Important new article on the Crusades

[s_taillebois]

Now it's getting really complex. Crusading did quite literally 'go out of fashion'. For any number of reasons; a rising standard of wealth from the new technologies prompted people to use their fiefs for...making glass, carding wool and raising flax (underwear and later paper), Events like the Avignon exile, and miswended conduct by the Papacy undermined church authority-people might have been pious, but somewhat less inclined to follow eccl. bulls-or take less seriously the unreserved faith often inspiring (or decieving) crusaders, the plague and the attendent excesses afterward (including a growing fondness for silks and other eastern luxuries-Europe went late medieval "Vogue" to forget the plagues horrors) , and the Hundred Years war wore out two of the pre-eminant crusading powers...
So yes, weird to consider the attitudes for certain forms of warfare, do go out of style...

[SzabolcsWaldmann]

...not to forget that the Templars were wiped out, the Johannitans (hospitallers) beaten back to malta and the teutons went for their very own crusade: against the pagans in Preußen (north Poland), For them at least, it was called a crusade up till the middle of the 14th century. There, a few knights could still try their luck, but the harsh winter and the absence of papal strenght allowed them to live a rather luxorious live with tournaments, pagan slaying trips and warm bathes. That had not much to do with the religious faith of the crusades in the holy lands. After the Teutons were beaten at Marienburg, the whole western world lost te last ditch of belief in holy crusades.
I believe the christian knightly orders had much influence on the crusades, so after they were gone, not much hope remained for re-taking jerusalem...


Szab

[philippewillaume]

i suspect that the wooping we got at nicopolis has something to do with not crusading eastern so much as well.

[Stacy Clifford]

Andrzej,

Sorry if my arguments are bugging you, I'm just trying to apply a different perspective and see what others here have to say, and I appreciate your counterarguments. You would certainly know better than I how well eastern Europe could hold out against the Turks, but your assertion that crusading "went out of style" supports my point, I think. Western Europe was definitely getting very rich off of the New World, and if you're suddenly making boatloads of money and have a nice buffer zone (eastern Europe) between you and your main military threat, then yeah, you're probably going to be a lot more interested in keeping the money flowing than sending your troops off to fight a war you don't have to. In that regard I think Madden's statement that the threat was neutralized economically is valid. The richer you get, the harder you are to seriously threaten. And as Mr. Tallebois said, the religious climate in Europe changed dramatically too, which I didn't even think of but obviously makes a lot of sense, so I can imagine that might have hurt the fashionableness (?) of crusading. Either way, I think both of us are actually making the same point through different means, which is that crusading eventually became irrelevant.

3. Maybe most important. I try to not regard politics and history as an
exercise in ethics. It has nothing to do with ethics and morals, just often
conflicting goals.

One thing on this. In most cases I agree, but I think in the case of religious wars you cannot entirely rule out morals and ethics for this reason: Whatever the private goals of the crusades might have been, the publicly stated reasons for crusading were mostly moral and ethical ones. That was their recruiting tool. If everybody was saying that it was about morals and ethics, then for at least some of them you can assume that it really was true. That makes it a significant factor in why things happened the way they did on both sides.

Anyway, I just wanted to see if I could find an answer to your question of what success, if any, the crusades produced. The best I can do seems to be maybe, depending on your definition of success. It was fun trying though, so thanks for putting up with me. <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

[Andrzej Rosa]

Western Europe was definitely getting very rich off of the New World,
and if you're suddenly making boatloads of money and have a nice buffer zone
(eastern Europe) between you and your main military threat, then yeah, you're
probably going to be a lot more interested in keeping the money flowing than
sending your troops off to fight a war you don't have to.

I agree, with one exception. I do not think that New World made Western
Europe rich. What e.g. Spaniards found in New World was plenty of gold.
Gold is not resources. Gold is currency, like paper banknotes. I've seen
what "printing more goods" can do for economy, and Spaniards have seen this
too.

Later, when this money making machine based on slavery kicked off, things
changed a bit, so in the end colonies brought the West some goods, but in the
time we are speaking of I do not think that it mattered much. Germans could
do fine without any colonies. Actually much better than Spaniards and
Portuguese.

In that regard I think Madden's statement that the threat was
neutralized economically is valid.

