PDA

View Full Version : Crusades Debate


FadeTheButcher
06-27-2004, 03:59 AM
Want to restart this thing Der Sturmer?

YellowDischarge
06-27-2004, 04:43 AM
The Crusades proved that Christians are more violent than Muslims have ever been.

FadeTheButcher
06-30-2004, 08:01 PM
You are wrong. Even the very word 'crusade' has its etymological origin in Spain. The Crusades were simply the Islamic doctrine of jihad under fresh colours combined with a pagan warrior ethos under the banner of Christ. Christ as a warlord. That's funny.

"Perhaps the best example of how superficially the barbarian tribes were Christianized would be the Crusades. The Crusades were a series of attempts - stretched out over almost two centuries, from 1095 to 1291 - by western Christians to gain control of Jerusalem. In one sense, the Crusades today get somewhat of a "bad rap": most people understand them as a gratuitous attack on a peaceful Muslim culture, whereas in fact Islamic invaders had captured the Holy Land by force and refused Christian pilgrims permission to travel in the area. On the other hand, the enthusiasm of the Crusaders for killing infidels and the atrocious slaughters that took place after they captured various Islamic fortresses were plainly at odds with the Christian message of love and peace. But this is precisely what would be expected from a superficially Christianized pagan culture. Although the peoples who inhabited western Europe at this time more or less worshipped Christ as their Saviour, they ultimately still thought in terms of a warrior ethic."

Murray Jardine, The Making and Unmaking of Technological Society (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2004), p.203

Sinclair
06-30-2004, 08:46 PM
The Crusades were a waste of time, lives, money, etc.

FadeTheButcher
06-30-2004, 08:51 PM
How so? The Crusades revived trade with the East which played a substantial role in bringing about the 12th Century Renaissance. Furthermore, large areas of Europe were brought firmly into the West as a result of the Crusades. All Crusades were not directed at the Middle East, you know.

YellowDischarge
06-30-2004, 11:56 PM
From everything I've ever read and even being taught this subject at university the Christians denied the Muslims access to the Holy Land and killed most they found where as the Muslims allowed the Christians access for a tax.

Plus Christian armies more often than not executed their Muslim prisoners while the Muslims more often than not let theirs go.

FadeTheButcher
07-01-2004, 12:12 AM
The Seljuk Turks were allowing Christian pilgrims to travel to Jerusalem?

Anarch
07-01-2004, 04:54 PM
Could the Crusades be considered a counterstrike by Christendom against Muslim invaders (e.g. Byzantine Empire, Spain, Italy, etc.)?

Sinclair
07-01-2004, 07:26 PM
The Crusades were a waste. Fighting the enemy on their playing field, in an unfamiliar environment no less, is a bad thing today. And back then they didn't have railroads, planes, motor vehicles, etc.

The best way to fight the Muslims would have been to ensure that the gates to Europe were properly defended, and try to push them back and consolidate the positions, instead of just going for Religious Site X.

Hiel
07-02-2004, 03:35 AM
Even the very word 'crusade' has its etymological origin in Spain.

Methinks it was French actually. "Croix"-something or other, I cannot speak French at all.

FadeTheButcher
07-02-2004, 06:05 AM
The Crusades were a waste.
So it was a waste of time to bring the Iberian peninsula, Sicily, the Mediterranean, and the Baltic within the orbit of Western civilization?

Fighting the enemy on their playing field, in an unfamiliar environment no less, is a bad thing today. And back then they didn't have railroads, planes, motor vehicles, etc.
You are confusing the Crusades with the failed Crusades in the Middle East.

The best way to fight the Muslims would have been to ensure that the gates to Europe were properly defended, and try to push them back and consolidate the positions, instead of just going for Religious Site X.
But all the Crusades were not against the Muslims. And what's more, not all the Crusades against the Muslims failed.

Saint Michael
07-05-2004, 08:41 AM
Could the Crusades be considered a counterstrike by Christendom against Muslim invaders (e.g. Byzantine Empire, Spain, Italy, etc.)?

Yes, that is exactly why the crusade was launched. It was in response to Turkish imperialism in the Holy Land. The army consisted of mostly Franks, who at that period had the greatest army in Christendom. Byzantium did not play an efficient role in the crusade - its only purpose was to supply a route for the troops into the middle east through Anatolia. I believe the first city to be sacked by the crusaders was Antioch, whence they worked their way into Jerusalem.

Saint Michael
07-05-2004, 09:00 AM
To add to Gaius's responses, the Catholics were quite familiar with the terrain into which they were venturing. Those areas were first officially Catholic before the Caliphate sacked them and brought them into Islam. Western history in those areas extends back to Rome in its early years as an empire.

You stated:
The best way to fight the Muslims would have been to ensure that the gates to Europe were properly defended, and try to push them back and consolidate the positions, instead of just going for Religious Site X.

The Crusaders were routed through Anatolia, which was possessed by the Byzantine Empire, before beginning their conquest in Antioch unto Jerusalem. There was a particular strategy to sack the Holy Land, and it worked quite successfully. How was Europe not defended? Charles Martel repulsed the Moors from France, into which they eventually dwindled into Granada before being officially repulsed out of Christendom by the Catholic King. This was the only major Islamic threat in Christendom, of which the Byzantines themselves were not a part. It should be noted that a "jihad" is not a call for Islamic imperialism, but a call for Muslims to regain their lost possessions. This was the purpose of Saladin against the Catholics, to regain the lands that had been lost to them.

cerberus
07-08-2004, 10:39 PM
I would think the promise of plunder and money had more to do with " Christian Kings" going east than anything else.
Just what an English or a French King knew about fighting a war in the middle east is beyond me.
As fade says they were "Christian " with a small "c" and knew little of the application of the idea of love and turning the other cheek.
Have to go with Sinclair on this one.
As far as bringing areas of the med under European influence , seems that malta was still being founth over hundreds of years later by Turk / Templar Knights.
War and conquest , plunder , with religion not always being uppermost.
Was the Christian church giving a blank cheque to "do what you will in God's name" , absolution ofr all acts in advance ?

Saint Michael
07-13-2004, 05:49 AM
I would think the promise of plunder and money had more to do with " Christian Kings" going east than anything else.

That [plunder and money] is and has been a promising incentive to most civilizations* of history because of what it implies not only to the nobles but the people in general. It's what drove the barbarians into the Roman territories to begin with; the vast amounts of wealth and other riches that could be expropriated by them into their own bankrupt civilizations.

Though the main reason for war in the East, the Holy Crusades, was declared as being the Turkish threat in the holy land and the danger that Turkish (Islamic) presence posed to the sites and relics that the Catholic church possessed; they were of very important substance to the justification of the church and the Christian religion itself, and the Muslims were not known for their tolerance towards Christian 'idolatry'! We are talking about, to state one example, the cave in which Christ was resurrected being at risk by Turkish barbarism and their general hostility towards Catholicism. It was in the church's interest to be alarmed and respond to that development.

Just what an English or a French King knew about fighting a war in the middle east is beyond me.

The plan was devised by the Papacy who recruited men to fight for it. There was not a shortage of willing Christians at that time to go to war for the Catholic church, especially the warlike Franks. French and English history at that period of time in the Middle East was not as prevalent as the Italians and Germans, though there were Italian and German(?) units established in the Crusades. In all matters, it can be easily established that the papacy did not court a general ignorance in regard to the Middle East: sources of information in the form of spies and the faithful were present as well as a prominent history of Catholicism in those areas.

Was the Christian church giving a blank cheque to "do what you will in God's name" , absolution ofr all acts in advance ?

Absolutely not. The aim of the Crusades was precise as was the execution of it: to recapture the holy lands for the church. The death of thousands of Muslims and losses of those faithful to the church were presupposed as it would be in matters of any war. The purpose of a Crusade is to totalize the faith in an area where it has been lost, similar to a jihad except a different religion. :)

*used very loosely

Perun
07-13-2004, 11:51 AM
Christ as a warlord. That's funny.

“"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."
--Mathew 10:34


"Perhaps the best example of how superficially the barbarian tribes were Christianized would be the Crusades. The Crusades were a series of attempts - stretched out over almost two centuries, from 1095 to 1291 - by western Christians to gain control of Jerusalem. In one sense, the Crusades today get somewhat of a "bad rap": most people understand them as a gratuitous attack on a peaceful Muslim culture, whereas in fact Islamic invaders had captured the Holy Land by force and refused Christian pilgrims permission to travel in the area. On the other hand, the enthusiasm of the Crusaders for killing infidels and the atrocious slaughters that took place after they captured various Islamic fortresses were plainly at odds with the Christian message of love and peace. But this is precisely what would be expected from a superficially Christianized pagan culture. Although the peoples who inhabited western Europe at this time more or less worshipped Christ as their Saviour, they ultimately still thought in terms of a warrior ethic."

Murray Jardine, The Making and Unmaking of Technological Society (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2004), p.203

What? I addressed this notion in another debate before the latest hacking. Warriorship and Christianity are mixed since the beginning. The first Roman convert to the faith according to scriptures is a centurion. Christian doctrines of "Just War" go back to the writings of St. Paul, who declared it a Christian duty to defend your country by arms and so on. As I already pointed out, if anything the barbarians(or Germanization as termed in other debates) added an offensive dimension to Christian doctrines of warfare. Before the Crusades and such, most Christian doctrines concerning war were based on defensive warfare not offensive.

Perun
07-13-2004, 12:04 PM
To add to Gaius's responses, the Catholics were quite familiar with the terrain into which they were venturing. Those areas were first officially Catholic before the Caliphate sacked them and brought them into Islam. Western history in those areas extends back to Rome in its early years as an empire.

Thats true. I find it interesting that some like to argue how Christianity destroyed culture wherever it went, yet I can point to these regions to prove otherwise. The Muslims were more intolerant of native culture than the Christians, who more than not adopted their religion to fit native ways. Adrian Hastings argues this in length in his book the Construction of Nationhood that there is a clear difference between the Christian and Muslim attitudes towards indigenious cultures; hence why nationalism arose more easily in areas with a Christian history than those with an Islamic one.

Take Egypt for example. The ancient Egyptian culture really began to perish with the Muslim conquest in the 600's. It was the native Christians, the Coptic church, that preserved much of ancient Egyptian culture. Most famous examples of this are the fact that the Coptics to this day still perform the practice of mummification for the dead and in their liturgy use the language that was spoken during Pharonic times(Muslims imposed the Arab language on the population).

Perun
07-13-2004, 12:09 PM
Other than the sacking of Constantnipole, I believe the Crusades were justified. Europe was under attack by the Muslims from east and west and had to fight back.

Although I also oppose the supposed crusades by the Teutonic Knights against the "heathen" Slavs in Eastern Europe.

FadeTheButcher
07-13-2004, 01:51 PM
>>>“"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."
--Mathew 10:34

He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword. Who said that? Actually, if we go back and do a historical archaeology of the Early Middle Ages, we can find that the Papacy generally had a profoundly different attitude with respect to warfare than it did during the High Middle Ages. I can go into detail if you wish.

>>>What? I addressed this notion in another debate before the latest hacking. Warriorship and Christianity are mixed since the beginning.

This is ridiculous, as the Church had a strong institutional aversion towards bishops and priests taking up the sword in the Early Middle Ages. It was only in the 10th century with the Peace of God movement that this began to change.

>>> The first Roman convert to the faith according to scriptures is a centurion. Christian doctrines of "Just War" go back to the writings of St. Paul, who declared it a Christian duty to defend your country by arms and so on.

The Bible can be interpreted in all sorts of ways, actually. The only interpretation of revelance here is the attitude of the Papacy with respect to warfare in the Early Middle Ages and later on in the Crusades.

>>>As I already pointed out, if anything the barbarians(or Germanization as termed in other debates) added an offensive dimension to Christian doctrines of warfare.

Christian warfare is an oxymoron, as the attitude of the Papacy towards warfare in the High Middle Ages was quite different from what it had been in previous centuries. LOL priests shedding blood!

>>>Before the Crusades and such, most Christian doctrines concerning war were based on defensive warfare not offensive.

There was a decisive shift in the attitude of the Papacy with respect to warfare in the years preceding the Crusades.

Mynydd
07-13-2004, 02:00 PM
You are wrong. Even the very word 'crusade' has its etymological origin in Spain.Not quite. The etymology of the word crusade lies in a piece of cloth that people wore on top of their ordinary clothings, and over which they painted a cross. That I believe started with the first crusade.

So it was a waste of time to bring the Iberian peninsula, Sicily, the Mediterranean, and the Baltic within the orbit of Western civilization?Have you gone out of your mind?

There was no such Western civilization. It had been brought to a halt by the invasions of the Germanic barbarians. And there was no Eastern civilization either since the crusaders took good care of weakening further Byzantium and let them prey of the Ottomans.

Civilization was resumed later on, with the Renaissance, and it spread from South-West Europe northwards.

And Fade, just who are those enigmatic saviours who brought the Iberian peninsula back to anything? The same who provoked and called in the invasion of it?

Mynydd
07-13-2004, 02:10 PM
Other than the sacking of Constantnipole, I believe the Crusades were justified. Europe was under attack by the Muslims from east and west and had to fight back.

Although I also oppose the supposed crusades by the Teutonic Knights against the "heathen" Slavs in Eastern Europe.The sack of Constantinople left Europe exposed to the Turks. What a bunch of imbecils.

Yes, the Teutonic Knights not only butchered Slavs in Eastern Europe, but also Germanics in Northern Europe.

But you forget one. The crusade against the Albigensi, the Cathari. That crusade was driven by the lust, greed and envy of the Nordic Franks and destroyed an early renaissance of a Mediterranean people.

Europe still exists not thanks to the crusaders, but inspite them all.

Perun
07-13-2004, 02:13 PM
I'll address more of Fade's argument later. All Fade proved was that clerics were not allowed to carry arms and wage wars(untill the military orders like Templars ands Teutonic Knights). But it addressed little of actual Christian doctrines concerning warfare.

Perun
07-13-2004, 02:19 PM
But you forget one. The crusade against the Albigensi, the Cathari. That crusade was driven by the lust, greed and envy of the Nordic Franks

It was driven by the fact the Cathars launched terrorist attacks on officials of the church.


and destroyed an early renaissance of a Mediterranean people.

What? I have yet to hear of one real cultural contribution of the Cathars to Europe. According to The Perfect Heresy: The Revolutionary Life and Death of the Medieval Cathars by Stephen O’Shea, the Cathars helped introduce the notions of feminism(Shea evens calls the Cathars "proto-feminist") and indifference to race-mxing(the Cathars believed God didnt care if one slept with a Jew or Muslim,who were of course Arab in this time). Im not shedding too many tears over this one.

FadeTheButcher
07-13-2004, 02:33 PM
>>>Not quite. The etymology of the word crusade lies in a piece of cloth that people wore on top of their ordinary clothings, and over which they painted a cross. That I believe started with the first crusade.

You are wrong on this point. Unfortunately, just two days ago I returned several of the books I had checked out for this debate as I had concluded it was going nowhere fast. The term is etymologically of Spanish origin and had been in use for some time previously in the Iberian peninsula. I will demonstrate this later once I recover my sources. Several good books about the Crusades have just recently come out. Also, there was only a 'first crusade' in hindsight.

>>>Have you gone out of your mind?

Perhaps. :)

>>>There was no such Western civilization.

I disagree. The culture we refer to today as 'The West' originated in Early Medieval Europe.

>>>It had been brought to a halt by the invasions of the Germanic barbarians

This is false as the Classical Civilisation was centered upon the Mediterranean. North Africa and the Levant were more a part of the Classical world than Holland ever was. What is today referred to as 'Western Civilisation' was a new civilisation which began in Early Medieval Europe.

>>>And there was no Eastern civilization either since the crusaders took good care of weakening further Byzantium and let them prey of the Ottomans.

Byzantium and the Slavic-Orthodox civilisation are not one in the same, although the later was oriented towards the former as Western Christendom once was towards Rome.

>>>Civilization was resumed later on, with the Renaissance, and it spread from South-West Europe northwards.

This notion has long been discredited. Actually, Western Civilisation was already the most advanced civilisation in the history of the world by the 14th century. The demographic and cultural revival began long before that as well, in the 11th century, specifically, in Northern France, the Low Countries, and the Rhineland.

>>>And Fade, just who are those enigmatic saviours who brought the Iberian peninsula back to anything? The same who provoked and called in the invasion of it?

Elaborate.

FadeTheButcher
07-13-2004, 02:38 PM
>>>I'll address more of Fade's argument later. All Fade proved was that clerics were not allowed to carry arms and wage wars(untill the military orders like Templars ands Teutonic Knights). But it addressed little of actual Christian doctrines concerning warfare.

I will discuss in detail the shift in the attitude of the Papacy towards warfare from the Early Middle Ages to the Crusades of the High Middle Ages later on. I will also argue that Crusades had more to do than anything else with internal developments within the West, specifically, the Peace of God movement which grew in reaction to the anarchism and violence of the 10th century.

Ebusitanus
07-13-2004, 02:40 PM
I think Mynydd is trying to say that the Visigoths (Germanic) brough about this invasion in the first place.
Btw...Are you saying the so called Renaissance began in Northern France? :shock:

Mynydd
07-13-2004, 02:46 PM
It was driven by the fact the Cathars launched terrorist attacks on officials of the church.
That argument is not true. It was driven by the fact that the Frankish king of the Ille de Franced wanted to expand his territories to the richer and more prosperous lands of Òc.

The Cathars were not the rulers of those lands, and their rulers, like the Earls of Tolossa or the Viscount of Carcassona, were actually Catholics. Further, it was the Hispanic Catalan-Aragonese King Pere II who went to help them(dying in the battlefield) as they were his vassails. King Pere II was given the title of "The Catholic" by Rome.

As a value added comment, while the Cathars were stronger in the lands of Òc, they were also strong in other parts, specially in Germanic lands. And they did not organize a crusade against those lands. Perhaps because they were not attractive for Louis's lustful purposes?

What? I have yet to hear of one real cultural contribution of the Cathars to Europe. According to The Perfect Heresy: The Revolutionary Life and Death of the Medieval Cathars by Stephen O’Shea, the Cathars helped introduce the notions of feminism(Shea evens calls the Cathars "proto-feminist") and indifference to race-mxing(the Cathars believed God didnt care if one slept with a Jew or Muslim,who were of course Arab in this time). Im not shedding too many tears over this one.
No, not the Cathars but the Occitans. If you admit that the Albigensi crusade was right because of the Cathars, by the same rule of thumb you will have to admit that everything around the crusade where Constantinople was sacked was right too.

