The tale of “The Egyptian and his Frankish Wife” was indeed a story about an Egyptian man and his wife, but the story also revealed a great deal about the society that they lived in at that time. According to Nirenberg, sexual interactions and marriages between Christians, Muslims and Jews, were discouraged during the Middle Ages (Nirenberg, 92-93) and laws were implemented to prevent such relationships from taking place.

The Egyptian man was a Muslim merchant, initially trading in flax, wherever he was allowed to do so. The merchant appeared to be somewhat wealthy as he had a house by the sea with a terrace roof. The “Frankish wife” at the time that the Egyptian merchant met was quite possibly a prostitute since he paid a sum of money to “enjoy her” and it was also a rendezvous that had to remain hidden (Rodriguez, 419). Furthermore, she was perhaps originally of Jewish origin as the Merchant referred to her as the “Nazarene woman” (Rodriguez, 420).  Later, as the merchant bought the same woman, she denied previously meeting him and instead recited the acceptance of Allah (Rodriguez, 421).  It seemed that social circumstances may have influenced the woman to convert to a different religion. It was not to gain wealth as she did not use the monies that the Egyptian merchant paid for her.  In addition, when the opportunity arose for her to revert back to Christianity after an agreement between the Sultan and King was made calling for Christians who were previously taken by force to be freed, the wife declined.  Most likely she would have known that a Christian woman carrying the baby of a Muslim man would not have been viewed on favourably by the Christian community.

In another example of complicated aspects of changing religions, the story of Othello had quite a different ending from that of the Egyptian King and his Frankish wife. Othello appeared to be a dark-skinned Moor who converted to Christianity.  Othello was of significant social standing having become a General even though he was of Moorish descent.  Othello’s position seemed to be somewhat unusual since all the other men appeared to be whites.  Clearly, he had authority and rank over many of the white men who surrounded him.  He appeared to be very comfortable interacting with everyone around him and eluded obvious confidence.  However, he apparently crossed the line when he secretly married Desdemona, the daughter of a senator.  Although Othello was a Christian and held a somewhat influential position, the senator was furious at the union and dragged both Othello and Desdemona in front of a judge.  Sadly both Othello and Desdemona died tragically at the end of this story.

It seemed that during the Middle Ages, there were reasons for some people to covert to the religion of the governing body at the specific period. The Frankish wife may have done it in order to survive and to avoid persecution from her own people whether they were Jews or Christians (Nirenberg, 94).  In Othello’s case, society seemed to have welcomed and encouraged him into their midst.  However, the idea of him having sexual relations with one of their own kind revealed that there was still distrust and jealousy felt by some members of society.

References

Nirenberg, David. Neighboring Faiths: Christianity, Islam, and Judaism in the Middle Ages and Today.  Chicago and London: University Of Chicago Press, 2014.

Rodriguez, Jarbel. Muslim and Christian Contact in the Middle Ages. New York: University of Toronto Press, 2015.

Othello. Oliver Parker. Laurence Fishburne, Kenneth Branagh, Irène Jacob.  Castle Rock Entertainment, 1995.  Film.

Throughout history, there were many great (or bad, depends on your personal beliefs) Christians and Muslims that seek to cross the boundary of religion through the power of love. However, some of them succeed and left behind their love story as mystic legends, but many of them have failed and were ultimately separated or killed. While it is truly a tragic of what happened to those who fail, it is more important to focus on those that did succeed and learn how or why they succeed. What did they do differently as compared to the others who have failed to cross this boundary? To answer this, we must look at this issue from the two different example: the tales of “Othello” representing Christianity and the story of “The Egyptian and his Frankish Wife” representation Islam.

Let’s start by looking at the Christians and their respond to people that seek to cross the boundary of religion. It is known that Christians had an infamous reputation on how they treat people of different religious group. However, the most shocking thing is not how they treat people of different religious group, is how they treat people with their own religious belief. In Nirenberg’s “Conversion, Sex, and Segregation”, we can clearly see that the Christians were exceptionally cynical towards recently converted Jews. “The converts and their descendants were now seen as insincere Christians, as clandestine Jews, or even as hybrid monsters, neither Jew nor Christian.” (Nirenberg) It’s clear that the converted Jewish Christian were clearly not treated as equal as a “natural” Christian. While it could be argued that it was reasonable for the Christian to be cynical towards the recently converted Jew, the fact that they remained cynical towards their Christianized decedent is quite questionable. Considering that they were never affiliated with any Jewish belief since their birth, the cynical attitude from the “natural” Christians start to bring up another question: Was it even their belief that the “natural” Christian was targeting? Or were they just targeting them for being Jewish?

