In 1099, the First Crusade massacred civilians in Jerusalem and founded:
the Kingdom of Jerusalem;
the County of Tripoli;
the Principality of Antioch;
the County of Eddesa.
The conquerors became acculturated.
In 1144, the Amir of Mosul captured Edessa and his son threatened Jerusalem whose king appealed for help, resulting in the proclamation of the Second Crusade by Pope Eugenius. At Easter in 1146, Louis VII vowed to lead an expedition. In autumn 1147, King Conrad of Germany marched south through Hungary. Disease and combat killed crusaders until "...the survivors slunk home." (p. 390) In 1187, Saladin captured Jerusalem.
There were seven Crusades to the Holy Land and several against European heretics or pagans. Crusaders had secular and spiritual privileges while Sicilians, Venetians, Genoese and Pisans profited from the traffic and Asian rats in European ships brought the Black Plague.
7 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Before modern times disease killed far more soldiers than was the case in most wars.
I think the Black Death first reached Europe in 1346 from plague tainted rats coming in trading ships from one of the Venetian or Genovan trading posts in the Black Sea. And possibly from Egypt as well?
Ad astra! Sean
It's interesting to speculate what might have happened if Bohemond of Antioch had become King of Jerusalem as well... or had otherwise dominated the Crusaders and say declared himself King of Syria with Jerusalem -- too holy to be part of a secular realm -- under a Patriarch appointed by the Pope, with the King of Syria as its secular patron.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
It might arguably have been better for Western civilization and the would if that had happened. A powerful Kingdom of Syria allied with the Eastern Empire would probably had been able to keep Islam in check and prevent the rise of the Ottoman Empire.
I've read Anna Comnena's biography of her father Alexius I and I recall the story she gave there of Bohemond in his coffin and pretending to be dead!
Ad astra! Sean
Bohemond was both a great warrior personally and extremely cunning. Also, he had an instinct for the main chance. I don't think his motives for going on Crusade were -primarily- religious.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Of course! I have absolutely no doubt many of the Crusaders and their leaders kept an eye open for how they, personally, could profit from the Crusade.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: medieval noblemen had land-hunger built into their psyches. An Italian-Norman one would be particularly unlikely to pass up any tempting morsel, given their immediate family histories.
It's not in conflict with genuine religious sentiment; after all, by becoming Prince of Antioch, Bohemund would be restoring Christian (and Catholic) government, a righteous act.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I agree, that's exactly how many people thought and acted in those days. And, I have no doubt, in the future as well.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment