Crusades Groundwork

Armaan Shankar Ansari Wednesday, 31 October 2012 North Sydney Boys’ High School

Crusades Groundwork (24.9.12)NB: Indent, then annotate/summarise on the left

Case Study: The Crusades- Campaigns of the Cross? (Areas of Debate)

Fill this in as I go alongAccording to the syllabus, I only need to choose one of these as my area of debate within the

Case Study of the Crusades.All of them are largely interlinkedTo each historical source, add the view on “the Origins of the Crusades” which is expressed

The Origins of the Crusades

Riley-Smith believes for it to be a crusade, it must be called by the Pope.Riley-Smith details how the Crusades were thought to be religiously motivated, but were then

thought to be a manifestation of European imperialism, to an enterprise motivated by greed, and back to a religious interpretation.

Riley-Smith believes that the Crusades were ultimately fought in response to Islamic aggression, with “the development of crusading was in part a response to a huge loss of Christian territory in the east”. This is what he believes led to the First Crusade, which most of the other Crusades flowed on from.

John France, author of military histories on the Crusades like “Western Warfare in the Age of the Crusades” (1999), argues for the greed of nobles and princes as their motivation for taking up the cross, as it would have been called. This view of greed, which agrees largely with Sir Steven Runciman’s, contrasts with the movement towards religious motivated led by Jonathan Riley-Smith. France accepts that Crusaders would wish to save their souls, but he argues that the desire for materialistic wealth through conquest and booty would have mattered. Riley-Smith argues that there was little gain in return for the cost of taking up the cross, but France countered that the Crusaders would not have known this prior to embarking on the journey.

In the 1930s, Carl Erdmann1 argued that the Crusades emerged from a largely ecclesiastical reform movement in Europe that sought to rein in and control warriors. Erdmann argues that Pope Urban used Byzantine Emperor Alexius’ plea for aid as a means to harness the European military energies for Church purposes, and to convince the Byzantine Christians to accept Papal primacy. Asbridge sees no compelling reason for the First Crusade, besides Urban attempting to “consolidate Papal empowerment and expand Romesphere of influence”. Thomas Asbridge notes that “Modern historical analysis can offer a rationalization of their accomplishments, but for contemporaries living in the medieval age one thing alone explained the spectacular triumph of the First Crusade...God's omnipotent will.”

The Crusades began to be named during the 18th century.

The Fourth Crusade was launched by Innocent III, who wished to reconquer Jerusalem, which had been in Muslim hands since 1187, and they decided to sail to the Holy Land to avoid

1 From: http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles5/MaddenCrusaders.php

Page 1 of 19

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles5/MaddenCrusaders.php


antagonising the Byzantine Christians. In 1201, the Venetian people agreed to provide transportation and provisions for all of the French Crusaders for a year, and were instructed to provide for 33,500 men and 4,500 horses. However, since the Crusaders were composed of different military groups, some of them did not see themselves as bound by oaths sworn by the others, and took cheaper transportation until only 12,000 Crusaders remained in Venice. The Crusaders could not pay for the full amount, while the Venetians could not renounce the payment, so they agreed to loan the money in return for the subduing of Zara, a rebellious city on the Dalmatian coast. However, the ruler of Zara, the king of Hungary, had taken the Crusader’s vow and his lands were under the protection of the Church. Faced with this and the dissolution of the Crusades, they chose the former. The Byzantine prince Alexius Angelus claimed that his uncle, the Emperor of the time, was a usurper and the people of Constantinople wished to be free of his tyranny. Alexius Angelus promised oceans of riches, troops to join the Crusade, and the subjugation of the Byzantine Church to the Pope in Rome in exchange for restoring him to the throne. Alexius was crowed as Alexius IV, but only could give half of what he promised the Crusaders, and the Crusaders agreed to remain in Constantinople until he could raise the rest of the money. But Alexius IV was assassinated, and so the Crusaders decided to capture and sack the city.

Origins and Motivations of the Crusaders

The Aims and Actions of the Crusaders

In the decades leading up to the First Crusade, scholars were reviving the ideas of St Augustine of Hippo, which advocated violence as ethically neutral, with intention mattering, as in acting in the name and with the approval of God.

Unlike any other Christian holy wars, taking up the cross was seen “not as a service, but as a penance”, according to Riley-Smith. This idea was reinforced through the association of the First Crusade with a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, where devout Christians went to die. Riley-Smith believes that the Crusades were primarily for benefiting one’s self, and service to God and the Church was a secondary concern.

The Crusades as Religious and Political activities

The Impact of the Crusades on the Middle East, Constantinople and Europe

She acknowledges: “It is important... to stress the limitations of medieval Islamic historical sources... these deficiencies do not stem from any desire on the Muslims’ part to pass over a series of ignominious defeats at the hands of the Crusaders. It is rather a general characteristic of medieval Islamic historical writing to stress propagandistic themes, skating hazily over military details.”

