 |
Truce between Christians and Saracens.
Matthew Paris, Chronica Maiora, Parker MS 16II, f.139v.
|
-
- Review of God's War by Jonathan Phillips in The Telegraph, September 2006.
- Review of God's War by J.L. Nelson in the London Review of Books, 2007.
- Interview with Christopher Tyerman about his book God's War.
 |
| Urban II preaching at Clermont |
In this interview, Tyerman talks about how it is misleading and ahistorical to draw direct connections between modern wars in the Middle East and the medieval crusading movement. I agree with him on this point, and it brings me to a general matter I forgot to mention in class, which is: while modern parallels and experiences can be useful tools for helping us think about the past, we should never confuse them with historical argument itself, which always has to be based in the evidence and context of the period. I'm sure you knew this - but especially following our discussions about ANZAC cove and Canterbury it seemed a good time to remind ourselves of this point...
 |
| Urban II preaching the crusade |
But back to the Crusades! The Institute for Historical Research in London runs a monthly seminar about the Crusades, so clearly there's no shortage of opinion and debate on the topic.
Post your thoughts and responses to these readings below by Monday evening. Then we'll be moving on to St Francis and Co.!
17 comments:
I have found a problem with Jonathan Phillips’ article as he states, “Christian warriors sinned against the tenets of their faith in acts of the greatest human folly.” This quote infers that the Christian warriors were sinning, as it clearly states, however, these men – and in some cases women-were told by the Pope and other highly regarded religious figures that their contribution to the crusade would amend all previous sins therefore not classing this act as a sin.
Who is to say that although these men were disobeying what we today know to be Christian ideals, their participation was actually a sin? If God is real – and according to the bible he speaks to us down on earth, who is to say that he didn’t command this act of religious gain?
God, as told by the bible, in many cases has struck down those without faith or who lack entire belief in his order. God has punished by means of burning, drowning and causing pain to those who those whom stray away from the “Christian way”.
I don’t particularly take on this view point but thought it was worth stating... Why does it seem ridiculous for us to believe that God did actually command the crusades into motion when we find it so easy to believe he exists and once visited the earth, and according to the bible went to endless measures (killing/punishing people) to refine it?
I think you've picked a good issue to start some discussion Jess. Just one minor point of clarification - in that statement Phillips is summarising what Steven Runciman had argued many years ago, not his own point of view. He's comparing Runciman (the old status quo) with Tyreman's new approach.
I'm curious whether different branches of Christianity such Greek Orthodox etc came before or after the Crusades and how the other branches of Christianity related to each other.
Sorry I wasn't supposed to sound like I was attacking someone, especially as it was a summary, it just posed an idea, not necesssarily evoked as an argument against him or Runciman's view, just a train of thought that I took perhaps a little to far...
But what I really find interesting is that - although it may seem irelevant, people still part take in this extremist behaviour. Al Qaeda for example.
Religion wasn't just a belief in these times of the crusades, it was such a way of life people didn't even question the morals behind their actions, when the benefits seemed to valuable - or so I believe.
As Tyerman adds to Erdmann's thought that pilgrammage wasn't the only thing to ignite the crusades, they were also a chance for "personal renewal" - cleansing of their souls to be worthy of heaven. This, as written in Nelson's review, really does reflect social psychology and the need to be a part of something. - SO FACINATING!!!
Human's are all the same, even after thousands of years we still require the same sense of belonging.
I find the thought process and justification surrounding the Crusades or Holy Wars very fascinating. As Churches and Kings used the authority of religion as a source of motivation to continuously wage war, inorder to claim back the Holy Land and convert Pagans. But the violence and death these Crusades caused, goes against many of their religious beliefs. I agree with Tyerman, when he explains that the Crusades was not justified by “circumstance, cause or legal authority, but as a Holy act in its self”. Therefore, the crusaders were not committing sins, but rather they were redeeming themselves.
This reasoning and rationalizing is REALLY interesting, just as Jess said their need to be apart of something was so great that if the Church justified War they would fight.
But another thought that crossed my mind was, were there any groups or organizations that tried to prevent these Crusades or stood against the churches influence in beginning the Holy Wars?
