Story

“Its your choice” said Dan to his professor, “should we wait out the weather, or trek on to the dig site?”

Dr. Bob, who’s the leading professor in archeology at Michigan Tech University, paid little attention to Dan.

“Well!” said Dan
“Well what!?” Dr. Bob retorted, “are you afraid of this spittle you call rain? This should clear up in no time. Besides I don’t care whether you like the weather or not.”

While Dr. Bob’s other student, Jenny, was listening to this conversation she saw in plain sight, off to her right, an altar.

“Dr. Bob, Dr. Bob!” she exclaimed, “Look over there, off the track!”
“Aha!” shouted Dr. Bob with glee, “an altar from the 4th century.”

The group of archeologists whose principle task was to write an observation on the indigenous people of South America suddenly stumbled upon an ancient sacrificial site of the Aztec people.

“Dan,” said Dr. Bob, “cite in the notes where all the stationary objects are.”
“I put on the stationery that there are only two skulls.” said Dan.
“You’re a buffoon,” replied Dr. Bob, “there’s another one too, do you know the effect your mistake could of had on this project. They’re paying for us to be here to find something significant about the Aztec people. Remember, a lot of their money depends on our research getting done early.”
“Kind of like what my principal in high school used to say,” said Jenny, “if your on time your late.”

Dan finally got done with all of the notes he was taking and went over to the altar and asked “so what is this thing anyways?”

“It was an altar,” said Dr. Bob “by which young Aztec warriors would sacrifice small rodents to Huitzilopochtli as a rite of passage to be accepted into manhood.”

“Look the altar is loose,” said Jenny, “you wouldn’t want to lose this fair antique.”

Cutting Edge

In the last thirty years there has been a growing curiosity for the Crusades. Medieval researches have been writing different synopses of what they believed to have happened and why. This question ‘what were the Crusades?’ baffles many modern experts in Medieval History. Why is it so hard for researches to define the Crusades?

The Crusades’ chronology spans hundreds of years, which makes it very difficult to define it as if it were only a decade. Reasons of why people crusaded differed throughout the history of the Crusades. No matter what all the movies in Hollywood depict, not everyone was fighting for only one cause. The Crusades are also difficult to define because the clashing of cultures formed political, religious, and social tension that we can clearly see today.

Modern research on the Crusades is almost like comparing what you see on CNN to an illuminated manuscript about the Crusades. You can almost draw parallels to what happened nearly a thousand years ago to what is happening in Iraq today. What is supposedly a sensitive subject due to racial tension and many other factors, we don’t hear too much on the comparison of the war in Iraq to the first Crusade.

One might be inclined to refuse that two such major events are similar. History repeats itself. West meets east. Looking at the topic at hand from a very general perspective it isn’t difficult to find similarities. One can discover similarities in political, religious, or social intentions along with others. Will the out come of the War in Iraq mimic that of the Crusades’?

“History teaches everything including the future.”
Alphonse de Lamartine

Works Cited:
Alfred J. Andrea. "Encyclopedia of the Crusades". Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 2003
Helen Nicholson. "The Crusades". Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2004
Corliss K. Slack. "Historical Dictionary of the Crusades". Maryland: The Scarecrow Press, 2003

WWWWH

The Crusades are considered by many Medieval Historians to be the Church’s uprising in influence for most of the world. From armed pilgrimages to forced conversions of countless masses the church’s influence grew in power. The Crusades were conducted by religious officials, kings, and glory seekers. The Crusades participants included mostly the poor, but the Crusades’ problems affected nearly everyone.

The Levant supplied crusaders with uneasy terrain and foreign weather conditions to those of the west. The Levant is home to many diverse cultures of the Middle East. Crusades occurred mainly around the Levant and northern Mediterranean area, but it is known that Crusades also took place in the Iberian Peninsula and the Latin East. This is ironic because one of the main functions of the Crusades was to reclaim the Holy Land for Christendom.

