eBookSecond Edition, Second edition (Second Edition, Second edition)
Available on Compatible NOOK devices, the free NOOK App and in My Digital Library.
Related collections and offers
Overview
The first crusade was set in motion by Pope Urban II in 1095 and culminated in the capture of Jerusalem from the Muslims four years later. In 1291 the fall of Acre marked the loss of the last Christian enclave in the Holy Land.
This Pocket Essential traces the chronology of the Crusades between these two dates and highlights the most important figures on all sides of the conflict. It covers the creation of the kingdom of Jerusalem and the other crusader states and their struggle to survive. It looks at the successes and failures of the Third Crusade and at the legendary figures of Richard the Lionheart and Saladin, explores the truth and the myths behind the orders of military monks like the Hospitallers and examines such strange historical events as the Children's Crusade and the crusader sacking of Byzantium in 1204. It also looks at the struggles of the Teutonic Knights against paganism in the Baltic.
The book provides the essential information about one of the great unifying, and disunifying, forces of medieval Christendom.
Product Details
| ISBN-13: | 9781842436523 |
|---|---|
| Publisher: | Oldcastle Books |
| Publication date: | 01/01/2012 |
| Sold by: | Barnes & Noble |
| Format: | eBook |
| Pages: | 160 |
| File size: | 2 MB |
About the Author
Mike Paine works as a bookseller, writer and musician in North London. He has written on Thomas Bernhard and Blaise Pascal, amongst others, and has played guitar for P.J. Harvey.
Read an Excerpt
The Crusades
By Mike Paine
Oldcastle Books
Copyright © 2005 Mike PaineAll rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-1-84243-653-0
CHAPTER 1
PART ONE: THE ISLAMIC WORLD & THE EAST
THE ISLAMIC WORLD & THE EAST
Centuries of dust covered the fabulous gardens of Haroun al-Rashid, Caliph of Baghdad, Commander of the Faithful. The splendour of the barges that conveyed him down the Tigris at night with his faithful wazir, Jafar; the anonymous walks with hisbsword-bearer, Masrur, among his subjects in the morning market place – these tales were told by storytellers on the streets of medieval Damascus and Cairo, and in the souks of Baghdad itself. Haroun, like his Frankish contemporary Charlemagne, was a figure who slipped out from between the covers of history and passed into myth. In these stories, eventually to make their way into the Alf Layla wa-Layla (frequently translated into English as the Arabian Nights although a more literal translation would be The Thousand Nights and One Night), the political security of al-Rashid's reign appears in the opulent settings of palaces and merchant caravans and endless, lush detail. Whatever the realities of life at the end of the 8th century under Abbasid rule, it was, in retrospect, a golden age. To an audience in the schismatic and politically-divided Middle East of the 11th century it would not have been difficult to accept the wealth of these tales as the fruit of a Muslim world unified under one leader sanctioned by God: the Dar al-Islam.
For the divided state of Islam is at the heart of the early successes of the Crusades. The first three centuries after its irruption among the Arabs and Bedouin of the Arabian peninsula had seen Islam spread rapidly across a major part of the ancient world. Most of Arabia had converted by the death of Mohammed in AD 632. Those old Empires, Byzantine and Sassanian, which had spent so long quarrelling over their shared Near East hinterlands, were in turn driven back by these converts. Jerusalem was to surrender in 638. By 640 the Romans had lost Syria. Egypt had fallen by 646. By 651 the last Sassanian Emperor – Yazdegerd III – and the four-hundred-year-old empire he had ruled had passed into history. So territories fell in turn, as North Africa – the Maghrib – was overrun up to the very gateway to Western Europe. By the middle of the 8th century, even Iberia (modern Spain and Portugal) was occupied by an army comprised of Arabs and the Muslim converts of the Maghrib, the Berbers. There were occasional raiding parties that came over the Pyrenees. The significance of the defeat of one such party by Charles Martel (Charles the Hammer) in 732 grew with the telling until it became known as the epic battle that saved Europe from a final and complete conquest by the Infidel. But apart from these raids, this was the Islamic world, the Dar al-Islam, unrolled across the map as far as it would go.
