The Changing Nature of the Crusades between 1095 and 1204 - Essay Example

Affiliation: "CRUSADING BEGAN IN RELIGIOUS PASSION BUT QUICKLY PROGRESSED INTO CYNICAL SELF-INTEREST." TO WHAT EXTENT WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THIS ASSESSMENT OF THE CHANGING NATURE AND PURPOSE OF CRUSADING BETWEEN 1095 AND 1204. Crusading was initially meant for the sanctification of those who participated in it. The pope granted indulgences to those who took part in it. Those who perished gained eternal reward; others expiated their past sins and began new life. Essential spiritual privileges were included in the indulgence: crusaders who had confessed their sins were freed of the penance they had to perform either in this world or in the next, even if they were prevented by death from actually going on the crusade. Thus, the crusade indulgence initially was identical to that ensured by the pilgrimage to the Holy places. The Crusades, which meant fighting for the defence of Christians, came to be considered as a work of piety. Political and military success was of little importance. The Turkish invasion of Syria and Asia Minor promoted the development of the idea of crusading (1071 - Turkish occupation of Jerusalem). The crusades are divided into 3 periods. First period: 1095 - 1204 Second period: 1204 - 1209 Third period: 1291 - 1464 Pope Urban II solemnly proclaimed the first crusade at the council of Clermont on 27th Nov. 1095 with a double objective, namely to relieve the pressure of the Seljuk Turks on the Eastern Empire and to secure free access to Jerusalem for pilgrims since the latter were abused and robbed by the Moslems and Arabs. He promised full remission of sins to all joining in the expedition. This call was in response to Alexius I call for help (Alexius Byzantine emperor - Byzantine Empire under attack from the Turks). This crusade was the most successful from the military point from the military point. The historian Raymond Agiles describing the capture of Jerusalem by the crusaders in 1099 wrote ''that some of our men cut off the heads of their enemies; others shot them with arrows, so that they fell from the towers; others tortured them longer by casting them into the flames. Piles of heads, hands and feet were to be seen in the streets of the city. It was necessary to pick one's way over the bodies of men and horses. However, these were small matters compared to what happened at the temple of Solomon, a place where religious services were ordinarily chanted. What happened there If I tell the truth, it will exceed your powers of belief. So let it suffice to say this much at least, that in the temple and portico of Solomon, men rode in blood up to their knees and bridle reins.''1 The Crusades took on a new meaning later on. It became a military expedition and no longer a pilgrimage of unarmed pilgrims. The Church moved away from the sole aim of the crusades which was the liberation of the Holy Land from the invasion of the Turks and it began using the Crusades to serve the church's own interest. Preaching of crusades became a device used by the church against the enemy states of the church. Personal enemies of the churches high-powered officials were sent on pilgrimages with the hope that you do not come back however, the means by which your death is brought about. The crusades increased the powers of European kings in that a number of barons who had given them trouble were sent to the east. Holy wars were authorised by the Popes in defence of the Christendom and the church. The crusades were used to defend the church against the infidels in the East, Germany and Spain, against heretics (Albigenses) and schematics who threatened catholic unity and against Christian lay powers who opposed the papacy. They were also used to defend the Papal States. The crusades started with a religious reason but it deteriorated to selfish reasons. These could be attributed to many reasons. The Papal States had to protect its territories from invasion by other states so it used the crusades as a papal military defence operation to defend these territories and the catholic religious doctrine. The papacy also used the crusades enforce the supremacy of the Christian faith especially the catholic way of worship and its beliefs. Nevertheless, dry economic and social conditions of the day also contributed to people readily taking up arms to fight in the crusades. The knights loved adventure and had a lust for booty. Pope Urban II promised that all those who went on crusades would enjoy undisturbed possession of the lands they conquered. This certainly would lure a lot of them to the crusades. The Love for adventure and lust for booty one could say became the key reasons why individuals offered to go on crusades erasing the noble and pious reason of fighting in defence of the Christendom. In about 850, there was a crisis in the agrarian economy of southern France and Italy. Production fell and the system of inheritance changed. In southern France, the eldest son had the right to succeed the family inheritance. The younger sons would have to cater for themselves by entering the church (as monk or priest) or going for a military carrier. The crusades served as safety valves against disputes of inheritance since it removed the subjects far from their home countries. The crusades also provided a ready opportunity for individuals seeking military careers. Others also went to the crusades in order to protect the best interest of the family, particularly in a situation where there were too many heirs and where fragmentation seemed inevitable unless some of them left home. An instance is the Mconnais family of La Hongre. (1096) A.C. Kery writes that probably Pope urban II had hoped that the service rendered to the emperor by the crusade would make Alexius I favourable to the resolution of the schism between papacy and the Greeks in 1054. Western schism popes used crusades to defend themselves and fight one another and to oppose those they regarded as enemies of the church Williston Walker ET. Al. observes that the crusades viewed ''in the light of their original purpose, the Crusades were failures. They made no permanent conquests of the Holy Land. They did not retard the advance of Islam. Far from aiding the Eastern Empire, they hastened its disintegration. They also revealed the continuing inability of Latin Christians to understand Greek Christians, and they hardened the schism between them. They fostered a harsh intolerance between Muslims and Christians, where before there had been a measure of mutual respect. They were marked, and marred, by a recrudescence of anti-Semitism...''. (Internet sources: "the crusades") This assertion is true. Let us take the case of Richard "Coeur de lion" (1157-1199) who participated in the third crusade in the company of Philip of France and Leopold of Austria. Soon after Richard was crowned king of England, he busied himself raising money for the crusade through very reckless means. He put up Offices and Honors for sale to the highest bidders. He also managed raised 15,000 marks by remitting to William the lion of Scotland the rights over Scotland, which Henry II had secured by the treaty of falaise. He left England in the summer of 1190 leaving the country in the corrupt hands of William Longchamps a French man who despised and hated the English. Richard the lion heart had a thirst for military glory and fame and the opportunity to gain that presented it self through the crusade. His thirst for fame and glory was such that he sacrificed his country and his throne to achieve. The way and manner King Richard went about raising funds for the crusade was selfish and detrimental to his country. It put the country at peril as he placed directly in the hands of an enemy without a hesitant thought. King Richard showed the greatest irresponsibility by this act. He also left the country unmarried and without an heir for the crusade with it's attendant personal dangers. On the journey to the holy land, there were many quarrels among the leaders. John Canning writes that "though the third crusade was described as the most courtly, chivalrous and romantic, of all,'' the leaders hated themselves more than the hated the common enemy. In addition, one could assume that this was due to everyone wanting to be recognized and bowed to and selfish ambitions. (100 great kings, queens and rulers of the world.) King Richard even went as far as making peace with Saladin, who it seems he liked better than his fellow Christian warriors, did. It would be accurate to assume that the exemptions, absolutions and material rewards promised by the pope must have caused the noble and pious aim of crusading to have being lost; pushing personal ambitions to the fore and thereby defeating the purpose of the crusades. References: "Crusades" in New Catholic Encyclopaedia, vol IV, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1967. Pp500-512 F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone (eds) The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, (2nd Ed) Oxford university press, New York, 1974. Hans Eberhard Mayer, the Crusades, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1965. Canning, J., Editor, ''100 great kings, queens and rulers of the world'' The Christian crusades, "the bible the book that bridges the millennia'' internet sources, 22nd April 2006 ; from Google search engine. Read More