Professional Soldiers ® - View Single Post

x-factor · 01-26-2008, 03:07

Respectfully, I think you're just replacing one gross simplification with another.

The question "Were the Crusades offensive or defensive?" has no easy answer. In some senses yes, in some senses no.

There had been tension between the Muslim and Christian worlds since Islam broke out of Arabia under the first Caliphs. But by 1096 when the Pope called the Council of Claremont to announce the First Crusade it had been more than 350 years (thats close to ten lifetimes by the standards of the time) since the Muslim invasion of Western Europe was defeated at the Battle of Tours. This is not to say there existed a state of peaceful coexistence. Spain was still under Muslim rule and there was still fighting/raiding/skirmishing in parts of Italy but this was hardly an existential threat nor was it interpreted that way.

The proximate cause of the First Crusade was the Byzantine emperor's request to the Pope for aid following the loss of Nicea. He asked for some Catholic mercenaries to shore up the Byzantine defenses in Anatolia that were facing the Turkic tribes of Kilij Aslan. Pope Urban jumped on the opportunity to launch a continent-wide popular movement with the goal of seizing an entirely different set of territory which was under the control of an entirely different set of Muslims.

The personal motivation for an individual on Crusade had little to do with a sense of Islamic threat or brotherhood with non-Catholic Christians. (The Frankish Crusaders slaughtered Eastern Christians on more than one occasion and they allied with Muslims more than once as well.) For the most part they were seeking personal salvation and/or personal wealth, both of which where explicitly promised to them the Pope and the other clergy who rallied the Crusade.

The Pope's motivations in calling the Crusade can be debated too. Was he afraid of the armies of Islam? Did he care about recapturing the holy sites for spiritual value? Did he care about turning Frankish military culture away from the killing of other Christians and to something more productive (as he saw it)? Was he just trying to assert and broaden his temporal authority? Probably some combination of all of these.

My point is that if you want to understand history you need to see it in all its complexities and resist the temptation to simplify or romanticize it in any direction.

If your interested in learning more, I recommend The First Crusade by Thomas Asbridge as a starting point.

01-26-2008, 03:07	#2
x-factor Guerrilla Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 462	Respectfully, I think you're just replacing one gross simplification with another. The question "Were the Crusades offensive or defensive?" has no easy answer. In some senses yes, in some senses no. There had been tension between the Muslim and Christian worlds since Islam broke out of Arabia under the first Caliphs. But by 1096 when the Pope called the Council of Claremont to announce the First Crusade it had been more than 350 years (thats close to ten lifetimes by the standards of the time) since the Muslim invasion of Western Europe was defeated at the Battle of Tours. This is not to say there existed a state of peaceful coexistence. Spain was still under Muslim rule and there was still fighting/raiding/skirmishing in parts of Italy but this was hardly an existential threat nor was it interpreted that way. The proximate cause of the First Crusade was the Byzantine emperor's request to the Pope for aid following the loss of Nicea. He asked for some Catholic mercenaries to shore up the Byzantine defenses in Anatolia that were facing the Turkic tribes of Kilij Aslan. Pope Urban jumped on the opportunity to launch a continent-wide popular movement with the goal of seizing an entirely different set of territory which was under the control of an entirely different set of Muslims. The personal motivation for an individual on Crusade had little to do with a sense of Islamic threat or brotherhood with non-Catholic Christians. (The Frankish Crusaders slaughtered Eastern Christians on more than one occasion and they allied with Muslims more than once as well.) For the most part they were seeking personal salvation and/or personal wealth, both of which where explicitly promised to them the Pope and the other clergy who rallied the Crusade. The Pope's motivations in calling the Crusade can be debated too. Was he afraid of the armies of Islam? Did he care about recapturing the holy sites for spiritual value? Did he care about turning Frankish military culture away from the killing of other Christians and to something more productive (as he saw it)? Was he just trying to assert and broaden his temporal authority? Probably some combination of all of these. My point is that if you want to understand history you need to see it in all its complexities and resist the temptation to simplify or romanticize it in any direction. If your interested in learning more, I recommend The First Crusade by Thomas Asbridge as a starting point. __________________ *The strength of a nation is its knowledge. -Welsh Proverb* X Last edited by x-factor; 01-26-2008 at 03:10.
x-factor is offline