Looking at the question mentioned above, this could also be seen in the epic play of “Othello”. In the play, Othello was known as a Moorish (or at least of Moorish descent) general in the Republic of Venice. However, the villain, known as Lago thought that Othello was simply not worth the title simply because of Othello being Moorish. We can clearly see that it was never Othello’s religious belief that caused him in this position; instead, it was his ethnicity that brought him into this situation. Also, this was not the first time that he was affected due to his ethnicity. Earlier in the story, we can see that Othello had married to his wife Desdemona secretly. The reason for him to do this is because he knew that Desdemona’s family would have never agreed to their marriage; in fear of a scandal for marrying their daughter to a “heathen”, even though it was clear that Othello was a Christian. This again proves how the Christians were not only judging for a religious belief of a person; they were also judging a person for their ethnicity.

While it’s clear that Christians were concerned about both the ethnicity and the religious belief of a person; the Muslims, on the other hand, is much more tolerant when compared to Christians. As we can see from the story “The Egyptian and his Frankish Wife”, the merchant in the story had three chance to bed the Frankish woman he falls in love with, yet he decided  gave up the first two chances due to his faith/devotion to Allah. The only reason he takes the third chance to bed the Frankish Woman is because she decided to convert to Islam. In this example, we can clearly see that in the eyes of Muslims, ethnicity was not as much as a concern to them seeing how at the beginning of the story, the travelers did not show disgust nor anger when they saw the old man have different color of skin with his children; instead, they were intrigued by what happened.However, they do take the religious belief of a person very seriously, even to some extent, more serious than Christians. Seeing how even a merchant, which would probably be the most cynical peoples to religious beliefs as they get in touch with foreign ideas almost every day, still manage to suppress his lust for his piety to Allah and the gods. This is a virtue that cannot be found even on most of the so-called “crusaders”.

In conclusion, I think that these stories did help to resolve the anxiety between the two religions. While it’s true that most of these stories mainly aimed to promote piety to their own religion, it did also promoted the idea of religious tolerance and provided the ground for medieval man to fantasize and wonder: Are the people from the opposite religion truly were the way that we were told to be like? And leave the seeds of curiosity on the opposite religions in the people’s hearts.

References

Nirenberg, David. “Conversion Sex and Segregation.” The Johns Hopkins University, n.d. Web. 25 Sept. 2016.

Otello. Dir. Oliver Parker. Perf. Laurence Fishburne, Kenneth Branagh, Irène Jacob. Castle Rock Entertainment, 1995. DVD.

Rodriguez, Jarbel. Muslim and Christian Contact in the Middle Ages: A Reader. Toronto: U of Toronto, 2015. Print.

Blog Assignment #1

In Neighboring Faiths, David Nirenburg discusses in detail the interactions among Christianity, Judaism and Islam in Europe during the Middle Ages. While Europe is in fact a geographic location that can be pointed out on a map, it is argued that “being European” goes a bit further than merely dwelling within its borders. Arising in the Middle Ages and still existing today, being European has more to do with religion.

With Islamic followers expanding more and more west through trade, commerce, and military power from the Arabian Peninsula, Christians knew something needed to be done. Christians viewed anyone who was not Christian as a follower of the Antichrist. Thus, an enemy. The followers of Christendom could not wrap their heads around how these God-less barbarians were achieving so much prosperity. The answers Christians narrowed this down to is that the Islamic followers were favored by God or an angry Gods was punishing themselves and reclaiming the support of God was necessary.

In 1095, Pope Urban II received an urgent plea for help from the Byzantine emperor to help fend off the invading Seljuk’s, he saw this as a great opportunity for the Church. With this, Urban would now be able to spread the Christian Empire socially, geographically and economically. In his rallying speeches to unify Christian Europe in the First Crusade he said, in reference of this mission, “All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins.” (Rodriguez, P.57) We can see here the illustration of Urban making this a classic “Us against Them” kind of conflict. Another similar quotation to rally the spirits of his religious warriors we see bishops and priests urging soldiers “Be strong in the faith of Christ, and fear not those who persecute you, as the Lord said, ‘Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul’” (Rodriguez, P. 60) It is not by accident that from result of the Crusades includes an increase in power of the pope and his empire. Nirenburg writes the crusades can be understood as “God’s war for the expansion of Christendom. In the provided image from Artstor we see a map that illustrates where the Crusades expanded too, which, in fact, is present day Europe and Middle East. Christians are also led to believe that their current borders are way too narrow for the “great empire” where they currently dwell.

