What Developments in Roman Politics Lead to the Disaster at Cannae?
Evaluation of Sources (700 Words)
The Histories (Polybius):
The Greek Historian Polybius (200-118 BCE) is generally considered to be the most reliable source regarding the Second Punic War (218-201 BCE). Hailing from Arcadia, he was taken hostage and extradited to Rome in 168 BCE, where he became friends with Scipio Aemillianus, adopted grandson of Scipio Africanus, victor of the Battle that decided the Second Punic War.[1] This relationship granted him access to Roman state archives, treaties between Carthage and Rome and personal papers of correspondence between key figures in the historical development of Rome.[2] Additionally, Polybius’ view that “[p]ersonal inquiry… is exceedingly valuable and the most important part of history”[3] led him to engage with primary sources like henchmen of Scipio Africanus[4] and Lucius Cincius Alimentus: a Roman annalist who was Praetor in Sicily 209 BC and had obtained information about Hannibal when he was captured by the Carthaginians.[5] Another strength of Polybius is his critical evaluation of sources, seen in his treatment of the work of Fabius Pictor, a Roman senator who was sent to consult the oracle of Delphi after Rome’s devastating loss at Cannae.[6] He uses Pictor, but deems his account of the first Punic Wars too partial towards Rome, demonstrating an interest in recounting facts rather than spinning narratives, a criticism that could be levelled at the second source for this IA, Livy. As Polybius writes shortly after the battle, held a public office before, was well connected and knew of military matters he is a source of prime quality for Cannae.
Nevertheless, there are incongruities in his work. As a contemporary of the time he chronicles he is not free from bias, presenting his patrons as magnanimous heroes and, ultimately, thought Rome to be a superior civilisation to Carthage deserving of victory.[7] Polybius also commits factual errors- describing armies that march 460 km in a week and his death toll at Cannae exceeds the number of people that could have possibly participated in the battle.[8] In fact, some opine that Polybius exaggerated the peril of Cannae for the Romans, to make their subsequent recuperation and conquest of the Mediterranean appear even more remarkable. After all, in Polybius’ own words, the primary purpose of his work is to unpack “by what means and under what systems of polity the Romans in less than fifty-three years have succeeded in subjecting nearly the whole inhabited world to their sole government.”[9] Clearly, the Romans’ feats were incredible to him and a miraculous recovery after the nadir at Cannae makes for an inspiring story. Regardless, he remains an excellent source and gives the impression that he genuinely believed that “his function [was] above all to record with fidelity what was actually said or done, however commonplace it may be.”[10]
Ab Urbe Condita (Livy):
Born in modern day Padua, Livy is virtually an exact contemporary of Augustus.[11] A remarkable exception amongst Roman historians, he never served in the military or as a public official. Polybius would be scornful of Livy’s history, because of his aversion to fieldwork, but Livy attained fame with ‘Ab Urbe Condita,’ a 142-tome attempt at chronicling a 7-century history of the Roman people.
Livy is, indubitably, not in the same rank as Polybius. Modern scholars have criticized him extensively [12]: he did not travel, his geography was inaccurate, he treated sources uncritically, was not sufficiently analytical, focused excessively on rhetoric and stylistic narratives[13], his Greek was lacking and his technical knowledge of political and military affairs inadequate. P.G. Walsh provides an example of Livy’s shortcomings.[14] In comparison to Polybius’ descriptions of specific events, Walsh identifies no less than 6 mistranslations committed by Livy: Three in book 23 (the book describing the immediate aftermath of Cannae) and three in book 28. These mistakes, coupled with an allusion made by Pliny the elder to a preface in one of Livy’s lost books, where Livy remarks that he had gained enough fame to stop writing yet felt the urge to continue, lead Walsh to conclude that Livy treated his sources carelessly and that Livy sought “his anodyne not in scrupulous accuracy, but in artistic transcription”. Furthermore, Livy is biased towards the senate, praising patrician consuls, whilst denouncing plebian ones. For the loss at Trasimene, for example, he blamed exclusively Flaminius’ impatience.[15]
Investigation (1164 Words)
To understand what political factors resulted in the Roman Empire’s devastating loss at Cannae it is necessary to set the battle in context. Adrian Goldsworthy, one of the foremost historians of the Punic Wars, ascertains that twelve major land engagements occurred between 218 and 202 (more than half fought on Italian soil).[16] However, during the entire conflict the Romans only lost conflicts on their own land, the Italian peninsula due to the shrewd and cunning actions of a sole man: Hannibal Barca, bane of Rome’s existence during the Second Punic War and one of the most formidable generals of history.
The appendix shows a map of Hannibal’s incursion into Italy, after his notorious march across the Alps in the winter 218-217:[17] Hannibal had victories at both Ticinus and Trebia and after Trasimene, where the Romans lost around 15, 000 soldiers;[18] the Roman senate found itself faced with a threat that had rapidly gained momentum over the last 7 months. Livy describes the city in a state of melancholy as women waited at the gates for their loved ones, many slowly realizing they would never return.[19] To combat the threat Hannibal posed, the senate appointed a dictator, Quintus Fabius Maximus, who came from a prestigious family, had been consul twice before and a dictator once, albeit in a civil capacity.[20]
The main conflict, politically, was to determine whether Rome should follow the Fabian strategy or confront Hannibal on the battlefield. Fabius’ magister equitum was Marcus Minucius from which there would considerable friction between the two, as they considered different approaches to the crisis to be the correct one. O’Connell argues that “Maximus understood one thing-Hannibal’s never-ending need to feed his army,”[21] and in fact the Fabian strategy was one of attrition. Fabius planned to implement a ‘scorched earth’ policy, urging farmers in the way of the Carthaginians to seek refuge in fortified towns after destroying their crops and livestock (Hannibal’s mercenaries would have had neither the equipment nor the patience for a siege). The problem with Fabian’s strategy of skirmishes and harassment of Hannibal’s foragers was that it went against the very core of the Roman’s principles as a people with supreme confidence in their military, accustomed to seek battle and not shy away from it.[22] Livy quotes Minucius as saying: “Are we come here to see our allies butchered, and their property burned, as a spectacle to be enjoyed?”[23] Hannibal, sensitive to the wedge being driven between Minucius and Fabius, once even destroyed everything around what he was told was an estate of the dictator, but left Fabius’ property itself untouched. This sly trick undermined Fabius’ authority in Rome and Fabius was recalled to Rome, probably to explain the lack of progress in the war.[24] In Fabius’ absence, Minucius blatantly disregarded the dictator’s strategy and won a minor victory in Gerunium, Apulia in the early autumn of 217, which lead the Romans to grant him power equal to that of Fabius[25]. However, shortly thereafter Hannibal lured Minuncius into a trap, which would have ended in disaster were it not for Fabius, who must have known something was awry, as had marched out and then deployed his troops to provide a rallying point for the fleeing troops of Minuncius. According to both Livy and Polybius the incident restored Fabius’ credibility and when his term as a dictator ended consuls M. Atilius Regulus and Geminus continued his strategy.[26]
However, the “political” element of the research question becomes relevant with the next consular elections, which signified the end of the Fabian strategy as less patient men rose to power such as L. Aemilius Paullus (patrician) and Gaius Terrentius Varro (plebeian). Major controversy surrounding Cannae is which was actually in command on August 2nd. Both Livy and Plutarch hold Varro in very low esteem, casting him as a hotheaded demagogue, elected by a foolish populace and Paullus as wise and a check to his impulsive counterpart. Both historians stage private conversations between Fabius and Paullus, where the latter agrees with former’s strategy and castigates Varro for his volatile character.[27] Polybius does not criticize Varro to the same extent, but is still clearly of the mind that Paullus was the better consul and Varro not apt for the position.[28] This is difficult to accept however given that the committee that elected the consuls was timocratic in nature making it extremely difficult to become a consul without at least some semblance of support from the senate.[29] Furthermore, Varro was assigned several important commissions and military commands immediately after Cannae- odd if he really was as incompetent during the battle as ancient sources claim.[30] At the same time, the reliability of Polybius’s views on the consuls diminishes if one bears in mind that his patron was Paullus’s grandson.[31] Lazenby adds that there is a possibility that Varro even served under Paullus during his first consulship, campaigning in Illyria, and that both consuls were probably in agreement on how to fight Hannibal.[32] In fact, whilst older historians like Kromayer generally accepted that Varro was commandant on that day, modern historians have veered away from this explanation and contended that Varro was scapegoated.[33] Varro was first of his family to become consul and lacked descendants of particular importance whilst the Aeimilii were among the most powerful families in Rome, with the means to save Paullus’s reputation and smear Varro’s through propaganda.[34]
Retrospectively, it is easy to say that the Fabian strategy was the better choice: Another year of reducing the Carthaginians to foraging scroungers might have defeated their army.[35] One could blame the militarism that was so endemic to Rome’s society for the disaster. After all, the enthusiasm of the Romans was such that up to a third of the senate joined the ranks of the army for Cannae.[36] However, the battle was not completely unjustified, as it is likely that all it would have taken was one decisive Roman victory to win the war, as the Punic army was simply too far from any secure outpost to sustain a heavy loss. [37] Moreover, the Romans were dominating the seas with their navy and experiencing considerable military success in Iberia, Carthage’s source of wealth.[38] Their success was such that Carthage opted to send reinforcements there instead of to Hannibal. Perhaps the Romans thought that they had Hannibal where they wanted him at that it was time to deal the finishing blow and rid the Italian peninsula of this parasite. Perhaps Rome thought it needed a victory to prevent allies from entering agreements with Carthage. Nevertheless, underestimating Hannibal’s tactical genius, the result can be regarded as a failure on political fronts. The disaster could have been averted and Rome could have kept its 16 legions. Instead they got a bloodbath that wouldn’t be matched until more than two millennia later. The Romans were fortunate that Hannibal’s strategic intellect did not compare to his operational one. To paraphrase his commander of cavalry, Maharbal: Hannibal knew how win a victory but not how to use one.[39]
3. Reflection (333 Words)
“[It is] as much about how we know as what we know, an engagement with all the processes of selection … that … produce the ‘facts’ … out of the messy, confusing and contradictory evidence that survives.”[40]
In all history there is an element of uncertainty, but it is compounded when one studies the ancient and this quote elucidates how crucial source evaluation is to this particular area of history. It is unclear whether sources are authentic and whether addendums were made to them in periods such as the middle ages. The sheer scarcity of extant work is a problem as well. Of Livy’s ‘Ab Urbe Condita’ only 25% remains and of Polybius’ ‘The Histories’ only books 1 to 5 are completely extant, whilst there are remnants of books 6-34.[41][42] Overall, we have around 30% of his work. Moreover, the few soures available to us must be scrutinized extensively and sometimes turn out to be nearly worthless. Appian’s account of Cannae is the first after that of Polybius and Livy, but is largely dismissed by modern historians. Lazenby points out that there are no similarities between Appian and Polybius’ model of the battle.[43] Appian also writes of implausible scenarios, such as an individual duels between Hannibal and Scipio Africanus during the battle of Zama.[44]
Investigating Rome also made it clear that it is very difficult for a historian to contextualise events. I wanted to focus on Cannae, but how to give a full picture without exploring Rome’s military, culture and political structure in excruciating detail? A historian must sift through considerable material only to pick out the couple of gold nuggets that will shape his argument. To investigate Livy for example, I ended up looking at his scholarly treatment by German historians of the 19th century, even though he was just a source for my investigation and not the subject of it. When so many have already unpacked that which one is trying to dissect, diversity is offered along with much distraction.