Firstly… sorry, I kind of wrote an essay and my opinions are a bit harsh, I don’t hold much of a soft spot for the church…
Jess.. I was thinking the same thing about extremist behaviour in the name of religion :) I definitely don’t agree with terrorism, but when you think about it, you can almost find similarities between the actions of some terrorist groups - e.g Taliban in Afghanistan, wanting to exert their beliefs, ideologies and power over Afghans, and crusades. Where I think the difference lies is that a vast majority of people in the middle ages supported crusades and therefore they were generally socially accepted, but today - people don’t agree with the actions of terrorist groups. Interesting…..
I also agree that religion had become almost a way of life for people, - I think people in the middle ages were severely manipulated by the church and I think that’s why they didn’t question the morality of their actions...they associated morality with the church and if the church said something was acceptable (e.g killing others for spiritual redemption), then it was…
Tyerman suggested that crusades were not used for committing sins, but for people to redeem themselves.. And yes people may have thought that, but doesn’t it sounds so… corrupt… killing others to redeem your sins
From Tyerman's piece:
The whole development of the crusades and what they lead to, astonishes me.
First people were encouraged to partake in a crusade for spiritual redemption, which made it almost like a pilgrimage, however there was fighting too (and killing others - so unchristian like…)
Then people were encouraged to just take up the cross - giving money to others to support their journey on the crusade and this gave them redemption…
Then people just gave the church money - buying crusade indulgences for redemption. It seems like the act of the crusade/pilgrimage wasn’t actually important for spiritual redemption, all the church wanted was money.
It also sounded as if people with power - major landholder/rulers were using the churches crusades to bring about battles with neighbours so they could exert there control over them - so corrupt!!
… hope my interpretation of this stuff is right
Anyway it all seems pretty corrupt and messy to me… and pretty ironic that the morals the church emphasises today are some of those they neglected in their past…
I agree with the comments Gen made about the church’s manipulation over the people, as it was the way in which they got money and power. I was finding it interesting thinking about how the church leaders would justify the crusades and manipulation to themselves. Did they know they were just trying to get more power or did they really think they were doing god’s work? I know we cannot find the answer to this but I thought it was interesting all the same.
Kathleen I am quite interested in these topics and was wondering if you knew of any other good writings on the crusades?
On the topic of the church's manipulation of the populous I think it is important to note the five versions of Urabn II's speech at the Council of Clearmont.
Firstly, while I disagree with the manipulation of religious belief in order to raise wealth and incite violence, I don't believe it fair to assume that the crusades were purely tools to expand the power and wealth of the Catholic Church but, more, a tool to expand the unity and status of Christendom as a whole. The focus of Guilbert of Nogent's version on the restoring of the Holy Land in order to fulfill biblical prophecy suggests that the consolidation of Christendom which the crusades likely aimed to facilitate was for a greater good. It is useful to note that although the crusades advocated conflict the preaching, in fact, condemned warfare within Christendom and aimed to unite all Christians by creating a common enemy whom fighting would be exulted.
However, the rhetoric used in the speeches is clearly passionate and volatile. A christian of the time would be hard pressed to be able to refuse the opportunity to crusade following the demonic portrayal of "enemies of Christendom" and the use of deeply spiritually evocative phrases such as "may you deem it beautiful to die for Christ in that city in which He died for us."
Tom - good query! The final schism between the Eastern (Greek Orthodox) and Western (Roman) churches took place in 1058, so predated the crusades. But the popes/West never lost heart that they might be brought back into the fold (as long as Rome was the acknowledged leader). This might be one key reason why the popes thought the opportunity of 'rescuing' Constantinople from the Seljuks was one not to be missed - it had the potential to precipitate the reintegration of Christendom, which was not onloy politically desirable but important for the salvation of thousands of souls according to their rationale.
Jessie - yes! There's heaps and heaps written on the crusades. A good place to start is Jonathan Riley-Smith's The Oxford Illustrated History of the Crusades, or Tyreman's book God's War. Some other names to search for in the library are:
* Jonathan Phillips
* Thomas Asbridge (who has also recently made a BBC documentary on the topic you may be able to find online)
* Emile Amt
An no doubt their books and articles will give you more leads.
