Tutorial Discussion Post
By: Maddi, Avalon, Steve, Phil, Paul and Jamie
Phil's thoughts,
What does he
(Runciman) mean when he refers to a ‘melancholy pile of
misunderstandings’
throughout the First Crusade?
When did it
all go so tragically wrong for the fabled alliance between
Eastern and
Western Christianity that Pope Urban II had optimistically
envisaged?
While relations between the two bodies of Christianity had
never been
overtly friendly, they steadily declined during the
crusading
period, culminating in the sacking of Constantinople in 1205
A.D. So when
did the problems begin? Well, according to historian
Steven
Runciman they began at the beginning - with Pope Urban’s call
to crusade
at Clermont in 1095 – at least from the Byzantine
perspective.
This council and the events that transpired were
fundamentally
influenced by a “melancholy pile of misunderstandings”
that were
evident throughout the First Crusade and contributed to the
sacking of
Constantinople.
According to
Runciman, the first (and probably the most important) of
the
misunderstandings during the First Crusade came in Pope Urban II’s
speech to
the Western Knights, in which he expressed the necessity of
the
crusades. Urban misunderstood the meaning of the presence of
Alexius’
delegates in Western Europe as a call for help when all the
Emperor
sought to do was flaunt the wealth of his empire and recruit a
mercenary
army of experienced French knights. Alexius desired an army
loyal to him
and under his sole command that would assist him in the
fight
against the ever-threatening Muslim forces. Instead Urban
insisted on
the development of a Latin army that would fight not just
for the
cause undertaken by Alexius, but also for Christianity and God
on the
whole. Urban sought to take over the Holy Land, unite
Christianity
under the one concept, and conquer all opposing groups
that stood
between the world and Christendom. Alexius and the Orthodox
Christians,
however, had no such desire. They were quite amicable with
many of the
surrounding Muslim Kingdoms in the area, and had no qualms
in
co-existing with these Kingdoms. What is more, the idea of a holy
uniting of
East and West threatened the subsequent fusion of these
Muslim
Princes against Alexius, negating the long-time Byzantine
strategy of
keeping these Princes separate through encouraging
jealousy and
distrust. These political agendas were not understood by
the
Crusaders who saw such acts as treachery to the Church and to
God.
Cultural and
religious misunderstandings between Latin Christianity
and Orthodox
Christianity were also evident during the First Crusade.
In
comparison to what they were accustomed to, the Byzantines viewed
the
Crusading armies as “suspicious”, “arrogant” and a “nuisance”.
Alexius told
his daughter Anna of the “unstable and reckless
character”
of the Franks and their tendency to “disregard their
truces
readily” – extremely fitting for what would transpire over the
next 110
years or so. On the other hand, the Crusaders held not much
more
positive opinions of the Orthodox Christians. The crusaders
mistook the
religious tolerance exhibited by the Orthodox Church as a
betrayal of
Christianity and of the Pope and were “puzzled” and
“shocked” by
the religious practices they observed while present in
the East. As
the First Crusade progressed, they sought to Latinize
these
Orthodox practices, which, in turn, was met with resentment by
the Orthodox
Church, people and Kingdom of the Byzantine Empire.
Essentially,
the East and West of Christianity were too different and
too stubborn
to co-exist in the same environment. This was evident
from the First Crusade and through to the sacking of Constantinople in
1205.
While
Urban’s desire to help the Orthodox Christians was
unquestionable,
it was help that was not wanted, and that eventually
threaten the
very survival of the Byzantine Empire. Ultimately,
according to
Runciman, it was mere misunderstandings on the part of
both East
and West that caused this to be the case.
A couple of
questions for you all to consider if you will –
1. Many
historians believe that the sacking of Constantinople was a
turning
point in the Byzantine Empire that led to its dissolution in
the
fifteenth century. In your opinion, would the Empire still have
declined if
the Crusades had not taken place?