TOTAL WORD COUNT: 2,200
FOOTNOTES: [1] Prevas, John. "Chapter 3: The Ancient Sources." Hannibal Crosses the Alps: The Invasion of Italy and the Punic Wars. Cambridge, MA: Da Capo, 2001. 72. Print. [2] O'Connell, Robert L. The Ghosts of Cannae: Hannibal and the Darkest Hour of the Roman Republic. New York: Random House, 2010. 6. Print. [3] Polybius, The Histories (12.27) [4] O’Connell, P 6 [5] Walbank, F. W. "Pragmatike Historia." Polybius. Berkeley: U of California, 1972. 80. Print. [6] Baronowski, Donald Walter. "Historians and Roman Imperialism." Polybius and Roman Imperialism. London: Bristol Classical, 2011. 43-44. Print. [7] Dillon, Matthew, and Lynda Garland. "Rome's Mediterranean Empire." Ancient Rome: Social and Historical Documents from the Early Republic to the Death of Augustus. New York: Routledge, 2005. N. pag. Print. [8] Lazenby, J. F. Hannibal's War: A Military History of the Second Punic War. Warminster, Eng.: Aris and Phillips, 1978. Print. [9] Polybius, The Histories (1.1) [10]Polybius, The Histories 2.56 [11] Mineo, Bernard. "Historical Context of the Ab Urbe Condita." A Companion to Livy. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2015. 25. Print. [12] Chaplin, Jane D., and Christina Kraus Shuttleworth. "Introduction." Introduction. Livy. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2010. N. pag. Print. [13] Mellor, Ronald. "Livy." The Roman Historians. London: Routledge, 1999. 51. Print. [14] Walsh, P. G. "The Negligent Historian: 'Howlers' in Livy." Greece & Rome 5.1 (1958): 83-88. Web. [15] Daly, Gregory. "The Road to Cannae." Cannae: The Experience of Battle in the Second Punic War. London: Routledge, 2004. 25. Print. [16] Goldsworthy, Adrian Keith. The Punic Wars. London: Cassell, 2000. 311. Print. [17] Western Mediterranean Hannibal. Digital image. Dickinson College Commentaries. Dickinson College Commentaries Department of Classical Studies, n.d. Web. 15 Oct. 2016. . [18] Goldsworthy, Adrian Keith. The Punic Wars. London: Cassell, 2000. 311. Print. (Goldsworthy attributes the figure to Fabius Pictor) [19] Livy, Ab Urbe Condita (22.7) [20] MacDonald, Eve. "Hannibal the Conqueror." Hannibal: A Hellenistic Life. London: Yale UP, 2015. 115. Print. [21] O’Connell, P 122 [22] Lancel, Serge. Hannibal. Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1998. 101. Print. [23] Livy, Ab Urbe Condita (22.14) [24] Livy, Ab Urbe Condita (22.23) [25] Polybius, The Histories (3.103) [26] Polybius, The Histories (3.105); Livy, Ab Urbe Condita (22.29) [27] Livy, Ab Urbe Condita (22.39) ; Plutarch, Fabius Maximus 14 [28] O’Connell, P 134 [29] Daly, P 119 [30] O’Connell, P 134 [31] Daly, P 121 [32] Lazenby, P 74 [33] Dolfen, J. "Controversies." Darkness over Cannae. Wordpress, 20 Sept. 2014. Web. 20 Jan. 2017. . [34] Goldsworthy, P 199 [35] Shean, John F. “Hannibal’s Mules: The Logistical Limitations of Hannibal’s Army and the Battle of Cannae, 216 B.C.”Historia, 45:2, 1996, p. 183 Print. [36] Goldsworthy P, 67 [37] Goldsworthy P, 74 [38] Parker, James. "Comparing Strategies of the 2d Punic War: Rome’s Strategic Victory Over the Tactical/Operational Genius, Hannibal Barca." USAWC STRATEGY RESEARCH PROJECT (2001): n. pag. 2001. Web. 16 Jan. 2017. . [39]O’Connell, P 85 [40] Beard, Mary. "The Question of Triumph." Introduction. The Roman Triumph. Cambridge, MA: Belknap of Harvard UP, 2007. 5. Print. [41]"Livy." Encyclopedia of World Biography. Encyclopedia.com, 2014. Web. 16 Mar. 2017. . [42] Sacks, Kenneth. "Preconditions: The Polybian Text." Polybius on the Writing of History. Berkeley: U of California, 1981. 11-12. Print. [43] Lazenby P 261 [44] Daly, P 25
Where was the battle of Teutoburg Forest located?
Examination session: May 2013
Word count: 1986
Word count: 1986
Section A: Plan of Investigation
This investigation will seek to determine where the battle of Teutoburg forest took place. This will be accomplished by using a variety of different sources, from Roman historians writing at the time of the battle, to the 19th century work of Mommsen who first identified the site, supported by the account of Tony Clunn which relates to his search for and apparent confirmation of this site a century after. Paterculus' Roman History is of particular interest given the proximity of his writing to the events described. Moreover, the expertise and judgement of renowned professional archaeologists will be considered both through their work and from personal interviews.
Word count: 106
Section B: Summary of Evidence
The Roman province of Germania was established in 8 A.D. under the military leadership of Consul Tiberius Julius Caesar, who would later become Emperor. In 7 A.D. Publicus Quincitlius Varus was appointed Pro-consul over Germania east of the Rhine. Beforehand he had been the Pro-Consul of Africa and Syria, where he had imposed high taxes and acted brutally in case of any resistance against Roman rule. Velleius Paterculus, a Roman historian, stated that Varus was not an experienced Field - General and that he had left Syria highly unpopular among the population; Varus treated the Germanic tribes as he had the population of Syria, believing , the Germanic tribes were not humans but uncivilised barbarians that had to be calmed down by Roman law. His high taxes and interference with Germanic rules and traditions made him and the Roman occupation very unpopular amongst most Germanic tribes.
This culminated in an ambush in 9 A.D. where Varus and his army, the three legions XVII, XVIII, XIX, six cohorts of auxiliary troops and three squadrons of cavalry (overall 20,000 men) were completely annihilated on their way back to their winter quarters. Arminius, the son of the Cherusci chieftain Segimer, who had been knighted by Tiberius in 4 A.D., organised the ambush against Varus. Germania would never be conquered by the Roman Empire again.
The first prominent historian to mention the Kalkriese depression as a possible location for the battle was Theodor Mommsen in 1885 at the gap between the Kalkriese Mountain and the Great Moor, just southeast of the German town Osnabrück in Lower Saxony. Mommsen used Tacitus, as did Clunn, and claimed that the battle site should be "(..)Northern of the river Lippe, eastern of the River Ems (..)". From the Latin word Saltus he concluded that the place must have been a mountainous area and the information given by Tacitus about the moors lead him to claim Kalkriese as battle site. This was supported over a century later by Tony Clunn, who, in 1988, found evidence such as lead slingshot (from catapult slings) in three separate locations and 105 Roman Denarii on the 5th and 12th of July 1987. These catapult slings were apparently those used by auxiliary troops who were mostly recruited by the Romans in the Mediterranean region. Dr. Wolfgang Schlüter, resident archaeologist for Osnabrücker land uses this fact as evidence for the presence of Roman troops in the area and that those findings could not result from any kind of Roman-German trading.
Accounts by Cassius Dio, Tacitus and Paterculus describe the battle itself and the battleground, recording that the battle took place in an area known as the Saltus Teutoburgiensis. According to J. Lendering "there were large marshes and the rivers Ems and Lippe originated in the neighbourhood of the battlefield". Mommsen also used these ancient authors to back up his hypothesis of the battlefield location.
The archaeological findings of Clunn and the use of historical sources lead to the excavation of a field called the Oberesch where more coins and military equipment were found that indicated the defeat of an army consisting of different types of soldiers from the time of Augustus. In an area of 50 km2 there were more than 1000 coins from the time of Augustus and 6000 military items found. Additionally the site was "remarkably well suited for an ambush", because of its topography: To the south there is Kalkriese hill that is hard to pass by travellers despite only being 150 metres high but due to its natural shape, and to the north there is a large moor. In between there is only an accessible zone of 220 metres.
Word count: 614
Section C: Evaluation of sources
Clunn bases his book The Quest of the Lost Legions both on the ancient sources that describe the battlefield and archaeological findings. Published in 2005, it includes the latest knowledge about the battle at Teutoburg forest through incorporating the work of professionals such as Dr. Wolfang Schlüter and Dr. Joachim Harnecker thus supporting his hypothesis both internationally and by the German government. Furthermore artefacts, coins and military equipment have been excavated, much by the author himself in such huge numbers that it is impossible to discard his theory.
Ostensibly, the purpose of the book is found in its title- the discovery of the battle site. However, much is fiction, Clunn is a military officer and only a Hobby archaeologist.
The book is limited as a source for the location of the battle site, because of the lack of actual maps and his employment of fictional descriptions to create an easy, understandable account of the historical plot for the reader. A further problem is the fact that he focuses on his own work rather than on the professional archaeological teams doing most of the work, which is only mentioned to emphasize their support of his findings. This creates the possible charges of bias in reporting what he wants to believe by selecting his evidence. Moreover his description of the site is nearly as vague as those of the Romans, which could apply to nearly any number of areas.
Velleius Paterculus wrote his Roman history dedicated to Marcus Vinicius two decades after the battle when the events were still fresh and he had access to witnesses. Paterculus lived east of the Rhine and thus was in a position to interview veterans, and personally knew Varus and Arminius. The purpose of his account is to inform but mainly to praise comrades-in-arms Marcus Vinicius and Tiberius, adding the threat of bias to his account. Paterculus is particularly valuable as he is the only ancient historian who records that three units of cavalry were destroyed. Interestingly, Paterculus blamed not the soldiers but general Varus. This contradicts his usual preoccupied approach towards Tiberius, which is a very important detail because Paterculus will have relied only on the accounts of people he trusted if he decided to attack Tiberius indirectly. One big limitation is that he was a close friend of Emperor Tiberius and therefore preoccupied by his admiration to him. Since Paterculus benefited under Tiberius reign, he changed some elements in his account to please Tiberius. At times his documentation of the battle and the battle site is grossly falsified by his attempt to draw a good picture of Tiberius. Perhaps the biggest limitation is the time when he wrote the work as “no expectation existed in Augustan Rome that the geographical information contained in a work of literature should be precise,” thus possibly affecting our use of his description of the battlesite.
Word count: 478
Section D: Analysis
Clunn's discovery of a thousand coins arguably justified Mommsen's thesis a century earlier, having been found in such quantity that it indicates that they were hidden; in the view of Dr. Moosauer, given their value they would have been scavenged immediately by others. Up until 1990 however, no bronze coins were found which were the main denomination used to pay soldiers and thus would have been the most common in a legion, and thus provided a crucial argument against Kalkreise being considered the site. From 1990 until 1999 however, 354 bronze coins were found, 93 % of which dated before 9AD as all are stamped with "VAR"- the initials of Varus, or "CVAL"- the initials of a cavalry prefect under Varus. By August 2000, 1408 coins were found consisting of silver, copper and gold with different stamps and of different types that circulated in the first century A.D. which Schlüter argues proves a major Roman presence at Kalkriese. The different coin types, with special regard to the bronze coins, and their spread were used to determine the area of the battlefield- 50 km2 -and its course, indicating that the Romans were not defeated in a single ambush but in an engagement lasting a couple of days.
Schlüter and Moosauer believe the 6000 military and non-military items found at Kalkriese and the Osnabrueck area support Clunn's thesis. Amongst the broken daggers, lances and military tools excavated, a cavalry mask found, was very important because it supports Paterculus who mentions the destruction of three units of cavalry. Furthermore the catapult slings found strongly suggest the presence of Roman auxiliary troops at Kalkriese as Schlüter mentions. Moosauer argued that these archaeological excavations prove that there was a battle site at Kalkriese depression with its climax at the Oberesch field consisting of all branches of the Roman army, legionnaires, cavalry and the baggage train .
There are, however, different interpretations of the findings possible as the leader of the archaeological excavation team at Kalkriese, S. Ross, has highlighted. Since the excavations have not been finished, not all evidence has been analysed in terms of its age by C-14 tests and it is not clear if the some of the findings were scavenged from battle sites and taken to Germanic settlements, it is not possible to pinpoint the exact area of the battle.
Nevertheless one issue arises that prevents a clear answer, which are the geographical terms used by ancient authors to describe the battlefield. Tacitus describes the battlefield with the term Teutoburgiensi Saltu. Saltu can be translated as 'forest' but also as 'mountain pass'. It can also mean ‘untilled mountain land’, ‘woodland pasture,’ ‘ravine’, ‘glen’, and ‘mountain valley’ which in turn could describe much of northern Germany. Dio explains vaguely that the site was somewhere in "the territory of the Cherusci and towards the river Visurgis." The river Visurgis is today called Weser and Kalkriese is not very close to the Weser, lying halfway between the rivers Weser and Ems. Moreover excavations have shown that it wasn't a single ambush that ended the battle but numerous fights, shown by the spreading of the findings around Kalkriese and the Osnabrueck area, which explains Dio's account who writes about a four day battle. However Lendering argued that the topography of Kalkriese is similiar to the geographical descriptions of the ancient authors using the example of Paterculus mentioning narrows in his account. The Oberesch field, which is enclosed by Kalkriese Mountain in the south and the moor in the north, fits that description. Additionally a fortified wall was discovered dating back to 9 A.D., that enclosed the Oberesch field, leaving only an accessible zone of 220 metres.
word count: 612
Section E Conclusion:
The 6000 archaeological findings consisting of coins, military and non-military items and the spreading of these speak in favour of the Kalkriese depression as site of the Varus battle. From the spreading of the evidence it can be concluded that the battle lasted several days at the Kalkriese depression, although the exact number of days has not been distinguished yet.
The Oberesch field can be regarded as the climax of the battle because of the high concentration of findings.
Since the ancient sources mention no other defeat of a Roman army under Augustus in Germania, the chances of an unrecorded battle between Romans and Germans of such a scale are so little that it can be assumed that Clunn's thesis is correct. Additionally the topography of Kalkriese fits the description of these ancient authors. Moreover Kalkriese has been accepted by most leading experts in the areas of Archaeology and History as battle site.
The final conclusion is therefore that the battle took place at the Kalkriese depression with a major battle site at the Oberesch field.
word count: 176
Works cited:
Books cited:
Clunn, Tony. The Quest for the Lost Roman Legions: Discovering the Varus Battlefield. First Edition ed. New York: Savas Beatie, 2005. Xi-Xl. Print. First Printing.
Mommsen, Theodor. Die Örtlichkeit Der Varusschlacht. Weidmann, 1885. Print
Paterculus, C. Velleius. "Chapters 117-121."The Roman History. Vol. Book II. N.p.: Loeb Classical Library, 924. N. pag. Print.
