Firstly, Riley-Smith identifies the love for Christ as a motivating factor for the Crusades. This is illustrated through one of the early terms for Crusader Knights: crucesignati, meaning the sign of Christ. Crusader Knights were required to sew on to their tunics the sign of the crucifix, to acknowledge the ordeal of Jesus Christ, a point which is stressed by Pope Innocent: "You receive a soft and gentle cross; he bore one that was sharp and hard. You wear it superficially on your clothing; he endured it really in his flesh. You sew on yours with linen and silk threads; he was nailed to his with iron and hard nails."
The early Crusades were considered an extension of a pilgrimage, which illustrates a significant devotional aspect to Christ. It also marks a pivotal moment in the perception of wartime killing in the context of Christian theology. Previously, "Christian thinkers had accepted war as a necessary but unfortunate aspect of life." (James Muldoon, 2005, p41) and the Catholic Church reconciled the contradiction between warfare and the Christian notion of anti-violence, by requiring soldiers to undertake penance and seek absolution from their sins for participating in war. However Crusading in itself replaced the obligatory penance, as the actual act of participating in a holy war became the means for one to expiate their sins. This underlines the devotional aspect of Crusading and demonstrates the perceived link between love for God and violent warfare.
The love for one's fellow Christian was also a pervasive theme in the appeal of Pope Urban II. Many scholars purport that Pope Urban exaggerated the plight of the Christians in the East at the hands of their Muslim rulers, including James Muldoon: "...the pope argued, Christians living under Muslim rule in the East were suffering under Muslim rule and should be freed. In saying this, he was apparently unaware that Eastern Christians had generally come to a peaceful accommodation with their Muslim masters and did not require the help of their European brethren." (James Muldoon, 2005, p44) However, this view distorts certain historical facts, for example, the circumstances surrounding the rule of Caliph Hakim, who began persecuting Jews and Christians living in Palestine in 1009 CE, by passing a cruel law that required Christians to wear ten pound crucifix's around their necks and for Jews to carry around a carved wooden calf's head. (Regine Pernoud, 2003) Muslim despotism such as this sent shock waves throughout European Christendom and galvanised the Papacy to call for a 'just war'.
The Papacy also tried to reconcile Christian theology with Crusader warfare. Canonists drew heavily on the warfare that featured prominently in the Hebrew Scriptures. According to Jean Richard: "...the inclusion in the Ten Commandments of a precept forbidding the killing of a human being did not prevent the people of Israel from waging wars which seemed to them wholly justified." (Jean Richard, 1999, p1) The Bible is saturated with examples of God ordering the Israelites to exterminate certain groups of people for their ungodly practices, such as in Deuteronomy 20:16-18: "But when you capture cities in the land that the Lord your God is giving you, kill everyone...Kill them, so that they will not make you sin against the Lord by teaching you to do all the disgusting things that they do in the worship of their gods." Passages such as this can be used to justify the Crusades in the East.
Jonathan Riley-Smith analyses the Crusades using the Christian notions of love of God and brotherly love, and illustrates how the Crusades can be reconciled with Judeo-Christian theology.
--Rachael
~ ~ ~
I believe that before you look at the phenomenon that was the Crusades you should look into the context in which they were occurring. For I think it’s very easy to be trapped in a modern perspective that the whole venture was completely barbaric and entirely destructive.
The historical context for the Crusades spans a considerably long time as the Crusades themselves span many years, from 1095 to 1291, (with the exact number of Crusades debated by historians). The First Crusade found its origin in 1095 as Pope Urban II made his famous call to arms at the Council of Clermont. Urban prior to this had received a plea from the Byzantine Emperor Alexius Comnenus for the assistance of soldiers to drive back the Turks in Anatolia.
From this a legion of men set forth for the sake of ‘brotherly love’ and the promise of the remission of sins to “destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends” (Fulcher of Chartes). Historian Steven Runciman however explains that this was not the result that Alexius desired as they didn’t wish to cause further disturbances in the Muslim world from Urban’s planned assault on Jerusalem.
An important note to consider is that throughout the rallying of the First Crusade and all subsequent ones, the term ‘Crusade’ was never used. Words such as Crucesignatic (those marked with the Cross), peregrination (business of Christ) and perefrinatio (pilgrimage) were all used for what we now classify as the Crusade. This lends itself to the possibly notion that the crusaders were just an extension of the pilgrimages, particularly those to the Holy Land, that were highly popular during the 11th century.
In the readings a few weeks ago, historian Christopher Tyerman raised an interesting point about the context in which the Crusades were occurring. He theorised that “crusading did not make western Europe a violent place; violent Europe created crusading” (p.134). Tyerman believes that Alexius’ plea was not the sole mitigating factor which produced the First Crusade. He states that:
“Crusading was a symptom of a new strands in lay and clerical spirituality, of the fresh perspectives and policies of a reinvigorated papacy, of the greater order and prosperity in western Europe, of the emergent status and consequent social arrangements of the arms-bearing or knightly class, of a reinvigorated Christian aggression, the harsh side of Urban II’s vision of Christian history.”
