Crusades

[citizen of industry]

I'm in a debate about base superstructure where my very able opponent brought up the crusades as an example to where economics was less of a factor than religion. I don't know anything about the crusades. Can someone give me a class analysis?

[Manic Impressive]

You could explain that political decisions cannot be divorced from economic ones and that the crusades were a political decision by the Catholic church to stamp it's authority on the crowned heads of Europe. It was also a preemptive strike aimed at slowing down the progress of the more advanced superpower which was pushing westward. And finally add that taking control of one of the most advanced trading cities in the world is not an economic reason, lol whut?

[Zealot]

The rising force of the Islamic empires, which were expanding at the expense of a financially and physically deteriorating Roman Empire, stands out as the most obvious with regards to economic factors. The control of Jerusalem, which was a holy city in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, represented more than just "God's power" on earth; it was also a vital trade region because of pilgrims etc. and was a strategic area for extending wider influence throughout the east.

[ComradeOm]

Here's a shocking thought: what if there was no economic reason for the Crusades? What if nobody, except the Italian merchants, went into these wondering how they were going to get rich? What if nobody back then was thinking like a medieval GW Bush about "extending wider influence throughout the east"? What if the religious appeal of Jerusalem was immense and real?

It is nothing but vulgar Marxism to assume that some concious economic motive lies behind all events and decisions. That is not what base and superstructure is about. B&S posits that the economic base of society is a (an important, ultimately final but not exclusive) factor in the shape of the political superstructure. That's it. Important but simple

In the case of the Crusades you should not be seeking out some hidden economic or geopolitical motive (which you won't find) but arguing that the economic and political structures of medieval Europe - with its landowning caste of warriors accompanied by constant religious angst - produced the right circumstances for what remains an amazing feat of mobilisation and war of religion

The worst thing that you can do is project modern sensibilities backwards and assume that religion must be a smokescreen to hide the money. Religion was important and it, and the Church, was a product of those specific European socio-economic conditions


...the crusades were a political decision by the Catholic church to stamp it's authority on the crowned heads of EuropeIf one wants to be incredibly reductionist and reduce centuries of politicking and debate over the temporal nature of the Church to a deliberate attempt to "stamp its authority" on others, yes

A more productive approach might be to place the Crusades along the, rather lengthy, timeline of Church reform. In this it's a notable event but not a decisive one, not a concious ploy and certainly not an explanation for the appeal of the Crusades


It was also a preemptive strike aimed at slowing down the progress of the more advanced superpower which was pushing westwardWhat "superpower" would this be? The Umayyad Caliphate had fractured three centuries previously (ending any unified rule of the Muslim world); the Fatimids and Abbasids were generally at each other's throats and the only threat to 'the West' was from the Seljuk Turks, who were a concern of the Byzantines and not the Latin West

The reality was that a major reason for the success of the first crusade was the unprecedented fractured nature of the Islamic world at that time. To argue otherwise is to buy into that whole 'clash of civilisations' nonsense


And finally add that taking control of one of the most advanced trading cities in the world is not an economic reason, lol whut?Are we talking about Damascus? Or Baghdad? Or Acre? Or even Mosul and Alexandria? These were all major trading centres in the region but Jerusalem was not one of them. Even after its seizure by the Franks, the major trade cities in the new Kingdom of Jerusalem remained the coastal cities of Acre and Tripoli

[Conscript]

What "superpower" would this be?What about the eastern roman empire?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I'm with Comrade Om that an economically reductionist account of the crusades doesn't hold up ... idealism was a much more appealing motivation for action in the middle ages where poverty was a reality no matter what kinds of decisions you made. Even the nobles were stuck with a relatively modest, unexciting existence and a young death, for the most part. Thus, the promise of a free pass into the afterlife after a glorious battle on God's behalf was a good one for Christians and Muslims alike. From a material point of view, there were much more sensible targets than Jerusalem.

That said, economic motives probably started to become a bigger issue after the first crusade and the horribly failed expeditions like the children's crusade. The sacking of Constantinople is interesting because it is a case where material conditions seem to have trumped the idealistic spiritual concerns of the crusaders. Also when trade routes and wealthy cities like Aleppo became battlegrounds, it seems material motives had begun to take over a little more.


What about the eastern roman empire?

Up to the 4th crusade, the E Roman Empire was largely benefited by the crusades, and generally was in decline anyways.

[ComradeOm]

What about the eastern roman empire?Was that "pushing westwards"? Hardly, they did well to hold the Balkans against the Normans in the immediate pre-Crusade period

[Geiseric]

another thing to take into account is that the dark ages have been going on for a few hundred years, so the pope saw this as a way of ending the wars that resulted from it. Kind of it had a functionalist effect on europe, like what 9/11 did for Americans.

However the crusades definately halted the inevitable muslim push into greece by a few hundred years. If the crusades never happened, the Muslims wouldn't of put any resources towards waging gigantic wars with, 400,000 soldier strong armies, and may of been working towards science, or something constructive, not a reaction to an invasion from the west.

Not saying Muslims didn't do that anyways eventually, but I have a feeling it slowed down the rapid advance of Islam that we see in about the 15th-16th century, when they were able to invade the former byzantine empire, and southern spain. If the crusades never happened, we may all be muslim today :laugh: . Because what are a bunch of small christian kingdoms, suffering from plague, going to do against a gigantic army like the Islamic armies could put up, armed with cannons, flintlocks, and technology 300 years ahead of yours?

[Rafiq]

Here's a shocking thought: what if there was no economic reason for the Crusades? What if nobody, except the Italian merchants, went into these wondering how they were going to get rich? What if nobody back then was thinking like a medieval GW Bush about "extending wider influence throughout the east"? What if the religious appeal of Jerusalem was immense and real?

Then we'd be living in a different universe, and such interactions would no longer be human. Seriously, ComradeOm, you're keenness in being "moderate" regarding materialism is nothing short of weak. To say there was no "economic reason" for the crusades is fucking absurd, though, it's also a straw man. What is an "economic" reason? That the European empires wanted to strengthen their economies? Is this what historical materialism is to you?

It's quite amusing how there is absolutely no class analysis here in regards. Human history is class struggle, and people here should know better. The Feudal ruling classes in Europe had everything to gain from the crusades, and, whether the peasant classes, or the classes who partook in the crusades were under the impression that this was a "religious war", nay, as a matter of fact, even if the Feudal ruling classes thought this was a "religious war", unconsciously, they were for filling their class interests, and to them, a "religious war" meant exactly that. After all, Religion itself in Europe was a reflection of the interests of the Feudal ruling classes, not some... Everlasting, burning candle light which was retained. Italian merchants, as you've said, may have "wondered into" Jeruselem not knowing what the fuck to do, however, the Merchant classes in Feudalism were not the ruling classes, they would later, along with the guilds they would form, become the revolutionary Bourgeoisie. So it isn't surprising that the crusades may or may not have been waged in their interests, they were merchants, not Feudal lords or aristocrats. After all, the Bourgeois revolutions were somewhat anti-religious, rhetorically.