Defining the Crusades’ objective is extremely difficult. Reasons on why people Crusaded came from one’s financial, religious, and social concern. Some people’s greed outweighed their religious ambition and crusaded for the sole purpose of gaining wealth and social standing. Those who fought on the side of the Turks were fighting from they’re backyard and had a lot of motivation to protect their homeland. Some of those that crusaded for religious purposes were manipulated by religious figures, or even threatened. No matter what one’s reason was it had to be a very strong reason to make one travel far distances in Medieval times. Not only was a long voyage dangerous but also very expensive. Most crusading required sponsorship that came mostly from the wealthy. Even if a person didn’t have the money to crusade they would travel with the crusaders and utilize the resources of others. Such Noncombatants caused many problems in the camps of crusaders.

The Crusades occurred during the Abbasid Dynasty in the Levant. This Dynasty of Middle Eastern rule lasted from 750 to 1258 A.D. This period in medieval history was a time where the Church contained the most influence in Western Europe. This is the begging of a new era in the world where religion plays a huge part socially, economically, and politically. From this point on in history monotheistic religions become the source of the majorities influence.

The Crusades were made possible by the overwhelming influence that the church had over its followers. Those of the Church either followed higher officials or used the Crusades for their own manipulation. One thing you don’t see is any of the clergy go against the pope’s decision, which exemplifies the church’s power at this time.

For most of the free world the Crusades was an event that affected everyone. The Crusades brought diseases to areas, began east/west relationships, spread religion, and changed the worlds definition of what a Holy War was. The inhabitants of the Levant ere above all affected the most from the Crusades. The Crusades made a wound in the Middle East that will never heal.


Works Cited:
Alfred J. Andrea. "Encyclopedia of the Crusades". Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 2003
Helen Nicholson. "The Crusades". Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2004
Corliss K. Slack. "Historical Dictionary of the Crusades". Maryland: The Scarecrow Press, 2003

Material on the Crusades

The Crusades like all historical events was recorded by both it’s participants and non-participants. The best sources eyewitnesses that record from a secular view. Most accounts written by the clergy tend to have more religious explanation than recorded events. Robert the Monk’s writings declaring that nearly every event in the Crusades involved some sort of divine intervention shows how writing an events history affects the future. People who read these accounts started to believe that the Crusades were more than just a religious pilgrimage. They started believe that this was god’s war on earth.

Material on the Crusades varies from nearly five different languages and two different religions. This is an enormous mass of material. The reason for this is mainly because of the Crusades’ religious influence. At the time of the Crusades clergymen wrote nearly all written documents. Clergymen and the rich were the only literate people in Western Europe. Having this advantage the church can write what they want about what happened in the Crusades. This makes religious accounts on the Crusades nearly useless when looking at the Crusades’ history.

Considering that religious texts on the Crusades were perverted to portray interests of the church, one can resort to the text written in the Middle East. Though most of this text was biased against Western Europeans, it still serves as a better source than religious ones. Middle Eastern accounts also help compare other accounts and prove their legitimacy. When researching the Crusade’s it is my opinion that the researcher’s problem lies not with the amount of material that exists, but with the researcher’s ability to narrow a topic.

Crusade for a Crusade

This post is a synopsis of Loren Rosson III's blog entitled From Soldiers of Hell to Soldiers of Christ: Exporting Violence. In the author’s post there is a great summary of the First Crusade and information about Pope Urban II's actions. In the blog are quotations from Robert the Monk such as "Rise up, then, Christian warriors: you who continually and vainly seek pretexts for war, rejoice, for you have today found a true pretext." This almost gives evidence that Pope Urban's message was a violent call to arms rather then a suggested religous pilgrimage.

This idea that Pope Urban II was just an opportunist and wanted the Holy Land for all of Christendom is not so far fetched of an idea. Urban II was presented with a really good opportunity to recapture the Holy Lands when the Byzantine emperor Alexius I called for the church’s help. Seeing that the church acted upon this opportunity is evidence that recapturing the Holy Land was on the church's agenda. Why not expand Chritendom a little?

