Becket Film question paper

Becket Questions

In 1066 England was taken by William the Conquerer, making the Normans the ruling power. The Saxons were turned into peasants in their own homeland while the foreign Normans were the aristocratic power in England, creating a tension between the two peoples. During Henry II reign, this was not the only tension in England. Henry II sought to expand his political power but unfortunately, this expansion was at the expense of the church. While the power of the state increased, the church’s power decreased and thus the church and the state’s tension was created. Thomas Becket, in the movie Becket, was the best friend of Henry II and essentially one of his advisors. Not only was he in politics, but he was also a Saxon, which was unusual because after the Norman invasion in 1066 the people in power were primarily Normans. Also Thomas Becket was made Archbishop of Canterbury, making him part of the church and the state, by Henry II. Eventually, Becket started becoming more loyal to his job and the church and Henry II became jealous and laid charges against him. This is where the root of the tension between the church and the state laid. This was not only the beginning of the tension of the church and state but also between Thomas Becket and Henry II. Thomas Becket refused to even hear the charges that Henry laid against him. Thomas Becket said that only the church could press charges against the church and that the state could not charge the church. Thomas becket was ultimately saying that the state did not hold any power over the church. Henry II then condemned him to death and ran him out of the country, even though he obsessively loved Thomas Becket. He also appeared hypocritical because he was angry with Thomas Becket when he was simply doing his job as the Archbishop of Canterbury, which Henry II himself appointed to Becket.

The Fourth Crusade Theme Final Draft! (with works cited)

Constantinople was the jewel of the Byzantine Empire, and not only that but the capital of the powerful Byzantine Empire. Though it was not the original target of the Fourth Crusade, Constantinople was sacked by misguided crusaders. After becoming entangled in the political side of the Byzantine Empire, the Fourth Crusade disintegrated and never even reached its original target of Jerusalem. 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 (Spielvogel). 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, set to leave in March was met with a low response and was altogether unsuccessful. Pope Innocent III assigned the cardinals Peter Capuano and and Soffredo to help in the organization of the crusade. Soffredo was supposed to enlist the Venetians help and Pope Innocent III appointed others to help negotiate peace treaties with the kings of England and France (Andrea). The peace treaties with the kings failed and the former truce made with Richard the Lionhearted and Philip II Augustus made by Cardinal Peter faded away when King Richard died (Andrea). So Pope Innocent sent out a second message on December 31, 1199 and received a significantly better response (Andrea). During that time the Muslims controlled Jerusalem and Pope Innocent III sought to change that. His message was directed mainly toward the nobility of Europe and he got an overwhelming response from them in France and the Netherlands. Not only that, but the Venetians agreed to help transport the crusaders. Unfortunately the transportation came at a price; the crusaders had to agree to attack a Christian city called Zara on the Dalmatian coast. The crusade, having failed to recruit anyone from Pope Innocent III’s first attempt, seemed to keep falling short from the start. While around 13 thousand crusaders met up at the port city of Venice, they still managed to fall short from the amount of money needed to pay for the cost of transportation. This shortage lead to the contract between the crusaders and the Venetians; attacking Zara and paying the money from the spoils of sacking the city. Pope Innocent III did not agree to the plan of attacking Zara, since it was papally protected and a Christian city. Pope Innocent III went so far as to threaten the crusaders with excommunication, which was the equivalent of a social outcast in that time, making the point that he did not support their attack (Daybell). Despite the Pope’s threat, they set sail on October 1202 from Venice and would meet up with the other crusaders that chose not to congregate at Venice. Even with the threat of excommunication looming over their heads, the Venetian ships and others that joined up with them sacked Zara, successfully recapturing the city the November of 1202 (Daybell). Pope Innocent III, understanding the crusaders situation, temporarily lifted his threat of excommunication, allowing them to attack the city (Andrea). So the crusaders continued their invasion of the Christian city, but they were unable to hold onto the city, so they completely destroyed it instead (Andrea). From that point, the Fourth Crusade slipped downhill, spiraling out of control and wandering away from the original mission, helping create the reputation of the most diabolical crusade yet.