2. Is
Runciman’s analysis of the First Crusade and following events
reliable? Why? Why not?
Maddi's thoughts,
Throughout
this week’s readings we see the causes and effects of the Crusades, the
Christian holy wars. As with almost every war, religion underpins the cause. It
is the centre of the violence. As with almost every war, the Crusades (focusing
on the first here) began as a result of a simple string of misunderstandings.
Now, focusing on the Jonathan Riley-Smith text, we see this historian’s
interpretation of a justification and perhaps cause for the Crusades. According
to Riley-Smith, love, whether it is familial, fraternal, love for thy enemy,
neighbour, or simply one's love for God was the common justification for the
wars. Delving into biblical and other examples (often from religious figures,
such as saints), Riley-Smith attempts to discuss how we can see the Crusades as
the people of that time did, as simply an act of love.
I found
it interesting at just how literally one can take some parts of the Bible in
relation to the Crusades:
‘Whosoever doth not carry his cross and come after me cannot be
my disciple’
It
occurred to me that the people of this time would have taken statements like
this one from the Bible quite literally. In order to gain admission to heaven, something everyone was striving for, people would join the crusades in order to
be closer to God, in order to gain the love and respect of God.
Use your amazing brains to consider
these questions:
1. Do you believe that Crusading can be classified as an act of
love? Or are you of the opinion that it was purely brutal violence?
2. Are wars in name of the Church held in a different regard to
other wars throughout history? Are they therefore excusable (have they been
excused by others)?
3. How did this notion of crusading, putting one’s life at risk for
religion, become so popular? What do you think appealed to the people the most?
 |
| The Crusaders approaching Constantinople |
Steve's thoughts,
Question #4- What evidence does Riley-Smith use to argue that a theological notion of love underpinned Crusading?
Riley-Smith uses a variety of evidence throughout this whole reading in support for his claims that love was an underpinning ideal justifying the Crusades.
These include very direct quotes such as:
Pope Urban II, 1096:
“seeing that they[the crusaders] have committed their property and their persons out of love of God and their neighbour”.
St. Bernard, 1140, in regards to Muslim victories:
“If we harden our hearts and pay little attention… where is our love for God, where is our love for our neighbour”.
Pope Urban II, 1095, reciting passage of the Bible to remind people of God’s words:
“he that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me…”
However, Riley-Smith also explains how the notion of carrying a cross into battle was a symbolic way for crusaders to to associate themselves with God, and show their love for him and their neighbour, by ignoring themselves and following Christ into battle, to fight the Holy War and purify the Holy Lands:
Odo of Deuil, on the second crusade:
“The glorious Louis… King of the Franks and Duke of the Aquitanians… undertook to follow Christ by bearing his cross in order to be worthy of him.”
Pope Innocent III in Quia Maior, quoting the Bible:
“If any man will come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me”.
While these are only some of the examples Riley-Smith uses throughout the whole chapter, they somewhat give a good understanding of what was being said by key religious and political figures about the Crusades and the justification of the Holy War.
Evidence such as that given above allows for a link between religion and war to be made, as it gave Christians a way of supporting seemingly violent acts in an attempt to spread Christianity. Furthermore, it was a way for the Church to encourage Crusaders to fight in this war, not only for the personal gain, such as the remission of sins and gaining land, but also for a chance to purely express their love for God.
However, what needs to be noted about the evidence given by Riley-Smith in regards to Crusading being an act of love is that many of the quotes/extracts he uses are from important Christian religious or political figures who would have had a somewhat biased opinion of the Crusades, such as Pope Urban II, Pope Innocent III and St. Bernard.
Also, much of the evidence, such as the speech given by Pope Urban II in 1095 at the Council of Clermont, was used to support/promote the Crusades and in that sense they don’t paint a complete picture of the way the act of Crusading was seen in different areas of society.