It is nothing but vulgar Marxism to assume that some concious economic motive lies behind all events and decisions. That is not what base and superstructure is about. B&S posits that the economic base of society is a (an important, ultimately final but not exclusive) factor in the shape of the political superstructure. That's it. Important but simple

Blah blah blah Vulgar Marxism blah blah blah. The real vulgarists are those who attempt to simplify materialism to substantiate their own unconscious idealist pressupposions. It's not about an "economic" motive. Your conception of the "economic" is nothing short of bourgeois-rationalist. Was there some homogeneous, universal "economic" motive to "sustain" the European empires? No, that isn't the point of materialism. This was the everlasting fulfillment of a class interest, to sustain the mode of production in which they ruled. Religion was superstructural to the base of the Feudal mode of production, and, it was furtherly utilized when the Feudal mode of production became hungry.


In the case of the Crusades you should not be seeking out some hidden economic or geopolitical motive (which you won't find) but arguing that the economic and political structures of medieval Europe - with its landowning caste of warriors accompanied by constant religious angst - produced the right circumstances for what remains an amazing feat of mobilisation and war of religion


Except, "religious angst" was not something external from the interests of the "Landowing caste of warriors". It may be something external from the interests of the Bourgeois class, or merchant classes at times, but not hte Land owning castes. Religion didn't determine their behavior, rather, their behavior determined their religion.


The worst thing that you can do is project modern sensibilities backwards and assume that religion must be a smokescreen to hide the money. Religion was important and it, and the Church, was a product of those specific European socio-economic conditions

If one wants to be incredibly reductionist and reduce centuries of politicking and debate over the temporal nature of the Church to a deliberate attempt to "stamp its authority" on others, yes



Again, the Church itself was a class based entity, and the reason why it was important, was due to it's existence as a component of the according Feudal mode of production. Saying "it's wrong because it's reductionist" doesn't mean anything, yes, we can reduce it to something, the same way Marx "reduced" history to a history of class struggles. What of it? How is it then, invalid? Is there some kind of abstract, imaginative state of affairs which is a result of "pure thought" or "pure imagination"? Or would you like to assert that our world is more "complex" then what we materialists say of it, just for the fucking sake of being incompetent in articulating our words? What is this "complexity" external from human social laws? Idealist clusterfuck? You overestimate the "complexity" your human counterparts far too often.


The reality was that a major reason for the success of the first crusade was the unprecedented fractured nature of the Islamic world at that time. To argue otherwise is to buy into that whole 'clash of civilisations' nonsense


:rolleyes:


Are we talking about Damascus? Or Baghdad? Or Acre? Or even Mosul and Alexandria? These were all major trading centres in the region but Jerusalem was not one of them. Even after its seizure by the Franks, the major trade cities in the new Kingdom of Jerusalem remained the coastal cities of Acre and Tripoli


Jerusalem wasn't a major trade city, however, that doesn't mean that it's occupation under the crusaders wouldn't be beneficial to the class interests of the Feudal ruling classes. For one, "pilgrimage" wasn't free. Majority of serious historians in regards accept that although the Peasantry, and other lower crust classes were indeed driven by religious conviction (Kostick). Of course there are other "economic" reasons. A crusader who left his land, and didn't return, could have his land taken by the church. Not to mention the expansion of influence, etc.

[barbelo]

Gosh, I love so much the crusades.

Their main factor was economical, everything was funded by the italian naval republics like Veneza and Genoa, and these states had colonies in the Kingdom of Jerusalem.

If it wasn't by the existance of crusades and the encroaching of the ottoman empire, europeans would never colonize the americas.

wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades#Trade

I'm very fascinated by this whole west versus east thing, I feel that the world (or at least it collective unconscious) is living a parallel moment now days, with Usa building a permanent base in Afghanistan and all muslim world claiming for Israel destruction.

[barbelo]

Also, for people saying there weren't economical motivations behind the crusades: You can't separate culture and religion from economy and politics.
Israel/KoJ territory is particularly relevant because they are in a position to affect the trade and transport in the whole mediterranean sea (specially now days with the Suez Channel); all holy wars before the first crusade were focused on expelling muslim presence from the mediterranean.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I'm in a debate about base superstructure where my very able opponent brought up the crusades as an example to where economics was less of a factor than religion. I don't know anything about the crusades. Can someone give me a class analysis?

That's ridiculous, the crusades where obviously motivated by socio-economic and political factors. Funny that the very lands they fought over where the newly emerging and booming trade routes. I mean, to believe that it occurred due to some ideological struggle between one camp who follows some mad Arab who allegedly flew up to the heavens or some no name Jewish carpenter that got executed as a criminal 2.000 years ago is simply absurd, naive and idealistic; I mean, the way I phrased it, does that even sound like an intelligent argument?

[Positivist]

The crusades were steeped in religious rhetoric and I do not doubt that many of the participants, even amongst the nobility and the clergy, did view the war as religious in nature. This being said, the religious ideologies constructed socially and upon each individual reflected, articulated and justified the class interests of the nobles/church, and as such even a "religous war" will be materially motivated. If not, how do you explain the conflict between individual "Christians"? You do know how frequent those were, right?

As for a class based analysis.

First we should understand the church as the centralized organization of feudal interest, mediating the opposing interests of individual lords in order to maintain the feudal order of which the church was the greatest beneficiary. Now, recognizing this, we can proceed by remembering that conflict between individual lords was threatening the sustained domiantion of the system (and ergo the church) around the times of the crusades. Noticing this the high clergy proposed a campaign which would unite feudal Europe, thus retaining feudalism and empowering the church. The campaign they proposed was the crusades. This campaign mostly appealed to smaller nobles who were being presented an opportunity to expand their domains into the "holy land."

So in summary;
-Disputes between individual lords was fracturing the overalll system of feudalism.
-Church sought to unfiy feudal Europe in order to sustain the system and consequentally their own lower.
-Nobles participated because they were provided an opportunity to seize land that they would otherwise have difficulty procuring in Europe.