BTW - Gen and Jess: there's absolutely nothing wrong with taking a stance on a topic that 'seems harsh' as long as you give a reasoned defence of it. Our aim is not for everyone to agree (as long as we all remain polite and friendly!) but rather to come to decisions and positions that are substantiated by evidence and argument. So I have no problem with you either objecting to or defending the notion that the crusade was a Holy War. I just want to know why!
Jess - I think the element you picked out of Jinty's review about the psychological value of redemption of sins and belonging to a Christian cause is an important one. You've highlighted a way in which we can try and understand the impact of crusade preaching and general social impact irrespective of our own current beliefs.
Gen - I think you've picked up an important issue in the history of Christianity in general, which is that while it presents (and understands) itself as eternal and unchanging, it can't help being embedded in history, and that means that it does, has and will change over time. So, as Clare noted in the lecture, the late Antique Christ was a majestic ruler, whereas in the high middle ages, he was often seen as a suffering man. These days, perhaps the emphasis is on Christ as a benign friend, full of forgiveness. Each age has made its own 'reading' of the message, and understood slightly different things by it. So while 'thou shalt not kill' might seem unambigous, there's actually a whole lot more going on in any Christian society. None of that is supposed to mean that we should say it actually was OK for people to kill unorthodox Christians or members of other faiths, but that we have to try not to use that value judgement too much as we think about the history of the phenomenon. In the 11th century, the image of a suffering Christ may have moved some to anger at those who made him suffer (metaphorically through attacking the contemporary faith or believers; or 'physically', as the Jews were erooneously believed to have done). This might have been one way that the devout saw crusading as justifiable in their context, even though modern devout Christians might not agree.
Hey Deniz - good question! Um... the answer is 'not that I know of' at least in the beginning. (Although, as is often repeated, 'history is written by the winners', who in this case were often religious men, so their opinions might not have shown us much record of dissent.
Later on, however, for example in the 13th century, people started to get, if not squeamish about the bloodshed, then at least a bit ticked off about the cost of it all. In 13th century England the nobles refused many times to give money to the king to go on crusade (eg. against Emperor Frederick II who had been declared a heretic, and was even considered by some as the Anti-Christ). This wasn't generally so much about the crusade itself as about their general dissatisfaction with local taxation levels and a related push for more 'representative' government... another example of how issues always become more complex the closer you look!
Jeremy raises an excellent point about the fundamental quest for the unity of Christendom as part of this whole phenomenon. We tend to overlook this one, but it's a point which brings what might otherwise appear to be purely cynical political expansionist policies together with real concern for souls.
I was wondering how many people were actually involved in the crusades, as in what portion of the population would have taken part in such a pilgrimage?
I found it interesting about the criminals who went on the crusades. Was it a decision the criminals made themselves to clear a guilty conscience and to further their way into heaven or was the option made for them for penance. This said can any sin be cleared by going on the crusade? And was choosing to go on a crusade a way of avoiding a punishment for misdeeds?
Hey Bobbie - I think it must have been a very small percent: mostly nobility (who would already have been a minority), and not all of them (not even all the men, and certainly not many of the women). I'm not sure of actual figures. Has anyone come across any numbers while preparing for essays?
Alanah - I don't have the evidence (perhaps someone would like to volunteer to follow up?) but I suspect going on crusade might have been strictly a spiritual forgiveness, rather than an escape from worldly punishment, except by special permission of a secular legal process. (e.g. in some circumstances I happen to know that in high medieval England, the king would pardon homicides and murderers if they fought in his armies. There was also a process through which knights fulfilling feudal obligations to the king on campaign could claim immunity from legal actions against them while they were away so that their opponents didn't just win by default.)
i find it really interesting about the crusades, was it more the powers of royalty acting on behalf of the church or did the church fall away from their religious duties because of the wealth that they misinterpreted the bible and ignored the words of jesus.
it seems these crusades that were to take away their sins proved to be just pillaging and not truly to reclaim the holy land. They seem to be very Romanist in their actions.
Post a Comment