And neither crusade was right.

FadeTheButcher
07-13-2004, 02:51 PM
>>>I think Mynydd is trying to say that the Visigoths (Germanic) brough about this invasion in the first place.

Elaborate on that.

>>>Btw...Are you saying the so called Renaissance began in Northern France? :shock:

There is a popular myth about the Middle Ages that the great cultural revival of Western Europe somehow began in the late 15th century during the Italian Renaissance which inaugurated the Early Modern Era. As I pointed out above, the revival actually began long before that, during the High Middle Ages. The 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries were a period of rapid social and economic progress and expansion. The technological and demographic transformation that occurred during this period was enormous. Western Europe was already overpopulated before the famines and the Black Death of the 14th century.

Perun
07-13-2004, 02:55 PM
He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword. Who said that?

http://www.truecatholic.org/war-moraltheology.htm

1381.
Certain sayings of our Lord — for example, that those who take the sword shall perish by the sword (Matt., xxvi. 52), and that one should not resist evil (Matt., v. 39) — are not an endorsement of extreme pacifism, but are respectively a condemnation of those who without due authority have recourse to violence, and a counsel of perfection, when this serves better the honor of God or the good of the neighbor. Moreover, these words of Christ were addressed, not to states, which are responsible for the welfare of their members, but to individuals. The Quakers have done excellent service for the cause of world peace, but their teaching that all war is contrary to the law of Christ cannot be admitted. The spirit of the Gospel includes justice as well as love.



This is ridiculous, as the Church had a strong institutional aversion towards bishops and priests taking up the sword in the Early Middle Ages. It was only in the 10th century with the Peace of God movement that this began to change.

Nice straw man Fade. Where did I even mention bishops and priests taking up arms? As Thomas Aquinas stated:


http://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/SS/SS040.html#SSQ40A2THEP1

"Now warlike pursuits are altogether incompatible with the duties of a bishop and a cleric, for two reasons. The first reason is a general one, because, to wit, warlike pursuits are full of unrest, so that they hinder the mind very much from the contemplation of Divine things, the praise of God, and prayers for the people, which belong to the duties of a cleric. Wherefore just as commercial enterprises are forbidden to clerics, because they unsettle the mind too much, so too are warlike pursuits, according to 2 Tim. 2:4: "No man being a soldier to God, entangleth himself with secular business." The second reason is a special one, because, to wit, all the clerical Orders are directed to the ministry of the altar, on which the Passion of Christ is represented sacramentally, according to 1 Cor. 11:26: "As often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, until He come." Wherefore it is unbecoming for them to slay or shed blood, and it is more fitting that they should be ready to shed their own blood for Christ, so as to imitate in deed what they portray in their ministry. For this reason it has been decreed that those who shed blood, even without sin, become irregular. Now no man who has a certain duty to perform, can lawfully do that which renders him unfit for that duty. Wherefore it is altogether unlawful for clerics to fight, because war is directed to the shedding of blood.


Clerics and Bishops not being able to fight has no bearing on Christian doctrines of warfare altogether.


The Bible can be interpreted in all sorts of ways, actually.

I wasnt interpreting Fade, I was stating a simple fact mentioned in the Bible:

"Now in Caesarea, there was a centurion named Cornelius, of the Roman cohort Italica, who was religious and God-fearing."
--Acts of the Apostles 10:1

The first Roman convert was a soldier, and indeed his profession is not an issue at all. Indeed the biggest issure surronding his conversion is whether or not he needs to be circumscised.

Concerning St. Paul, he clearly states in Romans 13:4;
"It is not without purpose that the ruler carries a sword"


Christian warfare is an oxymoron,

Really? I'd like to see how you defend this notion. Of all the Church fathers, only Tertullian was really a pacifist. Theres little evidence of early Christians avoiding service in the Roman military. And if Mike Dodaro's review of The Church Impotent: The Feminization of Christianity is correct, military terms and idoms are very frequent in early Christian literature and discipline within the church was modelled off the military.

LOL priests shedding blood!

I've already shown this is irrelevant.


There was a decisive shift in the attitude of the Papacy with respect to warfare in the years preceding the Crusades.

Nice straw man, where did I say otherwise?

Ebusitanus
07-13-2004, 02:59 PM
Well, that is all fine but you are saying that this so called Renaissance was a central european thing?

On the Cathars thing, only to say power expansion like the King of France was trying to do over South France is as valid as the Aragonese intents into this area. And...why would you have to add "Nordics" to the idea of Franks? LOL Those were the same Franks that made Catalonia viable to begin with. A bit confusing

FadeTheButcher
07-13-2004, 02:59 PM
The thirteenth century was one of the most progressive centuries in Western history.

"The dominant theme in the history of thirteenth-century Europe is arguably that of expansion: the expansion of Latin Christendom, to encompass Orthodox, Muslim and pagan lands previously on its outer fringes; the expansion of the economy, as western merchants (Italian, German, Catalan) penetrated deeper in the Mediterranean, the Baltic and the European land mass; the expansion too of population, to which a halt was called only around 1300; the expansion also of government, as rulers in western Europe consolidated their hold over their territories, and as the papacy made consistent claims to its own authority even over secular rulers. By the end of the thirteenth century the political and demographic expansion of powerful European kingdoms could be felt, too, on the edges of the British Isles, as the English king posed an ever sharper threat to the autonomy of the Welsh princes and the Scottish kings."

David Abulafia, The New Cambridge Medieval History, Volume V, c.1198-c.1300, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), p.1

FadeTheButcher
07-13-2004, 03:06 PM
I will discuss Christian pacifism in detail later on this evening during the Early Middle Ages, in the midst of the barbarian invasions of the 9th and 10th centuries. Aquinas lived during the High Middle Ages, btw. There was an enormous change in the attitude of the Papacy with respect to warfare from the Early Middle Ages to the High Middle Ages. Also, the stigma that was put upon bishops and priests taking up the sword has everything to do with Christian doctrines of warfare which were deferred to by the Papacy throughout the Early Medieval Era.

Perun
07-13-2004, 03:51 PM
I will discuss Christian pacifism in detail later on this evening during the Early Middle Ages, in the midst of the barbarian invasions of the 9th and 10th centuries.

Alright I look forward to it.


Aquinas lived during the High Middle Ages, btw.

I know, although I doubt this really helps your argument.


There was an enormous change in the attitude of the Papacy with respect to warfare from the Early Middle Ages to the High Middle Ages.

Well concerning the issue of clerics and warfare, what exactly changed?

You stated:
"This is ridiculous, as the Church had a strong institutional aversion towards bishops and priests taking up the sword in the Early Middle Ages. It was only in the 10th century with the Peace of God movement that this began to change."

And Thomas Aquinas in the High Middle Ages stated:
"Now warlike pursuits are altogether incompatible with the duties of a bishop and a cleric...it is altogether unlawful for clerics to fight, because war is directed to the shedding of blood."

So what exactly changed in this respect?

The only real change I know about is that the Church's attitude switched from a stance based more on defense to one based more on offense. Yet the basic theology surronding the question of warfare in relation to the faith remained unchanged. The change it appears was more strategic/tactical rather than theological.


Also, the stigma that was put upon bishops and priests taking up the sword has everything to do with Christian doctrines of warfare

How exactly? One can only argue that from what I call a clergy-centered viewpoint(that rules governing the clergy constitute rules for the entire church). Yet rules governing the clergy do not necessarily apply to the laity, and vice versa.

Mynydd
07-13-2004, 09:10 PM
>>>I think Mynydd is trying to say that the Visigoths (Germanic) brough about this invasion in the first place.

Elaborate on that.
Briefly...

As Germanic peoples, the monarcy system of the Visigoths was elective, not hereditary. When Rodrigo (probably dux of Lusitania) was elected king in Toledo, there were disensions from a party of supporters of the family of an earlier king, Witiza. The family of Witiza fled Toledo fearing reppraisals from the new king, and left for the Betica (South), where the dux was a Witizan supporter. There they plotted an uprising against the new elected king. With the help of the comites Julianus of Ceptem (modern Ceuta, Northern Africa) and financed by the discontent Sephardic community, they called in Ibn Musa, Arab governor of the recently conquered Afriqiya, to help them with troops.

In 710 an expeditionary force of Berbers lead by one Tarif disembarked in Tarifa, where they stayed for some time without meeting any resistance (they were 'allies'). In 711 the troops that Ibn Musa had promised to the witizan party disembarked in Calpe (modern Gibraltar) under the command of general Tariq (hence the name of Gibraltar, Gib-al-Tariq, "Tariq's Rock"). They joined the rebellious Visigoths against the king.

The battle of Guadalete was a complete chaos. More Visigoths seem to have fled from the king's side to join the Witizans, and others disbanded. King Rodrigo died in the battle. After the battle there was no army left to repel an advance. Most Visigoths surrendered to Tariq's troops converting to Islam, so that they could keep their status. The Witizans too, as they realized that the Berber army was superior and that they had helped destroying the only army which could have resisted them. Others went on the rampage sacking everywhere, as the royal power was gone and there was no more law and order in the kingdom. Still others retreated North, but not to the Cantabrian mountains as has been suggested, but towards Tolossa (Toulousse) where the Visigoths had still some ruling.

The famous battle which is taken as the start of the "Reconquista" (term is generally accepted, but "Conquista" is right instead) in the Cantabrian mountains was not but a brush (there is no chance that a battle could take place in Covadonga). The area belonged to the Cantabrians, an Iberian people who the Visigoths never managed to conquer and dominate completely. Instead, they appointed dux to a Cantabrian, to avoid the hostile attacks of those peoples. The Visigoths would have never retreated to an area that was overtly hostile to them, which neither them nor the Romans before managed to subdue. Roman presence in the area was composed of borderly garrisons (just like with the borders with the Germanic tribes), which were constantly harassed and hostigated by these tribes who priced so much their freedom and traditional style of life.

And it was these peoples the ones who started the resistance, not the Visigoths who divided between those who surrendered and those who went on the run.

So, my dear Germanic and Nordic peoples, thank you very much for your interest in our history and heritage, but please remember to treat it with due respect as it belongs solely to us. I'm sure that you can come up with some of your own.

Image: Lábaro cántabro. This symbol can be found in the region of Cantabria and Eastern Asturias, and it's the only symbol that the Roman Legions adopted from an enemy to pay respect to the courage and strength of the Cantabri.

http://www.unidadcantabra.com/simbolos/img1/labaro.gif

seraphim
07-13-2004, 10:49 PM
Crusade is most certainly of Spanish origin, "cruz" means cross in spanish.

Mynydd
07-14-2004, 07:28 AM
The concept behind the word crusade is no doubt Hispanic in origin, but I don't think the word is. History writings point out to what I said earlier. However, if there has been any revision, or if any new research has come out with evidence to support that suggestion, I am not aware of it.

FadeTheButcher
07-14-2004, 07:33 AM
It comes from the Spanish word cruzada.

Mynydd
07-14-2004, 08:20 AM
The thirteenth century was one of the most progressive centuries in Western history.
It may seem like that if you compare it to the centuries that preceded it since the fall of Rome. Likewise, the XIIth century was too when compared to the XIth, Xth, IXth, VIIIth, and VIIth centuries. And so on and so forth.

It is also truth that, while in the kingdoms of Hispania the relationship with the Islamic domains was that of constant war (not just big crusades, but so called frontier wars in between them), there was also a continous cultural exchange or, rather, cultural assimilation. And it was in these kingdoms where the path to the future Renaissance is paved. And it is from the kingdoms of Hispania that it is exported into Central Europe.

Many experts agree in that the threshold of the Renaissance were the first ''voyages of discovery''. We must then not forget that the Age of Discovery belongs to Portugal and starts with the conquest of the City of Ceuta (Northern Africa) in 1415, which opened the way to their domain over the Atlantic and its expansion. Years later, Castile, Leon and Aragon-Catalonia, and later Navarre, are the architects of the political Renaissance with King Fernando and the union of these kingdoms. The artistic Renaissance corresponds, as you well know, to Italy.

"The dominant theme in the history of thirteenth-century Europe is arguably that of expansion: the expansion of Latin Christendom, to encompass Orthodox, Muslim and pagan lands previously on its outer fringes; the expansion of the economy, as western merchants (Italian, German, Catalan) penetrated deeper in the Mediterranean, the Baltic and the European land mass; the expansion too of population, to which a halt was called only around 1300; the expansion also of government, as rulers in western Europe consolidated their hold over their territories, and as the papacy made consistent claims to its own authority even over secular rulers. By the end of the thirteenth century the political and demographic expansion of powerful European kingdoms could be felt, too, on the edges of the British Isles, as the English king posed an ever sharper threat to the autonomy of the Welsh princes and the Scottish kings."
So there were some changes in Central Europe. So what?

Funny how when it is in their interest people call us Western Europe, and when it is not then Southern Europe. This all belongs to [geographically] South-Western Europe. Western Europe is an invented term conveniently used by Central and Northern Europeans to set claim over the events and developments of the SouthWest.

Mynydd
07-14-2004, 08:25 AM
It comes from the Spanish word cruzada.
As I said, I don't have any problem with that, it's alright with me. However, I wouldn't mind it if you offered evidence from historical sources for this claim. Whenever I've read about it, it has always come as originating in the cross that the components of the 1st crusade painted over their clothes. But these, I concede, might be outdated sources and I'll be happy to get newer ones.

FadeTheButcher
07-14-2004, 09:00 AM
>>>Alright I look forward to it.

Alright then. Here goes:

The Licitness of Fighting and Killing

The peace movement did not ban war altogether. Rather, it limited the sphere of the licit use of arms. Spiritual sanctions were not the only weapon of the peacemaking Church dignitaries; peace regulations could not rest on moral authority of ecclesiastical councils alone, and anathemas and excommunications were often backed by less sublime weapons -- the threat, or actual use, of violence against the perpetators of violence. The ecclesiastical peacemakers labeled the violent as peacebreakers and commanded that armed actions be taken against them. Moreover, in their devotion to peace, the clergy themselves took part in such battles on more than one occasion. Not unconditionally opposed to war, the peace movement rather declared war on war and sometimes even organised its own armies: peace militias.

Rodulfus Glaber reported that whoever broke the truce was "to pay for it with his life or be driven from his own country and the company of his fellow Christians." The Truce of God was to be upheld by "human sanctions" and by "divine vengence." When "[v]arious madmen in their folly did not fear to break the [peace] pact," Glaber reported, "immediantly divine punishment or the avenging sword of men fell upon them." Taking up arms against peace-breakers was not regarded as breaking the peace. Peace oaths administered by bishops would sometimes commit those who entered a "peace pact" to wage war against those wh obroke the Peace or the Truce, to act together "to the destruction and confusion" of the offenders.

The peace movement that originated in Bourges is perhaps the best-known case in which such oaths were taken and bishops themselves led forces into battle for peace while the clerics took the "human sword" into their own hands. A contemporary report by Andrew of Fleury tells us that in the year 1038, Aimon, the archbishop of Bourges, "wished to impose peace in his diocese through the swearing of oath." He summoned the bishops of his province to a meeting where he swore to God and His saints over the relics of Stephen, "the first martyr for Christ," that "I will wholeheartedly attack those who steal ecclesiastical property, those who provoke pillage, those who oppress monks, nuns, and clerics, and those who fight against holy mother church, until they repent." He promised not to deviate from this path of righteousness under any circumstances, and "to move with all my troops against those who dare in any manner to transgress the [peace] decrees and not to cease in any way until the purpose of the traitor has been overcome." The bishops had to follow his lead and then make all males fifteen years and over in their separate dioceses subscribe to the peace and take the same oath. Aimon thus bound the male populace "by the following law: that they would come forth with one heart as opponents of any violation of the oath they have sworn, that they would in no way withdraw secretly from the pact," and that, "if necessity should demand it, they would to after those who had repudiated the oath with arms." Clerics were not excepted and "often took banners from the sanctuary of the Lord and attacked the violators of the sworn peace with the rest of the crowd of lay people [populus]."

Once organised, this popular peace army appears to have been quite active. We learn that "that they many times routed the faithless and brought their castles down to the ground" and "trampled underfoot" those they labeled rebels, "so that they forced them to return to the laws of the pact which they had ignored." It is also clear that "raging against the multitude of those who ignore God," these armed faithful inspired a lot of terror. However, as Andrew of Fleury points out, they became possessed by blind ambition and fell away from God. Their major success -- when they set aflame the castle of Beneciacum, whose lord was accused of violating the peace -- ironically also marked the turn of their fortunes. They also killed without pity those who had not been consumed by fire, so that fourteen hundred people of both sexes -- mainly the local population, who had sought protection in the castle -- perished. Before the blood of the innocents had dried up, the archbishop's peace league -- which "no longer had the Lord with them as their leader" -- was badly defeated by another peace-breaking noble, and in one valley seven hundred clerics were slain.

For Andrew of Fleury, Aimon had gone too far. The archbishop of Bourges with his peace army had brought up complex questions concerning clerical participation in war and bloodshed, and the place of priests and clerics, one the one hand, and armed and unarmed laymen, on the other, within a properly ordered society.

According to traditional ecclesiastical doctrine, clerics and monks were barred from participating in any military activity and were not allowed to bear arms. From early Church councils on, this interdict was "absolute," and the clerics who transgressed it were threatened with strict disciplinary measures, regardless of whether they took up arms for a just cause or even against the infidels. The rule was loosened a little when the synod of Ratisbone in 743 allowed clerics to accompany a Christian army on campaign. The synod specified the rank and number of the clergy accompanying military campaigns and determined that their task was to celebrate mass, intercede for the protection of saints, confess, and impose penance -- nothing else. It did not lift the ban on clerics bearing arms. That ban remained in force during the Carolingian period. The battle among Charlemagne's sons and successors at Fontenoy in 841 gives us an interesting example. Disturbed by the fratricidal war, the Carolingian bishops convened after the battle and concluded that the soldiers of the victorious army fought "for justice and equity alone" and that, for this reason, "every one of them, he who commanded as well as he who obeyed, was to consider himself in this conflict an instrument of God, free from responsibility." However, the clerics who took active part in the battle were punished. The interdict against clerics bearing arms was reaffirmed even when Frankish lands suffered Norman attacks, and it was restated by numerous peace councils held between the Council of Charroux in 989 and the Council of Clermont in 1095.

