Fueron las Cruzadas fruto de un simple interés material

8/4/2019 Fueron las Cruzadas fruto de un simple interés material

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/fueron-las-cruzadas-fruto-de-un-simple-interes-material 1/24

Las Cruzadas

1

Las Cruzadas

¿Fueron las Cruzadas fruto de un simple interés material?

http://www.conoze.com/marco.php?doc=1304

Durante décadas distintos historiadores, especialmente de orientación marxista, han insistido en presentarlas Cruzadas como un fruto de factores materiales exclusivamente.

Sólo la codicia y el deseo de obtener tierras habrían movido a los cruzados a abandonar Europa occidentalpara dirigirse a Tierra Santa pero, a pesar de lo arraigado de esta idea, ¿fueron las Cruzadas fruto de unsimple interés material? La historiografía marxista y aquella que sin serlo está muy influida en susplanteamientos por ésta ha insistido durante décadas en el carácter meramente material de las Cruzadas.De acuerdo, por ejemplo, a la Historia de las Cruzadas, de Mijaíl Zaborov, los cruzados sólo se desplazaron aOriente Próximo movidos por el deseo de obtener beneficios económicos que, fundamentalmente, setradujeran en la posesión de tierras y en el aumento de bienestar material. En otras palabras, la cruzada nopasaba de ser una emigración violenta movida por causas meramente crematísticas. El elemento espiritualsimplemente proporcionaba la cobertura, bastante ridícula por otra parte, para semejante aventura desaqueo y pillaje.

El punto de vista de Zaborov tan repetido posteriormente resultaba especialmente sugestivo en la medidaen que permitía desacreditar una empresa de carácter confesamente espiritual y, a la vez, dar un ejemplode cómo ese tipo de fenómenos podía explicarse recurriendo únicamente a argumentos economicistas. Sinembargo, como tantas explicaciones de este tipo, a pesar de lo socorrido e instrumental de su formulación,no resiste un análisis mínimamente sólido de la documentación con que contamos. En primer lugar, lo quese desprende de las fuentes de la época es que marchar a la cruzada no implicaba un aliciente económicosino más bien un enorme sacrificio monetario que sólo se podía emprender convencido de que larecompensa sería más sólida que un pedazo de terreno o una bolsa de monedas. Al respecto losdocumentos no pueden ser más claros. Un caballero alemán que era convocado a servir al emperador enaquellos años en lugar tan cercano como Alemania gastaba tan sólo en el viaje y atuendo el equivalente ados años de sus ingresos. Para un francés viajar a Tierra Santa implicaba unos gastos que llegaban aquintuplicar sus rentas anuales. Por lo tanto, como primera medida, necesitaban endeudarse fuertementepara acudir a la cruzada. En no pocos casos incluso perdieron todo lo que tenían para sumarse a laempresa.

No deja de ser curioso que Enrique IV de Alemania en una carta se refiriera a Godofredo de Bouillon yBalduino de Bolonia, ambos caudillos de la primera cruzada, como personas que "atrapadas por laesperanza de una herencia eterna y por el amor, se prepararon para ir a luchar por Dios a Jerusalén yvendieron y dejaron todas sus posesiones". Su caso, desde luego, no fue excepcional. De hecho, el Papa ylos obispos reunidos en el concilio de Clermont redactaron una legislación que imponía la pena deexcomunión a aquellos que se aprovecharan de estas circunstancias para despojar a los caballeros cruzadosde sus propiedades valiéndose de intereses usurarios o de hipotecas elevadas. El listado de caballeros quese endeudaron extraordinariamente para ir, por ejemplo, a la primera cruzada es enorme y demuestra queésa era la tendencia general.

Tampoco faltaron los apoyos eclesiales en términos económicos. Por ejemplo, el obispo de Lieja obtuvofondos para ayudar al arruinado Godofredo de Bouillon despojando los relicarios de su catedral y arrancandolas joyas de las iglesias de su diócesis. Quizá se podría interpretar todo esto como una inversión arriesgada¡y tanto! que se compensaría con las tierras que los cruzados conquistaran en Oriente. Sin embargo, eseanálisis tampoco resiste la confrontación con los documentos. Es cierto que durante la primera cruzada unnúmero notablemente exiguo de caballeros optó por permanecer en las tierras arrebatadas a losmusulmanes. No obstante, salvo estas excepciones, la aplastante mayoría de los cruzados regresaron aEuropa. Tras producirse, en el curso de la primera cruzada, la toma de Jerusalén y la victoria sobre unejército egipcio (el 12 de agosto de 1099) la práctica totalidad retornó a sus hogares sin bienes y condeudas pero, al parecer, con un profundo sentimiento de orgullo por la hazaña que habían llevado a cabo.De hecho, para defender los Santos Lugares resultó necesario articular la existencia de órdenes militarescomo los caballeros hospitalarios, primero, y los templarios después. No fue mejor la situación económica enlas siguientes cruzadas.

Nuevamente el factor espiritual resultó decisivo y, precisamente, para costear los enormes gastos de unaempresa que recaía sobre los peregrinos así se consideraban sus participantes ya que el término cruzadoses posterior los monarcas recurrieron a impuestos especiales o a préstamos concedidos a la corona. Veztras vez, la posibilidad de quedarse en Tierra Santa si es que alguien la contemplaba se reveló imposiblepero eso no desanimó a los siguientes participantes a lo largo de nada menos que dos siglos. Ciertamente,no podemos tener una imagen excesivamente idealizada de las Cruzadas y tampoco podemos negar que su



Las Cruzadas

2

modelo de espiritualidad en muchas ocasiones causa más escalofrío a nuestra sensibilidad contemporáneaque entusiasmo. A pesar de todo, existe un dato que no puede negarse siquiera porque aparececorroborado en millares de documentos.

Prescindiendo de la mayor o menor categoría humana y espiritual de los participantes, su impulso erafundamentalmente espiritual. Movidos por el deseo de garantizar el libre acceso de los peregrinos a losSantos Lugares y de ganar el cielo, abandonaron todo lo que tenían y se lanzaron a una aventura en la que

no pocos no sólo se arruinaron sino que incluso encontraron la muerte, un ejemplo, dicho sea de paso, queno disuadió a otros de seguirlo a lo largo de dos siglos. No se trató, por lo tanto, de un movimiento materialdisfrazado de espiritualidad sino de un colosal impulso de raíces espirituales que no tuvo inconveniente,pese a sus enormes defectos, en afrontar considerables riesgos y pérdidas materiales.

Las cruzadas, entre el mérito y el mea culpa

Los historiadores hacen una relectura en el noveno centenario

En coincidencia con el noveno centenario de la primera expedición a Tierra Santa (15 julio 1099), guiada porGodofredo de Bouillon y Raimundo de Tolosa, que se concluyó con la victoriosa conquista cristiana de

Jerusalén, las páginas culturales de los diarios se han llenado de artículos, se han celebrado exposiciones ycongresos de estudiosos para recordar este evento.

Como es bien conocido, el asunto de las Cruzadas es controvertido y una cierta publicidad ha utilizadosiempre las Cruzadas para criticar ásperamente a la Iglesia católica. Una postura que se ha hecho común yque no ha tenido nunca en cuenta los resultados de las investigaciones históricas.

Aunque los medios de comunicación presionan para que los católicos, ante el Jubileo, carguen con todas lasculpas, nuevos descubrimientos históricos demuestran que el asunto de las Cruzadas fue mucho máscomplejo de lo que se cree. El jesuita Carmelo Capizzi, profesor de Historia Medieval en la PontificiaUniversidad Gregoriana, ha escrito un artículo en el último número de «Civiltà Cattolica» en el que sostieneque: «Muy lejos de haber sido inútiles o nefastas, las Cruzadas contribuyeron a crear situaciones históricaspositivas, que desembocaron en procesos internacionales todavía abiertos y de vital importancia».

El artículo critica valoraciones «demasiado superficiales sobre el evento histórico» e invita a los estudiosos aacercarse a él libres de condicionamientos ideológicos. El padre Capizzi invita a «rescatar» a las Cruzadasde la que él considera historiografía de signo laicista y por tanto fuertemente condicionada. Hubo errores,

admite el padre Capizzi, pero estos no justifican la condena de las Cruzadas que, en su opinión, se debenconsiderar como un factor de progreso social y cultural. «Se equivocan --concluye-- quienes atribuyen a laCruzada finalidades que ésta no se propuso jamás como, por ejemplo, la propagación de la fe a manoarmada».

El artículo de «Civiltà Cattolica» es compartido por el escritor católico Vittorio Messori, que ha declarado al«Corriere della Sera» que «se olvida que en Jerusalén, cuando llegaron los musulmanes, destruyeron todaslas iglesias de la cristiandad, lo mismo que hicieron en el Norte de Africa, en Turquía y en la parte de Españaque ocuparon durante ochocientos años».

Para el historiador Franco Cardini, los equívocos sobre este problema nacen de una visión reductiva de lahistoria: «Se separa el hecho militar (la Cruzada) de un contexto profundamente denso y positivo». Paravalorar mejor la situación, añade Cardini, «haría falta reinsertarla en su contexto histórico con lo quemuchas polémicas no tendrían razón de ser». «Por otra parte --explica el historiador medievalista-- la

palabra Cruzada es una expresión moderna que se usa sistemáticamente sólo desde el siglo XVIII. Hastaentonces había términos que definían al "cruzado" pero no existía la palabra abstracta. Esto significa que,hablando de Cruzadas desde el 1700 a hoy, se ha hecho toda una serie de generalizaciones engañosas».

Monseñor Rino Fisichella, obispo auxiliar de Roma y vicepresidente de la Comisión teológico-histórica del Jubileo, ha explicado a Radio Vaticana que «el tema de las Cruzadas es complejo. No estoy de acuerdo conquienes sólo hacen de las cruzadas una lectura religiosa o una guerra santa. No olvidemos que se trata deun fenómeno que abarca cerca de 200 años de historia y no se puede reducir todo a una sola lecturareligiosa. El juicio sobre las Cruzadas debe ser complejo y global, de otro modo existe el riesgo de hacer unatransposición de las concepciones y las conquistas que el pensamiento ha hecho hoy y llevarlas al pasado.Ante el Jubileo, es justo que tratemos de evaluar cuáles han sido, en los hechos de nuestra historia, losaspectos positivos que han llevado progreso, que han hecho madurar la conciencia y el comportamiento dealgunos cristianos y los que han sido limitadores, que no han permitido dar una visión plena y profunda dela santidad de la Iglesia».

«Las Cruzadas --afirma monseñor Fisichella-- han sido presentadas en el pasado como un enfrentamientoentre Oriente y Occidente, para decir ver quién tenía razón y quién estaba equivocado, entre quién era más



Las Cruzadas

3

fuerte y quién era más débil. Pero hoy, a la luz de la historia, de otras conquistas de la humanidad, y de lamayor conciencia que la Iglesia tiene de su historia, creo que es mejor hablar de complementariedad. No esya un enfrentamiento entre Oriente y Occidente sino la conciencia de que los dos mundos, las dos culturas,las dos realidades tienen que conocerse e integrarse mutuamente».

El historiador Franco Cardini sale al paso de algunos errores

La polémica sobre las Cruzadas no se aplaca. Que en este año se celebre el 900 aniversario de la primeraCruzada se ha convertido a los ojos de una cierta publicística anticatólica un argumento para desacreditar ala Iglesia y sus enseñanzas.

Han aparecido artículos en los que las Cruzadas se describen como guerras santas, las masacres de los judíos que tuvieron lugar en aquella ocasión, como la antesala del holocausto. La Iglesia ha sido acusada dehaber siempre tratado de eliminar a los adversarios en nombre de la ortodoxia. «La Repubblica», el segundoperiódico por difusión en Italia, ha escrito que «los francos masacraron a setenta mil personas en unamezquita», lo que debería hacer suponer que la mezquita era tan grande como un moderno estadio defútbol.

Para tratar de evitar tonterías y errores, el historiador Franco Cardini, profundo conocedor de losacontecimientos medievales, ha escrito un artículo en «Avvenire» de hoy con el título «Cruzadas, no guerrasde religión».

El profesor Cardini explica que la interpretación de las Cruzadas como antecedentes de las guerras dereligión y de las guerras ideológicas, ha sido sostenida en los ambientes iluministas. Se trata de unapolémica ampliamente malentendida y de pretexto.

Según el profesor Cardini, «las Cruzadas no han sido nunca "guerras de religión", no han buscado nunca laconversión forzada o la supresión de los infieles. Los excesos y violencias realizados en el curso de lasexpediciones --que han existido y no se deben olvidar-- deben ser evaluados en el marco de la normalaunque dolorosa fenomenología de los hechos militares y siempre teniendo presente que alguna razónteológica los ha justificado. La Cruzada corresponde a un movimiento de peregrinación armado que seafirmó lentamente y se desarrolló en el tiempo --entre el siglo XI y el XIII-- que debe ser entendidoinsertándolo en el contexto del largo encuentro entre Cristiandad e Islam que ha producido resultadospositivos culturales y económicos. ¿Cómo se justifica si no el dato de frecuentes amistades e inclusoalianzas militares entre cristianos y musulmanes en la historia de las Cruzadas?».

Para confirmar sus tesis el profesor Cardini recuerda la contribución de San Bernardo de Claraval (1090-1153) que contra la caballería laica, como aquella del siglo XII formada por gente ávida, violenta y amoral,propuso la constitución de «una nueva caballería» al servicio de los pobres y de los peregrinos. La propuestade San Bernardo era revolucionaria, una nueva caballería hecha de monjes que renunciase a toda forma deriqueza y de poder personal y que incluso en la guerra aprendiese que al enemigo se lo puede inclusomatar, cuando no haya otra opción, pero que no se le debe odiar. De aquí la enseñanza de no odiar nisiquiera en la batalla.

La Cruzada entendida como «guerra santa» contra los musulmanes, también sería según Cardini unaexageración. «En realidad --subraya el profesor-- lo que interesaba en las expediciones al servicio de loshermanos en Cristo, amenazados por los musulmanes, era la recuperación de la paz en Occidente y lapuesta en marcha de la idea de socorro a los correligionarios lejanos. La Cruzada significaba reconciliarsecon el adversario antes de partir, renunciar a la disputa y a la venganza, aceptar la idea del martirio,

ponerse a sí mismos y los propios haberes a disposición de la comunidad de los creyentes, proyectarse enun experiencia a la luz de la cual, por un cierto número de meses y quizá de años, se pondría el seguimientode Cristo y la memoria del Cristo viviente en la tierra que había sido el teatro de su existencia terrena en elculmen de la propia experiencia».

Las cruzadas, entre la realidad y la leyenda negra

No se aplaca el debate sobre el significado de las Cruzadas. También porque la distancia de final de milenioentre el Occidente y el Islam evoca escenarios sugestivos.

Según el conocido escritor católico Vittorio Messori, sobre las Cruzadas ha sido contruida por los iluministasuna «leyenda negra» «como arma de la guerra psicológica contra la Iglesia romana». Messori ha escrito enel «Corriere della Sera», el principal diario italiano, que «es, en efecto, en el siglo XVIII europeo cuando,completando la obra de la Reforma, se establece el rosario de las "infamias romanas", convertido encanónico».



