Varieties of History: The Crusades - Essay Example

AIH2102 Varieties of History: The Crusades Dr. Katherine Lewis Tamas Zelei The First Crusade can be time-lined between 1096-1099, which can be attributed more as a widespread pilgrimage on the behalf of Germany and France. However, the crusade ended more like a military expedition held by the Roman Catholic Europeans in an effort to get hold of their Holy Lands which were taken away by them in Muslim conquests back in 632 at Levant1. The First Crusade can conveniently and evidently be attributed as a success since the Catholics ended up re-capturing the Jerusalem by 1099. The Crusade was initiated on November 27, 1095 when Pope Urban II announced it as a result of an appeal from the Byzantine Emperor i.e. Alexios I Komnenos. The appeal contained a formal request to the Western Powers to aide him in the process of repelling the invaders from Anatolia i.e. the Seljuq Turks. In addition, the Pope had an added goal in mind of regaining control over the city which was sacred for them, i.e. the city of Jerusalem and also freeing their sacred city of the Muslim rulers who had taken Eastern Christians captives. The crusade was quite an intense struggle where serfs, peasants and even the knights travelled to fights from different parts of Western Europe. They continued their journey first to Constantinople on the call of the Pope and later turned towards Jerusalem to gain control of the city. By July of 1099, the crusaders had arrived in Jerusalem where they had launched a massive attack and captured the city after massacring huge numbers of Muslims, Jews and even the Christians of the city. In addition, they established the crusader stated in the Kingdom of Jerusalem, Principality of antioch, country of Tripoli and also the country of Edessa. However, there is still controversy over the settlement of fact over whether or not the First Crusade should be deemed as an aggressive one or as a defensive one. Reason being that the crusaders refused to turn the control of the city of Jerusalem to the Byzantine emperor since they were overwhelmed after re-deeming control of the city after 461 years.2 The first crusade can thus evidently be attributed as the Christian response to Muslim conquest which was later followed by eight other crusader which lasted for around 200 years. However, the crusades paved way for opening international trade for the west after the fall of Roman Empire in the West. On one hand, many of the contemporary historians deem the crusades as a desperate attempt by both parties to hold control over their sacred places, on the other hand, a few of them are of the view that the first crusade was quite a success for the Catholics and the Pope. Yet, other historians are of the view that it was merely a religious war which resulted in massive scale manslaughter and thus, it shouldn’t be attributed as a success. In any case, though the fourth crusade and the ‘People`s Crusade’ is deemed as a failure but there is no second opinion over the fact that the first Crusade is definitely a success, and the only crusade which achieved a clear and a black and white version of victory and loss. For this reason, it is crucial to going into the reasons why the First Crusade was such a success. Analysis indicated that the Christian politics during the era were quite shaky, also the Muslims were inherently divided and thus, formed hasty military factions with little strategic depth. In addition the Muslim factions were also devoid of modern technological weaponries available at the time. These factors are accounted for as the most significant factors in ensuring success for the Catholics. Yet, others deem them as superficial factors rather paving the resultant success on the inherent principals over which the entire journey rested, i.e. the zeal and vigor of attaining their Holy Land and freeing it from the Muslims, or rather gaining the city rightfully since it was originally theirs centuries ago. However, rational analysis indicates that the First Crusade was originally a success due to the military skills of the Europeans, their deep rooted religious zeal, and also the political as well as the military breakdown of the formerly unity empire of the Muslims. The paper aims at studying these various factors in detail to seek in-depth understanding of the factors. Analyzing the European military skills utilized during the Crusades would be a rational choice since it was one of the major factors in shaping the struggle and attaining success after the crusade. The Christians of the West, known as Franks during the era to the Byzantine Empire, had the leaders who owned advanced skills in designing strategies in battles. These skills were rooted in a varied history of these Europeans in wining deadly war by using the most advanced war strategies known to mankind. Amongst these leaders was the Bohemond who belonged from Taranto3. He was one of the leaders in the crusades and had already proven himself as a distinct military head and a skilled fighter by participating in the wars initiated by his father against those Byzantines residing in southern parts of Italy. Also, Bohemond was popular as the ‘blonde, handsome and the strong’ especially after the presentation of him accounted by Alexia who was the daughter of the emporer of Byzantine. Thus, someone as credible and audacious as him being the commander of Crusaders definitely added to the victory of the Crusaders over the armies of Seljuks headed by Sultan Kijli. His success is also evident from the event when he was successful in capturing the Antioch from the Emir of Turkey, the Yaghi Syrian4. This was one of the victories without which the capturing of Jerusalem in 1099 wouldn’t have taken place at all. Yet, history fails to give him much credit due to the fact that he was one of the enemies of the great Byzantine Empire which created a few controversies. Also, this was the reason why neither the Emporer Alexius not the General looking after the Crusaders in the war, Primicerius Tacticius, for the most part trusts the Crusades army. Another significant commander who must be under discussion in this context is the Raymond who was from Tolouse. He commanded the crusades at a later stage, yet his victory is evident from the strategic brilliance which led him to break the defense of the Emir Iftikhar i.e. the Arabian Nubian Garrison which was especially designed by the Emir to protect the holy city. Furthermore, the commanders had also prepared their armies well, as the soldiers