Though the prohibition against clerics using arms was the Church's normative stance, in practice things looked different. During the Merovingian period (end of the fifth century to the mid-eigth century), bishops took part in wars, even though such behaviour was not expected from them; under their Carolingian successors, such a state of affairs was institutionalised. The episcopate became involved in the management of secular affairs, which included military service. Bishops and abbots were responsible not only for equipping but also for personally leading ecclesiastical contingents on imperial military campaigns -- indeed, they were bound to take the field -- and they never questioned this duty. Moreover, whereas the last important Merovingian council, the Council of St. Jean de Losne in 673/75, explicitly forbade all bishops and clerics to bear arms in the manner of laymen, Carolingian councils did not specify bishops when they reiterated the general prohibition against clerics bearing arms. Thus it is not surprising that in the ninth and tenth centuries bishops occasionally took the initiative to organise defense against foreign peoples invading the lands of Latin Christians. But it is noteworthy that, for example, betweem 886 and 908, ten German bishops fell in fratricidal wars.

But while many bishops between the eigth and eleventh centuries engaged in warfare, some Church dignitaries of the period expressed a strongly negative view of clerical military activity, as the following few examples illustrate. At the beginning of the Carolingian rule, St. Boniface denounced Frankish bishops who were "given to hunting and to fighting in the army like soldiers and by their own hands shedding blood." Replying to Boniface's letter, Pope Zacharias called those bishops "false priests" because their hands were "stained with human blood" and repeated that for priests this was unlawful. Pope Sergius II, who called proponents of war "sons of the devil," wrote a letter to Transalpine bishops in 844, urging them to "suffer persecution for this will make you blessed." Atto, bishop of Vercelli, sharply criticized the clergy's involvement with war and secular affairs, maintaining that it was not appropriate to priests -- it was diabolical. Ratherius of Verona, another tenth-century Italian bishop, reprimanded the clergy for showing contempt for the canons in their hunting, whoring, and warring. In the late 1020s, Bishop Fulbert of Chartres poured out his indignation at the bishops -- he did not even want to call them bishops for fear of injuring the faith -- who were more versed in war than lay princes and were not ashamed of distrubing the peace of the Church and shedding Christian blood. Moreover, they dared to enter their churches to celebrate the holy sacraments with bloody hands. The Church had only one sword, he reminded them, the spiritual sword, which does not kill but vivifies.

Thus and similiar criticisms indicate that from the mid-eigth century to the early eleventh century there was tension and conflict between the normative canonical prohibition against clerical participation in war and the actual military duties of the high clergy. Tension between norm and practice can exist only as long as the norm still stands. In the time of Aimon of Bourges, the ecclesiastical norm began to be loosened. Moreover, whereas the military service of the Carolingian episcopate maybe seen as imposed on the Church by the imperial power (even though the Church dignitaries did not necessarily experience that imposition as painful), now there was no royal authority to demand that the bishops and abbots act contrary to ecclesiastical precepts regarding clerical participation in warfare. Aimon's military activity was not systemic, as that of the Carolingian and Ottonian bishops had been. He did not organise peace army at the command of worldly power but on his own initiative, and his effort was directed against the laymen to whom the effective power had devolved. But as problematic as Aimon's military pursuits might have been from the normative point of view, they also influenced the norm, and the bellicose bishop was actually one of those who broke fresh ground on which a new ecclesiastical attitude toward peace and war began to grow.

As long as the Augustinian understanding of peace as "tranquility of order" prevailed, a cleric bearing arms could be perceived as disturbing the proper order of things. As Fulbert of Chartres warned, such order entailed that the spiritual world -- the word of God -- was the only weapon of the Church. The same argument was pressed by Peter Damian in the middle of the eleventh century. The armed clerics, he maintained, represented a reversal of the proper order of things. They were usurpers of the material sword that God had bestowed on secular power exclusively. The offices of kingship and priesthood were distinct. Citing an example from the Old Testament, Damian pointed out that God had struck King Azariah, who had usurped the spiritual office, with leprosy to the day of his death. A notable Church reformer himself, Damian did not hesitate to disapprove of reform pope Leo IX's armed action against the Normans, regardless of the justice of the cause. Given that the idea of peace was linked to that of order, a cleric who disrupted the order was, eo ipso, violating peace. He was a perturbator pacis, a pacis violator. But Aimon of Bourges and other priests and monks took up arms precisely in the name of peace. Making peace the central purpose of military action affected the ecclesiastical outlook. Not only wars in which priests and monks took part but war in general was beginning to be seen differently.

Traditionally, the Church had been averse to the shedding of blood. Ecclesia abhorret a sanguine was a principle ever present in patrstic writings and conciliar legislation. Participation in warfare was regarded as evil; killing transgressed the Fifth Commandment; the stain of blood burdened Christian conscience. Even if a Christian stained his hands with blood in a just war, he still sinned. As Pope Nicholas I (858-67) stated -- in an era when Latin Christians had to defend themselves against the inroads of those they regarded as pagans -- even killing a pagan was homicide. From the fourth century to the eleventh century, the Church as a rule imposed disciplinary measures on those who killed in war, or at least recommended that they do penance.

In the tenth century, a different view began to emerge, emanating from Cluny, a center of monastic reform that played a role in inaugurating the Peace of God (even if only for the Cluniacs' own benefit -- to protect their lands from the growing perils of private warfare). Odo, the second abbot of Cluny (926-44) was one of the first to argue that it was possible to conduct warfare from "proper motives" -- and thus to promote a new ethics of war, that is, Christian militarism. In his Vita Geraldi, Odo represented the hero, Count Gerald, as a model of the new warrior of Christ -- a miles Christi who did not lay aside his arms but rather, moved by piety and charity, used arms in a way pleasing to God. His combating evil and malice was the Lord's work, opus Domini. Odo called this new kind of combat, in which piety entered the battlefield and became a fact of war, "fighting mingled with piety." A layman carrying a sword in such a spirit was irreproachable. The Old Testament had authorised it, Odo argued, pointing out that "some of the fathers, although they had been the most holy and the most patient, nevertheless used to take up arms manfully in adversities when the cause of justice demanded." With Gerald as an example and the Old Testament to support the idea, the Cluniac abbot felt safe to conclude: "Truly, no one ought to be worried because a just man sometimes makes use of fighting, which seems incompatible with religion."

The idea of "fighting mingled with piety" opened the way to thinking about fighting as a special form of piety, and to the materialisation of such thinking in the eleventh century. The peace movement, as we have seen, not only allowed but demanded the employment of arms against the peace-breakers in the interest of peace. It thus supported the notion of permissible violence and helped to establish ecclesiastical control over the use of arms and the determination of the circumstances in which laymen could licitly employ weapons and shed blood. The understanding of warfare as licit was further developed by the Church reformers in the second half of the eleventh century in the idea of warfare as a service to the Church. Pope Gregory VII (1073-85) -- after whom this church reform has been called -- is held responsible for the profound changes in the Christian attitude toward bearing arms this idea implied.

In his uncompromising struggle for liberty and renewal of the Church, Gregory did not shrink from the use of force against those he considered opposed to the truth faith and divine justice. Throughout his pontificate he sought to recruit arms-bearers from all over western Christendom -- from kinds and princes to soldiers -- for military service for the papacy, which was now the supreme authority within the Christian Church. He claimed that laymen owed such service to St. Peter, whose vicar on earth was the pope. Those who placed their arms at the disposal of the Apostolic See were thus the army of St. Peter, militia sancti Petri, and the individual who provided military service in pursuit of papal ends was his soldier, miles sancti Petri. Faithful laymen were vassals to the prince of the apostles, fideles sancti Petri and milites sancti Petri became largely synonymous. Gregory's outlook has been summarised, if somewhat harshly, as follows: "The Church is the 'Christian legion,' within which the laity is the 'order of fighters': laymen have no function save that of fighting; they exist solely to surpress the enemies of the Church and all elements which tend to subvert right Christian order. The word of St. Paul, 'No man tht warreth for God entangleth himself with the affairs of this world,' has been turned upside down.

War for St. Peter was considered licit. Even though Gregory VII did not formulate a "rounded reassessment of warfare," his pontificate marked a decisive stage in the association of the Church with warfare and bearing arms. The systemisation and justification of the new ecclesiastical attitude was the work of Gregorian bishops Anselm of Lucca and Bonizo of Sutri at the end of the eleventh century. A "canonist of reform," Anselm of Lucca wrote his Collectio canonum as a "book about 'principles,'" postulating "what the reformers desired for the Church and Christian society." In this context he worked to demonstrate that under certain conditions war, as well as the spilling of blood, could be legitimate and just. Citing (and slightly modifying) Augustine as his authority, Anselm stated: "Do not think that one who ministers with warlike arms is unable to please God." One of the two questions Bonzio of Sutri addressed in his polemical work Liber ad amicum, probably written in 1085-86, was whether "a Christian was or is permitted to fight with arms from the [true] doctrine." The answer he provided, based on a set of historical examples, was undoubtedly affirmative. If one might fight for the worldly king, why not for the Heavenly King? If for the republic, why not for righteousness? And if against the barbarians, why not against heretics? "Thus," he drew the lesson from history, "may the glorious soldiers of God fight for truth and righteousness and combat heresy in the truest sense." Indeed, every Christian must fight against "heretical novelties" in the manner corresponding to his social status. In his canonical work Liber de vita christiana, composed between 1090-95, Bonzio laid down a moral code of action for soldiers, making clear that the exercise of their profession was unobjectionable as long as they followed that code. Later in this chapter I outline this postulated military ethic as well as the conditions under which military service was pleasing to God in Anselm's opinion. First, I want to point out a grave consequence of the view that the use of arms was licit and acceptable to Christian religion.

If employment of arms was compatible with religion (in the spirit of Odo's Vita Geraldi), so were the fruits of the use of arms. Bernard of Angers, who wrote the first part of the Liber miraculorum sancte Fidis in the early eleventh century, unequivocally expressed the view that not only fighting but killing too was pleasing in the eyes of God. He went well beyond representing the death of malefactors -- those who wanted to either attack the monks or steal their wine or who slandered the local saint -- as due to impersonal celestial vengence. Bernard told the story of Gimon, prior of the monastery in Conques, who took divine vengence into his own hands. Although a monk, Gimon has "a cuirass, a helmet, a lance, a sword, and all kinds of instruments of war" always close at hand and was quick to use them "whenever wicked men invaded the monastery with hostile intent." This, Bernard knew, was "an assault on the monastic rule"; but, he suggested, if people considered Gimon's behaviour "correctly," they would ascribe it to the monk's moral excellence. "No one could doubt that his bravery was pleasing in the eyes of God." He was an instrument of God, fighting against "men like Antichrist" who "seize the goods of the saints as plunder, laugh at the bishop's interdict, think the legal position of the monks is a pile of ****, and even rail against the army of the living God like insolent Philistines." Gimon's action against such men was pure: "If God's avenging omnipotence should employ the hand of any of His own servants to strike down and slaughter one of these Antichrists, no one could call it a crime." Moreover, "that man will not be regarded as a murderer [neque iste ut homicida reputabitur] whom the Lord of Saboath and King of Armies and Powers destined to be the sole protection of his own monastic community, as if he were another defender-angel." Such a man could, rather, be rewarded, as David had been rewarded for killing Goliath.

Killing of "false Christians" by the virtuous and zealous servants of God was not to be regarded as homicide. Bernard of Angers singled out as false Christians those who acted violently in disrespect of the bishop's interdict [interdictum pontificalem deridentes) -- the violators of peace. Peace gatherings, as we saw earlier, would call on "the avenging human sword" and unleash a "raging against the multitude of those who ignore God." Effusion of bad Christians' blood was part of the peace package; it was sanctified by the peacemakers.

A fateful turn in ecclesiastical thinking about licit killing occurred in the pastoral letters of Pope Alexander II. In a letter to Viscount Berenguer of Narbonne, he pope communicated his approval of the viscount's protection of the Jews who lived under his power. "God is not pleased by the spilling of blood, nor does he rejoice in the perdition of the evil ones." In a letter of 1063 addressed to Wifred, archbishop of Narbonne, the pope reiterated the same traditional view: that "all laws, ecclesiastical as well as secular, forbid the shedding of human blood," but he made two exceptions. Bloodshed was allowed as a punishment for crimes and to counter hostile aggression, as in the case of Saracens. Though punishment of criminals was not war, fighting against Saracens was. Consequently, "proceeding against the Saracens," that is, war against them, could be regarded as licit warfare.

Tomaz Mastnak, Crusading Peace: Christendom, the Muslim World, and the Western Political Order (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002), pp.11-21

FadeTheButcher
07-14-2004, 09:35 AM
>>>It may seem like that if you compare it to the centuries that preceded it since the fall of Rome.

The point I am making here is that the great revival of Western Europe began long before the beginnings of the Renaissance in the 15th century. The difference between Western Europe in 900 and Western Europe in 1300 is like the difference between night and day. This was the definitive period when commerce, learning, and high culture revived. It was a period of rapid expansion and socioeconomic progress, when a nascent high culture began to advance into its periphery.

>>>Likewise, the XIIth century was too when compared to the XIth, Xth, IXth, VIIIth, and VIIth centuries. And so on and so forth.

This analogy simply does not hold, as there was a radical break in the 11th century and the centuries that followed it from the decline and stagnation of the Early Middle Ages. Western Christendom was being assaulted from all sides during the 9th century, by the Vikings from the North, the Magyars from the East, and Islam from the South. It was on the defensive.

>>>It is also truth that, while in the kingdoms of Hispania the relationship with the Islamic domains was that of constant war (not just big crusades, but so called frontier wars in between them), there was also a continous cultural exchange or, rather, cultural assimilation.

The Umayyad Caliphate disintegrated in the 11th century. And sure, there was a cultural exchange between the Iberian peninsula and the rest of Europe but it also went both ways. The foundation of Western Europe's amazing expansion in the High Middle Ages was already being laid in Northern France, the Rhineland, and the Low Countries.

>>>And it was in these kingdoms where the path to the future Renaissance is paved. And it is from the kingdoms of Hispania that it is exported into Central Europe.

I really have no clue where you got this idea. The material that did turn up in Western Europe from the Iberian peninsula and Sicily largely ended up there because of Northern Europe's expansion into the Mediterranean basin from the 10th century onwards, which was outgrowth of an already expanding civilisation. Also, 10th century Rome was a cesspool of degeneracy and decay (as I explained on the previous board). The Papacy had fallen to unbelievable depths and was only regenerated by the German Emperors who put installed outsider popes like Gerbert of Aurillac who later became Pope Sylvester II.

>>> Many experts agree in that the threshold of the Renaissance were the first ''voyages of discovery''.

Who are these experts? It has long been known that international trade revived in the High Middle Ages during the Crusades, especially in Northern Italy and Northern Germany, which laid the economic foundation for the later voyages of discovery.

>>>We must then not forget that the Age of Discovery belongs to Portugal and starts with the conquest of the City of Ceuta (Northern Africa) in 1415, which opened the way to their domain over the Atlantic and its expansion.

Speaking of Portugal, where was Portugal in 900?

>>>Years later, Castile, Leon and Aragon-Catalonia, and later Navarre, are the architects of the political Renaissance with King Fernando and the union of these kingdoms.

What do you mean by 'political renaissance'?

>>>The artistic Renaissance corresponds, as you well know, to Italy.

Why was there ever a Renaissance in Italy in the first place? Where was all the money coming from flowing into the Papacy?

>>>So there were some changes in Central Europe. So what?

The revival did not begin in the Mediterranean basis at all. It began in Northern and Central Europe during the High Middle Ages and pushed its way southward, not the other way around. The Mediterranean was a mess.

>>>Funny how when it is in their interest people call us Western Europe, and when it is not then Southern Europe.

There is no cultural entity that can be called 'Southern Europe'. Catholic Spain has far more in common with Catholic Belgium than it does Orthodox Greece.

>>>This all belongs to [geographically] South-Western Europe. Western Europe is an invented term conveniently used by Central and Northern Europeans to set claim over the events and developments of the SouthWest.

What again is 'this'? I would like to know, for one, because I fail to see how a declining Umayyad Caliphate during the High Middle Ages somehow reinvigorated Northern Europe which expanded into the Mediterranean, not the other way around.

otto_von_bismarck
07-14-2004, 04:54 PM
The point I am making here is that the great revival of Western Europe began long before the beginnings of the Renaissance in the 15th century. The difference between Western Europe in 900 and Western Europe in 1300 is like the difference between night and day.

In the 14th century a lot of the economic gains( though the numerous wars kept Europe from falling back scientifically as military science improved) went to ****, the sustained recovery started with Renaisance.

Perun
07-14-2004, 06:41 PM
Fade, thank you for your long post. But sadly, only one paragraph even comes close to refuting anything I said.

"Traditionally, the Church had been averse to the shedding of blood."

Nope. Clement of Alexendria in the Second century talked about it is justified for Christians to serve in the military. Ambrose also talked about how it is justified to use violence in many instances.



"Ecclesia abhorret a sanguine was a principle ever present in patrstic writings and conciliar legislation. Participation in warfare was regarded as evil; killing transgressed the Fifth Commandment;

Killing is not forbidden by the 5th Commandment, murder is. Even the Talmudist admit that the reading "Thou Shalt not Kill" is a mistranslation of the original Hebrew.

Ebusitanus
07-14-2004, 07:16 PM
I´m not very proud of the mercantile world we had during the heyday of Venice, Pisa, Genova or Aragon in the Mediterranean. More often than not they put ahead their petty material gains over the community by dealing with the heathens or fighting each other to the heathen´s gain.

DIETRICHM
07-14-2004, 07:18 PM
I. ORIGIN OF THE CRUSADES

The origin of the Crusades is directly traceable to the moral and political condition of Western Christendom in the eleventh century. At that time Europe was divided into numerous states whose sovereigns were absorbed in tedious and petty territorial disputes while the emperor, in theory the temporal head of Christendom, was wasting his strength in the quarrel over Investitures. The popes alone had maintained a just estimate of Christian unity; they realized to what extent the interests of Europe were threatened by the Byzantine Empire and the Mohammedan tribes, and they alone had a foreign policy whose traditions were formed under Leo IX and Gregory VII. The reform effected in the Church and the papacy through the influence of the monks of Cluny had increased the prestige of the Roman pontiff in the eyes of all Christian nations; hence none but the pope could inaugurate the international movement that culminated in the Crusades. But despite his eminent authority the pope could never have persuaded the Western peoples to arm themselves for the conquest of the Holy Land had not the immemorial relations between Syria and the West favoured his design. Europeans listened to the voice of Urban II because their own inclination and historic traditions impelled them towards the Holy Sepulchre.