Other interesting points in the reading:
While the expression of love for God through the act of crusading was somewhat obvious, what was more interesting, which is only mentioned further into the reading, was the Crusader’s expressions of love for their neighbours.
It seems obvious that the Crusades could be considered an act of love to fellow Christian neighbours, as it not only spread Christianity to new lands, but it also helped in preventing Christians from being exposed to heretical ideologies by not allowing them to spread.
However, a much more interesting point which Riley-Smith makes, is how crusading was also an act of love towards non-Christians and heretics.
I found it interesting to read that the Church justified the Holy War as a act of love, not only through showing support for Christianity and God himself, and by protecting Christianity from heresy, but also through it’s aims to re-direct non-believers/non-Christians and put them on the path to righteousness. And, if they were reluctant, at least the non-believers were killed and no longer had to live a life of not believing in God and they couldn't affect others in their own believing in God.
Yes, the Crusades called for Christians to take up arms, invade other countries and slaughter humans in an attempt to purify the land, but it was all justified. After all, the Crusaders were full of love; they showed they loved God by agreeing to leaving behind their lives to embark on a Crusade; they showed they loved fellow Christians by protecting them from the spread of heresy; and they showed their love to their enemies, as they tried to re-directing them by Christianising them and their countries.
Jamie's thoughts,
This week’s readings revolve primarily around the Crusades, the reason
for these wars and the justification of them by the Church hierarchy.
As with the majority of violence that has been perpetrated by
Christians throughout the history of the Church, the stem of this
often leads back to an incorrect or overly simplistic interpretation
of scripture or a selective reading of the Bible to support already
preconceived ideas and agendas. For my class contribution, I focused
mainly on question 5 relating to that of the Fourth Crusade.
The Fourth Crusade began as a result of Pope Innocent III being able
to convince a group of French noblemen to ‘take up their cross’ as it
were in the year 1200. They decided to travel east to Venice where
they were to receive support for their violent religious endeavours.
The plan did not, however, run smoothly, and, as a result of logistical
difficulties, the crusaders found themselves in the debt of the doge
of Venice. This debt had strong moral repercussions for the crusaders
as they were faced with the dilemma of being perceived as
untrustworthy and a disgrace for not repaying their debt or going against
their own personal religious conviction and aiding the doge of Venice in
attacking the city of Zara, whose inhabitants were Christian.
A few questions for discussion that came to mind...
What should take moral precedence? The ‘owed’ allegiance to the doge
of Venice until the debt was repaid, or the religious bond of
brotherhood between fellow Christians?
Should the crusaders be considered sinners against their Christian
brethren despite having commenced their crusade with the best of
Christian intentions?
Should the doge of Venice be considered as morally dishonourable in
the eyes of the Church for instigating the attack on Zara? Could this
violent attack on a Christian population be considered an ‘act of
love’?
for these wars and the justification of them by the Church hierarchy.
As with the majority of violence that has been perpetrated by
Christians throughout the history of the Church, the stem of this
often leads back to an incorrect or overly simplistic interpretation
of scripture or a selective reading of the Bible to support already
preconceived ideas and agendas. For my class contribution, I focused
mainly on question 5 relating to that of the Fourth Crusade.
The Fourth Crusade began as a result of Pope Innocent III being able
to convince a group of French noblemen to ‘take up their cross’ as it
were in the year 1200. They decided to travel east to Venice where
they were to receive support for their violent religious endeavours.
The plan did not, however, run smoothly, and, as a result of logistical
difficulties, the crusaders found themselves in the debt of the doge
of Venice. This debt had strong moral repercussions for the crusaders
as they were faced with the dilemma of being perceived as
untrustworthy and a disgrace for not repaying their debt or going against
their own personal religious conviction and aiding the doge of Venice in
attacking the city of Zara, whose inhabitants were Christian.
A few questions for discussion that came to mind...
What should take moral precedence? The ‘owed’ allegiance to the doge
of Venice until the debt was repaid, or the religious bond of
brotherhood between fellow Christians?
