"Crusading" Without the Title

Lately on the news I've seen reports of bible verse references being incribed on the sides of the gun sights being used by U.S. Marines in Iraq. In the reports Marine Corps spokespersons continued to deny any pervious knowledge to the references, but what I witnessed when watching several reports was that certain Marines found comfort in the inscriptions and were glad they were there. In the report on ABC News' website a Major in the Marine Corps even backs up the placement of the inscriptions, using the fact that 'In God We Trust' is on the back of our currency. http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/secret-bible-verses-guns-marines-concerned/story?id=9602030

Besides the fact that references from a religious text are being placed onto items that are being used to kill thousands of people, and the interesting questions that raises, it seems that religion is being used in similar ways as it was during the Crusades. The only difference seems to come with the change in thought of current times versus the time of the Crusades, and the political correctness and the strive for levels of racial and religious tolerance in today's society. The Marine Corps can't back up the weapons manufacturer itself, but many people involved openly express their support, even ranking officers. It's interesting that even after a thousand years we still seem to love the same, old arguments, even over the ones that are actually at hand.

A Culinary Revolution

As a cook and lover of food I began to wonder what foods were available for crusaders to eat. As it turns out prior to the crusades much of the food eaten in Europe was bland and was not varied. When the Crusaders met with the eastern world they were exposed to a new variety of food and spices. In Jerusalem many different foods were available from fresh fruits and nuts to chilled wine and juices. With the introduction of these new and expensive foods many franks began to eat extravagantly spiced meals to show off their wealth. The meager tables of Europe benefited greatly from their exposure to the extravagant tables of the Levant.

And what is food without drink. As it turns out the depictions of drunken feasts in Europe were more then just celebrations. There was very little clean water in Europe and drinking contaminated water was a health hazard. By drinking beer or other forms of alcohol one can eliminate the risk posed by unclean water as the alcohol kills any bacteria in the water. The drunken revelry was often a heath necessity not a celebratory measure.

The Varangian Guard

As I read the section in Madden about the Fourth Crusade, I saw that a group known as the Varangian Guard were mentioned several times. I thought it was an elite Byzantine unit but it turns out that they were actually Anglo-Saxon mercenaries. Apparently, following the Norman conquest of England, there was a substantial emigration of Saxons and some former Housecarls found employment in the Emperor's bodyguard, the Varangian Guard. The descendants of these English immigrants comprised the Guard encountered by the Crusaders in 1204.
As a unit, the Varangian Guard dated back to the mid-tenth century, when Constantine Porphyrogenitus recruited Christianized Russians (Scandinavian migrants, mostly) to act as marines. Their ferocity eventually earned them a position as imperial guards. At the battle of Manzikert, the Guard was virtually wiped out, defending the Emperor to the last man. This probably allowed for the Saxons to acquire positions within the rebuilt unit.
Unlike the provincial Byzantine forces, the Varangians apparently put up a good fight during the Crusader assaults on Constantinople, using their two-handed battle-axes to devastating effect. Here's an interesting link about the Saxons' role in the Guard: http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/articles/pappas1.htm

Greek Fire

While reading Geoffrey of Villehardouin's account about the 4th Crusade and the siege of Constantinople, I saw that there was a brief reference to "Greek Fire," an innovation used by the Byzantines. I decided to look up a bit of the history behind the development of the weapon. The exact date of its invention by the Byzantines is up for some debate, but it was definitely instrumental in their defense against the incoming Arab nations beginning in 672 C.E. So by the time of the 4th Crusade it was no longer a new weapon, having been used for many centuries previously. In fact, it appears that the use of "Greek fire" might have been discontinued by the Byzantines by the time of the 4th Crusade. Perhaps if the Byzantines had had the means to employ it, the siege of Constantinople would have turned out differently...

The actual contents of this "Greek fire" are not known for sure; the Byzantines kept the formula secret, and it appears that they were successful in that regard. Contemporary experts suspect that the ingredients combined to create "Greek fire" included petroleum and resins. The Byzantines not only created the mixture, but developed a pretty effective apparatus that would shoot the liquid fire onto other ships, through the use of pressure and a pump. I guess you could think of the entire weapon being, in a sense, like a flamethrower...

One of the defining characteristics about the "Greek fire" which made it so legendary (and devastating) was that it couldn't be put out with water, so it was a pretty effective weapon. The Byzantines used it for centuries to defend and expand their empire. Unfortunately for the residents of Constantinople, they either couldn't use it during the siege of 1203 by the 4th Crusaders, or it was ineffective in defending the city, for the city eventually fell to the crusaders.