Las Cruzadas

4

«Por lo que se refiere a las Cruzadas, la propaganda anticatólica inventó incluso el nombre: igual que eltérmino Edad Media, elegido por la historiografía "iluminada" para indicar el paréntesis de oscuridad yfanatismo entre los esplendores de la Antigüedad y los del Renacimiento. Por descontado que quienes, hacenovecientos años, asaltaron Jerusalén, se habrían sorprendido bastante si alguno les hubiera dicho queestaban realizando lo que se llamaría "primera Cruzada". Aquello para ellos era itinerario, "peregrinación",recorrido, pasaje. Aquellos mismos «peregrinos armados» se habrían sorprendio aún más si hubieranprevisto que les sería atribuida la intención de convertir a los "infieles" o de asegurar vías comerciales a

Occidente o de crear "colonias" europeas en Medio Oriente...».

Messori revela que, lamentablemente, «en Occidente, la oscura invención "cruzada" ha acabado por apresaren el sentimiento de culpa a algunos hombres de la misma Iglesia, que no conocen como sucedieron deverdad las cosas». Además, explica Messori, «en Oriente, la leyenda se ha vuelto contra el enteroOccidente: pagamos todos --y pagaremos todavía más-- las consecuencias, con el deseo de revancha de lasmultitudes musulmanas que piden venganza contra el «Gran Satanás». Que no es sólo Estados Unidos, sinola entera cristiandad; aquella, justo, de las "Cruzadas": ¿No son quizá los occidentales mismos quienesinsisten en decir que ha sido una terrible, imperdonable agresión contra los píos, devotos, mansosseguidores del Corán?».

«Y sin embargo --revela el conocido escritor-- hay una pregunta que deberemos hacernos: en el marco másque milenario de las relaciones entre Cristiandad e Islam, ¿quién fue el agredido y quién el agresor? Cuando,en el 638, el califa Omar conquista Jerusalén, ésta era ya desde hacía más de tres siglos cristiana. Poco

después, los seguidores del Profeta invaden y destruyen las gloriosas iglesias primero de Egipto y luego delnorte de Africa, llevando a la extinción del cristianismo en los lugares que habían tenido obispos como SanAgustín. Toca luego a España, a Sicilia, a Grecia, a la que luego se llamará Turquía y donde las comunidadesfundadas por San Pablo mismo se convierten en cúmulos de ruinas. En 1453, tras siete siglos de asedio,capitula y es islamizada la misma Constantinopla, la segunda Roma. El rodillo islámico alcanza los Balcanes,y como por milagro es detenido y obligado a retroceder ante los muros de Viena. Si se execra justamente lamasacre de Jerusalén en el 1099, no se debe olvidar a Mahoma II en 1480 en Otranto, simple ejemplo de uncortejo sangriento de sufrimientos».

Messori concluye su reflexión haciendo algunas preguntas: «Todavía hoy: ¿qué país musulmán reconoce alos otros que no sean los suyos, los derechos civiles o la libertad de culto? ¿Quién se indigna ante elgenocidio de lo armenios ayer y de los sudaneses cristianos hoy? El mundo, según los devotos del Corán,¿no está dividido en "territorio del Islam" y "territorio de la guerra", esto es, todos los lugares todavía nomusulmanes que deben serlo, por las buenas o por las malas?».

«Un simple repaso a la historia --escribe Messori-- incluso en sus líneas generales, confirma una verdadevidente: una cristiandad en continua postura defensiva respecto a una agresión musulmana, desde losinicios hasta hoy (en Africa, por ejemplo, está en curso una ofensiva sangrienta para islamizar a las etniasque los sacrificios heroicos de generaciones de misioneros habían llevado al bautismo). Admitido --yprobablemnte no concedido-- que alguno, en la historia, deba pedir excusas a otro ¿deberán ser quizá loscatólicos quienes se hagan perdonar por aquel acto de autodefensa, por aquel intento de tener al menosabierta la vía de la peregrinación a los lugares de Jesús que fue el ciclo de las Cruzadas?».

Rethinking the Crusades

Jonathan Riley Smith

2000 First Things 101 (March 2000): 20-23.

On July 15, 1999, the nine–hundredth anniversary of the fall of Jerusalem to the crusaders, a party of Christians paraded round the city walls to publicize a personal apology on behalf of their religion to Muslims.

They wanted to make a conciliatory gesture, on the one hand, and on the other to express contrition forwars they believe should be included in the category of events Pope John Paul II calls departures from thespirit of Christ and his gospel. To accept blame humbly when one is at fault is always good, of course, but inthis case the apologizers were only showing that they did not comprehend the Muslim view of the crusades(which made their conciliatory gesture empty) and did not understand history (which made their act of contrition pointless).

Crusades were war–pilgrimages proclaimed by the Popes on Christ’s behalf and waged for the recovery of Christian territory or people, or in their defense. Each crusader made a vow, signified by the wearing of acloth cross, and he (or she) was rewarded with the grant of an indulgence and certain temporal privileges. Adistinguishing feature of crusading was that the cross was enjoined on men and women not as a service, butas a penance, the association of which with war had been made about a decade before the First Crusade.While holy war had had a long history, the idea of penitential war was unprecedented in Christian thought. Itmeant that a crusade was for the crusader only secondarily about service in arms to God or benefiting the



Las Cruzadas

5

Church or Christianity; it was primarily about benefiting himself. He was engaged in an act of self–sanctification.

Crusading generated two institutional mutations: military orders, the members of which were not crusaders,being permanently as opposed to temporarily engaged in the defense of Christendom and sometimesoperating out of theocratic order–states like Prussia, Rhodes, and Malta; and crusade leagues, which werealliances of certain frontline powers, the forces of which were granted crusade privileges.

The movement lasted a very long time, from the preaching of the First Crusade in 1095 to the fall of the lastorder–state, Hospitaller Malta, to Napoleon in 1798. It manifested itself in many theatres of war: Palestineand the eastern Mediterranean region, of course, but also North Africa, Spain, the Baltic shores, Hungary,the Balkans, and even Western Europe. The Muslims were not the crusaders’ only enemies, although theyprovided the opposition in North Africa and Spain as well as in Palestine and Syria, and, from the laterfourteenth century onwards, in the Aegean and the Balkans. Crusaders were also engaged in campaignsagainst Pagan Wends, Balts and Lithuanians, Shamanist Mongols, Orthodox Russians and Greeks, Catharand Hussite heretics, and Catholic political opponents of the papacy.

Some crusades, therefore, were "introspective" in that they were launched against fellow Christians. Holywar has the tendency, whatever the religion involved, to turn inwards sooner or later and to be directedagainst the members of the society that has generated it. The fear grows that any chance of victory may bevitiated by corruption or divisions at home, so that only when society is undefiled and is practicing uniformly

true religion can a struggle on its behalf be successful.

From the Fourth Lateran Council in the early thirteenth century to the Council of Trent in the middle of thesixteenth, every general council of the Church was officially summoned at least partly on the grounds thatno crusade could be really successful without a reform of the Church and of Christendom. In the middle of the twelfth century Peter the Venerable, the influential abbot of Cluny, was prepared to state that violenceagainst fellow religionists could be even more justifiable than the use of force against infidels. In 1208,calling for a crusade against the heretical Cathars with imagery of uncleanness and disease, Pope InnocentIII summoned "knights of Christ . . . to wipe out the treachery of heresy and its followers by attacking theheretics with a strong hand and an outstretched arm, that much more confidently than you would attack theMuslims because they are worse than them." Introspective crusades were often seen as preliminary to waragainst Islam—men who had taken the cross for the East not infrequently found themselves pressured intocommuting their vows in favor of internal police actions.

It has often been said that crusaders tended to behave particularly badly once they were in the field. Thatthey could be undisciplined and capable of acts of great cruelty cannot be denied. The question, however, iswhether the form of war in which they were engaged was a peculiarly horrible one. Recent work on the sackof Jerusalem in July 1099, one of the most notorious incidents and the one commemorated by thoserepentant modern Christians, is leading some historians to look at the evidence again. We know it to be amyth that the crusaders targeted the Jewish community in Jerusalem. We also know that the figure for theMuslim dead, which used to range from ten to seventy thousand on the basis of accounts written long afterthe event, ought to be revised downward. A contemporary Muslim source has been discovered that puts thenumber at three thousand. Three thousand men and women is still a lot of people, of course, but it is lowenough to make one wonder why the Western eyewitnesses, who gloried in generalized descriptions of slaughter, felt the need to portray a bloodbath.

If, on the other hand, the behavior of the crusaders in the East cannot be considered to have beenquantitatively worse than that of those fighting in any ideological war, the behavior of the crusaders in

Europe could sometimes be abominable, even by the standards of the time. Before heading off to the Jerusalem crusades in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, some Europeans "prepared themselves" throughviolent outbreaks of anti–Judaism in France, Germany, and England. During the crusades launched againstfellow Christians or heretics, the most unpleasant examples of loss of discipline and control took place (thesacks of Constantinople in 1204 and of Béziers in 1209 spring to mind). If we are going to express contritionfor the behavior of the crusaders, it is not so much to the Muslims that we should apologize, but to the Jewsand to our fellow Christians.

But should we be apologizing at all? No crusade was actually proclaimed against the Jews, although crusadepreaching unleashed feelings that the Church could not control. As far as crusading itself is concerned, mostMuslims do not view the crusades, in which they anyway believe they were victorious, in isolation. Islam hasbeen spasmodically in conflict with Christianity since the Muslim conquests of the seventh century, longbefore the First Crusade, and the crusading movement was a succession of episodes in a continuum of hostility between the two religions. Muslims do not seem to have considered until relatively recently that thecrusades stood out in this history; by 1500, indeed, they would have been justified in believing that thatparticular sequence of wars was ending in their favor. They might have lost Spain, but the Ottomanconquests in Europe had far exceeded anything the crusaders had gained in the East. In the late nineteenth



Las Cruzadas

6

century, however, they began to regard the West’s monopoly of commerce and colonialism as a change of tactics, in which everything the crusaders had lost to them was being more than regained. It follows thatapologizing to them now can never, as far as they are concerned, get to the root of the problem, becausethe crusades are merely symptomatic of a much longer–term competitiveness. It is rather like a marksmanaiming at an opponent and, while he fires his rifle, expressing regrets for his ancestor’s use of a bow andarrow.

But for many of the Christian penitents, what the Muslims think is of secondary importance; it is theChurch’s subjective act of repentance for past sin that matters. While this kind of self–accusation may makethem feel good about themselves, it is possible that, in diverting attention from the real issues, they aredoing more harm than good. How useful is it to condemn wars that were supported by great saints likeBernard of Clairvaux, Thomas Aquinas, Bridget of Sweden, Catherine of Siena, John of Capistrano, evenpossibly Francis of Assisi, however abhorrent the ethical principles on which they were based appear to beto us? Ought we not rather challenge the widespread sentimental and unhistorical assumptions that on theone hand Christianity is an unambiguously pacific religion and on the other that Christian justifications of force have been consistent?

The consensus among Christians on the use of violence has changed radically since the crusades werefought. The just war theory prevailing for most of the last two centuries—that violence is an evil which can incertain situations be condoned as the lesser of evils—is relatively young. Although it has inherited someelements (the criteria of legitimate authority, just cause, right intention) from the older war theory that first

evolved around a.d. 400, it has rejected two premises that underpinned all medieval just wars, includingcrusades: first, that violence could be employed on behalf of Christ’s intentions for mankind and could evenbe directly authorized by him; and second, that it was a morally neutral force which drew whatever ethicalcoloring it had from the intentions of the perpetrators. Only in the sixteenth century did the nearly universalconviction that the use of violence depended on Christ’s direct or indirect authority begin to be undermined.For the Dominican Francisco de Vitoria and his followers, particularly Suarez and Ayala, violence could be

justified only in terms of the needs of the "common good," defined in relation to accepted earthly laws.

Just war arguments thus moved from the field of moral theology to that of law, a step taken within decadesby Gentili and Grotius. Christ was withdrawing from the fray, at least as far as Enlightenment thinkers wereconcerned—the Encyclopédistes referred to the crusades as ces guerres horribles—but although theyagreed that the use of force nearly always had evil consequences because of the suffering thataccompanied it, they still regarded violence itself as being morally neutral. No one had yet taken the secondstep necessary for the emergence of "modern" just war theory, the conviction borrowed from pacifism that

force is intrinsically evil—though conceding that it can nevertheless be condoned as a lesser evil. I do notknow exactly when this change took place, but I suspect it was an achievement of the peace movement thatswept Europe and America after the Napoleonic Wars and split into two wings, pacifist and moderate, in the1830s.

From the fourth century, and especially from the eleventh to the nineteenth century, therefore, Christiansconsidered violence in a quite different light than we do today. Our just war theory has become soembedded in our thinking that we forget that it represents a relatively short–lived departure from a muchlonger–lasting and more positive tradition. Time will tell whether that older tradition represents the norm,but a realization of this may come sooner rather than later, because there are several straws in the wind.

The founding of the League of Nations and then the United Nations and the judgments at the Nurembergtrials encouraged the revival of concepts of natural law, manifesting themselves in the notion of crimesagainst humanity and an insistence on judgment by international tribunals. This seems to have set in motiona process that has now led to the waging of a war justified by its "humanitarian" aims.

This development, one should note, reverses the achievement of the sixteenth–century thinkers, bysubordinating international law to natural law and by reintroducing ethical judgments to just war theory. It isbeginning to look, moreover, as though the restoration of Christ to the position of an authorizer of violence,which was a feature of the militant Christian liberation theology in the 1960s and early 1970s, was not aflash in the pan but was part of this process of change.

That nineteenth–century just war theory may be giving way less than two centuries after it became theconsensus indicates how unsatisfactory, philosophically and practically, it has proved itself to be. Withindecades the problems raised by it were so intractable that lawyers began to concentrate on gettinginternational agreement on rules of war that might ameliorate the suffering that accompanied conflict ratherthan on basic principles. Its fallibility was again revealed during the Nuremberg trials, in the more recentdebates on proportionality with respect to nuclear deterrence, and in the extraordinarily confused

justifications given for the Gulf War by some leading Christians.

I am fairly sure that those who are now demanding an apology for the crusades are themselves, withoutknowing it or understanding how rapidly the ground is shifting beneath them, sharing in a new consensus



Las Cruzadas

7

which is au fond not very far from the war theology they are condemning. A stance that justifies a"humanitarian" war on moral grounds has placed itself at least in the same field as that once occupied bycrusade theorists. The language that demands that our ancestors be posthumously anathematized is not toodistant from that of the men who wanted the corpse of Pope Boniface VIII to be exhumed and burnt. We maybe entering a period of conceptual uncertainty about the most difficult of all society’s dilemmas—when orwhen not to use force—and we need not emotion, but cool heads and an objective analysis of the past.

Jonathan Riley–Smith is the Dixie Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Cambridge University and Fellow of Emmanuel College, Cambridge, and the author or editor of twelve books on the crusades and the Latin East,including The Crusades: A Short History (1987) and The Oxford Illustrated History of the Crusades (1995).

The Koran: A Very Short Introduction.

By Michael Cook. Oxford University Press. 162 pp. $8.95.

