achieve a financial gain considering how expensive it was to be part of the crusades. Also, a very small amount of people gained any political advancement through the Crusades; so, this means that there was a smaller amount of people fighting with non-religious motives, which qualifies the Crusades as a Holy war.
DeleteAs much as I hoped to be persuaded by the "no" argument because it seems the most logical, I am going to have to disagree with your arguments. Although I don't necessarily think Jones provided the stronger argument, I think the "yes" argument is more true. Phillips' so called "support" more often than not actually contradicts his own points. For example, Phillips mentions that acquiring land or wealth was another major factor in joining the war; however, he also states that people failed miserably in gaining wealth from the First Crusade. If this is the case then why did so many people continue to fight in the proceeding Crusades if acquiring wealth was not feasible? The only answer that I can come up with is that those who fought had a different intention, one of religious origin. Again, Phillips mentions that it was a time of very intense religious following, which would only further support the idea that Christians of that time would be willing to sacrifice more for their religion. Although Jones' argument was pretty weak and obviously bias (because he is a Catholic reporter), Phillips weakens his own argument with too many contradictions, thus leading me to side with the "yes" argument.
ReplyDeleteSorry, I tried to respond to Aditya and Brendan, but it posted as an individual post.
DeleteI do agree with you Jarrett. Although I am not completely swayed by either arguement, your points are extremely valid. However, there is still evidence to support that some crusaders were looking for riches, or "seeking booty" as Phillips states it. He mentions some events after the Siege of Ma'arrat an Nu'man that were extremely greedy, and disrespectful, in my opinion: "Muslim graves were dug up and the bodies slit open to check if any treasures had been swallowed." Again, I am swayed by neither side. Your valid points mixed with these acts of vicious greed have kept me in the middle.
DeleteBrendan, I do not believe greed was a major incentive for joining the Crusade. Phillip states that the supplies needed to ready oneself for battle (weapons, armor, food, horses) were extremely expensive. In fact, records show that many had to mortgage or sell their property to even afford joining the Holy Cause. Had they been solely focused on money, it would have been much more profitable to remain in Europe. Phillips suggests that the acts of greed you mentioned were "in response to the need to survive." No one had anticipated just how difficult the journey would be, and were thus supremely under-prepared. If given the option between starving to death and pillaging a grave, I would choose the latter without hesitation. But then again, I'm not the most morally just person. Clearly, neither were the Crusaders.
DeleteIt is hard to say that the crusades were a holy war for many reasons. The crusades were a "counteroffensive by Christians against Muslims occupying the Holy Land", that's purposes were religious, economic, and political (159). First off everyone has their own motivations for joining a war effort. Although the main motive for war thought and conveyed by all of the crusaders was for religious reasons, there are clearly other motives in play. Phillips brings up the point that many were in it for land and money because of the poor economic conditions of the time period from "a series of droughts and poor harvests" (166). Another key reason many joined the crusades was because of the allegiance and loyalty knights, squires, and servants had to their Nobles. So if a Noble joined the crusades all of his loyal subjects would have to accompany him without choice. For these reasons it is impossible to call the crusades a Holy War.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that the crusades should be considered a Holy War because other factors led to the wars. I believe religion played a major part in the crusades, but was not the only reason behind the fighting. Political and economic factors were also major reasons for the crusades. Originally, the concept that the crusaders were fighting for their religion would have inspired people to join the cause but the lure of wealth and of an empire kept the crusades going. Also, before Constantine, Christian had no reason to fight. It wasn’t until Constantine took the political action of adopting Christianity for his empire that the need to conquer the Holy lands arose. Bartchy made a point that during the time before Constantine nobody is, “killed in the name of Jesus,” (160). It was the political intervention of Constantine that brought violence; therefore, political actions became a major role in the crusades. Another major reason behind the Crusades was “the pope’s original conception [that] the crusade was for a compact contingent of knights to assist Emperor Alexius of Byzantium in his struggle against the Seljuk Turks of Asia Minor before marching on to the Holy Land,” (164). This means that the Pope wanted the knights to help out with a political problem that the Emperor faced with the Turks before going to fight for the Holy Land. Since the Pope wanted the knights to take care of the political action first there is evidence that the Crusades were driven by political factors. Therefore, the Crusades cannot be considered a Holy War because multiple factors including politics influenced the fighting.
