 | |
| Pope Urban II arriving and preaching at the Clermont Council from http://www.traditioninaction.org/History/A_012_FirstCrusade_Urban.htm |
The remaining questions address the work of Christopher Tyerman in his contribution to The Medieval World, "What the Crusades meant to Europe".Tyerman has a number of books on the Crusades and has shown particular interest in relating the 11th century events of the Crusade to 20th century politics. While you should keep all the questions posed on p.185 of the reader in mind while you are doing the secondary reading, the question which I think summarises the reading and which I think it would be of benefit to address here is the last one "Tyerman says that the effect of the crusades on Europe and Europeans tended to be of 3 sorts, what were they?"
Two of Tyerman's books on the crusades are:
Tyerman believed that the crusades effected Europe and Europeans in three main and very distinct ways. Firstly, Tyerman argues as to how expansion and the wish to spread Christianity from its early medieval frontiers into the west led to a great social and cultural shift. Secondly, the crusades effected Europeans in the way that it created internal structures of authority as well as order in both the State and Church. Finally, Tyerman points out as to how the religious reformation of the laity, which was spurred on and led by crusader pope Innocent III and the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 proved to be instrumental in effecting the views and beliefs of Europe and Europeans. Also of importance was how the crusades became fundamentally tied into the communal devotions of Western Europe through soldiers being bombarded by the prayers of the local faithful as they headed off.
ReplyDeleteIn the chapter of his book 'What the Crusades Meant to Europe', Christopher Tyerman names three main 'sorts' of effects of the crusades on Europe and its inhabitants.
ReplyDeleteThe first is what he calls their 'direct' effect on those who actually participated in the crusades. It is little wonder that Tyerman names this effect, given the huge financial and physical commitment made by these crusaders who risked their lives in these self-funded 'pilgrimages'. It is also not surprising that Tyerman included their families in his assessment, families which crusaders were apparently encouraged to abandon to their own problems (as Robert the Monk suggests in his account of the Council of Clermont.)
Secondly, Tyerman cites the 'indirect' effect of the crusades- that is, their impact on European society at large as it reacted to the practical and economic implications of the crusades. Earlier, Tyerman notes that although the crusades were far from 'universal', they still prompted a wave of prayer for the Holy Wars and turned the thoughts of the laity to what was happening in those far-off conflicts; even if only because of an increase in taxes.
Finally, Tyerman refers to the 'destructive' effect of the crusades on what he explains was a large variety of communities. Tyerman list the Jews, Moslems, pagans and heretics who were variously victimised or massaccred as the result of what Tyerman sees as almost a crystalisation of self-righteous and close-minded Christian identity.
Good point about Tyerman's third effect. I also found it important that he mentioned the crusades were not the cause of anti-semitism. Tyerman wrote that "crusading of itself was hardly the cause of this persectution, merely the instrument" (page 200). Additionally, he noted that their were pogroms in France and Spain that existed before 1095.
DeleteTyerman agrues that the Crusades had three sorts of effects on Europe and Europeans. The first way was direct, with the crusaders fighting the battles and their families. The second was the indirect response of the communities. The third was destructive, including the fate of the crusaders and civilian victims.
ReplyDeleteThe first is fairly obvious. To wage war, you need soldiers to fight the battles. It was not, however, an army of peasants - Tyerman says this is a myth. As Tyerman notes, crusaders needed access to money, whether it was their money or someone else's. A peasant with no money to spend and no one to pay for them would not be crusading. The direct effect on these crusaders need not much explanation; they risked their lives for the cause, and even if they survived they might return maimed or mentally shaken (what we now know as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder - a disorder not uncommon among war veterans). Families were also directly involved, as they were the ones who watched their loved ones go off to war, not knowing whether they would come back. Additionally, it is likely that the family helped prepare the crusader for war; perhaps if the father was a blacksmith, the son might go to war carrying armor his father made for him, or perhaps a new pair of shoes if their was a cobbler in the family.
