Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Impact of the crusades dbq
Impact of the crusades dbq
Crusade middle ages agurment
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
• The Pope has agreed to help defend the Byzantine Empire! After being appealed to by Emperor Alexius I Comnenus, in 1095, Pope Urban II assembled the Council of Clermont. In order to help the Byzantine Empire and ensure his power over the church he has decided to call for a military expedition to get back the Holy Land.
• After hearing about Pope Urban II’s pronouncement, huge amounts of people are now moving across Europe! However, most of these first responders seem to be religious people as opposed to lords and knights. Since taking back the Holy Land is not as important to these knights and lords, it is understandable that they haven’t been rushing to fight.
• The year is now 1096 and Peter the Hermit is assembling the People’s Crusade! Although Peter’s sermons were great at pulling people together, his army is very disorganized
…show more content…
Saladin’s forces took Jerusalem from Christian control which resulted in a call for another crusade. Three kings, Emperor Frederick Barbarossa of Germany, King Phillip II of France, and King Richard I (Richard the Lionheart) led this crusade but accomplished little.
• Richard the Lionheart is the only King to stay and take Jerusalem. Even though Richard has a strange relationship with Saladin, he still fails to retake the city. After reaching a truce in 1192, Saladin gets to keep control of Jerusalem, but has to allow the Christians to visit the city. After the Third Crusade, there was never enough will power to do much to retake the city.
• Now, in 1198, in order to raise the papacy rather than take the Holy Land, Pope Innocent III, called for another crusade. This crusade is mostly being led by French Knights and instead attempting to capture Jerusalem, they end up sacking the Christian city of Constantinople! After the fourth Crusade, the other crusades were disorganized efforts that accomplished little to
Foss explains, “What Urban needed was an enterprise, clearly virtuous in serving the ends of Christiandome… in these moments of reflection, the popes mind turned towards Jerusalem.” Urban II reflects back on the first taking of the Holy City after the defeat of the Byzantine Empire in 1071, and begins to question what his people know about the Turkish race and really the ideology of Islamic thought. Foss goes on to examine the ignorance of westerners and needed to be “reminded [by the pope] of the infamous heathens, their cruelty and hatred of Christians,” hoping this would justify the first Holy Crusade. However, Foss identifies the creativity of the Pope’s language to persuade the knights and army of the people to embark on the Holy Crusade based on the Muslims cruel actions turned onto their fellow Christians. Claiming the Muslims “Killed captives by torture…poor captives were whipped…and others were bound to the post and used as a target for arrows.” Foss examines the Popes words as an effective effort of persuasion in creating an army of crusaders to help clean “…Holy places, which are now treated with ignominy and polluted with Filthiness” and any sacrifice in Jerusalem is a “promise of a spiritual reward… and death for
Contrary to many commonly held notions about the first crusade, in his book, The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading, Jonathan Riley-Smith sets out to explain how the idea of crusading thought evolved in the first crusade. In his book, Riley-Smith sets out five main arguments to show how these ideas of crusading evolved. Firstly, he argues that Pope Urban’s original message was conventional, secondly that a more positive reaction was drawn from the laity (due to the ideas surrounding Jerusalem), thirdly, that the original message of crusading had changed because of the horrible experiences of the first crusaders, fourth, that due to these experiences the crusaders developed their own concept of what a crusade was, and lastly, that these ideas were refined by (religious) writers and turned into an acceptable form of theology. Riley-Smith makes excellent points about the crusade; however, before one can delve directly into his argument, one must first understand the background surrounding the rise of the first crusade.
The First Crusade is often cited as one of the most damnable consequences of religious fanaticism. A careful inspection of the circumstances and outcomes, however, will reveal a resultant political restructuring of Europe under the banner of Christendom. The purpose of this investigation is to investigate Pope Urban II’s motives in initiating the First Crusade, with a particular focus on the consolidation of the Western Church’s influence in Europe. Among the primary sources that will be consulted are the letter sent by Patriach Alexios of Constantinople to Urban, and an account of Urban’s speech at Clermont. Relevant excerpts from both of these primary sources, as well as contextual evidence and a wide array of historiography, will be taken
In document 1 by Pope Urban II, he stated that the Christians in the west should defend their fellow brethren in the east. He went on to state that Romania had been conquered and had to be taken back from the Turks and Arabs. The subjects had to fight for the land that they stand on to continue being good Christians. If you died fighting for this, you would get instant remission of sins, meaning you would be forgiven for all of their sins. He was the Pope; therefore, he stood on a different level than his subjects, and did not know how they felt about this matter. He had absolute power over everyone as the leader of their religion. In document 2 by Ekkehard in his book Hierosolymita, he praises the speech that Pope Urban gave in 1095 and told of how it le...
Urban’s decision to begin the Crusade was based on more than just the idea that he was doing the Lord’s will. The Christian idealism was mind over m...