ReplyDeleteOther factors may have caused The Crusades, but I believe that they were in fact a holy war. The Pope himself deemed the wars necessary and the fact that the conflict went on for centuries without any real economic gains demonstrates that there was at least some level of religious zealotry. In addition, most of the people who were involved in the crusades did so by choice, and to chose to submit yourself to the financial debt (four years wages as discussed in the reading) and the terrors of war is a huge commitment. “Crusading was extremely expensive.” (165) Yet, a commitment powered by the promise of salvation. I think not the cause of the war but how the war was actually carried out proves wether or not it was a Holy war. The individuals who fought in the crusades did so for religious reasons.
DeleteWhile Jackie raises a good point when she discusses the inherent nonviolence in early Christianity, this does not necessarily mean that the Crusades were not a holy war. Religions evolve and change just like societies. At the beginning there was but one sect of Christianity, but through time and the philosophical discussion of religious ideas there emerged a multitude of different factions of Christianity, as there are with all major world religions. As Arthur Jones quotes Fredericks “‘Christianity has grudgingly yielded its place at the center of culture. It isn’t that anymore.”” (156) The constant changing nature of religion does not prohibit the actions taken by those following it in its current form from being religiously motivated. Both sides of the conflict saw themselves as religious warriors, and while the waning influence of Christianity in the West has caused there to be little thought on the Crusades today, the violent incursion is still remembered in the Middle East “as ‘the war of those signed with the cross,’ and ‘the holy, religious war of the Christians.”’ (155)
I agree with Jackie that the main driving point of the crusades was the expansion of political power. Bartchy emphasized that Christians changed their approach to regaining Jerusalem from passive to aggressive in order to suppress the Islamic threat. This Islamic threat was merely a political threat because Islam was always linked with imperial power. Similarly, the spread of Christianity would be an attempted expansion of the European empire due to Constantine’s adoption of the religion. Also, Philips mentions that important officials, such as kings and monks, were not anticipated to partake in these crusades. Perhaps the reasoning behind the society’s decision to exclude these officials had been that these officials were needed to maintain and increase the political stability in Europe, so the Islamic empire, in theory, would not gain an advantage. I believe religion played an original part in the crusades, but it was mostly used to win over the European society. To suggest a war against the Islamic empire would seem irrational, because the empire had not interfered with the Byzantium empire yet. However, the Pope maneuvered this in stating the goal of the crusades was only recapturing Jerusalem.
DeleteI agree with Jackie and Ariel in that the Crusades cannot be considered a Holy War since their main focus in fighting was for an economic gain. Instead of spreading religious influence, the Pope used the Crusades as an excuse to gain power. Because the pope was greedy and wanted complete dominance, he created the illusion that the Crusades were a religious association in order to have control. The Crusades and the Schism are in the same time period, further explaining that the Pope's power was already in question. In order to achieve this power, the Pope was willing to make it appear as something it was not; it is stated that the Pope did not look for those devoted in what he was doing but knights that would win him more and more power. If this was in fact a Holy War, the Pope would look for those who were religious and devoted, not trained knights who had a better chance in winning. The Crusades cannot be considered a Holy War due to the fact that the Pope created the illusion that it was a religious war in order for him to gain credibility. It is clear that “the desire for money may have been a priority for the crusaders” (167) rather than being completely devoted to religion.