From the end of the fifth century there had been no break in their intercourse with the Orient. In the early Christian period colonies of Syrians had introduced the religious ideas, art, and culture of the East into the large cities of Gaul and Italy. The Western Christians in turn journeyed in large numbers to Syria, Palestine, and Egypt, either to visit the Holy Places or to follow the ascetic life among the monks of the Thebaid or Sinai. There is still extant the itinerary of a pilgrimage from Bordeaux to Jerusalem, dated 333; in 385 St. Jerome and St. Paula founded the first Latin monasteries at Bethlehem. Even the Barbarian invasion did not seem to dampen the ardour for pilgrimages to the East. The Itinerary of St. Silvia (Etheria) shows the organization of these expeditions, which were directed by clerics and escorted by armed troops. In the year 600, St. Gregory the Great had a hospice erected in Jerusalem for the accommodation of pilgrims, sent alms to the monks of Mount Sinai ("Vita Gregorii" in "Acta SS.", March 11, 132), and, although the deplorable condition of Eastern Christendom after the Arab invasion rendered this intercourse more difficult, it did not by any means cease.

As early as the eighth century Anglo-Saxons underwent the greatest hardships to visit Jerusalem. The journey of St. Willibald, Bishop of Eichstädt, took seven years (722-29) and furnishes an idea of the varied and severe trials to which pilgrims were subject (Itiner. Latina, 1, 241-283). After their conquest of the West, the Carolingians endeavoured to improve the condition of the Latins settled in the East; in 762 Pepin the Short entered into negotiations with the Caliph of Bagdad. In Rome, on 30 November, 800, the very day on which Leo III invoked the arbitration of Charlemagne, ambassadors from Haroun al-Raschid delivered to the King of the Franks the keys of the Holy Sepulchre, the banner of Jersualem, and some precious relics (Einhard, "Annales", ad an. 800, in "Mon. Germ. Hist.: Script.", I, 187); this was an acknowledgment of the Frankish protectorate over the Christians of Jerusalem. That churches and monasteries were built at Charlemagne's expense is attested by a sort of a census of the monasteries of Jerusalem dated 808 ("Commemoratio de Casis Dei" in "Itiner. Hieros.", I, 209). In 870, at the time of the pilgrimage of Bernard the Monk (Itiner. Hierosol., I, 314), these institutions were still very prosperous, and it has been abundantly proved that alms were sent regularly from the West to the Holy Land. In the tenth century, just when the political and social order of Europe was most troubled, knights, bishops, and abbots, actuated by devotion and a taste for adventure, were wont to visit Jerusalem and pray at the Holy Sepulchre without being molested by the Mohammedans. Suddenly, in 1009, Hakem, the Fatimite Caliph of Egypt, in a fit of madness ordered the destruction of the Holy Sepulchre and all the Christian establishments in Jerusalem. For years thereafter Christians were cruelly persecuted. (See the recital of an eyewitness, Iahja of Antioch, in Schlumberger's "Epopée byzantine", II, 442.) In 1027 the Frankish protectorate was overthrown and replaced by that of the Byzantine emperors, to whose diplomacy was due the reconstruction of the Holy Sepulchre. The Christian quarter was even surrounded by a wall, and some Amalfi merchants, vassals of the Greek emperors, built hospices in Jerusalem for pilgrims, e.g. the Hospital of St. John, cradle of the Order of Hospitallers.

Instead of diminishing, the enthusiasm of Western Christians for the pilgrimage to Jerusalem seemed rather to increase during the eleventh century. Not only princes, bishops, and knights, but even men and women of the humbler classes undertook the holy journey (Radulphus Glaber, IV, vi). Whole armies of pilgrims traversed Europe, and in the valley of the Danube hospices were established where they could replenish their provisions. In 1026 Richard, Abbot of Saint-Vannes, led 700 pilgrims into Palestine at the expense of Richard II, Duke of Normandy. In 1065 over 12,000 Germans who had crossed Europe under the command of Günther, Bishop of Bamberg, while on their way through Palestine had to seek shelter in a ruined fortress, where they defended themselves against a troop of Bedouins (Lambert of Hersfeld, in "Mon. Germ. Hist.: Script.", V, 168). Thus it is evident that at the close of the eleventh century the route to Palestine was familiar enough to Western Christians who looked upon the Holy Sepulchre as the most venerable of relics and were ready to brave any peril in order to visit it. The memory of Charlemagne's protectorate still lived, and a trace of it is to be found in the medieval legend of this emperor's journey to Palestine (Gaston Paris in "Romania", 1880, p. 23).

The rise of the Seljukian Turks, however, compromised the safety of pilgrims and even threatened the independence of the Byzantine Empire and of all Christendom. In 1070 Jerusalem was taken, and in 1091 Diogenes, the Greek emperor, was defeated and made captive at Mantzikert. Asia Minor and all of Syria became the prey of the Turks. Antioch succumbed in 1084, and by 1092 not one of the great metropolitan sees of Asia remained in the possession of the Christians. Although separated from the communion of Rome since the schism of Michael Cærularius (1054), the emperors of Constantinople implored the assistance of the popes; in 1073 letters were exchanged on the subject between Michael VII and Gregory VII. The pope seriously contemplated leading a force of 50,000 men to the East in order to re-establish Christian unity, repulse the Turks, and rescue the Holy Sepulchre. But the idea of the crusade constituted only a part of this magnificent plan. (The letters of Gregory VII are in P.L., CXLVIII, 300, 325, 329, 386; cf. Riant's critical discussion in Archives de l'Orient Latin, I, 56.) The conflict over the Investitures in 1076 compelled the pope to abandon his projects; the Emperors Nicephorus Botaniates and Alexius Comnenus were unfavourable to a religious union with Rome; finally war broke out between the Byzantine Empire and the Normans of the Two Sicilies.

It was Pope Urban II who took up the plans of Gregory VII and gave them more definite shape. A letter from Alexius Comnenus to Robert, Count of Flanders, recorded by the chroniclers, Guibert de Nogent ("Historiens Occidentaux des Croisades", ed. by the Académie des Inscriptions, IV, 13l) and Hugues de Fleury (in "Mon. Germ. Hist.: Script.", IX, 392), seems to imply that the crusade was instigated by the Byzantine emperor, but this has been proved false (Chalandon, Essai sur le règne d'Alexis Comnène, appendix), Alexius having merely sought to enroll five hundred Flemish knights in the imperial army (Anna Comnena, Alexiad., VII, iv). The honour of initiating the crusade has also been attributed to Peter the Hermit, a recluse of Picardy, who, after a pilgrimage to Jerusalem and a vision in the church of the Holy Sepulchre, went to Urban II and was commissioned by him to preach the crusade. However, though eyewitnesses of the crusade mention his preaching, they do not ascribe to him the all-important rôle assigned him later by various chroniclers, e.g. Albert of Aix and especially William of Tyre. (See Hagenmeyer, Peter der Eremite Leipzig, 1879.) The idea of the crusade is chiefly attributed to Pope Urban II (1095), and the motives that actuated him are clearly set forth by his contemporaries: "On beholding the enormous injury that all, clergy or people, brought upon the Christian Faith . . . at the news that the Rumanian provinces had been taken from the Christians by the Turks, moved with compassion and impelled by the love of God, he crossed the mountains and descended into Gaul" (Foucher de Chartres, I, in "Histoire des Crois.", III, 321). Of course it is possible that in order to swell his forces, Alexius Comnenus solicited assistance in the West; however, it was not he but the pope who agitated the great movement which filled the Greeks with anxiety and terror.

II. FOUNDATION OF CHRISTIAN STATES IN THE EAST

After travelling through Burgundy and the south of France, Urban II convoked a council at Clermont-Ferrand, in Auvergne. It was attended by fourteen archbishops, 250 bishops, and 400 abbots; moreover a great number of knights and men of all conditions came and encamped on the plain of Chantoin, to the east of Clermont, 18-28 November, 1095. On 27 November, the pope himself addressed the assembled multitudes, exhorting them to go forth and rescue the Holy Sepulchre. Amid wonderful enthusiasm and cries of "God wills it!" all rushed towards the pontiff to pledge themselves by vow to depart for the Holy Land and receive the cross of red material to be worn on the shoulder. At the same time the pope sent letters to all Christian nations, and the movement made rapid headway throughout Europe. Preachers of the crusade appeared everywhere, and on all sides sprang up disorganized, undisciplined, penniless hordes, almost destitute of equipment, who, surging eastward through the valley of the Danube, plundered as they went along and murdered the Jews in the German cities. One of these bands, headed by Folkmar, a German cleric, was slaughtered by the Hungarians. Peter the Hermit, however, and the German knight, Walter the Pennyless (Gautier Sans Avoir), finally reached Constantinople with their disorganized troops. To save the city from plunder Alexius Comnenus ordered them to be conveyed across the Bosporus (August, 1096); in Asia Minor they turned to pillage and were nearly all slain by the Turks. Meanwhile the regular crusade was being organized in the West and, according to a well-conceived plan, the four principal armies were to meet at Constantinople.


Godfrey of Bouillon, Duke of Lower Lorraine at the head of the people of Lorraine, the Germans, and the French from the north, followed the valley of the Danube, crossed Hungary, and arrived at Constantinople, 23 December, 1096.
Hugh of Vermandois, brother of King Philip I of France, Robert Courte-Heuse, Duke of Normandy, and Count Stephen of Blois, led bands of French and Normans across the Alps and set sail from the ports of Apulia for Dyrrachium (Durazzo), whence they took the "Via Egnatia" to Constantinople and assembled there in May, 1097.
The French from the south, under the leadership of Raymond of Saint-Gilles, Count of Toulouse, and of Adhemar of Monteil, Bishop of Puy and papal legate, began to fight their way through the longitudinal valleys of the Eastern Alps and, after bloody conflicts with the Slavonians, reached Constantinople at the end of April, 1097.
Lastly, the Normans of Southern Italy, won over by the enthusiasm of the bands of crusaders that passed through their country, embarked for Epirus under the command of Bohemond and Tancred, one being the eldest son, the other the nephew, of Robert Guiscard. Crossing the Byzantine Empire, they succeeded in reaching Constantinople, 26 April, 1097.
The appearance of the crusading armies at Constantinople raised the greatest trouble, and helped to bring about in the future irremediable misunderstandings between the Greeks and the Latin Christians. The unsolicited invasion of the latter alarmed Alexius, who tried to prevent the concentration of all these forces at Constantinople by transporting to Asia Minor each Western army in the order of its arrival; moreover, he endeavoured to extort from the leaders of the crusade a promise that they would restore to the Greek Empire the lands they were about to conquer. After resisting the imperial entreaties throughout the winter, Godfrey of Bouillon, hemmed in at Pera, at length consented to take the oath of fealty. Bohemond, Robert Courte-Heuse, Stephen of Blois, and the other crusading chiefs unhesitatingly assumed the same obligation; Raymond of St-Gilles, however, remained obdurate.

Transported into Asia Minor, the crusaders laid siege to the city of Nicæa, but Alexius negotiated with the Turks, had the city delivered to him, and prohibited the crusaders from entering it (1 June, 1097). After their victory over the Turks at the battle of Dorylæum on 1 July, 1097, the Christians entered upon the high plateaux of Asia Minor. Constantly harrassed by a relentless enemy, overcome by the excessive heat, and sinking under the weight of their leathern armour covered with iron scales, their sufferings were wellnigh intolerable. In September, 1097, Tancred and Baldwin, brothers of Godfrey of Bouillon, left the bulk of the army and entered Armenian territory. At Tarsus a feud almost broke out between them, but fortunately they became reconciled. Tancred took possession of the towns of Cilicia, whilst Baldwin, summoned by the Armenians, crossed the Euphrates in October, 1097, and, after marrying an Armenian princess, was proclaimed Lord of Edessa. Meanwhile the crusaders, revictualled by the Armenians of the Taurus region, made their way into Syria and on 20 October, 1097, reached the fortified city of Antioch, which was protected by a wall flanked with 450 towers, stocked by the Ameer Jagi-Sian with immense quantities of provisions. Thanks to the assistance of carpenters and engineers who belonged to a Genoese fleet that had arrived at the mouth of the Orontes, the crusaders were enabled to construct battering-machines and to begin the siege of the city. Eventually Bohemond negotiated with a Turkish chief who surrendered one of the towers, and on the night of 2 June, 1098, the crusaders took Antioch by storm. The very next day they were in turn besieged within the city by the army of Kerbûga, Ameer of Mosul. Plague and famine cruelly decimated their ranks, and many of them, among others Stephen of Blois, escaped under cover of night. The army was on the verge of giving way to discouragement when its spirits were suddenly revived by the discovery of the Holy Lance, resulting from the dream of a Provençal priest named Pierre Barthélemy. On 28 June, 1098, Kerbûga's army was effectually repulsed, but, instead of marching on Jerusalem without delay, the chiefs spent several months in a quarrel due to the rivalry of Raymond of Saint-Gilles and Bohemond, both of whom claimed the right to Antioch. It was not until April, 1099, that the march towards Jerusalem was begun, Bohemond remaining in possession of Antioch while Raymond seized on Tripoli. On 7 June the crusaders began the siege of Jerusalem. Their predicament would have been serious, indeed, had not another Genoese fleet arrived at Jaffa and, as at Antioch, furnished the engineers necessary for a siege. After a general procession which the crusaders made barefooted around the city walls amid the insults and incantations of Mohammedan sorcerers, the attack began 14 July, 1099. Next day the Christians entered Jerusalem from all sides and slew its inhabitants regardless of age or sex. Having accomplished their pilgrimage to the Holy Sepulchre, the knights chose as lord of the new conquest Godfrey of Bouillon, who called himself "Defender of the Holy Sepulchre". They had then to repulse an Egyptian army, which was defeated at Ascalon, 12 August, 1099. Their position was nevertheless very insecure. Alexius Comnenus threatened the principality of Antioch, and in 1100 Bohemond himself was made prisoner by the Turks, while most of the cities on the coast were still under Mohammedan control. Before his death, 29 July, 1099, Urban II once more proclaimed the crusade. In 1101 three expeditions crossed Europe under the leadership of Count Stephen of Blois, Duke William IX of Aquitaine, and Welf IV, Duke of Bavaria. All three managed to reach Asia Minor, but were massacred by the Turks. On his release from prison Bohemond attacked the Byzantine Empire, but was surrounded by the imperial army and forced to acknowledge himself the vassal of Alexius. On Bohemond's death, however, in 1111, Tancred refused to live up to the treaty and retained Antioch. Godfrey of Bouillon died at Jerusalem 18 July, 1100. His brother and successor, Baldwin of Edessa, was crowned King of Jerusalem in the Basilica of Bethlehem, 25 December, 1100. In 1112, with the aid of Norwegians under Sigurd Jorsalafari and the support of Genoese, Pisan, and Venetian fleets, Baldwin I began the conquest of the ports of Syria, which was completed in 1124 by the capture of Tyre. Ascalon alone kept an Egyptian garrison until 1153.



At this period the Christian states formed an extensive and unbroken territory between the Euphrates and the Egyptian frontier, and included four almost independent principalities: the Kingdom of Jerusalem, the Countship of Tripoli, the Principality of Antioch, and the Countship of Rohez (Edessa). These small states were, so to speak, the common property of all Christendom and, as such, were subordinate to the authority of the pope. Moreover, the French knights and Italian merchants established in the newly conquered cities soon gained the upper hand. The authority of the sovereigns of these different principalities was restricted by the fief-holders, vassals, and under-vassals who constituted the Court of Lieges, or Supreme Court. This assembly had entire control in legislative matters; no statute or law could be established without its consent; no baron could be deprived of his fief without its decision; its jurisdiction extended over all, even the king, and it controlled also the succession to the throne. A "Court of the Burgesses" had similar jurisdiction over the citizens. Each fief had a like tribunal composed of knights and citizens, and in the ports there were police and mercantile courts (see ASSIZES OF JERUSALEM). The authority of the Church also helped to limit the power of the king; the four metropolitan sees of Tyre, Cæsarea, Bessan, and Petra were subject to the Patriarch of Jerusalem, similarly seven suffragan sees and a great many abbeys, among them Mount Sion, Mount Olivet, the Temple, Josaphat, and the Holy Sepulchre. Through rich and frequent donations the clergy became the largest property-holders in the kingdom; they also received from the crusaders important estates situated in Europe. In spite of the aforesaid restrictions, in the twelfth century the King of Jerusalem had a large income. The customs duties established in the ports and administered by natives, the tolls exacted from caravans, and the monopoly of certain industries were a fruitful source of revenue. From a military point of view all vassals owed the king unlimited service as to time, though he was obliged to compensate them, but to fill the ranks of the army it was necessary to enroll natives who received a life annuity (fief de soudée). In this way was recruited the light cavalry of the "Turcoples", armed in Saracenic style. Altogether these forces barely exceeded 20,000 men, and yet the powerful vassals who commanded them were almost independent of the king. So it was that the great need of regular troops for the defence of the Christian dominions brought about the creation of a unique institution, the religious orders of knighthood, viz.: the Hospitallers, who at first did duty in the Hospital of St. John founded by the aforesaid merchants of Amalfi, and were then organized into a militia by Gérard du Puy that they might fight the Saracens (1113); and the Templars, nine of whom in 1118 gathered around Hugues de Payens and received the Rule of St. Bernard. These members, whether knights drawn from the nobility, bailiffs, clerks, or chaplains, pronounced the three monastic vows but it was chiefly to the war against the Saracens that they pledged themselves. Being favoured with many spiritual and temporal privileges, they easily gained recruits from among the younger sons of feudal houses and acquired both in Palestine and in Europe considerable property. Their castles, built at the principal strategic points, Margat, Le Crac, and Tortosa, were strong citadels protected by several concentric enclosures. In the Kingdom of Jerusalem these military orders virtually formed two independent commonwealths. Finally, in the cities, the public power was divided between the native citizens and the Italian colonists, Genoese, Venetians, Pisans, and also the Marseillais who, in exchange for their services, were given supreme power in certain districts wherein small self-governing communities had their consuls, their churches, and on the outskirts their farm-land, used for the cultivation of cotton and sugar-cane. The Syrian ports were regularly visited by Italian fleets which obtained there the spices and silks brought by caravans from the Far East. Thus, during the first half of the twelfth century the Christian states of the East were completely organized, and even eclipsed in wealth and prosperity most of the Western states.

