"The Fourth Crusade was actually conceived in 1199 at a jousting tournament held by Thibaut, Count of Champagne, at Ecry-sur-Aisne in northern France. There, in a sudden wave of mass emotion, the assembled knights and barons fell to their knees weeping for the captive Holy Land. They swore solemn oaths to go as armed pilgrims to wrest it from the infidels."

SOURCE

After the Third Crusade, the Muslim forces still had control of Constantinople. The infidels treated it horribly - they had burned down parts of it, and they had destroyed a thousand years worth of writings, statues, and monuments. Of course the Crusaders were ready to fight! The pope Innocent III started it without any kings to help, only lords of France, various nobility, and common-folk answered the call. It officially started in 1202 with sights on Egypt as their first target, but before that happened, the Crusaders did some mercenary work. Venice agreed to supply transportation across the Mediterranean if the Crusaders captured the city of Zara, which was a Christian city but it rivaled Venice. The Crusaders agreed and attacked it without the consent of the Pope. Christian forces attacking a Christian city? But they won it, and Venice sent them on their way.

The First Crusade was considered a success. The Second Crusade, on the other hand, was a total failure. It was basically an attempted siege on Damascus that was forced to relent. Why did it fail? What were all the details of the whole thing? I will attempt to answer these questions in a quick summary. First of all, why was the Second Crusade started?

The city of Edessa, by the time of the Second Crusade, was a major Christian city. However, in 1146 the Turks took the entire city and sold the few survivors into slavery. This panicked the whole Christian community - they were afraid that no city would be safe from the Turks or other forces. St. Bernard of Clairvaux, an abbot (meaning head of monks, in his case the monks of Clairvaux), began preaching to start a second crusade. His preaching not only affected the people, but the kings of Germany and France. (SOURCE and GOOGLEBOOK pages 2 and 3)

"St. Bernard's eloquence induced two monarchs, Louis VII of France and Conrad III of Germany, to take the blood-red cross of a crusader. Conrad III., emperor of Germany, was persuaded to leave the affairs of his distracted empire in the hands of God, and consecrate himself to the defence of the sepulchre of Christ. Louis VII., king of France, was led to undertake the crusade through remorse for an act of great cruelty that he had perpetrated upon some of his revolted subjects."

SOURCE (same as the last source)

Both kings were ready to fight! They set out for Asia Minor and only a few thousand survived. Only very few, very minor battles were won, and those aren't even all specified in history. They then tried to siege Damascus, and they had to relent in a matter of days. That's the second crusade! That's it!

"It was said by one chronicler that having practically accomplished nothing, the inglorious ones returned home."

SOURCE (the source is an excerpt from a book, so a book source)
How could the combined power of two kings fail so miserably? Well, there are two main reasons. 1: They thought the battle would be quick so they didn't have enough food, and 2: At the few places that the Crusaders did win, the people there gave money to the crusaders higher in power to have them move the army somewhere else, where they claimed was a better vantage point. That place didn't have enough water or fruit, so they ended up having to leave. (same source as the quote above and SOURCE)

All in all, the Second Crusade was completely pointless. It may be that this crusade was not one inspired by God, or maybe the people in it just made stupid choices. It casts a shadow over all the crusades really, because since it failed people can say that none of the crusades really were inspired by God. Next week, we'll discuss the Third Crusade. Au revoir, my fellow historians!

To be 'Goth' is to represent a large subculture in our society. It is a group of people that have a deep appreciation for art, music, and expression. Also, many people today will dress punk goth, a style of dress that involves mostly all black pieces and very white makeup (for both genders). Gothic clothing also will involve edgy extras like studded belts, black nail polish, and fishnet clothes (again, for both guys and girls). Even Google, the search engine, has a version of it called 'googoth', which is dedicated to finding everything dark and creepy. Today, many people associate 'goth' with being rebellious, and they aren't totally untrue. People will be or dress gothic today to be rebellious, but where does the word Gothic even come from? Well, that's my mission on this blog; to clarify what "gothic" really means.

The Visigoths and Ostrogoths were originally Goths, a Germanic tribe who lived in what is now Scandinavia (Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark). In the third century A.D. the Goths invaded the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire, and during the fourth century they broke into two groups. Those living north of the present-day Danube River became known as the Visigoths; those living farther east, in present-day Ukraine, were called the Ostrogoths (ost means east).