[ComradeOm]

Then we'd be living in a different universe, and such interactions would no longer be human. Seriously, ComradeOm, you're keenness in being "moderate" regarding materialism is nothing short of weak. To say there was no "economic reason" for the crusades is fucking absurd, though, it's also a straw man. What is an "economic" reason? That the European empires wanted to strengthen their economies? Is this what historical materialism is to you?Ugh, I remember you. You're that kid who's elevated "materialism" to something akin to a religion and constantly prostrate yourself before its alter. This is not going to be productive

Already we're off to a bad start: talking about "the European empires" (groan) as if they were unitary nationstates

And actually I'm not going to do this. Your post is an incoherent mess of regurgitated phrases and nonsense. Come back to me when you actually have an argument and are able to express it in a concise and reasoned manner. I'm not going to waste time on someone incapable of putting two reasonable sentences together

If any third party thinks I'm being harsh then I dare them to read through this bullshit and tell me what the "the interests of the Feudal ruling classes" were:

It's quite amusing how there is absolutely no class analysis here in regards. Human history is class struggle, and people here should know better. The Feudal ruling classes in Europe had everything to gain from the crusades, and, whether the peasant classes, or the classes who partook in the crusades were under the impression that this was a "religious war", nay, as a matter of fact, even if the Feudal ruling classes thought this was a "religious war", unconsciously, they were for filling their class interests, and to them, a "religious war" meant exactly that. After all, Religion itself in Europe was a reflection of the interests of the Feudal ruling classes, not some... Everlasting, burning candle light which was retained. Italian merchants, as you've said, may have "wondered into" Jeruselem not knowing what the fuck to do, however, the Merchant classes in Feudalism were not the ruling classes, they would later, along with the guilds they would form, become the revolutionary Bourgeoisie. So it isn't surprising that the crusades may or may not have been waged in their interests, they were merchants, not Feudal lords or aristocrats. After all, the Bourgeois revolutions were somewhat anti-religious, rhetorically


Their main factor was economical, everything was funded by the italian naval republics like Veneza and Genoa, and these states had colonies in the Kingdom of JerusalemExcept that it's a gross misrepresentation to claim that "everything was funded by the italian naval republics". If that were true then you wouldn't find Latin nobles mortgaging their lands and essentially selling their material possessions to fund their journey east. Often by paying extortionate rates to Italian merchant vessels. That the Italians were the most obvious to benefit economically from the Crusades should not excuse the countless who did not


Israel/KoJ territory is particularly relevant because they are in a position to affect the trade and transport in the whole mediterranean sea (specially now days with the Suez Channel); all holy wars before the first crusade were focused on expelling muslim presence from the mediterranean.No, they were focused specifically on the capture of Jerusalem. Nobody spoke of trade routes (except the Italians of course) because a) the Levant was not overly blessed with them, b) there were other routes north and south that functioned perfectly well and c) the Latin nobility derived their wealth from land, not trade


Funny that the very lands they fought over where the newly emerging and booming trade routesSuch as? Or were these "newly emerging" routes only established after the Latin conquest?

Seriously, where are people getting this idea from that the Holy Land was some critical trade nexus? Of the cities conquered by the First Crusade only two could be said to be of significant trade important: Tyre and Antioch (the latter legally part of the Byzantine world). Neither were critical junctions


I mean, to believe that it occurred due to some ideological struggle between one camp who follows some mad Arab who allegedly flew up to the heavens or some no name Jewish carpenter that got executed as a criminal 2.000 years ago is simply absurd, naive and idealistic; I mean, the way I phrased it, does that even sound like an intelligent argument?No. So let me phrase it another way: some people were motivated by their belief system. Now I suppose that that sounds entirely unreasonable? Or are we to deny religion any place in history?


-Disputes between individual lords was fracturing the overalll system of feudalismWhat provides this idea? Arguably feudalism had already emerged from its 'bandit lord' phase and was well on the way to legitimising itself as a stable system. Well, as stable as any system built on near-ceaseless low-level wars could be anyway

I mean I am sympathetic to this idea (which feeds in nicely to the whole Truce of God movement) and there's no doubt that many secular lords did use the Crusading rituals as a mechanism to bind rivals to themselves but I don't see any "fracturing" of feudalism


-Church sought to unfiy feudal Europe in order to sustain the system and consequentally their own lower.Two problems with this. 1) Urban II spent most of his career in opposition to the Holy Roman Emperor; sponsoring revolts in Italy and continuing the arguments with the German church. Hardly a man seeking to "unify feudal Europe". The same is true incidentally of most of his immediate predecessors and successors; Popes generally liked to play secular lords against each other to try and maintain some Papal independence

2) The Church at this point was struggling to unify itself, never mind Europe. Urban II spent most of his early papacy in exile from Rome (which was occupied by an anti-pope) and had very limited influence amongst the national churches. An independent Church, unified behind the throne of St Peter, was centuries away


-Nobles participated because they were provided an opportunity to seize land that they would otherwise have difficulty procuring in EuropeThis was once a popular theory but it (ie, the second son thesis) has been largely discredited in recent decades. Some leading Crusaders were landless nobles who had little chance of inheriting, see
Bohemond of Taranto for example. But these were exceptions. Most of the leading crusaders were quite wealthy and had considerable lands in Europe (Raymond of Toulouse, Robert of Flanders, Baldwin of Boulogne, etc)

Of the lesser ranks of Crusaders, almost all of these returned home after the capture of Jerusalem. Not many showered with fiefs in the East or showed any real desire for them. The booty they took with them almost certainly failed to cover the expense of the expedition

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Such as? Or were these "newly emerging" routes only established after the Latin conquest?

Seriously, where are people getting this idea from that the Holy Land was some critical trade nexus? Of the cities conquered by the First Crusade only two could be said to be of significant trade important: Tyre and Antioch (the latter legally part of the Byzantine world). Neither were critical junctions
The Silk Road, the desert trails through to the Indian Ocean Trade Network and the Byzantine Empire's control over the Mediterranean and Black Sea were all economic factors that spurred the christian clergy and aristocracy to start the crusades. If these important trade routes were in christian hands then the christian ruling classes profited. The crusade in the Iberian Peninsular was definitely more for the benefit of local lords than the pope, securing them land, unifying the region etc.

The closest you get to a crusade purely spurred on for religious reasons would be the Peasants' crusade in 1096 but that was less about peasants trying to do right by christianity than it was about peasants trying not to starve in the famines at home and hearing about how rich and spectacular the Holy Land was.

[Beeth]

In feudal times, not everything had an economic reason. Most of them were motivated by idealism, since class structures were not properly formed as they are now. Today, thanks to global capitalism, the whole world has become a market and everything's for sale. Hence, interpreting events and motives in terms of economic determinism (for want of a better term) may be reasonble today. But to apply this logic to what happend centuries ago to feudal times ... now that's illogical.

[Geiseric]

Isn't the important part that they ended up capturing major trade centers, so regardless of what the motivations were, the lasting effect was church control over those major trade spots?

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Such as? Or were these "newly emerging" routes only established after the Latin conquest?

:rolleyes:

You're going to make this conversation ridiculously difficult aren't you?


Seriously, where are people getting this idea from that the Holy Land was some critical trade nexus? Of the cities conquered by the First Crusade only two could be said to be of significant trade important: Tyre and Antioch (the latter legally part of the Byzantine world). Neither were critical junctions

The crusades were not merely about these so called "holy lands." That's a complete farce. You also act like the various European nations weren't also being invaded by the opposing empires numerous times, had been engaging in imperialist pissing contests for centuries and were not in fact, socio-economic and political competitors. Are you really suggesting that the crusades where motivated by nothing but pure religious fervor?