From there, the crusaders became intertwined in Byzantine politics and the power struggle for ruling the Byzantine Empire. In Zara, the crusaders were asked to help Prince Alexius Angelus, whose father, the former Byzantine Emperor, had been deposed by his brother. The prince was then left with no other option but to flee to the West away from his jealous uncle (Andrea). He asked them to help him and offered them a substantial reward. “In return for the crusaders' help in ousting his uncle, Prince Alexius promised to submit the Greek Orthodox Church to obedience to Rome, to subvent the crusade with 200,000 marks and provisions for a full year, to supply 10,000 mounted soldiers for the crusade, and to maintain 500 soldiers in the Holy Land for the rest of his life” (Andrea). They encountered Alexius’ uncle and started demanding for his abdication, entangling themselves in the politics of 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 beginning with the 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 and they overcame the heavily fortified city. “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). Also, the buildings inside the city were made out of wood, and did not stand a chance against the outbreaking fires, 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. Many of the citizens were left homeless because of this and consequently the citizens rioted because of the lack of food and housing, resulting in even more fires and internal fighting. Another siege came upon what was left of Constantinople in April of 1204. (Andrea). This ransack would be the deciding factor for the city and though they might not have known it then, it is painfully obvious now. The worst of the destruction occurred during this final wave of ransacking of Constantinople. “As the crusaders laid waste to Constantinople, they set fires, pillaged 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” (Daybell). Not only did they loot private and public buildings, and have the clergy men join them, they also looted Eastern Orthodox churches. After this final attack, 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 routes, 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 and the rulers of each state inevitably started bickering over power. Eventually, the Byzantine Empire was recaptured by Michael Paleologus but the crusaders had done their damage. Constantinople never returned to its former strength and power and the Byzantine Empire was overthrown by the Ottoman Turks in 1453, sealing its fate. After this unfortunate turn of events, Pope Innocent III’s grace ran out and he excommunicated the crusaders when word got back to him of the destruction caused by them and of the ransacking not commissioned by him. The crusaders also pillaged the Eastern Orthodox churches, starting a bitter rivalry between the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox churches. 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, ending the bitter rivalry (Stockdale). 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 left a wake of destruction. It did not even make it to Jerusalem and did not overthrow Muslim rule and recapture Jerusalem, which was originally what Pope Innocent III comissioned. 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 unnecessary. Also, during the looting and burning of the city many works of literature were lost as well as other historical artifacts (Queller).

Even from the beginning, with money shortages and threats of excommunication, that were eventually followed up on, the Fourth Crusade appeared to be doomed from the very start. After a failed first attempt, the Pope had to commission a second call for a crusade in order to gain the support needed.The crusaders never even reached their original destination of Jerusalem and did not recapture it. Instead, they sacked Constantine, destroyed the Byzantine Empire and left behind the crusading ideals of renewing the Christian Empire.Originally intended to destroy the Muslims, the Fourth Crusade backfired terribly and resulted in the destruction not of the Muslims, but a powerful Christian empire.

Works Cited

1. Andrea, Alfred J. "Fourth Crusade." World History: Ancient and Medieval Eras. ABC-CLIO, 2012. Web. 22 Feb. 2012.
2. Daybell, James. "The Sack of Constantinople: The Sack of Constantinople." World History: Ancient and Medieval Eras. ABC-CLIO, 2012. Web. 22 Feb. 2012.
3. Spielvogel, Jackson J. Western Civilization: Volume I: To 1715. 4th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2000. Print.
4. Stockdale, Nancy. "Background Essay." World History: Ancient and Medieval Eras. ABC-CLIO, 2012. Web. 29 Feb. 2012.
5. Stockdale, Nancy. "The Sack of Constantinople: The Bitter Legacy of the Fourth Crusade." World History: Ancient and Medieval Eras. ABC-CLIO, 2012. Web. 29 Feb. 2012.
6. Queller, Donald E. "The Fourth Crusade:The Conquest of Constantinople, 1201-1204." www.jstor.com. The Journal of Library History, 1979. Web. 1 Mar. 2012.