Bajirao Mastani: Against All Odds

 

The greatest commandment of all is love. Nothing reminds us better of this saying than Bajirao Mastani, a tragic film that shows how only a few people genuinely love. 

Our dreams make us develop pride and ego. Then pride and ego make us hateful. Thus, to love others, we must sacrifice our dreams. Bajirao Mastani demonstrates this point well.

Plot

Bajirao inherits the title of the Prime Minister of the Maratha Kingdom after his father's death. He brings success to the Kingdom in the next few years by conquering nearly half of India. He embarks on military duty to the South, where he meets Mastani, a beautiful princess of the Kingdom of Bundelkhand. Mastani wants him to help her father fight invaders that have come to conquer Bundelkhand. Bajirao is impressed by Mastani’s fighting prowess when she enters his tent, downing several soldiers. He agrees to help her save her home. After the victory against Bundelkhand invaders, Bajirao stays for a few days in the Kingdom, where he and Mastani fall in love. Before departing to continue his campaign South, Bajirao gifts Mastani his dagger. Unfortunately, he is unaware that when a man gives a lady his dagger in Bundelkhand, she becomes his wife. Thus, he married Mastani. 

Bajirao abandons his campaign South and heads back to Pune (his hometown). A few days later, Mastani (now his wife) follows him there. Bajirao’s mother ensures that Mastani does not meet him, especially after learning that Mastani is a Muslim. Mastani, determined to meet her husband, acts as a dancer and attends the party to celebrate Bajirao's victory and beneficial alliance with Bundelkhand. Bajirao learns of her presence and plans several meetings with her later. He agrees to take Mastani as a second wife after she accepts that she will tolerate all the ridicule she will suffer by marrying him. 

Kashi, Bajirao’s first wife, learns later about Mastani’s existence. Bajirao's second marriage angers her, so she moves to her maternal home to have their baby there. Mastani is also pregnant. She is isolated and ridiculed such that Bajirao attends to her himself when she gives birth. Later, Bajirao brings Mastani home. Nobody is there to welcome them except for Kashi. While she lives in Bajirao’s mansion, Mastani is scorned and called derogatory names like “mistress” and “court dancer.” She is not affected by that. She is only focused on Bajirao’s love for her.

Later, Bajirao's eldest son, Nana Saheb, first attempts to kill Mastani while Bajirao is attending a feast. Bajirao arrives in time to save her. The second time, Nana Saheb and his grandmother arrest Mastani when Bajirao leaves for war. They aim to kill Mastani. When Bajirao learns about this, he is enraged that he goes to battle alone, suffering severe injuries. A few days later, Bajirao and Mastani die together simultaneously in different places. 

Conflicts in Bajirao Mastani 

Love vs. The Pride of a Woman

The movie presents two wives of Barijao, Kashi and Mastani, with similar challenges but different reactions. Kashi symbolizes the pride of a woman, while Mastani symbolizes love. 

Kashi

Kashi is angered that Bajirao has brought home a second wife. She feels her pride is hurt because Bajirao’s eyes and heart caught another woman's. This occurrence exposes Kashi’s side that Bajirao and, probably, the audience did not imagine she had. 

 Before Kashi knows Mastani’s existence, she appears as a loving and supportive wife. However, when Kashi learns about Mastani, she becomes a hateful and jealous woman. First, she leaves Bajirao to have their child at her maternal home. When Kashi returns, Kashi supports all the ridicule and suffering other people make Mastani endure. She enjoys all the vile things Bajirao’s family and court throw at Mastani. She even calls Mastani "mistress." When she learns that Mastani is about to be killed, she delays informing Bajirao. Were it not for Mastani’s superior fighting skills, the assassins would have killed her. Kashi does not oppose Mastani’s arrest. She only asks for Mastani's release upon realizing that Bajirao will die without Mastani. She even tells Bajirao that he hurt her pride when she forbids him from visiting her chambers. 

Here, we see Kashi’s pride, in the pretense of love for Bajirao, make her clear and pure mind turn into a dark and hateful heart. Kashi thinks she loves Bajirao, but the movie reveals that she loves her dreams more. She supports the scorning of Mastani, whom she ought to help uphold her dignity because she wants Mastani out of her life with Bajirao. She joins the company of people who call Mastani a mistress and dancer, hoping they will break Mastani down and make her leave Bajirao. 