The Qur’an is one of the world’s most important and most enigmatic books. In a beautifully written, concise,and insightful study, packed into one of a series of "very short" introductions to a multitude of subjects,Michael Cook makes clear some of the mysteries of this holy book, in part by his excellent examples. Hetells about its origins, its content, organization, translation, pronunciation, commentaries, anddissemination. Cook takes up the subtle ironies connected with the book (Islam, for instance, is a missionaryreligion but the sacredness of the Qur’an means that Muslims face a "clear and insoluble conflict between

the desire to proclaim God’s word to the unbelievers and the shudder of them touching it"). He takes upsuch seemingly minor but revealing topics as treating the Qur’an as literature, disposing of the worn text,and the role of calligraphy. Many of his descriptions are evocative and explanatory. Here is one on the effectof tajwid, a musical version of reciting the Qur’an: "It is not unseemly to weep silently during a particularlymoving recitation. Much of the intensity that gives the art of Koranic recitation its effectiveness comes froma union of grave and dignified restraint with a kind of playing with fire." To demonstrate the singular holdthe Qur’an has in Muslim society, Cools tells of "a woman who for thirty years communicated exclusively"with quotations from the Qur’an. For anyone, at almost any level of knowledge, wanting to learn more aboutthe Qur’an, this is a wonderful place to start. Reading Cook does not replace immersion in the Islamic holybook, but it does prepare one for reading it. The miniature format of the Very Short Introduction and itsminiature price only make the study more alluring.

— Daniel Pipes

The Muslim Jesus: Sayings and Stories in Islamic Literature. By Tarif Khalidi. Harvard University Press. 245pp. $22.95.

Islamic Interpretations of Christianity.

Edited by Lloyd Ridgeon. Curzon. 255 pp. $45.

In 1989, the Iranian media called the showing in Istanbul of Martin Scor sese’s controversial film The Last Temptation of Christ a plot "hatched by world arrogance and international Zionism" and soon afterfundamentalist Muslims and fundamentalist Christians together protested the movie’s screening. A decadelater, the "Shari’ah Court of the UK" condemned Terrence McNally to death for his defamatory play about

Jesus, Corpus Christi, and again the faithful of the two faiths together protested outside the theater. Theman who issued the edict, Omar Bakri Muhammad, commented that "the Church of England has neglectedthe honor of the Virgin Mary and Jesus." Muslim groups also protested when the Brooklyn Museum mounted

a scurrilous exhibit of the Virgin Mary. Don’t they have the wrong religious figure? No: from the Qur’an on, Jesus has always had a special place in Muslim piety, as Tarif Khalidi (professor of Arabic at CambridgeUniversity) shows in his exemplary study, The Muslim Jesus. In fact, he even writes about a "Muslim gospel"which, though emphatically denying the divinity of "Isa ibn Maryam," gives him an honored place as aprophet. The 303 snippets that Khalidi translates and comments on from a wide range of sources (hadith,belles–lettres, mystical works, etc.) do convincingly establish his point that, "In his Muslim habitat, Jesusbecomes an object of intense devotion, reverence, and love." In an introductory essay, Khalidi traces theorigins of the "Muslim gospel" and concludes by observing that this cross–religious history offers somelessons for a time like the present, when Christian–Muslim tensions are rife. The mostly Christian and Britishauthors of ten fine chapters in Islamic Interpretations of Christianity have a decidedly less cheerful take ontheir subject. The book deals in roughly equal parts with the premodern and modern eras; in both, it findsthat Islamic views of Christianity and Christians are generally harsh. The Qur’an is rather more friendly to an(Islam–receptive) ideal Christianity than the one that actually exists; the hadith literature consigns Christiansto social and religious inferiority; the legal literature creates a binary Muslim vs. non–Muslim distinction thatis "never" breached; even Jalal ad–Din Rumi, the favorite poet of mystically inclined Americans, turns out tobe less inclusive and more doctrinaire than they realize. In the modern era, Sayyid Qutb’s aggressiveattitude toward Christians amounted to an aggressive and "radical break" with traditional Sunni Islam; and



Las Cruzadas

8

while no one can find enlightened attitudes among British Muslims toward Christianity, most of the viewsexpressed fit into "an older anti–Christian polemical tradition." There is a long way to go before adherents of these two faiths can achieve the maturity of the Christian–Jewish relationship.

—DP

Legacy of the Prophet: Despots, Democrats, and the New Politics of Islam.

By Anthony Shadid. Westview. 364 pp. $26.

Another Western journalist careening around the Middle East, interviewing hundreds of people from cabdrivers to heads of state, churning out a book with the words "of the Prophet" in his title, insisting thatIslamism is really our friend. (Other examples of this genre include Milton Viorst’s In the Shadow of theProphet: The Struggle for the Soul of Islam and Mark Huband’s Warriors of the Prophet: The Struggle forIslam, both published in 1998.) Shadid, formerly the Associated Press correspondent in Cairo, is a goodwriter and observer (and he reports much of interest in the course of his book), but he has not a clue aboutIslam. Interestingly, he guilelessly admits as much in his introduction, where he writes that Islam, through allhis research on the subject, has remained to him "sometimes foreign and all too often confusing andtroubling." In his puzzlement, he falls for the voguish idea that Islamism’s future lies in "movements that arewilling to exercise tolerance and adopt pluralism and compromise as both tactics and ideals." The subtitlerefers to Shadid’s overly optimistic theory that despots are part of Islamism’s past and democrats make up

its future. That a journalist, someone paid for careful observation, can reach such a conclusion betrays apsychological barrier to seeing realities as they are. For the record: Islamism (as distinct from Islam itself) isa utopian ideology that seeks to use the State and other institutions to establish a totalitarian dominationover the lives of individuals. Islamists, like other political radicals, are ready to use whatever tools are athand; so when violent attempts to take power appear to have reached a dead end, they are quite ready topursue the same ends through less violent means. This does not make them democrats nor does it rendertheir movements tolerant and pluralist. Shadid and other journalists do a grave disservice in closing theireyes to these plain facts.

Bernard Lewis on Understanding Islam

The mention of his name is usually accompanied by descriptives such as “the distinguished,” “the eminent,”or “the renowned.” Frequently he is simply called “the doyen of Middle Eastern studies.” All such honorificsare amply deserved. Going back many years, Bernard Lewis, Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern studies at

Princeton, has been a personal friend and, more than anyone else, my guru on matters Islamic. His newbook is What Went Wrong? Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response (Oxford University Press). It is amix of lectures and essays from the 1990s, and a font of wisdom on which to draw in order to put the worldafter September 11 into perspective. I don’t say Lewis is right about everything, and I know there arescholars who criticize him for over–generalizing, but that is the kind of criticism to be expected fromacademics who specialize in specializing. Lewis, whose command of his subject nobody can challenge,specializes in making careful and accessible arguments. His exercise of that gift and calling is on magisterialdisplay in What Went Wrong?

For instance, Lewis writes that, during the period that we call medieval, most Muslims viewed Christendomin terms of the Byzantine Empire, “which gradually became smaller and weaker until its final disappearancewith the Turkish conquest of Constantinople in 1453.” “[In the Muslim view] the remoter lands of Europewere seen in much the same light as the remoter lands of Africa—as an outer darkness of barbarism andunbelief from which there was nothing to learn and little even to be imported, except slaves and raw

materials. For both the northern and the southern barbarians, their best hope was to be incorporated in theempire of the caliphs, and thus attain the benefits of religion and civilization. For the first thousand years orso after the advent of Islam, this seemed not unlikely, and Muslims made repeated attempts to accomplishit.”

We understandably view history in terms of the rise of the West, and seen from today’s circumstance, thatmakes sense. But that is not how, for a very long time, Muslims viewed it. From its beginnings, Islam was ona millennium–long roll. Advancing from Arabia, Muslim armies conquered Syria, Palestine, Egypt, and NorthAfrica, all of which had been part of Christendom. They then went on to conquer Spain, Portugal, and Sicily,and to invade deep into France. In 846, Arab forces sacked Ostia and Rome. Only then did Christendombegin to organize a counterattack, leading up to what we call the Crusades aimed at recovering the HolyLand. In many tellings of the story, the Crusades were the horrible thing that Christians did to Muslims, andthere is no doubt that horrible things were done on all sides. What is frequently overlooked in those tellings,however, is that the Crusades were a response to Muslim aggression and, very important, that they failed.

The Christians were repelled. The Muslims won, reinforcing their sense of invincibility against the infidels.



Las Cruzadas

9

Crusades

Catholic Encyclopedia

The Crusades were expeditions undertaken, in fulfilment of a solemn vow, to deliver the Holy Places fromMohammedan tyranny.

The origin of the word may be traced to the cross made of cloth and worn as a badge on the outer garmentof those who took part in these enterprises. Medieval writers use the terms crux (pro cruce transmarina,Charter of 1284, cited by Du Cange s.v. crux), croisement (Joinville), croiserie (Monstrelet), etc. Since theMiddle Ages the meaning of the word crusade has been extended to include all wars undertaken inpursuance of a vow, and directed against infidels, i.e. against Mohammedans, pagans, heretics, or thoseunder the ban of excommunication. The wars waged by the Spaniards against the Moors constituted acontinual crusade from the eleventh to the sixteenth century; in the north of Europe crusades wereorganized against the Prussians and Lithuanians; the extermination of the Albigensian heresy was due to acrusade, and, in the thirteenth century the popes preached crusades against John Lackland and Frederick II.But modern literature has abused the word by applying it to all wars of a religious character, as, forinstance, the expedition of Heraclius against the Persians in the seventh century and the conquest of Saxony by Charlemagne.

The idea of the crusade corresponds to a political conception which was realized in Christendom only from

the eleventh to the fifteenth century; this supposes a union of all peoples and sovereigns under the directionof the popes. All crusades were announced by preaching. After pronouncing a solemn vow, each warriorreceived a cross from the hands of the pope or his legates, and was thenceforth considered a soldier of theChurch. Crusaders were also granted indulgences and temporal privileges, such as exemption from civil

jurisdiction, inviolability of persons or lands, etc. Of all these wars undertaken in the name of Christendom,the most important were the Eastern Crusades, which are the only ones treated in this article.

DIVISION

It has been customary to describe the Crusades as eight in number:

the first, 1095-1101;the second, headed by Louis VII, 1145-47;the third, conducted by Philip Augustus and Richard Coeur-de-Lion, 1188-92;

the fourth, during which Constantinople was taken, 1204;the fifth, which included the conquest of Damietta, 1217;the sixth, in which Frederick II took part (1228-29); also Thibaud de Champagne and Richard of Cornwall(1239);the seventh, led by St. Louis, 1249-52;the eighth, also under St. Louis, 1270.

This division is arbitrary and excludes many important expeditions, among them those of the fourteenth andfifteenth centuries. In reality the Crusades continued until the end of the seventeenth century, the crusadeof Lepanto occurring in 1571, that of Hungary in 1664, and the crusade of the Duke of Burgundy to Candia,in 1669. A more scientific division is based on the history of the Christian settlements in the East; thereforethe subject will be considered in the following order:

I. ORIGIN OF THE CRUSADES

The origin of the Crusades is directly traceable to the moral and political condition of Western Christendomin the eleventh century. At that time Europe was divided into numerous states whose sovereigns wereabsorbed in tedious and petty territorial disputes while the emperor, in theory the temporal head of Christendom, was wasting his strength in the quarrel over Investitures. The popes alone had maintained a

just estimate of Christian unity; they realized to what extent the interests of Europe were threatened by theByzantine Empire and the Mohammedan tribes, and they alone had a foreign policy whose traditions wereformed under Leo IX and Gregory VII. The reform effected in the Church and the papacy through theinfluence of the monks of Cluny had increased the prestige of the Roman pontiff in the eyes of all Christiannations; hence none but the pope could inaugurate the international movement that culminated in theCrusades. But despite his eminent authority the pope could never have persuaded the Western peoples toarm themselves for the conquest of the Holy Land had not the immemorial relations between Syria and theWest favoured his design. Europeans listened to the voice of Urban II because their own inclination andhistoric traditions impelled them towards the Holy Sepulchre.

From the end of the fifth century there had been no break in their intercourse with the Orient. In the earlyChristian period colonies of Syrians had introduced the religious ideas, art, and culture of the East into the



Las Cruzadas

10

large cities of Gaul and Italy. The Western Christians in turn journeyed in large numbers to Syria, Palestine,and Egypt, either to visit the Holy Places or to follow the ascetic life among the monks of the Thebaid orSinai. There is still extant the itinerary of a pilgrimage from Bordeaux to Jerusalem, dated 333; in 385 St.

Jerome and St. Paula founded the first Latin monasteries at Bethlehem. Even the Barbarian invasion did notseem to dampen the ardour for pilgrimages to the East. The Itinerary of St. Silvia (Etheria) shows theorganization of these expeditions, which were directed by clerics and escorted by armed troops. In the year600, St. Gregory the Great had a hospice erected in Jerusalem for the accommodation of pilgrims, sent alms

to the monks of Mount Sinai ("Vita Gregorii" in "Acta SS.", March 11, 132), and, although the deplorablecondition of Eastern Christendom after the Arab invasion rendered this intercourse more difficult, it did notby any means cease.

As early as the eighth century Anglo-Saxons underwent the greatest hardships to visit Jerusalem. The journey of St. Willibald, Bishop of Eichstädt, took seven years (722-29) and furnishes an idea of the variedand severe trials to which pilgrims were subject (Itiner. Latina, 1, 241-283). After their conquest of the West,the Carolingians endeavoured to improve the condition of the Latins settled in the East; in 762 Pepin theShort entered into negotiations with the Caliph of Bagdad. In Rome, on 30 November, 800, the very day onwhich Leo III invoked the arbitration of Charlemagne, ambassadors from Haroun al-Raschid delivered to theKing of the Franks the keys of the Holy Sepulchre, the banner of Jersualem, and some precious relics(Einhard, "Annales", ad an. 800, in "Mon. Germ. Hist.: Script.", I, 187); this was an acknowledgment of theFrankish protectorate over the Christians of Jerusalem. That churches and monasteries were built atCharlemagne's expense is attested by a sort of a census of the monasteries of Jerusalem dated 808

("Commemoratio de Casis Dei" in "Itiner. Hieros.", I, 209). In 870, at the time of the pilgrimage of Bernardthe Monk (Itiner. Hierosol., I, 314), these institutions were still very prosperous, and it has been abundantlyproved that alms were sent regularly from the West to the Holy Land. In the tenth century, just when thepolitical and social order of Europe was most troubled, knights, bishops, and abbots, actuated by devotionand a taste for adventure, were wont to visit Jerusalem and pray at the Holy Sepulchre without beingmolested by the Mohammedans. Suddenly, in 1009, Hakem, the Fatimite Caliph of Egypt, in a fit of madnessordered the destruction of the Holy Sepulchre and all the Christian establishments in Jerusalem. For yearsthereafter Christians were cruelly persecuted. (See the recital of an eyewitness, Iahja of Antioch, inSchlumberger's "Epopée byzantine", II, 442.) In 1027 the Frankish protectorate was overthrown andreplaced by that of the Byzantine emperors, to whose diplomacy was due the reconstruction of the HolySepulchre. The Christian quarter was even surrounded by a wall, and some Amalfi merchants, vassals of theGreek emperors, built hospices in Jerusalem for pilgrims, e.g. the Hospital of St. John, cradle of the Order of Hospitallers.