belonging from the Christian Crusader were armed quite heavily as opposed to the Muslims who were weak in front of the well equipped Knights of the European Army. In addition, the Muslims weren’t as well armed and were solely relying on the traditional means of warfare. As opposed to them, the European armies were equipped with armed cavalry produced as a result of innovation and research, which they used heavily to their advantage as an edge over the other armies. This was the reason why the cavalry was also at advantage in Armenia where the Baldwin from Bolougne and was successful there as well5. Thus, while the Byzantines and the Muslim leaders labeled them as Barbarians, it was a huge paradox as the so-called barbarians were the one so well equipped with all the modern military equipments. Another factor behind the success of the European army in the First Crusades was the religious zeal exhibited by them which acted as a catalyst in invigorating intensity. History dictates the fact that a justified war always reaped better results than the one unjustified and un-legitimized. Thus, when the Crusades was launched as a response to the Byzantine Emperor`s request by the Pope Urban II, the entire Europe saw it as a justified and a legitimized cause which inherently instilled sentiments crucial for war. The speech delivered by the Pope at Clermont in 1095 was quite passionate where he called for massive support for the Christian cause which called for the liberation of the holy land which originally belonged to them6. In addition, in his speech the Pope clarified that any man who would willingly participate in the cause would be ridden off the sins committed in his life. Thus, Pope Urban instigated a sense of national unity amongst all the Christians of Europe who were rather disturbed and diverted by wars going on in Europe. Thus he gave them a comparative advantage of participating in the Crusades by adding the element of ridding the sins since during the time there were major incidences of savagery in the region and thus, it was natural that they were drawn to the cause. As a result, the speech woke spiritual as well moral conscience of not just the men but also the women and the children across the Europe where Christians were hyped and excited to participate in the war. Thus, the eagerness to prove the faith, thousands of peasants voluntarily followed the fanatic crusade with the aim to wipe out the Seljuk forces, where for the most part they were successful as well. This became one of the major instances in history which proved that religion can be a driving force even stronger than history, where even the nobility and the rich class of the Europe along with the lower class Christians were drawn to the cause setting a new trend in the era7. Thus, the religious ardor was at its peak which is one of the most evident factors in acquiring victory in the first crusades for the Christians of Europe. Thirdly, the fact that the Muslims of the Arab world were divided inherently can also not be ruled out while analyzing the factors which led towards the success of Crusades for the Christians. At one time, the Muslim world was glorified after being founded in 7th century which led to the expansion of their rule ranging from Spain all the way to India due to the strength and vigor of the Umayyad Caliphate8. However, internal wars within the Muslim community divided them into two distinct categories, i.e. one based in Baghdad and the other based in Egypt, the Fatimid Caliphate. This distinction created a political wedge between the two communities due to which they often indulged in wars within themselves causing more harm than good. For instance, the Muslims found near the eastern side had already fallen prey to religious as well as political anarchy due to the dictators who failed to unite them with other Muslims against the Crusaders, which led to their fall in the wars. Though the Emirs did make an effort to unite themselves with other allies of the Islamic world, and most of these Emirs were skilled enough as well since they had served the Caliphates, yet due to political differences between them, they weren’t able to develop a strategic depth in the region to prevent the Crusaders from winning. Especially, in the area where the Fatimid Caliphate was dominate, the army of Vizier al-Afdal was unsuccessful in stopping the Crusaders who was smaller in numbers as well9. Thus, the muslims weren’t just under-prepared for the war, in addition they were also divided and chaotic to such an extent that they weren’t able to take control over their own territories. Thus, conclusively, a critical analysis of the first Crusades indicate that the muslim politics during the era were quite shaky, also the Muslims were inherently divided and thus, formed hasty military factions with little strategic depth. In addition the Muslim factions were also devoid of modern technological weaponries available at the time. These factors are accounted for as the most significant factors in ensuring success for the Catholics. Yet, others deem them as superficial factors rather paving the resultant success on the inherent principals over which the entire journey rested, i.e. the zeal and vigor of attaining their Holy Land and freeing it from the Muslims, or rather gaining the city rightfully since it was originally theirs centuries ago. However, rational analysis indicates that the First Crusade was originally a success due to the military skills of the Europeans, their deep rooted religious zeal, and also the political as well as the military breakdown of the formerly unity empire of the Muslims. Bibliography: BOASE, T. S. R. (1971). Kingdoms and strongholds of the Crusaders. Indianapolis, Bobbs-Merrill Co. FILMS MEDIA GROUP. (2012). Holy War: The Crusades. BBC. http://ezproxy.library.arizona.edu/login?url=http://digital.films.com/PortalPlaylists.aspx?aid=18623&xtid=52449. LOCK, P. (2006). The Routledge companion to the crusades. London, Routledge. MAALOUF, A. (1985). The crusades through Arab eyes. New York, Schocken Books. NICHOLSON, H. J. (2005). Palgrave advances in the Crusades. Houndmills [England], Palgrave Macmillan. RILEY-SMITH, J. S. C. (1995). The Oxford illustrated history of the Crusades. Oxford, Oxford University Press. TYERMAN, C. (2011). The debate on the Crusades. Manchester, UK, Manchester University Press. SMAIL, R. C. (1956). Crusading warfare, 1097-1193. Cambridge [Eng.], University Press. SMAIL, R. C. (1974). The crusaders; in Syria and the Holy Land. New York, Praeger. Read More