 Kashi loves her pride (dreams) more than Bajirao. That is why it is hard for her to understand that Bajirao and Mastani are in love. Her pride makes her not see that the heart chooses who to love, and Bajirao and Mastani are blameless here. Her dream of being the only wife of Bajirao unfolds as pride and ego, preventing her from understanding the love Bajirao and Mastani share. 

Like Kashi, most people today claim their partners betray them. They do not realize their immense pride and ego clout their love and make them hate their partners. True love does not have room for hate.

Mastani

Mastani is a valid symbol of love. The film uses her to show what love is, which is different from people's collective knowledge of love. She accepts to be Bajirao's second wife in a society where people ridicule second wives. Additionally, she is a Muslim, so Bajirao's Hindu society twice discriminates against her. Mastani’s love makes her strong, weathering all these challenges. Mastani, a princess of Bundelkhand, abandons her home and moves to Pune, where she lives a low life among courtesans. People call her mistress, concubine, and dancer. That does not matter to her. While Bajirao’s family disrespects her, there is no time that she responds with anger or insult. She is humble and sober throughout the movie until she dies in prison. Mastani shows that love is humble and strong. It makes her ignore her title as the Princess of Bundelkhand and lives that low life in Pune because she loves her husband. Bajirao’s love is enough for her. She needs nothing more; neither pride and titles nor riches and servants. It is very moving to see how Bajirao, the Prime Minister of the Maratha Kingdom, attends to her when she is left alone in labor. That is the movie's sweetest part and most magnificent expression of love. Had Kashi put her passion for Bajirao above everything else, like Mastani, neither Bajirao nor Mastani would have died. Her pride destroys her love for Bajirao and not Bajirao’s second marriage. 

Mother vs. Son

The arrival of Mastani rocks a steady family as it puts mother and son at loggerheads. Radhabai, Bajrao’s mother, opposes Bajirao’s marriage to Mastani. She tries as much as possible to prevent Mastani from seeing Bajirao when Mastani arrives in Pune. She leads her court in insulting and degrading Mastani. Radhabai is a conservative Hindu eager to preserve her family's status. She believes that welcoming a Muslim as a second daughter-in-law destroys her family's high position among the Hindu priests and people. Thus, she does everything to have Mastani out of her house. 

Bajirao’s love for Mastani is so strong. The actions of his mother, brother, and Kashi against Mastani stress him a lot. It is hard for him to fathom that his family cannot see and accept the pure love that he shares with Mastani. Bajirao reveals how his mother, Kashi, and brother are mainly concerned about the status of the family than their love for him when he chooses to leave his position as Prime Minister. He tells them that if that position matters to them, he will abandon it so that the appropriate person takes it and uphold the family's status. Later, he takes back the role because he admits that his love for the Marathi Kingdom is more significant than his love for Mastani. Here, Bajirao exposes Radhabai, Kashi, and his brother, that their love of status is far greater than their love for him. Their opposition to his marriage to Mastani (a Muslim) is not because Mastani has a bad character but because her marriage to Bajirao lowers the family's status in Hindu society. This occurrence reminds me of Alexander the Great, who lost popularity among his commanders and Greek people due to his tendency to marry foreign women.

Religion vs. Love

Religion or love, which one is mightier? This question lingers even today in a world plagued by terrorism and Jewish aggression in the Middle East. Bajirao Mastani shows how man has struggled with this question for centuries. The notable thing about this question is that love is one of the core teachings of virtually all religions in the world, yet there comes a time when love and faith collide. So, is the love taught by religion true love, or does religion have pride and ego that make it unloving?

In Bajirao Mastani, Mastani gives birth to a boy and gives him a Hindu name, Krishna Rao. Bajirao asks the Brahmin priest to conduct a Hindu naming ceremony for the innocent Krishna Rao, but the priest refuses. He argues that Krishna Rao is an illegitimate child. It is hard to understand why a priest should refuse to perform a ceremony for a child whose "fault" is only being born. Whatever the wrong things Bajirao or Mastani did, their child should be free from condemnation. Here the actions of this priest or religion do not amount to love. The priest and his faith have started isolating and killing the dreams of a young soul even before it knows what is right or wrong.