SOURCE

The Romans fell to mainly the combined Huns and the Goths in 5th century A.D.. The Goths took a definite split between the Ostrogoths and Visigoths after they fell; the Visigoths settling in modern-day Spain and the Ostrogoths settling in around Italy. They combined with 'Germanic' civilizations, meaning the combination of German and Roman peoples. The culture that developed from then on is what is referred to now as the Gothic period. (Our History books and GOOGLE BOOK)

So why did Renaissance Goth turn into modern Goth?

"Goth, as we currently know it, has its roots in Western Europe and North America during the late seventies and early eighties. The counterculture was, and still is, dominated by dissatisfied youth hailing from the middle classes, which were at that time just entering a new period of prosperous stability. The children of these newly wealthy were left, unlike their parents, with a strong feeling of instability and lack of identity. They were unable to reconcile the new values their society was trying to impress upon them with their newly fragile sense of self. The tightening lines of social restructure were separating them from their accustomed peers in both the upper and lower classes.

Responding to the confusion and theft of identity, a few of the brightest and most creative children of these newly prosperous families began to create their own social structure. It was a counterculture based on a synthesis of historical elements, leaning heavily on dramatic traditions, philosophies, and schools of thought "

SOURCE

According to tuscanylive.com, this sounds a lot like many Renaissance cultures of the time. Also, Gothic people today have great interest in (big surprise) renaissance Gothic art and culture. So the main way it turned into what it is today is actually through Gothic history. But why all of the black clothes and creepy appearances?

There is not one definitive answer to that question, but a way to look at it is how the Romans, when they were attacked by the Goths and Huns, they described them as unwholesome and barbaric. In America, these qualities are generally frowned upon, which is where the rebellion comes in. Being under a name that brings with it a lack of morals is a bold statement, which people are about these days. Another possibility is that it springs from Gothic literature. Here is a list of 5 things that characterize a piece of Gothic literature. (source)

"1.there is a victim who is helpless against his torturer;
2.there is also a victimizer who is associated with evil and whose powers are immense or supernatural;
3.the setting of the gothic story is at some point within impenetrable walls (physical or psychological) to heighten the victim's sense of hopeless isolation--the central gothic image is the cathedral or haunted mansion within which the victim is imprisoned;
4.the atmosphere is pervaded by a sense of mystery, darkness, oppressiveness, fear, and doom to recreate the atmosphere of a crypt--a symbol of man's spiritual death and a "vehicle for presenting a picture of man as eternal victim"[1]; and finally,
5.the victim is in some way entranced or fascinated by the inscrutable power of his victimizer [2]."

SOURCE

As you can see, Gothic Literature is a scary and dark thing. It is obviously a cause of Goth being dark and creepy. In the end, Gothic Literature and the rebelliousness associated with the word were probably the causes of the switch. As far as cultures go, they were very similar, with them both being interested in art, philosophy, music and literature. Really, to be Goth is more than skin deep, we just need to acknowledge it.

In the past, I have analyzed the philosophic concepts of Just War and Jihad. Now, I'm looking at the historical side: how did the concepts and actions carried out in the name of Just War and Jihad lead to the crusades? This is a huge concept. The timeline that goes along with this is very interesting and bloody (the two tend to get along), so prepare yourself for a mental journey of self-awareness!

"By 600 AD most of the former Roman Empire, North Africa and much of Europe were solidly Christian. However, from 600 AD onward, Islam emerged from the Arabian peninsula as an aggressively expanding religion, which aimed to conquer all the lands of the region. This continuous war or "jihad" began just three years after Muhammad's death and continued for the next thousand years. In this time Muslim armies overran the Christian Lands of

Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Palestine 630 AD
Egypt 650 AD
North Africa, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco 700 AD
Spain 780 AD
Southern France 790 AD
Sicily 850 AD
Southern Italy 860 AD
Turkish borders 900 AD
Armenia and Georgia 1050 AD
Central Turkey 1070 AD
Greece 1300 AD
Bulgaria, Serbia and the Balkans 1400 AD
Constantinople 1450 AD

Of all the churches mentioned in the New Testament, only a single one, Rome, escaped Muslim domination.

