Here's my Crusades THEME (not to be confused with the ESSAY[like I did and almost had a heart attack])

Constantinople was the jewel of the Byzantine Empire, and not only that but the capital of Byzantium. The capital city should not have felt any threat from the fourth crusaders since they were a Christian city and they were not the target of the crusade. Unfortunately, the fourth crusade marked the disintegration of not only the crusading ideals but the Byzantine Empire itself.

The Fourth Crusade ultimately began with the death of Saladin in 1193. Before his death, Richard the Lionhearted had made an agreement with him allowing Christian pilgrims to venture into Jerusalem. After his death, his empire began to dissolve and Pope Innocent III saw the opportunity in the weakness of Saladin’s former empire. He sent out the word that he was going to form a new crusade on August 15, 1198. This first call for a crusade was met with a flat response so he sent out a second message on December 31, 1199 and received a much better response. During that time the Muslims had control over Jerusalem and Pope Innocent III sought to change that. His message was mainly direct toward the nobility of Europe and he got an overwhelming response mainly from the nobility in France and the Netherlands. Not only that, but the Venetians agreed to help transport the crusaders. The transportation came at a price, though; the crusaders had to agree to attack a Christian city called Zara on the Dalmatian coast. The crusade, having failed to recruit anyone from Innocent III’s first attempt, seemed to keep falling flat from the start. While around 13 thousand crusaders met up at the port city of Venice, they still managed to fall short from the needed amount of money. This lead to the contract of attacking Zara and paying the money from the spoils of sacking the city. Strangely though, Pope Innocent III did not agree to the plan of attacking Zara, since it was papally protected and went so far as to threaten the crusaders with excommunication, which was the equivalent of a social outcast in that time. They set sail on October 1202 from Venice and would meet up with the other crusaders that chose not to go to Venice. Even with the threat of excommunication looming over their heads, the Venetian ships and others that joined up with them sacked Zara and it ended up that Innocent III did not follow up on his threat and temporarily agreed with their reasoning. So the crusaders continued their invasion of the Christian city. From that point, the Fourth Crusade went downhill, creating the reputation of the most diabolical crusade yet.

The crusaders then began intertwined in Byzantine politics and the power struggle for ruling the Byzantine Empire. The crusaders at this point were already known for being especially violent but the Fourth Crusade stands out as the most unnecessarily violent. The real ransacking of Constantinople began in the July of 1203 and began between fighting between the Venetians, the original crusaders and the Byzantines for who should rule the Byzantine Empire. Even though Constantinople was well fortified, it did nothing against the misguided determination of the crusaders. “Christian crusaders took gold, silver, jewelry, and precious furs while the Catholic clergy accompanying the crusaders stole as many relics as they could find” (Spielvogel. 261). Also, the buildings inside the city were made out of wood, reducing the city to a pile of fire fuel. The fighting continued through the following months and the ruined buildings were left as they were and consequently the citizens of the city rioted because of the lack of food and housing, resulting in even more fires and fighting. Another siege came upon what was left of Constantinople in April of 1204. This ransack would be the deciding factor for the city, though they might not have known it then, it is painfully obvious now. The worst of the ransacking came on during this wave of destruction. “As the crusaders laid wast to Constantinople, they set fires, pillage the churches and shops of the city, looted the riches of private and public buildings, and raped and assaulted countless members of the diverse population of Christian Europe's wealthiest and most sophisticated city” (ABC CLIO). Not only did they loot private and public buildings, and have the clergy men join them, they also looted Eastern Orthodox churches. Then, the Byzantine Empire completely dissolved as Constantinople fell into the hands of crusaders.

After the crusaders had finished looting Constantinople they managed to gain a shaky hold onto the Byzantine Empire. It had been divided into states and each ruled by different crusaders. The Venetians had managed to take control of Crete and the trading, and the chief state was headed by Count Baldwin of Flanders. The whole empire was re-birthed and renamed the new Latin Empire. It did not last long at all and the rulers of each state started bickering over power. Eventually, the Byzantine Empire was recaptured by Michael Paleologus but the crusaders had done their damage and it never returned to its former strength and power and was overthrown by the Ottoman Turks in 1453. As well as destroying the Byzantine Empire, Pope Innocent III’s grace ran out and he excommunicated the crusaders when word got back to him of the destruction caused by them. The crusaders also ransacked the Eastern Orthodox churches, starting a bitter rivalry between the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox churches and even eight hundred years later the heat of the rivalry continued, but only until eight centuries later in 2004 did the head of the Roman Catholic church apologize to the head of the Eastern Orthodox church and the rivalry ended. The following crusades also followed in the disastrous footsteps of the Fourth Crusade and fell miserably short in their goals. Though The Crusades in general had some positive effects, specifically the Fourth Crusade tore down the ideals and fell short in its objectives. It did not even make it to Jerusalem and did not overthrow Muslim rule and recapture Jerusalem. Though, not all of the effects of the Fourth Crusade were negative. It did help unite the Byzantine and Classical way of thinking and in general united the two cultures, though the process by which the uniting was achieved was rather unfortunate. Also, during the looting and burning of the city many works of literature were lost as well as other historical artifacts.