If people have coexisted on the outside of Christian borders prior to the crusades, why all of a sudden did the First Crusade take place? To reiterate the idea, it mainly came down to religion. It is the separation of religion as Christian vs. Non-Christian that I believe we can really see how Europe gained its identity. For an American today, when one thinks of Islam or Muslim, the first thing that comes to mind is more than likely Middle East. When Christianity is brought to mind, probably things such as the Vatican (Rome, which we can see existed during the Middle Ages) and the pope are more or less the thing that come to mind. Stretching from the Middle Ages to present day, Nirenburg provides an interesting read on the connection of perception that formed this idea of Europe.

References:

Peace4universe. “The Crusades Crescent and the Cross. Pt 1 of 2 [Full Documentary] – YouTube.flv.” YouTube. YouTube, 08 Oct. 2011. Web. 18 Sept. 2016.

Rodriguez, Jarbel. Muslim and Christian Contact in the Middle Ages: A Reader. Toronto: U of Toronto, 2015. Print.

Map of the Crusades in the Holy Land; Europe in 1270. N.d. Map of the Crusades in the Holy Land; Europe in 1270. N.p.: Musée Du Quai Branly, n.d. N. pag. Artstor. Web. 18 Sept. 2016.

The paper, “Neighboring Faiths” highlights very well the mentality of Christians, and I would argue all people in general. For Europe Islam came to be a unifying force ‘kind of’. ‘Kind of’ because to say that in that time period or even today people could be unified is laughable, even more so by the reasoning behind this particular ‘unification’. For Christian Europe Islam was a direct threat to their power, in an era of god fearing people where might is right could be understood as the prevailing mentality and as justification by god, Islam forced Christianity to be its enemy if those in power wanted to remain in power, if those who have lived their lives as Christians could look at their lives an say I was a good person because I followed god well, not for their actions towards other people.

Europe began to emerge as a more and more Christian centralized identity. The Papacy garnered more strength and influence. The crusades came to be a crystallization of that power, as it gave them the ability to raise armies of many Christian nations to wage war against enemies of Christianity, it justified churches imposing a tax on its followers, the crusades created connections and alliances between nations as well as enemies and rivalries that would not have otherwise emerged. Ultimately the conflict with Islam would have ramifications for centuries to come, but it’s hard to say that without them those supposed ramifications would not have occurred anyway. The crusades created a precedent for conquest and violence against other religions. The crusades were a direct reaction to Islamic Jihads and conquests of Christian lands that threatened the Authority of the Papacy because of the mentality at the time that allowed for only two possibilities. “Either Christianity was an incorrect religion that should be abandoned in favor of Islam or Christians were indeed correct in their religious choice but were being punished by an angry god.” Pg 16.

European and Islamist conviction in their respective beliefs allowed for no one to yield to the other without seeming weak, losing resources and followers to the other as a result. It is in fact the same dance that has been played by every kingdom politics and factionalism powers only on a larger scale. That larger scale played into the hand of those who guided their respective religion, it was an unavoidable conflict between powers.

What is the idea of Europe? When did the concept of “Europe” emerged and how it emerged? While there is a geological definition of “Europe”, it’s hard to say the same for the concept of Europe to be the same.  The formation of the concept of “Europe” is quite a strange phenomenon considering the political chaos at that time. What exactly makes a place “in Europe” and another place next to it “not in Europe”?

To answer these questions, the short answer would be “religion”. However, that is not a completely correct, since there is more than just religion that from the concept of Europe. Considering that there were no consolidated nation-states with state religion at the time and conversion of the religion of local ruler was quite common, basing the concept Europe solely on religion is simply not true.  Looking at the speech by pope Urban II, he tokes the idea of Europe beyond the concept of Europe that we know today. “For your brethren who live in the east are in urgent need for your help…and have conquered the territory of Romania (Byzantine Empire) as far west as the shore of the Mediterranean and Hellespont, which is called the arms of saint George.” (Rodriguez, 55) Notice how in the pope’s speech to call for a crusade, he said “brethren who live in the east” and not “brethren living in the heathen land”, this means that in the pope’s eye even the land that were now already in Muslim hands were still considered as Europe. At this point, a better way to describe the concept of Europe will be “land that is held or was once held by Christian rule”.