Kings often struggled with the Church over power and land, both trying desperately to obtain them, both committing atrocities to hold onto them. Time and time again, the Popes of the postclassical period went to great extremes to secure the Church’s position in the world. Both the Crusades and the Inquisition are examples of this. D...
Beginning not too long after the failure of the Second Crusade, the Third Crusade (also known as the Kings' Crusade) spanned from 1189 to 1192. It's purpose was to reclaim the Holy Land from Saladin, and was largely successful, and the European leaders managed to capture the cities Acre and Jaffa, as well undo the majority of Saladin's previous conquests. However, it was unable to capture Jerusalem, the key motivation to the Crusades. The key figures in this Crusade were Richard I of England (also known as Richard the Lionhearted), King Philip II of France, and the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick Barbarossa.
The First Crusade from 1095 to 1099 has been seen as a successful crusade. The First Crusaders carefully planned out their attacks to help promote religion throughout the lands. As the First Crusade set the example of what a successful crusade should do, the following crusades failed to maintain control of the Holy Land. Crusades following after the First Crusade weren’t as fortunate with maintaining the Holy Land due united forces of Muslims, lack of organization, and lack of religious focus.
In the perspective of the Pope if the land is won over he gains more authority, wealth, and property. The Crusade for the Pope was more of the land then the ideology. The spiritual preference was the way of manipulating the people into agreeing and joining.
Most of the Third Crusade was surrounded by King Richard and his Muslim enemies. King Richard was a brave, warlike king who led his allies and armies into the Third Crusade. By defeating his enemies and gaining a victory for England, King Richard changed the face of the Third Crusade. In the Third Crusade, King Richard’s undefeated war tactics led to England’s victory against the Muslims.
The Crusades intentions were to take back the Holy Land (Jerusalem). Jerusalem had been taken by the First Crusade and the European’s kingdom was built on its ruins. Almost one hundred years later Jerusalem had been taken back by Saladin at the Battle of Hattin and the Crusade army had been destroyed. It was time for new Crusaders and a leader that can match Saladin’s power. The Third Crusade took two year to gather and send out to recapture Jerusalem.
In order for the crusades to begin, the Christians needed to gather an army to travel and fight the forces of Muslims. With all the power being held by monarchies at this time, the church needed to be cleaver in order to gain troops to put their lives on the line. To gain the support of these warriors and dedication of men, Pope Urban II (1088-1099) challenged those morals of men by telling them to grab their weapons and join the holy war to recover the land of Jerusalem. It was not the challenge that convinced men to take part in this war. The promise of “immediate remission of sins” attracted the men to stand up for their religion and beliefs while at the same time, promising them a trip to heaven when life comes to an end. With this statement, men instantly prepared for battle which in a very short period of time gave the church power which has been held by the monarchies. Men of rich and poor prepared for battle, some wearing ...
In the eleventh century, Jerusalem was taken over by the Turks. This sparked the Crusades; the Crusades ended up lasting 200 years. The third crusade was deemed unsuccessful because Jerusalem was still in Muslim hands. In 1198, Pope Innocent issued the need for a Fourth Crusade. Excitement was stirred up by Priest Faulk of Neuilly after he preached at a knight tournament (Williams 103).
In his speech, to get more people riled up, the pope straight up lied. Urban told the listeners of his speech that the Muslims in Jerusalem attacked, killed and tortured the Christian pilgrims. In reality, the only Christians that were killed were the Byzantines, whom the Muslim Turks were fighting against. The pilgrim Christians in Jerusalem were only harassed. The point of this lie was to get more people riled up against the “enemy”, the Muslims. And that it did--the people became riled to take back their Holy Land. On their way to the city, the Crusaders did many bad things that they did not have to if they were just going for “God”. In around Central Europe, during their journey, some of the leaders of the crusading realized that if they were getting rid of the “pagans” in their holy land, why not rid the ones in their backyard? According to Solomon ben Samson, “...they said to one another: ‘Look now...here, in our midst, are the Jews….Let us...exterminate them from among the nations so that the name of Israel will no longer be remembered”. These Crusaders attacked synagogues and Jews across Central Europe, forever shaping the disease of anti-Semitism. Furthermore, the Christian crusaders broke Byzantine emperor Alexius’ promise: something that would not have happened if they were only coming to the area for God. Alexius made them swear that if he were to help the
...f Pope Urban II. The Turks were expanding their land into the Catholic Church reach; this new fear of even more land loss to the Turks as well as the ideal of claiming Jerusalem for the Catholic Church lead to the start of the First Crusade a “Holy War.” This land never belonged to any European country, yet the Church deemed it fit for the European countries to capture it as well as the lands in between. Pope Urban II called back all the churches bishops and abbots back to Vatican. Once these religious leaders returned back to the Vatican, the Pope made a decree to them, “‘Concerning this Affair, I, with Suppliant prayer – not I, but the Lord – exhort you, heralds of Christ, to persuade all of whatever class, both knight and footmen, both rich and poor, in numerous edicts, to strive to help expel that wicked face from our Christian lands before it is too late.’”