No. So let me phrase it another way: some people were motivated by their belief system. Now I suppose that that sounds entirely unreasonable? Or are we to deny religion any place in history?

So, these "beliefs," or their ideology was divorced from reality? It wasn't influenced at all by the material world? Are you serious? Any impact it may or may not have had on the events to which we are discussing would be at best minimal. Not to mention pointing out the obvious of how all the shit that occurred during this period virtually contradicts both holy books. Consciousness, ideology, beliefs, religion, etc. all flow from the interaction of material elements and the material environment; not the reverse.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

The crusades were not merely about these so called "holy lands." That's a complete farce. You also act like the various European nations weren't also being invaded by the opposing empires numerous times, had been engaging in imperialist pissing contests for centuries and were not in fact, socio-economic and political competitors. Are you really suggesting that the crusades where motivated by nothing but pure religious fervor?


For one thing, they weren't really "nations" as such but local landowners who clubbed together under a richer landowner with a bigger army. The church was merely a uniting political factor behind all of these little grouplings.





So, these "beliefs," or their ideology was divorced from reality? It wasn't influenced at all by the material world? Are you serious? Any impact it may or may not have had on the events to which we are discussing would be at best minimal. Not to mention pointing out the obvious of how all the shit that occurred during this period virtually contradicts both holy books. Consciousness, ideology, beliefs, religion, etc. all flow from the interaction of material elements and the material environment; not the reverse.

This isn't a zero sum game. Of course material reality played a role. If it wasn't for the Muslim control over Jerusalem and the extreme political dominance of the Church, the crusades never would have happened. However, the religion clearly also acted as a cause. They went after Jerusalem, because Jerusalem is the holiest city in Christianity. Why else would they sail hundreds of miles to a relatively poor part of the Levant? Aleppo or Cairo would have made much more appealing targets. They later did become targets when the feudal lords wanted to expand their wealth, but they weren't the initial targets.

If the holy books of Christianity were grounded in Tunis, not Jerusalem, don't you think that they might have sailed there? We'd be arguing about whether or not the war was over the gold routes to Mali, and surely that would have been a major motive, but the religion also plays an important role, through the nature of its ideological commitments, in causing events in the world. A materialist doesn't need to say ideals don't exist, merely that they are somehow themselves conditioned by materiality. In other words, they can still shape history, it is just that they themselves are shaped too.

[Geiseric]

The religion is what got the peasants to go along with the war. Saying the plan was to attack Tunis, a place with no christian history, wouldn't of made any sense to crusaders, as in the rank and file. The "Holy Land," coincidentally was a huge trade hub, which made the crusade a win win for the papacy and the nobles who wanted to both gain more land.

It isn't one or the either. Religion is what goaded the rank and file soldiers to go, whereas gold was the attraction for the nobles and the church. Like any war in history!

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

The religion is what got the peasants to go along with the war. Saying the plan was to attack Tunis, a place with no christian history, wouldn't of made any sense to crusaders, as in the rank and file. The "Holy Land," coincidentally was a huge trade hub, which made the crusade a win win for the papacy and the nobles who wanted to both gain more land.


That was the point of the Tunis example. HAD the Christian texts mentioned another city in Muslim control within range of boats of the time, they may well have ended up going there. The point is that the materialist interpretation of history doesn't make the content of religion irrelevant.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

This isn't a zero sum game. Of course material reality played a role. If it wasn't for the Muslim control over Jerusalem and the extreme political dominance of the Church, the crusades never would have happened. However, the religion clearly also acted as a cause. They went after Jerusalem, because Jerusalem is the holiest city in Christianity. Why else would they sail hundreds of miles to a relatively poor part of the Levant? Aleppo or Cairo would have made much more appealing targets. They later did become targets when the feudal lords wanted to expand their wealth, but they weren't the initial targets.

If the holy books of Christianity were grounded in Tunis, not Jerusalem, don't you think that they might have sailed there? We'd be arguing about whether or not the war was over the gold routes to Mali, and surely that would have been a major motive, but the religion also plays an important role, through the nature of its ideological commitments, in causing events in the world. A materialist doesn't need to say ideals don't exist, merely that they are somehow themselves conditioned by materiality. In other words, they can still shape history, it is just that they themselves are shaped too.
Except the Crusades were initially prompted because the Byzantine Empire was threatened by the Seljuk Turks. The pope thought that by spurring a crusade to help the eastern christians he would breach the schism between orthodox and catholic christianity and secure papal primacy while Komnenos simply wanted to ensure he had enough men to hold onto Constantinople and Anatolia. While the majority of people who participated in the crusades may have been driven by ideological reasons (hence the diversion of the crusaders to Jerusalem), the architects of the whole conflict were motivated by securing land and tithes.

It's like saying that the Iraq War was really about finding WMDs and toppling a brutal dictator because that's what most of the soldiers and supporters thought it was about.

[Hit The North]

It's valuable to not disregard religious belief as a motive factor, but it is one among competing motivations. What is important is to recognise that devout religious fervour and the pursuit of material interests were inextricably connected in the minds of the principle actors. Victories in the field and the attendant rewards were seen as proof of God's favour in the imaginations of the feudal aristocracy.

The idea that religion was an important motivator in the minds of the peasantry should be tempered with the fact that peasants could be dragooned into military service by their Lords as part of their legal obligations - and to not honour one's obligations could result in ruin and death.

In terms of the base and superstructure model it is not meant to be applied dogmatically to all forms of society. The mode of production determines which range of social forces are more or less motive within a society; therefore, the mode of production of feudalism prioritised political and ideological forces. The extreme rigidity of the class structure under feudalism meant that only those at the top of the social order, who were allowed to accumulate wealth and power, could be motivated principally by material rewards. No peasant could be enriched or have his social status elevated by following his aristocratic master into battle - but he could be compelled by force and sanction.

[ComradeOm]

The Silk Road, the desert trails through to the Indian Ocean Trade Network and the Byzantine Empire's control over the Mediterranean and Black Sea were all economic factors that spurred the christian clergy and aristocracy to start the crusades. If these important trade routes were in christian hands then the christian ruling classes profitedAha. But how many of these routes involved the Levantine cities?

