Week 10: Courtly Culture and Literature in the Middle Ages/ Later Crusading
Tutorial Discussion Post
By: Stacey-Lea, Asira and James
James' thoughts
Question 1: Steven Runciman locates reasons for the failure of the subsequent crusades in the events of the First Crusade. Summarise his argument in relation to the First Crusade in particular.
Runciman's argument is based on the fact that while the crusaders were initially successful in their quest, this success eventually brought about the end of the Byzantine Empire. The Emperor at the time, Alexius of Byzantium, was actively searching for mercenary soldiers to enrol in his army. This was, simply put, designed to ensure that Alexius maintained control. Urban II responded with a passionate plea for help (we studied this in chapter 8, he basically outlined why the average person owed it to their country to help the crusades and basically promised forgiveness of their sins in order to commit) and instead of mercenaries, Urban II inspired about a thousand Frankish knights to join the fight. Compared to the Byzantines the Franks were brutish and barbarian, and a cultural clash became more and more likely until they began to fight amongst themselves. This fighting eventually paved the way for the Muslims to recapture the Holy Land. It is important to note that these cultural issues had never really been a problem due to the geographical location of both Empires and a distinct lack of contact. The most crucial factor is the lack of control/opportunity Alexius had finding troops, usually Alexius relied on the support Byzantine troops for numbers, but with the Byzantines waging war themselves, this was not an option and help from the Turks was also not possible as even those not involved in the war would not fight against other Turks.
Question 2: What does he mean by a 'melancholy of misunderstandings' throughout the first crusade?
The first crucial misunderstanding as mentioned in question 1 was Urban's speech and the consequences of the speech. Instead of acquiring mercenaries as planned, Urban II paved the way for Frankish knights to join the fight who were initially useful before cultural misunderstanding ensued which left the two factions at war amongst themselves, eventually paving the way for the Muslims to recapture the Holy Land and essentially spelled the doom of the Byzantine Empire.
 |
| The crusading army approaching Constantinople |
Stacey-Lea's thoughts,
I personally find that the Crusades are a highly controversial aspect of Christendom. While I have barely any
knowledge of Christendom in any way, I feel the reasoning behind the Crusades is
somewhat flawed. Under the pretence of ‘love’ Christians went into battle and
while reading I thought of what we now know as Patriotism, and whether these
acts are of a similar principle. Only over the ‘love’ of other Christians
rather than of their country, it still seems to me that the wars of today, now
that we haven’t got conscription for battles, are calling upon perhaps a
similar ideal (obviously talking to someone currently battling would reveal
more information on this matter).
In the third reading I found it
particularly interesting that the Fourth Crusade ended up on a completely
different path to what it had originally set out for. This was due to poor
dealings which I feel if it were a true act the love of God, perhaps dealing
wouldn’t be so prominent? It seems a little out of character for those who are
claiming to be humble. I also found the siege of Constantinople and the
subjection to three days of pillaging as well as looting, rape and murder of
the Greeks to be completely unnatural. These are members of a Christian faith
and I feel that these actions disbar the ideals of Christendom.
However, the aspect of propaganda all
through the crusading time is intriguing. In this time there wasn’t much chance
of education and those who had it were generally the ones propelling the
propaganda anyway. The lack of education to those who were being preached to
seemed to have caused a confusion toward the understanding of what it meant to
go on a Crusade (personal opinion, of course). In perpetuating the idea of if
you were to go on the Crusade it was for the love of God, and that they would
be ‘soldiers of Christ’, was the strongest message in the sermons from the leaders.
Along with this the love of thy neighbour and thy enemy became entangled until
the actions of what the Crusaders were truly doing became to some extent lost,
as seen in the call from Byzantium in the second reading.
Q3.
Jonathan Riley-Smith asks whether or not we consider ‘Crusading as an Act of
Love’, what does he mean by this?
Jonathan Riley-Smith looks at all aspects
of Crusading and through this finds the propaganda around the act that so often
called into question one's love of Christ, and it was the love of Christ that
called Christian ‘warriors’ to give up their possessions, take the cross and
follow. Riley-Smith calls into question the love of enemies, hardly regarded by
the crusade preachers, which is where the change in the Church’s aversion
toward violence became prominent. Through the exploration of the preachings
from this time, Riley-Smith defines which aspects of love were highlighted to
the Christians to get them to fight, and calls into question whether it was
wholly an act of love, including these other aspects.
Q4.
What evidence does Riley-Smith use to argue that a theological notion of love
underpinned Crusading?
Much of Riley-Smith’s evidence comes from
the crusade preachers as well as letters between authorities as well as direct
passages and an anonymous twelfth-century poet. Each set of direct evidence
that Riley-Smith calls on denotes in some fashion the love of God which then
transforms into taking the cross. Riley-Smith highlights the blind devotion of
the crusaders as well through passages saying that the crusaders would renounce
earthly desires and possessions so as to follow the path of Christ.