Wells, Peter S. The Battle That Stopped Rome: Emperor Augustus, Arminius, and the Slaughter of the Legions in the Teutoburg Forest. New York: W.W. Norton, 2003.
Print.
Journals:
Brock, Thomas, and Arne Homann. "Kalkriese Und Die Varusschlacht." Archäologie in Deutschland (2011): 37-46. Print.
Moosbauer, Günther, and Susanne Wilbers- Rost. "Kalkriese- Ort Der Varusschlacht?" Archäologie in Deutschland (2007): 23-29. Print.
PDF:
Dylan, Noyle. Rome’s Bloody Nose. The Pannonian Revolt, Teutoburg Forest and the Formation of Roman Frontiers. Oregon: Western Oregon University, 15 June 2007.
Websites cited:
Ausgrabungskampagne 2012 in Kalkriese. VARUSSCHLACHT Im Osnabrücker Land GmbH - Museum Und Park Kalkriese, 2007. Web. 04 Feb. 2013.
"Archäologen Zeigen in Kalkriese Die Besten Varusschlacht-Funde Des Jahres." Lokales. Osnabrücker Zeitung, 11 Feb. 2013. Web. 02 Mar. 2013.
Barry, Kevin. "Clades Variana (The Varus Disaster)." Barry & Darling Your Home For Ancient Coins and Artifacts. Barry & Darling, 1996. Web. 02 Mar. 2013
Fernandes, Irina. "Two Thousandth Anniversary of the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest." Research and Sciences. Goethe-Institut E.V., Apr. 2009. Web. 02 Mar. 2013.
Lendering, Jona. "The Battle in the Teutoburg Forest (1,2,3,4,5,6,7)." Livius. Livius,
2003. Web. 04 Feb. 2013.
Mittag, Wolf. "Römische Herrschaft über Germanien." Germanen-und-roemer.de. Wolf
Mittag, 2003. Web. 04 Feb. 2013.
Rottmann, Joseph. "Grabung Aktuell Sommer 2012." Die Bühne Der Schlacht
Interview:
Moosauer, Manfred, Dr. "The Varus Battle." Personal interview. 20 Feb. 2013.
Was Alcibiades responsible for the destruction of the Hermai?
This investigation will seek to determine where the battle of Teutoburg forest took place. This will be accomplished by using a variety of different sources, from Roman historians writing at the time of the battle, to the 19th century work of Mommsen who first identified the site, supported by the account of Tony Clunn which relates to his search for and apparent confirmation of this site a century after. Paterculus' Roman History is of particular interest given the proximity of his writing to the events described. Moreover, the expertise and judgement of renowned professional archaeologists will be considered both through their work and from personal interviews.
Word count: 106
Section B: Summary of Evidence
The Roman province of Germania was established in 8 A.D. under the military leadership of Consul Tiberius Julius Caesar, who would later become Emperor. In 7 A.D. Publicus Quincitlius Varus was appointed Pro-consul over Germania east of the Rhine. Beforehand he had been the Pro-Consul of Africa and Syria, where he had imposed high taxes and acted brutally in case of any resistance against Roman rule. Velleius Paterculus, a Roman historian, stated that Varus was not an experienced Field - General and that he had left Syria highly unpopular among the population; Varus treated the Germanic tribes as he had the population of Syria, believing , the Germanic tribes were not humans but uncivilised barbarians that had to be calmed down by Roman law. His high taxes and interference with Germanic rules and traditions made him and the Roman occupation very unpopular amongst most Germanic tribes.
This culminated in an ambush in 9 A.D. where Varus and his army, the three legions XVII, XVIII, XIX, six cohorts of auxiliary troops and three squadrons of cavalry (overall 20,000 men) were completely annihilated on their way back to their winter quarters. Arminius, the son of the Cherusci chieftain Segimer, who had been knighted by Tiberius in 4 A.D., organised the ambush against Varus. Germania would never be conquered by the Roman Empire again.
The first prominent historian to mention the Kalkriese depression as a possible location for the battle was Theodor Mommsen in 1885 at the gap between the Kalkriese Mountain and the Great Moor, just southeast of the German town Osnabrück in Lower Saxony. Mommsen used Tacitus, as did Clunn, and claimed that the battle site should be "(..)Northern of the river Lippe, eastern of the River Ems (..)". From the Latin word Saltus he concluded that the place must have been a mountainous area and the information given by Tacitus about the moors lead him to claim Kalkriese as battle site. This was supported over a century later by Tony Clunn, who, in 1988, found evidence such as lead slingshot (from catapult slings) in three separate locations and 105 Roman Denarii on the 5th and 12th of July 1987. These catapult slings were apparently those used by auxiliary troops who were mostly recruited by the Romans in the Mediterranean region. Dr. Wolfgang Schlüter, resident archaeologist for Osnabrücker land uses this fact as evidence for the presence of Roman troops in the area and that those findings could not result from any kind of Roman-German trading.
Accounts by Cassius Dio, Tacitus and Paterculus describe the battle itself and the battleground, recording that the battle took place in an area known as the Saltus Teutoburgiensis. According to J. Lendering "there were large marshes and the rivers Ems and Lippe originated in the neighbourhood of the battlefield". Mommsen also used these ancient authors to back up his hypothesis of the battlefield location.
The archaeological findings of Clunn and the use of historical sources lead to the excavation of a field called the Oberesch where more coins and military equipment were found that indicated the defeat of an army consisting of different types of soldiers from the time of Augustus. In an area of 50 km2 there were more than 1000 coins from the time of Augustus and 6000 military items found. Additionally the site was "remarkably well suited for an ambush", because of its topography: To the south there is Kalkriese hill that is hard to pass by travellers despite only being 150 metres high but due to its natural shape, and to the north there is a large moor. In between there is only an accessible zone of 220 metres.
Word count: 614
Section C: Evaluation of sources
Clunn bases his book The Quest of the Lost Legions both on the ancient sources that describe the battlefield and archaeological findings. Published in 2005, it includes the latest knowledge about the battle at Teutoburg forest through incorporating the work of professionals such as Dr. Wolfang Schlüter and Dr. Joachim Harnecker thus supporting his hypothesis both internationally and by the German government. Furthermore artefacts, coins and military equipment have been excavated, much by the author himself in such huge numbers that it is impossible to discard his theory.
Ostensibly, the purpose of the book is found in its title- the discovery of the battle site. However, much is fiction, Clunn is a military officer and only a Hobby archaeologist.
The book is limited as a source for the location of the battle site, because of the lack of actual maps and his employment of fictional descriptions to create an easy, understandable account of the historical plot for the reader. A further problem is the fact that he focuses on his own work rather than on the professional archaeological teams doing most of the work, which is only mentioned to emphasize their support of his findings. This creates the possible charges of bias in reporting what he wants to believe by selecting his evidence. Moreover his description of the site is nearly as vague as those of the Romans, which could apply to nearly any number of areas.
Velleius Paterculus wrote his Roman history dedicated to Marcus Vinicius two decades after the battle when the events were still fresh and he had access to witnesses. Paterculus lived east of the Rhine and thus was in a position to interview veterans, and personally knew Varus and Arminius. The purpose of his account is to inform but mainly to praise comrades-in-arms Marcus Vinicius and Tiberius, adding the threat of bias to his account. Paterculus is particularly valuable as he is the only ancient historian who records that three units of cavalry were destroyed. Interestingly, Paterculus blamed not the soldiers but general Varus. This contradicts his usual preoccupied approach towards Tiberius, which is a very important detail because Paterculus will have relied only on the accounts of people he trusted if he decided to attack Tiberius indirectly. One big limitation is that he was a close friend of Emperor Tiberius and therefore preoccupied by his admiration to him. Since Paterculus benefited under Tiberius reign, he changed some elements in his account to please Tiberius. At times his documentation of the battle and the battle site is grossly falsified by his attempt to draw a good picture of Tiberius. Perhaps the biggest limitation is the time when he wrote the work as “no expectation existed in Augustan Rome that the geographical information contained in a work of literature should be precise,” thus possibly affecting our use of his description of the battlesite.
Word count: 478
Section D: Analysis
Clunn's discovery of a thousand coins arguably justified Mommsen's thesis a century earlier, having been found in such quantity that it indicates that they were hidden; in the view of Dr. Moosauer, given their value they would have been scavenged immediately by others. Up until 1990 however, no bronze coins were found which were the main denomination used to pay soldiers and thus would have been the most common in a legion, and thus provided a crucial argument against Kalkreise being considered the site. From 1990 until 1999 however, 354 bronze coins were found, 93 % of which dated before 9AD as all are stamped with "VAR"- the initials of Varus, or "CVAL"- the initials of a cavalry prefect under Varus. By August 2000, 1408 coins were found consisting of silver, copper and gold with different stamps and of different types that circulated in the first century A.D. which Schlüter argues proves a major Roman presence at Kalkriese. The different coin types, with special regard to the bronze coins, and their spread were used to determine the area of the battlefield- 50 km2 -and its course, indicating that the Romans were not defeated in a single ambush but in an engagement lasting a couple of days.
Schlüter and Moosauer believe the 6000 military and non-military items found at Kalkriese and the Osnabrueck area support Clunn's thesis. Amongst the broken daggers, lances and military tools excavated, a cavalry mask found, was very important because it supports Paterculus who mentions the destruction of three units of cavalry. Furthermore the catapult slings found strongly suggest the presence of Roman auxiliary troops at Kalkriese as Schlüter mentions. Moosauer argued that these archaeological excavations prove that there was a battle site at Kalkriese depression with its climax at the Oberesch field consisting of all branches of the Roman army, legionnaires, cavalry and the baggage train .
There are, however, different interpretations of the findings possible as the leader of the archaeological excavation team at Kalkriese, S. Ross, has highlighted. Since the excavations have not been finished, not all evidence has been analysed in terms of its age by C-14 tests and it is not clear if the some of the findings were scavenged from battle sites and taken to Germanic settlements, it is not possible to pinpoint the exact area of the battle.
Nevertheless one issue arises that prevents a clear answer, which are the geographical terms used by ancient authors to describe the battlefield. Tacitus describes the battlefield with the term Teutoburgiensi Saltu. Saltu can be translated as 'forest' but also as 'mountain pass'. It can also mean ‘untilled mountain land’, ‘woodland pasture,’ ‘ravine’, ‘glen’, and ‘mountain valley’ which in turn could describe much of northern Germany. Dio explains vaguely that the site was somewhere in "the territory of the Cherusci and towards the river Visurgis." The river Visurgis is today called Weser and Kalkriese is not very close to the Weser, lying halfway between the rivers Weser and Ems. Moreover excavations have shown that it wasn't a single ambush that ended the battle but numerous fights, shown by the spreading of the findings around Kalkriese and the Osnabrueck area, which explains Dio's account who writes about a four day battle. However Lendering argued that the topography of Kalkriese is similiar to the geographical descriptions of the ancient authors using the example of Paterculus mentioning narrows in his account. The Oberesch field, which is enclosed by Kalkriese Mountain in the south and the moor in the north, fits that description. Additionally a fortified wall was discovered dating back to 9 A.D., that enclosed the Oberesch field, leaving only an accessible zone of 220 metres.
word count: 612
Section E Conclusion:
The 6000 archaeological findings consisting of coins, military and non-military items and the spreading of these speak in favour of the Kalkriese depression as site of the Varus battle. From the spreading of the evidence it can be concluded that the battle lasted several days at the Kalkriese depression, although the exact number of days has not been distinguished yet.
The Oberesch field can be regarded as the climax of the battle because of the high concentration of findings.
Since the ancient sources mention no other defeat of a Roman army under Augustus in Germania, the chances of an unrecorded battle between Romans and Germans of such a scale are so little that it can be assumed that Clunn's thesis is correct. Additionally the topography of Kalkriese fits the description of these ancient authors. Moreover Kalkriese has been accepted by most leading experts in the areas of Archaeology and History as battle site.
The final conclusion is therefore that the battle took place at the Kalkriese depression with a major battle site at the Oberesch field.
word count: 176
Works cited:
Books cited:
Clunn, Tony. The Quest for the Lost Roman Legions: Discovering the Varus Battlefield. First Edition ed. New York: Savas Beatie, 2005. Xi-Xl. Print. First Printing.
Mommsen, Theodor. Die Örtlichkeit Der Varusschlacht. Weidmann, 1885. Print
Paterculus, C. Velleius. "Chapters 117-121."The Roman History. Vol. Book II. N.p.: Loeb Classical Library, 924. N. pag. Print.
Wells, Peter S. The Battle That Stopped Rome: Emperor Augustus, Arminius, and the Slaughter of the Legions in the Teutoburg Forest. New York: W.W. Norton, 2003.
Print.
Journals:
Brock, Thomas, and Arne Homann. "Kalkriese Und Die Varusschlacht." Archäologie in Deutschland (2011): 37-46. Print.
Moosbauer, Günther, and Susanne Wilbers- Rost. "Kalkriese- Ort Der Varusschlacht?" Archäologie in Deutschland (2007): 23-29. Print.
PDF:
Dylan, Noyle. Rome’s Bloody Nose. The Pannonian Revolt, Teutoburg Forest and the Formation of Roman Frontiers. Oregon: Western Oregon University, 15 June 2007.