It varied over time but the Silk Road tended to hit the Eastern Med around Cilicia. Antioch was an important junction here but the Crusaders had sworn to return this city to the Byzantines on its capture; something that, through a few struggles, ultimately did happen. There was also a secondary branch that snaked towards Tyre but this city was not captured until 1124, over two decades after the fall of Jerusalem. It was clearly not a priority (or else the Crusaders wouldn't have skirted past it during their initial advance)

The Indian Ocean routes tended to head for Alexandria or Damascus. Neither were captured by Crusaders

There were real economic gains to be made in the Black Sea but there was, AFAIK, no crusade called here. Instead the Italians warred over their own trade colonies

And that's the important last point. At no point was there the possibility of cutting the Muslims out of the trade loop or generally dominating the routes. That would have to wait centuries for the Portuguese expansion in the Indian Ocean. The real economic advantage in an Eastern Med port lay in the potential for the Italian cities to monopolise trade there. So the conflicts over trade tended to be inter-Christian and specifically amongst the Italians. Which is why the various feudal lords of Outremer were generally happy to sign away trading rights and allow the establishment of colonies - the only people to really profit from trade were the Italians


Except the Crusades were initially prompted because the Byzantine Empire was threatened by the Seljuk TurksThat was the trigger, not the cause. No one, least of all Alexios, expected that call to have the resonance it did. The question is why it did so

To tie this into SCM's hypothetical, it's perfectly clear that tens of thousands of Latins didn't 'enlist' to help the Greeks. It was the religious significance of Jerusalem (and almost exclusively the city) that drew them east. Had the centre of the Christian worldview been Tunis instead, with Jerusalem having no such religious appeal, then it's impossible to imagine the same events unfolding


The crusades were not merely about these so called "holy lands." That's a complete farce. You also act like the various European nations weren't also being invaded by the opposing empires numerous times, had been engaging in imperialist pissing contests for centuries and were not in fact, socio-economic and political competitorsSo what? What's your point? Are you suggesting that the Crusades were the product of inter-imperialist rivalry? If so then make a case for it


Are you really suggesting that the crusades where motivated by nothing but pure religious fervor?No. On an individual level there can be no question that religion was the greatest motivating factor. Religion, and the appeal of Jerusalem, was what drove tens of thousands of medieval warriors across the known world. As to what gave rise to the Crusades themselves, ie as a major political and military event, then there are a much broader range of issues. All of which sit within the complexities of the medieval European socio-political landscape

Where I vehemently disagree with others is the notion that there was some concious campaign, by the Church or others, to engage in a war for economic gain. That just flies in the face of all evidence and, more damagingly, presents history as a series of deliberate decisions. The reality is that accidents happen and few were greater than the Crusades


So, these "beliefs," or their ideology was divorced from reality? It wasn't influenced at all by the material world?I've got no idea where you got that from


Not to mention pointing out the obvious of how all the shit that occurred during this period virtually contradicts both holy booksBut not contemporary theological thought. Ideology, as you banally point out, is influenced by the material world. In this case Christian theology, which was primarily supported by a social caste of trained killers, had been edging towards penitential warfare for centuries. The Crusades were an important point in this development

But what you, and most vulgar materialists, are forgetting that ideology in turn exerts influence on events. The base can also influence the superstructure. It's called a dialectal relationship :rolleyes:


The idea that religion was an important motivator in the minds of the peasantry should be tempered with the fact that peasants could be dragooned into military service by their Lords as part of their legal obligations - and to not honour one's obligations could result in ruin and death.I agree with most of your post but it's important to note that even the princely actors could be exceptionally pious. Religion was all-pervasive in medieval Europe and certainly not limited to the lower orders

[Hit The North]

I agree with most of your post but it's important to note that even the princely actors could be exceptionally pious. Religion was all-pervasive in medieval Europe and certainly not limited to the lower orders

Yes, I meant to argue that religion was perhaps more of a motivator for the upper orders than the lower orders who's participation was enforced.

[Rafiq]

Ugh, I remember you. You're that kid who's elevated "materialism" to something akin to a religion and constantly prostrate yourself before its alter. This is not going to be productive

Oh my, I feel privileged. ComradeOm remembers me.


Already we're off to a bad start: talking about "the European empires" (groan) as if they were unitary nationstates


I see you haven't caught the irony.


And actually I'm not going to do this. Your post is an incoherent mess of regurgitated phrases and nonsense. Come back to me when you actually have an argument and are able to express it in a concise and reasoned manner. I'm not going to waste time on someone incapable of putting two reasonable sentences together

If any third party thinks I'm being harsh then I dare them to read through this bullshit and tell me what the "the interests of the Feudal ruling classes" were:


Well, you could have initially asked instead of furtherly asserting a bunch of nonsense. I take it you're not well read regarding historical materialism (Oh Christ, I said it, how zealous of me!), however, I take it you're not a Marxist, so I'm not surprised, anyway. Anyway, the interests of the Feudal Ruling classes of course, were not homogeneous, since arguably there were more than one variant of ruling classes. Several Feudal Lords, the Church, etc.

Expanding influence toward the Middle East was of absolute necessity, as the Middle East was the center of trade at the time. What better opportunity than to start by invading Jerusalem, to rally the peasantry and lower crust of the nobility in the most exceeding of ways!

You obviously have on conception of the function of ideology here.


No, they were focused specifically on the capture of Jerusalem. Nobody spoke of trade routes (except the Italians of course) because a) the Levant was not overly blessed with them, b) there were other routes north and south that functioned perfectly well and c) the Latin nobility derived their wealth from land, not trade


Jeruselem would have been the perfect place to begin expanding influence into the Middle East, a major site of pilgrimage of which members of all faiths travel to across the globe. It isn't hard to see the benefits here, even if it wasn't a major trade city.


Such as? Or were these "newly emerging" routes only established after the Latin conquest?

Seriously, where are people getting this idea from that the Holy Land was some critical trade nexus? Of the cities conquered by the First Crusade only two could be said to be of significant trade important: Tyre and Antioch (the latter legally part of the Byzantine world). Neither were critical junctions


GiantMonkeyMan addressed this in a way I couldn't do better.


No. So let me phrase it another way: some people were motivated by their belief system. Now I suppose that that sounds entirely unreasonable? Or are we to deny religion any place in history?


That isn't unreasonable at all. There's a difference between saying many people were motivated by their belief system, and that, the actual event happened because of this belief system in itself. But there's this thing, I know, it's crazy, called false consciousness. Again, you're missing the class analysis here. Is it possible that some Feudal Lords were motivated by their religion? Yes, but only because their religion represented their class interests, it was the embodiment of their class interest. In the same way, for example, a class conscious proletarian may be motivated by his "ideology", Communism. It is of little meaning. Whether the Feudal Lords were aware of it or not, unconsciously or otherwise, they were for filling their class interests. You think Marx, or any other Marxist didn't take into account something like the Crusades when he said all history is history of class struggle? Hmm? "Oh fuck, I take that back, ComradeOm told me some bullshit about the Crusades which I already knew of, nay for the fact that I actually can articulate historical materialism and the function of religion, which I didn't know existed until over a hundred years after my death".


What provides this idea? Arguably feudalism had already emerged from its 'bandit lord' phase and was well on the way to legitimising itself as a stable system. Well, as stable as any system built on near-ceaseless low-level wars could be anyway


Yes, it was legitimizing itself, it was in the process of legitimizing itself. Perhaps, maybe, this was the final nail in the coffin. Unless you'd like to argue disputes and fighting between Lords wasn't something common shortly before the crusades.