The conquest of the Maghrib had involved the annexation of Byzantine cities such as Carthage. Beginning with the conquest of Syria, Muslim forces worried away at the eastern half of the Byzantine Empire for the next eighty years, inevitably ending up by laying siege to the capital, Byzantium, in 674 and again in 717. The earlier siege was finally repelled after four years, partly due to the Byzantines' unique weapon, Greek fire (a liquid whose recipe has been lost but can perhaps best be described as medieval napalm). The Byzantine Empire, which had thrived and spread across the coastal areas of the Mediterranean as a consequence of their uncontested command of that sea, now found itself increasingly challenged by both Islamic navies and Islamic pirates. It was, in part, the contest between these two great cultures that was to lead eventually to the First Crusade.
Who were the Byzantines? The name itself is slightly deceptive. Their origin was Roman, and their story is in part the answer to the question of what happened to the Roman Empire. The origin of Byzantium itself was as a Greek colony founded in the 8th century BC. For hundreds of years it remained a provincial centre, only rising to prominence when the first Christian Roman Emperor, Constantine I, on ascending to power in 324 AD, chose to make it his capital instead of Rome. This New Rome soon took on its founder's name, and thus was Constantinople born. As an imperial capital, the fortified city rapidly grew both in size and strength. Time passed, and the Empire divided: tucked away at the edge of Europe, the Roman Empire of the East was to avoid the barbarian hordes that finally overwhelmed Rome.
As the Empire of the West receded into memory, the East gradually found its own path of development. By the medieval period its blend of Eastern cultural sophistication, the particular route its Christianity had taken both in ceremony and belief, and its Roman inheritance had justified a new description by historians as Byzantine. This Empire was to become a beacon shining at the edge of Dark Age Europe, a very real link with the Roman world that would last until Constantinople was finally conquered by the Ottoman Turks in 1453. The Byzantines may have seen themselves as the continuation of Rome, and perhaps as the safeguard and continuation of all that was truly civilised in Rome. They were maintaining Europe's great old civilisation. But this cultural gap (one that only grew with the passing centuries) and their physical position at the edge of the continent only rendered them increasingly foreign, non-European in the eyes of the European kingdoms that were to form out of the barbarian invasions. Ironically, it was only towards the end of their empire, with the rebirth of interest in the classical world in Italy that is known as the Renaissance, that in a sense the lonely light that Byzantium had kept burning over the long centuries finally spread back to the old territories of Rome.
The Empire radiated out from the hub of Constantinople. At its core was always Asia Minor and Thracian Greece, below the Danube. Added to these lands were much of the North African coast, Egypt, Dalmatia (modern Yugoslavia), Southern Italy and Sicily. At its eastern marches were the Sassanids; to the west, the tribes of the Balkans. A constant feature there was the pressure from nomadic peoples moving from Asia into Europe, and driving forward those they found before them. In the east the replacement of the Sassanids by the Arabs only served to increase Byzantine difficulties.
The siege of 717 AD however, represented the high-water mark of Islamic ambition where Constantinople was concerned. The Arabs were repelled and while they continued to make incursions into Byzantine territory time saw increased fragmentation within their ranks. The Umayyad Dynasty had held total control of the Islamic World from 661 to 750. The subsequent rise of the Abbasids still left them the Emirate of Cordoba – most of modern Spain and Portugal – after losing the rest. With the Abbasid ascension the capital passed from Damascus to Baghdad. By the tenth century the Abbasids, too, were in decline with many autonomous Muslim states appearing across the Maghrib and the Near East. The Byzantines made the most of this political disarray. The Abbasids held power to the east; a rival dynasty, the Fatamids, held the Maghrib. From 945 the Byzantines marched out under a variety of rulers and took back many of the cities of the Levant that were under the control of the minor Muslim rulers, and successively confronted the Fatamids and Abbasids.