Instead of diminishing, the enthusiasm of Western Christians for the pilgrimage to Jerusalem seemed ratherto increase during the eleventh century. Not only princes, bishops, and knights, but even men and women of the humbler classes undertook the holy journey (Radulphus Glaber, IV, vi). Whole armies of pilgrimstraversed Europe, and in the valley of the Danube hospices were established where they could replenishtheir provisions. In 1026 Richard, Abbot of Saint-Vannes, led 700 pilgrims into Palestine at the expense of Richard II, Duke of Normandy. In 1065 over 12,000 Germans who had crossed Europe under the commandof Günther, Bishop of Bamberg, while on their way through Palestine had to seek shelter in a ruined fortress,where they defended themselves against a troop of Bedouins (Lambert of Hersfeld, in "Mon. Germ. Hist.:Script.", V, 168). Thus it is evident that at the close of the eleventh century the route to Palestine wasfamiliar enough to Western Christians who looked upon the Holy Sepulchre as the most venerable of relicsand were ready to brave any peril in order to visit it. The memory of Charlemagne's protectorate still lived,and a trace of it is to be found in the medieval legend of this emperor's journey to Palestine (Gaston Paris in"Romania", 1880, p. 23).

The rise of the Seljukian Turks, however, compromised the safety of pilgrims and even threatened theindependence of the Byzantine Empire and of all Christendom. In 1070 Jerusalem was taken, and in 1091Diogenes, the Greek emperor, was defeated and made captive at Mantzikert. Asia Minor and all of Syriabecame the prey of the Turks. Antioch succumbed in 1084, and by 1092 not one of the great metropolitansees of Asia remained in the possession of the Christians. Although separated from the communion of Romesince the schism of Michael Cærularius (1054), the emperors of Constantinople implored the assistance of the popes; in 1073 letters were exchanged on the subject between Michael VII and Gregory VII. The popeseriously contemplated leading a force of 50,000 men to the East in order to re-establish Christian unity,repulse the Turks, and rescue the Holy Sepulchre. But the idea of the crusade constituted only a part of thismagnificent plan. (The letters of Gregory VII are in P.L., CXLVIII, 300, 325, 329, 386; cf. Riant's criticaldiscussion in Archives de l'Orient Latin, I, 56.) The conflict over the Investitures in 1076 compelled the popeto abandon his projects; the Emperors Nicephorus Botaniates and Alexius Comnenus were unfavourable to areligious union with Rome; finally war broke out between the Byzantine Empire and the Normans of the TwoSicilies.

It was Pope Urban II who took up the plans of Gregory VII and gave them more definite shape. A letter fromAlexius Comnenus to Robert, Count of Flanders, recorded by the chroniclers, Guibert de Nogent ("Historiens



Las Cruzadas

11

Occidentaux des Croisades", ed. by the Académie des Inscriptions, IV, 13l) and Hugues de Fleury (in "Mon.Germ. Hist.: Script.", IX, 392), seems to imply that the crusade was instigated by the Byzantine emperor, butthis has been proved false (Chalandon, Essai sur le règne d'Alexis Comnène, appendix), Alexius havingmerely sought to enroll five hundred Flemish knights in the imperial army (Anna Comnena, Alexiad., VII, iv).

The honour of initiating the crusade has also been attributed to Peter the Hermit, a recluse of Picardy, who,after a pilgrimage to Jerusalem and a vision in the church of the Holy Sepulchre, went to Urban II and wascommissioned by him to preach the crusade. However, though eyewitnesses of the crusade mention his

preaching, they do not ascribe to him the all-important rôle assigned him later by various chroniclers, e.g.Albert of Aix and especially William of Tyre. (See Hagenmeyer, Peter der Eremite Leipzig, 1879.) The idea of the crusade is chiefly attributed to Pope Urban II (1095), and the motives that actuated him are clearly setforth by his contemporaries: "On beholding the enormous injury that all, clergy or people, brought upon theChristian Faith . . . at the news that the Rumanian provinces had been taken from the Christians by the

Turks, moved with compassion and impelled by the love of God, he crossed the mountains and descendedinto Gaul" (Foucher de Chartres, I, in "Histoire des Crois.", III, 321). Of course it is possible that in order toswell his forces, Alexius Comnenus solicited assistance in the West; however, it was not he but the pope whoagitated the great movement which filled the Greeks with anxiety and terror.

II. FOUNDATION OF CHRISTIAN STATES IN THE EAST

After travelling through Burgundy and the south of France, Urban II convoked a council at Clermont-Ferrand,in Auvergne. It was attended by fourteen archbishops, 250 bishops, and 400 abbots; moreover a great

number of knights and men of all conditions came and encamped on the plain of Chantoin, to the east of Clermont, 18-28 November, 1095. On 27 November, the pope himself addressed the assembled multitudes,exhorting them to go forth and rescue the Holy Sepulchre. Amid wonderful enthusiasm and cries of "Godwills it!" all rushed towards the pontiff to pledge themselves by vow to depart for the Holy Land and receivethe cross of red material to be worn on the shoulder. At the same time the pope sent letters to all Christiannations, and the movement made rapid headway throughout Europe. Preachers of the crusade appearedeverywhere, and on all sides sprang up disorganized, undisciplined, penniless hordes, almost destitute of equipment, who, surging eastward through the valley of the Danube, plundered as they went along andmurdered the Jews in the German cities. One of these bands, headed by Folkmar, a German cleric, wasslaughtered by the Hungarians. Peter the Hermit, however, and the German knight, Walter the Pennyless(Gautier Sans Avoir), finally reached Constantinople with their disorganized troops. To save the city fromplunder Alexius Comnenus ordered them to be conveyed across the Bosporus (August, 1096); in Asia Minorthey turned to pillage and were nearly all slain by the Turks. Meanwhile the regular crusade was beingorganized in the West and, according to a well-conceived plan, the four principal armies were to meet at

Constantinople.

Godfrey of Bouillon, Duke of Lower Lorraine at the head of the people of Lorraine, the Germans, and theFrench from the north, followed the valley of the Danube, crossed Hungary, and arrived at Constantinople,23 December, 1096.Hugh of Vermandois, brother of King Philip I of France, Robert Courte-Heuse, Duke of Normandy, and CountStephen of Blois, led bands of French and Normans across the Alps and set sail from the ports of Apulia forDyrrachium (Durazzo), whence they took the "Via Egnatia" to Constantinople and assembled there in May,1097.

The French from the south, under the leadership of Raymond of Saint-Gilles, Count of Toulouse, and of Adhemar of Monteil, Bishop of Puy and papal legate, began to fight their way through the longitudinalvalleys of the Eastern Alps and, after bloody conflicts with the Slavonians, reached Constantinople at theend of April, 1097.

Lastly, the Normans of Southern Italy, won over by the enthusiasm of the bands of crusaders that passedthrough their country, embarked for Epirus under the command of Bohemond and Tancred, one being theeldest son, the other the nephew, of Robert Guiscard. Crossing the Byzantine Empire, they succeeded inreaching Constantinople, 26 April, 1097.

The appearance of the crusading armies at Constantinople raised the greatest trouble, and helped to bringabout in the future irremediable misunderstandings between the Greeks and the Latin Christians. Theunsolicited invasion of the latter alarmed Alexius, who tried to prevent the concentration of all these forcesat Constantinople by transporting to Asia Minor each Western army in the order of its arrival; moreover, heendeavoured to extort from the leaders of the crusade a promise that they would restore to the GreekEmpire the lands they were about to conquer. After resisting the imperial entreaties throughout the winter,Godfrey of Bouillon, hemmed in at Pera, at length consented to take the oath of fealty. Bohemond, RobertCourte-Heuse, Stephen of Blois, and the other crusading chiefs unhesitatingly assumed the same obligation;Raymond of St-Gilles, however, remained obdurate.

Transported into Asia Minor, the crusaders laid siege to the city of Nicæa, but Alexius negotiated with the Turks, had the city delivered to him, and prohibited the crusaders from entering it (1 June, 1097). After theirvictory over the Turks at the battle of Dorylæum on 1 July, 1097, the Christians entered upon the high



Las Cruzadas

12

plateaux of Asia Minor. Constantly harrassed by a relentless enemy, overcome by the excessive heat, andsinking under the weight of their leathern armour covered with iron scales, their sufferings were wellnighintolerable. In September, 1097, Tancred and Baldwin, brothers of Godfrey of Bouillon, left the bulk of thearmy and entered Armenian territory. At Tarsus a feud almost broke out between them, but fortunately theybecame reconciled. Tancred took possession of the towns of Cilicia, whilst Baldwin, summoned by theArmenians, crossed the Euphrates in October, 1097, and, after marrying an Armenian princess, wasproclaimed Lord of Edessa. Meanwhile the crusaders, revictualled by the Armenians of the Taurus region,

made their way into Syria and on 20 October, 1097, reached the fortified city of Antioch, which wasprotected by a wall flanked with 450 towers, stocked by the Ameer Jagi-Sian with immense quantities of provisions. Thanks to the assistance of carpenters and engineers who belonged to a Genoese fleet that hadarrived at the mouth of the Orontes, the crusaders were enabled to construct battering-machines and tobegin the siege of the city. Eventually Bohemond negotiated with a Turkish chief who surrendered one of the towers, and on the night of 2 June, 1098, the crusaders took Antioch by storm. The very next day theywere in turn besieged within the city by the army of Kerbûga, Ameer of Mosul. Plague and famine cruellydecimated their ranks, and many of them, among others Stephen of Blois, escaped under cover of night. Thearmy was on the verge of giving way to discouragement when its spirits were suddenly revived by thediscovery of the Holy Lance, resulting from the dream of a Provençal priest named Pierre Barthélemy. On 28

June, 1098, Kerbûga's army was effectually repulsed, but, instead of marching on Jerusalem without delay,the chiefs spent several months in a quarrel due to the rivalry of Raymond of Saint-Gilles and Bohemond,both of whom claimed the right to Antioch. It was not until April, 1099, that the march towards Jerusalemwas begun, Bohemond remaining in possession of Antioch while Raymond seized on Tripoli. On 7 June the

crusaders began the siege of Jerusalem. Their predicament would have been serious, indeed, had notanother Genoese fleet arrived at Jaffa and, as at Antioch, furnished the engineers necessary for a siege.After a general procession which the crusaders made barefooted around the city walls amid the insults andincantations of Mohammedan sorcerers, the attack began 14 July, 1099. Next day the Christians entered

Jerusalem from all sides and slew its inhabitants regardless of age or sex. Having accomplished theirpilgrimage to the Holy Sepulchre, the knights chose as lord of the new conquest Godfrey of Bouillon, whocalled himself "Defender of the Holy Sepulchre". They had then to repulse an Egyptian army, which wasdefeated at Ascalon, 12 August, 1099. Their position was nevertheless very insecure. Alexius Comnenusthreatened the principality of Antioch, and in 1100 Bohemond himself was made prisoner by the Turks, whilemost of the cities on the coast were still under Mohammedan control. Before his death, 29 July, 1099, UrbanII once more proclaimed the crusade. In 1101 three expeditions crossed Europe under the leadership of Count Stephen of Blois, Duke William IX of Aquitaine, and Welf IV, Duke of Bavaria. All three managed toreach Asia Minor, but were massacred by the Turks. On his release from prison Bohemond attacked theByzantine Empire, but was surrounded by the imperial army and forced to acknowledge himself the vassal

of Alexius. On Bohemond's death, however, in 1111, Tancred refused to live up to the treaty and retainedAntioch. Godfrey of Bouillon died at Jerusalem 18 July, 1100. His brother and successor, Baldwin of Edessa,was crowned King of Jerusalem in the Basilica of Bethlehem, 25 December, 1100. In 1112, with the aid of Norwegians under Sigurd Jorsalafari and the support of Genoese, Pisan, and Venetian fleets, Baldwin I beganthe conquest of the ports of Syria, which was completed in 1124 by the capture of Tyre. Ascalon alone keptan Egyptian garrison until 1153.

At this period the Christian states formed an extensive and unbroken territory between the Euphrates andthe Egyptian frontier, and included four almost independent principalities: the Kingdom of Jerusalem, theCountship of Tripoli, the Principality of Antioch, and the Countship of Rohez (Edessa). These small stateswere, so to speak, the common property of all Christendom and, as such, were subordinate to the authorityof the pope. Moreover, the French knights and Italian merchants established in the newly conquered cities

soon gained the upper hand. The authority of the sovereigns of these different principalities was restrictedby the fief-holders, vassals, and under-vassals who constituted the Court of Lieges, or Supreme Court. Thisassembly had entire control in legislative matters; no statute or law could be established without itsconsent; no baron could be deprived of his fief without its decision; its jurisdiction extended over all, eventhe king, and it controlled also the succession to the throne. A "Court of the Burgesses" had similar

jurisdiction over the citizens. Each fief had a like tribunal composed of knights and citizens, and in the portsthere were police and mercantile courts (see ASSIZES OF JERUSALEM). The authority of the Church alsohelped to limit the power of the king; the four metropolitan sees of Tyre, Cæsarea, Bessan, and Petra weresubject to the Patriarch of Jerusalem, similarly seven suffragan sees and a great many abbeys, among themMount Sion, Mount Olivet, the Temple, Josaphat, and the Holy Sepulchre. Through rich and frequentdonations the clergy became the largest property-holders in the kingdom; they also received from thecrusaders important estates situated in Europe. In spite of the aforesaid restrictions, in the twelfth centurythe King of Jerusalem had a large income. The customs duties established in the ports and administered bynatives, the tolls exacted from caravans, and the monopoly of certain industries were a fruitful source of revenue. From a military point of view all vassals owed the king unlimited service as to time, though he wasobliged to compensate them, but to fill the ranks of the army it was necessary to enroll natives whoreceived a life annuity (fief de soudée). In this way was recruited the light cavalry of the "Turcoples", armed



Las Cruzadas

13

in Saracenic style. Altogether these forces barely exceeded 20,000 men, and yet the powerful vassals whocommanded them were almost independent of the king. So it was that the great need of regular troops forthe defence of the Christian dominions brought about the creation of a unique institution, the religiousorders of knighthood, viz.: the Hospitallers, who at first did duty in the Hospital of St. John founded by theaforesaid merchants of Amalfi, and were then organized into a militia by Gérard du Puy that they might fightthe Saracens (1113); and the Templars, nine of whom in 1118 gathered around Hugues de Payens andreceived the Rule of St. Bernard. These members, whether knights drawn from the nobility, bailiffs, clerks, or

chaplains, pronounced the three monastic vows but it was chiefly to the war against the Saracens that theypledged themselves. Being favoured with many spiritual and temporal privileges, they easily gained recruitsfrom among the younger sons of feudal houses and acquired both in Palestine and in Europe considerableproperty. Their castles, built at the principal strategic points, Margat, Le Crac, and Tortosa, were strongcitadels protected by several concentric enclosures. In the Kingdom of Jerusalem these military ordersvirtually formed two independent commonwealths. Finally, in the cities, the public power was dividedbetween the native citizens and the Italian colonists, Genoese, Venetians, Pisans, and also the Marseillaiswho, in exchange for their services, were given supreme power in certain districts wherein small self-governing communities had their consuls, their churches, and on the outskirts their farm-land, used for thecultivation of cotton and sugar-cane. The Syrian ports were regularly visited by Italian fleets which obtainedthere the spices and silks brought by caravans from the Far East. Thus, during the first half of the twelfthcentury the Christian states of the East were completely organized, and even eclipsed in wealth andprosperity most of the Western states.

