Steven Runciman locates reasons for the failure of the subsequent crusades in the events of the First Crusade. Summarise his argument in relation to the impact of the First Crusade in particular.
Runciman believes that the tragedy of Byzantine Empire was caused by a movement (namely the first Crusade) launched by a ‘noble-minded’ Pope with ‘good will’ and misunderstandings, and Crusades were simply great barbarian invasions. The only way I find from the given material to argue that the failure of the subsequent crusades were caused by the events of the first Crusade is that the series of Crusade failed to secure Byzantine Empire and such failure emerged in the events of the first Crusade. Runciman presents the impact of the First Crusade in different aspects. In Politics, the misunderstandings between the west and Byzantium lead to a situation that people were not sympathy to each other. In religion, the intolerant attitude towards Greek of Latin Christian and the tolerant attitude towards Muslim of Byzantines even worsened the political misunderstandings. In military, the west did not efficiently help Byzantium out from Turks as promised, rather raised a war against the whole Muslim which put Byzantium into a dangerous position. In economics, to cater the huge armies worsened the decayed economic situation of Byzantium and the wealthy of Constantinople might stimulate the greed of the Latin west.
What does he mean when he refers to a ‘melancholy pile of misunderstandings’ throughout the First Crusade?
According to Runciman, there were three main misunderstandings between Pope Urban and the Byzantium. First, Alexius Comnenus, the Byzantine emperor, wanted mercenaries to drive the Turks back in Anatolia which was almost entirely lost. However, the Pope, with a ‘noble mind’ according to Runciman, organized a whole army to succor him over which he had no control. Second, though the emperor wanted to recover as much of Anatolia as possible, he never meant to stand against the whole Islamic world. However the Pope expected to go on after succoring Byzantium to establish Christian rule over Palestine, ‘so that pilgrims could be ensured forever’. Third, the two misunderstandings above made the Byzantines embarrassed by the appearance of crusading armies and not wholly in sympathy with their aims, which made the Crusaders fell they were impious.
--Shang
Jonathan Riley-Smith - 'Crusading as an Act of Love'
 |
| Jonathan Riley-Smith |
It is important to consider that in order for the crusades to be successful, the church had to appeal to communities and present crusading in ways people understood and that encouraged support, e.g comparing 'crusading love' to 'love of family' (p.49) and viewing crusading as vengeance for other Christians.
 |
| Urban II preaching at Clermont |
Your full brothers, your comrades, your brothers born of the same mother, for you are sons of the same Christ and the same Church
Baldric of Dol: 'It is much less evil to brandish the sword against the Muslims; in a particular case it is good, because it is charity to lay down lives for friends'
It is also important to note the biblical texts which were used in support of the crusades: "Whoever doth not carry his cross and come after me cannot be my disciple" (Luke xiv, 27)
Particularly interesting is the idea of 'loving ones enemy' (p31.) and 'punishment imposed through love' (p42.) that were expressed by St Augustine and adopted by some of the Popes in support of crusading. Would this reasoning be accepted today? Again (like past blogs) we come to the differences in Christian beliefs and Christianity's role in society between the middle ages and today.
In particular consider these ideas in relation to the fourth crusade. Do you believe the crusades were undertaken through charity and love? What could be some arguments for and against this?
--Gen
The Fourth Crusade
 |
| Route of the Fourth Crusade |
The Fourth Crusade has been cemented in history as having
one of the most controversial and improbable end-games. Beginning with Pope Innocent III’s
call-to-arms in 1198 to re-capture the Holy City and further the cause of
Christendom, excitement quickly spread through Europe against the
less-than-ideal political climate of the time.
Arriving in Venice in 1201, the idea was to acquire supplies and ships,
and sail down to Egypt, making their way up to Jerusalem from there.
 |
| Sack of Constantinople |
However, an ill-fated treaty led to a diversion to
Constantinople. What was supposed to be
a crusade against the Muslims became an attack on Byzantium. The Crusaders laid siege on the city in 1203,
and a stalemate ensued until 1204 when, after gaining some ground and
favourable conditions, and with the help of the Venetians, the holy warriors
brutally captured the city. Following
the infamously horrific ‘Sack of Constantinople’, the great Byzantine Empire
was conquered, and sitting on its throne was the ill-equipped Emperor Baldwin
I, previously known as Baldwin of Flanders. After a shameful and embarrassing
turn of events, the Crusaders had not regained their Holy City, destroyed an
Empire, usurped its throne, and set it up for devestation. In the words of Donald Queller and Thomas
Madden in The Fourth Crusade, ‘[It
was] the result no-one could have forseen, for it was the most improbable of
all outcomes: a Flemish knight now reigned in the city of the Caesars’.
--Tiff
Why was the fourth crusade was so controversial? Discuss with reference to the
various accounts in the primary sources
The fourth crusade was in Constantinople (modern
day Istanbul in Turkey) in 1204 and was launched by Pope Innocent III (see above). Its
initial aim was to retake Jerusalem from the Muslims, by arranging a Venetian
fleet to transport a the Crusaders to Egypt. Here they planned to conquer the
land and then march to Jerusalem and re-claim the Holy Land. However, this
initial aim of the Fourth Crusade never came to be. Instead, they attacked
Constantinople, one of the largest and wealthiest cities in the Christian
world, but also the capital of the Byzantine empire.
The controversies surrounding the Fourth
Crusade, steam from the reasoning and cause of the actual attack of the
Crusader on the Byzantine Empire’s capital. From the Primary sources, there
seems to be two prominent reasons.
The first being that the fourth crusade was
a series of unfortunate accidents which turned out to be good grace of God.