By far, the cons outweigh the pros in the Fourth Crusade. Even from the beginning, with money shortages and threats, that were also followed up on, of excommunication, the Fourth Crusade appeared to be doomed from the very start. That is, the second start, since Pope Innocent III’s first call for a crusade fell flat and received a disappointing response. From there, they sacked Constantine, destroyed the Byzantine Empire and left behind the crusading ideals of renewing the Christian Empire. The crusaders also were excommunicated by Pope Innocent III and did not even make it to Jerusalem, much less recapture it. Originally intended to destroy the Muslims, the Fourth Crusade backfired terribly and resulted in the destruction of not the Muslims, but a powerful Christian empire.

A basic summary of The Crusades

The Crusading Ideal and Appeal

In the High Middle Ages, the people of Europe experienced a massive wave of religious enthusiasm. The outlet for this surge of religious enthusiasm ended up being a massive movement called “The Crusades.” Spielvogel describes the Crusades as “... a curious mix of God and warfare...” (Spielvogel. 257). The Crusades were essentially a war against the unbelievers in an attempt to convert them. Religious enthusiasm was not the only incentive behind The Crusades. If the people went and fought in The Crusades, they were granted forgiveness from all of their sins. The Crusades were and outlet for the surge of religious enthusiasm and changed the civilization of Western Europe and had far reaching effects that are visible even today.

The Crusade that started them off was the “Peasant’s Crusade” also known as the “Crusade of the Poor.” Pope Urban II’s speech started off this crusade, talking about the need to reclaim the Holy City and take revenge on the murderers of Christ, lighting a fire underneath the people. There was an overwhelming response, especially among the peasants earning the crusade its name. Essentially, the crusade was not a huge success and many of the peasants sacked houses, stealing whatever they could, and persecuted Jews because of their misguided interpretation of them being the murderers of Christ from what they heard in Pope Urban II’s speech. Though some of the motives behind the Peasant’s Crusade may have been misguided, it did help spark the other crusades. The First Crusade proved to be more successful and was compromised of knights recruited by Pope Urban II from the warrior class in western Europe and especially France. Pope Urban II placed his faith more in this crusade and believed that men who were trained in the art of war would be more successful. Many of the men recruited were motivated by religious enthusiasm and the potential of power. In 1097 the group of warriors headed out to Constantinople The Emperor Alexius did not trust the warriors or their motives so he gathered up his own band, not from mercenaries, but rather from western nobles with their own motives and he made the crusaders swear allegiance to him. After 1098 when they captured Antioch they moved down to the Holy City and massacred it and took control in 1099. After more success in the Palestinian lands, the allegiance to Alexius was forgotten and the land was divided into four states; Antioch, Edessa, Tripoli and were all under the rule of the kingdom of Jerusalem. Eventually the states started to fall apart and the Muslims took advantage of their weakness. Edessa, the first to fall, collapsed in 1144 and the Muslims reclaimed control over it. This led to the Second Crusade. St. Bernard of Clairvaux organized the Second Crusade and aimed his message towards the knights. St. Bernard managed to enlist the help of King Louis VII and Emperor Conrad III of Germany. Despite that, the Second Crusade was still poorly organized, did not have cooperation from the leader of Jerusalem and failed to get rid of the Muslims.