Hillenbrand on Islamic historians: “It must be remembered that most Islamic chroniclers were by training religious scholars or administrators... they talk of what interests them and see history through a prism of faith. For them, history is the unfolding of God’s will for the world and the inevitable victory of Islam.”

Previously to 1899, The Islamic world look on the Crusades “with indifference and complacency”, according to Riley-Smith, believing that they had beaten the Crusaders comprehensively. In 1899, Turksish sultan and Sunni caliph Abdulhamid II compared contemporary European actions to those of the Crusaders, which was taken up by the pan-Islamic press. By 1920, Saladin was seen as “thwarting the first European attempt to subdue the East”, and in 1934 a writer said the West is, “under the guise of political and economic imperialism”, still acting in a Crusade. The creation of the

Page 2 of 19


State of Israel in 1948 was seen as an “act of vengeful malice”. Since the 1970s, the pan-Islamists maintain that any act against Islam by Christians or their surrogates was a “Crusade”.

Page 3 of 19


William of Tyre- History of Deeds Done Beyond the Sea (1170-1184)

See Ex Book for notesDouble check this info with someone more recent, have only used AC Krey in 1941

Context

In the beginning, William generally accepted the Augustinian concept of the City of God and the Earthly City, and the Lord’s intervention in the affairs of Man. This belief also entailed that Man’s failure was due to his sins, and successes were because of God. He also started to see the kingdom of Jerusalem as another chapter which could potentially repeat the “original Christian drama”, and so therefore he suppressed the flaws of people like Godfrey of Bouillion and Peter the Hermit.

As a clergyman, William would believe in the ‘sinfulness of Man’ as people’s justification for wrongdoings. He also would have believed that all of history was part of God’s grand design, from Genesis to Revelation. Part of this was the idea that Man’s Kingdom would stand for a thousand years (called the Millennial belief, by me) and Jesus would walk the earth once more. A condition of this would be that the Promised/Holy Land of Jerusalem would be owned by Christendom, an idea which helped fuel the Crusades. William would also have believed in the ability of the Church to absolve sins, the infallibility of the Pope, and the Pope’s connection to God.

Identity

William of Tyre was the Archbishop of Tyre, and is considered one of the most valuable contemporary sources from the Christian perspective. William is anti-Muslim since they were the ‘enemy’ in the Crusades and anti-Byzantine when it suits him. He is pro-Norman, but only when their aims coincide with the Church’s.

William was Chancellor of the Kingdom of Jerusalem from 1174, and Archbishop of Tyre from 1175 to his death circa 11852. Although born in Jerusalem (Palestine), William spent twenty years among the leading intellectuals of France and Italy. He knew Latin, French, Arabic, Greek, and some Hebrew and other Eastern tongues, so Krey believes his early education was in Palestine. Krey believes that William was trained in Law in Italy, based on his “intimate knowledge” of Italy and “use of legal phrases”.

Purpose (includes reasons for Construction)

We are unaware of what William of Tyre called his own chronicle, but it is most commonly referred to as “History of Deeds Done Beyond the Sea” or “History of Jerusalem”. The History was commissioned by King Amalric I of Jerusalem in 1167, and took its final form after redrafting by William in 1184.

William created his History during twenty years of varied effort, and he ranges from “literary tyro to full master of his art”3, according to AC Krey4. He was never formally trained as a historian, and Krey believes that him writing a history was “almost accidental”, based on the many extended discussion on purely technical matters of concern to the hierarchy.

In 1167, William would have felt that because of King Amalric’s marriage to Greek (Byzantine) princess Maria Commena and Amalric’s successes on campaign with the Egyptians, that they were “on the threshold of a new chapter to sacred history, second only to that of the capture of Jerusalem”. A few days after this marriage, William was promoted to Archdeacon of Tyre ‘at the

2 http://www.jstor.org/stable/3654135; (2004)3 http://www.jstor.org/stable/2853609; AC Krey, 194; page 1494 Krey translated a copy of William’s History, with EA Babcock, published in 1943 for Columbia University

Press

Page 4 of 19

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2853609

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3654135


king’s request’, and this is believed to be the start of William writing ‘a History of the Deeds of King Amalric’, which would lead him to his History.

Amalric frequently supplied William with information about both current events and his future plans, when they realised there was no suitable/royal chronicle of Jerusalem since 1127 and the chronicles leading up to 1127 seemed crude, meaning there was no background to Amalric’s deeds. William then changed his focus to spend more time on this introductory chronicle than of Amalric’s deeds, and Amalric requested a third work on the Princes of the Orient.

According to Krey, the first stage of William as a historian was up to 1174, where he was a “literary client serving a royal patron”, that is serving Amalric. He wrote for “the edification and entertainment of the king and his court”, where he had to use both his words and voice to please “an audience that was neither unsophisticated nor provincial”. William’s background led to “judgement as a lawyer”, “critical aloofness as an ecclesiastic” and his “skill as a raconteur”.

