 | |
| 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:
The effects of the crusades, as categorised by Tyerman, were direct, indirect and destructive.
ReplyDeleteDirect effects were on that of the crusaders and their families. The crusaders were soldiers and as any soldier that goes into battle, it has a great impact on their family and the community such as the daily living and the emotional toll.
The indirect effects were the way in which the Europeans were expected to help the crusades, and funding the crusades through a certain tax was just one of the ways in which they were expected to contribute.
Finally, the crusades were also destructive, as seen with the number of victims.
As Lauren stated, Tyerman identified the fallout of the crusades as coming in there different forms: direct, indirect and destructive. The direct repercussions on western European society were in reference to the actual crusades themselves - battles won and lost, lands conquered and families left behind in the process. Indirect consequences address the wider community and the effects that the crusades had on the economy, draining towns of resources used on the crusades such as weapons, armour and food, as well as the manpower lost from those who participated in the holy wars. Finally, the destructive effects looked at the fate of the victims, those dead, and their spiritual safety, and those still alive, and what they had to live with, be it physical injury or emotional trauma, which in turn would have affected their functioning in society
ReplyDeleteI agree with the three effects of crusades already stated.
ReplyDeleteIt was through church encouragement and the promise of a remission of sins that the crusades came about, with individuals becoming involved either directly or indirectly. Direct participation invloved taking up the holy cross and partaking in a crusade, leading to direct effects on battles, land and families. The Church recognised that it was only the minority that actually partook in a crusade and successfully involved the greater population indirectly by incorporating the crusades into communal devotion and thus causing the indirect effects stated by Lauren and Ryan.
i think one of the major destructive effects was a 'narrowed understanding' of other religions and cultures in Europe such as the greeks, pagans, jews and muslims, as the increased promotion of christianity as the one true religion left little room for tolerance of the diverging cultures within Europe and beyond its borders. Tyermann states that in many cases, ignorant conclusions were drawn about the nature of these groups, leading to estrangement and suspicion.
As has been stated, Tyerman categorised the effects of the crusades as direct, indirect and destructive.
ReplyDeleteDirect referred to the repercussions and consequences of the crusades on society – the ownership of the land that had been fought for, and the people (both killed and left behind).
Indirect effects were on the economy, as resources (given to help the crusaders) and lives were taken up in the crusades – without the money, rations, weapons and manpower, the community was in turn affected.
The destructive consequences of the crusades was mostly in relation to the deaths caused by it – the effects it had on the families of those who’d died, and on those who had to live with physical injuries, as well as their actions and the spiritual repercussions.
The 5 accounts of Pope Urban's speech particularly differ in the degree to which they report the 'atrocities' that justify the papal call to war. The Gesta version doesn't mention them, instead concentrating on the sacrifices the faithful should be prepared to make to defend the Holy Sepulchre. Fulcher of Chartres' account shows less reserve, calling the Turks and the Arabs "that vile[...]despised and base race" and describing the destruction and murder in straightforward terms. Fulcher also uses most of his writing to deliver an appeal to guilt and a sense of duty. The accounts vary so much, especially that of Robert the Monk, who it seems to me, indulges in representing both Urban's words and the accusations levelled at the Moslems in the most emotive, outrageous and provocative manner. There is such contrast between the versions - one wonders how much 'spin' was added for different audiences!
ReplyDeleteTyerman discusses the symbiotic relationship between the Church becoming more 'militarised' and the arms-bearing populace becoming more 'Christianised' - the Church and the people were mutually adopting more of the other's ideology or practice. Tyerman also argues that the crusades produced a new Christian attitude towards the sins created by acts of battle - unlike past warriors who had to undertake penance, the Crusaders had their sins absolved because they participated in 'Holy War'.
Tyerman points out that "the crusade was not defined in law, [either] canon or secular" - it was not a rigid directive, but an appeal by the Church for pilgrimage with 'defence and reconquest' attached.
The three effects of the crusades to Europe and Europeans were through direct participation, indirect participation via supporting roles and destructive, by way of the victims and the damage to cultural relationships.