DeleteI agree with Jonathan Phillips; the Crusades cannot be considered a Holy War due to the immense political and economic events that outweighed any religious affiliation. "Urban regarded the crusade as a papally-directed enterprise and had not explicitly invited the secular monarchs to become involved" (164). This describes the overall motif that rather than a religious war, it was simply for economics. People joined the Crusades in order to spread Christanianity, yet a main factor in many peoples reasoning was the economic and land gain they would get. Many family traditions involved going on a pilgrmage to the Holy Land, for example Adhemar III of Limoges, so they used the Crusades as a way to go on this pilgrimage. Another reason the Crusades should be considered economical and political rather than a Holy War is because many people used the pilgrimage as an advangtage to their social status. If one was able to return home alive, they would be considered loyal with their vow completed. Lastly, it is clear that "few crusaders chose to remain in the Levant and become settlers" (166). This explains that many of the people were indifferent whether the Holy Land was conquered, but instead were focused on their own political and economical factors. Due to these numerous factors, the Cruscades cannot be considered a Holy War due to all of the political and economic factors assoicated with it.
ReplyDeleteI disagree. I feel that the people who agreed to fight in The Crusades did not do so for the economic and land gain they would receive as you discussed. The reading talks about how getting involved with The Crusades is extremely expensive, about four years wages, so there was usually no monetary gain. Also, our textbook discusses how The First Crusade was fought by a group of people, both men and women, who went into battle without the proper training or supplies so most were killed. These facts lead me to believe that these people did not have anything political or economical to gain from these battles, and for a person to agree to fight under such circumstances that there must be a greater reason. I feel this reason is Christianity. If a person died fighting in The Crusades they were promised salvation which is what a devote Christian strives for, therefore a persons potential demise would not have stopped a person from fighting. The only gains people could obtain during The Crusades were religious and therefore I feel The Crusades were Religious Wars.
DeleteI have to disagree with you, Sarah. Admittedly, there were a multitude of profound economic and political ties to the Crusades, but the underlying motivation was religion. Just because they had other implications does not change the fact the instigator of the conflict was religion. It’s like classifying a wave by its ripples rather than by the cause of those ripples. As Krista said, people had no economic reason to join the Crusades, especially after the miserable failure of the first. The journey was incredibly expensive, and the chance of recouping your expenditures was slim to none. Though yes, both sides may have wanted to gain political power, this was just a byproduct of the spread of their respective religions. Though yes I believe that you correctly identified that there were other factors involved in this war, as there are in all conflicts, you did not ascertain the correction motivation, religion.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI agree with Athul and Krista. However, I do understand where Sarah's argument is coming from. I agree with Sarah's arguement that the Crusades were not entirely religous and I agree that there were economic and political motives. I disagree however, with her argument that most people joined the Crusades for their own economic good. I think that these wars started out as being religous so most of the people that joined them did so for religous purposes. I do believe that there were eventually economic and political gain for rulers and the people but I do not believe that this was their main reasoning. I agree with Athul's point about how even though political and economic ties came into play, they do not change the underlying cause for these wars. The only people that I believe would have used these wars for economic or political gain was the leaders and I still believe that these benefits were not the main reason for them begining these wars. So yes, the Crusades were not entirely religious, but the main cause for these wars was religion.
DeletePersonally, I'm having a lot of trouble deciding yes or no, because both sides provide valid points. However I think Jones' argument makes more sense. Some people mentioned that money couldn't have been a motive for the crusades because riches weren't usually own. This point is valid but that doesn't necessarily mean the people were completely deterred from joining in the crusades in order to get rich. Just because it didn't work doesn't mean people didn't try. Also, clearly the crusades originated with religious reasonings but I'm not completely sure that they were continually fought in order to spread Christianity. Phillips provides a very interesting point when he points out how "guilty" Christian Europe was. It seems that most participants fought for religious yet selfish reasons. He shows that many simply wanted personal vindication. He also provides a point saying that the crusades were a good diversion for violence among knights. Instead of fighting each other, they could fight under the name of the church and possibly relieve themselves of their sins. In this way I think that there were too many motives for the crusades to be solely based off of a religion vs. religion basis. However the definition of a crusade is also very important especially when considering the selfishness of the participants. If a crusade is simply a "holy war" then the selfish motives of the people still counts as religious and holy. But looking at crusades as wars in which Christianity was meant to be spread, I can't agree with any justification that they were solely fought for that purpose.