Should the crusaders be considered sinners against their Christian
brethren despite having commenced their crusade with the best of
Christian intentions?
Should the doge of Venice be considered as morally dishonourable in
the eyes of the Church for instigating the attack on Zara? Could this
violent attack on a Christian population be considered an ‘act of
love’?
 |
| The conquest of Constantinople |
...
Hi everyone,
I just wanted to take a moment with this week's blog post and highlight a couple of links you all may find interesting.
Firstly, you may wish to check out the online access to an exhibit currently being held at the Bodleian Library in Oxford. It is entitled 'The Romance of the Middle Ages' and I think may be interesting to check out especially as this week in lecture we will be learning all about courtly love and culture during the Middle Ages. Part of my own work involves the study of courtly love so I couldn't resist telling you all about this!
 |
Exhibition Poster
|
Secondly, here is a link to the medieval and renaissance courses Monash offers in November-December of every year in Prato, Italy. Clare mentioned them in our last lecture and I've posted the link here for anyone who wishes to find out more information. Who doesn't love Italy right?
All the best,
Diana
I enjoyed the readings this week and Phil's, Maddi's, Steve's and Jamie's comments.
ReplyDeleteRiley Smith's text is an interesting interpretation of Christian love. It's clear that during the Crusades there was a lot of propaganda, with the Bible being interpreted literally by the Crusaders. Pope Innocent telling the "soldiers of Christ" that to wear a cross sewn on their clothing was not enough when Christ died suffering while nailed to the Cross. Everything came through their love of God in ways that seemed real to them, so violence became easy to justify in terms of Christian love. The relationship between vassals and their lords was so close that Christ was described as a lord who had lost his inheritance, which was the Holy Land, so it was the duty of the Crusaders to fight for it as they would for their own lords. Violence was uppermost when their land was threatened. Love of neighbour was really fraternal love for fellow Christians and not in terms of love for friends and enemies and as Pope Urban said at Clermont according to Baldric of Doc, it's "less evil to brandish the sword against the Muslims". So from Maddi's thoughts I would say that the Crusades were not an act of love but pure brutal violence. One need look no further than the attack on Zara. So Christian love and crusading really have little to do with one another.
Phil has described Runciman's meaning of the "melancholy pile of misunderstandings" so well. The political, cultural and religious misunderstandings certainly stacked up making the sacking of Constantinople inevitable.
The Byzantines were not interested in international trade mainly because of tight government control, so one can see that the capture of Constantinople would have been a great asset to the Italians especially the Venetians for trade purposes.
Good Luck guys,
Janice
Smith's texts about the Crusaders and Pope of the time perception of "Christian love". It's understandable that they would believe that they were fighting for their beliefs and Christ and all the rest of it. As said in the text it was a one-dimensional view of 'Christian love'because what was only extended to Christians and not their enemies or even heretics if looking at it in the broadest sense. So from a cynical point of view it seems as though the Popes were somewhat drunk with their power and influence and used it to attempt to conquer or liberate the Holy Lands and other regions in the name of God and because these would become Christian provinces, they would therefore fall under the Popes influence. As well some nations would use the Crusades as a means to settle a score such as seen with the attack on Zara led by the Venetians. The Venetians also used the Crusade to gain an advantage over long-time maritime rivals Genoa because due to the sacking and their participation in the Fourth Crusade they were able to gain sea trade routes into the Back Sea which was sought after due to its potential profit. This would further increase the city-states trade income and this would also hinder the Genoanese effort to enhance ther trade/maritime income.
ReplyDeleteSo all in all I think everyone on the Crusades had some type of ulterior motive and as stated in the text "Christian love" was simply propaganda used by the Church in order to get the Crusades going and what not. And the nations involved had ulterior motives for land. or loot or whatever else would have been as seen as benefit for them to gain prominence.