To prove this, we can look no further into the history of the first crusade. After the pope’s call for a crusade, the christen knight had taken up a slaughter of local Jews in Europe. While there was economical propose to do so, which was to gather money for the crusading campaign, this had also shown how non-Christian Jews in Europe at the time were considered as non-Europeans seeing how they were just seen as expandable people that they can give or take from whenever they want. In fact, according to The Crusades Crescent and the Cross Documentary Part 1, the crusader claimed that the Jews would work with the enemy solely based on how they were all enemy of Christianity (peace4universe). They never even bother to explain how and why the Jews would work with the Muslim thousands of miles away. They were willing to take up any causes belli to attack to Jews.

Besides from religion and economics, it is clear that history itself had also played a huge role in the concept of Europe and the European identities. If we look at this map of the Roman Empire in the second century AD (Artstor), we can see that the most likely concept of Europe at the time would stretch from Iberia/Hispania in the west to Syria and Anatolia in the east. The “eastern land” of Europe at the Middle Ages would most likely to resemble the eastern border of the Roman Empire at this time. Adding this to the fact that how that border covered all the lands that Christians would deem “holy”, including Jerusalem, Antioch, and Damascus.

In conclusion, the concept Europe and the identity of European in the middle ages were often widely defined. However, by looking and comparing different historic document we can see a similar pattern that the concept of Europe was mostly referred to as the historic land that Christian held and once held, while the definition of European is only limited to Christian on those lands.

Reference:

Peace4universe. “The Crusades Crescent and the Cross. Pt 1 of 2 [Full Documentary] – YouTube.flv.” YouTube. YouTube, 08 Oct. 2011. Web. 18 Sept. 2016.

Rodriguez, Jarbel. Muslim and Christian Contact in the Middle Ages: A Reader. Toronto: U of Toronto, 2015. Print.

“Roman Empire in the Second Century A.D..” Artstor. Artstor Digital Library, n.d. Web. 18 Sept. 2016.

According to David Nirenberg, a certain identity started to develop across Europe during the Middle Ages.  It was an identity that emerged as a force in opposition of the expanding Muslim empire.  The conduit of spreading this identity was religion with Christianity as the catalyst spearheading the movement.  The narrative that developed behind the idea showed how non-Muslims living in Europe became good Christians by following the teachings of Christianity as interpreted by the Catholic Church leaders at that time.

The triumph of the Turks during the eleventh century galvanized Catholic Church leaders and they called on the non-Muslim population to mobilize.  Church leaders demanded that the masses stopped fighting amongst themselves and learn to work together so together they would take back former Christian territories from Muslims. (Rodriguez, 54-55).  Church leaders were trying to mold the masses into becoming the good Christian followers.  They wanted them to be seen as a peaceful community who were respectful of the Christian religion.  To enforce the spirit of being a good Christian, quotes from the bible were used to encourage the people to make the necessary personal sacrifices even if that meant going against the wishes of close relatives because fighting for the Holy Land was most important than all other matters (Rodriguez, 57-58).

During the time of the Crusades, the Catholic Church steadily began to emerge as an institution of considerable influence and power.  In creating the newly defined Christian identity, the Church coerced the peasant masses into obeying their teachings.  Dutifully, the masses responded when called to the common cause of taking back their lands from the Muslims.  Followers were not limited to men, as revealed in the documentary entitled, “The Crusades: Crescent and the Cross,” Christian women were also projected as loyal to their loved ones and many accompanied them on the journey.  The Church leaders were quite instrumental in molding the masses and influencing their thinking.  The documentary further revealed that Church leaders were not just restricted to religious aspects; they were deeply involved in the political sphere. It was the Church that aligned itself with Kings and Nobles as they all worked to regain lost territories.

The narrative of the new identity that had emerged in Europe really created what a good Christian ought to be.  The new Christian masses that emerged during the Crusades were meant to abide by the principles of the Catholic Church in order to be a good Christians and reap the rewards for doing God’s bidding (Rodriguez, 57).   It was the Church, having gained significant influence with the Christian Kings that determined what was good moral “Christian” behaviour.  It was the relationship between Church and State that inadvertently gave rise to the Catholic Church becoming an authoritative and dominant institution and one that has survived into the twenty-first century.