As previously stated the crusades, firstly, directly impacted upon the crusaders and their families. Secondly the indirect impact on the wider community and thirdly the destructive nature of the crusades left wider Europe in disarray.
ReplyDeleteTyerman suggests that crusades effected Europe on three different levels. The first was the more personally direct effect on the warriors which partook in the crusades and their families which they were forced to leave. The second was the indirect effect the crusades had on the community as a whole, when they were faced with speculating a spirtual understanding of what the crusades meant to them as a society and then lastly, the destruction of Europe the crusades left in its aftermath.
ReplyDeleteGood morning,
ReplyDeleteTyreman argues that the first effect of the crusades was a direct one. That is crusaders took on a long journey, leading to a massive movment of population across Europe. A lot of crusaders died during the adventure. Those who stayed were also impacted by the crusades as crusaders left an empty space in the society.
In addition, he claims that there was an indirect effect of the crusades on Europe and the Europeans. The economy and the ressources were mobilised to support the crusades. Also a narrative appear, fostered by the Church, aiming at justifying the crusades and make them part of religious practices themselves.
Lastly he deems that the crusades had a destructive effect. Because so many people died during the crusades, whether on the side of the crusaders or on the side of the ‘unfaithful’. Crusades led to massacres along the journey and in the ‘holy land’ itself. Maybe also because it fed hatred between religions and people.
Amandine
Tyerman implies that the crusades had three different impacts on Europe. First was a direct impact, on the crusader and their family. The second was an indirect impact, that effected the larger community. Lastly, the destructive wake left by the crusade.
ReplyDeleteThe three impacts of the crusades that Tyerman outlines are the direct, indirect and destructive affects. The 'direct' impact involved those who went to battle, as well as their families left behind.The 'indirect' impact involved those of the wider community (those who prayed for, and sent taxes to assist, the cause). The third impact, the 'destructive', involved those who fell victim to the crusaders.
ReplyDeleteI found it interesting how the three effects intertwined: the propaganda surrounding the crusades persuaded men to take up arms and fight, and also encouraged those unable (or unwilling), to play a role by sending monetary donations, and prayers. The wives and children of crusaders, left behind, would also have acted as reminders of one's duty to God-those who did not undertake the war of the Cross were constantly reminded by their presence, and would have thus felt more inclined to donate. As the participation of 'indirect' individuals grew, it may be assumed that so too did the rhetoric against the enemies of God. Thus, as the 'direct' element persuaded the 'indirect' element to assist the cause, the 'destructive'effect may have expanded as well.
Well, not really sure what I have left to add to this discussion beyond what has already been said, but oh well
ReplyDeletethe effects of the crusades are broken down into direct, indirect, and destructive.
Direct effects constituted the actual act of a crusader going off to fight in the war, the people leaving their families behind, the effect such an abscence had for their families, as well as the effects overall of a large exodus of the population
Indirect effects were economic in nature, the changing of the economy to gear itself towards funding the war, creating a change in the economic structure back home. the indirect effects also include the massive wave of religious propaganda produced by the church to justify the crusades and encourage support for the crusaders, with the church proclaiming the righteousness of the war
The destructive effects were simply those left injured in the wake of the war, the number of soldiers dead injured or driven mad by the war, and the broader effect this had on those around them.
as for pope urbans speech, to me the main difference is in overall intensity, whether it range from praise for those fighting a holy war, to in some cases demonstrating what almost seems to be outright joy at the death of the 'heathens'. I can only suppose that this great difference in the translations can more or less be put down to the personal bias of the translator and the fervour with which they wished to promote that bias
I find myself without a great deal to add after everybody else has said so much on the topic. Sascha’s point about “spin” seems particularly good... Robert the Monk’s speech almost starts with “you know, you Franks are awesome”. Or as close as the temporal vernacular would get. While obviously Urban was very keen to recruit the lords of Gaul to the military campaign, this strikes me as laying it on a bit thick.
ReplyDelete