Amalric died in 1174, and his son Baldwin IV became King, starting William’s second stage as a historian. Baldwin had been tutored by William, who had discovered the youth’s leprosy. William became Chancellor of the Kingdom in 1174, and also the Archbishop of Tyre, and was also Baldwin’s chief advisor. William continued his History to impart advice to Baldwin, who was interested in history like his father. During this time, because of his increasingly responsibilities to the Kingdom, William began to write to “inform and instruct” the young Baldwin, as well as to “entertain and edify”. His duties also led to “friends he had to remember and enemies he could not forget”, which would alter the perspective of his history.

William was away from Tyre for two years, from 1178 to 1180, where he was performing various duties on behalf of the Church and the Pope. When he returned to Jerusalem, Baldwin was being largely controlled by his mother since his malady had worsened, and the Court had split into two factions based on future succession5. William’s friendship with Raymond III of Tripoli made him unwelcome at Baldwin’s court because of Baldwin’s mother. Meanwhile, the Patriarch Amalric died, and was quickly succeeded by Heraclius. This meant that in the last months of 1180, William had lost all hope of being Patriarch, his life’s ambition, and his services as Chancellor was reduced to formalities. This meant that he had gone from being “at the very centre of affairs” to “virtually an exile from public affairs”. Over the next two years, he worked on his History, as well as reading classical Latin authors like Virgil, Horace and Cicero.

This marks his third, and most effective stage as a historian. He was a detached observer, being accustomed to the nature of power, yet still loyal to king and country. He had a “full knowledge of affairs”, but was not hampered by any sense of obligation, an ideal situation for a historian. His audience had expanded to the “whole of Latin Christendom” instead of just the king and the Court. His tale was of a nation, “a boon to all believing mankind”, but which could still be wrecked by men who failed its “high purposes”.

By 1182, in disgust with the current state of the Court, William decided to finish his history. He “hastily joined the parts of his work”, filled in parts from his own memory, and took material from his previous works and used it in his introduction to start with the original loss of Jerusalem. This mean he had a continuous account of Jerusalem from its fall in 614 to around 1180. He had intended this to be his finished work, but continued writing in 1183 in the hope that the new regent Raymond could save the Kingdom, but William died soon after starting the 23rd book. His exact date of death is uncertain, though it is no later than 1185, since that is when William is succeeded as Chancellor.

Construction (includes Views)

William’s final concept was a unified tale from the loss of Jerusalem in 614 to his own time. He arranged his work into chapters and books for the convenience of the reader. He gave two books to the reign of each ruler, and opened each reign with a pen picture and closed with the ruler’s death.

5 The two factions were Guy of Lusignan, who was supported by Baldwin’s mother, and Raymond of Tripoli who had been Baldwin’s regent and William’s friend

Page 5 of 19


William stopped using written sources in 1127, and from then to 1144 uses interviews, archival information and personal observation, making him a primary source and the only chronicle of Jerusalem from 1127 to 1184.

William is considered by Krey to excel “nearly all historical writers of his time”, because of his critical attitude towards sources, be they written or oral, recent or old. Next is his objectivity and his impartiality, especially after 1180, which he applies to both “friend as well as foe”. He voices most conventional attitudes of the period, yet “finds much to commend” in foreigners, and he has a favourable account of Nur-al-din and Saladin. He has a sympathetic attitude towards the peasantry, and recognises the importance of commerce and also women. William includes information about geography, genealogy, and other facts, as well as analysing the motives of humans.

Krey believes that William’s positives outweigh his flaws, and that William was “equal to the best of his age” in terms of history. These flaws include an acceptance of legend and miracle, though he is more credulous of these than many contemporaries, and these are absent near the end. His accounts of Peter the Hermit, Godfrey and Tancred are largely devoid of the faults that “strictly contemporary accounts had noticed”. HOWEVER, this view has been challenged by modern historians (and overturned).

His two major flaws are agreed to be his handling of chronology and his professional bias towards the Church. He included minor events with vague dating, and attempted to include a chronological framework without standardising the statements he had already written, which throws nearly all of his dates into doubt. More importantly, William resented any acts which diminished the “authority or prestige” of the Church, and this bias is shown through his depictions of Baldwin I, Hadrian IV, and the Hospitallers and Templars. William also references other country from the viewpoint of Jerusalem, and omitted some matters on which he could have acquired information.

Impact

There is information in the document on William’s impact on historiography, at AC Krey (1941), which is not strictly needed.

Krey is representative of the older view of William’s accuracy, and sees William as an unimpeachable source. Since then, his neutrality has been questioned, and William has been exposed to be biased.

