Tutorial Discussion Post
By: Jarrod, Bonnie and Nam
Hi guys, thought we'd just throw some thoughts out there with no coherent structure which is inevitable with a conglomeration of ideas I guess. There is so much literature on the crusades that I wasn't too surprised when I came across the differences in Riley-Smith's and Runciman's historical analysis, one bordering on apologetic, the other with the opinion of it being destructive. What's interesting is that they are (or were) both very important commentators on the Crusades. I was also happy to finally get a hold of some Byzantine-related stuff again, which always interests me.
 |
| A returning crusader |
Now lets get some discussion going!
- Do you believe the Crusades were a defensive or offensive campaign against Christendom's enemies?
- Were any of the Crusades successful in their aims to protect the Greek Christians?
- If you've read Riley-Smith's argument, what do you think of his contention that crusading was an act of love?
- What defines an enemy? The term is very loose, as it's turned against heretics, state enemies as well as utilised as an excuse to invade a neighbouring state.
- How was the Church to appear humble and poor when they needed the funding to save the kingdom of Jerusalem?
- Why are they considered a movement of the people? True, the armies were amongst the largest Europe had ever mobilised at the time, why was it a movement?
 |
| The conquest of Constantinople |
The crusades' purposes ranged from defending kingdoms, assaulting states, seizing trade, funding and holy sites. The offer of pay and redemption from sins and legal fines was also a partial coarse of Crusaders reputation as a pillaging force, attracting criminals. The advent of mendicancy was also of a concern for the crusades.
Also to consider was how as crusading armies became more professional, mercernaries made up greater numbers. This was due to Pope Innocent involving the people as whole, utilising the crusades to revitalise religious fervor throughout Christendom. Asking simply for money, instead of military action, allowed for a replacement of a conscripted army with a mercantile army whilst simultaneously creating a 'movement' of the people.
This act increased social tensions as those with money could afford to recieve redemption from the Pope indirectly discluding the poor from such possible services.
Nam, Jarrod, Bonnie
 |
| Orlando Bloom trying his hand at crusading |
....
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!
http://medievalromance.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/romance-home
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?
 |
| Exhibition Poster |
http://www.asatours.com.au/cc21212-monash-renaissance-florence/1405-cc21212-monash-florence-overview
All the best,
Diana
I'm torn with the crusades, I would say it can be an offensive and defensive campaign. It is understandable how people went as an act of love, people were very religious but surely some used crusade as some kind of scapegoat. On the other hand, crusading could have been an act to show power and capture more land.
ReplyDeleteI think its interesting to define the enemies of crusade, I would say crusaders believe the pope's preaching therefore enemies would include heretics and all people against Christianity.
These readings have definitely reminded me about how and why crusades commence in the first place; I always like hearing of the actual battles.
I feel like the crusades were offensive campaign, although I can’t really be sure. I get that they wished to help their brother in the East who were in danger from the Muslims, but for the most part I think that despite it being driven by ‘love’ it was still an offensive act.
ReplyDeleteI found Riley-Smith’s argument rather interesting. I was interested in how the Church put a sort of ‘spin’ on the idea of crusading and how they really pushed this idea of love. They really exaggerated and enhanced the notion of brothers in arms and protecting ones own and I like how Riley-Smith made the point of saying the crusades were an act of love, but more a love for friends/brothers rather than for ones enemy.
I also found it interesting that the crusades gave laymen a new outlet for showing their love of god without entering into the monastery. Combined with that and the whole guilt-tripping thing they had going (“If God underwent death for man, ought man to question dying for God?”), its no wonder people felt compelled to crusade. All in all I found the idea of persuasion and spin on the entire operation quite fascinating.
Good post guys :)
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, there were some crusaders who genuinely believed what the Pope was saying, that is that the crusade was to help their brothers through love. But I think that the majority of them just wanted to fight, or escape from their towns in order to search for something new, therefore, I don't really agree with Riley-Smith's argument. I think that the Crusades were an offensive campaign overall, like Georgia, but I do think there were a minority that truly thought they were beign defensive.
Sorry for the late post! I'm swamped with work.
ReplyDeleteI think the crusades were definitely an offensive campaign and I found the idea of crusading in the name of Christian love a little funny. I understand how crusading in some ways united Christen people through a common cause and really fired up their passion for their beliefs but to do this through a military campaign and violence seems really self defeating when preaching Christian love, though evidently they didn't so at the time.
This also seems to clash with the poverty it caused, that you guys mentioned above.
I really don't have much else to say about the crusades...
Great Post! :)