What is the True Reasons of the Crusades?

[jimkatalanos]

You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.(about opinions)



Anyway, what are the reasons then?

[iudas]

Myth - "The Pope was looking to increase his power!"

Fact - Pope Urban was as surprised as anyone at the massive and popular reaction to his call for soldiers to head East and couldn't have forseen it. So to pretend he planned the whole thing is fantasy. Like the Byzantine Emperor, he thought the response would be a few thousand knights on a short-lived mission, not a mass movement spanning centuries.

What exactly was the Pope's reasoning?

This thread is about the reasons, not disproving myths.

[Woad-Warrier]

Lets just blame the British.

[jimkatalanos]

Since you told me that my reasons were wrong, tell me the true reasons.

Lets just blame the British.

As always, it's British fault, my British friend.

[Woad-Warrier]

As always, it's British fault, my British friend.

Always

[Wild Bill Kelso]

Since you told me that my reasons were wrong, tell me the true reasons.

Umm.. he kind of did before you posted your opinion....

[iudas]

No, he just disproved jim's.

[Gelgoog]

dont think this was mentioned, but one reason so much nobility participated was because of the system of the 1st son inheriting everything. this left alot of sons with nothing to look forward to, but if they went on crusades, they could win themselves riches and lots of land to rule over. as for criminals it was a free pardon ( which is why so much of the first crusade were made up of criminals).

as for the popes reason, it was to gain power pure and simple. by uniting the constantly waring states of christianity under a single banner( his) he not only expanded his powerbase, but took away any threat to his power ( like the german emporer trying to assert his claim to being an equal messenger of god and therefore not having to obey the pope).

[Lord Of The Knights]

waw , now we have a new nice idea ,thank you scheuch13

[iudas]

dont think this was mentioned, but one reason so much nobility participated was because of the system of the 1st son inheriting everything. this left alot of sons with nothing to look forward to, but if they went on crusades, they could win themselves riches and lots of land to rule over. as for criminals it was a free pardon ( which is why so much of the first crusade were made up of criminals).

as for the popes reason, it was to gain power pure and simple. by uniting the constantly waring states of christianity under a single banner( his) he not only expanded his powerbase, but took away any threat to his power ( like the german emporer trying to assert his claim to being an equal messenger of god and therefore not having to obey the pope).

I'm pretty sure Thiudareiks disproved much of what you said, too...

waw , now we have a new nice idea ,thank you scheuch13

It is very ironic that you didn't even seem to notice Thiudareiks' post... :hm:

[Lord Of The Knights]

you want me to tell you again?
sorry but the thread is fulling quickly!
i didnt notice that

[Gelgoog]

I'm pretty sure Thiudareiks disproved much of what you said, too...

actually reading his post its pretty much what i said. the popes call was an attempt at one:

to turn waring states against an enemy in the east and not against eachother.

and two, it would take pressure of him that fredrick barborossa was trying to instill. the german emporer was challenging the power of the pope by contesting that he, as the heir to the roman empire, was as much a one way phone to god as the pope, so he shouldnt have to bow down to the pope.

In 1174, Frederick made his fifth expedition to Italy and, in response, the pro-papal Lombard League was formed to stand against him. With the refusal of Henry the Lion to bring help to Italy, the campaign was a complete failure. Frederick suffered a heavy defeat at the Battle of Legnano near Milan, on May 29, 1176, where he was wounded and for some time was believed to be dead. He had no choice other than to begin negotiations for peace with Alexander III and the Lombard League. In the Peace of Venice, 1177, Frederick and Alexander III reconciled. The Emperor acknowledged the Pope's sovereignty over the Papal States, and in return Alexander acknowledged the Emperor's overlordship of the Imperial Church.

fredrick had been excommunicated before this, so he had need to show himself as the lord of the church.

[iudas]

He said most were first sons, and that going on a Crusade was more of a way to bankrupt yourself. Not too much like what you said.