Websites cited:
Ausgrabungskampagne 2012 in Kalkriese. VARUSSCHLACHT Im Osnabrücker Land GmbH - Museum Und Park Kalkriese, 2007. Web. 04 Feb. 2013.
"Archäologen Zeigen in Kalkriese Die Besten Varusschlacht-Funde Des Jahres." Lokales. Osnabrücker Zeitung, 11 Feb. 2013. Web. 02 Mar. 2013.
Barry, Kevin. "Clades Variana (The Varus Disaster)." Barry & Darling Your Home For Ancient Coins and Artifacts. Barry & Darling, 1996. Web. 02 Mar. 2013
Fernandes, Irina. "Two Thousandth Anniversary of the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest." Research and Sciences. Goethe-Institut E.V., Apr. 2009. Web. 02 Mar. 2013.
Lendering, Jona. "The Battle in the Teutoburg Forest (1,2,3,4,5,6,7)." Livius. Livius,
2003. Web. 04 Feb. 2013.
Mittag, Wolf. "Römische Herrschaft über Germanien." Germanen-und-roemer.de. Wolf
Mittag, 2003. Web. 04 Feb. 2013.
Rottmann, Joseph. "Grabung Aktuell Sommer 2012." Die Bühne Der Schlacht
Interview:
Moosauer, Manfred, Dr. "The Varus Battle." Personal interview. 20 Feb. 2013.
Was Alcibiades responsible for the destruction of the Hermai?
Candidate Number: 000823-033
Centre Number: 000 0823
Examination Session: May 2012
Word Count: 1967Was Alcibiades responsible for the destruction of the Hermai?
Plan of Investigation
To investigate whether or not Alcibiades was responsible for the destruction of the Hermai in 413 BCE, I will conduct research on the background and then I will analyse the writings of Thucydides, who is the only primary source and an acknowledged historian. I will go on to look at Alcibiades political reputation and try to see if the roots of this accusation lie here. Lastly, I will read the book The Reign of the Phallus: Sexual Politics in ancient Athens, written by the history professor Eva C. Keuls. From the evidence presentedI will try to conclude if Alcibiades was rightly so claimed to be the criminal or if someone else is to be blamed.
Word count: 116
Summary
In 421 BCE, the Athenians and Spartans had signed a truce in the Peloponnesian conflict as both sides were exhausted. The leading Athenian figure from these negotiations in 421 BCE was Nicias, after whom the treaty was named. The Athenians wanted to plan an expedition to Sicily?. From the following debate that consumed the government two leading figures emerged: Nicias, who was against the expedition, and Alcibiades, who was for the expedition. Alcibiades emerged as the proponent of the expedition, claiming that it would bring riches to Athens and it would expand the empire.? However, Nicias, who was already a respected political figure, opposed to the entire expedition, as he believed that it was not worth it. Once he noticed that opposing the expedition would make him unpopular, he decided to dissuade the Athenians, by trying to make the expedition look a lot more challenging.* This would require a much larger force, leaving Athens nearly defenceless, and if it failed, would irreparably cripple the Athenian fleet. Yet by stating that a massive fleet and large army would be needed, it seemed to fire the Athenians up even more, so the fleet and army of hoplites was built. The command was split up between Alcibiades, who was arguing for the expedition the entire time, Nicias and Lamachus, an experienced career soldier. This, the Athenians assumed, would create a balance between the command, and ensure maximum success.° The night before several Hermai throughout Athens were mutilated. The Hermai were sacred stone markers, with a bust of the messenger god Hermes and an erect phallus, which is a sign for good luck and fertility. The Hermai were especially directed at travellers as a good luck symbol, granting safe passage to them, and were therefore quite common especially in larger cities. Therefore hundreds of these Hermai were set up all over the city of Athens, at cross roads, boundaries and gymnasia. On the night before the Sicilian expedition, hundreds of these Hermai were mutilated, where both the face’ and the erect phallus were mutilated, which, judging by the amount of mutilated Hermai, was considered to be a massive act of vandalism. The superstitious Greeks took this very seriously, as it was considered to be a religious scandal and bad omen for the Sicilian expedition, since these symbols of good luck for all travellers were destroyed right before a massive expedition. To grasp the importance of these Hermai, one has to understand that the Hermai re-presented the Athenian Individual whenever he set foot outside of his home. It was unclear who did this, but one of the generals of the Sicilian expedition, Alcibiades was to be blamed for this act of vandalism, as he was seen by political enemies to have vandalised them. Alcibiades volunteered to be put on trial, under penalty of death, to prove his innocence, yet was denied®. The Athenian government attempted to arrest him, but he fled.
Word count: 679.
Source evaluation:
Source 1: Thucydides, The History of the Peloponnesian War, Chicago: William Benton 1952, The Sixth Book, Seventeenth Year of the War - The Sicilian Campaign - Affair of the Hermae - Departure the Expedition.
Thucydides has been called the father of “scientific history” due to his strict standards of evidence gathering and analysis of cause and effect, neglecting the gods and any divine intervention. He removed himself from all prejudice or biased opinion. The purpose of his writings is to keep purely factual historical accounts, which is another reason why he is very trustworthy whenever analysing an issue during his time period. Furthermore, it is almost all of the information we have about the incident, since there are no other accounts from that period of time about this incident. Also, Thucydides is not just an acknowledged historian from ancient Greece, but also an ex general who had experience in the war and knows the two opposing sides, which is another value of this source." However a limitation of this source is that Thucydides only mentions it briefly and does not go into a lot of depth.12 His most noticeable limitation is that because of his failure to get to Amphipolis in time and save it from the Spartan attack, he was exiled which is 8 years before the expedition. It is said that he returned back to Athens in 404 BCE, which means that he was absent during the entire war period. However, this could also be seen as a value, since he became a very objective and neutral observer of the war.
Word count: 289
Source 2: The reign of the phallus: sexual politics in ancient Athens, by Eva C Keuls
This source shows how a radical feminist serving as a professor, Eva C Keuls, blames the act on feminist activity. She backs this up with the sex strike the women already had imposed on their husbands and that around the same time the Adonia was celebrated, which gives the women more freedom. Her approach is an explanation of events that happened yet is not very widely spread, and is very criticised due to her exaggerating her evidence and overstretching her arguments, being very biased. Nevertheless it is a valuable source, as a history professor takes a completely new stance on the subject, suggesting that the restricted women society attempted to rise, back in ancient democratic Athens. Also the purpose of her book can be considered a limitation, as it was written to portray a different point of view on purpose, to sell the book and also to underline the importance of women in the ancient world.
Word count: 152
Analysis
Looking at these accounts, it seems unrealistic that Alcibiades, the major proponent!of the expedition, would sabotage pillars throughout the city of Athens, knowing that it might be reason enough for the government to sentence him to death. However, the night before the expedition massive drinking parties rippled throughout the city. The incident was an extremely serious affair and the government reacted accordingly, offering large rewards for any information concerning the violators. It can also be seen, as it was thought by some Athenians that this was an attempt to overthrow the government by the rich upper class. As information was given about some previously done mutilations by a group of drunken young men’ and since Alcibiades was implicated in these, attention was drawn to him. Since he was also part of this wealthy upper class, and because he now stepped into the spotlight of politics where he gained several enemies, it was clear that people would start blaming him for this massive act vandalism. However, what speaks against him being one of the vandals is that he repelled the charges on the spot!? and wanted to be put on trial under the penalty of death, in order to clear his name. Furthermore, while he would be away commanding the army, he knew that his political enemies would do everything they could to convict him?. On the other hand, since he was one of the commanding generals and one of the major proponents of the entire expedition he knew that the army and people who had voted him to be one of the generals would side with him, and therefore enable him to rid himself of the charges. On the other hand, Eva Keuls argues that as it was especially the erect phallus that was damaged on these statues, it is very unlikely that a man had done this, as she raises the question: why would men hack away at a public symbol of their own virility? She then goes on to argue that since an act of vandalism so large all over the city would need an organised group and goes on to discard the drunken group of young men, in which Alcibiades was involved. She also denies the possibility that those who opposed the expedition were responsible, since they were already represented by the respected general Nicias. She goes on to state that the only possibility left is the women of Athens. She underlines this claim by stating that the festivities of the Adonia were being celebrated around that time and gave the women more freedom.” Furthermore, the women had already imposed a sex strike on their husbands, being against the expedition as it would render Athens defenceless.
Word Count: 630
Conclusion
Although several accounts report that Alcibiades was blamed for the destruction of the Hermai and say that he was tried and found guilty in absentia by the government, I believe that this is unlikely. Since Alcibiades was the major proponent of the expedition, I doubt that he would sabotage the same expedition. Furthermore, although it is very abstract, I believe that the approach Eva Keuls took in her work is plausible in blaming the women instead of blaming Alcibiades. I believe that although her claim is questioned, that it is more plausible than blaming Alcibiades. However, most historians acknowledge Alcibiades’ blame.
Word count: 101.
Bibliography
Atsma, Aaron J."CULT OF HERMES :Ancient Greek Religion." THEO] GREEK MYTHOLOGY,ExploringMythology&theGreekGodsinClassicalLiterature&Art.Web. 23 Nov. 2011. <http://www.theoi.com/Cult/HermesCult.htm]>.
Keuls,EvaC.TheReignofthePhallusSexualPoliticsinAncientAthens.Berkeley[u.a.: Univ. of California, 1985. Print.
Thucydides, The History Of The Peloponnesian War. Vol. 6. Chicago: William Benton, 1952. Great Books Of The Western World. Web.
Cooksey, Thomas L.Plato'sSymposium: A Reader's Guide. London: Continuum, 2010. Print.
Dillon, Mathew and Lynda, Garland. Ancient Greece: Social and Historical Documents from ArchaictimestotheDeathofAlexandertheGreat.3rded.Routledge,2010.Print.
Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War (Oxford: University Press).
Charles Freeman, Egypt, Greece and Rome (Oxford: University Press) 1999. Sir Paul Harvey, Classical Literature, (Oxford: University Press) 1989.
History IBDP Internal Assessment
Who Desecrated the Hermai?
SUMMARY
EVALUATION OF THE SOURCES
ANALYSIS
Who Desecrated the Hermai?
Plan of Investigation
I will first research the background of the
incident, and the setting. I will then analyse the Greek Historian Thucydides,
who lived during this time and is therefore a relative reliable primary source.
I will then analyse The Reign of the Phallus: Sexual Politics in Ancient Athens by Eva C. Keuls, as this gives another opinion on who was responsible
for the incident and supports the idea that women were responsible. I will
furthermore look at the book Ancient Greece as it gives relative factual
and accurate information and I will read some of Plato’s symposium. I
will then, by analysing what is given draw a conclusion on who is to blame for
the incident.
Destruction of the Hermai
The setting of this incident is during the
Peloponnesian War. Recently before, in 421 BCE, the Athenians and Spartans had
signed a peace treaty since both sides were exhausted. The leading figure on
the Athenian side during the negotiations was Nicias, and the following treat which
was named after him, made him very popular back in Athens.
The Athenians, after a plea from the Sicilian
city of Segesta, planned an expedition to Sicily. At first, a debate consumed
the government. On one side, Alcibiades emerged as the proponent of the
expedition, claiming that it would bring riches to Athens and it would expand
the empire. Furthermore, he claimed, it would not be that difficult as soldiers
could be recruited from the Athenian allies in the region. However, one of the
generals, Nicias opposed to the entire expedition, as he believed that it was
not worth it. Once he noticed that opposing the expedition would make him
unpopular, he decided to dissuade the Athenians, by trying to make the
expedition look a lot more difficult. This would require a much larger force,
leaving Athens a lot more open, and if it failed, would irreparably cripple the
Athenian fleet. Yet by stating that a massive fleet and large army would be
needed it seemed to fire the Athenians up even more, so the fleet and army of
hoplites was built. The command was split up between Alcibiades, who was
arguing for the expedition the entire time, Nicias and Lamachus, a career
soldier with a lot of experience. This, the Athenians thought, would create a
balance between the command, and ensure maximum success. However, the night
before, throughout the entire city of Athens the Hermai were mutilated. The
Hermai were stone markers, with a bust of the messenger god Hermes and an erect
phallus, which is a sign for good luck and fertility. The Hermai were
especially directed at travelers as a good luck symbol, granting safe passage to
them, and were therefore quite common especially in larger cities. Therefore hundreds
of these Hermai were set up all over the city of Athens, at cross roads,
boundaries and gymnasia. On the night before the Sicilian expedition hundreds
of these Hermai were mutilated, where the phallus was knocked off (argued over
by historians), which, judging by the amount of mutilated Hermai, was
considered to be a massive act of vandalism. Furthermore, the ancient Greeks
took this very seriously as they were extremely superstitious and religious, it
was considered to be a religious scandal and it was considered to be a bad omen
for the Sicilian expedition, as these symbols of good luck for travellers were
destroyed right before a massive expedition. It was unclear who did this, but
one of the generals of the Sicilian expedition, Alcibiades was to be blamed for
this act of vandalism, as he was seen by political enemies to have vandalized
them. Alcibiades volunteered to be put on trial, under penalty of death, to
prove his innocence, yet was denied. He was to be arrested later on during the
voyage, yet he fled.