By the 11th century, to all intents and purposes, a general truce held between the three major forces. As was often to prove the case later on, the enmity was greater between the two Islamic sides than between either of them and the Byzantines. Jerusalem remained under Islamic control and had done ever since its surrender to the Caliph Omar in 638 AD. The Christians there, as was commonly the case elsewhere, enjoyed reasonable treatment under the Muslims. The latter were prepared to allow Christian and Jewish practice to go on as recognition of the status of these two religions as ahl al-kitab, People of the Book. Indeed all three religions were connected. As Christianity had its roots in Judaism, so Muslims accorded Jesus the position of prophet – all could be seen as worshipping the same god in essence. This relationship meant that Christians often and easily converted to Islam – it was not difficult to argue that the latter was a more advanced form of the former. The tolerance shown to these faiths by the Muslims was not without a cost - literally so. A tax, jizyah, was payable by all who were allowed to follow these divergent beliefs. It was this payment, and the obvious advantages of following a religion that was indivisible from the political power in these countries, that were further strong incentives to convert when spiritual arguments proved insufficient. The enormous expansion in the numbers of believers that followed such conversions brought a cultural and social variety that both strengthened and weakened the Islamic World. In the short term an immediate problem were the taxes lost when so many did convert. In the long term the greater diversity in backgrounds between Muslims proved more problematic. Factionalism had been a problem when the religion had been an entirely Arabic affair. How much greater was the scope for division when so many different cultures now described themselves as Islamic. Islam's great strength in its early period of conquest had been its unity – shared beliefs, a shared culture. Now different communities within it had their own interests to promote and protect.
These inner tensions were not unique to Islam: the Byzantine Empire was frequently riven by its own brands of dissent. The most notorious was the enormous controversy that raged over whether or not religious iconography was acceptable. For most of the 8 century strife occurred between those who used icons and those who were fervently against them. Beside these social conflicts were more personal disputes: the family conflicts and treacheries that had so often bedevilled the Caesars were not unknown to their Byzantine descendants. But not everything was about differences. The blend of Greek, Roman, Sassanid and Persian civilisations existing in the East made for a sophisticated culture that was common to both Byzantine and Muslim. Not only did the Byzantines preserve Roman and Greek civilisation. The scholars of Islam also prevented the loss of much Ancient Greek thought and, in addition, had their own contributions to make – in the field of mathematics, for instance. Much divided the two civilisations but much united them too. In comparison the societies of Western Europe at this time were indeed those of barbarians, living in colder climates at the edge of the world.
So the condition of Christians in the Holy Land in the 11th century was by no means intolerable. True, Jerusalem was still held by the Fatamids. In practice however, the toleration shown to many of the differing Christian cults in the east was greater than they would have received from their supposed brethren. Both the Byzantine Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church attempted at times to wipe out divergent practices and beliefs; Muslim rule protected these eastern Christians from such attempts. Yet against the occasional desire of the Orthodox Church to control their practices, a strong and Christian empire at the border of the Islamic world must have also reassured the Christians living under Muslim rule to some extent. While the Muslims tolerated them life was not that bad and, if things took a turn for the worse, they didn't have far to go to seek sanctuary. This balance and understanding between the two civilisations, far from secure though it was, allowed for a peace that benefited more than just the people of both empires. Daily life was safe enough for pilgrims from distant Europe to journey to Jerusalem and the other holy sites in relative safety. Yet something was to upset the balance.
The Seljuk Turks were recent converts to Islam, coming out of Turkestan in central Asia. Turks had featured as Abbasid mercenaries for a while, with a fearsome reputation. Under their leader, Tughril Beg, they had supplanted Abbasid rule. After his death in 1063 his successor, Alp Arslan, embarked on a series of campaigns against the Byzantines. After a number of other victories, the Turks conquered Armenia, an independent, Christian state that had recently gone over to the Byzantines. The stage was set for a decisive confrontation between Christian and Turk.
It came in 1071. The Battle of Manzikert was one of the blackest days for the Byzantine Empire. A large Byzantine army that included many mercenaries – Normans, Vikings, Slavs and indeed Turks (an unwise addition to the forces since they defected at a crucial moment towards the end of the conflict) – was comprehensively crushed. The Emperor, Romanus Diogenes, was captured. While the Turkish command did not seek immediately to press the advantage, the opportunity was later taken up by others - nomadic Turks seeking land on which to settle. These, led by Suleiman ibn Kutulmish, started making inroads into Byzantine territory in Asia Minor from 1073. Jerusalem was taken from the Fatamids in the same year that the Battle of Manzikert took place. Turkish adventurers sprung up everywhere, taking land from either side. Chaos ensued. The steady stream of pilgrims from Europe now dried up – the traveller who dared to make his way over the traditional land routes was frequently prey to a group of marauding bandits.