With many of the crusaders failing to meet in the summer of 1202 in Venice meant
that the passaged cost they owed to the Venetians was well under and improvised
their army. Therefore the crusade leaders had little choice but to accept the
Venetians offer to sail to the city of Zara, whereby the takings of this city
will be split fairly and the Crusaders can pay back their dues with their
takings (p.226). However, the City of Zara did not provide the extent of
resources and takings as first envisioned and therefore sought to conquer
elsewhere (p.230). Thus, Alexios Angelos
promised to pay the expense of the voyage and conquer of Constantinople once
his father (the emperor Isaac II) was returned to his rightful place on the
throne (p.230). However they were slow in repaying their debt and the Franks
and Venetians (the crusaders) attack Constantinople. The 1204 war on
Constantinople was debated and justified by the bishops and clergy as a
“righteous
one… for the Greeks were traitors and murders, and also disloyal, since they
had murdered their rightful lord, and were worse than jews… [we] ought not
hesitate to attack the Greeks, for the latter were enemies of God.” (p.232)
However, the collection of documents from
the Sack of Constantinople paint a different picture of the Franks and
Venetians reasoning behind the crusade, being religious difficulties. As the
Byzantines were tolerant of other churches, but the crusaders understood one
uniformed ritual of the church. Thus found it strange and hardly Christian to
see oriental Christian churches (p.251). Thus, the second collection of Primary sources in the reader, focuses on the
Crusader’s destruction of religious relics, devastation of churches, looing of
treasures and anything of religious importance to the Byzantine’s (p.260). Thus
the Byzantines were seen as disloyal and traitors to the Christian cause and necessary
for the Christian army to remain the Constantinople for at least a year “in order to strengthen the empire in its
devotion” (p.262)
What reasoning to think explains the Fourth
Crusade? A series of incidental accidents, religious tensions or a combination
of both?
--Deniz
9 comments:
I found interesting that Crusading was seen as a penence for sins, but murder is viewed as a mortal sin. So my question is the Church the only literate class that could translate the bible or was the bible accessible to laymen and was there an intellectual class that wasn't apart of the Clergy?
Great question Tom. This was really becoming an issue, as the heretical movements like Waldensians proved. People were increasingly calling for the Bible in vernacular (local) languages, rather than Latin, precisely so they could read and understand it for themselves. However in the church's eyes this remained heretical. They kind of had a point, because translation always involves re-interpretation of some kind, and there was a worry that the truth of the Word would be diluted or misconstrued. (Of course, it hadn't been written in Latin in the first place -and let me tell you this caused them some sleepless nights- but at least the translation in use had a long and academically-verified tradition of interpretation that priests and scholars could rely on!) The clergy and university men could read the Bible in Latin, and maybe other literate people like noblewomen and merchants, but it isn't clear that those groups actually had access to it. I don't know that Bibles were often found outside monastic/church libraries and schools. The Psalms were everywhere, in the form of Psalters for daily prayer, but not necessarily the whole book. I think most people probably accessed Bible stories through services and sermons where the Word was read and explained to them by intermediaries. After all, we saw last week that 'reading' was so much more complex than just seeing what words were on the page, so the church perhaps was right to be anxious about what Jo Blogs would do with the words if left to her own devices. This remained the case until after the Reformation, and was even one of the issues around which this period of conflict turned.
I was wondering, although Pope Innocent and James of Vitry and Cardinal Odo of Chateauroux (and others) wrote prolifically promoting the crusades, who would have actually heard their speeches, or read their words? how did the general public hear about these messages?
Hey everyone. I know you already have a lot to read and think about this week, but if you can, please try and have a look at the practice exam on Blackboard. If we get time, I'd like to do an exercise using this on Monday, and it will be more effective if you are already prepped.
I think I can answer your question in part Bobbie. I think the main way the general population heard about these speeches was through word-of-mouth. The speeches generated a great deal of excitement, and were reiterated throughout Western Europe. They would have also been recruited by their kings, and local lords, to fight in the Crusades. But I think the main way the excitement spread was though the talk of the town. This is particularly evident in the Fourth Crusade, as the Kings of Europe weren't actually 'invited' to join in the recapture of the Holy City, so that the papacy would maintain absolute control of the event. It's also interesting to question how the messages of Pope Innocent may have been distorted somewhere along the line, and how many people ACTUALLY understood the reasons they were getting involved. But Kathleen, please correct me if I'm wrong!!
I think you're right Tiff. There are a couple of ways that news would have travelled. The writings would have been loaned and copied out and read aloud to people as entertainment. And there would have been word of mouth. No doubt there would have been quite a buzz about any kind of crusade news, and lots of gossip. So there might have been lots of witnesses to things like sermons, each of whom went home and talked about what they'd heard to all their family and friends. But I'd say it's true that not everyone who was passing on or hearding that news would have had a very delicate understanding of the concepts. That might be another reason why crusade preaching had to hit the crudest of emotional buttons, like political speeches of any kind... (and that's always assuming the people at the back could hear...)
what i found most interesting was Riley-Smith's notion of 'Crusading as an act of Love'. The very fact that the crusaders murdered so many innocent people out of love for their neighbor, Christ and love of thy enemy, is a very foreign concept. was there no sense or feeling wrong and injustice when the crusaders were proposed??
Weren't church sacraments and rituals and all bible related teachings read in latin? Therefore if most people didn't understand it how were they supposed to know what was considered right or wrong?
And again with what you were telling us last week about medieval people reading with four levels of thought, if people also interpreted others' stories (word of mouth) with the same level of thought, I can understand how killing and murdering thousands and thousands of people for god could be honestly viewed as right. Especially when they are told this by such highly regarded religious figures and also secular figures, because all of them were considered better educated and therefore you would think what they were preaching was correct and moral.
One reason is that the crusades were said to have fail due to the inability of the east and west of europe to cooperate and even often hinder one another in their quest in the holy wars. Why was this so?
Post a Comment