Additionally, Bajirao's family is devoted to Hinduism, respecting every practice and norm of the religion. One of the critical teachings of Hinduism is love and selflessness. However, their actions towards Mastani, a Muslim, go against the basic principles of their religion. Bajirao's family ridicules Mastani and does not show her an ounce of love. No one can get attracted or converted to that religion with the immense hate they show Mastani, a fellow human being. Thus, the film shows that love is more significant than religion as it shows the maltreatment of Mastani and her child under the Hindu religion. 

Conclusion

Bajirao Mastani is a classic epic movie with deep themes that challenge women, families, and religions to self-examine themselves. It reveals how people's selfishness (immense love for their dreams, pride, and ego) makes them develop hate disguised as love and feel betrayed. It shows that true love is humble and selfless. Watch it and get challenged.

"Xenophobia" in "South Africa", Really?

Mahatma Gandhi once said that the only language the poor people understand is bread and butter. He was right with this observation. Poverty limits people’s thinking and endurance and makes them susceptible to manipulation and misguidance. That is why the African continent remains colonized even today. We are peasants. Imperialists know this fact and use it to make us eat our people. They know that the only language we understand is bread and butter.
A few years ago, colonialists conquered our lands and stirred divisions among us. They separated relatives and friends. They created boundaries in a continent that people traversed with ease. That's why a Luo in Kenya calls himself a Kenyan while a Luo in Uganda calls himself a Ugandan. A Tutsi in Burundi calls himself Burundian, while a Tutsi in Rwanda calls himself Rwandese. There are Zulus and other similar tribes spread across southern Africa, yet they call themselves South Africans, Zambians, Zimbabweans, Malawians and much more. Unfortunately, the poor African man has “proudly” assumed the identity given to him by the white man. It makes him reject and even kill a fellow brother because he is poor.
A few years back, there were tribal clashes in Kenya after the elections. I remember having a conversation with a “Ugandan” friend. I told her that I was not Kenyan. All I know is that I am a Luo. She seemed surprised by that claim. She did understand what I was telling her by the end of our conversation. It was as simple as this, the nations we are “proud” to relate to are creations of the white men during their scramble and partition of Africa. We only owe our affiliations and loyalties to our tribes.
The Luo people spread throughout Ethiopia, Sudan, Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, and Congo. Why did colonialists see it fit to divide this group into different countries? Divide and rule it is. A concept that the African man fails to grasp even today because of poverty.
Look at how the people of Hong Kong are embarrassing China. See how "South Africans" upset Africa—an African calling a fellow brother an alien. Poverty is the cause of all this madness. It has blinded them so they cannot see they are related to the Africans they chase away or kill. It would be understandable If a Kikuyu called a Kisii an alien (even though I do not support it). There are deep and credible foundations for being a Kikuyu or a Kisii. However, a South African driving a Nigerian out of the country is utterly incomprehensible. What is the foundation for the terms South African, Kenyan, Nigerian, Congolese, or Rwandese, besides the Berlin conference, identities that Africans proudly assume, yet they are not free in their so-called nations? Colonialists hold South Africa captive and drive "South Africans" to the edges of poverty, which makes them see true brothers as aliens.

Poverty is a dangerous thing. It has made "South Africans" lose hope of reclaiming their ancestral lands. Now, they have enmity with their brothers, who move to their "country" to fend for themselves. Colonialists left “South Africans” neither land to cultivate nor food to eat. When fellow Africans move next door and succeed in making ends meet in their oppressed "county," “South Africans” see them as the enemy.
Colonialists have even coined the term “alien” for “South Africans” when referring to fellow brothers. The imperial media call these heinous crimes against brothers “xenophobic attacks.”
The term “xenophobia” makes these atrocities appear light and almost insignificant. It drives further division among Africans by suggesting that a “South African” differs from a “Nigerian.” “Xenophobia” lightens this crime to a nearly normal and acceptable event. It makes these crimes appear like “South Africans” are fighting foreign invaders.
I wish “South Africans” could see and understand how brothers stood solidly with them during the apartheid. They would not dare lift a finger against a brother. But who can blame them for their myopia? Centuries of colonialism, apartheid, and imperialism can turn any sharp eye blind using poverty. Let's pray that they see.