I mean I am sympathetic to this idea (which feeds in nicely to the whole Truce of God movement) and there's no doubt that many secular lords did use the Crusading rituals as a mechanism to bind rivals to themselves but I don't see any "fracturing" of feudalism


It may not have fractured Feudalism, but it may have been for the best, regarding the Feudal Mode of production, if the Lords united against a common enemy, for the exemplification of Feudalism.


Two problems with this. 1) Urban II spent most of his career in opposition to the Holy Roman Emperor; sponsoring revolts in Italy and continuing the arguments with the German church. Hardly a man seeking to "unify feudal Europe". The same is true incidentally of most of his immediate predecessors and successors; Popes generally liked to play secular lords against each other to try and maintain some Papal independence

2) The Church at this point was struggling to unify itself, never mind Europe. Urban II spent most of his early papacy in exile from Rome (which was occupied by an anti-pope) and had very limited influence amongst the national churches. An independent Church, unified behind the throne of St Peter, was centuries away


Are you arguing that the Church didn't rally the Lords of Europe to invade Jerusalem? I mean, fuck, that's something I learned in school, when I was eleven years old. Unless of course the American curricular material is vulgar-Marxist superdeterministic, reductionist propaganda.


This was once a popular theory but it (ie, the second son thesis) has been largely discredited in recent decades. Some leading Crusaders were landless nobles who had little chance of inheriting, see
Bohemond of Taranto for example. But these were exceptions. Most of the leading crusaders were quite wealthy and had considerable lands in Europe (Raymond of Toulouse, Robert of Flanders, Baldwin of Boulogne, etc)


Again, you fail to see the crusades on a larger scale. Crusaders like the man you mentioned were products of a fire already sparked. See: Base-superstructure relationship.


Of the lesser ranks of Crusaders, almost all of these returned home after the capture of Jerusalem. Not many showered with fiefs in the East or showed any real desire for them. The booty they took with them almost certainly failed to cover the expense of the expedition


Did they know that, like, before they invaded?

This is getting ridiculous. First it's: "THE CRUSADES HAPPENED CUZ OF RELIIGONZ"

Now it's, "Some people were motivated by religion, guys. Come on, this is obvious".

[Rafiq]

In feudal times, not everything had an economic reason. Most of them were motivated by idealism, since class structures were not properly formed as they are now. Today, thanks to global capitalism, the whole world has become a market and everything's for sale. Hence, interpreting events and motives in terms of economic determinism (for want of a better term) may be reasonble today. But to apply this logic to what happend centuries ago to feudal times ... now that's illogical.

What an odd conception of Idealism. You can't be "motivated by Idealism", what you can do is resort to an Idealist analysis of their motivations. According to Marx and Engels historical materialism is something of a social law, and now, according to you, Materialism is only applicable to capitalism. Modes of production, no matter what form, are dominated by productive forces and class relations. Don't know how that's "fucking illogical". And it's not like, you know, you can play this game where "Well Marx didn't grow up to see the Soviet Union become a shit hole therefore he was wrong", you can't even do that. Marx was well aware, Marxists in general, were more aware of the feudal mode of production and it's structure, and could analyse feudalism in a way you could only dream of. Don't be such a fool as to sit here and tell us Materialism is only applicable to modern, evil, "totalitarian" capitalism (as that piece of shit Chris Hedges puts it) when capitalism, although very dynamic, moreso than feudalism, has not a stronger, but a faster impact on the superstructure and changes more frequently.

[Rafiq]

A
No. On an individual level there can be no question that religion was the greatest motivating factor. Religion, and the appeal of Jerusalem, was what drove tens of thousands of medieval warriors across the known world. As to what gave rise to the Crusades themselves, ie as a major political and military event, then there are a much broader range of issues. All of which sit within the complexities of the medieval European socio-political landscape

Where I vehemently disagree with others is the notion that there was some concious campaign, by the Church or others, to engage in a war for economic gain. That just flies in the face of all evidence and, more damagingly, presents history as a series of deliberate decisions. The reality is that accidents happen and few were greater than the Crusades


Well, of course on an individual level, on a conscious level, religion was a motivating factor. That's obvious to anyone (again, you don't understand historical materialism). Just because on an individual or concious level, religion was a motivating factor, doesn't at all mean that the actual crusades were a product of beliefs, ideas or religion. That is the point I have been trying to make. I never had this conception of "Hurrrr those Peasants r just going cuz they wanna get rich" (while in some cases that may be true). As a matter of fact, you're a shit debater, anyway. If I was in your position, I would have simply said "What about suicide bombers? Are they motivated by 'economic gain' or religion?".

It doesn't matter whether on a conscious level the Church was after some economic gain (although there is a lot of evidence to support that high ranking elites of the Church knew perfectly well of what they were doing). Because on an unconscious level, they were (hurr Freudomarxism incoming), as in, this form of ideology on a conscious level as a reflection of a class interest, really compelled them to for fill their class interest, in whatever way (Be it because a religious motivation or something else).

[barbelo]

That isn't unreasonable at all. There's a difference between saying many people were motivated by their belief system, and that, the actual event happened because of this belief system in itself. But there's this thing, I know, it's crazy, called false consciousness. Again, you're missing the class analysis here. Is it possible that some Feudal Lords were motivated by their religion? Yes, but only because their religion represented their class interests, it was the embodiment of their class interest.

Wow, I couldn't phrase it better than you. This was exactly what I was trying to say when I mentioned that religion and culture couldn't be separated from economy and politics.


The reality is that accidents happen and few were greater than the Crusades.

Now revlefters are the arbiters of history.
They believe there is a third option besides being victim or oppressor in the world?

[ComradeOm]

Well, you could have initially asked instead of furtherly asserting a bunch of nonsense. I take it you're not well read regarding historical materialism (Oh Christ, I said it, how zealous of me!), however, I take it you're not a Marxist, so I'm not surprised, anyway. Anyway, the interests of the Feudal Ruling classes of course, were not homogeneous, since arguably there were more than one variant of ruling classes. Several Feudal Lords, the Church, etcI often think that we should abandon the term 'historical materialism' in favour of its original incarnation. Just to stop idiots misinterpreting it. "Historical materialism" is not a subject in its own right, it is not an area of study, it is not the article of faith you take it to be. It is a way of studying history. If you know nothing about the latter, as I'm about to show you don't, then it's just an empty phrase

Let's take a few examples to show just how much bullshit you're talking

[Feudal Neocons]


Expanding influence toward the Middle East was of absolute necessity, as the Middle East was the center of trade at the time. What better opportunity than to start by invading Jerusalem, to rally the peasantry and lower crust of the nobility in the most exceeding of ways!For who? Who had an interest in "expanding influence" in the Middle East? The Byzantines perhaps but their ambitions were limited to Anatolia and their relationship with the Crusaders tenuous at best. Who amongst the Latins wanted to embark on this grand project? Where's your evidence for this?