Thoughts on Runciman

In preparation for the recent in-class debate, I was reading Steven Runciman's famous "The Summing-Up," from his "A History of the Crusades, vol. 3." Granted, I have not read his entire book; however, I was quite surprised by the quality (or lack thereof) of his chapter.
Throughout these ten pages of text, Runciman makes unsupported claims, doubles back on his arguments, and, reveals an extreme bias that feels more like blind accusation than scholarly hypothesis.

One example of this is Runciman's flat statement on the link between the Crusades and the beginning of the Renaissance. He argues that the Crusades had virtually nothing to do with Europe's emergence from the "Dark Ages," and consequent transformation to the period we now entitle "rebirth." However, one of the tenants of the Renaissance period was a push back towards classical learning, facilitated by access to ancient texts taken from the Byzantine Empire and the Middle East (a result of the Crusades). In addition, as Runciman himself points out later in his paragraph, the Crusades did facilitate and open trade between Europe and the Levant, another element in the development of the Renaissance.

Another example is Runciman's analysis of the Muslim world. He argues that the Crusades, by providing a distraction, drastically weakened Muslim presence in the in the Middle East. It is important to note, however, that the Muslim world was divided by both ethnic and religious sects. Turks, Abbasids, and Fatimids were all Muslim and enemies; they had been fighting wars before the Crusaders entered the picture, and they continued to fight when the Crusaders left. The Ottoman Empire, whose principal religion was Islam, lasted another half dozen centuries until the beginning of the twentieth century. Moreover, even with Crusader presence in the Middle East, Muslim influence still remained both strong and powerful.

One last example to offer: on pp. 398-399, Runciman writes: "The Italian Renaissance is a matter of pride for mankind. But it would have been better could it have been achieved without the ruin of eastern Christendom." However, his very next sentence is: "Byzantine culture survived the shock of the Fourth Crusade. In the fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries Byzantine art and thought flowered in splendid profusion." How is it possible that eastern Christianity both was ruined and flourished at the same time?

Overall, I was very disappointed with Runciman, although it made my debate preparation a bit easier.
~C. Erba

Albigensian Crusade

I was doing some research for an essay topic and came across the Albigensian Crusade (1209–1229). Although many people believed crusades to be a call to arms against Muslims, this was not always the case. Christians often took up the sword against other Christians and non-Muslims as an attempt to get rid of heretics and those who threatened the power of the church. In 1208, Innocent III set out a campaign against the Albigenisian region and called it a crusade (figures, right?). It actually seems to me like the crusades did start out to deliever Jerusalem and their Christian brothers from the 'non-Christians', but the more people started getting comfortable with the idea, the more they started throwing around the word crusade as an excuse to do their will freely. Anyway... I won't get started on that!
So Innocent set out against this region. They believed the beliefs of these people to be 'heretical' to those of Christians. They believed that Jesus was never a man, but a spirit, although they did accept him as the son of God. They thought the Catholic church corrupt and full of sin. Their religion believed that the church and the pope himself were working for the devil.
When Raymond became the Count of Toulouse and refused to take put down the Albigensians, Innocent III had him excommunicated and eventually, when Raymond found out the Pope's army was coming after him, he begged forgiveness and joined the crusade against his own people.
The crusade ended in 1220 when the Peace of Paris Treaty was signed.
Within a century, Albigensianism ceased to exist.
I find this certain crusade extremely interesting!!!

Google Timelines

I was poking around the internet as a young adult is apt to do, and I discovered that the creative geniuses at Google have come up with another cool search engine. With this one you can search a key word (I used crusades, go figure) and then it will search the web for articles or pages that mention the keyword and a date. The timeline is also very adaptable and you can search specific years or look over a specific time period. I always love timelines to help get my dates in order and see what events could have affected each other and which ones are chronologically separated. So enjoy this new feature and I'm sure this will come in handy in other subjects besides the Crusades.

http://www.google.com/search?q=crusades&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&sa=X&tbo=p&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbs=tl:1,tl_num:100,tll:1200,tlh:1209&ei=-zJ-S9CFL4W1tgeU1MzEDw&oi=timeline_histogram_main&ct=timeline-histogram&cd=1&ved=0CLwDEMkBKAE

(Disclaimer: I might be the only one who does not know about this and as my girlfriend has informed me it has been around for a while, but I just found it so it seems exciting to me)

Crusader 155mm Self Propelled Howitzer

I found cool article about Howitzer when I searched for Crusader. So I decided to do some research about this Crusader 155mm Self Propelled Howitzer.
The Crusader self-propelled howitzer was a result of the Crusader program launched by U.S. Army to make a replacement for the Paladin. The Crusader was planned to be fielded in 2009, but the program was terminated by the Department of the Defense due to its low efficiency for its cost. Even though the Crusader achieved firing rate of 10.4 rounds per minute in live firing trials in 2000,(which was a lot of improvement from Paladin's maximum firing rate 8 rounds per minute and sustained rate of fire of 1 round per 3 minutes) it had low mobility and precision. The Crusader can be found in Cannon Park at Fort Sill, Oklahoma.