References

Nirenberg, David. Neighboring Faiths: Christianity, Islam, and Judaism in the Middle Ages and Today.  Chicago and London: University Of Chicago Press, 2014.

Rodriguez, Jarbel. Muslim and Christian Contact in the Middle Ages. New York: University of Toronto Press, 2015.

Image:  Ambulatory of the Cathedral of Saint-Gatien (Stained-Glass Panel) ca. 1245-1248

Description:  King Louis IX of France aka Saint Louis, undertook two crusades to the Holy Land. He acquired relics of Christ’s passion from his cousin, the Lahn emperor of Constantinople Baldwin II, most notably a piece of the True Cross and also the Crown of Thorns.  He brought these relics to Paris and installed them in the Sainte-Chapelle, a church that he had built to house them.

http://library.artstor.org.remote.baruch.cuny.edu/library/#3|search|1|Ambulatory20of20the20Cathedral20of20Saint2DGatien|Multiple20Collection20Search|||type3D3126kw3DAmbulatory20of20the20Cathedral20of20Saint2DGatien26id3Dall26name3DAll20Collections26origKW3D||1|

Knowledge can always be a powerful tool in the growth of an individual not just physically but psychologically as well. Throughout history societies have been able to learn not just from mistakes but from adversaries. During the middle ages European society developed in many different ways but more importantly found an identity and would follow them for centuries to come.

In David Nirenberg’s “Neighboring Faiths” he states an emerging idea in Europe. “The idea of christian war against Islam gave medieval Europe a much more unified and self-concious sense of historical mission.” (Nirenberg pg.1) The Crusades waged a holy war against Islam. In the History Channel documentary Crescent and the Cross, Pope Urban the II started the first crusade, as the goal would be to return the holy lands in the middle east back from muslims under the name of Islam and into Christian hands. What I believe is the most important aspect of the crusade was the ability of tens of thousands of people from all over Europe volunteering to fight together under one common goal. Although history tells us some of those individuals had other intentions, money and the opportunity to acquire new lands made certain individuals wealthy. Nonetheless Europeans emerged united under a common enemy. As Islam grew into Western Europe christians began to grow more knowledgable if Islam, they came to believe that Islam was a religion but a “carnal one, glorying in violence and sexuality.” (Nirenberg pg.2) As more christians became more aware of the Islamic teachings, the real kicker was that normally more knowledge created more tolerance of other lifestyles and cultures or religions but instead it “more often oriented toward providing more solid footings for the batteries of the polemic.” Essentially it only reaffirmed what christians already knew. We also see the early signs of orientalism, this would become the representation of Asia and those in the Middle East as colonialism and imperialism would help Europe shape the modern world today. The centralizing of many European states also began due to the Muslim conquests into western Europe and the Mediterranean. One key example of this was Pope Alexander’s II response to Islamic victories ” although the shedding of blood is forbidden to the christian, it was ‘just to fight’… who persecute christians and expel them from their towns and dwelling places.” (Nirenberg pg.5) During the first crusade we saw how Europeans united in their effort to vanquish the Islamic foe, the difference was that this no longer meant a long march to holy lands in the Middle East but in their backyard in such places like muslim western Europe. Spain, Portugal, and lands in the Mediterranean became the target of the supposed “just to fight” the pope was talking about. In America we are told about manifest destiny, America’s belief that it was their destiny to expand westward to the unexplored lands of the west. In Europe ” Ideas about Islam played an important role in the creation of a muscular version of European christianity, one that increasingly saw itself as united by a common destiny to conquer a wider world imagined as muslim.” (Nirenberg pg.5) Just think about it, did the idea of expansion and this greater sense of superiority and representation just enter the minds of Europeans? History can teach us that we learn from others and how finding out who you are can come full circle.

Artstor Image: 

The First Crusades gave the path and idea of Europe the Christians within it. The interactions between both Christian and Islam helped shape those ideas.  The Christians at the time had what they thought was an idea of the Muslims and Islam. “From Christian point of view, the victories of these non-Christians could mean only two things. Either Christianity was an incorrect religion that should be abandoned in favor of Islam or Christians were indeed correct in their religious choice but were being punished by an angry God” (Nirenberg 16.)