Trump vs. Kim: Imperialism vs. Sovereignty

 
 
I have keenly observed Donald Trump and his confrontation with North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-un. Unlike most observers, blinded by the controversy over nuclear weapons, a post-colonial African can read the struggle between imperialism and sovereignty that has dogged this controversy.
Ultimately, the imperialist (Trump) wins the battle as Kim promises to abandon his country's nuclear program, creating the latest example of how imperialism always subdues the struggle for sovereignty. That aside, the questions raised by Trump's victory are: is the rest of the non-nuclear world safe by the US and its nuclear company of friends having loads of atomic weapons? Are Western efforts to prevent the rest of the world from acquiring atomic weapons measures of safety or standards of maintaining imperialism?
Why should the non-nuclear countries believe that owning nuclear weapons is dangerous when the US and the West have stockpiles of atomic weapons with rumors of plans to increase and update them? The Trump-Kim controversy is a perfect example of imperialism at its best. It reminds me of Colonial Africa, when the Europeans enslaved Africans and used Christianity to quell African resistance by telling them that resistance and revenge were reserved for God. No wonder some people view Christianity with contempt as a colonial religion. The European imperial behavior is the same as the current nuclear controversy. The West expects the rest of the world to believe nuclear weapons are dangerous. Yet, they advance their nuclear military capabilities, which helps them maintain control and dominion over the world. Imperialism at its best!
 
 

 

Since time immemorial, imperialism has always been driven and maintained by militarism. This militarism is the reason for the impossibility of a third-world country gaining a seat at the UN Security Council, a body composed of militarist nuclear countries with veto powers on critical international decisions, such as war and peace. This militarism has continuously contributed to Western interference in developing countries. It is this Western militarism that the rest of the world should rise and oppose vehemently.
If nuclear weapons are dangerous, then they are harmful to all and sundry. If the US views the North Korean nuclear program as a threat to it, likewise, North Korea and the rest of the world should treat the US' atomic stockpile as a threat to the whole world.
A similar struggle between imperialism and freedom exists between Iran and Israel in the Middle East. It is shameful that the US and the European Union forced Iran to abandon its nuclear program while ignoring Israel's atomic stockpile. The fact is that the middle east can never be safe with every Arab knowing that the Jews have nuclear inventories that can wipe them out at any time. The US and European Union's failure to cut and eliminate Israel's nuclear capabilities only proves that they intend to establish Israel (their ally) as an imperial power in the middle east.
Suppose the US is honest about its desire to improve and maintain world peace. In that case, it should focus on reducing and eliminating its nuclear stockpile and encourage other atomic countries to do the same. Upon taking this action, the US can have a moral ground to convince potential nuclear nations that nuclear weapons are dangerous. Without the adoption of this recommendation, all the struggles that the US has with North Korea, Iran, and other potential atomic countries serve merely as evidence of United States imperialism in the post-colonial world.
 
 Protest towards UN headquarters to push for nuclear disarmament
 The nuclear world should appeal to South Africa's morality. She merely gave up nuclear weapons. In the 72nd United Nations General Assembly, President Zuma reaffirmed this commitment to a nuclear-free South Africa by stating that no hands are safe with weapons of mass destruction, not the US, nuclear Europe, India, China, or Pakistan.
The West cannot keep fooling the rest of the world that nuclear weapons are safe with them but dangerous to others. We came from a history of the Third Reich, slavery, imperialism, and colonialism. Unfortunately, the existence of nuclear weapons maintains the elements of this dark past. It is time for the US and other nuclear countries to walk the talk by reducing and eliminating nuclear weapons.
I eagerly await the day the US and Britain destroy their nuclear stockpiles. I long for the day Russia destroys its world's largest atomic weapon arsenal. I long for the day when world leadership genuinely focuses on world peace. I long for the day when imperialism comes to an end. I long for Western nations to realize that authentic and successful leadership stems from exercising self-accountability before looking at others.
The day has dawned for nuclear countries to blow their "Trumpets" in a musical way towards the values of unity‚ peace‚ togetherness, and dialogue, as stated by President Mugabe in the 72nd UN General Assembly.