EVALUATION OF THE SOURCES
Source 1: Ancient
Greece, Social and Historical
Documents from Archaic Times to the Death of Alexander the Great. Matthew
Dillon and Lynda Garland.
This source gives a good account of what
the historian Thucydides, who lived during that time, thought of the account,
and further more it gives a lot of information about how the people reacted and
how serious it was for the government at that time. It also shows how the act
was seen as an attempt to overthrow the government, which furthermore confirms
the intense reaction by the government. It gives a factual approach to the
issue, assuming that it was done by Alcibiades the night before the departure
of the fleet to Sicily.
Source 2: Plato’s
symposium, Thomas L Cooksey
This source shows how people came to accuse
Alcibiades for the incident. It shows how his ambitious and lawless way of
being both in his public and private life was seen as a threat, and he was
therefore a perfect candidate of someone who would damage these statues.
Furthermore, it argues that the part of the statue damaged, was not the
phallus, but rather the beard, as it was seen as a more masculine, dominant
trait, which would be seen first. It also quotes Thucydides, on the account.
Here, both sides are taken to the issue, yet Alcibiades fault in this incident
is underlined with his character traits, recorded by Thucydides.
ANALYSIS
Looking at the incident and what had
preceded it and the result of it, it is questionable whether Alcibiades
actually was involved in the incident, and who did it, if it wasn’t him.
Analyzing the background, Athens had long
lasting connections to Sicily, even before the Peloponnesian War. Once some of
the cities, such as Segesta, pleaded for help against the other Sicilian
cities. Here, the primary proponent was Alcibiades, while Nicias was arguing
against the expedition. Although Nicias was more respected, Nicias thought that
if he scared the Athenians with the size of the expedition force needed, that
they would vote against the expedition. Yet against what he believed would
happen, he excited the Athenians even more, so a major expedition force was
gathered, with Nicias, Alcibiades and Lamachus in command. Looking at these
accounts, it seems extremely unrealistic that Alcibiades, the major proponent
of the expedition from the beginning on would sabotage pillars throughout the
city of Athens, knowing that it might be reason enough for the superstitious
Athenians at the time to recall the expedition and sentence him to death.
However, the night before the expedition massive drinking parties rippled
throughout the city. Those poses two sides of the argument, as when people are
drunk to the extent as it was described by Thucydides, they sometimes don’t
know what the had done and what they are doing or seeing. The first side is
that, although Alcibiades was the major proponent, under the influence of
alcohol confusing his mind, he might have mutilated these statues and committed
this act of blasphemy. Yet he would have had to be in a large group to do this
large amount of damage all over the city. It can also be seen, as it was
thought by some Athenians that this was an attempt to overthrow the government
by the rich upper class. As Alcibiades was part of this class, and because he
now stepped into the spotlight of politics where he gained several enemies, it
was clear that people would start blaming him for this massive act vandalism.
As much as the fact that he was under the influence of alcohol the night before
reduce Alcibiades credibility of his innocence, it also reduces the credibility
of the supposed witnesses, as these were most likely under the same effect.
Once the incident happened Alcibiades was
publically accused of the incident by both political enemies and by supposed
witnesses. As it was the day of the departure, although Alcibiades said he
would stand trial immediately, under penalty of death, this request was denied.
The fact that he would stand trial immediately to prove his innocence suggests
that he had nothing to do with it, yet as the expedition had already been
prolonged, it was decided that this was not to be the case, so he left together
with the expedition to Sicily. Once he left, it is said that his political
opponents back on his homeland managed to convince the government of his guilt,
so he was sentenced to death and was to be recalled from the expedition.
Yet as of what we know of the incident and
what happened afterwards, it seems unlikely that it was actually Alcibiades who
is to be blamed.
Looking at a third view, some authors
believe that the women were responsible for the desecration of the Hermai. This
seems to be a more plausible approach to the incident, as it was the women who
mostly objected the expedition, as it was endangering their men and reduced the
security of their homes. Furthermore, as women never had many rights it might
have been an attempt to show their power.
HISTORY EXTENDED ESSAY
The Causes of the First Crusade
Was religious zeal the most important reason why Christians
went on Crusade in 1095?
Abstract
This extended essay will be investigating the question “Was
religious zeal the most
Important reason why Christians went on Crusade in 1095?”.
The paper uses a variety of sources ranging from books,
academic journals, encyclopedias and websites. It will be using a range
historians that are known as respected experts on the Crusades and religious
conflicts such as Jonathan Phillips, Jonathan Riley Smith, and Karen Armstrong.
Some of the books that will be referred to on this topic will be “Jerusalem
Besieged: From Ancient Canaan to Modern Israel”, “A History of Jerusalem: One
City, Three Faiths”, and “The First Crusade, 1097-1197”.
This essay first explains the importance of Jerusalem to the
three religions that were mainly affected by the crusades, it then goes onto
look at Pope Urban II’s life. It then explores how three categories played into
the reason for embarking on crusade: economic, political, and religious. After
that, it will assess which of the three were most important as a reason for
embarking on the crusades.
The conclusion is that religion was the most important
reason for Pope Urban II’s call for Crusade and for the Franks’ response to the
call although politics also played a large role in this decision for both
parties.
Introduction
Although the Crusades occurred several centuries ago they
remain a source of tension in modern times thanks to propagandist messages
publicized by extremist Islamic groups, being an on-going source of interest in
Western media, and George W. Bush’s famous statement made in response to the 9/11
incident, “this crusade, this war or terrorism, is going to take time”, which
sent shockwaves through the Islamic world who were stunned at the casual use of
the term for the wars that caused so much suffering for both the Muslims and
Christians[1]. The Crusades are renown for the
religious fervour that stoked such vicious battles between Christians and
Muslims as they fought for the occupation of Jerusalem. However few know that
the actual catalyst for this bitter conflict was a speech made at Clermont in
1095 by Pope Urban II where in the name of God he called upon all Christians to
free the city of Jerusalem from the Muslims[2].
Up until the moment of Urban’s speech Jerusalem had
experienced a sustained period of relative peace extending some 450 years[3]. It was a period, with some minor
exceptions, in which Muslim rule had allowed for Christian pilgrims safe
passage to pursue their own religious beliefs[4]. His call to arms was to
ignite a fierce conflict that would last two hundred years, and inflame
emotions that find resonance amongst many today. Why did Urban act as he did?
What motivated him to cause such chaos in a land that was thousands of miles
from his realm of political influence? And did he have any true understanding
of the forces that he was about to unleash?
The reasons behind my chosen extended essay research
question is because I want to try and find out why both sides fought with such
determination and fury for the possession of this one city, and to investigate
the motivations of Pope Urban II in inciting this period of momentous clash of
cultures as well as perhaps shedding light as to why it can be argued that
history is repeating itself today.
The research question for my extended essay is “Was
religious zeal the most important reason why Christians embarked the Crusade of
1095?”
Within the body of this essay I utilise primary sources
written by Fulcher of Chartres (written 1100-6) and Balderic of Dol,
contemporaries of Urban who recorded the contents of his speech at Clermont in
1095. I also report upon the research of historians and commentators such as
Jonathan Riley-Smitheee, Karen Armstrong and Jonathan Phillips who assert that
Urban’s motivations were religious in his call to war for Jerusalem, while also
utilising the research of Carl Erdmann who argues that it was out of a more
callous sense of social and political expediency that he made this momentous
appeal to all Christians.
Words: 470
Chapter 1: Jerusalem in 675 - 1095
Having visited Jerusalem I have observed how important and
treasured this city is by each of the three monotheistic faiths. There are
several different locations in the world that hold religious importance such as
Mecca and the Vatican, though none has such a rich history of violence.
According to Eric H. Cline, Jerusalem has been “demolished completely twice,
besieged 23 times, attacked an additional 52 times and captured and recaptured
44 times”[5] due to it being the home of the Church of
the Holy Sepulchre (the site believed to be where Jesus was crucified and
buried), the Dome of the Rock (the third holiest site to Sunni Muslims), and
the Western Wall among other important religious sites. It has attracted
thousands of pilgrims from all three religions, with it being the most
important site of pilgrimage for Christians since the 4th century[6]. With so many visitors annually, it
became the perfect location for a centre of trade and commerce as well as
communication[7]. These aspects prove how important
Jerusalem is religiously even in a world that is more secular than it was in the
past. This can give us a glimpse as to how much more it was important to people
in the 11th century and thus give us insight as to what an important role
religion played in society in that era.
While there were many periods of peace between
Christians and Muslims during the Islamic rule there were instances where both
faiths clashed with the Church of the Holy Sepulchre being destroyed several
time more[8]. The heavy tolls that Christian pilgrims
had to pay and was what finally pushed the tension into a call for battle with
people like Peter the Hermit rallying soldiers for the cause[9]. These disturbances and instances of bad
treatment could be a motive for why the Franks went to war, The tension between
the two religious groups further prove religious zeal being the main cause for
the crusades.
In 1095, Pope Urban II first made the people of Europe aware
of the treatment of Christians in Jerusalem at the Council at Clermont where he
addressed some 319 abbots, clerks and priests[10]. The religious fervour that possessed
Europe’s society is what enraged so many to respond to Pope Urban’s call for
crusade.
What exactly motivated Pope Urban II for his call to
Crusade? Was it Emperor Alexei’s plea for help against Turkish invasion or was
he truly concerned that the Muslims were not fit to be the rulers of Jesus’
believed resting place? In order to understand him more, one must use his
speech as a source to derive the motivations behind his call to crusade.
The language used in Fulcher of Chartres’ account of Pope
Urban II’s speech is very emotionally charged. Urban refers to the Franks’
duties to God and to their brethren in the east as well as reminding them of
their very sinful natures as incentives to drive them to respond to his call
for Crusade. He then goes on to rile the audience using language that alienates
the Muslims from the audience by referring to them as a “vile race”, a
“despised and base race”, and a group that “worships devils”[11]. Urban
repeatedly refers to their duty to purify and liberate the captured Christian
lands and especially to seize the home of Jesus’ final resting place thus
making it quite clear that Urban’s motives for his call for Crusade were
primarily driven for religious purposes. However, when looking at the beginning
of the speech, Urban makes several references to the importance of the people’s
support in ensuring that the Church remains free from any other power and that
it should have free reign in matters relating to religion, “ You must
especially let all matters that pertain to the church be controlled by the law
of the church” and “Keep the church and the clergy a in all its grades entirely
free from the secular power”, hence implying that he was attempting to keep
power in a time where the Church’s rulings were starting to become
insignificant to the nobility and the monarchy[12].
Both past and contemporary scholars have read the speech
with the idea of Urban having multiple motives for his call to crusade. Urban’s
speech was aimed at multiple large audiences: those present in Clermont in 1095
and those who would hear it from other preachers who were keen to pass on the
call.
Chapter 2: Pope Urban II
Pope Urban II, born in France in the year 1040, was
originally christened Odo of Lagery[13]. He studied at Reims and became a
monk at the monastery of Cluny then was later raised to the position of prior
in 1073[14]. He later travelled to Rome and came
under Pope Gregory VII’s favour due to his skills in assisting the pope in his
efforts in what would come to be known as the Great Reform[15] thus perhaps implying that Urban II had
an interest in being involved in controversial activities.
The Reform Movement focused on the reform of the church
especially concentrating on ridding the church of the practice of lay
investiture, which is the policy where feudal lords and the monarch could
appoint bishops, abbots, and priests[16]. Pope Gregory VII argued that lay
investiture was not in accordance with traditional practice and that this
practice being permitted was to blame for the low morals of the clergy. His
efforts to reform the malpractices of the Catholic Church verifies the argument
that Urban was very religiously driven and pious, none of his efforts in the
Reform movement would have been politically beneficial thus one could argue
that in relation to the Crusades, he was also religiously driven as he had been
in all aspects of his life. Another example that makes his devoutness apparent
is the fact that he never had any children nor did he take any concubines as
was common in the clergy in his time.
In 1078, the pope made Odo bishop of Ostia and later legate
of Germany from 1084-85. In 1088 he was elected Pope and took on the name
Urban, however he was not permitted to enter Rome due to the efforts of the
Antipope Clement III (until his expulsion in 1093)[17]. Meanwhile, he worked around his
boundaries by summoning great councils to advertise and gain popularity for his
continuing efforts of reforming the church. His actions proved his
determination in carrying out his religious duties even with the Antipope’s
continuing efforts to prevent him from doing so. Taking all this into
consideration, it would seem that again, he was not politically driven or power
hungry.
Pope Urban II hosted a council at Clermont, France between
November 18 and November 28 addressing roughly 319 abbots, priests and bishops
who would go on to spread his call for war[18]. He preached about a variety of
issues that the church was facing such as going back to traditional practice of
focusing on helping the poor, as well as the excommunication of Philip I due to
his marriage to Bertrade of Montfort and his abandonment of his first wife. On the
27th of November he finally addressed the idea of going on Crusade to reclaim
Jerusalem from the infidel Muslims as well as responding to Emperor Alexius
Comnenus cry for help against the approaching invasion of the Seljuk Turks[19]. According to many of the written
accounts of Urban’s speech, he mentions the need to aid the East against the
approaching Muslim conquerors, thus suggesting that he agreed because of the
threat that the expanding Muslim armies posed against the West. He went on to repeat this message and call for Crusade all
over France with the help of many who attended the original speech. Soon,
thousands were to respond to his call and journey across the globe to their
final destination of Jerusalem. The war finally began four years later 1099.