Source - Paladin
- Crusader

Age of Empires II: The Saladin Campagin

http://pc.ign.com/articles/070/070754p1.html

Does anybody remember that old computer game, Age of Empires II? It's a game that consists of selecting a civilization to play with, building a city, and (basically) destroying all other civilizations. I sure know I spent a lot of time playing it. Until recently, however, I had never tested its historical accuracy.

The link is to an information page about the Saladin campaign of Age of Empires II. As you begin campaign mode, you are thrown back into the times of the third crusade, when the Muslim world is in a state of confusion, run by weak leaders. You take control of Saladin and his armies and slowly unite Muslim armies in order to fight off Christians in your homeland. There are two levels I distinctly remember: the first level, where Saladin marches to Cairo to overthrow a weak vizier and break Cairo's alliance with the Frankish people; and another level, where the pirates of Reynald are ruthlessly attacking Muslim caravans and Saladin and his troops must put an end to this growing problem. Several other historically accurate levels exist, such as the Muslim victory at Hattin. However, we also find some fairly inaccurate material in this campaign, such as Richard the Lionheart's attack on Jerusalem, which never fully carried out.

Overall, this game is worth a try for anybody remotely interested in the Middle Ages and has proven to be one of the most fascinating games of its time. While some inaccuracy exists on the topic of the crusades, the engaging gameplay experience will most likely help you overlook those minor details.

The Battle of the Horns of Hattin

I was curious about the Battle of the Horns of Hattin, so I found an article detailing the engagement at the following site: http://historymedren.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ/Ya&zTi=1&sdn=historymedren&cdn=education&tm=16&f=10&tt=14&bt=1&bts=1&zu=http%3A//www.intranet.ca/~magicworks/knights/hattin.html. Saladin brought 12,000 knights and an army carrying provisions to Tiberius. The Christian army amassed for the battle consisted of 20,000 foot soldiers and 1,000 knights. The Christian army set out for Tiberius early the day before the battle without enough water to sustain their ranks the next day. By nightfall the Christian army was weary and dehydrated. The only water source nearby was a stream well guarded by Muslim warriors; any Cristian who attempted to drink for the stream was captured and beheaded. The Christian army led a charge the morning of July fourth to which Saladin allowed the advance of the enemy army into his ranks, surrounded the Christians, and slaughtered them. Any soldiers that were captured were sold off as slaves. All Hospitalers and Templars were beheaded except for the Templar Grand master Gerard de Ridefort. The barons were held as hostages and eventually ransomed. King Guy of Jerusalem, who had spent the duration of the battle hiding in a tent at the center of his army, was put under Saladin's protection, and the prince of Antioch, Reynald, after insulting the Muslim prophet Muhammad, was executed. King Guy was released from prison the next year.

The Children's Crusade.

I learned about Children’s Crusade through the first assignment. While reading the article about the Crusade, Children’s Crusade caught my eye. After reading the article, I tried to search for information from the books. Children’s Crusade, however, was not mentioned. I have decided to learn more about the Children’s Crusade and found this article: The Children’s Crusade of 1212.

It describes how the crusade began, where the children have traveled, and the dangers they have faced. Wikipedia article, however, disagrees with this article in few aspects. Children’s Crusade actually consisted of wandering poors rather than children and Wikipedia explains it is due to mistranslation.

- Wikipedia article

Popularity vs. Accuracy in Movies

After the class when watching the trailer for the Nicholas Cage movie trailer Season of the Witch, I was interested in two things:

1. Even though it seems that the movie is based on total inaccuracy, as are a lot of historical movies lately, I think everyone can agree that the point of the movie is not to be polite to the history books. It's a movie, thus it's entertainment, and if it's eccentric and entertaining it gets more money. I did wonder that if there were any recent movies that were fair to history, or if it took a trip further back in time to find ones that were. I bet myself that I wouldn't find one on a list that was made after 1990 on a legitimate looking list for historically accurate medieval movies... http://www.drury.edu/multinl/story.cfm?ID=5947&NLID=229. I wasn't surprised by this (minus the fact that there was one movie on the list from 1994), but I was surprised to find that people during class acted as if a movie coming out today was holding to historical myth over accuracy.

2. The reasons behind witchcraft being blamed for the black plague. The cultural beliefs of the time seemed to fit right into a myth blaming women for a mass epidemic. I found this interesting... http://www.elizabethan-era.org.uk/elizabethan-witchcraft-and-witches.htm

Medieval Sourcebook

I was trying to find credible sources online that could help out with the new debate assignment, essays, and everything basically. I came across this source, Medieval Sourcebook, which I think turned out to be pretty cool. That link will take you to a page that has basically, a table of contents. If you click on the link you'd like to get more information, you're taken to that page and all it's goodies. At the way bottom are the sources so you can check those out as well. Pretty awesome?