Quotes, which don’t fit above

Can’t find any quotes online, as of 27.6.12“In nearly all the circle of the Earth, belief had failed. The fear of the Lord no longer prevailed

among men … evil reigned in its stead.”"Today, please God, you will all gain much booty" (Cash prizes)'If any man sets out from pure devotion not for reputation or monetary gain, to liberate the

church of God at Jerusalem, hs journey shall be reckoned in place of all penance.' [Pope Urban]

Origins and Motivations of the Crusaders (Area of Debate; may change)

Page 6 of 19


Ali ibn al-Athir – The Complete History (ca. 1231; 12 volumes)

Context

Identity

Lived from 555/1160 to 1232Followed the Sunni tradition (not Shi’ite) Main work was al-Hamil fi at-Tarikh (The Complete History)He was a Kurd, and was with Saladin’s army in SyriaThe ibn al-Athir family was associated with the Zankid dynsasty6. Ali’s older brother Majd al-Din

made a collection of the sayings and actions of the Prophet Muhammad (Hadith), and his younger brother Diya ad-din was a noted author, literary critic, and worked for Saladin7 and Saladin’s son.

“Springing from a family well-known in cultural and government circles during the last decades of the Saljuq sultanate and afterwards, Ibn al-Athîr had access to both history and rumor at the highest level of Middle-Eastern society throughout much of the late-twelfth and early-thirteenth centuries.”8

Purpose (includes reasons for Construction)

Deals with the Crusades, translated by Donald Sidney Richards9

The Complete History started with Adam, and went up to the time of Zengi, Nur al-din, and Saladin

Since al-Athir is a Muslim historian, he dates his events from the Hijra of the Prophet Muhammad, with his year 1 corresponding to the Gregorovian 622AD

Construction (includes Views)

al-Athir “names his written sources very seldom”, according to DS Richards. His important sources in part 2 of Richard’s translation were ibn al-Jawazi and imad al-din al-Isfahani. al-Athir also would have used ibn al-Qalanisi’s centemporus Muslim account of the First Crusade and its’ aftermath, covering from Gregorovian 1056 to al-Qalanisi’s death in 1160. Al-Jawzi was used for events in (modern day) Baghdad, Iraq, and Persia, with al-Qalainisi providing the details for Syria and the north of Syria.

Al-Athir would have focused more on using oral sources. His older brother Majd ad-din would have provided direct administration of the Zankid administration, and his other informants include merchants, refugees, envoys from the Georgian kingdom, etc.

6 Details here in intro of: http://www.amazon.com/Chronicle-Al-athir-Crusading-Al-kamil-Fil-tarikh/dp/0754640779#reader_0754640779

7 Using http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/280690/Ibn-al-Athir8 http://www.deremilitari.org/REVIEWS/Richards_Chronicle2.htm9 One of the problems associated with the works of Muslim historians is that the language of Arabic is

considered a key part of (understanding the work). Arabic was believed to be the language of God, and had to be transmitted perfectly through the Qur’an. (Badly worded/explained)

Page 7 of 19

http://www.deremilitari.org/REVIEWS/Richards_Chronicle2.htm

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/280690/Ibn-al-Athir

http://www.amazon.com/Chronicle-Al-athir-Crusading-Al-kamil-Fil-tarikh/dp/0754640779#reader_0754640779

http://www.amazon.com/Chronicle-Al-athir-Crusading-Al-kamil-Fil-tarikh/dp/0754640779#reader_0754640779


Al-Athir attributes to the Ayyubids the belief that the Crusaders were a greater threat to Islam than the Mongols10 since their aim was a lasting conquest.

Al-Athir was in Mosul by 581/1185-6 for Saladin’s second siege of the city. In 574/1188-9, he was in Syria aiming to visit Jerusalem after Saladin’s victories, and it is possible that al-Athir met him at the siege of Krak des Chevaliers (a Hospitalier or Templar castle).

Al-Athir is highly favourable to the Zankid dynasty, since his family was employed/served under them. This is most evident in his “The Resplendent History of the Ataberg Dynasty”, though it features in “The Complete History” as well.

Impact

al-Athir does not directly connect his all of his work to the Crusades (because it is a ‘complete’ history, as the title asserts). al-Athir demonstrates that the Islamic world was not united without explicitly stating it, especially the internecine conflicts in the Seljuk Empire.


From Chris, @ the Wiki11

Written in Arabic style, derived from the oral history of the East Used sources such as Ibn al Qalanisi and Imad al Din for events he did not witness

himself Seemingly less sympathetic towards Saladin, when compared with other Muslim

sources such as Imad al Din. Therefore, he appears more balanced in the depictions of Saladin.

Clearly marked with bias against the Franks and possesses an evident fervour of the Muslim cause (Jihad) and political agenda

"In this year, on 13 rabi II, the Frankish Marquis, the ruler of Tyre-- God damn him!-- was killed. He was the greatest devil of all the Franks."