[Gelgoog]

He said most were first sons, and that going on a Crusade was more of a way to bankrupt yourself. Not too much like what you said.

oh that part

well from what ive heard its the other way around, yes alot of kings went there and ending up bankrupt because of it, but there was also huge wealth to be gained.

control of the silk roads, protection to pilgrams, banking, then there is the looting. but your correct, it was more the notion of gaining wealth that attracted people, instead of actually gaining it once there( aka the gold rush syndrome).

The call to crusade came at a time when years of bad harvests had nearly devastated the Western European economy. The attraction of trying to start a new life in the far more successful East caused many people to leave their lands. Europe was not a place of great opportunity anymore and the possibility of gaining something that had eluded people in the West, whether spiritual, political or economic, was tempting to countless participants.

Older scholarship on this issue asserts that the bulk of the participants were likely younger sons of nobles who were dispossessed of land and influenced by the practise of primogeniture, and poorer knights who were looking for a new life in the wealthy east. Many had fought in order to drive out the Muslim armies in Southern Spain, or had relatives who had done so. The rumours of treasures that were discovered there may have been an attractive feature, for if there was such treasure in Spain there must have been even more in Jerusalem. Most didn't find this type of treasure, mostly insignificant relics were uncovered. While this is true in some respect it cannot be the only motivation for so many.

so again i do think i was "more" right, in that my examples were "motivations" for the crusade, or as the title suggests, the real reasons why a good bulk of your soldiers left ( excluding the free ticket to heaven excuse). but were not dealing with actual results of the crusade, just reasons for it. so whether im wrong in what really happened, these events were more of the real motivations. just slap on the three G's principle ( god, gold, glory).

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

actually reading his post its pretty much what i said. the popes call was an attempt at one:

to turn waring states against an enemy in the east and not against eachother.

Yes.

and two, it would take pressure of him that fredrick barborossa was trying to instill.

Er, no. I was talking about Pope Urban's motivations in his call for the first Crusade in 1095. At that stage Frederick Barbarossa wasn't on his mind very much due to the fact that he wasn't going to be born for another 27 years.

but there was also huge wealth to be gained

Strange then that most of the participants went home.

it was more the notion of gaining wealth that attracted people, instead of actually gaining it once there( aka the gold rush syndrome).

So how do you explain all those families that lost vast sums of money sending off crusaders and yet continued to do so for several generations running? Were they just plain dumb or was something other than greed motivating these people? :hmmm:

so again i do think i was "more" right, in that my examples were "motivations" for the crusade, or as the title suggests

Er, because Wiki said so?

Some reading on the motivations for the Crusaders:

Christopher Tyerman's God's War has already been recommended, but his Fighting for Christendom: Holy War and the Crusades is also excellent. In it he examines the popular religious movments that were the precursors to the Crusades (Good Lord - was religion a factor in these holy wars fought over sacred places???!! Who would have thought!). As Tyerman argues clearly, "there existed no strategic or material interest for the knights of the west to campaign in Judea."

The try anything by Jonathan Riley-Smith, though on the question of the motivations of the Crudsaders check out What Were the Crusades?.

Carl Erdeman's The Origin of the Idea of Crusade is the standard study on the beginning of the movement, with examination of the roots of the Crusades in the Reconquista in Spain and Papal endorsement of William of Normandy's invasion of England, as well as the Cluniac reform movement's endorsement of the "Peace of God" and "Truce of God" movements in Europe (Golly - religion again??!!)

When discussing this subject it kinda helps to read some books.

[Juggernaut]

You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.(about opinions)

That is nothing but an convinient excuse to avoid getting your "opinion" challenged.
There is no "absolutely right", and statement earth being flat and earth being round is both wrong, but the latter is infinitely more closer to the fact.
That is what discussion and argument is for.
Saying "I'll say whatever I want since there is no absolutely right" is simply a intellectual degeneration.
So far, TG has provided sources for his points.
So far you presented absolutely none.
If you want to prove your opinion(and I assume you do, since you posted your opinion in a place for discussion. Why else would you?) please provide some evidence and sources.
Say, what kind of evidence do you have for Crusaders going onto the Crusade for wealth?