Urban II would go on to die 14 days after the capture of
Jerusalem while never learning of the achievement of his goal of recapturing
Jerusalem from the Muslims[20].
Chapter 3: Speech and Events Leading up to Moment of War
There have been several different written accounts of Pope
Urban II’s speech made at the Council of Clermont in 1095 by contemporaries of
the event such as Fulcher of Chartres, Robert the Monk, and Guibert de Nogent.
However each of them were written years after the actual speech had been made[21], which could undermine the validity of
today’s written accounts of his speech, thus making it more difficult to
discern which motives were most important to Pope Urban II. Those who had
recorded the contents of his speech would emphasize the motives they thought
were most important for going on Crusade. Each of the accounts differ in
exactly what was said however they do all agree on several factors such as the
need to reclaim Jerusalem from Muslim occupation, “Enter upon the road to the
Holy Sepulchre; wrest that land from the wicked race, and subject it to
yourselves[22]”, and that all sins would be absolved if
they confessed and embarked on Crusade, “Accordingly undertake this journey for
the remission of your sins, with the assurance of the imperishable glory of the
kingdom of heaven[23].”
Some 100,000 people answered Pope Urban II’s call to march
to Jerusalem however many did not reach their destination[24]. Many were attacked on the way. One
example of this were the Turkish attacks on the soldiers led by Peter the
Hermit and the knight Walter Sans-Avoir in 1096 while others died of starvation
and exhaustion[25]. It took almost four years for the first
of the soldiers to reach Jerusalem arriving on June 1099[26]. One would think with all the hardship
that the soldiers suffered, they would turn back if their reasons for fighting
were purely for economic or political benefit. Their determination suggests
that they had a strong reason that drove their ambitions, the reason being the
importance of reclaiming Jerusalem for the Christians and to free themselves of
all the sins they had committed.
Many Jews suffered at the hands of the Crusaders as they
travelled towards Jerusalem. In an attitude of religious pride and excitement
to begin the purge of infidels and non-Christians in their homeland the
pilgrims started to attack Jews[27]. One instance can be demonstrated when
German and French peasant Crusaders persecuted Jews living in the three towns
of Speyer, Worms, and Mains where at least 812 Jews were massacred[28].
This persecution of the Jews perhaps could give insight as to how possessed the
pilgrims were by their religious zeal; though it was not morally acceptable, it
demonstrates just how swept away they were by their mission and thus imply that
their reasons for going on Crusade were indeed for religious purposes, to
defend Christianity.
Chapter 4: Causes of the Crusades
The possible motives for Pope Urban II’s call for Crusade
can be divided into three categories: political, economical, and religious. By
looking at historians’ works this paper will attempt to discern which of the
three causes was most valid and important for his call for Crusade.
From the perspective of those who come from a very secular
society, it can be difficult for contemporary students to understand how such a
brutal and bloody conflict could be caused solely for religious purposes. It
would be more logical, according to current motives for war, for the Crusades
to have been commenced to gain more political influence or to gain resources
that would be beneficial economically.
A more cynical approach to this investigation would be to
argue that Pope Urban II launched the crusades solely to extend his influence
to the East. The Greek Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church had been
divided for a while making the Pope’s rulings invalid in the Eastern region. In
addition to the loss of power in the East, the monarchy of Europe were
beginning to seize more power and ignore the Pope’s right to rule over certain
aspects of European society as well. When the Byzantinian Emperor Alexius I
Comnenus wrote to Pope Urban II appealing for help against the Seljuk Turks[29], it provided the perfect opportunity to
make amends for the hostility between the Eastern and Western Church[30]. According to Fulcher’s records of the
Speech at Clermont, Pope Urban II addressed the audience with “For you must
hasten to carry aid to our brethren dwelling in the East” in addition to
declaring the Muslims’ bad treatment of Christians in the East as provocation
for the crowd such as how they had destroyed churches. In Robert the Monk’s
account of the speech Urban claimed that Christians living in the East were
being tied to stakes and being used for archery target practice[31]. By aiding Emperor Alexius Comnenus, it
would mend the rift between the Greek Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church
thus allowing Pope Urban II to gain more influence over a larger geographical
area. Moreover, the Crusades would act as a distraction for the bloodthirsty
knights in the West who were constantly at war and causing instability in their
home countries[32].
Further evidence for this argument is that Pope Urban II had
made the same offer of freeing Jerusalem of the infidels to the territories of
Spain, which were occupied by Muslims as well at the time, as shown through his
personal letters to Tarragona[33]. In making this offer, Pope Urban II
would be able to gain some authority over the Spanish territories. Moreover,
James Douglas suggests that Pope Urban II exploited the feudal system to attain
more soldiers for his plight.
The occupation of the East would offer the Western powers
many benefits. Michael Prior, a famous lecturer in St. Mary’s College,
explained that the East would provide more land for the ever-expanding
population in the West[34] and thus provide the decaying society of the West
with new opportunities to restart their lives and gain an honest living in the
East, as well as the fact that thousands of people went on pilgrimages to
Jerusalem making it the perfect site for business. Whoever controlled Jerusalem
would have access to the benefits of being a trade centre. However this
argument that the Crusades were launched to bring in economic benefits for the
Catholic Church is often discarded by the majority of modern historians.
According to Jonathan Phillips, the price of chainmail, horses, and supplies to
sustain the soldiers who volunteered to go on Crusade would cost four years
annual income for knights[35]. To provide for the demands of the volunteers for
the Crusade, many priests were forced to melt down valuables for gold and
silver. As such, the Catholic was losing more than gaining economically and
thus making the argument of Urban’s motives for the Crusade to be economical
redundant. Additionally. Most Crusaders returned home having lost all their
possessions thus ensuring that the Catholic Church would not receive anything
material-wise[36].
Famous historians on the Crusades such as Jonathan
Riley-Smith argue that the main motivations behind Pope Urban II’s calling for
the Crusade were religious. According to Guibert of Nogents’s written account
of Pope Urban II’s speech at Clermont, he seemed to be very distraught by the
Christian pilgrims’ treatment at Jerusalem, “The cruelty of these wicked men…
is unspeakable”. Jerusalem is home to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the
presumed site of where Jesus was crucified. It would seem that Urban was deeply
disturbed by the fact that the West was not controlling Jerusalem and leaving
the protection of it to the Muslims. He repeatedly mentions the need to make
the road safer for pilgrims to Jerusalem as well as to reclaim Jerusalem, these
points support the argument that religion did play a major role in the decision
making process of Pope Urban II in his call for Crusade. The quest of
liberating Jerusalem purely due to devotion to the Christian faith would come
to be known as an act of love.
Conclusion
The weakest of the three motives for Pope Urban II’s call
for crusade would be for economic reasons. As discussed in the above sections,
while there was the perception of receiving financial benefits to going on
crusade such as gaining booty from their battles as well as the fact that
Jerusalem could be beneficial economically to anyone who controlled it due to
it’s strategic location, funding the crusaders’ voyage to Jerusalem cost more
than many could afford. Even the church had to contribute to the financing of
this trip by melting down their gold and silver. Many did not return with
riches that would make up for the cost of the voyage, in fact many came back
poorer than when they left. Furthermore, the booty that the crusaders did
receive had to be spent on rebuilding the city and paying for war expenses.
Written accounts of Pope Urban II’s speech reveal both
politics and religion to be the main motives for his call to crusade. The
question is, which was the most important reason to drive Pope Urban II on his
call for Crusade? When looking at the immediate event preceding the call for
Crusade, one could argue that Pope Urban II was somewhat politically driven. He
responded to Emperor Alexius Comnenus I’s call for aid, which would allow Pope
Urban II to regain influence of the Greek Orthodox Church, whose relationship
had been strained in the reign preceding his own. Furthermore, the Crusades
would allow Pope Urban II to regain influence over the nobility in a time when
the Catholic Church’s power over domestic issues was beginning to diminish.
However, looking at the importance of faith and religion in the society of the
time, it would make perfect sense as to religion being the main driving purpose
behind why Christians went on Crusade. Many feared that they would be punished
in the afterlife and thus were more than willing to partake in the crusades if
it meant that they sins would be forgiven. Furthermore, Pope Urban II had
dedicated his whole life to rectifying the malpractices of the church, even when
he himself was being persecuted and exiled because of it.
Consequently, in relation to the question of this
extended essay of whether religious zeal was the most important reason as to
why Christians went on Crusade in 1095, I believe that while politics did play
a major role in Pope Urban II’s motives for his call to Crusade and as to why
the Franks agreed to respond to his call, religion was probably the most
important motive for going on Crusade due to their fervent beliefs and fear of
being punished in the after life as well as the fact that the home of the
Church of the Holy Sepulchre should again come under Christianity’s care and
domain.
Works Cited:
Books:
Mitchell, Joseph R., and Helen Buss. Mitchell. "Could
the Crusades Be Considered a Christian Holy War?" Taking Sides -
Clashing Views in World History: The Ancient World to the Pre-Modern Era. 3rd
ed. Vol. 1. Dubuque, IA: McGraw-Hill Contemporary Learning Series, 2007. 155.
Print.
C. Krey, August. The First Crusade: The Accounts of
Eyewitnesses and Participants. Merchantville: Princeton University Press, 1921.
33-36. Print.
H. Cline, Eric. Jerusalem Besieged: From Ancient Canaan
to Modern Israel. University of Michigan Press, 2005. Print.
Bongars, Gesta Dei per Francos, 1, pp. 382 f., trans in
Oliver J. Thatcher, and Edgar Holmes McNeal, eds., A Source Book for
Medieval History, (New York: Scribners, 1905), 513
Edgington, Susan. The First Crusade: The Capture of
Jerusalem in AD 1099. 1st. New York: The Rosen Publishing Group, 2004. 6.
Print.
Asbridge, Thomas. The First Crusade: A New History.
Oxford University Press, 2004. Print.
P. Phillips, Jonathan. The First Crusade, 1097-1197.
London: Pearson Education, 2002. 18. Print.
Armstrong, Karen. "Crusade." A History of
Jerusalem: One City, Three Faiths. London: Harper Perennial, 2005. 271-94.
Print.
Articles:
Bull, Marcus. "Pilgrimage Origins of the First
Crusade."History Today. 47.3 (1997): 10. Web. 13 Jul. 2013.
Prior, Michael. "Holy Places, Unholy Domination: The
Scramble for Jerusalem." Islamic Studies. 30.3 (2001): 514.
Print.
Douglas, James. "Christians and the First
Crusade." History Review. 53 (2005): 34-38. Print.
Willett, Herbert. "Jerusalem." Biblical World.
25.5 (1905): 332. Print.
Charanis, Peter. "Aims of the Medieval Crusades and How
They Were Viewed by Byzantium." Church History. 21.2 (1952): 126.
Web. 21 Jul. 2013. .
Frankopan, Peter. “The View From The East.” History Today 62.9
(2012): 34-45. World History Collection. Web. 20 July 2013.
Munro, Dana C. "The Speech of Pope Urban II. At
Clermont, 1095." American Historical Review. 11.2 (1906): 231. Web.
21 Jul. 2013.
C. Munro, Dana, and Dana C. Munro. Urban and the
Crusaders. 1. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1895. 5-8. Print.
McGill, Sara Ann. “The First Crusade.” First Crusade (2009):
1. MAS Ultra –School Edition. Web. 24 July 2013.
Websites
Agrait, Nicolas. "The First Crusade. A short narrative
from contemporary sources." De Re Militari: The Society for Medieval
Military History. N.p., 22 Apr 2013. Web. 18 Jul 2013.
Beuster, Diane. "The speech of Pope Urban II 1095 at
Clermont in the versions of the Gesta Francorum and Baldric of Dol." .
GRIN Verlag, n.d. Web. 19 Jul 2013.
McGill, Sara Ann. “Crusade Timeline.” Cruade Timeline (2009):
1. MAS Ultra – School Edition. Web. 24 July 2013.
Encyclopedia:
“Urban II” (n.d.): Funk & Wagnalls New World
Encyclopedia. Web. 20 July 2013
"Urban II." Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia.
New York: 2013.
“Investiture Controversy” (n.d.): Funk & Wagnalls
New World Encyclopedia. Web. 2013.
[1] Mitchell, Joseph R., and Helen Buss.
Mitchell. "Could the Crusades Be Considered a Christian Holy
War?" Taking Sides - Clashing Views in World History: The Ancient
World to the Pre-Modern Era. 3rd ed. Vol. 1. Dubuque, IA: McGraw-Hill
Contemporary Learning Series, 2007. 155. Print.
[2] C. Krey, August. The First Crusade: The
Accounts of Eyewitnesses and Participants. Merchantville: Princeton University
Press, 1921. 33-36. Print.
[3] Bull, Marcus. "Pilgrimage Origins of
the First Crusade."History Today. 47.3 (1997): 10. Web. 13 Jul. 2013.
[4] Runciman, Steven. A History of the
Crusades:The First Crusade and the Foundation of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. 1.
