Crusades: Causes, Consequences, and Results

¶ … Crusades: Causes, Consequences, and Results

Several centuries after they ended, the Crusades are remembered as wars that were fought and lost in the name of God. The efforts and means utilized and maintained to continue to wage a battle for more than one hundred years is memorable nonetheless. While we say that these wars were fought in the name of God, it is simply not that easy to define. The causes for the Crusades cannot be traced to an isolated event but rather several factors that operated together to create a climate of religious fervor to fight for the name of God. Power, piety, zeal, determination are words we can use to define some of the reasons that drove men to establish a war with another race of people, in which little was known. The Crusades are a story as much about the nature of man as they are the nature of politics and religion. The religious reasons led to social and economic ramifications that changed the political landscape forever. We see the Crusades as religious wars but a closer inspection reveals that they were fought for various reasons with Europe's political, social, and economic order was facing a positive turnaround in at the turn of the century. Expansion was prevalent and, as a result, the economy was improving greatly from the turmoil it had experienced in 900. While all of this sounds good and was good to a certain extent, things were still fragile. Strength and the power of the unknown paved the way for the crusades. Land, expansion, adventure, zeal, soldiers, and powerful papal leadership were the essential ingredients for crusading, which became "popular social movement" (Noble 416). No one could have imagined what the Crusades meant from the first to the last. Peter Charanis notes that the motivating factors that prompted the Crusades were "many and complex" (Charanis 1952, 123) and also "difficult to determine" (Charanis 123). Simply put, the First Crusade of 1095 was a "holy war" (123) fought with the objective of liberating the Holy Land. Charanis notes that the pope's motivations for starting the first crusade are muddy at best but almost every historian agrees with the notion that power lurks behind any action. When looking at the causes for the Crusades, it is important to study what sparked the First Crusade. Thomas Noble maintains that the background to the First Crusade can be traced back to "the Muslim and Byzantine East and in the Latin West" (Noble 1994, 384) and the three interested parties were the Byzantines, the popes, and the warriors of Europe. The Byzantines were seeking aid primarily from the Turkish threat and when Pope Urban II offered to lend help, many soldiers were eager to help rid the land of the infidels. The church saw the crusade as an opportunity to "manifest their leadership of the church" (384) and the crusade was "perfectly consonant with the ethos of the knights of western Europe" (384). Religious zeal was certainly one factor in the Crusades. It is interesting to note how the First Crusade was instigated by the pope. In his sermon at the Council of Clermont, Pope Urban II states that a "horrible tale" has emerged from Constantinople and Jerusalem that involves a "race utterly alienated by God" (Urban qtd. In Craig 2000, 343), which has "invaded the lands of those Christians and has depopulated them by the sword, pillage and fire '(Urban qtd. In Craig 343). From this speech, we can gather how the pope managed to garner up the spirit behind the Crusades. He tells his listeners that "Jerusalem is the navel of the world; the land is fruitful above all others, like another paradise of delights" (343). He also paints a horrible portrait of what is happening to the Christians. He also concludes his speech by telling his audience, "Accordingly undertake this journey for the remission of your sins, with the assurance of the imperishable glory of the kingdom of heaven" (343). Craig posits the question of whether the Pope was engaging in propaganda with such a charged speech. Regardless, the Pope was extremely successful in generating a sense of unity among the people along with a desire to rid the world of those that might do harm to Christians. Craig likes to remind us that "hot blood and greed" (Craig 344) were also motivating factors behind the Crusaders. While the later Crusades were undertaken for mercenary reasons, the early Crusades were "inspired by genuine religious piety and were carefully orchestrated by the revived papacy" (344). When we look at Pope Urban's speech, we get a feel for the type of sentiment he is attempting to rouse. It should also be noted that late in the tenth century, "peace movements" (Noble 384), also contributed to the attitude to wage war against anything that might threaten Christianity. This mentality worked well for the pope. Because he was endeavoring on a mission that had not been attempted before, it was easy for him to garner volunteers for his mission. The First Crusade is by far the most successful when we look at goals set and goals accomplished. The following crusades, while some saw minor achievements, did not experience the same type of success as the first.