ReplyDeleteI have to disagree with you Nick when you talk about Jones' argument making more sense. I personally find Phillip's reasons much more logical and easier to understand. I believe that Jones was wrong in the sense that if the Europeans were threatened by the Muslims before, they could have at least attempted to push and actually start a war after the Umayyads lost the battle of Tours. However, the Europeans defended themselves and stayed where they were. Jones talks about the pope's original intentions of the Crusades, saying that they were supposed to assist Byzantium Emperor and the people suppressing the Emperor happened to be Muslim
DeleteSorry Cabo I meant I liked Phillips more
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteA holy war is "a war declared or waged in support of a religious cause," according to the Oxford Dictionary. This definition lends itself to the pro argument, which states that the Crusades were indeed holy wars. One catalyst of the Crusades was the Islamic expansion and capturing of formerly Christian strongholds. The Christians sought to recapture these lands in the Crusades not because they were agriculturally fecund, but rather because recapturing the Christians thought these lands to be “the Holy Land, and the [Christian’s] wanted it back” (159). The fighting, or war, that the Christians incited certainly supported their own religious cause, for recollecting their bastions would surely hasten the spread of their religion. Also, the fact that the Crusades focused on replacing Islamic influence with Christian influence further substantiates the pro argument. Although both Abrahamic faiths, Christianity and Islam inherently are rivals; they cannot exist mutually. Thus, in order for one to manifest itself in a certain region with any sort of power, it must have sole control. This control is exactly what the Christians sought through the Crusades. Once again, the Crusades were an active effort to spread Christianity. Islam, being a dominant religion, faced the brunt of Christian aggression because it posed a threat to the practicing of Christianity’s cause. By eliminating the Muslims, the Christians propelled their own religious cause and thus waged holy war.
ReplyDeleteMany people have thrown around the argument that the Crusades were not motivated entirely by religion, but rather by political and economic control. Well, of course they were not. Jones admits this: “The Crusades were religious, political, and economic” (160). Even if politics and economics play a role in motivations to age war, as long as there is “support of a religious cause” to have some influence on the declaration of war, as per the definition, the war is a holy war. With the Crusades, the Christians are pushing a religious cause, and therefore, the Crusaders were a holy war.
I completely agree with you Drew. At first I leaned more towards Phillip's side of the argument, thinking that the crusades were not holy wars, but your response has changed my mind. When you brought up the definition of a holy war and how it lends itself towards the pro argument, I began to realize that whether or not the crusades were a holy war relies on the definition of a holy war. The definition you quoted definitely supports the pro argument, since the war was in support of a religious cause, regardless of the participants other incentives. As I looked more into the pro side of the argument with this new way of thinking I realized that it is just as valid as the con side. Jones shows how the war ultimately concerned religious beliefs and motives, while Phillips simply states secondary motives for the war, such as the ones I mentioned in my last comment. In addition, most Christians saw the crusades as "a new path to heaven", so there were religious motives present too (155). The war is between two religious groups, the Christians and the Muslims, both fighting for their religions, so it must be a holy war.
DeleteI also agree with Drew that the Crusades are indeed “holy wars”. As Drew mentioned, there were political, economic, and religious aspects and reasonings for the Crusades, which supports the argument that the Crusades weren’t holy, but fails to disprove the argument that they were. The fact that all three aspects are involved in the crusades, forces the reader to turn to history and their own knowledge to decide whether the Crusades were indeed holy. As I stated earlier, the initial intentions of the Crusades were solely religious due to the fact that the crusaders wanted to spread their religion and reclaim the holy lands of Jerusalem and Palestine. Similarly, Drew states how Muslims and Christians collided in war as a result of the Christian aggression to spread Christianity and Islam’s reaction to defend “itself”. The belief that Muslims reacted defensively to guard their dominant religion from being overthrown by Christianity, poses an interesting point, showing how neither Christianity nor Islam can be the prevailing religion in the holy lands simultaneously. Though both religious groups had different reasons for fighting in the holy wars, both groups shared the desire to enhance their own beliefs with religious intent.