There was also an indirect effect on the communities. Crusading armies needed material goods, so blacksmiths, cobblers, farmers, and many other trades would be valuable sources of material. Every army needs arms and armor just as much as they need food. Europeans communities served as the logistical wing of the crusading army - though a peasant may not have money to fight, that same peasant may be valuable to the crusaders by providing any number of needed supplies. In some cases the crusades even encouraged a spiritual fervor among communities.
Third, Tyerman notes that the crusades were destructive. Imagine a small farming community that produces just enough food to eat for the year and perhaps some stores grains to carry them through a bad harvest or a long winter. A crusading army marching through this town may prove to be disastrous; soldiers are not only hungry, but in some cases headstrong because they have a spear and a shield. If the crusaders needed to eat, and the food was there, they would likely take it, perhaps even telling the villagers that their food was serving a Holy cause. Holy or not, that community would be devasted by the loss of food. Additionally, large numbers of Jews, Muslims, and heretics were massacred by the crusading armies. Tyerman notes that the Jewish populations in the east suffered in three separate expeditions in 1096, 1146 and 1190. Indeed, it was dangerous to be different when a crusading army marched by.
Like the others have said, the three main effects the Crusades have on European society are direct, concerning those directly involved, indirect, concerning those left behind and destructive, the ultimate consequences of the crusades.
ReplyDeleteThose directly effected were the crusaders themselves, with the promise of the remission of sins and an opportunity to 'legally' practice violence in the name of God proved highly attractive, despite the abandonment of their families. It was these families that were left behind, along with the remaining laity that would contribute to the indirect effect of the crusades. Not being able to take up military service, the laity and families were encouraged to keep the crusaders in their prayers and contribute to the cause by paying taxes, thus funding the cause for the good of the Christian Religion. The third and more lasting impact on European society was the destruction. Not only in a physical sense of massacres felt by those Tyerman lists: the Moslems, pagans, heretics, but also in the destruction of the chances of Western Europeans to gain further understanding of foreign and apparently 'evil' religions.
I found it interesting that although the several versions of Pope Urban speech differed markedly, almost all of them (except for the Gesta version, no 3) mentioned the crusades as a way of positively channelling the civil strife that was apparently tearing Europe apart.
ReplyDeleteI also found Tyerman's description of the link between the Cursades and papal indulgences particularly enlightening - I had known that papal indulgences became a large problem for the Church in later centuries, but had not realised that they weer originally conceived as a way for lay parishioners, both rich and poor, to access the spiritual benefits of crusading without going to holy places and fighting themselves.
Each account of Pope Urban's speech differed because there was no official record of it. The accounts are what people remember hearing and are attempted reproductions of the true speech which Urban gave.
ReplyDeleteChristopher Tyerman suggests that the effect of the Crusades on Europe and the Europeans tended to have three effects.
The first effect was 'direct', the way in which the crusades directly effected the fighting crusaders the and their families.
The second effect was the 'indirect', referring to the less direct influence of the crusades on communities.
including the fate of the crusaders and civilian victims.
The Third effect was 'destructive', referring to the deaths of crusaders and Moslem, heretic, pagan and Jewish civilians who were caught in the midst of the crusades.
The main reason why the accounts of Pope Urban II's speech differ is because the speech was not recorded at the time it was performed, which means that there is no primary source of the speech to refer to. As such the details of the speech are left to interpretation, and this is the cause of the inconsistency between the accounts.
ReplyDeleteTyerman has been pretty well covered, so just briefly he states that the three ways that the crusades took effect were direct, indirect and destructive. Direct refers to the effects of the crusades on the crusaders themselves and their families, indirect refers to the effect of the crusades on society, and destructive refers to the deaths caused as a result of the crusades.
It should also be noted that Tyerman's most important point, in my opinion, is that the crusades were not a cause of violence, rather they were a reflection of the violence which already existed in European culture.