III. FIRST DESTRUCTION OF THE CHRISTIAN STATES (1144-87)

Many dangers, unfortunately, threatened this prosperity. On the south were the Caliphs of Egypt, on theeast the Seljuk Ameers of Damascus, Hamah and Aleppo, and on the north the Byzantine emperors, eagerto realize the project of Alexius Comnenus and bring the Latin states under their power. Moreover, in thepresence of so many enemies the Christian states lacked cohesion and discipline. The help they receivedfrom the West was too scattered and intermittent. Nevertheless these Western knights, isolated amidMohammedans and forced, because of the torrid climate, to lead a life far different from that to which theyhad been accustomed at home, displayed admirable bravery and energy in their efforts to save the Christiancolonies. In 1137 John Comnenus, Emperor of Constantinople, appeared before Antioch with an army, andcompelled Prince Raymond to do him homage. On the death of this potentate (1143), Raymondendeavoured to shake off the irksome yoke and invaded Byzantine territory, but was hemmed in by theimperial army and compelled (1144) to humble himself at Constantinople before the Emperor Manuel. ThePrincipality of Edessa, completely isolated from the other Christian states, could not withstand the attacks of

Imad-ed-Din, the prince, or atabek, of Mosul, who forced its garrison to capitulate 25 December, 1144. Afterthe assassination of Imad-ed-Din, his son Nour-ed-Din continued hostilities against the Christian states. Atnews of this, Louis VII of France, Queen Eleanor of Aquitaine, and a great number of knights, moved by theexhortations of St. Bernard, enlisted under the cross (Assembly of Vézelay, 31 March, 1146). The Abbot of Clairvaux became the apostle of the crusade and conceived the idea of urging all Europe to attack theinfidels simultaneously in Syria, in Spain, and beyond the Elbe. At first he met with strong opposition inGermany. Eventually Emperor Conrad III acceded to his wish and adopted the standard of the cross at theDiet of Spires, 25 December, 1146. However, there was no such enthusiasm as had prevailed in 1095. Justas the crusaders started on their march, King Roger of Sicily attacked the Byzantine Empire, but hisexpedition merely checked the progress of Nour-ed-Din's invasion. The sufferings endured by the crusaderswhile crossing Asia Minor prevented them from advancing on Edessa. They contented themselves withbesieging Damascus, but were obliged to retreat at the end of a few weeks (July, 1148). This defeat causedgreat dissatisfaction in the West; moreover, the conflicts between the Greeks and the crusaders onlyconfirmed the general opinion that the Byzantine Empire was the chief obstacle to the success of the

Crusades. Nevertheless, Manuel Comnenus endeavoured to strengthen the bonds that united the ByzantineEmpire to the Italian principalities. In 1161 he married Mary of Antioch, and in 1167 gave the hand of one of his nieces to Amalric, King of Jerusalem. This alliance resulted in thwarting the progress of Nour-ed-Din, who,having become master of Damascus in 1154, refrained thenceforth from attacking the Christian dominions.

King Amalric profited by this respite to interpose in the affairs of Egypt, as the only remainingrepresentatives of the Fatimite dynasty were children, and two rival viziers were disputing the supremepower amid conditions of absolute anarchy. One of these disputants, Shawer, being exiled from Egypt, tookrefuge with Nour-ed-Din, who sent his best general, Shírkúh, to reinstate him. After his conquest of Cairo,Shírkúh endeavoured to bring Shawer into disfavour with the caliph; Amalric, taking advantage of this, alliedhimself with Shawer. On two occasions, in 1164 and 1167, he forced Shírkúh to evacuate Egypt; a body of Frankish knights was stationed at one of the gates of Cairo, and Egypt paid a tribute of 100,000 dinárs to theKingdom of Jerusalem. In 1168 Amalric made another attempt to conquer Egypt, but failed. After orderingthe assassination of Shawer, Shírkúh had himself proclaimed Grand Vizier. At his death on 3 March, 1169, hewas succeeded by his nephew, Salah-ed-Dîn (Saladin). During that year Amalric, aided by a Byzantine fleet,invaded Egypt once more, but was defeated at Damietta. Saladin retained full sway in Egypt and appointedno successor to the last Fatimite caliph, who died in 1171. Moreover, Nour-ed-Din died in 1174, and, while



Las Cruzadas

14

his sons and nephews disputed the inheritance, Saladin took possession of Damascus and conquered allMesopotamia except Mosul. Thus, when Amalric died in 1173, leaving the royal power to Baldwin IV, "theLeprous", a child of thirteen, the Kingdom of Jerusalem was threatened on all sides. At the same time twofactions, led respectively by Guy de Lusignan, brother-in-iaw of the king, and Raymond, Count of Tripoli,contended for the supremacy. Baldwin IV died in 1184, and was soon followed to the grave by his nephewBaldwin V. Despite lively opposition, Guy de Lusignan was crowned king, 20 July, 1186. Though the struggleagainst Saladin was already under way, it was unfortunately conducted without order or discipline.

Notwithstanding the truce concluded with Saladin, Renaud de Châtillon, a powerful feudatory and lord of thetrans-Jordanic region, which included the fief of Montréal, the great castle of Karak, and Aïlet, a port on theRed Sea, sought to divert the enemy's attention by attacking the holy cities of the Mohammedans. Oarlessvessels were brought to Aïlet on the backs of camels in 1182, and a fleet of five galleys traversed the RedSea for a whole year, ravaging the coasts as far as Aden; a body of knights even attempted to seize Medina.In the end this fleet was destroyed by Saladin's, and, to the great joy of the Mohammedans, the Frankishprisoners were put to death at Mecca. Attacked in his castle at Karak, Renaud twice repulsed Saladin'sforces (1184-86). A truce was then signed, but Renaud broke it again and carried off a caravan in which wasthe sultan's own sister. In his exasperation Saladin invaded the Kingdom of Jerusalem and, although Guy deLusignan gathered all his forces to repel the attack, on 4 July, 1187, Saladin's army annihilated that of theChristians on the shores of Lake Tiberias. The king, the grand master of the Temple, Renaud de Châtillon,and the most powerful men in the realm were made prisoners. After slaying Renaud with his own hand,Saladin marched on Jerusalem. The city capitulated 17 September, and Tyre, Antioch, and Tripoli were theonly places in Syria that remained to the Christians.

IV. ATTEMPTS TO RESTORE THE CHRISTIAN STATES AND THE CRUSADE AGAINST SAINT-JEAND'ACRE

The news of these events caused great consternation in Christendom, and Pope Gregory VIII strove to put astop to all dissensions among the Christian princes. On 21 January, 1188, Philip Augustus, King of France,and Henry II, Plantagenet, became reconciled at Gisors and took the cross. On 27 March, at the Diet of Mainz, Frederick Barbarossa and a great number of German knights made a vow to defend the Christiancause in Palestine. In Italy, Pisa made peace with Genoa, Venice with the King of Hungary, and William of Sicily with the Byzantine Empire. Moreover, a Scandinavian fleet consisting of 12,000 warriors sailed aroundthe shores of Europe, when passing Portugal, it helped to capture Alvor from the Mohammedans.Enthusiasm for the crusade was again wrought up to a high pitch; but, on the other hand, diplomacy androyal and princely schemes became increasingly important in its organization. Frederick Barbarossa enteredinto negotiations with Isaac Angelus, Emperor of Constantinople, with the Sultan of Iconium, and even with

Saladin himself. It was, moreover, the first time that all the Mohammedan forces were united under a singleleader; Saladin, while the holy war was being preached, organized against the Christians something like acounter-crusade. Frederick Barbarossa, who was first ready for the enterprise, and to whom chroniclersattribute an army of 100,000 men, left Ratisbon, 11 May, 1189. After crossing Hungary he took the Balkanpasses by assault and tried to outflank the hostile movements of Isaac Angelus by attacking Constantinople.Finally, after the sack of Adrianople, Isaac Angelus surrendered, and between 21 and 30 March, 1190, theGermans succeeded in crossing the Strait of Gallipoli. As usual, the march across Asia Minor was mostarduous. With a view to replenishing provisions, the army took Iconium by assault. On their arrival in the

Taurus region, Frederick Barbarossa tried to cross the Selef (Kalykadnos) on horseback and was drowned. Thereupon many German princes returned to Europe; the others, under the emperor's son, Frederick of Swabia. reached Antioch and proceeded thence to Saint-Jean d'Acre. It was before this city that finally all thecrusading troops assembled. In June, 1189, King Guy de Lusignan, who had been released from captivity,appeared there with the remnant of the Christian army, and, in September of the same year, theScandinavian fleet arrived, followed by the English and Flemish fleets, commanded respectively by the

Archbishop of Canterbury and Jacques d'Avesnes. This heroic siege lasted two years. In the spring of eachyear reinforcements arrived from the West, and a veritable Christian city sprang up outside the walls of Acre. But the winters were disastrous to the crusaders, whose ranks were decimated by disease brought onby the inclemency of the rainy season and lack of food. Saladin came to the assistance of the city, andcommunicated with it by means of carrier pigeons. Missile-hurtling machines (pierrières), worked bypowerful machinery, were used by the crusaders to demolish the walls of Acre, but the Mohammedans alsohad strong artillery. This famous siege had already lasted two years when Philip Augustus, King of France,and Richard Coeur de Lion, King of England, arrived on the scene. After long deliberation they had leftVézelay together, 4 July, 1190. Richard embarked at Marseilles, Philip at Genoa, and they met at Messina.During a sojourn in this place, lasting until March, 1191, they almost quarrelled, but finally concluded atreaty of peace. While Philip was landing at Acre, Richard was shipwrecked on the coast of Cyprus, thenindependent under Isaac Comnenus. With the aid of Guy de Lusignan, Richard conquered this island. Thearrival of the Kings of France and England before Acre brought about the capitulation of the city, 13 July1191. Soon, however, the quarrel of the French and English kings broke out again, and Philip Augustus leftPalestine, 28 July. Richard was now leader of the crusade, and, to punish Saladin for the non-fulfilment of thetreaty conditions within the time specified, had the Mohammedan hostages put to death. Next, an attack on

Jerusalem was meditated, but, after beguiling the Christians by negotiations, Saladin brought numerous



Las Cruzadas

15

troops from Egypt. The enterprise failed, and Richard compensated himself for these reverses by brilliantbut useless exploits which made his name legendary among the Mohammedans. Before his departure hesold the Island of Cyprus, first to the Templars, who were unable to settle there, and then to Guy deLusignan, who renounced the Kingdom of Jerusalem in favour of Conrad of Montferrat (1192). After a lastexpedition to defend Jaffa against Saladin, Richard declared a truce and embarked for Europe, 9 October,1192, but did not reach his English realm until he had undergone a humiliating captivity at the hands of theDuke of Austria, who avenged in this way the insults offered him before Saint-Jean d'Acre.

While Capetians and Plantagenets, oblivious of the Holy War, were settling at home their territorial disputes,Emperor Henry VI, son of Barbarossa, took in hand the supreme direction of Christian politics in the East.Crowned King of the Two Sicilies, 25 December, 1194, he took the cross at Bari, 31 May, 1195, and madeready an expedition which, he thought, would recover Jerusalem and wrest Constantinople from the usurperAlexius III. Eager to exercise his imperial authority he made Amaury de Lusignan King of Cyprus and Leo IIKing of Armenia. In September, 1197, the German crusaders started for the East. They landed at Saint-Jeand'Acre and marched on Jerusalem, but were detained before the little town of Tibnin from November, 1197,to February 1198. On raising the siege, they learned that Henry VI had died, 28 September, at Messina,where he had gathered the fleet that was to convey him to Constantinople. The Germans signed a truce withthe Saracens, but their future influence in Palestine was assured by the creation of the Order of the TeutonicKnights. In 1143, a German pilgrim had founded a hospital for his fellow-countrymen; the religious whoserved it moved to Acre and, in 1198, were organized in imitation of the plan of the Hospitallers, their rulebeing approved by Innocent III in 1199.

V. THE CRUSADE AGAINST CONSTANTINOPLE (1204)

In the many attempts made to establish the Christian states the efforts of the crusaders had been directedsolely toward the object for which the Holy War had been instituted; the crusade against Constantinopleshows the first deviation from the original purpose. For those who strove to gain their ends by taking thedirection of the crusades out of the pope's hands, this new movement was, of course, a triumph, but forChristendom it was a source of perplexity. Scarcely had Innocent III been elected pope, in January, 1198,when he inaugurated a policy in the East which he was to follow throughout his pontificate. He subordinatedall else to the recapture of Jerusalem and the reconquest of the Holy Land. In his first Encyclicals hesummoned all Christians to join the crusade and even negotiated with Alexius III, the Byzantine emperor,trying to persuade him to re-enter the Roman communion and use his troops for the liberation of Palestine.Peter of Capua, the papal legate, brought about a truce between Philip Augustus and Richard Coeur de Lion,

January, 1199, and popular preachers, among others the parish priest Foulques of Neuilly, attracted large

crowds. During a tournament at Ecry-sur-Aisne, 28 November, 1199, Count Thibaud de Champagne and agreat many knights took the cross; in southern Germany, Martin, Abbot of Pairis, near Colmar, won many tothe crusade. It would seem, however, that, from the outset, the pope lost control of this enterprise. Withouteven consulting Innocent III, the French knights, who had elected Thibaud de Champagne as their leader,decided to attack the Mohammedans in Egypt and in March, 1201, concluded with the Republic of Venice acontract for the transportation of troops on the Mediterranean. On the death of Thibaud the crusaders choseas his successor Boniface, Marquis of Montferrat, and cousin of Philip of Swabia, then in open conflict withthe pope. Just at this time the son of Isaac Angelus, the dethroned Emperor of Constantinople, sought refugein the West and asked Innocent III and his own brother-in-law, Philip of Swabia, to reinstate him on theimperial throne. The question has been raised whether it was pre-arranged between Philip and Boniface of Montferrat to turn the crusade towards Constantinople, and a passage in the "Gesta Innocentii" (83, in P. L.,CCXIV, CXXXII) indicates that the idea was not new to Boniface of Montferrat when, in the spring of 1202, hemade it known to the pope. Meanwhile the crusaders assembled at Venice could not pay the amount calledfor by their contract, so, by way of exchange, the Venetians suggested that they help recover the city of

Zara in Dalmatia. The knights accepted the proposal, and, after a few days' siege, the city capitulated,November, 1202. But it was in vain that Innocent III urged the crusaders to set out for Palestine. Havingobtained absolution for the capture of Zara, and despite the opposition of Simon of Montfort and a part of the army, on 24 May, 1203, the leaders ordered a march on Constantinople. They had concluded withAlexius, the Byzantine pretender, a treaty whereby he promised to have the Greeks return to the Romancommunion, give the crusaders 200,000 marks, and participate in the Holy War. On 23 June the crusaders'fleet appeared before Constantinople; on 7 July they took possession of a suburb of Galata and forced theirway into the Golden Horn; on 17 July they simultaneously attacked the sea walls and land walls of theBlachernæ. The troops of Alexius III made an unsuccessful sally, and the usurper fled, whereupon IsaacAngelus was released from prison and permitted to share the imperial dignity with his son, Alexius IV. Buteven had the latter been sincere he would have been powerless to keep the promises made to thecrusaders. After some months of tedious waiting, those of their number cantoned at Galata lost patiencewith the Greeks, who not only refused to live up to their agreement, but likewise treated them with openhostility. On 5 February, 1204, Alexius IV and Isaac Angelus were deposed by a revolution, and AlexiusMurzuphla, a usurper, undertook the defence of Constantinople against the Latin crusaders who werepreparing to besiege Constantinople a second time. By a treaty concluded in March, 1204, between theVenetians and the crusading chiefs, it was pre-arranged to share the spoils of the Greek Empire. On 12 April,



Las Cruzadas

16

1204, Constantinople was carried by storm, and the next day the ruthless plundering of its churches andpalaces was begun. The masterpieces of antiquity, piled up in public places and in the Hippodrome, wereutterly destroyed. Clerics and knights, in their eagerness to acquire famous and priceless relics, took part inthe sack of the churches. The Venetians received half the booty; the portion of each crusader wasdetermined according to his rank of baron, knight, or bailiff, and most of the churches of the West wereenriched with ornaments stripped from those of Constantinople. On 9 May, 1204, an electoral college,formed of prominent crusaders and Venetians, assembled to elect an emperor. Dandolo, Doge of Venice,

refused the honour, and Boniface of Montferrat was not considered. In the end, Baldwin, Count of Flanders,was elected and solemnly crowned in St. Sophia. Constantinople and the empire were divided among theemperor, the Venetians, and the chief crusaders; the Marquis of Montferrat received Thessalonica andMacedonia, with the title of king; Henry of Flanders became Lord of Adramyttion; Louis of Blois was madeDuke of Nicæa, and fiefs were bestowed upon six hundred knights. Meanwhile, the Venetians reserved tothemselves the ports of Thrace, the Peloponnesus, and the islands. Thomas Morosini, a Venetian priest, waselected patriarch.