Perhaps the cause for the First Crusade could not be topped nor the same zeal for war captured in any wars or crusades following it. According to many critics, the Second Crusade accomplished very little as Conrad III and Louis VII were simply jealous of each other. In Noble's estimation, the one achievement from this crusade was "an accident" (Noble 1994, 416) when soldiers traveling by sea captured Lisbon, thus opening a new front which laid the foundation for the kingdom of Portugal. Here we see an example of unintended consequences working in favor of a bad event or choice. The Third Crusade was called for when Saladin conquered Jerusalem in 1187. This crusade, known as King Richard's "chivalrous episode" (Maurios 1937, 95), might be one of the most popular of the Crusades because of King Richard's notoriety. It should be recognized that the Third Crusade was the most "bloody and brutal" (Palmer 1976, 33) of the Crusades. Richard's gallant effort did not land him with the Holy Sepulcher, but it did give him a chance to display his courage. In addition, he was able to come to terms with Saladin and begin working toward a negotiation. Another interesting aspect of the Third Crusade is how it became known as the Kings' Crusade because King Richard formed alliances with King Philip and Frederick I. Jerusalem was not won, however, and all that was accomplished with this crusade was a passage into Jerusalem. Saladin allowed this, which says much about his tolerance and demeanor. With such a non-eventful ending to the Third Crusade, Innocent III called for another crusade when he was elected in 1198. He summoned help from preachers and military leaders and in just over a year, they produced "fifty galleys and 450 transports, a tribute to the awesome capabilities of the Venetian shipyards" (Noble 1994, 416). The great accomplishment of the Fourth Crusade was not capture of Jerusalem but Constantinople. This served to be the beginning of the end of the Byzantine Empire and "worsened the already tense relations between the Catholic and Orthodox churches" (417). In the later crusades, popes were determined to "take a more active role in planning Crusades, right down to setting objectives" (416). It became clear that no pope wanted to lose control like Innocent III did and it also became clear that the "liberation of Jerusalem required a solid base of operations in the eastern Mediterranean" (416).

Egypt became an object of attention in the Fifth and Sixth Crusade but a secure base was never established. The Seventh Crusade, lead by Louis IX has been classified as a failure. In 1291, the last crusader stronghold fell and that marked the end of an era.

The consequences of the Crusades seem to stand out far more than the causes of them. The First Crusade was considered a success in that the Holy Land was recovered and pilgrim routes became passable. This might be where the positive affects of the Crusades ends. Many critics agree that the Crusades were little more than vicious. Henry Smith claims that no other wars have been as destructive as the Crusades. He claims that on principles, morals, and politics, the Crusades "cannot be justified" (Smith 1909, 468). War was a "sacred duty" (468) and, as a result, the Crusades "encouraged the most horrible violences of fanaticism" (468). Politically, the Crusades were "hostile to the advancement of knowledge and liberty" (469). As a consequence, there was literally no improvement in the social conditions of the kingdoms. Smith asserts that the pope was the "only monarch who mixed politics with his piety" (469). The political changes that occurred in England cannot be attributed to the Crusades, in Smith's opinion, and the "great political circumstance' (470) of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries had very little to do with the Crusades. Smith goes on to claim that on in Italy is there any "indisputable influence" (471) of the Crusades. Trade increased dramatically. Charanis agrees with the notion that the Crusades left behind more damage than they did anything good. He does admit the "crusading, as a historical phenomenon, was a significant movement" (Charanis 1952, 131). Along with these critics, John Mansbridge concurs that the Crusades did not end positively. While the goal was to save Christianity from Muslim influence, after the Crusades ended this was not the case.

In addition, the Crusades did not establish a way of life in Europe "that had not already begun or that would not have been brought about without these protracted and wasteful wars' (Mansbridge 1973, 109). Mansbridge adds that one social change was probably "hastened" (110) by the Crusades and this was the weakening feudal power of kings. What many come to realize by examining the crusades is that the initial attempt to protect Christianity failed miserably and did so at the cost of many. Noble maintains that the "Christian ideals of poverty, charity, and service... were incompatible with war" (Noble 1994, 417). In Noble's estimation, when looking at the movement as a whole, we see more "losses than gains" (417) and, as a result of the Crusades, relations between Christian Europe and the Muslim world were "embittered' (417). Noble contends that while the Crusades did not create anti-Semitism, they "worsened it" (Noble 418). Interestingly, Craig points out that the "long-term achievement" (Craig 2000, 344) of the first three Crusades had "little to do with their purpose" (344). He contends that religiously and politically, the Crusades were a "failure" (344) and the Holy Land remained as "firmly Muslim as ever" (344). In short, politically and militarily, the Crusades were a failure in the east. The fall of Constantinople is undoubtedly the largest failure associated with the Crusades.

In the west, however, things were different.