Prior to the Crusades there was no clear definition of Christians in Europe. In 1095 Pope Urban II received a plea from Byzantine Emperor Alexius I that Muslim invaders seized the Holy Land and now threatening the Byzantium. Because of this the Pope called upon the Latin Christians to march eastward asking for mercenaries to help the Byzantines in their wars.  The Pope gave a speech explaining to the people what was happening to those whose lands were invaded. “The sad news has come from Jerusalem and Constantinople that the people of Persia, an accursed and foreign race, enemies of God, have invaded the lands of those Christians and devastated them with the sword, rapine and fire. Destroying churches and mosques” (Rodriguez 57.) The first image on Artsor shows The Pope making a speech to the people, encouraging them to march to the east and help the Byzantine, saying God will forgive them of all their sins.

Pope Urban II’s request spread like wildfire and within months “armies raised by some of the most prominent western European nobles began their long march to the East” (Rodriguez 58.) These people, all tens of thousands of them included men, women, children and even the elderly who were to weak to fight.  This was the beginning of The First Crusade. The first crusade was much about establishing peace and unity in the West and aiding the Byzantium or conquering Jerusalem. Despite the violence there was a increase in the economy with trade from the East to the West. Newer and shorter trade routes were created. The transportation of the armies helped the merchant class prosper.

Muslims would refer to the Christians or members of these armies “firandj.” “Franks”, regardless of their actual provenance. The term came to signify “European” (Nirenberg 21.) The Crusade created social chaos within Europe and gave the church a great more deal of authority. The massacre that happened killing all men women and children made it now seem acceptable to kill and massacre any who seemed a threat to the Church. The fifth image on Artsor shows the gruesome events that took place during the battles, it shows a Turk being beheaded. The invaders were seen as “wild and untamed beasts who have merely the shape of human form” (Nirenberg 16.) The first Crusades in some ways shape the ideas of the Christians of Europe. Because of this crusade thousands banded together for one uniting cause, reviving the Holy Land, that gave them a purpose. Although their togetherness was built off violence and massacre it strengthened the Christians as a whole.

Sources:

Nirenberg, David. Neighboring Faiths: Christianity, Islam, and Judaism in the Middle Ages and Today. Chicago and London: U of Chicago, n.d. Print.

Rodriguez, Jarbel. Muslim and Christian Contact in the Middle Ages: A Reader. Toronto: U of Toronto, 2014. Print.

The image of European Christendom and its self-perception is a complex and multifaceted matter which can be traced to a variety of source. Among them, early interactions–both violent and peaceful–between the faiths of Christianity and Islam may have helped to shape this self-perception in multiple ways. Specifically, the Crusades and the preceding violence were among the most pivotal events in the inter-faith relations of Christianity and Islam and were a crucial turning point for European Christendom’s image of Islam and thus of itself as well.

During the time of the Crusades and especially during the time immediately prior to it, Christian Europe was extremely fractured. It was a region of near-constant conflict, warfare, and turmoil. It is hard to say that, at this time, there was a clearly defined self-perception among the Christian people of Europe. However, in the decades preceding the First Crusade, the Christians did find themselves confronting an increasing powerful, unified–and alien–force of Muslims who were making large and momentous growth in their territorial expansion through both simple trade and social contact, as well as large-scale military expansion. This new threat to Christendom brought into question the very faith that the people of Europe and their clergy held so dear. How could  an army of “godless” (i.e. non-Christian) Muslims be experiencing such success in the face of resistance from God-fearing Christians? There appeared only to be a two possible answers to religious observers: the Muslims were indeed the force now favored by God or the Christians were being punished for their sins had to double down on their faith in order reclaim the support of God.

When, in 1095, Pope Urban II recieved an urgent plea for help from Alexios I Komnenos, the then Byzantine emperor to help fend off the invading Seljuks (in modern-day Turkey), he saw an opportunity. Urban II used this war as a unifying factor to reclaim a sense of purpose, duty, and identity for Western European Christendom in that he gave thousands of men and women a cause around which they could rally–one that also conveniently placed him in a position of increased power and prestige. This is how the First Crusade was eventually born, but it is also one of the early moments of the emerging self-perception of Christian Europe. This is because the Christians of Europe a=now had a unifying cause that reinforced their identity as Christians–charged with the duty of ridding the Holy Land of the invading Muslims. Through this mechanism a sort of process was created whereby the Christian identity was strengthened through violent contact with Muslims, as each such encounter strengthened the idea of “us” as God-fearing, civilized Christians and “them” as godless, barbaric Muslims. It is through this mechanism of contrasting the other with the self that the European Christian identity begins to consolidate and emerge in its own right.