At the news of these most extraordinary events, in which he had had no hand, Innocent III bowed as insubmission to the designs of Providence and, in the interests of Christendom, determined to make the bestof the new conquest. His chief aim was to suppress the Greek schism and to place the forces of the newLatin Empire at the service of the crusade. Unfortunately, the Latin Empire of Constantinople was in tooprecarious a condition to furnish any material support to the papal policy. The emperor was unable toimpose his authority upon the barons. At Nicæa, not far from Constantinople, the former Byzantine

Government gathered the remnant of its authority and its followers. Theodore Lascaris was proclaimedemperor. In Europe, Joannitsa, Tsar of the Wallachians and Bulgarians, invaded Thrace and destroyed thearmy of the crusaders before Adrianople, 14 April, 1205. During the battle the Emperor Baldwin fell. Hisbrother and successor, Henry of Flanders, devoted his reign (1206-16) to interminable conflicts with theBulgarians, the Lombards of Thessalonica, and the Greeks of Asia Minor. Nevertheless, he succeeded instrengthening the Latin conquest, forming an alliance with the Bulgarians, and establishing his authorityeven over the feudatories of Morea (Parliament of Ravennika, 1209); however, far from leading a crusadeinto Palestine, he had to solicit Western help, and was obliged to sign treaties with Theodore Lascaris andeven with the Sultan of Iconium. The Greeks were not reconciled to the Church of Rome; most of theirbishops abandoned their sees and took refuge at Nicæa, leaving their churches to the Latin bishops namedto replace them. Greek convents were replaced by Cistercian monasteries, commanderies of Templars andHospitallers, and chapters of canons. With a few exceptions, however, the native population remainedhostile and looked upon the Latin conquerors as foreigners. Having failed in all his attempts to induce thebarons of the Latin Empire to undertake an expedition against Palestine, and understanding at last the

cause of failure of the crusade in 1204, Innocent III resolved (1207) to organize a new crusade and to takeno further notice of Constantinople. Circumstances, however, were unfavourable. Instead of concentratingthe forces of Christendom against the Mohammedans, the pope himself disbanded them by proclaiming(1209) a crusade against the Albigenses in the south of France, and against the Almohades of Spain (1213),the pagans of Prussia, and John Lackland of England. At the same time there occurred outbursts of mysticalemotion similar to those which had preceded the first crusade. In 1212 a young shepherd of Vendôme and ayouth from Cologne gathered thousands of children whom they proposed to lead to the conquest of Palestine. The movement spread through France and Italy. This "Children's Crusade" at length reachedBrindisi, where merchants sold a number of the children as slaves to the Moors, while nearly all the rest diedof hunger and exhaustion. In 1213 Innocent III had a crusade preached throughout Europe and sent CardinalPelagius to the East to effect, if possible, the return of the Greeks to the fold of Roman unity. On 25 July,1215, Frederick II, after his victory over Otto of Brunswick, took the cross at the tomb of Charlemagne atAachen. On 11 November, 1215, Innocent III opened the Fourth Lateran Council with an exhortation to allthe faithful to join the crusade, the departure being set for 1217. At the time of his death (1216) Pope

Innocent felt that a great movement had been started.

VI. THE THIRTEENTH-CENTURY CRUSADES (1217-52)

In Europe, however, the preaching of the crusade met with great opposition. Temporal princes were stronglyaverse to losing jurisdiction over their subjects who took part in the crusades. Absorbed in political schemes,they were unwilling to send so far away the military forces on which they depended. As early as December,1216, Frederick II was granted a first delay in the fulfilment of his vow. The crusade as preached in thethirteenth century was no longer the great enthusiastic movement of 1095, but rather a series of irregularand desultory enterprises. Andrew II, King of Hungary, and Casimir, Duke of Pomerania, set sail from Veniceand Spalato, while an army of Scandinavians made a tour of Europe. The crusaders landed at Saint-Jeand'Acre in 1217, but confined themselves to incursions on Mussulman territory, whereupon Andrew of Hungary returned to Europe. Receiving reinforcements in the spring of 1218, John of Brienne, King of

Jerusalem, resolved to make an attack on the Holy Land by way of Egypt. The crusaders accordingly landedat Damietta in May, 1218, and, after a siege marked by many deeds of heroism, took the city by storm, 5November, 1219. Instead of profiting by this victory, they spent over a year in idle quarrels, and it was notuntil May 1221, that they set out for Cairo. Surrounded by the Saracens at Mansurah, 24 July, the Christian



Las Cruzadas

17

army was routed. John of Brienne was compelled to purchase a retreat by the surrender of Damietta to theSaracens. Meanwhile Emperor Frederick II, who was to be the leader of the crusade, had remained in Europeand continued to importune the pope for new postponements of his departure. On 9 November, 1225, hemarried Isabelle of Brienne, heiress to the Kingdom of Jerusalem, the ceremony taking place at Brindisi.Completely ignoring his father-in-law, he assumed the title of King of Jerusalem. In 1227, however, he hadnot yet left for Palestine. Gregory IX, elected pope 19 March, 1227, summoned Frederick to fulfil his vow.Finally, 8 September, the emperor embarked but soon turned back; therefore, on 29 September, the pope

excommunicated him. Nevertheless, Frederick set sail again 18 June, 1228, but instead of leading a crusadehe played a game of diplomacy. He won over Malek-el-Khamil, the Sultan of Egypt, who was at war with thePrince of Damascus, and concluded a treaty with him at Jaffa, February, 1229, according to the terms of which Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and Nazareth were restored to the Christians. On 18 March, 1229, without anyreligious ceremony, Frederick assumed the royal crown of Jerusalem in the church of the Holy Sepulchre.Returning to Europe, he became reconciled to Gregory IX, August, 1230. The pontiff ratified the Treaty of

Jaffa, and Frederick sent knights into Syria to take possession of the cities and compel all feudatories to dohim homage. A struggle occurred between Richard Filangieri, the emperor's marshal, and the barons of Palestine, whose leader was Jean d'Ibelin, Lord of Beirut. Filangieri vainly attempted to obtain possession of the Island of Cyprus. and, when Conrad, son of Frederick II and Isabelle of Brienne, came of age in 1243, theHigh Court, described above, named as regent Alix of Champagne, Queen of Cyprus. In this way Germanpower was abolished in Palestine.

In the meantime Count Thibaud IV of Champagne had been leading a fruitless crusade in Syria (1239).

Similarly the Duke of Burgundy and Richard of Cornwall, brother of the King of England, who had undertakento recover Ascalon, concluded a truce with Egypt (1241). Europe was now threatened with a most grievousdisaster. After conquering Russia, the Mongols under Jenghiz Khan appeared in 1241 on the frontiers of Poland, routed the army of the Duke of Silesia at Liegnitz, annihilated that of Bela, King of Hungary, andreached the Adriatic. Palestine felt the consequences of this invasion. The Mongols had destroyed theMussulman Empire of Kharizm in Central Asia. Fleeing before their conquerors, 10,000 Kharizmians offeredtheir services to the Sultan of Egypt, meanwhile seizing Jerusalem as they passed by, in September, 1244.

The news of this catastrophe created a great stir in Europe, and at the Council of Lyons (June-July, 1245)Pope Innocent IV proclaimed a crusade, but the lack of harmony between him and the Emperor Frederick IIforedoomed the pontiff to disappointment. Save for Louis IX, King of France, who took the cross inDecember, 1244, no one showed any willingness to lead an expedition to Palestine. On being informed thatthe Mongols were well-disposed towards Christianity, Innocent IV sent them Giovanni di Pianocarpini, aFranciscan, and Nicolas Ascelin, a Dominican, as ambassadors. Pianocarpini was in Karakorum 8 April, 1246,the day of the election of the great khan, but nothing came of this first attempt at an alliance with the

Mongols against the Mohammedans. However, when St. Louis, who left Paris 12 June, 1248, had reached theIsland of Cyprus, he received there a friendly embassy from the great khan and, in return, sent him twoDominicans. Encouraged, perhaps, by this alliance, the King of France decided to attack Egypt. On 7 June,1249, he took Damietta, but it was only six months later that he marched on Cairo. On 19 December, hisadvance-guard, commanded by his brother, Robert of Artois, began imprudently to fight in the streets of Mansurah and were destroyed. The king himself was cut off from communication with Damietta and madeprisoner 5 April, 1250. At the same time, the Ajoubite dynasty founded by Saladin was overthrown by theMameluke militia, whose ameers took possession of Egypt. St. Louis negotiated with the latter and was setat liberty on condition of surrendering Damietta and paying a ransom of a million gold bezants. He remainedin Palestine until 1254; bargained with the Egyptian ameers for the deliverance of prisoners; improved theequipment of the strongholds of the kingdom, Saint-Jean d'Acre, Cæsarea, Jaffa, and Sidon; and sent FriarWilliam of Rubruquis as ambassador to the great khan. Then, at the news of the death of his mother,Blanche of Castile, who had been acting as regent, he returned to France. Since the crusade against Saint-

Jean d'Acre, a new Frankish state, the Kingdom of Cyprus, had been formed in the Mediterranean opposite

Syria and became a valuable point of support for the crusades. By lavish distribution of lands and franchises,Guy de Lusignan succeeded in attracting to the island colonists, knights, men-at-arms, and civilians; hissuccessors established a government modelled after that of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. The king's powerwas restricted by that of the High Court, composed of all the knights, vassals, or under-vassals, with its seatat Nicosia. However, the fiefs were less extensive than in Palestine, and the feudatories could inherit only ina direct line. The Island of Cyprus was soon populated with French colonists who succeeded in winning overthe Greeks, upon whom they even imposed their language. Churches built in the French style and fortifiedcastles appeared on all sides. The Cathedral of St. Sophia in Nicosia, erected between 1217 and 1251, wasalmost a copy of a church in Champagne. Finally, commercial activity became a pronounced characteristicof the cities of Cyprus, and Famagusta developed into one of the busiest of Mediterranean ports.

VII. FINAL LOSS OF THE CHRISTIAN COLONIES OF THE EAST (1254-91)

No longer aided by funds from the West, and rent by internal disorders, the Christian colonies owed theirtemporary salvation to the changes in Mussulman policy and the intervention of the Mongols. The Venetiansdrove the Genoese from Saint-Jean d'Acre and treated the city as conquered territory; in a battle whereChristians fought against Christians, and in which Hospitallers were pitted against Templars, 20,000 men



Las Cruzadas

18

perished. In revenge the Genoese allied themselves with Michael Palæologus, Emperor of Nicæa, whosegeneral, Alexius Strategopulos, had now no trouble in entering Constantinople and overthrowing the LatinEmperor, Baldwin II, 25 July, 1261. The conquest of the Caliphate of Bagdad by the Mongols (1258) and theirinvasion of Syria, where they seized Aleppo and Damascus, terrified both Christians and Mohammedans; butthe Mameluke ameer, Bibars the Arbelester, defeated the Mongols and wrested Syria from them inSeptember, 1260. Proclaimed sultan in consequence of a conspiracy, in 1260, Bibars began a merciless waron the remaining Christian states. In 1263 he destroyed the church at Nazareth; in 1265 took Cæsarea and

Jaffa, and finally captured Antioch (May, 1268). The question of a crusade was always being agitated in theWest, but except among men of a religious turn of mind, like St. Louis, there was no longer any earnestnessin the matter among European princes. They looked upon a crusade as a political instrument, to be usedonly when it served their own interests. To prevent the preaching of a crusade against Constantinople,Michael Palæologus promised the pope to work for the union of the Churches; but Charles of Anjou, brotherof St. Louis, whom the conquest of the Two Sicilies had rendered one of the most powerful princes of Christendom, undertook to carry out for his own benefit the Eastern designs hitherto cherished by theHohenstaufen. While Mary of Antioch, granddaughter of Amaury II, bequeathed him the rights she claimedto have to the crown of Jerusalem, he signed the treaty of Viterbo with Baldwin II (27 May, 1267), whichassured him eventually the inheritance of Constantinople. In no wise troubled by these diplomaticcombinations, St. Louis thought only of the crusade. In a parliament held at Paris, 24 March, 1267, he andhis three sons took the cross, but, despite his example, many knights resisted the exhortations of thepreacher Humbert de Romans. On hearing the reports of the missionaries, Louis resolved to land at Tunis,whose prince he hoped to convert to Christianity. It has been asserted that St. Louis was led to Tunis by

Charles of Anjou, but instead of encouraging his brother's ambition the saint endeavoured to thwart it.Charles had tried to take advantage of the vacancy of the Holy See between 1268 and 1271 in order toattack Constantinople, the negotiations of the popes with Michael Palæologus for religious union havingheretofore prevented him. St. Louis received the embassy of the Greek emperor very graciously and orderedCharles of Anjou to join him at Tunis. The crusaders, among whom was Prince Edward of England, landed atCarthage 17 July, 1270, but the plague broke out in their camp, and on 25 August, St. Louis himself wascarried off by the scourge. Charles of Anjou then concluded a treaty with the Mohammedans, and thecrusaders reimbarked. Prince Edward alone, determined to fulfil his vow, and set out for Saint-Jean d'Acre;however, after a few razzias on Saracenic territory, he concluded a truce with Bibars.

The field was now clear for Charles of Anjou, but the election of Gregory X, who was favourable to thecrusade, again frustrated his plans. While the emissaries of the King of the Two Sicilies traversed the Balkanpeninsula, the new pope was awaiting the union of the Western and Eastern Churches, which event wassolemnly proclaimed at the Council of Lyons, 6 July, 1274; Michael Palæologus himself promised to take the

cross. On 1 May, 1275, Gregory X effected a truce between this sovereign and Charles of Anjou. In themeantime Philip III, King of France, the King of England, and the King of Aragon made a vow to go to theHoly Land. Unfortunately the death of Gregory X brought these plans to nought, and Charles of Anjouresumed his scheming. In 1277 he sent into Syria Roger of San Severino, who succeeded in planting hisbanner on the castle of Acre and in 1278 took possession of the principality of Achaia in the name of hisdaughter-in-law Isabelle de Villehardouin. Michael Palæologus had not been able to effect the union of theGreek clergy with Rome, and in 1281 Pope Martin IV excommunicated him. Having signed an alliance withVenice, Charles of Anjou prepared to attack Constantinople, and his expedition was set for April, 1283. On30 March, 1282, however, the revolt known as the Sicilian Vespers occurred, and once more his projectswere defeated. In order to subdue his own rebellious subjects and to wage war against the King of Aragon,Charles was at last compelled to abandon his designs on the East. Meanwhile Michael Palæologus remainedmaster of Constantinople, and the Holy Land was left defenceless. In 1280 the Mongols attempted oncemore to invade Syria, but were repulsed by the Egyptians at the battle of Hims; in 1286 the inhabitants of Saint-Jean d'Acre expelled Charles of Anjou's seneschal and called to their aid Henry II, King of Cyprus.