[Sher Khan]

I see the Crusades as a literal explosion of Europe finding itself. Several centuries since Rome fell, the continent was expanding and finding a sense of inner strength. The Vikings, the Arabs, and the Magyars had stopped their invasions. Two of the three became Catholics and entered the political world sometime around 900 AD. The inclusion of the Norsemen into the common European world gave them access to the knowledge of northern trade routes, and the North - once languishing since it was cut off from the Roman Empire, was building an economy that proved as healthy as the Mediterranean. The invention of the windmill, the widespread use of river mills, and the invention of the heavy plow made Northern productivity explode. The Heavy Plow allowed the cold fields of Northern Europe to be farmed extensively, the two mills created a source of mechanical power that the Europeans cleverly adapted to every job they could. Their productivity skyrocketed.

Christianity was changing as well. For the longest time, Jesus was the ultimate Judge of this world, with the devil as something very real and powerful - something to rightly fear. However, the rapid prosperity brought about a slight shift in the view of religion. Jesus was still judge of this Earth, but he slowly became perceived as the loving God, who loved his people and suffered crucifixion just for them. Sure, this is common Christian doctrine, but I suspect this aspect of it was becoming more emphasized among the commoners and laity. The devil, from what I can tell, diminished in his status as great predator and was denigrated to the beast that could be defeated quite easily. I judge this from the difference in depictions from around 500 or 600 AD and 1000 AD. This is all speculative, however, since I'm not very knowledgeable on that subject. It'd be mighty fine if Thiu corrected me on all my errors.

Alongside all this secular change, the Church had also gone through a few renovations. The official break with the Orthodox Church had finally come. A revolutionary movement came about thanks to the spread of the Cluniac orders all throughout Europe. They created a network for the learned churchmen of Europe parallel to and separate from the actual Church. It was from these orders that reformation was stirred up, and the men from these churches led the way in papal reform. They tried hard to sever the ties between laity and clergy - all the bad connections anyway. They fought against the appointment of laic folks into high positions, made church property inheritable by anyone but the church, etc. A lot of things, but I'm talking from memory here, and my memory is getting a bit fuzzy on this area.

Well, from what I can remember, the movement was going well. The change was moderate and gradual. This changed, however, when Gregory II became the new pope. He, like his predecessors, pushed hard for papal reform. A little too hard. From what I know of him, Greg was a firebrand, and right from the get go he butted heads with the HREmporer, something his predecessors had avoided. Something along the lines of popes can crown emperors but emperors may not crown popes. In Gregory's vision of political Europe, he envisioned his seat above even the Roman Emperor in spiritual authority - which wasn't that far removed from secular authority. This was not only over the top for the rulers of Europe, but Gregory was never subtle in his demands for it. This led to a lot of bad blood between the HRE and the pope, and inevitably led to him pleading on his knees to his enemies.

This was the papacy that Urban II inherited, and it's public relations after Gregory was in shambles. He tried best to return to the moderate and slow reformation policies that had worked before Gregory, and sought ways to consolidate the position of the papal seat in secular affairs once more.

The papacy has fiddled around with armies and fights sanctioned by their authority. William the Bastard took England, for instance, with the blessings of the Pope and a papal banner leading his army. The Normans in Sicily were given the same treatment in their 'liberation' of Sicily, and after vassalization to the pope, became what you might call the first real papal army. I believe his predecessors had also given the famous 'remission of sins' deal for anyone who would take part in a small campaign in Spain against a Moorish city. I think that was it, the details escape me for the moment. Gregory II, I believe, had long planned to send aid to the Byzantine Empire to face the Turks sometime before or after Manzikert.