The rest of the crusades were not much more successful. Once the Holy City of Jerusalem fell in October of 1187, the religious enthusiasm was once again set on fire. Emperor Frederick Barbarossa of Germany, Richard I the Lionhearted of England and Philip II Augustus King of France took charged and organized the Third Crusade. Emperor Frederick had an overwhelming response in Asia Minor and he greatly contributed to the success of the crusade. He also contributed to its failure when he accidentally drowned while swimming in a river one day. After his death the Third Crusade was lacking a strong leader and even though they succeeded in the costal areas, they fell apart when they tried to move inland. The Fourth Crusade experienced a decline in the morals and the original cause of The Crusades. Pope Innocent III supported the Fourth Crusade and directed his message towards the nobles. Many nobles from the Netherlands and and France responded and joined the crusade. Unfortunately, the crusading morals greatly disintegrated during the Fourth Crusade. “Christian crusaders took gold, silver, jewelry, and precious furs while the Catholic accompanying the crusaders stole as many relics as they could find.” (Spielvogel pg. 261). They also sacked Constantinople and became twisted into the politics of the Byzantine empire and fell. The Crusades spiraled downward from that point on.

Even though the Crusades were not successful in their original movement, they did manage to impact the economy and the civilization as a whole. Economically, they helped the Italian port cities grow and overall enhanced the revival of trade. They also helped eliminate young warriors that would have ended up fighting each other. Unfortunately, they did massacre the Jewish people and failed in their original movement. Their short term effects were not as obvious or as great as the far-reaching effects of The Crusades. Architecturally, castles were built for fortification and many of them are still standing today, giving us insight to what life was like back then. Since The Crusades spread people to new areas, cultures, ideas and knowledge spread with them. Geographic knowledge was spread as well as medical knowledge and warfare skills.

The Crusades, though they did not succeed in their original goal, did help impact our society now. The Crusades provided an outlet for the religious movement and enthusiasm and helped spread the cultures and ideas through the Crusades. During that time, they did not appear to be a huge success but later on, and even today, it is evident that they impacted society. Originally, the motives were pure, though carried out in the wrong way, but over time the motives became corrupted and lead to the downfall and overall short term failure of The Crusades. Long term, however, The Crusades impacted the culture by the spread of it through the people and provided a release for the religious fervor that swept over Europe.

Love and Virtue; an explication of Love and Nobility

Here is my final draft for the poem explication. I forgot to post my rough draft, but that's okay because this one is better.

Guido Guinizelli, the author of the poem “Love and Nobility”, was born around 1230 to an Italian merchant family and died in 1276. Guido was the founder of the organization and poetry movement, the Dolce Stil Nuovo translated as the “sweet new style.” He was one of the first poets to speak of a woman in divine terms, breaking the tradition of the times and turning a new page in poetry. Dante being strongly influenced by Guido, called him his “literary father.” In “Love and Nobility”, Guido addresses love, nobility, virtue, and what the heart should possess in order to obtain a love worthy of the approval of Christ. Guido Guinizelli’s most famous poem, “Love and Nobility”, assesses love and what the heart must have to possess a true love. The literal meaning of the poem is not very obvious since it mostly deals with the philosophical side of love, quickly diving into the metaphorical meaning of the poem. In the last stanza, however, the narrator talks of a hypothetical situation of when he is being judged for his improper love for the woman and his defense. In this hypothetical scenario, the narrator is imagining himself in front of God on Judgement Day, and God is questioning him about his love for this woman, and the man is giving his defense. The narrator of “Love and Nobility” is a man talking about love to the woman he is in love with and what that kind of love should look like. The tone of the poem is didactic and it seems like he is teaching a class, and he even goes so far as to seem pedantic, going into every detail. The mood of the poem, especially in the last stanza in the hypothetical scenario, came off a defensive, like he was justifying his love for the woman.

“Love and Nobility” is a well structured, affecting the rhythm and flow of the poem. Each stanza is ten lines long but the line length varies from long to short, giving the poem rhythm when it is read. The stanzas are also well patterned, affecting the way the poem is read and giving it rhythm and flow when it is read. The second to last line in each stanza is shorter than all the rest and have a rhyming couplet at the end of each stanza. Also, in the first three stanzas, the second line contains a simile, but not in the fourth stanza, making the fourth stanza a transitioning point. The first three stanzas talk more about love and the last three stanzas talk more about nobility, reenforcing the fourth stanza transition. The first five stanzas seem like a lecture but the last stanza breaks the pattern and the narrator starts talking about a hypothetical situation, making it seem more casual and remorseful.