In addition, piratical raids and campaigns of raiding on land, slave-taking and slaughter took place virtually every summer for a thousand years, both to acquire plunder, and to destabilise and weaken neighbouring Christian lands. No permanent peace with "infidels" was allowed by Islam"

SOURCE

This article states the different Islamic invasions that had any effect on Christianity. As it says, these attacks were in the name of "Jihad". This, today, would be a cause of immediate retaliation, even for Just War believers. But were the Crusades a Just War?

"First, the Christian nations of Europe were definitely not the aggressors. As we have seen in earlier chapters, the Moslems had been aggressors against the Christians since the seventh century. Their attacks on Christian countries were still going on in the eleventh century. In 1071 the Turks had attacked and virtually annihilated the Byzantine army at Manzikert. It was this defeat that led the Byzantine Emperor to appeal to the Pope for aid against the Moslems. The Christian countries of Europe were clearly justified in defending themselves against Moslem attacks and also in going on the offensive in order to prevent future attacks. At no point did the Crusaders attack the Moslem homeland, Arabia, but only those originally Christian territories that the Moslems had conquered.

Second, it certainly was and is appropriate for Christians to defend themselves and the innocent and helpless against attacks, which is exactly what the Crusaders were doing. It is also appropriate for Christians to try to regain lands which their enemy had conquered, as was the case with the Holy Land. The religious significance of the Holy land makes it even better that Christians try to regain it rather than worse, since Christians had every right to govern the lands where Christ had walked and to protect them from desecration.

Finally, there were certainly abuses during the Crusades, most notably the Sack of Jerusalem and the Sack of Constantinople, both of which are discussed below. But an immoral action during a war does not detract from the justice of the cause of the war. The immoral action should be condemned, as Godfrey de Bouillon condemned the Sack of Jerusalem and Simon de Montfort condemned the Sack of Constantinople, but the war itself remains just."

SOURCE

To summarize, the Crusades were a just war because the war was a last resort, because they were trying to recover Holy Ground, and because the Muslims had performed "immoral" actions against the Christians. However, some people hold a very different idea.

"In 1095, at the Council of Claremont, Pope Urban crossed the line from a 'just war', in Latin 'bellum iustum' to 'holy war', or 'bellum sacrum.'

As inconsequential as it may sound, it is a profound difference. For instance, instead of having a secular authority -- our president is our Commander in Chief in a just war -- in a holy war we have a sacred authority -- the pope is our commander. In Islam a Fatwa has to be signed by a Caliph or a Sheik. The promise of eternal salvation, absolute assurance if you day, that was from Pope Urban. As a matter of fact, Pope Urban said 'Deus vult!' or 'God wills it!' and people basically shrugged their shoulders. There wasn't a lot of response initially. But then he said, 'If you go and kill the infidel, you will be forgiven immediately -- Paradise.' There is fundamentally, no difference between bin Laden, in that case, and the Crusades.

The third distinction that I would point out is that in a holy war there is no difference between combatant and soldier. That's why we make battlefields in our culture and our history because of 'just war'."...
"The final distinction between 'just war' and 'holy war' is that you are fighting to kill the infidel instead of convert the infidel. In a 'just war', every warrior wants peace. In a 'holy war', every warrior wants victory. All Islamic eschatology is based on what we are going through right now."

This represents a lot of 'politically correct' dogma that goes on when people talk about the Crusades. This quote is by a man who wrote the book Christian Jihad. Those two sides basically represent the pro/against Crusades debate. However, I haven't fully answered the question with this. What acts of Just War were there before the Crusades? If there were any, did they influence the Crusades at all? The answer to the first question is yes, but not directly. In Medieval times, you didn't call what you believed necessarily "just war", kind of like how you can't find a coin with the letters B.C. on it. However, the idea had existed since Cicero of Rome.

"The only excuse, therefore, for going to war is that we may live in peace unharmed; and when the victory is won, we should spare those who have not been blood-thirsty and barbarous in their warfare."