Kelaoun, the successor of Bibars, now broke the truce which he had concluded with the Christians, andseized Margat, the stronghold of the Hospitallers. Tripoli surrendered in 1289, and on 5 April, 1291, Malek-Aschraf, son and successor of Kelaoun, appeared before Saint-Jean d'Acre with 120,000 men. The 25,000Christians who defended the city were not even under one supreme commander; nevertheless they resistedwith heroic valour, filled breaches in the wall with stakes and bags of cotton and wool, and communicatedby sea with King Henry II, who brought them help from Cyprus. However, 28 May, the Mohammedans madea general attack and penetrated into the town, and its defenders fled in their ships. The strongest oppositionwas offered by the Templars, the garrison of whose fortress held out ten days longer, only to be completelyannihilated. In July, 1291, the last Christian towns in Syria capitulated, and the Kingdom of Jerusalem ceasedto exist.

VIII. THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY CRUSADE AND THE OTTOMAN INVASION

The loss of Saint-Jean d'Acre did not lead the princes of Europe to organize a new crusade. Men's mindswere indeed, as usual, directed towards the East, but in the first years of the fourteenth century the idea of a crusade inspired principally the works of theorists who saw in it the best means of reforming Christendom.

The treatise by Pierre Dubois, law-officer of the crown at Coutances, "De Recuperatione Terræ Sanctæ"



Las Cruzadas

19

(Langlois, ed., Paris, 1891), seems like the work of a dreamer, yet some of its views are truly modern. Theestablishment of peace between Christian princes by means of a tribunal of arbitration, the idea of making aFrench prince hereditary emperor, the secularization of the Patrimony of St. Peter, the consolidation of theOrders of the Hospitallers and Templars, the creation of a disciplined army the different corps of which wereto have a special uniform, the creation of schools for the study of Oriental languages, and the intermarriageof Christian maidens with Saracens were the principal ideas it propounded (1307). On the other hand thewritings of men of greater activity and wider experience suggested more practical methods for effecting the

conquest of the East. Persuaded that Christian defeat in the Orient was largely due to the mercantilerelations which the Italian cities Venice and Genoa continued to hold with the Mohammedans, these authorssought the establishment of a commercial blockade which, within a few years, would prove the ruin of Egyptand cause it to fall under Christian control. For this purpose it was recommended that a large fleet be fittedout at the expense of Christian princes and made to do police duty on the Mediterranean so as to preventsmuggling. These were the projects set forth in the memoirs of Fidentius of Padua, a Franciscan (about1291, Bibliothèque Nationale, Latin MSS., 7247); in those of King Charles II of Naples (1293, Bib. Nat.,Frankish MSS., 6049); Jacques de Molay (1307, Baluze, ed., Vitæ paparum Avenion., II, 176-185); Henry II,King of Cyprus (Mas-Latrie, ed., Histoire de Chypre, II, 118); Guillaume d'Adam, Archbishop of Sultanieh(1310, Kohler, ed., Collect. Hist. of the Crusades, Armenian Documents, II); and Marino Sanudo, the Venetian(Bongars, ed., Secreta fidelium Crucis, II). The consolidation of the military orders was also urged by CharlesII. Many other memoirs, especially that of Hayton, King of Armenia (1307, ed. Armenian Documents, I),considered an alliance between the Christians and the Mongols of Persia indispensable to success. In fact,from the end of the thirteenth century many missionaries had penetrated into the Mongolian Empire; in

Persia, as well as in China, their propaganda flourished.

St. Francis of Assisi, and Raymond Lully had hoped to substitute for the warlike crusade a peaceableconversion of the Mohammedans to Christianity. Raymond Lully, born at Palma, on the Island of Majorca, in1235, began (1275) his "Great Art", which, by means of a universal method for the study of Orientallanguages, would equip missionaries to enter into controversies with the Mohammedan doctors. In the sameyear he prevailed upon the King of Majorca to found the College of the Blessed Trinity at Miramar, where theFriars Minor could learn the Oriental languages. He himself translated catechetical treatises into Arabic and,after spending his life travelling in Europe trying to win over to his ideas popes and kings, sufferedmartyrdom at Bougie, where he had begun his work of evangelization (1314). Among the Mohammedansthis propaganda encountered insurmountable difficulties, whereas the Mongols, some of whom were stillmembers of the Nestorian Church, received it willingly. During the pontificate of John XXII (1316-34)permanent Dominican and Franciscan missions were established in Persia, China, Tatary and Turkestan, andin 1318 the Archbishopric of Sultanieh was created in Persia. In China Giovanni de Monte Corvino, created

Archbishop of Cambaluc (Peking), organized the religious hierarchy, founded monasteries, and converted toChristianity men of note, possibly the great khan himself. The account of the journey of Blessed Orderic dePordenone (Cordier, ed.) across Asia, between 1304 and 1330, shows us that Christianity had gained afoothold in Persia, India, Central Asia, and Southern China.

By thus leading up to an alliance between Mongols and Christians against the Mohammedans, the crusadehad produced the desired effect; early in the fourteenth century the future development of Christianity inthe East seemed assured. Unfortunately, however, the internal changes which occurred in the West, theweakening of the political influence of the popes, the indifference of temporal princes to what did notdirectly affect their territorial interests rendered unavailing all efforts towards the re-establishment of Christian power in the East. The popes endeavoured to insure the blockade of Egypt by prohibitingcommercial intercourse with the infidels and by organizing a squadron for the prevention of smuggling, butthe Venetians and Genoese defiantly sent their vessels to Alexandria and sold slaves and military stores tothe Mamelukes. Moreover, the consolidation of the military orders could not be effected. By causing the

suppression of the Templars at the Council of Vienne in 1311, King Philip the Fair dealt a cruel blow to thecrusade; instead of giving to the Hospitallers the immense wealth of the Templars, he confiscated it. The Teutonic Order having established itself in Prussia in 1228, there remained in the East only the Hospitallers.After the capture of Saint-Jean d'Acre, Henry II, King of Cyprus, had offered them shelter at Limasol, butthere they found themselves in very straitened circumstances. In 1310 they seized the Island of Rhodes,which had become a den of pirates, and took it as their permanent abode. Finally, the contemplated alliancewith the Mongols was never fully realized. It was in vain that Argoun, Khan of Persia, sent the Nestorianmonk, Raban Sauma, as ambassador to the pope and the princes of the West (1285-88); his offers elicitedbut vague replies. On 23 December, 1299, Cazan, successor to Argoun, inflicted a defeat upon theChristians at Hims, and captured Damascus, but he could not hold his conquests, and died in 1304 just as hewas preparing for a new expedition. The princes of the West assumed the cross in order to appropriate totheir own use the tithes which, for the defrayal of crusade expenses, they had levied upon the property of the clergy. For these sovereigns the crusade had no longer any but a fiscal interest. In 1336 King Philip VI of France, whom the pope had appointed leader of the crusade, collected a fleet at Marseilles and waspreparing to go to the East when the news of the projects of Edward III caused him to return to Paris. Warthen broke out between France and England, and proved an insurmountable obstacle to the success of anycrusade just when the combined forces of all Christendom would have been none too powerful to resist the



Las Cruzadas

20

new storm gathering in the East. From the close of the thirteenth century a band of Ottoman Turks, drivenout of Central Asia by Mongol invasions, had founded a military state in Asia Minor and now threatened toinvade Europe. They captured Ephesus in 1308, and in 1326 Othman, their sultan, established his residenceat Broussa (Prusa) in Bithynia under Ourkhan, moreover, they organized the regular foot-guards of janizariesagainst whom the undisciplined troops of Western knights could not hold out. The Turks entered Nicomediain 1328 and Nicæa in 1330; when they threatened the Emperors of Constantinople, the latter renewednegotiations with the popes with a view towards the reconciliation of the Greek and Roman Churches, for

which purpose Barlaam was sent as ambassador to Avignon, in 1339. At the same time the EgyptianMamelukes destroyed the port of Lajazzo, commercial centre of the Kingdom of Armenia Minor, where theremnants of the Christian colonies had sought refuge after the taking of Saint-Jean d'Acre (1337). Thecommercial welfare of the Venetians themselves was threatened; with their support Pope Clement VI in1344 succeeded in reorganizing the maritime league whose operations had been prevented by the warbetween France and England. Genoa, the Hospitallers, and the King of Cyprus all sent their contingents, and,on 28 October, 1344, the crusaders seized Smyrna, which was confided to the care of the Hospitallers. In1345 reinforcements under Humbert, Dauphin of Viennois, appeared in the Archipelago, but the new leaderof the crusade was utterly disqualified for the work assigned him; unable to withstand the piracy of the

Turkish ameers, the Christians concluded a truce with them in 1348. In 1356 the Ottomans capturedGallipoli and intercepted the route to Constantinople.

The cause of the crusade then found an unexpected defender in Peter I, King of Cyprus, who, called upon bythe Armenians, succeeded in surprising and storming the city of Adalia on the Cilician coast in 1361. Urged

by his chancellor, Philip de Méziéres, and Pierre Thomas, the papal legate, Peter I undertook a voyage to theWest (1362-65) in the hope of reviving the enthusiasm of the Christian princes. Pope Urban V extended hima magnificent welcome, as did also John the Good, King of France, who took the cross at Avignon, 20 March,1363; the latter's example was followed by King Edward III, the Black Prince, Emperor Charles IV, andCasimir, King of Poland. Everywhere King Peter was tendered fair promises, but when, in June, 1365, heembarked at Venice he was accompanied by hardly any but his own forces. After rallying the fleet of theHospitallers, he appeared unexpectedly before the Old Port of Alexandria, landed without resistance, andplundered the city for two days, but at the approach of an Egyptian army his soldiers forced him to retreat,9-16 October, 1365. Again in 1367 he pillaged the ports of Syria, Tripoli, Tortosa, Laodicea, and Jaffa, thusdestroying the commerce of Egypt. Later, in another voyage to the West, he made a supreme effort tointerest the princes in the crusade, but on his return to Cyprus he was assassinated, as the result of aconspiracy. Meanwhile the Ottomans continued their progress in Europe, taking Philippopolis in 1363 and, in1365, capturing Adrianople, which became the capital of the sultans. At the solicitation of Pope Urban V,Amadeus VII, Count of Savoy, took the cross and on 15 August, 1366, his fleet seized Gallipoli; then, after

rescuing the Greek emperor, John V, held captive by the Bulgarians, he returned to the West. In spite of theheroism displayed during these expeditions, the efforts made by the crusaders were too intermittent to beproductive of enduring results. Philippe de Méziéres, a friend and admirer of Pierre de Lusignan, eager toseek a remedy for the ills of Christendom, dreamed of founding a new militia, the Order of the Passion, anorganization whose character was to be at once clerical and military, and whose members, althoughmarried, were to lead an almost monastic life and consecrate themselves to the conquest of the Holy Land.Being well received by Charles V, Philippe de Méziéres established himself at Paris and propagated his ideasamong the French nobility. In 1390 Louis II, Duke of Bourbon, took the cross, and at the instigation of theGenoese went to besiege el-Mahadia, an African city on the coast of Tunis. In 1392 Charles VI, who hadsigned a treaty of peace with England, appeared to have been won over to the crusade project just beforehe became deranged. But the time for expeditions to the Holy Land was now passed, and henceforthChristian Europe was forced to defend itself against Ottoman invasions. In 1369 John V, Palæologus, went toRome and abjured the schism; thereafter the popes worked valiantly for the preservation of the remnants of the Byzantine Empire and the Christian states in the Balkans. Having become master of Servia at the battle

of Kosovo in 1389, the Sultan Bajazet imposed his sovereignty upon John V and secured possession of Philadelphia, the last Greek city in Asia Minor. Sigismund, King of Hungary, alarmed at the progress of the Turks, sent an embassy to Charles VI, and a large number of French lords, among them the Count of Nevers,son of the Duke of Burgundy, enlisted under the standard of the cross and, in July 1396, were joined at Budaby English and German knights. The crusaders invaded Servia, but despite their prodigies of valeur Bajazetcompletely routed them before Nicopolis, 25 September, 1396. The Count of Nevers and a great many lordsbecame Bajazet's prisoners and were released only on condition of enormous ransoms. Notwithstanding thisdefeat, due to the misguided ardour of the crusaders, a new expedition left Aiguesmortes in June, 1399,under the command of the Marshal Boucicault and succeeded in breaking the blockade which the Turks hadestablished around Constantinople. Moreover, between 1400 and 1402, John Palæologus made anothervoyage to the West in quest of reinforcements.

IX. THE CRUSADE IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY

An unlooked-for event, the invasion by Timur and the Mongols, saved Constantinople for the time being. They annihilated Bajazet's army at Ancyra, 20 July, 1402, and, dividing the Ottoman Empire among severalprinces, reduced it to a state of vassalage. The Western rulers, Henry III, King of Castile, and Charles VI, King



Las Cruzadas

21

of France, sent ambassadors to Timur (see the account by Ruy Gonçales de Clavijo, Madrid, 1779), but thecircumstances were not favourable, as they had been in the thirteenth century. The national revolt of theChinese that overthrew the Mongol dynasty in 1368 had resulted in the destruction of the Christian missionsin Farther Asia; in Central Asia the Mongols had been converted to Mohammedanism, and Timur showed hishostility to the Christians by taking Smyrna from the Hospitallers. Marshal Boucicault took advantage of thedejection into which the Mongol invasion had thrown the Mohammedan powers to sack the ports of Syria,

Tripoli, Beirut, and Sidon in 1403, but he was unable to retain his conquests; while Timur, on the other hand,

thought only of obtaining possession of China and returned to Samarkand, where he died in 1405. The civilwars that broke out among the Ottoman princes gave the Byzantine emperors a few years' respite, butMurad II, having re-established the Turkish power, besieged Constantinople from June to September in 1422,and John VIII, Palæologus, was compelled to pay him tribute. In 1430 Murad took Thessalonica from theVenetians, forced the wall of the Hexamilion, which had been erected by Manuel to protect thePeloponnesus, and subdued Servia. The idea of the crusade was always popular in the West, and, on hisdeath-bed, Henry V of England regretted that he had not taken Jerusalem. In her letters to Bedford, theregent, and to the Duke of Burgundy, Joan of Arc alluded to the union of Christendom against the Saracens,and the popular belief expressed in the poetry of Christine de Pisan was that, after having delivered France,the Maid of Orleans would lead Charles VII to the Holy Land. But this was only a dream, and the civil wars inFrance, the crusade against the Hussites, and the Council of Constance, prevented any action from beingtaken against the Turks. However, in 1421 Philip the Good, Duke of Burgundy, sent Gilbert de Lannoy, and in1432, Bertrand de la Brocquière, to the East as secret emissaries to gather information that might be of value for a future crusade. At the same time negotiations for the religious union which would facilitate the

crusade were resumed between the Byzantine emperors and the popes. Emperor John VIII came in person toattend the council convoked by Pope Eugene IV at Ferrara, in 1438.