Coming back to the historical circumstances of the First Crusade, it was identified by Runciman that the relations between Rome and Constantinople were “better, frankly, than there had been for a century”. Previously their relations had been somewhat strained through the ambitious Normans and the public excommunication in 1054 between a papal legate and a patriarch of Constantinople. Relations had only begun to heal by Ubran’s raising of the excommunication in 1089, thus making it possible to Urban to receive such support for his response to help some six years later.
So these are just a few things to think about when looking at the Crusades this week. That we shouldn’t consider them as a stand-alone event, but rather how they fit in with the social and religious contexts of the time.
--Adie
~ ~ ~
The sixth commandment, ‘You shall not murder.’ I would like to just point out a few details in this statement. First of all it is a commandment of God, His words and His rule that must be obeyed in order to achieve a life free from sin. Also note the lack of footnotes and in bracket exceptions, why? There simply are none. These four words are the only words included in this commandment; it doesn’t even refer you to any others. It is not our right to decide whether a person should die or not. Only God can decide. So let us focus on the matter at hand.
Were the Crusades truly Gods will? The Crusades were firstly promoted by the Pope who was considered to be the people’s connection to God. In other words, his words were the words of God. Baring any arguments on the reality of this statement, you can see how the people of both higher and lower class would respond to these words with such enthusiasm.
Riley-Smith constantly replaces the words kill and murder with punish and correction, showing us that punishing the wicked is necessary in order to correct their behavior. But never once does any one of the examples he provides strait out states that killing is a form of correcting behavior, mainly because killing would not be punishing the offender, rather annihilating.
So where do the crusades fit in the hearts of the crusaders? Was it love that pushed them to leave behind their family and their homes, brave the perilous roads for months on rations, and finally pull out a sword and have the will to see the life go out in someone’s eyes knowing that they caused it? They know that God asked them to never kill. Many reasons have been suggested; "It is the will of God" exclaimed the assembly after Pope Urban II reminded them of Christ’s own words "let no base affection detain you in your homes; whoever will abandon his house, or his father, or his mother, or his wife, or his children, or his inheritance, for the sake of my name, shall be recompensed a hundred-fold, and possess life eternal." This would be the most popular reason. But does the love of a God provide the drive? I propose that if they truly loved their religion and their God, they would search for a way to punish offenders and correct behavior without immediately reverting to a violent solution. Would not God have loved them more if they were able to accomplish this without bloodshed? I believe that the Crusaders fell in lust with the idea of an all-loving God, and when hearing ‘God’s Will’ from the mouth of the Pope, it was passion not love that drove them to commit such a crime.
--Chelsea
6 comments:
I think Chelsea brings up some really interesting points and shows a different side of the justification. Taking biblical quotes and commandments completely out of context (which has been done on many occasions) can then be applied to virtually any situation whatsoever to provide any kind of perceived meaning or interpretation. Humans seem to be constantly attracted to the ideas of war and will justify their actions in any way possible. Back on history throughout time war has occurred time and time again and with different justifications - religious or not.
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.
In reference to the comments that Chelsea and Emily have made, the use of justification by the Church for there violence was what I found most striking in this weeks reading. Riley-Smith lists multiple examples from the bible of 'acts or expressions of violence motivated by love' which underpinned St. Augustine's defence of the brutality carried out by Crusaders against 'heretics'. However is that statement not a contradiction in itself? Christ may in fact have chastised those who did wrong but I dare say outright violence was never preached by Him or His disciples. Love should not beget violence and I find it absurd that the Church felt the notion that the Crusaders were showing love by preventing sin in this manner was not only God's work but also His will.
This is late, and probably not all that relevant to the discussion, but i just have to say, i find Sir Steven Runciman quite amusing. I'm rather taken by his views on the whole issue, that the crusaders were "suspicious, arrogant and really had no idea of the nuisance that their presence caused" and that some guy called Godfrey of Lorraine was "obviously a remarkably stupid man"! Ha!
But anyway, i'll try get my thoughts in order by tomorrow and contribute something more worthwhile for the tute!
In the S.J. Allen and Emilie Amt reading, the papacy's request for aid to fund the crusades is crafted not only as a threat of divine retribution to those who refuse to donate, but also as a transaction of aid in return for the remission of sin. Perhaps this dual-pronged approach of persuasion was used purposefully as the purported incentive to absolve sin softened the initial threat of divine retribution, painting the papacy as reasonable.
As others have stated, I too found the Riley-Smith reading regarding 'Crusading as an Act of Love' oddly contradictory, as I struggled to grasp how violence could ever be construed as a display of love. Despite this, it was immensely interesting to not only gain this perspective, but also to consider the Medieval notions behind crusading and one of the reasons why it potentially gained such popularity. Such readings are, I believe, beneficial despite the confusion they may cause us as modern readers, as they force us to consider seemingly incongruous concepts, in this case love and violence, and to therefore think in deeper, more abstract ways.
Post a Comment