1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1951. 3-4. Print.
[5] H. Cline, Eric. Jerusalem Besieged:
From Ancient Canaan to Modern Israel. University of Michigan Press, 2005.
Print.
[6] Prior, Michael. "Holy Places, Unholy
Domination: The Scramble for Jerusalem." Islamic Studies. 30.3
(2001): 514. Print.
[7] Douglas, James. "Christians and the
First Crusade." History Review. 53 (2005): 34-38. Print.
[8] Willett, Herbert.
"Jerusalem." Biblical World. 25.5 (1905): 332. Print.
[9] Willett, Herbert.
"Jerusalem." Biblical World. 25.5 (1905): 333. Print.
[10] Agrait, Nicolas. "The First Crusade. A
short narrative from contemporary sources." De Re Militari: The
Society for Medieval Military History. N.p., 22 Apr 2013. Web. 18 Jul 2013. .
[11] Bongars, Gesta Dei per Francos, 1, pp.
382 f., trans in Oliver J. Thatcher, and Edgar Holmes McNeal, eds., A
Source Book for Medieval History, (New York: Scribners, 1905), 513-
[12] Edgington, Susan. The First Crusade:
The Capture of Jerusalem in AD 1099. 1st. New York: The Rosen Publishing Group,
2004. 6. Print.
[13] Beuster, Diane. "The speech of Pope
Urban II 1095 at Clermont in the versions of the Gesta Francorum and Baldric of
Dol." . GRIN Verlag, n.d. Web. 19 Jul 2013.
[14] “Urban II” (n.d.): Funk & Wagnalls
New World Encyclopedia. Web. 20 July 2013
[15] "Urban II." Columbia
Electronic Encyclopedia. New York: 2013.
[16] “Investiture Controversy” (n.d.): Funk
& Wagnalls New World Encyclopedia. Web. 2013.
[17] "Urban II." Columbia
Electronic Encyclopedia. New York: 2013.
[18] Bongars, Gesta Dei per Francos, 1, pp.
382 f., trans in Oliver J. Thatcher, and Edgar Holmes McNeal, eds., A
Source Book for Medieval History, (New York: Scribners, 1905), 513
[19] Charanis, Peter. "Aims of the Medieval
Crusades and How They Were Viewed by Byzantium." Church History. 21.2
(1952): 126. Web. 21 Jul. 2013. .
[20] Frankopan, Peter. “The View From The East.”
History Today 62.9 (2012): 34-45. World History Collection. Web. 20 July 2013.
[21] Munro, Dana C. "The Speech of Pope
Urban II. At Clermont, 1095." American Historical Review. 11.2
(1906): 231. Web. 21 Jul. 2013.
[22] C. Munro, Dana, and Dana C. Munro. Urban
and the Crusaders. 1. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1895. 5-8.
Print.
[23] C. Munro, Dana, and Dana C. Munro. Urban
and the Crusaders. 1. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1895. 5-8.
Print.
[24] Frankopan, Peter. “The View From The East.”
History Today 62.9 (2012): 38. Advanced Placement Source. Web. 24 July
2013.
[25] McGill, Sara Ann. “Crusade Timeline.” Cruade
Timeline (2009): 1. MAS Ultra – School Edition. Web. 24 July 2013.
[26] McGill, Sara Ann. “The First Crusade.” First
Crusade (2009): 1. MAS Ultra –School Edition. Web. 24 July 2013.
[27] Asbridge, Thomas. The First Crusade: A
New History. Oxford University Press, 2004. Print.
[28] Bradbury, Jim. The Routledge Companion
to Medieval Warfare. New York: Routledge, 2004. 182. Print.
[29] Tyerman, Christopher. Chronicles of
the First Crusade. London: Penguin UK, 2011. Print.
[30] Douglas, James. "Christians and the
First Crusade." History Review. 53 (2005): 34-38. Print.
[31] Bull, Marcus. "The Pilgrimage Origins
of the First Crusade." History Today. 47.3 (1997): 10. Print.
[32] Edgington, Susan. The First Crusade:
The Capture of Jerusalem in AD 1099. 1st. New York: The Rosen Publishing Group,
2004. 6. Print.
[33] Douglas, James. "Christians and the
First Crusade." History Review. 53 (2005): 34-38. Print.
[34] Prior Michael. "Holy Places, Unholy
Domination: The Scramble for Jerusalem." Islamic Studies. 30.3
(2001): 514. Print.
[35] P. Phillips, Jonathan. The First
Crusade, 1097-1197. London: Pearson Education, 2002. 18. Print.
[36] Armstrong, Karen. "Crusade." A
History of Jerusalem: One City, Three Faiths. London: Harper Perennial, 2005.
271-94. Print.
To what extent was religious duty a
more popular reason than absolution or acquisition of wealth for bearing the Cross
in the First Crusade?
Part A: Plan of Investigation
The intention of this investigation is
to assess the reasons for which people chose to respond to Pope Urban II’s call
to arms at Clermont on November 27th and embark on the First Crusade
in 1096, and the years following. This
is a topic which has been readily studied for decades, and has produced a
variety of theses, antitheses and syntheses, my objective is to review several
of these arguments and produce a conclusion regarding whether or not the
peoples’ sense of religious duty was truly a more influential reason for
crusading in 1096, than the possibility of wealth acquisition. Prominent
theories include the promise of penance and absolution of sins, religious duty,
and the acquisition of new lands in the West. Much of the historiography
surrounding the Crusades, including that of Jonathan Riley-Smith, points to religious
duty as the reasoning adopted by the majority of crusaders. The bulk of these theories can divided into
two basic schools of thought, realism[1],
humans are inherently selfish and would only embark on the dangerous crusade in
self interest, and idealism[2],
where humans are inherently good and would therefore risk their lives crusading
out of religious duty.
Part B: Evidence
In 1090 there was a brutal massacre of
Christians in Jerusalem by Fatimid Hakim[3]. In
1009 the Church of the Holy Sepulchure was nearly obliterated[4],
and Christians were banned from visiting and praying there for eleven years
thereafter[5].
In 1071 the Byzantine Empire lost a large sum of its territory known as Asia
Minor, to the Turks, this significantly decreased the size of their empire[6]. During
the eleventh century Gregory IV established the militia sancti Petri, a military devoted entirely to the Church. At
this time there was no separation of Church and State, the Church and therefore
the Pope was the supreme power. In the latter half of the decade preceding
Urban II’s call to arms there had been a severe famine[7],
affecting the livelihood of many peasants. In what is now Spain, there had been fighting
between the Spanish Christians[8]*2,
and those they considered infidels for the majority of the century. In March 1095 Emperor Alexius I requested aid
from Pope Urban II in fighting the Seljuk Turks. Several months after Pope
Urban II responds to Alexius saying he is willing to help and issues call to
arms[9].
The bible states explicitly that
Christians should “love thy neighbor”.[10]
In 1095 Pope Urban II delivered a call to arms at Clermont, in response to
Emperor Alexius’ request for aid in battle against the Seljuk Turks.[11]
Urban II declared that anyone who took the cross would be absolved of all
previous sins.[12]
Eustace II Count of Boulogne had three
sons[13],
of which Godfrey of Bullion was the second, and Baldwin was the third. Godfrey
was made to receive a magnanimous inheritance from his father, whereas Baldwin,
being the third son was not, he was due to spend his life working humbly within
the Church though no tangible evidence has been found tying him to the Church,
or with having any extraordinary affiliations with the Church[14].
Baldwin would have gained much land from going on crusade. Godfrey dies an
untimely death in July of 1100; his inheritance and status is passed,
subsequently, to Baldwin[15].
Baldwin is crowned king of Bullion; he becomes the first King of Bullion. [16]
Robert the monk incentivized[17]
the people in his speech[18],
“but if you are hindered by love of children, parents and wives, remember what
the Lord says in the Gospel, "He that loveth father or mother more than
me, is not worthy of me."[19]
"Every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father,
or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my name's sake shall receive an
hundredfold and shall inherit everlasting life” and “on whom therefore is the
labor of avenging these wrongs and of recovering this territory incumbent, if
not upon you? You, upon whom above other nations God has conferred remarkable
glory in arms, great courage, bodily activity, and strength to humble the hairy
scalp of those who resist you.” And “that a race from the kingdom of the
Persians, an accursed race, a race utterly alienated from God, a generation
forsooth which has not directed its heart and has not entrusted its spirit to
God, has invaded the lands of those Christians and has depopulated them by the
sword, pillage and fire;”[20]
These are three very different
approaches of persuasion yet they mention three of the prevalent reasons for crusading,
and he is clearly attempting to appeal to a wide range of potential crusaders.
In the latter half of 1095, Pope Urban II
gave a speech to the people, urging them to join his cause[21], appealing
to their sense of religious duty in this quotation from Thomas Asbridge’s book,
“The Roots of Conflict Between Christianity and Islam”, “He called upon the warriors of
the Latin West to avenge a range of ghastly ‘crimes’ committed against Christendom
by the followers of Islam, urging them to bring aid to their eastern brethren
and to conquer again the most sacred site on earth, the city of Jerusalem.”[22]
Historian Steven Runciman, one of the most acclaimed historians of the Crusades
regarded the First Crusade "as a barbarian invasion of a superior
civilization, not that of the Muslims but of the Byzantines."[23]
Part C: Evaluation of Sources
Source One: What
Were the Crusades by Jonathan Riley-Smith
Jonathan Riley Smith, Professor of Ecclesiastical
History at Cambridge University published his book “The Crusades, Christianity
and Islam” in 2008, introducing an unique argument to the melting pot of
theories regarding the motivation for people joining the First Crusade in 1096
and thereafter. The purpose of Riley- Smith’s book is to propose that the
people were drawn into a “penitential warfare” out of love, stemming from the
Christian concept of “love thy neighbour”, and persuade readers to believe
religious duty and “love for thy” neighbour” were more influential reasons for
going on Crusade than acquisition of wealth. His arguments were “provocative”, using
comparisons with the flammable recent event, the bombing of twin towers on
9.11., setting his book aside from drier accounts of the First Crusade. The
valuable aspect of this book is that it offers a modern comparison with 9.11.,
and makes strong links between the ancient history of the Crusades, and contemporary
events also rooted in conflict between Christianity and Islam; by making
relevant comparisons, Riley-Smith’s evaluation is more thorough than a
post-revisionist account which only looks at prior publications. Riley-Smith’s
vague generalizations towards both the Islamic and Christian perspectives lower
his credibility, thus acting as a limiting factor to the value of his
publication as a source, as his conclusions can only be as accurate as the
specificity and detail of his research and his understanding of the material.
Source Two: Speech by Pope Urban II at
Clermont 1095*2
The speech given at Clermont in 1095 by
Pope Urban II was the formal beginning of the Crusades, its purpose was to call
forth people of various backgrounds and circumstances to venture on crusade in
aid of Emperor Alexius, as a response to his earlier call to arms. The value of
this source lies in that it is essentially, there are no external
interpretations given by historians, momentarily setting aside the translation,
and thus readers can determine for themselves the meaning, and importance of
the source. Alternatively, the fact that many, if not all Crusade historians
have studied and written about this speech suggests that by the consequence of
its popularity it is a valuable source. Urban II’s speech was meant to persuade
the people, particularly the peasant class to join the Crusade. This source is
limited, however, in its accuracy as the speech was given nine centuries ago,
and was only formally written down between 1100 and 1106. Reasonably, until the
time of the documents publication, the contents of Urban II’s speech had been
passed by word of mouth, and therefore subjected heavily to unintentional
distortion. Moreover, and perhaps most
importantly, in terms of the speech’s limitations as a source, it has been
translated into many languages since its delivery in 1095; the fact of the
matter is, it was delivered in ancient Latin, and as consequence it would have
had to be translated for historians to read it. Translations between languages
can never be entirely accurate, ergo, the initial limitations of Pope Urban
II’s speech at Clermont is it hasn’t been studied in its original language. Though
it is unlikely this copy of the speech written by Fulcher of Chartes is an
exact replication of Urban II’s speech, it is still a valuable insight into the
types of words used to persuade people to embark on the perilous journey of the
First Crusade.
Part D: Analysis
Theories of the reasons which drove people
from varying backgrounds to participate in the First Crusade can be divided,
essentially, into two people of two schools of though, realism and idealism.
Those believing in the idyllic “love thy neighbor” concept preached to them by
the Church, were compelled, Riley-Smith argues, to undertake the brutal First
Crusade to save their Christian brothers in the East. Erdmann offers a similar
argument, but it follows a more realistic interpretation of human nature, that it
was an act of revenge against Jerusalem and the Christians who were suffering
under Alexius; their anger stemming from the fighting over The Church of the
Holy Sepulchure a decade prior. The difference between the two historians’
beliefs is that Riley-Smith is arguing people are intrinsically good and
willing to risk their lives in the pursuit of being good Christians, whereas
Erdmann considers that crusaders used the excuse of “loving thy neighbor” to
satisfy their own vengeful motives.