The hypothetical scene in the last stanza of the poem is unlike any of the others. The first five stanzas are talking about the ideals of a noble love, but then the narrator starts talking about being judged for his love of the woman. He knows that his love for the woman is wrong, but he has kept loving her anyway. This is the whole reason that the narrator is talking about love and nobility; because he wants to resolve and fix his love and make it acceptable in the sight of God. He knows that his former love is wrong and he started talking to the woman about changing it and making it acceptable. The last stanza is him talking to God about his love before he had the opportunity to change their love. His defense admits that before he thought abut changing his love, he thought that everything was okay. The last line of the poem says; “What harm occurred if my love in her was placed?” (line 60). This hypothetical scenario was taking place in his mind before his revelation about noble hearts and love, but then he realized the fault in his ways. The first five stanzas display his revelation about nobility and loving in a way that Christ would approve of.

Guido Guinizelli starts off his poem with the simile; “Love always repairs to the noble heart Like a bird winging back into its grove...” (lines 1-2). This first simile in the simile pattern means that love belongs in a noble heart. The second stanza focuses more on how the nobility and love gets inside of the heart. The imagery of the Sun and the newly introduced stars help the author portray the relationship between love and nobility. The Sun is not the objects that bestows the nobility into the heart, but rather what cleanses the heart of all it’s impurities, preparing the heart for nobility. The stars are the objects that bestow nobility into the heart, preparing it for love. “The value does not come down from the stars/ Until the Sun has blenched the stone all pure.”(lines 13-14). The connection between the Sun, the stars and the heart are similar to the relationships between the Father, the Son and humans. The Son came down and purified us from all of our sins, preparing us to be able to face the Father, similarly to the Sun in “Love and Nobility”. The Father is the stars in the poem that inject the heart with nobility. Then Guido compares the love between the Father and humans to the type of love that a woman and man should have. Connecting back the the Bible, the narrator is saying that we should love each other as we love Christ. The love between a man and a woman should mirror the love between the Father and humans. In line 22 Guido says; “...Like a waving flame atop a burning brand” (line 22), meaning that nobility not also belongs in a noble heart, but will stay in a noble heart. It could also convey that if love is used in the wrong way, could end up burning and harming someone in the process. Reenforcing this idea, he says; “Yet a nature which is still debased/ Greets love as water greets fire,/ With the cold hissing against the heat.”(lines 25-27). Like water and fire, love without nobility will never last. Guido also uses imagery to convey the meaning of his poem. In the fourth stanza he uses the images of the “Sun” and the “mud”;

“Sun beats against the mud the livelong day;/

Mud it remains; Sun does not lose its ray;/

The haughty one says: “I am noble by my tribe./”

He is the mud; Sun is the noble power.” (lines 31-34).

In this stanza, the Sun represents nobility in its purest form and the mud represents a man who claims to be noble, but in his heart, he is not sincerely noble. Even though the Sun beat down upon the mud, the mud did not change at all and never became noble, so the mud will never understand or have noble love. In the fifth stanza, Guido returns to talking about how the love between a man and woman should reflect the love of Christ in lines 47 through 49; “In the same way, in all truth, the beautiful lady/ Should behave, for in her eyes reflects the desire/ Of a noble man” (lines 47-49). When he says in the same way, he is referring back to earlier in the stanza when he was talking about God. Reflecting Christian morals, the narrator talks about how the love of a man and woman needs love, virtue and nobility.

In 1 Corinthians 13, known as the “Love Chapter”, talks about love and what virtues should accompany love, like patience and protection. Similarly, “Love and Nobility” talks about the virtues and nobility that should go with love to make it acceptable to Christ. “Love nestles deep inside nobility...For without virtue, heart has no noble worth.” (lines 8 and 38). So, love must have nobility, and nobility must have virtue, so love must also have virtue. In those two lines, Guido sums up the meaning of his poem. Christian virtues and nobility are the two necessities that a heart must have to possess a love that is acceptable to God.

The love in Love and Nobility by Guido Guinizelli portrays what true love should look like and how, in order to have a love approved by God, there must first be a noble heart. Not only that, but the nobility requires virtue. So, the love that is portrayed in Love and Nobility closely mirrors the love that is spoken of in the Bible and how the love requires virtue. Love must dwell in a noble heart, and a noble heart must have virtue, so to have a love that is true and approved by God, the love must be rooted in virtue.

Works Cited

1. “Love and Nobility.” The Norton Anthology of World Masterpieces. Ed. Sarah Lawall and Maynard Mack. 7th ed. Vol. 1. New York, NY: W. W. Norton &, 1999. 1215-1216. Print.
2. Guido Guinicelli. Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia. 6th ed. Columbia University Press. 2011.