Describes King Richard I: "was the man of his age as regards courage, shrewdness, endurance, and forbearance"

Describes Saladin: "it is his fault that the Muslims suffered a setback at the walls of that city [Tyre]”

“A Muslim army advanced into Galicia on the territory of the infidels, where it pillaged and massacred everyone”

Ibn al-Qalanisi Described in Ibn Asakir’s biographical dictionary of famous men of Damascus Was 84 years old by the time of the Second Crusade Upper class citizen, well educated in literature, theology and law and went into public

service as a secretary in the Correspondence Bureau, which he rose to be head Held the highest civil office of mayor in Damascus Unlike al-Athir, does not appear to have taken part in any battles or fighting Continuation of the Chronicle of Damascus

o Wrote from the beginning of the Crusades to his deatho Provides a contemporary account of the Crusaders as they were perceived in

Damascus

10 The Mongols were so devastating that the Muslims believed they were a force of Nature/God’s punishment rather than mere mortals

11 https://extensionhistory.wikispaces.com/Notes+on+authors

Page 8 of 19

https://extensionhistory.wikispaces.com/Notes+on+authors


o Only refers to events in the region of Damascus and thus, provides a one dimensional view on the events

o Written as a result of facilities offered to him by his official connections o Information derived from oral and written reports (sometimes from the participants

themselves)o “I have completed the narrative of events set forth in this chronicle, and I have

arranged them in order and taken precautions against error and rashness of judgement and careless slips in the materials which I have transcribed from the mouths of trustworthy persons and have transmitted after exerting myself to make the fullest investigations so as to verify them down to this blessed year 540. Since the year 545 and down to this point, I had been engaged with matters which distracted my mind from making the fullest enquiries into those current events which required to be set down in this book, and from seeking out the truth concerning them and all the attendant circumstances. Consequently, I left a blank space after the events of each year, in order to insert therein those narratives and events the truth of which was ascertained”

o Used as a primary source to other subsequent Arabic historians o Evidently attempts to glorify the achievements of Saladin through this colourful

depictions of him and the Muslim cause

Origins and Motivations of the Crusaders (Area of Debate; may change)

Page 9 of 19


Edward Gibbon- The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1787)

“The principle of the crusades was a savage fanaticism; and the most important effects were analogous to the cause. Each pilgrim was ambitious to return with his sacred spoils, the relics of Greece and Palestine; and each relic was preceded and followed by a train of miracles and visions. The belief of the Catholics was corrupted by new legends, their practice by new superstitions; and the establishment of the inquisition, the mendicant orders of monks and friars, the last abuse of indulgences, and the final progress of idolatry, flowed from the baleful fountain of the holy war. The active spirit of the Latins preyed on the vitals of their reason and religion; and, if the ninth and tenth centuries were the times of darkness, the thirteenth and fourteenth were the age of absurdity and fable.”

- Edward Gibbon (Decline and fall of the Roman Empire)

Summary/Thoughts

Context

The 18th Century was an age of philosophy and critical thinking, according to JW Thompson. This included thinkers like Descartes, Diderot, Kant, and historians like Hume and Montesquieu. The American Revolution occurred during Gibbon’s time, as did the Industrial Revolution. The British Empire existed at his time, and his history can partly be seen as a warning of the dangers of excess and luxury.

Gibbon was a Protestant, who split from the Catholic Church in the Reformation, believing in the diminishing power of the clergy and increasing power of the laity.

Gibbon did not include economic conditions, social forces, or art and literature in his history, since these were not considered part of history, and to his paradigm “wars and the administration of public affairs are the principal subject of history”.

Gibbon’s context of the Enlightenment was a strong factor in his stance against the Crusades, with the secular way of thinking leading to the dismissal of religious motivation. Writers like Voltaire describe the Crusaders as motivated only by “the thirst for brigandage”, and in a letter to Frederick the Great, he describes Christianity as “the most ridiculous, absurd, and bloody religion that has ever infected the world”.

Identity

Edward Gibbon was born in Surrey, England, in 1737, in a comfortable but not wealthy English family. In his youth, he read mainly classical and historical literature, especially of Persians, Muslims, and Byzantines. Only later did he, in his own words, “acquire the beauties of the Latin and rudiments of the Greek tongue”, and he didn’t care to learn German. At age 15, he arrived at Magdalen College in Oxford, with “a stock of information that might have puzzled a doctor, and a degree of ignorance of which a schoolboy might be ashamed”. He disliked his time here, “she will cheerfully renounce me for a son as I am willing to disclaim her for a mother”, and these fourteen months were “the most idle and unprofitable of my whole life”.

Gibbon went to Lausanne in Switzerland, where he was tutored by the Calvinist minister Pavilliard, which Gibbon regarded this as “a fortunate banishment”. Having learnt French, Gibbon studied French writing like Pascal, Montesqeuie, and his neighbour Voltaire. Under Pavilliard, Gibbon

Page 10 of 19


returned to Protestantism, and he studided Latin literature, logic, philosophy, Greek , history and law. A few years later he visited Paris, where he met philosopher s like Diderot and Raynal.