SOURCE

That is actually a quote from Cicero himself, and he says many other things like this one. It is hard to place, however, what wars actually declared themselves to be just, at least until the Crusades. Did the ideas of just war have an effect on the crusades? Yes, definitely. Did specific instances affect the Crusades? Probably not, but that is debatable. (ideas from this SOURCE, and google book, 44)

The bottom line of this blog, when you combine all of the ingredients, is to fully answer the initial question: how did the concepts and actions carried out in the name of Just War and Jihad lead to the crusades? Jihad greatly affected them; the many attacks by the muslims were what instigated the Crusades in the first place! The idea of Just War influenced the Crusades, but specific instances didn't necessarily affect them that much. Finally, whether the Crusades actually were a Just War is debatable, with evidence on both side. One thing is for sure though, the Christians weren't the total bad guy who attacked the poor, helpless Muslims. That is an assumption that is clearly disproved by simply the extensiveness of the list of Muslim attacks! Hopefully, this essay isn't about forming or swaying an opinion, but the basis for forming that opinion. Until next blog, my faithful readers!

Whole blog direction influenced partially by this Google Book

"6 I will grant peace in the land, and you will lie down and no one will make you afraid. I will remove savage beasts from the land, and the sword will not pass through your country. 7 You will pursue your enemies, and they will fall by the sword before you. 8 Five of you will chase a hundred, and a hundred of you will chase ten thousand, and your enemies will fall by the sword before you." (Leviticus 26:6-8)

The Bible Online, book source

"And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]...and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah."

Quran 2:191-193

The Quran Online, book source

The theories of Jihad and Just war are similar in some ways, but radically different in others. For 1, they both consider war as their last resort and are against hurting the "innocent". On the other hand, their roots are in different sources, and their definitions of the word "innocent" are very different. In this essay, I will compare their similarities, their differences, and the ethical, practical, and logical ramifications of following through with each idea. First of all, how are they similar?

Like I said above, they both consider war as a last resort. This is a technical similarity, but the two are still different in that very respect. The problem with this idea is the fact that Muslims say ideally you should either convert, die, or pay a huge tax just for not being a Muslim. With all of these options being rejected in our society, war can technically be your last resort. In the Just war theory, by war being the last resort means that compromise, while undesireable, is acceptable to prevent war. Another "similarity" is that neither philosophy is for hurting the innocent. This is true, but to fully understand the idea requires a basic understanding of what is "innocent" in the eyes of both beliefs, which is a major difference.

A believer in the Just War theory is completely against hurting the innocent. By this, I mean that you can sin (like we all do) and still be technically innocent. You can be a non-believer, hate everyone including God, and regularly commit adultery and you're "innocent" in the terms of common justice. Basically, you can do all those things and you shouldn't be killed. However, in Islam, simply not believing in Allah is enough to get killed over. Regularly, Muslim women who show skin are stoned in Saudi Arabia. "Innocence" has much higher qualifications in Islam. Therefore, while neither Just War nor Jihad are for killing the innocent, Jihad is much more agressive and violent, and lots of people who we shouldn't be killing die. Also, their roots are in different sources. Augustine gets the idea of Just War from the writings of Cicero and the Bible. Jihad comes from the Quran and Arab tribal raid traditions. Lets go even further than the technical differences though, what are the ramifications of believing either theory?

In order to truly follow Jihad to the 't' you should either be a Muslim or thoroughly study the whole Quran, which Muslims do. If you aren't a Muslim, there's really no point in the exact idea of Jihad. However, we can still discuss having the worldview. The problem with it would be that these days, war isn't just declared for no reason, for Allah, or for domination purposes. However, since Muslims have their own code of ethics (the Sha'riah, there's not really a way to judge them so they will listen. Just war is much more scrutinize-able. Jihad is a good theory, with the only main side effect being the time it would take to declare a just war. All of the ideas involving Just War are ideal, like national conferences and perfectly organize/ruled fights, but in our messed up world, things like that never work or take too much time. The waiting that would come from all of these things would generally exceed the appropriate time frame that war decisions provide.

While both Just War and Jihad are common world views, unless you're a Muslim, Jihad doesn't really apply. All this being said, according to the Biblical Christian worldview, Just War is practically much more ethical. I believe I've discussed the matter thoroughly. Now, only one question remains: Which will you decide?