Why would anyone want to conquer an area larger than every European kingdom? Oil? What on earth was the appeal of the Middle East to a European landowning class? How would they maintain control when the most extensive demesnes in Europe, outside of England at least, were relatively tiny? When the King of France could, notoriously, not leave Paris without putting his life in danger? When most of the historical Crusaders left for home after the seizure of Jerusalem, with showing any inclination to settle in the region?

In short: it's a silly idea that recasts the ramshackle feudal fiefdoms as some sort of neocon empires looking to "expand their influence" in the Middle East. It has no relation to the reality of the period, is entirely unsupported by historical evidence and is just, well, stupid

[Trade]

And the trade comments... well. Frankly I'm laughing at those posters who proudly boast their understanding of class analysis and then go on to assert that feudal lords were desperate to conquer Levantine trade routes. What did these landowners care for trade? That wasn't the source of their wealth or position; their role in society wasn't dependant on it. Hence they didn't place much emphasis on the matter: the initial wave of Crusaders took decades to conquer the key trading cities (having made a beeline for the backwater of Jerusalem) and they were happy to devolve most of their privileges to the Italian merchants

(The latter did have a genuine interest in trade and explicitly went to war over it in a way that feudal knights very rarely did, in Europe or Outremer. Even here the advantages to be gained didn't come from actually holding cities in the Levant, as the good still had to be bought from Muslims in Damascus or Alexandria, but in the potential for monopolising routes or securing concessions that would provide a competitive advantage against other Italian trading cities

It should go without saying however that while an important element in the Crusades, the Italians were nonetheless a sideshow. The conquest of the Holy Lands was a product of feudalism and depended on the noble class)

Plus, as noted in above posts, the Levant was a tributary carrier of trade routes, not a hub in itself, and the economic importance of Jerusalem was minimal. This concept that Judea was an area of significant economic riches or potential is simply false. Yet you keep parroting it like it's some slogan. Even though you can't better GiantMonkeyMan's post, which I've already addressed

[Class Interests]


Whether the Feudal Lords were aware of it or not, unconsciously or otherwise, they were for filling their class interestsWhich were?

This is the truly absurd aspect of this, generally depressing, discussion. You throw around terms like "class interests" while having absolutely no notion as to how they apply to the case in hand. And while expecting people to act like robots. In the place of meaning or insight you substitute slogans, absurdities and simple historical untruths (see above of the latter two)

Here's the reality: the Crusades in the Levant did little to nothing, deliberately at least, to further the interests of the European landowning class. They didn't bring back vast quantities of booty, they didn't significantly enhance Crown authority, there were no benefits from an 'expansion of influence' (little joke there) in some distinct regions, they didn't alter the noble-peasent relationship, they didn't notably strengthen either feudal structures or the role of the Church. In short, they were pretty feudalism-neutral. Any real benefits were local/temporary in nature: a brief political truce, a distinguished war record

(This is not to include the unforeseen macro benefits - such as improved infrastructure, trade integration, etc - that were largely side-effects of the military campaigns, of course)

Which is not to say that the Crusades were against the nobility's interests of course, there was clearly some compatibility and these campaigns were a product of the feudal environment. But Jerusalem was never a boon to Europe and it's hard to see how its conquest was in itself to the benefit of the European nobility

At this point it is worth making the comparison with similar crusades in Iberia, the Baltic/Pomerania and Sicily (even if the latter wasn't technically a Crusade). In these campaigns, much smaller in scale, there was a real material incentive. The expansion into Muslim lands was clearly in the interests of the local authorities. These colonisation efforts provided lands and riches that could be distributed by the local lords who commanded the expeditions and enabled the construction of new structures that tied the conquered areas into existing European feudal bodies

All this in a way that sharply contrasts with the experiences of the Crusader States in the Levant


It may not have fractured Feudalism, but it may have been for the best, regarding the Feudal Mode of production, if the Lords united against a common enemy, for the exemplification of Feudalism. How does tens of thousands of knights, of varying degree of wealth, selling/mortgaging their lands and travelling across the known world have any benefit or impact on the "feudal mode of production"? Who were they trying to impress: serfs already bound to them by right and land?

Incidentally, do you know what the most notable European conflict of the Crusading period was? Probably not. It was the Anglo-French (in modern terms) series of wars over the fate of France. There was constant suspicion and regular warfare between the two Crowns, which had quite an impact on the Crusades. So much for the common front...t?

[The Church Militant]


Are you arguing that the Church didn't rally the Lords of Europe to invade Jerusalem? I mean, fuck, that's something I learned in school, when I was eleven years old. Unless of course the American curricular material is vulgar-Marxist superdeterministic, reductionist propaganda. Well frankly it explains a lot if you're still operating at an eleven year old's level of knowledge

And apparently reading comprehension, because what I was responding to was the assertion that the "Church sought to unfiy feudal Europe". Now you may read that and automatically read "the Church rallied the Lords of Europe to invade Jerusalem" but frankly that's a problem for you to have looked at

What I was doing was pointing out that the Church was in no way capable, or at this point, even dreaming of 'unifying Europe'. This wasn't the 19th C ultramontanist Church were talking about here, with its hyper-centralising tendencies, but an organisation that was geographically scattered, pretty decentralised and often in conflict with itself. Urban II may have preached the Crusade (and in doing so he certain lit the taper) but he was not doing so from a position of strength or even authority

And events bore this out. Whatever Urban's dreams of a Papal led military campaign, leadership quickly devolved to the feudal lords who were supplying the men and the means to carry it out. Hence the term the Princes' Crusade

[The Dregs]


Well, of course on an individual level, on a conscious level, religion was a motivating factor. That's obvious to anyone (again, you don't understand historical materialism). Just because on an individual or concious level, religion was a motivating factor, doesn't at all mean that the actual crusades were a product of beliefs, ideas or religionWhen did I say that? In fact, I'm fairly sure that my exact words were that the Crusades, and indeed the Church/religion, were the products of "specific European socio-economic conditions" and "the economic and political structures of medieval Europe"

But you spin that to mean "THE CRUSADES HAPPENED CUZ OF RELIIGONZ". Smooth


It doesn't matter whether on a conscious level the Church was after some economic gain (although there is a lot of evidence to support that high ranking elites of the Church knew perfectly well of what they were doing)Please do present this evidence. Maybe you know of some secret Vatican masterplan to get rich via "expanding influence" in the Middle East. Really, I've been waiting for you to contribute something to this discussion


As a matter of fact, you're a shit debater, anyway. If I was in your position, I would have simply said "What about suicide bombers? Are they motivated by 'economic gain' or religion?".This made me smile. You suggest that I'm a "shit debater" because I failed to throw in a completely irrelevant reference to a modern conflict/tactic?