In his youth, Gibbon “aspired to the character of an historian” according to his “Miscellaneous Works”. He had many ideas of what to write his history on, but he “successively chose and rejected” many of these. When he was twenty seven, in 1764, Gibbon visited Rome and he could “neither forget nor express the strong emotions” which he felt as he “first approached the Eternal City”. Gibbon’s original scope was merely the decay of the city of Rome and he considered this for four years. In 1768, he decided to expand this to the decline and fall of the Roman Empire, which would become the title of his history.

Gibbon’s father’s death left Gibbon with independent means, and he moved to London where he worked on his history. In 1776, he joined the Parliament, and said his sessions there “were a school of civil prudence, the first and most essential virtue on an historian” in his Miscellaneous Works. When his first volume was to be published IN (xxxx) Gibbon says he “was neither elated by the ambition of fame, nor depressed by the apprehension of contempt”, believing that “history is the most popular species of writing, since it can adapt itself to the highest or lowest capacity”. The first volume was well praised, but there were many criticisms over the history of the Church in his 15th and 16th chapters. He believed that “the propagation of the Gospel and the triumph of the Church are inseparable connected with the decline of the Roman monarchy”.

In 1781, Gibbon published the 2nd and 3rd volumes together, and the 4th volume was finished soon after he returned to Lausanne in 1783 after residing in London. In 1787, he finished his final volume, and asserted “the faults and merits are exclusively my own”. Gibbon’s work was translated into French, German, and Italian, but he believed that they “injure the character” of his work.

Purpose

Gibbon believed that much of history “is little more than the register of the crimes, follies, and misfortunes of mankind”. Gibbon’s purpose is to blame the Catholic Church and “effeminate luxury” as the primary reasons for the decay of the Roman Empire. Gibbon states that the indolence of Rome “may be considered as the immediate cause of the downfall of the empire.” He believed that “the propagation of the Gospel and the triumph of the Church are inseparable connected with the decline of the Roman monarchy”.

(on a Runciman JSTOR article12) The bishops had begun ordering men to take Crusading vows as a penance, and releasing them in return for a monetary payment, which is (the kind of thing) Gibbon disliked about the Catholic Church. (said by Gilbert of Tournay to Pope Gregory)

In his notes, Gibbon states “I am always apt to suspect historians of improving extraordinary facts into general laws”. He also remarks “a people dissatisfied with their present condition grasp at any visions of their past of future glory”. Gibbon believed that careful study of the past would assist in the search for underlying causes of things and an explanation of the development of civilisation, according to Hughes-Warrington.

Construction

Gibbon describes his style as “a middle tone between a dull chronicle and a rhetorical declamation”, and he believed that “the style of an author should be the image of his mind, but the choice and command of language is the fruit of exercise”. Thompson describes Gibbon’s style as “as original and individualistic and that of Thucydides”. Stephen describe Gibbon as saying “compilers

12 http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/27542556.pdf

Page 11 of 19

http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/27542556.pdf


multiply useless books”, and that “no man made greater use of the labours of other”. Gibbon describes the duty of the historian as to study “the words, the design, the spirit, the context, the situation of the passage” which he is using, emphasising the importance of understanding sources.

Thompson believes that Gibbon should be judged by the first four volumes of his work, since that was the area in which he wanted to write. Thompson describes “the accuracy and solidity of his scholarship”, “the vigilance of his reading of his sources” and “penetration of his thought”.

Gibbon’s work is divided into two parts, the first of which covered 500 years and consisted of Volumes 1-4. Volumes 5-11 cover the Byzantine Empire, which lasted for almost ten centuries. Gibbon believed that Byzantine history was “a uniform tale of weakness and misery”. Steven Runciman believes that Chapter 47 is “the weakest section of the whole work” in historical terms.

Gibbon reduces the history of the Crusades to little more than a hundred pages, when Thompson believed “he might well have devoted a volume to them”. Gibbon called the Crusades “the world’s debate”, and he realised the importance of the loss of Acre and the Holy Land in 1291 according to Thompson.

However, Gibbon did still write Byzantine history even though he was told by Horace Walpole that “Constantinopolitan history was so disgusting that few would have patience to read it”. Gibbon’s work on the Byzantine Empire was also weak because Gibbon was not highly skilled in the Greek language, and the Byzantine literary style is “affected and verbose” according to Runciman. Gibbon would have been influenced by the belief in the ineffectiveness of the Byzantine Empire, by writers like Voltaire, Montesquieu, and Hegel. Runciman remarks that Gibbon “did not seem to have felt much sympathy for the Greeks themselves of any period”, and “even if Gibbon liked the Greeks in general, he would not have forgiven them for their Church”. “The spirit of Byzantium eluded him”, Runciman believes, and his work “killed Byzantine studies for nearly a century”, until its revival by JB Bury.

Quotes

“The Catholics were corrupted by new superstitions … the last abuse of indulgences and the final progress of idolatry flowed from the baleful fountain of the holy war”

Page 12 of 19


Sir Steven Runciman- A History of the Crusades (1951-54) (Needs to be organised)

“High ideas were besmirched by cruelty and greed, enterprise and endurance by a blind and narrow self righteousness, and the Holy War itself was nothing more than a long act of intolerance in the name of God, which is a sin against the Holy Ghost.”