As is stated in Neighboring Faiths, by David Nirenberg the patriarch of Jerusalem exhorted his flock to “correct ourselves..If we constrain ourselves, we shall see [the Muslims’] final destruction.” In this case, the Patriarch said this, because he viewed the invading Muslims as a scourge from God as a punishment for “countless sins and very serious faults.” This view was not isolated to the Eastern Christians, as European Christians also viewed the conflict with the Muslims as a test of their faith and loyalty to God–one that would unite them in faith and identity as well as in cause.

The Silver Lining Of The Crusades

The relationship between Europe, the Middle East, and the Crusades was close and interwoven. While factions in the Middle East had to militarily defend against waves of Christian forces, it did not stop trade and intercultural development. While the European states were unified at the barest level, individual states and rulers grew in power as a direct result of the Crusades. European politics began to form around larger players.

From a military and political perspective, the Crusades created a common enemy as a reactionary measure, which allowed the various Christian nations to issue a casus belli. Niremberg highlights Pope Alexander II’s rhetoric as a means to describe Europe’s more unified stance against the Islamic threat. Pope Alexander argued that “the shedding of human blood is forbidden to the Christian, it was ‘just to fight’ against Saracens, ‘who persecute Christians…’” (Niremberg 2). While the Crusaders came from many factions, from a Muslim perspective, Europe presented itself as a unified front. Muslims would “call all members of the armies ‘firandj,’ ‘Frank,’ regardless of their actual provenance” (Niremberg 3). In reality, the Crusades also helped the westerners to use this as an excuse to pursue their own interests.

Nations created the Crusader States and attempted to establish a permanent Christian position in the Middle East. From these positions, Crusaders were able to utilize local resources to boost their homeland’s economy. The Crusades themselves became highly expensive investments, which nation leaders dedicated their national wealth to. For example, Emperor Fredrick Barbarossa was known to have submitted to Pope Alexander III on his way to the Crusade as a means to curry favor and blessings for success (Artstor). The Third Crusade, “was a gigantic enterprise led by the three most powerful rulers in Western Europe” (Rodriguez 70). While this was mostly a disaster, it showcases how important the Crusades were to western rulers. For Richard the Lionheart, his success in negotiating with Saladin for the rights of pilgrims, would indicate the growing prestige of kingship.

The Crusades were largely a failure from a territorial and militaristic perspective. However, as the Pope and other Christian theocratic representatives provided a religious case for the Crusades, stating that Christians were under assault by Muslim forces, King Richard the Lionheart succeeded where the other rulers failed. He was able to negotiate a three-year truce where Christian pilgrims could enter and leave without harassment. In fact, when the Turks wanted to take revenge and attack these pilgrims, “Saladin and his Chiefs would not allow it… and under his protection the pilgrims had free access to the Holy Sepulcher, and were treated with the greatest liberality” (Rodriguez 79). I found this to be important because of the way Saladin upheld his treaty. He negotiated with another nation’s ruler, rather than the Pope, and his other leadership. This begins to showcase the rising power of kings in Europe, and the waning authority of the pope.

In many ways, the crusades were a success from an economic perspective. The establishment of Crusader States as well as the basic need to transport and supply troops, created very lucrative economies. For example, the Italian states and the merchant class became very economically successful as they facilitated transport for the crusading armies. Furthermore, the increased interaction between Europe and the East, helped create a more prosperous economic situation for Western Europe.

The Crusades helped create a more established “West.” The Muslim factions categorized the Crusaders as “Franks,” and did not identify each individual entity as they saw them as a singular unified force. As the incursions progressed, they established a new and larger interaction between the west and the east; which increased economic trade and the spread of ideas. While the conflict itself was bloody, the silver lining was a growth in learning and trade, as well as the increased prominence in feudal rulership.

Sources:

Nirenberg, David. Neighboring Faiths: Christianity, Islam, and Judaism in the Middle Ages and Today. Chicago and London: U of Chicago, n.d. Print.

Rodriguez, Jarbel. Muslim and Christian Contact in the Middle Ages: A Reader. Toronto: U of Toronto, 2014. Print.

Malombra, Pietro. “The Emperor Frederick Barbarossa Submitting to Pope Alexander III in the Presence of a Doge.” Artstor Collections. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Sept. 2016.