Because I'm very, very bored
Jun. 15th, 2005 02:01 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ithikaWith memorising this essay plan, I wrote an essay. And now I'm typing it up here. Technically, it's still study.
Contrary to what most people would believe, "Crusade" is not an apt historical term, for many reasons. While the term itself can now be used to describe any vendetta against supposedly "evil" forces, most people assume that it can also be used to entitle and describe the first, second, third and fourth "Crusades" of the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries, from around 1000 to 1250. However, there are many reasons that casually applying the word "Crusade" to these wars is, historically, quite foolish.
Not the least of these reasons is the fact that the word "Crusade" is not a medieval term. The word itself experiences its first recorded use in 1706, some 450 years after the end of the so-called Crusading Period. The implication of this is that people assume that the "crusaders" themselves knew they were embarking on a crusade, when of course, they would not have called it a crusade and therefore could not have. The word "Crusade" was applied in limited hindsight by historians. So while it would be fine to use a term that the people themselves used for their acions, say, 'war', to call them Crusades and the people Crusaders suggests a knowledge that is not there.
It would be harmless enough if "Crusade" was not a word with meaning behind it - if it were just another word for war, perhaps with the added meaning "between 1000 and 1250", then it would be fine. But "Crusade" is a poor term for this period for a much more important reason than it simply not being a word of the time. "Crusade", from the Latin "Crux", meaning Crucifix, is a word that means literally "War of the Cross." This clearly suggests that something called a "Crusade" would be mostly, if not wholely, a religious affair. A holy war, the motives, goals and actions of which were all primarially bound to the Catholic Church, all other motivations and whatnot secondary, if they existed at all. This is entirely untrue - while, yes, some of the crusades were linked to religious affairs, land, money and power were far more pressing issues at the time so ill-labelled as "The Crusading Period."
In fact, the four "crusades" of this peropd were linked by only one common factor - Jerusalem - although, in some cases, such as the 4th Crusade, which never even reached the "Holy City", the link is tenuous. The "First Crusade", led by Alexius I against the Seljuk Turks, was sanctioned by Pope Urban the Second, and in this "crusade" Jerusalem was captured and the "Kingdom of Jerusalem" was founded. This first 'crusade' was by far the most huge and most successful of the four, and probably the closest any of them ever got to being a true 'crusade.' The "Second Crusade," though largely in response to the wishes of Bernard of Clairvaux (a hugely influential Cistercian Abbott), was not at all concerned with Jerusalem - it was in fact a retaliation against the Turkish attack on a European town. Also, the "crusade" involved only French and German forces - not all of Europe. The so-called "Third Crusade" was probably the most famous, being the venture of Richard the First, better known as Richard the Lionheart. This was in retaliation to Saladin's capture of Jerusalem, but was hardly religiously motivated - the land of Jerusalem was valuable in terms of land, money, resources and location, factors more weighty than any religious significance that the city held, although that certainly may have been a justification for some of the actions that eventuated. The final crusade never even made it to Jerusalem! Though the official insentive was another effort to reclaim Jerusalem from the "infidel", the Venetians, who were owed some very impressive debts for their shipmaking practises, commandeered the venture and turned it to Constantinople, where they attempted to put the Byzantine Emperor on the throne. While they did sieze the city, they lost the war as they double-crossed one too many people, and lost public interest (and thus, their armies). This was only the main branch of the "fourth crusade", what's more - all the people involved in the so-called crusade were not even acting on the same motives or heading in the same directions!
Lastly, to name a two hundred and fifty year period "The Crusading Period" suggests that "Crusading" was the most important event in Europe at the time - "Period" suggests everyone was doing it. This is hardly true. Even at the height [Not essay 'i before e except after c' my foot...] or participation and flocking-to-pilgramages, the participants made up well less than half the population of Europe at the time. So it would be quite ridiculous to suggest that c. 1000-1250 was a "Crusading Period". What's more, the only 'nation' involved in every "crusade" was France, and their degree of involvement was often quite small. So just as it would be misleading to call the past four years the "War On Terror Period" (or even more - something like the "Justades"1) would be misleading because it is hardly an event consuming the majority of Westerner's time, energy and money, it is quite silly to call c.1000-1250 "The Crusading Period".
I'm not writing a conclusion becuase really, conclusions are utterly pointless.
1"Justade" is a word I made up just then, which comes from the English word "Justice" and means literally "A War of Justice", which of course suggests that the western worlds actions in these wars have been entirely motivated by Justice, by people extreme in their righteousness.
Well, it amused me.
By the way, the similarities between the most pointless and bloodthirsty battles in the thus-far history of Mankind [AKA the Crusades] and the "War on Terror" are quite terrifying. You'd have thought we would have learnt something about ethics... or whatever... in the past Seven Hundred and Fifty Five bloody years!
And, finally: While fun, Kingdom of Heaven is utterly laughable from a historic viewpoint. Utterly laughable. But good. Well, I liked it. And it's trebuchets.
I'm done. History is something akin to love.
Contrary to what most people would believe, "Crusade" is not an apt historical term, for many reasons. While the term itself can now be used to describe any vendetta against supposedly "evil" forces, most people assume that it can also be used to entitle and describe the first, second, third and fourth "Crusades" of the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries, from around 1000 to 1250. However, there are many reasons that casually applying the word "Crusade" to these wars is, historically, quite foolish.
Not the least of these reasons is the fact that the word "Crusade" is not a medieval term. The word itself experiences its first recorded use in 1706, some 450 years after the end of the so-called Crusading Period. The implication of this is that people assume that the "crusaders" themselves knew they were embarking on a crusade, when of course, they would not have called it a crusade and therefore could not have. The word "Crusade" was applied in limited hindsight by historians. So while it would be fine to use a term that the people themselves used for their acions, say, 'war', to call them Crusades and the people Crusaders suggests a knowledge that is not there.
It would be harmless enough if "Crusade" was not a word with meaning behind it - if it were just another word for war, perhaps with the added meaning "between 1000 and 1250", then it would be fine. But "Crusade" is a poor term for this period for a much more important reason than it simply not being a word of the time. "Crusade", from the Latin "Crux", meaning Crucifix, is a word that means literally "War of the Cross." This clearly suggests that something called a "Crusade" would be mostly, if not wholely, a religious affair. A holy war, the motives, goals and actions of which were all primarially bound to the Catholic Church, all other motivations and whatnot secondary, if they existed at all. This is entirely untrue - while, yes, some of the crusades were linked to religious affairs, land, money and power were far more pressing issues at the time so ill-labelled as "The Crusading Period."
In fact, the four "crusades" of this peropd were linked by only one common factor - Jerusalem - although, in some cases, such as the 4th Crusade, which never even reached the "Holy City", the link is tenuous. The "First Crusade", led by Alexius I against the Seljuk Turks, was sanctioned by Pope Urban the Second, and in this "crusade" Jerusalem was captured and the "Kingdom of Jerusalem" was founded. This first 'crusade' was by far the most huge and most successful of the four, and probably the closest any of them ever got to being a true 'crusade.' The "Second Crusade," though largely in response to the wishes of Bernard of Clairvaux (a hugely influential Cistercian Abbott), was not at all concerned with Jerusalem - it was in fact a retaliation against the Turkish attack on a European town. Also, the "crusade" involved only French and German forces - not all of Europe. The so-called "Third Crusade" was probably the most famous, being the venture of Richard the First, better known as Richard the Lionheart. This was in retaliation to Saladin's capture of Jerusalem, but was hardly religiously motivated - the land of Jerusalem was valuable in terms of land, money, resources and location, factors more weighty than any religious significance that the city held, although that certainly may have been a justification for some of the actions that eventuated. The final crusade never even made it to Jerusalem! Though the official insentive was another effort to reclaim Jerusalem from the "infidel", the Venetians, who were owed some very impressive debts for their shipmaking practises, commandeered the venture and turned it to Constantinople, where they attempted to put the Byzantine Emperor on the throne. While they did sieze the city, they lost the war as they double-crossed one too many people, and lost public interest (and thus, their armies). This was only the main branch of the "fourth crusade", what's more - all the people involved in the so-called crusade were not even acting on the same motives or heading in the same directions!