Concentrating on passages from Christ, Riley-Smith backs up his arguments of
devotion and love that the crusaders had as well as their actions when taking
the cross.
Asira's thoughts,
I found this weeks readings were not what I
was expecting them to be as I had my mind set on crusading as an act of love
meaning ‘love’ in a romantic sense. But I was pleasantly surprised to discover
it was about faith and devotion to God which reinforced, in my mind, just how
important religion was in the Middle Ages. My favourite part of the readings
was reading about the Forth Crusade in ‘The Crusades A Reader’ by Allen and
Amt. What I liked most about it were how the accounts were written and made me feel
as if I was there during the voyage of the crusaders.
5.
Discuss the events of the Fourth Crusade, as outlined in the primary sources.
Reconstruct the chronology of events for the class.
1198: Pope Innocent III succeeded to the papacy and the aim of his
pontificate was the calling of a crusade. Many of the European monarchs ignored
his call due to their own struggles.
1199: A crusading army was organised by Count Thibaut of Champagne at a tournament
and envoys were sent to Venice and Genoa to arrange transport to Egypt which
was the object of the crusade. The doge of Venice opened negotiations and
organised transport for 38,000 crusaders and food for nine months all in
exchange for a payment of 85,000 silver marks.
1202:
Pope Innocent III announced the prohibition of
attacks on any Christian state. When the pilgrims arrived in Venice, they were
no more than 1,000 knights and 50,000 or 60,000 foot-soldiers. The doge of
Venice demanded his payment be made nonetheless for the promised amount and the
pilgrims were reduced to extreme poverty while still owing 36,000 marks. That
winter the doge proposed the army travel to the city of Zara. He wanted to
punish the people because of the evils he accused them of and claimed the
pilgrims would find supplies there in plenty for the city was rich. In
Zara, on November 11, messengers of the city approached the doge and offered to
surrender the city and their property in exchange for their lives. The doge was
advised to accept the proposal by the barons and counts but found the
messengers gone from his tent when he returned. The plan of surrender was given
up by them. Though the people of Zara waved flags in their windows to prove
their Christianity, the crusaders attacked the city for five days until the
surrender was reoffered. The doge remained in Zara until Easter. When Zara was
taken, Pope Innocent III excommunicated the crusaders for defying his
prohibition.
1203:
The crusaders were too poor to travel further and
so Boniface of Montferrat proposed they travel to Constantinople and take
provisions there. To do this they helped reinstate the claimant of the Byzantine throne, Alexios IV Angelos, and his father. When the crusaders
later went to him to ask for their payment in return for their services, Alexios
denied them anything and commanded them to leave his lands. The doge then spoke
with the emperor who refused still.
1204
(Sack of Constantinople): The crusaders attacked
Constantinople in 1203 but were unsuccessful in their initial attack until 1204
when weather conditions aided the Venetian ships to get closer to the city so they
could enter. Alexios and his father both died during the siege. The pilgrims
maintained that it was because of their sins they had failed to capture the
city or achieve anything, but the bishops and clergy announced their war was a
righteous one and they should attack the Greeks. The attack on Constantinople,
it is said, was motivated by an age-old cultural and religious antagonism
between the Latins and the Greeks based on the ‘Massacre of the Latins’ in
1182. The city was looted and Byzantium’s holy relics were taken. When the
crusaders returned to Rome, Pope Innocent III welcomed them home and accepted
them back into the Church.
6.
Explain why the Fourth Crusade was so controversial, discuss with reference to
the various accounts in the primary sources.
The diversion to Constantinople caused much
controversy during the time of the Fourth Crusade. When Pope Innocent III heard
of the attacks and the conduct of the pilgrims he reprimanded them for their
siege on Constantinople and was ashamed. He claimed the crusaders were seeking their
own ends and not that of Jesus Christ for whom the crusade was supposed to be
dedicated. He admonished them for their sacrilege to the Church by plundering and
sullying the holy places. This was the worst of their crimes, wrote Niketas
Choniates in his account of the Sack. Many sacred relics and materials,
including the altar, were destroyed by the crusaders. They looted, raped and
murdered the Greeks and the estimated amount looted was around 900,000 silver
marks. However, Pope Innocent’s welcoming of the crusaders on their return to
Rome caused much deliberation over whether he was truly outraged, or the
journey to Constantinople had been planned all along.
...
Hi everyone,
I just wanted to take a moment with this week's blog post and highlight a couple of links you all may find interesting.
Firstly, you may wish to check out the online access to an exhibit currently being held at the Bodleian Library in Oxford. It is entitled 'The Romance of the Middle Ages' and I think may be interesting to check out especially as this week in lecture we will be learning all about courtly love and culture during the Middle Ages. Part of my own work involves the study of courtly love so I couldn't resist telling you all about this!
Secondly, here is a link to the medieval and renaissance courses Monash offers in November-December of every year in Prato, Italy. Clare mentioned them in our last lecture and I've posted the link here for anyone who wishes to find out more information. Who doesn't love Italy right?