III. FIRST DESTRUCTION OF THE CHRISTIAN STATES (1144-87)



Many dangers, unfortunately, threatened this prosperity. On the south were the Caliphs of Egypt, on the east the Seljuk Ameers of Damascus, Hamah and Aleppo, and on the north the Byzantine emperors, eager to realize the project of Alexius Comnenus and bring the Latin states under their power. Moreover, in the presence of so many enemies the Christian states lacked cohesion and discipline. The help they received from the West was too scattered and intermittent. Nevertheless these Western knights, isolated amid Mohammedans and forced, because of the torrid climate, to lead a life far different from that to which they had been accustomed at home, displayed admirable bravery and energy in their efforts to save the Christian colonies. In 1137 John Comnenus, Emperor of Constantinople, appeared before Antioch with an army, and compelled Prince Raymond to do him homage. On the death of this potentate (1143), Raymond endeavoured to shake off the irksome yoke and invaded Byzantine territory, but was hemmed in by the imperial army and compelled (1144) to humble himself at Constantinople before the Emperor Manuel. The Principality of Edessa, completely isolated from the other Christian states, could not withstand the attacks of Imad-ed-Din, the prince, or atabek, of Mosul, who forced its garrison to capitulate 25 December, 1144. After the assassination of Imad-ed-Din, his son Nour-ed-Din continued hostilities against the Christian states. At news of this, Louis VII of France, Queen Eleanor of Aquitaine, and a great number of knights, moved by the exhortations of St. Bernard, enlisted under the cross (Assembly of Vézelay, 31 March, 1146). The Abbot of Clairvaux became the apostle of the crusade and conceived the idea of urging all Europe to attack the infidels simultaneously in Syria, in Spain, and beyond the Elbe. At first he met with strong opposition in Germany. Eventually Emperor Conrad III acceded to his wish and adopted the standard of the cross at the Diet of Spires, 25 December, 1146. However, there was no such enthusiasm as had prevailed in 1095. Just as the crusaders started on their march, King Roger of Sicily attacked the Byzantine Empire, but his expedition merely checked the progress of Nour-ed-Din's invasion. The sufferings endured by the crusaders while crossing Asia Minor prevented them from advancing on Edessa. They contented themselves with besieging Damascus, but were obliged to retreat at the end of a few weeks (July, 1148). This defeat caused great dissatisfaction in the West; moreover, the conflicts between the Greeks and the crusaders only confirmed the general opinion that the Byzantine Empire was the chief obstacle to the success of the Crusades. Nevertheless, Manuel Comnenus endeavoured to strengthen the bonds that united the Byzantine Empire to the Italian principalities. In 1161 he married Mary of Antioch, and in 1167 gave the hand of one of his nieces to Amalric, King of Jerusalem. This alliance resulted in thwarting the progress of Nour-ed-Din, who, having become master of Damascus in 1154, refrained thenceforth from attacking the Christian dominions.

King Amalric profited by this respite to interpose in the affairs of Egypt, as the only remaining representatives of the Fatimite dynasty were children, and two rival viziers were disputing the supreme power amid conditions of absolute anarchy. One of these disputants, Shawer, being exiled from Egypt, took refuge with Nour-ed-Din, who sent his best general, Shírkúh, to reinstate him. After his conquest of Cairo, Shírkúh endeavoured to bring Shawer into disfavour with the caliph; Amalric, taking advantage of this, allied himself with Shawer. On two occasions, in 1164 and 1167, he forced Shírkúh to evacuate Egypt; a body of Frankish knights was stationed at one of the gates of Cairo, and Egypt paid a tribute of 100,000 dinárs to the Kingdom of Jerusalem. In 1168 Amalric made another attempt to conquer Egypt, but failed. After ordering the assassination of Shawer, Shírkúh had himself proclaimed Grand Vizier. At his death on 3 March, 1169, he was succeeded by his nephew, Salah-ed-Dîn (Saladin). During that year Amalric, aided by a Byzantine fleet, invaded Egypt once more, but was defeated at Damietta. Saladin retained full sway in Egypt and appointed no successor to the last Fatimite caliph, who died in 1171. Moreover, Nour-ed-Din died in 1174, and, while his sons and nephews disputed the inheritance, Saladin took possession of Damascus and conquered all Mesopotamia except Mosul. Thus, when Amalric died in 1173, leaving the royal power to Baldwin IV, "the Leprous", a child of thirteen, the Kingdom of Jerusalem was threatened on all sides. At the same time two factions, led respectively by Guy de Lusignan, brother-in-iaw of the king, and Raymond, Count of Tripoli, contended for the supremacy. Baldwin IV died in 1184, and was soon followed to the grave by his nephew Baldwin V. Despite lively opposition, Guy de Lusignan was crowned king, 20 July, 1186. Though the struggle against Saladin was already under way, it was unfortunately conducted without order or discipline. Notwithstanding the truce concluded with Saladin, Renaud de Châtillon, a powerful feudatory and lord of the trans-Jordanic region, which included the fief of Montréal, the great castle of Karak, and Aïlet, a port on the Red Sea, sought to divert the enemy's attention by attacking the holy cities of the Mohammedans. Oarless vessels were brought to Aïlet on the backs of camels in 1182, and a fleet of five galleys traversed the Red Sea for a whole year, ravaging the coasts as far as Aden; a body of knights even attempted to seize Medina. In the end this fleet was destroyed by Saladin's, and, to the great joy of the Mohammedans, the Frankish prisoners were put to death at Mecca. Attacked in his castle at Karak, Renaud twice repulsed Saladin's forces (1184-86). A truce was then signed, but Renaud broke it again and carried off a caravan in which was the sultan's own sister. In his exasperation Saladin invaded the Kingdom of Jerusalem and, although Guy de Lusignan gathered all his forces to repel the attack, on 4 July, 1187, Saladin's army annihilated that of the Christians on the shores of Lake Tiberias. The king, the grand master of the Temple, Renaud de Châtillon, and the most powerful men in the realm were made prisoners. After slaying Renaud with his own hand, Saladin marched on Jerusalem. The city capitulated 17 September, and Tyre, Antioch, and Tripoli were the only places in Syria that remained to the Christians.

IV. ATTEMPTS TO RESTORE THE CHRISTIAN STATES AND THE CRUSADE AGAINST SAINT-JEAN D'ACRE

The news of these events caused great consternation in Christendom, and Pope Gregory VIII strove to put a stop to all dissensions among the Christian princes. On 21 January, 1188, Philip Augustus, King of France, and Henry II, Plantagenet, became reconciled at Gisors and took the cross. On 27 March, at the Diet of Mainz, Frederick Barbarossa and a great number of German knights made a vow to defend the Christian cause in Palestine. In Italy, Pisa made peace with Genoa, Venice with the King of Hungary, and William of Sicily with the Byzantine Empire. Moreover, a Scandinavian fleet consisting of 12,000 warriors sailed around the shores of Europe, when passing Portugal, it helped to capture Alvor from the Mohammedans. Enthusiasm for the crusade was again wrought up to a high pitch; but, on the other hand, diplomacy and royal and princely schemes became increasingly important in its organization. Frederick Barbarossa entered into negotiations with Isaac Angelus, Emperor of Constantinople, with the Sultan of Iconium, and even with Saladin himself. It was, moreover, the first time that all the Mohammedan forces were united under a single leader; Saladin, while the holy war was being preached, organized against the Christians something like a counter-crusade. Frederick Barbarossa, who was first ready for the enterprise, and to whom chroniclers attribute an army of 100,000 men, left Ratisbon, 11 May, 1189. After crossing Hungary he took the Balkan passes by assault and tried to outflank the hostile movements of Isaac Angelus by attacking Constantinople. Finally, after the sack of Adrianople, Isaac Angelus surrendered, and between 21 and 30 March, 1190, the Germans succeeded in crossing the Strait of Gallipoli. As usual, the march across Asia Minor was most arduous. With a view to replenishing provisions, the army took Iconium by assault. On their arrival in the Taurus region, Frederick Barbarossa tried to cross the Selef (Kalykadnos) on horseback and was drowned. Thereupon many German princes returned to Europe; the others, under the emperor's son, Frederick of Swabia, reached Antioch and proceeded thence to Saint-Jean d'Acre. It was before this city that finally all the crusading troops assembled. In June, 1189, King Guy de Lusignan, who had been released from captivity, appeared there with the remnant of the Christian army, and, in September of the same year, the Scandinavian fleet arrived, followed by the English and Flemish fleets, commanded respectively by the Archbishop of Canterbury and Jacques d'Avesnes. This heroic siege lasted two years. In the spring of each year reinforcements arrived from the West, and a veritable Christian city sprang up outside the walls of Acre. But the winters were disastrous to the crusaders, whose ranks were decimated by disease brought on by the inclemency of the rainy season and lack of food. Saladin came to the assistance of the city, and communicated with it by means of carrier pigeons. Missile-hurtling machines (pierrières), worked by powerful machinery, were used by the crusaders to demolish the walls of Acre, but the Mohammedans also had strong artillery. This famous siege had already lasted two years when Philip Augustus, King of France, and Richard Coeur de Lion, King of England, arrived on the scene. After long deliberation they had left Vézelay together, 4 July, 1190. Richard embarked at Marseilles, Philip at Genoa, and they met at Messina. During a sojourn in this place, lasting until March, 1191, they almost quarrelled, but finally concluded a treaty of peace. While Philip was landing at Acre, Richard was shipwrecked on the coast of Cyprus, then independent under Isaac Comnenus. With the aid of Guy de Lusignan, Richard conquered this island. The arrival of the Kings of France and England before Acre brought about the capitulation of the city, 13 July 1191. Soon, however, the quarrel of the French and English kings broke out again, and Philip Augustus left Palestine, 28 July. Richard was now leader of the crusade, and, to punish Saladin for the non-fulfilment of the treaty conditions within the time specified, had the Mohammedan hostages put to death. Next, an attack on Jerusalem was meditated, but, after beguiling the Christians by negotiations, Saladin brought numerous troops from Egypt. The enterprise failed, and Richard compensated himself for these reverses by brilliant but useless exploits which made his name legendary among the Mohammedans. Before his departure he sold the Island of Cyprus, first to the Templars, who were unable to settle there, and then to Guy de Lusignan, who renounced the Kingdom of Jerusalem in favour of Conrad of Montferrat (1192). After a last expedition to defend Jaffa against Saladin, Richard declared a truce and embarked for Europe, 9 October, 1192, but did not reach his English realm until he had undergone a humiliating captivity at the hands of the Duke of Austria, who avenged in this way the insults offered him before Saint-Jean d'Acre.

While Capetians and Plantagenets, oblivious of the Holy War, were settling at home their territorial disputes, Emperor Henry VI, son of Barbarossa, took in hand the supreme direction of Christian politics in the East. Crowned King of the Two Sicilies, 25 December, 1194, he took the cross at Bari, 31 May, 1195, and made ready an expedition which, he thought, would recover Jerusalem and wrest Constantinople from the usurper Alexius III. Eager to exercise his imperial authority he made Amaury de Lusignan King of Cyprus and Leo II King of Armenia. In September, 1197, the German crusaders started for the East. They landed at Saint-Jean d'Acre and marched on Jerusalem, but were detained before the little town of Tibnin from November, 1197, to February 1198. On raising the siege, they learned that Henry VI had died, 28 September, at Messina, where he had gathered the fleet that was to convey him to Constantinople. The Germans signed a truce with the Saracens, but their future influence in Palestine was assured by the creation of the Order of the Teutonic Knights. In 1143, a German pilgrim had founded a hospital for his fellow-countrymen; the religious who served it moved to Acre and, in 1198, were organized in imitation of the plan of the Hospitallers, their rule being approved by Innocent III in 1199.

V. THE CRUSADE AGAINST CONSTANTINOPLE (1204)



In the many attempts made to establish the Christian states the efforts of the crusaders had been directed solely toward the object for which the Holy War had been instituted; the crusade against Constantinople shows the first deviation from the original purpose. For those who strove to gain their ends by taking the direction of the crusades out of the pope's hands, this new movement was, of course, a triumph, but for Christendom it was a source of perplexity. Scarcely had Innocent III been elected pope, in January, 1198, when he inaugurated a policy in the East which he was to follow throughout his pontificate. He subordinated all else to the recapture of Jerusalem and the reconquest of the Holy Land. In his first Encyclicals he summoned all Christians to join the crusade and even negotiated with Alexius III, the Byzantine emperor, trying to persuade him to re-enter the Roman communion and use his troops for the liberation of Palestine. Peter of Capua, the papal legate, brought about a truce between Philip Augustus and Richard Coeur de Lion, January, 1199, and popular preachers, among others the parish priest Foulques of Neuilly, attracted large crowds. During a tournament at Ecry-sur-Aisne, 28 November, 1199, Count Thibaud de Champagne and a great many knights took the cross; in southern Germany, Martin, Abbot of Pairis, near Colmar, won many to the crusade. It would seem, however, that, from the outset, the pope lost control of this enterprise. Without even consulting Innocent III, the French knights, who had elected Thibaud de Champagne as their leader, decided to attack the Mohammedans in Egypt and in March, 1201, concluded with the Republic of Venice a contract for the transportation of troops on the Mediterranean. On the death of Thibaud the crusaders chose as his successor Boniface, Marquis of Montferrat, and cousin of Philip of Swabia, then in open conflict with the pope. Just at this time the son of Isaac Angelus, the dethroned Emperor of Constantinople, sought refuge in the West and asked Innocent III and his own brother-in-law, Philip of Swabia, to reinstate him on the imperial throne. The question has been raised whether it was pre-arranged between Philip and Boniface of Montferrat to turn the crusade towards Constantinople, and a passage in the "Gesta Innocentii" (83, in P. L., CCXIV, CXXXII) indicates that the idea was not new to Boniface of Montferrat when, in the spring of 1202, he made it known to the pope. Meanwhile the crusaders assembled at Venice could not pay the amount called for by their contract, so, by way of exchange, the Venetians suggested that they help recover the city of Zara in Dalmatia. The knights accepted the proposal, and, after a few days' siege, the city capitulated, November, 1202. But it was in vain that Innocent III urged the crusaders to set out for Palestine. Having obtained absolution for the capture of Zara, and despite the opposition of Simon of Montfort and a part of the army, on 24 May, 1203, the leaders ordered a march on Constantinople. They had concluded with Alexius, the Byzantine pretender, a treaty whereby he promised to have the Greeks return to the Roman communion, give the crusaders 200,000 marks, and participate in the Holy War. On 23 June the crusaders' fleet appeared before Constantinople; on 7 July they took possession of a suburb of Galata and forced their way into the Golden Horn; on 17 July they simultaneously attacked the sea walls and land walls of the Blachernæ. The troops of Alexius III made an unsuccessful sally, and the usurper fled, whereupon Isaac Angelus was released from prison and permitted to share the imperial dignity with his son, Alexius IV. But even had the latter been sincere he would have been powerless to keep the promises made to the crusaders. After some months of tedious waiting, those of their number cantoned at Galata lost patience with the Greeks, who not only refused to live up to their agreement, but likewise treated them with open hostility. On 5 February, 1204, Alexius IV and Isaac Angelus were deposed by a revolution, and Alexius Murzuphla, a usurper, undertook the defence of Constantinople against the Latin crusaders who were preparing to besiege Constantinople a second time. By a treaty concluded in March, 1204, between the Venetians and the crusading chiefs, it was pre-arranged to share the spoils of the Greek Empire. On 12 April, 1204, Constantinople was carried by storm, and the next day the ruthless plundering of its churches and palaces was begun. The masterpieces of antiquity, piled up in public places and in the Hippodrome, were utterly destroyed. Clerics and knights, in their eagerness to acquire famous and priceless relics, took part in the sack of the churches. The Venetians received half the booty; the portion of each crusader was determined according to his rank of baron, knight, or bailiff, and most of the churches of the West were enriched with ornaments stripped from those of Constantinople. On 9 May, 1204, an electoral college, formed of prominent crusaders and Venetians, assembled to elect an emperor. Dandolo, Doge of Venice, refused the honour, and Boniface of Montferrat was not considered. In the end, Baldwin, Count of Flanders, was elected and solemnly crowned in St. Sophia. Constantinople and the empire were divided among the emperor, the Venetians, and the chief crusaders; the Marquis of Montferrat received Thessalonica and Macedonia, with the title of king; Henry of Flanders became Lord of Adramyttion; Louis of Blois was made Duke of Nicæa, and fiefs were bestowed upon six hundred knights. Meanwhile, the Venetians reserved to themselves the ports of Thrace, the Peloponnesus, and the islands. Thomas Morosini, a Venetian priest, was elected patriarch.

At the news of these most extraordinary events, in which he had had no hand, Innocent III bowed as in submission to the designs of Providence and, in the interests of Christendom, determined to make the best of the new conquest. His chief aim was to suppress the Greek schism and to place the forces of the new Latin Empire at the service of the crusade. Unfortunately, the Latin Empire of Constantinople was in too precarious a condition to furnish any material support to the papal policy. The emperor was unable to impose his authority upon the barons. At Nicæa, not far from Constantinople, the former Byzantine Government gathered the remnant of its authority and its followers. Theodore Lascaris was proclaimed emperor. In Europe, Joannitsa, Tsar of the Wallachians and Bulgarians, invaded Thrace and destroyed the army of the crusaders before Adrianople, 14 April, 1205. During the battle the Emperor Baldwin fell. His brother and successor, Henry of Flanders, devoted his reign (1206-16) to interminable conflicts with the Bulgarians, the Lombards of Thessalonica, and the Greeks of Asia Minor. Nevertheless, he succeeded in strengthening the Latin conquest, forming an alliance with the Bulgarians, and establishing his authority even over the feudatories of Morea (Parliament of Ravennika, 1209); however, far from leading a crusade into Palestine, he had to solicit Western help, and was obliged to sign treaties with Theodore Lascaris and even with the Sultan of Iconium. The Greeks were not reconciled to the Church of Rome; most of their bishops abandoned their sees and took refuge at Nicæa, leaving their churches to the Latin bishops named to replace them. Greek convents were replaced by Cistercian monasteries, commanderies of Templars and Hospitallers, and chapters of canons. With a few exceptions, however, the native population remained hostile and looked upon the Latin conquerors as foreigners. Having failed in all his attempts to induce the barons of the Latin Empire to undertake an expedition against Palestine, and understanding at last the cause of failure of the crusade in 1204, Innocent III resolved (1207) to organize a new crusade and to take no further notice of Constantinople. Circumstances, however, were unfavourable. Instead of concentrating the forces of Christendom against the Mohammedans, the pope himself disbanded them by proclaiming (1209) a crusade against the Albigenses in the south of France, and against the Almohades of Spain (1213), the pagans of Prussia, and John Lackland of England. At the same time there occurred outbursts of mystical emotion similar to those which had preceded the first crusade. In 1212 a young shepherd of Vendôme and a youth from Cologne gathered thousands of children whom they proposed to lead to the conquest of Palestine. The movement spread through France and Italy. This "Children's Crusade" at length reached Brindisi, where merchants sold a number of the children as slaves to the Moors, while nearly all the rest died of hunger and exhaustion. In 1213 Innocent III had a crusade preached throughout Europe and sent Cardinal Pelagius to the East to effect, if possible, the return of the Greeks to the fold of Roman unity. On 25 July, 1215, Frederick II, after his victory over Otto of Brunswick, took the cross at the tomb of Charlemagne at Aachen. On 11 November, 1215, Innocent III opened the Fourth Lateran Council with an exhortation to all the faithful to join the crusade, the departure being set for 1217. At the time of his death (1216) Pope Innocent felt that a great movement had been started.