Hey guys -
ReplyDeleteFirst off, great blog post - the questions were answered well, really enjoyed it :)
I Thought the readings were good this week, even though there were 3 they were reasonable length so that made the task a little less daunting. My favourite being the 3rd document, as that was more of a story as to what happened, had some dialogue (which I'd like to think was actually said at the time but I don't know if that was the case).
The question " Do you believe that Crusading can be classified as an act of love? Or are you of the opinion that it was purely brutal violence?"
I personally don't believe that brutal violence can be associated with love. I think the whole point of learning to love is so that extremities like violence aren't attended too. I find it strange also because Jesus was never violent - based on my knowledge, thats why he was really radical in his time - because he was a symbol of peace/suffering. So thats why I don't understand how the crusades can become a brutal religion war. I think then that the crusades do not have 'love' as the underlying theme, but rather something like just loyalty to a popular cause, so in this case, religion. Either that or it was the extreme case of everyone misinterpreting the Bible, and I don't think its the latter.
Good Luck with the presentations, can't wait to hear them
- Jo.
Great job you guys!!
ReplyDeleteI think it is easy to see the crusades as just brutal selfish wars, but I believe that these people really did think they were doing what was best for everyone. The crusades could be seen as acts of love, if love of no one else but the self, and their want to get into heven. It also seems like the first crusade in any case, Pope Urban through short sighteness and misunderstanding really meant well, he wanted to help. I think a lot of the great mistakes of the world come from misunderstandings.
Just to answer Phils first question I think the Byzantine empire would have delcined regardless of the crusade, to be sure the crusades set the ball rolling, but it would have happened anyway. The keeping of the muslims princes from each other wouldn't have lasted forever and it is very difficult for different religions to co exist peacefully for ever. Well when it is two oppsing empires that is. Also It's just the nature of large empires to decline eventually. As shown in all the great ones, Roman, Ottaman, Persian, English. They can't be held forever.
Looking forward to the presentations
-Tessa!
Surely they would have learnt from the first crusades, it's funny how far religiously based fervour can take you. In an off-track diversion, a book has recently been released about a cult in Melbourne who dyed everyones hair blonde.
ReplyDeleteWhatever rocks yours socks in my opinion.
Great jobs with the presentation, it was almost another weeks reading in itself!
Jesus has always been misinterpreted. I mean he is a jew, so everyone persecutes jews, yet he is the saviour AND a jew? Go figure. So the misunderstanding between him as a peaceful lover of everyone to him suddenly wielding a flaming sword saying KILL THEM ALL, isn't a huge leap.
It's all about redemption, by committing the ultimate sin of murder.
It's always the biggest contradictions that are overlooked isn't it?
Pshhhh Over and out Pshhhhh
-Jessica Kopp
Whoa, lots of people blogging for this week’s topic! Well done guys
ReplyDeleteDo I think the Crusades can be considered an act of love? I think the Church are pretty skilled when it comes to propaganda and persuasion of the masses, and I think if they said it was an act of love that people would’ve seen it that way too. I found it interesting the way the church explained it all to lay society, providing the analogy of crusading ‘charity’ as an example of family love. I can’t recall who said it now, but somewhere in Riley’s reading, someone talked about burning with love of God? He basically said that whoever had such burning love for the lord would leave their house/possessions/country to serve Jesus. I just thought, wow, you can both love and serve your saviour without embarking on a crusade, but I can appreciate the influence of the church etc. in making one feel that in order to be pious and to prove your love and closeness to God that one needed to go beyond taking up the cross and following him; one needed to also follow him into battle. And I did so love the excerpt from a letter to Leopold of Austria that said “You receive a soft and gentle cross; he bore one that was sharp and hard. You were 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”. You would’ve been totally guilted into joining the crusades! In terms of these wars being ‘excusable’, well, it was the church after all who deemed a war ‘just’, so again, if they said it, well it MUST be true.~~
Looking forward to the presentation tomorrow!