- Steven Runciman (The History of the Crusades)

Summary/Thoughts

Runciman:- Empiricist with Marxist inclinations great men create history- Primary sources used but very critical of these- Byzantist so looks at Eastern perspective- Looks for grand narrative – focusing on eventsCauses:• Financial gain from emperor of Byzantium trade routes, power, nobles – all of which can be taken and the power transferred to Rome as Byzantium is weakening• Clash of expanding empires• Discard of pious reasonsConsequences:• Economic growth from control of trade routes• Technology• Rise of Ottoman empire• Aristocracy lose power• Frankish wealth of princes• Breakdown of Byzantium• Rise of merchant class

Context

Identity

Runciman was fluent with Latin, Greek, Arabic, and many other languages, and used sources from these countries to enhance his understanding of the Crusades. However, Runciman primarily used printed narrative sources, and “never found, myself, any new manuscript material of any value”.

Runciman was highly wealthy, and after the death of his grandfather in 1937 had “enough money to exist without an earned income”.

Runciman believed that “great men create history”, and also followed an empirical Marxist ideology.

In the preface to his first volume, Runciman states “the duty of the historian is to attempt to record … the movements that have swayed the destinies of Man”, and he describes himself as “a rather old-fashioned historian”.

Purpose

Page 13 of 19


Runciman had planned his work since at least 1938. He had also visited many of the key sites personally, since he saw it as “impossible to understand the course of a battle, if one has not examined the actual terrain”.

Construction

Runciman’s work was the first major work on the Crusades to be composed in English, and emerged when many Western people were questioning the legitimacy of the imperialist policies with which the Crusades were associated.

JB Bury, Runciman’s teacher, stated that the Byzantine Empire “was mortally wounded and reduced to … a petty state by the greed and brutality of the Western brigands who called themselves Crusaders”, (this kind of unequivocal judgement would not be made today).

Runciman’s work has been praised for its literary qualities rather than its scholarly ones, since he focus on military and political events and the great men, rather than the motives or ideas of the Crusaders, financing of the expediting, or the social and institutional structure of the Crusader states in the East.

On the Causes of the Crusades

Runciman believed the Causes of the Crusades were the clash of Empires, the hope for financial gain by Alexius, Emperor of Byzantium, the securing of trade routes, etc. He discarded the dimension of piety and religion, which was (reinstituted) by Riley-Smith. In the preface to the third volume, he states “the Holy War itself was nothing more than a long act of intolerance in the name of God”.

Runciman’s dislike of the Crusades was based on his admiration for Greece and Byzantium, and he believes “all the fundamental elements of our civilisation came” from the East. He believes that “there was never a greater crime against humanity than the Fourth Crusade”, even after Hitler’s Holocaust had occurred.

(From a JSTOR article13)Runciman sees the Western tradition of University education as being too specialised and

focused on occidental history only, which limits the study of events like the Crusades because the Muslim (i.e. the other) perspectives are not considered.

Runciman also sees the historian should be “mindful of the past”, and must examine “the perpetual sequence of cause and effect”, as well as “the national beliefs and prejudices and myths”, which would impact on the people’s collective societal identity.

(Other JSTOR article14, not sure if it is Runciman because it believes in faith)(doesn’t fit with what I know about Runciman) “There are many world motives” that led to the

soldiers taking up the cross, according to Runciman, but “fundamentally it was faith”.The Church was “largely to blame” for the diminishing power of the Crusades, since they had

“debased the whole conception of the Holy War” by (applying it to everything). Pope Innocent III granted indulgences equal to the members of the Albigensian Crusade against the Cathars of Southern France as those who had earned through pilgrimages to Rome. (Guys like Thomas Aquinas) complained to the Pope that people would not go to the East if they could earn similar indulgences in the pleasant climate of Greece or France.

This was enhanced by the view of God deserting the Crusaders, as expressed through their losses. Another example would be Emperor Frederick Barbarossa drowning.

13 http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/20832741.pdf14 http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/27542556.pdf

Page 14 of 19




The taxes instituted to fund the Crusades, like the Saladin Tithe in the 3rd Crusade, were resented, and often used for other purposes by the Church.

Page break

Page 15 of 19


Jonathan Riley-Smith- (need to chose a specific history)Many books, will likely pick one post-2000Wrote HEAPS of stuff on the Crusades, believed to be the preeminent Crusades scholar alive Jonathan Riley-Smith (1995), on The Economist ArchiveJonathan Riley-Smith (2004); on the Islamic interpretation of the Crusadeshttp://modernmedieval.blogspot.com.au/2008/12/review-jonathan-riley-smith-crusades.html“The Crusades: A Short History” (1987), and “The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading” (1991)

Summary/Thoughts

Context

Identity

Purpose

Riley-Smith is the best known pluralist, who believes that the Crusades “a holy war authorized by the pope, who proclaimed it in the name of God or Christ...a defensive reaction to injury or aggression or as an attempt to recover Christian territories lost to the infidels, it answered the needs of the whole church or all of Christendom...rather than those of a particular nation”, in contrast to traditionalists who saw only expeditions to Jerusalem as a Crusade (I feel the pluralist view is more comprehensive).