I realise that you've provided absolutely nothing of note to the discussion at hand (that is, the Crusades) but is your thought process really something like: "Crusades > Middle East > Imperialism > Suicide bombers"?


I take it you're not a MarxistIf this man has not yet discovered that while the material mode of existence is the primum agens this does not preclude the ideological spheres from reacting upon it in their turn, though with a secondary effect, he cannot possibly have understood the subject he is writing about. The materialist conception of history has a lot of [dangerous friends] nowadays, to whom it serves as an excuse for not studying history. Just as Marx used to say, commenting on the French "Marxists" of the late 1870s: "All I know is that I am not a Marxist."

Engels, 1890

[rayznack]

Here's a shocking thought: what if there was no economic reason for the Crusades? What if nobody, except the Italian merchants, went into these wondering how they were going to get rich?

I don't think the Genoese and Venetians joined the Crusade with that in mind. Taking ownership of Antioch and Jerusalem was happenstance only due to the fact the Byzantines split before they could claim these cities. Even after the Crusaders took the cities, they offered both back with the sensible requirement Byzantine imperial officials meet them directly to hand over ownership, which the Byzantines refused. The big losers of the First Crusade were the Byzantines and it was really their own fault.

[Invader Zim]

There is a lot of misunderstanding in this thread regarding historical materialism - which some people appear to be treating to be a religious creed that must be strictly adhered to regardless of the evidence. What they fail to grasp is that it is a methodology or prism through which to study the past not the 'correct' means of arriving at 'historical truth'.

A serious attempt to view the origins of the crusades using historical materialism does not involve crudely postulating, in the face of the evidence, that the collective upper orders of Medieval Christendom made a conscious decision to orchestrate the crusades in order to exploit trade opportunities arising from such a military campaign. To make such a sweeping generalisation, which ignores the very prevelent religious under-pinnings and political basis for the crusades, is to fundermentally misunderstand what historical materialism is, which is a means of examining the facts - not ignoring them. Historical materialism does not involve reducing the past to:

Phase 1: Invade the Levant
Phase 2: ?
Phase 3: Profit

A serious examination of the crusades using historical materialism would be an examination of the social structure of medieval Europe examining the material economic conditions that created the structures in place resulting in the political and religious basis for the crusades.

Basically, some people need to read some pretty basic introductory text on Marx in addition to historical practise.

[Rafiq]

I often think that we should abandon the term 'historical materialism' in favour of its original incarnation. Just to stop idiots misinterpreting it. "Historical materialism" is not a subject in its own right, it is not an area of study, it is not the article of faith you take it to be. It is a way of studying history. If you know nothing about the latter, as I'm about to show you don't, then it's just an empty phrase

That's a bit of an unsubstantiated grand claim, isn't it? There are countless distinguished Marxists who have recognized that Historical materialism is not only a means of analyzing history, but a means of analyzing the process that is human social change. Althusser mentioned how Historical Materialism offered a completely new conception of human social change, just as, for example, Darwin offered a completely new means of understanding natural history. Historical materialism is not simply just a lense of which we look through when squinting at old dusty books regarding events in themselves, rather than the processes of which those events were birthed. Historical Materialism is in itself a means of understanding humans as a species, behaviorally, and their modes of social organization.

The rest of the blot I'm choosing not to respond to because I am under the impression that, from recent posts, there is a bit of a misunderstanding. You claim that the crusades were not a product of Religion, but that religion and the church were a product of very unique material conditions throughout Europe. However, the act of the crusades themselves, you hold were a product of religion? (Disregarding where religion could have been a product of) How is this not attributing the whole of the crusades to religion, or ideology?
This is not the function of ideology. Historical events such as the crusades cannot be attributed to the conscious expressions of the Church, the guardians of Feudalism. Unconsciously, they were for filling the interests of a class. The Bourgeois state is not composed of conspirators who plot sinisterly about how they are going to sustain the bourgeois class, not in every case at least. When the Bourgeois state clashes with the Bourgeoisie (historically) it's comparable to a parent clashing in interest with his young child, about doing schoolwork.

Anyway, I'm inclined to know what you can make of this http://www.counterfire.org/index.php/articles/a-marxist-history-of-the-world/11777-a-marxist-history-of-the-world-31-crusade-and-jihad

Disregard of course, the potential Islam-apologia.



This made me smile. You suggest that I'm a "shit debater" because I failed to throw in a completely irrelevant reference to a modern conflict/tactic?

I realise that you've provided absolutely nothing of note to the discussion at hand (that is, the Crusades) but is your thought process really something like: "Crusades > Middle East > Imperialism > Suicide bombers"?


Don't insult yourself, Comradeom. You claimed that people were genuinely motivated by their religious beliefs rather than economic gain on a conscience level. I claimed that you could have argued for this position better by citing proof, and what better example than suicide bombers who in the process of being motivated by their religious beliefs, kill themselves in the process. Is your petty insolence really proving itself an obstacle to your ability to throughouly articulate and comprehend an elementary form of what one would call an analogy.


If this man has not yet discovered that while the material mode of existence is the primum agens this does not preclude the ideological spheres from reacting upon it in their turn, though with a secondary effect, he cannot possibly have understood the subject he is writing about. The materialist conception of history has a lot of [dangerous friends] nowadays, to whom it serves as an excuse for not studying history. Just as Marx used to say, commenting on the French "Marxists" of the late 1870s: "All I know is that I am not a Marxist."
Engels, 1890


Any idiot understands the reinforcing potential of superstructural forces, however, Marx and Engels both understood that the superstructure does not exist as the antithesis to the mode of production as a whole, i.e. The superstructure can only furtherly reassert the material conditions of which it was a product of (American Liberalism in a hegemonic form can never conflict with the feeding of capital or the process of capital accumulation, it is always morphed and changed in accordance).

I understand you are most likely one of the most distinguished of historians on this site, if not the most. I will not claim I am more knowledgeable in regards to identifying historical events, I am not. However, just as I can claim that I may have misinterperated your posts in one way or another, you should be prepared to admit that you have not fully come to terms with understanding Marxist materialism, and there exists an element of which you have yet to fully, how should I say, grasp.

[Rafiq]

A serious attempt to view the origins of the crusades using historical materialism does not involve crudely postulating, in the face of the evidence, that the collective upper orders of Medieval Christendom made a conscious decision to orchestrate the crusades in order to exploit trade opportunities arising from such a military campaign. To make such a sweeping generalisation, which ignores the very prevelent religious under-pinnings and political basis for the crusades, is to fundermentally misunderstand what historical materialism is, which is a means of examining the facts - not ignoring them. Historical materialism does not involve reducing the past to:


I hope you were not referring to me in this regards, who pointed out that on a conscious level no, there was no grand sinister plot on behalf of the church.