Tyerman suggests that there were three main effects of the crusades: they were 'direct' (regarding the crusaders themselves and their families);
ReplyDelete'indirect' (the wider community - the effects on local economies;
and 'destructive': (the massive amount of casualties and indirect victims)
As everyone has pretty much said already, the different accounts of Urban's speech differ simply because they are written by different sources and at different times; the way it is remembered by one person is going to differ from another who writes their account years after it the speech happened.
ReplyDeleteTyerman makes a point at the end of the chapter which i though pretty much summed up the crusades; "Europe in the Middle Ages could be a very nasty place to live: the crusades made it marginally nastier."This reiterates Tyerman's point about the destructive effect the crusades had on communities in terms of casualties and deaths. Other effects of the crusades were on the crusaders as people, and on the community.
Tyerman says that the effects of the crusades on Europe tend to be of three categories: direct, indirect and destructive.
ReplyDeleteDirect effects - these were the ones that directly affected the crusaders themselves and their families. Families were separated as crusaders went to campaign and fight, but was generally seen for a good cause, for they believed they were doing what God wanted, and thus would receive the indulges and blessings they deserved.
Indirect effects - these were the ones that affected the wider community of the crusaders, including the material suppliers of the crusaders and the church itself. The community of crusaders were expected to supply the material requirements of the armies (such as the ships, iron weapons and food etc). Taxations and donations for the crusades were highly encouraged.
The crusade's first war was originally intended for the church to recapture Jerusalem from Muslim rule in 1095-1099. As an effect on the church, crusades then became viewed as a popular and convenient way to convert and/or fight heretics. These later crusades were not a universal church project, but a more local phenomena (as Tyerman puts it) among local church communities and dioceses. It was not a compulsory/doctrined religious practise, but rather smaller individual and group undertakings.
Destructive effects - these were the ones that affected the various victims of the crusades. An obvious destructive effect of the crusades were the deaths of thousands of people across the continent. Not only this, but crusades left a very negative view of Christianity among the victim nations it infiltrated. Instead of christianising as intended, it instead left a narrow view among the Greeks, pagans, Jews and Muslims (and also Christians who didn't agree with the crusades) that perceived Christianity as a very persecuting and corrupt institution.
According to Tyerman, the effects of the crusades on Europe and Europeans were threefold.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, there were direct effects: those whom were directly involved in the crusades - the crusaders themselves. These crusaders provided money in an effort to aid funding of the crusading war effort, as well as their time and faced death or bodily harm. Furthermore, their families were directly affected by the crusader's leaving their homes - without the knowledge of whether they would ever return - and the loss of a significant amount of money.
Secondly, there were indirect effects: these effects stemmed from the community providing the materials required for the crusades: monetary aid, through taxation and donation; material items that would be required to travel etc. on the crusades; and the crusader's themselves, being removed from their society.
And finally, there were destructive effects: the sheer destruction that was caused by the crusades was staggering. Not only were the crusades physically destructive by the land and murder of people, but it was destructive in the name and reputation of christianity.
Tyerman says that the effect of the crusades on Europe and Europeans tended to be of 3 sorts, what were they?"
ReplyDeleteTyerman claims that the effect of the crusades on Europe and Europeans tended to be of three sorts: direct, as with the Crusaders and the families they left behind; indirect, in the responses of the wider community, from the material needs of the enterpirses to the ecclesiastical mechanisms that wove crusading into the pattern of popular spirituality, and finally destructive for the victims of the Crusades.
The destructive aspect for the victims of the crusade came for the various ethnicities and religions Tyerman describes. He claims that although the crusades were a demonstration of the penertration of religion into the secular, crusading in place of understanding, narrowed the comprehension of Greeks, pagans, Jews and Moslems. He claims that for 'Westerners', or crusaders a paranoid ideology of superiority and rightness, suspicious, fearful, uncomprehending of outsiders whilst enjoying their plunder. However this can also encompass the effect on the crusaders themselves.