From his persuasive speech to his calling for more troops in the Holy Land, Pope Urban II showed little characteristics of a Pope and more characteristics of a general. He threatened armies with Excommunication to fight for The Crusades. The actions of the pope are by far the most important in The Crusades invention. Pope Urban used many different reasons for The Crusades including Muslim’s unrightfully controlling the Holy Lands, Muslim’s ill treatment of Christians, and the ever so famous “God Wills It!”

Works Cited:
http://lorenrosson.blogspot.com/2006/11/from-soldiers-of-hell-to-soldiers-of.html

Good God! What's a Crusade?

At first, one can almost laugh at the impossibility of condensing the history of The Crusades into one provocative question. After much contemplating a reader would consider the most legitimate and necessary question to be asked about The Crusades is, well, “What were The Crusades?” This question seems to be a medieval historian’s biggest problem. To define The Crusades is to nearly define hundreds of years of history! Almost every crusade had a different meaning, because not all of The Crusades had the same intentions and goals. Some define The Crusades to be a war of papal consent or as a holy war. Some define The Crusades as a trek to show ones loyalty, or a way to renew ones salvation in their faith. So what were The Crusades?

This almost subjective question has become the center of debate in medieval history. Looking from the eyes of a secular scholar one can see not only the brutality of The Crusades’ events, but also it’s religious meaning. For one to crusade did not solely mean to devour the enemy of the church in the name of god, but it also meant for one to perform a penitential act.

The definition of “crusade” by modern standards is needless to say different from when it was invented. The common knowledge of The Crusades is basically that Western European Christians went to Jerusalem, because the church wanted them to. Another person might elaborate that they saw in a movie that it also had to do with a “holy grail”. To think that tens of thousands of people made a journey from Western Europe to the Middle East to die for a cup is ridiculous.

Finally it is important to stress that The Crusades is known for mainly describing a time period in Western European history. As generic as it sounds, it makes more sense that the word describes a period rather than an idea. When asked what The Crusades were, you can now answer that it was merely a time period in the middle ages. To go into any further detail will strike argument and criticism.

Works Cited:
Alfred J. Andrea. "Encyclopedia of the Crusades". Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 2003
Helen Nicholson. "The Crusades". Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2004

Noncombatants

Although Pope Urban II discouraged the old, the feeble, and all others unfit for military service to participate in the armed pilgrimage many of them did. Noncombatants can be known as women, children, persons of the clergy, and other unarmed people. This pilgrimage was advertised to the people to bring them closer to god, affirm their place in their faith’s community, and to serve as a penitential purpose. Some countries such as England announced that if one set out on three crusades and returned they would be granted a noble title. All of these advantages made many noncombatants follow the armies.

Women played a huge role in the crusades. They supplied soldiers with supplies by using their own funds and helped colonize the holy land. The crusades cost a fortune to participate in. It was easy for an armed knight to go from knight status to selling his armor to be infantrymen to selling his weapon to become a noncombatant pauper. The women that furnished a knight with his equipment were most likely very wealthy. Pope Urban II also declared that no women could set out on a crusade unless accompanied by brothers, husbands, or legal guardians. Arab historian Ibn al-Athir reported that in 1191 Frankish women donned armor and participated in crusading activities. Adultery was not uncommon in the camps of the crusading armies. During the siege of Antioch (1097-98) the army believed that they suffered terribly because of their sins and drove all the married and unmarried women from the camps.

It is known that when numbers were low due to high casualties people of the clergy and children would fight to help support the armies. Clergymen that went on the crusades were generally there to make the pilgrimage to Jerusalem. After the first crusade an order of priest warriors were created known as the Knights Templar. This gave the church a different function in the crusades. At first clergymen wouldn’t participate in the crusades because the church would not permit it. Most likely the clergymen that set out with the Knights Templar were looking to claim their own estates in the holy land.

Work Cited:
-Alfred J. Andrea. "Encyclopedia of the Crusades". Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 2003
-Walter Porges. Speculum: A Journal of Mediaeval Studies. “The Clergy, The Poor, and The Noncombatants On The First Crusade”. January 1946