Thanks to the good will of Bessarion and of Isidore of Kiev, the two Greek prelates whom the pope hadelevated to the cardinalate, the council, which was transferred to Florence, established harmony on allpoints, and on 6 July, 1439, the reconciliation was solemnly proclaimed. The reunion was received in badpart by the Greeks and did not induce the Western princes to take the cross. Adventurers of all nationalitiesenrolled themselves under the command of Cardinal Giuliano Cesarini and went to Hungary to join thearmies of János Hunyady, Waywode of Transylvania, who had just repulsed the Turks at Hermanstadt, of Wladislaus Jagello, King of Poland, and of George Brankovitch, Prince of Servia. Having defeated the Turks atNish, 3 November, 1443, the allies were enabled to conquer Servia, owing to the defection of the Albaniansunder George Castriota (Scanderbeg), their national commander. Murad signed a ten years' truce andabdicated the throne, 15 July, 1444, but Giuliano Cesarini, the papal legate, did not favour peace and wishedto push forward to Constantinople. At his instigation the crusaders broke the truce and invaded Bulgaria,

whereupon Murad again took command, crossed the Bosporus on Genoese galleys, and destroyed theChristian army at Varna, 10 November, 1444.

This defeat left Constantinople defenceless. In 1446 Murad succeeded in conquering Morea, and when, twoyears later, János Hunyady tried to go to the assistance of Constantinople he was beaten at Kosovo.Scanderbeg alone managed to maintain his independence in Epirus and, in 1449, repelled a Turkishinvasion. Mohammed II, who succeeded Murad in 1451, was preparing to besiege Constantinople when, 12December, 1452, Emperor Constantine XII decided to proclaim the union of the Churches in the presence of the papal legates. The expected crusade, however, did not take place; and when, in March, 1453, the armedforces of Mohammed II, numbering 160,000, completely surrounded Constantinople, the Greeks had only5000 soldiers and 2000 Western knights, commanded by Giustiniani of Genoa. Notwithstanding this seriousdisadvantage, the city held out against the enemy for two months, but on the night of 28 May, 1453,Mohammed II ordered a general assault, and after a desperate conflict, in which Emperor Constantine XIIperished, the Turks entered the city from all sides and perpetrated a frightful slaughter. Mohammed II rode

over heaps of corpses to the church of St. Sophia, entered it on horseback, and turned it into a mosque.

The capture of "New Rome" was the most appalling calamity sustained by Christendom since the taking of Saint-Jean d'Acre. However, the agitation which the news of this event caused in Europe was more apparentthan genuine. Philip the Good, Duke of Burgundy, gave an allegorical entertainment at Lille in which HolyChurch solicited the help of knights who pronounced the most extravagant vows before God and a pheasant(sur le faisan). Æneas Sylvius, Bishop of Siena, and St. John Capistran, the Franciscan, preached the crusadein Germany and Hungary; the Diets of Ratisbon and Frankfort promised assistance, and a league wasformed between Venice, Florence, and the Duke of Milan, but nothing came of it. Pope Callistus IIIsucceeded in collecting a fleet of sixteen galleys, which, under the command of the Patriarch of Aquileia,guarded the Archipelago. However, the defeat of the Turks before Belgrade in 1457, due to the bravery of

János Hunyady, and the bloody conquest of the Peloponnesus in 1460 seemed finally to revive Christendomfrom its torpor. Æneas Sylvius, now pope under the name of Pius II, multiplied his exhortations, declaringthat he himself would conduct the crusade, and towards the close of 1463 bands of crusaders began toassemble at Ancona.



Las Cruzadas

22

The Doge of Venice had yielded to the pope's entreaties, whereas the Duke of Burgundy was satisfied withsending 2000 men. But when, in June, 1464, the pope went to Ancona to assume command of theexpedition, he fell sick and died, whereupon most of the crusaders, being unarmed, destitute of ammunition,and threatened with starvation, returned to their own countries. The Venetians were the only ones whoinvaded the Peloponnesus and sacked Athens, but they looked upon the crusade merely as a means of advancing their commercial interests. Under Sixtus IV they had the presumption to utilize the papal fleet forthe seizure of merchandise stored at Smyrna and Adalia; they likewise purchased the claims of Catherine

Cornaro to the Kingdom of Cyprus.

Finally, in 1480, Mohammed II directed a triple attack against Europe. In Hungary Matthias Corvinuswithstood the Turkish invasion, and the Knights of Rhodes, conducted by Pierre d'Aubusson, defendedthemselves victoriously, but the Turks succeeded in gaining possession of Otranto and threatened Italy withconquest. At an assembly held at Rome and presided over by Sixtus IV, ambassadors from the Christianprinces again promised help; but the condition of Christendom would have been critical indeed had not thedeath of Mohammed II occasioned the evacuation of Otranto, while the power of the Turks was impaired forseveral years by civil wars among Mohammed's sons. At the time of Charles VIII's expedition into Italy(1492) there was again talk of a crusade; according to the plans of the King of France, the conquest of Naples was to be followed by that of Constantinople and the East. For this reason Pope Alexander VIdelivered to him Prince Djem, son of Mahommed II and pretender to the throne, who had taken refuge withthe Hospitallers. When Alexander VI joined Venice and Maximilian in a league against Charles VIII, theofficial object of the alliance was the crusade, but it had become impossible to take such projects as

seriously meant. The leagues for the crusade were no longer anything but political combinations, and thepreaching of the Holy War seemed to the people nothing but a means of raising money. Before his death,Emperor Maximilian took the cross at Metz with due solemnity, but these demonstrations could lead to nosatisfactory results. The new conditions that now controlled Christendom rendered a crusade impossible.

X. MODIFICATIONS AND SURVIVAL OF THE IDEA OF THE CRUSADE

From the sixteenth century European policy was swayed exclusively by state interests; hence to statesmenthe idea of a crusade seemed antiquated. Egypt and Jerusalem having been conquered by Sultan Selim, in1517, Pope Leo X made a supreme effort to re-establish the peace essential to the organization of acrusade. The King of France and Emperor Charles V promised their co-operation; the King of Portugal was tobesiege Constantinople with 300 ships, and the pope himself was to conduct the expedition. Just at this timetrouble broke out between Francis I and Charles V; these plans therefore failed completely. The leaders of the Reformation were unfavourable to the crusade, and Luther declared that it was a sin to make war upon

the Turks because God had made them His instruments in punishing the sins of His people. Therefore,although the idea of the crusade was not wholly lost sight of, it took a new form and adapted itself to thenew conditions.

The Conquistadores, who ever since the fifteenth century had been going forth to discover new lands,considered themselves the auxiliaries of the crusade. The Infante Don Henrique, Vasco da Gama,Christopher Columbus, and Albuquerque wore the cross on their breast and, when seeking the means of doubling Africa or of reaching Asia by routes from the East, thought of attacking the Mohammedans in therear; besides, they calculated on the alliance of a fabulous sovereign said to be a Christian, Prester John. Thepopes, moreover, strongly encouraged these expeditions. On the other hand, among the Powers of Europethe House of Austria, which was mistress of Hungary, where it was directly threatened by the Turks, andwhich had supreme control of the Mediterranean, realized that it would be to its advantage to maintain acertain interest in the crusade. Until the end of the seventeenth century, when a diet of the German princeswas held at Ratisbon, the question of war against the Turks was frequently agitated, and Luther himself,

modifying his first opinion, exhorted the German nobility to defend Christendom (1528-29). The war inHungary always partook of the character of a crusade and, on different occasions, the French noblesenlisted under the imperial banner. Thus the Duke of Mercoeur was authorized by Henry IV to enter theHungarian service. In 1664 Louis XIV, eager to extend his influence in Europe, sent the emperor a contingentwhich, under the command of the Count of Coligny, repulsed the Turks in the battle of St. Gothard. But suchdemonstrations were of no importance because, from the time of Francis I, the kings of France, to maintainthe balance of power in Europe against the House of Austria, had not hesitated to enter into treaties of alliance with the Turks. When, in 1683, Kara Mustapha advanced on Vienna with 30,000 Turks or Tatars,Louis XIV made no move, and it was to John Sobieski, King of Poland, that the emperor owed his safety. Thiswas the supreme effort made by the Turks in the West. Overwhelmed by the victories of Prince Eugene atthe close of the seventeenth century, they became thenceforth a passive power.

On the Mediterranean, Genoa and Venice beheld their commercial monopoly destroyed in the sixteenthcentury by the discovery of new continents and of new water-routes to the Indies, while their political powerwas absorbed by the House of Austria. Without allowing the crusaders to deter them from their continentalenterprises, the Hapsburgs dreamed of gaining control of the Mediterranean by checking the Barbary piratesand arresting the progress of the Turks. When, in 1571, the Island of Cyprus was threatened by the



Las Cruzadas

23

Ottomans, who cruelly massacred the garrisons of Famagusta and Nicosia, these towns having surrenderedon stipulated terms, Pope Pius V succeeded in forming a league of maritime powers against Sultan Selim,and secured the co-operation of Philip II by granting him the right to tithes for the crusade, while he himself equipped some galleys. On 7 October, 1571, a Christian fleet of 200 galleys, carrying 50,000 men under thecommand of Don Juan of Austria, met the Ottoman fleet in the Straits of Lepanto, destroyed it completely,and liberated thousands of Christians. This expedition was in the nature of a crusade. The pope, consideringthat the victory had saved Christendom, by way of commemorating it instituted the feast of the Holy Rosary,

which is celebrated on the first Sunday of October. But the allies pushed their advantages no further. When,in the seventeenth century, France superseded Spain as the great Mediterranean power, she strove, despitethe treaties that bound her to the Turks, to defend the last remnants of Christian power in the East. In 1669Louis XIV sent the Duke of Beaufort with a fleet of 7000 men to the defence of Candia, a Venetian province,but, notwithstanding some brilliant sallies, he succeeded in putting off its capture for a few weeks only.However, the diplomatic action of the kings of France in regard to Eastern Christians who were Turkishsubjects was more efficacious. The regime of "Capitulations", established under Francis I in 1536, renewedunder Louis XIV in 1673, and Louis XV in 1740, ensured Catholics religious freedom and the jurisdiction of the French ambassador at Constantinople; all Western pilgrims were allowed access to Jerusalem and to theHoly Sepulchre, which was confided to the care of the Friars Minor. Such was the modus vivendi finallyestablished between Christendom and the Mohammedan world.

Notwithstanding these changes it may be said that, until the seventeenth century, the imagination of Western Christendom was still haunted by the idea of the Crusades. Even the least chimerical of statesmen,

such as Père Joseph de Tremblay, the confidential friend of Richelieu, at times cherished such hopes, whilethe plan set forth in the memorial which Leibniz addressed (1672) to Louis XIV on the conquest of Egypt wasthat of a regular crusade. Lastly, there remained as the respectable relic of a glorious past the Order of theKnights of St. John of Jerusalem, which was founded in the eleventh century and continued to exist until theFrench Revolution. Despite the valiant efforts of their grand master, Villiers de l'Isle Adam, the Turks haddriven them from Rhodes in 1522, and they had taken refuge in Italy. In 1530 Charles V presented themwith the Isle of Malta, admirably situated from a strategic point of view, whence they might exercisesurveillance over the Mediterranean. They were obliged to promise to give up Malta on the recovery of Rhodes, and also to make war upon the Barbary pirates. In 1565 the Knights of Malta withstood a furiousattack by the Turks. They also maintained a squadron able to put to flight the Barbary pirates. Recruitedfrom among the younger sons of the noblest families of Europe, they owned immense estates in France aswell as in Italy, and when the French Revolution broke out, the order quickly lost ground. The property itheld in France was confiscated in 1790, and when, in 1798, the Directory undertook an expedition to Egypt,Bonaparte, in passing, seized the Isle of Malta, whose knights had themselves under the protection of the

Czar, Paul I. The city of Valetta surrendered at the first summons, and the order disbanded; however, in1826 it was reorganized in Rome as a charitable association.

The history of the Crusades is therefore intimately connected with that of the popes and the Church. TheseHoly Wars were essentially a papal enterprise. The idea of quelling all dissensions among Christians, of uniting them under the same standard and sending them forth against the Mohammedans, was conceived inthe eleventh century, that is to say, at a time when there were as yet no organized states in Europe, andwhen the pope was the only potentate in a position to know and understand the common interests of Christendom. At this time the Turks threatened to invade Europe, and the Byzantine Empire seemed unableto withstand the enemies by whom it was surrounded. Urban II then took advantage of the veneration inwhich the holy places were held by the Christians of the West and entreated the latter to direct theircombined forces against the Mohammedans and, by a bold attack, check their progress. The result of thiseffort was the establishment of the Christian states in Syria. While the authority of the popes remainedundisputed in Europe, they were in a position to furnish these Christian colonies the help they required; but

when this authority was shaken by dissensions between the priesthood and the empire, the crusading armylost the unity of command so essential to success. The maritime powers of Italy, whose assistance wasindispensable to the Christian armies, thought only of using the Crusades for political and economic ends.Other princes, first the Hohenstaufen and afterwards Charles of Anjou, followed this precedent, the crusadeof 1204 being the first open rebellion against the pontifical will. Finally, when, at the close of the MiddleAges, all idea of the Christian monarchy had been definitively cast aside, when state policy was the soleinfluence that actuated the Powers of Europe, the crusade seemed a respectable but troublesome survival.In the fifteenth century Europe permitted the Turks to seize Constantinople, and princes were far lessconcerned about their departure for the East than about finding a way out of the fulfilment of their vow ascrusaders without losing the good opinion of the public. Thereafter all attempts at a crusade partook of thenature of political schemes.

Notwithstanding their final overthrow, the Crusades hold a very important place in the history of the world.Essentially the work of the popes, these Holy Wars first of all helped to strengthen pontifical authority; theyafforded the popes an opportunity to interfere in the wars between Christian princes, while the temporal andspiritual privileges which they conferred upon crusaders virtually made the latter their subjects. At the sametime this was the principal reason why so many civil rulers refused to join the Crusades. It must be said that



Las Cruzadas

24

the advantages thus acquired by the popes were for the common safety of Christendom. From the outsetthe Crusades were defensive wars and checked the advance of the Mohammedans who, for two centuries,concentrated their forces in a struggle against the Christian settlements in Syria; hence Europe is largelyindebted to the Crusades for the maintenance of its independence. Besides, the Crusades brought aboutresults of which the popes had never dreamed, and which were perhaps the most, important of all. They re-established traffic between the East and West, which, after having been suspended for several centuries,was then resumed with even greater energy; they were the means of bringing from the depths of their

respective provinces and introducing into the most civilized Asiatic countries Western knights, to whom anew world was thus revealed, and who returned to their native land filled with novel ideas; they wereinstrumental in extending the commerce of the Indies, of which the Italian cities long held the monopoly,and the products of which transformed the material life of the West. Moreover, as early as the end of thetwelfth century, the development of general culture in the West was the direct result of these Holy Wars.Finally, it is with the Crusades that we must couple the origin of the geographical explorations made byMarco Polo and Orderic of Pordenone, the Italians who brought to Europe the knowledge of continental Asiaand China. At a still later date, it was the spirit of the true crusader that animated Christopher Columbuswhen he undertook his perilous voyage to the then unknown America, and Vasco de Gama when he set outin quest of India. If, indeed, the Christian civilization of Europe has become universal culture, in the highestsense, the glory redounds, in no small measure, to the Crusades.

Fueron las Cruzadas fruto de un simple interés material

Documents

Transcript of Fueron las Cruzadas fruto de un simple interés material