In general it may be, but not in context Madden put it. He wrote, that Turks
were too weak for a Crusade, which is not true. Besides, since when weak
opponent is not worthy of an attack? Teutonic Knights with their Crusading
Touristics business did quite well, thank you. Sometimes it was quite
hilarious, when they organised some token expedition against some unimportant
peasants, because crusaders wanted to get their money worth and simply had to
slay some pagans, no matter that war was stalled due to e.g. weather.

Once I'm there - Teutonic Order was defeated at the battle of Tannenberg (or
Grunwald, like we call it; different villages, the same battle) but managed
to hold against our siege of Marienburg, so at Marienburg they sorta won, and
lucky for them because otherwise that would be the end of them.

Regarding morals.
You make sense. Sometimes one must take them into consideration, and I'm not
against it. I simply try to avoid moral judgement of international politics.
There are not much ethics and morals involved there.

Thanks for a nice discussion and You were not "bugging me" in the slightest.

Best wishes for a Women's Day (8 March).

[Stacy Clifford]

I think the biggest problem we're having with this article is that it's a shortened version of a much longer argument, so things we read into it like "the Turks were weak" may not represent the author's full opinion very well. John can tell you stuff like that happens when you have to cut things down. Too bad we can't get Mr. Madden on here to clear some things up.

By the way, I'm a guy, but thanks for the best wishes anyway.

[Logan Weed]

Nice article, pretty much all the same as what I learned in high school.

I got the impression that Alexius wasn't terribly happy with the form western assistant took though. He wanted a small, professional army and not so much the the masses of poorly equipped, poorly supplied and rather undisciplined crusaders he couldn't control that came along with them, or at least that's the impression I got of the whole thing.

[Benjamin Abbott]

I can't agree with this article. It is, perhaps, a good counter to the more common view of the Crusades, but distorts the facts just as much or more. The violent expansion of Muslim states is unquestionable, though I don't see it being any better or worse than the violent expansion of any other states. Certainly defending (and gaining control over) the Byzantine Empire was one goals of the Crusades, but Western Christendom faced little threat from Muslims in the 11th and 12th centuries. It was not the only goal, however. Ignoring the internal conditions that led to the Crusades gives an incomplete picture of European motivation.

Madden also downplays the role of the clergy in promoting hatred and violence against the Jews (and against Eastern Christians in some cases). That little bit about the Fourth Crusade is too kind to the crusaders. If the Crusades were meant to protect Christians in the East, which seems to Madden's argument, then Fourth Crusade shows that they completely failed. Just read what Niketas Choniates has to say about the Latins.

Finally, Madden never explains how the Crusades protected Europe from Muslim conquest, even though this is his major point. As I said, they certainly didn't do Constantinople much good. Logistical problems alone suggest it would have been far easier and more effective for the Europeans to fight the Muslims in Europe, if it ever came to that.

[James Hudec]

I can't agree with this article. It is, perhaps, a good counter to the more common view of the Crusades, but distorts the facts just as much or more.

I, on the other hand, can do little but agree with it. <img src="/forum/images/icons/crazy.gif" alt="" />

The violent expansion of Muslim states is unquestionable, though I don't see it being any better or worse than the violent expansion of any other states.

How so?

Madden also downplays the role of the clergy in promoting hatred and violence against the Jews.

What role would that be? The documentation I have seems to make a rather different case. <img src="/forum/images/icons/confused.gif" alt="" />

Finally, Madden never explains how the Crusades protected Europe from Muslim conquest, even though this is his major point. As I said, they certainly didn't do Constantinople much good. Logistical problems alone suggest it would have been far easier and more effective for the Europeans to fight the Muslims in Europe, if it ever came to that.

If I had to guess, I'd say (as Stacy Clifford already has) that it was because the Crusades forced the Islamic world to focus its energy on attacking the Christians in Outremer- rather than the ones in Europe, thus allowing the bulk of Western Christendom to continue its scientific, economical and political advancement to the point where it would be able to decisively defeat Islamic incursion or expansion and eventually colonize the lands their old enemies occupied.

[James Hudec]

well the real tragedy of the crusades was how the Eurpeans gave birth to the concept of the extreme religious holy warriors. The holy warriors of later centuries from Islam were merely imitations of the crazies we exported over there, a direct response to what we did.

So the Crusaders managed to inspire, retroactively, all of the fanatics who made the early (and stunning) expansion of Islam by conquest possible? I guess we'll have to add time-travel as well as primitive photography to the list of previously-unrecognized medieval technological achievements. <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

Hilarious and excellent documentary series

If one that plays a bit fast and loose with history, or so I might guess.