After Manzikert, much blame remained for allocation and Constantinople saw feuding among its ruling classes until the emergence of Alexius Comnenus, who saw clearly that his most pressing task was to bring the Empire back from the brink. With the Turks to the east, the Bulgars to the west, and the recent loss of southern Italy to the Normans, the Empire was in an perilous position. As he played off minor Turkish chiefs against each other in a struggle to ensure the Empire's survival, Alexius was all too aware of the weaknesses of his position, and of the vulnerability of his empire. Although skilled diplomacy could keep his enemies at each other's throats for the time being, the solution, as he saw it, was strength in the form of arms and armies to ensure Byzantium's long-term survival. But where was an army to be found?
CHAPTER 2PART TWO: THE FIRST AND SECOND CRUSADES
THE BACKGROUND TO THE FIRST CRUSADE
When the request for aid in the struggle against the Infidel reached Rome, it was not dismissed out of hand. The Muslim conquest of Iberia, and their forays across the Pyrenees had proved a thorn in the side of the West. Numerous campaigns had been launched against them – some had even involved the Byzantines working alongside western Europeans. Rome itself was aware of the threat that Islamic forces could present – it had been sacked by them previously. With their command of the Mediterranean, Muslims were able to establish bases in Provence and Southern Italy from which they could strike at will. Tales from pilgrims returning from the Holy Land told of the desperate conditions out there. Islamic aggression appeared a threat at home and abroad.
Already in the western theatre of conflict, the Pope had encouraged the co-operation of French and Italian nobles to come to the aid of beleaguered, Christian Spain. From 1063 expeditions were launched, often to little effect. The Reconquista – as the attempt to reclaim Spain from the Moors was called – was to take the better part of 800 years to achieve its aim, from its start at the Battle of Covadonga in 718 to the fall of Granada, the last Iberian Arab state, in 1492.
In 1095 however, a reclaimed Spain was centuries away. At the great council at Piacenza, Pope Urban II, amongst his other duties, received ambassadors from the Emperor Alexius. What messages they delivered are unknown. Alexius was making some headway in his fight against the Muslims and it is probable that he used a combination of his successes and the cost to the West should he fail as a lever to try and extract help from the Pope. The model was there in Spain, haphazard as it was, for uniting Christian forces against unbelievers. To Urban II, many personal reasons must have sprung to mind. What greater achievement could mark his papacy than a colossal campaign to free the sacred sites of the Holy Land? What effect might western involvement have on the possibilities of rapprochement with that 'dissident' eastern half of the Church? Regardless of the details, the idea for the Crusade - the taking up arms against Christ's opponents, the great unifying cause in a Christendom split by petty disagreements and squabbles - took root in his mind between Piacenza and the first official announcement, in Clermont in France. Clermont was to be a council concerned with other clerical matters. Alongside the launch of the crusades, the Truce of God – a policy seeking to promote peace between Christian leaders in Europe – was strongly advocated. But it was to be remembered as the start of the Crusades.
THE FIRST CRUSADE
On Tuesday, 27 November 1095, before a rapt and huge crowd outside the city of Clermont, Pope Urban II announced the call to arms. His speech, legend has it, was interrupted by shouts of 'Deus lo volt!' (God wills it!). Spontaneously (or so it appeared) both rich and poor present offered to go in an enormous outpouring of emotion. Despite the popular reception of his plan, there was a problem – Urban had not signed up any leading members of the nobility to his cause. He had an experienced and capable cleric, the Bishop of Le Puy, to take charge on behalf of the church, but who were the men who would organise and lead the armies?
(Continues...)
Excerpted from The Crusades by Mike Paine. Copyright © 2005 Mike Paine. Excerpted by permission of Oldcastle Books.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
Table of Contents
Contents
PROLOGUE: THE LAST CRUSADE,PART ONE: THE ISLAMIC WORLD AND THE EAST,
PART TWO: THE FIRST AND SECOND CRUSADES,
PART THREE: THE THIRD AND FOURTH CRUSADES,
PART FOUR: LATER CRUSADES,
PART FIVE: THE FALL OF A ACRE AND AFTERWARDS,
CHRONOLOGY,
RECOMMENDED READING,