Colonialism and Corruption

Corruption is the opposite of integrity. It is the practice of engaging in fraudulent or dishonest behavior when holding a position of authority. It is an abuse of power or authority for personal gains. This abuse is why corruption is a crime in many jurisdictions. The most common examples of corrupt activities are the embezzlement of funds and bribery. However, corruption goes beyond these two common occurrences. The act or failure to act for personal gain is also considered corrupt. For example, a president may choose to ignore the corrupt activities of the ministers in his administration due to the fear of losing their support. In such a case, the president is also considered a corrupt leader.

 

 an officer receiving a bribe

 

After the European colonizers left Africa, corruption became one of the continent’s biggest problems. Corruption is present in every sector of the many African economies. For example, in Kenya, the transport sector is marred by corruption. Police officers mainly patrol Kenyan roads to take bribes for motorist traffic offenses. In the education sector, parents pay large sums of money to high school principals for their children to get admission. In the healthcare sector, doctors and nurses prioritize patients whose relatives can bribe them with large sums of money. Companies that give large sums of money to government officers in the trade sector receive trade licenses and contracts. There is more to this list than you can imagine.

 The main question is, why does corruption plague African countries? One explanation is that humans are naturally selfish, a concept argued by Ayn Rand, a Russian-American philosopher, novelist, and playwright, in most of her work. Borrowing from Rand’s argument of natural selfishness, one may assume that Africans are very selfish, which is why their countries have the highest incidences of corruption than any other continent of the world. Chinua Achebe almost supports this argument in his novel, “Arrow of God,” where he writes about a certain man made chief of a particular community by the British colonizers. Days after the man lands the chieftainship, he starts taking bribes from members of his community in the form of cattle. This new chief is using the power he had just received a few days ago to exploit his fellow “poor” community members because they fear the punitive expeditions of the British military. Later, to stress the greed of Africans, Achebe writes about how the British officer in charge of the area is surprised by the intense greed exhibited by the newly appointed African chief. This British officer claims he has never seen such greediness anywhere except in Africa.

 However, it is unfair to claim that Africans are greedier than the people of other continents. A deep analysis of Achebe’s “Arrow of God,” other works, and the African colonial history makes it fair to claim that colonialism played a more significant part in creating and encouraging corruption in Africa. This is due to the reasons discussed below.

 

 European missionaries being served by Africans.

 

When the colonizers arrived in Africa, they forcefully drove populations out of their lands and enslaved them. They created unfair labor practices and segregated themselves from the African communities, which they marginalized. They exploited African labor and controlled African economies, mainly built by free African labor. All these acts show the immense greediness and selfishness of the colonizers. In short, colonization in itself was corruption. 

 

 The colonizers exploited their powers to drive “poor” Africans out of their lands and enslave them. These actions led the Africans to believe they could do anything with power and authority, such as displacing and enslaving people. Additionally, the few colonizers, who enjoyed the economic benefits of free African labor, created a feeling within the Africans that personal economic success was all that mattered regardless of how a person achieved it. This is commonly quoted as “the end justifies the means.”

 After African countries gained independence, the new African leaders continued the corrupt practices they had learned from the colonizers. In Kenya, the leaders of the new republic allocated themselves the lands that the colonizers held after grabbing them from the Africans. They also continued displacing populations as they took their lands. This is one of the significant reasons why land clashes are common in Kenya today. Moreover, the new African leaders started practicing nepotism by appointing friends in government positions who helped them loot public coffers. This was a repetition of the colonizers’ actions, who only appointed Europeans in government positions to increase their control of the African populations. The new African leaders continued to stifle disgruntled African voices that opposed the poor management of their countries in the same way the colonizers had done before them. Political opponents were murdered and assassinated. Moreover, in the same way, the colonizers were reluctant to grant Africans freedom; today, African leaders are reluctant to hand over power even after suffering defeats in free and fair elections.