Abby P.

Crusades Songs and Troubadours

After reading The Song of Roland, I was interested in the kind of music that was popular during the time of the Crusades. As it turns out, the crusades were actually seen as a catalyst for music in Europe, partially because it increased contact with Islamic culture and music which influenced European artists, but mostly because of the rise of the troubadours. Before the crusades, the most common form of music was church-related, either being Gregorian Chant, a Sequentia or other similar forms. About the time of the Crusades, however, individual musicians began to rise. Many journeyed with the crusaders and wrote of their adventures, while more remained behind either in the service or a lord or as travelers. With the rise of chivalry, tales of honor, love and courage became very popular.

This website lists some details on the more famous of the troubadours, and even has some samples of their work.

-Peter C.

A couple recent mentions of "crusades" in the news

The above title naturally omits news stories about the chap "crusading" to save a pub, things of that sort. I'm referring to mentions such as that in Stafford Williamson's American Chronicle. The relevant passage appears below, since it's rather far down the page:

They´ve Gone Too Far - AND They "Broke" the Constitution

Where they went was to Iraq and Afghanistan, but in this case, it isn´t a who, it´s a what. It´s a WHAT?? Okay, that may be sloppy linguistic construction but the problem here is worth mentioning because it is the kind of arrogance that could spark a regional conflict into a global war that lasts a millennium. Pardon me, I mean, another millennium, because this one has already been going on since the Crusades, indeed, it IS the Crusades being resurrected by the same kind of intolerant religious fanatics who started the Crusades in the first place.

No, in case you didn´t pay attention in history class, I am NOT talking about the "Infidels" who captured the ancient biblical lands, I mean the Christians who were outraged by the fact that they had been relieved of control of the "holy lands" despite the generally peaceful and tolerant rule provided by Moslems then and now. That may not ring as a popular sentiment with some people, and I am sorry they have come to that conclusion because of a few hundred fanatics on the "other side" (which is to say, Moslems) who "hijacked" their religion for political purposes. But this is an action that could inflame Muslim sentiment around the world, and it should have been prevented by rules already in place that prohibit religious propaganda on government goods.

My concern here is not with the modern political content, as the article goes on to discuss the recent flap over that arms manufacturer labeling military weapons (not my business, given the general purpose of this blog), but with the casual (and untested) assumptions that a) medieval Muslim society was homogeneous, and b) Muslim rule in general was benevolent. Regarding point A, there was no single "Muslim society" in the 11th-13th centuries, something of which the Latin West was well aware, and of which the Egyptians, Arabs, and Turks were very aware. John France has done some excellent work regarding the constant infighting and warfare that plagued crusades-era Muslim society, just as Latin Christian society was afflicted with constant fighting. Regarding point B, the various sultanates, emirates, and other principalities did have a generally better track record in dealing with minorities than did the Latin West, but that has to be heavily contextualized and qualified, depending on time and place. Not to get into the business of making a numbers game of massacre, but it's worth remembering that Baybars' slaughter of Christians at Antioch and the Mongols' destruction of Baghdad made the capture of Jerusalem in 1099 rather pale in comparison. So, there's plenty of blame and atrocity to go around...

On the other hand, here's a letter to the editor which goes a bit too far in the other direction, particularly with this line:

I accept the fact that there were those Crusaders who sacked cities and treated people unjustly. However, these people were in the minority and were condemned or excommunicated by religious leaders.

Ummmm....no, not really. They weren't in the minority, and they weren't excommunicated. War in general was a nasty business, regardless of who fought it, and the "rules of war," while they did exist in various fashions, were too fragmented and uneven to apply in all circumstances. The negotiations between Richard and Saladin, and Richard's massacre of the prisoners of Acre, are both worth studying as examples of how "international" modes of diplomatic discourse and martial codes functioned in the 12th century.

The Travels of Ibn Jubayr - A Personal Muslim Perspective

After focusing a large part of my research on the changing Christian outlook on warfare before the First Crusade, I ran across an interesting link entitled The Travels of Ibn Jubayr:

http://www.arts.cornell.edu/prh3/259/texts/jubayr.htm

The text is a collection of journal entries by Ibn Jubayr, a Muslim traveling through the Crusader States in the year 1184. The journal entries describe the visual and narrative aspects of his journey as well as his opinions of the places he visits.

What I found most intriguing about this collection is the way Ibn Jubayr manages to express the Muslim ideology of the time through his journal entries. For example, he expresses disgust upon seeing Muslims living comfortably alongside Franks in the Crusader States. He also shows a lot of hate towards Christian settlers of his land, frequently praying that God may destroy their cities.

Overall, this link provides interesting and useful insight on a Muslim perspective of the Crusades.