Julia Slay
Intro Med: Essay 3.
Ultimately, Did the Crusades Serve to Integrate or Isolate the Latin West from the East?
The historical epoch in question is one marked by change and transition across all spheres, from political conflict to economic improvements, social reorganisation to demographic transitions; as a specific event, or rather events, the crusades reflect the general backdrop of Medieval European society, typified by violence, conflict, and the increasing religious fervor which had spread across Christendom by the end of the 11th Century, a result of many internal reforms and an increasing level of control employed by the papal authorities. It is during our period that we see prominent Western institutions, such as the Church consciously focus their attentions to the situation in the East. The crusading aims of rescuing fellow Christians, expanding frontiers, and increasing Latin influence suggest that it is inevitable some kind of fusion, or merging of cultures would occur, especially if we place the question of integration in its time frame of over two hundred years, during which one would normally expect a basic level of change regardless of the exceptional events which characterize this period. Analysis of the ultimate effects of the crusades involves distinguishing between forms of ideological integration, such as religious beliefs and political relations, and physical fusions of Eastern and Western economies, peoples and adoption of traditions and customs. Only then is it possible to evaluate the effects of the crusades on relations between East and West.
The first crusade resulted in the establishment of many Latin communities in the East, such as Syria and Jerusalem, and these settlers are often credited with the sustained communications between themselves and the West. Groups of Christians in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, for example, retained European interest in the East with the continuous need for military and financial aid, coupled with diplomatic marriage alliances and 'attempts to find powerful husbands for eligible heiresses in the East'1. There were also attempts by missionaries (mainly the Dominican's and Franciscan's) to unite East with West through religious immersion, and during our period we do see an expansion of the Christian Church's authority in the East, however, Christianity by no means held a religious hegemony in the East, and it was the minority, rather than the majority who converted to Christianity, indeed that 'Muslim conversion was not a mass phenomenon in the Crusading Kingdom'2.
Phillips3 argues that it was these small groups of settlers and their financial and military dependence on the West which retained European interest and involvement in the Eastern situation; more importantly, that this immersion of peoples and cultures served to integrate Eastern politics and traditions into Western civilisation. However, these claims can clearly be refuted. It is evident that by the end of the crusading era there is still a sharp divide in the politics and ideologies of East and West: This argument is further underlined as we see the ongoing conflict between Christianity and Islam with heightened tensions throughout the middle ages, furthered by continued conflicts for over 300 years after the crusading period. Despite some diplomatic alliances made through intermarriage and courteous, even friendly relations between Franks and Muslims, their political agenda's and fundamental beliefs remained distinctly separate and even opposing. Furthermore, we must remember that the crusades held their roots in extreme religious and political hostility to the East and it is impossible to suggest that such core components of two opposing societies could become easily integrated. Religion in particular was marked by deep rifts throughout the crusades, and this can in part be attributed to the increasing religious fervor and hysteria which accompanied the Holy Wars in Europe induced by means such as popular preaching. Furthermore, despite the conversion of some Muslims to Christianity, it was by no means imposed upon them and the vast majority retained an antipathy towards the settlers and subsequent missionaries in the East; it becomes evident that with regard to religion, and the politics with which it is inextricably interlinked, the crusades ultimately isolated East and West. Although those Westerners living in the East may have developed a respect and even understanding of Islam, the majority fostered opinions of the 'other' based upon the hostility and antipathy generated during the preaching and propaganda for the crusades, only serving to 'intensify the traditional hatred between the peoples and churches of East and West'4. Thus any form of ideological fusion or integration was virtually impossible.
Intro Med: Essay 3.
Ultimately, Did the Crusades Serve to Integrate or Isolate the Latin West from the East?
The historical epoch in question is one marked by change and transition across all spheres, from political conflict to economic improvements, social reorganisation to demographic transitions; as a specific event, or rather events, the crusades reflect the general backdrop of Medieval European society, typified by violence, conflict, and the increasing religious fervor which had spread across Christendom by the end of the 11th Century, a result of many internal reforms and an increasing level of control employed by the papal authorities. It is during our period that we see prominent Western institutions, such as the Church consciously focus their attentions to the situation in the East. The crusading aims of rescuing fellow Christians, expanding frontiers, and increasing Latin influence suggest that it is inevitable some kind of fusion, or merging of cultures would occur, especially if we place the question of integration in its time frame of over two hundred years, during which one would normally expect a basic level of change regardless of the exceptional events which characterize this period. Analysis of the ultimate effects of the crusades involves distinguishing between forms of ideological integration, such as religious beliefs and political relations, and physical fusions of Eastern and Western economies, peoples and adoption of traditions and customs. Only then is it possible to evaluate the effects of the crusades on relations between East and West.
The first crusade resulted in the establishment of many Latin communities in the East, such as Syria and Jerusalem, and these settlers are often credited with the sustained communications between themselves and the West. Groups of Christians in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, for example, retained European interest in the East with the continuous need for military and financial aid, coupled with diplomatic marriage alliances and 'attempts to find powerful husbands for eligible heiresses in the East'1. There were also attempts by missionaries (mainly the Dominican's and Franciscan's) to unite East with West through religious immersion, and during our period we do see an expansion of the Christian Church's authority in the East, however, Christianity by no means held a religious hegemony in the East, and it was the minority, rather than the majority who converted to Christianity, indeed that 'Muslim conversion was not a mass phenomenon in the Crusading Kingdom'2.
Phillips3 argues that it was these small groups of settlers and their financial and military dependence on the West which retained European interest and involvement in the Eastern situation; more importantly, that this immersion of peoples and cultures served to integrate Eastern politics and traditions into Western civilisation. However, these claims can clearly be refuted. It is evident that by the end of the crusading era there is still a sharp divide in the politics and ideologies of East and West: This argument is further underlined as we see the ongoing conflict between Christianity and Islam with heightened tensions throughout the middle ages, furthered by continued conflicts for over 300 years after the crusading period. Despite some diplomatic alliances made through intermarriage and courteous, even friendly relations between Franks and Muslims, their political agenda's and fundamental beliefs remained distinctly separate and even opposing. Furthermore, we must remember that the crusades held their roots in extreme religious and political hostility to the East and it is impossible to suggest that such core components of two opposing societies could become easily integrated. Religion in particular was marked by deep rifts throughout the crusades, and this can in part be attributed to the increasing religious fervor and hysteria which accompanied the Holy Wars in Europe induced by means such as popular preaching. Furthermore, despite the conversion of some Muslims to Christianity, it was by no means imposed upon them and the vast majority retained an antipathy towards the settlers and subsequent missionaries in the East; it becomes evident that with regard to religion, and the politics with which it is inextricably interlinked, the crusades ultimately isolated East and West. Although those Westerners living in the East may have developed a respect and even understanding of Islam, the majority fostered opinions of the 'other' based upon the hostility and antipathy generated during the preaching and propaganda for the crusades, only serving to 'intensify the traditional hatred between the peoples and churches of East and West'4. Thus any form of ideological fusion or integration was virtually impossible.