VI. THE THIRTEENTH-CENTURY CRUSADES (1217-52)

In Europe, however, the preaching of the crusade met with great opposition. Temporal princes were strongly averse to losing jurisdiction over their subjects who took part in the crusades. Absorbed in political schemes, they were unwilling to send so far away the military forces on which they depended. As early as December, 1216, Frederick II was granted a first delay in the fulfilment of his vow. The crusade as preached in the thirteenth century was no longer the great enthusiastic movement of 1095, but rather a series of irregular and desultory enterprises. Andrew II, King of Hungary, and Casimir, Duke of Pomerania, set sail from Venice and Spalato, while an army of Scandinavians made a tour of Europe. The crusaders landed at Saint-Jean d'Acre in 1217, but confined themselves to incursions on Mussulman territory, whereupon Andrew of Hungary returned to Europe. Receiving reinforcements in the spring of 1218, John of Brienne, King of Jerusalem, resolved to make an attack on the Holy Land by way of Egypt. The crusaders accordingly landed at Damietta in May, 1218, and, after a siege marked by many deeds of heroism, took the city by storm, 5 November, 1219. Instead of profiting by this victory, they spent over a year in idle quarrels, and it was not until May 1221, that they set out for Cairo. Surrounded by the Saracens at Mansurah, 24 July, the Christian army was routed. John of Brienne was compelled to purchase a retreat by the surrender of Damietta to the Saracens. Meanwhile Emperor Frederick II, who was to be the leader of the crusade, had remained in Europe and continued to importune the pope for new postponements of his departure. On 9 November, 1225, he married Isabelle of Brienne, heiress to the Kingdom of Jerusalem, the ceremony taking place at Brindisi. Completely ignoring his father-in-law, he assumed the title of King of Jerusalem. In 1227, however, he had not yet left for Palestine. Gregory IX, elected pope 19 March, 1227, summoned Frederick to fulfil his vow. Finally, 8 September, the emperor embarked but soon turned back; therefore, on 29 September, the pope excommunicated him. Nevertheless, Frederick set sail again 18 June, 1228, but instead of leading a crusade he played a game of diplomacy. He won over Malek-el-Khamil, the Sultan of Egypt, who was at war with the Prince of Damascus, and concluded a treaty with him at Jaffa, February, 1229, according to the terms of which Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and Nazareth were restored to the Christians. On 18 March, 1229, without any religious ceremony, Frederick assumed the royal crown of Jerusalem in the church of the Holy Sepulchre. Returning to Europe, he became reconciled to Gregory IX, August, 1230. The pontiff ratified the Treaty of Jaffa, and Frederick sent knights into Syria to take possession of the cities and compel all feudatories to do him homage. A struggle occurred between Richard Filangieri, the emperor's marshal, and the barons of Palestine, whose leader was Jean d'Ibelin, Lord of Beirut. Filangieri vainly attempted to obtain possession of the Island of Cyprus. and, when Conrad, son of Frederick II and Isabelle of Brienne, came of age in 1243, the High Court, described above, named as regent Alix of Champagne, Queen of Cyprus. In this way German power was abolished in Palestine.

In the meantime Count Thibaud IV of Champagne had been leading a fruitless crusade in Syria (1239). Similarly the Duke of Burgundy and Richard of Cornwall, brother of the King of England, who had undertaken to recover Ascalon, concluded a truce with Egypt (1241). Europe was now threatened with a most grievous disaster. After conquering Russia, the Mongols under Jenghiz Khan appeared in 1241 on the frontiers of Poland, routed the army of the Duke of Silesia at Liegnitz, annihilated that of Bela, King of Hungary, and reached the Adriatic. Palestine felt the consequences of this invasion. The Mongols had destroyed the Mussulman Empire of Kharizm in Central Asia. Fleeing before their conquerors, 10,000 Kharizmians offered their services to the Sultan of Egypt, meanwhile seizing Jerusalem as they passed by, in September, 1244. The news of this catastrophe created a great stir in Europe, and at the Council of Lyons (June-July, 1245) Pope Innocent IV proclaimed a crusade, but the lack of harmony between him and the Emperor Frederick II foredoomed the pontiff to disappointment. Save for Louis IX, King of France, who took the cross in December, 1244, no one showed any willingness to lead an expedition to Palestine. On being informed that the Mongols were well-disposed towards Christianity, Innocent IV sent them Giovanni di Pianocarpini, a Franciscan, and Nicolas Ascelin, a Dominican, as ambassadors. Pianocarpini was in Karakorum 8 April, 1246, the day of the election of the great khan, but nothing came of this first attempt at an alliance with the Mongols against the Mohammedans. However, when St. Louis, who left Paris 12 June, 1248, had reached the Island of Cyprus, he received there a friendly embassy from the great khan and, in return, sent him two Dominicans. Encouraged, perhaps, by this alliance, the King of France decided to attack Egypt. On 7 June, 1249, he took Damietta, but it was only six months later that he marched on Cairo. On 19 December, his advance-guard, commanded by his brother, Robert of Artois, began imprudently to fight in the streets of Mansurah and were destroyed. The king himself was cut off from communication with Damietta and made prisoner 5 April, 1250. At the same time, the Ajoubite dynasty founded by Saladin was overthrown by the Mameluke militia, whose ameers took possession of Egypt. St. Louis negotiated with the latter and was set at liberty on condition of surrendering Damietta and paying a ransom of a million gold bezants. He remained in Palestine until 1254; bargained with the Egyptian ameers for the deliverance of prisoners; improved the equipment of the strongholds of the kingdom, Saint-Jean d'Acre, Cæsarea, Jaffa, and Sidon; and sent Friar William of Rubruquis as ambassador to the great khan. Then, at the news of the death of his mother, Blanche of Castile, who had been acting as regent, he returned to France. Since the crusade against Saint-Jean d'Acre, a new Frankish state, the Kingdom of Cyprus, had been formed in the Mediterranean opposite Syria and became a valuable point of support for the crusades. By lavish distribution of lands and franchises, Guy de Lusignan succeeded in attracting to the island colonists, knights, men-at-arms, and civilians; his successors established a government modelled after that of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. The king's power was restricted by that of the High Court, composed of all the knights, vassals, or under-vassals, with its seat at Nicosia. However, the fiefs were less extensive than in Palestine, and the feudatories could inherit only in a direct line. The Island of Cyprus was soon populated with French colonists who succeeded in winning over the Greeks, upon whom they even imposed their language. Churches built in the French style and fortified castles appeared on all sides. The Cathedral of St. Sophia in Nicosia, erected between 1217 and 1251, was almost a copy of a church in Champagne. Finally, commercial activity became a pronounced characteristic of the cities of Cyprus, and Famagusta developed into one of the busiest of Mediterranean ports.

VII. FINAL LOSS OF THE CHRISTIAN COLONIES OF THE EAST (1254-91)

No longer aided by funds from the West, and rent by internal disorders, the Christian colonies owed their temporary salvation to the changes in Mussulman policy and the intervention of the Mongols. The Venetians drove the Genoese from Saint-Jean d'Acre and treated the city as conquered territory; in a battle where Christians fought against Christians, and in which Hospitallers were pitted against Templars, 20,000 men perished. In revenge the Genoese allied themselves with Michael Palæologus, Emperor of Nicæa, whose general, Alexius Strategopulos, had now no trouble in entering Constantinople and overthrowing the Latin Emperor, Baldwin II, 25 July, 1261. The conquest of the Caliphate of Bagdad by the Mongols (1258) and their invasion of Syria, where they seized Aleppo and Damascus, terrified both Christians and Mohammedans; but the Mameluke ameer, Bibars the Arbelester, defeated the Mongols and wrested Syria from them in September, 1260. Proclaimed sultan in consequence of a conspiracy, in 1260, Bibars began a merciless war on the remaining Christian states. In 1263 he destroyed the church at Nazareth; in 1265 took Cæsarea and Jaffa, and finally captured Antioch (May, 1268). The question of a crusade was always being agitated in the West, but except among men of a religious turn of mind, like St. Louis, there was no longer any earnestness in the matter among European princes. They looked upon a crusade as a political instrument, to be used only when it served their own interests. To prevent the preaching of a crusade against Constantinople, Michael Palæologus promised the pope to work for the union of the Churches; but Charles of Anjou, brother of St. Louis, whom the conquest of the Two Sicilies had rendered one of the most powerful princes of Christendom, undertook to carry out for his own benefit the Eastern designs hitherto cherished by the Hohenstaufen. While Mary of Antioch, granddaughter of Amaury II, bequeathed him the rights she claimed to have to the crown of Jerusalem, he signed the treaty of Viterbo with Baldwin II (27 May, 1267), which assured him eventually the inheritance of Constantinople. In no wise troubled by these diplomatic combinations, St. Louis thought only of the crusade. In a parliament held at Paris, 24 March, 1267, he and his three sons took the cross, but, despite his example, many knights resisted the exhortations of the preacher Humbert de Romans. On hearing the reports of the missionaries, Louis resolved to land at Tunis, whose prince he hoped to convert to Christianity. It has been asserted that St. Louis was led to Tunis by Charles of Anjou, but instead of encouraging his brother's ambition the saint endeavoured to thwart it. Charles had tried to take advantage of the vacancy of the Holy See between 1268 and 1271 in order to attack Constantinople, the negotiations of the popes with Michael Palæologus for religious union having heretofore prevented him. St. Louis received the embassy of the Greek emperor very graciously and ordered Charles of Anjou to join him at Tunis. The crusaders, among whom was Prince Edward of England, landed at Carthage 17 July, 1270, but the plague broke out in their camp, and on 25 August, St. Louis himself was carried off by the scourge. Charles of Anjou then concluded a treaty with the Mohammedans, and the crusaders reimbarked. Prince Edward alone, determined to fulfil his vow, and set out for Saint-Jean d'Acre; however, after a few razzias on Saracenic territory, he concluded a truce with Bibars.

The field was now clear for Charles of Anjou, but the election of Gregory X, who was favourable to the crusade, again frustrated his plans. While the emissaries of the King of the Two Sicilies traversed the Balkan peninsula, the new pope was awaiting the union of the Western and Eastern Churches, which event was solemnly proclaimed at the Council of Lyons, 6 July, 1274; Michael Palæologus himself promised to take the cross. On 1 May, 1275, Gregory X effected a truce between this sovereign and Charles of Anjou. In the meantime Philip III, King of France, the King of England, and the King of Aragon made a vow to go to the Holy Land. Unfortunately the death of Gregory X brought these plans to nought, and Charles of Anjou resumed his scheming. In 1277 he sent into Syria Roger of San Severino, who succeeded in planting his banner on the castle of Acre and in 1278 took possession of the principality of Achaia in the name of his daughter-in-law Isabelle de Villehardouin. Michael Palæologus had not been able to effect the union of the Greek clergy with Rome, and in 1281 Pope Martin IV excommunicated him. Having signed an alliance with Venice, Charles of Anjou prepared to attack Constantinople, and his expedition was set for April, 1283. On 30 March, 1282, however, the revolt known as the Sicilian Vespers occurred, and once more his projects were defeated. In order to subdue his own rebellious subjects and to wage war against the King of Aragon, Charles was at last compelled to abandon his designs on the East. Meanwhile Michael Palæologus remained master of Constantinople, and the Holy Land was left defenceless. In 1280 the Mongols attempted once more to invade Syria, but were repulsed by the Egyptians at the battle of Hims; in 1286 the inhabitants of Saint-Jean d'Acre expelled Charles of Anjou's seneschal and called to their aid Henry II, King of Cyprus. Kelaoun, the successor of Bibars, now broke the truce which he had concluded with the Christians, and seized Margat, the stronghold of the Hospitallers. Tripoli surrendered in 1289, and on 5 April, 1291, Malek-Aschraf, son and successor of Kelaoun, appeared before Saint-Jean d'Acre with 120,000 men. The 25,000 Christians who defended the city were not even under one supreme commander; nevertheless they resisted with heroic valour, filled breaches in the wall with stakes and bags of cotton and wool, and communicated by sea with King Henry II, who brought them help from Cyprus. However, 28 May, the Mohammedans made a general attack and penetrated into the town, and its defenders fled in their ships. The strongest opposition was offered by the Templars, the garrison of whose fortress held out ten days longer, only to be completely annihilated. In July, 1291, the last Christian towns in Syria capitulated, and the Kingdom of Jerusalem ceased to exist.

VIII. THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY CRUSADE AND THE OTTOMAN INVASION

The loss of Saint-Jean d'Acre did not lead the princes of Europe to organize a new crusade. Men's minds were indeed, as usual, directed towards the East, but in the first years of the fourteenth century the idea of a crusade inspired principally the works of theorists who saw in it the best means of reforming Christendom. The treatise by Pierre Dubois, law-officer of the crown at Coutances, "De Recuperatione Terræ Sanctæ" (Langlois, ed., Paris, 1891), seems like the work of a dreamer, yet some of its views are truly modern. The establishment of peace between Christian princes by means of a tribunal of arbitration, the idea of making a French prince hereditary emperor, the secularization of the Patrimony of St. Peter, the consolidation of the Orders of the Hospitallers and Templars, the creation of a disciplined army the different corps of which were to have a special uniform, the creation of schools for the study of Oriental languages, and the intermarriage of Christian maidens with Saracens were the principal ideas it propounded (1307). On the other hand the writings of men of greater activity and wider experience suggested more practical methods for effecting the conquest of the East. Persuaded that Christian defeat in the Orient was largely due to the mercantile relations which the Italian cities Venice and Genoa continued to hold with the Mohammedans, these authors sought the establishment of a commercial blockade which, within a few years, would prove the ruin of Egypt and cause it to fall under Christian control. For this purpose it was recommended that a large fleet be fitted out at the expense of Christian princes and made to do police duty on the Mediterranean so as to prevent smuggling. These were the projects set forth in the memoirs of Fidentius of Padua, a Franciscan (about 1291, Bibliothèque Nationale, Latin MSS., 7247); in those of King Charles II of Naples (1293, Bib. Nat., Frankish MSS., 6049); Jacques de Molay (1307, Baluze, ed., Vitæ paparum Avenion., II, 176-185); Henry II, King of Cyprus (Mas-Latrie, ed., Histoire de Chypre, II, 118); Guillaume d'Adam, Archbishop of Sultanieh (1310, Kohler, ed., Collect. Hist. of the Crusades, Armenian Documents, II); and Marino Sanudo, the Venetian (Bongars, ed., Secreta fidelium Crucis, II). The consolidation of the military orders was also urged by Charles II. Many other memoirs, especially that of Hayton, King of Armenia (1307, ed. Armenian Documents, I), considered an alliance between the Christians and the Mongols of Persia indispensable to success. In fact, from the end of the thirteenth century many missionaries had penetrated into the Mongolian Empire; in Persia, as well as in China, their propaganda flourished. St. Francis of Assisi, and Raymond Lully had hoped to substitute for the warlike crusade a peaceable conversion of the Mohammedans to Christianity. Raymond Lully, born at Palma, on the Island of Majorca, in 1235, began (1275) his "Great Art", which, by means of a universal method for the study of Oriental languages, would equip missionaries to enter into controversies with the Mohammedan doctors. In the same year he prevailed upon the King of Majorca to found the College of the Blessed Trinity at Miramar, where the Friars Minor could learn the Oriental languages. He himself translated catechetical treatises into Arabic and, after spending his life travelling in Europe trying to win over to his ideas popes and kings, suffered martyrdom at Bougie, where he had begun his work of evangelization (1314). Among the Mohammedans this propaganda encountered insurmountable difficulties, whereas the Mongols, some of whom were still members of the Nestorian Church, received it willingly. During the pontificate of John XXII (1316-34) permanent Dominican and Franciscan missions were established in Persia, China, Tatary and Turkestan, and in 1318 the Archbishopric of Sultanieh was created in Persia. In China Giovanni de Monte Corvino, created Archbishop of Cambaluc (Peking), organized the religious hierarchy, founded monasteries, and converted to Christianity men of note, possibly the great khan himself. The account of the journey of Blessed Orderic de Pordenone (Cordier, ed.) across Asia, between 1304 and 1330, shows us that Christianity had gained a foothold in Persia, India, Central Asia, and Southern China.