DeleteBecause of its array of economic and political ties, the Crusades were not simply holy wars. Because of the multitude of factors which influenced it, the Crusades cannot simply fall under a simple categorization. Though the conflict heavily featured religion (“counteroffensive by Christians against Muslims occupying the Holy Land"), and led to the dissemination of both Christianity and Islam, the political and economic motivations were far more powerful. For example, Pope Urban II at first only wanted help Byzantium deal with the attacking Seljuk Turks. In addition, times were rough for those who joined the crusades. Many were embroiled by tough harvests and money trouble. They believed that, though joining the crusades would be difficult, the returns would be voluminous. Finally, I think that the main reason the Crusades should not be called “Holy Wars” is because the name in and of itself is a misnomer. It comes with the connotation that the primary and most prevailing motives were religious in nature. This is clearly fallible logic, and many facts prove that many other issues were prevalent at the time.
ReplyDeleteI apologize Athul, but I am going to have to completely disagree with you. When comparing the religious motivations with the political and economic motivations you said, "the political and economic motivations were far more powerful." Unfortunately you are very mistaken. Your first example is very true; however, you missed a very key detail, which is the reason that Pope Urban II wanted to help the Byzantine. It clearly states in the text that he wanted to help before the Seljuk Turks "march[ed] on to the Holy Land." This major detail will void your argument because it actually shows that the Pope had religious intentions, not political ones as you believed. Also, your second supporting detail is also very true because times were very tough economically for the middle-lower class. However, this would only support a reason for people joining the First Crusade. It also clearly states that the First Crusade was a miserable failure for those who hoped to become wealthy. Since this is the case it would be completely illogical for people to join the next few Crusades for economic reasons. By uncovering the truth in your previous arguments I believe that this would obviously invalidate your final statement about how religion wasn't the key motivation.
DeleteI, too, disagree with Athul. Yes, economics and politics did get involved eventually in the Crusades. However, I don’t think that this disproves its status as a Holy War. I think that it solely represents the magnitude of the Roman Christian’s faith and determination with the Crusades. The fact that they continued to fight for the Muslim’s land shows that they were extremely resolute in their goal—not that they had too many economic or political ties to let it go. The fact that they were so determined with capturing this land demonstrates their true fortitude and even reinforces the Crusades’ status as a Holy War. The fact that Roman Christianity and the spread of it alone were so important marked the importance of the Crusades and defines them as Holy.
DeleteI disagree with your statement Jarrett. Yes, Pope Urban II probably wanted to obtain the holy land but that most likely was not his main objective. He, as Athul said, wanted to aid Byzantine. Also, the fact that the crusaders went during a difficult economic time further disapproves the idea that the crusades are a holy war. Phillips clearly states that there were many "reports of crusaders seeking booty" and going even so far as to dig up Muslim graves in order to obtain treasure (167). Yes, it may have been an initial expense to embark on the crusades but people obviously did that in hopes of gaining more money that initially spent which is not honorable or holy but rather selfish. These facts seem to suggest that the Crusaders were much more monetarily motivated thus proving that it is not a holy way.
DeleteI also agree with Athul and Julia. The Crusades cannot be considered a Holy War due the politics and economics playing a major role. If the Pope meant for the Crusades to be a Holy War he would not have wanted to be involved in helping the Emperor. Instead he helped to fend off the Seljuk Turks, which cannot be considered a Holy motive. By claiming that the Crusades were for Religious reasons, which there were some religious motives, the Pope and Emperor were able to make the Crusades more acceptable. There was also a lot of evidence for the crusaders fighting for monetary reasons further proving that it was not a Holy War.