The strongest counterclaim to Riley-
Smith’s argument is in the imminent danger crusaders would have faced on their
journey; people would have been, if Riley-Smith was correct, selflessly risking
their lives, and the lives of their families for their fellow Christians across
the world, an idea which goes against the most basic principles of human
nature. Following a similar structure is the argument which claims the most prominent
reason to crusade was the pursuit of total absolution. The grounds for this
arguments lie within the fact that, due to the lack of separate of Church and
State, people were deeply religious, and in the West, where Pope Urban II drew
his crusaders from where devout Catholics. The sheer number of crusaders is
enough to support the claims naming penance the reason.
It is known people were religious, and
thus were easily persuaded into risking their lives for absolution; essentially
absolution was the best thing a person could obtain. The realistic counter
argument to the previous argument is one which applies primarily to the knights
who participated in the First Crusade, supported by historians Penny Cole and
Hans Mayer; crusading offered a welcomed opportunity for knights to participate
in the secular community. Killing, regarded as a sin under usual circumstances
was allowed, and even rewarded during the Crusade, allowing the knightly class
an opportunity to continue their gruesome occupation and simultaneously gain
absolution for their previous less than savory acts. Respectively, both knights
and peasants crusaded in the pursuit of absolution, but they are separated in
that the peasants, Riley-Smith claims, crusaded in order to have their
Christian souls saved, whereas the knights sought to be absolved of their
murders. The knights were, not unlike
revenge-seeking crusaders, parading with the façade of Christian intent when
their true motives were self-serving.
The final group of people who were incentivized to bear the cross in
1095 were those who sought land acquisition and wealth in the east. In the
conquering of new lands there is always the opportunity to increase ones one
wealth by taking that of the conquered peoples. The inherently selfish nature
of human is reason enough to substantiate the claims that crusading was a
selfish act, however, the case study provided by Godfrey of Bullion, as the
second son of Count Eustace II of Boulogne provides ample evidence for these
claims. Historians who believe the opportunity
to gain wealth was a stronger driving force than religious pursuits to go on
crusade belong to a more realistic school of thought; it does not, however,
mean their reasoning was more widely followed than those arguments of their
more idyllically minded counterparts.
Conclusion
The academic discourse surrounding the
motivations of the crusaders in 1095 is one of the longest standing historical
debates, which is to say, there can never be any one answer. Realistically, all
35,000 (see David Nicolle, historian as source) members of the first crusade ventured
out with the same reasoning in mind. Each historian puts forth reasonable
arguments and at least one crusader must have used that line of reasoning thus
verifying, to an extent their argument. When attempting to determine something
as abstruse as the intention of one person’s line of reasoning towards
embarking on something as dangerous as the First Crusade, there can never be definitive
answers. The people of the 11th
Century decided to become, or not become, crusaders for whatever reasons applied
directly to them, wealth, absolution, acceptance and so on. Riley-Smith’s
arguments for a “crusade of love” is refreshingly optimistic considering the
horror which was the First Crusade; like all theories, however, Riley-Smith’s
stemmed from the fundamental principle of human nature being intrinsically
good, or bad.
Appendix
*2 Pope Urban II’s Speech at
Clermont 1095
This
account of Urban II's speech was written toward twenty-five years after Urban's
visit to France and does not claim to give more than a general idea of the
pope's arguments
In
the year of our Lord's Incarnation one thousand and ninety-five, a great
council was celebrated within the bounds of Gaul, in Auvergne, in the city
which is called Clermont. Over this Pope Urban II presided, with the Roman
bishops and cardinals. This council was a famous one on account of the
concourse of both French and German bishops, and of princes as well. Having
arranged the matters relating to the Church, the lord pope went forth into a
certain spacious plain, for no building was large enough to hold all the
people. The pope-then, with sweet and persuasive eloquence, addressed those
present in words something like the following, saying:
"Oh,
race of Franks, race from across the mountains, race beloved and chosen by God,
- as is clear from many of your works,- set apart from all other nations by the
situation of your country as well as by your Catholic faith and the honor which
you render to the holy Church: to you our discourse is addressed, and for you
our exhortations are intended. We wish you to know what a grievous cause has
led us to your country, for it is the imminent peril threatening you and all
the faithful which has brought us hither.
From
the confines of Jerusalem and from the city of Constantinople a grievous report
has gone forth and has -repeatedly been brought to our ears; namely, that a
race from the kingdom of the Persians, an accursed race, a race wholly
alienated from God, `a generation that set not their heart aright and whose
spirit was not steadfast with God,' violently invaded the lands of those
Christians and has depopulated them by pillage and fire. They have led away ap
art of the captives into their own country, and a part have they have killed by
cruel tortures. They have either destroyed the churches of God or appropriated
them for the rites of their own religion. They destroy the altars, after having
defiled them with their uncleanness....The kingdom of the Greeks is now dismembered
by them and has been deprived of territory so vast in extent that it could be
traversed in two months' time.
"On
whom, therefore, is the labor of avenging these wrongs and of recovering this
territory incumbent, if not upon you, you upon whom, above all other nations,
God has conferred remarkable glory in arms, great courage, bodily activity, and
strength to humble the heads of those who resist you ? Let the deeds of your
ancestors encourage you and incite your minds to manly achievements:-the greatness
of King Charlemagne, and of his son Louis, and of your other monarchs, who have
destroyed the kingdoms of the Turks and have extended the sway of Church over
lands previously possessed by the pagan. Let the holy sepulcher of our Lord and
Saviour, which is possessed by unclean nations, especially arouse you, and the
holy places which are now treated, with ignominy and irreverently polluted with
the filth of the unclean. Oh, most valiant soldiers and descendants of
invincible ancestors, do not degenerate; our progenitors., but recall the valor
of your progenitors.
"But
if you are hindered by love of children, parents, or of wife, remember what the
Lord says in the Gospel, `He that loveth father or mother more than me is not
worthy of me', 'Every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters,
or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall
receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.' Let none of your
possessions retain you, nor solicitude for you, family affairs. For this land
which you inhabit, shut in on all sides by the seas and surrounded by the
mountain peaks, is too narrow for your large population; nor does it abound in
wealth; and it furnishes scarcely food enough for its cultivators. Hence it is
that you murder and devour one another, that you wage war, and that very many
among you perish in intestine strife.'
[Another
of those present at the Council of Clermont, Fulcher of Chartres, thus reports
this part of Urban's speech: "Let those who have formerly been accustomed
to contend wickedly in private warfare against the faithful fight against the
infidel, and bring to a victorious end the war which ought already to have been
begun. Let those who have hitherto been robbers now become soldiers. Let those
who have formerly contended against their brothers and relatives now fight
against the barbarians as they ought. Let those who have formerly been
mercenaries at low wages now gain eternal rewards. Let those who have been
exhausting themselves to the detriment both of body and soul now strive for a
twofold reward" See a complete translation of Fulcher's report of Urban's
speech in Translations and Reprints, Vol. 1. No. 2.]
"Let
hatred therefore depart from among you, let your quarrels end, let wars cease,
and let all dissensions and controversies slumber. Enter upon the road to the
Holy Sepulcher-, wrest that land from the wicked race, and subject it to
yourselves. That land which, as the Scripture says, `floweth with milk and
honey' was given by God into the power of the children of Israel. Jerusalem is
the center of the earth ; the land is fruitful above all others, like another
paradise of delights. This spot the Redeemer of mankind has made illustrious by
his advent, has beautified by his sojourn, has consecrated by his passion, has
redeemed by his death, has glorified by his burial.
"This
royal city, however, situated at the center of the earth, is now held captive
by the enemies of Christ and is subjected, by those who do not know God, to the
worship the heathen. She seeks, therefore, and desires to be liberated and
ceases not to implore you to come to her aid. From you especially she asks
succor, because as we have already said, God has conferred upon you above all
other nations great glory in arms. Accordingly, undertake this journey eagerly
for the remission of your sins, with the assurance of the reward of
imperishable glory in the kingdon of heaven.."
When
Pope Urban had urbanely said thes and very similar things, he so centered in
one purpose the desires all who were present that all cried out, " It is
the will of God! I It is the. will of God 1 " When the venerable Roman
pontiff heard that, with eyes uplifted to heaven, he gave thanks to God and,
commanding silence with his hand, said:
"Most
beloved brethren, today is manifest in you what the Lord says in the Gospel,
`Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst
of them'; for unless God had been present in your spirits, all of you would not
have uttered the same cry; since, although the cry issued from numerous mouths,
yet the origin of the cry as one. Therefore I say to you that God, who
implanted is in your breasts, has drawn it forth from you. Let that then be
your war cry in combats, because it is given to you by God. When an armed
attack is made upon the enemy, this one cry be raised by all the soldiers of
God: 'It is the will of God! It is the will of God!' [Deus vult! Deus Vult!]
"And
ee neither command nor advise that the old or those incapable of bearing arms,
undertake this journey. Nor ought women to set out at all without their
husbands, or brother, or legal guardians. For such are more of a hindrance than
aid, more of a burden than an advantage. Let the rich aid the needy and
according to their wealth let them take with them experienced soldiers. The
priests and other clerks, whether secular or regulars are not to go without the
consent of their bishop; for this journey would profit them nothing if they
went without permission. Also, it is not fitting that laymen should enter upon
the pilgrimage without the blessing of their priests.
"Whoever,
therefore, shall determine upon this holy pilgrimage, and shall make his vow to
God to that effect, and shall offer himself to him for sacrifice, as a living
victim, holy and acceptable to God, shall wear the sign of the cross of the
Lord on his forehead or on his breast. When, indeed, he shall return from his
journey, having fulfilled his vow, let him place the cross on his back between
his shoulders. Thus shall ye, indeed, by this twofold action, fulfill the
precept of the Lord, as lie commands in the Gospel, 'he that taketh not his
cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me."'
[1] Schuett, Robert. Political Realism,
Freud, and Human Nature in International Relations: The Resurrection of the
Realist Man. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010. Print.
[2] Berkeley, George, Howard Robinson, and
George Berkeley. Principles of Human Knowledge ; And, Three Dialogues.
Oxford: Oxford UP, 1996. Print.
[3] Scaruffi, Piero. "A Timeline and
History of the Arabs." A Timeline and History of the Arabs. N.p.,
n.d. Web. 04 Oct. 2014. .
[4] "The Holy Sepulchre - The Great
Destruction of 1009." The Holy Sepulchre - The Great Destruction of
1009. N.p., n.d. Web. 04 Oct. 2014.
.
[5] Harpur, James. "Islam
Triumphant." The Crusades The Two Hundred Years War: The Clash Between
the Cross and the Cresent in the Middle East 1096-1291. New York: Rosen
Group, 2008. N. pag. Print.
[6] Frankopan, Peter. "Collapse of
Asia Minor." The First Crusade: The Call from the East. Cambridge,
MA: Belknap of Harvard UP, 2012. 57-70. Print.
[7] Kostick, Conor. "From the
Preaching to the Rise of the Visionaries." The Social Structure of the
First Crusade. Leiden: Brill, 2008. N. pag. Print.
[8] "Europe During the Crusades."
European History Boise State. Ed. E.L. Skip Knox. N.p., n.d. Web.
.
[9] Corbo, Virgilio, Michele Piccirillo,
and Eugenio Alliata. "The Holy Sepulchre - The Great Destruction of
1009." The Holy Sepulchre - The Great Destruction of 1009. Christus
Rex, n.d. Web. 26 Dec. 2001.
[10] Mark.
The Holy Bible. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Print.
[11] Runciman, Steven, and Steven Runciman. A
History of the Crusades. N.p.: Cambridge U.P, 1952. Print.
[12] Phillips, Jonathan.
"Context." Introduction. The Crusades, 1095-1197. Harlow:
Longman, 2002. 13. Print.
[13] Mayer, Hans Eberhard. "The
Succession to Baldwin II of Jerusalem: English Impact on the East." Dumbarton
Oaks Papers 39 (1985): 139-47. JSTOR. Web. 02 Oct. 2014.
.
[14] Snell, Melissa. "Godfrey of
Bouillon - Crusader." About. About Education, n.d. Web. 02 Oct.
2014. .
[15] Tozer, Tom. Godfrey De Bouillon:
Defender of the Holy Sepulcher. N.p.: PublishAmerica, 2004. Print.
[16] Andressohn, John C., and Gottfried Von
Bouillon. The Ancestry and Life of Godfrey of Bouillon. Bloomington, IN:
Ind. U, 1947. Print.
[17] Napier, Gordon. "Robert the Monk
and the Council of Clermont." Web log post. Gordon Napier History.
N.p., 22 Apr. 2010. Web.
.
[18] Napier, Gordon. "Robert the Monk
and the Council of Clermont." Web log post. Gordon Napier History.
N.p., 22 Apr. 2010. Web.
.
[19] Monk, Robert the.
"Http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/urban2a.html." Speech at
Clermont. Fordham. Web. 1095.
.
[20] Munro, Dana Carleton. Urban and the
Crusaders. Vol. 1:2. Philadelphia, PA: Dept. of History of the U of
Pennsylvania, 1895. Print
[21] Munro, Dana Carleton. "The Speech
of Pope Urban II. At Clermont, 1095." The American Historical Review
11.2 (1906): 231. Web.
[22] Asbridge, Thomas S. The First
Crusade: A New History: The Roots of Conflict between Christianity and Islam.
New York: Oxford UP, 2005. 16. Print.