By thus leading up to an alliance between Mongols and Christians against the Mohammedans, the crusade had produced the desired effect; early in the fourteenth century the future development of Christianity in the East seemed assured. Unfortunately, however, the internal changes which occurred in the West, the weakening of the political influence of the popes, the indifference of temporal princes to what did not directly affect their territorial interests rendered unavailing all efforts towards the re-establishment of Christian power in the East. The popes endeavoured to insure the blockade of Egypt by prohibiting commercial intercourse with the infidels and by organizing a squadron for the prevention of smuggling, but the Venetians and Genoese defiantly sent their vessels to Alexandria and sold slaves and military stores to the Mamelukes. Moreover, the consolidation of the military orders could not be effected. By causing the suppression of the Templars at the Council of Vienne in 1311, King Philip the Fair dealt a cruel blow to the crusade; instead of giving to the Hospitallers the immense wealth of the Templars, he confiscated it. The Teutonic Order having established itself in Prussia in 1228, there remained in the East only the Hospitallers. After the capture of Saint-Jean d'Acre, Henry II, King of Cyprus, had offered them shelter at Limasol, but there they found themselves in very straitened circumstances. In 1310 they seized the Island of Rhodes, which had become a den of pirates, and took it as their permanent abode. Finally, the contemplated alliance with the Mongols was never fully realized. It was in vain that Argoun, Khan of Persia, sent the Nestorian monk, Raban Sauma, as ambassador to the pope and the princes of the West (1285-88); his offers elicited but vague replies. On 23 December, 1299, Cazan, successor to Argoun, inflicted a defeat upon the Christians at Hims, and captured Damascus, but he could not hold his conquests, and died in 1304 just as he was preparing for a new expedition. The princes of the West assumed the cross in order to appropriate to their own use the tithes which, for the defrayal of crusade expenses, they had levied upon the property of the clergy. For these sovereigns the crusade had no longer any but a fiscal interest. In 1336 King Philip VI of France, whom the pope had appointed leader of the crusade, collected a fleet at Marseilles and was preparing to go to the East when the news of the projects of Edward III caused him to return to Paris. War then broke out between France and England, and proved an insurmountable obstacle to the success of any crusade just when the combined forces of all Christendom would have been none too powerful to resist the new storm gathering in the East. From the close of the thirteenth century a band of Ottoman Turks, driven out of Central Asia by Mongol invasions, had founded a military state in Asia Minor and now threatened to invade Europe. They captured Ephesus in 1308, and in 1326 Othman, their sultan, established his residence at Broussa (Prusa) in Bithynia under Ourkhan, moreover, they organized the regular foot-guards of janizaries against whom the undisciplined troops of Western knights could not hold out. The Turks entered Nicomedia in 1328 and Nicæa in 1330; when they threatened the Emperors of Constantinople, the latter renewed negotiations with the popes with a view towards the reconciliation of the Greek and Roman Churches, for which purpose Barlaam was sent as ambassador to Avignon, in 1339. At the same time the Egyptian Mamelukes destroyed the port of Lajazzo, commercial centre of the Kingdom of Armenia Minor, where the remnants of the Christian colonies had sought refuge after the taking of Saint-Jean d'Acre (1337). The commercial welfare of the Venetians themselves was threatened; with their support Pope Clement VI in 1344 succeeded in reorganizing the maritime league whose operations had been prevented by the war between France and England. Genoa, the Hospitallers, and the King of Cyprus all sent their contingents, and, on 28 October, 1344, the crusaders seized Smyrna, which was confided to the care of the Hospitallers. In 1345 reinforcements under Humbert, Dauphin of Viennois, appeared in the Archipelago, but the new leader of the crusade was utterly disqualified for the work assigned him; unable to withstand the piracy of the Turkish ameers, the Christians concluded a truce with them in 1348. In 1356 the Ottomans captured Gallipoli and intercepted the route to Constantinople.

The cause of the crusade then found an unexpected defender in Peter I, King of Cyprus, who, called upon by the Armenians, succeeded in surprising and storming the city of Adalia on the Cilician coast in 1361. Urged by his chancellor, Philip de Méziéres, and Pierre Thomas, the papal legate, Peter I undertook a voyage to the West (1362-65) in the hope of reviving the enthusiasm of the Christian princes. Pope Urban V extended him a magnificent welcome, as did also John the Good, King of France, who took the cross at Avignon, 20 March, 1363; the latter's example was followed by King Edward III, the Black Prince, Emperor Charles IV, and Casimir, King of Poland. Everywhere King Peter was tendered fair promises, but when, in June, 1365, he embarked at Venice he was accompanied by hardly any but his own forces. After rallying the fleet of the Hospitallers, he appeared unexpectedly before the Old Port of Alexandria, landed without resistance, and plundered the city for two days, but at the approach of an Egyptian army his soldiers forced him to retreat, 9-16 October, 1365. Again in 1367 he pillaged the ports of Syria, Tripoli, Tortosa, Laodicea, and Jaffa, thus destroying the commerce of Egypt. Later, in another voyage to the West, he made a supreme effort to interest the princes in the crusade, but on his return to Cyprus he was assassinated, as the result of a conspiracy. Meanwhile the Ottomans continued their progress in Europe, taking Philippopolis in 1363 and, in 1365, capturing Adrianople, which became the capital of the sultans. At the solicitation of Pope Urban V, Amadeus VII, Count of Savoy, took the cross and on 15 August, 1366, his fleet seized Gallipoli; then, after rescuing the Greek emperor, John V, held captive by the Bulgarians, he returned to the West. In spite of the heroism displayed during these expeditions, the efforts made by the crusaders were too intermittent to be productive of enduring results. Philippe de Méziéres, a friend and admirer of Pierre de Lusignan, eager to seek a remedy for the ills of Christendom, dreamed of founding a new militia, the Order of the Passion, an organization whose character was to be at once clerical and military, and whose members, although married, were to lead an almost monastic life and consecrate themselves to the conquest of the Holy Land. Being well received by Charles V, Philippe de Méziéres established himself at Paris and propagated his ideas among the French nobility. In 1390 Louis II, Duke of Bourbon, took the cross, and at the instigation of the Genoese went to besiege el-Mahadia, an African city on the coast of Tunis. In 1392 Charles VI, who had signed a treaty of peace with England, appeared to have been won over to the crusade project just before he became deranged. But the time for expeditions to the Holy Land was now passed, and henceforth Christian Europe was forced to defend itself against Ottoman invasions. In 1369 John V, Palæologus, went to Rome and abjured the schism; thereafter the popes worked valiantly for the preservation of the remnants of the Byzantine Empire and the Christian states in the Balkans. Having become master of Servia at the battle of Kosovo in 1389, the Sultan Bajazet imposed his sovereignty upon John V and secured possession of Philadelphia, the last Greek city in Asia Minor. Sigismund, King of Hungary, alarmed at the progress of the Turks, sent an embassy to Charles VI, and a large number of French lords, among them the Count of Nevers, son of the Duke of Burgundy, enlisted under the standard of the cross and, in July 1396, were joined at Buda by English and German knights. The crusaders invaded Servia, but despite their prodigies of valeur Bajazet completely routed them before Nicopolis, 25 September, 1396. The Count of Nevers and a great many lords became Bajazet's prisoners and were released only on condition of enormous ransoms. Notwithstanding this defeat, due to the misguided ardour of the crusaders, a new expedition left Aiguesmortes in June, 1399, under the command of the Marshal Boucicault and succeeded in breaking the blockade which the Turks had established around Constantinople. Moreover, between 1400 and 1402, John Palæologus made another voyage to the West in quest of reinforcements.

IX. THE CRUSADE IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY

An unlooked-for event, the invasion by Timur and the Mongols, saved Constantinople for the time being. They annihilated Bajazet's army at Ancyra, 20 July, 1402, and, dividing the Ottoman Empire among several princes, reduced it to a state of vassalage. The Western rulers, Henry III, King of Castile, and Charles VI, King of France, sent ambassadors to Timur (see the account by Ruy Gonçales de Clavijo, Madrid, 1779), but the circumstances were not favourable, as they had been in the thirteenth century. The national revolt of the Chinese that overthrew the Mongol dynasty in 1368 had resulted in the destruction of the Christian missions in Farther Asia; in Central Asia the Mongols had been converted to Mohammedanism, and Timur showed his hostility to the Christians by taking Smyrna from the Hospitallers. Marshal Boucicault took advantage of the dejection into which the Mongol invasion had thrown the Mohammedan powers to sack the ports of Syria, Tripoli, Beirut, and Sidon in 1403, but he was unable to retain his conquests; while Timur, on the other hand, thought only of obtaining possession of China and returned to Samarkand, where he died in 1405. The civil wars that broke out among the Ottoman princes gave the Byzantine emperors a few years' respite, but Murad II, having re-established the Turkish power, besieged Constantinople from June to September in 1422, and John VIII, Palæologus, was compelled to pay him tribute. In 1430 Murad took Thessalonica from the Venetians, forced the wall of the Hexamilion, which had been erected by Manuel to protect the Peloponnesus, and subdued Servia. The idea of the crusade was always popular in the West, and, on his death-bed, Henry V of England regretted that he had not taken Jerusalem. In her letters to Bedford, the regent, and to the Duke of Burgundy, Joan of Arc alluded to the union of Christendom against the Saracens, and the popular belief expressed in the poetry of Christine de Pisan was that, after having delivered France, the Maid of Orleans would lead Charles VII to the Holy Land. But this was only a dream, and the civil wars in France, the crusade against the Hussites, and the Council of Constance, prevented any action from being taken against the Turks. However, in 1421 Philip the Good, Duke of Burgundy, sent Gilbert de Lannoy, and in 1432, Bertrand de la Brocquière, to the East as secret emissaries to gather information that might be of value for a future crusade. At the same time negotiations for the religious union which would facilitate the crusade were resumed between the Byzantine emperors and the popes. Emperor John VIII came in person to attend the council convoked by Pope Eugene IV at Ferrara, in 1438. Thanks to the good will of Bessarion and of Isidore of Kiev, the two Greek prelates whom the pope had elevated to the cardinalate, the council, which was transferred to Florence, established harmony on all points, and on 6 July, 1439, the reconciliation was solemnly proclaimed. The reunion was received in bad part by the Greeks and did not induce the Western princes to take the cross. Adventurers of all nationalities enrolled themselves under the command of Cardinal Giuliano Cesarini and went to Hungary to join the armies of János Hunyady, Waywode of Transylvania, who had just repulsed the Turks at Hermanstadt, of Wladislaus Jagello, King of Poland, and of George Brankovitch, Prince of Servia. Having defeated the Turks at Nish, 3 November, 1443, the allies were enabled to conquer Servia, owing to the defection of the Albanians under George Castriota (Scanderbeg), their national commander. Murad signed a ten years' truce and abdicated the throne, 15 July, 1444, but Giuliano Cesarini, the papal legate, did not favour peace and wished to push forward to Constantinople. At his instigation the crusaders broke the truce and invaded Bulgaria, whereupon Murad again took command, crossed the Bosporus on Genoese galleys, and destroyed the Christian army at Varna, 10 November, 1444. This defeat left Constantinople defenceless. In 1446 Murad succeeded in conquering Morea, and when, two years later, János Hunyady tried to go to the assistance of Constantinople he was beaten at Kosovo. Scanderbeg alone managed to maintain his independence in Epirus and, in 1449, repelled a Turkish invasion. Mohammed II, who succeeded Murad in 1451, was preparing to besiege Constantinople when, 12 December, 1452, Emperor Constantine XII decided to proclaim the union of the Churches in the presence of the papal legates. The expected crusade, however, did not take place; and when, in March, 1453, the armed forces of Mohammed II, numbering 160,000, completely surrounded Constantinople, the Greeks had only 5000 soldiers and 2000 Western knights, commanded by Giustiniani of Genoa. Notwithstanding this serious disadvantage, the city held out against the enemy for two months, but on the night of 28 May, 1453, Mohammed II ordered a general assault, and after a desperate conflict, in which Emperor Constantine XII perished, the Turks entered the city from all sides and perpetrated a frightful slaughter. Mohammed II rode over heaps of corpses to the church of St. Sophia, entered it on horseback, and turned it into a mosque.

The capture of "New Rome" was the most appalling calamity sustained by Christendom since the taking of Saint-Jean d'Acre. However, the agitation which the news of this event caused in Europe was more apparent than genuine. Philip the Good, Duke of Burgundy, gave an allegorical entertainment at Lille in which Holy Church solicited the help of knights who pronounced the most extravagant vows before God and a pheasant (sur le faisan). Æneas Sylvius, Bishop of Siena, and St. John Capistran, the Franciscan, preached the crusade in Germany and Hungary; the Diets of Ratisbon and Frankfort promised assistance, and a league was formed between Venice, Florence, and the Duke of Milan, but nothing came of it. Pope Callistus III succeeded in collecting a fleet of sixteen galleys, which, under the command of the Patriarch of Aquileia, guarded the Archipelago. However, the defeat of the Turks before Belgrade in 1457, due to the bravery of János Hunyady, and the bloody conquest of the Peloponnesus in 1460 seemed finally to revive Christendom from its torpor. Æneas Sylvius, now pope under the name of Pius II, multiplied his exhortations, declaring that he himself would conduct the crusade, and towards the close of 1463 bands of crusaders began to assemble at Ancona. The Doge of Venice had yielded to the pope's entreaties, whereas the Duke of Burgundy was satisfied with sending 2000 men. But when, in June, 1464, the pope went to Ancona to assume command of the expedition, he fell sick and died, whereupon most of the crusaders, being unarmed, destitute of ammunition, and threatened with starvation, returned to their own countries. The Venetians were the only ones who invaded the Peloponnesus and sacked Athens, but they looked upon the crusade merely as a means of advancing their commercial interests. Under Sixtus IV they had the presumption to utilize the papal fleet for the seizure of merchandise stored at Smyrna and Adalia; they likewise purchased the claims of Catherine Cornaro to the Kingdom of Cyprus. Finally, in 1480, Mohammed II directed a triple attack against Europe. In Hungary Matthias Corvinus withstood the Turkish invasion, and the Knights of Rhodes, conducted by Pierre d'Aubusson, defended themselves victoriously, but the Turks succeeded in gaining possession of Otranto and threatened Italy with conquest. At an assembly held at Rome and presided over by Sixtus IV, ambassadors from the Christian princes again promised help; but the condition of Christendom would have been critical indeed had not the death of Mohammed II occasioned the evacuation of Otranto, while the power of the Turks was impaired for several years by civil wars among Mohammed's sons. At the time of Charles VIII's expedition into Italy (1492) there was again talk of a crusade; according to the plans of the King of France, the conquest of Naples was to be followed by that of Constantinople and the East. For this reason Pope Alexander VI delivered to him Prince Djem, son of Mahommed II and pretender to the throne, who had taken refuge with the Hospitallers. When Alexander VI joined Venice and Maximilian in a league against Charles VIII, the official object of the alliance was the crusade, but it had become impossible to take such projects as seriously meant. The leagues for the crusade were no longer anything but political combinations, and the preaching of the Holy War seemed to the people nothing but a means of raising money. Before his death, Emperor Maximilian took the cross at Metz with due solemnity, but these demonstrations could lead to no satisfactory results. The new conditions that now controlled Christendom rendered a crusade impossible.

X. MODIFICATIONS AND SURVIVAL OF THE IDEA OF THE CRUSADE

From the sixteenth century European policy was swayed exclusively by state interests; hence to statesmen the idea of a crusade seemed antiquated. Egypt and Jerusalem having been conquered by Sultan Selim, in 1517, Pope Leo X made a supreme effort to re-establish the peace essential to the organization of a crusade. The King of France and Emperor Charles V promised their co-operation; the King of Portugal was to besiege Constantinople with 300 ships, and the pope himself was to conduct the expedition. Just at this time trouble broke out between Francis I and Charles V; these plans therefore failed completely. The leaders of the Reformation were unfavourable to the crusade, and Luther declared that it was a sin to make war upon the Turks because God had made them His instruments in punishing the sins of His people. Therefore, although the idea of the crusade was not wholly lost sight of, it took a new form and adapted itself to the new conditions. The Conquistadores, who ever since the fifteenth century had been going forth to discover new lands, considered themselves the auxiliaries of the crusade. The Infante Don Henrique, Vasco da Gama, Christopher Columbus, and Albuquerque wore the cross on their breast and, when seeking the means of doubling Africa or of reaching Asia by routes from the East, thought of attacking the Mohammedans in the rear; besides, they calculated on the alliance of a fabulous sovereign said to be a Christian, Prester John. The popes, moreover, strongly encouraged these expeditions. On the other hand, among the Powers of Europe the House of Austria, which was mistress of Hungary, where it was directly threatened by the Turks, and which had supreme control of the Mediterranean, realized that it would be to its advantage to maintain a certain interest in the crusade. Until the end of the seventeenth century, when a diet of the German princes was held at Ratisbon, the question of war against the Turks was frequently agitated, and Luther himself, modifying his first opinion, exhorted the German nobility to defend Christendom (1528-29). The war in Hungary always partook of the character of a crusade and, on different occasions, the French nobles enlisted under the imperial banner. Thus the Duke of Mercoeur was authorized by Henry IV to enter the Hungarian service. In 1664 Louis XIV, eager to extend his influence in Europe, sent the emperor a contingent which, under the command of the Count of Coligny, repulsed the Turks in the battle of St. Gothard. But such demonstrations were of no importance because, from the time of Francis I, the kings of France, to maintain the balance of power in Europe against the House of Austria, had not hesitated to enter into treaties of alliance with the Turks. When, in 1683, Kara Mustapha advanced on Vienna with 30,000 Turks or Tatars, Louis XIV made no move, and it was to John Sobieski, King of Poland, that the emperor owed his safety. This was the supreme effort made by the Turks in the West. Overwhelmed by the victories of Prince Eugene at the close of the seventeenth century, they became thenceforth a passive power.

On the Mediterranean, Genoa and Venice beheld their commercial monopoly destroyed in the sixteenth century by the discovery of new continents and of new water-routes to the Indies, while their political power was absorbed by the House of Austria. Without allowing the crusaders to deter them from their continental enterprises, the Hapsburgs dreamed of gaining control of the Mediterranean by checking the Barbary pirates and arresting the progress of the Turks. When, in 1571, the Island of Cyprus was threatened by the Ottomans, who cruelly massacred the garrisons of Famagusta and Nicosia, these towns having surrendered on stipulated terms, Pope Pius V succeeded in forming a league of maritime powers against Sultan Selim, and secured the co-operation of Philip II by granting him the right to tithes for the crusade, while he himself equipped some galleys. On 7 October, 1571, a Christian fleet of 200 galleys, carrying 50,000 men under the command of Don Juan of Austria, met the Ottoman fleet in the Straits of Lepanto, destroyed it completely, and liberated thousands of Christians. This expedition was in the nature of a crusade. The pope, considering that the victory had saved Christendom, by way of commemorating it instituted the feast of the Holy Rosary, which is celebrated on the first Sunday of October. But the allies pushed their advantages no further. When, in the seventeenth century, France superseded Spain as the great Mediterranean power, she strove, despite the treaties that bound her to the Turks, to defend the last remnants of Christian power in the East. In 1669 Louis XIV sent the Duke of Beaufort with a fleet of 7000 men to the defence of Candia, a Venetian province, but, notwithstanding some brilliant sallies, he succeeded in putting off its capture for a few weeks only. However, the diplomatic action of the kings of France in regard to Eastern Christians who were Turkish subjects was more efficacious. The regime of "Capitulations", established under Francis I in 1536, renewed under Louis XIV in 1673, and Louis XV in 1740, ensured Catholics religious freedom and the jurisdiction of the French ambassador at Constantinople; all Western pilgrims were allowed access to Jerusalem and to the Holy Sepulchre, which was confided to the care of the Friars Minor. Such was the modus vivendi finally established between Christendom and the Mohammedan world.