DeleteJulia-
DeleteYou state "Also, the fact that the crusaders went [to Byzantium] during a difficult economic time further disapproves the idea that the crusades are a holy war." First of all, this is a correlation. As far as I can see, this can be considered purely coincidental. Just because the Crusaders dug up treasure does not mean they embarked for the purpose of digging up treasure. You do not develop the causation. Granted, this is tough to do because of our lack of primary documents regarding the situation, but you cannot say that the Christians undertook the Crusades for economic purposes if you cannot back it up, and it is certainly not "obvious" that "people...[crusaded] in hopes of gaining more money that initially spent."
I just want to add on to Drew's response to Julia. Julia, you make the same exact mistake that Athul makes in his response. You completely over look the true significance of the Pope's actions. If you go back and re-read the sentence where it mentions the Pope aiding the Byzantine, it clearly states that he wants to help them BEFORE THE TURKS REACH THE HOLY LAND. I needed to capitalize this part because it pretty clearly shows that the Pope's intentions were to protect the holy land. There is absolutely no where in that sentence that would support the idea that the Pope wanted a political alliance with the Byzantine. If the Pope truly wanted stronger political ties with the Byzantine then why does Phillips not mention this as the cause for the Pope's actions, rather he only mentions that the Turks were about to take over holy land.
DeleteI believe that the Crusades were a military conflicted fought for economic reasons that was inspired by religious fervor. Initially, the Pope sought to help the weakening Byzantine Empire with. In order to do so, he called upon the knights from across Europe, claiming that those who fight will be forgiven of all sin. This cleansing and opportunity of fame and wealth inspired the knight class to take arms. The pope's message even inspired the peasants to join the Crusades (although the Pope was against this). The absence of the knights solved Europe's social violence (particularly in France). The land that the Europeans claimed also indicated wealth and territory control over spiritual pilgrimage. With the control of some of the most holy locations in the known world, Europe was able to politically enforce their laws onto other civilizations. With all these factors to consider, the Crusades were fought more on political necessity over religious cleansing.
ReplyDeleteBy Justin Pan
I think I’m going to disagree with you on this, Justin. What meant “holy” back then, is much different from the interpretation of it now. The Crusades were called the Holy Wars because the Crusaders were fighting for their Holy Land (Jerusalem); however, three monotheistic cultures all wanted it under their control. Of course, there’s an involvement of politics and the question as to why some even joined (which is what EVERYONE needs to focus on today), but one important thing to remember is the big idea: the reason why it all started, even though it may have degenerated, was strictly religious.
DeleteRegardless of what happened then and who did what, they'll all be given their fate on Judgement Day :)
DeleteAfter thinking about it, I believe that the Crusades are a combination of both political and religious reasons. While Pope Urban's main goal was the religious conquest the holy land, there were other social issues involved. In particular, the knight class was a major problem in Europe. Before the crusades, Europe was in a state of constant war. As a result, the region did not develop technologically or intellectually. When the knights left to fight in the crusades, Europe finally had time to recover and grow. As a result, revolutions like the Renaissance would occur. While the main tense of the Crusades were religious wars against Islam, you cannot deny that there are several social and political reasons for Pope Urban to ignite the war as well.
DeleteJustin Pan
I agree with Dhruv and the fact that the Crusades were a Holy War. The main reason for the First Crusade was for the Christians to reestablish holy property and that the Crusades were wars of religion due to the differences of Christianity and Islam. Like Dhruv said there is an involvement of politics and economics but the wars did not necessarily start with them. The Crusades were "a new path to Heaven" which the Christians believed, and if they joined in these wars they would "experience 'full and complete satisfaction'" (155-156). I believe this supports the religious aspect because it encouraged Christians to reach their goal of heaven and this was their original purpose for participating in the Crusades.
Delete