 Chinua Achebe and Ngugi wa Thiong’o vividly elaborate on the effects of colonization on corruption in the African continent in their books, “Arrow of God” and “The River Between.” In the “Arrow of God,” Achebe narrates about an African priest who sends his son to a missionary school to learn the ways of the white man because the future lies in learning “the ways of the white man.” In this case, the ways of the white man are the ability to displace populations, grab land and control people to work for you freely. Similarly, in “The River Between,” Ngugi narrates about an African father who sends his son to a missionary school to learn “the ways of the white man,” which is the future of the African people. 

 

 Africans are learning the ways of the white man.

 

Another good illustration of the colonial effects on corruption is in the novel “No Longer at Ease” by Chinua Achebe. In this novel, Achebe writes about a community that sends one of their sons to study in London. The community hopes that when the man returns, he will get a top government position and bring a larger share of the national cake to the community. The thought of the community wanting a larger share of the national cake illustrates colonization’s effects on the African minds about governance. In the same way, the colonizers were reaping the economic benefits of free labor and colonization. The African people wanted to reap the benefits of “free money” by having their people in the top government positions to allocate them national resources fraudulently.

In short, colonization took a toll on the concept of leadership in Africa, resulting in widespread corruption. The displacement of populations, the enslavement of people, and the segregation of people created an image in the African mind that success through selfishness is right regardless of how one achieves it. Colonization contributed immensely to the spread of corruption in Africa.

Capitalism and Xenophobia

Xenophobic tendencies have increased across the globe. The US has been the latest country to show xenophobia by electing a president who openly dislikes immigrants. He immediately embarked on constructing a wall that separated the US from Mexico. Britain led the way last year by pushing for her exit from the European Union, which allowed the establishment of a borderless Europe. These occurrences have led dormant parties that oppose immigration to re-surge across Europe. These parties believe that immigration is the cause of their problems in Europe, and it must stop as soon as possible. This belief is a fallacy and should be condemned at all costs.
 
 protesters showing xenophobia
 
Great countries, like the US, Canada, and Australia, can attest that immigration is the primary cause that has propelled their growth and development into what they are today. These countries were built through the sweat of immigrants, and they should understand the importance of immigration. They should lead the way in encouraging immigration and discouraging xenophobia.

 Britain has demonstrated double standards through Brexit. When President Mugabe of Zimbabwe unsettled white settlers and forced some of them to leave Zimbabwe, Britain vehemently opposed this move. Today, Britain tolerates xenophobia, yet she has forgotten that British and other white settlers are found worldwide. They are welcomed and given the respect they deserve as fellow humans.

 Moreover, it is unfortunate that a wave of xenophobia is sweeping across Europe. Yet, it has been the most significant source of emigrants to other continents and countries in the past centuries.
Immigration is the scapegoat for the poor performance of the economies in Europe and North America. However, the economic downturn should be blamed on the extreme capitalist tendencies practiced by these countries. It is a time that the US and Europe question their capitalist policies and practices.

 The number of family-owned businesses in the US has decreased significantly. These businesses were the primary source of permanent employment for many US citizens. Today, corporates have taken over family-owned businesses. They are more focused on profit maximization. This is why they shift their production abroad to get cheap labor, which causes unemployment in Europe and US. Immigration has nothing to do with this occurrence.

 Additionally, developing countries have significantly improved their infrastructural facilities over the past few years. India and China have infrastructural facilities that rival those of the developed world. They are attracting multinationals into their countries. The movement of MNCs (multinational corporations) into these countries is causing unemployment in Europe and North America.
 
 Kenyan roads. Developing countries are improving their infrastructure.
 
Finally, developing countries have more favorable policies that attract investment than developed countries. Developing countries are often ready to compromise the environment and labor standards for economic growth. MNCs prefer developing countries to the developed world because developing countries have little regulation. Their movement into developing countries causes unemployment in the developed world.

Immigration has nothing to do with poor economic performance. The pursuit of profit by MNCs is the primary reason for unemployment and slow economic growth in the developed world. Politicians should develop policies that help the developed world keep their MNCs and jobs to spur economic growth and development. It is unfair to promote xenophobia based on unjust reasons. Instead, the US and Europe need to restructure their extreme capitalist tendencies.

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.