Notwithstanding these changes it may be said that, until the seventeenth century, the imagination of Western Christendom was still haunted by the idea of the Crusades. Even the least chimerical of statesmen, such as Père Joseph de Tremblay, the confidential friend of Richelieu, at times cherished such hopes, while the plan set forth in the memorial which Leibniz addressed (1672) to Louis XIV on the conquest of Egypt was that of a regular crusade. Lastly, there remained as the respectable relic of a glorious past the Order of the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem, which was founded in the eleventh century and continued to exist until the French Revolution. Despite the valiant efforts of their grand master, Villiers de l'Isle Adam, the Turks had driven them from Rhodes in 1522, and they had taken refuge in Italy. In 1530 Charles V presented them with the Isle of Malta, admirably situated from a strategic point of view, whence they might exercise surveillance over the Mediterranean. They were obliged to promise to give up Malta on the recovery of Rhodes, and also to make war upon the Barbary pirates. In 1565 the Knights of Malta withstood a furious attack by the Turks. They also maintained a squadron able to put to flight the Barbary pirates. Recruited from among the younger sons of the noblest families of Europe, they owned immense estates in France as well as in Italy, and when the French Revolution broke out, the order quickly lost ground. The property it held in France was confiscated in 1790, and when, in 1798, the Directory undertook an expedition to Egypt, Bonaparte, in passing, seized the Isle of Malta, whose knights had themselves under the protection of the Czar, Paul I. The city of Valetta surrendered at the first summons, and the order disbanded; however, in 1826 it was reorganized in Rome as a charitable association.

The history of the Crusades is therefore intimately connected with that of the popes and the Church. These Holy Wars were essentially a papal enterprise. The idea of quelling all dissensions among Christians, of uniting them under the same standard and sending them forth against the Mohammedans, was conceived in the eleventh century, that is to say, at a time when there were as yet no organized states in Europe, and when the pope was the only potentate in a position to know and understand the common interests of Christendom. At this time the Turks threatened to invade Europe, and the Byzantine Empire seemed unable to withstand the enemies by whom it was surrounded. Urban II then took advantage of the veneration in which the holy places were held by the Christians of the West and entreated the latter to direct their combined forces against the Mohammedans and, by a bold attack, check their progress. The result of this effort was the establishment of the Christian states in Syria. While the authority of the popes remained undisputed in Europe, they were in a position to furnish these Christian colonies the help they required; but when this authority was shaken by dissensions between the priesthood and the empire, the crusading army lost the unity of command so essential to success. The maritime powers of Italy, whose assistance was indispensable to the Christian armies, thought only of using the Crusades for political and economic ends. Other princes, first the Hohenstaufen and afterwards Charles of Anjou, followed this precedent, the crusade of 1204 being the first open rebellion against the pontifical will. Finally, when, at the close of the Middle Ages, all idea of the Christian monarchy had been definitively cast aside, when state policy was the sole influence that actuated the Powers of Europe, the crusade seemed a respectable but troublesome survival. In the fifteenth century Europe permitted the Turks to seize Constantinople, and princes were far less concerned about their departure for the East than about finding a way out of the fulfilment of their vow as crusaders without losing the good opinion of the public. Thereafter all attempts at a crusade partook of the nature of political schemes.

Notwithstanding their final overthrow, the Crusades hold a very important place in the history of the world. Essentially the work of the popes, these Holy Wars first of all helped to strengthen pontifical authority; they afforded the popes an opportunity to interfere in the wars between Christian princes, while the temporal and spiritual privileges which they conferred upon crusaders virtually made the latter their subjects. At the same time this was the principal reason why so many civil rulers refused to join the Crusades. It must be said that the advantages thus acquired by the popes were for the common safety of Christendom. From the outset the Crusades were defensive wars and checked the advance of the Mohammedans who, for two centuries, concentrated their forces in a struggle against the Christian settlements in Syria; hence Europe is largely indebted to the Crusades for the maintenance of its independence. Besides, the Crusades brought about results of which the popes had never dreamed, and which were perhaps the most, important of all. They re-established traffic between the East and West, which, after having been suspended for several centuries, was then resumed with even greater energy; they were the means of bringing from the depths of their respective provinces and introducing into the most civilized Asiatic countries Western knights, to whom a new world was thus revealed, and who returned to their native land filled with novel ideas; they were instrumental in extending the commerce of the Indies, of which the Italian cities long held the monopoly, and the products of which transformed the material life of the West. Moreover, as early as the end of the twelfth century, the development of general culture in the West was the direct result of these Holy Wars. Finally, it is with the Crusades that we must couple the origin of the geographical explorations made by Marco Polo and Orderic of Pordenone, the Italians who brought to Europe the knowledge of continental Asia and China. At a still later date, it was the spirit of the true crusader that animated Christopher Columbus when he undertook his perilous voyage to the then unknown America, and Vasco de Gama when he set out in quest of India. If, indeed, the Christian civilization of Europe has become universal culture, in the highest sense, the glory redounds, in no small measure, to the Crusades.

DIETRICHM
07-14-2004, 07:21 PM
http://www.medievalcrusades.com/ ;)

Ebusitanus
07-14-2004, 07:22 PM
WTF is this? A "cut & paste"? Have you even read it yourself? Why is it not linked to the original page? Why have you not highlighted the parts that fall under the current debate?

Posting ten pages full of written stuff does not cut it here, sorry.

DIETRICHM
07-14-2004, 07:24 PM
Sorry for disturbin´u....Is just a parameter in order to discuss a decent topic thats it! You dont need to be rude

FadeTheButcher
07-14-2004, 10:41 PM
>>>In the 14th century a lot of the economic gains( though the numerous wars kept Europe from falling back scientifically as military science improved) went to ****, the sustained recovery started with Renaisance.

Not really. The famines and the Black Death of the 14th century should not be taken as a destruction of all the progress that had come before it. The depopulation of Europe improved the standard of living, actually.

>>>Fade, thank you for your long post. But sadly, only one paragraph even comes close to refuting anything I said.

My post thoroughly demonstrated that the Papacy in the Early Middle Ages had an entirely different attitude towards warfare than it did in the High Middle Ages.

>>>Nope. Clement of Alexendria in the Second century talked about it is justified for Christians to serve in the military. Ambrose also talked about how it is justified to use violence in many instances.

Perun does not seem to understand the difference between Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, the normative position of the Church with respect to warfare and exceptional interpretations. What is in dispute here is the dominant attitude of the papacy with respect to warfare in the Early and High Middle Ages.

>>>Killing is not forbidden by the 5th Commandment, murder is. Even the Talmudist admit that the reading "Thou Shalt not Kill" is a mistranslation of the original Hebrew.

Perun is once again ignoring the historicity of interpretations. What is in dispute here is, as I noted above, the prevailing view within the Church with regards to warfare during the Early and High Middle Ages.

Mynydd
07-25-2004, 08:08 PM
Fade, during your XIIIth century, although the Ummayad Caliphate was kaput, in Hispania there were centers of learning and translation like, in Castile under the reign and protection of King Alfonso X, the Escuela de Traductores de Toledo (School of Translators of Toledo), and in Majorca under the reign and protection of King Jaume II, the Col.legi de Llengües de Miramar (School of Languages of Miramar). The importance of these centers was huge and more than paved the way to the Renaissance, as they produced tons of translations of texts from Greek, Arabic, Hindi and Syrian, releasing thus a vast amount of knowledge which spread from Hispania through and into the rest of Western Europe.

But I'm sure that you will come out with something to relegate its importance in front of a few Northern (I guess you've meant Central all along) claims that you may find better to suit your northern ego. ;)

FadeTheButcher
07-25-2004, 08:40 PM
>>>Fade, during your XIIIth century, although the Ummayad Caliphate was kaput

During the High Middle Ages Southern Europe was for the most part in decline. The Umayyad's imploded. Constantinople was sacked. Sicily was taken over by the Normans and gradually impoverished during the War of the Sicilian Vespers.

>>>in Hispania there were centers of learning and translation like, in Castile under the reign and protection of King Alfonso X, the Escuela de Traductores de Toledo (School of Translators of Toledo), and in Majorca under the reign and protection of King Jaume II, the Col.legi de Llengües de Miramar (School of Languages of Miramar).

Yes, I am entirely aware of such translations, but to argue that such translations caused the Renaissance is specious, as the Renaissance was still centuries off at the time. Furthermore, as I pointed out to you, Northern Europe was already expanding and thriving before these translations began to make their way north. That these translations ever made their way North was in large part due to the fact that Northern Europe was invading the Mediterranean. Sicily was conquered by the Normans. Spain was Europeanized during the Reconquista. Constantinople was sacked by the Crusaders and the Latin Empire was set up.

>>>The importance of these centers was huge and more than paved the way to the Renaissance,

Once again, I challenge you to support this claim. As I pointed out before, Southern Europe was in decline during the High Middle Ages. On the other hand, Northern Europe was beginning to prosper and expand, into the Mediterranean, the Baltic, and the Holy Land. The decadence of Southern Europe did not cause Northern Europe's prosperity. Far from it. The revival of civilisation in Northern Europe led to expansion along its frontiers.

>>>as they produced tons of translations of texts from Greek, Arabic, Hindi and Syrian, releasing thus a vast amount of knowledge which spread from Hispania through and into the rest of Western Europe.

LMAO these texts made their way into an already thriving and expanding civilisation. They were debated in universities that had already been established, independent of their existence. They made their way north precisely because this new and expanding civilisation had conquered these areas.

>>>But I'm sure that you will come out with something to relegate its importance in front of a few Northern (I guess you've meant Central all along) claims that you may find better to suit your northern ego.

I don't have a problem with Southern Europeans, Mynyyd. I am not a Nordic chauvinist. On the other hand, your bigotry and hatred of Northern Europeans causes you to distort history in order to suit your own subracialist agenda.

FadeTheButcher
07-25-2004, 08:48 PM
I saw this the other day. I knew you would like it, Mynyyd. So here goes:

"The French connection was symptomatic of a wider process: the Europeanization of Spain. Initially the Christian kingdoms had been isolated islands of Visigothic culture. But already in the tenth century, pilgrims from France, England, Germany, and Italy were clogging the roads to the shrine of Saint James (Santiago) of Compostela; in the eleventh century, monks from Cluny and other reformed monasteries arrived to colonize Spanish cloisters. Alfonso VI actively reached out beyond the Pyrenees, to Cluny -- where he doubled the annual gift of 1000 gold pieces that his father, Fernando I, had given in exchange for prayers for his soul -- and to the papacy. He sought recognition from Pope Gregory VII as "king of Spain," and in return he imposed the Roman liturgy throughout his kingdom, stamping out the traditional Visigothic music and texts."

Barbara H. Rosenwein, A Short History of the Middle Ages, 2nd ed. (Toronto: Broadview Press, 2004), p.187

Mynydd
07-25-2004, 09:24 PM
>>>Fade, during your XIIIth century, although the Ummayad Caliphate was kaput

During the High Middle Ages Southern Europe was for the most part in decline. The Umayyad's imploded. Constantinople was sacked. Sicily was taken over by the Normans and gradually impoverished during the War of the Sicilian Vespers.
Constantinople and Sicily, great. Not that they had to do much with the period of the Renaissance, but you had to say something. And since the Scandinavian countries are completely irrelevant until this century, by the same rule of thumb we must arrive to the conclusion that the whole Northern Europe was too?

>>>in Hispania there were centers of learning and translation like, in Castile under the reign and protection of King Alfonso X, the Escuela de Traductores de Toledo (School of Translators of Toledo), and in Majorca under the reign and protection of King Jaume II, the Col.legi de Llengües de Miramar (School of Languages of Miramar).

Yes, I am entirely aware of such translations, but to argue that such translations caused the Renaissance is specious, as the Renaissance was still centuries off at the time.
Why don't you wait to read my entire post before answering to the bits? Have I said that they caused the Renaissance... where have I? Does 'paved the way' suggest to you exactly the same as caused? If so, please let me know to correct it as I'm using your language, which is foreign to me.

Furthermore, as I pointed out to you, Northern Europe was already expanding and thriving before these translations began to make their way north. That these translations ever made their way North was in large part due to the fact that Northern Europe was invading the Mediterranean.
Oh dear. So the influx of Central Europeans to these places of learning and the cultural exchanges had nothing to do with its spreading in Central Europe (I didn't know that they made its way to Northern Europe). Surely it was some illeterate coast raiders and invaders who spread all this knowledge, as you wisely suggest.

Sicily was conquered by the Normans. Spain was Europeanized during the Reconquista. Constantinople was sacked by the Crusaders and the Latin Empire was set up.
What do you mean with Spain was Europeanized? That it was no longer Southern Europe and became Northern Europe for the purposes of your Northern Europe's Renaissance Revisionsim?

>>>The importance of these centers was huge and more than paved the way to the Renaissance,

Once again, I challenge you to support this claim. As I pointed out before, Southern Europe was in decline during the High Middle Ages.
No. You've pointed out to Byzantium and Sicily, and as far as I know these are hardly the entire Southern Europe.

On the other hand, Northern Europe was beginning to prosper and expand, into the Mediterranean, the Baltic, and the Holy Land. The decadence of Southern Europe did not cause Northern Europe's prosperity. Far from it. The revival of civilisation in Northern Europe led to expansion along its frontiers.
:eek: The revival of civilisation in Northern Europe?

Oh.. you probably didn't mean the revival of Northern European civilisation. Or did you?

>>>as they produced tons of translations of texts from Greek, Arabic, Hindi and Syrian, releasing thus a vast amount of knowledge which spread from Hispania through and into the rest of Western Europe.

LMAO these texts made their way into an already thriving and expanding civilisation. They were debated in universities that had already been established, independent of their existence. They made their way north precisely because this new and expanding civilisation had conquered these areas.
If you use the same types of arguments to deny holocaust, there's going to be holocaust for a few more millenia. :rolleyes:

>>>But I'm sure that you will come out with something to relegate its importance in front of a few Northern (I guess you've meant Central all along) claims that you may find better to suit your northern ego.

I don't have a problem with Southern Europeans, Mynyyd. I am not a Nordic chauvinist. On the other hand, your bigotry and hatred of Northern Europeans causes you to distort history in order to suit your own subracialist agenda.
What are you talking about? Because we disagree and I don't say that you are right you accuse me of bigotry and hatred of NEs? Next time lock the thread so that no one disagrees with you.

FadeTheButcher
07-25-2004, 09:57 PM
>>>No. You've pointed out to Byzantium and Sicily, and as far as I know these are hardly the entire Southern Europe.

I pointed to A.) Iberia B.) Sicily and C.) Byzantium. That is pretty much Southern Europe.

>>>What are you talking about?

I made it clear that I am not a subracial chauvinist, but you already knew this. On the other hand, you most certainly are, as you had to bring into this conversation: "you may find better to suit your northern ego."

>>>Because we disagree and I don't say that you are right you accuse me of bigotry and hatred of NEs? Next time lock the thread so that no one disagrees with you.

No. I didn't make that argument at all. On the other hand, you must twist every single debate into the same stupid binary opposition that lies at the basis of your ideology. You did this just the other day with Ebusitanus as well, who has long defended the Mediterraneans on this board.

>>>The revival of civilisation in Northern Europe?

Absolutely. I miss something?

>>>Oh.. you probably didn't mean the revival of Northern European civilisation. Or did you?

I don't see how anyone could misunderstand my position, actually.

>>>What do you mean with Spain was Europeanized?

I mean that during the High Middle Ages, Spain was Europeanized, just as I argued above. In other words, Spain was drawn into the orbit of an expanding civilization out of the north.

>>>If you use the same types of arguments to deny holocaust, there's going to be holocaust for a few more millenia.

Once again, I am still not sure who here disagrees that a new civilisation arose in medieval Europe, centered around Northern France, the Low Countries, and the Rhineland, and that Spain was drawn into the orbit of this civilization during the High Middle Ages, as Britain was during the Norman Conquest.

>>>Oh dear. So the influx of Central Europeans to these places of learning and the cultural exchanges had nothing to do with its spreading in Central Europe (I didn't know that they made its way to Northern Europe).

The reason such translations began to make their way north in the first place was because A.) these areas were in decline B.) which is why they were conquered by Northern Europeans and C.) there was a demand for them in the universities that had already been established in the North. In other words, Northern Europe was thriving and expanding into its periphery during the High Middle Ages (into the Mediterranean, Baltic, and Middle East), centuries before the so-called Renaissance of the Early Modern Era.

>>> Surely it was some illeterate coast raiders and invaders who spread all this knowledge, as you wisely suggest.

So was Thomas Aquinas an illiterate? Peter Abelard? Anselm of Canterbury? William of Ockham? Roger Bacon? John of Salisbury? John Pecham? Peter Lombard? Gratian? Need I go on?

>>>Why don't you wait to read my entire post before answering to the bits? Have I said that they caused the Renaissance... where have I?

I did read your entire post. You said:

"The importance of these centers was huge and more than paved the way to the Renaissance . ."
--Mynydd

>>>Does 'paved the way' suggest to you exactly the same as caused?

You said MORE THAN PAVED THE WAY. If that was the case, then tell me why the Renaissance did not happen centuries earlier in Spain, as these texts were obviously available there beforehand.

>>>If so, please let me know to correct it as I'm using your language, which is foreign to me.

I notice you have a Welsh username. Why is that?

>>>Constantinople and Sicily, great.

They were sacked and conquered.

>>>Not that they had to do much with the period of the Renaissance, but you had to say something.

I thought you suggested that the texts that came from these places more than paved the way for the Renaissance. Most of the texts that made their way to the North came from Constantinople, not Iberia, especially when the Greeks began to flee to Italy.

>>>And since the Scandinavian countries are completely irrelevant until this century, by the same rule of thumb we must arrive to the conclusion that the whole Northern Europe was too?

What do you mean the Scandinavian countries were completely irrelevant until this century? The Scandinavians conquered and settled England. England was later again taken over by the Normans who were the descendants of the Vikings. The Normans later went on to conquer Sicily and participate in the Reconquista. Even the Crusades were largely a Norman effort, nothing more, nothing less, than the same old expansionism under fresh colours. The Scandinavian countries have been an integral part of Western European civilization since the High Middle Ages.