Riley-Smith used financial analysis to show that “a large amount of money flowed from West to East”, and that many people lost money when they took up the cross. However, this has been countered by military historian John France, who argues that the Crusaders would have been unware of the financial loss and would have embarked on the Crusades for the potential for material gain through conquest, while being able to save their souls.

Riley-Smith propagates the view that the Crusades were fought in defence of Christianity in response to Muslim aggression, “the development of crusading was in part a response to a huge loss of Christian territory in the east”, and “yet the original justification for crusading was Muslim aggression”.

NEW

"Yet the original justification for crusading was Muslim aggression; and in terms of atrocities, the two sides' scores were about even"

[7:39:13 PM] Chris Dam: so muslim capture of anatolia in the byzantine[10:42:35 AM] Ibn al-Chris: 'it is hard to believe that most crusaders were motivated by crude

materialism' ... It makes much more sense to suppose, in so far as one can generalise about them, that they were moved by an idealism'.

Page 16 of 19

http://modernmedieval.blogspot.com.au/2008/12/review-jonathan-riley-smith-crusades.html

http://old.nationalreview.com/comment/riley-smith200401050839.asp

http://www.grailwerk.com/docs/economistarticle.html


Karen Armstrong- Holy War: The Crusades and Their Impact on Today’s World (1988, 1991, 2001)

Armstrong is hated on by professional scholars like Dr. Thomas Madden, Dr. James Powell, and Dr. Alfred Andrea. Based on these professional views, I would not use her.

Summary/Thoughts

Context

Identity

Armstrong acknowledges that she is “not a professional historian”, and believes that her training in theology and literature brings a new perspective to the Crusades.

Purpose

Armstrong’s purpose is to explain how the world of today has been shaped by the Crusades. To do this she utilises what she refers to as “triple vision”, where she attempts to see events from Christian, Muslim and Jewish perspectives.

One example of a current event which had its roots in the Crusades is 9/11, and Armstrong sees a mistake by George W. Bush in calling “his riposte a Crusade” because it was “likely to antagonise his potential Muslim allies” of the states of Iran, Egypt, and Syria. There are also many other conflicts in the past century that she sees as having roots in the Crusades, like the creation of the State of Israel in 1948, and the assassination of Anwar Sadat, amongst others.

Armstrong also believes that the Crusades were not a fringe movement, but were “central to the new Western identity … which persists to the present day”.

Armstrong also wishes to correct the prevailing Western/Christian preconceptions of Judaism as nothing but a prelude to Christianity and of the “infidel” of the Muslims. She also wishes to bring together greater peace and understanding to the modern world.

Armstrong also wishes to make reference to the how Western Christianity has contributed to many of the misconceptions, (by holding them to the same standard as Islam and Judaism).

Construction

The book was originally published in 1988, but has been updated in ?2001?, and it is the later edition being used.

Armstrong’s purpose is to explain how the world of today has been shaped by the Crusades. To do this she utilises what she refers to as “triple vision”, where she attempts to see events from Christian, Muslim and Jewish perspectives.

Armstrong uses the history, ideology and beliefs of the three Abrahamic religions to explain their viewpoints, and how and why they see things in certain ways. In doing this, she refers to their religious texts, the Bible, the Koran, and the Torah, respectively.

Armstrong limits her scope to her “triple vision” and so does not include the “holy wars being fought in Northern Ireland or South America today” which could be interpreted as being Crusades.


Page 17 of 19


According to Armstrong, the Crusades “were not wholly rational movements that could be explained away by purely economic or territorial ambition or by a clash of rights and interests. They were fuelled, on all sides, by myths and passions that were far more effective in getting people to act than any purely political motivation.”

Page break

Page 18 of 19


ConsiderDr. Thomas Madden“Both view them in the context of the modern, rather than the medieval world. The truth is that

the crusades had nothing to do with colonialism or unprovoked aggression. They were a desperate and largely unsuccessful attempt to defend against a powerful enemy.”

[7:40:45 PM] Chris Dam: “The crusades were in every way a defensive war. They were the West's belated response to the Muslim conquest of fully two-thirds of the Christian world.”

Dr. Marcus BullIbn-al-Athir

References

http://www.crusades-encyclopedia.com/encyclopedia.html

http://www.crusades-encyclopedia.com/jonathanrileysmith.html

http://www.crusaderstudies.org.uk/resources/index.html

Page 19 of 19

http://www.crusaderstudies.org.uk/resources/index.html

http://www.crusades-encyclopedia.com/jonathanrileysmith.html

http://www.crusades-encyclopedia.com/encyclopedia.html

Documents

Crusades Groundwork