Lastly, to name a two hundred and fifty year period "The Crusading Period" suggests that "Crusading" was the most important event in Europe at the time - "Period" suggests everyone was doing it. This is hardly true. Even at the height [Not essay 'i before e except after c' my foot...] or participation and flocking-to-pilgramages, the participants made up well less than half the population of Europe at the time. So it would be quite ridiculous to suggest that c. 1000-1250 was a "Crusading Period". What's more, the only 'nation' involved in every "crusade" was France, and their degree of involvement was often quite small. So just as it would be misleading to call the past four years the "War On Terror Period" (or even more - something like the "Justades"1) would be misleading because it is hardly an event consuming the majority of Westerner's time, energy and money, it is quite silly to call c.1000-1250 "The Crusading Period".
I'm not writing a conclusion becuase really, conclusions are utterly pointless.
1"Justade" is a word I made up just then, which comes from the English word "Justice" and means literally "A War of Justice", which of course suggests that the western worlds actions in these wars have been entirely motivated by Justice, by people extreme in their righteousness.
Well, it amused me.
By the way, the similarities between the most pointless and bloodthirsty battles in the thus-far history of Mankind [AKA the Crusades] and the "War on Terror" are quite terrifying. You'd have thought we would have learnt something about ethics... or whatever... in the past Seven Hundred and Fifty Five bloody years!
And, finally: While fun, Kingdom of Heaven is utterly laughable from a historic viewpoint. Utterly laughable. But good. Well, I liked it. And it's trebuchets.
I'm done. History is something akin to love.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-15 07:13 am (UTC)The battle lies far to the east
Crusader, crusader, don't leave me alone
I want to ride out on your quest
I'm waiting, I'm waiting, to stand by your side
To fight with you over the sea
They're calling, they're calling, I have to be there
The holy land has to be free
Fight the good fight
Believe what is right
Crusader, the Lord of the Realm
Fight the good fight
With all your might
Crusader, the Lord of the Realm
We're marching, we're marching, to a land far from home
No one can say who'll return
For Christendom's sake, we'll take our revenge
On the pagans from out of the east
We Christians are coming, with swords held on high
United by faith and the cause
The Saracen heathen will soon taste our steel
Our standards will rise 'cross the land
Fight the good fight
Believe what is right
Crusader, the Lord of the Realm
Fight the good fight
With all your might
Crusader, the Lord of the Realm
To battle, to battle, the Saracen hordes
We follow the warrior king
Onward, ride onward, into the fight
We carry the sign of the cross
Warlords of England, Knights of the Realm
Spilling their blood in the sand
Crusader, crusader, the legend is born
The future will honour your deeds
Fight the good fight
Believe what is right
Crusader, the Lord of the Realm
Fight the good fight
With all your might
Crusader, the Lord of the Realm
(Come Crusader let battle commence)
Fight the good fight
Believe what is right
Crusader, the Lord of the Realm
Crusader, the Lord of the Realm
Fight the good fight
Believe what is right
Crusader, the Lord of the Realm
Crusader, the Lord of the Realm
(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-15 08:24 am (UTC)History has proven that demonising a group* of people kicks ass, because when you make them seem less than human, you can do all sorts of things that you couldn't normally do. It's awesome.
(Nazis, muslims, communists, terrorists etc etc)
(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-15 09:56 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-15 11:28 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-15 11:42 am (UTC)The Saracen heathen will soon taste our steel <-- that is my favourite line. It is good.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-15 11:47 am (UTC)A fine point.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-15 12:07 pm (UTC)Metal is awesome.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-15 12:59 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-15 03:56 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-15 03:57 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-15 03:58 pm (UTC)(But yeah, badass song)
(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-15 04:21 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-17 03:01 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-17 03:04 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-17 03:19 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-17 03:21 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-17 03:24 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-17 03:34 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-17 03:47 pm (UTC)