The topic on the Crusades has been a debatable one for a very long time. Different religions, mainly Muslims and Christians have different opinions regarding this issue. For a long time, the crusades were considered military wars with the aim of converting infidels to Christianity. According to Muslims scholars, crusades were considered war of infidels, which was technically against the Islamic kingdom. Scholars from both sides have different school of thoughts that seem to be diverse. Muslim scholars believe that the crusades signified the shadow side of the thrusting, confident western spirit. On the other hand, the West viewed Crusades as a glamorous and positive activity. Modern scholars such as John France and Giles Constable have different views on the subject.
According to Giles, who is a generalist, he traces the nature of the war before 1095. He believes that the genesis and the nature of the crusading is justified based on faith. It was considered a Christian holy war, which did not however have any new dimensions to it; it was more or less similar to the traditional concept of war and this was the basis of the justification. Peace and the Truce of God propelled the war. All this was done to so defend and support the papacy of war, which occurred in the 11 th century.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
On the other hand, John France bears different views on the subject. He believes that inasmuch as Christians wanted to save their souls during the war, they also had different motives. He sheds more light on the Feudal patronage and includes the role the recruitment played to the crusades. France believes that inasmuch as religion mattered, the crusaders also wanted to get rich through these escapades. He gives an example of the knightly warriors of Europe at the end of the 11 th century. The warriors not only saw the crusades as an opportunity to win heaven but also amass wealth. He further says that the crusaders were a bit disappointed when they could not amass wealth since they had hoped for big things; it seemed that they did not care so much about the spiritual rewards.
The controversies have been ongoing and various people share different opinions. I believe that both scholars are right, however, I tend to support what Giles said most. This makes more sense considering the main reason behind the crusades. Following Urban II’s speech, it can be seen that the Christian nation was pained by the activities Persians did on their fellow Christians in Jerusalem. They brutally killed Christians, seized the churches, raped women and defiled the temples. It is only natural for Christians to retaliate based on the war waged against them; this then explains Giles’ opinion that the crusades were based on the natural concept of war and that they justified their reason for war on this ground; it was purely faith based.
In addition to this, after going through the pope’s speech, I tend not to agree with the ideas presented by France. France proposes that the crusaders were wealth seekers and they raided cities for wealth. Inasmuch as they may have taken some property with them, this may not have been the main reason. Urban II’s speech clearly shows that he urged the crusaders to be willing to give up their wealth and loved ones for the sake of God’s love. He cites that by following this, they would have better rewards in heaven. He even urges the rich crusaders to use their wealth to gain more soldiers who would dedicate their lives towards the course; this shows the depth of their faith in God. They were willing to lay down everything and focus on their faith.
