Skip to main content

The Crusades

The crusades were a series of military campaigns the Catholic church carried out between the 11th and 15th centuries against Muslims, pagans, and church opponents (Lock, 2006). Over the past few decades, historians have investigated the occurrence and motivations for the crusades. Some of the motivations for the crusades identified include the need to: capture Jerusalem, free and defend Christian territories, and protect Christians living in non-Christian territories. However, questions still arise on whether these were the motives of the religious and political leaders who called for the crusades or whether they also had particular hidden agendas (Lock, 2006). This article examines the evidence of the first crusade to determine whether it was meant to save Christianity or exploit them for personal gains. 

  

 the crusaders on a battleground 

 

The First Crusade (1096-1099)

 

 Pope Urban II

  Pope Urban II was the first religious and political leader to call for a crusade in Clermont, France. He cunningly crafted his rallying message for the crusade. He said that those who participated in the liberation of God’s Church from the hands of Muslims would be forgiven for their sins. He did this upon the request of Emperor Alexios I of Byzantine, who feared the advancing Seljuk Turks, who had taken over some of his southern territories and were approaching Constantinople. Pope Urban II quickly responded to this request for specific political reasons. He knew that the Byzantine empire was mainly dominated by the eastern church (the Orthodox Church). He saw Emperor Alexios I request as an opportunity he could not forgo to reach out to the Eastern church, which had differed significantly from the Western Church (Catholic Church) in the past. He believed that by helping the Byzantine empire and the Eastern Church, he would be able to unite both the Western and Eastern Churches under his leadership. 



Emperor Alexios I was also dishonest in his request for help against the advancing Seljuk Turks. He presented his problem with the Seljuk Turks so that the problem appeared grave, which was not the case (Mayer, The Mediterranean Region in 1095, 1988). In reality, he wanted help from the other western kingdoms to help him recover the territories he had lost in battles with the Seljuk Turks (Mayer, The Mediterranean Region in 1095, 1988). This is why he quickly demanded that all the territories recovered from the Seljuk Turks be given to him before he could agree to support the crusaders.

Moreover, most senior nobles indulging in the crusades were also dishonest in their motives. Most indulged in this course for honor, financial gains, and adventure. Examples of such men included Count Stephen of Blois, Prince Bohemond I of Taranto, and the crusaders who stayed in Jerusalem. 

Count Stephen of Blois would write letters to his wife, Adela of Blois, informing her of how he gained much wealth through gold, silver, and honors from his expedition (Phillips, 2015). These indicated his prime motive for indulging in the crusade. He was also quick to turn his men away from the purpose of the crusade, which was to advance forward and capture Jerusalem, upon learning that the Muslims were being reinforced by a large relief army (Phillips, 2015). 

 

 Prince Bohemond of Taranto. He felt betrayed by Alexios I during the crusade.

  Another case of self-interest was witnessed in Prince Bohemond I of Taranto. He refused to relinquish Antioch to Emperor Alexios I (Mayer, The Crusader States, 1099-1146, 1988). He claimed victory and the city. He argued that the failure of Emperor Alexios I to support the crusaders in the battle of Antioch had nullified the crusaders’ agreement with the emperor. Therefore, every battle won, together with the booty, belonged to the crusaders.

 

Finally, after the capture of Jerusalem, many crusaders returned home. A few remained in Jerusalem. Those remaining Crusaders had a plausible excuse that they were protecting the city. Apart from that, they made themselves the lords of Jerusalem and acquired holdings within the city (Riley-Smith, 2005). 

Conclusion

The crusades mainly exploited the peasants involved in or affected by it. Pope Urban II called for the crusades to enable him to increase his control over the Church; Emperor Alexios I used the crusades to recover lost Greek territories; Count Stephen of Blois and Prince Bohemond I of Taranto used the crusades to amass wealth, honor, and lands; and the crusaders used their victories to grab the wealth of people in the territories they conquered. In short, the religious and political classes exploited peasants by using them as armies for crusades to advance their interests. In contrast, some peasant crusaders exploited the natives of their conquered lands to amass wealth and acquire titles.


  


References

Lock, P. (2006). Routledge Companion to the Crusades. Abingdon-on-Thames: Routledge.

Mayer, H. E. (1988). The Crusader States, 1099–1146. In H. E. Mayer, The Crusades (pp. 60–61). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Mayer, H. E. (1988). The Mediterranean Region in 1095. In H. E. Mayer, The Crusades (pp. 6–7). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Phillips, J. (2015, May 5). The Crusades: A Complete History. Retrieved from History Today: http://www.historytoday.com/jonathan-phillips/crusades-complete-history

Riley-Smith, J. (2005). The Founding of the Settlements. In J. Riley-Smith, The Crusades: A Short History (Second Ed.) (Pp. 50–51). New Haven: Yale University Press.


   


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is There Hope for Kenya? A Bleak Outlook on Tribalism and Failed Leadership

 Kenya, a nation endowed with immense potential, continues to struggle under the weight of tribalism, corruption, and failed leadership. The hope for a better future dims with each passing administration, as those entrusted with power prioritize self-enrichment over national progress. To understand why Kenya’s situation appears hopeless, we must revisit the mistakes of the past—beginning with the election of Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto in 2013. A Nation That Rewards Impunity In 2013, Kenyans made a grave mistake: electing two individuals facing charges at the International Criminal Court (ICC) for their alleged roles in the 2007-2008 post-election violence, which claimed over 1,000 lives. Despite Kenyan law barring individuals with criminal charges from vying for office, Uhuru and Ruto were allowed to run—a clear disregard for the rule of law. Worse, they won, signaling that a majority of Kenyans were willing to overlook serious allegations if it meant their "tribal champions...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Long Shadow of Colonial Violence: Police Brutality in Kenya from Harry Thuku to Albert Ojwang'

The baton strikes cracking protestors' skulls in Nairobi's streets today carry echoes from a darker past—the rhythmic thuds of colonial askaris beating African laborers in 1920s Thika, the gunfire that cut down Mau Mau fighters in Aberdare forests, the sickening crunch of steel against bone when a police Land Rover crushed George Morara's car in 1969. Kenya's police brutality is not an aberration but a tradition, meticulously preserved across generations of political change. What began as a colonial instrument of subjugation has evolved into the ruling elite's most reliable weapon for subjugation, its violence never dissipating.   The origins of this systemic brutality trace back to the very formation of the colonial police force—an institution designed not to serve but to dominate. Before European occupation, African communities maintained order through social systems of elders' councils, age-set accountability, and communal justice. The British replaced these ...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Flawed Logic of China Fearmongering: A Rebuttal to Phillip Inman

 Phillip Inman's recent article, "World must be more wary than ever of China’s growing economic power,"  recycles tired Western anxieties about China's rise while ignoring the hypocrisy and self-interest driving these concerns. His arguments—framed as warnings—reveal not China's threats, but the West's inability to compete fairly in a changing global order.   Inman begins by praising Donald Trump's economic blockade against China, framing tariffs as legitimate tools of economic policy. This stance is baffling for anyone who believes in free markets. Tariffs artificially inflate prices, denying consumers access to the best goods at competitive rates. When governments impose such barriers, they don't protect their citizens—they impoverish them. The real victims are ordinary people forced to pay more for products that could have been affordable. Yet Inman celebrates these measures as if economic warfare benefits anyone but protectionist politicians.   His...
Post a Comment
Read more