All the above combined, I believe, led Urban to issue a general request of the knightly class to take up the pilgrim's route to not only look for spiritual healing, but to defend the Christians of the East.

For the last century or so, horror stories (whether true, untrue, or sort of true) came trickling in from the East. Mad Caliph Hakim and his tirade on the Sepulchre and other churches, the less than amiable policy of the zealous Seljuk Turks towards pilgrims, and the on and off banditry that took place thanks to local warlords and independent rulers looking to rip off travelers.

And for the last century, the popes had sought to reduce the level of physical violence in Europe - their Peace of God enactments, if you all remember. No fighting on some days, no this and that, etc. However, it seems to not have been as effective as the popes would have liked (I think it was pretty effective, personally) and they continued their push for it, even up until the First Crusade. Clearly, these two points - the violence in the East and the continued violence of the knights in the West - played a crucial role in Urban's famous speech asking for Crusade. It seemed to have struck a chord with the nobility of France and the peasantry from all over. The shame and regret at allowing the cities where Jesus once lived to be held by non-Christians and the fear for salvation from having fought other Christians for so long fueled a phenomenon that would continue for centuries. It was not right to kill, but it was more than acceptable to replace killing other Christians with killing non-Christians, especially those accused of threatening other Christians. It was, in a small way, a way to divert the energies of the warrior classes of Europe into a more... productive outlet.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

I see the Crusades as a literal explosion of Europe finding itself.

Good post. Nice to see some substance and detailed analysis, along with some actual knowledge of the period, rather than bald "opinions".

[Sher Khan]

Thanks, though to be honest I tend to shy away after you make an appearance Thiu. Can't say I have anything meaningful to input after you make your first few posts in a topic, hahah.

This is me just rambling, though I'm glad you approve.

[Gelgoog]

Strange then that most of the participants went home.



So how do you explain all those families that lost vast sums of money sending off crusaders and yet continued to do so for several generations running? Were they just plain dumb or was something other than greed motivating these people? :hmmm:

lets see, those who went to just reclaim the holy land of course would have left after the job was done, as that was the biggest motivation. those who went to start a new life and find riches stayed. as for people continuing to send people on crusade, sure there were plenty of reasons, not everyone did it for money, but alot of them did. if money had no meaning, then why were even christian settlements on the march to the holy land pillaged. there were just about as many christians killed during the march by crusaders as were muslims killed.

wealth and glory dont need to be but a few accounts to be told for many to follow. the same reasons hordes of people abandoned their lives and moved to california during the gold rush are the same for those in the crusades. alot of people saw the chance to remove their sin and gather wealth all in one trip. whether they actually got said wealth is another story. just look at how many people were ruined during the gold rush, but they kept persisting hoping to score it big, its simple psychology. but as i said above, a great deal of your common folk who participated in the crusades were sinners and criminals, who in a life completely centered around the church and redemption, say it as a free ticket.

basically the general crusader can be summed up like this. a man who is going on crusade out of an act of charity and love ( for his lord and his neighbor) but someone who certainly wasnt apposed to the notion of also gaining wealth during the trip. to state it was solely for religious reasons is a bit naive reguarding the human condition.

Scholars have discovered that crusading knights were generally wealthy men with plenty of their own land in Europe. Nevertheless, they willingly gave up everything to undertake the holy mission. Crusading was not cheap. Even wealthy lords could easily impoverish themselves and their families by joining a Crusade. They did so not because they expected material wealth (which many of them had already) but because they hoped to store up treasure where rust and moth could not corrupt. They were keenly aware of their sinfulness and eager to undertake the hardships of the Crusade as a penitential act of charity and love. Europe is littered with thousands of medieval charters attesting to these sentiments, charters in which these men still speak to us today if we will listen. Of course, they were not opposed to capturing booty if it could be had. But the truth is that the Crusades were notoriously bad for plunder. A few people got rich, but the vast majority returned with nothing.